It is becoming evident that the attitudes and strategies adopted by intervenors during the entry and planning phases and the growth of appropriate peoples’ institutions and skills are important factors to achieve the objectives of regeneration of degraded micro-watersheds and of their management in a way that is both equitable and sustained. With the increasing number of watershed programmes in which both the Government and the NGO staff are co-intervenors, it is useful to reflect on project experiences like PIDOW(1) Gulbarga, where this form of collaboration has occurred for some years. It must be pointed out that the Government organisations involved in PIDOW changed over the past 8 years. To begin with each Department (Agriculture, Horticulture, etc.) intervened separately; this pattern was replaced by the Zilla Parishad which did not have time to settle down when the Dry Land Development Board (DLDB) took over.

MYRADA’s experience in participatory management of micro watersheds is not restricted to PIDOW Gulbarga. It extends to projects in Bangarpet, Huthur, Holalkere and Kadiri. There is, however, a significant difference between PIDOW and the other projects. While PIDOW focuses on watershed management and therefore adopts this as an entry point, the others started by mobilising the poor of 50-107 villages primarily to form institutions to mobilise and manage their credit needs for consumption and income generation as well as to cope with livelihood requirements like health, education and housing. It was only after a few years when peoples institutions had emerged to manage credit and certain other basic needs had been met like drinking water, that these projects began focusing on micro catchments in an integrated manner. In a way therefore, these projects already went through an entry phase.

In PIDOW however, both because of the time constraints that flowed from the pattern of project management in which several Government Departments were involved, as well as because the focus on micro catchments defined and in a way restricted the programme - spread to a defined geographical area and to activities which tend to be dominant in watershed management (like those that revolved around soil and water conservation), the need for an entry phase, becomes critical. The observations in this paper regarding the strategy adopted in PIDOW during the entry phase have emerged from reflecting on MYRADA’s experiences over a few years. No claim is made that these interventions are the only ones possible or that the sequence cannot be changed or that others are not more effective. Though these observations are based on discussions with the MYRADA team in Gulbarga in the context of PIDOW, the experiences from several MYRADA projects like Bangarpet and Kadiri are also drawn from. The interventions of the NGO during the entry phase are not listed randomly; the order does have a logic that has emerged through a process of action, reflection and sharing of experiences in different MYRADA projects; the sequence however, needs to be adapted to local situations.

1. Identify the sub-watershed and the villages in it : In PIDOW the sub-watershed (2) is identified by the DLDB; priority is given to treatment of Micro-watersheds based on the need to begin with catchments in the upper reaches. MYRADA’s criteria used during the earlier years before the entry of the DLDB included not only their location in the upper reaches, but also the degree of response from people especially to collectiveaction undertaken by them to identify and solve their problems; the number of landless was also considered; if, for example the number of landless was over 20% such watersheds were not given priority even if they were on the upper reaches. Another criterion that MYRADA took into consideration was the number of farmers who cultivated lands in the watersheds but lived outside it; once again if this number was significant (over 25%), the watershed was not given priority. It was found that such families often have several sources of income and do not get fully involved in the regeneration and management of the watershed; since they live outside, they tend to be more interested in extracting resources from the watershed rather than to develop them.

However, with the DLDB playing a significant part in the selection of new watersheds, during the past two year, the major criterion and often the only one is the location on the upper reaches. This may present a problem to NGOs who have lived and worked in an area before the focus on watershed management became dominant as they usually support an integrated programme over a wider area within which management of micro watersheds is only a component.

In general however, if the treatment in a watershed is to be sustained over the long term, MYRADA’s experience has shown that the criteria for selection of a watershed has to include factors that go beyond its geographical situation; the response of people and the number of small and marginal farmers who live in the watershed are important criteria.

2. Collect Information : Once a Sub-watershed has been identified in PIDOW, it is necessary to collect the following information from various Government sources :

- Area map and Topo sheet of the sub-watershed of which the micro watershed is a part. - Cadastral Map and Khatedar list of the villages involved.

In many cases, the Khatedar list and revenue boundaries are outdated; verification on the ground therefore is required later in the process.

3. Establish Rapport with the people : Senior staff of the NGO and staff who will or already live in the watershed visit the people to establish a rapport and to clear any doubts they may have about the intentions of the intervenors. The number of visits cannot be specified but they should be spread out for atleast a month. In the case of PIDOW where the programme works according to pre-established schedule, it is necessary to allot atleast one month of intensive contact with the villages. The collection of data described under No.2 continues concurrently.

4. Conduct a Jatha : At this stage, a Jatha has proved to be a useful instrument to carry the process forward. During the Jatha, street plays are conducted on the need for literacy and education, the importance of trees and the problems created by certain social customs. The Jatha is a traditional medium and serves to mobilise people, to arouse their curiosity, to make the NGO staff aware of the general problems in the area and to build rapport with all sections and classes in the village; this last objective requires that the NGO staff make a special effort to relate to all groups during the Jatha.

5. Organise Village Meetings : These meetings go further than visits described under No.3. Once the Jatha has helped to identify several groups in the village, it is important to arrange meetings with each group at times convenient to the people. The objective of these meetings is to establish a pattern of group discussion that is organised and recorded. These meetings also help the staff of MYRADA to get further insights into village dynamics and the inter-relationships between the various groups and to assess if these relationships are conducive to mutual cooperation or not, and if they are not, to assess the reasons why and whether they can be removed. At this stage if it is found that the antagonism among groups is high and that there is little chance of them working together, it may be necessary to postpone further work in this watershed.

6. Organise a PRA(3) Exercise with the following objectives :

- To work out a plan and a strategy to solve the problem selected earlier. This is the major objective; if there is time and people are interested the following data could be collected :-

1) the number of landless, large, medium/small farmers in the watershed.
2) the number of farmers living outside but with lands inside the watershed and where they live.
3) the number of farmers with lands outside the watershed, but living inside.

The reasons for this categorisation is that it has been observed that each category relates differently to a common concern and an action plan within the watershed.

- To collect information about previous Government or other sponsored programmes especially regarding soil and water conservation and forestry and to assess their success or failure and the reasons.

The focus of this exercise, however is to work out a plan and strategy to tackle the common problem identified rather than to collect and verify information.

7. Organise a common action (in response to the problem which was identified) based on the plan and strategy drawn up and agreed to during the PRA exercise. This common action will serve to further energise the people and give them a sense of achievement and confidence, that if they come together they can achieve a common objective. It isimportant that the NGO staff do not play the lead role in organising this common actionbut motivate the various groups to take the initiative. No doubt the staff will have to play a supporting role, which in some cases may be a major contributing factor to the success of the action. Since villagers normally undertake combined action by dividing up the work among groups which are formed on the basis of affinity, this common action will help the staff to identify the various affinity groups in the watershed which could develop into the socially viable groups required to manage credit. With reference to the time frame in PIDOW, this common action could take place during the third month after the initial entry in the new watersheds.

8. Expose the Affinity Groups to Credit Management Groups which are working well : MYRADA’s experience in all projects confirms that the small/marginal farmers and the landless, give priority to their livelihood needs; they therefore require small and quick loans to meet their daily needs. The only source in the area for such loans is the large farmer and the local shop keeper or middlemen; as a result of their continuous dependency on these sources, the poorer farmers and landless do not have the confidence to express their opinions in public or press for their rights. It is therefore necessary to provide another source for these urgent loans which does not weaken the position of the poor sectors but rather strengthens it. This is the reason for supporting the emergence of small affinity groups which are "socially viable" - the members will hold together without outside intervention. These affinity groups form the basis for the Credit Management Groups (CMG). As a first step in forming these credit groups, it is recommended that the members of an affinity group be exposed to other credit groups in the area or in other MYRADA projects which are working well.

9. Support the Formation of Credit Management Groups : These credit groups are the building blocks on which the future Watershed Development Association (WDA) or Implementation Committee (WIC) will rest. With reference to the time schedule in PIDOW, this could be done towards the end of the fourth month after the initial intervention. The groups would start savings immediately and then go on to function as other groups in MYRADA. It has been observed in PIDOW that the large farmers do not form these credit groups since they are not in need of urgent, small loans. However, they need to be encouraged to come together so that they can later send their representatives to the WDA/WIC. Classes in numeracy and literacy as well as workshops for each group to help them to function as a groups in which every member participates effectively and to work out simple and appropriate rules and regulations to manage their affairs are required. This is the practice in all MYRADA projects and adequate papers and studies are available which describe the process of formation of these credit groups.