Focused group discussion with users during documentation.

Common Interest Group Approach in Watershed Development (India)

Description

Group is formed based on a common interest such as irrigation to their fileds from the diversion weir.

Aims / objectives: 1. To creat village level organisation so that post project maintenance is ensured. 2. To encourage community participation in the programme. 3. To ensure equi-distribution of benefits.

Methods: Common Interest group implements the programme, mobilising resources from the watershed committee.

Stages of implementation: 1. Site selection. 2. Layout. 3. Foundation. 4. Construction of Superstructure. 5. Earthen embankment and guidebunds construction. 6. Turfing. 7. Construction of irrigation channel. 8. User's contribution during the process of implementation.

Location

Location: Orissa, India

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 84.0, 20.0

Initiation date: 2005

Year of termination: 2010

Type of Approach
Focused group discussion with users during documentation.
In the field discussion with users during documentation.

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Cropping system, Irrigation)

Oranise community into common interest group; build their capacity, provide financial support and guide them to implement their own programme in a participatory manner so that the post project sustainability is ensured and the benefits from the project reaches to the right people with right propertion.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: natural calamity(drought); Poverty;Illiteracy; Sustainability in agriculture production, Poor socio economic conditio of the people
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Do not unite to solve a problem Treatment through the SLM Approach: Organised into groups, identified their common problem and came out the possible solution
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: People are not able to afford the cost Treatment through the SLM Approach: WORLP provided financial support for construction of the structure
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights hindered a little the approach implementation Due to low land holding, the number of land users are high; thus the community mobilisation is less effective.
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: lack technical knowledge Treatment through the SLM Approach: SWC specialist assisted in planning, designing and implementation of the structure

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Working land users were mainly men Men are worried about the land degradation and irigation where as women are concerned with the types of crops. 45 marginal and small farmers are benefiting from the structure. They were formed into a group and all the group members were involved during the decision making process like selection of site, layout of the channel etc.
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
national government (planners, decision-makers)
Lead agency
The concept of common interest group was developed by social scientists.
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Mainly:rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: public meetings; Situational analysis was done using participatory tools like Social map ,Resource map and Transect.
planning
rapid/participatory rural appraisal
implementation
Mainly: responsibility for major steps; partly: casual labour; Community contribution, Quality control, arraning of materials and labours were the major tasks performed by the land users.
monitoring/ evaluation
Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: public meetings; They were taking measurements as per the estimate while the construction was going on. They were also ensuring proper mix of materials while preparing mixtures of sand, cement, chips.
Research
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • SWC specialists
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Class room as well as on farm training provided to land users.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory extension methods and exposure to successful sites, demo plots.; Key elements: Learning by Seeing, Learning by doing; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents 2) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: specifically hired project employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The staff strength in govt is very less, that is why project has hired experts from open markets and also developed community link workers for extension.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Guidebank constructed to increase temporary storage in the structure. Increased participation and ownership. The CIG strengthened. Views of the land users respected and involved in decision making.
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Technology is looked with gender lens. Participatory technology development is an inbuilt strategy in the WORLP project.

Research was carried out on-farm

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (CIG members (50); Watershed Committee/other members (20)): 70.0%; other (Project Support): 30.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Got water to their field since the water was diverted. 45-60 acres of land production and productivity increased.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

Decision making is difficult.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Other Watershed programme in the state has slowly adopting this approach

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • n.a.
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

They are now empowerd to take their own decisions. They are acting as pressure group and leveraging resources from other line departments.

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • 'We will manage the Diversion weir, cultivate paddy, ground nut, Onion and Brinjal.' (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: We will maintain this structure from our own contribution.)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Community Based Organisation are the local institutions which can manage their own. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Limited support as and when required)
  • Self monitoring by the land users
  • Ownership (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: User rights ensured, common fund developed)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Since, SWC is a big investment. If, for some natural calamaity, the structure collapse it will be very difficult to reconstruct.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Sometime over ambitious since social change is very slow Expectation should not be raised while mobilising the community

References

Compiler
  • Philippe Zahner
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Jan. 20, 2009
Last update: Julie 17, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International