Participatory Net Planning for Sustainable Watershed Management [India]
- Creación:
- Actualización:
- Compilador: Arun Bhagat
- Editor: –
- Revisor: Udo Höggel
Participatory Net Planning – A tool that involves stakeholders in planning, developing, and managing their land and natural resources
approaches_7651 - India
Visualizar secciones
Expandir todo Colapsar todos1. Información general
1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación del Enfoque
Persona(s) de referencia clave/s
Especialista MST:
Kalaskar Prashant
+91 9403961586
prashant.kalaskar@wotr.org.in
Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Pune
Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Gitai, 1st Floor, New Nagar Road, Sangamner – 422605, Dist. Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India
India
Especialista MST:
D’Souza Marcella
+91 9422226415
marcella.dsouza@gmail.com
W-CReS (the WOTR Centre for Resilience Studies), Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Pune
The Forum, 2nd Floor, Pune - Satara Rd, above Ranka Jewellers, Padmavati Nagar, Corner, Pune, Maharashtra 411009 (India)
India
Especialista MST:
Especialista MST:
Solanky Vijay
+91 8824144388
vijay.solanky@wotr.org.in
W-CReS (the WOTR Centre for Resilience Studies), Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Pune
The Forum, 2nd Floor, Pune - Satara Rd, above Ranka Jewellers, Padmavati Nagar, Corner, Pune, Maharashtra 411009 (India)
India
Nombre del proyecto que facilitó la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque (si fuera relevante)
Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural area (L-SLM Project)Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)
Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR) - India1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT
¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?
18/09/2025
El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT :
Sí
2. Descripción del Enfoque MST
2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque
Participatory Net Planning (PNP) is a practical methodology that actively engages landowners and local stakeholders in planning and implementing measures for land use, soil conservation, water harvesting, and biomass development. It aims to regenerate ecosystems and improve the sustainability of watersheds through site-specific resource management. PNP emphasizes the conservation, productivity enhancement, and sustainable use of natural and biological resources. It involves assessing the current condition and use of land, water, and vegetation, and preparing detailed plans—with estimated costs and timelines—to achieve the desired outcomes.
In Participatory Net Planning (PNP), the term “Net” represents a complete and interconnected planning framework where every land parcel within a watershed is individually assessed and linked to the larger watershed system. It highlights a network-based approach that integrates soil, water, vegetation, and community needs, ensuring that interventions on one farm support resource conservation and productivity across neighboring and downstream lands. Overall, it signifies a holistic and coordinated system where all stakeholders and resources are planned collectively for sustainable and long-term watershed management.
2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST
Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:
By design, PNP functions as a tool for mobilization, training, monitoring, and evaluation in watershed programs.
Its key objectives are:
•Building ownership and commitment among landowners and stakeholders to ensure the long-term sustainability of watershed interventions.
•Planning site-specific measures that meet local needs, improve productivity, and address resource challenges.
•Developing realistic plans with clear activities, budgets, and timelines that can be implemented effectively, minimizing gaps between planned and actual outcomes.
The PNP approach places stakeholders at the center of the process. Landowners, farmers (both men and women), or users of Common Property Resources (CPRs) are directly involved in decision-making for their land or shared resources. During PNP exercises, the planning team visits each landholding or CPR along with the concerned stakeholders to jointly survey, assess, and plan interventions.
Stakeholders share their views on current and proposed land use and the necessary soil and water conservation treatments. The team discusses best practices and scientific options for land management, explaining their benefits and suitability. The final decision on interventions rests with the stakeholder—except when proposed actions could harm neighboring lands, CPRs, or the environment. In such cases, efforts are made to reach a consensus; if not possible, treatments on that land are withheld.
Once agreement is reached, the proposed measures are documented in writing and mapped on a diagram of the land or CPR.
PNP is gender-inclusive, ensuring both men and women participate in planning and decision-making. Ideally, the farming couple or land-owning couple is present during planning, even when land is officially registered in the man’s name. For CPRs, where stakeholders include landless people, marginal farmers, livestock owners, and shepherd communities, institutions like the Village Watershed Committee (VWC), Village Development Committee (VDC), and Gram Panchayat (GP) are involved. Their role is to ensure equitable access to ressources, manage conflicts, and establish transparent and representative local institutions for sustainable management of CPRs and create assets.
The Participatory Net Plan is more than just a planning document—it serves as a blueprint for implementation. Written in the local language, it remains accessible to stakeholders for regular reference. The plan is flexible and adaptive, evolving as new information emerges or stakeholders revise their preferences. Thus, it acts as a “living document” that supports transparency, continuous monitoring, and accountability.
2.3 Fotos del Enfoque
Galería de medios
Comentarios generales sobre las fotos:
The photos capture active community participation, field discussions, and collaborative decision-making between farmers and experts during the PNP process, reflecting practical learning and collective planning for sustainable land management.
2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado
País:
India
Región/ Estado/ Provincia:
Maharashtra
Especifique más el lugar :
Darewadi,Post. Kauthe Malkapur, Taluka Sangamner, Dist. Ahilyanagar,
Comentarios:
The Participatory Net Planning (PNP) approach was first implemented in Darewadi village, located in Kauthe Malkapur post, Sangamner taluka, Ahilyanagar district, Maharashtra, India.
Map
×2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque
Indique año del inicio:
1995
2.7 Tipo de Enfoque
- proyecto/ basado en un programa
2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque
The main objectives of Participatory Net Planning (PNP) are:
•To build a sense of ownership and commitment among landowners and other stakeholders within a watershed, ensuring long-term sustainability of the implemented measures.
•To plan site-specific interventions, meet stakeholder needs, and enhance land and water productivity.
•To develop practical proposals with clear activities, budgets, and timelines that ensure planned measures are effectively implemented and easily scaled up.
2.9 Condiciones que facilitan o impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque
normas y valores sociales/ culturales/ religiosos
- facilitan
Strong local bonding, traditional mutual-help systems (e.g., shramdaan), and trust in community leadership support smooth mobilization, joint action, and quick adoption of land and water measures.
- impiden
Social hierarchies, reluctance to change established practices, or participation limited to men may exclude key decision-makers, reducing inclusiveness and impact.
disponibilidad/ acceso a recursos y servicios financieros
- facilitan
Availability of subsidies, project funds, bank credit, and SHG financing allows farmers to adopt technologies like bunding, trenching, or water harvesting without major financial stress.
- impiden
High upfront costs, inadequate financial literacy, and slow fund release discourage participation and may lead to incomplete works.
entorno institucional
- facilitan
Strong and well-functioning institutions (VDC, GP, watershed committees) ensure better planning, dispute resolution, and accountability, increasing project success.
- impiden
Weak institutions and lack of leadership create delays, communication gaps, and poor transparency in decision-making.
colaboración/ coordinación de actores
- facilitan
Active support from multiple actors — technical experts, government departments, and villagers — promotes effective knowledge exchange and faster implementation.
- impiden
Misalignment in roles, unclear responsibilities, or lack of coordination slows progress and reduces effectiveness of interventions.
marco de trabajo legal (tenencia de tierra, derechos de uso de tierra y agua)
- facilitan
Clear land ownership provides confidence for farmers to invest in long-term land improvement practices since they benefit directly from gains.
- impiden
Disputed titles, tenancy issues, or unclear CPR access rights delay planning and restrict work, especially on shared lands.
políticas
- facilitan
Supportive agricultural, watershed, and rural development policies provide strong institutional backing, technical support, and long-term vision.
- impiden
Frequent changes in guidelines, budget cuts, or administrative barriers disrupt continuity in planning and execution.
gobernanza de tierras (toma de decisiones, implementación y aplicación)
- facilitan
Fair and transparent governance ensures equal benefits, compliance with planned measures, and responsible use of natural resources.
- impiden
Ineffective enforcement or favoritism creates distrust, conflicts, and irregular implementation outcomes.
conocimiento de MST, acceso a apoyo técnico
- facilitan
Farmer training, exposure visits, and expert guidance improve understanding of benefits, correct design, and maintenance of SWC structures.
- impiden
Limited technical support results in poor-quality structures and reduced confidence among farmers.
mercados (para comprar insumos, vender productos) y precios
- facilitan
Ready access to markets motivates farmers to adopt improved land use and productivity-enhancing measures since profits increase.
- impiden
Price volatility and distant markets reduce economic incentives for adopting new technologies or crop diversification.
carga de trabajo, disponibilidad de mano de obra
- facilitan
Local labor availability and farmer involvement ensure timely execution, especially before monsoon when structures are most effective.
- impiden
Rural migration and labor shortages lead to delays, rushed construction, or higher labor costs.
otros
- facilitan
Climate and weather conditions:
Normal rainfall ensures proper functioning of trenches, bunds, and vegetation growth, validating the benefits of interventions.
- impiden
Climate and weather conditions:
Droughts, heavy storms, or irregular monsoons cause structure damage or reduced productivity, lowering adoption enthusiasm.
otros
- facilitan
Accessibility & terrain:
Good road connectivity ensures smooth movement of tools, equipment, and produce; reduces cost and effort.
- impiden
Accessibility & terrain:
Difficult terrain and remote locations increase logistics challenges, delaying technology application and maintenance.
3. Participación y roles de las partes interesadas involucradas
3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles
- usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales
Farmers, landowners, women's (Self-help Group (SHG)), members, livestock owners
Main decision-makers: provide land-related information; participate in planning, implementation, maintenance, and long-term management.
- organizaciones comunitarias
Village Development Committee (VDC), Village Watershed Committee (VWC), Gram Sabha, SHGs
Mobilize participation, ensure equity and conflict resolution, coordinate between community and experts, support monitoring and governance.
- especialistas MST/consejeros agrícolas
Agricultural engineers, watershed technicians, extension workers, soil experts
Provide technical guidance for soil and water conservation measures, land classification, crop planning, and best practices during planning and execution.
- investigadores
Agricultural Universities, Central Agriculture Institutes, Watershed Research Organizations
Support scientific assessment, innovations, and evaluation of interventions; document learnings for improvement and scaling up.
- profesores/ niños en edad escolar/ estudiantes
Local schools, eco-clubs
Raise awareness on conservation practices; promote environmental stewardship and behavioral change.
- ONG
e.g., WOTR (Watershed Organisation Trust) or similar implementing agencies
Lead mobilization, capacity building, technical support, process facilitation, documentation, and convergence with schemes.
- sector privado
Input suppliers, equipment providers, contractors, Farmers Producer Organisations (FPOs)
Provide materials, machinery, and technical services; help improve market linkages for agricultural produce.
- gobierno local
Gram Panchayat, Block Agriculture Office, Rural Development staff
Administrative approvals, fund management, land governance, support convergence of government programs.
- gobierno nacional (planificadores, autoridades)
Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Agriculture & Land Resources
Policy framework, program funding, national guidelines, evaluation, scaling successful models.
- organización internacional
Funding and technical partners (e.g., UNCCD initiatives)
Provide funding, advanced training, exposure to global best practices, and knowledge sharing.
Si varias partes interesadas estuvieron involucradas, indique la agencia principal:
The main implementation agency (e.g., NGO like WOTR or a government watershed department) acts as the lead stakeholder, coordinating planning, execution, and monitoring across all actors.
3.2 Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque
| Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales | Especifique quién se involucró y describa las actividades | |
|---|---|---|
| iniciación/ motivación | interactivo | Local people are involved in awareness sessions, discussions, and joint problem analysis. Villagers, farmer groups, and watershed committees participate in identifying issues, priorities, and resources. |
| planificación | interactivo | Local communities participate in mapping land, resources, and existing interventions. They jointly develop action plans, decide on resource allocation, and may plan their own initiatives (self-mobilization). |
| implementación | interactivo | Communities implement activities like soil and water conservation structures, plantations, or crop management. Some activities may be supported by food/cash/material incentives, but local ownership is emphasized. |
| monitoreo y evaluación | interactivo | Local groups participate in tracking progress, maintaining records, and providing feedback. Village committees and farmer groups jointly evaluate the success of interventions and suggest corrective measures. |
| Farmers and local knowledge | interactivo | Farmers provide local knowledge, observations, and data for research purposes. They interact with external teams for documentation, experimentation, and knowledge sharing. |
3.3 Flujograma (si estuviera disponible)
Descripción:
Flow chart:
The visual summary illustrates the key steps of the PNP approach
Community Mobilization:
Awareness meetings are organized to inform villagers about the purpose of Participatory Net Planning. Local institutions such as the Village Development Committee (VDC), Gram Panchayat (GP), and watershed committees motivate farmers and landowners to participate actively in the process.
Field Assessment:
The planning team, along with landowners and local experts, visits each plot or common property area to study land use, soil condition, slope, and water flow. Existing problems like erosion, poor drainage, or low productivity are identified and discussed on-site.
Participatory Planning:
Stakeholders, including both men and women farmers, jointly decide on the best soil and water conservation measures. Technical experts suggest suitable scientific options, and a consensus is built on feasible and sustainable interventions tailored to each landholding.
Documentation & Implementation:
The agreed plan is documented in simple local language and mapped clearly for each farm or area. Resources such as labor, machinery, and materials are mobilized, and the works are executed under close supervision of technical experts and local committees.
Monitoring & Evaluation:
The progress and quality of work are jointly monitored by the technical team, village committees, and farmers. Periodic evaluations ensure the plan stays relevant, effective, and sustainable, encouraging learning, accountability, and continuous improvement.
Autor:
Dr. Arun Bhagat
3.4 La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología(s) MST
Especifique quién decidió la selección de las Tecnología/ Tecnologías a implementarse:
- todos los actores relevantes, como parte de un enfoque participativo
Explique:
The PNP approach helps identify the current land use and understand the socio-economic conditions linked to it. It aims to improve farmers’ income by suggesting better land use patterns. Technical and agricultural experts play a key role in preparing the proposed land use plan, which is then replicated with other farmers in the village. The village committee is essential for mobilizing and encouraging community participation in this process.
Especifique las bases que sustentaron la toma de decisiones:
- la evaluación de conocimiento MST bien documentado (la toma de decisiones se basa en evidencia)
- la experiencia personal y opiniones (no documentadas)
4. Apoyo técnico, fortalecimiento institucional y gestión del conocimiento
4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación
¿Se proporcionó la capacitación a usuarios de tierras/ otras partes interesadas?
Sí
Especifique quién fue capacitado:
- usuarios de tierras
- personal de campo/ consejeros
Forma de capacitación:
- de agricultor a agricultor
- áreas de demostración
- reuniones públicas
Temas avanzados:
Assessment of current land use, classification of land types, and implementation of on-site soil conservation measures.
Comentarios:
A joint meeting of multiple landowners is organized to share basic information, followed by a field demonstration in one of the plots to explain the planning tool. Photos and videos of various in-situ soil conservation measures, aligned with the land use and land cover, are also presented.
4.2 Servicio de asesoría
¿Los usuarios de tierras tienen acceso a un servicio de asesoría?
Sí
Especifique si servicio proporcionado se realizó:
- en los campos de los usuarios de tierras
- en centros permanentes
Describa/ comentarios:
The service is provided under the project by the implementing agency. The landowner can develop the land according to requirements with the assistance of a land developer or consultant.
4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)
¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?
- sí, mucho
Especifique el nivel o los niveles en los que se fortalecieron o establecieron las instituciones:
- local
- regional
Describa la institución, roles y responsabilidades, miembros, etc.
The planning tool is a socio-technical approach used for sustainable land development. Agricultural engineers, social engineers, and environmental experts from institutions can participate, along with officers from the Forest and Agricultural departments.
Especifique el tipo de apoyo:
- financiero
- construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento
4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación
¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?
Sí
Comentarios:
The overall plan is verified on a sample basis to ensure quality and alignment with ground reality.
Si respondió que sí, ¿la documentación se utilizará para monitoreo y evaluación?
Sí
Comentarios:
Field verification shall be conducted based on the prepared planning documents.
4.5 Investigación
¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?
Sí
Especifique los temas:
- sociología
- economía/ marketing
- ecología
- tecnología
Proporcione detalles adicionales e indique quién hizo la investigación:
Experts involved in the planning and implementation of the PNP contribute their experience. While research was not the primary focus, insights gained during community mobilization and watershed plan execution help improve the approach for smoother implementation.
5. Financiamiento y apoyo material externo
5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque
Si no se conoce el presupuesto anual preciso, indique el rango:
- < 2,000
Comentarios (ej. fuentes principales de financiamiento/ donantes principales):
The total cost from planning to implementation is measured per hectare and ranges from ₹20,000 to ₹50,000 per hectare, depending on the proposed land use.
5.2 Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras
¿Los usuarios de tierras recibieron financiamiento/ apoyo material para implementar la Tecnología/ Tecnologías? :
Sí
5.3 Subsidios para insumos específicos (incluyendo mano de obra)
- ninguno
Si la mano de obra de usuarios de tierras fue un insumo sustancial, ¿fue:
- voluntario?
5.4 Crédito
¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?
No
5.5 Otros incentivos o instrumentos
¿Se usaron otros incentivos o instrumentos para promover la implementación de Tecnologías MST?
No
6. Análisis de impacto y comentarios de conclusión
6.1 Impactos del Enfoque
¿El Enfoque empoderó a los usuarios locales de tierras, mejoró el involucramiento de las partes interesadas?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
PNP actively involves local land users in decision-making, joint planning, and management, increasing their sense of ownership and participation in SLM.
¿El Enfoque facilitó la toma de decisiones basada en evidencia?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Mapping of resources, data collection, and participatory analysis enable communities to plan interventions based on evidence.
¿El Enfoque ayudó a los usuarios de tierras a implementar y mantener Tecnologías MST?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
By linking planning with resource availability and community initiatives, PNP ensures successful implementation and sustainability of SLM practices.
¿El Enfoque mejoró la coordinación e implementación efectiva en costos de MST?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Joint planning and shared responsibilities reduce duplication and optimize resource use.
¿El Enfoque movilizó/mejoró el acceso a recursos financieros para implementar MST?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Communities sometimes access government schemes, subsidies, or microfinance, but PNP primarily facilitates planning rather than direct funding.
¿El Enfoque mejoró el conocimiento y capacidades de los usuarios para implementar MST?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Training, workshops, and on-field demonstration under PNP enhance skills and technical knowledge for SLM.
¿El Enfoque mejoró el conocimiento y capacidades de otras partes interesadas?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
External agencies, NGOs, and local government staff gain insights into community priorities and resource status through PNP processes.
¿El Enfoque construyó/ fortaleció instituciones, colaboración entre partes interesadas?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Formation of watershed committees and joint planning platforms strengthens institutional capacity and collaboration.
¿El Enfoque mitigó conflictos?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Participatory discussions and joint decision-making reduce disputes over land, water, and resource use.
¿El Enfoque empoderó a grupos en desventaja social y económica?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Women, landless laborers, and marginalized groups are included in planning and implementation discussions.
¿El Enfoque mejoró la equidad de género y empoderó a las mujeres y niñas?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Women’s participation in committees and field activities increases their voice in SLM decisions.
¿El Enfoque alentó a jóvenes/ la siguiente generación de usuarios de tierras a involucrarse con MST?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Young people are involved in field activities and awareness campaigns, though engagement varies by context.
¿El Enfoque mejoró cuestiones de tenencia de tierra/ derechos de usuarios que obstaculizaron la implementación de la Tecnologías MST?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Some improvements occur through awareness and participatory planning, but structural tenure issues may persist.
¿El Enfoque resultó en mejor seguridad alimentaria/ mejoró la nutrición?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Soil and water conservation, improved cropping systems, and better land management contribute to higher productivity and food security.
¿El Enfoque mejoró el acceso a los mercados?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Some linkages are developed for crops or produce through collective action, though not a primary focus of PNP.
¿El Enfoque llevó a un acceso mejorado a tierra y saneamiento?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Watershed interventions and resource management improve local water availability; sanitation benefits are indirect.
¿El Enfoque llevó a un uso más sostenible/ fuentes de energía?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Limited impact through promotion of fuelwood plantations or energy-efficient practices.
¿El Enfoque mejoró la capacidad de los usuarios de tierras a adaptarse a los cambios climáticos/ extemos y mitigar desastres relacionados al clima?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Improved soil and water management, vegetation cover, and participatory planning increase resilience to droughts and floods.
¿El Enfoque llevó a oportunidades de empleo, ingresos?
- No
- Sí, un poco
- Sí, moderadamente
- Sí, mucho
Implementation of SLM activities creates temporary work and improves productivity, indirectly supporting income generation.
6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST
- producción incrementada
Quality and appropriate interventions enhance soil fertility and increase productivity.
- reducción de la degradación de la tierra
Proper land management and increased tree cover help reduce surface runoff.
- reducción del riesgo de desastres naturales
Proper land management helps reduce the risks of drought and flooding.
- conocimiento y capacidades mejorados de MST
PNP is a participatory planning process that facilitates the exchange of ideas.
6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque
¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?
- sí
Si respondió que sí, describa cómo:
Land users can sustain the interventions implemented through the PNP approach without external support, provided they have gained adequate knowledge, skills, and ownership during the participatory planning process. The focus on locally appropriate techniques, use of available resources, and community involvement ensures long-term sustainability.
6.4 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque
| Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra |
|---|
| Participatory Decision-Making: Land users actively contribute ideas and decisions, ensuring the plan reflects their needs and priorities. |
| Improved Knowledge: Farmers gain practical knowledge about soil, land use, and conservation techniques. |
| Sustainable Land Management: Encourages adoption of site-specific, in-situ conservation measures that improve soil fertility and productivity. |
| Livelihood Opportunities: Identifies farm-based income options, such as dairy, fodder production, and agroforestry. |
| Resource Optimization: Promotes efficient use of local resources like stones, bushes, and organic matter. |
| Conflict Reduction: Helps mitigate disputes over land boundaries and reduces encroachments. |
| Empowerment: Strengthens community organization and gives women and marginalized groups more decision-making opportunities. |
| Long-Term Benefits: Supports soil moisture retention, biomass production, and water conservation, leading to resilient agriculture. |
| Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave |
|---|
| Effective Planning Tool: Provides a structured framework for assessing land, soil, and resources scientifically. |
| Community Engagement: Facilitates active participation of landowners, enhancing acceptance and ownership of interventions. |
| Integrated Approach: Combines technical, social, and environmental considerations for sustainable land management. |
| Field-Oriented Learning: Allows experts to demonstrate techniques and observe practical challenges. |
| Sustainability Focus: Encourages adoption of low-cost, locally suitable interventions that are maintainable without continuous external support. |
| Conflict Mitigation: Helps in discussing land disputes and clarifying boundaries. |
| Scalable & Replicable: Can be applied across multiple fields or villages for wider impact. |
6.5 Debilidades/ desventajas del Enfoque y formas de sobreponerse a ellos
| Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra | ¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas? |
|---|---|
| Time-Consuming: Participatory meetings and field exercises require considerable time. | Time Management: Schedule meetings and demonstrations at convenient times for farmers. |
| Resource Dependence: Initial implementation may need materials or guidance not readily available to all farmers. | Local Resource Use: Emphasize low-cost, locally available materials for interventions. |
| Knowledge Gap: Some farmers may initially struggle to understand technical aspects. | Capacity Building: Provide training and simple demonstration tools to bridge technical knowledge gaps. |
| Group Dynamics: Conflicts or dominant voices within the group may affect decision-making. | Facilitation: Use neutral facilitators to manage group discussions and ensure all voices are heard. |
| Maintenance Challenges: Sustaining interventions over time without support can be difficult for some households. | Follow-Up Support: Provide periodic guidance and monitoring to help farmers maintain interventions. |
| Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave | ¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas? |
|---|---|
| Time-Intensive: Participatory planning and field exercises require significant time and effort. | Efficient Scheduling: Plan activities to minimize disruption to farmers’ regular work. |
| Dependence on Community Cooperation: Effectiveness relies on active participation and willingness of land users. | Capacity Building: Train community members to enhance understanding and technical competence. |
| Limited Technical Precision: Field-level decisions may sometimes compromise scientific accuracy due to local constraints. | Facilitation & Guidance: Experts guide discussions to balance local preferences with technical requirements. |
| Resource Limitations: Availability of tools, inputs, or skilled manpower may restrict implementation. | Resource Planning: Ensure access to necessary inputs and tools before implementation. |
| Monitoring Challenges: Ensuring long-term adherence to recommended interventions can be difficult. | Follow-Up Mechanisms: Establish monitoring and support systems for sustained adoption. |
7. Referencias y vínculos
7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información
- visitas de campo, encuestas de campo
Visited the field twice and gathered information from a community group of 7–8 people.
- entrevistas con usuarios de tierras
Interviews were conducted with six land users.
- entrevistas con especialistas/ expertos en MST
Interviews were conducted with 4 SLM specialist/experts.
- compilación de informes y otra documentación existente
Information was obtained from the Participatory Net Planning (PNP) book authored by Crispino Lobo (WOTR) and from Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR) reports and publications (https://wotr.org/publications).
7.2 Referencias a publicaciones disponibles
Título, autor, año, ISBN:
Participatory Net Planning: A Practitioner's Handbook, authored by Crispino Lobo. 2010. ISBN: 978-81-86748-23-7 [Supported by: German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)]
¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?
https://wotr.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/WOTR-PNP-Practitioners-Handbook.pdf
7.3 Vínculos a la información relevante disponible en línea
Título/ descripción:
Participatory Net Planning (PNP)
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU9dSJUgIQM
Título/ descripción:
How to do Participatory Net planning
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGom-qA_be4
Título/ descripción:
How to do Micro planning in Watershed Project
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDOKQBfcg-0
Título/ descripción:
Rising Together: Building Resilient Communities for a Sustainable Tomorrow
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gCFkwkfwdg&t=2s
Título/ descripción:
How to do Wealth Ranking in Watershed Project
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygiAy7f7Gpc
Título/ descripción:
Integrated Watershed Management in Sinnar cluster, Nashik district, Maharashtra, India
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HfP20wucnE&t=3s
Título/ descripción:
A New Beginning
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBzF7DXbedM&t=2s
Vínculos y módulos
Expandir todo Colapsar todosVínculos
No hay vínculos
Módulos
No se hallaron módulos