PART I 

To assess the degree of peoples' participation in the programmes implemented over the past 18 months after the focus shifted to the mini watershed, the members of the workshop addressed themselves to the following queries :

1. Did the people understand why the programmes were taken up?

2. Did they participate in deciding what kind of programmes should be implemented?

3. Did they participate in deciding where these programmes should be implemented?

4. Did they participate in deciding how many programmes should be implemented?

5. Did they participate in deciding how these programmes should be implemented?

6. Did the people know the estimate/cost of the structures; if so, did they feel free to accept, change or reject them, of call for tenders?

7. Were they involved in implementing the programme? h. Are they managing and maintaining the resources and assets created.

 It must be mentioned that all these questions which in a way lead to an ideal pattern of peoples' participation were not raised in 1986 and 1987; some were and others emerged from reflections on experiences during this period.

 Due to pressure on time, the group decided to reflect only on programmes in two major areas, namely :

• Soil and Water Conservation,

• Forestry and Horticulture

In both these programmes Government Departments had a major role to play; this was part of the PIDOW agreement.

A. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES : The programmes selected were nala bunds, field/contour bunds and gully checks. 

1. Did the people understand why these programmes were being taken up?
   
   It was agreed that most of the people in the MWSs had a good understanding of the need for these programmes, mainly because these programmes were not new to the area. Nala bunds and gully checks had been constructed in the nearby areas. However, the people were not motivated enough to draw or make a rough model of their watershed in order to see how the various aspects were inter-related.

2. Did the people participate in deciding what kind of nala bunds, field/contour bunds and gully checks should be taken up?
   
   Other than in one MWS, where the people influenced the Government to change the field bunds from earthen bunds to boulder bunds since boulders were available in plenty in the surrounding area, the peoples' participation has been low. In one MWS, earthen bunds have been constructed, though in the fields there are plenty of boulders which could have been used. The Government's main problem in encouraging boulder bunds wherever feasible is the absence of a system for paying wages for boulder bunds, yet when left to the people, they worked out a system themselves.

3. Did the people participate in deciding how many bunds, checks should be made and the extent of land which should be bunded?
   
    In the I Phase the Government demarcated the MWS, drew up land- ownership and land use maps along with details of alternative land use. It also decided how many structures were necessary for conserving water and soil. It was not clear whether these plans made under PIDOW were based on a total and comprehensive plan for a watershed and the requirements for conserving soil and water or on a project by project approach. For eg: in one watershed the Government proposed to put in 45 gully checks under PIDOW, while a survey revealed that totally over 100 gully checks have been constructed under various projects. A total plan of the mini watershed is required which the people should be involved in developing and implementing.

4. Did the people participate in deciding where the nala bunds, contour bunds and gully checks should be established?
   
    Largely the answer was yes. The fact that most of the bunds are along ownership boundaries and not along contours is one proof of this. Whether this should be the case will be discussed in the soil and water conservation policy paper. But more exciting is how the peoples' groups lobbied with its members when the site for constructing nala-bunds was owned by one or two of its members. In Wadigera MWS for example, two nala-bunds have been constructed. The site of one nala-bund belonged to a farmer from Banjara colony; a hamlet 2 kms. away from Wadigera village. He initially refused to give consent for constructing the nala-bund on his land. The Wadigera MWS group had several discussions with the farmer and arrived at a suitable figure for compensation for the land which the farmer had to forego. It mobilised 50% of the amount from its own resources and requested MYRADA/SDC to provide financial support for the rest. The site for the second nala-bund was privately owned; the Wadigera group obtained the content of this farmer without any compensation.
   
    In Bhagwan Thanda one nala-bund was constructed. The land belonged to a small farmer owning 2.5 acres of land. Initially the person refused to give consent for constructing a nala- bund; repeated discussions between the group and the farmer led to an innovative system of compensation. The group members decided to give 200 kgs of Jowar every season to the farmer.

5. Did the people participate in deciding how the nala-bunds and gully checks should be constructed?
   
   The Government Departments decided on :
   
   

   • What material was to be used, where it was to be purchased and from whom (though there was an exception as mentioned earlier). 

   • The structural design of these nala-bunds and gully checks.

   • the wages to be paid.

   • The mode of construction; either through contractors or by direct supervision.
     

   It is true that in some areas like structural design, the people do not have adequate expertise; but they should be allowed to call on such expertise from other sources.

6. Were the people aware of the estimate/cost of these structures? If they were, did they feel free to change them.  
   
   The short answer is no. The estimate/cost was not made known to the people. The group felt that not only should these estimates have been made public, but the people should be free to decide whether the cost could be cut down and how; they should be able to call for tenders.

7. Did the people participate in the management of operation? The various operations 
   

   • marking the layout;

   • purchasing and managing materials whenever contractors were not involved in the construction;

   • organising and managing labour where labour contractors are not involved in the construction;

   • managing contractors whenever they are involved;

   • monitoring the achievements quantitatively and qualitatively.  

   The people participated chiefly by providing labour and in one instance in providing and managing labour. While in Wadigera, Bandanakere and Harjee the people provided labour to a contractor, in Bhagwan Thanda the men and womens' group came together and took up the labour contract for construction of nala-bunds. In Bandankera MWS, inspite of the fact that the market rate for wages was higher than the Government's wage rate, the people opted to work of the construction of soil and water conservation structures in their own mini watershed. In all the MWSs the involvement of the people in constructing the structures led to the increase in the financial resource base of the groups in the MWSs. In all the MWSs the people contributed part of their wages to the group fund. The highest contribution was in Harjee MWS where the people decided to contribute 20% of their earnings to the group fund. These were the positive features. On the other hand the peoples' participation in management of all the other operations was low. In the 3 mini-watersheds the associations have recovered over 90% of loans provided for agriculture; this amount has gone into the common fund of the groups.
   
     Though given by SDC/Government as a grant, the groups decided to convert it into a loan.

8. Are the people participating in the maintenance of nala-bunds, gully checks and contour bunds?  
   
   - In the case of nala-bunds the farmer(s) who contributed the land or whose land was adjacent remove the silt periodically at their own cost and apply it to their fields. - With regard to gully checks a detailed survey needs to be carried out to clarify how many gully checks have been constructed, how many are functional, and why and how were they repaired etc. In Harji MWS the people utilised their own resources to repair some of the gully checks which were damaged. - With regard to contour/field bunds, a survey is required to assess how far the people are participating in the maintenance of these bunds; it is however too early to arrive at an assessment.  
   
   To summarise; with regard to the soil and water conservation programmes the group agreed that :
   

   • People have a good understanding of why nala-bunds, contour bunds and gully checks were essential; but need to develop a better understanding of how the soil and water conservation structures fit into the overall approach to watershed development.

   • People's participation in deciding what soil and water conservation structures need to be taken up and how they should be implemented needs to be strengthened.

   • People's participation of operations involved in construction of nala-bunds, contour bunds and gully checks needs to increase. iv. It is too early to assess people's participation in maintenance of assets which have been created.

 B. FORESTRY AND HORTICULTURE :
The group proceeded to assess the degree of people's participation in forestry based programmes. The projects discussed were, block plantations, agro-forestry, natural regeneration and avenue planting. The same questions raised to assess the people's participation in soil and water conservation programme served to guide the reflection. A summary of the conclusions is given below:

1. The group felt that people need to develop a better understanding of why the forestry and horticulture based projects are being taken up. To many it is a source of fuel/fodder. But only a few have understood the importance of forestry and horticulture programmes for protecting the upper reaches, slopes and wastelands of the MWSs.

2. People's participation in deciding on whose lands the programmes should be taken up varied. In some MWS the families came forward to take up agro-forestry; while in others, MYRADA staff selected the families who owned lands which required treatment but later motivated the group to get involved in the programme. For eg. MYRADA selected the area for block plantation in BhagwanTanda; the criteria, for choice of the area were that land was on the upper reaches, that it was lying unused and that it was over-grazed and eroded. This land however, was owned privately; the Bhagwantanda group later entered into a dialogue with the farmer to work out contribution of the income to group funds and to discuss the mode of sharing of employment which will be generated between the members. The forest Department's policy not to take up block plantations on private lands in watersheds in the future even if they are located in vulnerable areas and are lying barren will have to be reconsidered or alternate arrangements will have to be made.

3. The degree of people's participation in deciding what trees to plant under the forestry and horticulture projects was high in the case of agro-forestry/ horticulture and bund-planting projects but needs to be strengthened in the case of block plantations and avenue plantations where the decisions were taken largely by the Forest Department.

4. The degree of people's participation in deciding how the programmes should be implemented and in the actual management of operations was good in the case of agro- forestry/horticulture and bund-planting but low in the case of block plantation where decisions were taken by MYRADA or the Forest Department. Thus for example, though boulders were available in plenty in Wadigera MWS, the saplings under avenue plantation were protected by wooden guards according to the policy of the forest department.

5. The degree of people's participation in maintenance was average to high in the case of agro-forestry, horticulture, bund planting and avenue planting. The Wadigera, Bandankere and Kalamandargi Associations appointed a person for watering and weeding of avenue plantations and paid him/her from the resources raised by these groups. On the other hand the natural regeneration project is poorly maintained by the Wadigera group. In two MWSs where block plantation Projects have been taken up, the participation of the people in maintenance needs to improve.

Conclusion (PART I)
Recommendations to strengthen participation of the people in planning, implementing and monitoring activities in a watershed:

1. An approach on the need to reverse the trend towards ecological imbalance in MWS needs to be evolved with the people through discussion, meetings, exposures, participative action programmes and visuals.

2. People need to develop appropriate institutions which will foster effective participation of the people in the development of MWSs. What we mean by "effective participation" and "appropriate participation" and "appropriate institutions" in the content of PIDOW are dealt with in detail in Parts - III and IV.

3. These institutions should be encouraged to develop a model for watershed management using locally available resources to depict their vision and plan for the development of their MWS. This plan would be discussed by these peoples institutions with the relevant Government Departments, MYRADA and others and modified where required; thus a MWS plan would emerge which the people can relate to and manage.

4. Ideally, the group should be given the administrative and financial backing to : i. Actually evolve their plans. ii. Decide how to execute the MWS plan evolved by themselves. They may decide : - Whether to go in for Labour contract or not. - Who should be the beneficiaries of various projects. - To whom to give the contract. - Whether the financial support should be a grant or loan or a mixture of both and should it vary depending on the economic status of the family. iii. Evolve and implement systems to maintain the created assets of the MWS. This pattern will take time to develop; to begin with the three partners need to gain confidence in this new approach. But, what is immediately possible is to evolve systems where no project in MWS is planned or executed without the participation and sanction of the people's institutions in the MWSs.