|
|
|
Previous
Next
|
| Innovations in Common Land Development |
|
Reference |
| SA PPLPP (2009) Code: SAGP02, “Innovations in Common Land Development: Strengthening Institutional and Physical Spaces for Poor Livestock Keepers”. Good Practice Note, Delhi, India. Link: http://sapplpp.org/goodpractices/CPR-Livestock/SAGP02-innovations-in-common-land-development/view |
|
Introduction to the Institution |
| The issue of benefits and incentives raises concern about choosing appropriate management strategies that involve identifying appropriate mix of technologies, institutional arrangements and preferences over the use and users of the commons. Interventions carried out by the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) and the BAIF Development Research Foundation in different project locations across 5 districts in Rajasthan demonstrate that increased availability of fodder biomass – grasses, shrub and tree leaves, water levels – is possible through protected commons, positively impacting on overall livestock productivity. This increased availability of biomass has in turn directly resulted in improved livelihoods. Unpacking this causality, this Good Practice reveals how management of village dynamics, building awareness, finding local solutions and building technical acumen can create ownership and equity in Common Property Resource management. |
|
Rules for Management
of the Institution |
|
(a) Boundary Rules |
| Social boundaries: All communities residing in a village or the defined boundary of an institution are included in the village institutions formed for common property resource management. The communities are mainly agro-pastoralists who belong to tribal and non-tribal groups. Tribal communities are mainly located in the southern district of Udaipur with a mor heterogeneous caste community inhabiting the other districts. Gujjar, Balai, Meena, Bhil, Jat, Rajput are some of the major caste categories found in these locations.Spatial boundaries: FES is associated with 439 villages spread across 4 districts in Rajasthan viz Ajmer, Bhilwara, Udaipur, Bundi benefiting around 40000 families. BAIF has worked on common lands in 76 villages benefiting around 7000 families. |
|
(b) Governance
rules |
| Actors: Village, User groups, Farmers, Livestock keepers, Village leaders, CBOs (TGCS, CVS, VFPMC), Gram Panchayat, Neighboring village, Federations, Government (State government, Forest Department, Cooperative Department), NGOs (FES, BAIF).Village Organisation: All the actors in a village constitute the members of the village organisation. These members (who are all adults, male and female above 18 form the general body of the organization.Management Committee: Based on the requirements of formal organisation and the need to have a group of people to coordinate the village organisation, the members constitute a management committee (also sometimes referred as executive committee or functional committee). The general body chooses the members of the management committee from the different actors: farmers, livestock keepers, women, different caste groups, BPL families, deprived sections based on their location, specific understanding of the differentiation they comprehend as a group within and also as processes facilitated by facilitating agency.Together these groups evolve a set of rules and regulations, which guide their interaction in reference to resource created. The general body is the supreme authority in terms of finalising the rules and regulation based on the inputs from the different actors (farmers, livestock keepers, deprived and disadvantaged sections, village leaders etc.). This process of crafting rules and regulation for management of CPRs is the key element of the good practice. |
|
(c) Resource Allocation |
| The benefit sharing arrangements depend on many factors from the broad objective of resource distribution, to the condition and objective of resource growth, to number of households and their different demands, to the monitoring and enforcement costs of sustainable resource harvesting and the different alternative options available to complement or supplement the resource distribution.Two main mechanisms of resource allocation can be seen in terms of fodder collection: Regulated and rotational grazing and cut and carry method. Different mechanisms for lopping of tree leaves and pods can be seen across villages. Some of the villages still have not allowed lopping of trees based on the condition of the resource and also problems associated with monitoring of such use.Understanding the overall resource base helps the village community in making choices, which are location specific and take a dynamic perspective of the socio-economic and ecological interrelationship. |
|
Conflict Resolution Mechanism |
| Conflicts for resources which previously were visible in scarcity period where the socially and economically powerful gained are reduced with improvement in the resources base. The depletion in CPR resources had intensified the resource conflict among the different sections in which invariably the poor families lose out either in terms of denial of access to these resources or allocation of it for alternative use.With a strong institutional platform and collective action the conflicting interest groups within a village align for a common purpose: regeneration of commons. Community has gained rights on some common property resources; government acknowledges the strength of village institutions in management of commons and supports institution in resolving conflicts.Conflicts between Forest department and village that initially were arising are sorted out as Forest department started recognizing the community institution strength in regenerating forests. |
|
Problems Faced by Institution |
| Problems faced in the implementation of first few models implemented between 1989 to 1996:1. Common lands got privatized through this initiative and poor were deprived of the benefits from these lands; 2. Membership pattern resulted in domination of resourceful members in the cooperative; 3. Power got centralised at Managing Committee and Secretary; and 4. Auctioning of produce from the protected land has excluded poor from accessing benefits. |
|
Changes in the Institution over time |
| Realization of these issues mentioned above during the internal reflection in the year 1996 coupled with organization's intention for diversifying activities into development of forestland and grass lands resulted in forming other types of village organizations to match new requirements. The diversification of organization into watershed development activities has resulted in formation of Watershed Associations from 1996 onwards. The type of Village Organization chosen depends on the type of land available for development. |
|
Purpose |
| Strengthening Institutional and Physical Spaces for Poor Livestock Keepers |
|
Country |
| Ajmer, Bhilwara, Bundi, Udaipur- Rajasthan, India. |
|
Region |
| The location is broadly classified as semi arid areas with average rainfall between 400-650 mm which is spread over four months from June to September. With high inter-year variation and erratic spread of rainy days drought is a common feature. Located in the confluence of Aravali and Vindhyan mountain ranges the topography varies from uplands to undulating landscape. Livelihoods of communities inhabiting these areas primarily depend on agriculture and livestock keeping. In a situation where land and water is scarce and households are increasingly facing more hardships in continuing to keep livestock, Interventions carried out by FES and BAIF help in reviving institutional mechanisms that energize collective action towards sustainable management of community held village commons, thereby improving feed and fodder availability |
|
Date Of Publication |
| RS-2009 |
|
| |
