vi5 myrada final print

8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print

1/42


2/42


3/42

Suggested citation:

C.P.Geevan

Study on sustainability of Farmer's Self Affinity Groups Promoted by MYRADA in

Karnataka

Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India), Ahmedabad (2010)

Publication: 2010

Field Studies: 2008

Research Team:

Mr C.P.Geevan, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator)

Researchers: Ms Vaishali J & Mr Mohanakrishna T.N

Centre for Environment & Social Concerns [CESC]

G-3, Samip Apartment, ManekbaugShreyas Crossing, Ahmedabad 380015 (Gujarat, INDIA)www.cesc-india.orgTel: 079-26401571; Mobile: 9824283954Email: [email protected]


4/42

iii Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

from Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, European

Commission, Ford Foundation and the support ofpartner organizations.

The seven NGO partners in this study are: 1) Aga

Khan Rural Support Program (India) [AKRSP(I)],

2) Behavioural Science Centre (BSC), 3)

Development Support Centre (DSC), 4)

Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), 5)

Mysore Relief & Development Agency

(MYRADA), 6) Seva Mandir and 7) Professional

Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN).

While supporting the study, all these organizationswith a long and credible track record in

development work fully respected the

independence of the research. The focus of each

study is on the factors favouring the sustainability

of the village institutions promoted by NGOs.

Related to this inquiry are a gamut of questions

on the policies and practices of stakeholders that

affect the sustainability not withstanding the lack

of a shared understanding of the term. The

objectives of the study are:1. Examine the interventions and institutional

issues that appear to be specific to the

village level institutions that have exhibited

potential for long-term survival or

endurance and autonomous functioning

2. Analyse and critically review the

sustainability question, exit strategies of

the promoting NGO and post-exit support

needs of the village level institution

3. Examine the capabilities of VIs for

adapting to new challenges under changing

development scenarios

A major conceptual difficulty is the lack of an

unambiguous understanding or definition of

institutional sustainability and universally agreed

ways of determining it. In particular, given the

There has been a growing concern over

institutional sustainability and even an overridingemphasis on it as a normative principle in

development action, particularly in the planning

and implementation of medium to long-term

projects (Chambers, 1983; Shah, 2003).

Institutions are humanly devised constraints that

structure political, economic and social interaction.

They consist of both formal rules and informal

constraints (North, 1990). Village Institutions (VI)

work as mechanisms to ensure norms to govern

or regulate the access of villagers or outsiders to

resources and specify relations among them. Often

the norms formal or informal - are well

understood, respected and observed by the

villagers. From a development perspective, village

institutions are crucial vehicles through which

development initiatives by Non-Government

Organizations (NGO) are endorsed, empowered

and implemented.

A major challenge for sustainability of

development initiatives is that of ensuring theperpetuation of appropriate, effective and relevant

institutional arrangements. The experience of civil

society initiatives in the development sector in the

last few decades has underlined the importance of

institutional sustainability and the need for

deepening the understanding of the issues, when

the institutions did not emerge, as it were, on their

own but were crafted and promoted by NGOs,

with unavoidable elements of dependency of the

community-based organizations on the NGO. As

a follow-up to the discussions on this question,

Aga Khan Rural Support Program (India)

[AKRSP (I)] constituted a Village Institution Task

Force and subsequently initiated studies on

sustainability in the context of livelihood

enhancement initiatives associated with natural

resources management challenges. The multi-

location study has been facilitated by the grants

PREFACE


5/42

iv Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

multiplicity of visions and approaches to

development, various NGOs who promote the VI

envisage it differently. Since this study is expected

to help the practitioners, the question of adopting

a pragmatic approach to institutional sustainability

taking into account the realities in field

implementation was discussed at length in the

launch workshop organized on 9 April 2007.

Several experts, practitioners and executive

leadership of most of the NGO partners in this

series of case studies participated in these

deliberations. The workshop reached a broad

agreement on the scope of study and adopted

certain guidelines or thumb-rules on what

constitutes the role shift, exit or withdrawalof the promoter NGO in specific development or

institutional contexts. In particular, it was agreed

that the study will not use any pre-defined

definition of institutional sustainability and will

examine the long-term survival and endurance of

institutional initiatives in the diverse contexts

where the NGO partners promoted community-

based organizations that have become more or less

autonomous entities with little or no direct support

from the NGO. Several meetings and brain-

storming sessions were organized with each

partner organization before finalizing the individual

case studies. The study has been subject to

intensive review and the findings have been

discussed in four review workshops organized

between 2006 and 2010 attended by the NGOpartners, experts and researchers.


6/42

v Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We express profound thanks to Mr. Aloysius

Fernandez who readily agreed to commitMYRADA as a partner to this study. He also

spared time to promptly review the case study.

Ms Yashmin, Ms Vidya Ramachandran and Ms

Lathamala provided support and contributed

inputs in the early phase of the study, the initial

discussions and workshops.

We thank Mr Vijayakumar (MYRADA Program

Officer, District Chittradurga) for the trust,

unstinted support and encouragement. He even

helped locate the researchers for this study. Sincerethanks to Mr Yenjerappa (Director, CIDORR

Training Centre, Hollekkare) who provided all

kinds of logistic support and hospitality to the

study team. Mr Rama Rao and Ms Asha (both of

CMRC, Holalkere) and Mr Ashok of CMRC,

Chalekere provided excellent support, patiently

responded to a barrage of queries and ensured the

last-mile connectivity to the study.

It will require a very long list to mention all the

men and women the leaders and members of thewatershed farmers groups and the SHGs as well

as village leaders who shared their experiences,

spared enormous amount of time replying to our

queries and tolerated our pestering with good

humour. Without the wholehearted cooperation,

warmth and hospitality of these numerous

unnamed individuals this study would have been

almost impossible.

Professors Debi Prasad Mishra (IRMA), R

Parthasarathy (CEPT) and C.N.Ray (CEPT) wereinvolved in the review of the case study and the

research has gained much from their valuable

comments as well as participation in the review

workshop.

The support, encouragement and trust of Mr

Apoorva Oza, CEO, AKRSP (I) has been

invaluable. His pro-active intellectual engagement

with this study made us confront the question of

amalgamating practitioners concerns with a

variety of theoretical possibilities. Dr SomnathBandyopadhyays intense scrutiny and incisive

questioning helped to ward of any professional

complacency on our side.

Thanks to Dr Bhaskar Mittra , Senior Program

Officer, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Allied Trust

for the magnanimous efforts to ensure the smooth

progress of the study and for being very supportive

when we faced unforeseen difficulties.

In addition to carrying out the responsibilities of

liaising with different agencies and organizing the

review workshop, Dr. Jyotirmayee Acharya

(AKRSP) enthusiastically joined in the discussions.

Many thanks to Mr Niraj Joshi who helped to pilot

this research. He has now reinvigorated the

dissemination of findings by assuming the

responsibility of publishing within a tight frame

on his return to AKRSP after a break. He also

helped to organize the final round of reviews and

participated in several discussions on many aspects

of this study starting with the initial efforts.


7/42

vi Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

ABBREVIATIONS

Rs. : Indian National Rupees

Abhiruddi : Development

CB : Capacity Building

CBO : Community based organization

CIDOR : Centre for Institutional Development and Organizational Reform

CMRC : Community Managed Resource Centre

DDP : Desert Development Programme

GP : Gram Panchayat

GS : Gram Sabha

HH : House Hold

Jalanayana : Watershed

JAS : JalanayanaAbhiruddiSangha (Watershed Development Group)

JNSS : JalanayanaNirvahanaSwasahayaSangha (Watershed Management Self Help Group)

KVK : Krishi Vigyan Kendra

Mahila : Women

MFI : Micro Finance InstitutionMSS : Mahila Swasahaya Sangha (Women Self Help Group)

Myrada : Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency

MYRADA : Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency

NABARD : National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

NGO : Non Governmental Organization

Nirvahana : Management

NREGP : National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme

NRHM : National Rural Health Mission

NWDPRA : National Watershed Development Project for Rain fed Areas

PRI : Panchayat Raj Institutions

RMS : Rural Management System

Rs. : Indian Rupees

SAG : Self Help Affinity Group

Sangha : Group

SDC : Swiss Development Cooperation


8/42

vii Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

SGSY : Swarna Jayanthi Grameen Swarozgar Yojana

SHG : Self Help Group

Swasahaya : Self Help

UNDP : United Nations Development Programme

UNICEF : United Nation International Children Emergency Fund

USAID : United States Agency for International Development

WDA : Watershed Development Association

ZP : Zilla Panchayat


9/42


10/42


11/42

x Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs


12/42

Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 1

1. Approach to the Study

The theoretical framework for the study of sustainability relies considerably on the large body of literature

on institutional analysis (Ostrom 1990; Wade 1988; Uphoff 1982; North 1990). According to Honadle

and VanSant (1985), sustainable institutions are those that survive over time as identifiable units, recoversome or even all their costs, and supply a continuing stream of benefits. Dietz et al(2002) believe

institutional sustainability to be the continued use of an institution over time with adaptation occurring

in the norms within the broad framework of stable institutional arrangements. Multiple criteria must be

satisfied as longevity, cost recovery or benefit flows by themselves are just not enough.

The studies such as that of Elinor Ostrom1 demonstrate how certain institutional frameworks for

cooperation engendered by the users themselves endure facilitating the successful management of shared

resources. Ostrom and others showed how many forms of cooperative institutional arrangements could

be robust enough and endure for long periods without being doomed to become another tragedy of the

commons, a destiny which Hardin (1968) postulated would surely befall Common Property Resources

(CPR) characterized by the absence of well-defined property rights. The catalyzing of cooperative action

by external mediation such as that by NGOs raises the question of the longevity and robustness of

institutions crafted through such interventions. The question of institutional sustainability, as envisaged

in this study, is analytic and not normative. The intent is to capture why institutions tend to persist or

perish; not to ascertain whether they ought to sustain.

Measurement of sustainability is widely recognized as an immensely difficult problem, as conventional

monitoring and evaluation methods, mostly using economic analysis, are considered insufficient to detect

or quantify sustainability (Brown et al., 1987; Carpenter, 1993; Chopra, 2001; Landell-Mills, 1998). The

sustainability question, therefore, poses a huge dilemma on the one hand of whether a particular definition

ought to be adopted and used in a normative sense and on the other, having adopted one definition or

another, whether adequate and agreed measures or evaluation frameworks are, indeed, available to test

it. In the absence of a universally accepted definition, the approach adopted here is admittedly an

eclectic one that lays emphasis on the following:

Survival or durability of village level organizations over a long period or what Ostrom calls the

long endurance of self-governing CPR institutions as one key aspect (i.e., the village level

organization continues to be fostered by the village community even after the NGO has ceased

to directly support or guide it and enjoys considerable legitimacy in the village)

The VI has a significant role in the NRM or NRM-based livelihood promotion activities with the

sanction of the community

Norms and practices evolved through the village level organization persist and is perceived asbeneficial by the village community

1. The 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Ms Elinor Ostrom and Mr Oliver E. Williamson.Ostrom demonstrated how common property can be successfully managed by the cooperation among users. Williamsondeveloped a theory where business firms serve as structures for conflict resolution. Ostroms studies on the governanceof the commons challenges the widely held notion that there are no alternatives to managing shared resources otherthan regulation by central authorities or privatization.


13/42


14/42


15/42

4 Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

The brief Mission Statement that guided Myrada since 1987 is: Building poor peoples institutions.

This arose from the belief that the poor have a right to craft their own institutions which must be

respected.

Myradas organizational structure consists of a Board comprising eminent persons, an Executive Director,Programme and Project Officers and supporting teams based in the field who manage project interventions

covering one or more districts with support from the Head Office. Over the years, some of the Projects

and Training Institutes have hived off into autonomous institutions. Since they continue to share the

mission of Myrada, they have been allowed to incorporate the name Myrada in the titles of the new

organizations. They are considered as part of the Myrada Group of Institutions. The Head Office now

resembles a holding institution. It places staff on the Board of some of these institutions and also mobilizes

resources where required. At any point of time Myrada works directly with one million poor people in

villages and settlements. However, it is also engaged increasingly in small towns in the management of

waste and sanitation and to promote the equitable and sustainable management of water for domestic

and other uses.


16/42


Myrada calls itself an Actionist NGO involved in building poor peoples institutions, through which they

are able to mobilize and manage resources to build their livelihood strategies and lobby effectively and in

a sustainable manner for their rights and entitlements. Myrada believes that the rights of the poor and

marginalized, to build institutions of their own, must be respected and not mainstreamed by the official

system.

Interventions

So far, Myradas interventions cover broadly thirteen areas. In some of these areas it has also made

contributions to development theory, policy and practice. The areas are:

Resettlement of refugees and bonded labourers which started in 1968 and tapered off in the early 80s.

Identifying and fostering Self Help Affinity Groups (SAGs) since 1984 as institutions that generate

empowerment of the poor and marginalized and promote a livelihood strategy for each family.

Provision of quality education and infrastructure in government primary schools since 1985 in which

School Management Committees are involved.

Management of micro watersheds and wasted lands since 1986 where peoples institutions like

Watershed Area Groups take the lead.

Building networks at district level among NGOs, banks and institutions involved in development and

change since 1995.

Promoting institutions like Soukhya groups (sex workers) and Village Health and Sanitation

Committees and their convergence with the Gram Panchayat to foster a holistic approach to Health

and HIV/AIDs since 2000.

Promoting participative management of by a Board comprising representatives from the participative

organizations at the base. The role played by Myrada in mentoring, monitoring and supporting the

community institutions has been taken over by the CMRCs. The CMRC, however, levies a fee for

the services provided to ensure the financial sustainability. The CMRC manager is usually one of the

more experienced Myrada staff, paid fully or partially by the CMRC. The membership in CMRC is

open to groups formed by any NGO or government in the area they cover subject to certain conditions

of commitment, credibility and performance.

Parallel to and supportive of this thrust to build institutions of the poor, has been Myradas concern for

decentralisation of decision-making and financial sustainability at every level of the organization. Since

the early 90s, Myrada has implemented a policy to decentralize functions to its Projects and Training

Officers who are in the districts and to build corpus funds and institutional assets at the project level. By

2005, the Head Office resembled a holding company, which manages part of the inflow of funds, reporting,

training, identifying innovations emerging in the field and testing them, analysing data and reports from

the field on the basis of which staff policy and future plans are developed.

By 2007, Myrada re-positioned itself into the Myrada Group of Institutions (MGIs) a group of

autonomous societies, companies and informal institutions sharing a common vision to promote

livelihood strategies, local governance, environment and natural resource management, health and

education systems through institutions designed and managed by the rural poor in an equitable and

sustainable manner. These fall into three categories:


17/42


18/42


3 Area Groups the Village Institutions Studied

This study covers 6 Area Groups (watershed farmers groups) within 3 villages (Kudineerkattai, Gowripura

and Sirapanahalli) belonging to the Holalkere and Chalekere blocks of Chitradurga district in Karnataka.

These groups or in Myradas parlance Self Affinity Groups were promoted by Myrada between 1997and 2004.

3.1 Village Institutions Covered in the Study

Six Area Groups initiated within watershed development project areas are covered in this study. These

were established between 1997 and 2004. The group membership varies from 10 to 20 (Table-3.1).

Within each village there are also several womens SHGs functioning along side the Area Groups. The

womens SHGs closely connected with the Area Groups and contacted during the study are shown in

the table (Table-3.1). The Kalikadevi Area Group consists only of women from the SC community. At a

very basic level the Area Groups also function like a SHG in terms of norms followed. The CMRC that

services the Area Groups and SHGs in the villages are also mentioned.Table-3.1 : Farmers Area Groups And Womens SHGs (Year 2008)

Sr. Watershed Start Members Village CMRC Womens SHG

No. Group

1 Sri Hanumantha 1997 20 Kudineerkattai Holalkere Sri Durgambika MSS

Devara JAS

2 Sri Vinayaka 1999 18 Kudineerkattai Holalkere Sri Laxmi MSS

JAS

3 Sri Ganga 2002 13 N.Gowripura Nayakanahatti, Sri Akka Mahadevi -

JNSS Chalekere Sri Maleyamajji MSS

4 Sri Thunga 2004 18 N.Gowripura Nayakanahatti,

JNSS Chalekere

5 Sri Bhadra JNSS 1999 18 Sirapanahalli Chitrahalli, Sri Kariyamma MSS

Holalkere and Sri Mookambika MSS

6 Sri Kalikadevi 1999 10 Sirapanahalli Chitrahalli,

JAS Holalkere

Source: Field studies and CMRC (Hollekare, Nayakanahatti and Chalekere).

JNSS - Jalanayana (Watershed) Nirvahana (Management) Swasahaya (Self Help) Sangha (Group).

JAS - Jalanayana (Watershed) Abhiruddi (Development) Sangha (Group).MSS - Mahila (Women) Swasahaya (Self Help) Sangha (Group).

Note: The field studies were carried out in second half of year 2008.

3.2 Village Profiles

The focus of the study is on the Watershed Group (WSG). Nevertheless, the village situation is briefly

described in order to understand the background. The number of households in these villages varies from

130 to 150 and in N Gowripura nearly 40 percent of households belong to Scheduled Castes (Table-2.2).


19/42


20/42


21/42


22/42


23/42


24/42


25/42


5 Monitoring and encouraging the group unity and bonding within the group

6 Encouraging service oriented attitude and social networking

7 Supporting free exchange of ideas and opinions within the group to create learning environment

8 Constantly promoting transparency and accountability within the groups and in the WSD projectsIn the early part, the Myrada staff helps the groups with formulating and enforcing norms and rules.

Efforts are made to ensure that there are weekly meetings and all the activities are thoroughly discussed

within the group. A rigorous effort is made to teach the group about the importance of group, about

savings, book maintenance, accounts operations and many small things that go into ensuring mutual

trust and financial integrity of the group. A policy of rotational leadership is enforced that makes it

mandatory that each member leads the group for 6 months in rotation. While some natural leaders will

tend to dominate, it ensures that nobody is taken for granted and helps in greater transparency. A culture

is created wherein all the decisions relating to loans, enforcement of norms, roles and responsibilities of

leaders are discussed in the group without any grudge or hard feelings as these become a routine matter

over the nurturing phase.

The certainty of Myradas eventual exit from the day-to-day work of the group is discussed at a suitable

stage and efforts are made to gradually usher in the exit by encouraging independent relations with the

banks and other external players. All the pending issues where Myradas presence is needed are phased

out so that the group has no dependence on Myrada. With the establishment of the CMRC, the minimal

support required is provided by the CMRC staff. In case there are issues that are not getting resolved

within the group, the CMRC is there to help mediate a solution. The CMRC staff does not regularly

attend the group or intervene in any matter unless a group specifically requires the mediation. In most

cases, the group leaders visit the CMRC when needed, either to get information or to keep the group

informed about new developments.


26/42


5. Area Groups Changes and Present Status

The member-wise survey was carried out to determine the changes brought about by the Area Group

and the WSD. The survey shows that there is hardly any member who is illiterate and every child in the

school going age group is attending school.

5.1 Land Ownership

There are 6 landless households among the 97 households associated with the 6 Area Groups (Table-

4.1). About 58 percent have agricultural land holdings below 4 acres. There are 9 households with more

than 8 acres (9 %). The mean landholding per household is about 4 acres and the average area irrigated

before the watershed development projects was less than one acre per household.

Table-5.1 : Land Ownership

Institution Village Land-holdings (acres) Members

Nil Up to 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 >8

1 Sri Vinayaka Kudineerkattai 0 7 4 4 3 2 20

2 Sri Hanumanta Kudineerkattai 0 6 3 6 2 1 18

Devara

3 Ganga N.Gowripura 2 6 4 0 0 1 13

4 Thunga N.Gowripura 4 1 7 2 0 4 18

5 Bhadra Sirapanahalli 0 2 7 4 4 1 18

6 Kalikadevi Sirapanahalli 0 3 6 1 0 0 10

TOTAL 6 25 31 17 9 9 97

Source: Primary data from field work (2008).

5.2 Income

About 71 percent of the households have income less than Rs. 2,000/- per month (Table-5.2 and Table-

5.3). The poorest group is Sri Kalikadevi with nobody reporting income more than

Rs. 1000/- per month. The data on members who have additional expenses on childrens education

showed that nobody from this group is able make that extra expenditure.


27/42


28/42


Rs. 2,000/- per month followed by 2.4 times of that in 2004 in the group having less than Rs. 1,000/-

(Table-5.5). However, the maximum savings per member in the year 2008 of Rs. 4,100/- is in the income

group between Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 4,000/-.

Table-5.4 : Savings: Year 2004-05 and 2008

Area Group Village 2004-05 2008 Multiple

1 Vinayaka Kudineerkattai 23,125 46,565 2.01

2 Hanumanta Devara Kudineerkattai 22,630 45,850 2.03

3 Ganga N.Gowripura 3,220 15,300 4.75

4 Thunga N.Gowripura 25,360 49,440 1.95

5 Bhadra Sirapanahalli 38,590 67,500 1.75

6 Kalikadevi Sirapanahalli 0 15,000 NAAll Groups 112,925 239,655 2.12


Table-5.5 : Savings (Rs.) By Income Group: Year 2008

Area Group Village Less 1000 2000 3000 4000 More TOTAL

than to to to to than

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 5000

Vinayaka Kudineerkattai 18,310 6,000 6,000 3,000 2,685 10,570 46,565

Hanumanta Kudineerkattai 16,260 8,570 - - 15,340 5,680 45,850

Devara

Ganga N.Gowripura 7,900 7,400 - - - - 15,300

Thunga N.Gowripura 34,760 2,500 8,060 - 4,120 - 49,440

Bhadra Sirapanahalli 39,700 - - 9,300 18,500 - 67,500

Kalikadevi Sirapanahalli 15,000 - - - - - 15,000

All Groups 131,930 24,470 14,060 12,300 40,645 16,250 239,655

Members 54 15 7 3 10 8 97

Savings per Member 2,443 1,631 2,009 4,100 4,065 2,031 2,471

SavingMultiple 2.4 2.9 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.1



29/42


30/42


31/42


32/42


3) It is not truly of the same nature as other 5 Area Groups covered in this study and functions

basically only as an SHG.

As the field work progressed, it became clear to the team that initially these households were organized

as a SAG in the attempt to replicate the Area Group model as an inclusive approach embracing thepoorest. The original Area Group that was formed was a typical male farmers group with heads of

households from these families. The male Area Group did not take-off as they were working mostly as

labourers and did not find the model very useful or attractive given their occupational compulsions. The

WSD had not dramatically altered that situation and they were not investing much in farming. As this

experiment to integrate those with weak stakes in the WSD into watershed-centred institutional model

did not make much headway, Myrada helped the women from these households to form an SHG that

continued to be known as an Area Group, while they functioned purely as a SHG. As a SHG, they do

function well and unlike the male members they are deeply committed to the group. They find the group

very meaningful. They maintain their books and diligently follow norms of the SHG. The savings are

truly very important to them given their poverty and social status.

The ability to actually ensure rotational leadership within the groups has certainly made a big difference.

Because of this there are no undisputed or domineering leaders, while the smart leadership of some

outstanding individuals are certainly recognized. The multi-layer investigation used in the study showed

that all members have at some stage taken on some initiatives and are well aware of all aspects of

functioning. The versions of events or organizational development do not vary much between the accounts

provided by different members who had been group leaders at one time or other, except for differences

in nuances or perceptions. Deep or debilitating anxiety about fund management was not to be seen in

any of the groups, except for the complex case of Sri Bhadra, which does not appear to be actually one

such case.

What was most striking in most cases is that the question of managing the watershed resources is not anitem of high priority. The groups are today, deeply embedded in maximizing the individual gains using

the group to leverage credit and other facilities. All members were, indeed, nostalgic about the period of

WSD projects. However, they were more articulate about the individual transformations and

metamorphosis in the farming systems than with the details of watershed development itself. The nitty-

gritty of watershed development did not excite them. What fired them up were the changes in the

economic profile and the large role of cash flows that now characterize their farming now. All the Area

Groups seemed confident that any task relating to managing or maintenance of the common assets or

infrastructure can be addressed when the need arises rather than think about it now.

None of the groups covered in this study is now active in any of the federations of Area Groups that

Myrada had promoted. Some were associated, but have now ceased to be active in it. The closestwatershed-wide institutional arrangement that incorporates individual area groups is the federation.

However, there is not much evidence that there are significant stakes for the individual Area Group

members in the federation as to make them take more interest in such a system. As of now, there is not

much of economic or financial incentive that is connecting the Area Group to the idea of federated area

groups.


33/42


34/42


6. Discussion

6.1 Watershed Management Group or SHG?

The Area Group was truly a puzzle in the mosaic of institutions covered in this multi-location study

embracing a variety of community institutions. The name itself does not reveal too much about the

nature or the core interests of the entity. From the initial discussions one could only form a hazy

picture of the institutional model. At times, it seemed one is discussing the functioning of a SHG, or

about organizations involved in some way with the management of watershed amenities or farmers

collectives. While it did have strong characteristics of a SHG, its role in overall management of the

watershed seems very limited and for most members that is not a day-to-day concern.

One has to also confess that often when the discussion is about watershed development, unwittingly or

subconsciously, one begins to grapple with a host of normative principles and the institutional needs all

that entails. We, therefore, cannot be faulted for getting carried away by such considerations to embark

on a search for elusive needles in the many haystacks and try to figure out what kind of schedules andchecklists to use given the brief of poking our nose into a veritable hornets nest community institutions

in watershed! After several rounds of discussions were completed, it was clear we need not unduly

worry about many of the normative issues of watershed management. Instead, the challenge became one

of understanding the blend of what seemed like user groups and SHGs. After the pilot stage, it became

even more apparent that there is very little of the watershed dimensions to be incorporated and also that

these institutions were more about farming in a rain-fed area than with watershed managementper se.

What stands out in the specific context was that almost all the members were either literate or had

substantial school education. They were able to articulate the issues well, as they seemed to have soundly

imbibed quite a bit of the technicalities of watershed management and the nuances of land treatment.

Besides, they belonged to communities whose farming traditions span across innumerable generations.They were quick learners when it came to modernizing farming or experimenting with new options.

The Area Group proved to be a double-edged sword of sorts. Before being part of the group each

farmer was trying to tackle issues alone and all the agricultural extension services that were available

was mostly communicating with the individual farmer. The core of Area Group appears to be its pivotal

role as a learning platform where a group effort is possible to assimilate and sift through the inputs that

may at times be very confusing to the individual farmer. The discussions show that when the area groups

mature, their core interests become more centered on common financial interests (to be discussed

later) and in adapting or absorbing knowledge to apply for economic gains.

What we observed was truly a spectacular blossoming of individual farming initiatives by some of the

group members and a new found propensity to take on risks, having tasted the fruits of easy credit. The

group was not determining individual actions. It was merely emboldening the enterprising individuals to

move a notch higher and providing the confidence or perhaps the security for the not-so enterprising

ones to just try to do a little better. The central role of the Area Group it appears from the numerous

discussions was not primarily that of a savings vehicle or a driver for some sort of collective enterprise,

but more of a platform where the members could bank on both the peer-to-peer interactions in a structured

manner and to build on the collective wisdom.


35/42


36/42


6.3 Watershed Management

This discussion cannot be complete without looking at the watershed and its management. As can be

seen from the names of the Area Groups, the umbilical connection with the watershed is constantly

recalled. One Area Group by itself cannot do much in terms of managing any watershed. There havebeen attempts to federate the Area Groups. However, it does not appear that the federations are or were

actually watershed-level organizations. More over, none of the Area Groups covered in this study is now

an active partner in any federation. The role of federation does not seem to be that of a larger watershed

management, but of acting as an apex body for a large number of Area Groups to provide advantages of

scale and other benefits of aggregation. As of now, issues of watershed management after WSD project

is neither a day-to-day issue nor core theme for any Area Group.

One of the biggest eye openers from this study is this limited significance of what is often argued as very

critical concerns after the successful completion of WSD projects. The discussions with farmers who

have actually benefitted greatly from the WSD projects showed that hardly anyone is worried about

these questions now and do not consider those issues to be the basis of any group. While the WSDProject itself, in so far as its successful completion is considered important, there was no evidence that

the host of small steps and processes which are often highlighted in the discourses on participatory

watershed are considered that important by the members. It was the larger process of forming the

savings group, of learning from project management and understanding better land management that

were considered as life changers. Often members emphasized the decisions taken to deploy machines

to speed up work and attain quicker results.

The stakes were not built, somewhat in a literal sense, through many brick-by-brick processes but by the

buying into the project development through conversion of portions of grants into loans, by contributing

a certain percentage of the cost for redeeming private land and accepting the soft credits for enabling

individual gains. The resultant transformation has been such that it has provided both the financialcapability and institutional strength for these groups to assert that issues of watershed management are

something that can be addressed by well-functioning Area Groups, without, perhaps, the need for either

watershed-wide organizations or institutional frameworks. While this may or may not actually happen,

one wonders whether there is currently an excessive emphasis in the watershed development debate on

too many normative elements to the post-project institutional design.


37/42


References

Agarwal A (2002), Common Resources and Institutional Sustainability, In The Drama of the Commons,

Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global change. E. Ostrom. T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S.

Stovich and E.U. Weber (Eds) Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, NationalAcademy Press, Washington DC.

Baland J.M. and J.P. Platteau (1996), Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is there a Role for

Rural Communities?, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Clarendon Press,

Oxford.

Bromley, D.V. (1989) Economic Interests and Institutions: Conceptual foundations of public policy.

Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Bromley, D.V., (1992) Making the commons work: Theory, Practice and Policy. Institute of Contemporary

Studies Press, San Francisco.

Brown, B., Hanson M., Liverman D., and Meredith R. (1987),Global Sustainability: Toward Definition.,

Environmental Management, Vol. 1, No. 6: pages 713-719

Carpenter, Richard A. (1993). Can Sustainability be Measured? Environmental Strategy 5, (February):

13-16.

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman: London.

Chopra, K, and S.C.Gualati. (2001). Migration, Common Property Resources and Environmental

Degradation: Inter-linkages in Indias Arid and Semi-arid Regions, Sage Publications, New Delhi.

Dietz T., N. Dolsak, E. Ostrom, P.C. Stern (2002), The drama of the commons, in The Drama of the

Commons, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global change. E. Ostrom. T. Dietz, N. Dolsak,P.C. Stern, S. Stovich and E.U. Weber (Eds) Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,

National Academy Press, Washington DC.

Hardin, Garrett (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859, pp. 1243-1248.

Honadle, G., and J. VanSant (1985), Implementation for Sustainability: Lessons from Integrated Rural

Development, Kumarian, West Hartford.

Landell-Mills, N. (1998), Cost-Benefit Analysis: A useful tool for evaluating watershed Development

Projects? Paper prepared for National Workshop on Watershed approaches to wasteland development,

New Delhi, 27-29 April 1998.

North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Political Economyof Institutions and Decision Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Oakerson, R. J. (1992). Analyzing the commons: a framework. Making the Commons Work:

Theory, Practice and Policy. ICS Press San Francisco and California.

Olson, M (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Harvard

University Press, Harvard

Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Political

economy of Institutions and Decision series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


38/42


Ostrom, E. (1992), Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. Institute for Contemporary

Studies Press, San Francisco.

Rasmussen L and Ruth Meinzen-Dick (1995), Local Organizations for Natural Resource Management:

Lesson from Theoretical and Empirical Literature, EPTD Discussion Paper No 11, IFPRI, WashingtonDC.

Shah, A. (2003) Minimising costs, Maximising Benefits, Development Support Centre, Ahmedabad and

SPWD, New Delhi

Shah, T. (2003) Management of Natural Resources, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Bombay.

Shah, T. (1995) Making Farmers Co-operatives Work, Sage Publications, New Delhi

Shah, T. (1996) Catalysing Co-Operation: Design of Self Governing Organisations, Sage Publications,

New Delhi

Steins, N. A. and Edwards, V. M. (1999) Collective Action in Common-Pool Resource Management :

The Contribution of a Social Constructivist Perspective to Existing Theory. Society and Natural

Resources 12(6): 539-557.

Uphoff, N.T. (ed.) (1982), Rural Development and Local Organisations in Asia, vols. 1 & 2. Macmillian

India, Delhi

Wade, R. (1988), Village republics: economic conditions for collective action in South India, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

The Author

Mr. Chandanathil P Geevan has more than 25 years of work experience on different aspects ofenvironment and development. With a doctorate from the School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal

Nehru University, New Delhi he has been associated with several inter-disciplinary studies such as

ecological economics, environmental management, vulnerability assessment and policy analysis. Besides

being the Honorary Director of the Centre for Environment and Social Concerns (CESC), Ahmedabad,

he heads the consulting firm Innovizon Consulting based at Ahmedabad.

Contact info: [M] 9824283954; email: [email protected]


39/42



40/42



41/42



42/42

vi5 myrada final print

Documents