2. GULLY CHECKS AND GULLY PLUGS :
   Conflicts :
   Maintenance was a major issue; to desilt or not. When desilting was done who bears the cost of continued maintenance (for example - raising of the height of the gully plugs/checks from time to time). These issues of maintenance were not considered in usual Government programmes. The people on the other hand at first expected the Government to do the job.
   Attempts to Resolve and Results :
   Farmers were involved during siting of the gully checks/plugs and in their construction. It was possible to reach agreements in some watershed groups where by the farmer in whose field the gully checks/plugs falls is responsible for the maintenance and removal of silt after every monsoon. This practice is now spreading and has to be encouraged.

3. NULLA BUNDS :
   Conflicts-Objectives of the MWS Sangha vs. needs of the individual farmer on whose land the nulla bund is sited.

   • The issues of siting, benefits, compensation and the question of maintenance of these structures.

   • - The issues of cost, technology and appropriateness of design of nulla bund.

   In the I Phase of PIDOW, 5 nulla bunds were constructed as follows:-

   Bandankere Mini Watershed  Bhagwan Tanda Mini Watershed Wadigera Mini Watershed

   : 2 : 1 : 2

   Three sites - one in WGMWS and two in BKMWS belonged to big farmers. The remaining two sites - one in WGMWS and one in BTMWS belonged to small/marginal farmers. In all the 5 cases conflicts arose regarding location construction and maintenance of the nulla bund. None of the farmers were willing to give up a portion of his land for nulla bund construction and the accompanying inundation (pond).  

   Secondly, once the nulla bunds were constructed, questions arose as to who should desilt the pond and how this silt was to be shared. In all the 5 cases the conflict was resolved but in different ways as described below:  

   In case of the 3 nulla bunds which fell on sites belonging to big farmers (two in BKMWS and one in WGMWS) the mini watershed group was able to lobby with the farmers and obtain their consent in writing for constructing the nulla bund without compensation. The fourth site in WGMWS belonged to a small tribal farmer. He initially refused to give his consent for the construction of a nulla bund on his land. The WGMWS group had several discussions with the farmer and arrived at a suitable figure for compensation for the land which the farmer would lose. The group mobilised 50% of the amount from its own resources and requested PIDOW to provide the balance. In the case of the fifth site in BTMWS the MWS group worked out a compensation package of wherein each of its members would make a contribution of 5 kgs. of grain (Jowar) to compensate the farmer whose land was being inundated. The farmer however decided on his own that the silt he was harvesting was sufficient compensation. He used this silt to apply to his remaining land. In respect of actual construction of the nulla bunds upto now we have experiencedmtwo situations. In one (ex. Limbu Tanda) farmers have constructed nulla bunds by piling up boulders. This has taken place over generations and the result has been a substantial amount of soil harvesting leading to terrace formation, wherein rainfed paddy is grown every monsoon.

   The other situation is that of construction of nulla bunds under the normal Department programme. These involve inputs in the form of technology, cement, etc., which has to be brought in from outside. These are often costly ventures as the designs are based on situations other than those prevalent locally - including the fact that the communities that we are dealing with are marginal ones. This issue is under scrutiny with the idea of developing suitable low cost structures which can be built and managed by the people.

4. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENTS :
   This consists of vegetative cover of the upper reaches of the watershed by means of establishment of perennial vegetation (fodder grasses and legumes, shrubs and trees). To achieve this, a combination of measures have been initiated; the most notable one being natural regeneration of local species of trees and grasses. This was achieved through protection by means of stone walls, of blocks of degraded land and supplementing this effort by directly seeding different species of trees and grass and legume fodders and also by scattered planting of saplings of various tree species, in vacant spots in the protected area.
   The stone walls were constructed out of rubble and boulders available every where in vast quantities in the badly eroded PIDOW area.
   Conflicts :
   The need for scientific land use in integrated watershed development which required the restoration of perennial vegetation on the upper slopes come into conflict with the farmers needs, especially the marginal, who have lands on upper reaches, and need them for food grain production and grazing. 
   
   Arising out of this were the following issues.

1. FOOD PRODUCTION FOR SUBSISTANCE VS. REVEGETATION:
   i.e., when the land to be brought under revegetation belongs to SF & MF how does this need for revegetation reconcile with the farmers needs for food production.

2. INVESTMENT FOR THE HAVES
   i.e., when the land requiring treatment belongs to a big farmer, how do we justify the investment on his plot whether it is in terms of cash, kind, technical assistance, supervision and protection (either through watch and ward, fencing or organisation of a social fence).

3. SUPPORTING THE HAVENOTS
   i.e., how do the landless benefit from the programme?

4. GRAZING VS. REVEGETATION
   How do we reconcile the need for grazing and fuel gathering with the need for protection of the areas under the treatment (upper slopes).

5. PROTECTION
   Mechanical/Biological fencing vs. Social fencing.

Attempts to Resolve and Results
In the attempt to resolve the various conflicts that have been emerging in the  forestry programme, a number of solutions/measures ideas have emerged. Some of these can be adopted straight away, others need to be developed still further, with the active involvement of the community. In this note we first address the conflicts that have emerged, in the context of revegetation of the upper slopes, whether through protection (natural regeneration block plantation) or direct seeding. In the case of situation 1, farmers are not averse to switching over to tree farming or horticulture on the upper slopes provided the conversion is done in stages, by alley planting with various tree species in rows 6 metres apart to start with gradually filling up the gaps as the earlier trees start giving returns. Returns, as our experience shows is possible as early as from the 3rd year itself through plantation of Zizypus SP (Ber) and Acacia Holosericea and can be planned in such a way as to be cumulative over the years (depending on the species), one more measure that is being advocated is that such farmers also should be supported in terms of subsidised input and maintenance cost to some extent. This compensation has been worked out on the basis of a number of surviving plants each year upto the 5th year and is given in the form of seeds and fertilisers which he can use on his remaining land - thus maintaining production at the original level.

Introduction of a form of "Perma culture" which encourages Zero till age, is yet another idea that is being tried out. In situation 2, the land belonged to big farmers in 3 out of 4 cases. Investment for protective fencing of these big farmers plots was carried out after the Watershed Management Associations obtained agreements under which the beneficiaries would be eligible for forestry inputs provided they undertook to share 1/3rd of their produce with the associations. Thus this agreement made it possible for the landless and other weaker sections to gain access to some of the returns. As these were the first agreements, they were difficult to negotiate. The Watershed Committees now feel that the owners of the lands especially if they are large farmers should agree to hand over 50% to 75% of the produce; future agreements will try to obtain these proportions. In one case, 90 acres of the upper reaches constituting 25% of the watershed area; which were left fallow, were marked for revegetation; the land belonged to a single farmer. In this case apart from the above mentioned agreement the MWS Association also negotiated the following :-

1. He should pay 1/3rd of the cost of the treatment.

2. He should part with 2-3 acres of land from his plot, which would then be redistributed to the 2 landless families within the sanghas.

At present this still is under negotiation and afforestation work has stopped on this farmer's field. Apart from this PIDOW has succeeded in promoting a process wherein individual property resources in all the watersheds have become atleast in part common property resources of the community sangha.

In case 3, the question of how the landless benefit is answered in part by what is mentioned above, i.e., access of landless to common resources/assets. For example, in WGMWS, the 2 landless families within the association were benefitted by the sanctioning of the loans from the MWS Associations common fund. They were helped in starting a laundry and a petty shop respectively. In another case in BTMWS, 8 landless were allowed to harvest and sell a portion of the fodder they grew in the protected area. In yet another case the rights of usufruct of the fruit bearing trees like mango and tamarind have been given to 11 landless families. Though in the short term, all landless families have benefitted from employment in the revegetation programme, in the long run, it is felt that the rights to minor forest produce such as some fodder, fruits, honey, etc., could provide them with some measure of economic stability.

In the case of 4, the question of grazing and fuel gathering rights being affected is addressed. Grazing has not yet become a major problem as the extent of land that has been taken out of grazing use is still not significant. Only one case in BTMWS where the land belonged to 13 families, did they feel that their grazing rights and availability of fodder grasses.

They repeatedly broke the protective stone wall to assert their rights. They were gradually made aware that indeed there was no real threat to their grazing rights. In fact they realised that they would benefit more from the programme by co-operating in the protection of this block of land, than by not. Protection of this plot, re-seeded with grasses and legumes (cenchrus and styloganthus) would greatly enhance the availability of fodder, which could be cut and fed, rather than grazed. Apart from serving the purpose of protection of the upper slopes, a greater quantity of fodder would become available to all, as the BTMWS group had decided on an equal sharing basis.

However, the pressure on grazing lands will increase as the forestry programme gains momentum. In anticipation of this situation several measures are being taken up simultaneously.

1. Augmenting the availability and supply of fodder in the existing grazing grounds (including road sides) by re- seeding with rainfed varieties of grasses and legumes (suitable to Gulbarga conditions).

2. Advocating grass harvesting and stall feeding rather than grazing directly.

3. Advocating rotational grazing.

4. Encouraging the use of indigenous long stalked varieties of sorghum (the major crop in the area) which also yield more fodder.

5. Advocating reduction in the number of animals, to an optimum level-based on the carrying capacity of the watersheds.

In the case of fuel requirements, the alternatives being promoted are community woodlots of Prosopis Juliflora on the banks of the nullas and other sites which are lying unutilised.

Protection
In respect of protection of areas earmarked for revegetation several measures were tried. The most effective so far has been the protective stone wall. This has created confidence among the people who now feel that it is indeed possible to regenerate degraded areas in this way. There are signs also of communities who are prepared to take initiatives in this programme (Limbu) and bear a portion of the cost.

 In PIDOW's experience in regard to social fencing we have found that so far it has not been possible due to complex reasons beyond our capacity at this point of time to solve. One attempt again at Limbu has been interesting though the results would have to be observed carefully. In this case, the Limbu watershed community has dedicated a block of 70 acres to their Deity and have been helped to build a temple to the same.

All these measures involved constant contact, and discussion with the people and among the people themselves in order that alternate, appropriate improved and sustainable systems may develop.

 No definite approaches have emerged as yet to the resolution of these conflicts. However, we see a few possibilities which would have to be tested and tried out before they can become recommended approaches. Further a solution that works in one watershed may not work in another given the differences in social configuration, leadership, community organisers, land holdings, etc., and so we continue in our search for answers.