Some successful NGOs in Rural Development, through their hard work, dedication, commitment combined with professional competency and integrity have made their mark in the field of Rural Development during last three decades. The Government also acknowledged the contribution of such NGOs and supported them both by policy changes and financial assistance. This GO-NGO partnership in recent years has yielded very good results. In view of such successful partnership, it was expected that more favorable policies towards NGOs would be introduced by the Government. Strangely, instead, reverse has started happening with the Government policies discouraging the involvement of NGOs.

This example of reversal or regression in Government policy is clearly seen in the revised guidelines for watershed development (revised in 2001) by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

Let us examine specific clauses in above revised guidelines, which are going to affect the involvement of NGOs in watershed development.

Clause 18 - State Watershed Development Committee

Two representatives from prominent NGOs working in the field of watershed development are to be nominated on the above State Level Committee. This is not a fair or proportionate representation in the State like Gujarat and may be few other states, where NGOs are major players in the implementation of watershed development programme. For example, in Gujarat, nearly 70 % of the watershed projects are implemented by NGOs and obviously there are several prominent NGOs in Gujarat, who deserve to be represented on the State Level Committee. We think, the guidelines should provide for minimum number of NGO representatives and leave it to the State Government to opt more number of NGOs, based on the situation in the respective State and merit of the NGOs. On one side we talk of decentralization and delegation and on the other side even the State is not authorized to nominate adequate number of representatives that it may deem appropriate on such committee.

In view of above situation, the guidelines of Government of India should remove the ceiling on number of NGOs on State Level Committee and indicate only minimum number of NGOs, giving liberty to the State to nominate more than minimum number, if situation demands.

Clause 21 - District Watershed Development Committee

In the guidelines, only one NGO is to be nominated on the District Watershed Committee. Similar to the State level situation in Gujarat and few other States, overwhelming majority of the projects in each districts are held by NGOs. Therefore, NGOs representation should be much more. In this case also it should be left to the State and District to decide the number of NGOs to be nominated on such District Level Committee. Perhaps, it would be logical that in a district where 50 % of the watershed projects are held by NGOs, atleast 3 representatives from NGOs should be nominated and where more than 50 % of the watershed projects are held by NGOs even 5 representatives of NGOs could be nominated. The guidelines should provide only for minimum number and not the ceiling on the number.

At the time of preparing this article and Annual Report, we understand that Gujarat Government, Department of Rural Development, have in principle agreed that the number prescribed by the new guidelines for the District and State Level Committee would be treated as minimum requirement and depending on the number of NGOs participating in this programme, their representation would be increased in both the committees. This is good news. It was expected that the Gujarat Government would certainly listen to the representation by NGOs and take favourable decision.

Clause 27 - Selection of Project Implementation Agencies (PIAs)

In this clause, it is mentioned that in the selection of PIA, preference is to be given to the PRIs (Panchayati Raj Institutions), failing in which second preference to the Government Department or reputed NGO. While it is not our argument that PRIs should not be encouraged to become PIAs, it is essential that the word "preference" be removed from the sentence, otherwise, as it happens in the Government system, the word “preference” would become Bible statement, giving outright preference, to the PRIs irrespective of the merit and in the process, reputed and proven NGOs could be denied the projects. We think, this cannot be the intention of the people who have framed this clause of the guidelines. The Watershed Development programme is a prime and most crucial programme of the Government of India for the removal of poverty and regeneration of natural resources, and any consideration other than the merits would defeat the very objective of the watershed programme. A stage has not come in our country wherein PRIs as a blanket provision could be entrusted the work of PIAs. It is open fact that at many places, even well equipped Government Departments and even NGOs have not succeeded in the successful implementation of the programme, how can most ill-equipped and politically motivated PRIs deliver the goods ? This is too precious a programme of national interest to be entrusted to ill-equipped institutions, whether PRIs, Government Departments or NGOs. The policy makers must ponder that such a massive investment has to deliver good results, otherwise the last hope of revival of rural economy and ecology would be lost.

Being the oldest and among the foremost NGOs in the field of watershed and NRM and having associated with watershed programme and rural development programmes in more than 14 States, we can confidently say that, by and large the watershed programme entrusted to the reputed NGOs has succeeded very much. It is a known fact that most of the highly successful watershed projects have been implemented by reputed NGOs. This situation should continue by encouraging reputed NGOs. Unfortunately, the above clause and wording of the guidelines would result in discouraging the NGOs. Such outright discouragement to NGOs is amply reflected in the policy adopted in Rajasthan, in which recently all the watershed projects are being allotted to PRIs and none to NGOs, as if there is a blanket ban on NGOs in respect of watershed projects.

All that is necessary to be done in this clause is to remove the word "preferably", so that the State and District may consider the selection of PIAs on its pure merit rather than on any political or narrow consideration. Infact, the guidelines should specifically stress on the merit of PIAs in the allotment of watershed projects.

We are sure, as the intentions of the Government of India, in framing the new guidelines are very good, our above suggestions would be considered favourably in the interest of the programme as well as the massive investments that is envisaged in above all important programmes.

It is necessary to distinguish between the role of decision making body and organizations implementing the programmes. It is often not workable that the decision makers themselves implement the programmes. The Parliament which decide the policy, does not implement that policy and programme. The State Legislative Assembly does not implement its policy and programmes. There are separate arrangements, quite logically, for the implementation, as the implementation requires particular skill and accountability for the performance. Similarly, Panchayati Raj Institutions at all level may decide the policy and monitor the same, while implementation could be done by competent agencies, the Government Department, NGO, etc., particularly, certain programmes which require special caliber, competency and skill.

The grants given under the watershed development programme is not a dole to the village community. It is not relief assistance. It has to be utilized properly and effectively ensuring the desired results. We have often found that large sums in the rural development programmes are allotted on political consideration by the ruling party and since politics is a game of vote, the sums are passed on to the community without any consideration of merit or capability. Interestingly, such allotments usually back-fire when the amount in question is not utilized properly. The set of people who are given such amount often loses the next election as their failure to deliver the good is penalized by the community in not electing the same set of people in next round. Therefore, logically, it is in the interest of the ruling political party that the funds are properly utilized with desired results if they want benefit of such funds. Those who fail to realize this reality, end up in losing money, good will and votes.

Till our panchayats become capable and accountable to handle large sum and certain technical programmes, there is nothing wrong in involving competent agency, whether the Government department or NGO. When the well equipped corporate sector company engages the professional organization, what is wrong if the Government department or right kinds of NGOs are involved in Rural Development programme, under the supervision and monitoring of ultimate masters, the village community. The political decision like the distribution of huge funds has to be based on sound economic principles, otherwise, our villages will not see tangible improvements in another 50 years.

In the democratic system and electoral politics that we have, there may not be anything wrong in giving huge funds to the community or to the specific programmes by the ruling party, but, its proper use and results have to be ensured. After all, it is public money raised from the public and has to be utilised with full degree of accountability. Therefore, wherever there are proven NGOs with credible track record, they need to be involved in the Government supported programmes.

21.03.2002