Social Development Papers

Paper Number 38December 2000

Participation in the HimalayanFoothills:

Lessons from WatershedDevelopment in India

Trond Vedeld,SASSD, New Delhi

Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development NetworkSouth Asia

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

This publication was developed and produced by the Social Development Family of the WorldBank. The Environment, Rural Development, and Social Development Families are part of the Environ-mentally and Socially Sustainable Development (ESSD) Network. The Social Development Family ismade up of World Bank staff working on social issues.

Papers in the Social Development series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They arepublished informally and circulated to encourage discussion and comment within the developmentcommunity. The findings, interpretations, judgments, and conclusions expressed in this paper are thoseof the author(s) and should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or tomembers of the Board of Executive Directors or the governments they represent.

Copies of this paper are available from:

Social DevelopmentThe World Bank1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433 USA

Contents

Abstracts ...................................................................................................................................... 4Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 51. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 62. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 83. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 104. Participation in The First Phase of IWDP ................................................................................. 115. The Shivalik Planning Context ................................................................................................ 146. The Preparation Process: Step by Step .................................................................................... 177. Achievements in Participation ................................................................................................. 198. Shortcomings in Participation .................................................................................................. 229. Effects of Participation on Design ........................................................................................... 2510. The Nature of the Project Design ........................................................................................... 2711. The Role of the World Bank .................................................................................................. 2912. Challenges to Participatory Watershed Development ............................................................... 3113. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 3814. Issues and Emerging Opportunities ........................................................................................ 40Annex 1. Comparison of Participatory Frameworks ....................................................................... 44Annex 2. The Preparation Process: Step by Step-A Participatory Perspective ................................. 45Annex 3: Subjective Assessment of Quality at Entry ..................................................................... 46Annex 4: Indicators of Participation and Local institution Building ................................................ 47References .................................................................................................................................. 48Notes ......................................................................................................................................... 52

4

Abstracts

This study examines the degree of participa-tion of primary beneficiaries in the prepara-tion of the Integrated Watershed Develop-

ment Project (IWDP) in India and the impact ofsuch participation on the planning and designprocess.

A considerable number of villagers were involvedin the social assessment and village developmentplanning, and were thus consulted on the overallapproach and choice of local-level project activi-ties. The importance of women in the Hill economyraised gender sensitivity in relation to resourcemanagement and income generation. The tribalstudy placed the particular requirements of pastoraltranshumants firmly on the agenda for the projectpreparation. However, despite considerableachievements in participation, the social assess-ment was finalized too late to have any majorimpact on the design of the Project AppraisalDocuments. As planning instrument, the social

assessment would have been more useful if com-pleted earlier and focused better on operationalrecommendations. The assessment did, however,feed into the project and village-level planning asimplementation started. Hence, even if the socialassessment products did not have a major impacton the design, it affected the project-level pro-cesses and planning in a positive manner. Overall,the project design was more a result of factors suchas lessons learned from the first phase of theproject and experience embodied in the Bank teamand the executing agencies, rather than an effect ofdirect beneficiary participation.

The study calls for a more open and critical dia-logue about ecological change and participatorywatershed development in the Himalayas with agreater variety of stakeholders, including academ-ics from various disciplines, other donors, privatesector interests, civil society groups and localfarmers and herders.

5

Acknowledgments

This study is the result of interaction withproject staff and managers through inter-views, workshops, field-visits to selected

sites, and document reviews.

The time spared by the project directors andmanagers for discussions and filling in question-naires is greatly acknowledged.

Constructive and valuable comments were made onthe draft document by David Marsden and MridulaSingh. Comments or input to specific sections havecome from Hamdi Issa, T. C. Jain, Parmesh Shah,Robin Mearns, Caes de Haan and Lars Lund.

Special thanks are due to David Marsden forthorough review and editorial assistance and toMalay Neerav for language editing and encourag-ing comments. The inspiring company of ParmeshSha during the field-visit and training workshopswith project staff is also greatly appreciated. DavidMarsden, SASSD, Washington, made the requestfor the work.

The study may be of value to development profes-sional interested in the planning of participatorywatershed development and rural development,including field workers, practitioners, researchersand policy makers.

6

1. Executive Summary

This study examines the degree of participa-tion of primary beneficiaries in the prepara-tion of the Integrated Watershed Develop-

ment Project (IWDP) in India and the impact ofsuch participation on the planning and designprocess.

Using participatory watershed technologies, theIWDP aims to reduce erosion, restore productivepotentials, and alleviate poverty in the ShivalikHills in the foothills of the Himalayas. The projectwould restore about 200 000 hectares of land andinvolve almost 2000 village communities inHaryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir,Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.

The study uses an institutional perspective toillustrate the great variation in the planning contextfrom one watershed to the next related to a dy-namic resource-base, differences in communitycharacteristics and capacity, and variable externalinstitutional arrangements. These varied relation-ships suggest very site-specific conditions for localresource development. Until recently, a fairlytechnocratic model of watershed developmentdominated in the Shivaliks, reflecting concertedattempts by external state agencies to prevent orcontrol what was perceived as “bad practices” by agrowing number of farmers and herders. “Ignorant”and “backward” farmers were encouraged to adopta wide range of conservation practices and tech-nologies to limit soil erosion. Often these ap-proaches failed to produce sustainable capacity formanagement. In contrast to such top-down ap-proaches, the study argues that more recent successin watershed development both in Asia and Africa

was achieved on farmers’ fields and in ruralcommunities with state officials increasinglyworking with and learning from farmers.

Faced with a complex planning situation, theproject established a three-tier and iterative socialassessment process; i) a retrospective study toexamine earlier shortcomings with participationand capacity building; ii) a prospective socialassessment of village communities in the newmicro-watersheds – accompanied by fifteen VillageDevelopment Plans to test new participatoryapproaches; and iii) a tribal and transhumancestudy to explore the importance of pastoral groups,their numbers and seasonal movements withanimals. The project design allowed for an initialplanning period of six to twelve months in order toensure flexibility related to the formation of villageorganizations and building of ownership to theparticipatory approaches at local and project levels.A considerable number of primary beneficiarieswere involved in the social assessment and villagedevelopment planning, and many people were thusconsulted on the overall approach and choice oflocal-level project activities. The diversity ingender, caste, and land ownership suggestedapproaches adopted to the local context andtargeted interventions. The importance of womenin the Hill economy raised gender sensitivity inrelation to resource management and incomegeneration. The tribal study placed the particularrequirements of pastoral transhumants firmly onthe agenda for the project preparation. The partici-patory village planning created awareness amongstaff of the participatory approaches, while it alsorevealed weakness in staff capabilities to employ

7

them. It underscored the need for training andreorientation of staff, as well as for recruitment ofadditional female staff and staff with greaterexperience in participatory tools and methods.Many of the issues raised by the Indian delegationduring negotiation were precisely of social andinstitutional character. These related to conditionsfor achieving sustainable village institutions,reflecting an emerging conviction to the centralityof participation in the project watershed develop-ment strategies.

Despite considerable achievements in participation,the social assessment was started too late in theplanning process to have any major impact on thedesign of the Project Appraisal Documents. Asplanning instruments, the social assessments wouldhave been more useful if completed earlier andfocused better on operational recommendations.The assessment did, however, feed into the projectand village-level planning as implementationstarted. Hence, even if the social assessmentproducts did not have a major impact on thedesign, it affected the project-level processes andplanning in a positive manner. Overall, the projectdesign was more a result of factors such as lessonslearned from the first phase of the project andexperience embodied in the Bank team and theexecuting agencies, rather than an effect of directbeneficiary participation.

The study reviews some of the assumptions behindthe project approach and points to opportunitiesand challenges ahead. It argues that the project inthe different states is now in a position to start theparticipatory implementation process. A keyobstacle to this process is the limited capacity ofthe implementing agencies for reorientation andlack of commitment to participation among someof the mid-level project staff. Joint agreementsneed to be reached to ensure that both project staffand local users feel responsible and accountable to

the management of village resources and village-level organizations. Improved cooperative relation-ships between village organizations and governmentstaff are needed for resource management underprivate, common as well as state property regimes. Itis essential to limit the amount of resources remain-ing under de facto open access regimes and inappro-priate management. The study recommends theproject to take the following actions:• Enhance the incentive structures forcommunity participation and build participationframeworks.• Continue the work towards more client-oriented governance systems at project and statelevel.• Create arenas for communication betweencommunities and project staff and enhance partici-patory monitoring and accountability at local level.• Promote inclusive village property rightsregimes which take into account established rightsof neighbors and mobile pastoral groups to re-sources within the boundaries of the new villageregimes.• Establish institutions for conflict manage-ment.• Foster more critical research on the “envi-ronmental orthodoxy” regarding explanation fordegradation in the Shivaliks and the Himalayanfoothills.

The study calls for a more open and critical dia-logue about ecological change and participatorywatershed development in the Shivaliks involving agreater variety of stakeholders - including academ-ics from various disciplines, other donors, privatesector interests, civil society groups and localfarmers and herders. The great national interest inand concern for environmental degradation in theHimalayas raises such openness as a major chal-lenge for the project as well as for the World Bank.

Executive Summary

8

2. Introduction

The aim of this study is to examine theparticipation of primary beneficiaries in thepreparation of the second phase of the

Integrated Watershed Development Project, Hills(IWDP II). The participation process has beenreviewed during the final stages of the projectplanning and preparation.1 Participation is definedby the World Bank as “a process through whichstakeholders influence and share control overdevelopment initiatives, decisions, and resourcesthat affect them” (World Bank, 1996).

More precisely the study addresses:

• The achievements in participation of theprimary beneficiaries in the project preparationstages and the impact of such participation on thepreparation and design process.• The problems in trying to include primarybeneficiaries and ensure their effective participa-tion.• The factors and relationships that havesupported or hindered primary beneficiary partici-pation.• The issues and opportunities to be consid-ered for the future and recommendations to ensuremore effective participation.• The role of the World Bank.

The main objective of IWDP II is to restore theproductive potential of the Shivalik Hills in thefoothills of the Himalayas, using watershed treat-ment technologies based on participatory ap-proaches. The project will help in decreasing soilerosion, increasing water availability and alleviat-

ing poverty in five states (Haryana, HimachalPradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, and UttarPradesh).2 Sustainability will be enhanced throughparticipatory involvement of project stakeholdersand beneficiaries. An associated objective is toassist the states with institutional development andconsolidate progress already made in unifyingapproaches to watershed development amongvarious programs operating in the Shivalik Hills.The project mainly involves two interrelatedcomponents; i) watershed protection and develop-ment based on participatory approaches andtreatment technologies; improved fodder andlivestock services; and improved infrastructure; ii)institutional strengthening through communitycapacity building; income generating activities forwomen; policy reforms, studies and human re-sources development.

In recent years watershed development has becomea key vehicle for agricultural and rural develop-ment in rainfed areas of India. The Indian govern-ment invests about USD 450 million in watershedmanagement annually. The fact that watersheddevelopment lends itself to participation andpoverty reduction has made it popular also amongdonors and NGOs. This has happened despiteconclusive evidence relating to the long-termsustainability of watershed development (Turton,1998, Hinchcliffe et. al., 1999, ICR, 1999).

With community participation as an explicit goal inIWDP II, a gradual transfer of control and empow-erment of local user groups, as implementationproceeds, is a necessary requirement for ap-proaches to be perceived as “participatory” in this

9

assessment. The level of beneficiary participationshould involve collaborative decision-making andsome degree of shared control over the develop-ment initiative, not just listening and consultation.

Participation is not a straightforward process and itis hard to measure. Three observations on partici-pation, related to assessments of the planning anddesign process of IWDP II, are worth noting.

• Firstly, participation can be perceivednarrowly as a means to achieve more successfulproject implementation (in an instrumental way). Byinvolving the stakeholders, the project design wouldensure that objectives and strategies respond topriorities and interests of the ultimate beneficiaries.• Secondly, participation has a broadersignificance as a part of all social relations inspontaneous or manipulated forms. Spontaneousparticipation adds new and important dimensionsto development. It is seen as having an intrinsicvalue. The focus on participation represents a movefrom a development paradigm centered on technol-ogy and incentives for individual economic entre-preneurs (associated with the delivery of outputsand products) to one centered on institutions andenabling policy frameworks for local level capacitybuilding (associated with the development ofprocesses). In the context of IWDP II, participa-tion, taking both perspectives into consideration,becomes a broader process that would aim to fostermore inclusive societies and client-oriented institu-tional cultures; more transparent and efficientgovernance systems at local and project levels.Participation is then as much about involvement insocial and political affairs, as in economic invest-ments by the project in a narrow instrumental way.The flip side of participation is good governance(Putnam 1993, North 1990). This perspectiverecognizes that development is a process thatintegrates social, institutional, technological andeconomic change. Development involves morethan simply an increase in income for individualfarmers arising from improved technology.• Thirdly, participation carries costs forpeople as well as governments. Any governance

structure or resource regime for watersheds andnatural resources has its transaction costs, whichrelate to costs of negotiation, enforcement, infor-mation, and keeping stock of resource flows,whether resources are under private, common orstate ownership. These costs are unevenly distrib-uted among stakeholders, depending on the institu-tional structure. If there is lack of compatibilitybetween formal laws and property rights, asenforced by the state, and local level institutions orpraxis, the transaction costs of policing and enforc-ing increase for most stakeholders. Local peopleexperience such costs, socially and economically,and they provide motives for bargaining and voicefor fairer regimes. There might be large gains to allstakeholders from a more adaptive institutionalenvironment (North, 1990).

Primary stakeholders are mostly consideredsynonymous with “primary beneficiaries” as themen and women, communities, or local levelorganizations expected to benefit from the project,but they can also be adversely affected people.Beneficiaries represent the government’s immedi-ate clients and the Bank’s ultimate clients. Second-ary stakeholders include the central government ofIndia (the borrower), line ministries, project agen-cies and staff, local government, NGOs, otherdonors, and other organizations with varied interestsin the project (e.g. private sector and civil societygroups). Property rights or property rights institu-tions/regimes are defined as legitimate systems ofrules, norms and regularized practices that determineas to who has access and control in relation tobenefit streams from resources, goods or services.Property is not to be understood as an object but as asocial relation, a benefit stream. Property rightsdetermine the allocation of wealth, power and statusin society and can enable or constrain behavior ofindividuals or organizations. Here, watershed isunderstood as a geographical area that feeds water toa drainage line (e.g. a river). But a watershed is alsothe area from which communities living within itmake a living, more or less dependent on the localresources. Hence, the management of the watershedis important for livelihood reasons as well as forenvironmental protection.

Introduction

10

3. Methodology

The study uses a property rights’ (or institu-tional) perspective on Natural ResourcesManagement (NRM) in order to understand

the planning context and the way in which theproject planning team addressed various issues atstake. A broad framework of institutional analysisconsiders the patterns of interaction between theattributes of the physical resources, the communityconditions within which a situation takes place, andthe external institutional arrangements (Ostrom,1990). The framework is based on the assumptionthat reasons for success or failure in the planningand implementation of watershed development areextremely varied and they often depend on themicro- and macro-conditions within a givencontext (cf. Turton, 1998, Kerr et. al. 1998,Hinchcliffe et al, 1999). The data related with theplanning process has been collected from detailedreview of project documents and studies, field-visits to selected sites, interaction with staff inmeetings and workshops organized by the author,and interviews with Bank staff involved in thepreparation of the project. A limited number offocus-group discussions were held in six villagesfor a better understanding of the local context. Inone village, observations were made regarding thevillage planning process and the way in which theproject staff used participatory methods (PRAs).

There are limitations to the methodology adopteddue to short field-visits and lack of direct observa-tion of the negotiation involved in the planningprocess. In order to gain more insight into theinteraction between various stakeholders, a ques-tionnaire was sent out to the staff involved. Re-sponses were obtained from each of the projectmanagement at state level (five questionnaires) andfrom key members of the Bank appraisal team (sixquestionnaires).3 The information thus gathered,strengthened the qualitative data from the inter-views.

The study provides an assessment of (community)participation related to the objectives of the projectbased on its own premises. However, it also raisessome more fundamental and critical issues relatedto the assumptions behind the project approach inorder to stimulate a broader discussion of theopportunities and challenges ahead. The ProjectAppraisal Document (PAD) is used as the mainreference for the project design, in contrast to theProject Implementation Plans (PIPs) prepared atproject level. The assessment of the planningprocess has been complicated by the fact that thetwo key levels of planning, the Bank level and thestate/project level, are not always firmly connectedin objectives and participatory strategies.

11

4. Participation in The First Phase of IWDP(Hills)

Where does the preparation and design ofthe IWDP project fit into the historicalevolution of watershed development

projects?

Watershed Development: A Historical Back-ground

There is a long history of soil and water conserva-tion in India, with the first accounts going back tothe time of the British rule at the end of the nine-teenth century. Two mechanisms have been instru-mental in these resource management processes,both of which aimed at changing agriculturalpractices; i) the introduction of new technologies,especially on farmers fields; and ii) the introductionof legal measures and new property rights institu-tions, either through stricter state control (e.g.nationalization) or state-sanctioned privatization ofcommon-pool resources, especially in relation toforests, pastures, and water. Changes in propertyrights systems were also introduced in order to caterfor large-scale canal irrigation schemes supportedand subsidized by the state e.g. in Punjab andHaryana. In India, as well as elsewhere, a fairlytechnocratic model of watershed development hasdominated, reflecting concerted attempts by externalstate agencies to prevent or control what has beenperceived as “bad practices” by a growing numberof farmers and herders. Through various policiesand measures, “ignorant” farmers were encouragedto adopt a wide range of conservation practices andtechnologies to limit soil erosion and degradation ofcrop fields, pastures, and forests. In a critical reviewof the recent history of soil and water conservationin the USA, Africa and South Asia, Jules Pretty andParmesh Shah maintain:

“Farmers have been first encouraged, then latercoerced, to adopt technologies that are known towork. When these farmers fail to maintain orotherwise spontaneously to adopt - these measures,then interventions have shifted to the remolding oflocal social and economic environments to suit thetechnologies” (Pretty and Shah, 1999:1)

The soil and water technologies have often beenstandardized, with the new and “modern” displacingwhat was perceived as old and “traditional”. Thebasic problem has been, however, that the imposedtechnological models and structures, which at firstmay have looked good, tended to fade away.

“Despite decades of efforts, soil and water conserva-tion programs have had surprisingly little long-termsuccess in preventing erosion. On paper, the quanti-tative achievements of some programs can appearimpressive. Throughout the world, terraces havebeen built, trees planted and farmers trained on amassive scale.” (Pretty and Shah, 1999:8).

The authors illustrate how huge areas of land havebeen protected in the short term through severallarge scale soil conservation programs in nineAfrican countries but conclude by saying that thesehave not been long-term successes.

“(I)n virtually all these sites, structures and prac-tices have not persisted. Project assumes thatmaintenance will occur. Yet as farmers are treatedat best as laborers for construction, they have fewincentives to maintain structures or continue withpractices that they neither own nor have had a sayin designing.” (Pretty and Shah, 1999:8).

12

IWDP First Phase Participation

In India, there are, however, positive lessons to belearned from watershed development, and there is arich and recent literature to build on.4 Increasingly,the focus in watershed development has beenshifted from project approaches and micro-levelissues to the broader institutional and macro-policyissues, which also happened through the planningand design of IWDP II.

Lessons From the First Phase of IWDP (Hills)

Several of the key lessons from the historicalaccount are reflected in the experiences of the firstphase of IWDP. While the project was “highlysuccessful” in introducing technologies andpromoting vegetative means for soil and waterconservation, it faced problems in fostering agenuine participatory approach and long-termsustainability (Implementation Completion Report(ICR), 1999).

• A total area of more than 350,000 ha wastreated (43% higher than planned at appraisal).Treatment of non-arable forest and village commu-nity land accounted for about 45% of total projectinvestment. Arable area treatments covered almost29, 000 ha (improved inputs, soil and water conser-vation). Maize average yields rose from 0,8 tons/hato 1,4 tons/ha and wheat yields from 0,9 tons/ha to1,8 tons/ha. Improvements in horticulture andlivestock development were also significant (ICR,1999:iii). The economic rate of return was esti-mated to be 17% for key activities (benefits fromincreased farm output, wood and non-wood prod-ucts from the treated non-arable areas).• The project organized and built teams inthe executing agencies with multi-disciplinarycompetence. Borrower-performance was generally“good”, or “very good” with strong project supportby the four states (cf. ICR, 1999; Uttar Pradesh wasnot involved in the first phase).• The project staff helped in the creation of480 Village Development Committees (VDCs) -meant to assist in the planning and implementationof project investments and share responsibility formaintenance and protection. A large number of

self-help groups were formed around economicactivities such as water management and joint forestmanagement. The ICR maintains that “(N)otableprogress has been made in this direction in all thestates”. Visible change occurred in people’s con-sciousness regarding watershed management. Thefarmers’ response to various components varied, butwas large where benefits were immediate or experi-enced on individually held lands.

However, the project faced problems on severalaccounts related to participation and sustainability,(cf. ICR, 1999):

• Few of the VDCs are self-sustaining, evenif more than half of them are claimed to be inoperation, reflecting both lack of motivation atlocal level (due to habits of expecting governmentsupport) and lack of attention by the implementingagency to the building of local capacity andcommitment within a participatory approach (ICR,1999)• The VDCs are by and large controlled bydominant castes or classes without any adequaterepresentation of women and weaker sections ofthe society. In Haryana, for example, the womenthat were supposedly elected to serve in the VDCs,did not even know that they had been nominated.• Capacity building and training in socialand participatory dimensions of the project wasnegligible amongst the executing agencies, anddecision-making remained centralized.• Only in Himachal Pradesh were thereNGOs present and active, and contributed to abroader civil-society awareness about the project• Property rights to forest resources forvillagers were not explored and they still remainunclear in law and practice resulting in conflictsand inefficient management of natural resources

Following the mid-term review of the project, aneeds-based approach to planning and implementa-tion was introduced, and to a greater degree peoplewere consulted in the selection of activities andimplementation (FAO, 1999). But the level of

13

IWDP First Phase Participation

success in participation varied greatly across statesand villages (ICR, 1999:7). Fairly top-downapproaches remained, and consultation at locallevel was often limited to interaction with a fewlocal leaders. Successful watershed treatment wasobtained with great external inputs and “handouts”. In Punjab, for example, the Village Develop-

ment Committees (VDCs) were not involved in theactual planning and decision on treatment, choiceof species, and silvicultural practices. According tothe Project Management, among the nearly onehundred VDCs created, only some of the WaterUsers’ Group today really serve meaningfulfunctions.

14

5. The Shivalik Planning Context

In the light of these experiences, one may ask -what was the overall context of planning thatthe project preparation team met in the Shivalik

Hills? To what degree did the contextual factorsseem to enable a participatory approach? In theory,a watershed development project lends itself toparticipation. However, in practice, it is not easy toachieve, as in the case of the Shivaliks in whichcircumstances were as follows:

Resource characteristics:• Complex ecology, highly variable re-source-base in productivity and frequent site-specific environmental problems that arise out of acombination of climatic, natural, and humanfactors.

Community characteristics:• Generally poor and socially differentiatedpeople and community groups with multiple liveli-hood objectives, and perceptions different fromoutsiders’ and ‘expert’ view on ecological dynamicsand connections between land use in the Shivalikand downstream problems of erosion and flooding.• A local economy where women play acentral role in resource management, especially inHimachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.• Increasing population growth leading tohigher pressure on natural resources in some areasand contributing to agricultural intensification andimproved watershed management practices in someother (Holden and Sankhayan, 1998).• Local knowledge and tenure systemssometimes in conflict with state law and practice inpolicing and enforcement of property rights.

Project level constraints:• With some variation, good support to theproject at the state government level and generalcommitment to participatory approaches at toplevel of executing agencies.• Five project agencies with great variationin the understanding of participation and capacityto use participatory methods; few social develop-ment staff and female staff.• Centralized government and projectagencies with limited experience in participationand building of self-help groups.

Policy and institutional level constraints at statelevel:• Five states with different and unclarifiedtenure rights and cooperative arrangements be-tween farmers/herders and national systems inrelation to management of common-pool resources(pastures, forests, water).• Lack of coordinated approaches andharmonized guidelines to project interventions;compounded by compartmentalized Indian linedepartments.• Weak infrastructure and access to markets;road-construction a main contributor to erosion andland degradation.• Macro-economic and policy frameworkwith a tendency of high subsidies that potentiallyundermine local cost-recovery and sustainability ofproject activities.

Knowledge base:• Good knowledge of technical approaches

15

Shivalik Planning Context

amongst the executing agencies. Scanty knowl-edge-base on the social, institutional and environ-mental side. Lack of knowledge on the diversity ofstakeholders, their views and interests, incentivesfor adoption of watershed technologies at farmlevel, indigenous knowledge and local propertyrights and institutions.

It was not an easy planning context. On the positiveside, there was considerable experience on techni-cal aspects of watershed management, and goodgeneral support for the projects at state level. Therewas also experience with participatory approachesin the Doon Valley Project of Uttar Pradesh andother donor supported projects in HimachalPradesh. In each of the states there was alsoincreasing interest and/or support for Joint ForestManagement, which builds on similar participatoryprinciples. On the negative side, as regards partici-pation, the experience with the IWDP I was notgood and there was limited capacity to build upon.In addition, there were the problems of developing,in time, a common participatory framework for fivestates at five different levels of preparedness. Amatrix overview of the strengths and weaknesses inthe participatory design of IWDP I and II is com-pared to the design of the relatively more success-ful Doon Valley project in Uttar Pradesh, whichwas financed by EU (Annex 1). Before addressingthe question as to how the preparation team choseto deal with these contextual issues, some details ofthe project area, resources and property rights areprovided below.

Project Area, Land Resources and Population

The IWDP (Hills) II covers a total area of morethan 500,000 hectares. The project interventionwould be concentrated in about 1, 900 villages in75-80 watersheds and 20 Districts. Some water-sheds cut across Districts. The project would treatand rehabilitate about 200, 000 hectares. The totalbeneficiary population is estimated at about onemillion (of which 10, 000 are landless families and5, 000 livestock herders). The population ofScheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (STs/SCs)is about 11 percent of the total population out of

which STs constitute about three percent. In certainpockets, these groups constitute close to 50 percentof the population. The population density varies,but is generally high, reaching 1500 persons/sq. kmin certain areas (like in Punjab).

The Shivaliks are considered among the mostdegraded rainfed agro-ecosystems of the country,and hence, a priority area for watershed develop-ment. Land-slides are common. However, there isgreat diversity, variability and complexity inclimate and ecology, as well as uncertainty sur-rounding the nature and causes of the degradationproblems. Rainfall averages 1000-1500 mm butthere are notable local variations. Some of therainfed areas experience drought and acute short-age of drinking water partly due to hydrologicalconditions and partly due to mismanagement ofland. It is also because 70 percent of the rainfalltakes place in the short period of monsoon afterseveral dry months when vegetation cover is at itslowest and crop land newly prepared for planting.Agriculture and forests (legally defined) each,account for about 38 percent of the land in use.Availability of land suitable for agricultural pro-duction varies greatly and ranges between 20percent and 65 percent of the area of the water-sheds (REA 1999:viii). There are several types offorest (e.g. deciduous scrub, sub-tropical, tropicalevergreen). Much of the forest is severely de-graded, but there are also well protected forestareas. These areas would be mature enough forcontrolled timber extraction or for more proactivemanagement in order to obtain a multi-layeredforest conducive to conservation The forests servemultiple purposes (fuel, fodder, fruits, timber, soiland water conservation). Livestock density is threetimes higher than the national average and accountsfor 50-65 percent of the total income. In J&Kthere are 250, 000 seasonal migratory herds, outof a livestock population of 1.5 million animalunits, meaning that transhumance is a significantactivity. Overgrazing is held to be the keyprocess leading to devegetation and erosionaccording to the planning documents (REA,1998). But some other reviewers suggest thatovergrazing, as a general problem, may be

16

Shivalik Planning Context

exaggerated and be more of a site-specificphenomenon than suggested (Saberwal, 1999).

Property Rights in the Planning Context

Successful project interventions must adjust to localland use and land tenure systems (or property rightsregimes) as well as to local knowledge and skills.The interest in investment in watershed managementamong small farmers, whether individually orcollectively, will depend largely on tenure rights andsecurity of increased benefits from increased laborinput. The understanding of property rights, rules,and roles of different stakeholders is a criticalstarting point for watershed planning.5 Who decideswhat over whom in relation to access, managementand use of which resources?

It is critical in this regard that each watershed isgoverned by a unique mix of tenure regimes andsubject to a variety of land use systems dependingon a combination of state, private and common-pool resources. There are multiple owners andmultiple users and uses in each context. Eachhousehold invariably depends on the use of pri-vately owned land for crop cultivation as well asthe use of commons and/or state forest land forfodder and fuel. Typically the upper reaches of thewatershed in Shivaliks are common-pool resources(pasture, forest, water) under the jurisdiction of thestate Forest Department or Revenue Department.

Tab.1. The Watershed according to property rights, project investments, and subsidy levels

Downstream UpstreamPrivate arable land Private non-arable Communal property State property

88,000 hectares arable (mostly in Punjab) 112,000 hectares of non-arable land

Private agriculturalresources (crops, live-Stock)

Private and common-pool resources

Common-pool resources(water, forests, grass)

State and common-poolresources(water, forests, grass)

Project investments:New crops, fertilizers,Stall feeding, micro-irr.

Grass planting, trees,checkdams, rotational

fodder, fuelwood,grazing, fruits,

fodder, fuelwood,timber plantations

Low subsidies Medium Subsidies High subsidiesSource: Regional Environmental Assessment (REA, 1999) and PAD, 1999

Adjacent and further down on the mid-slopes thereare private and common non-arable land usedprimarily for fodder and fuel, and in the lowerreaches there is a concentration of arable privateland around the villages. The project is based onthe watershed as a planning and implementationunit at local level. A watershed approach starts bytreating upstream non-arable areas often understate or communal property, and moves down-stream to treatment of private non-arable andprivate arable land. The subsidy level for eachfunction or project component is conceived in thedesign to be lowest on private arable land (lessthan 50 percent) and highest on non-arable stateproperty. This can be conceptualized according tothe following figure (Tab 1.). The project aims to“treat” 88, 000 hectares of arable private land and112, 000 hectares of non-arable land, mostlycommon-pool resources (pastures, forests, water).The non-arable land to be treated falls aboutequally between private, common/ Panchayat andstate owned property. Underneath these broadcategories, there is a myriad of different institu-tional arrangements constraining or enablingresource management and use. State forest land isof particularly importance in the project area of theHill states, especially in Uttar Pradesh, whileprivate irrigated and rainfed arable land is domi-nant in Punjab and Haryana. Village common landis particularly prominent in J&K, HimachalPradesh and Punjab (cf. REA, 1999).

17

6. The Preparation Process: Step by Step

The identification and planning of the secondphase of IWDP (Hills) started early in 1998.The preparation process drew heavily on the

first phase of the project - especially in terms oflessons learned on technological aspects of water-shed development. Due to failures on the participa-tion side, the Bank management had insisted on astronger participatory approach as a condition for asecond phase, a process that had already startedfollowing the mid-term review.

Independently of the project itself, two nationalworkshops were held by the GOI in April and May,1998, which in important ways influenced theplanning. Staff from each of the states participated;some with written presentations. Experiences frommost major watershed projects in India werediscussed. The recommendations from the work-shops were as much concerned about governanceissues at higher levels of social organization, asissues of participation at local level.

• A common Watershed Development Pro-gram should be established with harmonized guide-lines between the four line ministries involved.• A single window system should be estab-lished and a coordinating body at district and statelevels to manage or coordinate all resourcesearmarked for watershed development in thedistrict.• NGOs and donors should jointly supportlocal level institutions including Panchayats, VDCsand various self-help groups. 6

The two first concerns reflect the wishes of acentralized Indian government to obtain uniform

approaches and to control and regulate watersheddevelopment at state levels. The lessons from thetwo national workshops set a framework for theidentification and preparation missions, headed byFAO/CP staff. The lessons appear up front in thepreparation report and figure also in the ProjectAppraisal Document (PAD).

During the FAO-lead preparation mission, partici-patory methods were in little use, and the meetingsheld at the village level with local people, localadministrators and field-staff included a limitednumber of people. In this sense the preparation inmany ways started off in a fairly traditional Bankmanner, reflecting also that each of the states hadvery limited and varying experiences with partici-pation. The Hill states, particularly Uttar Pradesh,were much more prepared than for exampleHaryana and Jammu & Kashmir. Social develop-ment staff that took part in the preparation mission,insisted on the need for a three tier social assess-ment (SA) to be made part and parcel of thepreparation and start immediately; i) a prospectivestudy, ii) a retrospective study, and iii) a tribal andtranshumance study. The social assessments wereinitiated only after several months, too late for theresults to have any real impacts on the design. TheProject Concept Document (PCD) was finalizedand cleared in August 1998, before any of thesocial assessment exercises had been started. Thekey issues raised internally in the Bank followingthe clearance of the PCD were not related toparticipation, rather to the need for strategiccoordination, the need to strengthen the economicrate of return and cost-sharing arrangements, andthe need for a Regional Environmental Assessment(REA). On the social side, the need to examine the

18

Step by Step Preparation

presence of tribal and nomadic groups in theproject area, more closely, was restated. Thepreparation of a REA was mandatory. As a plan-ning exercise, it took away attention from thesocial and institutional aspects of the projectpreparation. The work with the SA was largely leftto the Social Development Unit, almost as an “addon” to the project preparation. With the involve-ment of a forester from the Delhi office and withextensive experience from Joint Forest Manage-ment (JFM), the participatory aspects of the projectgot extra attention (December, 1998). In his back-to-office report he points to key concerns regardingsuccessful participation, such as capacity at projectand village level, and lack of appropriate propertyarrangements related to use of common lands. Thismission forms a backdrop to the appraisal missionof February, 1999 which was just after anotherimportant workshop organized by the Indian SocialInstitute in New Delhi: Watershed Management -Towards Unifying Participatory Approaches.

The Bank team now expressed concern aboutdelays in several areas, particularly those relatedwith the development of the financial managementsystem. From the Task managers’ side, the policyreforms on cost-sharing and coordination remainedthe key issues to be addressed by the project.Meetings were held at higher levels in each state

and also with GOI officials. Important delays werenoticed in preparation of the social assessmentstudies. Concern was raised about the recruitmentof the Participatory Coordinators and Facilitators,the need for female staff, and training of staff,especially in relation to participatory methods andvillage level planning.

In February, 1999 the Social Development Unitlaunched this independent study to assess theachievements and learn from the experiences of thepreparation and design of the project. In April andMay, 1999 social development staff carried outadditional missions in order to interact more withproject staff, raise social issues and explore theplanning process at local level.

As the date for the loan negotiations got closer, theproject staff were heavily charged with workrelated to a set of studies, establishment of acommon financial management system, procure-ment rules and procedures, and coordination ofproject strategies between the five states. At thenegotiations, many of the issues raised by theIndian side were precisely of social and institu-tional character - related to conditions for achiev-ing viable local institutions, reflecting an emergingconviction to the centrality of participation inproject strategies.

19

7. Achievements in Participation

Social Assessment and Beneficiary Participation

The project preparation was built on two importantand innovative features. Firstly, the design allowedfor an initial planning period of six to twelvemonths. The aim was to allow flexibility related tothe formation of the village level organizations,building ownership, and establishing agreementsfor the approaches to village and micro-watershedplanning. Secondly, the project established aniterative social assessment, based on the prospec-tive studies and the village development plans,which would be combined with the development ofa Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation System(PM&E). Each year a prospective study would beundertaken to cover the new villages to be includedin that particular year. In this way, the time lagbetween the first planning meeting of beneficiariesand project staff and the start of implementationwould be minimized, a dilemma often founddifficult to resolve under lengthy Bank planningprocedures. These studies would, in turn, feed intoa more defined framework for participation.

It is an achievement that a three tier social assess-ment was accepted and carried out in each of thefive states, consisting of:• A retrospective study of the impacts of theprevious projects on the development of localinstitutions and their effects on watershed develop-ment.• A prospective study of the new micro-watersheds to be included in the first year ofoperation in order to identify key social develop-ment and participation issues. This was accompa-nied by three micro-watershed or Village Develop-

ment Plans (VDPs). The VDPs would allow theproject staff to test new approaches in order to geta better grasp of the work, and provide a mecha-nism for involving the villagers in planning andprioritizing investments and management.• A tribal and transhumance study whichidentified transhumant pastoralism as an importantactivity, both for the transhumant population andfor sedentary groups that have animals in custodywith these herders. The study placed transhumantactivities firmly on the agenda for project prepara-tion and informed the design.

The prospective studies combined with the VillageDevelopment Plans were the key mechanisms forinvolving primary beneficiaries in the preparationphase. They covered about 25 percent of the totalnumber of new villages to be addressed the firstyear, and about 5 percent of the total number ofvillages over the five year project period (about100 villages). It was assumed that these differentstudies would involve extensive use of PRAs atvillage level. For various reasons, only about 50PRAs were undertaken (see below). This is still aconsiderable number. In addition came the involve-ment through the three Village Development Plans.Yet the problem from a participatory perspectivewas not so much the numbers involved as theweakness in use of the participatory methods,presentation of findings, and lack of inclusion ofresults in the Project Appraisal Document.

These PRAs served two purposes. Firstly, manypeople in these villages became aware of the newproject that would initiate activities the same year.To some extent, they were also consulted and

20

Participation Achievements

informed about the new approaches. Secondly,besides creating awareness, some new skills weredeveloped among the project staff, particularlythrough the work with the Village DevelopmentPlans. This was the only SA exercise that wasdirectly carried out by the staff in the field. ThePRAs incorporated many of the methods found inthe PRA tool-set (e.g. resource mapping, socialmapping, problem ranking, and prioritizing ofresource management problems).

Other than the national workshops, which wereheld independently of IWDP II, there were expo-sure-workshops and brief training exercises inparticipatory approaches and village planningundertaken by social development staff of theBank. These one-day workshops with about 100staff members helped to boost awareness, skills andinterest in participation.7 The projects had, by then,also started their own training exercises.

Overall, the extra input by social development staffhad set participation higher on the agenda in thelast few weeks before negotiations than what mightotherwise have been the case. Social developmentstaff involved in the planning phase were con-cerned with broader aspects of the participatoryapproach and not just with social mitigation relatedto potential adverse effects that the project mighthave had on tribal/nomadic groups or on peopleaffected by road improvements.

Consultation with Secondary Stakeholders

The preparation process outlined above indicatesthat there were many and in-depth consultationswith the key secondary stakeholders at theproject, district, state and GOI levels. In thissense, the preparation was clearly satisfactory.The Team met staff and directors who wereactively involved and had important views on theproject. There were also a few meetings of moreinformative character at local level with front-linestaff and representatives of local government.Through consultative meetings, decisions weretaken jointly and the final strategy graduallyevolved through a collaborative process. The

workshops at national level were also usedactively by the Bank team members for interactionwith the project staff.

In Himachal Pradesh as well as in Punjab, aremarkable change in attitude towards participa-tion became apparent amongst the senior staff incourse of the preparation process, especially asthe top-management became convinced of a needto shift course (as had already taken place in UttarPradesh).8 There might have been severalreasons for this shift in attitude, one being thelessons learned from the first phase. Anotherwould be the internalization of successful experi-ences from other donor-supported projects in theregion e.g. in Himachal Pradesh (DFID, GTZ) andin the Doon Valley of Uttar Pradesh (EU). Exten-sive discussion with the Bank team includingsocial development staff, is also likely to havecontributed to this change. The recruitment ofnew social- science staff and female ParticipatoryCoordinators may also have led to a change ininternal attitudes and cultures. At national level,the general support from the central Indiangovernment to watershed development, as well asgood commitment to the project at state level,facilitated the planning. A breakthrough camewith the acceptance of community institutionbuilding as a focal activity, and with local invest-ments required to be approved by the VDCsthrough the village plans in collaboration with theproject agencies.

A positive outcome of the three Village Develop-ment Plans (VDPs) was that the project staffbecame aware of its own lack of skills and capacityin PRA methods and ways of interacting withpeople. The SA process might, therefore, have beenmore important for influencing project capacityand future participatory work, than the SA prod-ucts. Some of the social studies greatly improvedpending comments from the social developmentstaff. Overall, the SA process had importance forplacing social and institutional issues on theagenda. As such it “may have prepared the way formore intense involvement of stakeholders in thefuture,” as suggested by the Bank staff.

21

Participation Achievements

According to key members of the preparation team,the SA process brought out critical issues such as:i) the lack of capacity of implementing agencies, ii)gender issues and the need for social unit staff andfemale staff and iii) the diversity of stakeholdersand lack of capacity at the local level. The ques-tions surrounding the SA process may also haveopened up new avenues of enquiry regarding thebroader participatory approach besides placingparticular social issues on the agenda, such as theissue of transhumant pastoralism.

The perception of the overall “level of participa-tion” by different stakeholders, according to theWorld Bank’s definition of participation, can beillustrated as in Tab.2. This overview is based onthe use of questionnaires and points to certaindifferences in views, especially in relation to theextent of primary stakeholder involvement, whichneeds some explanation. Firstly, while the technicalBank staff perceive primary beneficiaries to haveparticipated to a level of “consultation” (one to alevel of “empowerment”), social development staff

suggest that only “information sharing” took place.Second, while the combined Bank team, bothtechnical and social development staff, maintainsthat project and state officials have “collaborated”,project managers in each of the states perceive thatthey have only been “consulted” in the planningprocess. The most significant difference in percep-tion is between technical and social developmentstaff of the Bank regarding the level of primarybeneficiary participation. This difference inperception is also reflected in the two groups’different ranking of the overall achievements of thepreparation process in terms of primary stakeholderparticipation. While the technical staff (as well asthe project managers in the states) claim thatoverall achievements in primary stakeholderparticipation was “satisfactory”, social develop-ment staff hold that it was only “marginally satis-factory”. These findings reflect important differ-ences in perception about what participation entails– or should entail - and also that we live in a worldof multiple realities. Such differences in views arewell known within the Bank, yet difficult to bridge.

Tab. 2. Level of participation as perceived by different stakeholders*

Stakeholders Level of participationaccording to technicalBank staff

Level of participationaccording to socialdevelopment Bank staff

Level of participationaccording to projectmanagers at state level

Beneficiaries/ groups Inf, Con, Col, (Emp) Inf Inf, ConIntermediary NGOs Inf Inf, Con ConLocal government Inf, Con Inf ConField staff Inf, Con, Col Inf (Con) ConDistrict administrators Inf Inf, Con ConProject/state officials Inf, Con, Col Inf, Con, Col Con* Levels of participation: Inf: Information sharing, Con: Consultation, Col: Collaboration,

Emp: EmpowermentNote: Based on answers to 11 questionnaires (5 project executing agencies, 6 Bank staff). The limitednumber of persons involved in the survey (and methodological problems in categorising views), suggeststhat these overviews are only indicative. Yet, the main findings are confirmed in interviews.

22

8. Shortcomings in Participation

Management of the Social Assessment Process (SA)

The overall intensity of beneficiary participationwas largely determined by the social assessmentprocess (SA). Despite a considerable number ofpeople being reached and taking part in PRAsthrough the SAs, several problems arose in theexecution of the PRAs that limited the effects ofthese achievements on the project planning process:

• Participatory methods (PRA) were usedonly in some of the social assessment studies, andoften in a very mechanical way involving a limitednumber of village leaders (excluding women andless influential/tribal groups).• Only in Uttar Pradesh and to some extentin Himachal Pradesh did the staff have experiencewith the use of PRA; in Haryana and J&K themethods were not even known.• The prospective studies were all carriedout by consultants, with little involvement andcommitment of the staff of the executing agencies.• The consultants involved were neitherfamiliar with stakeholder analysis nor capable ofpresenting the diversity of views and interests ofdifferent stakeholders (meaning thereby that theydid not make use of the PRAs properly).• The SAs were prepared late, were mostlyweak on operational recommendations and did notaddress key elements in the TORs related to theplanning process.

Participation was relatively widespread, but thin.Judging from interaction with the staff (andparticipation in one village-level PRA exercise),

few local people were involved in differentsequences of the PRAs. People ended up with littlesay in the discussions, and little control over theoutcomes. First of all, this reflects capacity limita-tions among those agencies and staff memberscarrying out the social assessments. Secondly, itreflects local capacity limitations among people,subject to top-down officials over decades, inarticulating common views in an abstract discus-sion over potential project interventions. Thirdly, itcan also be an indication of weakness in theparticipatory methods themselves, in the sense thatthey are not always well adapted to the institutionalcontext, time and budget limitations, and capacityof those that are involved in employing them.

Quality of the Social Studies

The social studies were mostly undertaken by localconsultants in each of the states, with relativelyclose and long-established ties with the executingagencies. The exception was for the prospectivestudy in Haryana, undertaken by Tata EnergyResearch Institute ( Teri), which is a well-reputedconsultant firm based in New Delhi (Teri, 1998).This study was also of much higher standard andmore critical than the other reports. It is the onlyreport that provides a proper analysis of the formalproperty-rights laws and informal ways of coopera-tion between the project agency and local peoplerelated to access and use of various resources. Thisshows that competence and a certain degree ofautonomy vis-à-vis the implementing agency maymatter. In general, the low quality of the SAs is anindication that they were carried out mostly as arequirement by the Bank. Perhaps with the excep-

23

Participation Shortcomings

tion of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, the prospectivestudies, including the Transhumance studies, fellshort on the following critical aspects:

• Presentation of stakeholders and differ-ences in views and interests related to land use andland tenure and relationships between stakeholders• Evaluation of key institutional and socialorganizational issues; e.g. strengths and weak-nesses of implementing agencies in interactionwith local people• Examination of the policy and legalframework for management of common-poolresources (which may be found under state, com-mon, or private property regimes)• Definition of the participation framework

• Prioritization of issues and operationalimplications• Identification of parameters and mecha-nisms for monitoring and evaluation

The SA reports provided some useful socio-economic baseline information for project plan-ning, even if an overall participatory frameworkand project strategy could not be worked out fromthese alone. It seems that the consultants (as wellas the project staff) did not really understand howstakeholder analysis was to be carried out. Only inHaryana and in Uttar Pradesh were there some useof PRA methods. Moreover, the projects perceivedSAs as products, rather than as a process to achiev-ing more involvement of people. As observed byone SD staff member, who felt that the SAs to“limited degree” were utilized in the design:

“The shift in perception required to move fromproducts to process, from seeing these pieces ofanalysis as means to an end rather than as ends inthemselves will be difficult to overcome - but thewhole purpose of the project (through implementa-tion) is to build this understanding”.

In contrast, two of the task managers as well as theproject manager in J&K, held that the results ofthe SAs “to a large degree” were incorporated into

the design, arguing that “the recommendations/actions of these studies have been or will be incor-porated in the Village Development Plans”. This is avalid argument, provided it is acted upon in relationto the Project Implementation Plans (PIMs) andfuture village plans. It underscores the generalagreement among project managers and the Bankstaff that the SA exercise had, to a “large degree” orto “some degree”, been important for placing socialand institutional issues on the agenda. Several of theproject managers highlighted the Transhumancestudies as particularly useful for bringing out newinformation about pastoral groups in the projectarea. Ten out of eleven respondents agreed that theneed for a participatory approach was strengthenedin the course of the preparation process.

Limitations in Project Agency Capacity andCommitment

The most frequently mentioned factor among therespondents that affected participation in the firstphase of IWDP was “project capacity and commit-ment among staff”. A further problem mentionedwas the “blueprint approach” and “lack of flexibil-ity” in design. Despite positive attitudinal andstructural changes taking place, the feedback fromthe workshops at project level as well as from theSAs, suggested that the village development plans(VDPs) were developed by project staff in a fairlyblueprint fashion. Good intentions might have beenpresent, but at this early stage there was littlegenuine negotiation with a broad spectre of com-munity members. The PRAs were used primarilyfor information extraction. Most prioritization ofinvestments and analysis was done by project staffafter leaving the villages. The village plans werefairly complex and thick documents and notpresented back to the villagers in a consultativemanner. Project staff found it difficult to doparticipatory and open ended appraisals, reflectingtheir limited capability to use the VDPs as buildingblocks for strengthening community capacity inplanning and management. The VDPs wereperceived mainly as budgeting tools for the alloca-tion of resources to each watershed, as in the past.

24

Participation Shortcomings

Social and Environmental Policies: Absence ofCivil Society’s Involvement

The NGOs were involved in the first phase ofIWDP only in Himachal Pradesh and UttarPradesh. The project agencies have now agreed tohire an experienced consultant/NGO to providemore long-term technical backstopping and adviceon training and capacity building. However, NGOinvolvement is still very limited.

Watershed management in the Himalayas is anational concern and several civil society actorshave are involved. In order to clarify the confusingmix of positions that exist on management ap-proaches of the Shivaliks, workshops and publicmeetings could have been utilized more strategi-cally at the project level. 9 The importance ofopening up the debate to a wider set of actors hasbeen stressed in a recent book on land managementpolicies in Africa (Scoones and Toulmin, 1999).The book challenges “simplistic generalizations”about the “degradation crisis” in African agricul-ture related to soil fertility management – as oftenreflected in government documents and studies.The two authors suggest that the problems of landdegradation might be overstated by governmentofficials - and as a general environmental problem.They argue for a more careful, broader and nu-anced approach to land management, and theconsequent need to support solutions tailored tofarmers’ interests and perceptions of problems andthe local circumstances they face.

“A more plural policy debate would draw in abroader range of views and experience, scrutinisethe uncertainties in the scientific data and theirimplications, tackle the issue of complexity anddiversity and the need for local solutions, andprovide positive messages from local level actionsto counter pessimistic global views.” (Scoones andToulmin, 1999:86).

They see clear opportunities for like-mindedagencies to play a constructive role in this field andscope for partnerships between governments andfarmers/CBOs/NGOs/ Academics in identificationof issues and opportunities. The experience fromAndhra Pradesh, where participatory managementof forest and water was introduced in a relativelyopen and transparent manner, showed how activeinvolvement of a wide variety of stakeholdersincreased the awareness of common problems and‘buy-in’ to controversial policy and institutionalreforms (Vedeld, forthcoming). As claimed byAycrigg in an internal Bank assessment:

“If policy formulation is not conducted with broad-based participation the project strategy and policiesthat emerge often do not reflect the needs andpriorities of the primary stakeholders” (Aycrigg,1998).

If policies are determined behind closed doors, asmight often happen in Bank-assisted projectpreparations, less successful adoption at nationaland local level might be the result.

25

9. Effects of Participation on Design

The problems in assessing the effects ofparticipation notwithstanding, it can safelybe said that the effects of direct primary

stakeholders on the design of the project have beenmarginal. In an indirect way, such effects may havebeen more significant and affected the formulationof project approaches. Moreover, the direct consul-tation and collaboration between project staff(secondary stakeholders) and Bank staff resulted ina set of issues raised with obvious design andoperational implications for the participatoryapproach, such as:

• Project risks associated with limitedcapacity of implementing agencies raised the needfor large scale training, exposure visits, andsystematic capacity strengthening.• Concern over centralized decision-making(by mid-level staff), brought forward proposals toreorganize and decentralize decisions to field-teams with larger decision-making authority andfocus on incentives for field-work and field-staff.• Concern over the cost-sharing policy thatthe Bank team proposed for community levelinvestments, led to more in depth discussions,adoption of a phased approach, and more pressureexerted at policy level to initiate reforms related toboth to benefit-sharing and harmonization of cost-sharing principles across states.• Insistence on the important role played bywomen in the Hill economy, resulted in an in-creased push for female staff, a focus on genderissues, and project measures to improve incomegeneration for women.• Problems of weak capacity at local level to

sustain project investments, given the short projectperiod (five years), led to a stronger focus on localcapacity building through a greater variety oftraining measures (para-professional, farmer-to-farmer and exposure visits).• The potentials of a revolving fund as afocal activity for building village organizations,lead to several discussions on the modalities for theoperation of a village development fund.

Furthermore, each of the social studies had opera-tional implications and effects on the design. Theretrospective studies, which were carried out byconsultants, brought out the weakness of the firstphase of IWDP (Hills) in the formation of villageinstitutions and the involvement of the communi-ties. They also brought out issues of sustainabilityof project investments and lessons that could bebuilt upon related to local institution building. Theprospective studies provided useful socio-eco-nomic baseline data for the future planning pro-cess, even if the degree of stakeholder analysis andinstitutional analysis was weak in all the reports.The tribal and transhumant studies contributed to agreater understanding of migration routes andsystems of grazing rights, which were not wellknown by the project agencies.

In order to evaluate the importance of the SAs forthe design, the project managers and Bank staffwere asked to rank the studies that were perceivedas most critical for the design. While the Bank stafftended to choose the FAO/CP preparation reportand the Regional Environmental Study, the rankingby the project managers was more mixed. Twoamong them emphasized the FAO/CP report

26

(Himachal Pradesh and Haryana), while the otherthree held the retrospective (Punjab) and thetranshumance studies (J&K and UP) to be mostimportant. Three Bank staff and two projectmanagers included the prospective study (SA)among one of the three most important studies forthe design. However, rather than “the SAs”, therespondents held “lessons from the first phase ofthe project” as the most important factor for thedesign of the participatory aspects of the project(eight among the eleven respondents rank this first,the three remaining as second or third factor).10

Only as the third factor of importance for thedesign, did project managers place “direct primarystakeholder participation” and the “combinedsocial assessments/social studies”. The Bank staffrather emphasized the “lessons from other donorprojects” as factor number three.

Perhaps more importantly than directly influencingthe design of the PAD, the social studies had animpact on the formulation of the Project Implemen-tation Plans (PIPs) at project level, although tovarying degrees. They would probably also affectthe village development planning, as alreadymentioned. For example, in J&K the formation ofVillage Development Committees (VDCs) areaccepted in the PIP to be central to the success ofthe project. The transhumant issue figures promi-nently in the PIPs of J&K, Uttar Pradesh andHimachal Pradesh, even if it is still unclear howeach project will address the issues in concreteterms. It is in these states that transhumant pasto-ralism is most significant. In Haryana, on the otherhand, the PIP only superficially mentions thevillage level institution building, and transhumantissues are not even raised.

Overall, the quality of the PIPs is weak onconceptualizing the participatory approach. Thisraises the dilemma of the two parallel, butsomewhat disconnected planning processes thatseem to have occurred. One is the Bank-ledplanning and design, which builds on the FAO/CP preparation report, Bank team experience,and lessons learned from other (donor) projects,and ends with the Project Appraisal Document(PAD). The project-level planning process, bycontrast, is mainly based on each project’sexperience and studies managed by the project,and to a much lesser degree on experience fromother (donor) projects and innovative thinkingfrom outside the state. The degree of discrepancyin objectives and strategies is considerable, andcan be observed by comparing the PAD with thePIPs. Differences in how project objectives areinterpreted between each of the states can alsobe observed in an overview provided by theRegional Environmental Assessment (REA,1999). This “disconnect” between the PAD andthe PIPs is a major problem that must be con-fronted as the implementation proceeds. Theproblem arises from asymmetry in informationflow, lack of interaction and communicationbetween partners, as well as differences inperspectives about the need for participation andwhat participation actually entails. Informationseems to flow easier from the projects to theBank, than the other way around. While the“knowledge” Bank sits on a huge databaserelated to watershed development and participa-tion, the flow of information to the projects islimited. There may also be varying capacity atproject levels for absorbing information and newideas.

Design Participation

27

10. The Nature of the Project Design

What does the project design finally look like, ascaptured in the Project Appraisal Document(PAD)? Generally speaking it consists of:

• Objectives “to restore the productivepotential” based on “participatory approaches”through village planning with PRAs and capacitybuilding of newly elected village institutions(VDCs) responsible for resource managementdecisions, based on formally agreed VillageDevelopment Plans (VDPs) or micro-shed plans,implementation, and PM&E of activities (with abudget of USD 6,2 million).• A general poverty orientation in the sensethat “the project would focus on the most degradedwatersheds in the Shivalik Hills, and, thus, on someof the poorest populations in India” (PAD, 1999:4-5). The performance indicator to this end would be“increased household income of marginal andsmall farmers, the landless and women”.• “Targeted” poverty support, formulated sothat the project would “aim to ensure that benefitstreams reach the more marginalized and vulner-able elements of those populations”, including“those who subsist on the most marginal of re-sources as well as women”. The tribal/transhu-mance studies would guide strategies to reach suchgroups (without clear budget allocations). A minorbudget allocation was given for income generatingactivities for women (USD 1, 6 million) (PAD,1999:4).• A strong focus on “institutional capacitybuilding” at project level (with an allocation ofUSD 53,8 million). The component included USD6,2 million for community capacity building, USD

4,4 million for policy support and human resourcedevelopment/training, and USD 41,6 million forproject coordination and management and informa-tion (PM&E and GIS). The large amount allocatedfor project management reflects the need felt forinstitutional strengthening and training. But it isalso an indication of the large (transaction) costsinvolved in organization, offices, vehicles, andequipment.• The main component on “water protectionand development” (USD 139,2 million) would begeared towards water management and in situmoisture conservation in order to boost productionand income and hence participation.• An important component to strengthenpolicy reforms and studies, mainly to address twoissues; i) The fragmented and uncoordinatedapproach by several ministries and agencies, ii)The reduction of subsidies in order to improvepotentials for long-term sustainability, as well asthe need to improve the benefits. The projectenvisages more decentralized decision-making,organization in interdisciplinary field-teams, and afocus on integrated approaches and local levelinstitution building.

A crude (and subjective) content analysis of theProject Appraisal Document (PAD) has been doneon a broad set of criteria. The overall “quality atentry” is assessed as “satisfactory”, although withcertain reservations (cf. Annex 3).

Above is an overview of the key elements and logicof IWDP II (Tab. 3.). The main challenge of theapproach is to build economically and financiallyviable local institutions, cf. the three lower rows.

28

The experiences of IWDP I as well as the generalliterature on watershed development are that localinstitutions – even after several years of support – tendto remain highly dependent on continuous external

support. The scope for withdrawal, say replication on alarge scale, often remains weak. Before returning tohow such challenges can be addressed, a brief reviewof the role of the Bank is provided.

Project Design

Tab.3. Nature of investments, viability and degree of external dependence of local institutions*

SocialInvestments

Economicinvestments

Improved landmanagement ofIndividual fields

Improvedmanagement ofcommunal or stateforests

Transfer of rights/change in propertyrights regimes, lawand policy

Nature ofinvestmentor supply

Capacitysupport forVDCs/VDPscommunityinfrastructure

Seeds, new breeds,chuff cutters, bio-gas plants, infra-structure

Check-dams,micro-irrigation,horticulture,livestock, privateplantations

Forest protection,gully plugging,check-dams, controlof grazing

Transfer of usufructrights, access and useregulation, legalrecognition of rights andvillage organisations

Localdemand

High High High High, if individualbenefits from timber/non-timber produce.Low for upstreamCPR treatment

High

Nature ofpropertyregime

Public/common

Private Private withstate restrictions/interventions

Common/state/some privateusufruct rights

Common/state withprivate usufruct rights

Ecologicalviability

n.a. Positive Positive, but ofsmall scale

Large-scale fromforest management

Change critical to obtainimproved practices

Economicviability

Low; due torisk of lowcapacity formaintenance

High, depends oncost-recovery offorest managementand viability ofVDCs

High, dependingTechnical viabilityand VDC capacityin maintenance

Low, unless rightsand benefits securedfrom timberand non-timberproducts

Critical in order toobtain economicallyviable propertyregimes and win-winsituations

FinancialViability

Depends onlocalconditions

Potentially high Medium/high,Depending onApproach

Low/Medium. Highif rights andbenefits are secured

Very high if gains fromreduced transactioncosts are considered

ExternalDependence

High High High, but withPotentials tobecome viable

High, but withpotentials tobecome viable

High, but highpotentials forself-management

Source: Field notes, Shivalik Hills, 1999

29

11. The Role of the World Bank

A positive participatory planning processstarted with a committed Bank teamcapable of developing close relationships

with government staff in each of the states. Supportfrom Bank management was there in the sense thatit required a participatory approach. To varyingdegree, issues and proposals were raised by each ofthe project managers in the five states that affectedthe project in a participatory direction.

As regards the capacity of the combined projectplanning team, it is interesting to note that while allthe team members of the Bank rank the “experi-ence embodied in the Bank Team” as one of thetwo most important factors for the design of theparticipatory aspects of the project, none of theproject managers actually do so (cf. Footnote 10).In fact, they rank this as factor four or lower.Conversely, none of the Bank team members rank“executing agency experience” among the threemost critical factors for the participatory design(except for one member who rank this as thesecond most important factor). At face value, thesecontrasting perspectives on who brings the partici-patory aspects into the design, seem to represent aninteresting lack of mutual recognition of experi-ence and capacity. The two perspectives may alsoillustrate different “world views” of people belong-ing to different institutions, drawing upon differentsets of experiences, and viewing the planningcontext from different locations and angles (fromthe field versus from Delhi and Washington). Theymay also reflect the disconnected planning processand different views of what the real planningproducts and processes are meant to be. Theproject agency staff seem to perceive the Project

Implementation Plan (PIP) as their final planningand budgeting tool, a document they largelyprepare themselves, while the Bank staff perceivethe Project Appraisal Document (PAD) as the keydesign document.

The Bank and members of the preparation teamhad considerable experience with watersheddevelopment, though more with the technicalaspects of watershed development than with itsinstitutional aspects. The Bank team was strength-ened by peer reviewers and social developmentstaff with long-term experience in participatorywork. However, despite general commitment to aparticipatory approach among the Team members,the involvement of primary beneficiaries and theirimpact on the design of the PAD faced constraintsat the Bank level:

• Time and budget constraints limited Bankteam members time in the field and possibility fordirect interaction with stakeholders• Even if the SA efforts were quite extensive,the management of the SA process faced problems,partly due to a late start, partly due to it receivingless priority than other tasks and events, both atproject and Bank levels.• The FAO/CP team prepared the project in afairly traditional way, with limited beneficiaryparticipation.• The format of the Project Appraisal Docu-ment (PAD), which builds on cost/benefit analysis,does not quite lend itself to appraisal of institutionalapproaches (which ideally would cover analysis ofinstitutional change and change in transaction costs).

30

• There existed tensions, for the most parthealthy ones, between technical and social devel-opment perspectives on participation, for examplerelated to the formulation of the participatoryapproaches, risk perceptions (e.g. whether the keyrisk was co-ordination/harmonization of policiesversus capacity problems of implementing agen-cies), the degree of poverty targeting, and stress ontechnical versus social performance indicators

The process of planning and executing the SAs,despite their limitations, positively affected viewsamong Bank staff members about the participatory

approach. In fact, all respondents, both Bank staffand project managers, claim that the need for aparticipatory approach was enhanced through thepreparation process. The respondents were alsogenerally positive to the involvement of socialdevelopment staff. According to one of the peerreviewers, the direct involvement of social devel-opment staff had positive impacts; “Yes, dramaticimprovements resulted in scope of issues beingaddressed and mechanisms proposed for dealingwith them”. A project manager in HimachalPradesh claimed that “Some of the ideas given bythem (SD staff) were extremely useful”.

The World Bank’s Role

31

11. Challenges to Participatory WatershedDevelopment

The lessons from the first phase of IWDPshow that it is possible to achieve signifi-cant results on the ground, even with “top-

down” approaches. It is now important to build onstrong points, learn from the weak points, andfoster a sense of ownership to institutional re-orientation at project level in all the states. Animportant process of change in the attitudes andapproaches has started. At the project agency level,commitment from the top is reflected in efforts todecentralize decision-making to integrated field-teams, recruitment of female and social develop-ment staff, and training in PRA and local institutionbuilding. At each of the states’ level, there is, forexample, a general willingness to move towardsbetter cost recovery, reduction in subsidies, reformsof property rights, and greater community partici-pation. One should not forget, however, that aprecondition for the achievements on the ground inthe first phase of IWDP was large governmentinvestment support and subsidies. Local contribu-tions in terms of labor remained below 15%. It isobvious, that the future operation of IWDP andmaintenance of watershed activities undertaken inphase one, “depend largely upon the sustainabilityof the Village Development Committees, set upwith project support”, as maintained in the Imple-mentation Completion Report (ICR, 1999:v).

Herein lies the major challenge now confrontingIWDP II. How to build self-help groups andcommunity-based organizations and institutions forthe long-term and sustainable management of theShivalik watersheds? How to enable individualfarmers and herders to improve management ofboth private and common-pool resources in a

sustainable manner? As noted earlier, most water-shed development projects in India have experi-enced similar problems as IWDP I. The “islands ofsuccess” are not many, neither in India, nor in othercontinents (Kerr et al. 1998, Turton, 1999,(Hinchcliffe et al, 1999, Reij, Scoones, Toulmin,1996, Oygard, Vedeld, Aune, 1998, Pretty, 1995).Such “land-based” approaches to rural develop-ment are being criticized along several dimensionsand each of these dimensions provide a formidablechallenge to the second phase of IWDP:

• The objectives of land-based conservationapproaches should be better adapted to the multiplegoals and realities of local farmers and herders,who express less fear about overgrazing, deforesta-tion and land degradation than project or lineagency staff.• The establishment of new formal villageinstitutions for resource management should reflectlocal knowledge and the potentials of local orindigenous local institutions for self-management.• The village development plans shouldbecome mechanism for village planning (simple,flexible, low cost), rather than remain a planningand budgeting tool for outside staff.• Male village elites should not be allowedto dominate offices and benefits arising from theproject activities.• Neighbors and mobile resource users(herders) should be included in village committeesand have a say in determining new propertyboundaries that limit their former access rights(e.g. to fuel, grazing, or minor forest produce).• Local communities should be graduallyempowered in order to control access and acquire

32

decision-making authority.• More emphasis should be placed onsystematic capacity building and training andinstitutionalization of the participatory approach.• The participatory approaches should beadapted to existing cooperative arrangementsbetween state agencies and local groups in order toincrease dialogue and pace, and ensure opportuni-ties for replication and scaling up (Lewis, 1997).

Overall, there is uncertainty over the long-terminstitutional and ecological sustainability of mostrehabilitated watersheds (Turton, 1998). But thereare also several positive experiences to build upon.According to the recent book “Fertile Ground - TheImpacts of Participatory Watershed Management”,success stories or break troughs in Asia, Africa orAustralia have come on farmers’ fields and in ruralcommunities with agricultural professionals increas-ingly working with, and learning from farmers(Hinchcliffe et al., 1999:12). The authors point tomany positive impacts on economic, social, andenvironmental conditions. The book stresses thefollowing common elements that contributed to thesuccessful cases; elements that have also been raisedas important in the assessments of IWDP I (cf. ICR,1999, Hinchcliffe et al., 1999:371):

• Approaches were built on the remarkableself-recuperating capacities of soils, vegetation andwatersheds.• Focus was on locally-adapted resourceconserving technologies that provided immediatereturns to farmers, rather than on externally-derived technologies.• Mobilization was geared towards groups orcommunities at local level, rather than focusing onindividual farmers, building on local capacity andskills.• Governments and executing agencies weresupportive, and worked in partnership with eachother and with farmers.

How can IWDP at this stage adjust and directpolicies and practice towards these proven alterna-

tives? How can the project agencies become moreeffective, supportive and participatory in theiroperations? Key dilemmas and challenges thatIWDP II confronts are raised here, reflectingcertain modifications or reinforcements of theproject approach as captured in the design.

Bridging Knowledge Gaps and Opening up theDebate

First of all, if it is accepted that while farmers andherders should have a firm say in management offields and pastures, the project agency staff shouldhave a good and unbiased understanding of thestate of crop fields, pastures and forests from anecological perspective. Bridges must then be builtover potential knowledge gaps in order to findsolutions and approaches acceptable to localfarmers and herders. The debate on degradationand environmental management in the Shivaliks ofthe Himalayas offers a confusing mix of perspec-tives and positions on causes and managementstrategies. The dominant view - reflected in allplanning documents including the Regional Envi-ronmental Study (REA) - is typically alarmist andMalthusian. Focus is on high and increasing humanand livestock population densities leading toincreased degradation, due mainly to bad practiceson farmers’ fields and extraction of fuelwood andfodder far exceeding the annual biomass produc-tion on common and state land. There is a curiouslack of reference to studies with a critical view ofthis “environmental orthodoxy” (perceiving adownward spiral of poverty, population growth,environmental degradation) (Forsyth and Leach,1999). By giving local communities the full blamefor degradation of natural resources, broaderfactors operating at national or regional level areeasily lost.

An alternative and Boserupian view is, however,also present in the debate on degradation in theHimalaya. One study from Himachal Pradeshfound that, in spite of rapidly increasing popula-tion, the performance of the state in protecting theenvironment is generally encouraging. There arenew technologies being spontaneously adopted

Participatory Watershed Development Challenges

33

related to terracing, land levelling, improveddrainage of canals and use of lift irrigation, in-creased intensity of cropping and new crops, moreuse of manure and mixed cropping systems. Thereare also policy, institutional and infrastructuralreforms that have enabled this type of agriculturalintensification (Holden and Sankhayan, 1998). Inanother review of pastoral politics, overgrazing isclaimed to be generally overdramatized within theForest Departments of Punjab and HimachalPradesh (Saberwal, 1999).11 This research ques-tions the direct connection between land usepractices of a growing population in the Himalayasand annual suffering of the inhabitants of the Indo-Gangetic floodplains. Natural factors, includingperiodically heavy rainfall, and effects of forestextraction by timber corporations, road buildingand other development projects are some of thefactors held up against the effects of small farmersand herders (Saberwal, 1999, SCE, 1991). Theimportance of natural factors as forces of degrada-tion, such as tectonic uplift and naturally-occurringgullies, is supported by studies in the Middle Hillsof Nepal and the Hills of Northern Thailand. Inthese cases it was also found that farmers spontane-ously adapt land management practices to reducethe impact of population growth and environmentalchange (cf. Forsyth and Leach, 1998). The impor-tance of avoiding “simplistic generalizations”about a degradation “crisis” and of tailoringwatershed development to farmers demands andthe local circumstances they face, is supported inseveral more recent studies from India (Turton,1998, Hinchliffe et al., 1999). Such findings alsohave relevance for “whose knowledge and voiceshould count” (Leach and Mearns, 1996, Holland,1998).

Exploring Locally-Adapted Technologies andIndigenous Knowledge

In order to adapt the land-based watershed ap-proaches to the multiple livelihood goals andrealities of farmers and herders, it is necessary tostart by exploring present changes in knowledge,technologies and institutions. The project must findthe right balance between presenting a ready made

“menu” of externally proven technologies, andtechnologies developed locally over time. Vegeta-tive and biological measures should be encouraged,such as green manure, cover crops, mulching,composting and reduced tillage (as suggested in theplanning documents, FAO, 1999:2). Knowledgeabout the social processes determining technologyinnovation and intensification on farmers’ fieldsmight be as important as knowledge about thetechnology itself. If participation is to be achievedsuccessfully, local knowledge does matter (Reij,Scoones, Toulmin, 1996). The capacity of individu-als and groups to innovate and experiment must benurtured. Recent evidence suggests that the need isnot for ever-increasing amounts of new technology,but for more open communication, so that localknowledge and views can be incorporated in thejoint planning and management. “What needs to bemade sustainable is the process of innovationitself” (Hinchcliffe et al., 1999:372). Many of thewatershed technologies, such as gully-plugging,check dams, and plantations, require a combinationof individual and collective efforts in investmentsand management. Hence, support is needed bothfor institutional and technological innovations, butin different mixes for different activities, usergroups, and property rights systems.

Building A Participatory Framework

The success of a participatory approach depends onhow effectively a top-down initiative can be turnedinto a broad-based participatory process that gradu-ally includes ever larger shares of the population. Aunique approach in each of the project agenciesneeds to be nurtured. A critical starting point wouldbe a participatory framework and a participatoryaction plan, which defines a simple and step-wiseapproach to participation and local institutionbuilding. Given the bureaucratic tradition in theproject agencies, the plan could in a formal way - atleast in the early phases - give guidance on each steprequired in the process and with appropriate moni-toring indicators to report on as work progresses.Some critical elements to be incorporated in theparticipatory framework are listed in the Table in theconcluding section of the paper.

Participatory Watershed Development Challenges

34

Identifying Appropriate Focal Activities

Local institution building requires the identifica-tion of a focal activity. Experience shows that theformation of a Village Development Plan (VDP)itself is not likely to form the key rallying point forthe Village Development Committee (VDC)(Oygard, Vedeld and Aune 1999). A focal activityneeds to be carefully tailored to each village andgroup of farmers and provide significant economicand/or social benefits, both to the individualsparticipating and to the organizations created.Proven examples of focal activities are such aswater harvesting or micro-irrigation for farmersfields, credit groups, and fodder farms (babbargrass). Social services such as water supply, whichare in great demand, can also be used (as recog-nized in the planning documents).

Limiting “Shadow Participation”

The project builds on a concept of “reciprocal commit-ment” in the sense that entry point activities areencouraged by the project agency to gain local accessand acceptance for watershed management (e.g. watersupply). Dispersal of funds for an entry activity iscontingent on local commitment to protect the water-shed. In the Doon Valley project women agreed todevelop a fodder tree plantation, provided they weregiven assistance in establishing a tailoring enterprise(Thapliyal et al. in Hinchcliffe et al, 1999). Butreciprocal commitment as a carrot-and-stick system ofmicro-conditionality easily leads to “shadow participa-tion”. People participate in the environmental conser-vation activity only because they expect benefits fromthe entry activity (or from labor payments involved).Once these benefits have been achieved, people’sinterest in long-term management of the environmentalconservation activity may easily fade. Hence, sustain-able approaches require close linkages betweenwatershed conservation and development that providesbenefits to individuals and groups.

Building Capacity at Local Level

The capacity to respond adequately to externalinitiatives varies greatly, depending on many

factors, one being the level of social capital andhistory of civic engagement in the community ormicro-watershed concerned (Putnam, 1993). It isimportant to assess local capacity and the degree towhich existing local institutions can be built upon. Itmakes sense to start with those villages with provencapacity to organize. Given the social complexity ofwatersheds in the Shivaliks, the best approaches toinstitution building would be mixed, involvingdifferent forms and levels of organizations, bothindigenous and new more formal institutions. Groupformation can either be of a building block type;smaller groups are formed to cooperate at broaderlevel, or of a more direct type; forming a village orpanchayat institution directly. Direct approaches tendto work best with good and charismatic leadership.Building block models may require more externalinput, but can become more robust over time. Net-works and links to broader partner organizationshould be encouraged (panchayats, business enter-prises, NGOs and civil society organizations). Theforms and levels of organizations to be developedmust be adopted to function and context. Sincecommunities are split in factions (caste, gender, age),economic interests, and power it may be useful tobuild from smaller self-help groups among morehomogenous units e.g. women credit groups, youthassociations, irrigation farmers. It is important to takea sequential approach to group formation; startingwith simple and economically beneficial activities,moving to more demanding activities as capacitydevelops e.g. land use and tenure conflict manage-ment. In order to reduce cost and ensure participation,the Village Development Plans (VDPs) should besimplified and made easier to understand and to beacted upon locally. Massive training of para-profes-sionals, farmers and leadership is essential.

Promoting Equity and Inclusive Institutions

As learned through IWDP I, there are a set ofmechanisms through which local elites typicallycapture offices and benefits from a watershedproject, often at the expense of weaker groups(Turton, 1998, ICR, 1999). One of the mechanismsto limit the influence of dominant elites is toencourage Government Orders that involve gender,

Participatory Watershed Development Challenges

35

caste and tribal/transhumance representation innewly established institutions. Another is to gearthe extension system towards targeted support, e.g.hire women staff to build women self-help groups.

A central feature of IWDP II is to encourage theintroduction of formal and state-sanctioned VillageDevelopment Committees (VDCs). The VDCs willgain more control of resource management at theexpense of indigenous or informal arrangements. Ifthe newly formed VDCs are dominated by localelites, the new regimes may have negative effectson marginal groups. Moreover, if the demarcationof land around villages related to Village Develop-ment Plans (VDPs) is understood as a strict prop-erty right boundary, it may undermine the rights ofneighboring villages and mobile pastoral groups tofuelwood, fodder and minor forest products.Finally, the restrictions on use of forest land ingeneral, undermine the livelihoods of differentmarginal groups. Such rights of access to localresources can be long standing and even recordedin the cadastral survey (Chakravarty-Kaul, 1996).

Focusing On Systematic Institutional-CapacityBuilding

A significant change in the ways in which projectagencies interact with rural people is a necessarycondition for success. It is essential that the staffmove away from a prescriptive treatment approachto one of catalysing and facilitating. Rather thanplanning, dictating, and enforcing, agency staffshould facilitate, convene, and negotiate. Withreference to the situation in Andhra Pradesh JuliaFalconer (peer reviewer) observed:

“What I have seen in Andhra Pradesh at least some of thebest, innovative participatory JFM is supported by someof the worst plans and PRA exercises - key has been shiftin relationships and flexibility in the program to changeinvestment priorities from year to year”. People see gainsonly when trees or grass starts growing, then commitmentcomes among people and staff; “it is the process thatcounts” (Julia Falconer, Pers. Mess., 1999).

This requires first and foremost that project andline-agency staff acquire new skills, new attitudes,

and willingness to listen and learn (Chambers,1997, Holland, 1998, Aycrigg, 1998, Blackburn,1998, Shah and Shah, 1995). The transformation ofbureaucratic cultures is a slow process (even ifchange can also come fast under benign circum-stances). In the project agencies concerned, staffpossess considerable knowledge and tend to remainwith a perspective as themselves as the experts inwatershed development. Many are not interested inparticipation (or feel threatened by it). It is there-fore likely that incentive structures for workingwith communities are critical to change attitudes,perhaps more so than lack of capabilities (althoughthe two are related). Policies and legal changesalone, will not change practices. While change inattitudes are important among top-management,more firm changes in institutional cultures willemerge only as face-to-face communication andmore intense interaction between staff and localpeople take place over longer periods of time. Staffmust discover for themselves that participation isbeneficial and solves problems for them. Trainingand institutional capacity building on a massiveand systematic basis is essential and stressed in theproject design, as well as in the general literatureon participatory watershed development in India(Mascarenas, 1998, Shepherd, 1998, Gujja,Pimbert, Shah, 1998, Turton, 1998, Hinchcliffe etal.,1999). Farmer-to-farmer extension, visitationand peer-training through exposure visits, andorganizational learning are key mechanisms tostrengthen existing extension systems. Throughexchange visits, farmers observe, discuss, and learnabout innovative practices and ways they can beadopted. The use of para-professionals and villageagents is central to increase outreach, cut costs andinternalize learning (Hinchcliffe et. al, 1999, Shahand Shah, 1999).

Clarifying Rights and Building CooperativeAgreements

A key lesson learned from IWDP I was the need toclarify property rights and opportunities forcommunities and individuals to benefit more fromlocal resources, decide on and manage own affairs(ICR, 1999). Farmers are at present severely

Participatory Watershed Development Challenges

36

limited in their access to common-pool resources inmany localities. Further partnership and manage-ment can be seriously undermined if more transpar-ent systems of cooperation do not evolve (ICR,1999). To this end, the on-going transition ofinstitutional arrangements between people andproject/line agencies for grazing and forest re-sources in every state need to acknowledge therequirements for a combined strategy for simulta-neous development of forest land, common lands/wasteland, and private land.12 New cooperativetenure arrangements cannot easily be regulated byMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) under theproject, since legal and administrative reform atstate or national levels is required, for example inrelation to state forest land and Panchayat land.Some examples of strings that create problems are:• Limitations on open grazing, which hinderpastoral groups and livestock development ingeneral.• The nationalization of non-timber forestproduce (NTFPs), which has introduced govern-ment control of marketing in favor of traders, andcreated monopolies against the interest of marginalcollectors of these items.• Restriction on trees and timber extraction,which limits opportunities for appropriate forestmanagement both under private, communal andstate forest land.

Overgrazing is held in the planning documents tobe the key factor behind erosion and land degrada-tion in the Shivaliks (REA, 1998). But a generalban on open grazing, as suggested by the project inthe Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), is amajor concern in many villages, since livestock isan important economic activity. Sweeping recom-mendations will often not reflect local variations ingrazing pressure and management systems. Ifrestrictions are to be introduced, a proper dialogueis important under any tenure system; private,communal as well as forest land (cf. Teri, 1998:75).In Haryana, for example, the project agencymisinterpreted the MOU during the preparation ofvillage development plans, and made all VDCmembers agree with all the general guidelines,

including a general ban on open grazing. If largepasture areas are closed off from open grazingunder the project, and only cut-and-carry systemsallowed, it is important to realize that a larger shareof the crop land might need to be diverted tosupport livestock.13

Promoting Supportive Macro-Policy Frame-works

In assessing the range of options available ahead it isimportant to keep in mind that successful micro-watershed management depends on many factors,where the broader macro-policy and institutionalcircumstances, such as tenure law, market access,and price policies, greatly determine the potentialbenefits to individual farmers. The watershed itselfmay not always be the most appropriate planningunit for rural development, partly since the actionspace and income activities of village members andorganizations, have a much larger span than thoseset by the territorial boundaries of the watershed(Kerr et al., 1998, Turton, 1998). In order to identifyrelevant macro-policy strategies, it is essential tobuild on lessons from other watershed managementprojects in India, as well as outside experiences. InMachakos in Kenya where farmers terraced theirfarms and adopted soils and water conservationtechniques spontaneously, a set of factors wereconsidered important, such as: change in tenurefrom common to private; good base of indigenousknowledge, tradition for community organization(social capital); favorable access to markets; and,remittances from migrants invested in soil and waterconservation technology (Tiffen et al, 1994).

Since the project attempts to reconcile objectivesof soil and watershed management with improvedlivelihoods for poor farmers, a recent policy studyfor soil fertility management in Africa offers somecritical lessons:

“..if the aim of improving soil fertility management is tocontribute more broadly to sustainable rural livelihoods,there are various pathways which can be followed. Suchchoices include: direct interventions to improve soilstatus, support to micro-finance and formal credit systems,

Participatory Watershed Development Challenges

37

improving market access, strengthening farmer knowledgeand skills, and improving organizational linkages whichpromote better learning and sharing of ideas. Design of astrategy for improving soil fertility management needs toconsider how best to combine intervention options indifferent places and different levels, over a period ofseveral years” (Scoones and Toulmin, 1999:5).

Incorporating Preconditions for WithdrawalAnd Scaling Up

If approaches to micro-watershed developmentare to be sustainable and replicable, the precon-

ditions for withdrawal and scaling up have to beidentified early and incorporated in the projectstrategy. The key challenge is to develop localgroups and committees that are economicallyviable and independent of external financialsupport. In the Doon Valley project there aremore than 200 Resource Management Organiza-tions (GAREMAs) with proven capacity tomanage resources and relatively large villagerevolving funds. These funds are preconditionsfor a successful withdrawal policy (Berry,1998).14

Participatory Watershed Development Challenges

38

12. Conclusions

The participatory aspect of the project designwas more a result of factors such as lessonslearned from the first phase of the project

and experience embodied by the Bank team and theexecuting agencies, rather than direct beneficiaryparticipation. The preparation of the project hasstarted the process of pushing local level institutionbuilding to the forefront of the project agencies’work. The project in the different states is now in aposition to start the participatory implementationprocess. However, there is still some resistance tothe institutional reforms, especially among the mid-level staff. The capacity of the implementingagencies for reorientation remains a key obstacle toparticipation, especially in Haryana and J&K.Nevertheless, fruitful consultations and collabora-tion between project managers and Bank staffduring the preparation phase and their changingattitudes have raised expectations about successfulperformance in the other states.

• The period ahead can be used to counterthe relatively thin (although widespread) participa-tion of primary beneficiaries in the initial planningperiod. Through the more intense village-levelplanning that starts now, approaches can be al-lowed to evolve in response to local needs anddemands.

• Although the social assessment (socialanalysis + participation) started too late for theproducts to have any major impact on the design, itaffected the project-level processes and planning ina positive manner. The social assessment helpedreveal capacity limitations of project agencies, aswell as social diversities, for example in relation to

the pastoral transhumance in the area. It alsopointed to the need for a gender sensitive approach,reflecting the particular importance of women inthe Hill economy. The results of the assessment arelikely to feed into the village planning. But asplanning instruments, the social assessments wouldhave been much more useful if carried out within ameaningful time frame and focused better onoperational recommendations.

• In retrospect, an important achievement ofthe social assessment process was to create capac-ity for and commitment to the approach among theproject staff.

It seems that the main purpose of a project prepara-tion process remains to lay down the ground rulesfor the project and the participation of all stakehold-ers, while ensuring that the policy and institutionalframework is enabling. By and large, that is what theproject preparation did, as reflected in the PAD. Itremains a problem, however, that the quality of theProject Implementation Plans (PIPs) at project levelis weak on conceptualizing participation and locallevel institution building within the broader policyand institutional arrangements of the Shivaliks.

The challenges now confronting the participatoryapproach should not be underestimated, especiallysince time is short and budgets limited. More than1 900 villages are meant to be covered over aperiod of five years. Time constraints make genu-ine collaboration and ownership of the process atvillage level difficult to achieve. What is perhapsmost critical is that joint agreement is reached onprocedures and incentives/sanction systems that

39

encourage both project/state agents and local usersto feel responsible and accountable to the manage-ment of village resources and village-level organi-zation. Project and state interventions should berestricted to certain functions and events, as far asfeasible, so as to allow autonomy and local arenasfor management to emerge. It may be necessary toencourage a shift in attention from the communityitself to the relationships between the communityand the state/project agency. Which cooperativeinstitutions and policies are in operation between

the two? Which arrangements promote successfulwatershed development and which limit? How canapproaches be modified to mitigate limiting factors?How can a more enabling and supportive policy andinstitutional arrangement be enhanced? It is criticalthat the executing agency staff gets convinced of thebenefits of participatory management and thedangers of ignoring local institutions and knowl-edge. Large reduction in transaction costs and win-win situations are likely, if more adaptable agencypractices and joint arrangements emerge.

Conclusions

40

13. Issues and Emerging Opportunities

The planning process raises a set of issues andopportunities related to participation in the imple-mentation phase, both at project and Bank levels.

Project level opportunities

If more genuine participation is the aim, strategiesfor massive training and institutional capacitybuilding are required developed by each of theproject agencies at state level. The aim would be tobuild “learning organizations”. Such systematiccapacity building would typically seek to:

• Enhance incentive structures for commu-nity participation beyond information and consul-tation.

• Create arenas and networks for communi-cation with communities and for on-going dialogueamong community members and between commu-nity groups.

• Encourage joint approaches that increasecontacts and linkages between farmers and externalinstitutions, in order to foster better policies andpractices.

• Establish and maintain partnershipsinvolving members of the wider community andcivil society, local government, other line agencies,panchayats, private enterprises, local politicians.

• Enable institutional reforms throughchange in attitudes of personnel, widespreadtraining and competence-building, changes in

professional curriculum and skills training, decen-tralization of organizations, and reforms of man-agement.

• Undertake assessment of changes throughintroduction of participatory learning, monitoringand evaluation systems.

These elements would be part of an overall “par-ticipatory framework”. In order to enable participa-tory watershed development, certain reinforce-ments of the existing project approaches can beproposed along the following lines (Tab. 4) build-ing on Reij, Scoones, Toulmin, 1996, Hinchcliffe etal., 1999, as well as the experience with IWDP sofar.

As indicated, there are many areas in which theproject agencies can strengthen performance or re-orient strategies. Some very specific actions mightinclude:

• Promote inclusive property rights:Introduce measures to ensure rights of neighborsand mobile groups to resources within the bound-aries of new village regimes; recognize that tenurerepresent a bundle of rights and that split rights inlaw and practice have existed through history. Forexample, under a cooperative agreement related toa designated state forest area, a Village Develop-ment Committee (VDC) may receive exclusiveproperty rights to the growing woody biomass,while they and their specified neighbors may enjoyco-existing access rights in relation to gathering ofdead wood, grazing and non-timber products (K.Sivaramakrishnan, 1996).

41

Tab. 4. Enabling participatory watershed development

• Start by exploring indigenous soil and water technologies and blends between these and research, theway farmers have spontaneously adapted such technologies to social and institutional conditions

• • Spend more time in the field and look up recent research with the aim to understand the problems,

rather than to provide ready made solutions from a menu of technologies; test out different ideas, firston a small scale

• Raise awareness, build confidence and negotiation skills among leaders as well as marginal groups;develop group cohesion and collective-action capacity, not only individual capacities; enhance networksand partnerships

• Undertake joint participatory planning and diagnosis of problems, exploring different views and amongdifferent groups of people, using a range of participatory appraisal techniques and adapting agreementsto the local conditions; enhance creativity

• Use a very simplified system of village planning to reduce costs and make village development planslocal-level tools for management of both private and common-pool resources

• Focus in the initial year on building group and village level capacity through exposure visits, farmer-to-farmer sharing, exchange workshops and training of village leaders, para-professionals, and front-linestaff

• Acknowledge that local communities are differentiated and adjust approaches accordingly

• Work with small self-help groups that rally around viable economic focal activities as building blocksfor the Village Development Committees; start with simple activities, then move to land use, tenure andconflict management, build links to local government

• Finance less activities directly, reduce subsidies, and increase cost-sharing gradually; focus more onsocial fencing and use the natural regeneration capacity of soils and vegetation

• Develop plans for capacity strengthening; work systematically on improving attitudes, communication,skills and project agency cultures; ensure devolution of power and resources to village institutions andevolution of transparent systems of co-operation and interaction

• Work towards making the approaches part of state-wide and national agricultural programmes, wherereforms of policy, property rights, and institutions are central to enable more rights and benefits toindividual farmers and herders

• Incorporate a withdrawal strategy early in the preparation process

• Teach communication skills: Teachcommunity groups negotiation skills and developtheir bargaining position, for example, of thecollectors of minor-forest produce by developingthe capacity of the local VDC committee throughincreasing their knowledge on prices, quality andmarketing opportunities

• Stimulate participatory monitoring andevaluation and use of sign-boards: Stimulate anactive participation of communities, NGOs anddistrict level officers in monitoring and learning,both related to the physical progress and to theperformance of the project agency and staff inorder to increase ownership to the process and

Issues and Opportunities

42

foster accountability and transparency. Promote theuse of sign-boards outside each forest area in orderto inform people about what rights they have in theforest concerning ownership of land and products,involvement in management, and marketing ofresources and benefits.• Foster critical research: Encourage morecritical research on the “environmental orthodoxy”in the Shivaliks and the Himalayan foothills.• Encourage client-oriented agencies:Work towards a more pro-poor and client-orientedgovernance system, in order to meet local demandsand save transaction costs to society. This wouldinclude reducing the resources falling under defacto open access property rights regimes today.

Bank level opportunities

Bank level opportunities for improved participatorywatershed development are project specific as wellas more general:• Demonstrate gains from participationby measuring transaction costs: If the achieve-ments in primary beneficiary participation reflectlimited capacity and commitment of the imple-menting agencies, it is important that evidence bedemonstrated at project agency level of the value-addition in terms of improved performance andreduced (transaction) costs of reoriented agencies.Improved participation can support goals of goodgovernance related to more effective, transparentand accountable agencies. Good governance atstate and project level is also what fosters bettergovernance at the local level, in terms of moreengaged and viable institutions and sustainableproject investments. A special opportunity for theBank is to attempt to measure the gains from lowertransaction costs of new institutional arrangementsfor the different partners in the participatoryreforms.• Adopt more flexible planning processes:In order to avoid dilemmas arising from rigidity inthe project cycle and Bank planning procedures,the project adopted a flexible learning approach forthe first year, which proved fruitful. It can thereforebe recommended for similar types of rural develop-

ment projects.• Re-visit the Social Assessments (SAs): Ifthe Bank does not utilize the SAs fully and theproject agencies perceive the SAs mainly as a Bankrequirement, something needs to be done. Oneoption could be to develop the SA as a directed andparticipatory process (less focus on the product)and avoid making it into a broad based socio-economic baseline study. This would entail thatBank staff (as well as project staff) would be moreinvolved, working together with communities todevelop indicators and systems for ParticipatoryMonitoring and Evaluation (PM&E). The focuswould shift from generating information for anexternal audience towards facilitating a process ofinstitutional learning (cf. Robin Mearns and DavidMarsden, Pers. Mess. 1999). This could also implythat the SA process become of smaller scale andfocused on informed and context related issues(less breadth, more depth). Different solutionsshould probably be adapted to different contexts.• Encourage better consultancy services:If the performance of consultants closely attachedto implementing agencies is weak or non-critical inundertaking social assessments, the Bank shouldencourage a better selection of independent con-sultants and more close supervision of their workand follow-up of their recommendations. The Bankshould also consider to support training of consult-ants/NGOs to do stakeholder analysis, institutionalanalysis, and village development planning.• Strengthen joint processes: The Bankshould study more closely the disconnect betweenthe Project Appraisal Document (PAD) and theProject Implementation Plans (PIMs) regardingperception and adoption of participatory ap-proaches. As a reflection of the relatively weakPIMs on integration of participation, a new form ofproject planning document could be consideredprepared through a joint process; for example as aflexible project implementation plan prepared bythe project but with closer interaction and supportof Bank staff/consultants. This has been donesuccessfully, for example, in Vietnam (cf. LarsLund, SDU, New Delhi, Pers. Comm., 1999).• Build bridges: Given a world of multiple

Issues and Opportunities

43

realities, efforts are needed within the project tobuild bridges across different world-views, forexample, between “local” knowledge and “scien-tific” knowledge and between social, technical andeconomic perspectives on development in theShivaliks.• Encourage partnerships and openness:Reflecting the national concern for environmental

degradation in the Himalayan foothills, the Bank andthe project agencies should encourage more open-ness about the scientific uncertainty surroundingtheir management, and increase the dialogue aboutparticipatory watershed development with a greatervariety of stakeholders, such as local farmers,NGOs, academics from various disciplines, otherdonors, and private sector interests.

Issues and Opportunities

44

Annex 1. Comparison of Participatory Frameworks

IWDP I (1990-1998) Doon Valley (1993-2001) IWDP II (1999) (planned)Approach Top-down and highly

subsidized; cost sharing from10-14 % on most investments

Top-down initiative turned intobottom-up mobilisation; stillcentralized w. high subsidies

Top-down initiative to be turnedinto bottom-up mobilisation; highsubsidies remain

Project area 185, 400 hectares 500, 000 hectaresArea treated 352, 000 hectares 110, 000 hectares 200, 000 hectaresWatersheds 46 watersheds 2 Districts/ 7 watersheds 75 sub-watershedsVillages 480 village committees 113 by mid-1998 (target 250) 1 920 villages; 1 millionTotal costs 92,8 mill US 19,5 mill US 193 mill. USDPrimarybeneficiaryparticipation

Limited to consultation withlocal leaders

More broad-based collaboration Aims to develop broad-basedcollaboration

Micro-watershedplanning

Blue-print and supply driven More flexible and demand driven Scope for flexibility andparticipation

VillageDevelopmentCommittees

480 VDCs created but nocapacity building.Dominated by local elites

Many and well functioningVDCs. To lesser degreedominated by local elites.

VDCs are central mechanisms forvillage planning andimplementation

Links toPanchayats

None established, exceptinformally at local level

Only when VDCs are robust.Not yet done.

Planned but modalities not spelledout

Revolving Funds Not established Revolving funds ofRs 30-60 000

Village Development Fundsenvisaged

Commonproperty right

Not clearly spelled out Remains unclear Not analysed adequately

Private non-arable land

Important for investments n.a. (not found in UP, mostly inPunjab only)

Important area of intervention, notwell analysed

Forest land rights(state)

Insecure rights; weak rights Same as for IWDP I Rights to be clarified

NGOinvolvement

No NGOs involved Some NGO involvement intraining

NGO envisaged intraining/backstopping

Capacity ofproject agencies

Non-existent on PRA, goodon technical aspects

Relatively good, also onparticipation

Variable capacity

Gender staff andfocus

No/few female staff;no gender focus

Many female staff and genderfocus

Important female staff in UP, HP,and Punjab.

Transhumancegroups

Perceived as a problem andnot included

Perceived as a problem, butdialogue established

Specific aims to include throughseparate plans

Poverty reduction Positive effects on incomeamong poor groups

Some, but benefits to SCs/STsare relatively lower

Aims to improve income in poorareas

Achievements onthe ground

Significant area treated,improved forest cover, moregrass, reduced run-off andsiltation, increase in yieldsand income

Significant increase in cropyields and income. New incomegenerating activities e.g.mushroom, poultry

n.a.

Monitoring andevaluation

Weak and conventional; GISsystem failed

Evolving system towardsparticipatory monitoring

Participatory M&E envisaged, butnot finalized

Withdrawalpolicy

None, but encouraged 5-10 year plans agreed withVDCs

Not very explicit requirement, butencouraged

Sustainability High dependence on externalsupport, especially related tocommon land

Many VDCs capable ofsustaining important activities

Substantial risks of dependencyremaining after a five year projectperiod

45

Annex 2. The Preparation Process: Step by Step-A Participatory Perspective

Events of importance/World Bank action

Date98/99

Action by states/projectlevel agencies

Comments

Two national watershedmanagement workshops

April/May 98

Participation of project staff Organised by MOA and MORAE with importantlessons for the projects

FAO identification missionwith SDU staff

May 98 Staff and villagers consultedbriefly but no use of PRAs

Recommendations on SAs.

FAO/CP preparationmission with SDU staff

Jul/Aug 98

No PRAs at local level Recognises the broad participatory strategy built onVDCs and VDPs

PCD cleared; builtbasically on FAO reportearlier experience

August98

Unclear to what degreebeneficiaries and partners wereinvolved.

Issues addressed: strengthen economic rate of return,cost-sharing, Regional Environmental Study,tribal/transhumance, co-ordination

One-day workshop Aug 24 With senior project staff Organised by the Rural Dev. DepartmentCo-task leader in Delhimission visits Doon Valleyproject in UP

Aug 98 Hold discussions with UP staffand project managers at the ECcommission

Suggests that the village revolving fund is a majorstrength

Preparation mission follow-up, participation of SDUstaff

Sept/Oct98

Villagers consulted but no useof PRAs. Mostly discussionswith staff.

Decision on SAs. TORs for the REA/WatershedDevelopment Strategy. Key concerns; co-ordinationand subsidy/cost sharing issue.

Supervision mission IWDPwith review of forestrycomponent

Dec 98 Field-visits by project and Bankstaff

Raise issues of heavy subsidies, weak participation,sustainability on common lands, capacity at projectand village level

Workshop on WatershedManagement

Jan 99 Outside IWDP II Included diverse representatives of civil society, stateofficials, and project managers.

Appraisal mission withSDU staff fromWashington

Feb1999

Pressure for preparation ofvarious studies (SAs), staffing,training, PIPs, procurement,MOUs, Operational Manuals,financial management

Raised several issues and conditions for negotiations;SAs, Tribal/Transhumance study, three VDPs, socialstaff, policy reforms (on cost/benefit sharing), andparticipatory monitoring. Financial managementtakes a lot of attention.

Social Development Unitfield-visit

March99

Discussions with all projectdirectors/staff

Raised issues of participatory planning andimplementation

SDU meeting withDirectors

April 99 All Directors met with SDU inthe Bank

Raised issues of staffing, training, progress with SAstudies, roads component and general issues onparticipation.

One-day workshops onparticipatory framework

April 99 Altogether 100 staff membersfrom all five projectsparticipated

Workshops in order to enhance understanding ofparticipatory planning and management

Social assessment studies Feb-May99

The projects preparedSAs/Tribal studies and VDPsw. help of consultants

The SAs are generally weak, not very operational,arrive late. PRAs either not carried out, or donemechanically (VDPs).

Project implementationplans (PIPs)

April-May99

Carried out by project staff/Consultants

The PIPs focus mainly on technical interventions;participation accepted as of key importance.

Shivalik WatershedManagement Strategy

May99

Carried out by project staff/Consultants

Focus completely on natural regeneration. Little onsocial analysis, participation, property rights andpolicy

Loan negotiations April 99 State representatives andDirectors to Washington

Key issues for negotiation were the financialmanagement system, cost-sharing, but also a set ofparticipation and institutional issues

Social Development staff May 99 Training of staff Training in village planning and visits to Haryana,HP and UP

ImplementationCompletion Report

May 99 Received by project staff fordiscussion and field-work

Positive on physical treatments, yield and incomeincrease; less positive on participation

46

Annex 3. Subjective Assessment of Quality at Entry

Based on a set of “ quality of entry” criteria, the overall quality is subjectively assessed to be“satisfactory” (3) {as compared with “highly satisfactory” (4), “marginally satisfactory”(2) and“unsatisfactory” (1)}. For each criterion, a score has been awarded below. 15

• Strong borrower “ownership” of project objectives and components, particularly those involvingcritical policy, institutional and/or financial reforms - 2-3.• Active stakeholder participation in project design and implementation - secondary stakeholders 3,primary stakeholders 2.• Clarity of project objectives and component description (and clear logical connections betweenthe two) - 3.• Effective incorporation of lessons learned from previous projects in the same country and withsimilar objectives and designs; 3-4 in PAD, 2-3 in other documents.• Identification of critical risks - 3.

• Adequate project preparation prior to Board presentation - 3.

• Careful implementation (and supervision) planning, including specification of key performanceindicators - 4-3.• Realistic assessment of borrower institutional capacity for implementation - 3.

• Avoiding excessively ambitious objectives and/or overly complex design - 2-3.

• Using social assessment to identify and begin to involve in project preparation and implementa-tion - key stakeholders, as well as potential conflicts over alternative patterns of resource use - 3.• Analysis of the property rights regime in the project area - 2-3 .

• Careful analysis of the incentives to resources users to adopt resource conservation practicesbeing promoted - 3.• Obtaining an understanding of the basic ecosystem functioning and services associated withparticular resources involved - 2.• When limited understanding of the ecosystem dynamics, long term applied research included - 2.

• Piloting and learning from experience - 4.

• Ensuring that approaches and technologies are replicable - 2-3.

• Ensuring that approaches demonstrate new technologies and change perceptions and motivationsof resource users and government officials - 3-4.• Careful M&E in terms of actual economic, social, and ecological costs, benefits and implicationsfor sustainable resource use - 3-4.

47

Annex 4. Indicators of Participation and Local Institution Building

The project agencies have reached different stages in the development of Participatory Learning, Moni-toring and Evaluation. There are plans for participatory and community-based systems for monitoring tobe introduced for improving transparency and accountability in the management of funds and assets.Impact indicators for monitoring would need to focus on community and institutional change, as much ason the adoption of new technologies and practices. Self-evaluation can be introduced to enrich thelearning process, both at the local and project agency levels. Some indicators for measuring progress andimpacts of local institution building at the village level are provided below (building on Atkins/UP Desco,1997). These indicators relate to such factors as organization and membership, leadership, formation ofrules, rule enforcement, income generation, operation of accounts, degree of external dependence andlong-term viability.

1. History of civic engagement and level of social capital in the village (high, medium, low).2. Number of groups, members and percentage of members compared to total possible.3. Focal activity of groups, level of local demand (high, medium, low) and income potentials.4. Age of groups and stability of membership.5. Leadership characteristics and change (age, caste, year of education).6. Homogeneity of groups (caste, ethnicity, religious, land ownership, cattle, wealth).7. Regularity of meetings and records thereof.8. Formation of guidelines, boundary rules and rules for internal use of assets.9. Rules for exclusion and systems of enforcement (concrete cases).10. Local and low cost arenas for conflict management in operation.11. Inputs provided for education, awareness and motivation.12. Participation in training.13. Number of para-professionals trained, financed and in operation.14. Income generation and contributions through membership fees or savings by some

or most members.15. Number and levels of loans extended by the group to members.16. Level of resource mobilization from the local Bank.17. Involvement of self-help groups in broader community affairs.18. Interaction by local leaders with outside groups and agencies.19. Level of funding in saving account and degree of external dependence.20. Economic and financial viability (high, medium, low).

48

References

Adolph, Barbara, 1998, Partnership and Policiesfor Change, The Role of Self-Help Groups in theWatershed Development Process, A Study ofExperiences from Andhra Pradesh, India, London:ODI.

Atkins/UPDesco, 1997, Village Organisations,Institutions Report no. 4, August-October 1997,WS Atkins Int. Ltd. and UPDesco Ltd., EuropeanUnion/Watershed Management Directorate,Dehradun.

Aycrigg, M., 1998, Participation and the WorldBank: Successes, Constraints, and Responses,Draft for Discussion, Social Development Papers,Paper no. 29, Washington: World Bank.

Berry, A. and S. M. Joshi, 1998, Doon ValleyProject: Evolution of Participatory Approach forWatershed Management, Paper for NationalWorkshop on “Watershed Approaches to RainfedFarming: Strategies for Integrated WatershedDevelopment in Hill Region”, May 1 and 2., NewDelhi.

Behnke, R. H. and I. Scoones, 1993, RethinkingRange Ecology: Implications for RangelandManagement in Africa. In: R.H. Behnke, I. Scoonesand C. Kerven (eds) Range Ecology at Disequilib-rium. New Models of Natural Variability andPastoral Adaptation in African Savannas. London:Overseas Development Institute & IIED.

Blackburn, J. (ed. with J. Holland), 1998, WhoChanges? Institutionalizing participation in Devel-opment, London: Intermediate Technology Publica-tions.

Blakie, P., 1985, The Political Economy of SoilErosion in Developing Countries, New York:Longman Development Studies.

Blakie, P. and H. Brookfield, 1987, Land Degrada-tion and Society, London and New York: Routledge.

Chakravarty-Kaul, Minoti, 1996, Common Landsand Customary Law, Institutional Change in NorthIndia over the Past Two Centuries, Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press.

Chambers, R., 1997, Whose Reality Counts?Putting the First Last, London: IntermediateTechnology Publications.

CSE, 1991, Floods, Flood Plains and Environmen-tal Myths. The Third Citizens’ Report, The Centrefor Science and the Environment, New Delhi.

Fairhead, J. and M. Leach, 1996, Misreading theAfrican Landscape: Society and Ecology in aForest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.

Fairhead, J. and M. Leach, 1998, RefraimingDeforestation. Global Analysis and Local Reali-ties: Studies in West Africa, London: Rutledge.

Forsyth, Tim and Melissa Leach, 1998, Povertyand Environment: Priorities for Research andPolicy - An Overview Study, Prepared for theUNDP and European Commission, IDS: Sussex.

FAO/CP, 1999, Integrated Watershed DevelopmentProject (Hills II) Project, Preparation Report, MainReport and Annexes, Vol. 1-7, Rome: FAO.

49

Grewal, S. S., 1996, Land and Water Managementin India: An Assessment of Success and Failure inthe Implementation of Programmes, Paper forNational Workshop on “Watershed Approaches forManaging Degraded Lands in India”, New Delhi.

GOI, 1997, Proceedings of the Brain StormingSession on Watershed Development, Nov. 20,Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi.

Gujja, Biksham, Michel Pimbert, and Meera Shah,1998, Village Voices Challenging Wetland-manage-ment Policies: PRA Experiences from Pakistan andIndia. In: J. Holland 1998, Whose Voice? London: ITB.

Hinchcliffe, F., Thompson, J., Pretty, J., Guijt, I.and Parmesh Shah, 1999, Fertile Ground. TheImpacts of Participatory Watershed Management,London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Holden, S. and Prem L. Sankhayan, 1998, Popula-tion Pressure, Agricultural Change and Environ-mental Degradation in the Western HimalayanRegion of India, Forum for Development Studiesno. 2, Oslo: Norwegian Institute of InternationalAffairs/Norwegian Association for DevelopmentResearch.

Holland, J. (ed. with J. Blackburn), 1998, WhoseVoice? Participatory Research and Policy Change,London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Jodha, Napat S., 1998, Wastelands Management inIndia: Myths, Motives and Mechanisms, Paper forNational Workshop on “Watershed Approaches forManaging Degraded Lands in India”, New Delhi.

Kadekodi, Gopal K., and Aslam Perwaiz, 1998,Dimensions of Wastelands and Common PropertyResources in India, Paper for National Workshopon “Watershed Approaches for Managing De-graded Lands in India”, New Delhi.

Kerr, J., Pangare, G., Pangare, V. L., and P.J.George, 1998, The Role of Watershed Projects inDeveloping Rainfed Agriculture in the IndianSemi-Arid Tropics, Draft Paper, April 12, ICAR/

World Bak Research Project on Rainfed Agricul-tural Development.

Leach, M. and R. Mearns, 1996, The Lie of theLand: Challenging Received Wisdom on theAfrican Environment, Oxford: James Curry.

Leach, M., Mearns,R., and I. Scoones, 1997,Environmental Entitlements: A Framework forUnderstanding the Institutional Dynamics ofEnvironmental Change. Discussion Paper 359.Brighton: Institute of Development Studies,University of Sussex.

Lewis, J., 1997, Community-Based Natural Re-sources Management in West Africa, in Serageldin,I. and D. Steeds (eds): Rural Well-Being. FromVision to Action. Proceedings of the Fourth AnnualWorld Bank Conference on EnvironmentallySustainable Development. Series no. 15. Washing-ton: World Bank.

Lobo, Crispino, and Marcella D’Souza 1998,Qualification and Capacity Building of NGOs andVillage Self-Help Groups for Large Scale Imple-mentation of Watershed Projects. Experience fromthe Indo-German Watershed Development Projectin Maharastra, Paper at National Workshop on“Watershed Approaches for Managing DegradedLands in India”, New Delhi.

Mascarenhas, J., 1998, The Participatory Water-shed-development Implementation Process: somepractical tips draws from OUTREACH in SouthIndia. In: Blackburn, J., 1998: Who Changes?London: ITP.

Morrow, Daniel, 1999, Assessing Borrower Owner-ship Using Reform Readiness Analysis, PREMnotes, Public Sector, No. 25, June, 1999, Washing-ton: World Bank.

Ninan, K. N.. 1998, An Assessment of European-Aided Watershed Development Projects in Indiafrom the Perspective of Poverty Reduction and thePoor, CDR Working Paper 98.3, January 1998,Centre for Development Research, Copenhagen.

50

North, D., 1990, Institutions, Insitutional Change,and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Ostrom, Ellinor,1990, Governing the Commons,The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oygard, R., Vedeld. T, and J. Aune 1999, GoodPractices in Drylands Management, NoragricAgricultural University of Norway/EnvironmentalDepartment, World Bank, Washington: The WorldBank.

PAD, 1999, Project Appraisal Document for theIntegrated Watershed Development Project (Hills-II), April 14, 1999, Rural Development Sector Unit,South Asia Regional Office, World Bank.

Pretty, J., 1995, Regenerating Agriculture. Policiesand Practices for Sustainability and Self-reliance.London: Earthscan Publications.

Pretty, J. and Parmesh Shah, 1999, Soil and WaterConservation: A Brief History of Coercion andControl, in Hinchcliffe et al., 1999, Fertile Ground,London: IT Publications.

Putnam, Robert D., 1993, Making DemocracyWork. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, NewJersey: Princeton University Press.

REA, 1999, Regional Environmental Assessmentof the Integrated Watershed Development Project(Hills II).

Redwood III, J., R. Robelus and T. Vetleseter,1998, Natural Resource Management PortfolioReview, Environmental Department Paper no. 58,Washington, D. C.: World Bank.

Reij, C., Scoones, I, and C. Toulmin, 1996, Sus-taining the Soil, Indigenous Soil and Water Conser-vation in Africa, London: Earthscan.

Rietbergen-McCracken, J. (ed) 1996, Participationin Practice. The Experience of the World Bank and

Other Stakeholders, World Bank Discussion Paperno. 333, Washington: World Bank.

Saberwal, Vasant K., 1999, Pastoral Politics.Shepherds, Bureaucrats, and Conservation in theWestern Himalaya, Calcutta/Chennai/Mumbai:Oxford University Press.

Samra, J. S. and B. L. Dhyani, 1997, Elements ofParticipatory Watershed Management in India,Central Soil & Water Conservation Research &Training Institute, Dehra Dun.

Scoones, I., 1994, Living with Uncertainty. NewDirections in Pastoral Development in Africa.London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Shah, Anil, C., 1998, Challenges in InfluencingPublic Policy: an NGO Perspective. In: J. Holland,1998: Whose Voice? London: ITP.

Shah, Parmesh and Meera Kaul Shah, 1995,Participatory Methods: Precipitating or AvoidingConflict? PLA Notes 24: 48-51.

Shepherd, Andrew, 1998, Participatory Environ-mental Management: Contradiction of Process,Project and Bureaucracy in the Himalayan Foot-hills. In: Blackburn, 1998. Who Changes? London:ITP.

Sinha, S.P. and P. K. Verma, 1998, Copor Manage-ment of SHRMS Management of SHRMS: AnAlternative Innovative Operational Approach forWatershed Development, Paper for NationalWorkshop on “Watershed Approaches for Manag-ing Degraded Lands in India”, New Delhi.

Sivaramakrishnan, K., 1996, Co-Management ofForests: Are We Overly Pre-Occupied with Prop-erty Rights?, In CPR Digest, March 1996, IASCP,New Haven: Yale University.

Teri, 1998, Prospective Study - Socio-EconomicAnalysis of New Areas under Kandi IWDP (Hills)Phase II, Haryana, Teri Project Report no. 98/RE/63, New Delhi.

51

Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M., and F. Gichuki, 1994,More People, Less Erosion. Environmental Recov-ery in Kenya, Chisester: Wiley.

Turton, C. (with B. Groom and M. Warner), 1998,Scaling-Up Participatory Watershed Developmentin India, A Review of the Literature, NetworkPaper no. 86, London: ODI.

Uphoff, N., 1998, Community-Based NaturalResources Management: Connecting Micro andMacro Processes, and People with Their Environ-

ments. International Workshop on Community-Based Natural Resources Management, May 10-14,Washington, D.C., World Bank.

Vedeld, Trond (forthcoming), Participation inPreparation. Lessons from World Bank-assistedProjects in India, Social Development DiscussionPapers, SASSD, Washington: World Bank.

World Bank, 1996, The World Bank ParticipationSourcebook, Environmentally Sustainable Devel-opment, Washington: World Bank.

52

Notes

1. The author of the paper took part in the reviewof social studies and provided some input to thepreparation process in its final stages. Hence, thereis an element of action research in producing thepaper. The Project Appraisal Document (PAD) isdated April 14, 1999.

2. The project also includes the Karewas in Kashmir,which are separated from the Shivaliks of Jammu bythe Pir-Parjal mountain range. The Shivalik and theKarewas differ in soil, climate and elevation.

3. Two technical staff members jointly filled in onequestionnaire.

4. Turton, 1998, Kerr et. al. 1998, Hinchcliffe etal., 1999, Kadekodi and Perwaiz, 1998, Grewal,1996, Jodha, 1998, Sinha and Verma, 1998, Loboand D’Souza, 1998, Berry, 1998, Adolph, 1998.

5. A property right is a claim to a benefit streamthat some higher body, the state or a local body willagree to protect through the assignments of duty toothers to observe the claim. Property can beperceived as a bundle of rights distributed ondifferent rights-holders and different functions(related also to specific resources). The state maylegally hold all rights to land and resources inForest land, but de facto many rights are assignedto local people or people acquire such rights (e.g.access rights to fuelwood, grazing, fruits). Thebundles of rights according to functions can bedistinguished according to two critical functions; 1)How rights are operated in terms of access and use,i.e. access rights (e.g. trespassing) and usufructrights (right to use), and 2) Who owns and controls

the land and the resources and how they aremanaged, i.e. management rights (the right toregulate internal use), exclusion rights (the right todetermine who will have an access right and how),and rights of alienation (the right to sell/leaserights) (Ostrom, 1990).

6. Two other recommendations were that i) entryactivities from the list of village pressing needsshould be encouraged to motivate participation, ii)more credit funds should be mobilized from localbanks cf. also Proceedings of the Brainstormingsession on Watershed Development, GOI, 1997.

7. One may, however, question the capacity to acquirenew skills through training only (or the quality of theworkshop). Following a whole days workshop amongproject staff in Haryana on participatory methods(PRA), a letter was later sent to the Bank withappreciation for the interesting introduction given to“Project Report Appraisal” methods (PRA) !

8. Given the tradition for hierarchy, command andcontrol systems, firm commitment from the top isneeded, if set backs are to be avoided among mid- andlower-level staff. Ownership and reform readinesscome as high level staff start to formulate organiza-tional changes in their own way, express will toimplement changes and build support for the processamong broader groups of staff members (Vedeld,forthcoming). Visionary leaders tend to play a crucialrole in successful reforms (Morrow, 1999).

9. Even if effects of NGO participation and aca-demic research on public policy can be hard toachieve (Shah, 1998).

53

10. The respondents were asked: What factors werein your opinion the most important for the designof the participatory aspects of the project ? Pleaserank the four most important; a) Lessons from thefirst phase of the project, b) Experience embodiedin the Bank Team, c) Experience embodied in theexecuting agencies, d) Outcome from the socialstudies, e) Direct primary stakeholder participation,f) Combined social assessment (social analysis +participation), g) Lessons from other donorprojects.

11. To this end, there are studies from India show-ing that a ban on grazing can even be ecologicallyunsound, pending the objectives of the conserva-tion (Gujja, Pimbert, Shah, 1998, Saberwal, 1999).

12. At present, the five states are reviewing theexisting systems of rights and benefit-sharingbetween state agencies and local people (e.g.concerning rights to pastures, transhumance, use ofnon-timber forest products (NTFPs), and timberunder different property regimes). To this end,twenty two Indian states, out of twenty-six, haveissued enabling resolutions permitting partnershipswith local people. Andhra Pradesh is the most

progressive having accepted that members ofForest Protection Committees are entitled to 100percent of the benefits from timber and non-timberproducts from the state forest areas they areallocated rights to manage.

13. Jodha estimated that without access to commonpool resources to support livestock, about 50% ofthe crop land would need to be diverted to foddercrops (Jodha in Turton,1998:11). Manure anddrought power are also important benefits from thecommons.

14. The project has adopted a practice of matchingthe labor contributions by the villagers with anequal cash amount to the village account. Hence,stimulating people to work, and channellingimportant finances directly to the village. But italso means a 100% project financing of the water-shed treatment.

15. Most of the “quality of entry” criteria havebeen selected from a recent review of the WorldBank-assisted Natural Resource ManagementProjects (cf. Redwood III, Robelus and Vetleseters,1998).