2. Heterogeneity of a Group :
   As discussed in an earlier paper (Rural Management Systems Paper - 3) it is clear that a heterogeneous association like the Watershed Management Association cannot manage all the activities that are required to be promoted in a watershed for a balanced development of the area. For example, such a large Association is structurally unsuitable to manage the credit needs and inputs of the poor. If credit or other inputs are channelled through such an association, which is not only a large but heterogeneous, they will not filter down to the poor. On the other hand if, in such a situation credit and inputs are provided by an outside agency like MYRADA, directly to poor individuals they will filter upwards because the group being heterogeneous, existing relationships of patronage and control of the consumer and production economies by the richer class will syphon inputs upwards. This direct provision would also make the poor dependent on the outside agency and establish a relationship of borrower - lender which undermines the growth of self-reliant groups. To manage these inputs like credit, the poor need to form small, homogeneous voluntary groups as described in the Rural Management Systems Paper on Credit Management. These groups, apart from cultivating the skills to manage these resources, will protect the resources from filtering upwards. The effectiveness of these groups, however, depends on the time and attention given to them by our staff through meetings, training, awareness building and participatory exercises. They will also overcome one of the major problems faced by large groups - namely the lack of effectual participation by every member.  
   The mistake we could make, therefore, is to project the Watershed Association as the only and single body in the village which has to manage all activities and include all sectors including the poor and the women. (In a traditional society dominated by man, PIDOW considers the women an oppressed sector; separate groups have been formed with them.
   
   Several types of groups are required. The management patterns of these groups will obviously be different. It will depend on the activity undertaken and on the asset managed. A society managing milk has a typical management pattern which cannot be applied to one managing seed or money. A group of women will not function in the same cultural and physical climate as a group of men. The poor will have to form small, homogeneous groups to mobilise and control credit and other input needs. These groups will have to raise their own resources which could be supplemented by an outside agency through MYRADA. As their credit needs are basic and often the cause of building and sustaining a relationship of dependency and patronage we have focused on the mobilisation and management of credit by these small groups; moreover money is a basic need; a familiar commodity with which they deal daily. These groups however, have other functions as well. For example, to provide opportunities to each member to acquire the skills required to participate effectively.

3. Social Functionality : It is not enough if the group is small and homogeneous, it must also be socially functional, it must be able to function as a group. All the poor families in a watershed or village may form a homogeneous group but it may not be a functional one. It requires time, regular meetings, awareness generation education and action programmes to identify and build a socially functional group. It is possible that in a mini watershed, even if a group is not homogeneous it could still be functional; but great care is required to ensure effective participation and to create a culture and ideology where the poor are given priority. On the other hand to adopt a stand that the village or watershed is one, or must be organised as one group, because all are one community or can be motivated to become one, is a stand that is based on an ideology that requires too much effort directed to one village and often the continuing presence of an outside catalyst. Such an approach does not take into account the situation in the rural areas where self-interest groups even of the poor are emerging, and if the poor are not organised into functional groups which gives group power to all of them, those at the bottom will be even more oppressed.  
   
   There are a few other issues to be considered. What happens when the interest of the small groups of the poor clash with those of the large farmers who usually dominate the Watershed Management Association? This could well happen in the matter of wages - when fair wages are not paid to the poor. The strategy to cope with this situation falls within MYRADA's overall approach. This consists of the following stages :-

   • make the poor aware of their rights. 

   •  help them to organise into effective groups.

   •  provide them with the skills required to manage and maintain these groups.

   • provide them with opportunities to mobilise resource from other income generation activities.

   • help them to establish institutions which can provide them with basic credit needs including consumption needs through the credit management group concerned.

   • exert group pressure on vested interests - the group will work out a strategy of action.

   The poor must attain a degree of self sufficiency in order to obtain their social rights. For example, we have observed that if they are able to meet their consumption needs from their own resources (skills, small income generating schemes, group support) for seven to eight months in a year, then they are prepared to take risks which may lead to their losing jobs with the richer farmers.  

   Group pressure is an important factor together with a degree of self sufficiency and the ability to plan a strategy and implement it. To resort to violence in the initial stages will be counter- productive. Tension there will be and it should be fostered as well as managed; it is an essential element for growth; tension is creative, but for it to develop in this way requires a package of measures mentioned above; the process is not simple, it requires mature and fearless participation for all those involved, or else it will be used by a few to gain power for themselves.

   One worry however remains. Will the groups of the poor find support from the political system at the micro level namely at the Mandal and Zilla Parishad? This support is essential for their effective bargaining and success. The Zilla Parishad system has resulted in a decentralisation of power - a notable achievement; will it also help in giving the poor a better deal? We are told to wait - we will. But it must be understood that decentralisation of power and the removal of poverty are two separate (though at times inter-linked) objectives, which require differing strategies. The Zilla Parishads are dominated by the new middle class which has risen to power all over the country. This class speaks a different language, has different and often conflicting habits and minimum inter-relations and communication but it has common interests. The new middle class understands power at the micro level and uses it; it has no concern for programmes to protect and recreate the environment and forests which are essential components of watershed management. This class factor is a structural hurdle to efforts supporting the poor. It brings into the process once again the forces which obstruct the trickle down process and puts back the efforts taken to mount a `direct attack' on poverty.  

   The second structural hurdle is the situation of `scarce resources'; our resources are not adequate to cover all the needs and to meet the demands of all the groups in the system; as a result, choices have to be made, and these choices, given the power equations, will not be made in favour of the poor.

   This is the reality; the decentralised system of the Zilla Parishad needs to be balanced by the organisations of the poor in small homogeneous groups which are based on common interests. Where the interest of various groups coincide they can unite. This essential dimension of the political system can be introduced by committed, professional and innovative people who are willing to work with the people especially to help them build their institutions.

Chapter II

The second area where difficulties arise, is in the attempt to reconcile the demands for scientific development, management and utilisation of lands in the watershed based on topography, soil classification, land use etc., which may not synchronise with the emotions, needs, customs and practices of the people.  

During Phase I, PIDOW made efforts to reduce the speed and quantum of rain water run off from land within the watershed (particularly from highly sloping lands and lands on the upper reaches of the mini water- shed) by encouraging farmers to protect and restore them with :

1. Protective biological measures like tree and grass cover. Where the lands belonged to small farmers who were growing cereals and pulses, the problem arose of reconciling their daily need for food with the long term demands of managing the watershed which required the land to have tree cover including orchards. In the case of large farmers who had left their lands fallow, they would benefit by tree planting and protective measures undertaken by PIDOW which the poorer farmers and MYRADA would find difficult to accept.

2. Protective non-biological measures like bunds (field, contour, graded) gully plugs, gully checks and nalla bunds. Here too several conflicting situations arose as described below. In each case solutions were attempted, some of which have proved suitable and successful so far and others which do not as yet seem appropriate or acceptable.  

NOTE : Described below in Part II are the systems that have been developed and adopted by people (with varying degrees of success) to resolve conflicts; the processes underlying the emergence of these systems will be dealt with in another Rural Management Systems paper, though brief references are also made here. This paper takes a snapshot of the situation during January to June 1988 in the on-going process of creating mini- watershed management systems.

1> Soil and Water Conservation Measures :

1. BUNDS
   In the case of soil conservation bunds, two types of conflicts have so far arisen.

   1. Contour bunds vs. field bunds (ownership bunds):
      Here the conflicts arose, because upto now, there was a tradition of farmers fields being bunded by them along ownership boundaries and not along contours. Introduction of contour bunding would entail the super imposition of another structure amidst already existing field boundaries, thus creating the problems of carrying out cultural operations in plots of irregular shapes and sizes. Farmers prefer the age old practice of ploughing in square or rectangular plots and are reluctant to change.
      Attempts to Resolve and Results :
      In larger expanses of land and in degraded uncultivable waste holdings, farmers were more willing to have contour bunds. In small to medium plots and holdings, however, farmers wanted to continue with their ownership bunds.

   2. Boulder Bunds vs. Soil Bunds :
      In this the issue was the building of earthen bunds by the Government Soil and Water Conservation Department wherever bunds were supposed to be built, irrespective of the fact that in some places stones and boulders were available in abundance nearby, and in others, soil depth is minimal - 2-3 inches only. Farmers contested the Departments Policy on these grounds and also pointed out the loss of cultivable area in each field due to scraping off top soil for the purpose of bund construction. The Soil and Water Conservation Department on the other hand did not have a system of payment for boulder bunds. The official payment rate upto now was based on measuring the size of the excavated pit and the distance it was transported (quantity x distance).
      Attempts to Resolve and Results :
      The issue was resolved successfully after a series of discussions (initiated by PIDOW) between the farmers and the Soil and Water Conservation Department. The Department System has changed to a more acceptable approach of constructing bunds with whatever material is more readily available. A system of payment acceptable to Government was worked out during the discussions. In addition, experiments with live bunding with agave and vetiver and custard apple are being tried out in the hope that one more option would be available.

   Further the question of contour ploughing is still to be resolved. Contour ploughing to be effective requires to be highly precise. This our PIDOW experience shows is not possible due to several factors including the fact that the ploughing is done by bullocks on steep slopes. Faulty contour ploughing aggravates erosion by acting as channels which drain water into already existing gullys. Farmers prefer to follow their existing system of cross ploughing (along and across the slope) as this is said to conserve more moisture if not soil. These practices and the problem of contour ploughing are being studied and analysed with the communities, in order to gather more information on these aspects.