View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
1/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
2/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
3/42
Suggested citation:
C.P.Geevan
Study on sustainability of Farmer's Self Affinity Groups Promoted by MYRADA in
Karnataka
Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India), Ahmedabad (2010)
Publication: 2010
Field Studies: 2008
Research Team:
Mr C.P.Geevan, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator)
Researchers: Ms Vaishali J & Mr Mohanakrishna T.N
Centre for Environment & Social Concerns [CESC]
G-3, Samip Apartment, ManekbaugShreyas Crossing, Ahmedabad 380015 (Gujarat, INDIA)www.cesc-india.orgTel: 079-26401571; Mobile: 9824283954Email: [email protected]
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
4/42
iii Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
from Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, European
Commission, Ford Foundation and the support ofpartner organizations.
The seven NGO partners in this study are: 1) Aga
Khan Rural Support Program (India) [AKRSP(I)],
2) Behavioural Science Centre (BSC), 3)
Development Support Centre (DSC), 4)
Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), 5)
Mysore Relief & Development Agency
(MYRADA), 6) Seva Mandir and 7) Professional
Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN).
While supporting the study, all these organizationswith a long and credible track record in
development work fully respected the
independence of the research. The focus of each
study is on the factors favouring the sustainability
of the village institutions promoted by NGOs.
Related to this inquiry are a gamut of questions
on the policies and practices of stakeholders that
affect the sustainability not withstanding the lack
of a shared understanding of the term. The
objectives of the study are:1. Examine the interventions and institutional
issues that appear to be specific to the
village level institutions that have exhibited
potential for long-term survival or
endurance and autonomous functioning
2. Analyse and critically review the
sustainability question, exit strategies of
the promoting NGO and post-exit support
needs of the village level institution
3. Examine the capabilities of VIs for
adapting to new challenges under changing
development scenarios
A major conceptual difficulty is the lack of an
unambiguous understanding or definition of
institutional sustainability and universally agreed
ways of determining it. In particular, given the
There has been a growing concern over
institutional sustainability and even an overridingemphasis on it as a normative principle in
development action, particularly in the planning
and implementation of medium to long-term
projects (Chambers, 1983; Shah, 2003).
Institutions are humanly devised constraints that
structure political, economic and social interaction.
They consist of both formal rules and informal
constraints (North, 1990). Village Institutions (VI)
work as mechanisms to ensure norms to govern
or regulate the access of villagers or outsiders to
resources and specify relations among them. Often
the norms formal or informal - are well
understood, respected and observed by the
villagers. From a development perspective, village
institutions are crucial vehicles through which
development initiatives by Non-Government
Organizations (NGO) are endorsed, empowered
and implemented.
A major challenge for sustainability of
development initiatives is that of ensuring theperpetuation of appropriate, effective and relevant
institutional arrangements. The experience of civil
society initiatives in the development sector in the
last few decades has underlined the importance of
institutional sustainability and the need for
deepening the understanding of the issues, when
the institutions did not emerge, as it were, on their
own but were crafted and promoted by NGOs,
with unavoidable elements of dependency of the
community-based organizations on the NGO. As
a follow-up to the discussions on this question,
Aga Khan Rural Support Program (India)
[AKRSP (I)] constituted a Village Institution Task
Force and subsequently initiated studies on
sustainability in the context of livelihood
enhancement initiatives associated with natural
resources management challenges. The multi-
location study has been facilitated by the grants
PREFACE
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
5/42
iv Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
multiplicity of visions and approaches to
development, various NGOs who promote the VI
envisage it differently. Since this study is expected
to help the practitioners, the question of adopting
a pragmatic approach to institutional sustainability
taking into account the realities in field
implementation was discussed at length in the
launch workshop organized on 9 April 2007.
Several experts, practitioners and executive
leadership of most of the NGO partners in this
series of case studies participated in these
deliberations. The workshop reached a broad
agreement on the scope of study and adopted
certain guidelines or thumb-rules on what
constitutes the role shift, exit or withdrawalof the promoter NGO in specific development or
institutional contexts. In particular, it was agreed
that the study will not use any pre-defined
definition of institutional sustainability and will
examine the long-term survival and endurance of
institutional initiatives in the diverse contexts
where the NGO partners promoted community-
based organizations that have become more or less
autonomous entities with little or no direct support
from the NGO. Several meetings and brain-
storming sessions were organized with each
partner organization before finalizing the individual
case studies. The study has been subject to
intensive review and the findings have been
discussed in four review workshops organized
between 2006 and 2010 attended by the NGOpartners, experts and researchers.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
6/42
v Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We express profound thanks to Mr. Aloysius
Fernandez who readily agreed to commitMYRADA as a partner to this study. He also
spared time to promptly review the case study.
Ms Yashmin, Ms Vidya Ramachandran and Ms
Lathamala provided support and contributed
inputs in the early phase of the study, the initial
discussions and workshops.
We thank Mr Vijayakumar (MYRADA Program
Officer, District Chittradurga) for the trust,
unstinted support and encouragement. He even
helped locate the researchers for this study. Sincerethanks to Mr Yenjerappa (Director, CIDORR
Training Centre, Hollekkare) who provided all
kinds of logistic support and hospitality to the
study team. Mr Rama Rao and Ms Asha (both of
CMRC, Holalkere) and Mr Ashok of CMRC,
Chalekere provided excellent support, patiently
responded to a barrage of queries and ensured the
last-mile connectivity to the study.
It will require a very long list to mention all the
men and women the leaders and members of thewatershed farmers groups and the SHGs as well
as village leaders who shared their experiences,
spared enormous amount of time replying to our
queries and tolerated our pestering with good
humour. Without the wholehearted cooperation,
warmth and hospitality of these numerous
unnamed individuals this study would have been
almost impossible.
Professors Debi Prasad Mishra (IRMA), R
Parthasarathy (CEPT) and C.N.Ray (CEPT) wereinvolved in the review of the case study and the
research has gained much from their valuable
comments as well as participation in the review
workshop.
The support, encouragement and trust of Mr
Apoorva Oza, CEO, AKRSP (I) has been
invaluable. His pro-active intellectual engagement
with this study made us confront the question of
amalgamating practitioners concerns with a
variety of theoretical possibilities. Dr SomnathBandyopadhyays intense scrutiny and incisive
questioning helped to ward of any professional
complacency on our side.
Thanks to Dr Bhaskar Mittra , Senior Program
Officer, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Allied Trust
for the magnanimous efforts to ensure the smooth
progress of the study and for being very supportive
when we faced unforeseen difficulties.
In addition to carrying out the responsibilities of
liaising with different agencies and organizing the
review workshop, Dr. Jyotirmayee Acharya
(AKRSP) enthusiastically joined in the discussions.
Many thanks to Mr Niraj Joshi who helped to pilot
this research. He has now reinvigorated the
dissemination of findings by assuming the
responsibility of publishing within a tight frame
on his return to AKRSP after a break. He also
helped to organize the final round of reviews and
participated in several discussions on many aspects
of this study starting with the initial efforts.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
7/42
vi Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
ABBREVIATIONS
Rs. : Indian National Rupees
Abhiruddi : Development
CB : Capacity Building
CBO : Community based organization
CIDOR : Centre for Institutional Development and Organizational Reform
CMRC : Community Managed Resource Centre
DDP : Desert Development Programme
GP : Gram Panchayat
GS : Gram Sabha
HH : House Hold
Jalanayana : Watershed
JAS : JalanayanaAbhiruddiSangha (Watershed Development Group)
JNSS : JalanayanaNirvahanaSwasahayaSangha (Watershed Management Self Help Group)
KVK : Krishi Vigyan Kendra
Mahila : Women
MFI : Micro Finance InstitutionMSS : Mahila Swasahaya Sangha (Women Self Help Group)
Myrada : Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency
MYRADA : Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency
NABARD : National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
NGO : Non Governmental Organization
Nirvahana : Management
NREGP : National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme
NRHM : National Rural Health Mission
NWDPRA : National Watershed Development Project for Rain fed Areas
PRI : Panchayat Raj Institutions
RMS : Rural Management System
Rs. : Indian Rupees
SAG : Self Help Affinity Group
Sangha : Group
SDC : Swiss Development Cooperation
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
8/42
vii Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
SGSY : Swarna Jayanthi Grameen Swarozgar Yojana
SHG : Self Help Group
Swasahaya : Self Help
UNDP : United Nations Development Programme
UNICEF : United Nation International Children Emergency Fund
USAID : United States Agency for International Development
WDA : Watershed Development Association
ZP : Zilla Panchayat
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
9/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
10/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
11/42
x Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
12/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 1
1. Approach to the Study
The theoretical framework for the study of sustainability relies considerably on the large body of literature
on institutional analysis (Ostrom 1990; Wade 1988; Uphoff 1982; North 1990). According to Honadle
and VanSant (1985), sustainable institutions are those that survive over time as identifiable units, recoversome or even all their costs, and supply a continuing stream of benefits. Dietz et al(2002) believe
institutional sustainability to be the continued use of an institution over time with adaptation occurring
in the norms within the broad framework of stable institutional arrangements. Multiple criteria must be
satisfied as longevity, cost recovery or benefit flows by themselves are just not enough.
The studies such as that of Elinor Ostrom1 demonstrate how certain institutional frameworks for
cooperation engendered by the users themselves endure facilitating the successful management of shared
resources. Ostrom and others showed how many forms of cooperative institutional arrangements could
be robust enough and endure for long periods without being doomed to become another tragedy of the
commons, a destiny which Hardin (1968) postulated would surely befall Common Property Resources
(CPR) characterized by the absence of well-defined property rights. The catalyzing of cooperative action
by external mediation such as that by NGOs raises the question of the longevity and robustness of
institutions crafted through such interventions. The question of institutional sustainability, as envisaged
in this study, is analytic and not normative. The intent is to capture why institutions tend to persist or
perish; not to ascertain whether they ought to sustain.
Measurement of sustainability is widely recognized as an immensely difficult problem, as conventional
monitoring and evaluation methods, mostly using economic analysis, are considered insufficient to detect
or quantify sustainability (Brown et al., 1987; Carpenter, 1993; Chopra, 2001; Landell-Mills, 1998). The
sustainability question, therefore, poses a huge dilemma on the one hand of whether a particular definition
ought to be adopted and used in a normative sense and on the other, having adopted one definition or
another, whether adequate and agreed measures or evaluation frameworks are, indeed, available to test
it. In the absence of a universally accepted definition, the approach adopted here is admittedly an
eclectic one that lays emphasis on the following:
Survival or durability of village level organizations over a long period or what Ostrom calls the
long endurance of self-governing CPR institutions as one key aspect (i.e., the village level
organization continues to be fostered by the village community even after the NGO has ceased
to directly support or guide it and enjoys considerable legitimacy in the village)
The VI has a significant role in the NRM or NRM-based livelihood promotion activities with the
sanction of the community
Norms and practices evolved through the village level organization persist and is perceived asbeneficial by the village community
1. The 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Ms Elinor Ostrom and Mr Oliver E. Williamson.Ostrom demonstrated how common property can be successfully managed by the cooperation among users. Williamsondeveloped a theory where business firms serve as structures for conflict resolution. Ostroms studies on the governanceof the commons challenges the widely held notion that there are no alternatives to managing shared resources otherthan regulation by central authorities or privatization.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
13/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
14/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
15/42
4 Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
The brief Mission Statement that guided Myrada since 1987 is: Building poor peoples institutions.
This arose from the belief that the poor have a right to craft their own institutions which must be
respected.
Myradas organizational structure consists of a Board comprising eminent persons, an Executive Director,Programme and Project Officers and supporting teams based in the field who manage project interventions
covering one or more districts with support from the Head Office. Over the years, some of the Projects
and Training Institutes have hived off into autonomous institutions. Since they continue to share the
mission of Myrada, they have been allowed to incorporate the name Myrada in the titles of the new
organizations. They are considered as part of the Myrada Group of Institutions. The Head Office now
resembles a holding institution. It places staff on the Board of some of these institutions and also mobilizes
resources where required. At any point of time Myrada works directly with one million poor people in
villages and settlements. However, it is also engaged increasingly in small towns in the management of
waste and sanitation and to promote the equitable and sustainable management of water for domestic
and other uses.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
16/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 5
Myrada calls itself an Actionist NGO involved in building poor peoples institutions, through which they
are able to mobilize and manage resources to build their livelihood strategies and lobby effectively and in
a sustainable manner for their rights and entitlements. Myrada believes that the rights of the poor and
marginalized, to build institutions of their own, must be respected and not mainstreamed by the official
system.
Interventions
So far, Myradas interventions cover broadly thirteen areas. In some of these areas it has also made
contributions to development theory, policy and practice. The areas are:
Resettlement of refugees and bonded labourers which started in 1968 and tapered off in the early 80s.
Identifying and fostering Self Help Affinity Groups (SAGs) since 1984 as institutions that generate
empowerment of the poor and marginalized and promote a livelihood strategy for each family.
Provision of quality education and infrastructure in government primary schools since 1985 in which
School Management Committees are involved.
Management of micro watersheds and wasted lands since 1986 where peoples institutions like
Watershed Area Groups take the lead.
Building networks at district level among NGOs, banks and institutions involved in development and
change since 1995.
Promoting institutions like Soukhya groups (sex workers) and Village Health and Sanitation
Committees and their convergence with the Gram Panchayat to foster a holistic approach to Health
and HIV/AIDs since 2000.
Promoting participative management of by a Board comprising representatives from the participative
organizations at the base. The role played by Myrada in mentoring, monitoring and supporting the
community institutions has been taken over by the CMRCs. The CMRC, however, levies a fee for
the services provided to ensure the financial sustainability. The CMRC manager is usually one of the
more experienced Myrada staff, paid fully or partially by the CMRC. The membership in CMRC is
open to groups formed by any NGO or government in the area they cover subject to certain conditions
of commitment, credibility and performance.
Parallel to and supportive of this thrust to build institutions of the poor, has been Myradas concern for
decentralisation of decision-making and financial sustainability at every level of the organization. Since
the early 90s, Myrada has implemented a policy to decentralize functions to its Projects and Training
Officers who are in the districts and to build corpus funds and institutional assets at the project level. By
2005, the Head Office resembled a holding company, which manages part of the inflow of funds, reporting,
training, identifying innovations emerging in the field and testing them, analysing data and reports from
the field on the basis of which staff policy and future plans are developed.
By 2007, Myrada re-positioned itself into the Myrada Group of Institutions (MGIs) a group of
autonomous societies, companies and informal institutions sharing a common vision to promote
livelihood strategies, local governance, environment and natural resource management, health and
education systems through institutions designed and managed by the rural poor in an equitable and
sustainable manner. These fall into three categories:
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
17/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
18/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 7
3 Area Groups the Village Institutions Studied
This study covers 6 Area Groups (watershed farmers groups) within 3 villages (Kudineerkattai, Gowripura
and Sirapanahalli) belonging to the Holalkere and Chalekere blocks of Chitradurga district in Karnataka.
These groups or in Myradas parlance Self Affinity Groups were promoted by Myrada between 1997and 2004.
3.1 Village Institutions Covered in the Study
Six Area Groups initiated within watershed development project areas are covered in this study. These
were established between 1997 and 2004. The group membership varies from 10 to 20 (Table-3.1).
Within each village there are also several womens SHGs functioning along side the Area Groups. The
womens SHGs closely connected with the Area Groups and contacted during the study are shown in
the table (Table-3.1). The Kalikadevi Area Group consists only of women from the SC community. At a
very basic level the Area Groups also function like a SHG in terms of norms followed. The CMRC that
services the Area Groups and SHGs in the villages are also mentioned.Table-3.1 : Farmers Area Groups And Womens SHGs (Year 2008)
Sr. Watershed Start Members Village CMRC Womens SHG
No. Group
1 Sri Hanumantha 1997 20 Kudineerkattai Holalkere Sri Durgambika MSS
Devara JAS
2 Sri Vinayaka 1999 18 Kudineerkattai Holalkere Sri Laxmi MSS
JAS
3 Sri Ganga 2002 13 N.Gowripura Nayakanahatti, Sri Akka Mahadevi -
JNSS Chalekere Sri Maleyamajji MSS
4 Sri Thunga 2004 18 N.Gowripura Nayakanahatti,
JNSS Chalekere
5 Sri Bhadra JNSS 1999 18 Sirapanahalli Chitrahalli, Sri Kariyamma MSS
Holalkere and Sri Mookambika MSS
6 Sri Kalikadevi 1999 10 Sirapanahalli Chitrahalli,
JAS Holalkere
Source: Field studies and CMRC (Hollekare, Nayakanahatti and Chalekere).
JNSS - Jalanayana (Watershed) Nirvahana (Management) Swasahaya (Self Help) Sangha (Group).
JAS - Jalanayana (Watershed) Abhiruddi (Development) Sangha (Group).MSS - Mahila (Women) Swasahaya (Self Help) Sangha (Group).
Note: The field studies were carried out in second half of year 2008.
3.2 Village Profiles
The focus of the study is on the Watershed Group (WSG). Nevertheless, the village situation is briefly
described in order to understand the background. The number of households in these villages varies from
130 to 150 and in N Gowripura nearly 40 percent of households belong to Scheduled Castes (Table-2.2).
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
19/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
20/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
21/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
22/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
23/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
24/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
25/42
14 Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
5 Monitoring and encouraging the group unity and bonding within the group
6 Encouraging service oriented attitude and social networking
7 Supporting free exchange of ideas and opinions within the group to create learning environment
8 Constantly promoting transparency and accountability within the groups and in the WSD projectsIn the early part, the Myrada staff helps the groups with formulating and enforcing norms and rules.
Efforts are made to ensure that there are weekly meetings and all the activities are thoroughly discussed
within the group. A rigorous effort is made to teach the group about the importance of group, about
savings, book maintenance, accounts operations and many small things that go into ensuring mutual
trust and financial integrity of the group. A policy of rotational leadership is enforced that makes it
mandatory that each member leads the group for 6 months in rotation. While some natural leaders will
tend to dominate, it ensures that nobody is taken for granted and helps in greater transparency. A culture
is created wherein all the decisions relating to loans, enforcement of norms, roles and responsibilities of
leaders are discussed in the group without any grudge or hard feelings as these become a routine matter
over the nurturing phase.
The certainty of Myradas eventual exit from the day-to-day work of the group is discussed at a suitable
stage and efforts are made to gradually usher in the exit by encouraging independent relations with the
banks and other external players. All the pending issues where Myradas presence is needed are phased
out so that the group has no dependence on Myrada. With the establishment of the CMRC, the minimal
support required is provided by the CMRC staff. In case there are issues that are not getting resolved
within the group, the CMRC is there to help mediate a solution. The CMRC staff does not regularly
attend the group or intervene in any matter unless a group specifically requires the mediation. In most
cases, the group leaders visit the CMRC when needed, either to get information or to keep the group
informed about new developments.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
26/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 15
5. Area Groups Changes and Present Status
The member-wise survey was carried out to determine the changes brought about by the Area Group
and the WSD. The survey shows that there is hardly any member who is illiterate and every child in the
school going age group is attending school.
5.1 Land Ownership
There are 6 landless households among the 97 households associated with the 6 Area Groups (Table-
4.1). About 58 percent have agricultural land holdings below 4 acres. There are 9 households with more
than 8 acres (9 %). The mean landholding per household is about 4 acres and the average area irrigated
before the watershed development projects was less than one acre per household.
Table-5.1 : Land Ownership
Institution Village Land-holdings (acres) Members
Nil Up to 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 >8
1 Sri Vinayaka Kudineerkattai 0 7 4 4 3 2 20
2 Sri Hanumanta Kudineerkattai 0 6 3 6 2 1 18
Devara
3 Ganga N.Gowripura 2 6 4 0 0 1 13
4 Thunga N.Gowripura 4 1 7 2 0 4 18
5 Bhadra Sirapanahalli 0 2 7 4 4 1 18
6 Kalikadevi Sirapanahalli 0 3 6 1 0 0 10
TOTAL 6 25 31 17 9 9 97
Source: Primary data from field work (2008).
5.2 Income
About 71 percent of the households have income less than Rs. 2,000/- per month (Table-5.2 and Table-
5.3). The poorest group is Sri Kalikadevi with nobody reporting income more than
Rs. 1000/- per month. The data on members who have additional expenses on childrens education
showed that nobody from this group is able make that extra expenditure.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
27/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
28/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 17
Rs. 2,000/- per month followed by 2.4 times of that in 2004 in the group having less than Rs. 1,000/-
(Table-5.5). However, the maximum savings per member in the year 2008 of Rs. 4,100/- is in the income
group between Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 4,000/-.
Table-5.4 : Savings: Year 2004-05 and 2008
Area Group Village 2004-05 2008 Multiple
1 Vinayaka Kudineerkattai 23,125 46,565 2.01
2 Hanumanta Devara Kudineerkattai 22,630 45,850 2.03
3 Ganga N.Gowripura 3,220 15,300 4.75
4 Thunga N.Gowripura 25,360 49,440 1.95
5 Bhadra Sirapanahalli 38,590 67,500 1.75
6 Kalikadevi Sirapanahalli 0 15,000 NAAll Groups 112,925 239,655 2.12
Source: Primary data from field work (2008).
Table-5.5 : Savings (Rs.) By Income Group: Year 2008
Area Group Village Less 1000 2000 3000 4000 More TOTAL
than to to to to than
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 5000
Vinayaka Kudineerkattai 18,310 6,000 6,000 3,000 2,685 10,570 46,565
Hanumanta Kudineerkattai 16,260 8,570 - - 15,340 5,680 45,850
Devara
Ganga N.Gowripura 7,900 7,400 - - - - 15,300
Thunga N.Gowripura 34,760 2,500 8,060 - 4,120 - 49,440
Bhadra Sirapanahalli 39,700 - - 9,300 18,500 - 67,500
Kalikadevi Sirapanahalli 15,000 - - - - - 15,000
All Groups 131,930 24,470 14,060 12,300 40,645 16,250 239,655
Members 54 15 7 3 10 8 97
Savings per Member 2,443 1,631 2,009 4,100 4,065 2,031 2,471
SavingMultiple 2.4 2.9 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.1
Source: Primary data from field work (2008).
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
29/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
30/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
31/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
32/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 21
3) It is not truly of the same nature as other 5 Area Groups covered in this study and functions
basically only as an SHG.
As the field work progressed, it became clear to the team that initially these households were organized
as a SAG in the attempt to replicate the Area Group model as an inclusive approach embracing thepoorest. The original Area Group that was formed was a typical male farmers group with heads of
households from these families. The male Area Group did not take-off as they were working mostly as
labourers and did not find the model very useful or attractive given their occupational compulsions. The
WSD had not dramatically altered that situation and they were not investing much in farming. As this
experiment to integrate those with weak stakes in the WSD into watershed-centred institutional model
did not make much headway, Myrada helped the women from these households to form an SHG that
continued to be known as an Area Group, while they functioned purely as a SHG. As a SHG, they do
function well and unlike the male members they are deeply committed to the group. They find the group
very meaningful. They maintain their books and diligently follow norms of the SHG. The savings are
truly very important to them given their poverty and social status.
The ability to actually ensure rotational leadership within the groups has certainly made a big difference.
Because of this there are no undisputed or domineering leaders, while the smart leadership of some
outstanding individuals are certainly recognized. The multi-layer investigation used in the study showed
that all members have at some stage taken on some initiatives and are well aware of all aspects of
functioning. The versions of events or organizational development do not vary much between the accounts
provided by different members who had been group leaders at one time or other, except for differences
in nuances or perceptions. Deep or debilitating anxiety about fund management was not to be seen in
any of the groups, except for the complex case of Sri Bhadra, which does not appear to be actually one
such case.
What was most striking in most cases is that the question of managing the watershed resources is not anitem of high priority. The groups are today, deeply embedded in maximizing the individual gains using
the group to leverage credit and other facilities. All members were, indeed, nostalgic about the period of
WSD projects. However, they were more articulate about the individual transformations and
metamorphosis in the farming systems than with the details of watershed development itself. The nitty-
gritty of watershed development did not excite them. What fired them up were the changes in the
economic profile and the large role of cash flows that now characterize their farming now. All the Area
Groups seemed confident that any task relating to managing or maintenance of the common assets or
infrastructure can be addressed when the need arises rather than think about it now.
None of the groups covered in this study is now active in any of the federations of Area Groups that
Myrada had promoted. Some were associated, but have now ceased to be active in it. The closestwatershed-wide institutional arrangement that incorporates individual area groups is the federation.
However, there is not much evidence that there are significant stakes for the individual Area Group
members in the federation as to make them take more interest in such a system. As of now, there is not
much of economic or financial incentive that is connecting the Area Group to the idea of federated area
groups.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
33/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
34/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 23
6. Discussion
6.1 Watershed Management Group or SHG?
The Area Group was truly a puzzle in the mosaic of institutions covered in this multi-location study
embracing a variety of community institutions. The name itself does not reveal too much about the
nature or the core interests of the entity. From the initial discussions one could only form a hazy
picture of the institutional model. At times, it seemed one is discussing the functioning of a SHG, or
about organizations involved in some way with the management of watershed amenities or farmers
collectives. While it did have strong characteristics of a SHG, its role in overall management of the
watershed seems very limited and for most members that is not a day-to-day concern.
One has to also confess that often when the discussion is about watershed development, unwittingly or
subconsciously, one begins to grapple with a host of normative principles and the institutional needs all
that entails. We, therefore, cannot be faulted for getting carried away by such considerations to embark
on a search for elusive needles in the many haystacks and try to figure out what kind of schedules andchecklists to use given the brief of poking our nose into a veritable hornets nest community institutions
in watershed! After several rounds of discussions were completed, it was clear we need not unduly
worry about many of the normative issues of watershed management. Instead, the challenge became one
of understanding the blend of what seemed like user groups and SHGs. After the pilot stage, it became
even more apparent that there is very little of the watershed dimensions to be incorporated and also that
these institutions were more about farming in a rain-fed area than with watershed managementper se.
What stands out in the specific context was that almost all the members were either literate or had
substantial school education. They were able to articulate the issues well, as they seemed to have soundly
imbibed quite a bit of the technicalities of watershed management and the nuances of land treatment.
Besides, they belonged to communities whose farming traditions span across innumerable generations.They were quick learners when it came to modernizing farming or experimenting with new options.
The Area Group proved to be a double-edged sword of sorts. Before being part of the group each
farmer was trying to tackle issues alone and all the agricultural extension services that were available
was mostly communicating with the individual farmer. The core of Area Group appears to be its pivotal
role as a learning platform where a group effort is possible to assimilate and sift through the inputs that
may at times be very confusing to the individual farmer. The discussions show that when the area groups
mature, their core interests become more centered on common financial interests (to be discussed
later) and in adapting or absorbing knowledge to apply for economic gains.
What we observed was truly a spectacular blossoming of individual farming initiatives by some of the
group members and a new found propensity to take on risks, having tasted the fruits of easy credit. The
group was not determining individual actions. It was merely emboldening the enterprising individuals to
move a notch higher and providing the confidence or perhaps the security for the not-so enterprising
ones to just try to do a little better. The central role of the Area Group it appears from the numerous
discussions was not primarily that of a savings vehicle or a driver for some sort of collective enterprise,
but more of a platform where the members could bank on both the peer-to-peer interactions in a structured
manner and to build on the collective wisdom.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
35/42
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
36/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 25
6.3 Watershed Management
This discussion cannot be complete without looking at the watershed and its management. As can be
seen from the names of the Area Groups, the umbilical connection with the watershed is constantly
recalled. One Area Group by itself cannot do much in terms of managing any watershed. There havebeen attempts to federate the Area Groups. However, it does not appear that the federations are or were
actually watershed-level organizations. More over, none of the Area Groups covered in this study is now
an active partner in any federation. The role of federation does not seem to be that of a larger watershed
management, but of acting as an apex body for a large number of Area Groups to provide advantages of
scale and other benefits of aggregation. As of now, issues of watershed management after WSD project
is neither a day-to-day issue nor core theme for any Area Group.
One of the biggest eye openers from this study is this limited significance of what is often argued as very
critical concerns after the successful completion of WSD projects. The discussions with farmers who
have actually benefitted greatly from the WSD projects showed that hardly anyone is worried about
these questions now and do not consider those issues to be the basis of any group. While the WSDProject itself, in so far as its successful completion is considered important, there was no evidence that
the host of small steps and processes which are often highlighted in the discourses on participatory
watershed are considered that important by the members. It was the larger process of forming the
savings group, of learning from project management and understanding better land management that
were considered as life changers. Often members emphasized the decisions taken to deploy machines
to speed up work and attain quicker results.
The stakes were not built, somewhat in a literal sense, through many brick-by-brick processes but by the
buying into the project development through conversion of portions of grants into loans, by contributing
a certain percentage of the cost for redeeming private land and accepting the soft credits for enabling
individual gains. The resultant transformation has been such that it has provided both the financialcapability and institutional strength for these groups to assert that issues of watershed management are
something that can be addressed by well-functioning Area Groups, without, perhaps, the need for either
watershed-wide organizations or institutional frameworks. While this may or may not actually happen,
one wonders whether there is currently an excessive emphasis in the watershed development debate on
too many normative elements to the post-project institutional design.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
37/42
26 Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
References
Agarwal A (2002), Common Resources and Institutional Sustainability, In The Drama of the Commons,
Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global change. E. Ostrom. T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S.
Stovich and E.U. Weber (Eds) Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, NationalAcademy Press, Washington DC.
Baland J.M. and J.P. Platteau (1996), Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is there a Role for
Rural Communities?, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
Bromley, D.V. (1989) Economic Interests and Institutions: Conceptual foundations of public policy.
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Bromley, D.V., (1992) Making the commons work: Theory, Practice and Policy. Institute of Contemporary
Studies Press, San Francisco.
Brown, B., Hanson M., Liverman D., and Meredith R. (1987),Global Sustainability: Toward Definition.,
Environmental Management, Vol. 1, No. 6: pages 713-719
Carpenter, Richard A. (1993). Can Sustainability be Measured? Environmental Strategy 5, (February):
13-16.
Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman: London.
Chopra, K, and S.C.Gualati. (2001). Migration, Common Property Resources and Environmental
Degradation: Inter-linkages in Indias Arid and Semi-arid Regions, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Dietz T., N. Dolsak, E. Ostrom, P.C. Stern (2002), The drama of the commons, in The Drama of the
Commons, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global change. E. Ostrom. T. Dietz, N. Dolsak,P.C. Stern, S. Stovich and E.U. Weber (Eds) Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Hardin, Garrett (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859, pp. 1243-1248.
Honadle, G., and J. VanSant (1985), Implementation for Sustainability: Lessons from Integrated Rural
Development, Kumarian, West Hartford.
Landell-Mills, N. (1998), Cost-Benefit Analysis: A useful tool for evaluating watershed Development
Projects? Paper prepared for National Workshop on Watershed approaches to wasteland development,
New Delhi, 27-29 April 1998.
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Political Economyof Institutions and Decision Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Oakerson, R. J. (1992). Analyzing the commons: a framework. Making the Commons Work:
Theory, Practice and Policy. ICS Press San Francisco and California.
Olson, M (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Harvard
University Press, Harvard
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Political
economy of Institutions and Decision series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
38/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 27
Ostrom, E. (1992), Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. Institute for Contemporary
Studies Press, San Francisco.
Rasmussen L and Ruth Meinzen-Dick (1995), Local Organizations for Natural Resource Management:
Lesson from Theoretical and Empirical Literature, EPTD Discussion Paper No 11, IFPRI, WashingtonDC.
Shah, A. (2003) Minimising costs, Maximising Benefits, Development Support Centre, Ahmedabad and
SPWD, New Delhi
Shah, T. (2003) Management of Natural Resources, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Bombay.
Shah, T. (1995) Making Farmers Co-operatives Work, Sage Publications, New Delhi
Shah, T. (1996) Catalysing Co-Operation: Design of Self Governing Organisations, Sage Publications,
New Delhi
Steins, N. A. and Edwards, V. M. (1999) Collective Action in Common-Pool Resource Management :
The Contribution of a Social Constructivist Perspective to Existing Theory. Society and Natural
Resources 12(6): 539-557.
Uphoff, N.T. (ed.) (1982), Rural Development and Local Organisations in Asia, vols. 1 & 2. Macmillian
India, Delhi
Wade, R. (1988), Village republics: economic conditions for collective action in South India, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
The Author
Mr. Chandanathil P Geevan has more than 25 years of work experience on different aspects ofenvironment and development. With a doctorate from the School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi he has been associated with several inter-disciplinary studies such as
ecological economics, environmental management, vulnerability assessment and policy analysis. Besides
being the Honorary Director of the Centre for Environment and Social Concerns (CESC), Ahmedabad,
he heads the consulting firm Innovizon Consulting based at Ahmedabad.
Contact info: [M] 9824283954; email: [email protected]
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
39/42
28 Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
40/42
Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs 29
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
41/42
30 Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs
8/4/2019 Vi5 Myrada Final Print
42/42