Based on our experience and observations, I give below my suggestions for the consideration of working group.

1. Watershed Development programme is basically an area development programme. In any Area Development Programme wherever potential exists and feasible, the water resources development (in this case minor irrigation works) has to be given very high priority. In several DPAP areas there is enormous potential for small-scale water resources development. It is the availability of water that can beat the drought successfully. No other programme even intensive soil and moisture conservation interventions will have half such impact in combating the drought. Therefore, to repeat, wherever potential exists, the water resources development has to be given top priority. However, the present pattern of assistance does not permit water resources development, as it is capital intensive.

2. In view of above, either sufficient allocation of funds be made in the projects which have water resources potential or special additional funds should be arranged for such watershed projects with potential for the small scale water resources development. Particularly, in all our tribal regions, the potential for water resources development is enormous, but it cannot be harnessed under the existing pattern of assistance. At the same time, the Water Resources Department in the States usually do not provide sufficient funds for the minor irrigation as most of their funds are earmarked for the major and medium projects.

The Government at present provides something between Rs. one lac to two lacs per hectare for the major irrigation projects and the cost of medium irrigation project also comes to minimum of Rs. 60,000/- per hectare. Why then for the minor irrigation projects to be incorporated in the overall watershed development programme, the amount around Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per hectare cannot be provided ? I don’t think anyone in the Government can justify the double standard in which the major and medium irrigation projects get exorbitant capital cost, whereas for minor irrigation projects, minimum amount is not provided as an integral part of watershed development programme.

The water harvesting, both ground water and surface water, need to be given very high priority under the watershed programme, particularly, in the vulnerable regions in the Western India, which face recurring drought conditions and many of such regions have good potential for water harvesting. If we want to check and take care of the ever-increasing water crises, the water harvesting requires highest order of attention.

3. There is some scope for water resources development programme under the special project provision in the Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (Chapter XI of the Guidelines). However, these special project provisions in SGSY have some inbuilt lacuna, which proves as big hurdle. Very strangely, it has excluded NGOs from the implementation of such special projects. Interestingly, International Organisations are allowed to implement such special projects, but not the Indian NGOs against the fact that international organizations seldom implement the programmes, while large number of innovative and successful special projects have been implemented by NGOs in our country. There are large numbers of examples of such successful work by NGOs.

This issue of Special Projects under Chapter XI of SGSY Guidelines may not fall in the purview of this working group. However, this group or the Planning Commission may pass on above suggestion to the relevant working group. Infact, I have brought this issue to the notice of Ministry of Rural Development, but the interventions of the Planning Commission may be useful.

4. The SGSY special projects should also include the Area Development Programme like water resources as mentioned at points 1 & 2 above and in such Area Development Programme the consideration should be for the Area Development without considering the criteria of BPL families. For such Area Development Programme the backwardness of area and the availability of irrigation should be the criteria for the implementation of special projects and not the BPL. It is the ground reality that whatever may be the statistics available at the block or district level, any village without irrigation would be in a very bad condition. Also, there are examples in which the BPL census is not done properly, often even politically worked out in which real BPL families are left out from the BPL list and reasonably good families are included in the BPL list. Relying on such grossly wrong data, often deserving villages would be left out in the development programmes such as special projects under SGSY. Not updating the land divisions in the family over one or two generations, also result in the unreal census of BPL. This is very common in our land record system.

5. It is also suggested that instead of provision of 15 % of the budget of SGSY for the special projects, it should be increased to 20 % for the special projects under SGSY, so that minor irrigation works could be undertaken on large scale by the Government and proven NGOs. The part of such funds could be placed with the NABARD, earmarking the same to be used by the competent NGOs.

6. With the increasing politicization of Rural Development programmes at the grass root level, which has witnessed mushrooming of new NGOs promoted under the political patronage and by unscrupulous elements, care has to be taken that on one side NGOs with ill-motives are not encouraged and on other side NGOs with good track record, but without political patronage are not side lined or ignored. One way to support good NGOs and also Business Houses, could be the selection of NGOs to be done at the State level and the reputed NGOs working in more than one State may be selected by the Government of India, Department of Rural Development, to assign watershed projects and also special projects or any other Rural Development programmes.

7. Alike many previous programmes, the watershed development programme is also turning out to be a target-oriented programme in which the States and Districts are seen to be more keen to achieve the physical and financial targets rather than quality work. With our experience and keen observations in several States, we may submit that at many places the watershed programme is not of desirable quality. If this situation is not checked and corrected, we will once again find after ten years that such good programme has also not made the desirable impact on people and environment in rural areas. It is therefore, of utmost importance that the right kind of NGOs are selected and also since most of the projects in most of the States are entrusted to the Government agencies, the implementing agency should be fully equipped for the implementation of the programme properly.

8. In the field observations it is found that in many a projects either the technical components or social components is not found satisfactory. In some projects, both these components are not up to mark.

9. In many States and many watershed projects, proper training before the commencement of the programme and during the implementation has not been given due importance. It is therefore, essential that in the second phase of this programme, utmost importance is accorded to proper training before and during the implementation of watershed development programme. The training programme should be assigned to the Training Institutes, which have good experience in managing watershed development programme. Since the watershed development programme is a field programme, the training should also be largely field oriented and not confined to the theories and classroom exercises.

10. The exposure to the successful watershed development projects would be of much more importance to the implementing agencies as well as to the watershed committees. In each State, well-implemented project should be identified and new PIAs and Committee members be taken for the exposure visits to such projects. Nationally reputed watershed projects could be visited by the PIAs of other States also.

11. It is commonly observed that often the Project Directors, DRDAs are not very well oriented towards the watershed projects. Also the Project Directors are frequently transferred. Both these factors adversely affect the implementation of watershed projects.

12. As our tribal regions are the most backward and the condition of the people as well as of environment in such regions is vastly far from satisfactory, there should be special liberal norms and policy for the watershed and other rural development programmes for the tribal regions. In the tribal regions, the coordination between the Tribal Sub Plan functionaries and DRDAs should be very strong so that both the programmes supplement each other in making the impact much better. In Gujarat, such coordination is very much visible, but not in some other States with sizeable tribal population.

13. The uniform pattern of assistance / cost, throughout the country, requires reconsideration as the cost would vastly vary from region to region, depending on the measures to be taken in particular project or in particular region. It is necessary to rationalize the cost norm for the watershed project.

15.12.2000