Understanding the Processes in Watershed

Development Projectsin

Jharkhand

Presented by

Yoganand Mishra, PRADAN, Ranchi

Outline of Presentation

• Objective of the study• Selection of watershed and study team • Study findings

– Practices followed, analysis and recommendations for

» Pre planning phase» Planning phase and» Implementation phase

Objective of the Study

• Examine and understand the » Participatory processes in Watersheds» Systems and processes ensuring more

community control & management, equity & gender focus and

» Appropriateness of technologies and institutional mechanisms in place

and suggest for improvement of the processes involved in Watershed Development Projects

Selection of Watershed• Discussed with Rural Dev Dept.,

Jharkhand• RDD & PRADAN jointly selected the

WSs considering» Completion / Utilization of fund » Diverse funding, PIA and» Different geographical coverage

• Inception workshop was attended by» Government officials, NGOs and Local media

• 5 NGO and 2 GO implemented WSsselected

Location of Watersheds

Profile of Study Team

• Constituted after methodology workshop• organizations participated in study

» HCSSC, KGVK, NEEDS, TSRDS, VSK, PRAVAH, Soil conservation dept., DRDA, Welfare

Point and PRADAN

• 13 field practitioners from 7 of the above agencies constituted the team

» Rural management : 04» Engineering : 02» Agriculture :01» Graduates : 06

Process followed • Methodology workshop organised

» In house discussion on tools and processes» Field demonstration of tools and processes

• Grouped 3-4 field practitioners to study each watershed

• In each watershed the study Team» Spent 4-6 days» Met with UG, SHG, WC and WA and its’ members» Visited field to see interventions » Met with WDT/PIA» Went through plans, reports and documents» Filled work books, data sheet, analyzed and prepared

report

Study findings: Pre Planning Phase

• 100% WS brought by PIA» In their preferred or operational area» Soil erosion, water scarcity, migration, etc. were the

criteria

• For awareness generation» 100% PIA conducted hamlet meetings,» 71% PIA conducted exposure visits,» 43% PIA used audio visual and guideline in local

language • In 57% cases, all socio-economic classes took part• In 43% cases, low participation of poor and women

• In 71% WS, GS resolution passed on» Contribution, Process of implementation, Probable

interventions to be taken and fund utilisation

Study findings: Pre Planning Phase• NGO PIA facilitated community, GO PIA decided on

EPA• Activities of communities’ priority taken up in NGO PIA WS• EPA seen as “new” interventions by GO PIA and were given to

well off families, poor excluded

• In 71% WS, WDT implemented EPA• Helped PIA’s rapport building with WDT• Community missed the opportunity of gaining experience • EPAs were usable in 71% cases • New assets like Poly-house, Solar TV not in use

» One NGO PIA delegated responsibility to WC (measurement, muster roll preparation and payment)

• Contribution collected in 60% WS by NGO PIA» 50% and 20% by two NGO

Study findings: Pre Planning Phase

• In 86% WS demographic profile, resources, land holding data collected

» 43% PIA used transect walk, resource mapping and field visit

» A camp of 40-45 days in phases by NGO PIA

• In 43% WS, poor were identified» poor was left out, where not identified

• Existing groups in 57% watersheds participated in NGO implemented WS

» Launch of programme became easy» In one case, existing leaders occupied all decision

making spaces and thus limited scope for others to participate in decision making

Study findings: Pre Planning Phase

• In 57% WS, SHG formed by NGO WDT» Concept sharing, exposure visits, training and hand

holding support – In 28% WS, members themselves organised into SHGs– In 14% WS, member of well off families organized by

GO PIA

• Coverage of families by SHGs varied 10-90%

• In 14% WS, UG (hamlet level) formed before implementation

» to plan, execute, supervise and post implementation care

Study findings: Pre Planning Phase

• Selection of WC office bearers• In 3rd meeting in 28% NGO PIA watersheds• In 1st meeting in 28% WS by GO PIA• PIA & WA (17 members) President invited bio-

data and selected • One NGO PIA acted as WC

• 57% WS delineated on topo sheet» 28% on Cadastral map, 14% on block map » Adherence to geo-hydrological unit lead to

conflict

Study findings: Planning phase

• Problem analysis• In 43%, WDT involved WC/CC

» Covers 100% GO PIA » Emphasis mainly on technical aspect

• In 57% cases, WDT involved community» Includes camp in 28% WS by NGO PIA» Considered both Social and Technical aspect

• Field Survey:• In 57%, WDT, WC, Villagers and Users selected site and

identified interventions» Even poor had a chance for incorporating their priority

• In 28% cases, WDT and WC identified interventions» Led to exclusion of resource poor families» Created conflict during implementation

Study findings: Planning phase

• Action plan:• In 57%, WDT, WC, Users and villagers made it

» Facilitated common understanding of area;» Provided space for villagers for exercising their

choices» Understood rationale for inclusion or exclusion

• In 43%, PIA and WC/CC decided » Includes 100% watersheds, implemented by GO PIA» PIA’s priority for technical interventions led to

exclusion, » Activities not integrated

Study findings: Planning phase

• WDT made estimates involving» In 57%, Secretary and volunteer » In 14%, WC, volunteer, users in village camp » In 14%, selected users » In 14%, donor

• Design and estimates were with WDT, Secretary and volunteers.

• In 71%, consent was not taken from WA

Study findings: Implementation • Approval by project authorities

» 1 month for 43% WS, (Go funded-GO PIA, NGO funded and NGO PIA)

» 1-3 months for 43% WS (GO funded NGO PIA) and

» 38 months for rest (NGO PIA)

– Delayed approval slowed down the process

Study findings: Implementation • Measurement and payments:

• WDT engineers checked measurements in 100% GO and 60% NGO implemented WSs without involving community

• Payment by WDT in 43% WS» Bills prepared by Secretary/supervisor/WDT

• Payment by Secretary in 57% WS» Verification & bill preparation by volunteers/villagers» Advance to Users; User paid to labour» Advance to temporary SHG (user, SHG and labour);

who made payment

Study findings: Implementation • Contribution:

» User in 43% WS» Deducted from labour in 43% WS» Only in 28% WS receipt were issued» In 71% WS, WDF is blocked

• In 57% WS, WDT & WC jointly signed cheques» WC signatory withdrew money in 57% WS » WC alone signed cheques in 14% WS » WDT leader issued formal letter for each withdrawal in 14%

WS

• Secretary maintained and was custodian of books in 43% WS

» In 57%, books were with WDT

Study findings: Implementation • In 71%, audit was conducted on time

» 28% are on going (3rd year)

• In 57%, users are maintaining the assets• In 43%, work is incomplete

» 2nd and 3rd years’ fund released (1996-01) without following any schedule, led conflict in community

» Closure without completion

• 28% WS are complete» Physical completion was treated withdrawal

• Another 28% WS on going

Recommendations

• Watershed should be allocated to resourceful PIA

» “Testing” should be avoided» If not available locally, outsiders should be invited

• Considering the workload and expenses of PIA, suggested area should be

» 5,000 to 10,000 hectares » less than 5,000 hectares strictly avoided

• While ridge line passing through village,» Whole village should be taken under watershed

development project.

Recommendations

• Awareness generation plays a critical role

» Participation of 70-80% families in each event » Emphasis on women and weaker sections » Formal documentation of participation in events» A budgetary provision of 2-4% of total can be

made.

• EPA should be focused on “PRIORITY” of community, need to be optional

» EPA funds to WC account

Recommendations• Baseline data collection should be done by WDT

» Involvement of community should be ensured» Data should be stored

• More people should be groomed in leadership roles and a few strong groups should be formed to integrate

» Village/hamlet based group is suggested instead of USER Group

• SHG should be organised with 70-80% families » Qualitative indicators of SHG should be a part of reporting

• Role of WC is critical in governance and operation» Representation from each hamlet, women 50%,» SC/ST/landless 30% (10% from each section)

• Village based volunteer may be appointed

Recommendations• All owners should be participating in

» Survey for planning, site election, option generation, analysis and plan finalisation

» Events should be organised in fields and villages.

» Patch/hamlet wise planning» Problem analysis should be a part of plan

document

• Plan should be for families and resources

» Budget should be a function of area and families

Recommendations• Time frame for approval, release and

compliance » For PIA and Project Authority » A check measure against it may be developed» Project duration may be increased to complete projects

• WC should be enabled to do» Measurement, preparation of bills by Secretary» Secretary should be the custodian of all records» Manage fund withdrawal and payment (WDT does not

need to be a signatory)

• Both social and financial audit should be done • A State cell is proposed to oversee the implementation

processes and facilitate participatory processes in field independent of DRDAs.

Thank you