Uttar Pradesh State Report

Transcription

1

2 Understanding Processes of Watershed Development Projects in India From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy Uttar Pradesh State Report

3 Understanding Processes of Watershed Development Projects in India From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy Uttar Pradesh State Report Report of the Study by AAK Anchored by WASSAN and Facilitated by ICEF Documentation : Ms. Rakshmi Saxena (AAK) Data Compilation and Analysis : Mr Dayanand Verma, Mr Kripa Shankar Sharma, Mr Paresh Verma, Mr Anuj Kumar, Mr Raj Singh, Ms Mamata Gupta, Mr Ravindra Kumar, Mr Neelesh Singh Author : M V Rama Chandrudu Editing : Veena and Suresh Layout : T Ravi Cover Page : Srikanth Published : December, 2006 No. of Copies : 500 Published by WASSAN Watershed Support Services and Activities Network , Street No 1, TARNAKA, Secunderabad - 17 Andhra Pradesh, INDIA Tel/Fax: /96 E Mail: wassan@eth.net Web: Printed at : Charitha Impressions, Hyderabad, Ph:

4 FOREWORD Importance of Participatory processes is well recognized in policy documents of several government supported development projects. The policy framework of watershed development projects in India has crystallized this and made participatory processes as integral part of the project. However, there is a reality beyond policies. That there is a gap between the reality and policies is not a new realization. It is important for policy makers to understand the realities (both negative and positive) and reflect on these factors in the implementation of policies. Understanding Process in Watershed Development Projects in India is one such rare study, which clearly highlights this gap between reality and the policy, in the context of watershed development projects in India. The study was conducted in seven states of India (Rajasthan, Utter Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Nagaland). In each state a resource organisation anchored the study. WASSAN, Hyderabad anchored the study and provided over all support and guidance to the resource organisation. ICEF, New Delhi supported this study. The reports of the study and culmination workshops organized at Hyderabad and other states brought out the following recommendations: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Importance of participatory processes need to be clearly amplified in the policy documents. To support greater understanding and appreciation of the processes centrality, Process Guidelines should be issued by each state government; Quality of processes is strongly influenced by the capacities and sensitivities of the project facilitation teams and instruments in the policy framework; Some of these instruments are dedicated project management teams at state, district level; appropriate funding to natural resources, livelihoods, farming systems and capacity building; Phasing of the project period; institutional arrangements at community and project management levels; The role of the institutions is critical. Plurality of institutions with clearly defined roles is the fundamental principle in development processes. Gram Panchayats and Community Based Organisations have to work together to achieve the common goals. But each institution has to perform different role; Partnerships are a key to success. Government, civil, society organizations and Community Based Organisations in Partnerships. None of them could afford to work in isolation; Capacity building support to develop greater level of sensitivities and skills ( to facilitate participatory processes) needs to be continuous. Networking among the civil society organizations could provide critical inputs to effective policy formulation and ensure its execution at field level too;

5 (vii) Engagement of civil society organizations in policy formulations and advocacy is very critical. Networking among the civil society organization could provide critical inputs to effective policy formulation and ensure its execution at filed level. I appreciate the efforts made by WASSAN and its partners for conducting this study and bringing out the reports (National / State Reports). The quality of the data and its analysis is rich and meaningful. The reports brought out several issues into limelight and force the policy makers and project facilitators to reflect on the field level opportunities and constraints. I hope the central / state governments; other donors and project facilitators would benefit from this study and recommendations of the culmination workshops organized in each state. I particularly urge the state governments to take initiative and provide critical support to strengthen participatory processes in watershed development program. The study re-emphasizes that means are as important as ends. New Delhi B. N. YUGANDHAR MEMBER, PLANNING COMMISSION

6 PREFACE It gives me immense pleasure and happiness in introducing these reports From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy - Understanding Processes of Watershed Development Projects in India to the policy makers; project managers/ authorities; resource organizations and others engaged with the policy formulation processes of watershed development program in the country. These reports are products of collective efforts of several agencies across the country, which put long hours of hard work to understand the field level processes of watershed development projects in the selected states. These are state specific reports of process study Understanding Processes of Watershed Development Program in India. The process study was anchored by WASSAN, Hyderabad with the support of nodal agencies in each state. These nodal agencies are PRADAN (Jharkhand); AFPRO (Chhattisghar); Arthik Anusandhan Kendra (UP); Orissa Watershed Development Mission (Orissa); NCHSE (MP); ARAVALI (Rajasthan) and Directorate of Agriculture, Nagaland (Nagaland). The study was conducted during Though a set of consolidated reports (seven volumes and posters) was produced by the end of the process study, which put together the data from all states, the need for publishing state specific reports was realized during the national level sharing workshop at Hyderabad on 26 th and 27 th Sep To fulfill this need, WASSAN team and the state nodal agencies put together a consolidated report for each state in which process study was conducted. Each state report consists of the recommendations of the state level sharing workshop; recommendations from the process study report and process study report itself. These state reports are expected to trigger a process of policy reforms of watershed development projects in the state and set the agenda for the same. The state governments; civil society organizations and academic institutions could equip themselves with the feed back from these reports and contribute to the formulation of new generation watershed development projects in the state. I am also glad to note that the recommendations of process study were well appreciated by several senior government officers at central/ state level. These recommendations are also being considered positively by central and state governments, while formulating the policies for new generation of watershed development projects in the country. Thus the contribution of the process study is timely and appropriate. I appreciate WASSAN and its partners in each state for taking up this initiative and contributing to the process of policy formulation at central/state levels in the context of watershed development.

7 The main mandate of India Canada Environment Facility (ICEF), New Delhi is to enhance the capacity of Indian organizations to undertake environmentally sustainable development and management of land, water and energy resources, providing support for programs that specifically address the inter relationships between poverty and environmental degradation, community participation and for public awareness of environmental issues. Creating enabling policy support from state/central governments is one of the important mechanisms for achieving the above objectives. ICEF, New Delhi is happy to support WASSAN and its partners, which conducted the process study and made significant contribution to the evolution of policies of watershed development projects in the country. M. Satyanarayana, IFS Director, ICEF

8 Watershed development projects are considered to be an important intervention in reviving the local economy and restoring the ecological balance. Several ministries/ departments have been supporting watershed development projects for many years. Each department/ ministry has its own guidelines and procedures. The guidelines envisaged special attention to ensure the participation of women and other vulnerable groups in project activities. The guidelines were also changed several times. However, it was observed that these changes are not necessarily based on the field level experiences and concerns. It was also observed that several provisions of the guidelines are not really implemented at village level. Since 1994, there is a wealth of experience that was generated in all states of India, where the watershed projects were implemented. Large number of facilitating agencies (voluntary sector, line departments and others) contributed to this process. Several studies were also conducted to assess the efficacy of the watershed projects and its impacts. However, there is little understanding on the way the watershed projects are being implemented. WASSAN, a national level support organization initiated a process study Understanding Processes of Watershed Development Projects in India. The main purpose of the process study is to provide feedback to the policy makers and other project partners on the field level realities of the watershed projects in terms of its processes. The objective of the study was to evolve a state/ national level operational strategy for improving the processes and policy framework of watershed projects in the country. The study was conducted in seven states Viz. Rajasthan, Utter Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Nagaland. The study was supported by India Canada Environment Facility (ICEF), New Delhi. The study was conducted between 2004 and About the study: The study primarily made an effort to focus on the processes followed in the watershed development projects as opposed to focus on the impacts. The study attempted to understand the way watershed projects are being planned, implemented and managed by communities, and also capture the roles/ responsibilities of various stake holders of the project. The objectives of the study were to: Strengthen the participatory processes in the watershed development program in India by providing feed back on the way the projects are implemented on the ground to all concerned policy makers, practitioners, project administration teams, donors and academicians. Develop strategies for making the watershed development programs more community controlled and managed, equity and gender focused, technically appropriate with institutional mechanisms in place for environmentally sound farming systems and sustainable livelihoods.

9 Eight watersheds (annexure 1) from each state were selected to conduct the study, based on the following criteria: 1. Watersheds that have been completed. 2. Watersheds covered by different funding agencies and category of PIAs (GO & NGO). 3. Watershed covering diverse agro climatic zones/geographical area. Inception and methodology workshops were organised with a view to introduce the methodology, philosophy and approach of the study to the participants. The methodology was designed jointly by WASSAN and its partners. In Utter Pradesh, Arthik Anusandhan Kendra (AAK) anchored the process study as a nodal agency. The study was conducted under the supervision of steering committee and along with the partnership of several local NGO and government departments. After the completion of the process study, AAK and WASSAN organized a state level sharing workshop to share the observations, findings and recommendations with policy makers, donor agencies and facilitators at grass root level. Contents of this report: This is a consolidated report consisting of recommendations and observations from the process study and subsequent sharing workshops. This report is divided in to two parts for the convenience of readers. Part 1: Recommendations of the state sharing workshop. A synthesis of the recommendations from the Process Study conducted in the state of Madhya Pradesh. Part 2: A brief analysis of the strong and weak process identified from the process index. Understanding Processes of Watershed Development Projects in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 10 Uttar Pradesh State Report

10 Part I This section contains recommendations of the state sharing workshop, a synthesis of the recommendations from the Process Study conducted in the state of UP, followed by a brief analysis of the strong and weak process identified from the process index. After the completion of the study, WASSAN organized a national level sharing workshop during September 2006 at Hyderabad to share the broad understanding and recommendations of the process study at national level. It was during this workshop, a decision was arrived at to organize state level sharing workshops to share the understanding and recommendations of the process study within each state. 1. State level workshop: This as a backdrop, AAK and WASSAN organised state level workshop to share the observations, findings and recommendations with policy makers, donor agencies and facilitators at grass root level. This sharing workshop was organized at Lucknow on 20 th December (The details of the participants are given in annexure2). This workshop was organized with a special purpose of sharing the major observations and recommendations of the process study of Uttar Pradesh. The workshop was also aimed at contributing to the evolution of better and supportive policies to watershed development projects in the state, as a follow up of the process study. After a welcome note by Mr. Hargovindsingh, Director AAK and the self introductions of the participants, a formal presentation of process study (national and state level perspectives) was made by MV Rama Chandrudu, WASSAN. (For details refer CD). After the presentation on process study, there was an open discussion on the presentation and recommendations of the process study. Several participants shared their opinion on the status of watershed projects in the state; commented on the process study reports and gave their inputs to the strategies of the watershed policy advocacy related agenda. These are presented in the following structure, for easy reference and comprehension. The points/ interventions made during the workshop are classified into the following categories. Comments on the Report Process Study Need for Collective Action Role of Media and Watershed Policies and Good Governance Instruments for improving the quality of state supported watershed development projects Collaboration between Government and Civil Society Organizations Priority to Watershed Development Projects Capacities of NGOs Next Steps and Key Decisions From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 11

11 Comments on the Report Process Study: Sample of Watersheds under International NGO funded projects may not represent the true picture of capacities of NGOs in the state or country. The role of NGO/facilitating agencies in site selection and technical inputs is not properly captured in the report. The capacities of NGO/facilitating agencies need to be considerably improved. Several NGOs lack capacities in facilitating action plans and convergence plans. The study report could not capture this dimension of the processes at watershed level. Role of PRI in watershed projects seems to be fairly limited in several cases. An in-depth understanding on this issue could have helped to crystallize the role of PRIs in watershed projects. After Hariyali, the watershed development projects do not have any space for communities/ their institutions. In the name of PRI, the project activities and decision making is confined to Sarpanch/President of Grama Panchayati and concerned line department. Participation by the community is totally absent. The future policies of watershed projects should become sensitive to this issue. Efforts should be made to empower the PRIs so that their role is creatively established in the watershed development projects. Need for Collective Action: Several participants agreed and endorsed the idea of collective action for improving the policy framework for watershed projects in the state. The expressions of participants are presented in the form of the following key statements. It is important to work with several partners for making a better policy environment for watershed development projects. Common Committees of NGO and GO representatives could be constituted for institutionalizing the partnerships. Both government and NGOs need to learn to work with each other. It is important to realize that both have different sets of capacities and partnerships that contribute significantly to the over all quality of delivery of development projects at grass root level. Common platforms of several civil society organizations (NGOs, media groups, academic institutions, community based organizations, activists and others) and government departments/ organizations help to understand each other s perspectives and concerns. The common platform need not be limited to series of meetings. The agenda should be common to all members and help to develop the overall policy support to the watershed development projects. These platforms should help to solve the problems at the field level. These platforms also should help to enhance the role of communities in the development process/ watershed development projects. Role of Media and Watershed Policies and Good Governance: Representatives from media groups and academic institutions shared their insights on the role of media on the policy advocacy and change processes. The common thread among these interventions 12 Uttar Pradesh State Report

12 is the importance of partnerships between NGOs and media groups for making the policies better and support the cause of good governance. Main role of media is to show case the trends of the society. However, the priorities are mainly around urban areas and urban issues (Urban Centric Approach). It is important to orient and educate the media groups on the new ways of understanding rural realities. Limited number of media groups/ papers conducted in-house research on rural development/ watershed development related issues. NGOs could provide appropriate support and inputs to media groups to fill this gap. Several media groups/ journalists have limited understanding and exposure to NGOs and their work. Even if they were to have, it is on the negative side of NGOs. It is important to expose the media/ journalists to the field work of committed NGOs and their achievements. Capacity building of media is an important agenda in policy change process. Empowerment based approaches need considerable support and good will in the society. A sensitive media could project the experiences of developmental initiatives with a right perspective. However, it is important to develop the basic sensitivity, attitude and aptitude among journalists and editors on the latest thinking and practice at the field level. Simple press meets and press notes are adequate to create a positive and supportive policy environment for watershed development projects/ rural development. Field level exposure to journalists should be an important component in this process. NGOs could take interest in educing the media groups and build their capacities and perspective. Media groups also have to learn to use new tools/ technologies (Eg: Internet)/ policy provisions (Eg: Right to Information Act). They should be able to give a new interpretation to current development processes, with a clear point of view. NGOs could provide critical role in this process. Instruments for improving the quality of state supported watershed development projects: In a big state like Utter Pradesh with diversified regions and cultures, it is important to develop region specific policy framework and approaches. Community based monitoring/ social audit exercises are useful tools to make appropriate policy changes at local level and also make the administration more responsible and responsive. Budget analysis and tracking is an important tool/ instrument for making the watershed development projects more meaningful. NGOs could engage with such processes and make a creative contribution to the watershed development projects. Collaboration between Government and Civil Society Organizations Any partnership could lead to conflicts, if there is no trust. Similarly, wrong expectations and different roles could also create tensions between partners. This is true with NGO, GO and others also. However, it is important to realize that these conflicts need to be overcome with maturity and patience. The value base of partners (government, NGO and others) is the most important basis on which the partnerships could be built. Individual based approaches are gaining more importance and popularity, rather than institutionalized partnerships. One should be careful, while forging partnerships between different groups/ institutions. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 13

13 Sustained partnerships and collaborations are results of capacity building inputs to all members of the partnerships. Without capacity building inputs, the partnerships can not be sustained. Based on the gaps in the program at different levels, partnerships need to be forged/ established between GO and NGO partners. Priority to Watershed Development Projects: Government of UP and NABARD are unable to come to a common understanding on the NABARD supported watershed projects (conflict between loan based and subsidy based projects). As a result, the watershed projects on the ground are in a dilemma. There is a need for evolving appropriate policy support/ instruments to such situations. Similarly, different departments and ministries have different norms/ guidelines. It is important to harmonize them and make them locally relevant (local/ region specific approach than the donor specific approach). During the initial phase of the watershed projects, senior government officers at national/ state level gave considerable priority and importance to watershed development projects. However, over a period of time, the senior officers at national/ state government levels lost their interest in the watershed development projects. They also do not have adequate appreciation and insights into watershed development projects. As a result, the advocacy process is much more complicated and time taking. Donors and credible NGOs also started giving low priority to watershed projects, in the light of non-supportive watershed policies. Capacities of NGOs NGOs need to develop capacities and skills towards working in networking mode. Networking also helps to replicate good processes and up-scale the lessons. NGOs should focus on creating models that motivate others. AAK and Parmarth need to function as resource organizations for other smaller NGOs and build their capacities to facilitate better watershed/ NRM projects. Next Steps and Key Decisions Efforts will be made to formulate a common platform consisting of different members/ interest groups to think and act on watershed related policies and programs. District/ state level NGOs and other interested groups would be brought together to think about the process study and its recommendations. Community members would also be invited to be part of these deliberations. A considered opinion of this collective would be converted into a memorandum and submitted to concerned senior government officers/ ministers. Initiatives would be taken by participants of the workshop (NGOs, networks such Bhoomi Adhikar Manch and media groups) to take the above process forward. 14 Uttar Pradesh State Report

14 2. Recommendations of the process study - Uttar Pradesh The study was conducted in eight watershed projects in the state of U.P. The study attempted to look in to various processes that were adopted by the implementing agencies in the selected villages. The study provided an opportunity to various actors to reflect upon the reality during the course. Also, the study has given an unbiased feed back through the findings as well as recommendations. In addition, the recommendations also aimed to bring in certain policy level changes. The recommendations are grouped according to the phases of the project cycle. The entire project management cycle is divided in to five phases such as; initial phase, institution development phase, participatory planning phase, implementation phase and post project phase. Among these phases again few key events are identified and questions are formulated according to those events. Process data tables were prepared accordingly. The process tables and the process followed are discussed and presented under part II section of this report. A. Initial Phase: The key events of this phase are as follows: Knowledge of Communities about the selection of project Awareness Generation Resolution from the village EPA 1 EPA 2 Base Line Surveys Recommendations from the study to improve the process: It is important to enhance the role of communities in selection process of villages. It is important to conceptualize a process in which the project details (obligations, rights, benefits and concerns, nonnegotiables)are communicated with the communities before the project is actually sanctioned to the village. This should help the villagers to take a considered decision on the project Project authorities should make special efforts to ensure that appropriate communication campaigns are organized during the initial stages of the project in all villages. It is also important that these communication campaigns encourage two way communication processes. Project authorities should ensure that the facilitating agencies would get adequate inputs (orientation and sensitization) and tools for integrating gender concerns in watershed development projects. They should also have clear gender policy and tools for integrating the concerns. While selecting villages, preference could be given to those villages, where a facilitating agency is already working. Project authorities should ensure that the critical steps in project management such as village level resolution are followed with required levels of community participation. The outputs from such participatory processes should be mandatory before going to next steps, of the project. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 15

15 The project authorities should sensitize PIAs on the importance of community based processes for getting resolutions from the villages. The authority should have appropriate mechanism to ensure that this mandatory output from the community is genuinely obtained. Project Authorities should evolve a participatory process for involving communities in all stages of the project. The main philosophy behind the EPA is to ensure that communities get an opportunity to experience the collective action at community level. PIA/ WDT should get proper orientation on the process of executing EPA, before they get into action. Project Managers/ Authorities should develop capacities of WDTs/ PIAs to conduct a participatory situation analysis. The content of situation analysis should be clearly linked to objectives and components of the watershed development projects. B. Institutional development phase: The key events of this phase are as follows: Existing Groups New Groups (User Groups) New Groups (SHGs) Formation of Watershed Committee Recommendations from the study to improve the process: While selecting villages for watershed development project, priority could be given to those villages, where there is already strong social capital in the form of organized groups. An assessment of existing groups in the potential villages should be made, before sanctioning the projects Project authorities should ensure that user groups are formed in all watersheds as per defined criteria. For enabling this process to happen, WDT should be oriented on the importance and formation process of user groups. The approval of action plans should be liked with formation of user groups. It is also important that user groups also evolve over a period of time, during the project period. Ensure that there is flexibility to include the new user groups in the watershed development project, as the project progresses In addition to promoting, the State Government should evolve an operational policy to strengthen SHGs in the state. The active participation/ involvement of these village institutions in the program is essential for the sustainability of the program. In all watershed villages, WDT should work closely with poorer sections of the village and organize them into SHGs. Project Authorities should ensure that SHGs are formed and strengthened in each watershed village during the initial stages of the project. WDT should be oriented on the formation and strengthening of SHGs. Formation of watershed committee should reflect the bottom up approach of institutional process. Project authorities should ensure that PIA/ WDT adopt building blocks approach for formation of WC. The evidence of user groups and SHGs should be confirmed before the formation of watershed committee. 16 Uttar Pradesh State Report

16 The process should provide adequate space for poor, women and other weaker sections of the village. Project Authorities should profile the watershed committee members and ensure that representatives from weaker sections are not just ornamental, but also active in the watershed committee. Adequate capacity building inputs should be provided to these watershed committee members, particularly to women and weaker section members C. Participatory Planning Phase: The key events of this phase are as follows: Watershed Delineation Problem Analysis for Planning Site Selection Local Volunteers and ITK Group/ Individual Plans Discussions on Non-Negotiable Designs and Estimates Consolidation of Action Plans and Changes in Action Plans Approval of Action Plans Recommendations from the study to improve the process: Project Authorities could facilitate the partnership between PIA and resource organizations, which enhance the quality of this process. Additional budgets may be provided for this support service or available budgets could be channeled for this purpose. Project Authorities/ PIA should ensure that delineated watershed area is displayed on the common walls in the village District level project officers should ensure that a participatory situation analysis is conducted with a specific focus on communities (women, dalits and wage dependent families and so on). Appropriate set of tools for this purpose should be evolved and a standard structure should also be evolved for understanding and interpreting the data from situation analysis. District officers have to ensure that WDT gets adequate capacity building inputs for facilitating this process. If needed, a partnership between a resource organization and PIA could be established by district project office, for ensuring professional inputs into this process District project officers should ensure that community participation in site selection and field survey so that the community ownership is ensured. PIA should make efforts to develop action plans for all farmers and plots/ fields in the village. Appropriate planning tools should be employed for this purpose. Adequate capacity building inputs should be provided by the Project Authorities to WDT/ PIA on planning methodologies that are relevant to both private and common property resources. PIA/ WDT has to ensure that issues like contribution are discussed during the planning stage itself and a consensus is emerged on such critical issues. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 17

17 District Project Officers should ensure that the PIA/ WDT evolve appropriate systems for preparing plans; estimates and designs. The involvement of local communities and functionaries should be an important part of this process/ systems. Project Officers could also encourage local rates to be practiced for all those works, for which there is no SSR. It should be ensured that local rates should not be exploitative and unequal. It is important to make the planning process transparent and participatory. All stages of action planning including consolidation of action plans require community participation. Project Authorities should ensure that PIA/ WDT make serious and sincere efforts to involve communities. One of the important indicators of this process is location of action plan itself. Clear indicators, which establish the level of participation of the communities and their sense of involvement in planning process should be evolved for which Project Authorities can facilitate. Project Authorities should ensure that action planning process clearly indicates the interventions at different levels (individual/ group/community) and various components of the same. This systematic presentation of action plan helps the PIA/ WDTs to develop action plan accordingly It is important that watershed guidelines give a clear priority to poor and disadvantageous communities in the village and allocate considerable budgets for these communities. Similarly, the prioritization process of the watershed projects also should be clearly mentioned in the guidelines Project Authorities should ensure that the approval of action plan at the community level follows a participatory and formal process. The formal resolution by Grama Panchayati and grama sabha should be a formal requirement for the district authorities, before they entertain the action plan for approval at their level. The district authorities should evolve appropriate monitoring systems to understand the level of participation of communities during this stage. Getting a formal resolution from the grama sabha should not be interpreted and perceived as an administrative requirement. Ensure that action plans are approved in sequential manner and each actor has a role in the process. The project authorities should ensure that the role of community level approval is an important stage in the entire process. In addition, they should also ensure that capacity building inputs reach the village level functionaries on the implementation of watershed activities PIA/WDT should allow the village level functionaries to take up the responsibilities of execution of watershed works (technical and administrative aspects of the project). D. Implementation Phase: The key events of this phase are as follows Mobilization of Contribution Knowledge of Communities on WDF Execution of Works Measurements Payments 18 Uttar Pradesh State Report

18 Recommendations from the study to improve the process: District Project Authorities make adequate efforts to ensure that PIA/ WDT understand the importance of WDF and genuine contribution from users. They should also ensure that PIA/ WDT do not promote short cut methods in mobilizing the contribution. PIA/ WDT should promote transparent systems such as issuing of receipts/ bank accounts/ books & records and so on. This also requires that appropriate and relevant capacity building inputs to be given to village level functionaries. It is important that Guidelines of watershed development project also indicate the process in which the WDF could be used in a sustainable manner and the conditions in which the WDF could actually be used Project Authorities should make serious efforts to build the capacities of village level functionaries and other institutions on the tasks related to execution of watershed works such as measurements. Watershed guidelines should clearly describe the process in which both community based organizations and facilitating agencies participate in the measurements and other tasks related to execution of watershed works Project authorities should ensure that adequate capacity building inputs are provided to watershed functionaries on financial aspects of the watershed projects. WDT/PIA has to organize regular refresher programs and provide hand holding support to watershed functionaries so that they are able to perform their roles, effectively The frequency of measurements should be fairly regular and payments should be based on the joint measurement exercises. Project Authorities should ensure that the community role is not undermined during this stage. Special capacity building inputs need to be organized (training programs, hand holding support and joint measurement exercises during initial stages) by PIA/WDT/ Project Authorities so that the local functionaries become capable of performing these functions. Project authorities should ensure that the local institutions get adequate capacity building inputs from PIA/ WDT/ Resource Organizations on the process of record keeping and books. They should make sure that local institutions are not side lined in this process, by developing appropriate monitoring systems E. Post Project Issues: The key events of this phase are as follows Extension of Project Period Use of WDF Withdrawal of PIA Recommendations from the study to improve the process: The project authorities should ensure that PIA/ WDT get specified time for completion of the watershed projects. In case of any unavoidable situations, where extension is required, watershed guidelines should clearly describe the process; procedure and provisions that are relevant to project extension From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 19

19 The PIA has to evolve appropriate systems for documenting the employment opportunities that were generated during the project and who gets these opportunities. District Project Officers should ensure that the employment opportunities get recorded with authenticity and accuracy. It is important that the watershed guidelines clearly mention the processes related to maintenance and management of assets created during watershed project. Issues related to sustainability of watershed interventions need to be part of this guidelines. It is important that the project completion related tasks are properly organized by PIA/WDT. Guidelines of watershed development project should clearly mention the operationalization of withdrawal of PIA. It is important that PIA continues in a given village irrespective of the project. Such continued support to village would be a desirable phenomenon. While selecting PIAs, it is important to verify the history and future strategies of PIA regarding the partnership between PIA and village. Preference should be given to that PIA, which expresses their willingness to continue their support irrespective of watershed development project Watershed guidelines should have a clear description and strategies for post project situation. Several critical issues that influence watershed activities and its sustainability need to be part of this strategy usufruct rights, networking of institutions; linkages with resource organizations; norms for management and maintenance of assets; role clarity among PRI and CBOs and so on. 3. Synthesis of identified Processes in Watershed Development Projects: Based on the process that was followed in the watersheds, an attempt was made to quantify the level of participation in each event. The non participatory processes were given low score ( ) where as participatory ones get high scores ( ). Average level participation is indicated by A summery of the analyses of these is given below: Uttar Pradesh State Report

20 Assessment of Processes in UP with the Help of Process Index: Process Index Table Theme of Clusters GoI Funded and GoI Funded and NGO INGO Funded and Faciltiated PIA Facilitated Project NGO Facilitated Projects Projects Initial Phase Knowledge of Communities about the selection of Village Awareness Levels Resolution from the village EPA EPA Base Line Survey Institution Development Phase Existing Groups UGs SHG WC Formation Watershed Delineation Participatory Planning Phase Problem Analysis - Planning Site Selection - Planning ITK - Planning Group and Individual Plans - Plng Discussion on Non Negotiables - Planning Designs and Estimates - Planning Consolidation of Action Plans - Planning Implementation Phase Approval of Action Plans - Planning Mobilizaiton -Implementation Knowledge of Communities on WDF- Implementation Execution of Works Implementation Measurements -Implementation Paymnets Implementation Post Project Issues Project Completion 1 (Extension) Project Completion 2 (Use of WDF) Project Completion 3 Withdrawal of PIA Number of Clusters with Weak Processes 24 Number of Clusters with Average Processes 2 Number of Clusters with Strong Processes 1 Total Number of Clusters 27 From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 21

21 Strong: only one process can be categorized as strong process in the state of UP. Project completion (extension) appears to be strong in this state. More than half of the projects were completed within the stipulated time and they did not require any extension. One project was given extension of one year. It can be inferred from the data that most of the planned activities were implemented as per plan and even the fund utilization was carried out judiciously. Medium: Watershed delineation and approval of plans can be termed as medium process. Various PRA tools were applied to delineate the watershed in majority of the projects. Technical inputs were also used and considered in some projects. The map was displayed in the village at common junctions in two projects. During the process of approval of action plans, the process adopted was of a mixed one. In few projects, the consent of the villagers was taken by convening a formal meeting. The issue was discussed with all the stakeholders before finalizing. However, in many (6) projects, taking the consent of beneficiaries was not considered as the part of the process. Either the PIA took the decision or it was discussed with few officials and finalized. Weak: All the remaining processes can be considered as weak process in UP. The demand for the project was not from the community; rather it was the concern of the PIA or else the leader in the community. Though there were enough attempts to generate awareness among the community, the process did not consider involving women and weaker section of the society. The activity of EPA and implementing the EPA was of a mixed type. Few projects considered participatory process, and few projects, influential persons decided the activities. Implementation was also followed the same course. Though the data collection was done through participatory process, listing of poor was not done in majority of the projects. Poverty was not considered as an important criterion in this exercise. There were no efforts to form new groups in majority of the projects. Even if they were formed in few projects, it was only to comply with the guidelines and not in real terms. During the process of problem analysis, the exercise was not carried out in five out of eight projects. In the remaining three watersheds, only two considered the concerns of gender and weaker sections. Indigenous technology was totally ignored in all the selected watersheds. Involvement of the community was absent in general in site selection, preparation of action plans, estimates and implementation in majority of the projects. As far the contributions are concerned, it was deducted from the wages of the labor, or it was from the payments due to the contractors. The very purpose was lost because of such action. Guidelines for the post project period were totally absent. 22 Uttar Pradesh State Report

22 Part II State report 1. BACKGROUND: Watershed Development Projects are considered to be an important instrument to revive the rural economy and restore ecological balance in drought prone and rain fed areas of India. The relevance of watershed projects is undeniable in Utter Pradesh, where large areas are still dependent on rainfed farming. Watershed development projects are implemented in the state with the support of Ministry of Rural Development, Agriculture, NABARD and other international donors. The guidelines of these projects have considerable emphasis on community participation at all stages of the project. The process study of watershed projects Understanding Processes of Watershed Development Projects in India is an initiative taken by Watershed Support Services and Activities Network (WASSAN), Hyderabad with the support of ICEF, New Delhi. The study was conducted in seven states of India including Utter Pradesh. Arthik Anusandhan Kendra, Allahabad anchored the study in Utter Pradesh. 2. METHODOLOGY: Eight completed watershed projects were selected for the study. These projects are funded by Government of India and International NGOs and facilitated by both Government and Non Government Project Implementing Agencies. The guidelines of watershed development projects (MoRD- 1994) were taken as basis for conducting the process study. The project management cycle of the project was conceptualized as per the provisions made in Guidelines (MoRD 1994) and Key Events and Key Questions were developed for understanding the processes followed in each key event of the project. The process data is presented in this report in the form of Process Data Tables. The key questions and nature of processes followed in each category of watersheds are mentioned in these Process Tables (as followed in different categories of project facilitating agencies). These Process Tables are self explanatory. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 23

23 3. ANALYSIS OF PROCESSES IN WATERSHED PROGRAMME IN UP: Issue 1: Village selection Common processes: In 7 out of 8 watersheds, villager s perception about watershed project was that it was brought by PIA. This observation is similar for both PIAs (GO and NGO). In one GO supported and felicitated watershed, local leader has taken the initiative. Rare processes: Table 1: Village selection Who brought the program to your village? PIA Local Leader approached DRDA 1 Community approached NGO for works/ employment and NGO facilitated the sanctioning of WS project to the village 1 In one GO supported and NGO facilitated watershed, the project was demanded by the communities. Implications: Communities largely remained like a passive recipients of the project in large number of cases. The role of communities in selection process is almost negligible. This could have serious implications on the sense of ownership of the project among the communities, if not facilitated well. When there is a role for village leadership/ community demanded the watershed project for their own village, one could expect high level of local level participation. Issue 2: Awareness Generation and Rapport Building a) What are the methods of generating awareness? Common processes: Attempts were made to generate awareness among the community by following various means of communication in majority of the projects. They include both GO as well as INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects. Rare processes: Efforts to generate awareness were totally absent in four of the GO funded and facilitated projects. 24 Uttar Pradesh State Report Table 2: Awareness Generation a) What are the methods of generating awareness? Exposure visits 1 2 Interpersonal meetings 2 2 Leaflets/ Folders/ Pamphlets e distributed in local language 1 Watershed Guidelines (in local language) are distributed to villagers 2 Regular community meetings 1 Local folk songs/ Kalajatha 2 2 No efforts were made. 4 b) Whether women and poor are specially targeted in awareness campaigns? PIA did not make any special efforts 4 2 PIA made SPECIAL efforts to involve women 2 No participation of women 4 2 Excellent participation of women 2

24 Implications: When the basic features of the watershed projects were not explained to the communities, their participation would be negatively effected. This also leads to centralization of power and decision making. On the other hand, if the communication campaign is strong, the community participation, empowerment and transparency would be high. b) Whether women and poor are specially targeted in awareness campaigns? Common processes: In six of the GO funded and GO as well as NGO facilitated watersheds, the facilitating agency has not made any efforts to involve women. Apparently, this has resulted in non participation by the women folk in the villages. Rare processes: In two of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, the PIA made special efforts to involve women and this has resulted in good participation by women in the program. Implications: Targeting women during communication campaigns is often neglected; as a result their involvement gets minimized in the watershed project. This process also indicates the orientation of the facilitating agencies on important concerns like gender. When a facilitating agency makes special efforts to reach out women and empower them through several inputs, their role in watershed projects is enhanced and women tend to get more benefits from the project interventions. Whether PIA has any previous relationship with the villagers? Common processes: In four out of eight watersheds, the PIA had previous relationship with the villagers. These were both GO as well as INGO supported and facilitated projects. Rare processes: The remaining four watersheds, that were supported by GO, and facilitated by GO and NGO PIA., the PIA had no relationship with the community prior to the project. Implications: Table 3: PIA relation with villagers Whether PIA has any previous relationship with the villagers? Yes No 3 1 Previous relationship between PIA and project villagers could help to reduce the time required for rapport building. The existing institutions could also become part of the project or could perform certain key functions in the watershed project (if need be). However, it may not be necessary that previous relationship is always a non-negotiable requirement. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 25

25 Issue 3: Grama Sabha resolution a) How the resolution from grama sabha was obtained before the commencement of the program? Table 4: GS resolution Common processes: In five projects, written resolution was made during the Grama Sabha meetings and also when the WDT and PIA were present. This was in both GO as well as INGO supported as well as facilitated program. In four watersheds, more than one meeting was conducted in order to make the resolution. This was observed in NGO facilitated projects under GO as well as INGO funded ones. Rare processes: In three of GO funded and facilitated watersheds, there was no formal resolution taken. Moreover, the consent of the community was also sidelined in these projects. Implications: a) How the resolution from grama sabha was obtained before the commencement of the program? No formal resolution/consent was taken. 3 Written Resolution is taken during the Grama sabha meetings in presence of WDT and PIA One Meeting 1 More than one meeting 2 2 b) Time Taken for resolution Took one month 1 2 Two to five months 1 More than five months 1 Over view of the program program/benefits, funds and contributions are explained. 1 Conflict resolution and planning, monitoring 2 2 Taking resolution from the villagers is an important step for ensuring community level participation. This is also an occasion for ensuring that community understands the obligations/ benefits of the project and formally commit themselves to the goals of the watershed project. When this process is compromised, the community remains ignorant and non-committal on the important non-negotiables of the watershed development projects. b) Time Taken for resolution Common processes: In three NGO facilitated projects, it has taken one month to make resolution. Where as in other projects, the time taken was more than a month, and sometimes it has taken even five months. The community members were explained about the programme, its benefits and financial implications during the meetings. Whereas, in one of the projects, certain management related issues were also discussed and explained. Rare processes: Rare processes were not identified in this context. Implications: When village resolution is considered as a formality, this could be taken without much process and involvement of communities. When this step is considered as a process that enhances 26 Uttar Pradesh State Report

26 transparency and commitment from the communities, it might take longer time depending on the level of harmony in the village and rapport between PIA and communities. Issue 4: Entry Point Activity a) Who decided about EPA? Common processes: In four of the NGO facilitated and supported by both GO and INGO projects, participatory processes were followed to decide up on EPA. The community was involved in the process either through village meeting or through Grama Sabha meeting. Rare processes: Where as in three of the GO supported as well as facilitated projects, either the activity was absent or the dominant section of people decided about the activity. b) Who implemented the EPA? Common processes: In four out of eight projects, village community either by itself or with the PIA, WC and Grama Panchayat implemented the project. These were NGO facilitated projects supported by both GO and INGO. Whereas, where ever the EPA was decided by the dominant sections, they have taken the responsibility to implement. Rare processes: In one of the GO funded and GO facilitated projects, the EPA was decided but has not been implemented. a) What is the condition of work under EPA? Common processes: In four projects the condition is very good. These include both GO as well as NGO facilitated projects and supported by GO and INGO. In three projects, where the EPA was not taken up, the question of condition does not arise. Table 5: EPA a) Who decided about EPA? No EPA 2 Secretary of WC decided 1 PIA in consultation with village leader 2 Village Pradhan/ Sarpanch/ Dominant Section of Community 1 Villagers decided in the village meeting 1 Grama Sabha, WC and PIA decided 1 We do not know b) Who implemented the EPA? EPA was decided, but not implemented 1 Village Community implemented 1 WC/ Secretary implemented 1 Grama Panchayat and PIA 1 PIA, WC and Community did together (pressure on government to repair hand pump) 2 Table 6: condition of EPA a) What is the condition of work under EPA? No EPA 3 Poor Condition 1 Good Condition, No need of maintenance and usable 2 2 b) Whether community contributed to EPA? No Contribution 1 Yes Only laborers contributed (deducted from wages) 1 1 Shram daan from communities 1 Time spared by community 2 c) Is anyone excluded from use of EPA? Not excluded Yes, Excluded 1 1 From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 27

27 Rare processes: In one of the GO funded as well as facilitated projects, the condition appears to be very poor. b) Whether community contributed to EPA? Common processes: The contributions are in the form of wages, time spent or shram daan in five projects. Majority (4) from them are facilitated by NGO. Rare processes: Contributions were not made in any form in one of the GO supported and facilitated project. In those projects where the EPA was not taken up, there are no contributions apparently. c) Is anyone excluded from use of EPA? Common processes: In four out of eight watersheds, no one was excluded from the program. Three of them are NGO facilitated and one is GO funded as well as facilitated project. The question of exclusion does not arise in those watersheds where the EPA was not undertaken. Rare processes: In two of the GO as well as INGO supported projects, few members were excluded. Implications: Entry point activity is expected to trigger a new culture of collective action (planning, decision making, resource mobilization, execution and maintenance/use of asset created) at all stages of project, in the context of EPA. The execution of EPA has to follow the above process and involve communities at all stages of the EPA. If this process is not followed, this would set a wrong trend in the village. When community is involved in all stages of EPA (including making contribution), the quality and maintenance of assets created would be better. Community gets an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of collective action in true sense. Issue 5: Baseline & Benchmark Survey a) How the initial data was collected? Common processes: Various tools such as PRA exercises, household surveys, interviews and topographical survey were used to collect data. These were the common methods used. Of all these methods, data collection through secondary sources was done in two watersheds. These are INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects. Where as in GO supported projects, the data was collected both through primary and secondary sources. 28 Uttar Pradesh State Report

28 Rare processes: In one NGO facilitated and GO supported watershed, external resource persons were hired to conduct surveys. b) How the list of poor was generated? Common processes: The list of poor was not generated in six out of eight projects. These were supported by GO and facilitated by both NGO and GO. Rare processes: In two INGO funded and NGO facilitated projects, list of poor was generated through social map and target listing. Implications: Participatory situation analysis is a basic requirement for planning. There are several methods/ tools for conducting this situation analysis. However, it is important to ensure that community is actively involved in generating data as well as analyzing the data for identifying appropriate interventions. Generating base line survey reports should not be seen as an administrative requirement to be completed without any involvement of community. During this process, it is important to have a special attention to identify problems related to poor and women. If this process is not followed, it is difficult to ensure that their problems could get addressed in the watershed projects. Issue 6: Existing Groups a) Whether Existing groups participated in watershed program? Or Are the members of these groups (women/ others) involved in watershed program? Common processes: In majority of the projects (5 out of 8) groups did not exist. These are GO supported projects. Hence the question of participation does not arise in their context. Where as in one of the projects, even though the groups were present they did not participate in the program. Table 7: Survey a) How the initial data was collected? PRA - Resource Mapping, Transect walk 1 2 House Hold Survey With format by PIA/ Village leaders 1 2 Secondary Data Record of Rights, village/ cadastral map from Patvari/ Line Dept 1 Interview with village leaders 1 2 Land / Resource/ Topographical Survey by WDT/ PIA 2 2 Hiring resource organizations/ experienced watershed activists for surveys 1 b) How the list of poor was generated? No list of poor is generated 4 2 Social Map/ Well Being Ranking for Target Listing (Caste/ food security) 2 Table 8: Groups a) Whether Existing groups participated in watershed program? Or Are the members of these groups (women/ others) involved in watershed program? There are no groups existing before the program 4 1 The existing groups did not participate in WD program 1 The existing groups participated in WD program 2 b) In what way? Some of the members of existing groups became Watershed committee members. 2 Existing groups organized EPA and other works 2 From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 29

29 Rare processes: In INGO supported and NGO facilitated program, the groups participated in WD program. b) In what way? Common processes: Some members of the existing groups became members of the watershed committee. And some members participated by way of organizing EPA activities and other related works. Rare processes: Not identified. Implications: Existing groups in the village could take up specific functions in the context of watershed development project, if they are given an opportunity. This arrangement and approach would save considerable time of PIA in launching the watershed project activities. Issue 7: New Groups a) Who formed new user groups? Common processes: In four out of eight watershed areas, WDT/ PIA made efforts to form new groups. Two of them are GO supported and two are INGO supported. All the four are facilitated by NGO. Rare processes: Efforts to form new groups were not made in three projects. And in one project the groups existed only on paper. Both of these are supported and facilitated by GO. b) What are the efforts made by PIA to form User Groups? Common processes: User groups were not formed in four watershed areas. These are GO supported and facilitated projects. In one of the projects, user groups were formed in order to comply with the guidelines. Hence, functional responsibilities were not assigned to them. This is a GO supported and NGO facilitated project. 30 Uttar Pradesh State Report Table 9: User groups a) Who formed new user groups? No efforts are made to form user groups 3 User Groups are formed only on paper by PIA/ WDT. 1 WDT/ PIA members formed the groups 2 2 b) What are the efforts made by PIA to form User Groups? User Groups not formed 4 Just formed by PIA to comply with the Guidelines. But no functional responsibilities are given to User Groups 1 User Groups evolved during the course of time/ process, while the activities are implemented 1 2 c) What is the basis for forming User Groups/ Membership Criteria? Beneficiaries of a particular activity (crops, structures, any other) are put together to form user group 1 2 Close relatives are identified as user groups 1

30 Rare processes: In three watershed areas, the groups evolved during the course of program implementation. This was observed in NGO facilitated projects, which is supported by both GO as well as INGO. c) What is the basis for forming User Groups/ Membership Criteria? Common processes: Beneficiaries with similar interests and activities were identified and grouped together in three out of eight watersheds. These were facilitated by NGO, supported by both GO and INGO. This aspect is not applicable in four watersheds where groups were not formed. Rare processes: In one of the GO supported and facilitated project, the basis/criteria for group formation was being a relative of committee member. Implications: User groups are basic building blocks for watershed development projects. When PIA/ WDT does not make serious efforts to form these user groups, the institutional base of the watershed projects remains weak. When user groups are strong as a result of efforts by PIA/WDT, the chances of community participation in watershed activities (at all stages of the project) are very high. The basis for forming a user group could be an area/ block; a particular activity or any common property resource on which the users are dependent. If the basis for forming user groups is political affiliations/ other considerations, the user groups are unlikely to be sustainable and functional. a) Who formed new SHG? Common processes: WDT /PIA members were instrumental in formation of SHGs in five projects. Four out of these are facilitated by NGO and one by GO. Support for these watersheds is given by both GO as well as INGO. Rare processes: In two projects there were no efforts to form SHGs. In one project the group formation was done only to satisfy the guidelines and existed only on papers. These were supported and facilitated by GO. Table 10: Formation of SHGs a) Who formed new SHG? No efforts are made to form SHG 2 SHG are formed only on paper by PIA/ WDT. 1 WDT/ PIA members formed the SHG b) What are the efforts made by PIA to form SHG? No SHGs are formed by PIA or SHGs are formed only on paper 4 2 PIA made special efforts to identify poor/ marginal & small farmers and landless persons (women and men) and formed their SHGs. This process continued till the end of project 2 c) What are the criteria for selecting members of SHG? Homogeneity in caste/ class/ affinity in a hamlet 2 Poor and very poor people are organized into SHG (women and men) 2 (women) From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 31

31 b) What are the efforts made by PIA to form SHG? Common processes: Out of eight watersheds, in six projects, no efforts were made to form groups by the PIA. These were supported by the GO, facilitated both by GO as well as NGO. Rare processes: However, in two of the INGO supported project, PIA made special efforts to identify the poor and formed the groups (both men and women). These were facilitated by NGO. c) What are the criteria for selecting members of SHG? Common processes: In four projects, where there were efforts to form groups, homogeneity in terms of caste, class affinity and poverty was the criteria/basis for formation of the groups. This does not apply to those projects where such efforts were absent. Implications: Self Help Groups are expected to provide space for poor families/ members in the watershed development project, by organizing them and providing them assistance in the form of capital (loan/ revolving fund). This loan would enhance their changes of user natural resource base of the village in an effective manner. Unfortunately, the formation of SHG is fairly at primitive stage in the state. The absence of SHG would completely drive the project towards resource rich families and highly centralized investments. On the other hand, when SHGs are formed and strengthened, their say in watershed affairs is likely to increase. When SHGs are formed with predominantly women, they also get an opportunity to be mainstreamed. Issue 8: Watershed Committee a) How are WC members selected/ elected Common processes: In five watersheds PIA was instrumental in selecting the WC members. These were supported by the GO and four of them were facilitated by both GO and NGO (1). From among these in three watershed areas, PIA held discussions with elders, Sarpanch and Panchayat. However, the members of these committees were not aware of their membership. Table 11: WC a) How are WC members selected/ elected PIA formed WC. WC members do not know that they are WC members. 2 PIA with village leaders (Eg: Local Contractor) 1 1 PIA discussed with Sarpanch and Panchayat. Then they selected the WC members 1 Community in a meeting at hamlet/ project are level 1 2 b) How was the watershed committee chairman selected? WA and Grama Sabha selected 2 WC members selected Chairman 1 The person who took the lead role for brining the watershed program was selected as Chairman by community and PIA 2 1 PIA declared Mett (labour supervisor) as Chairman of WC 2 32 Uttar Pradesh State Report

32 Rare processes: In the remaining three watersheds, the community took initiative to form the WC. The selection was done in a meeting held either at hamlet or in a project meeting. b) How was the watershed committee chairman selected? Common processes: In majority of the watersheds (six out of eight) involvement of the community was very apparent. In two of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, Gramasabha and WA were actively involved in selection. In the rest of the GO supported projects, either the community or the WC members selected the Chairman. Rare processes: The supervisor was declared as the chairman of the committee by the PIA in a GO funded as well as facilitated project. a) How many meetings were organized before the formation of WC? Common processes: Meetings were not organized in three of eight watersheds that were supported and facilitated by the GO. One meeting was organized in one of the projects supported by GO. Rare processes: Two or more meetings were organized in four NGO facilitated projects that were supported by both GO as well as INGO. b) What Criteria are used for selecting WC? Common processes: Ability to participate and representation form SC/ST women were identified as the criteria in GO supported and NGO as well as GO facilitated projects. The criteria of participatory skills were also observed in the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects. Rare processes: Table 12: Grama Sabha/ Village Meeting/ Hamlet Meetings a) How many meetings were organized before the formation of WC? No meetings 3 Only one meeting 1 Two to three meetings 2 More than five meetings 2 b) What Criteria are used for selecting WC Each village should have representation. 1 2 SC/ST/ Women as members 3 2 Should be able to participate in community level activities Representation form every village was the basis in three out of eight projects. These were supported by GO as well as INGO and facilitated by the NGO. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 33

33 Whether Bank A/C for project funds is opened or not? Common processes: In six out of eight watersheds, bank account was opened in the name of WC. Four of these are supported by GO, but facilitated by Both Go as well as NGO. Two were supported by INGO and facilitated by NGO Rare processes: Though the account was opened the members were not aware of such process and details. This was observed in GO supported as well as facilitated projects. Implications: Table 13: Bank account Whether Bank A/C for project funds is opened or not? Bank A/C opened in the name of WC WC members do not know. But Bank A/C is opened. 2 Watershed Committee is expected to emerge from basic building blocks of the watershed project user groups and SHGs. However, this process is not followed in state. This reversal of process (formation of watershed committee without any relevance to User Groups/ SHG) could lead to considerable centralization of power and traditional power structures and leadership are likely to dominate the watershed project also. When PIAs/ WDT dominate this process, the transparency and community participation would also get reduced. This process might take its own time and may require number of meetings to be organized. A quick-fix type of approach to formation of watershed committee would grossly undermine the community participation and space. Office bearers of the watershed committee should be selected/nominated from the existing User and Self Help Groups. The PIA should be able to facilitate this process so that leadership is in the hands of deserving and poor sections of the village. When this process is not followed, it would give space to vested interests in the village. The bank accounts and related arrangements should be completely with the knowledge of the watershed institutions. This is also an empowerment process, for which PIA/ WDT has to make special efforts. If these efforts are not made, watershed committees will remain like puppets in the hands of PIA. Issue 9: Watershed Delineation a) How was the watershed delineated? Common processes: Various PRA tools were used to delineate the watershed area in five projects. Three of these were supported by GO and two by the INGO. Both GO as well as NGO facilitated these projects. Technical survey was another method that was used in three projects facilitated NGO and supported by GO and INGO A resource organization was involved in one Go supported and NGO facilitated project. Rare processes: In two GO supported as well as facilitated projects, community was not aware of such process. 34 Uttar Pradesh State Report

34 b) Is there a map of delineated watershed in the village? Common processes: In five out of eight projects, the map is being displayed in the common places of the village. This was observed both in GO as well as INGO supported and GO and NGO facilitated projects. Rare processes: In three of the GO supported and facilitated projects the map was available only with PIA. Implications: With PIA (In a file) only 3 Watershed delineation is technical process, which should combine social dimensions. The transparency in delineating watershed area is a critical concern. The involvement of community in the process and display of delineated watershed are critical requirements of this process. When this process was followed, there is considerable transparency and empowerment at community level. Support of resource organizations would make this process more technically and socially sound. Issue 10: Problem Analysis What was the process of problem analysis? Five out of eight watersheds did not conduct problem analysis. All five are GO funded projects of which three were facilitated by and 2 by N. Two INGO funded and NGO facilitated projects used various PRA exercises with village leaders for problem analysis. Table 14: Delineation of watershed Whether Bank A/C for project funds is opened or not? a) How was the watershed delineated? Not known 2 PIA and villagers conducted the transect walk, PRA mapping, using relevant maps (cadastral map) PIA hired the services of Resource Organization. 1 Technical Survey 1 2 b) Is there a map of delineated watershed in the village Painted/ displayed on wall/ board in the village/ Committee/ Secretary Table 15: Problem analysis What was the process of problem analysis? Not conducted 3 2 WDT/ WC used field Survey, transact walk, discussions with individuals/ groups 1 PRA on Prioritization, in consultation with village leaders, committee members and few others by PIA (using cards/ other material). 2 In one watershed facilitated and supported by GO problem analysis was done by field survey; transect walk and discussions with individuals and groups. Whether any special attention was given to problems of women and weaker section? Common processes: Problem analysis was not carried out in five of GO supported and projects. In addition it was also observed that gender concerns were not dealt or given any attention in one of the projects. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 35

35 Table 16: Problems of women and weaker sections Whether any special attention was given to problems of women and weaker section? Response Government INGO No Problem Analysis 3 2 Rare processes: No special attention is given to analyze problems of women 1 Conducted special (some times) separate meetings with women to discuss their problems (drinking water, fuel wood, food security, health, violence, wage disparity and so on). 2 Conducted special (some times) separate meetings with women to discuss their problems (food security, livelihoods options, migration, so on) and the reasons for landlessness. 2 In two of INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, it was observed that special efforts were made to understand and address gender concerns and special meetings were convened to discuss on such issues. Implications: Problem analysis is the first step for planning and institution development around common issues. It is important that the process for situation analysis has to be participatory and relevant to project objectives. A participatory process of situation analysis contributes significantly to the empowerment of communities. If this process step is neglected, the project content gets decided by the vested interests. Problem analysis also helps to target deserving community in the village say, women and weaker sections of the village. Based on this analysis with a specific focus on the communities (women, dalits, so on), the opportunities from the project for these communities could be enhanced. If this community specific situation analysis is not conducted, there is a danger of completely excluding a particular community. Issue 11: Field Survey for Planning Who selected the sites? Selection of the sites was done by the PIA along with WC Chairman and President in three watershed areas. These were supported by the GO and facilitation was by GO as well as NGO Where as in the remaining three, WC Chairman and President 1 2 supported projects and facilitated, either PIA, Villagers and WC 2 PIA or WDT have selected the sites for watersheds. Table 17: site selection Who selected the sites? WDT Alone 1 PIA alone 2 In two of the INGO funded and NGO facilitated projects, PIA along with villagers and WC selected the sites. 36 Uttar Pradesh State Report

36 Whether local volunteers participated during the survey/ survey/ planning? The participation by the volunteers was only to the extent of execution of works in five out of eight projects. Four were facilitated by the NGOs and one by the GO. Support was given by both GO as well as the INGO for these projects. In three of GO projects, volunteers were not identified at all. Implications: Site selection of sites during field level survey enables the involvement of respective user groups/ farmers. It is important the village leaders and PIA create opportunities for all categories of communities to participate in this process of site selection. It is important that the PIA/ WDT play a role of facilitators in this process and add value to the choices of communities. If the PIA/ WDT dominates the process and make ultimate decisions, the community may not own the decisions. Involvement of local activists/ functionaries at this stage is a critical requirement. Issue 12: Indigenous Technology Knowledge What types of ITK are identified? Common processes: No indigenous technology was reported to be used in any of the projects. Issue 13: Developing Individual and Group s Action Plan What was the process of preparing individual and group action plan? PIA did not make any efforts to prepare action plans in five GO supported projects. Only a map was prepared at the time of preparing the proposal. One project from this is facilitated by the NGO and the rest by the GO. Where as in five projects, number and location of certain activities was decided at the time of project preparation. Support and facilitation is as above. Table 18: survey planning a) Whether local volunteers participated during the survey/ survey/ planning? Volunteers are not identified/ appointed 3 Volunteers participated in only in execution (Male and Female) b) What types of ITK are identified No ITK identified 8 Table 19: Action plan What was the process of preparing individual and group action plan? PIA did not prepare any plan. They prepared only a map at the time of project proposal preparation. 4 1 Number and location for certain activities (EG: Check dams) decided at the time of project preparation by PIA. 4 1 WDT led WC meetings and prepared monthly Action Plans. These plans are sent to PIA for approval. PIA approves these plans, based on the funds available. 1 PIA, Community and WC make monthly plans and approved in the same place. 2 From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 37

37 In one of the NGO facilitated and GO supported projects, WDT took initiative to convene meetings and prepared monthly plans. These were approved by the PIA on the basis of availability of funds. In two of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, PIA community and WC all together prepared monthly action plans and they were approved by at the time of preparation by all concerned. Whether the contribution and its requirements were discussed during the planning process or not? The issue of contribution and the requirement was not discussed in any of the projects. No. Not discussed. 6 2 PIA discussed with President, Secretary of WC. 2 villages. To be verified It was reported that this issue was discussed with the president, Secretary of WC. However, this requires verification. Implications: The action plan for each individual plot/ farmer is an important requirement of the watershed development project. This methodology ensures that all deserving land gets covered and treated. If these action plans are not prepared, there is a possibility that most of the lands get either neglected or there would be skewed distribution of investments. When PIA makes several efforts to involve individual farmers in the process, there would be a high chance for community participation and right kind of choices and investments. Table 21: designs and estimates Planning is also an occasion in which nonnegotiables (Eg: Contribution) are discussed and a consensus is evolved among the a) Who prepared the designs and estimates? community. If this discussion is not PIA prepared 4 1 organized, there would be low level of PIA hired the services of external understanding and adherence to the project technical resource agency to prepare designs and estimates. 1 objectives and approaches. PIA with community and WC 2 a) Who prepared the designs and estimates? In five projects PIA prepared the designs and estimates. These were supported by GO and facilitated both by GO as well as NGO. In one of the projects, PIA took the help and support of the external technical resource 38 Uttar Pradesh State Report Table 20: contribution Whether the contribution and its requirements were discussed during the planning process or not? b) How are the designs and estimates prepared? Data currently not available. (To be verified - UP). 2 PIA and Villagers could not respond to this point. 2 Communities do not know how estimates are prepared. 2 1 WDT prepared designs and estimates in consultation with one or two village leaders. Others do not know about them. 1

38 agency. This was again funded by the GO and facilitation is by NGO PIA along with community and WC members prepared the designs in two of the INGO supported projects. b) How are the designs and estimates prepared? Community is not aware of these aspects in three projects that are supported by the GO and facilitated by both GO and NGO. PIA and villagers were not in a position to respond to this query. In one of the NGO facilitated and GO supported project, WDT prepared the designs and estimates with few elders of the village. Others are not aware of this process. Data is not available in two of INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects. What rates were adopted in the estimation - local, ssr? In four out of eight projects that are supported by GO and facilitated by both GO as well as NGO, SSR rates were adopted. For the INGO projects the data was not available. Implications: Table 22: estimation of rates What rates were adopted in the estimation - local, ssr? Used SSR (Eg: RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, MoA,) 2 2 It is important that community gets an opportunity to contribute to the process of preparation of estimates and designs. Though PIA/ WDT could take major responsibility on this issue, it is also important that the local functionaries get adequate capacity building inputs and opportunities in actual design and estimation process. This approach goes a long way in empowerment of the community and sustainable management of assets created. If this process is devoid of community s involvement, the activities could be completed, but the empowerment agenda gets neglected. This approach could also lead to centralization of power at PIA/ WDT level, as they are the only knowledgeable groups on the watershed project. For preparation of all estimates, SSR is used. It is also important that the payments are also made on SSR basis. It is also important to ensure that latest SSR is used for preparing the estimates. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 39

39 Issue 15: Consolidation of Action Plan Who has the action plan? Community is not aware of the action plan in four GO supported projects. Three of these are facilitated by the GO and one by NGO. The plan is with project authorities and or with PIA in case of three projects that have the support and facilitation of GO. In one the projects that plan was misplaced which otherwise would have been with PIA Table 23: Action plan Who has the action plan? WC and Project Officer (PO) 1 WC Secretary usually has the copy but now its with PIA 1 PIA has the action plan. But its misplaced 1 PIA + WC + WDT 1 In the INGO supported projects (two) the plan is with WC and project officer and with PIA, WC and WDT. How were the plans consolidated? In four watersheds, since the planning was not carried out, consolidation did not take place. These are supported and also facilitated by GO. In one of the NGO facilitated and GO funded projects, PIA alone did the consolidation. Table 24: consolidation of plans How were the plans consolidated? There are no plans for individuals. Plan is prepared at watershed level. So there is no need for consolidation. 3 1 PIA alone consolidated action plans 1 PIA and Villagers 1 2 In three projects, PIA along with villagers did the consolidation. Two out of these were supported by INGO and facilitated by NGO and one by GO. How much time did it take to finalize the action plan from the commencement of program? The time taken for finalizing the action plan varies from three months to one year in four projects. Three of them are GO supported and one by INGO. Facilitation is both by NGO as well as GO. Community does not know in three projects that are supported as well as facilitated by GO. 40 Uttar Pradesh State Report Table 25: finalization of plans How much time did it take to finalize the action plan from the Commencement of program? Could not generate information 1 Does not know 3 Less than three months 1 Four to Six months 1 Six to twelve months 2

40 In one of the projects, information could not be generated. This was supported by INGO and facilitated by NGO a) How many times action planning was done? Was there a tentative action plan? In four GO supported projects, it was done only once and in a formal manner. These were facilitated by both NGO and GO In two other projects community is not aware. Among the two of the INGO supported projects, it was done once year in one of the projects, and has been done once in every six months in another projects. NGO has facilitated these projects. b) Reasons for changes in action plans? To incorporate minimum wages, the action plan was changed in one project that was supported and facilitated by GO. Changes were made in order to incorporate/ include new works and new designs in one of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects. Due to change in funding agency,(initially started with government, then switched to Action aid) the action plan was changed(ingo supported and NGO facilitated) Table 26: changes in action plan a) How many times action planning was done? Was there a tentative action plan? Only Once (Formal) 2 2 Annual revision of action plans by community 1 Three Times. The plans were made for 6 months each. 1 Community Do Not Know 2 b) Reasons for changes in action plans? To incorporate minimum wages (earlier local wages based plans are prepared) 1 To incorporate/ include new works and new designs, action plans are changed 1 No Change 2 Community Do Not Know 3 Change in funding (initially started with government, then switched to Action aid) 1 In the remaining projects either the community was not aware or the plan was not changed. These were supported by GO and facilitated by GO as well as NGO. Implications: The knowledge of action plans (contents, budgets, target groups and so on) among community members is an important indicator of their involvement and participation. If the community members are not involved adequately in planning process, they could not develop any knowledge base about the watershed project and its action plans. It is also important that the local communities/ institutions have a copy of the action plans. This indicates their involvement and sense of ownership on the action planning process and its output. In an ideal planning process, there would be different types of action plans (at individual/ group/ community levels), which need to be put together in a cohesive and consolidated manner. This From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 41

41 requires considerable professional and organizational skills. If the local community is involved in this process, they could develop greater sense of ownership on the entire process as well as its outcome. Depending on the level of participation and sophistication of the action planning process, the time required for action plan might range from three months to one year. There are also reasons like administrative delays, behind long planning period. A participatory action planning process also accommodates the views and demands of community from time to time. This calls for changes in the action plans. The number of changes in action plans is also an indicator of level of participation of communities (in a way). Issue 16: Prioritization and Coverage What criteria were used for prioritization? It can be inferred from the table that almost all the INGO supported projects and very few( 3) of GO supported projects have given priority for poor, women, immediate needs of the community, activities that benefit larger number of the community, land development and natural resource development. Participatory processes were observed in these projects. Table 27: criteria for prioritisation What criteria were used for prioritization? Response Government INGO No Criteria and prioritization 1 1 Poorest of the poor from all sections of the village 2 Poor SC/ ST/ Weaker Sections population got priority 1 2 Problems related to women 1 Urgent needs of community 2 Landed people (well off and Rich People) 1 1 Activities/ Interventions that benefit larger number of families (Eg: CPR, Field Bund) 1 1 Water resource development for agriculture (irrigation)was given priority 1 1 Soil Conservation Activities 3 1 Land Development (Terracing, Land leveling) 1 Plantation 1 WDT decided the prority on the basis of the emphasis given by their higher officials 2 WDT and Some influential person decided the priority 3 priority was decided by engineer and some government officials 2 Season (rain) 1 Availability of Laborers 1 1 Fund availability 1 Fallow land or Land available for treatment 1 1 Department s approval 1 Which season material can reach at the site 1 Capacity of People for construction 1 PIA with community 1 PIA and Panchayat decided the priority on the basis of the present work of Panchayat 1 42 Uttar Pradesh State Report

42 Whereas, in majority if the GO funded and facilitated watersheds, prioritization was based more on influential person s views, persons who are in authoritative positions, or as per the needs of resource rich persons. Participatory processes appears to be absent in these processes and decisions are arrived considering the funds, availability of labor, approval by the department and not as per the needs of the resource poor. Implications: Prioritization of activities and target groups is an important step during planning process. This process should reflect the concerns and objectives of the watershed development project and orientation of PIA/ WDT. If majority of the budgets and activities reach rich and influential sections of the village, it indicates that the PIA/WDT ignored the equity issues. On the other hand, if the project budgets reach poor and disadvantaged sections of the village, the PIA/ WDT was keen on ensuring the inclusion of poor in the watershed projects. The prioritization process also indicates the basic professional orientation and expertise of the PIA/ WDT (Eg: If a PIA has expertise in water resource management, they are likely to take more interest on water issues and push the same in watershed plans). Issue 17: Approval of Action Plan by Gram Sabha How was the consent of WA/ Grama Sabha taken for action plan? Formal consent was not taken in two watersheds that was supported by and facilitated by GO Since the project was under Nagar Panchayat, formal Gramasabha could not be organized and taking consent does not arise in this case. This was supported and facilitated by GO. The plan was discussed with the Chairperson of the Nagar Panchayat. In two watershed projects though the issue was discussed in the Gramasabha, there was no representation by the poor or weaker sections of the society. This was GO supported and facilitated program. Table 28: Approval by GS How was the consent of WA/ Grama Sabha taken for action plan? Response Government INGO No formal consent taken. 2 PIA informed the contents of action plan to the WC. The consent of village was taken in the village meeting 1 Action Plan is discussed with selected members of WA in the presence of WDT. Their consent is taken as final consent. 1 PIA and WC presented action plan in village meeting. It was discussed and approved. 1 The project was under Nagar Panchayat so no formal Gram sabha was called. PIA discussed the action Plan with Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat 1 PIA called gramsabha to discuss the action plan but the gram sabha did not represent Poor and Weaker section 1 1 From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 43

43 A village meeting was convened and the consent of the village was taken in the meeting in two of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects. Action Plan was discussed with selected members of WA in the presence of WDT. Their consent is taken as final consent in one of the NGO facilitated GO project. Implications: The process for approval of action plans is a clear indicator of community participation and transparency of the project. If the grama sabha is not involved in approval of action plans and did not get a chance to express it opinion, the action plans do not get any sanctity. On the other hand, if the action plans are approved in the grama sabha, each member of the community gets an opportunity to understand the contents of watershed plan and give his/her opinion on the contents and prioritization of the same. This also develops greater consensus among the community about the action plan. Issue 18: Approval by Project Authorities Who has submitted the plan for approval to project authority (ZP/ NGO/ Donor)? The PIA processes the action plans and submitted them to district officers/ project directors. This process is largely followed in case of Go PIAs. There is no role of villagers at the first stage of approval in this case. The first level of approval was by the village leaders at community level. The second and third stages of approval are PIA and DRDA level in case of. The community level approval was by NRM committee and this approved plan was submitted to donors through N. Community members do not know about the approval of action plans and various stages involved in the same. Table 29: submission of plans Who has submitted the plan for approval to project authority (ZP/ NGO/ Donor)? Response Government INGO WC PIA Project Director (DRDA/ ZP/Jt. Dire (Agri)/ /Dist. Soil Con) 1.NIL PIA Project Director (Jt Dire/Dist. Soil Con) 3 44 Uttar Pradesh State Report Process is not clear 1 Village Leaders PIA DRDA 1 Villagers didn t know Villagers didn t know Villagers didn t know 1 NRM Committee PIA Donor (OXFAM) 1

44 Implications: When the action plan is approved in various stages, the involvement of community and other stakeholder gets established. When the first stage approval by community was followed strictly, they would also get the role of other stakeholders in the approvals. If the project authorities take too much of time to approve action plans, the moral of communities could get negatively impacted. Issue 19: Implementation of Works and Payments a) Who marks out the work? In four GO funded projects, PIA staff/ WDT/technical staff of PIA marks the work. Both GO as well as NGO facilitated the process. In three projects, secretary and member of WC marked the works. One project form these is supported by GO and other two by INGO. SC/ST, UG were only In one GO supported and facilitated project, responsible for labor work 1 the works were marked by the PIA and WC secretary/president. b) How is the responsibility among user groups shared? What did user groups do? User groups did not exist in five out of eight projects. Four from these are supported and facilitated by GO. One is facilitated by NGO. In two INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, user groups have supervised the quality and quantity of works. In one of the NGO facilitated and GO supported projects, the user groups and persons from SC/ ST were involved in labor work only. Implications: Table 30: Work and payments a) Who marks out the work? PIA staff/wdt/technical staff of PIA 2 2 WC Secretary, WC member 1 2 PIA and WC secretary/president 1 b) How is the responsibility among user groups shared?what did user groups do? User Groups do not exist 4 1 User Groups supervised the quality and quantity of works 2 After the approval of action plans, the works need to be actually grounded. The first step in this process is to mark them on the ground. It is important to ensure that the community level functionaries play a critical role in this process. This stage should not be perceived as the mandate of only PIAs/ WDT. The capacity building of communities on execution of watershed development projects beings with marking of activities. The village level functionaries should be able to perform most of the From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 45

45 functions related to execution of watershed works, if they got proper and relevant orientation and capacity building inputs. In an ideal setting, user groups of watershed development project have to execute the works. When this institution itself is weak or absent, there is no opportunity for the community level participation during the execution of works. On the other hand, if the user groups are strong, they could take up several responsibilities related to execution of watershed works. This involvement of user groups helps in the empowerment of communities and institutions of communities. Issue 20: Contribution for Work a) How was the contribution made? The contributions were made through labor in six watersheds. Four projects out of the six were GO supported and two by the INGO. Facilitation was done both by NGO as well as GO. Contributions were nil in one project that was supported and facilitated by GO. Table 31: Contributions a) How was the contribution made? In one of the projects, PIA deducted the amount from the payment of the contractor. In labor No contribution to WDF 1 PIA deducted the amount from Contractor s payment 1 b) Who actually contributes? Individuals/ Owners, who benefited from works Labor even for private land 1 1 No one contributed 2 b) Who actually contributes? In four projects, contributions were made by the persons who will get benefited with the program. Two from these were supported by the GO and two by INGO. Facilitation is done by both GO as well as NGO. In two projects, labor has contributed. This was observed in GO supported program. In the remaining two projects, there were no contributions made. These are supported and facilitated by GO. Are receipts given for contribution? Who gives the receipts? Receipts were not issued for contribution in three out of eight projects. These projects were funded by GO and facilitated by NGO as well as GO. Table 32: Are receipts given for contribution? Who gives the receipts? No contribution 2 No receipts are issued. 2 1 Secretary issued receipts of contribution 1 NO receipts but PIA used to maintain Contribution Cards, later the practice was also discontinued 1 Vouchers were prepared but not given to the individuals, are available at WC 1 46 Uttar Pradesh State Report

46 In one of the GO supported and NGO facilitated projects, PIA maintained cards of contribution for sometime. However, this system was discontinued after some period. In one of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, though the vouchers were prepared, they were not given to the individuals who has made contributions. In one project the secretary issued receipts to the individuals. This was observed in INGO supported and NGO facilitated project. Contributions were not made in any form in two GO supported and facilitated projects. Who collects the contribution? Where is it deposited? In two GO supported watersheds, Secretary collected the contribution and deposited in the WDF a/c. Both NGO and GO facilitated one project each. In two projects, contributions were deducted from the wages of labor by PIA at the time of wage payment. People are not aware where it was deposited. These were supported by GO and facilitated by NGO and GO. In one of the GO supported and facilitated project, PIA collected the contribution from the contractor s payment and payment to tractors and deposited in the bank. Among two projects with the support of GO, at one place there was no contribution and other place, it was collected. GO facilitated these projects. In five watersheds, the amount was deposited in a separate WDF a/c. However, information as regards who collected it is absent in the data collected. In one of the INGO supported watersheds, WC collected the contribution and deposited in a separate account. Table 33: WDF Who collects the contribution? Where is it deposited? Response Government INGO No contribution 1 Secretary collected contribution on behalf of WC. It is deposited in separate WDF bank a/c. 1 1 Watershed committee collected contribution and deposited in the Bank A/C of WC (Works) 1 PIA Collected Contribution by deducting from their wages at the time of making payment. People were not aware where it was deposited 1 1 PIA deducted it from Contractors, Tractor suppliers and deposited in WDF account. No one else contributed. 1 UG- WDT- WC - Bank 1 No collection. 1 Separate WDF Ac 3 2 Deposited in WC account 1 From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 47

47 User groups collected the amount and that was deposited in the bank by WC and WDT, in one of the INGO supported projects. Both these projects are facilitated by an NGO. a) Is community aware of WDF? In four projects out of eight watersheds, community was not aware of WDF. These are supported by GO and facilitated by both NGO as well as GO. In one of the projects, facilitated by the NGO and supported by GO, a section of the community (weaker section and women) do not know about WDF and its purpose. In one project where the contribution was not made the question is not applicable. In two INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, community was aware of the WDF. Table 34: WDF a) Is community aware of WDF? WDF is not required to be collected. 1 Community is not aware of WDF 3 1 Weaker section and women do not know about the existence and purpose of the WDF 1 Community knows about WDF. Other details are not collected. 2 b) Was WDF used for any purpose so far? Details WDF is not required to be created 1 Not Used so far, even after completion. 3 Repairs and maintenance of Check dams Used as revolving fund by SHGs 2 b) Was WDF used for any purpose so far? Details WDF was used for repair and maintenance of check dams in two projects. They were supported by GO and facilitated by GO as well as NGO. It was used as revolving fund in two projects supported by INGO and facilitated by NGO. In three projects, it was not used. These are supported by and facilitated by GO. Implications: The contribution from the community/ users who actually benefit from the watershed activities is a real indicator of their sense of ownership and involvement in the project. When the communities/ users do not contribute, they do not get any opportunity to make choice of the activities and do not have any say in the quality of the same. The process in which the laborers are forced to share their wages (cut from their wages) is a very exploitative process and anti-equity. If the PIA/ WDT do not insist on contribution from any one, the entire project is in the hands of outsiders. The opportunity for villagers to influence the watershed activities is lost. When ever contribution is collected from genuine users, it is important that the Watershed Committee follows a transparent system (Eg: Issuing receipts). If such systems are followed by Watershed Committee and PIA, they would establish a robust project management discipline in the village and transparency. Needless to say, that the village level functionaries have to play a critical role in this process, this is also an important empowering mechanism. 48 Uttar Pradesh State Report

48 The amount collected in the form contribution is deposited in a separate bank account which is called Watershed Development Fund. This WDF is expected to help in maintenance and management of watershed assets. Though the making of WDF could follow different processes, the use of WDF is a result of community level awareness and empowerment. An ignorant community (About WDF) is not empowered about the use of WDF. It is observed that many villages do not have adequate capacity and knowledge about use of WDF, as the process of formation of WDF itself is non-transparent and non-participatory. The use of WDF indicates that the watershed committees got adequate support (policy, administrative and operational norms). Issue 21: Measurements How measurement of the work was done? (Who/ when/ procedure/ frequency In six out of eight GO supported watersheds, the community was not involved in the process. PIA alone or WDT, WC, or PIA with the member of WC/WDT carried out the exercise. Four out of these six projects were facilitated by GO and the remaining two by the NGO. In two of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, this was carried out by PIA in the presence of WC member, and the users. Implications: Table 35: Measurement How measurement of the work was done? (who/ when/ procedure/ frequency) WDT leader 1 PIA alone 1 PIA in the presence of WC member and user concerned 1 2 WC member with WDT 1 PIA, Secretary and WC President 1 Community don t know 1 Measurements are the basis for making payments. It is important that community members are involved in this process so that there is considerable empowerment and transparency. Community level functionaries could play an important role in this step, if they got adequate capacity building inputs. Otherwise, the entire responsibility lies with the PIA/WDT, who could keep the user groups in dark. The next best option is to make this process a joint exercise, in which community members/ institutions and PIA/ WDT take measurements together. Issue 22: Record Keeping Who maintains the measurement books? In two watersheds PIA took the responsibility to maintain the measurement books. These were supported by GO and facilitated by both GO as well as NGO. Table 36: Maintenance of books Who maintains the measurement books? PIA (APO/ Technical Officer) 1 1 WDT (Engineer) 2 1 WDT (Engineer)+ Cluster coordinator (PIA Staff) 1 Secretary 1 Don t know 1 From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 49

49 In another two projects supported and facilitated by GO, the engineer maintains the books. This was observed in one of the INGO supported project also. Engineer and cluster coordinator were responsible in one of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated project. Secretary maintained the books in one of the GO supported project. In one project data was not available. Implications: Watershed funds are directly released to watershed association and are managed by watershed committee. It is important the watershed committee itself maintains the records and other books, which are mandatory. For ensuring this to happen, the capacity building inputs to watershed functionaries is an important requirement (Training, hand holding while preparing the records and supervision on the quality of records). This support would go a long way in ensuring the proper involvement of local institutions. If these inputs are not provided to the functionaries, the responsibility and task of completing the records lies with PIA/WDT. This role of PIA/WDT would dis-empower the watershed based institutions. Issue 23: Financial management a) What is the frequency of measurements? The measurements were carried out every week in three watersheds. Two from these were INGO supported and facilitated by an NGO. One is supported and facilitated by GO Measurements were carried out in two projects, according to the requirement of PIA as opposed to the usual method. These were supported by GO, facilitated by GO and NGO. In one GO supported project it was carried out on fortnightly basis. b) Procedure for measurements. Table 37: Financial management a) What is the frequency of measurements? Weekly 1 2 Monthly 1 Fortnightly 1 Don t know (PIA measures it) 1 As and when required by PIA 1 1 b) Procedure for measurements PIA decided the system of measurements, secretary and WDT records the measurements during and after the work and check measurements done by PIA 1 Technical expert and village laborers measure, recording and book maintenance by PIA 3 1 PIA alone (work was done by contractors) 1 PIA, WC, UG decided the system 2 In four out of eight projects, Technical experts and village laborers carrid out the measurements. These are GO supported projects with GO and NGO as facilitators. 50 Uttar Pradesh State Report

50 In two of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, PIA WC and user groups together decided the system. In the remaining two GO supported projects PIA has decided about the procedure for measurements. Implications: The frequency of measurements depends on the quantum of work that was completed in a given period of time. For all practical reasons, the regular measurements and payments make the watershed project more effective at community level. If the measurements are delayed, obviously the payments are also delayed. It is important to ensure that measurements are to be a joint responsibility or the community should be the main actor. If the WDT/ PIA plays a major role in this process, it is to be noted that the local communities would be weakened. How the payment is made? In six out of eight watersheds, PIA took the responsibility to make payments. All of them are supported by GO, facilitation was done by both GO as well as NGO. Table 38: Payments How the payment is made? Response Government INGO Secretary/WC member prepares the bills and makes payments 1 PIA and WC Secretary makes the cash payments 1 PIA makes the payments 2 Some of the payment is still due 2 PIA Makes the payment at the PIA Office. Measurements on which payment was made was less than the agreed measurement at the site. Payments for materials were through Cheque by PIA. Payment was not on Time 1 PIA makes the payment in the presence of WC President. 1 PIA makes the payment but the people were not satisfied by the payment system 1 WC president in presence of UG other than the group, whom the payment are made 1 In two of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, Secretary and WC members made the payments and /or WC president in the presence of UG made the payments. Payments were due in two GO supported and facilitated projects at the time of data collection. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 51

51 a) Who prepares the cash book? In four watershed projects, PIA prepared the cash book. These are supported by GO and facilitated by both GO as well as NGO. In one of the projects, Secretary prepared the book. In two of the INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects, president of WC prepared the cash book. Community was not aware in one project. This is a GO supported and facilitated project. Table 39: Financial records a) Who prepares the cash book? Secretary 1 PIA 3 1 WC President 2 Community Don t Know 1 b) Who is the custodian of financial records (cash book, ledger and voucher)? WC, Office 1 PIA 1 Secretary 1 W.C. President 1 Community Don t Know 4 b) Who is the custodian of financial records (cash book, ledger and voucher)? Community members do not know the whereabouts of financial records in 4 watersheds out of 8. All these projects are facilitated by s. In case of one watershed, N maintains the records and is perceived to be the custodian of records. In case of INGO funded projects, the N made serious efforts to involve local communities and empowered them to perform these functions. As a result, the community members are aware that responsibility of maintaining records is with local institutions. Implications: Making payments is the prerogative of watershed committee and its functionaries. When this role is performed by WDT/ PAI, the responsibility of this task is located out side the watershed based institutions. On the other hand, if the local functionaries take the responsibility of making payments, there would be high level of transparency and participation of local communities. Similarly, the responsibility of preparing books/ records is also with the local institutions/ functionaries. If the PIA/ WDT are preparing the records, the local institutions remain weak during the project and tend to break after the project period is completed. When community is not aware of financial aspects of the watershed projects (details for funds, location of records, responsible persons for records, etc), it clearly indicates that PIA/WDT made no efforts to involve the communities at local level in these matters. 52 Uttar Pradesh State Report

52 a) Whether extension time was given? Four watersheds did not require extension time. Three of them were supported by GO and one by INGO. Two were facilitated by the GO and two by NGO. In one of the INGO supported projects, extension time was not given while it was needed due to the other priorities of the funding organization. In one of the INGO supported projects, due to inadequate funds, the work was incomplete and had asked for extension. However, that was not granted. More than year was given to one of the GO supported projects, facilitated by GO Table 40: Time for extension a) Whether extension time was given? Not needed Not given while needed (funding organization has other priorities) 1 More than 1 year 1 Project was foreclosed 1 Though the work was not completed Extension was not given. Full release of fund was made but still fund was not adequate 1 1 b) Reasons for extension Not applicable Released was made only for two years 1 The project was foreclosed that was supported and facilitated by the GO. b) Reasons for extension This is not applicable in case of six projects as they were not given extension time. Released was made only for two years. Implications: When project related administrative procedures are followed strictly (fund releases, selection of PIA and allocations of villages to PIA in time and other issues), there may not be any need for extension for the project. The implication of extension could be on the administrative support to the project. Generally, project time period is extended, but administrative support is not provided for the extended period. This practice puts considerable pressure on the PIA/WDT. Issue 24: Employment Generation a) What % of total expenditure was spent on wage? Records were not available in six projects. Four among them are supported by GO and two by INGO. Facilitation is done by both GO as well as NGO. Data is not available with one GO supported and facilitated project. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 53

53 Only in one NGO facilitated and GO supported project, 60% of the expenditure was spent on wages. b) How long term employment was generated Employment was not generated in four projects. These were supported by GO and facilitated by GO as well as NGO. Data was not available in one of the GO supported project. It was generated but the details are not available in two INGO supported and NGO facilitated projects. Implications: One of the important objectives of the watershed project is to generate employment opportunities. It is important that project based institutions (District Project Officers; PIA/WDT and Community Based Organizations) keep a track of employment generated during the project period. If this data is not available, it is obvious that the PIA/ WDT and others did not consider employment opportunities as an important feature/ obligation of the project. If this data is consciously not generated, the use of machines and other strategies (Eg: hiring nonlocal laborers) would siphon the wage opportunities. Issue 25: Maintenance of Assets & Structures a) Maintenance of assets & structures CPR, who pays for repairs? Information was not available in all the eight projects. b) Maintenance of assets & structures Private, Any Damage? (During the Project) There were minor damages in five projects. Three of them were supported by GO and two by INGO. Facilitation is by both GO as well as NGO Table 41: Employment a) What % of total expenditure was spent on wage? More than 60% 1 No data available with WC 1 No records available b) How long term employment was generated Not available 1 Not generated 3 1 Generated but details not available 2 Table 42: Assets and structures a) Maintenance of assets & structures CPR, who pays for repairs? No information 8 b) Maintenance of assets & structures Private, Any Damage? (During the Project) Minor Major 3 c) Maintenance of assets & structures private lands, who pays for repairs? WDF 1 Data not available Uttar Pradesh State Report

54 In three of the GO supported and facilitated projects, there were major damages. c) Maintenance of assets & structures private lands, who pays for repairs? Data not available in seven projects. WDF pays for the repairs in one of the GO supported and facilitated projects. a) Maintenance of assets & structures CPR, Any damage? (After the project) No damage was reported in four NGO facilitated and GO, INGO supported projects. Minor repair was reported in one of the projects, supported and facilitated by GO. There were no assets created in three of the GO supported and facilitated projects. Table 43: CPR a) Maintenance of assets & structures CPR, Any damage? (After the project) No damage 2 2 Minor 1 No asset created on CPR 3 b) Maintenance of assets & structures CPR, who pays for repairs? (after the project period) Not applicable 3 User/ Beneficiary 1 2 WDF 1 Shramdan 1 b) Maintenance of assets & structures CPR, who pays for repairs? (Post project period) In three watershed projects, user paid for the repairs. These are NGO facilitated and GO as well as INGO supported projects. In one GO supported and facilitated projects, WDF paid for the maintenance. Payment for repairs is through Shramdaan in one of the GO supported and NGO facilitated projects. The question was not applicable for projects supported and facilitated by GO. Implications: The watershed association and committee are expected to evolve norms for maintenance of assets. If these norms are known to all community members, it indicates that the community members and their institutions are engaged with the issues of management and maintenance of assets created under watershed project. The absence of norms on this issue indicates that the community members and PIA/WDT and district level project officers are not thinking on this issue. In the absence of norms, there could be several divergent practices on management and maintenance of assets, including use of WDF. Depending on the involvement of communities From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 55

55 from the early stages of the project, the actual role of users gets established in the context of maintenance and management of watershed assets. Absence of norms on this issue could seriously impact the sustainability of assets created and benefits of the watershed development project. Issue 26: Withdrawal Activity Was there any resolution taken from the Gramsabha for the maintenance of assets and structures? Table 44: Withdrawal phase There were no resolutions made in seven out of eight projects. Five of them were supported by GO and two by INGO. Three are facilitated by NGO and the rest by GO. Data was not collected in one project. What was the withdrawal strategy? In two INGO supported projects, PIA continues to be in the village. However, it was due to some other reason and not due to this particular project. Formal handing over was observed in two GO supported projects. Facilitation by GO and NGO. Verbal handover was observed in one of the GO supported and NGO facilitated projects. There was no such strategy in two projects that was supported by GO. In one of the projects, WDT was not seen functioning after the project. Implications: Was there any resolution taken from the Gramsabha for the maintenance of assets and structures? No resolutions Data not collected 1 Table 45: Withdrawal strategy Withdrawal strategy PIA continues in the village, (but for other works) 2 Verbal handover 1 Formal handing over, in village meeting 1 1 No strategy 2 WDT has disappeared 1 The post project issues need to be discussed before the project is formally closed. PIA/WDT have to facilitate a process in which the community members and functionaries take appropriate decisions on use of WDF, maintenance of assets and other related issues. After the project period is completed, the PIA may or may not continue in the village. This could have serious implications on the growth and continuity of efforts in the village. There may be several unresolved issues related to project management and maintenance of assets. 56 Uttar Pradesh State Report

56 Functioning of WA, during post project period WC is not functioning in five projects supported by GO. Two are facilitated by NGO and the rest by GO In two of the INGO supported projects, WC is till functioning. It is not applicable in one GO supported projects. a) Who owns/operates WDF? WDF is operated by WA/ VWC in two projects. One of these is supported by GO and the other by INGO. WC and PIA member operated the WDF in two projects supported by GO and facilitated by NGO Community is not aware of such fund in three GO supported and facilitated projects. b) Growth of WDF It is stagnant in two projects, facilitated by NGO and supported by GO and INGO. Table 46: WA Functioning of WA, during post project period Not Functioning 3 2 Functioning 2 Not Applicable 1 Depreciating in one of the GO supported and NGO facilitated projects. Entire WDF is spent in one of the projects supported and facilitated by GO. c) WDF usage Table 47: WDF operation a) Who owns/operates WDF? WA/VWC 1 1 Don t know about WDF 3 WC and PIA member 2 b) Growth of WDF Depreciating 1 Stagnant 1 1 Entire WDF is spent. 1 Don t know about WDF 3 c) WDF usage As expenditure for maintenance and repair of structure 1 1 Not Used at all. 1 1 Don t know about WDF 3 d) Guidelines for post project management No guidelines 8 The fund was spent for repairs and maintenance in four projects. Two of them were supported by GO and other two by INGO. It was not used at all in another four projects. They were facilitated by NGO; support was given by GO and INGO. Community was not aware of WDF in three GO supported and facilitated projects. From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 57

57 a) Guidelines for post project management Guidelines were not there in all the eight projects. Implications: The watershed project triggers a development process, by creating a stable natural resource base. It is expected that the villages and their institutions continue their efforts to sustain the growth and benefits of the project, by taking various initiatives at local/ regional level. PIA is expected to facilitate this process and continue its support. If these processes are not followed, the potential of project benefits is underutilized and under realized. The communities should be in a comfortable position to deal with post project related issues. This is possible only when the institutions get capacity building inputs during the project period. In the absence of all such inputs, the role of watershed institutions is likely to be nominal or irrelevant at the end of the project period. 58 Uttar Pradesh State Report

58 Annexure 1: Sample Watersheds Sample Watersheds and Their Details NO Name of District PIA Name of PIA Funded by Scheme Year Watershed 1 Pachpheria Chandauli NGO Jal Sangraham MoRD IWDP Vikas Eyam Gramottham Samith 2 Vinnoaur Kanpur Nagar GO BSA Officer MoRD IWDP Tikaria Chitakoor NGO _ MoRD DPAP Guret Sonbhadra GO BSA, DPAP MoRD DPAP Daulatpur Barabanki NGO BSA MoA NWDPRA Sahanpur Vijanaur GO - MoRD EAS Kadampura Jalaun NGO Parmath OXFAM (INGO) OXFAM (INGO) Kushiyara Mirzapur NGO AAK Action Aid (INGO) Action Aid (INGO) From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 59

59 Annexure 2: List of participants Bhali Nati People s Action for National Integration Lucknow Manjit S Sahje CRS Lucknow Kushal Neogy CRS Lucknow K. J. Rajeev CCF India Suman Bhumi Adhikar Manch Lucknow Somesh Lucknow MV Rama chandrudu Wassan Sanjay Parmarth UP Raja Bua Akhil Bharthya Samaj Seva Sansthan Chitrakoot Meraj Bano Vansi Sewa Sadan Kannoj Abhishek Pandya Arthik Anusandhan Kendra UP Laxmi Kant Arthik Anusandhan Kendra UP Udai Pratap Arthik Anusandhan Kendra UP Kripa Shanker Sharma Arthik Anusandhan Kendra UP Ramlallu Singh Arthik Anusandhan KendraUP Gulab Prasad Arthik Anusandha UP Sita Ram Arthik Anusandhan Kendra UP Soumen Das Arthik Anusandhan Kendra UP Hardev Singh Sarda Sahyog Lucknow Subhash Pathak Kepurthala Dr. S.P. Singh Varun Varanasi, UP Jama Mohd. Arthik Anusandhan Kendra UP Somaj KP Independent Consultant New Delhi Neel kant OXFAM Lucknow Bhavna Pandya Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow Hari Govind Singh AAK Allahabad Jai Pratap singh Bhumi Adhikar Manch Allahabad Fahrukh Ram Find Your feet Lucknow Jitesh singh Punjab Kesari LKO Neeraj Sahu United Bharat Lucknow Manorma Jana Indo Global Social Service Society Lucknow Yogesh Kumar Sahbhagi Siksha Kendra Lucknow Darshan Desai The Indian Express Lucknow Mukesh Pandey Dainik Jagran lucknow Gyan Prakash Hindustan P. N. Tripathi University of Lucknow 60 Uttar Pradesh State Report

60 Annexure 3: Presentation by Hargovind Singh State Scenario UTTAR PRADESH Watershed schemes in Uttar Pradesh DPAP NWDPRA IWDP EAS NABARD OXFAM/ Actionaid/ others 1 2 DPAP Department of soil and water development Districts covered-15 Starts from 1995 Completed watersheds- 437 Ongoing watersheds- 949 PIA- government departments, NGOs IWDP Department of soil and water development Completed watersheds- 4 Ongoing watersheds- 49 PIA- government departments, NGOs 3 4 NWDPRA Agriculture department Number of watersheds- 400 Starts from PIA- government departments, NGOs EAS Department of Rural development Districts covered- 22 PIA- government departments, NGOs 5 6 From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 61

61 NABARD Others WDF 41 watersheds Grants based- 4 Loan based- 37 OXFAM Actionaid IGSSS EU 7 8 Selection of Steering Committee Members Inception workshop Consensus on selection of watershed Involvement of local NGOs and Government Initiation of network Watershed Selection Criterion Geographical Regions - Needs of the Watershed Area Implementing Agency Funding Source Completion Status (Phase) 9 10 Selected Watersheds Barabanki: Bijnaur: Scheme-EAS Western region PIA GO Programme- EAS Represent central region. PIA- GO Uttar Pradesh State Report

62 Sonbhadra: Chitrahoot: Scheme-DPAP PIA-GO Scheme - DPAP PIA -NGO Complete Watershed, this was the only watershed received fund continuously. Represent central region Kanpur: Scheme -IWDP Till now only four watersheds have been completed, Kanpur is one of them. Varanasi: Programme-IWDP Till now only four watersheds are completed, Varanasi is one of them. This was implemented by NGO. Process part would be better Orai: OXFAM funded PIA- NGO Mirzapur: Actionaid PIA-NGO Very few projects are funded by funding agencies other than government. Kusera is one of them From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 63

63 Selection Involvement of PIA Sectoral expertise Government participation Training 1, 2 days Methodology of the study Data collection, analysis Comparing Processes of Different Types of Project Initial Phase Initial Phase - Cluster Wise Process Index CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4 CL5 CL6 Initial Phase GoI GoI N INGO N 1 Knowledge of Communities about the selection of Village 2 Awareness Levels 3 Resolution from the village 4 EPA 1 5 EPA 2 6 Base Line Survey 7 Existing Groups 8 UGs 9 SHG Comparing Processes of Different Types of Project 10 WC Formation Institution Development Phase Institution D evelopment Phase - Cluster Wise Process Index CL7 CL8 CL9 CL10 Institution D evelopment GoI GoI N IN GO N Comparing Processes of Different Types of Project Planning Development Phase Planning Phase - Cluster Wise Process Index CL11 CL12 CL13 CL14 CL 15 Planning CL 16 CL 17 CL 18 GoI GoI N INGO N CL Watershed Delineation 12 Problem Analysis - Planning 1 13 Site Selection - Planning 2 14 ITK - Planning 3 15 Group and Individual Plans - Plng 4 16 Discussion on Non Negotiables - Planning 5 17 Designs and Estimates - Planning 6 18 Consolidation of Action Plans - Planning 7 19 Approval of Action Plans - Planning Comparing Processes of Different Types of Project Implementation Phase Implementation Phase - Cluster Wise Process Index CL 20 CL 21 CL 22 CL 23 CL 24 Implementation GoI GoI N INGO N 20 Contribution Mobilization - Implementation 1 21 Knowledge of Communities on WDF- Implementation 2 22 Execution of Works Implementation 3 23 Measurements - Implementation 4 24 Payments Implementation Uttar Pradesh State Report

64 25 Project Completion 1 (Extension) 26 Project Completion 2 (Use of WDF) 27 Project Completion 3 Withdrawal of PIA Comparing Processes of Different Types of Project Post Implementation Phase Post Implementation Phase - Cluster Wise Process Index CL 25 CL 26 CL 27 Post Completion Issues GoI GoI N IN GO N Concerns and Limitations of GO PIA Targets are given from the top Long procedure Limited flexibility Strict auditing Less control- after harialy guidelines, hence poor quality and untimely completion of work Less clarity on process part, more emphases on completion of physical targets. Budgets for works are not realistic Frequent transfers- affect the work Difficulty in using Capacity Building budget Concerns and Limitations of NGO PIAs Concerns- Limitation of N Long procedures- (project sanction) Commission/ cut Unrealistic allocations for work Insensitivity of government officials on process part- adherence to physical work completion Non cooperative attitude of Government No flexibility Case - 1 Inclusion of land and water right Key factors Land right Water rights Strengthening of local institutions Implications Social equality Ownership Food security Maintenance Inclusion of gender considerations Back ground Project aim, initial work by PIA Gender segregated data collection Formulation and strengthening of local institution Advocacy Planning Women committees Capacity building of women members Execution By women committees Awareness generation and Rapport building PIA made SPECIAL efforts to involve women Excellent participation of women Gram sabha resolution Written Resolution is taken during the Grama sabha meetings in presence of WDT and PIA More than one meeting Took one month Conflict resolution was done at this stage From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 65

65 Entry point activity Decided by PIA in consultation with village leader Implemented by PIA, WC and Community together Good Condition, No need of maintenance and usable Community contributed in terms of time spent No one was excluded Baseline survey Social Map/ Well Being Ranking for Target Listing (Caste/ food security) Existing groups The existing groups participated in WD program Some of the members of existing groups became Watershed committee members Existing groups organized EPA AND OTHER works New groups WDT/ PIA members formed the groups User Groups evolved during the course of time/ process, while the activities are implemented Beneficiaries of a particular activity (crops, structures, any other) are put together to form user group WDT/ PIA members formed the SHG PIA made special efforts to identify poor/ marginal & small farmers and land less persons (women and men) and formed their SHGs. This process continued till the end of project Poor and very poor people are organized into SHG (women and men) Watershed committee How- WC was selected by the Community, with in meeting at hamlet/ project are level Who- WA and Grama Sabha selected Took More than five meetings Criterion Each village should have representation. Should be able to participate in community level activities Watershed Delineation PIA and villagers conducted the transact walk, PRA mapping, using relevant maps (cadastral map) Technical Survey was conducted to delineate Watershed area Delineated maps are painted/ displayed on wall/ board in the village/ Committee/ secretary Problem analysis PRA on Prioritization, Ranking and analysis of problems was done in consultation with village leaders, committee members and few others by PIA (using cards/ other material) Conducted special (some times) separate meetings with women to discuss their problems (drinking water, fuel wood, food security, health, violence, wage disparity and so on). Conducted special (some times) separate meetings with Dalits to discuss their problems (food security, livelihoods options, migration, so on) and the reasons for landlessness Uttar Pradesh State Report

66 Developing Individual and Group s Action Plan PIA, Community and WC make monthly plans and approved in the same place. Design and estimate preparations- PIA with community and WC Consolidation of Action Plan Copies of Action Plans are with WC and Project Officer (PO) PIA + WC + WDT Annual revision of action plans by community U8 Change in funding (initially started with government, then switched to Action aid) Three Times the plans were made of 6 months U7 To incorporate/ include new works and new designs, action plans are changed Prioritization & coverage Poor SC/ ST/ Weaker Sections population got priority Urgent needs of community Water resource development for agriculture (irrigation) was given priority U Approval of action plan by Gram sabha PIA informed the contents of action plan to the WC. The consent of village was taken in the village meeting U7 PIA and WC presented action plan in village meeting. It was discussed and approved. U8 Implementation of Works and Payments WC Secretary, WC member marks out the work User Groups supervised the quality and quantity of works Contribution was in the form of labour Individuals/ Owners, who benefited from works actually contributed Secretary issued receipts of contribution U7 Watershed committee collected contribution and deposited in the Bank A/C of WC (Works) U7 vouchers were prepared but not given to the individuals, are available at WC U8 Process of collection of contribution U8 UG- WDT- WC - Bank Community knows about WDF. WDF Used- Repairs and maintenance of Check dams Used as revolving fund by SHGs Measurements PIA in the presence of WC member and user concerned Frequency- weekly Procedure- PIA, WC, UG decide the system Record keeping WDT (Engineer)+ Cluster coordinator (PIA Staff) +WC From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 67

67 Payments Secretary/WC member prepares the bills and makes payments- U7 WC president in presence of UG other than the group, whom the payment are made U8 Cash book preparation WC President Maintenance of assets & structures CPR, WHO PAYS FOR REPAIRS (after the project period) User/ Beneficiary HANDING OVER OF THE ASSETS To the WA/WC/VILLAGE COMMITTEE Withdrawal PIA continues in the village, (but for other works) WC is still functioning Maintenance of assets & structures CPR, WHO PAYS FOR REPAIRS (after the project period) User/ Beneficiary HANDING OVER OF THE ASSETS To the WA/WC/VILLAGE COMMITTEE Withdrawal PIA continues in the village, (but for other works) WC is still functioning Recommendations Focused Efforts at the state level to give importance to watershed projects in the state. Dedicated Project Teams at state/ district level for management of watershed projects Selection and Criteria for N Process Guidelines for the state to integrate development concerns in watershed projects Recommendations A Platform for GO and Civil Society Organizations to interact with each other on watershed projects Special Packages of Projects for Assigned Lands along with/ within watershed areas. Thank you Strong capacity building support systems at state/ district/ project level Civil Society Organizations to network together around watershed issues to lobby for better policies Uttar Pradesh State Report

68 From Process Studies to Policy Advocacy 69