Undated, 1986

INTRODUCTION :
From the reactions of the PIDOW Team and the members of the Watershed Associations to the workshop and paper on Credit Management Groups, it is clear that there are difficulties in reconciling some aspects of the watershed approach with the underlying principles of community participation as practiced by MYRADA. For example :

1. How do we reconcile three major features of our Sanghas (Credit ManagementGroups) namely small, homogeneous and socially functional - with the area development approach which characterises a watershed programme and which requires Watershed Management Associations which are often:

   1.   large, making full participation of all members difficult. Further, in large groups, the tendency to elect representatives to do the work usually prevails. A representative body clings on to power and further inhibits effective participation of all the members.

   2. heterogeneous, where issues of injustice cannot be tackled. For, example, when unjust wages are paid to the poor, how can this issue be solved within a heterogeneous association which includes both the poor and their employers? 

   3.  and flowing from the above characteristics, the association is mainly socially non-functional ; - large, heterogeneous groups do not operate effectively to meet the needs of all members. These issues will be discussed in Chapter I.

2. The second area where difficulties arise is in the effort to reconcile the demands for utilising lands in the watershed according to the topography with the needs of the people. For example, marginal farmers who own lands which are on slopes where agricultural practices result in heavy erosion or on lands on the upper reaches of the watershed which should have tree cover may want to continue cultivating these areas to meet their food requirements rather than opt for horticulture or forestry which would help stabilise the upper reaches of the watershed, but where returns, if at all, are only in the long term. There are several other areas where similar conflicts have arisen which will be described under Chapter II.

   We are seriously concerned with resolving these issues, not only to develop a replicable strategy for micro watershed development but also because the Mission,of MYRADA which is focussed on the poor may clash with the objectives of the watershed approach where all the farmers (big and small) directly benefit in some programmes like land development measures as well as in land use; for, example, if a large farmer's land on the upper reaches is not cultivated and the watershed plan requires that this area be provided with tree cover, it is obvious that the value of the land will increase if trees are planted and protected by the people of this land.  

   Can we see our way through these and other emerging incompatibilities in our community organisation strategy under PIDOW ?

CHAPTER I

The Credit Management Group concept which is the core of the Sangha as a rural management institution has been explained in an earlier paper (Rural Management Systems - Paper 3). After two years of field experiences, reflection, and analysis of the behaviour patterns of these groups we have identified certain basic structural features which are required for a group to be socially functional and effective. Three of these features are:

1. the size of the group (it must be small).

2. Composition - (it must be homogeneous i.e. not a mix of people whose basic needs and interests conflict with one another's) and  

3. it must be socially functional, namely, it must work as a group; all poor families are not necessarily able to or willing to work together because they are poor; the same is true for tribals; there are often 2 or 3 socially functional groups in one tribal village.

In Rural Management Systems Paper-6 (`P' in PIDOW) these issues have been dealt with in the context of the Watershed Associations in the Gulbarga PIDOW project (Participative Integrated Development of Watersheds). The initial process involved in forming appropriate groups in the mini watersheds has been described. These issues were urgent and were discussed in a workshop held with the staff and people's representativesin Gulbarga; the findings of the workshop have been incorporated in the Rural Management Systems: Paper-6 and need not be repeated here. There are certain concepts, however, which we feel need to be reflected on further. PART I will deal with these concepts.

1. Size of a Group :A group larger than 30 members even in a mini watershed, finds it difficult to function. True there may be a few groups which are homogeneous and where the members are aware of their responsibilities, but in general, participation of each member in such groups is inhibited. Most members are shy or diffident and can talk and function only in small groups. This is a feature that is common in all our seminars or workshops where ten to twelve is the maximum number allowed in a group. Where a group meets not only to discuss issues but to mobilise, manage and monitor common resources, it is even more imperative for every member to participate and to do so effectively, which means, not just being physically present; the dynamics of the group's functioning should encourage each and every member to talk and decide without inhibition or fear. In a larger group this is difficult if not impossible. Size is therefore a structural feature which has to be given importance.


The Watershed Management Association, on the other hand tends to be large -, structurally - because a micro watershed in Gulbarga covers a village and often a neighbouring Tanda (tribal settlement) as well as families not living in the watershed but who have lands in it. The size of a group therefore ranges from 50 to 90 families. The Association must include all the members living in the watershed (with or without lands) as well as those with lands in the watershed but staying outside the watershed area. All the members living in the watershed (with or without lands) have to be involved in managing lands which includes lands under agriculture, grazing, trees, uncultivated lands, homestead plots, village public spaces, roads and drains, gullys and ravines, rocky patches and tanks. Those who are landless also have to be members of the Watershed Management Association since they are usually poor and depend on the resources of the watershed for their livelihood; by resources we mean trees, shrubs, grasses, leaves, dung dropped outside the cattle shed, farm waste and raw materials where and when available, . It is clear that the poor use every resource which they findavailable in the watershed; very little of the product goes waste; this is a feature which we find in our cities as well, where the collection from garbage bins and dumps sustains a large economy; glass and paper are reprocessed and metal  reshaped into usual items. This is also true of the poor in a watershed; the only difference is that they use natural resources rather than manufactured. Use of such resources however, has an impact on the ecology. Grasses are dug out exposing the soils, leaves and farm waste are not available for humus, dung is burnt, fallow areas are overgrazed, shrubs uprooted leading to soil erosion. Coupled with this use of resources is a situation where the poor are paid unjust wages which in turn forces them to exploit even more the natural resources of the watershed in order to survive.
The Watershed Management Association must therefore include, all who live in the watershed with lands and landless as well as those living outside who have lands in the watershed in order to manage land, water and other common resources. However, it is important to limit the roles and responsibilities of these large Watershed Management Association to certain activities; they cannot, unlike the Sanghas, be expected to undertake all the activities required to meet all needs of all members.
The Watershed Management Associations in Gulbarga have undertaken several responsibilities; they have acquired the land required for check dams or gully plugs; they have taken on contract the construction of contour bunds and the labour for stone works so that the profit is ploughed back to the Association; they have entered into agreements with large farmers who leave their lands uncultivated to plant trees on these lands (especially where these lands are on the high reaches and are overgrazed or where grasses are removed which adds to erosion lower down. These agreements enable both the owner and the community to benefit from trees or grasses that grow on the land as a result of protective measures); they have lobbied with Government for facilities like schools, health, roads, drinking water, veterinary care etc. The Association therefore decides on the proper utilisation and management of lands, water and other common resources in the watershed. They could, in the long run, provide the daily needs of families cultivating on upper reaches of the watershed who opt to put the lands under horticulture or fuel and fodder trees; but this is in the long term and perhaps idealistic, we may be allowed to have a few privileges - dreams are not yet a taxable commodity.  
All these responsibilities can be handled by the Watershed Management Association even though it is large, provided adequate education and motivation is provided and certain steps taken to ensure that power does not accumulate in the hands of a few. Its size, infact gives it power to lobby with and pressurise Government agencies and people holding political office. The steps required to ensure participation of all have been described in Rural Management Systems Paper 5.