Harnessing Wisdom for Managing Watersheds:
Honey Bee Perspective
on
Innovations, Institutions and Policies for Marginal Environments
Anil K Gupta, Srinivas Chokkakula, Riya Sinha,
Kirit K Patel, S Muralikrishna and Dilip Koradia
Household survival in marginal environments such as mountains, dry lands, and flood prone regions requires tremendous creativi-ty. As was noted in Alice in Wonderland, you have to move very fast and work very hard even to remain where you are. The choice for large number of households is to sustain the livelihood support systems such as the catchments, biodiversity, other natural resources, etc., in a manner that they do not get trapped in downward spiral of erosion of resources, self-esteem, and of course, economic opportunities. The fact that despite various odds, including lack of policy support, so many communities and individuals manage not only to conserve resources but also aug-ment them is something that this monograph is all about. The Honey Bee perspective builds upon what poor people are rich in i.e. their knowledge, creative potential, and institutional heritage. The discourse on participation often is restricted to the concept of either physical participation in terms of labour or social participation in implementation of externally designed policies and programmes. In this study, we draw attention to the scope of intellectual, moral, and institutional participation of local communities in reconceptualizing the watershed approach and implementation process. The greatest irony of watershed projects is that they founder after they are ‘handed over’ to the people by the project implementation authorities. If the watershed projects are designed, owned and implemented by the people, why should the question of handing over arise at all. Unless we, the external facilitators, learn to participate in peoples’ own plans (Gupta, 1995), the possibility of building upon peoples’ knowledge is very remote.
It is extremely opportune that international and national insti-tutions are recognizing the need for incorporating indigenous knowledge and institutional heritage in the design and implemen-tation of modern watershed projects. This blending of tradition-al knowledge and contemporary innovations developed by people without outsiders help will not take place unless we understand the policy and institutional context of technology generation and diffusion for rainfed, mountain, and dry regions. The macro policy and the framework for organizing incentives to ensure peoples’ participation in design and implementation of watershed are discussed in part one. In part two of the paper we critique the formal models of technology development and transfer. We argue that technology development process in highly ecologically heterogeneous environments cannot take place in the classical lab to land framework. It will require land to lab to land, and land to land approaches (Gupta, 1987, 1989, Richards, 1985. The last part three deals with the frame-work for institution building in watersheds. The contention here is that self regulating behaviour is essential for managing natural resources in the long run. We deal with the institution-al aspects of watershed development. Here we focus on two par-ticular aspects, (a) institutional triggers for technological solutions and (b) technological triggers for institutional inno-vations. This is a relationship which has not been adequately appreciated while designing policies and programmes for watershed management in various countries. In part four, we provide illustrations of more than fifty technological and institutional innovations from Himalayan region as well as western Indian dry regions.
1.0 Reconceptualizing Technology Development and Transfer Pro-cess: Honey Bee perspective
The traditional models of on-station development of technology and its transmission to farmers are no longer feasible, since high ecological variability demands niche-specific solutions. Local solutions developed by farmers themselves need to be iden-tified and their scientific bases understood. The value-added scientific principles have to be shared back with farmers, who would then be able to develop technologies through their own research and experimentation. Thus transferring ‘science’ and not just technology (Gupta, 1989a & 1994b). Supporting and developing such experimentation is an important task for scientists and outsiders. Perhaps the most crucial challenge is for scientists to realize that how they can participate in people’s programs rather than asking how people can participate in formal outside initiatives.
This change in outlook, within less than three decades of the onset of the green revolution, is a result of the increasingly complex interactions between local socioecological and institu-tional conditions, and externally-induced technological change. In other words, the challenge technology designers face today is how to move away from delivering fully-tailored cloth towards supplying semi-stitched cloth which may be tailored by users themselves, keeping local specifications in mind (Kumar, 1985 p c ). This requires both an understanding of the tailoring process on the part of the people, and an understanding of local prefer-ences, criteria and specifications on the part of researchers.
Another reason for seeking participation is that it provides opportunities to scientists to recalibrate their scales of meas-urement and co-ordinates of perception. Perhaps what is more important is developing in scientists the ability to learn how to participate in the plans, programs, experiments and missions of farmers themselves (Gupta 1980, 1987b, 1995d). Ashby et al. (1987) had rightly criticized the excessive emphasis on the so-called diagnostic research methods that treated farmers as ob-jects of investigation and in the process lost the farmers’ voice. She emphasized that participatory research should involve farmers as co-investigators and researchers, and demonstrated, through farmer-managed trials, creative ways of understanding farmers’ criteria for selecting varieties. Gupta (1987d), while describing the dynamics of homestead utilization by women, pro-vided examples of the criteria used by poor women in the manage-ment of sweet potato seedlings, that had never formed a part of formal scientific research. There are many other examples, in-cluding the excellent research of Richards (1985, 1987), that demonstrate the need for scientists to participate in farmers’ own research programs.
However, any process of collaborative learning can be meaningful and mutually enjoyable only when the classificatory schemes or taxonomies used by the partners are matched. It is not necessary to synthesize these taxonomies, but it is essential to understand the various vectors on which each knowledge system organizes information and generates patterns of knowledge. Does it matter in a dialogue between farmers and scientists in Peru whether the potato is distinguished by its local name, Puka suytu, or only by its Latin name, Solanum tuberosum (Vasquez 1996)? It does not when two classificatory schemes are mere tools to highlight the strengths of the knowledge systems on which they are based. But when one system’s superiority is asserted, or when scientists use scientific language to mask their inability to understand the richness of the vernacular, there is a problem.
A second aspect of matching taxonomies is the need for formal science to realize that an indigenous taxonomy would be extremely rich when the variance in any phenomenon critical for the sur-vival of that community is high. The community breaks down the phenomenon into a larger number of discrete categories, and characterizes each category by a different name. Thus, for in-stance, Eskimos have a large number of words for snow, and fisher folk many names for varieties of waves. Each category symbolizes not only a pattern but also a theory underlying the classifica-tion and interrelationship of different categories.
1.1 Reciprocal Framework of Research: Contingent Perspective on Participation
Often, uncovering the farmers’ own experimental approaches and heuristics may be sufficient to help them to redefine the problem and devise appropriate solutions (Gupta 1989c, Gupta 1989d, Pastakia 1995). But in some cases, farmers cannot devise solu-tions on their own. On-station research becomes necessary and farmers will have to merely participate in evaluating results or monitoring the experiments for any counter-intuitive observa-tions. Normatively, we should not consider one form of participa-tion superior to the other. Thus, farmers’ participation in the scientists’ own experiments need not necessarily be superior to scientists’ participation in farmers’ research. Both forms have their own advantages and limitations. In order to evolve a con-tingent framework, it is necessary to match the different methods of participation with the different approaches to defining the purpose of participation. The same method, say on-farm research, may not address all kinds of problems.
1.1.1 Defining the Problem
It is a truism that the proper definition of a problem is half the solution. And yet, very often, we do not know whether our definition of the problem is correct or not. Let us take the case of weeds, which are considered to be a menace in rainfed crops. In the conventional definition, weeds are plants out of their place. But in nature, no plant can truly be out of its place. It is possible that we may not know the significance or role of a particular weed as a companion plant. For instance, the distribu-tion of minerals in a field may help certain plants grow faster or slower. Thus, weeds may act as indicators of soil mineral properties (Hill & Ramsay, 1977). If we know the variability in the soil nutrient profile, we can follow precision farming that will lead to economy and efficiency in input use. Once the exist-ing heterogeneity of nutrients is known, it is possible to study the reasons and take remedial action. Another way to look at weeds is to ask ourselves why farmers are selective in removing weeds. They obviously must be recognizing the allelopathic inter-actions of various plants. A good example is a weed (companion plant) called Sama (Echinocloa colonum) which grows on its own in paddy fields, or is cultivated in certain parts of the country. Why would farmers conserve a ‘weed’? There may be several rea-sons: (a) it is an extremely nutritious grain suitable for con-sumption during fasting (b) a review of literature shows that it provides an alternative host for a few insects including leaf roller which do not affect paddy crop but get attracted to Sama and (c) some other ecological function which we are not aware of as yet. It is not without significance that farmers have con-served this weed through sociocultural mechanisms such as a particular festival, Sama pancham, when only grains like Sama are eaten. If sustainability requires a long time frame and a wide variety of heuristics through which our choices should be pro-cessed, then a strong case exists for understanding how farmers define a particular problem (Gupta 1981, Gupta et al., 1995).
1.2 Widening Alternative Choices
Primarily drawing upon the Honey Bee database, Pastakia (1996) studied grassroots innovators involved in sustainable pest man-agement in order to understand their decision making processes. He identified two particular heuristics which were not reported in the formal scientific repertoire: (i) use of insect and plant material for repelling pests and (ii) increasing the growth of a crop to minimize economic damage by a pest instead of controlling the pest itself. The heuristics that the innovators used to derive such solutions included various combinations of materials (or products), methods (or processes) and products, each of which had a sustainability dimension determined by the renewability of the resources involved (Figure 1). An analysis of a farmers’ heuristics in these three dimensions of Product, Process and Purpose as shown helps us in understanding firstly, where the innovation was actually done and secondly, how best the modern science can intervene to improve upon.
Figure 1. Combinational heuristics
Source: From an unpublished paper presented by Anil K. Gupta and Kirit K. Patel to scientists at Gujarat Agricultural University, Anand in 1994.
Old methods, old material and old products. Old methods, old materials and old products signify the traditional wisdom which may have relevance even for the contemporary context. For in-stance, Virda is an age-old technology for conserving rain water in a saline arid region with saline ground water. In a predomi-nantly flat region, rain water gets stored in minor depressions or tanks. Within these tanks, the pastoralists dig shallow wells lined with frames of wood of Prosopis juliflora and grass. Just ten inches of rainfall provide sufficient fresh water which remains above the saline ground water inside the wells. The virdas are covered with silt and sealed. They are opened, one at a time, depending upon the need. The water remains sweet for two to three months, after which it turns saline due to the upward movement of saline water. This technology has enabled the pastor-alists in Banni pastures to survive for several centuries. The season’s rain may fall within a few days, hence the need for a robust, efficient and adaptive strategy (Chokkakula & Gupta, 1995; Ferroukhi & Suthar, 1994).
In such a case, modern science does not merely help explain the functional viability of the technology, but also provides a basis for abstraction and generalization. For instance, once the prop-erties of wood and grass, the pressure that the walls will need to cope with, the infiltration rate and the functions of the saline soil in holding the salts are explained, the search for other materials and methods for similar outputs may begin. There is very little advantage that the prior art of knowledge in modern science can provide while dealing with such complex ques-tions of survival in difficult regions.
Old methods, old materials and new products : The hair which constitutes the mane of camels is known to be very hardy and resistant to corrosion. Traditionally, the pastoralists make different kinds of ropes, carpets and bags out of this hair. Once science figured out the use of these carpets as oil filters in oil refineries, a new product was developed from the old method and material. Similarly, sisal rope has been used in various activities, both for commercial and domestic purposes. It was found that these ropes can withstand corrosion better than any other material in the sea. Thus a new use for material grown in poor soils is generated. The processing of sisal is very painful because of the various tannins released into the water in which sisal plants are immersed for some time. When the fibre is taken out, these tannins cause blisters on the hand. Simple technolo-gies have been developed to take the fibre out without hurting the hands. Modern science can blend in with the traditional methods while leaving other choices intact.
New methods, old materials and old products : In many of the cumin-growing regions, farmers had observed that the plots on the roadside were more productive than the ones in the interior. They figured out that the dust which settled on the plants saved them from certain pests and fungal diseases. Some other farmers ob-served a similar phenomenon near brick kilns. Dusting with ash or fine soil thus became a new method for controlling pest and fungal diseases in this crop. In many other crops, the use of ash as a dusting material is well known.
Similarly, the case of termite control using cut immature sorghum stalks in irrigation channels, reported earlier in this paper, opens up a new field of research. So far, sorghum breeders had been looking for landraces with a low hydrocyanide content. This innovation opens up the opportunity for selecting high hydrocya-nide content sorghum lines. If this technology works in different parts of the world, dry farmers may very well grow a small patch of such sorghum for pest control purposes.
Old methods, new materials and new products or uses :Some innova-tive farmers have used a drip of castor oil (a tin box with a wick hanging over an irrigation channel). The oil drips into the water and spreads into the soil, adding luster to the banana crop. This drip is also used in other crops for soil-based pest control.
Examples for other combinations are listed in the table below. What these examples show is that farmers can be extremely crea-tive in solving local problems. But the issue is whether their knowledge systems can be blended with formal scientific research. One block may possibly be the tension between the farmers’ inter-est in solving the problem and the scientists’ interest in devel-oping a new theory. For instance, a farmer, Khodidasbhai, after reading about three different practices for controlling a pest in a local version of Honey Bee, used all three on the same crop, in the same season, but sequentially. It is quite possible that scientists would not attempt such an experiment in order to avoid a complicated design with confusing results. Learning to break old rules, which formal training does not easily permit, can be a useful purpose of participatory research.
Process Product Purpose Example
Old Old Old Virda
Old Old New Inter-cropping with ar har dal to protect Maize from frost
New Old Old Virda with lateral pipes
New Old New C V Raju’s tree-based dyes
Old New Old Uplenchwar’s herbicide
Old New New Drip of castor oil to add lustre to the banana crop
New New Old Mansukhbhai’s cotton stripper
New New New Amrutbhai’s Auruni
1.3 The Threats to Local Knowledge: The Case of Honey Bee Network
Erosion of knowledge is as much, if not more serious prob-lem than the erosion of natural resources. We can probably re-verse the declining productivity of natural resources like soil through watershed projects or other resource conservation strate-gies. However, erosion of knowledge can not be easily reversed once lost. The regeneration of resources and knowledge associated with these resources have to be seen in a single as well as multiple generation framework (Gupta, 1990, 1992, 1996, Gupta et al , 1994).
Consider first the single generation situation. The ideal sus-tainable situation occurs when both resources and knowledge have been conserved, but what happens when one or the other is eroded.
When the resources are conserved and the knowledge is eroded (as in the case of state-controlled conservation of resources through parks or sanctuaries keeping people out of the resource), the sustainability of the system becomes endangered. If knowl-edge is eroded, the erosion of resource can’t be far behind.
When the knowledge is conserved but the resources are eroded, the sustainability of the system is more likely if local knowledge is incorporated in strategies of regeneration. The knowledge will also be eroded, however, if it is not used.
The least sustainable single generation situation occurs when both the resources and the knowledge become eroded. The folk knowledge once eroded may be almost impossible to reconstruct or rejuvenate. Erosion of knowledge was never so rapid as in our generation because of declining inter-generational communication.
As bleak as the single generational picture is, consider now, the multi-generational situation. Again, the ideal situation occurs when both knowledge and resources have been conserved.
The situation where knowledge has eroded and resources have been conserved is not a likely scenario. This is so because a re- source cannot be sustained over generation without drawing upon local knowledge at all. Under conditions of no human interven-tion or access, certain resources like forests may be conserved over generations without incorporating local knowledge. But with the increasing influence of human-made factors on the survivabil-ity of forests through acid rains, global warming, and erosion of upper catchments etc., as well as increasing population pres-sures, we doubt such a situation could occur.
The case of erosion of resources and the conservation of knowl-edge over several generations leads to a possibility of sustain- ability if knowledge has been documented through efforts like the Honey Bee network and is available to people, regeneration of resources is possible within a long time frame.
The worst case of all occurs when both knowledge and resources have become eroded over several generations. Only rare reposi-tories of knowledge may exist among some bypassed communities.
Whether the analysis is performed in a single or multiple genera-tional setting, the key is the same. The conservation of knowl-edge is as important as the conservation of resources, if not more so. Thus, any system of conservation should be directed not only at rewarding communities for the conservation of resources, but also at rewarding them for the valuable knowledge they hold, create and recreate.
In the context of the biologically rich, low-mean/high-variabili-ty income areas discussed earlier, emphasis is placed on provid-ing short-term relief, employment, and other means of subsistence in high-risk environments in order to alleviate poverty. The economic stress on the community erodes their self-respect and dignity. The will of the people to struggle and innovate gets subdued. Both the resource and, the knowledge around this re- source get eroded.
1.4 The Case of Honey Bee
In order to stem knowledge and resource erosion, the Honey Bee network, a global voluntary initiative was launched nine years ago. Its purpose is to network the people and the activists engaged in eco-restoration and reconstruction of knowledge about precious ecological, technological, and institutional systems used by other people.
This network aims at identifying the innovators (individuals or groups) who have tried to break out of existing technological and institutional constraints through their own imagination and effort. What is remarkable about these innovations is the fact that most of these require very low external inputs, are extreme-ly eco-friendly and improve productivity at very low cost.
It is necessary to note here that organizations of creative people, which take the form of networks or informal cooperatives or just loose associations, would generate a very different kind of pressure on society for sustainable development. The spirit of excellence, critical peer group appraisal, competitiveness and entrepreneurship so vital for self-reliant development, may emerge only in the networks of local ‘experts’, innovators and experimenters. It is true that every farmer or artisan does experiment. But not every one is equally creative and not in the same resource-related fields. The transition of the developmen-tal paradigm from ‘people as victim’s perspective to that of the people as potential victor’s is the answer. Former may generate patronizing and externally driven initiatives where as latter may spur endogenous initiatives by people themselves.
Honey Bee network newsletter is brought out in seven languages in India (English, Hindi, Gujarati, Kannada, Tamil, Punjabi and Telugu) and Dzonkha in Bhutan so that dialogue with the people takes place in their own language. The creative people of one place should be able to communicate with similar people elsewhere to trigger mutual imagination and fertilize respective recipes for sustain- able natural resource management. The Honey Bee network is head- quartered at SRISTI (Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions c/o Prof Anil K Gupta, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad),an autonomous NGO.
It is realized that the technological innovations cannot survive without institutional innovations and support structures. Hence we have been documenting the ecological institutions which have been evolved by the people to manage knowledge and resources as common property.
Honey Bee insists that two principles are followed without fail: one) whatever we learn from people must be shared with them in their language, and two) every innovation must be sourced to individuals/communities with name and address to protect their intellectual property rights.
It is possible to take the current global debate on biodiversity and peasant knowledge beyond rhetoric. Our network extends into 75 countries at present. Some of the colleagues have started similar documentation in their respective regions. Offers have been received from Nepal, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Paraguay and Mali for local language versions.
Honey Bee also appeals to fellow researchers, activists and plan-ners in other developing countries to identify native wisdom both to inspire and also to provoke the young minds to explore. In every country a very strong oral tradition of knowledge genera-tion, validation, scrutiny and diffusion exists. Honeybee strongly believes that boundaries between formal and informal knowledge systems may often be false. The informal system may have formal rules waiting to be discovered. The formal system may have informal beliefs, accidents, or conjectures providing impetus for further inquiry.
Honey Bee has already collected more than five thousand innova-tive practices predominantly from dry regions to prove that disadvantaged people may lack financial and economic resources, but are very rich in knowledge resource. That is the reason we consider the term ‘resource poor farmer’ as one of the most inappropriate and demeaning contributions from the West. If knowledge is a resource and if some people are rich in this knowledge, why should they be called resource poor? At the same time, we realize that the market may not be pricing peoples’ knowledge properly today. It should be remembered that out of 114 plant derived drugs, more than 70 per cent are used for the same purpose for which the native people discovered their use (Farns-worth, 1988). This proves that basic research linking cause and effect had been done successfully by the people in majority of the cases. Modern science and technology could supplement the efforts of the people, improve the efficiency of the extraction of the active ingredient or synthesize analog of the same, there- by improving effectiveness (Gupta, 1991).
The scope for linking scientific search by the scientists and the farmers is enormous. We are beginning to realize that peoples’ knowledge system need not always be considered informal just because the rules of the formal system fail to explain innova-tions in another system. The soil classification system devel-oped by the people is far more complex and comprehensive than the USDA soil classification systems. Likewise, the hazards of pesticides residues and associated adverse effects on the human as well as entire ecological system are well known. In the second issue of Honeybee out of ninety four practices thirty four dealt with indigenous low external input ways of plant protection. Some of these practices could extend the frontiers of science. For instance, some farmers cut thirty to forty days old sorghum plants or Calotropis plants and put these in the irrigation channel so as to control or minimize termite attack in light dry soils. Perhaps hydrocyanide present in sorghum and similar other toxic elements in Calotropis contributed towards this effect.
Honeybee in that sense is an effort to mould markets of ideas and innovations but in favor of sustainable development of high risk environments. The key objectives of SRISTI thus are to strengthen the capacity of grassroots level innovators and inventors engaged in conserving biodiversity to (a) protect their intellectual property rights, (b) experiment to add value to their knowledge (c) evolve entrepreneurial ability to generate returns from this knowledge and (d) enrich their cultural and institutional basis of dealing with nature.
Of course no long term change in the field of sustainable natural resource management can be achieved if the local children do not develop values and a world view which is in line with the sus-tainable life style. Thus education programs and activities are essential to perpetuating reform. That is also the reason why we have organised biodiversity contests among school children to identify little eco-genius.
2.0 Institution Building in Watershed Management Projects
Sustainability of some of the traditional soil and water conser-vation structures in many mountain regions, dry regions and other areas has come under stress in recent times. And yet, there are few contemporary institutional models that have survived one generation without any decline in the quality of leadership or management of resource. Many of the traditional institutions have worked successfully for several generations and through small innovations - or improvements from time to time in technol-ogy as well as institutional processes. Many of the modern projects seem to be designed for failure after the project man-agement team withdraws from the scene. How do we avoid spawning failure and ensure not just success but a sustainable success in watershed project is the purpose of this note.
Our contention is that there are time tested processes of insti-tution building which somehow have never received adequate atten-tion in watershed projects. The results are obvious. Extremely good and effective watershed projects have faltered when external interventions or incentives are withdrawn as if people were implementing somebody else’s project. In some cases when pro-jects have indeed sustained their effectiveness, the cost at which the success has been achieved has been ignored. In still other cases, the innovations in the process underlying the suc-cesses have never diffused even to the neighboring villages. This evidence puts the question mark on the very strategy of establishing demonstration watershed projects. Nobody ever expected in the canal irrigated regions that after looking at the advantages of canal irrigation, farmers will on their own design and manage secondary and tertiary irrigation channels (Gupta, 1996). And yet, in watershed projects such an assumption is made despite considerable evidence to the contrary. This paper there-fore also suggests the limits of institution building process and need for complementarity between internal and external incentives for managing watersheds in stressed environments.
2.1 How do Institutions Evolve?
About eight years ago in an action research project in dry-land regions of Karnataka, we asked a question in a village meeting, “What were the activities which villagers have done collectively without any outside help?” The answers were very instructive as expected. Different villagers had a strong tradition of collec-tive action in religious, cultural and socio-economic fields. In one village, the people had organised a rotating saving and credit association. The discount money from the chits was not distributed as dividend. This was used to build temple and buy necessities for the local primary school. In many other villages people have managed common breeding bull, a tank, common land for compost pits, common drainage, temples, etc. And yet, when we design watershed projects, we never look into the processes and the dynamics of these existing institutions.
2.2 Grafting and not just Crafting Institutions
There is a considerable research done on crafting institutions (Ostrom, 1992). And very little on ‘grafting’ institutions. Whenever we initiate a collective institution in any village we obviously don’t begin in vacuum. There is a history of people working and not working together and watershed project has to deal with this history explicitly. The so-called participatory technique by missing the issue have failed in generating an organic fusion or blend between traditional and modern institu-tions. Fifteen years ago we came across an interesting example of this fusion in a village in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra. In a dry land village, people had planned planting of tree seedlings on an auspicious day as a part of watershed project. They wanted to carry the seedlings in a cradle, normally used for carrying idol of the local deity on religious festivals. Important dignitaries had been invited next day for the function. However, during the previous night when discussions were going on in the temple premises about the arrangements, somebody raised the issue of impurity of soil and thus impossibility of using the cradle meant for deities for this purpose. Everybody was per-plexed. They did not know what to do in the available time. A carpenter’s son belonging to lower cast was standing at the gate of the temple and listened to this question. Being a person of lower caste, he was not allowed to participate in the discus-sions. However, he pleaded with the people to be given a chance to solve the problem. He knew of a cradle lying in somebody’s house unused. This cradle originally meant for the children was in a bad shape. However, he could repair it during the night and thereby make it available before the function so that people could carry the seedlings in this cradle in a procession without changing any programme. Everybody liked the idea and accordingly an excellent function was held and tree seedlings were planted. Such a fusion sometimes takes place serendipitously. But can it also be planned?
2.3 Fusion of cultural and modern institutions
Sometimes grafting of tradition and modern cultural and institu-tional values can be planned. In Gujarat, a very large scale movement of water recharge has been triggered by Swadhyaya Move-ment, building upon people’s cultural and religious values with-out any injection of external resources. In many traditional situations, the place of origin of a natural spring or a stream in mountain areas is considered a sacred site and sometimes would have temple to signify it. There was an interesting case in Bhutan which went to the court on the ground of violation of sacred space. A farmer had cut a tree from a sacred space from the upper reaches of a stream. When people protested, he did not confess his fault or do anything to atone for the mistake. Even-tually, the case went to the higher court where the judge held the offender guilty and asked him to plant trees as a part of the punishment in the sacred space and take care of them regularly till the trees were established. Incorporating respect for such institutions in modern jurisprudence may help in recognising that sustainability without involvement of the spirit was not possible in the long term. The functional attributes of a technology was not sufficient to generate the kind of respect that is called for in an inter-generational time frame.
2.4 Inter-locking of Resource Management Institutions
Institutions seldom evolve in isolation. Link across resource and property regimes evolve to generate cross sectoral incentives for sustainability of institutions. During our recent visit to Himalayas, we came across an excellent institution in Belehra, a remote village in the Kangra district of Himachal Pradesh. Way back in 1954, the then Punjab government offered the villagers usufruct rights of grass on a 80 acre degraded forest land in order to provide them with regular supplies of grass for their livestock. However, the government insisted that the farmers would have to generate the necessary funds to regenerate the degraded land and also maintain it. The farmers agreed and on the advice of the government, they pooled one tenth of their individ-ual land holdings and formed a joint farming society. They decid-ed that the land pooled would be cultivated collectively and the revenues thus generated will be used to regenerate the degraded forest land as well as manage it. The forest land was thus regen-erated and the fodder from the forest distributed among the farmers. The surplus funds are deposited in the name of the joint farming society and are spent on common facilities such as school, a dam on a nearby stream, guest house etc. Unless a farmer participates in the joint farming of the land, he is not allowed to claim a share in the grass from the forest land. Grass is an important resource for the livestock during dry seasons and a farmer cannot afford to lose his share. The institution is particularly interesting because of the inter-locking arrangement between two resource management systems actually contributing to its sustainability. Thus fusion between two or more institutions can generate generalized reciprocities (Gupta, 1995) among the communities- a step considered necessary for generating coopera-tion among heterogeneous communities.
2.5 Portfolio of Institutions across property right regimes
The institution building process also involves recognising the boundaries of the common properties and the relationship between common, public and private properties within and outside the watershed areas. During 1988, first author was invited by the state planning board to look at the dry land development program-mes of the state. During the visit to Mittmerri watershed in a dry-land region, it was noted that several farmers had experi-enced increase in the water table in their private wells in the downstream of a water storage structure. This was to be expect-ed. The project design and management structure, however, did not discuss how would the gains from the rise in water table to private individuals be shared with the community. The gains were obviously not a consequence of the contribution by well owners alone. Large number of non-well owning dry farmers and land less pastoralists had also contributed to the conservation of the catchment area by not grazing their animals. The benefits were restricted to only a few. In the same watershed several second generation problems of maintenance of water ways, weirs and spill ways had arisen. The common fund that did exist did not require contribution from such individual well owning beneficiaries and therefore was limited in its scope.
Let us extend the same example to look at how resource utiliza-tion is affected by the technology used vis-a-vis the change in property right regimes. In one of the watershed projects in Andhra Pradesh, an open tank was converted into a percolation tank in order to increase water table level. But the result in the next few years was exactly contrary to the expectations, a drastic fall in the overall ground water table level was experi-enced. The reason being that, once the level in the private wells began raising due to the recharging of the ground water, farmers started over-extracting water from the wells. In other words, once the regime under which the control of access to water shift-ed from a common property in a tank to a private property in a private well, the sustainability of the resource itself was at stake.
There are many cases where we have looked at the issues in management of common property right regimes with the framework of commons ignoring the interface of such regimes with private and public resources (Gupta, 1985, 1990).
2.6 Organizing inequity
A successful project can come under stress by neglecting the component of institution building processes across social class-es. The implication for the project designers is to recognize that in any collective project everybody cannot gain equally in every subset of the project. By using portfolio approach, inter-locking of the institutions and inter-sectoral incentives could be so designed that unequal distribution of resources in each sector could generate equitable distribution at the portfolio level. Organizing inequity at the sectoral level may thus be a key to organize equity at the portfolio level. Those who depend upon grazing alone should get a higher share of the biomass from the common land so that those who get the benefit of water table in the private well lose in some resource market just as they gain in the water market. Likewise, those who gain substantially should make larger contribution to the common fund in such a way that maintenance of common structures and activities can take place regularly. Such possibility of organizing equity / inequity may require the inter-locking of institutions across resource regimes.
2.7 Augmenting voluntary spirit
In large number of hill areas, particularly in the Himalayan region, ranging from Hunza region in Pakistan to Kashmir, Hima-chal Pradesh, UP, Sikkim, Bhutan and some part of North-east India, there is a long standing tradition of voluntary labour, partly obligatory and partly paid for maintenance of irrigation streams called kuhls, guhls or nalas. Every household is sup-posed to send one or two members depending upon the need for cleaning the channel and repairing it before the on-set of rains. The decisions to distribute the water and also to deal with any violations are also taken collectively. Similarly, during the contingency of any land slide or a breach there are well estab-lished norms for contributory labour to repair the structures (Gupta and Ura, 1992). The concept of people’s participation in many watershed projects and national policies ignore the subtlety of local arrangements. Disregarding the local endowments and needs in a given terrain, uniform principles are applied across different socio-ecological regions. There are instances of extreme distorted interpretation of participation. For instance, the statistics of the number of women working as paid labour have been used to show high participation of women (Chokkakula, 1997). The extent to which they participated in decision making and generating agenda for the project was totally ignored.
On the other hand, an interesting dilemma arose in a watershed programme in dry regions of Gujarat when one of the participating NGOs wanted to change norms of people’s participation. Premjibhai who had planted through his own resources more than 400 tones of tree seeds in different parts of the state during last ten years (Chokkakula, 1997) took up the implementation of watershed programme near his village. However, he devised his own norms and rules. He would ask a farmer who wanted to participate in the programme as to how much cost he or she could bear through one’s own resources. He would offer to provide only the gap, which would rarely be more than 60 per cent of the cost. Thus as against only ten or fifteen per cent contribution required under the government norms, he managed with as much as 40 per cent contribution from the people. He also changed the parameters of the programme and focussed on only a few anchor activities in-stead of focussing on all the components of the watersheds. The result was that other NG0s and government institutions wanted to exclude Premjibhai from the watershed team and the programme. This is not an isolated example. Public policy does not put premium on either innovation or flexibility in the way programmes are implemented by different people in different regions.
Kerr et al (1996) discusses in detail how high subsidies and incentives undermine the success of a watershed project. People’s interest in receiving subsidies can lead to many unintended consequences. They also suggest that the subsidies or incentives are desirable to be directed more towards group of families rather than individual families. Such interventions directed towards common benefits may not only improve the effectiveness of the subsidies but also generate incentives for collective action. In this context, the experience of Premjibhai’s is illustrative if we want the structures to be maintained once the external agency withdraws from the project. Another implication for institution building process thus is explicit reliance on volun-tarism in any watershed project and attention to variability in the process and structure and norms.
2.8 Physical and institutional boundaries: Should they be same?
In many watershed projects, the implementing agencies focus on only the farmers within the watershed boundary even for those technologies, which would show results -may not be as spectacular -in non-watershed areas. For instance, a new variety of oil seed or a cereal might show better performance if all the watershed principles are followed, but might not do very badly in the absence of these measures provided the existing level of resource degradation was not very high. In such a case, to generate good will and demand for comprehensive treatments through one’s own resources, diffusion of such a variety among non-watershed pro-ject farmers may be quite appropriate. If there was no dif-ference, the project would founder. And if there was, the farm-ers outside the watershed area might also either demand watershed project in their micro catchment or take measures to organize it on their own. The implication is that deliberate design of controls that help people to compare and contrast various compon-ents and their efficacy might be an useful spur for the watershed projects.
In fact, very few watershed projects actually take into account the presence of individuals other than farmers who might depend indirectly on the natural resources in that area. Particularly in the case of landless labourers. Hinchcliffe et al (1995:11) observed, “The landless tend to be marginalised in watershed programmes since the major thrust of investments is on land. Although, the landless do get work and income during implementa-tion period, this is not necessarily sustained”. This is also the case with artisans and other groups of families relying on common property resources for their livelihood even from out side the watershed boundaries or even the village. It is possible that all these families may be interacting with those identified members of watershed with regards to other institutions and networks in a village system. Such differences in appropriation of funds to specific groups may cause tensions and deteriorate the process of institutions building. To a large extent, this may be avoided if the agenda for a watershed project is built in consultation with all sections of the people in and around the watershed during the planning stage itself. That may give rise to multi-functional institutions instead of single purpose institu-tions. This realization is dawning on many women’s saving and credit groups organized in watershed projects.
Similarly, the inter-linkage between the uncultivated common lands or public lands and the cultivated lands is also ignored. Deshpande and Nikumbh (1993:11) observed that “the failure of inter-dependence between commons and cultivated lands, between owners of forest pastures and consumer and the dominant role of `time productivity’ under the pressure of poverty have created conditions leading to failure of certain village institutions”. In a comparative study of four watershed projects involving uncultivated lands, they also concluded that caring of unculti-vated lands and degraded forests in some watershed projects have strengthened other institutions.
2.9 Sequential synergism
Unfortunately, in most projects the emphasis has been on physical structures. The concept of ‘sequential synergism’ (Gupta, 1980) has not received adequate attention. This concept implies that the same components in different sequence may have different kinds of synergy in different regions. In some areas, one might begin with livestock, in another area with water recharge wells and in still another area with ridge basin treatment. Without violating the sanctity of watershed project, one can devise different entry points at different sequences except soil conser-vation where ridge basin sequence cannot be changed. Implication is to recognize that motivation for participation cannot be generated by focussing on the same resource in every region. Depending upon what is the source of maximum stress, the appro-priate intervention will have to be devised. If drinking water is the problem,then without waiting for all the investments that improve the recharge or harvesting of water, steps would have to be taken to improve storage facility for available water and simultaneously initiating efforts for long term sustainability. Otherwise, the poor people might even migrate out by the time watershed project is completed or in other cases might contract loans in informal credit market such that all the gains from the enhanced productivity ,if at all ,would be liquidated by the interest burden of accumulated debts.
It has been the experience of several agencies that the farmers become receptive to the watershed development projects when their immediate needs and problems are addressed in the initial stages (Fernandez, 1993 quoted in Kerr et al, 1996). Instead of re-stricting the interventions only to the framework of the wa-tershed project, if some flexibility is allowed and the best entry point could be identified by addressing the immediate problems in the watershed area, the chances of sustainability may be increased.
2.10 Skill based leadership
The variability in socio-ecological conditions requires the each watershed becomes a site of on farm research and builds upon local excellence in different sectors. Leadership based on skill is often qualitatively quite different from the leadership based on political connections, social influence, economic power or cultural coercive power. And yet, no guidelines for watershed project have ever required identifying and building upon local excellence. Variability in the design probably will not come about unless variability in the process and structure of leader-ship is brought about.
Building upon local knowledge and experimental ethic can be designed between watershed projects and thereby ensure sustain-ability of spirit, structures and social and ecological networks.
2.11 Internalizing externalities: How do institutions help?
Institutions help in internalizing the externalities and vice-versa in a watershed. For example, adoption of soil conservation measures by the farmers in the upstream may help the farmers in the downstream by reducing the sediments in the dams. On the other hand, if the upstream farmers do not adopt the soil conser-vation measures and the downstream farmers attempt to build vegetative barriers on the upstream lands, it may be seen as an attempt to encroach on their lands. Arrangements for benefit sharing and resource allocation through institutions may help in internalizing the externalities (Gupta and Prakash, 1993, Prakash and Gupta, 1997).
2.12 Replicability of institutions
A large literature exists on the indigenous knowledge systems related to social and cultural institutions for managing wide range of resources. The possibility of replicating the institu-tional arrangements in watershed development projects is a sub-ject worthy of separate research. While it is understood that the local institutions are extremely specific to local cultural and social values, the replicability can not be conceived without rigorous understanding of these institutions. Though, the repli-cability may be restricted to the principles learnt from an institution rather than just the structures. Sengupta (1985) narrates his experiences while doing a detailed case study of ahar-pyne irrigation system in Bihar. Ahar-pyne-ayacut is the hierarchy of the irrigation system, ayacut being the lowest level which feeds fields with water through distributaries to small plots owned by as many as sixty families. It was in the second stage of analysis that Sengupta was struck with the evidence about actual incentive for generating equitable distribution arrangements among the families. The total landholdings under each ayacut are fragmented and each family owns plots at the head, middle and at the tail of the ayacut. Thus all the fa-milies are interested in water in all parts of the ayacut. At the same time, every family can have some amount of water in case of limited availability of water in the ayacut.
In different regions, excellence of varying kind exists without which survival would not be possible. Blending culture with environment and technology with institutions, viable models have evolved both in traditional and a few contemporary institutions. Technology has been considered like words whereas institutions have been conceptualised as grammar (Gupta, 1992). One could not organize words without grammar but grammar alone cannot create the message without words. This part aims at merely widening the thesaurus and dictionary of such ‘words’ which can enable insti-tution builders to exercise a wide range of choices.
2.13 Institutional and Technological Cycles
Technological constraints can be precursors of institutional innovation and vice versa. In fact the process may even be cyclical, with an institutional constraint providing a spur for technological solutions, which in turn lead to an institutional innovation. Sometimes, both technological and institutional change may take place simultaneously. It has been argued that technology may be likened to words and institution to grammar (Gupta, 1991d). We cannot make much sense of one without the other. In the literature on participatory watershed development, the interface of institutions with the process of technology generation or adaptation has not been adequately addressed. Therefore, we will provide illustrations from the Honey Bee database in order to strengthen the case for modifying the framework for participatory watershed development (Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1. Technological triggers of institutional innovations
No. Problem Technological need Institutional innovation
1
Pasture degradation due to trampling of grasses and grazing of seedlings by small ruminants Either grasses should withstand trampling or they should regenerate in spite of damage In Takuva village of Gujarat, farmers persuaded sheep and goat owners not to graze their animals for two months after rains when grass/ seedlings are tender
2 Locust attacks Use insecticide, antifeedant or repellent to minimize damage Farmers beat drums or bang vessels collectively to prevent locusts from settling on their fields
3 Silting of ponds Mechanical desilting or catchment treatment Collective action through religious or other motivation to manually desilt ponds (Saurashtra and Golden Temple)
4 Salinisation of soil in Gujarat Soil reclamation and drainage Pooling of private fields and agro-forestry with salt-tolerant species
5 Red rot of sugarcane and sorghum Control of fungal spores in the crop residue Burning of residues on a particular day in all the fields
6 Foot and mouth disease in cattle Develop effective control agents Quarantining diseased animals; separate grazing and watering
7 Pasture degradation due to excess grazing Grasses should regenerate under any amount of stress (i) Kuhlwalas, a group of farmers elected to maintain irrigation channels guard the grazing land and dont allow any grazing in the restricted periods
(ii) People shift upwards or downwards in the hills and thus change the pasture patches
8 Conserve seed diversity Exchange of seeds among
farmers to prevent same seed being grown on the same plot every year for possible disease build up Farmers in Madhya Pradesh have a cultural practice where, they bring handful of varieties of seeds and submit to a deity before sowing season. The priest exchanges these seeds among them and give them back. The farmers are supposed to begin their sowing operations only with those seeds.
9 Collective needs of irrigation water and other facilities Construction of check dams and divert water from stream Revenues from cooperative farming society were used to construct the check dam
10 Irrigation water supply Construction and maintenance of irrigation channels (i) Rotation water supply for specific durations, monitoring through peer pressure
(ii) Rotational water supply, but monitored by a group of members elected as kuhlwale
11 Planting trees Plant trees or sow seeds Premjibhai mobilised students and rural youth to sow seeds and monitor plantations
12 Taking care of cows for grazing Individual households take their cows for grazing in the Gauchar land A care taker working under a committee takes care of the cows as well as the gauchara
Table 2. Institutional triggers of technological innovations
Institutional triggers of technological innovations
No. Problem Institutional need Technological innovation
1 Protection of crop from animals of migrating graziers Evolving agreements between pastoralists and farmers to respect respective boundaries Farmers treat seed of castor with butter milk which induces toxicity in leaves, requiring animals to be kept away
2 Protection of trees planted by individuals in common lands Community action for protection of seedlings from grazing animals A tree-planting entrepreneur devised machines to scatter seeds of tree species not touched by animals
3 Red rot disease of sorghum and sugarcane Non-cooperation of farmers for burning residues on a particular day Evolution of indigenous seed treatment for preventing disease
4 Fair distribution of water Difficulty in supervising each other’s withdrawal of ground water In the Zuni community, sticks are provided to every user who cuts a particular portion after every use so as to keep a record of water used
5 Pooling of bullocks becomes difficult How to generate incentives for pooling Development of single-bullock drawn farm equipment
6 Regular supply of grass for livestock in Belehra village Pool revenues for buying rights over forest land/ regenerate available degraded land A joint-farming society has been encouraged where farmers contribute one-tenth of their land-holdings. The pooled land is cultivated collectively and the revenues out of this land is used to regenarate the degraded land offered to grow grass for the village.
7 To make people responsible for large scale afforestation and protection Generate incentives and easy way of planting trees Premjibhai’s suggestions
(i) Sow seeds instead of planting saplings before monsoon
(ii) Spray seeds through a mechanical device
(iii) Specific choice of tree species’ seeds
8 To modify consumer preference for tree-based dyes and stem erosion of local skills to pool the efforts of the artisans to produce high quality products and reduce transaction costs C V Raju developed tree-based dyes capable of mixing with lacquer. Being eco-friendly, they fetched better prices
The cases presented in Tables 1 and 2 show that technology and institutions are interdependent and trigger changes in each other. The changes may be simultaneous or may follow a sequence. For instance, the failure of village institutions to protect crops from grazing animals led to the innovation of seed treatment with butter milk. This treatment, however, led to another institutional change, the development of a sanction against the innovator, since there was a risk of death of animals due to accidental browsing on the treated plants. Again this sanction may encourage innovative pastoralists to find out some way of identifying the treated crops. This sequence of constraints in one subsystem leading to innovation in another may continue till the limits of ingenuity are reached. The challenge is to determine whether one should adapt to a given technological constraint through an institutional innovation or evolve a technological solution to what may essentially be an institutional problem.
In many villages in North Gujarat, farmers had to give up commercial hybrid seed production because of the failure of institutional support for isolation from other farmers. In such cases of participatory technology development, we may need to emphasize the institutional requirements. The technological response to this problem can be the incorporation of the apomixis gene in hybrids so that they can be grown every year like a self-pollinated crop.
In participatory development processes there is generally a tendency to underestimate institutional problems and to invest more resources in solving technological problems. The watershed research program is a classic case of such a bias. Many natural scientists do not pay attention to institutional dynamics and the management of common property resources. Institutional analysis may require an understanding of boundary rules, resource allocation rules, governance rules, conflict resolution rules, and conflict resolution rules, which is usually not in the province of natural scientists. Sustainable pest management, management of ground water as well as surface water, are other areas which require group action (Gupta, 1985b; Gupta, 1992; Sinha et al., 1996).
A key factor in understanding institutional dynamics is uncovering the actual preferences vis-à-vis the articulated ones at the level of the individual as well as of the group. For instance, Sanghi and Rao (1982) and Sanghi (1987) tried to relax each of the constraints that farmers reported for not trying a dryland technology. When each constraint had been relaxed, and the technology was still not being tried, it became obvious that farmers were sceptical about the suitability of the technology. Sanghi and Rao (1982) provide a good example of how institutional dynamics can be facilitated by incorporating traditional knowledge in the technology development process. They found that sowing the crops with the pre-monsoon rains, as practiced by some farmers, ensured the efficient utilization of mineralized nitrogen, avoided pests like shoot fly and ear bug in sorghum, and ensured the timely sowing of subsequent crops. In summary, the understanding of the interaction between technology and institutions is an essential aspect of developing sustainable watershed management projects.
3.0 Knowledge-intensive approach to watershed management
Sustainable development has been defined as widening the range of choices for people and increasing the time frame (Gupta, 1981,1985,1995). In this part we argue for what we called ‘solution augmentation’ rather than ‘problem solving’ approach so that we increase the range of choices of solutions (Gupta et al 1996 CIAT). It implies that we augment and optimise the solutions generated by farmers on their own for similar problems instead of trying to solve the problem afresh ignoring earlier developed local solutions, even if sub optimal. In order to illustrate the approach, we use a hypothetical watershed and discuss the wide range of solutions that local knowledge systems offer for watershed treatment. We take the particular case of soil and water conservation and review local technologies from across the world.
Drop to Drain: Conserving Watersheds by People
Let us assume a typical watershed that extends from high mountains to the plains with all possible configurations of ecological parameters. We begin from the top with steep slopes and look at the variety of local technologies for soil and water conservation developed by people.
3.1 Innovations at system level
3.1.1 High altitudes (> 3500 m)
At the highest altitudes, where human habitation is found (above 3500 m), the household economy is dependent on livestock and communities are mobile pastoralists. There are examples of innovations where people (in Ethiopia, Economist, 1998) harvest frosty winds by putting up polythene barriers to harvest water for domestic consumption. These altitudes are prone to natural hazards.
There are several traditions among people to face or prevent these hazards through collective action. For example, there are specific norms in Bhutan among the pastoralists about their movement of livestock. As the cattle arrive from sub-tropical regions, the yak herds must be vacate the pastures at about 4000 feet height to avoid transmitting of diseases by cattle to the yaks and allow recovery of the grazed pastures to regenerate (Gupta and Ura, 1992).
In the highland plateus like the Ladakh region and Jammu, water from glaciers is diverted and collected in structures similar to tanks called zings (Agarwal and Narain 1997). The water from zings then is used for domestic and irrigation purposes.
3.1.2 High hill dry zone (2000 m - 3500 m)
In the high hill dry zone, there exists dispersed rainfed farming though the household economy primarily depends on the livestock. The soil and water conservation technologies available at these altitudes are not much diverse and narrow down to bench terraces (Refer 1.2). The steep slopes at these altitudes make it impossible for any temporary storage of water. The rainfed terraces are generally outward sloping. There is an interesting observation made by the Ives and Missal (1989) in their monumental work, “The Himalayan Dilemma” (see A.3). They quote a report by ADB (Asian Development Bank) which assess the outward sloping terraces by farmers as poorly constructed whereas the outward slopes are actually desirable to avoid landslides in this region.
3.1.3 Mid hills and high hill wet zones (650-2000 m)
Bench terraces are of two types as we move into the high hill wet zones and mid hills; (I) rainfed terraces and (ii) irrigated terraces. The irrigated terraces are fed by small streams or irrigation channels called ‘guhls’ or in some area, called as 'Kuhls'. It is interesting to note that the rainfed terraces continue to be outward sloping whereas the irrigated terraces are inward sloping. The reason may perhaps be that it is possible to control the inflow of water into the irrigated terraces and thus is possible to avoid any likely landslides. In the rainfed terraces, it may not possible because of the erratic and unexpected inflows of water.
Guhls or Kuhls are irrigation channels to carry water from sources like springs, glaciers for irrigation as well as domestic purposes. Guhls may be called the lifelines in the hill regions and are invariably found below 2000 m altitude. They may be found at higher altitudes also but when the slopes are comparatively mild. Guhls exhibit great variety in their form, structure and designs across the Hindukush mountain region. Accordingly, the institutions for protecting and managing them also vary. Religious customs and norms sometimes support these institutions.( Husain 1992; Chopra et al) The present compilation carries documentation of some such institutions at the community level (Refer Part II, H.1,H.2,H.3). Some illustrative examples of the kind of innovations by people in their design are also documented (Refer B.7 and section 4.). Variations in irrigation channel networks using locally available material also exists, for example, people use a network of bamboo pipes for diverting water from glaciers in the North-eastern parts of India (Agarwal and Narain 1997). Similar bamboo pipes are used for harvesting drinking water from small streams called jhurjhuris in Bangladesh (Bose et al 1998).
At lower altitudes in this zone, we find some diversified water harvesting structures. Bawri is a structure constructed around a spring to protect and divert water (Refer part II, B.1). Strong collective institutions still exist to keep them clean and sustain their yield. Khatri or Diggis are horizontal tunnels dug into the semi-weathered sediment rocks to harvest rainwater for domestic purposes (Refer B.2). Hoj or Hod is similar to Bawri but they are found in hill regions of Uttar Pradesh. Naulas are tracts yielding water from sandstone aquifer bodies for both domestic and irrigation purposes (Refer B.5). People collectively clean these structures periodically and maintain them. Water trapped in the sedimentary rocks is harvested through small wells called ‘Kua’ in the hill regions of Bangladesh (Bose et al 1998). The institutional arrangements for maintaining the guhls as well as other irrigation structures have evolved all along the high mountain region ranging from Hunza area of North Pakistan to Kashmir, Bhutan, Tibet etc. Obligatory labour has to be provided by households before the rainy season to remove debris, clean it and repair the breeches.
It will be interesting to note that structures similar to Khatri are found in the plains also using the same principle. Sorangas in Karnataka (Refer B.3) are found in the lateritic regions and tap the moisture trapped in the large sand depositions. A familiar version of such horizontal wells is qanat system found in Iran.
There are several contemporary innovations by individual farmers from which we can draw lessons for watershed management. A.3 provides such an example where, an artisan-farmer, Shaligram literally converted semi-weathered rocky hill into a fertile farm. He used several strategies in the process (Refer 1.3). Other soil conservation structures found in the lower elevations are bunds made of different materials like stones and sticks (Andrew 1987). In Bangladesh, the stick barriers for soil conservation are called Chikon Thok (Bose et al 1998).
3.1.4 Low hills and plains (< 650 m)
Towards low hills and plains, the variety of structures increases. Though the conditions are homogenous over fairly large areas, the soil profile and rainfall changes across regions. Innovations emerge to respond to these conditions specific to the region. They may be broadly classified as (I) storage structures and (ii) impounding structures
Storage structures
Most popular among the storage structures are the ponds or tanks. A rich diversity is their form can be seen in different regions of India. Large networks of tanks still provide irrigation to very large area in the Southern parts of India (Reddy, 1989). In Rajasthan, depending on their size, they are called 'naadi' or talab (not to be confused with the word nadi implying river). They invariably are associated with appropriate institutional arrangements for maintaining them. In Rajasthan, people consider the catchment (locally called ‘agar’) as sacred still religiously protect the catchment areas. Activities like defecation and dumping debris are strictly prohibited (Agarwal and Narain 1989). Every year before monsoon, cleaning catchment is practised as a collective ritual . Such functional rituals are a common feature in most marginal societies. Among the Andean peasant communities, ‘Journey to Hualca-Hualca’ is an annual event with an explicit purpose to clean the tributaries of the Hualca river (Gelles 1991).
Wells are another popular structure for harvesting and storing water. While they are wide spread in sub-humid and semi-arid regions, several innovative modifications of this form may be found in response to the location specific conditions as we move towards arid regions. In Rajasthan, Bawdi, Kundi and Tankas are case in point. While the Bawdi is a conventional well found to be on the downstream of a khadin (see Kolarkar ), the Kundi is an artificial storage structure with protective covering. Tanka is a storage structure of a different kind. It harvests rainwater falling on an artificial catchment prepared around it and stores it for scarcity periods (Vangani, Sharma and Chatterji 1988).
Impounding structures
Ahar-pyne system is a traditional irrigation system found in Bihar in the form of a network of channels followed by storage structures. Sengupta did exhaustive studies on the institutional aspects of the system. In one of these studies (1985) he explores the incentives for people for collective action. He finds that the farmers own lands at different parts of ayacut, such as at the head, middle and tail of the ayacut. And thus their need to receive water in all of their fields contributed to strong collective institutions for distribution of water.
Bandharas are found in the semi-arid Jabalpur tract of Madhya Pradesh. Water is impounded in the fields on all four sides till the sowing time approaches. Water is drained before sowing and no water is necessary later. Rabi crops are grown using the residual moisture in the heavy black soils. It is also believed that the technique prevents the growth of weeds (Pangare, 1992).
Khadins are another form of cultivation based on residual moisture and are important life-supporting farming systems in the arid parts of Rajasthan. Extensively practiced in Jaisalmer and Jodhpur districts, Khadins are formed by constructing barriers at the foothills to impound both water as well as silt being carried. Farming is done on the upstream side of the barrier tapping the residual moisture (Kolarkar, 1989, p.c.). An impervious layer of soil found about one to two meters below helps the moisture to be retained in the top layers (Chauhan, Personal Communication).
There are several practices among communities across the world that are based on the simple principle of impounding runoff temporarily so as to increase the moisture content in the soils. ‘Teras’ are earthen bunds found in arid plains of Sudan. The earthen bunds are constructed across the flow of runoff with perpendicular arms extending towards upstream. The basis, thus created harvest the water and supply moisture to the crops on the downstream (Reij 1991; Dijk 1993). Caag and Gawar systems in Africa also use earthen bunds of different shapes based on similar principle (Reij 1991).
Other structures
Many other indigenous soil and water conservation systems exists which are yet to be properly studied and understood. They offer variety of scientific principles which may not have been considered by the formal science yet to generate solutions. Some illustrative examples have been reviewed below.
Willcocks (1930) narrates what he calls, ‘Overflow Irrigation System’ extensively practiced in West Bengal. Though extinct, it offers some relevant insights. The channels used to be breached deliberately by people so as to let in the muddy waters into their fields along with rich silt. Willcocks argues that the system not only provided fertile silt but also helped in preventing malaria break out. The fish flowing in along with the water predated upon the mosquito larvae.
The ingenuity of people in generating solutions to cope with adverse conditions may be demonstrated using the case of virda. Virdas are found in the saline deserts of Gujarat and are the only source of drinking water. Virda is constructed on the beds of depressions and tanks where the rainwater stands for fairly long periods after the monsoon. The long standing water leaches out the salts in the soil around these depressions and thus the water trapped in the soil remains free of salts. Virda harvests this water. A further innovation that took place recently in these systems of virda proves the point that innovation is a tradition in these high-risk environments. Farmers in Banaskantha district of Gujarat and in some villages adjacent in Rajasthan elaborate these systems. The regions has a saline water layer below at a depth of about 20 -25 m from the ground. Farmers dig these wells up to this level and drill lateral holes through the walls just above the bottom of the virdas. These holes extending as long as 20 m tap the fresh water trapped in the layers above the saline water table (Chokkakula and Gupta 1995, Ferrouki, 1994).
3.2 Farm level innovations
Grassroots innovations at the farm level are abundantly rich. In the following discussion of farm based innovations, in addition to examples from literature and the current compilation, we draw upon two major sources. The first one is an annotated bibliography on peasant innovations (Gupta, Capoor and Shah 1990) and the other one is the Honey Bee database. We took some select practices of farmers whose innovations have been recorded in the Honey Bee database (Refer 1.4).
The available practices indicate the following strategies followed by the farmers towards the goals as shown.
Goal Strategies
Soil Conservation Physical barriers
Vegetative barriers
Trees or plants as stabilisers
Manual operations
Agronomic operations
Conditioning/ Improving micro climate of soil Inputs to improve specific properties of the soil
Plants/trees to improve microclimate conditions
Manual/Mechanical operations
Saline soil reclamation Treatment with plant and specific soil material
Manual/mechanical operations
Physical interaction of trees and plants
Treating degraded soils/ Improving fertility Application of materials like ash etc
Application of plant material
Interaction of animals
Inputs of organic manure
Agronomic operations
Indicators of fertility
Water/Moisture Conservation Agronomic operations
Microstructures
Manual/mechanical operations
Harvesting Manual/mechanical operations
3.2.1 Soil conservation
Physical barriers are the most commonly found soil conservation measures on the farm. The barriers in the form of bunds are made using different materials available locally. Several forms of these are found all over India. Farmers in Burkina Faso use stone bunds for conserving soil (Reij 1986). In Sierra Leone, sticks along with stones are used in constructing bunds for preventing soil erosion (Andrew 1987). Farmers of Bantika build dikes surrounding the paddy fields in order to reduce the possibility of water erosion (Na-lampang 1985). In Dogon Plateau, farmers build terrace fields using stone bunds on all four sides so that the soil and moisture can be augmented for cultivation (Kossogne and Dolo1990). ‘Kana bundi’ (refer A.1) in Rajasthan are constructed at right angles to the direction of wind using the crop residue and soil in layers.
Vegetation as physical barriers is another form of local innovations for soil conservation. Farmers in Karnataka were reported to have been using Vetiver zizaniodes grass for centuries for controlling soil erosion (Subramanya and Shastry 1989). Similarly some farmers in Mancion Dominican Republic have also been growing the Vetiver grass primarily for controlling soil erosion and only secondarily for fodder purposes (Blomer 1989). In the Northern Thailand, farmers grow bamboo on the banks of irrigation ponds to reduce silt-inflow into the ponds (Marten and Vityakan 1986)
Trees could be important agents of stabilising soil. Most famous example where the trees are used as stabilisers is the shifting cultivation practiced in many mountain regions like North-Eastern parts of India and parts of West Africa (Richards 1985). It is observed that large trees are deliberately left without removing the stumps and roots in order to keep the soil intact. A similar practice, jhum cultivation is found in the North-eastern parts of India (Agarwal and Narain 1997; Ramakrishnan 1992). A farmer in Gen Nakar (Dominican Republic) noted that the pilinut trees grown on the river beds prevent soil erosion and bamboo to stabilise the soil in highlands (Blomer 1989). Bamboo’s dense roots help to hold the soil and are grown to prevent down slope movement in many upland regions of South-east Asia (Marten and Vityakan 1986). In the eastern hills of Nepal, while planning for farmland tree fodder resources, farmers consider various attributes of tress; height, leaf area density, size to predict the impact on crops as these directly influence the splash erosion and shade. For example, trees with long leaves are considered detrimental as the large drops from the leaves lead to severe splash erosion resulting in crop lodging (Thapa, Sinclair and Walker ????).
Farmers carry out some farming operations exclusively to conserve soil. Sanghi (1987) observes that farmers in Andhra Pradesh leave the furrows open after the sowing operation in castor crop and make new furrows during the inter-culturing operations in order to prevent wind erosion.
Some farmers in humid regions prefer planting sugar cane in individual pits instead of furrows in order to bear the stress of high floods (Abedin and Haque 1987). In the Andean mountains, farmers use vertical furrows to drain soils and thus prevent landslides (Rhoades 1988).
There are certain agronomic based strategies farmers use to bear stress of high floods in the humid regions and thus reduce water erosion by water. Farmers of Bantika in Thailand sow floating varieties of paddy in the fields at the lowest level (Na-lampang 1985). Farmers in Philippines practice combined farming of banana and cassava in order to control erosion and weeds (Lightfoot 1995).
3.2.2 Soil conditioning
There are several innovations for conditioning the soil and to improve the properties of soil. The most primary of them is mulching using crop residues and other plant material available in the surroundings. While this is a common practice in India, Reij (1986) reports that the farmers in West Bengal and Bangladesh use crop residues, dry grasses, water hyacinth and other plant material for mulching. In Tanzania, farmers use banana leaves, grass, straw, chopped maize stalks, pruning remains weeded grass, sisal waste, coffee pulp etc for mulching (Kees 1987). A widely practiced method to improve soil properties is by burning the crop residues/ stems in the field. It helps in improving soil properties and particularly adds phosphates. The method is more prevalent in semi-arid regions and uplands (Msumali 1987; Richards 1986). This process achieves other goals also. Burning is a faster and efficient way of clearing the fields and destroying insect-pests and weeds.
In many parts, trees are grown specifically with the purpose of opening up soil and help drain salts. An added advantage of having trees in and around the field is the leaf litter used as mulch in the soil. In Burkina Faso, farmers grow Acacia albida trees for this purpose (Reij 1986). In West Africa, farmers grow locust bean trees (Bayer-waters 1988). Tuber crops like sweet potato are specifically grown to improve soil aeration. Their roots swell and shatter the soil below (Randhawa 1983). In Andhra Pradesh, farmers sow one or two castor seeds along with the pearl millet and finger millet seeds in the regions of alfisols. Seeds of the millet seeds have weak plumule and cannot break the soil. The castor seed plumules are strong and make way for the millet seed to germinate. The castor is removed after germination (HB ??).
Agricultural operations for improving soil conditions include improving soil texture by mixing soil from other sources. Farmers in Tanzania use soil dug from pits and spread over on the neighbouring soil after it has been covered with grass (Kees 1987). One of the strategies that Shaligram used while making soil is to mix fertile soil (Refer 1.3) from other farms with the clods dug out of the semi-weathered rock. In Saurashtra region of Gujarat, farmers mix `tas’ that is semi weathered rock material from river beds or some other such locations rich in nutrients.
3.2.3 Treatment of degraded soils and improving soil fertility
Degradation of soils is a common problem in high-risk environments. Consequently, innovations for treatment of soils are also diverse and rich. Most elementary of them is to add materials that provide deficient inputs to the soil. Umarabhai Rasulbhai Gandhi of Bharuch district applies ash in the onion fields before sowing to improve the quality of soil. He says that the soils improve over time. And he believes that he gets better bulbs of onions by using this treatment. Lakhmanbhai Khimjibhai of arid part of Surendranagar in Gujarat too believes the same and suggests that the ash is useful for growing other tuber crops like carrot and potato also. Ambavibhai Gokalbhai of Kutch district mixes clay clods from pond in his village to prepare his land. Farm yard manure (FYM) is a common input to improve soil fertility and increase its water holding capacity.
Plant and its derived material is used extensively to improve soil fertility. Farmers in arid parts of Mehsana district in Gujarat use castor cakes to control termite population (Jethabhai Karshanbhai Baraiya 1991). In Panchmahal district of Gujarat, turmeric and ginger are grown in winter and require fertile and well drained soils, Farmers spread leaves and twigs of ‘mahuda’ (Madhuca indica) over the field and burn them. The field is then tilled and irrigated before sowing. Recently farmers began to use ‘khakra’ (Butea monosperma) leaves also along with ‘mahuda’ (Manilal Sartanbhai Damor). Farmers of Banaskantha district spread the leaves and branches of khakra over the entire field and set fire before the onset of monsoon. Farmers believe that this helps to improve the water holding capacity of the soil. In some parts of South east Asia, degraded soils and soils with low moisture content are cultivated with trees such as ‘turi’ (Sesbania grandiflora), ‘petai cina’ (Leucaena lecocephala) or other leguminous plants to restore soil fertility (Marten and Vityakan 1986)
Some farmers use local weeds to improve the soil fertility. ‘Fatlo’ is such a weed that grows vigorously in Surat district. Farmers broadcast the fatlo seed on fallow land. It takes about two months for it to reach to a height of four to five feet. It is then incorporated into the field as green manure (Ramubhai Khetiyabhai Gamit, ??). Similarly ‘Kuvad’ (Cassia tora ) is considered as a green manure crop in the Sabarkantha district. Farmers broadcast its seeds before monsoon and about a month later, they incorporate into soil as a green manure (Rajesh B Parmar). Farmers in Valsad district use a locally available sea weed for improving soil. It is dried, grind and mixed with organic manure and is incorporated into the soil (Dhirubhai Bhimabhai Nayak, ?).
Inputs from animals is another mode of improving soil fertility. Penning is a wide spread practice in high lands and arid regions. The herders are paid in kind or cash, or provided refuge by the farmers to pen their sheep or goat in the fields. In some areas, farmers themselves pen their own sheep and goat in their fields (Samanbhai Dharambhai Dholakiya). Farmers in the coastal regions of Bhavnagar district apply salt and bones of sea fish around coconut tree and they believe that it facilitates well developed coconut trees and prevent fruit dropping (Jethabhai Karshanbhai Baraiya).
Manure is the most common mode of maintaining soil fertility. It is a common practice among farmers to use farm yard manure (FYM) every one or two years in their fields. It is believed that it improves the fertility, water holding capacity and also helps in maintaining the quality of the crop product. Several innovations were made in the process of preparing manure and sometimes, using different materials. The farmers in the irrigated areas of semi-arid Mehsana district, Gujarat believe that FYM increases termites particularly in Wheat and Mustard crop. Hence they use a mixture of FYM and castor cakes or grow castor crop before the sowing mustard or wheat crop. According to them castor can control termite population in the soil, due to the presence of a toxic alkaloid ‘Ricine’ (Jethabhai K Baraiya). Farmers in Surendranagar district of Gujarat apply the manure in a different way. They separate the well-decomposed dung of cattle from litter and mix with running water in the irrigation channel. Those with irrigation facility follow this practice for lucerne (Medicago sativa) crop. Farmers believe that the method helps in uniform growth of crop (Lakshmanbhai Khimjibhai).
Certain agronomic practices of farmers have an explicit purpose of increasing fertility. In Panchamahal district, farmers sow groundnut along with sorghum as an intercrop between the rows of sorghum. It is believed that the yield of sorghum increases (Ambalal Prahaladbhai Patel). The leaf drop from the groundnut acts as manure apart from fixation of nitrogen in the soil.
Indicators are an important feature of indigenous taxonomy to assess the fertility of soils all over the world. The indigenous knowledge related to it is as diverse as the ecological conditions. The observations include all those elements that interact with the soil directly or indirectly and farmereven have a scale in some cases. Farmers in Mehsana believe that weeds like ‘Gutari’ (Setaria tomentosa) grow better in light soil while ‘Dabhdo’ (Desmostachya bipinnata) and ‘Dhaman’ (Cenchrus spp) grow vigorously in fertile soil. And they believe that the paddy yields more where samo (Echinochloa colonum) grows naturally. Several researchers worked on the taxonomic aspects of indigenous knowledge systems related to soil. Several works have documented that the colour and taste are the general indicators of fertility (Chambers 1983; Ettema 1994). Ettema (1994) further notes that texture is first level of classification and is also more functional in nature.
3.2.4 Saline soil reclamation
Farmers in Gujarat treat the saline soils with castor pods (Arjunbhai Popatbhai Bharadiya) and cotton shells (Ambhavibhai Gokalbhai Dubariya) . Farmers in humid regions of Uttar Pradesh apply Perandaicissus ouandragularis and Elia azadirahta to remove salinity (Balasubramanian 1986). Farmers in Kutch, an arid region, grow Prosopis juliflora trees in the salt affected fields for about five to six years. Later, they cut the trees and pull out the roots. The field is cleared and is ploughed very deeply. Some farmers grow gram (Cicer arietinum) and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) in the salt affected soil of Sabarkantha district (Mavaji Bhikaji Harijan).
Some farmers in coastal arid regions use physical means of reclamation. Farmers in Kutch (Gujarat) scrap off the saline crusts on top of the soil before monsoon (Mavaji Bhikaji Harijan). The first rains may perhaps leach out the salts from the soil layers below. In the same region, farmers steer the runoff into the fields and let the collected rainwater infiltrate and evaporate naturally so that during the process, the salts are leached away. Later, they loosen the soil by digging or ploughing and commence cultivation (Dahyabhai Ramsangbhai Rabari). In parts of Kheda district, which is a semi-arid region, farmers dig deep drainage channels around the salt affected fields to drain off the water from the fields (Ramabhai Keshabhai Jadav).
3.2.5 Moisture conservation or harvesting
Local innovations exploit the physiological interactions between the crops and the soil to use the available moisture optimally. Most common practice is the mixed cropping. Tapping moisture at different levels of soil through a combination of long and shallow rooted crops is the basic principle of mixed cropping practice. This practice is wide spread in the arid and semi-arid regions and in the uplands particularly where the rainfed farming is practiced. Mixed cropping and a variation of it, strip cropping is practiced widely by Bhil Grasia tribe in Gujarat (Sankaran 1988).
In the North-West Bangladesh, farmers grow a banana between four betel nut trees. The suckers apparently conserve moisture during monsoon and release it to the roots of betel nuts during the dry winter season (Gupta 1988). Gworgwor (1989) documents two traditional systems of mixed cropping in Northern Nigeria that optimise the utilisation of moisture in the soil. ‘Gicci’ system of mixed cropping is practised to cope with the risk of late and erratic rains. Farmers sow cereals early in widely spaced rows and another crop later at right angles. The later crop may be cereal if the rains are poor or a cash crop if the rains are better. ‘Moskwa’ is another cropping system where ‘moskwa’ sorghum, a drought and cold tolerant variety is used during dry season (September-December) on the black vertisols of lake Chad basin. When the waters recede (October), farmers transplant seedlings into holes of 18 to 20 cm deep. Two to three handfuls of water are poured into the holes and are left uncovered. ‘Moskwa’ sorghum has short growth cycle and matures on the available residual moisture in the heavy deep vertisols.
Moisture conservation is also achieved by some multi-purpose micro-structures. In Dogn Plateau, farmers construct cone shaped earthen mounds while hoeing or weeding of millet or sorghum fields. Mounds are set along millet plants and vary in size with the height ranging between 35-60 cm. Th mounds slow down the runoff and facilitate percolation. They also provide protection from storms and winds. They help cover weeds and function as mini compost heaps. They can also carry the next season’s seedlings and their growth is encouraged by the nutritive elements in them (Kassogne and Dolo 1990). Mounds and ridges are also constructed in the some parts of South-east Asia to keep the inter-crop plants like vegetables above water table (Marten and Vityakan 1986)
Farmers carry out some specific field operations for efficient moisture utilisation. In Khadin farming, the land preparation includes alternate ploughing and planking several times so that the soil becomes more receptive to hold moisture for long time (personal commn. Chauhan). In the semi-arid regions of Northern Thailand, farmers plough the land several times to make the soil muddy. A hard pan forms to prevent moisture losses (Katin 1988). As a part of inter-culturing operations some farmers’ practice tied ridging and harrowing to conserve moisture in maize crop (Gupta 1988). Farmers in Matalon, Leyte plough land in strips of 4-10 m with the unploughed strips of 1-1.5m to prevent soil erosion (Tung and Alcober ????).
An interesting practice in the regions where frost occurs shows how farmers convert a disadvantage into an opportunity. In China, early in the morning, farmers drag a rope or a bamboo pole across the crop in order to harvest the dew or the frost. The so harvested dew or frost supplies moisture to the roots (Shenghan 1963). A similar practice is also reported from Bangladesh (Gupta 1988). Agarwal and Narain (1997) give a detailed documentation of a 200 year old bamboo drip irrigation system practised in Meghalaya. A network of bamboo pipes and channel sections involving about four to five stages of hierarchy is used for distribution of water in betel leaf or black pepper crops.
3.3 Concluding remarks
Variety of innovations discussed above for watershed management are only illustrative based only on few sources and limited review. An important lesson that one may draw is that, soil and water conservation for a farmer is much more than contour bunds and vegetative barriers. Farmers deal with the problem by exploiting all possible interactions between soil and water and other ecological parameters. What is more important is the need to draw variety of scientific principles that underline the strategy of farmers. We are not very sure how many of such principles have been considered by the formal scientists while suggesting technological options for soil and water conservation. The first step towards incorporating local knowledge systems in watershed programmes is to recognise the necessity to understand the science underlying the local technologies. Formal science can contribute greatly by adding value to these innovations and making them far more efficient and acceptable.
There is a burgeoning literature on highlighting the importance of local knowledge systems (Verma and Singh, 1969, Biggs, 1981, Gupta, 1980, 1981-99, Honey bee 1990-99, Chambers, Thrup and Pacey, 1987, Warren, Brokenshaw 1989, Critchely, Reij and Willcocks 1994; Ettema 1994; Kerr and Sanghi 1992; Banskota and Jodha 1992; Reddy 1989) and the kind of undesirable consequences that can emerge if we do not build upon local knowledge systems. However, not many works focussed on what could be the process or approach for building upon the local knowledge systems. The next section makes a modest attempt to develop a framework in this direction. We have looked at some successful cases giving due respect to the LKS to achieve sustainable outcomes.
4.0 Creating Space for Grassroots Knowledge Systems in Watershed Management
Recent Hanumanth Rao committee in its report submitted to the then Prime Minister, Shri P V Narsimha Rao, explicitly recommends to build upon people’s own strategies for watershed management (MoRD 1994). However there is very little work done on how to go about it while implementing. Many training programmes being conducted by agencies like MANAGE, CAPART, NIRD, SIRDs, etc., have paid limited attention to this( contribution of Dr N K Sanghi at MANAGE is an exception to this rule). Gupta, as a member of Hanumantha Rao committee tried to temper the enthusiasm for short cut methods of learning like RRA/PRA etc., but to limited effect. While national guidelines require each state to build upon local knowledge, no serious attempt has been made by senior policy planers to monitor whether this was indeed being done. In this part, we review some experiences related to sustainability of the interventions vis-à-vis the local knowledge systems. The observations are not necessarily in the context of watershed management but discuss interventions in general.
Innovations and Interventions in Watershed Management
Innovations in watershed programmes may emerge because, the existing formal knowledge base fails to serve the location-specific technological and institutional need for resource management. Sometimes, the inadequacy of the recommended technology may spawn innovations. It is important that watershed managers realise the scope of the innovation so that the invisible becomes visible and worthy of study, emulating and adding value.
4.1 Domains for building upon local knowledge
4.1.1 Technological innovations
Farmers evolve a whole range of adaptive strategies and deal with specific variation in land and water use conditions as affected by various forces of erosion such as wind, water, animals etc. Using the framework in figure (a) we can deal with these strategies in such a way as to identify the nature and triggers of innovation in aided or unaided watersheds.
Figure 4.1
Farmers may use many traditional technologies such as field bunds, various kinds of water conservation practices, wind breaks etc., (1b) or may adapt recommended technologies (1a) such as crescent mounds, contour ploughing etc.
Many of the recommended technologies may be relevant (2a), implemented by farmers and PIAs with modifications (3a-4a) or without modifications (3a-4b). Some of the modifications may be quite innovative which are functional and optimal (5a), while other modifications may be sub-optimal (5b). One can not assume that all modifications by farmers are always functional and optimal. There are examples where farmers’ may have sub-optimised a technology recommended by inertia or some other avoidable or unavoidable constraints. These are the cases which need to be studied so that compare and contrast can take place with the structures in which modifications took place.
There are cases, most unwelcome of course, where irrelevant technologies have been recommended (1a-2b) and are implemented (3c) through the use of subsidies or some other incentives. Occasionally, farmers may modify these irrelevant but important technologies (4c) and generate innovative and useful solutions. But in most cases, these are monuments of official apathy and indifference to local needs. These can be used only to generate shame and introspection among younger project team members so that they would avoid the traditions of indifference and unwillingness to learn from mistakes.
Most of the local technologies (structures and processes) of soil and water conservation may have been evolved by the farmers on their own (2c-3e) or may have been diffused through farmer to farmer networks (2c-3f). Each of these cases is insightful about the autonomous system of technology development at farmers’ level. Within these technologies, lots of modifications (4g) may take place to suit and exploit the local environmental conditions. We should also be careful not to underestimate the power of simultaneous inventions (Biggs, 1981,Richards, 1985) taking place all the time. In the recharging wells of Saurashtra, several innovations have evolved autonomously without any triggers from outside.
By definition, we don’t expect irrelevant technologies (2d, 3g) to evolve since any such effort costs time and money. Why would farmer evolve something that does not serve any purpose? However, it is possible that some technologies were useful in past and their current relevance may have gone down. Before a road came up, water might be passing through a particular passage and eroding some field. After road came up, such an eventuality did not exist and thus some structures might have become irrelevant.
The innovation can be discontinuing (5d) what is not appropriate after a while and replacing it with something more appropriate. Much of the literature on extension has ignored the phenomenon of discontinuance of technologies adopted earlier and found irrelevant (Gupta, 1985, 1987; Halter and Mason, 1984?). Thus ostensibly, a relevant technology is transferred but then either at the same time, or later on, it ceases to be functional and is discontinued. Rather than interpreting it a case of non-adoption, one ought to treat it as a progressive measure and deal with such farmers separately. Obviously such farmers could see the inappropriateness of a given technology faster and avoid continued losses.
Similarly, there are many domains where support from the formal system has been weak and in general and thus triggered innovations. Most important of these are the technologies that do not involve transfer or exchange of material resources (cell 3 in figure 2).
. Relevant Not relevant
Material-based 1 2
Non-material based 3 4
Figure 4.2
The proportion of non-monetary technologies has been found to be far less in extension literature (Hirachand 1979; Gupta 1985, 1987; Pastakia 1996) than monetary technologies. Innovations in such domains are also least documented. Unlike structures, these are process-based innovations and are not easily visible. One has to spend far more time to observe these innovations.
4.1.2 Institutional innovations
When rules or processes evolve to arrive at collective decisions to manage a given resource, there remains a possibility of some individuals and subgroups coming out with new ways of solving a problem. Depending upon the group dynamics, attitudes of the PIA, norms of a programme or other socio-economic and cultural features, the innovations may or may not take place. And if those take place, they may not be institutionalised. The innovations in collective initiatives may sometimes are a response to technological constraints. By technological constraints, we also mean the rejection of the community to accept a technology completely due to cultural or other constraints.
Not all contingencies can be anticipated (1b). There may be institutions that are specific to the community and the region. These local institutions can be traditional or contemporary institutions (2d). Several of the local institutions draw upon the strong cultural ethic within the communities (2e). Depending on the changing life styles and shift of dependency on the local resources, the local institutions may be currently breaking down (3g, 3i). Some of them may be still strong (3f, 3h). Cultural values and beliefs can be potential starting points for mobilising people for collective action.
Figure 4.3
Anticipated institutions can be provided with definite rules in very few cases (2a). In most cases, the rules cannot be provided (2b) given the varying local socio-economic conditions and cultural attitudes. The same factors influence the necessity to modify the rules while implementing (3a-4a). When the rules do not modify (3a-4b) or the modifications do not reflect the local values and aspirations, there is a danger that the institutions may be discontinued (5b, 5d) over time. We discussed earlier about the concept of interlocking of rules for building sustainable institutions. When the rules blend with the local aspirations and draw support from other institutions, the institution may sustain (5a, 5c) over time.
`Institutions anticipated but the rules are not provided’ are those that require sincere efforts from the PIAs (2b-3d). It is possible that the proposed institutions may blend with the local institutions and draw upon them (2b-3c). Evolution of rules that can institutionalise the intervention ought to reflect the needs and priorities of the participants (4c, 4e). Lack of sufficient level of participation of people in the rule making process may destabilise the institution over time (4d, 4f).
The frameworks presented above are in addition to the 3-P framework presented earlier to identify local innovations in general based on the heuristics of farmers while solving the problems. These frameworks are specific to watershed context and may be helpful in possible domains for building upon local knowledge systems.
4.2 Framework for building upon local knowledge systems
There can be several ways of building upon local knowledge systems. We will discuss some empirical experiences of the cases that attempted to draw upon local creativity and draw lessons from it. A general framework for building upon local creativity may be developed by revisiting the 4-A framework used by Gupta (1992) for understanding the choice of technology.
4.2.1 Eco-institutional (4-A) framework for choice of technology
Human choices in a given eco-sociological configuration are circumscribed by the historical evolution of institutional structures. Institutions provide a framework of rules, sanctions, and meanings that are commonly understood by people in a given region. Institutions provide assurance to individuals and groups about the uncertainties faced over space and time. Assurances help in generating cooperative behaviour when we deal with common properties (Sen 1967, Runge 1986, Gupta 1985) and make behaviour of others more predictable. In the case of private resources, assurances may stimulate demand for better access or technical skills or both. Even if we have an institution that provides assurance, if we do not have access to resources or we do not have skills or abilities to use the resource, the investments from people will not follow.
All the three vectors of choice, access, assurance, and abilities, must be synchronised to match with the attitudes of people towards change or maintenance of a resource use system. Thus, within a specific spatial, sectoral and seasonal configuration, portfolios may vary within a given range because of changes in access, assurances, and abilities.
The access to natural resources, assurances from the institutions, ability in terms of skills and technology to convert access into investment, and attitudes in terms of culture and dependency on the resource, collectively influence the household portfolios( Gupta, 1990). Thus, if we want to introduce technologies that presuppose the existence of certain skills, access modes, or institutional structure, but some or all of these vectors are missing, we cannot fault people for not using the given opportunity. If we know the complexity of access and the abilities of the people in a given system, we should be able to anticipate what kind of assurances will generate or respond to the given attitudes. Attitudes here are the outcome of historical experiences and current dependency on the resource that influence the inputs into the choice. These also shape the way a community looks at the opportunities. In that sense Attitudes are both endogenous as well as exogenous variables.
4.2.2 Framework for drawing upon local creativity in a watershed management
An appropriate blending of 4-A framework with the framework for delineating the domains of local creativity in watershed management may yield possible directions for building on local knowledge systems in a watershed management. It also helps to understand various dimensions of choice of technology which need to be considered to introduce an exogenously evolved technology or institutional design.
All the four As i.e. access, assurance, abilities and attitudes, must be satisfied in a system level intervention for it to be sustainable. The advantage of the framework is if we know any two dimensions we can speculate about the third. And if we know three, we can speculate the fourth. Let us take the case of a technology for plant protection. It is useful for me to use biological pest control, if I have some assurance about others behaviour. But if I did not, I might spend more on chemical pesticides, and increase the cost of plant protection of others as well. Further it is not enough to have access to technology and skills or ability to use it, if assurances are not available. Likewise, the culture of collective survival vis-a-vis individual survival would also influence the sustainability of technology as well as institutional arrangement.
For instance, pastoralists need access to grazing land, water, place for night shelter, food and other necessities like veterinary medicine during migration. Need for assurance about security of livestock and self in the unknown or less known regions generates institutions for collective survival. Aggrawal (1991) illustrates how in some of the migrating dangs( group of shepherds) a sort of relay race is performed for night watchman duty. Every person has to guard the herd in the night by moving around the herds settled in concentric rings with women in the centre and the animals and the men around them. He takes a small stick to be handed over to the appointed person at fixed time in the night to change their turns. If a person sleeps over, it is easy to find out the culprit.
Likewise, there are other mechanisms developed to have other assurances. People in Andhra Pradesh villages receiving herdsman from Rajasthan have an informal arrangement for deciding whose fields should be penned this year by whose heard. an assembly of village elders negotiates with the scout party of the pastoralists about which herd will stay in whose field. The obligations of payment to a village common fund, herdsman or the farmers are also spelt out( Wade, 1980). Friendly relations among the visiting herdsman and the local settled populations can not always be taken for granted. There have been many cases of violence against pastoralists around grazing in forests ( with or without sanctuaries), private fallows, roadside fallows, at inter-state borders etc. There is a Supreme court Judgement permitting unrestricted right of pastoralists to move from one state to another. However, weakening of assurances from state or host village communities obviously increases grazing pressure on more marginal uninhabited lands leading to ecological crisis.
The improvement in access or assurances only will not help if the skills of the pastoralists to use available opportunities do not simultaneously improve. Most pastoralists can inject medicines or vaccinate their animals themselves. But there remain a vast range of traditional medicine systems or knowledge about combination of stress fodder and feeds during drought which remains to be properly analysed, screened and diffused.
Dimensions to build upon local knowledge Traditional Traditional Modified Contemporary
Access
Resources Time
Space
Sector
Technologies
Institutions
Cultural resources Gender
Assurance
Horizontal Cultural
Technological
Institutional
Vertical Cultural
Technological
Institutional
Abilities Resource interpretation Indicators
Resource use Testing, Improved methods of extraction
Attitudes Resource Dependency
Technology
Institution
Culture
Gender
Figure 4.4
The local knowledge systems may be (I) traditional or (ii) traditional, but may be modified recently (iii) contemporary, knowledge acquired recently. We will discuss some empirical cases where attempts have been made to build upon the local knowledge systems and try to understand the variety of strategies that may be adapted to generate sustainable interventions.
4.3 Spawning Success: Lessons to Learn from LKS
4.3.1 Sustainability of interventions for sustainable use
Not much work has been done by the formal research institutions on the indicators of sustainable resource extraction. A wealth of knowledge existing with the communities in the area of ecological indicators (Gupta 1994) cannot be disregarded while making interventions that involves extraction of resource. Particularly, it is important when it involves resources such as the local flora. The contribution 6.1 in the compilation of the innovations part B documents the women’s knowledge about the grasses and fodder that they collect from the wild. There is a specific way of extracting fodder from different fodder plants and grasses. It also changes over time and space also. It can be very useful to draw upon such insights while making interventions that involve extraction of any resource.
A watershed project in the Doon Valley Watershed Project has an interesting experience to share in this regard. The project was implemented in the Kotla village of Dehradun district. As a part of one of the components of the project implementation, the PIA had proposed to revitalise the severely degraded pasture lands in the village. The PIA cleared the pasture lands severely infested by the Lantana weed and planted ginni grass. Next season, PIA suggested to the villagers to harvest the grass at a stage when it is supposed to contain high nutrient content. Villagers refused to do so. They explained that along with the ginni grass, a local grass called ‘golda’ also grew up and harvesting grass at that stage would prevent the ‘golda’ grass to grow again. Allowing it without harvesting would help the ‘golda’ grass to grow further and let the seeds fall so that the grass grow in the next season too. ‘Golda’ is most preferred in the area and is believed to be more nutritious.
In the central hills of Nepal, because of its palatability, propagation of Ficus nermolis (a tree fodder species) became difficult because the animals graze on the young plants. The communities suggested and used Neolitsea umbrosa, a small bushy tree that grazing animals ignore, as a nurse plant (?) for Ficus nermolis. And it has been reported that Ficus nermolis grew more quickly in company with Neolitsea umbrosa (Rusten and Gold 1995).
4.3.2 Local resource based opportunities for conservation
4.3.2.1 Neglecting local resource base and traditional practices while creating opportunities can lead to undesirable consequences on the resource base itself. Leesa is a resin extracted from chid (pine) trees in the Sub-himlayan parts. The resin has inflammable properties and is traditionally extracted to use for domestic purposes. It is also sold in the markets and is a means of generating income. The opportunities created through several recent development interventions do not build upon this practice. People no longer prefer to collect the resin because of tedious process involved. And it is believed that the resin that was not extracted could be one of the reasons for the frequent forest fires. A casually thrown matchstick can cause forest fire. An improved and easier method for extracting resin would perhaps have been an appropriate intervention in this regard.
However, there is an entirely different hypothesis for the cause of forest fires. Burning the crop-residue after harvesting is a traditional practice among hill-farmers. While harvesting, farmers cut the stems half-way and leave it as such so that these can be burnt when the base dries up. Farmers narrate following reasons for doing so; (I) Burning is possibly the fastest way to clear the field (ii) It kills the insects and also burn the seeds of any weeds (iii) The ash increases the fertility of the soil.
There are some associated practices to avoid spread of the fire beyond the field. Wheat is harvested when the summer approaches. At this time, the old people and children move to higher altitudes and help monitor the spread of fire while the young and able put fire to the field (Pers commn. Lepcha 1998).
However, forest department, the PIA for implementing watershed projects in the region discourages the practice of burning in the fields to prevent forest fires. It proposes to cut right at the base while harvesting crop so that the residue can be used as fodder in the lean seasons.
Mr Lepcha, formerly associated with the Doon Valley Watershed Project, has some interesting insights about the forest fires. ‘Money Order Economies’ is a term frequently used for the household economies that receive income from outside the village. In most mountain regions, the trend is that one or two resourceful persons in a family leave village in search of jobs in the urban centres. They regularly send money orders from outside to their dependants. With the incomes assured, many families leave cultivation and stay idle. The increased liquor consumption in these regions has also been attributed to the ‘money order economy’. Obviously, it has even encouraged people to refuse to comply with the institutional norms for managing local resources. There are several instances where the local institutions broke down because of shift in dependency on the local resource base.
Lepcha plotted the occurrence of forest fires and presence of money order economy on a map in a specific region and found that these match with each other. He believes that as the dependency of people over the forest shifted, they are no longer encouraged to protect and manage the forests.
4.3.2.2 Local skills: A Resource?
Etikoppaka village of Andhra Pradesh is known for skilled artisan groups that make wooden toys and artefacts. Few years back, a number of artisan families were on the verge of migrating to the urban centres because of the low returns from the local markets. C.V. Raju, a young man, realised g the precious skills that they had, and tried to prevent their migration. He improvised traditional methods of making tree-based colours to get wide-ranging colours and generated market demand for them as eco-friendly products. He initiated a cooperative of the artisans and linked them with larger markets.
The cooperative, Padmavati Associates, is now probably one of its kind producing wooden toys and artefacts made with tree-based colours. The group receives regular orders from national and international buyers. The case reveals several lessons for institution-building also (Chokkakula and Raju 1997).
Skills may be a resource too, based on which we may generate sustainable livelihoods. In case the artisan-families were allowed to migrate, they would have had no choice but to work as unskilled labourers in the urban centres. Such are the conditions which lead to ‘money-order economies’.
4.3.3 Improvisation of structures: Let Locals Lead
In marginal environments, there can not be alternatives to the traditional structures particularly for soil and water conservation. The scope for innovations with regards to the basic principles underlying the structures found locally is limited. The innovations can at the most be in the form and material that may improve the efficiency and reduce the cost involved. The best strategy offered by the experiences is to let people lead the implementation and restrict PIA’s role to providing material and technical inputs to use the material.
4.3.3.1 Innovations in guhl reconstruction
Watershed projects in the mountain regions necessarily include renovation of guhls. Guhls are irrigation channels in the mountain regions that carry water from sources like Bawdi and naula to distribute water to fields. Construction of new guhls involves several stages, identification of source, surveying the area, alignment and finally construction. Reconstruction of guhls involves converting the stone and soil made kutccha gihls into cement concrete pucca guhls. Velde (1992) recounts the experiences of projects that involved constructing new guhls in the Himalayan mountain regions of Pakistan. Traditionally, people use water as a level to determine slope and alignment of guhls. Elders in the village are consulted to find out historical movements of the glaciers, past avalanche and mud flow paths and stream flow directions from glaciers and snow melt or springs. While constructing new guhls, PWD ignored this knowledge and as a result, out of the 20 schemes implemented at a cost of 1.85 million rupees, only one is working properly.
Converting guhls to concrete structures reduces flexibility for distribution and increases velocities. Generally, PIA makes necessary design changes to reduce the velocity of water and to keep the structure strong enough. However, the designs lack the flexibility and do not synchronize with the existing institutional arrangements. Lack of inputs in this regard may result in damage to the structures due to frequent breaching of the channels. Some experiences in the Doon Valley Watershed Project reveal some innovations by people in response to these constraints. In this particular watershed, the PIA provided the designs and materials for construction. People were in charge of construction.
Innovations in guhl reconstruction
Weirs at diversions to regulate flow into water-harvesting tanks
Guhls feed water to fields as well as water harvesting tanks (or farm ponds). The tanks are modified versions of what are locally called ‘hoj’ or ‘khal’ in different of UP and North-east. These are temporary storage structures of water for domestic as well as irrigation purposes. In the kutcha guhls, the guhl is temporarily breached to divert water into the tank. Once the tank is full, the breach is closed again.
In the Neher village of Dehradun district, while constructing concrete made guhls, villagers constructed a small weir (a projection elevated above the bed of the guhl). The water overflows into the diversion only when the water level in the guhl raises above the level of the weir. Effectively, the modification allows only sufficient amount of water into the tank to fill the tank, without which the tank may overflow if the diversion is not closed properly and in time.
Guhls can also be path ways!
In the Bhavani village of Tehri Garhwal district, people wanted broader walls of the channels on the guhls so that the width is sufficient for them to walk through the fields. Traditionally guhls are aligned along the boundaries of the fields. Usually farmers do not like to have separate boundary bunds because, it would be a wastage of valuable land. According to the PIA’s design of pucca guhls, the width of the walls is about 10 to 12 cm width. However, farmers preferred at least one side of the wall of width more than 20 cm so that they could walk over the guhls.
4.3.3.2 Cost-effective construction of Contour bunds
Shri Kundla Gram Vikas Mandal is an NGO working in the Savarkundla district of Gujarat. A major soil and water conservation programme implemented by them involved constructing contour bunds. When they were constructing the bunds according to the dimensions derived by the standard formula, farmers suggested that at some places, the bunds need not be so large. They suggested that the depending on the land use on the u/s, the dimensions can be reduced and accordingly the cost can be reduced (Pers commn, Mehta 1998).
4.3.4 Invisible innovations
Local innovations need not necessarily be traditional and well-diffused. Innovations can evolve in response to a specific constraint from an individual or a group. The innovative strategies of Shaligram to create fertile soil (refer 1.3) can easily be replicated in other cases also. In this case, the innovation is by an individual. There are several other examples of individual innovations for various problems (refer 2.9, 2.10, 3.1, 3.6, 3.8 etc). Constructing a retaining tank (refer 2.7) to increase pressure heads so that the water reaches the last field is an interesting example of collective innovation for a common problem. Though the tank has not been constructed under any watershed project, it is important to note that the villagers have diverted the funds from a drinking water scheme. Rest of the inputs were borne by the villagers collectively and voluntarily. An important question is to ask ourselves is, why cannot such initiatives take place in watershed management projects too. We will discuss these aspects further when we discuss the case of Premjibhai’s ‘cement scheme’.
The case of retaining tank raises some important questions. (I) There cannot be any better solution than that generated by people in the given constraints. Would any watershed project approve suggestion for such structures by people? (ii) Could such prioritisation for tank be allowed? (iii) Even if the structure was allowed to be constructed, would it be possible to elicit such strong collective institutions as they exist in this case for managing the structure if not for constructing?
4.3.5 Blending with traditional and existing institutions for sustainability
Institution building requires careful understanding of local socio-cultural and institutional networks. The proposed institutions need to blend properly with the local institutions so that they draw support from them and sustain. Earlier, we discussed this aspect as ‘interlocking of institutions for sustainability’. The process of institution building itself is the most crucial aspect of blending with local institutions.
In the Doon valley watershed project, a watershed committee called ‘Garema’ (Gaun Resource Management Institution) is facilitated to manage funds for post-project management of interventions. In most of their watershed projects of earlier phase, it so happened that the ‘Garemas’ usually clashed with the existing traditional institutions. In this region, there is a strong tradition of guhl management institutions (Refer 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3). The Garemas function well as long as the PIA is in the picture and once it withdraws, the conflicts surface. Such conflicts lead to total breakdown of collective bonding among the communities in some areas but in other areas, the collective institutions have become stronger.
The experience in the Halduwala village of Dehradun district is a typical example. The PIA withdrew from the Halduwala village last year after a project implementation period of three years. The village had its own traditional institutions for managing guhls and distribution of water before the arrival of the PIA. The PIA not only renovated the existing guhl but also extended it and constructed a new one, thus creating new cultivable lands. The project created a Garema and the association was left with sufficient funds. When we visited the village this year, the condition was pathetic. The guhl has been damaged by landslide and is lying defunct without repairs though there are sufficient funds with the Garema. Much wor