Most watershed conservation and restoration programmes in the past have suffered strong setbacks because of a passive, if not antagonistic, attitude of the local population. Intervention by Government either by direct action through a public works approach or indirect, through regulatory, financial or other compulsory measures, has rarely provoked a participatory and positive attitude from the local community concerned. Arson fires and illegal grazing in forest plantations, destruction of conservation work due to lack of maintenance and theft of stakes, barbed wire and other materials, are expressions of the negative feelings of local people to an alien effort which the community has failed to understand and accept. It is, therefore, crucial to conceive watershed management programmes with a community involvement focus, whenever human activities are likely to be conflicting with conservation requirements.
Three basic approaches have been followed in the past to mobilize the local community and to integrate it in conservation programmes:
i) Ideological motivation -- mass participation of the rural people and of organized community groups on the basis of a religious, political or ethical awareness and motivation campaign or as part of ideological education. This is the case of the gigantic restoration efforts undertaken by the Chinese communes, the afforestation programmes conducted in South Korea by the Village Forestry Associations under the inspiration of the Saemaul Undong (renewed farmer) and the Chipko movement in the Indian Himalayas.
ii) Compulsory participation -- by means of regulatory measures, supervised credit, tied landleases and other entitlements (grazing rights, fuelwood collection, water rights) and rehabilitation schemes where the peasant has no choice but to participate without much conviction and willingness or continue to suffer hardship.
iii) Voluntary participation -- by appealing to the individual or collective interests of the local people in such a way that there is effective response to action.
This paper will focus on the latter approach and in particular on the economic and financial incentives which can be made available to motivate rural people and on the effective way to apply incentive schemes, according to the particular situation. Firstly, four key principles for ensuring people's participation in upland conservation will be highlighted, taking into account the fact that incentive schemes are just part of a broader and more comprehensive strategy introducing watershed management objectives within the framework of integrated rural development.
Flow of Information
From the outset a two-way process of information exchange should take place. The local community should be duly informed about the government's intentions and, on the other hand, the implementing agency will require reliable socio-economic data for planning. First hand information from the community on its problems, needs and expectations will be most valuable and provide an opportunity for the project staff to gain people's confidence. Watershed management planners are generally very meticulous regarding the study of physical parameters, but, when it comes to incorporating the socioeconomic factors into the problem analysis, most planning exercises fail and the proposals are, therefore, unrealistic, unfeasible or unacceptable.
People's Participation in Project Formulation
A top-down approach in planning leads to projects and programmes in which the community is often reluctant to be involved or views such activities with suspicion. A grassroots approach is desirable from the beginning, by establishing a dialogue with community leaders and discussing with them the tentative plans and options. Conservation and restoration efforts are most often long-term and need to be coupled with short-term action which responds to the needs of the community. Communities might need the improvement of a road or of a water supply system, although this may call for cooperation with other government agencies, when the agency responsible for conservation is not empowered to make commitments beyond its specific mandate.
Grassroot Organizations
The identification of leaders well recognized and respected by the community, and the organization of participatory structures of communities must first be undertaken. The local leaders, if they are well informed and motivated, will become the frontline promotion agents of the programme. They should have the main role in organizing hearings and extension sessions with the community and in establishing demonstration plots and trials. If the community is not organized at all, ad hoc groups will need to be promoted, bearing in mind that the most successful conservation efforts have been those in which the grassroot organizations have been fully involved in programming and implementation of the programme. The Government's role is then limited to the necessary technical and financial assistance.
The Change Agent
A participatory programme will require staff with a particular social sensitivity and with a natural ability to communicate with the people, to teach and to generate interest. During the initial stage the key element is the promotor. He will inform about the programme and interact with the community as it responds to it; he will motivate the leaders, help establish grassroot organizations, identify the needs and expectations of the community and anticipate possible problems and constraints. Once the programme is launched, the extensionist, supported by technical staff and instructors, will organize training and extension activities for the leaders and for established groups. Contact with women's groups and their leaders may require, in most Third World cultures, the assistance of a social worker. This staff, to be efficient, will need not only the support of the technical and administrative services, but also a means to operate. Adequate transportation, audio-visual aids and training material, tools and equipment for demonstration and extension are needed. A crucial element for the success of the programme is highly motivated and devoted field staff, which has the Confidence of the community and which has a strong backing from the central line services.
The application of incentives finds its justification in two basic arguments:
i) Poor farmers, in order to become part of the development process, need a big push, if the inertia of under-development and misuse of the resources are to be halted.
ii) Conservation measures have beneficial effects in society as a whole and on the stability and wise use of the nation's natural resources; therefore the cost of implementing conservation and restoration work should not be absorbed exclusively by the small farmer.
Changes in land use and the implementation of afforestation, soil conservation, gully control and other conservation measures will have a beneficial effect in the form of goods and services located in the area of influence, including roads, reservoirs, waterways and human settlements. It would, therefore, in theory, be reasonable to expect those who benefit from public utilities, i.e., communities located in the downstream area, to contribute to financing conservation measures in the upland area. However, only rarely has such a mechanism of transfer of resources from the downstream rich areas to the marginal upland areas been established. Exceptions include isolated cases in which added-value taxes are levied from reclaimed or improved areas or isolated cases in which funds for conservation measures have been included as part of water resources development schemes or are funded through electric power (as the case for Colombia), domestic water supply or irrigation water rates. In the absence of such cost-sharing mechanisms, society as a whole will need to share the financial burden through incentive schemes.
Small farmers living at the subsistence economy level do not have the capital required to implement conservation measures and cannot afford to devote time to activities which will bring no immediate revenue. They also cannot afford to set aside part of their land and take it out of production without financial support during the transitional period until plantations mature or bench terraces reach full production levels.
Government support is crucial if conservation measures are to be effectively implemented and maintained in upland areas where poor communities live. This support can be specific to a problem area or can be established at the national level as a permanent tool to promote conservation. Other possible sources of funding are regional development funds, special taxes (on the exploitation and marketing of forest products, water resources utilization, land benefiting from protection measures), as part of water resources development, rural development projects, or food for work schemes.
A number of possible ways to assist the small farmer will be examined in the following section. However, there are certain risks involved in the application of incentives, which should be avoided in the design of the scheme to effectively promote development. The major risk of a poorly conceived or implemented scheme is that it may create a paternalistic relationship. The incentive should not be regarded as a Government gift but as a cost-sharing arrangement which should catalyze the farmer's initiative, develop his managerial ability, and contribute to group action, avoiding a continuing dependency of the farmer on the Government agency. Self-reliance of the farmer and of the local community should be the basic target of the incentive programme.
The incentive should be a tool to remove the constraints to development which prevent farmers' participation in conservation efforts such as lack of awareness of the benefits of conservation measures, poor financial capability, lack of interest in long-term investments, land tenure instability, inadequate infrastructure and marketing services and poor access to credit and production inputs.
Incentive is understood here to cover all types of Government measures which encourage the farmer individually, or the local community collectively, to totally or partly absorb the additional investment required and to replace the sources of income from the traditional land use systems and techniques, to ensure sustained and improved production of the natural resources, and/or to protect endangered goods and services. Incentives may be classified as direct if the economic measures improve production factors, living conditions, and the investment capability of the farmer or community, and indirect if they relate to policy measures which encourage conservation measures such as monetary measures, tax exemptions, improvement of services, etc. Figure 11 summarizes the various types of incentives which may be applicable; we will discuss here the modalities of application of some of them.
Direct incentives in Cash
The most common incentives in this category are subsidies, wages subventions, credit, revolving funds and cost-sharing arrangements.
1 Extracted from de Camino, "Incentives for community participation in conservation and afforestation programmes." FAO Conservation Guide No.12 (in preparation).
A subsidy, strictly speaking, is a short-term and temporary measure which should be applied under extreme situations, in order to alleviate or help the farmer out of an adverse situation. In this sense conservation work can be used as a relief and compensation tool after events such as droughts and floods which reduce crop yields and levels of income.
Payment of wages is one of the most common types of incentives and is applied for work on the farmer's plot, on other farmer's plots, on communal lands, on state lands, and during slack periods, particularly in areas affected by under-employment. An interesting example is the case of a manpower bank in a certain panchayat in Nepal, where farmers in need of off-farm income register in order to be engaged by those who are looking for labourers. A more attractive modality for the farmer and a more efficient way to do certain types of conservation work, which requires adequate supervision, are contractual arrangements. Farmers can involve all members of the family and their neighbors with the most hard-working and efficient given due recognition.
Subventions (wrongly called subsidies in a number of countries) are non-refundable government grants allocated to encourage conservation work which is in the public interest. They can cover 100 percent or less of the investment, but the farmers have to comply with certain work norms and implementation needs to be closely supervised. In Venezuela, the Conservation Infrastructure Programme funding, which covers terracing, rock bunds and walls, infiltration ditches, afforestation, enclosures for protected areas, etc., are to be invested by the farmer in improving production and communal infrastructure, particularly in the establishment of sprinkler irrigation systems.
Credit schemes for conservation purposes are only effective in communities socially and economically progressive. Small farmers will require, in addition to reasonably low interest rates and long periods for repayment, a grace period corresponding to the time required for improved plots to become productive. Most often small farmers in marginal conditions will not have access to soft credit schemes unless appropriate guarantee systems are established, such as collective repayment groups, guarantee-cum-risk insurancae or backing by the Government agency implementing the conservation programme.
Revolving funds are effective tools if the initial capital required can be made available as a donation or as a long-term soft loan. Such funds can be managed by the local community organization if it is mature enough to undertake this responsibility, or by a banking institution if there are any risks of mismanagement. Funds of this type have been established in several FAO projects (El Salvador, Thailand) and they have enabled farmers to purchase seeds and other agricultural inputs which can be repayed with low interest, in cash, or in kind.
Cost-sharing arrangements can vary considerably but follow two basic patterns:
i) The government allocates the total amount of capital required, implements the work and recovers this investment with part of the harvest of the improved plots.
ii) The farmer provides the labour inputs and works on his land or on the land of a third party and the government provides the capital inputs.
The PRIDECU Programme in Colombia has an innovative arrangement with communities in which annual payments are made for the maintenance and protection of forest plantations and then deducted at the time timber is harvested.
Direct incentives in Kind
The types of incentives more commonly applied are food, production inputs, tools, minor equipment, animal feed, domestic animals and wildlife species, irrigation systems, and rights of use to water, public forests, and transportation services.
Food for work is the most widespread type of incentive. Large schemes exist in countries like India, using national resources, and with the World Bank Programme and other external assistance in China, Pakistan, Ethiopia and many other countries. Family rations are given in exchange for conservation and restoration work done on the farmer's plot, on his neighbor's land, on public lands, and for construction of roads, waterways, communal facilities, etc. This type of incentive is suitable when governments do not have the financial means to provide incentives in cash. However, it should not be applied as a substitute to wages in public works but only in emergency situations. Incentives should be a tool to encourage the local community to introduce appropriate land husbandry measures and should apply in particular to communities where the diet is not well balanced or where there is a nutritional deficit. Farmers affected by chronic underemployment or by seasonal unemployment will be able to benefit from this extra income, which should be conceived as a short-term catalytic tool and not a long-term relief measure, in which case it may generate counter-productive effects resulting in a permanent dependency relationship.
Innovative ways are needed to use food aid in conservation programmes, including:
i) its application through contracts setting physical output rather than by man-day of work;
ii) provision for long-term maintenance work, protection and silvicultural practices in forest plantations and other work extending beyond the period of the food for work projects;
iii) compensation for changes in land use and closing of areas to grazing to favor natural regeneration of the vegetation cover;
iv) sale of food commodities to create revolving funds to establish communal stores providing groceries, agricultural inputs, etc. and to build facilities for use by the community.
Fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, animal feed, hand tools, barbed wire, forest seedlings and fruit trees are some of the other incentives in kind commonly used which can be also coupled to food for work schemes. Incentive packages in kind are most efficient when a farm plan is made and all the required inputs for improvement of production and of farm infrastructure are clearly identified. The application of incentives in kind can then be programmed against the tradeoff in conservation work scheduled on the farmer's land or in neighboring areas. However, this detailed farm planning approach requires a well developed extension network with adequate staffing to collect baseline data, formulate the farm plan jointly with the farmer, provide technical advice in the application of production inputs, and supervise the implementation of conservation measures.
Water rights and low rates for water use in irrigation districts can be tied to conservation work in the catchment areas, for instance, by allocating a number of man days per irrigated unit of land as is done for the maintenance of irrigation systems. The right to collect fuelwood and timber for rural needs in public forests be traded-off for protection against fire, wildlife poaching and grazing.
Indirect Incentives
Three basic categories of indirect incentives are applied: fiscal, provision of services, and social incentives.
To encourage afforestation and conservation measures, a number of countries have developed legislation which exempts from taxation, land or investments which perform a social function. This can be a total tax exemption, an exemption on land revenues, partial exemption or deduction of investments from income tax or similar fiscal benefits. This type of incentive is applicable only for farmers who are no longer living at subsistence economy levels, and who pay taxes. Therefore, it is rather the middle and large rural property which benefits from such fiscal measures. These fiscal measures are also being used in several countries to mobilize investment from private enterprises and specially from the industrial sector to the less developed areas, as is the case of afforestation efforts in northeastern Brazil.
Other indirect tools to promote conservation are:
i) Preferential rates or provision of services from public utilities, such as electric power, water for domestic use or for irrigation, storage and transporation of products, rental of tractors and other equipment from government machinery pools, etc.
ii) Stabilization of prices for basic products or purchase of production by the government to ensure adequate levels of income to the farmer and avoid exploitation by middlemen.
iii) Security of tenure or long-term land allocation 'contracts which allow for investment in conservation measures, enabling the farmer to obtain credit and to have access to other types of incentive, without the risk of unexpectedly loosing the right of use to his land and of leaving the improvements without adequate compensation.
iv) Technical assistance, training and education are other well-known ways to promote conservation, including the promotion of women and youth groups and granting of scholarships to children of progressive farmers and to promising young people.
v) Community development efforts which can include improvement of feeder roads, rural electrification, water supply schemes, construction of schools, dispensaries and communal centers development of sports facilities, transportation, organization of cooperatives and special interest groups, improvement of housing, fuelwood supply systems, etc.
Although incentives of various types are being applied in a number of countries to promote afforestation and conservation, there is great need to refine incentive schemes, and particularly food for work, in order to effectively attain their twofold purpose:
i) Compensate the farmer for time and effort invested in the application of conservation and land husbandry measures which are beneficial to the community as a whole.
ii) Incorporate the poor subsistence farmer living in marginal conditions in the development process by improving the production factors and ensuring sustained productivity.
As illustrated by Figure 2 it is crucial that the farmer engaged in conservation programmes can rely on government financial support during the transition period, if the traditional farming systems are to be changed into stable systems.
The following basic principles should be considered in conceiving an incentive scheme:
i) The activities to be promoted through conservation incentives should be well articulated with other support elements, within a rural development framework.
ii) Incentives in cash or kind should have a catalytic role and should therefore be temporary until the farmer and the community can acquire a certain degree of self-reliance through improved sources of income.
iii) Application of incentives through grassroot organizations will be more advantageous in terms of cost-effectiveness, will generate community initiative and will promote a cooperative attitude from the participant farmers.
From De Camino (FAO Conservation Guide NO. 12 adapted from Barlow and Shang.
iv) Programming incentives on the basis of farm plans will ensure that the farmer receives timely inputs to improve production as a trade-off to conservation work as targets are reached.
v) Poor farmers in marginal conditions might make better use of incentive packages of food, tools, agricultural inputs and other elements in kind, if they do not have the managerial ability to receive incentives in cash.
vi) Fair cost-sharing rates should be established, considering the extent to which conservation measures will have extra-farm beneficial effects on Neighboring farms, infrastructure and human settlements, water resources and the downstream area.
vii) Effective supervision of the implementation of conservation work and the flow of incentives is essential to ensure that the objectives of the prograrme will be satisfactorily fulfilled; to this end the assistance of accepted community leaders will be most helpful.
viii) Recovery of resources invested in conservation incentives for expansion of the programme to other areas cannot be expected in short terms; revolving funds are a good option to ensure further availability of incentives.
ix) Incentives to fulfill their purpose should neither be considered relief, government gifts, wages or pressure instruments; participation should be voluntary and in good terms of partnership between government and farmer.
x) Stability of land tenure, appropriate marketing channels and prices for the farmer's products and well organized grassroot groups are some of the vital prerequisites to ensure success of a conservation incentive programme.
