Issue for October - December 2011 - National Institute of Rural ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Organisational Structure Involving Community For Effective Watershed Development 427institutions, to ensure sustainabledevelopment.* At present there is no proper exit policy.Completion of treatment to variouslands should not be taken as an end butto be considered only a means forimproving economic standards of thepeople. Hence building the ability ofpeople and local institutions to managethe natural resources for the benefit ofall, without jeopardising its future useshould be treated as the end goal andorganise trainings to the localinstitutions in the direction.Future RequirementsThe future policy as enunciated in theTenth Five Year and subsequent four Five YearPlans clearly advocates that WatershedProgramme must become people’sprogramme with government’s support andshould not remain as a governmentprogramme for the people. The 72 nd and 73 rdAmendments of the Constitution, envisage thatPanchayati Raj Institutions need to beempowered to give shape to a possiblepeople’s movement, with the need basedvillage level planning as its central theme,ultimately making it as a primary implementingagency of watershed developmentprogramme. In fact, the “Hariyali” programmelaunched from 1-4-2003 by the Ministry ofRural Development (MoRD), GoI is a step inthis direction. Training Gram Panchayat (GP)as Project Implementing Agency (PIA) usingmicro-watershed (~50ha) (Yugandhar et al.,1999, Srivastava, 1999; and Crispino Lobo,2009) in the first year leads to developmentof local level Institutions capable to plan andimplement developmental programmes.The present study identifies severallacunae in the existing OrganisationalStructure in developing capacities of localorganisations in managing developmentalprogrammes. The responses of theadministrators clearly establish the need forstrengthening local institution withcapabilities and convergence of alldevelopmental programmes at the villagelevel for cross subsidisation apart from allround development to ensure livelihoodsecurity to the population below poverty line.The formation of SHG and their continuity evenafter withdrawal from the watershed revealsthe need to form either “affinity groups” or“focus groups” for undertaking resourcedevelopment and management at the villagelevel. In this regard, it is observed that theexisting in vitro user-based institutions ratherthan setting up new organisation orcommittees will be more successful(Mukherjee, 1998). Several models have beenattempted by workers to bring sustainabilityto watershed development (Adolph, 1997).However, problems in group formation andtheir functioning were identified as majorbottlenecks in implementing the programme.These models did not have internal monitoringsystem to make necessary corrections forimproving efficiency as well as sustainability(Rama Mohan Rao et. al., 2000).The past experiences reveal that anydevelopment, to be sustainable, can neitherbe imposed nor imported and it must comeand grow within. It is a dynamic process andnot just economic dynamism but learning todevelop in different ways. The aboveunderscores the role of participatoryapproaches in all developmental programmesrelated to natural resources. In watersheddevelopment programmes if productivity,conservation and equity concerns are kept inharmony, then the results can be synergetic.It calls for involving users at all stages ofdevelopment and management includingoperation and maintenance by developing anappropriate local administrative systemequipped with technical skills and controlwithin the existing socio-economic framework.Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 30, No. 4, October - December : 2011
428 A.K. Jain, M. Gopinath Reddy and M.S. Rama Mohan RaoThere is a priority need to strengthen thecapacities and skills of stakeholders in the areaof their interest to transform them into selfmanagers(Fig-1) which requires considerabletime and effective training at different levels(Shah 1998, Crispin Lobo, 2009 and Sivanna,Gopinath Reddy and Srinivasa Reddy, 2007).Fig. 1 : Process of Planning & Development of Watershed by the Local Level InstitutionThe available theory and practice suggestthat small homogeneous groups representingfull spectrum of stakeholders can carry outimplementation tasks better than big groupsor committees (Mukherjee, 1998; Rajasekharet al, 2003; Sreenath Dixit et al, 2007). Henceat the watershed level, it is necessary to buildaffinity groups having focus on poverty,livelihoods, water management, soilmanagement, crop management, CPRmanagement etc. By training such groups, itwill be possible to effectively plan andimplement the programmes.Such a programme demands an effectivetraining organisation located at the districtlevel, depicting the resources, problems andprospects along with technical solutions.Towards this end, it is essential to develop aDistrict Resource Centre at each districtmanaged by multi-disciplinary team, withcomplete information related to bio-physical,geo-hydrological and socio-economics of thearea (Fig-2). Such knowledge helps inassessing the potential capabilities andweaknesses. The centre should also have aflow of information with respect totechnologies for resource conservation,livelihood opportunities related to resourcesand present alternative land uses along withefficient management practices apart fromvarious developmental programmes and theiractivities in the district. The centre must beable to provide both resource and functionalliteracy at the watershed level along withapplicable knowledge system that arelocation-specific. The centre should act as agood training facility for stakeholders onappropriate methods, workable technologiesand organisational skills. Since watershedJournal of Rural Development, Vol. 30, No. 4, October - December : 2011
Page 3 and 4: Journal ofRural DevelopmentVol. 30
Page 5 and 6: Journal of Rural Development, Vol.
Page 7 and 8: Promoting E-Governance in Panchayat
Page 25 and 26: Climate Change and Rainfed Agricult
Page 33 and 34: 422 A.K. Jain, M. Gopinath Reddy an
Page 37: 426 A.K. Jain, M. Gopinath Reddy an
Page 45 and 46: 434 S.Mohanakumar, R.VipinkumarIntr
Page 47 and 48: 436 S.Mohanakumar, R.VipinkumarTabl
Page 51 and 52: 440 S.Mohanakumar, R.VipinkumarForm
Page 53 and 54: 442 S.Mohanakumar, R.Vipinkumarmuch
Page 55 and 56: 444 S.Mohanakumar, R.VipinkumarEsta
Page 61 and 62: 450 S.Mohanakumar, R.VipinkumarRefe
Page 63 and 64: 452 B.B. Malik and Jaya Shrivastava
Page 73 and 74: Levels of Living of Rural Household
Page 85 and 86: The Pattern of the Distribution of
Page 87 and 88: The Pattern of the Distribution of
Page 89 and 90:
The Pattern of the Distribution of
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Journal of Rural Development, Vol.
Page 99 and 100:
Structural, Functional and Situatio
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
502 Book ReviewsRole of Micro Finan
Page 113 and 114:
504 Book ReviewsSardar Sarovar Proj
show all

Issue for October - December 2011 - National Institute of Rural ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?