People’s Action

for Watershed

Development Initiative

Rajasthan, India

Project Report

Participatory Development

Submitted By: Rashid Abdullah – 19323 Raja Shoaib Akbar – 19608 Azhar Ali – 19345 Ali Abbas – 15693 Ch. Ibrar Sahi – 19764 Anis-ur-Rehman – 19468

Submitted To: Miss Aleezay Khaliq

1 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

Contents

1. Acronyms ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

2. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3

3. Background ......................................................................................................................... 6

4. Local Partners ..................................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Sahyog Sansthan: ............................................................................................................. 7

4.2 Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS) ................................................................................................. 7

5. Project Details ..................................................................................................................... 8

6. Achievement despite failure (Lessons Learnt) ................................................................... 9

7. Conclusion: ....................................................................................................................... 10

8. References ........................................................................................................................ 11

2 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

Acronyms

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

TBS Tarun Bharat Sangh

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

PAWDI People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative

GoR Government of Rajasthan

DWD&SC Department of Watershed Development and Soil Conservation

GOs Governmental organizations

RTI Right to Information

3 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

1. Executive Summary

Soil and water management or watershed development is very critical for sustainable rural

livelihoods in semi-arid and arid areas of India, where agriculture is heavily relaying on

rainfall and the means of protected irrigation are severely limited.

In Rajasthan, the driest and the largest province of India, the inhabitants have, over the

centuries, devised several mechanisms to tackle the problem of water scarcity for survival

The state, both in colonial and post-colonial times, has also focused on ensuring the

availability of water for irrigation in dry lands. The initial thrust of the Indian state (as well as

various provincial governments) in the first three decades after independence was on

achieving food self-sufficiency through dissemination of green revolution technology, and

construction of big dams, canals and major irrigation projects. While farming became quite a

profitable business in some parts of India (mostly in Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar

Pradesh– which was the green revolution belt), the majority of peasants in rained areas (e.g.

most parts of Rajasthan) continued to practice subsistence farming in order to make ends

meet.

Having achieved the goal of food self-sufficiency during the 1980s, the new thrust of the

agricultural and rural development machinery in India was to incorporate rainfed areas into

the national mission of increasing agricultural productivity, and tofind relatively long-term

results to the problems of crop failures and droughts. A massive watershed development

project, called the National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas was

launched by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India to increase agricultural

productivity in rainfed areas, including Rajasthan. Around the same time, international

development specialists and consultants also argued for strengthening of water and soil

conservation activities in arid and semi-arid regions across the world. The World Bank

decided to fund water and soil conservation projects in Rajasthan and some other states in

India in the early 1990s. Many international development and donor agencies, such as the

Ford Foundation and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) also

decided to sponsor similar projects in rainfed regions of India. Apart from these, several

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and grassroots organizations, such as the Tarun

4 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

Bharat Sangh (TBS) in Rajasthan, working close to village communities, started realizing the

significance of common resources like rainwater, fodder and fuel-wood, particularly for the

poorer people in arid regions.

People’s participation and local control of natural resources were the key elements in their

strategies for rural development and they began to initiate rainwater harvesting and water

conservation programs. In the process they also attracted funding from international donors

for scaling up their efforts. As such, watershed development emerged as a new site and

mode of the operation of multiple development agencies, joining together, by the 1990s.

Based on this experiment and policy that had taken place, there were three significant shifts

in developmentpractice in the early1990s.

1- First, the state has gradually lost its position as the leading agent of development

prompting a significant expansion in the role of non-state actors in rural

development.

2- Second, there has been a rise in concern for sustainability, participation,

partnerships and decentralized management of natural resources like water or

grasslands

3- Third, investments of money and resources by the state and non-state actors in

rainfed regions of India have increased in the wake of limits to further increase in

agricultural productivity of irrigated lands, and deliberate efforts (especially on the

part of the Indian state) to reduce regional disparities in the post green revolution

period.

These important changes have designed the politics of development in rural regions of

India, as they have in large parts of the developing world where the majority of populations

are dependent on rainfed agriculture for survival and livelihoods. Besides, bringing in large

amount of money and resources from varied sources (foreign donors, national and

provincial governments, private humanitarian organizations and firms etc.) to the

countryside, they changed (created new or modified existing) institutional forms and

practices for the governance (control and management) of common property resources,

5 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

such as village pastures, community forests, or watershed drainages, which are all very

crucial for the daily sustenance of village residents.

All of these changes have also led to the expansion of a network of development actors or

agents–the national, provincial and local governments in India, international, national and

local NGOs, international development agencies and donors, research organizations,

development consultants, and academics–whose common concern is securing the

availability of water, fodder and wood-fuel in rainfed areas.

The prime objective for the Ministry of Agriculture (of the Government of India) is an increase in the

crop yield and productivity of rainfed areas, and for the Ministry of Rural Development, it is

tackling rural poverty in dry lands by generating wage employment opportunities. For

international agencies (like the World Bank), ‘sustainable development’ of environmentally

fragile regions is the main motive to sponsor watershed projects, but for certain grassroots

and activist organizations, people’s control over local resources is the driving force for

supporting such programs. Nevertheless, the international development organizations has

(since the early 1990s) increasingly focused on promoting partnerships between state

agencies and NGOs with the expectation that such partnerships would be able to capitalize

on the relative strengths of the different partners. For example, the state agencies are likely

to have technical expertise or human resources and the grassroots organizations could help

with mobilizing communities for collective action. Moreover, the earlier watershed projects

sponsored and implemented by the state agencies in different parts of India were criticized

for lack of people’s participation.Arguably, in spite of diverse agendas and interests of

multiple agencies in the watershed development arena, there was complex assembling of

different actors in the form of partnerships in the 1990s.

Effective management of natural resources in economically fragile regions has remained a

major concern for international development donors, project implementing agencies as well

as for resource-dependent communities. It is suggested that multi-agency partnerships

involving various stakeholders (donors, governmental agencies, non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), etc.) could ensure better management of common property

resources, such as water, pastures or forests. This is important in dryland regions like

Rajasthan in India where the majority of agriculture is rain-fed and the development of

watersheds is crucial for the livelihoods of smallholders. This article presents a critical

6 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

analysis of multiagency partnership in a participatory watershed development project

implemented in the late 1990s in rural Rajasthan.

2. Background

In late 1980, the community participation approach was introduced by Robert Chamber who

is considered leading advocate of poor, deprived, and marginalized people’s participation in

the processes of development policies. This approach of participation is equally accepted by

both school of thought (pro-capitalist theorists and pro-communal/socialist theorists).

Under this participatory approach R. Chambers designed various methodsand tools.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) which includes various tools like transect walks,

seasonal calendar and social mapping to ensure the community participation in

development efforts. Chambers approach brought astandard shift from development

studies and practices to more people oriented and bottom-up approach. This report is

based on a case study of the project titled “People’s Action for Watershed Development

Initiative (PAWDI) which was implemented in Rajasthan, India in late 1990.

This case study report also reflects that there is a gradual change in the behavior of the

state attitude by involving the non-state actors and local community in the rural

development especially in watershed management of natural resources. Similarly, the

government policies look influenced and this project is addressing the sustainability,

participation, partnership and decentralized management of natural resources like water or

pasture land, within academic policy circle. (S. Gupta, 2014).

Another important aspect which is also covered and is very much related to the

participatory developments is about the strengths and weaknesses of the state and non-

state actors. It is common perception that state institutions of India are technically strong

but their performance in the participatory work is very weak. While in the case of non-state

actors (NGOs), comparatively they have less technical expertise but are very strong in the

social mobilization and participatory development at the gross root level. They can easily

establish good working relations with the local communities to implement the development

projects. Similarly state actor seems very comfortable to work under in the top-down

approach where there is a clear line of accountability and responsibility. Indeed, the non-

7 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

state actors (e.g. civil society & community groups) look more comfortable in the bottom-up

approach and participatory mode of working. Despite of all challenges, the public-private

partnership is becoming an integral part of the development projects to build the trust of

community, non-state actors over government institutional and to make the utilization of

government resources more efficient and reduce the burden of repair and maintenance cost

over the shoulder of state budget.

People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative (PAWDI) was the project, jointly

funded by Government of Rajasthan (GoR) and Swedish Development Council (SDC) in the

late 1990s. It was executed by Department of Watershed Development and Soil

Conservation (DWD&SC) and two local NGOs, namely Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS) and Sahyog

Sansthan in two districts (Alwar & Chittogarh) in Rajasthan.

3. Local Partners

The brief details of the two important stakeholders of the project are given just to explain

that what these local organizations do.

4.1 Sahyog Sansthan:

Sahyog Sansthan is a registered voluntary organization based in northwestern India working

with marginalized groups in the fields of community education, organization, and

development. Our philosophy is that social and economic transformation of the poorest

sectors of society is possible through their own initiatives and leadership. Sahyog works to

provide support for people to realize these opportunities through self-help groups, human

resources development, and natural resources management.

4.2 Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS)

People’s participation is a prerequisite for any developmental activity. TBS does not

undertake any activity unless the villagers agree to contribute maximum resources in term

of voluntary labor. The villager’s involvement gives them a sense of ownership and ensures

further continuance of the process.

8 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

An important factor inspiring villagers to participate actively in the process is the revival of

their traditional water system, with which most of them are familiar. The role of TBS is that

of a catalyst and motivator.

Beginning from the organization’s origination TBS believe that for development process, it

needs to develop an excellent cell of human resource for grassroots work. TBS’s in-house

educated and actuated personnel boost livelihoods at the grassroots level. They work on an

ever-expanding scale in sectors as diverse as agriculture, natural resource management,

health, and women empowerment, each of them playing a key role in TBS’s grassroots

development programs and expansive outreach.

TBS undertakes self-evaluation exercises. While meetings are held every month, emergency

meeting can called any time. Here too, one of its main foci is on motivating people. It stresses

a great deal on professional way of doing things but with a humane approach.

The members of TBS are scattered in the field leading simple life with the villagers, so that

they are one with them in their day to day problems and help them in finding indigenous

solutions.

4. Project Details

The targeted project was broadly focused on the relationship of multi-agencies toward the

achievement of project objectives and it gives a least focus on the community participation

in implementation of the project which is against the participatory approach. The projects

become a source of inter-conflict among agencies for the sake of dominance over project

resources instead of mutual coordination toward participatory development. Secondly,

another big issue was, there had been frequent reshuffling or transfer & postings of the

government officers, once a structure was finalized and officials were capacitated and

trained them and later they were transferred to other projects and departments which

hampered the project badly. In most of the cases, officers who were involved in planning,

designing phase of the multi-agency development project, they were found absent during

implementation or closing phase of the project due to their reshuffling or transfers. A new

officer cannot develop same sort of ownership, that senior colleagues usually attain as an

initiators, and they probably cannot be well verse about working mechanisms and could not

understand the project strategy, due to late joining in the middle or end. They were

9 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

reluctant to cooperate or to accept the responsibility of the shared work. The funds were

badly managed and most of the funds were miss used due to the massive corruption, people

could not question NGOs, government departments about the project funds as there had

been no legislation in its support, In this way the multi agency partnership project failed

badly. There was mistrust among different departments involved in the implementation.

However, this led to a great discourse in India and on the basis of this failure; certainly the

lack of participation of the community in development project turned into a revolutionary

campaign, where people started asking questions about their tax money and its utilization

and under this immense pressure, Government initiated some legislative measures that

were important to for better governance.

This failure also reflects that even a failed project most of time lead toward positive

initiatives and changes. Particularly in the case of PAWDI, where corruption and

misappropriation of project funds’ were very common, this project contributed to introduce

new laws such as “Right to Information” in India to ensure the transparency and

accountability of public funds.

5. Achievement despite failure (Lessons Learnt)

The biggest achievement that citizens gained from this failure is RTI law, now citizens could

seek information from private sector organizations, NGOs and government departments.

It was an innovative watershed development project in Rajasthan which was based on the

notion of synergy, using the comparative advantages of governmental organizations (GOs)

and NGOs. The project was titled People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative

(PAWDI), implemented in the late 1990s. The main partners in this case were Rajasthan’s

Department of Watershed Development and Soil Conservation (DWD&SC), two local NGOs

and the SDC. The project was a failure for it was abandoned halfway but it offered, in result,

important lessons for both policy-makers and implementing agencies interested in

participatory natural resources management. The new environment of rural development

marked by rights-based legislations which directs the transfer of benefits to the poor does

not require agencies to be active collaborators to hold each other accountable. While the

issues of accountability and corruption can now be dealt with in the framework of these

10 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

enabling legislations, some fundamental issues pertinent to the functioning of GO–NGO

partnerships, such as differences in work culture, ideology, value, priorities and agendas of

the implementing partners have not been thought through enough by the policy-makers in

India. These issues are crucial for the operational purposes and effective delivery of

developmental projects involving multi-agency partnerships. In fact, the discourse of state–

NGO partnerships in the Indian context has solidified since the 1990s and policy-makers

have preferred to turn a blind eye to on ground realities.

6. Conclusion:

The participatory approach could not be implemented in the true spirit in the PAWDI

project. The government agencies tried to adopt the traditional concept of mainstream

development (Top-Down approach), while donor agencies focused on participatory and

partnership mode. This situation created an environment of conflict instead of cooperation

among different stakeholders. In such situation, there was the need to have proper

legislation and enactment of law. That is why; both state and non-state actors look reluctant

to work with each other. In this project, DWD&SC engineers were not interested to involve

NGOs in development activities and vice versa. The selection of the NGOs was done without

assessing their past performance in the context of such joint working relationship.

The results of the case study illustrate that good institutional form does not mean a good

institutional performance. It was a real challenge to work as team when different agencies

like donor, state institutions and NGOs workers belonged to different social worlds and class

groups were involved in design and implementation, therefore, it was really difficult to stay

together on same page and wavelength. The donor expectations were also unrealistic and

against the ground realities which lead to failure, which was trying to achieve the project

objectives by involving the community and non-state actors. Civil society can plan a vital role

in the oversight process and become helpful to curb the mal practices and corruption in the

development projects.

11 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

7. References

1. Sahyog Sansthan Website http://sahyogsansthan.org/

2. Tarun Bharat Sangh Website :http://tarunbharatsangh.in/promoting-community-based-organisations/

3. Decentralization and Participatory Watershed Development. London: Anthem Press.

4. Cleaver, F. 1999. “Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to Development.” Journal of International Development Studies11 (4): 597–612.

5. Cooke, B., and U. Kothari, eds. 2001.Participation: The New Tyranny London: Zed Books.

6. Doolette, J., and W. Magrath, eds. 1990.Watershed Development in Asia: Strategies and Technologies. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

7. D’Silva, E., and S. Pai. 2003.“Social Capital and Collective Action: Development Outcomes in Forest Protection and Watershed Development.” Economic and Political Weekly 38 (14): 1404–1415.

8. Edwards, M., and D. Hulme. 1995. Non-governmental Organizations: Performance and Accountability. London: Earthscan. Evans, P. 1996. “Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy.”World Development24 (6): 1119–1132.

9. Farrington, J., C. Turton, and A. James. 1999. Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the 21st Century. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, J. 1994. The Anti-politics Machine: Development, Depoliticisation and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho.

10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. Forsyth, T. 2010.“Panacea or Paradox, Cross-sector Partnership, Climate Change and Development “Wires Climate Change1 (5): 683–696.

12. Gupta, S. 2009 “The Politics of Development in Rural Rajasthan, India. PhD diss., SOAS, University of London.

13. Gupta, S. 2011“Demystifying‘Tradition’: The Politics of Rainwater Harvesting in Rural Rajasthan, India.” WaterAlternatives4 (3): 347–364.

14. Gupta, S., and S. Sinha. 2008.“Beyond ‘Dispositive’ and‘Depoliticisation’: Spaces of Civil Society in Water

15. Conservation in Rural Rajasthan.” In Water First: Issues and Challenges for Nations and Communities in South Asia, edited by K. Lahiri-Dutt and R. J. Wasson, 271–294.New Delhi: Sage.

16. Impacts of Participatory Watershed Management.

17. “Working with Unequal Partners.” In Principles and Practices of Integrated Watershed Management in India,

12 | P a g e People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative –Rajasthan, India

18. “Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association65

19. “Participatory Watershed Development.” Economic and Political Weekly 37 (3):225–242.Krishna, A. 1992.“Delivery Systems for Rural Development: A Case Study of Watershed Development in Rajasthan.”Prashasanika30 (2): 11–24.

20. Krishna, A. 1997 “Participatory Watershed Development and Soil Conservation in Rajasthan.” In Reasons for Hope: Learning from Instructive Experiences in Rural