7.1 Introduction
7.2 Socio-economic factors
7.3 Project management
This manual concentrates mainly on the technical aspects of rainwater harvesting systems, but it has been stressed throughout that it takes more than engineering and agronomy to make a project successful. Socio-economic factors are particularly important. Obviously, if the small scale farmer is the "customer" or beneficiary, then she/he must understand and be happy with a system which is appropriate, and which she/he is able to manage and maintain. This section looks at some socio-economic factors, and the implications they may have on project management.
7.2.1 People's priorities
7.2.2 Participation
7.2.3 Adoption of systems
7.2.4 Area differences
7.2.5 Gender and equity
7.2.6 Land tenure
7.2.7 Village land use management
If the objective of rainwater harvesting projects is to assist resource-poor farmers to improve their production systems, it is important that the farmer's/agropastoralist's priorities are being fulfilled, at least in part. Otherwise success is unlikely. If the local priority is drinking water supply, for example, the response to water harvesting systems for crop production will be poor.
It is becoming more widely accepted that unless people are actively involved in the development projects which are aimed to help them, the projects are doomed to failure. It is important that the beneficiaries participate in every stage of the project. When the project is being planned, the people should be consulted, and their priorities and needs assessed. During the construction phase the people again should be involved -supplying labour but also helping with field layouts after being trained with simple surveying instruments.
Throughout the course of the season it is helpful to involve people in monitoring, such as rainfall and runoff and recording tree mortality. A further participatory role is in maintenance, which should not be supported by incentives.
After the first season it is the farmers themselves who will often have the best ideas of modifications that could be made to the systems. In this way they are involved in evaluation, and in the evolution of the water harvesting systems.
Widespread adoption of water harvesting techniques by the local population is the only way that significant areas of land can be treated at a reasonable cost on a sustainable basis. It is therefore important that the systems proposed are simple enough for the people to implement and to maintain. To encourage adoption, apart from incentives in the form of tools for example, there is a need for motivational campaigns, demonstrations, training and extension work.
It is tempting to assume that a system which works in one area will also work in another, superficially similar, zone. However there may be technical dissimilarities such as availability of stone or intensity of rainfall, and distinct socio-economic differences also. For example a system which is best adapted to hand construction may not be attractive to people who normally till with animals. If a system depends on a crop well accepted in one area - sorghum for example - this may be a barrier to acceptance where maize is the preferred food grain.
If water harvesting is intended to improve the lot of farmers in the poorer, drier areas, it is important to consider the possible effects on gender and equity. In other words, will the introduction of water harvesting be particularly advantageous to one group of people, and exclude others? Perhaps water harvesting will give undue help to one sex, or to the relatively richer landowners in some situations. These are points a projects should bear in mind during the design stage. There is little point in providing assistance which only benefits the relatively wealthier groups.
Land tenure issues can have a variety of influences on water harvesting projects. On one hand it may be that lack of tenure means that people are reluctant to invest in water harvesting structures on land which they do not formally own. Where land ownership and rights of use are complex it may be difficult to persuade the cultivator to improve land that someone else may use later. On the other hand there are examples of situations where the opposite is the case - in some areas farmers like to construct bunds because it implies a more definite right of ownership.
The most difficult situation is that of common land, particularly where no well defined management tradition exists. Villagers are understandably reluctant to treat areas which are communally grazed - a point taken up in the next section.
The whole question of land management by village communities has recently been acknowledged to be extremely important. Degraded land in and around villages can only be improved if land use management issues are faced by the communities themselves. One of the techniques which can assist in rehabilitation of degraded land is water harvesting - but it is only one tool among several others and cannot be effective in isolation. Unless, for example, grazing controls are implemented, there is little point spending money on water harvesting structures for re-seeding.
7.3.1 The project and the people
7.3.2 Project approach
7.3.3 Machinery or hand labour
7.3.4 Flexibility of approach
7.3.5 Subsidies and incentives
7.3.6 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting
The experience of projects related to water harvesting and soil conservation has shown that there is no substitute for dialogue with the farmers/villagers, and a continued close relationship throughout. Projects should always aim to learn from the people of the target area, in particular about local traditional technology.
It is essential that project authorities keep in mind the importance of people's priorities and participation. It is important that the benefits of the new systems should be apparent to the farmer as early as possible. For new techniques there is often a need for demonstration before people will understand and envisage their effectiveness. Motivation and promotion of awareness among the people with regard to the project objectives and how to achieve them are very important issues. It is sad but true that very often the people simply do not understand what a project is trying to achieve, or even what the meaning of the various structures is!
There are two basically different approaches with regard to water harvesting projects.
- The Demonstration, Training and Extension Approach:
The technology introduced by the project is relatively simple, and costs per hectare low. The intention is to promote systems which can be taken up and implemented by the people themselves, with a minimum of support. The philosophy behind this approach is that the people themselves must be the prime movers in the development of their own fields and local environment.
- The Implementational Approach:
In this approach the technology may be simple or complex, but it is implemented by the project itself. Machinery is often used, but some projects employ paid (or otherwise rewarded) labour. Costs are often relatively high. The intention is that the project will quickly and efficiently rehabilitate land for the people. The philosophy is that the people are simply unable to undertake the extent of work required using their own resources and therefore they require considerable or complete support to implement the project.
Experience shows that it is the first approach which offers the most hope for sustainability once the project has come to an end. Nevertheless there are situations where the introduction of appropriate machinery or support of some labour can be justified.
This question has been touched on already - but it is an extremely important issue. The introduction of inappropriate heavy machinery for conservation structures has been a mistake repeated widely over Africa. Conversely some mechanization - especially where animal traction is a component - can immeasurably speed up work rates and reduce drudgery.
The advantage of working by hand is that the people regard the techniques as within their capability. As long as part of the work is voluntary, they will be more willing to carry out maintenance. Nevertheless hand labour is slow, and labour shortages can be a serious constraint in some areas.
Water harvesting and conservation projects should never have fixed work plans or rigid targets, at least not in the early stages of implementation. The reason quite simply is that it is unrealistic to plan for all contingencies, and arrogant to assume that the techniques and approaches planned from the outset cannot be improved Learning from experience, and from interaction with the people, is a much better approach. Flexibility should be written into every project document.
Many water harvesting projects provide subsidies or incentives for construction. Several points need to be made about these:
- help and assistance should only be considered as stimuli to the programme; too big a subsidy to begin with can cripple future expansion and deter participation.- it is important that in all cases the beneficiaries should make at least some voluntary contribution towards construction. The level of contribution should rise when incentives are provided.
- food-for-work is common in projects in drought-prone areas. It is not easy to manage food distribution and development work at the same time. Generally other incentives, such as tools for work, are preferable.
- incentives/subsidies should not be used for maintenance: this should be the responsibility of the beneficiaries.
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting are often weak spots in water harvesting projects. Too many projects fail to collect data at even the most basic level. For example crop yields and tree heights are often just estimated. It is also very rare to find any information on the frequency or depth of water harvested. Without a basic monitoring system, projects are starving themselves of data for evaluation. Without clearly written reports, widely circulated, projects are denying to provide others with important information. A suggested monitoring format is presented in Table 28.
Table 28. SUGGESTED MONITORING FORMAT FOR WATER HARVESTING PROJECTS
|
1. HYDROLOGICAL DATA | ||
|
|
- rainfall (standard gauges at important sites) |
|
|
|
- runoff (at least visual recordings of occurrence) |
|
|
2. INPUTS | ||
|
|
- labour/machinery hours for |
(a) construction |
|
|
(b) maintenance | |
|
|
(c) standard agricultural operations | |
|
3. COSTS | ||
|
|
- labour/machinery use in |
(a) construction |
|
|
(b) maintenance | |
|
|
(c) standard agricultural operations | |
|
4. OUTPUTS | ||
|
|
- crops: yields of treated plots compared with controls |
|
|
|
- trees: survival and growth rates |
|
|
|
- grass/fodder: dry matter of treated plots compared with controls |
|
|
5. ACHIEVEMENTS | ||
|
|
- area (hectares) covered each season |
|
|
|
- number farmers/villagers involved/benefitting |
|
|
6. INCENTIVES/SUPPORT | ||
|
|
- quantity and costs |
|
|
7. TRAINING | ||
|
|
- number of training sessions |
|
|
|
- attendance/number of trained personnel |
|
|
8. EXTENSION | ||
|
|
- number of farmers visited |
|
|
|
- number of field days and attendance |
|
Note: SUMMARY SHEETS of data are very useful. These could include:- labour/ha
- cost/ha
- average yield increases over controls
- total land treated and people benefitting
