Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Part 1: Key elements in participatory processes

Part 1: Key elements in participatory processes

This section starts with the introduction of the regional workshop. Then it makes a brief review of the participatory approaches which are used in some of the Asian countries. Based on the analysis of various case studies (third article) of people's participation in WM and lessons learned, the fourth article culls out the key elements of participatory processes that are considered to be essential for integrated watershed management. The fifth article goes into participatory methods for watershed management.

Introduction to the regional workshop on participatory approaches to integrated watershed management in Asia

Prem N Sharma1

1 Regional Coordinator and Chief Technical Advisor, PWMTA, GCP/RAS/161/NET and Senior Natural Resources Management Advisor (WM), FARM, RAS/93/062, programs, Netherlands/UNDP/FAO, P.O. Box 25, Kathmandu, Nepal.

BACKGROUND

A Regional Expert Consultation cum Advisory Committee Meeting (REC-ACM) was held in Kathmandu in April, 1996 to prepare a 3 year work plan of the GCP/RAS/161/NET. This was based on the gaps in participatory watershed management training/education analysed by the member country's focal points during the REC-ACM. The most important gap was related to a lack of social sensitivity in most WM training/ education programs. Thus, all the 10 training/workshops planned for the coming three years are designed to develop or train various aspects of farmer or peopleled WM programs, their ownership of WM program planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. In other words, the farmers' vision in training, education and implementation of Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) programs is urgently required to be integrated. In addition, the scope of integrated watershed management requires clarification. It was also decided to launch national WATMANETs in all the member countries for HRD in WM and to follow up on the regional actions. Thus, this Asian Regional Workshop on Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management was held in Kathmandu, Nepal from Oct. 8-13, 1996 and was planned to achieve the following objectives:

Objectives

Participants

Two participants each from ten PWMTA, GCP/RAS/ 161 /NET, member countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Thailand), one of which represented the focal institution and the other a WM related education/training institution in their countries, were invited. Participants who arrived for the workshop are listed in annex 1. At least one of the two participants from each of the countries was requested to be a woman. However, while this time almost all countries (except Nepal and Myanmar) have proposed candidates from their WM related education/training institutions, none of the countries proposed even a single woman candidate for this workshop even though this was put as a condition. Three of the case-study authors were invited as resource persons from Sri Lanka, India and Nepal, in addition to 5 more from RAP/FAD, ICIMOD, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. Five special invitees from the host country, Nepal, participated in the workshop.

Case studies for analysis

The case studies of people's participation in WM conducted in China, India, Nepal (Part 1), Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam and the Philippines (part 11) have been published by the PWMTA-FARM jointly as field Documents. 4 and 5. These were funded by the UNDP/FAO sub-program RAS/93/063 of the FARM. The documents have been widely distributed (1,000-2,000 copies) all over Asia and multiple copies were made available to the focal points. Thus, the participants were well aware of the best cases of people's participation in their countries. These case studies served as the background materials based on which, participatory processes to integrated watershed management were culled out.

The workshop was fully participatory and interactive. However, it was well coordinated to make full use of the time.

THE WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

The final agenda of the workshop is given in annex II. To achieve the objectives of the regional workshop on "Participatory approaches to integrated watershed management", the following procedures were adopted:

Based on this analysis, group discussions were held to cull out the details of the key elements in the participatory processes for integrated WM. Group discussion on the important key elements to the participatory processes were made.

Group discussions

THIS PUBLICATION

This PWMTA-FARM Field Document No. 7, consists of the proceedings of the workshop as well as some other important background papers are added to make it complete. It is in three parts.

Part I: Key Elements in Participatory Processes for Integrated WM

This part synthesizes the key elements in participatory processes for integrated WM, based on the group discussions and background presentations on country approaches and analysis of case studies of participatory WM which formed the background to the group discussions. The articles include:

Part II: Some Important Aspects of Participatory Processes

This includes some of the important issues and concerns related to participatory WM which are as follows.

Part III: Some Participatory Experiences

To highlight the experiences of people's movement for WM and the recent experiences in farmer centred approaches, the following article are included:

Brief review of participatory approaches to integrated watershed management in some asian countries

compiled by* Subhadra Jha** and E. R. N. Gunawardena ***

* Rapporteurs of the sessions where the full country reports were presented.

** Chief, Management Section, Dept. of Soil Conservation, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

*** Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Agril. Engg., University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.

ABSTRACT

In the Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management Regional Workshop organized by the PWMTA, Netherlands/UNDP/FAO, GCP/RAS/161/NET, the country focal point institutional participants were asked to present a brief paper or' the present status of participatory approaches used in integrated watershed management in their countries. Their summaries are compiled here. The original authors have been shown with the countries' brief summary. Obviously, countries which did not bring the reports are not included.

BANGLADESH

(extracted from Ghulam Habib1)

1 Conservator of Forests, Dept. of Forests, Dhaka. Bangladesh.

In Bangladesh the government has spent about 15 % of its development resources on irrigation and flood control programs through watershed management in last three five-year plans. Three different programs which tackle watershed degradation can be distinguished:

· Programs for unclassified state forest areas have been launched to tackle degradation problems in stages. They successfully initiated the participatory approach in Jhoom control (shifting cultivation), afforestation and rehabilitation programs and incorporated the upliftment of socio-economic conditions of the local shifting cultivators. Shifting agriculture control by the shifting cultivators was successfully achieved when land titles were given to them.

· Community and social forestry programs in hills were implemented by local participants, mainly the poor families. Participation was largely successful as it was done on a benefit-sharing basis.

· The coastal green belt project is an ambitious project in which participation of local people is built around agro-forestry practices based on their traditional customs and farming systems. The agro-forestry activities are to give direct benefits to the participants.

The participatory approaches being tried include a training component for community leaders, social workers, NGO's and local government officials, as well as land titling and benefit sharing for the people. Before launching any program, it is important that people should call it their own, not of any particular agency or government. People should feel a sense of belonging.

CHINA

(extracted from Lu Shengli2)

2 Engineer, Dept. of Soil Conservation, Ministry of Water Resources, Beijing, China.

The poverty of the mountain people has been partly alleviated through soil and water conservation programs. The ecological environment and production have been improved significantly. Small watersheds are the basic unit of development and farm household land-lease contracts are the mechanisms for people's participation. Small watershed management centres on the economic benefits derived from the integrated management and use of mountain resources, such as water, farm-land, forestry, horticulture and grasses. To ensure effective participation in watershed management, in addition to providing long term leases on land, the government provides loans, subsidies and other support services. The production system implemented by farm families on leased land yields seasonal harvests of multiple products throughout the years. Although China has made significant achievements, the area effected by soil erosion is still large.

INDIA

(extracted from B. N. Reddy3)

3 Additional Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh Govt., Hyderabad, India.

Recently much attention has been given to promoting the watershed approach to development as a viable means of people oriented, sustainable development. It focuses on the empowerment of the people, especially in rainfed areas. The philosophy behind it is that what villagers achieve with their own effort and input, will be sustainable because they understand and value it. The government has initiated the efforts involving local institutions such as the Panchayat institution, NGO's, Mitra Krishak Mandal (MKM) and self-help thrift groups. The National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA) is trying out this latest approach to the empowerment of farmers. One of the important features of NWDPRA is the involvement of local farmers in multi-faceted project activities so that short and long-term problems of watershed communities can be addressed and resolved effectively. It is, therefore, considered appropriate that people be trained and encouraged and organized to undertake WM programs by themselves. Government and NGO officials synergetically work as facilitators. However, there are lot of differences between theory and practice, and the government agencies implementing this approach have not been able to follow it.

MYANMAR

(extracted from U. Tin Swe Latt4)

4 Director, Watershed Div., Forest Dept., Yangon, Myanmar.

In a large part of Myanmar, the traditional relationship between farming communities and forests is very close. Farmers are dependent on forest resources to ensure household food security and environmental stability around their farms. A progressive Forest Law, which has promulgated in 1992, encourages a community participatory approach to managing forest resources in particular to satisfy the basic needs of the rural people. It demonstrates a shift from the earlier concepts of revenue generation, lack of motivation and sharing of management responsibilities with the people. Under this new law, any person or organization has the right to cultivate and maintain forest plantations in accordance with the stipulated provisions. Government forest policy focuses on the protection of land, water, vegetation and wildlife. Its objectives include sustaining forest resources and satisfying people's basic needs, harnessing the full economic potential of the forest while conserving big-diversity, and raising the awareness of both the people and decision-makers about the important role of forests in the socio-economic development of the nation. Forestry activities, such as establishing woodlots in areas where there is insufficient fuel-wood and other forest products and planting trees on marginal agricultural lands in conjunction with crops to promote income-generation are conducted now with the participation of the people.

NEPAL

(extracted from B. B. Kharel5)

5 Chief, M/E Section, Dept. of Soil Conservation, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu.

His Majesty's Government (HMO) of Nepal appreciate the role of people. In fact its eighth five year plan states that people are the means and ends to the environmental management. Since 1992, irrigation policy has aimed at a gradual increase in farmers' participation in the construction, maintenance and operation of irrigation schemes. This is done through the involvement of organized users. It also emphasizes continuing the Nepalese farmers' tradition of constructing and managing irrigation systems as autonomous entities in the private sector in order to make these systems more stable and extensive. The plan stresses the need for people's contributions as an indicator of true participation, though only small investments are required, mostly in the form of labor. The master plan of the Forestry Sector envisages that all accessible forests in the hills be handed over to the people for management and utilization as community forests. The Department of Forestry has supported the local people in handing over the management authority and responsibility to local users groups throughout the nation. People living in the vicinity of forest who have traditionally used forest products can apply to the concerned district office, which will provide assistance in organizing and forming a forest users' group. These groups then prepare their own constitution and objectives, list of users, forest management principles, and rules and regulations. Soil conservation and watershed management activities used to be developed mainly on government owned land. People were expected to accept programs because they were expected to be benefited from them. In the last phase, village leaders were consulted before finalizing a plan and village key persons were involved in implementation. In the third stage the government started working with the small watershed concept through decentralized planning involving the local government institutions. Implementation was carried out by contractors, laborers or user's groups.

Now the sub-watershed approach has been institutionalized. Planning of the sub-watershed is done by involving local people using RRA/PRA tools. The role of contractors is minimized; instead, users are given a major role in planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, maintaining and benefit sharing. The formation of user groups and working through them is mandatory. Extension services and training have been re-oriented beyond awareness-raising to skill development and income generation.

The decentralization acts provide a basis for empowering farmers to carry out rural development activities themselves.

SRI LANKA

(extracted from E. R. N. Gunawardena6 and H. W. K. Jayatilake7)

6 Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Agril. Engg., University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.

7 Asst. Conservator of Forests, Dept. of Forests, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka.

Experience in Sri Lanka and other countries shows that farmers who have acquired secure land tenure are ready to make long-term investments. They will protect and manage state forests when they have an incentive to do so. This can only happen if it is accepted that the local rural people and communities are the "stakeholders" and if they are involved in forestry management in partnership with the state. Home gardens are an extraordinary example of successful agro-forestry systems based on people's own needs and long tradition. The country's heavy reliance on the garden for most of its wood fuel shows that the farmers are already a major force in forest development. This strategy should be adopted at an accelerated rate in order to empower the people in watershed management.

The leasing of state land for forestry purposes is allowed under the present policy. For example, a 25-year land lease to develop woodlots is available. Also, annual permits are issued to farmers who cultivate state land, thus giving them annual tenures under the Crown Land Ordinance (CLO). However, farmers can renew these permits, thus in reality they can become long-term tenancy agreements. Farmers have long been silent partners of the state in land management. There is now a need for a formal recognition of these partnerships and an even greater need for their promotion in order to face the growing challenges. The recently prepared Forestry Sector Master Plan of Sri Lanka includes concrete measures for developing partnerships in the management of forest resources. Various types of partnership approaches are described in the development programs of the master plan. One of the main roles of the state should be to create conditions conducive to developing people's forestry. The government should create a supportive environment, including secure tenure to land, sound land opening policies and rules, extension services to distribute environmentally sound and productive technology, access to financing and other support services, adequate infrastructure, and educational, training and research services. Securing land tenure on its own will not lead to sound watershed management. People have to be organized, their capabilities strengthened and technical support and credit facilities provided. All these activities will empower farmers, while ad hoc implementation of these components may have negative consequences.

THAILAND

(extracted from Kowit Punyatrong8)

8 Forest Adm. Officer, WM Div., RFD, Bangkok.

His Majesty the King believes that human and forest resources can support each other. People can live and earn their living in the forests, while at the same time they can protect them if they feel that the forest resources belong to them and their communities. The sense of belonging is the most important for appropriate natural resource management.

This idea is implemented for instance in the Mae Chaem watershed by an interface team of young locals who explain the program to the people. The local people are provided with enough knowledge to be able to identify and solve problems. People can identify problems e.g. forest degradation, forest fires, soil erosion, poor road access and poverty and they can discuss among themselves the possible solutions. One important activity through this process is the setting up of a natural resource conservation group in each village. The groups establish regulations to manage their natural resources, to serve basic needs, and to sanction those who trespass. However, some problems cannot be solved by a community on its own. A watershed management network organization is necessary for the communities to solve problems and share benefits through fair discussion. To alleviate poverty, people themselves decide on what type of support they would like from a project. Most communities often ask for well-maintained roads, farmland irrigation systems and household water supply systems. Activities related to generating income directly, such as fruit tree cultivation, livestock and fishery, mushroom growing are also requested. Women groups request help in traditional cloth weaving and other local vocational products. So far 40 natural resource conservation groups have been set up, although only two-thirds of the area has been covered. Successful participatory resource management can result in benefits for the people as well as forests protection.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Habib, G. 1996. National Approaches to Empowerment of Farmers for Watershed Management in Bangladesh. A report presented in the regional workshop on Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management at Kathmandu, Nepal from Oct. 8- 13, 1996. p 4, (mimeographed).

Shengli, L. 1996. Achievement and Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation in China. A report presented in the regional workshop on Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management at Kathmandu, Nepal from Oct. 8-13, 1996. p 9, (mimeographed).

Reddy, B.N. 1996. A Brief Note on the Latest Approach to Empowerment of Farmers (Women/Men) Being Tried in National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas - India. A report presented in the regional workshop on Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management at Kathmandu, Nepal from Oct. 8- 13, 1996. p 9, (mimeographed).

Latt, T. S. 1996. Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management in Myanmar. A report presented in the regional workshop on Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management at Kathmandu, Nepal from Oct. 8-13, 1996. p 6, (mimeographed).

Kharel, B. P. 1996. National Approaches to Empowerment of Farmers for Watershed Management in Nepal. A report presented in the regional workshop on Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management at Kathmandu, Nepal from Oct. 8-13, 1996. p 8, (mimeographed).

Gunawardena, E.R.N. and H.W.K. Jayatilake. 1996. National Approaches to Empowerment of Farmers for Watershed Management in Sri Lanka. A report presented in the regional workshop on Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management at Kathmandu, Nepal from Oct. 8- 13, 1996. p 5, (mimeographed).

Punyatrong, K. 1996. The Participatory Approaches to Empowerment of Local People in the Mae Chaem Watershed Area, Chiang Mai Thailand. A report presented in the regional workshop on Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management at Kathmandu, Nepal from Oct. 8- 13, 1996. p 9, (mimeographed).

An analysis of and lessons from case studies of people's participation in watershed management in Asia

Prem N. Sharma1

1 Regional Coordinator/Chief Technical Advisor, PWMTA, GCP/RAS/161/NET, and Senior Natural Resources Management Advisor (WM), FARM RAS/93/062, Programs, Netherlands/UNDP/FAO, Kathmandu, Nepal.

ABSTRACT

There are several examples of very rich ancient, traditional and some recent participatory experiences in watershed management which facilitated development of cultures through them or which used the traditions and culture for sustainable integrated watershed management (WM) in Asia. The objective of this article is to analyze these prominent successful cases and cull out the most important approaches and key elements of the participatory processes which made them successful. Three distinct approaches will be discussed: indigenous efforts which became a way of life of the people since ancient time; traditional efforts which are based on the culture and mores of the people; and facilitated efforts which are helped by various means by development agents. Other approaches are coopted e.g. by incentives or top-down policy instruments, or by demanding free labor in return for development aid, and coerced or forced participation e.g. by decree, state legislative powers or police and military power. The participation process may also include a combination of these approaches. Key elements in the approaches to the participatory process are analyzed and discussed. The elements do not stand alone but are part of a continuous and dynamic participatory watershed management process. They are as follows: identification of the problems and their solution or correct identification of the objectives of WM programs i. e. human development through natural resource management in a watershed, envisioning or call for a higher (cosmic) human dimension, ownership of the WM programs, farmers' organization building and their empowerment, land titling/tenure/allocation, benefit generation, and gender concerns. Numerous lessons can be learned from the case studies analyzed here.

INTRODUCTION

In the recent past, experiences have been gained on participatory approaches with many single objective, often sectoral development programs. This includes very rich experiences on irrigated agriculture since ancient times, community and social forestry as well as horticultural development, fisheries development, some rural development etc. These experiences have also influenced the development policies in most Asian countries even though they may not have yet reached the implementation and operational level. However, not many experiences have been available or documented which deal with participatory approaches to multi-sectoral, multi-objective programs such as integrated watershed management, particularly in mountainous and rainfed areas. This is because, they are very complex programs often dealing with conflicting objectives e.g. development and environment, maximization of economic benefits and conservation of resources, market economy and self help/food security. However, attempts are being made to facilitate the participatory process in this area also.

The objective of this article is to analyze prominent available successful cases of participatory watershed management (WM) and cull out the most successful and important approaches, processes, and ingredients (or elements). This is to establish successful process elements used for participatory integrated watershed management in Asia.

Sustainable integrated watershed management (WM) can be defined as "processes of utilization, development and conservation of land, water and forest resources for continually improving livelihoods for households and communities in a given hydrologically independent geographic area ". Thus, it deals with the sustainable development of farmers, their own and common property resources for poverty alleviation in the case of small, medium and marginal farmers and other land users. UNCED Agenda 21 defines the goal very clearly as poverty alleviation through development and environmental protection.

Based on the above goal, the UNDP funded FAO sub-program on Watershed Management in Tropics and Upper Himalayas (WMTUH, RAS/93/063) of the Farmer-centred Agricultural Resources Management (FARM) decided to document the best available experiences in participatory watershed management in its member countries with the help of its focal points. These case studies have now been documented for China, India, Nepal, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. The experiences have been published as "Case Studies of People's Participation in Watershed Management in Asia, Part I: Nepal, China and India; and Part II: Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines, as PWMTA-FARM Field Documents 4 and 5. These have been distributed (2,000 copies of Part I and 1,500 copies of Part 11) widely by the Netherlands funded FAO(UN) Participatory Watershed Management Training in Asia (PWMTA) program throughout Asia.

METHODOLOGY

The case studies were commissioned by the UNDP/FAO RAS/93/063 through its national focal points to individual national consultants (Bogati, 1996; Deyi, 1996; Emphandhu et al, 1996) or contracted to national institutions of the national focal points (Gamage, 1996; Suan et al, 1997; Dong and Dong, 1996). The case study from India (Mishra, 1996) was commissioned to the Association of Voluntary Agencies for Rural Development (AVARD) by the sister sub-program RAS/93/063 and included in the Field Doc. No. 4 with their and authors' permission.

In early 1995, the national focal points considered all the past and ongoing experiences in participatory watershed management available in their countries. The case study sites were selected by the national focal points. The sites were considered to be the best experience available in participatory integrated watershed management in the country.

The authors were given a detailed but very flexible terms of reference by the commissioning programs (UNDP/FAO, RAS/93/063) for the study. RRA methods were used by a team assembled by the authors for conducting the study. The drafts of these studies were reviewed and authors were asked to finalize them.

Prominent studies from which important lessons can be learned include those from Sri Lanka (Gamage, 1996), India (Mishra, 1996), Nepal (Bogati, 1996), the Philippines (Suan et al, 1997) Thailand (Emphandhu, 1996) and China (Deyi, 1996). These case studies are analyzed here to learn the approaches used in the participatory process which make them prominent. This is to synthesize the WM process elements required for participatory watershed management today.

PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES EMPLOYED IN THE CASE STUDIES

There are many approaches that can result into people's participation in even very complex efforts like integrated watershed management. It varies from indigenous efforts which have been a way of life of the people since ancient time (i.e. since thousands of years ago) on which a society was practically structured; traditional efforts which are based on the culture and mores of the people; and facilitated efforts which are helped by various means by development agents. The latter can be coopted e.g. by incentives or top-down policy instruments, or by demanding free labor in return for development aid; and coerced or forced participation e.g. by decree, state legislative powers or police and military power. The participation process may also include a combination of these approaches. Indigenous and traditional approaches may pave the way for long lasting participation which is needed in the case of integrated watershed management as it requires continued long-term efforts and commitment e.g. for maintenance of infrastructures, protection and judicious use of land, water and forest resources for meeting continued demands of the people, etc. These efforts are based on ancient rituals, traditional cultures and mores of the people. People's participation in WM can also be facilitated by many means which are being tried today in various countries in Asia by many development agencies. This often requires long-term efforts and investments for which long term commitment will be required. Coopted participation often initiated through development aid, incentives, payments, top-down policy instruments e.g. laws obliging people to participate etc. are temporary and may in fact result into a negative reaction resulting in non-participation of people on a long-term basis. On the other hand, short time activities which do not require long term commitment have been easily and successfully carried out by this approach. The coerced or forced participation e.g. forced labor, by military or police force etc. is definitely very temporary and can create complete inhibition of the creative powers of the people which can easily result into rebellion. In fact, forced participation has often resulted in a parallel counter reaction which often has helped throw away unjust political and social systems.

The case studies analyzed actually have ingredients of almost all the above approaches directly or indirectly. Hence, the participatory process for integrated watershed management may have to be culled out looking at all the approaches. They are accepted by the participants when they are used for their welfare only. For example, Anna Hazare(Mishara, 1996) used his military belt (which he acquired when he worked as a military truck driver) for punishing farmers on the platform of the village temple (note the spiritual and cosmic background) for immoral acts. Also, their is a right place and a right situation for integrating different approaches to achieve sustainable human development. Knowing this, an attempt is made here to classify the reported case studies into the three categories of participatory approaches.

Indigenous Approach

The Sri Lankan case study is the case of the indigenous watershed management efforts. The people in South Asia developed land and water management systems since ancient times for sustaining themselves under the most harsh dry climatic conditions. This revolved around a cascade of small reservoirs where the up-stream watershed was for rainfed diversified indigenous shifting agriculture, the down-stream watershed of the small reservoir was for supplementally irrigated crops and the homestead was an integral part of the system. The system was managed by people in such a way that each and every activity became a ritual thus guaranteeing a life style in complete harmony with the nature. All the people (men, women and children) and natural resources were part of the system and benefitted from them. Thus, it was a holistic integrated human development approach based on sustainable management of all the natural resources in a given watershed both up-stream and down-stream. The case also demonstrates complete harmony with nature on earth and in the cosmic world i.e. universe since the maintenance of the system was carried out as a duty to god for thousands of years. The system came under considerable strain and has fallen in partial disrepute today. It has become unsustainable upon the interventions of modern civilization beginning with colonial times and lasting till today as this modern civilization practically tried to replace the cosmic relations.

Traditional Approach

The case study reported from India is an effort based on the traditions and culture of the people. It continuously relies on the moral and cultural forces to initiate, motivate and sustain people's participation in watershed management in a very harsh climate. The case took almost 20 years for converting a completely hopeless and degraded human and environmental situation to a very self reliant, environmentally sound and sustainable watershed development situation. It used religion to upgrade the morals of the people for their own upliftment. However, the case was lead by a highly motivated Gandhian leader (Anna Hazare) who is now leading the same approach all over his province of Maharastra in India, assisted by the ongoing national watershed management program of the government. The biggest drawback in this case has been that women have benefitted much less. However, it has tried to be as close as possible to a holistic integrated human development approach based on sustainable development of natural resources in a given watershed in complete harmony with nature. The case has successfully tried and introduced the cosmic relations, hence the approach has a better chance of being long lasting. All the funding requirements were met through existing funding channels available to all. No new funds and extra subsidies or outside funding agency (governmental, NGO or international) were required.

Facilitated Approach

The case studies from China, Thailand, Nepal and the Philippines are cases where participation of the people was facilitated by policy instruments, professionals or/and others.

China case

The success of the case is a result of change in land use titling policies and government's partial acceptance of individual or group rights to private property and its use. This was backed by large government investments in infra-structure, land, water and forest resources development in an integrated manner using farming systems and common property resources development approach to generate quick net benefits (both economic and ecological) in an entire small watershed. Thus, quick and private income generation was the most important motivating factor in a system where this had not been permitted earlier.

Nepal case

In this case, persistent efforts were made to develop farmers' organizational capacities for individual and common property resource in a watershed by demonstrating on-farm as well as off farm (community forestry) benefit generation activities to the rural population. The effected populations were facilitated to be organized in specialized groups of beneficiaries or users. The funding and initial subsidies were provided by an international donor while government employees and an INGO facilitated the process by training, farmers' group formation, some initial subsidies, demonstrations and envisioning of the farmers-based on economic benefits to be gained.

Thailand case (highland and protected area)

An inter-village or watershed network of farmers' groups was facilitated through envisioning by Buddhist philosophy of life. The government and international facilitators helped develop local facilitators (called indigenous specialist). The watershed areas in the case studies can not be titled to the users as government policies do not permit titling of the protected areas to the people. The rural tribes inhabiting these areas were mainly opium producers and lived in constant fear of police action. After the watershed development program reported in the case study, they successfully substituted their incomes by other cash crops and protected the forest areas (fire control) with the hope that they would be allowed to live and use these lands. Large investment in farmers' capacity building was made through international and government funds.

The Philippines case

Certificates of stewardship contracts (CSC) were used to give long term (25-50 years) land use rights to shifting cultivators on steep uplands (Suan et al, 1997) who converted their lands using SALT into permanent agro-forestry fields. They organized themselves (facilitated by a development worker) into a farmers' association for organized action and capacity building of the farmers. Many other activities based on traditional knowledge e.g. livestock, vegetables, mango gardening and off-farm, were integrated for income generation by the Integrated Social Forestry Program.

The Vietnam case study (Dong and Dong, 1996) is not included in this analysis as either the case has not fully reported the success or it is only at the beginning of the process. However, all successful cases have demonstrated that a sustainable participatory process often requires a long duration.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES

For this analysis, the approaches used for successful participatory watershed management process reported in the case studies are segregated into elements of the process used for participatory development of the natural resource base and human development. This is to facilitate the trainers and other development professionals to grasp the system into workable methodologies. The key elements of the participatory process are discussed based on the experiences reported in the case studies. However, these key elements or steps are not disjointed and are not to be seen in isolation of the other elements. They are often continuous activities overlapping each other, thus making a continuous system of human and natural resource development, resources' use and their conservation. If these elements are used in isolation or as single activities, the sustainable management of watershed resources for the benefit of the effected populations can not be achieved.

Key Elements in the Approaches to the Participatory Process

Identification of the problems and their solution

The correct identification of the problems is the first step. However, it is also a continuous activity as problems are continuously faced even in implementing the watershed management programs. The Sri Lankan and Indian case studies identified the problems to be the survival of its people in a harsh dry climate with rolling land topography. The problem identified in the Thai, Filipino, Nepalese and Chinese case studies are also the same but in mountainous environment. However, the focus of the problem is the survival of the inhabitants for which watershed management has been used to alleviate the problem. Thus, human development through natural resources management of a given watershed became the objective of the reported cases which was achieved by integrated watershed management. Thus when the objective of an integrated WM is based on holistic human development and for their own welfare then people will participate. If soil conservation or reforestation or other activities are implemented without much regard to the people's needs, they do not participate.

In Sri Lankan case study, it included development of a series of small water reservoirs above which diversified cropping patterns were introduced to provide guarantee of survival of at least some crops, even under extreme drought conditions. In the down-stream, supplementally irrigated rice crops were grown with a system of land allocation which benefited all even when available water in the reservoir was limited. Homesteads were providing added food security. The management system was converted into a collective responsibility and duty to the king or god by individuals' actions. The reservoir dyke was seen as a water god hence it was the duty of all beneficiaries to maintain it from season to season every year for their survival. The long-term maintenance was designed by converting the work into rituals and making the gods happy. In the Indian study. the solution was integrated watershed management through water resource development, reforestation and over-all human and their spiritual development for alleviating poverty.

In the Chinese case study the solution was quick income generation through appropriate natural resources management on public lands contracted out to the people on a long-term lease. The same was tried in the Philippines, Nepal and Thailand by improved organization of the inhabitants and land use titling. In the case of the Thailand highland protected area, the big incentive for people to participate was that they expected not to be moved if they managed their lands well (showing land ownership is an important incentive).

Envisioning or call for a higher (cosmic) human dimension

In the Sri Lanka as well as Indian case studies, the successful integrated watershed management was achieved by systematic building of higher or cosmic dimension of the human character. In Sri Lankan case (indigenous approach), it was integrated into the culture of the people by converting the various maintenance and operational activities into rituals as a duty to the king and as a service to the god. Moral cleansing was carried out systematically in the Indian case study led by a leader who was a son of the soil. The first 3 years were dedicated (reluctantly by people) to the construction of a temple which later became the meeting point for all irrespective of caste, creed or sex. The moral sanctions were given a spiritual dimension. The process continues and does not stop at construction of a temple or framing of a code of conduct. The spiritual dimension was used for both the officials as well as the people.

The Thailand case study has tried this approach by including the Buddhist philosophy for human intellectual development into the WM program based on which a moral code of conduct was applied. However, this case was also backed by at least US$ 7,000/village/year of training and other inputs to both the officials as well as the farmers. In the absence of the investment, this process can not be replicated.

The under current of the Philippines case study is Christian culture which is pretty strong. In China, the famous economic reforms backed by large investment in infra-structure including soil conservation and reforestation provided the motivation to integrated watershed management However, it was in a social and political system where private property was not allowed earlier. Thus, even partial private ownership of resources (long-term land leasing) became the major force which has resulted into large scale upland development in most of the mountainous areas of China. This is backed by a very strong sociopolitical thinking which calls for sustainable WM as a duty to the state.

The Nepal case study has not reported any efforts at moral and spiritual building as in the case of China. Group or individual ownership, subsidies and training were used as means of motivation. The cultural environment and the traditional value system are very strong and large scale terracing development has been a tradition of the people. Overall, the long lasting impact of the approach is still to be seen.

From the above, it is concluded that for long lasting integrated watershed management, it needs to be based on moral and cultural human development. This includes envisioning of not only the people but also of the technical assistance agents to become facilitators of the participatory process. The envisioning is not a short term activity but a continuous process so that the sustainable integrated WM becomes ingrained into the day to day life of the people and the officials. However, it is also well known that only envisioning (e.g. through religious, spiritual, humanist, or any other methods) does not result into development. It needs to be taken up side by side of the development process, otherwise the people consider it as a pure gospel resulting into no action but talk only (a Filipino proverb).

At present, this element is not at all planned into the large scale WM programs being implemented through large investments in many of the Asian countries. This may be resulting into the people waiting for the dole while officials are busy in how to obtain the dole. Once the dole is distributed, the project may wind up achieving little. Investments are needed as shown clearly by the case studies. These investments can be through formal channels (e. g. bank loans or credit) or through farmer managed savings and loan rotating funds. However, Asian culture is very rich, varied and quite tolerant in ways of envisioning and developing Man's and Society's relationships with Nature and the Universe (cosmic values). Hence, this envisioning is to be done within the cultural domain of a group, location or nation otherwise it may be misjudged to be religious conversion.

Ownership of the WM programs, farmers' organization building and their empowerment

All the successful case studies are based on people's ownership (individual or collective or by groups) of the successful programs as well as the participatory processes. There have been agents of change e.g. enlightened leaders, technical workers who have helped in the process. The decision making in all the case studies is also by the people themselves.

In the Sri Lankan and Indian case studies, in addition to ownership of the resource base, the participatory process itself was fully owned by the participants. This was achieved by common decision making and then adherence to the decisions by all. In the Sri Lankan case it was done by turning the participatory process into rituals and part of the culture. The Indian case study developed a code of conduct for all to follow. However, both these case studies used village level organizations for implementing the commonly agreed decisions.

In the indigenous case of Sri Lanka, a village leader was practically employed by giving him land rights on the best lands to manage their decisions of land allocation, water distribution, planting and harvesting based on rainy season as well as to organize the repair, maintenance and other operational activities of the whole watershed system. While the case study has not brought out the investments made, it is obvious that considerable social and economic investment, must have been made into the development by the people themselves. A system of mutual help was developed to avoid conflicts.

In the Indian case, the village assembly led by a headman was used as the organization and a selfless voluntary leader gave the spiritual leadership. Special committees on religion, youth affairs, women affairs, education, water, irrigation and other general matters were entrusted responsibilities. The development costs were socialized by voluntary labor for their own development while investment needs were met through existing bank loans. Mutual cooperation was fostered for mutual benefit using the spirit of caring and sharing. Special focus was given to women issues also although it might not have fully benefitted them. All the development schemes were formed by the people themselves in a democratic way in the village meetings itself. Thus, the ownership of the whole program was in their own hands. A system of strict disciplinary action was introduced to resolve conflicts.

In the Thailand case study, a federation or inter-village network of farmers' committees was facilitated to make joint decisions to be respected by all within the framework of a written constitution developed by the village committees. This is backed by sub-district, watershed and provincial level development committees. Serious efforts at the training of trainers, facilitators, village leaders, farmers' group leaders and others involved were made. Investment for these training was provided by a project. A system of monetary penalty was introduced for avoiding conflicts.

The Chinese case used contractual relationships between the government and the individual family, farmers' groups or community, as well as used specialized contractors for resource development by ecological and economic benefit generation. Anybody not following the contractual responsibilities, lost the right to the leased land or did not get more land on lease. This was backed by the village level farmers' organization (and their well respected and trained leaders) as well as by county level administration overseeing the implementation within the permitted soil and water conservation laws. The research and extension stations provided training to the contracted parties and made some investments available as loan from the banks.

In the Philippines case, a farmers' association looks after capacity building, investment generation and negotiations within as well as outside. Thus the participatory process gets owned by the community.

The Nepal case is based on a whole hamlet as a user group for the community forestry where the right to judicious use of land is given to the community or community development conservation committees (CDCC) for other watershed management works both on-farm and on community lands. This was facilitated by development agents encouraging local people to apply their initiative and energy to increase their production and manage their watersheds sustainably. A community development board was formed to coordinate between the CDCC and the local political bodies and to resolve conflicts between them. A farmers' CDCC fund was used for credit to the farmers while the project provided subsidized assistance.

There are some remarkable similarities among the case-studies. In both Sri Lanka, Thailand and India clear leadership was important for initiating and building the organizations. In India, in particular, the strong leadership of Mr. Anna Hazare resulted in many positive results. He, however, is now trying to find replacement and has not been successful so far. Thus, there is a danger that the organization becomes too dependent on one leader. In addition, mutual sharing, help and collective responsibility are important in almost all case-studies to minimize conflicts, to follow-up on decisions made into action, and to create solidarity among members. Trust and understanding are equally important to achieve this. For instance, in the case-studies of Thailand and Nepal, mutual understanding and trust greatly helped in building the organizations. In the case of Nepal, women's participation was enhanced because they trusted the female motivators. In the Philippines case, a dedicated technician (Mr. Aurther Salgrado) facilitated the farmers' organization.

There must be some kind of mechanism for management (according to Thailand's authors), other cases confirm this, such as the existence of clear rules and their enforcement (Sri Lanka, Thailand, India, Philippine), a clear decision-making process (Nepal), democratic decisions allowing for everyone to participate (India) and equitable distribution of benefits and new possibilities (India, Thailand, Philippines).

Communication is essential for cooperation and decision-making. Democratic decisions and equitable distribution can only be achieved if everyone is allowed to voice his or her opinions. Thailand's case-study authors even argue that a watershed network is needed to act as a centre for strengthening communication between villages and within villages. This is also demonstrated by the Philippines case study. Farmer to farmer communication assured full confidence in the decisions made, in all cases.

Finally, people need to obtain confidence in their own capabilities to meet their needs. There must be room for flexibility within the organizations and also in building organizations, as they should be people, community and place specific (Indian case).

Based on the above, it can safely be concluded that for successful integrated WM, farmers'/people's ownership of the participatory process as well as the resource base (including community, and government lands) are a must. This empowers them truly. This has been achieved (or partially achieved) in different ways in the different case studies. However, most of the WM related professionals, technicians as well as policy makers are not trained today to facilitate the process. Hence, their education/training needs to be urgently updated as the extension courses continue till today to prepare them as agents of top down technology transfer. This situation creates serious difficulties as the present trained manpower then need to unlearn what they have learned in their schools, colleges and universities in extension. This can prove to be much harder than learning. This also calls upon them to be facilitators of the process rather than to be all-knowing super humans. There are two schools of thought on people's empowerment. One is that empowerment of people will result into disempowerment of professionals and technicians. Thus they will resist the process. However, the other school of thought believes that empowerment of people will result into more empowerment of the professionals and development agents as they gain more love and trust of the people. This will happen when the professionals and development agents become true facilitators.

Land titling/tenure/allocation

All the case studies include this element. In the indigenous case of Sri Lanka, land was allocated in the supplementally irrigated areas depending on the distance from source so that everybody was assured minimum water supplies. The land allocation was flexible depending on the rainy season. In the Indian case, social techniques were evolved to establish civil control over public lands (or panchayat lands which are traditionally community lands but often nobody's lands hence controlled by village level revenue officials). These lands were then put to environmentally sound land use for common good. The Philippines case study demonstrates the key role played in participatory WM by land use titles given as certificates of stewardship for 25-50 years.

China also gives land use titles and leases the public lands for a duration of up to 50 years. This has motivated the people which has resulted in to a peoples' movement for upland development. China also provides investment in loans to farmers for land development before they are titled.

In Nepal case, common property lands were given to users' groups on long term lease basis and they were permitted to own the benefits harvested from them. In the case of Thailand even though land titles are not permitted on protected areas (land titles on other forestry lands are possible), the people participated with a hope that they would get the right to use the lands they occupy.

In fact in most Asian countries, policy instruments to give legal land use titles to users exist except in Sri Lanka where it is being tried on pilot scale today. This provides a great opportunity as has been proven by the community forestry experience in Nepal, upland watershed development for shifting agriculture control in the Philippines and mountainous wasteland development in China. However, in some countries like India, it has got bogged down in bureaucratic land revenue departments who may not have full appreciation of its importance. Similarly difficulties are being faced in other countries. This is due to resistance from land titling agencies or for lack of follow up support on lands titled. Also, in many cases, most WM related personnel are not familiar with the procedures for land titling. Hence, they are unable to facilitate the transfer of land use titles.

It should be remembered that one of the most serious causes of land degradation has been skewed land tenure and most of the public lands are owned by the governments today where they are unable to take much action to rehabilitate them. Thus, land titling/tenure is a very important element in the participatory process which gives the ownership of the main resource base in the hands of the rural people.

Benefit generation

All the case studies have resulted into short-term, medium term as well as long-term direct and indirect benefits (economic, social, environmental as well as political) to the participants. The benefits were equitably distributed depending upon the contributions of the people. The benefits need to be produced quickly while the medium and long term benefits can follow. Hence, it can be concluded that if the equitable benefits were not generated, there was no reason for people to participate in the programs studied.

In all the cases there was significant enrichment of social, spiritual and cultural life of the people which created better community feelings and strong bonds. Better appreciation of nature's gifts, and better relation with nature and the universe have helped develop confident human beings. This also created a better and a secure social life.

In the Sri Lankan case, people's lives were sustained by the system. This was achieved by upstream diversified dry land agriculture, down-stream supplementally irrigated agriculture and homestead gardening in an integral system in the whole watershed.

In the Indian case, the livelihood and the quality of life of all the participants improved significantly. This was achieved by water harvesting for supplementally irrigated agriculture. The water resource was enhanced by soil conservation, check dams, judicious use of water by drip irrigation, better management of village pasture lands and protection of green cover and reforestation.

In the Chinese case, ecological and economic benefits were generated by comprehensive management of small watersheds. This includes overall planning and development of hilly lands, water resources, farm lands, forests, orchards, horticulture, agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries and roads simultaneously.

In Nepal also, the benefits were generated by improved agro-forestry practices, orchards, agriculture crop yields improvements, community forestry as well as introduction of cash crops into forests and orchards.

Thailand case is a case of crop substitution (from opium), forest area regeneration and forest fire control. The net benefit in this case was a life free of police fear who used to chase the people for growing opium. The crop substitution has at least maintained the same standard of living as from opium sale and significantly enhanced forest cover.

In the Philippines case, the certificates of stewardship resulted in many benefits from agroforestry, livestock, backyard gardening, mango gardening etc.

In the past, many soil conservation, reforestation and other watershed development activities have been financed by many governments and donors which did not generate any benefits to the people while they were asked to participate in them.

Gender concerns

While commissioning the case studies in the TOR of all the authors, special efforts were designed to segregate women issues and benefits accrued by them. The Sri Lankan indigenous case study is the case of most holistic human development which provided a way of life. The whole family was benefitting and sustaining itself hence there must have been an equitable sharing of the benefits within the family. However, the case study does not provide details on this question, hence the above statement can not be confirmed.

In the Philippines case where women were as entitled to take land lease as were the men, benefits have accrued to both women and men equally. In the Indian case study, persistent efforts at social reform to give equal rights and benefits to women were made. However, it has been claimed (no gender segregated data presented) that benefits were accrued by women but the benefits reported have been at the cost of added workload and drudgery on women. Although the Indian leader was very conscious of the problems faced by the women and also tried his best to eradicate the social evils against women, the ways and means to empower and benefit women in the prevalent social system are not yet well known. The study also concludes that extra efforts are needed to address this problem.

In the case studies from China, Nepal and Thailand significant empowerment and benefits to women are not reported.

This is the sorry state of women's empowerment. Hence, special efforts are needed for integration of gender concerns in integrated watershed management programs, and training and education for the same. However, the cultural background should be kept in mind to avoid turning these efforts into a theoretical exercise only. This will help accommodate diversity of gender issues in different cultures of Asia. Affirmative action policies have their own limitations as they do help a few of the disadvantaged groups but have not yet fully succeeded in complete elimination of discrimination. Still affirmative action has a role at least in the beginning.

LESSONS FROM THE CASE STUDIES

Numerous lessons as follows can be learned from the case studies analyzed above.

1. The aims of integrated watershed management should include holistic human development. Thus, it should encompass the human as well as natural resource management dimensions in a watershed.

2. The integrated watershed management should be based on the dominant cultural and value system in relation to the dominant thoughts of a society with nature and the universe. Thus, spiritual or other ways of Man's role in Nature and the Universe (cosmic vision) should become a continuous activity of the WM programs. The education and training programs also need to integrate them into their curricula.

3. Alternate ways of strengthening farmers' organization for their empowerment need to be integrated into the WM programs. This will include farmer-led WM planning, farmer-led WM implementation, farmer managed funding and investments (e.g. rotating funds), farmer-led implementation, and participatory monitoring and evaluation to feed back corrections into the WM programs. This is to be within the framework of commonly agreed constitutions of the farmers' organizations which is respected by all participants. As far as possible, conflict resolution should be based on the dominant cultural values of the people rather than based on only legal deterrents. Clear rules and sanctions, clear leadership, clear decision-making procedures and a clear role of the organizations are important as well. A mechanism for communication among all members and equitable distribution of benefits are important for the organization building. This all will help develop a sustainable way of life by managing the watersheds sustainably. Thus, the WM programs should introduce the mechanisms by which the WM process becomes part of the culture of the people.

4. Most education and training programs need to update their curricula to train professions to facilitate the process of farmers' decision making, farmers' empowerment, farmers' organization building and farmers' own management of the WM programs.

5. The investments into the WM programs should be designed at the national level and made available to the farmers or other users through national channels. In most countries, bank loans exist for farmers however, farmer managed funding is more effective, less misused and results into better managed community and household resources.

6. A policy framework exists in almost all countries which allows the community and public lands to be titled to the people. The WM programs should facilitate this process and help land titling to the people. As far as possible, the land titling authority should be designed into the WM programs. The WM professionals need training to manage this aspect.

7. Benefit generation should be the primary concern of the development activities. Farming systems improvement, and common property resource development should pursue this in a ecologically sound manner. Water being the primary natural constraint in mountainous and rainfed areas, its harvesting and conservation can help increase the sustainability of watershed resources.

8. Gender concerns have not been considered in most WM programs. This is creating a situation where half of the population either does not benefit or becomes worse off. Affirmative action policies have limited impact. However, they are needed till the gender concerns and their resolution become a part of the dominant culture.

9. Most WM related professionals and technicians are not prepared in the above elements of the participatory processes. Hence, considerable efforts will have to be made to update their curricula so that facilitators of the participatory processes can be trained.

CONCLUSION

The case-studies show that sustainable participatory watershed management can be implemented successfully. It shows how different approaches can be used depending upon the situations. However, there are also several pitfalls which can endanger the process. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to acknowledge the lessons we can learn from such case-studies. Efforts should now be made to incorporate these in WM implementation, education and training. The government organizations and NGOs should integrate the participatory processes at policy, implementation and operational levels.

REFERENCES

Bogati, Rabin. 1996. A case of people's participation in BTRT watershed management in Nepal. In P.N. Sharma and M.P. Wagley (edts.), Case studies of people's participation in Watershed Management in Asia, Part I: Nepal, China and India. PWMTA-WMTUHFARM Field Doc. 4, FAO(UN), Kathmandu, Nepal. pp 1-20.

Deyi, Wu. 1996. A case study of successful watershed management in Wuhua county, Guangdong Province, China. In P.N. Sharma and M. P. Wagley (eats. ), Case studies of people's participation in Watershed Management in Asia, Part I: Nepal, China and India. PWMTAWMTUH-FARM Field Doc. 4, FAO(UN), Kathmandu, Nepal. pp 21-34.

Dong H.S. and N.H. Dong. 1996. A case study of farmer based watershed management in Chieng Dong commune of Yen Chau district, San La Province, Vietnam. In P.N. Sharma (edt.), Case studies of people's participation in Watershed Management in Asia, Part II: Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. PWMTA-FARM Field Doc. 5, FAO(UN), Kathmandu, Nepal. pp 31-38.

Emphandhu, D. T. Lakhaviwattanakul, S. Kalyawongsa. 1996. A case of successful participatory watershed management in protected areas of Northern Thailand. In P.N. Sharma (edt.), Case studies of people's participation in Watershed Management in Asia, Part II: Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. PWMTA-FARM Field Doc. 5, FAO(UN), Kathmandu, Nepal. pp 21 -34.

Gamage, H. A case study of people's participation in traditional village tank systems in the dry zone of Sri Lanka. In P.N. Sharma (edt.), Case studies of people's participation in Watershed Management in Asia, Part II: Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. PWMTAFARM Field Doc. 5, FAO(UN), Kathmandu, Nepal. pp 1-10.

Mishra, B. 1996. A successful case of participatory watershed management at Relegan Siddhi village in district Ahmadnagar, Maharastra, India. In P.N. Sharma and M.P. Wagley (edts.), Case studies of people's participation in Watershed Management in Asia, Part I: Nepal, China and India. PWMTA-WMTUHFARM Field Doc. 4, FAO(UN), Kathmandu, Nepal. pp 35-47.

Suan, M.P. Lim, D. T. Bacalla and C. W. W. Azucena. 1997. Keepers of the uplands-people's participation in upland watershed management in the Philippines- The case of village Manipis in Tilsay municipality of Cebu province. In P.N. Sharma (edt.), Case studies of people's participation in Watershed Management in Asia, Part II (II edition): Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines. PWMTA-FARM Field Doc. 5, FAO(UN), Kathmandu, Nepal. pp 39-52.

Participatory processes for integrated watershed management

P. N. Sharma1, B. Mishra2, J. Gurung3, F. J. Dent4, S. H. Achet5, J. Escano6, H. Gamage7 and E.R.N. Gunawardena8

1 Regional Coordinator/CTA, PWMTA, GCP/RAS/161/NET and Sr. NRM Advisor (WM), FARM

RAS/92/062 programs, Netherlands/UNDP/FAO, P.O. Box 25, Kathmandu, Nepal.

2 Associate Secretary, AVARD, D.D.U. Marg, New Delhi-110002, India.

3 Gender Development Specialist, ICIMOD, P.O. Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal.

4 Regional Soil Management and Fertilizer Use Officer, RAP/FAD, Phra Atit Road, Bangkok.

5 DDG, Dept. of Soil Conservation, MFSC, Babar Mahal, Nepal.

6 Director, Bureau of Agriculture Research (BAR), Deliman, Quezon City, Philippines.

7 Director, NRMC, DOA, P.O. Box 52, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.

8 Sr. Lecturer, Dept. of Agril. Engg., Faculty of Agri., University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.

ABSTRACT

This article is prepared based on the group discussions in the "Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management Regional Workshop", held at Kathmandu from Oct. 8-13, 1996 by the GCP/RAS/161/NET program. Based on the case studies earlier conducted by the RAS/93/063 WMTUH/FARM program, key elements in participatory approaches for integrated watershed management are identified and discussed. First key element is to correctly define sustainable participatory integrated watershed management which aims at natural resources management in a watershed for over all human development including strengthening of spiritual or cosmic relation of Man with Nature. Secondly, the people's (farmers, land users etc.) ownership of the natural resources, participatory processes, as well as the watershed management programs are to be ascertained. Thirdly, equitable land use titling to the people is required to be ensured specially to the women and disadvantaged groups. Fourthly, gender concerns and disadvantaged group's concerns need to be mainstreamed and designed into the watershed management programs. Finally, the watershed management programs should result in to quick benefits to the people, if these programs are to succeed.

INTRODUCTION

Based on the analysis of case studies of participatory watershed management (see Sharma, this document), group discussions were held in the Regional Workshop on "Participatory Approaches to Integrated Watershed Management" on the identified key elements of the participatory processes for integrated watershed management (see annex II).

Participatory watershed management (WM) aims at farmers' and communities' natural resources management for poverty alleviation and farmers' development in a watershed. Since farmers and other land users are the main stakeholder in watershed management, they themselves are to take charge of the processes for development of watershed resources, if it is to succeed. A farmer-led approach is also needed to achieve their empowerment and self reliance. It forces all technical assistance agents (government or non government researchers, extensionists, trainers) to become facilitators of the participatory processes for integrated WM rather than agents of transfer of technology for WM.

For achieving the aim of participatory WM as above, a new thinking is required (Sharma and Krosschell, 1997). Farmers need to become equal partners in development, their local knowledge and capability for continued experimentation and innovation need to be recognized. Based on such an approach, basic foundations of a farmers' integrated WM program can be laid.

This article synthesizes the key elements that make the participatory processes for integrated WM. It is by no means a complete synthesis as the participatory approaches for integrated WM are still emerging.

Elements of Participatory Processes for Integrated WM

The elements of participatory processes to help make integrated WM programs as truly participatory farmers' programs may consist of the following. They can overlap, can be continuous activities as well as can be in sequence, depending on the need.

Key elements in participatory processes

Key elements in the participatory processes for Integrated WM are the critical elements which need to be integrated into WM programs but have often been overlooked in the past. They consist of the following:

Other important elements in participatory processes

Other elements which are equally important to make the WM programs as farmers' programs have already been discussed earlier in detail by Sharma and Krosschell (1996), hence not included here. They are as following:

Role of Government/Non-Government Technical/Extension Personnel

Many times it has been expressed that a farmer-led approach to WM does not allow any role for technical/extension agents. On the contrary, in practice it has been seen that the process generally generates so much demand for farmers' capacity building and research that the existing extension services may not be enough. However, it puts the technical/extension/administrative personnel on the service of the people on demand. This requires a change in attitude of these personnel to become facilitators and motivators of the participatory processes for integrated WM.

KEY ELEMENTS OF PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES FOR INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Redefine Integrated Watershed Management Goals and its Activities

Watershed Management has come to mean different things to different people. A watershed is used to define hydrological boundaries of water catchment areas. Watershed management deals with the use and conservation of its natural resources. Sustainable participatory integrated WM was defined as follows:

Utilization and conservation of land, water, and forest resources at farm household and community (or given watershed) level for continuously improved livelihood and human development.

Continually improved livelihood signifies long term process and human development was added to signify the overall human development (including spiritual or cosmic angle) for long term sustainablity of the WM actions as demonstrated by many of the case studies and as analysed in Sharma (this document).

Thus, modern watershed management approach is more 'people-friendly' end process based rather than physical target oriented (as was the case in the past in many government programs). It is to fit into farmers' (not donors, governments or non government organizations') pace of life.

Integrated WM activities

In the widest sense, integrated WM could include everything in a watershed - both human and non-human. However, in practice, the scope of WM is location specific and geared to answering the problems and needs of the local people. Thus, in a given watershed, the activities required to be undertaken have the following common primary aims:

Prioritization of integrated watershed management activities, therefore, is addressed at local level through farmers' groups or any other suitable mechanisms of farmers' organization which is able to express and represent the farmers at grass roots level.

For successful watershed management in any situation, a participatory and integrated, a multidisciplinary and a multi-sectoral approach are essential. Furthermore, gender issues, disadvantaged groups, and distributional equity should be taken into account and ownership of the people ensured. Good communication skills at all levels are essential to achieve the aims of participatory watershed management.

The most important requirements for successful integrated WM today are:

Farmers' and Professionals' Envisioning

Participatory watershed management should result into an improved livelihood and social life style in harmony with nature based on the vision of a community. An envisioning exercise by farmers and professionals can be carried out in many ways. The steps involved could consist of the following:

The dominant philosophy in a particular community should be used to get the message across. At the same time better moral inputs should be added to combine the moral knowledge and practice and thereby making the community healthier and happier.

Once the people attain a certain level of awareness, some sort of voluntary code of conduct pertaining to community and society could be laid down and a social structure (e.g. farmers' organizations) could be created to sustain it. However, if a social organization is already in existence, it could be used for this purpose. Besides, envisioning is a continuous activity and should not be used in isolation of the objectives of integrated and participatory WM. Also, envisioning should not be misunderstood as religious conversion or abstract preaching.

For successful WM, it is imperative that the facilitators/trainers themselves inculcate good moral and ethical standards so that they are able to impress upon common people virtues of better moral practices on strong moral footings. The envisioning process should result into farmers' or community's and professionals' awakening and mobilization for their own integrated watershed management.

Farmers' Empowerment and Ownership

Empowering farmers and institutionalizing their ownership of integrated WM programs and processes require that their constitutional rights (individually or in groups) are allowed to be availed unhindered and farmers are facilitated to use them.

Empowerment is linked to control over resources. This, in turn, is linked to ownership of the resources, of the participatory processes and of the WM programs. Hence, land ownership is seen as an important aspect to facilitate peoples' participation. The different types of land ownership (public, private and community lands, tenureship e.g. absentee landlords etc.) will allow differently for empowerment. Therefore, they require different approaches to management of these lands. Giving rights to people to use resources are seen as the important means to empowerment. These are further discussed under land titling/tenure section.

A serious constraint to farmers' ownership of the participatory processes and of the WM programs is a lack of mission and vision in implementing agencies, their professionals as well as farmers. This requires a change in attitudes among all concerned so that the empowering process can help farmers to better handle the pressures from vested interests. Farmers' group formation and networking them into federations help them institutionalize the empowerment process better. This requires an integrated and coordinated approach at farmers field and community levels by all the concerned implementing agencies.

It was realized that lack of investment is not necessarily the problem. Improving farmers' receiving mechanism with proper checks and balances and avoiding abuse of funds are key issues in farmers' ownership of the investments. The resources from local banks/district programs and other local resources must be facilitated for integrated WM Programs.

The strategy for farmers' ownership of the WM program, therefore, consists of facilitation of the empowerment process, (not imposition), guaranteed long-term ownership or user rights of land and other resources to the farmers/people, change in attitude of government departments from target oriented to process oriented watershed development programs so that it fits into farmers' (not government's) pace of life, farmers' capacity building, investments to farmers (public and private both) and technical support. It was suggested that there should be a meeting place for the exchange of ideas between farmers and government officials.

This needs GO/NGO technical agents with persistence, commitment, innovation, dedication and better communication skills to assist in farmers' alternate institution building. This type of planning and implementation would be based on farmers' traditional processes and as far as possible on indigenous technologies. Subsidies, if any, should be replaced by investments if the WM programs are to sustain.

The following three very important aspects need serious consideration if the process of farmers' ownership of the WM programs is to be facilitated:

The last two ate further explained as key elements. However, farmers' organization building is discussed first.

Farmers' organization (FO) network building

Experience on many forms of farmers' organizations are available in Asia today. This includes farmers' traditional (formal or informal) institutions e.g. some successful village level panchayat organizations in India, official man farmers' and woman village level farmers' organizations in Sri Lanka, Vietnam and China. Users' groups for community forestry and conservation committee for soil conservation in Nepal, professional farmers' associations in Sichuan province of China, farmers' associations in many Latin American countries and farmers' saving and credit unions in many other countries are also well known.

Many organized efforts in people's participation in watershed management/natural resources management (NRM/WM) are being made in the Asian region today. Most recent efforts consist of some forms of farmers' group formation or village level committees representing the entire village or only the beneficiaries e.g. in the case of community forestry users' groups in Nepal. Using these experiences as a basis, farmers' organization building for watershed management by networking the farmers' groups in a small watershed or village is being successfully tried by the FARM program in Nepal (Sharma, 1995). This is a first preplanned effort at networking the farmers' groups into a higher level organization.

To facilitate farmers' organizations, first community awakening and envisioning is done with the help of GO/NGO extension staff. This often takes a number of meetings, frequent contacts as well as living with farmers as needed, over a total period of about 2-3 months. This often also results into many formal or informal consultations among the farmers by themselves if they are interested in organizing themselves. This is facilitated if the objectives of a watershed program are very clearly spelled out to the farmers i.e. poverty alleviation and human development through better natural resources management for quick benefit generation to the farmers in a watershed.

Once farmers are convinced of the benefits from income generating activities and the need for watershed management/natural resources management, they can join themselves into small (515 families) homogenous groups with one woman and one man as their elected group leaders (GL) (FAO, 1990; FAO, 1994). Alternately, men and women can have separate groups which can later be merged once women feel free to participate in mixed groups. This process can take up to six months. If more time is spent only on group formation, it has been observed that the farmers may loose faith and hope in a program as only group formation by itself does not produce any tangible benefits.

Sometimes specialized groups are tried, however, a farmer often deals with the whole farming systems consisting of many specialized activities (e.g. horticulture, agro-forestry, livestock, etc.). Hence it may not be a good idea to form only specialized groups as the farmers will have to participate in many groups. Alternately, all the groups can participate in all the activities so there is no need for specialized groups. Specialized training will have to be arranged for selected farmers.

Once farmers' groups are well established, a consultation process among the groups should be facilitated for the group leaders to develop the constitution of their organization or network. The network is a federation of the groups. The rules and regulations in the constitution should be based on local social setting and not imposed unless agreed by all. The process of FO constitution development has been observed to require many meetings among the farmers. In one case in Nepal (FARM site, Nuwakot), it took over 90 informal meetings organized by farmers themselves (Sharma et al, 1996). Farmers may need training in conducting meetings and may require facilitation. However, formal ways of minute keeping etc. should only be advised at a later stage, when farmers have themselves gained confidence in their own organization.

For networking, the men and the women group leaders can form a Hamlet level Farmers' Committee (HFC) and elect their own board. All the women/men GLs also are members of a Small Watershed (5-50 sq. km) Farmers' Organization (SWFO) in which they also form an elected joint executive committee or board. The efforts at networking can be initiated after the groups have been formed and they actively start taking part in the development works. Thus, the process of networking at a small watershed may take upto a year. Networking immediately upon group formation may encourage take over of the SWFO by established village leadership who may be elites and not true representative farmers. However, since these type of leaders can have considerable experience and/or moral influence particularly in some sections of the rural populations, their role as advisors could be encouraged. Also, in order to make sure that the women, marginal and poor farmers do not get sidelined, sufficient time should be allowed for them to start taking up leadership roles. The whole process may take 6 months to one year as well as will require continued efforts at strengthening it particularly by capacity building of the farmers' leaders.

The SWFO can be further networked with other SWFOs as well as at district and at provincial level in due course of time. Both HFC and SWFO committees/boards can have half women and half men members unless separate men and women farmers' organizations are desired by the farmers. This is a form of affirmative action for assuring equal women's participation. However, only affirmative action policies do not assure equal participation. Mainstreaming the gender and other disadvantaged class concerns in the WM program design will be required.

Thus, a network (or federation) of the farmers' groups can be formed both at a hamlet level as well as at a selected small watershed/district/ province level. All decisions on group formation, their networking, planning and activity implementation are done by the farmers. Farmers themselves develop their own constitution based on their traditional institutions and mores.

Minimum funding needs are to be met as loans (not incentives or subsidies) from a HFC managed savings and loans rotating fund or other investments available to them. The farmers' themselves decide the management of these funds which is governed by rules developed during the process of FO constitution development. The whole process strengthens the farmers' organization and their institutional capabilities.

Other methods of farmers' organization building e.g. traditional village organizations, farmers' associations or farmers' credit unions, etc. should be encouraged, if found more convenient.

However, it is also true that as the group formation requires facilitation so does the networking. The famous small farmers' cooperative development program took fifteen years to start networking of small groups only in some places in Nepal after the banks realized that it was a better mechanism to recover their loans. The effort at networking was not initially facilitated. Similarly, it took almost 10-12 years for the famous community forestry users' groups to form their association in Nepal. Thus, networking requires facilitation and planning from the very beginning.

Land Use Titling/Tenure

Control over land resources (by both men and women) is a pre-requisite to farmers' participation in NRM/WM program as has been amply demonstrated by many case studies of successful participatory WM programs. Likewise the case study from Philippines clearly demonstrated that gender equity and women's participation can only be guaranteed if they have the same rights on land ownership as men (Suan et al, 1997).

Land tenure systems vary in different countries. Today various approaches by individual government in the region have been tried or are being experimented for land use titling with limited success although good examples e.g. in community forestry in Nepal (Kanel, 1997), CARL in Philippines (Suan et al, 1997), family contract system in China (Deyi, 1996), etc. are available. There is no universal model of addressing the problem of land titling/tenure for all the countries in Asia and the Pacific resulting from different culture and traditions, beliefs and political environment. The following is deemed necessary to serve as basic foundation for exploring the provision of various types of land rights, ranging from long-term leases to full ownership either individually or communally:

Integration of Gender Concerns

Many of the WM/NRM professionals working in the field are not fully aware of the gender issue, as it is rather a recent concern among professionals which has not yet percolated to implementation level. Hence, urgent action is needed to correct the imbalance caused by lack of awareness to integrate the gender concerns. This resulted into WM program designs which were insensitive to gender concerns as well as insensitive to other disadvantaged social groups' needs.

Mainstreaming gender concerns into WM program design

The gender concerns and remedy for alleviating inequalities vis-a-vis disadvantaged classes/castes are required to be built into watershed development program designs. This can be called mainstreaming their concerns into the program design. Some of the steps that can help are listed below:

Facilitation of women's participation at field level

For integrating women's concerns in WM, field level training in quick and direct benefit and income generation should be held as near as women's residence as possible. It should use unorthodox and non-formal methods (e.g. posters and other visual materials) for their training in WM action planning, implementation and monitoring, as many women are illiterate. Using and preparing local women facilitators can be more helpful and local educated women leaders can act as liaison. The training as well as other surveys e.g. PRA should not be of such a long duration that busy women can not participate. Using existing women's groups or informal networks or encouraging new groups and networks which can be merged later to mixed groups once women feel more confident, can help their empowerment and participation in WM programs. If women's participation is found wanting, use of affirmative action (e.g. quotas) may be helpful at least in the beginning. However, it should not result into pushing them (e.g. for speaking in public forums) as it may be culturally in-sensitive.

Gender sensitization/training at institution levels

Most development organizations in Asia are not very gender sensitive. They need to be made women friendly so that they can attract more women graduates specially in government jobs for which stronger linkages between education and implementation agencies are needed. Similarly, development project activities need to be segregated for women and men at the design stage itself. Gender analysis training is required to be imparted to both women and men at all levels. It also needs to be introduced in formal and informal education/in-service training curricula so that gradually and subtly the attitudes can change and gender concerns are institutionalized. Even women professionals need to be sensitized and their constraints removed as they often work in institutional frameworks which were designed for men only. Men should be encouraged to recognize their responsibility to play key role in supporting women so that the impact of WM programs can be for the whole household rather than the men only.

Assured and Quick Benefit Generation

It is by now very clear that unless the WM/NRM activities result in quick (preferably with in a crop season or a year) net direct benefits to the participating farmers, their participation should not be expected. Without this, there will not be any on-farm level watershed management or conservation and better utilization of natural resources. On common property resources also, if they are to be managed better by the people, they must produce quick benefits to them. Thus, gender sensitive processes and activities assuring quick economic benefits (along with environmental and social benefits to all) are needed.

This could be a combination of both mechanical as well as biological (agro-horticultural-forestry) activities for soil and water conservation. However, they should, as far as possible, result in little loss of land. In addition they should be labour and input saving (e.g. by cover crops, compost, crop rotations, hedge rows of income producing/soil improving plant materials etc.).

Many examples of activities are today available which produce direct benefits within a crop season. Incorporation of better agronomic practices, cash crops, animal husbandry, off farm-income generation, better storage of farm produce, value added products, marketing and rural infra-structure (e.g. farm roads, rural roads) requires attention. Community facilities (e.g. ponds, community forestry) which result into direct farmers' income generation need to be strengthened. This requires promotion of farmers' capacity for investments. Thus, rather than subsidies, incentives or other forms of government decided funding, promotion of investment from both farmers as well as government programs are needed for quick economic, environmental and social benefit generation.

In all the above elements of the participatory process, dialogue is important to achieve true participative watershed management. Farmers should get the chance to express their views and opinions to identify problems and to share their ideas with researchers, extensionists and managers. Local (or farmers') organization and institutional strengthening should be the important development objectives. The result of such approach will be the boosting of confidence of the farmers and the spreading of innovative ideas from farmer to farmer (Sharma and Krosschell, 1996).

One of the most serious problems is that the GO/NGO are unable to cope with poverty alleviation and participatory approaches or are often involved in building themselves rather than denting the task. Since the direct beneficiaries of a WM program are the farmers or the effected people, nobody but themselves can alleviate their poverty. However, GO/NGO are needed as facilitators of the processes and for farmers' capacity building.

CONCLUSION

The key elements in participatory processes for integrated WM have been culled out in this paper. Most of these elements have not been considered in WM program design or its training/education programs. The case studies, from where the key elements are culled out made us revise the goals of the integrated WM as NRM for over all human development to guarantee their sustainablity. Land and other resources ownership was found to be the key to not only the farmers'/land users' ownership of the WM programs but also an essential requirement for ensuring equitable benefits for participation of women and disadvantaged groups. A WM program not resulting into quick benefits to the participants has little chance of success.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ASIAN WATMANET Newsletter No. 3, June 1995. UNDP/FAO, Nepal. p 1-2.

ASIAN WATMANET Newsletter No. 9, Dec., 1996. pp 1-6.

Deyi, Wu, 1996. State of art and status of watershed management in China, Field Doc., 1, PWMTA-FARM, July 1996, pp 7-17.

FAO, 1990. Participation in practice. in Rural Development (RD), No. 12. pp 9- 16.

FAO, 1994. The group promoters resource book-a practical guide to building rural self-help groups, Rome, p 112.

FAO, 1996. Case Studies of People's Participation in WM in Asia, Part I, Field Doc. No. 4. NET/UNDP/FAO, Nepal. p 47.

FAO, 1996. Steps towards a participatory and integrated approach to WM, Field Doc. No. 1, Italy/FAO, Tunis, Aug., 1996.

FAO, 1997. Case Studies of People's Participation in WM in Asia, Part II, Field Doc. No. 5. (II edition), NET/UNDP/FAO, Nepal. p 52.

Kanel, K. 1996. Lessons from community forestry in Nepal, Field Doc. 6, PWMTA-FARM, Net/UNDP/FAO, Kathmandu.

Nathen, Dev, 1995. A gender framework for resource management. Asian WATMANET newsletter No. 5.

Sharma, P. N. 1995. Farmers' organization networks for people's participation in watershed management in Asia. In Sharma (eat. The status of watershed management in Asia. PWMTA-FARM Field Doc. 1, Netherlands/UNDP/FAO, Nepal. p 68-73.

Sharma, P.N., B. Pudasaini, S. N. Mandal. 1997. Empowerment of farmers and its impact on NRM at FARM demonstration watershed in Nuwakot, Nepal. PWMTA-FARM Field Doc. No. 7, FAO, Kathmandu.

Sharma, P. N. and C. Krosschell, 1997. An approach to farmer led sustainable participatory watershed management. In Sharma (edt.) 1997. Recent Developments, status and gaps in participatory WM education and training in Asia. Field Doc. 6, NET/UNDP/FAO, Nepal, pp 73-76.

Stephens, A., 1990. Participatory monitoring and evaluation-handbook for training field workers. RAPA/FAO, Bangkok.

Suan, M. P. L., D. T. Bacalla and C.W.W. Azucena, 1997. Keepers of the Philippines uplands-People's participation in upland watershed resources management in the Philippines- The case of village Manipis in Tilsay municipality of Cebu province. in Sharma P. N. (edt.) Case studies of people's participation in WM, part II: Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines. PWMTAFARM Field Doc. No. 5 (11 edition), GCP/RAS/ 161 /NET-RAS/93/062, NET/UNDP/FAO, Kathmandu, Nepal. pp 3952.

Wilde, V. L. and A. V. Mattila, 1996. Gender analysis and forestry training package, FAO-FTPP, Rome.

Initial methodological lessons learned in participatory watershed management

Luca Fé d'Ostiani and Patrizio Warren1

1 Project Manager and M&E Consultant respectively of the FAO/Italy Inter-Regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation and Development, GCP/INT/542/lTA, Tunisia. The article is based on the experiences of the GCP/INT/542/lTA Project and was first printed in its Field Doc. 1.

ABSTRACT

This paper is a preliminary attempt to extract the initial methodological and technical lessons being learned from the field experience of the Inter-regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation and Development (FAO/ITALY, GCP/INT/542/ITA). This is expressed here as lessons learned in; (1) background information required for project implementation in the area of participatory watershed management; (2) methodological aspects of the participatory process; (3) development of grassroots/community organisations; (4) women participation; (5) technical aspects of natural resource management; (6) incentives, project subsidies and cost-sharing; (7) local staff development; and (8) institutional aspects.

INTRODUCTION

The "Inter-regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation and Development" is being carried out in the framework of the FAO/Italy Cooperative Programme, with the aim of identifying and field-testing strategies, methods and techniques for the promotion and consolidation of people's participation in the conservation and development of upland watersheds. The project has taken inspiration from the orientations of UNCED's Agenda 21, Chapter 13, "Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development".

The project has been operational since 1992 and is currently in its second phase. It includes five national field components, located in Asia (Nepal and Pakistan), Africa (Burundi and Tunisia) and Latin America (Bolivia), and an Inter-regional Coordination Unit located in Tunis.

The project is designed to be a pilot, process-oriented, learning experience, focused on local capacity building. Areas selected for field implementation are small (approximately 10,000 ha each). The field projects" budget is essentially limited to covering staff and human resource development, in accordance with the intention to provide methodological support and to act as a catalyst in mobilising local institutions and NGOs and conveying external know-how and additional financial resources.

National workplans are the outcome of a participatory cycle of assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation and re-planning, involving a variety of local actors (communities, grassroots organisations, government, line-agencies, local authorities, NGOs and other development institutions). The role of each National Field Team (NFT) is thus essentially to facilitate this process and to ensure that lessons are learned for further application (within and outside the project areas). The exchange of experiences among national components, and their dissemination in the wider international development forum, are ensured by the Coordination Unit.

This paper is a preliminary attempt to extract the initial methodological and technical lessons being learned from project field experience. To this end, the experience developed by the five project National Field Teams (NFTs) has been translated into generalisations and expressed as lessons learned by the overall inter-regional project.

METHODOLOGICAL AND TECHNICAL LESSONS

Background Information Needs for Participatory Watershed Management

Providing assistance to the participatory process for integrated watershed management, and upland conservation and development entails a thorough understanding of the biophysical, socio-economic and institutional circumstances of the project area. During the start-up phase of the project, each NFT a knowledge and understanding of its project area by using three different research methods: review of available secondary data from a variety of sources; meetings with local agencies and organisations; and initial PRA exercises in the field.

Progress later gained in the field led all NFTs to critically examine the outcome of this initial surveys and assessment. Information gained through PRA was often found to be superficial and unreliable, especially with regard to social organisation, farming system structure, and local knowledge on natural resource management. The biophysical and demographic data obtained from secondary sources (including cartography) proved to be inadequate for detailed planning and evaluation. Biases were also identified in the initial appraisal of local institutions and grassroots organisations.

To overcome the above shortcomings, a number of "complementary studies" have been implemented, specifically on:

Further information needs were felt at the different stages of the participatory and iterative planning cycle. Indeed, continuous monitoring of selected aspects of the participatory implementation process (such as input delivery and actual participation of community members), as well as the timely evaluation of preliminary technical results obtained (e.g., the success of a plantation, the effectiveness of training, or the increase in yields), have become essential for ensuring a proper feedback to further planning exercises and to technical decision-making. Furthermore, to facilitate the project's ongoing (and final) evaluation, it was found extremely important to develop a systematic effort for collecting evidence of changes in natural resource management and in community organisation (in this regard, a comprehensive project-level M&E system has been established and is progressively adjusted). The following lesson learned I can be drawn from the above considerations:

Lesson 1

Information needs for participatory and integrated watershed management

PRA plays a pivotal role in participatory and integrated watershed management, especially with respect to:

    * getting acquainted with local perception of natural resources and social development issues;

    * exploring local knowledge and identifying local technologies;

    * promoting, since the establishment of the project in the area, the active participation of the local population in needs assessment and decision-making.

However, information provided by participatory assessment is not sufficient for designing field activities. Complementary environmental, agro-socio-economic and farming system analysis studies are also required. These can enhance participants' capacity to confront natural resource management issues.

Participatory Methodology

Experience gained in the field has given rise to many issues regarding key methodological steps for participatory watershed management (such as initial appraisal, planning and feasibility analysis, implementation monitoring and evaluation).

The initial participatory appraisal exercise, though acknowledged by all NFTs as a pivotal element in their field experience, needs to focus more on natural resource management issues. Indeed, the absence of a clear thematic focus resulted in several problems, including: inadequate exploration of the indigenous environmental perception and know-how; excessive expectations of the communities; and inclusion in community workplans of activities not sufficiently consistent with the project mandate and competence, creating unnecessary obstacles and delays in implementation.

The focus/technical mandate of the Interregional Project is on the development and promotion of a participatory approach to watershed management (upland conservation and development). This should be reflected in the activities of the national field projects, which are not intended to be social welfare or rural development projects. PRA exercises (and other data collection systems) should thus focus on the identification and analysis of problems in natural resource management and, therefore, be less open-ended and more guided, with greater emphasis on participatory environmental assessment.

Through the iterative participatory project cycle, all NFTs have gained significant experience in participatory planning. Following the initial planning exercises at both the community and interest-group level, which sometimes resulted in "shopping lists" of felt priorities, more sound methods were tested, ensuring that the people's perception of local problems and the project's mandate and operational capability were taken into serious consideration.

Participatory planning is currently carried out in community level workshops (Bolivia, Nepal, Pakistan) and in annual inter-community assemblies (Burundi). In these sessions, the knowledge gained from participatory appraisal (Nepal) and community-level evaluation exercises (Bolivia, Burundi, Pakistan, Nepal) is used for the preliminary identification of local priorities. The working hypothesis based on these priorities is analysed during interest-group meetings, through participatory cost-benefit analysis (Bolivia, Pakistan) and/or participatory feasibility analysis exercises (Bolivia, Nepal, Pakistan). Technical input by the staff in-charge is also provided at this stage, after which details on implementation procedures, schedule and cost-sharing are negotiated and finalised with each concerned interest group. Activities which successfully undergo this process are finally included in the yearly project workplan.

A key feature of the above participatory planning process is its use of negotiation as a base for sound participatory decision-making. Negotiation takes place at different levels and involves a variety of actors:

Lesson learned 2

From exploratory open-ended participatory appraisal to thematic participatory environmental assessment

While not neglecting social development issues, the core project mandate is on integrated watershed management. Thus, the participatory methods should focus on natural resource issues.

To this end, initial exploratory, open-ended PRAs should be complemented by thematic participatory environmental assessment exercises, carried-out both with communities and/or specific interest-groups or stakeholders.

Specific PRA techniques and tools found to be helpful include:

    * observational walks and transacts;

    * slide language for natural resource management appraisal;

    * current and prospective mapping of natural resources;

    * natural resource classification and ranking exercises.

Participatory planning can thus aid in identifying practical actions, taking into account the various and sometimes conflicting elements. This entails, of course, great flexibility to take into consideration issues and consequent activities, which, in some cases, may not be directly related to project objectives and expected outputs, or with NFTs' expertise. This flexibility is necessary especially when having to consider the point of view of socially disadvantaged groups (such as women).

The main lessons learned on participatory planning and participatory ex-ante appraisal of selected priority activities are given as lessons learned 3 and 4.

Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME) has proven to be a powerful means for strengthening the joint decision-making and management process begun with participatory planning. Carried out in the framework of ad hoc interest-group meetings (Pakistan), community and inter-group workshops (Bolivia and Nepal), farmers conventions (Pakistan) and assemblies (Burundi), PME exercises have two major focuses: the assessment of the implementation process, with special concern for project/participants collaborative relationships; and the evaluation of preliminary results, including the technical quality of the work, the cost/benefit balance of income-generating activities and, to a lesser extent, the initial outcome of joint efforts to improve natural resource management and the environmental situation of the community.

Lesson learned 3

Participatory planning as a negotiation process

Participatory planning not only entails determining felt needs through community-level workshops, but more importantly, reaching a common understanding among local actors and project staff of the true problems and determining which of these can be realistically addressed through a joint action.

During these exercises, community members and other local actors should be encouraged to voice their own perceptions of the problems at stake. Project staff should enrich this process through their own expertise and information gained from research activities.

This should ultimately lead to a negotiation between local actors and technical staff regarding:

    * the issues to be addressed;

    * the respective responsibilities of each partner; and

    * the technical design of activities selected.

The project is in fact as much an actor as the community members in the participatory process, with its own agenda and objectives.

In addition to local farmers and the project, other actors/stakeholders could play a major role in the use/conservation of the resource-base (landless families, landlords, absent land and water owners, local enterprises in the agricultural, industrial and tourism sector, etc.).

Their careful identification and progressive involvement in the local planning process is essential for ensuring its effective implementation and socio-political sustainability, under the general coordination of local political and administrative authorities.

Lesson learned 4

Participatory feasibility analysis

Ex-ante participatory feasibility analysis of selected priority activities is an essential step in participatory planning.

It allows to identify with the concerned communities/interest groups the technical, economic, social and organisational conditions for successful implementation of the priority activities. It also contributes to the appraisal of their expected impact on the watershed environment.

Several community-level participatory M&E techniques and tools have been tested and adapted to the local context by the NFTs, including:

· Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Limitations (SWOL), used in Bolivia and Nepal for carrying out a participatory review of project process and of collaboration among interest-groups;

· Scoring of key indicators and problem solving exercises, used in Pakistan and Nepal for evaluating preliminary results of income-generating and infrastructure- development activities and for assessing the interest-groups' performance;

· Photo albums used by Women Village Associations in Pakistan for documenting group development;

· Participatory environmental improvement assessment (based on various combinations of slide-language, mapping, transect walks and natural resource ranking exercises), used in Bolivia and Pakistan (and recommended in Nepal) for evaluating changes in the environmental situation of the community resulting from the collaboration among project and local participants (communities, interest-groups, line-agencies, NGOs, etc.); and

· Participatory cost-benefit analysis used in Bolivia and Pakistan for monitoring and evaluating income-generating activities.

Lesson learner 5

Participatory monitoring and evaluation as elements of a capacity-building strategy

PME exercises at the interest-group or community level are valuable means for:

    * providing feedback on the joint decision-making process with the indigenous point of view; and

    * documenting local actors ' perception of the work performed with the assistance of the project.

PME is also important for developing a broader grassroots capacity-building strategy. Reviewing the joint efforts in a controlled setting can provide local actors with the following opportunities:

    * discovering their own potential and limitations;

    * discussing the nature and origin of internal and external conflicts;

    * strengthening their capacity for negotiation within and outside the community.

Finally, by showing that it is possible to overcome economic and social constraints and to improve life conditions and the local environment, PME sessions are crucial to attitudinal change.

All NFTs observed several difficulties in promoting the establishment of a sound and self-managed PME, including defensive or hypercritical attitudes of the community, difficulties in understanding the technicalities involved, illiteracy and time limitations. Facilitation by project staff is still needed for meeting the objectives of community-level evaluation sessions. Nonetheless, PME exercises were extremely useful in promoting constructive criticism, consolidating local technical skills, and improving negotiation capabilities of interest-groups and grassroots organisations (lesson learned 5).

Development of Grassroots/Community Organisations

Due to their geographical and socioeconomic marginality, all project areas (with the significant exception of Nepal) had little previous exposure to development activities and were generally lacking community organisations to act as counterparts of the project. Supporting grassroots organisations for participatory upland conservation and development has thus been one of the main concerns of the NFTs.

The different settlement patterns, social structure and institutional settings have produced different types of organisations.

Though social and cultural differences among field settings makes generalisation partially hazardous, the review of project experience in grassroots organisations suggests lesson learned 6.

Women Participation

The national project components have all developed activities specifically targeted to women. Common elements of the above experiences can be summarised as lesson learned 7.

Technical Aspects of Natural Resource Management

Though the project focuses on methodological and process-related aspects, technical aspects are also fundamental in participatory and integrated watershed management. As mentioned earlier, sufficient background data on the biophysical characteristics of the project area are necessary for validating the defined priority activities. Greater understanding of local traditional know-how and an increased capacity of the project to propose technical solutions are important for developing, testing and adapting for dissemination, more adequate and sustainable technical solutions to existing environmental issues (lesson 8). This is particularly the case of Bolivia (adaptation of agroforestry practices focused on selective bush clearing for improved fodder production and soil conservation, diffusion of forest coffee cropping and on slow-terrace formation), Burundi (simple techniques for contour cultivation, stall-fed cattle raising and fodder production, etc.) and Pakistan (rehabilitation of degraded grazeland).

Lesson learned 6

Steps towards community self-organisation in natural resource management

Supporting local communities in self-organisation for natural resource management is a long-term, difficult and sensitive task, which should take into account two basic assumptions.

    i) rural communities are complex social bodies with internal differences in status, income, kinship, rights and access to local resources often involving conflicting concerns and interests, including the way in which natural resources are exploited and conserved (e.g., landless farmers);

    ii) natural resource management is seldom a felt priority for farmers and there is little room for it in their tight schedules.

A step-by-step approach is thus needed for creating grassroots organisations capable of managing natural resources. Long-term support from skilled capacity-building facilitators is also necessary for assisting these grassroots organisations in their appraisal, planning, monitoring and self-evaluation process, and for providing training and follow-up to local leaders and group promoters.

Lesson learned 7

Women capacity-building and increased role in decision-making as preconditions of their participation in improving natural resource management

Rural women almost always play a major role in natural resource management at the household and community level but very often lack ownership rights and permanent access to these resources. A special effort to socially empower them is thus necessary for ensuring their active participation in the local mobilisation process.

Some important aspects of women empowerment include:

    * providing women with a forum for confronting their own problems;

    * increasing their economic autonomy;

    * improving literacy (including accounting);

    * reducing waste of time in their busy daily routine.

Gender-specific activities should be a precondition for increasing women's contribution to integrated watershed management.

Lesson learned 8

Development of innovative technical measures as an output of the participatory process

Projects for natural resource management should prioritise and provide systematic attention to local technical knowledge and to its integration with scientific know-how developed by other partners (research centres, projects, NGOs, etc.) in similar physical and socioeconomic circumstances.

An innovative mix of traditional and "imported " know-how and technical solutions should be actively developed following the participatory process promoted by integrated watershed management projects.

Steps have been taken to progressively design and test technical measures for local application and wider dissemination, specifically, in Bolivia and in a more systematic way in Burundi (where integrated conservation-wise measures are being implemented in the sectors of agriculture, livestock and forestry). In Pakistan, this approach is facing the complex tenurial and socio-economic problems of the lowland, while in Nepal, it has recently been introduced as part of the restructuring of this national project component.

The information gathered through PRA and the participatory planning process, combined with the experience gained through the application and subsequent adaptation of the above technical measures, is expected to lead to the formulation of a participatory management plan for each project area (lesson 9).

Incentives and Negotiation Schemes

How can local communities be encouraged to show greater concern for a more sustainable use of natural resources? To what extent should the project financially support the activities identified through participatory planning exercises? The NFTs' experiences have shown that the answers to these questions greatly depend on the local institutional and social context and that they are in some cases quite controversial. In particular, there is disagreement among NFTs on whether direct incentives (e.g., food for work) should be used to promote conservation activities such as reafforestation or soil conservation. NFTs also questioned the appropriateness of using so-called "entry-point activities" with limited relevance to the technical focus of the project as an incentive for community participation in natural resource management. Furthermore, a possible conflict was identified between the use of incentives and project subsidies to implement specific short-term activities and their long-term sustainability (i.e., post-project situation, when donor government financial inputs are not available).

Lesson learned 9

Towards a participatory watershed management plan

What kind of watershed management plan could result from a participatory process?

The NFTs' approaches to this issue varied, as did the obtained results, ranging from village plans to more sophisticated GIS-based watershed plans, based on village-friendly activities.

Nonetheless, the foremost considerations should always be the following:

(a) participatory techniques are only tools and not objectives in themselves;

(b) the management plan should represent a synthesis of information collected with all available means and activities agreed upon between local communities and other partners (local authorities, line-agencies, NGOs, etc.); and

(c) the management plan, considering that it should become an integral part of the follow-up by national line-agencies, must be as clear and readily applicable as possible. GIS seems to be a particularly useful tool in this respect, offering a unique opportunity for easily retrieving and processing spatial data and information for planning and extension purposes.

Despite these controversial points, positive elements for the definition of an incentive, subsidy and cost-sharing strategy for participatory and integrated watershed management can be elicited from the field experience of project national teams (lesson 10).

Local Staff Development

Government line-agencies rarely have an expertise in participatory methods and integrated natural resource management. Thus, forming a field team proficient in key project strategies and methods has been a top priority for all project national components. To meet this basic requirement, each NFT has developed its own in-service training strategy. During project implementation, local staff have been exposed to a variety of learning experiences, including brief courses, internal workshops and seminars, national and international training and experience exchange events, and study tours. A major role in this process has been played by international and national consultants whose terms of reference also included local staff training. The experience gained in Bolivia, Burundi, Nepal, Pakistan and Rwanda during the first phase of the project has been used to develop a strategy for introducing participatory watershed management at the local level; this strategy is currently being tested in the new field component in Tunisia.

It should be made clear that the application of community development methods in the field of watershed management makes this Inter-regional Project an innovative and challenging experience. The field teams felt a special need to rely on simple procedures enabling them to systematise observations and suggestions generating from implementation.

In this context, a project-level monitoring and evaluation system with a formative orientation has been established. Through simple and user-friendly activities, this system should involve all NFT members in collecting, processing and interpreting key information on the implementation process, on preliminary technical results and effects of project activities, on the development of grassroots organisations, and on improving local involvement in natural resource management. For instance, in Bolivia and Burundi, regular monitoring meetings and biannual internal evaluation workshops are carried out to identify lessons learned and further learning needs (lesson 11).

According to the NFTs, the local staff recognises that training opportunities can be important incentives. However, the special training received by government personnel in the context of the project is rarely recognised in terms of increased salaries or career opportunities. Moreover, the future of the new staff contracted by the project is uncertain, and in some cases FAO remuneration standards for local personnel were not competitive, in comparison with other UN and non-government agencies active in the project areas.

Lesson learned 10

Motivating and financially supporting local actors in natural resource management

The most effective means of motivating farmers and communities in participatory and integrated watershed management initiatives is to identify simple and user-friendly technical measures which may both enhance the efficiency and sustainability of local farming systems (by reducing the necessary manpower and other inputs and by increasing yields and income), and which may ensure a more rational use of the natural resource-base.

The project and participants should collaborate on developing adequate conservation-by-use measures, with each party's share of responsibilities being mandated by the specific implementation stage. Techniques being tested on-farm should be almost completely financed by the project. When the technique has proven to be suitable to the local conditions, a significant amount of extension costs could be covered by farmers receiving benefits from the proposed technical improvement.

To facilitate cost-sharing mechanisms, the establishment of saving and soft credit schemes is often necessary (including local saving revolving funds and guarantee funds). The project should thus assist in meeting the above needs either with its own funds or through agreements with relevant institutions.

Furthermore, it should be recalled that the direct beneficiaries of civil works and activities, such as infrastructures, reafforestation/ revegetation of communal lands and land rehabilitation, may not be capable of providing the necessary labour, kind or cash. Possible ways of subsidising these public works, through local and central government programmes and funds, should thus be carefully considered.

Lesson learned 11

Development of local expertise in participatory watershed management through continuing education and formative M&E

A built-in training strategy for coping with the lack of local expertise in methods of participatory and integrated natural resource management is an essential element of participatory watershed management projects.

Formative monitoring and evaluation practices should play a major role in this training strategy, enabling local staff to critically review the implementation experience, so that lessons learned and further learning needs are progressively identified and shared within the team.

To this end, technical input provided by consultants should have a formative orientation and systematically include the training of local staff.

Consequently, a significant portion of the working time of local staff should be devoted to in-service training, M&E and other forms of continuing education.

These factors have affected the stability of the composition of the NFTs, in some cases resulting in a major turn-over of national staff members, and the consequent risk of staff competence and experience being dispersed. This negatively effects the sustainability of the project's efforts to provide local governments and line-agencies with the required know-how. As the project nears completion, the above considerations are becoming urgent and important issues for all NFTs (lesson 12).

A further issue in human resource development is the variety of expertise required for participatory and integrated watershed management initiatives. The activities identified by the NFTs through participatory planning show that implementing these initiatives involves inputs from several professional profiles (forestry, engineering, agriculture, veterinary, rural economics, social sciences, etc.). Since most of these professions are usually not included in the rosters of agencies in charge of forestry, soil conservation or watershed management, the national components had to find a way to assemble the expertise needed to implement the plans negotiated with local communities (lesson 13).

Lesson learned 12

Promoting the valorisation of human resources trained and experienced in participatory and integrated natural resource management

The project's investments in building a team for promoting and implementing participatory and integrated natural resource management at the local level should be secured by ensuring that local governments/line-agencies or NGOs make maximum use of the training received and the experience gained.

The project could assist local governments/NGOs in identifying and promoting appropriate measures for adjusting present internal functions and organisation of concerned line-agencies/NGOs and for designing ad hoc incentives and career opportunities specifically addressed to well-trained and competent staff.

Lesson learned 13

Putting together the expertise needed to implement participatory watershed management plans

Participatory and integrated watershed management requires a wide range of technical expertise, not available within any single line-agency.

To meet this need, two different strategies have been tested by the project's field components:

    i) hiring "ad hoc " project staff; and

    ii) mobilising professionals from relevant line-agencies and institutions.

The first option entails higher efficiency and better team integration; the second allows for better sustainability and a wider dissemination of the project approach among local institutions.

In most real-life settings, a trade-off between these two options is perhaps the best solution. However, when possible, involvement of professionals from GOs and NGOs is preferable. Mechanisms to facilitate the delivery of government staff services to the project may include:

    * formal staff exchange agreements with local institutions;

    * payment for local consultancies; and

    * non-monetary incentives, such as training opportunities.

Institutional Aspects

This issue concerns the project's capacity to influence not only the technical action but also the sectoral policy of the counterpart agency and other natural resource management and community development institutions. To date, the NFTs have developed several actions to promote the commitment of these bodies to participatory and integrated watershed management.

Despite these efforts and some initial success, all five national projects have faced serious constraints in rooting the integrated and participatory watershed management approach among counterpart institutions and/or in establishing consistent mechanisms for inter-agency collaboration. The relatively narrow technical mandate of the counterpart (Nepal and Pakistan), insufficient political concern for project area issues by local authorities (Bolivia and Pakistan), inadequate natural resource policy framework (Pakistan), inadequate funding of local government (Burundi) and inadequate organisational framework of regional agriculture department and inadequate staff background (Tunisia), were identified as structural limitations in the current collaboration with local institutions and for the future institutional sustainability of project experience (lesson 14).

Lesson learned 14

Conditions for institutional sustainability of participatory watershed management initiatives

Internationally funded projects can play a major role in promoting a participatory and integrated watershed management approach among local institutions. However, certain basic conditions should exist to ensure the effectiveness and durability of this process:

    * a national policy framework supportive of the project approach should exist, as well as a real concern and actual means on the part of local authorities to implement it in the field.

    * the mandate of the counterpart institution(s) should be comprehensive and sufficiently open to process the outcomes of participatory planning exercises and to directly or indirectly assist in the implementation of relevant activities.

    * political willingness and institutional capability to establish effective links of intersectoral collaboration should exist.

If these conditions are not met, the project is likely to act as a powerful catalyst in a reaction where the basic ingredients are not present. Careful institutional feasibility analysis and more strict agreements for implementation with local or regional governments should thus be established, to help ensure the success and sustainability of these initiatives.

CONCLUSION

The participatory methodology is classified into 14 lessons for integrated WM. They include sufficient socio-economic and big-physical information base for social and environmental assessment based on which participatory feasible WM plans for implementation are negotiated among all the development partners. Grass roots capacity building and attitudinal transformation is achieved through participatory monitoring and evaluation. Community organization is facilitated step by step for farmers' (with special efforts at women) decision making, capacity building and empowerment. Innovative technical solutions based on local technical knowledge are used to develop participatory WM plans. This should result into better motivation, local expertise and overall human development. The effort can be sustained only when all this becomes a part of national institutions.

Previous PageTop Of PageTable Of ContentsNext Page