![]() | Case Studies of People's Participation in Watershed Management in Asia (PWMTA, 1996) |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Abbreviations |
![]() | ![]() | Local terms |
![]() | ![]() | Foreword |
![]() | ![]() | A case study of people's participation in Begnastal and Rupatal (BTRT) watershed management in Nepal |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Abstract |
![]() | ![]() | Introduction |
![]() | ![]() | Background |
![]() | ![]() | Study site selection |
![]() | ![]() | Objectives of the study |
![]() | ![]() | Review |
![]() | ![]() | Overview of the study area |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Climate |
![]() | ![]() | Vegetation |
![]() | ![]() | Land use |
![]() | ![]() | Livestock |
![]() | ![]() | Socio-economic conditions |
![]() | ![]() | The concepts and mechanisms of people's participation |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | No participation model |
![]() | ![]() | Information sharing model |
![]() | ![]() | Political participation model |
![]() | ![]() | Users' participation model |
![]() | ![]() | Individual participation model |
![]() | ![]() | Review of people's participation in watershed management in the western development region |
![]() | ![]() | Methodology |
![]() | ![]() | Result and discussions |
![]() | ![]() | Evolution of participation |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | First stage (1974-80) |
![]() | ![]() | Second stage (1981-85) |
![]() | ![]() | Third stage (1986-90) |
![]() | ![]() | Fourth stage (1991-94) |
![]() | ![]() | Activities of the Begnastal Rupatal watershed management project |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | First phase (1985-89) |
![]() | ![]() | Second phase (1990-94) |
![]() | ![]() | Consequences of the BTRT project |
![]() | ![]() | Involvement of women, occupational castes and other minority groups |
![]() | ![]() | Management of forests |
![]() | ![]() | Management of private and community lands |
![]() | ![]() | Influences of the BTRT project on people's participation |
![]() | ![]() | Community development and organization |
![]() | ![]() | Community development board |
![]() | ![]() | Local club |
![]() | ![]() | Result of people's participation in the BTRT area |
![]() | ![]() | Changes and improvements in land use |
![]() | ![]() | Economic benefits |
![]() | ![]() | Changes in land productivity |
![]() | ![]() | Users' involvement in watershed management |
![]() | ![]() | Access to credit |
![]() | ![]() | Innovations by neighbouring farmers |
![]() | ![]() | Problems and constraints |
![]() | ![]() | Conclusions and recommendations |
![]() | ![]() | Conclusions |
![]() | ![]() | Policy recommendations |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Unit of watershed management |
![]() | ![]() | Users and their organizations |
![]() | ![]() | Gender equality |
![]() | ![]() | Indigenous technology |
![]() | ![]() | Watershed resource assessment |
![]() | ![]() | Development of local capabilities |
![]() | ![]() | Sharing information and coordinating activities |
![]() | ![]() | Training |
![]() | ![]() | Other recommendations |
![]() | ![]() | Acknowledgement |
![]() | ![]() | References |
![]() | ![]() | A case study of successful watershed management in Wuhua County, Guangdong Province, China |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Abstract |
![]() | ![]() | Introduction |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Purpose of the study |
![]() | ![]() | Justification for study site selection |
![]() | ![]() | Methodology |
![]() | ![]() | Description of Wuhua County |
![]() | ![]() | Environmental and socio-economic conditions |
![]() | ![]() | Topography |
![]() | ![]() | Climate |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Precipitation |
![]() | ![]() | Soil and water erosion |
![]() | ![]() | Types of soil erosion |
![]() | ![]() | Some important features of soil erosion |
![]() | ![]() | Vegetation |
![]() | ![]() | Relations between vegetation and soil erosion |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Soil types susceptible to erosion |
![]() | ![]() | Hydrology |
![]() | ![]() | Sedimentation |
![]() | ![]() | Environmental damage |
![]() | ![]() | Mechanisms of people's participation |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Family contract system |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Collective or group contract system |
![]() | ![]() | Sub-Lease contract system |
![]() | ![]() | Professional contract system |
![]() | ![]() | Specialized contract system |
![]() | ![]() | Soil and water conservation strategy |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Strategic decisions of the provincial government |
![]() | ![]() | Strategies for implementing comprehensive management of small watersheds |
![]() | ![]() | Watershed management planning |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | The principles of planning |
![]() | ![]() | Achievements |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Vegetative measures |
![]() | ![]() | Engineering measures |
![]() | ![]() | Administration for people's participation and research support |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Administration |
![]() | ![]() | Research support |
![]() | ![]() | The case of benefits from land leasing contractual arrangements for people's participation in WUPI watershed |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | The Wupi small watershed |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Some features of soil erosion in Wupi watershed |
![]() | ![]() | Comprehensive erosion control measures at Wupi watershed |
![]() | ![]() | A brief history |
![]() | ![]() | Soil erosion control measures |
![]() | ![]() | Reduction in fuel-wood shortage |
![]() | ![]() | Contractual arrangements for people's participation |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Water control measures |
![]() | ![]() | Measures to improve farmland |
![]() | ![]() | Benefits of soil conservation |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Ecological benefits |
![]() | ![]() | Social benefits |
![]() | ![]() | Results of improved land use management in Wuhua county |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Economic benefits |
![]() | ![]() | Acknowledgement |
![]() | ![]() | Bibliography |
![]() | ![]() | A successful case of participatory watershed management at Ralegan Siddhi Village in district Ahmadnagar, Maharastra, India* |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Abstract |
![]() | ![]() | An overview of people's participation in natural resource management in India |
![]() | ![]() | Breakdown of traditional sustainable systems |
![]() | ![]() | Participation of resource poor farmers |
![]() | ![]() | Prejudice against women |
![]() | ![]() | Recent prominent initiatives of people's participation in resource management |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Naxalite movement |
![]() | ![]() | Chipko movement |
![]() | ![]() | Save Narmada movement (Andolan) |
![]() | ![]() | Bodh Gaya Andolan |
![]() | ![]() | Ganga liberation (Mukti) Andolan |
![]() | ![]() | AVARD'S irrigation schemes |
![]() | ![]() | Water council (Pani Panchayat) |
![]() | ![]() | Sukhomajri |
![]() | ![]() | Rope makers of saharanpur |
![]() | ![]() | Chakriya Vikas pranali (the cyclic system of development) |
![]() | ![]() | MYRADA's self-help groups |
![]() | ![]() | Rural labor association of Halpati Sava Sangh |
![]() | ![]() | Ralegan Siddhi |
![]() | ![]() | Self-Help groups by Taj Mahal gram Bikas Kendra |
![]() | ![]() | Mahila Vikas Sangh (women development federation) |
![]() | ![]() | Self employed women's association |
![]() | ![]() | The case of people's participation in watershed management in Ralegan Siddhi |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Description |
![]() | ![]() | The physical setting |
![]() | ![]() | Demographic features |
![]() | ![]() | Socio-economic structure |
![]() | ![]() | Base-line situation |
![]() | ![]() | Approaches/methods used for people's participation |
![]() | ![]() | (introduction...) |
![]() | ![]() | Persuasion |
![]() | ![]() | Gandhian approach |
![]() | ![]() | Creation of a common platform |
![]() | ![]() | Moral cleansing |
![]() | ![]() | Selfless leadership |
![]() | ![]() | Identification of the most pressing common problem |
![]() | ![]() | Initiating the process of change at individual level |
![]() | ![]() | Socialization of costs and surpluses |
![]() | ![]() | Democratic decision making process |
![]() | ![]() | Social reform with strict discipline |
![]() | ![]() | Need-based planned socio-economic development |
![]() | ![]() | Cooperative management system |
![]() | ![]() | Special focus on women |
![]() | ![]() | Facilitating village organizations |
![]() | ![]() | Reflections on the experience and insights gained |
![]() | ![]() | Lessons, achievements, weaknesses and constraints |
![]() | ![]() | Lessons |
![]() | ![]() | Achievements at Ralegan Siddhi |
![]() | ![]() | Weaknesses |
![]() | ![]() | Constraints |
![]() | ![]() | Conclusion |
![]() | ![]() | Acknowledgement |
The Begnas Tal (lake) and Rupa Tal (BTRT) watershed area is located at about 10 km east of Pokhara in Western Nepal which is about 200 km west of Kathmandu. The watershed covers an area of 173 km2 of two main lakes Begnas and Rupa and three other minor lakes. There are seven Village Development Committees (VDC) in the BTRT. About 31,000 people inhabit in the BTRT area.
For the last ten years, the BTRT Project has been concentrating its efforts on watershed management using participatory approaches. Hence, it is thought to be the best area for studying participatory approaches in watershed management in Nepal. In the BTRT Project area, participatory approach is mandatory for all activities at all stages, today. Local people are actively involved in planning, implementing, follow-up, and maintaining community watershed resources. The role of watershed management technicians is relegated to that of technical facilitators.
Communities are organized in order to ensure peoples' participation. Community Development Conservation Committees (CDCC), instead of users' groups, are the organizational unit. A CDCC serves a community as a natural socio-ecological unit. It is not defined by a VDC or a VDC hamlet (called ward in Nepal) boundary. Each household in the community is represented in the CDCC. At the project's initiation, a CDCC analyzes its problems using a participatory community approach and then presents its conservation needs to the project office. As of the end of 1994 there were 100 CDCCs in operation in the BTRT area.
The BTRT Project's push for agricultural diversification has minimized the risk of crop failure and enabled farmers to earn income throughout the year. Nowadays, an average farmer grows about six kinds of fruits, five types of fodder and local grasses, as well as cultivates cereal crops.
The project has handed over the responsibility for managing natural forests near villages to the local users. This is resulting into denser forests. Women's CDCCs are especially keen on managing forests. The use of traditional farm management technology is common and farmers manage their land very well. Terrace slopes are within the prescribed limits and in general in good condition.
The Project identified the need for quality agricultural inputs and support services needed for utilizing marginal lands. Many groups of farmers are involved in the marginal land improvement agro-forestry program initiated with the help of the project. Farmers are not only ready to pay for fruit saplings, but they also convince their neighbours to participate in the program so that there will be a larger group fund.
Local women are very active in forest management and conservation farming activities and are fully involved in the decision making process. The major factors facilitating women's participation in CDCC proceedings were: a clear prospect of benefit sharing, support from their families and the small size of the group area served.
Many conservation farmers have adopted improved agricultural practices and share these experiences with their neighbours. They have setup demonstrations on their farms and have converted many followers, who are monitored by the conservation farmers themselves. In this way improved farming practices were spread throughout the area. Homestead agro-forestry plots were established and kitchen gardens introduced to great economic benefit. The sale of coffee, pineapples, oranges, cardamom, broom grass, and other varieties of fruits and vegetables is generating cash income for the farmers.
A Community Development Board, which operates at the village level, was formed to foster communication between the CDCCs and the VDCs. All ward members of a VDC and the chairmen of the CDCCs in a VDC are the members of the board. Technical staff in the VDC serve as advisors and facilitators of farmers' groups/organization.
In sum, an overall impression about the factors that contributed to the success of people's participation (PP) in the BTRT watershed management are outlined as follows:
- Clear and transparent decision making procedures by project management.- Clear and simple guidelines, and flexible operational procedures to facilitate PP in watershed management.
- Well defined programs, budgets, plans, implementation procedures and benefit sharing mechanisms.
- Integration of a wide range of diversified watershed management activities and guarantee of benefits.
- Strong motivation among project staff.