 |
| |
Khudawadi Article |
|
| |
Looking Back, Thinking
Forward !
|
|
| |
Women and landless
people’s access to irrigation, the Khudawadi experience Seema
Kulkarni
|
|
| |
Irrigation policies and
interventions until recently never demanded distinguishing between
different categories of water users. The thrust of their work
was to make more water available for agriculture as per the geographical
patterns and chronological schedules. There was obviously little
concern over which particular communities and social groups need
access to water. It was a matter of even less concern as to which
households benefit from such huge public expenditure leaves alone
which members of the household. This process had therefore totally
eliminated any opportunity for women to claim rights on water
Society for Promoting
Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM) is an organisation
actively working in the water sector for over a decade now. It
has been involved in action research programmes related to sustainable
resource use practices, equitable distribution of water, formation
of water users groups for decentralised management of water etc.
The underlying perspective and strategy that link all these efforts
together can be broadly described as the biomass based production
strategy. This alternative strategy is primarily based on:
 |
Primary biomass productivity as
its starting point and sustainable enhancement of that productivity; |
|
The critical role played by resource
assessment, matching resource availability to needs and strategic
use of limited external inputs to optimise the sustainable
productivity gain by appropriate technological choice; |
|
Creating equitable access for the
rural poor and disadvantaged sections, especially women, to
the biomass production facilities including water and land/wasteland)
and biomass product as well as local materials and renewable
energy sources; |
|
Taking account of non-farm livelihood activities
that are possible; |
|
Creating institutional arrangements and conditions
for assistance and cost recovery which would provide incentive
for primary productivity enhancement, optimal use of external
resources, access to productive resources for the rural poor
and disadvantaged sections, especially the women; and |
|
making possible a transition to an energy self-reliant,
dispersed industrial system of production and livelihoods.
Thus, the strategy does not stop at agriculture or primary
production alone; on the contrary the full realisation of
the strategy would take place only if it is accompanied by
value addition through dispersed industrial production. This
is especially true for sections that are landless, agriculture
labourers, artisans and women who are mostly out of the purview
of land-based production systems. |
SOPPECOM’s primary thrust is on the principle of sustainable
productivity enhancement and equity. Within SOPPECOM equity is seen
as a matter of minimum assurance to all of water required for livelihood
needs irrespective of their ownership of land. Minimum water assurance
is here seen as a right that vests in people by virtue of their
right to an adequate livelihood, and not by virtue of the land or
other assets that they own. In the conventional approach, water
rights are tied to and enjoyed through land rights. In contrast,
the consensus around the concept of equitable access to water in
SOPPECOM is based on a separation between the two. Although there
is a tradition of natural equity of a minimum water assurance among
landholders (especially when they belong to traditional peasant
castes usually these concepts do not extend such assurance very
easily to the landless or to women. Special efforts are often needed
to bring such disadvantaged groups within the ambit of minimum water
assurance as a right of equitable water access.
SOPPECOM along with Maitreyi a Mumbai based women’s group
and Women’s Studies Unit of Tata Institute of Social Sciences
made such an effort in Southern Maharashtra in a village called
Khudawadi.
Khudawadi village in the drought-prone Osmanabad district in
Marathwada region is situated at the tail end of the Kurnur Medium
Irrigation Project. It never received its share of water till
a water users’ association (WUA) was formed in the village
in 1992. In fact this `deprivation’ of not getting water
irrespective of being within the command was the main driving
force for the people to come together, to form the WUA and take
over the water distribution and management. SOPPECOM, which has
done pioneering work in PIM in Maharashtra, helped the local people
in establishing the WUA, and it has been functioning well for
the last 5-6 years. This forms the backdrop of the whole programme
in Khudawadi.
Here the organisation worked at three levels
|
Establishing water
rights for the landless and the women |
|
Providing support through capacity
building for productive use of water |
|
Institutional
arrangements for sustaining and defending the established
rights. |
Establishing Water Rights
Water Users’ Association
The Kurnur Medium Irrigation project on the Bori river is about
8-9 kms away from Khudawadi. The Khudawadi minor, a 5.95 km long
canal, runs through Khudawadi village and it is supposed to irrigate
about 270 ha of land with a break-up of 81 ha in Kharif, 94.5 ha
in Rabi and 94.5 ha in summer or hot weather. The dam has a live
storage of 32,281 TCM with an irrigable command of 2964 ha. SOPPECOM,
had a dialogue with some of the farmers from Khudawadi village around
1991. Some of the initial meetings with the farmers indicated that
there was a definite need to organise the landholders around this
issue. Although the irrigation project was completed in 1968, the
data till 1993 shows that the canal had not been able to irrigate
more than 40-50 ha of land. There are about 260 landholders in the
command of the Khudawadi minor, most of them are small and marginal
farmers owning on an average about 1 to 1.5 ha of land. Farmers
sensed a lot of insecurity because of the Irrigation Department’s
(ID) unplanned and irregular water rotation system and inequity
in distribution of water. As a result of this they could not make
a cropping plan beforehand. This situation convinced the farmers
the need to organise into a WUA. A formal registration of the WUA
under the Co-operative Societies Act was done in 1992. After the
joint inspection of the physical system carried out on 25th of July
1993 and after the necessary repairs in the system were completed
the ID did the handing over of the system to the WUA in 1994.
After the WUA took over the water distribution and management of
the canal from the Irrigation Department, its first year of actual
operation started in November 1995. This was a bad year in terms
of monsoon. However, the ID made a positive discrimination because
of the WUA and released water only to Khudawadi Minor. Though the
ID released only a small quantum of 23 MCFT (Million Cubic Feet)
and not the full quota, the WUA managed it very efficiently and
could irrigate about 100 ha of land in one season. This was a record
of sorts. Apart from being able to expand the irrigated area, the
WUA managed a full recovery of the water fees and a total audit
of the water use, something the ID had not been able to do in years.
Equity Innovations
From the very outset members stated that a guarantee of assured
water to every member was necessary, and that every member should
have equitable access to water. Many discussions were held with
the members of the WUA as to how best to operationalise the principle
of equity. After much deliberation (and some resistance) it was
agreed that each landholder during the time of registration of the
WUA would be treated as one family and each family would get water
for 1 ha of land.
The other important equity innovation on the part of the WUA was
the allocation of a 15% water share to the landless families of
the village. In fact it was around this right that the whole programme
in Khudawadi village evolved. The processes involved in evolving
this understanding is dealt with a little later.
Paryayi Vikas Sanstha -- An organisation
of the landless
The allocation of 15 percent of its water quota by the WUA set the
environment for change. Very often such innovative equity decisions
remain in principle alone. It was therefore decided to make a very
conscious effort to translate this into an established right. The
issue here was not just one of asserting a right over a resource
but also one of giving a positive meaning to this right.
It should be mentioned here that the demand for a share in the water
did not come from the landless group. It was initiated by SOPPECOM
as part of its commitment to equity. SOPPECOM put different options
before the WUA and the final outcome of the allocation of 15 percent
share of water to the landless was a suggestion that came from the
members of the WUA themselves. One of the reasons why the WUA agreed
to this sharing arrangement was that SOPPECOM had made this conditional
for its involvement in the formation of the WUA.
During the initial discussions with SOPPECOM when setting up the
WUA, it agreed to earmark 15% of the water the WUA would receive
from the Irrigation Department for the landless and women in the
village. Along with this was the question of what the landless and
women would do with the water if they do not have access to land.
One option was to make available the private wasteland, nearly 100
ha, from which the owners do not get anything much. After much persuasion
and reassurance, six owners having about 10 ha of contiguous wasteland,
though initially reluctant and apprehensive of losing ownership,
agreed to lease their wasteland on a lease of 15 years to the landless
and women’s group and entered into a written agreement on
a stamp paper to this effect.
There were various issues that had to be tackled. There was the
issue of what should be produced on this land using their share
of water. The men were interested in horticultural cash crops like
grapes, but it was found difficult on various counts like the initial
capital, market fluctuations, risk, the high levels of skills required,
and importantly the fact that the only land that was made available
to the landless by the WUA was fallow lands outside the command.
The men gradually lost interest and it became a landless women’s
programme of a plantation that would give them employment opportunities
as an immediate gain and fodder, fuel and some cash income after
about 10 years when the trees could be cut on a rotational basis
or so.
About thirteen landless families became members of the newly registered
society which was called the Paryayi Vikas Sanshta or PVS.
Another component of the programme was women’s intensive cultivation
of small plots, the size of 10 gunthas (one guntha is 0.01 ha or
an acre) along with a share of water offered by one farmer. This
was based on the ideas of Shri S. A. Dabholkar of Prayog Parivar,
an informal network of experimenter-farmers, who was propagating
an innovative concept of sustainable, intensive cultivation of small
plots using low external input sustainable (LEISA) agricultural
techniques. SOPPECOM was interested in taking up this experimental
programme since it could meet the needs of landless and women provided
they got access to land and water.
Sharing of the produce, the return owners get for their land was
another issue. In the usual arrangements landowners are in a dominant
position because they control land and water. However in the new
situation the landless and in this case the women were in a better
position as they controlled the water. Finally it was decided that
the land owners and women’s group would enter into a produce
sharing arrangement under which 40% of the produce would go to the
land owners, 40% would go to the women and 20% would remain with
the women’s group (Paryayi Vikas Sanstha -- PVS) as a collective
fund. The women’s group it was agreed would pay no rent for
the land that was leased in.
Financial resources for lifting water, for wages to be paid to the
women for the time they invest until the development of the wasteland,
came from a SOPPECOM-Maitreyi project with the financial support
from the Canadian International Development Agency under its Small
Projects Environment (SPEF) for four years. The women took up various
activities like nursery, soil and water conservation work in the
wasteland, planting and maintenance of trees, soil development and
in-situ composting, cultivation of different crops in the small
plot, setting up a water system for both the small plot and wasteland,
etc.
The programme also had other spin-off effects. One, the women started
a Self Help Group (SHG) which met some of their credit needs and
brought the women together as a cohesive group. In fact these women
formed the nucleus of the PVS. The women collectively took up a
goat rearing scheme under the Integrated Rural development Programme
(IRDP) based on fodder from the 10 ha wasteland -- as a result of
the soil and water conservation works and protection from open grazing
-- and now own Rs. one lakh worth of goats, and one acre of agricultural
land (which they bought) and a permanent shed for the goats, also
repaying the loan regularly. Here access to water was the starting
point.
Institutional Arrangements
Understanding between the WUA and PVS
As mentioned earlier, the members of the WUA had decided on an equitable
sharing of water and as per this understanding all the families
who own land within the command of Khudawadi minor would get access
to water as per the norms fixed by the WUA. Several discussions
were held with the members of the WUA to evolve a consensus regarding
the operationalisation of this principle of equity. After much deliberation
(and some resistance) it was agreed that each landholder (who has
land against his name in the village land records) during the time
of registration would be treated as one family and each family would
get water for 1 ha of land.
The other issue that came up for discussion was with regard to the
sharing of the additional water the well owners would get because
of the recharge from the canal water. If there is no sharing of
this additional water, then it is very obvious that only the well
owners would benefit from the recharge. Different options were explored
-- should the WUA tax the well owners for the use of this additional
water ? Should the recharge be estimated and the well owner receive
that much less water from the canal? Should the additional water
be pooled together and made available to those who do not have wells?
There was a lot of debate on this issue. SOPPECOM members strongly
put forth the point that when so much public money is being invested
for the formation of a WUA, then the WUA too had an obligation to
ensure equitable and productive use of this resource. The well owners
also seem to have made their own estimations about the possible
recharge and came to the conclusion that on a minimum there would
be about 15 percent recharge of the canal water. This seems to be
one of the immediate reasons, apart from their commitment to equity
because of the initiative taken by SOPPECOM in this regard, for
them agreeing to allocate 15 percent of the canal water to the landless
in the village. Of course, this 15 percent would be a proportionate
share, as the quantum of this 15 percent would depend on the quantum
of water the WUA would receive from the ID each year. Though the
ID is supposed to supply 70 MCFT of water to the WUA as per the
MoU signed by the ID with WUA, this allocation would change as per
the water available in the Bori dam. For example, if the dam fills
only partially, then the water quota to the WUA would also be reduced
accordingly. The decision to allocate 15 percent of water to the
landless in the village has also been recorded in the minutes register
of the WUA.
Agreement between PVS and the owners
of the wasteland
Khudawadi village does not have any gairan or community land. Hence,
the landless group had to initiate a discussion with the owners
of wastelands and work out some produce sharing arrangements. Landowners
whose wasteland was closer to the canal were approached. Eight to
ten such farmers were identified and a discussion was initiated.
Initially there was a lot of reluctance on the part of the landowners
as they feared that the tenancy laws would apply and they would
finally lose ownership over their own land. When they were assured
that nothing of that sort would happen and that nothing would be
done to their 7/12 record (village land record), they agreed to
have further discussions on the matter. Soon they started bargaining
for a better deal. Some landowners insisted on a land lease as per
the traditional practice prevalent in the area, which meant that
the PVS would have to pay a fixed annual rent per acre. (The prevalent
rent at that time was approximately Rs. 1000 per year per acre for
grazing lands).
This was discussed with the women who decided to reject these offers
for various reasons. First of all, if most of the project money
were to be spent on paying rent for land, then very little money
would be available for developing the land. Secondly, the demand
was not for land ownership, but for a land lease for a period of
15 to 20 years. In that case, at the end of the lease period, the
owners would in any case get back their lands and that too developed
and productive land.
Women then decided to sit together and come out with a concrete
offer to the landowners. Apart from the landless women, people from
a few other social organisations also came together to discuss a
fair deal or agreement that could be worked out between the owners
and the landless.
The main points that emerged out of these meetings were:
|
A legally valid agreement or a
memorandum of understanding to be made on a stamp paper. |
|
No rent would be given to the landowner
but the productive land would remain his. |
|
Of the net produce, 40 percent
would go to the owner, 40 percent to the landless and 20 percent
to the association of the landless for maintenance of the
land during the lease period. |
|
The lease would be for a minimum period of
15 years. |
Produce sharing of timber, fuel, fruit would start from the seventh
year onwards; however fodder will be cut and given from the first
year itself.
These terms were discussed with several landowners. Here was a situation
where the landless women were totally geared up for some activity,
but the landowners could not accept the terms. It was December 1994
and there was still no consensus. To sustain the women's interest
a plant nursery was initiated. It gave the group some time to sustain
the dialogue with different landowners while continuing with an
economic as well as a training activity. This proved to be a good
decision, since it provided a forum for the women to discuss diverse
issues.
From January 1995 onwards efforts were concentrated on discussing
the offer with the landowners to find out whether they were willing
to lease out land on the terms set by the group. After several rounds
of discussions, some six farmers -- all from the shepherd community
-- agreed to give the landless women a total of 10 ha of land. The
farmers agreed to most of the terms set, but insisted on being given
a share in the fodder from the very first year as they normally
used these lands as grazing lands. It was, therefore, agreed to
cut and give a 40% share in the fodder to the owners from the first
year itself. Although cutting the fodder and giving it would mean
a free service to them, the objective was to prevent free grazing
on the land. The agreement was signed on 1st April 1995. Development
of the wasteland started in May 1995.
Capacity Building for Meaningful Use
of the Resource rights
Development of 10 ha
The ten-hectare wasteland, taken up by the landless and
women’s group for development on a produce sharing arrangement
and a long-term lease of 15 years from the individual owners, falls
outside the command of the Khudawadi minor. Prior to this, the owners
had used this land primarily as grazing land and no cultivation
had been done on this land for the last 20 years or so. Continuous
free grazing and extensive run-offs have depleted the soil cover
of this land. The land is owned by the members of the shepherd (dhangar)
community who are also farmers. There is very little natural vegetation
on this land. Seed/root stock of different grasses is almost negligible
leaving the land barren and dry for most part of the year. It is
estimated that there are about 100 ha of such privately owned wastelands
in Khudawadi village.
This 10 ha land, owned by six farmers, is contiguous and is made
up of a few small hillocks. The land is stony, undulating, with
very little soil cover and highly degraded.
By early May the contour survey of the 10 ha plot was completed.
The women using the ‘A-Frame’ method did plotting of
points along the contour lines. The women’s group was trained
to use the A-Frame. In fact, the women, with the help of one technical
person, completed the entire contour plotting.
As a first step in developing this wasteland it was decided to take
up extensive soil and water conservation works. It would provide
employment to the group and also would minimise the soil and water
run-off. The group also decided to restrict the plantation activities
to a smaller area in the first year, as there would not have been
enough water to sustain the plantation on a larger area. Prof. S.A.
Dabholkar, one of the consultants to the project, was of the opinion
that instead of going in for large-scale plantation in the first
year, efforts should be made to prepare trenches and pits as well
as to initiate the process of preparation of fertile soil (known
as the nursery soil) by collecting and composting different categories
of biomass such as dry leaves, mature green leaves, fresh sprouts
and twigs. This nursery soil could, then, be used for plantation
in the subsequent years. He also suggested that certain species
like the glyrecidia (high in nitrogen content) should be planted
extensively. This would serve not only as a live fencing but periodic
cuttings of this plant could also give a lot of leaf matter to improve
the nitrogen content of the soil.
There were consultative meetings between the women and members of
the SOPPECOM team to decide on the kind of soil and water conservation
works that would be useful for the land. With the use of the contour
map of the plot, a broad development plan was prepared and locations
for bunding and trenching were marked on the contour map. These
were slightly modified when the actual soil and water conservation
works were carried out.
Weekly meetings held with the women were very crucial in taking
decisions about the development of the land like the positioning
of the bunds/trenches, the type of bunds/trenches essential to arrest
soil and water run-off, etc. Their involvement in decision making
not only benefited the entire physical development works, but it
also helped in increasing their participation in the larger programme,
essentially in making them feel that it was their programme and
that they have to carry the programme forward for the next 15 years.
It has to be mentioned here that, though a lot of efforts were made
to involve the landowners in the planning process, there was little
interest and initiative from their side. Hence, a live interaction
between the two groups - the women’s group and the landowners
- could not be maintained during the project period.
Innovative techniques used -- skills
internalised by women
|
frame
method: This is a method to mark the contour lines
on a piece of land through a simple wooden frame in the shape
of the alphabet ‘A’. A string, with a heavy object
at its end (for example a stone) is tied from the centre of
this frame. The string would be at the centre on one contour
line and would tilt on either side if the A-frame is kept
on a slope. The women were trained to mark the contour lines
by this method. The contour markings were rechecked at different
points by the dumpy level until the required accuracy was
attained. The women did the entire marking of the 10 ha plot
by using the A-frame method. |
|
Poly-drip
method: Many new ideas or experiments done elsewhere
regarding plantation methods were discussed in the meetings
with the women. ‘Baliraja’ - a Marathi magazine
on agriculture - was regularly read and discussed in the group
meetings. One or two girls from the group who could read and
write often brought in new topics for discussion. One interesting
idea that emerged from these discussions was that of poly-drip
method of watering the plants. In this method, sand is filled
in a polythene bag of 1 litre capacity. A couple of holes
are made at the base of such a bag. It is then kept in a small
pit just on the slope so that the water poured in the bag
gradually percolates to the root zone of the plant. At the
base of the pit, a mulch of decomposed grass and leaf matter
was put and the bag was placed on the mulch. This method was
used for about 400 saplings. It is a very low cost water saving
technique and the water gets supplied to the root-zone of
the plant.(See photograph at the end of the section) |
|
Mulching:
When Shri Dabholkar visited the plantation area, he suggested
certain measures to improve the plantation. For example, to
improve the root zone development of the plants he suggested
that the soil under the roots of the grasses could be collected
and along with dry leaves and grasses put it in three layers
around the saplings. According to him each plant, growing
in a square foot area, would require 4 litres of such fertile
soil (See photograph at the end of the section). |
|
Pruning: One-third
of the new growth of the plants was pruned every six months,
which gave a good bushy growth to the plants. This pruned
leaf matter was used as mulch for the soil. |
|
Monitoring biomass
growth: The women also got trained in taking measurements
of trees using different methods. The most important point
here is that they saw the importance of taking these measurements
to make an assessment of the type of inputs that have gone
into the plantation programme and the type of output that
they can see in the form of standing biomass. |
Water system
Providing a water system for10 ha wasteland plot at Khudawadi has
been a major challenge by the fact that the plot is located on a
hillock with steep slopes characterised by heavy undulation and
presence of boulders and stones. The site posed several difficulties
restricting the transport of materials for construction of water
facilities, laying of pipe lines for water conveyance, etc. The
choice of technology options therefore had to be innovative to overcome
difficulties and also to bring down the costs so that if the innovative
options are successful, appropriate, they can be replicated widely
in similar situations.
It was quite clear that water could be made available at the top
of hill only by lifting water from the canal. From the annexed contour
plan and sections it would be evident that due to disposition of
canal at a fairly long distance from the plot and steep rise from
the base of the hill to the wasteland plot, the pumping energy for
the lift would have been quite significant.
It is rather difficult to draw any definite conclusions about the
overall biomass strategy on the basis of such a small scale and
short duration pilot project as was attempted in Khudawadi. In fact
projects of this nature should have a minimum time period of about
5 years to attain its full potential. However, on the basis of the
experience, data and processes generated by the pilot project one
can definitely say that the pilot project does indicate the potential
of such a strategy to meet at least part of the livelihood needs
of the rural poor. What the project has achieved could be described
as the bottom line with enough scope for optimisation. Probably
better results could have been possible with a little more organisational
and technological inputs. The pilot project did help in bringing
to the forefront some of the issues which are important for both
taking up similar projects and for evolving a strategy for its generalisation.
Some of these issues are discussed below.
Intensive Cultivation on Small Plots
Ten guntha (0.10 ha) or small plot intensive cultivation by women
was taken as one of the project components in Khudawadi with the
idea that it can generate an independent source of income for women
provided they get access to water and land. In Khudawadi, as mentioned
earlier, the WUA agreed to give water to the landless and women.
One of the ways to make use of this water by the women was to go
for this small plot intensive cultivation. The second important
aspect of this component was that it would help the women enhance
their skills and understanding of primary production and thus become
a training opportunity for the women. It was also thought that through
this the women can get access to an important resource, that is
knowledge and skills, and in the alternative development approach,
which characterises the Khudawadi efforts, they would play an important
role. Thus, it is also one of the ways to empower the women.
The approach used in the 10 guntha cultivation can be broadly called
as the Prayog Parivar (PP) approach. PP is an informal network of
experimental farmers pioneered by Prof. S A Dabholkar. This approach
emerged from the efforts of Prof. Dabholkar to enhance learning
capabilities of farmers with little formal education. The term prayog
literally means experiment and parivar here signifies a loose knit
family sharing similar concerns and a zest for learning through
experimentation. It is a process of experimental learning through
which the participants discover their own potential and that of
nature’s resources as being crucial in fulfilling their livelihood
needs and much more. In this approach there is continuing communication
and dialogue between scientists and the farmers.
As mentioned earlier, the main emphasis of this experiment, as done
in Khudawadi, was to develop skills among the landless women in
improving the productivity of small plots by using green manure,
recycled wastes and other methods. This, it was hoped, would enhance
productivity and ensure food security to their families or alternatively
can also produce for the market and get cash income. Apart from
the land, a minimum irrigation facility of 1000 litres of water
per day per plot was also assumed in the experiment and in the case
of Khudawadi this water would come from the 15% water share of the
landless and women.
In the course of the three year period of the project it was also
expected that some of these women would develop leadership qualities
and the expertise to guide other families in replication of techniques
for early establishment and yield improvement of different foodgrain
crops, fodder and fuel species, etc. A team of women equipped with
knowledge and skills for bioresource development could therefore
emerge at the end of the project period - - a team of ‘barefoot
technologists’ on the lines of the concept of barefoot doctors!
Outcomes and areas of concern
Water as the starting point
Very often, especially in conventional thinking, land is seen as
the only critical resource in the form of a means of production
in the rural areas. As a result conventional thinking concentrates
on land productivity and often talks of productivity per acre or
ha. In the approach suggested here, water also occupies an equally
important place and is seen as critical a resource as land. Water
is not just another input like chemical fertilisers or pesticides.
It is also a means of production without which primary production
is impossible. It is also critical from the point of view of sustainable
enhancement of biomass productivity and this potential of water
is not often recognised. Studies show that if limited quantities
of water and nutrients are used in a sustainable manner, then the
biomass productivity is directly proportional to the water utilised
by plants. In vast tracts of drought prone regions, which constitute
a major part of Maharashtra, water is the main constraint in sustainable
productivity enhancement.
Access to water is the starting point of the alternative biomass
based development strategy, which underlines the pilot project that
was taken up in Khudawadi. The limited experience generated so far
indicates that if the people get access to certain assured quantum
of water, then they are much more willing to make equitable arrangements
for water sharing. This is especially true in areas where water
comes as a new resource and the concept of private property relations
in water is not strong. In the case of landless also, if they get
access to water then there are different ways by which they can
make arrangements locally to get access to land in some form or
the other. In the case of Khudawadi also, this checks out to be
true as the starting point of the intervention in the village was
water. The formation of the WUA had created a favourable situation
in the village, as they felt confident that they would finally get
their share of water from the Bori dam. And this was possible because
of the intervention of an external agency like SOPPECOM
A new approach of taking the private wasteland on a produce sharing
arrangement was adopted In Khudawadi. This is quite different from
the usual approach of taking agricultural land on a share cropping
arrangement. Often in any discussion on equitable water distribution,
more specially when there is a talk of giving water to the landless
and women, doubts are expressed and questions are raised as to what
would the landless do with the water. The Khudawadi pilot project,
by taking private wastelands on a produce sharing arrangement has
opened up one more avenue for the landless to use their share of
water.
It should be noted here that the pilot project also brought forward
the limitation of the strategy adopted in Khudawadi of taking private
wasteland on a produce sharing arrangement. Because of the exclusive
reliance on this strategy and not pursuing other ways of using the
water quota allocated to the landless, only a very insignificant
portion of the 15 percent water quota of the landless was actually
used. The wastelands are situated at a considerable distance and
height from the canal and it requires lot of investments (and also
time) to make the water available to the wasteland. The situation
is going to be the same in most parts of Maharashtra.
As pointed out in a review meeting of the core group, held towards
the end of the project, the option of making agricultural land
available to the landless could have been actively pursued. In
fact, many farmers, who were not in a position to irrigate all
their land with the water from Khudawadi minor had expressed their
readiness to give part of their agricultural land to the landless
for share cropping. This would have helped the landless to exercise
their right over the 15 percent water quota at the earliest. This
is very important if the water right to the landless had to have
any meaning. This would probably have helped in initiating a broad
based movement of the landless around the water right and facilitated
a more widespread use of the water share in a lesser time period
with lesser investments. The sole emphasis on taking wastelands
on a produce sharing arrangement, in a way, foreclosed other options
(like share cropping with a produce sharing arrangement in favour
of the landless using their water right as an instrument of bargain),
which could have brought a larger section of the landless population
together around the water right. Since the majority of the landless
could not benefit from the water right (and from the project),
they got disinterested and in the process the few landless and
women who became part of the project got isolated in the village.
However, on the other hand, if exclusive emphasis was given to
the option of taking agricultural land for share cropping, then
there was the danger that the women from the landless families
would have been totally excluded from the water right as the men
from landless families would have cornered the benefits of sharing
cropping arrangements. Taking up the wasteland for development
did help the women to come to the forefront. Thus, the lesson
learnt from the programme was that there is a need to pursue both
the options simultaneously.
Institutional issues
At every stage, beginning from making the institutional arrangements
to implementing them, the landless group faced tremendous resistance
in the village and this could be overcome because of the support
given and negotiations carried out by external agency like SOPPECOM-Maitreyi.
In these types of programmes the external agency would have to
withdraw some time or the other. Then the question is whether
the initial understanding and arrangements would hold even after
the withdrawal of the external agency. The core group was seized
of this problem right from the beginning and tried to take certain
steps to see that the rights of the landless group would be protected
and honoured. One such step was to insist that all the agreements
should be in writing. The second step was to organise a support
group consisting of the respectable persons within the village.
That was one of the reasons why a few respectable individuals
from the village were also made members of the Pariyayi Vikas
Sanstha - organisation of the landless. A third step was to take
the problems faced by the landless and women’s group to
the village by holding village meetings and resolving these issues
and problems through wider consultations within the village.
Though the WUA passed a resolution in one of its initial General
Body meetings regarding the allocation of the 15 percent water
quota to the landless, the WUA was little resistant in making
a formal agreement with the Paryayi Vikas Sanstha regarding the
15% water share. For two years the women and the landless group
(and also SOPPECOM-Maitreyi personnel) had to push for getting
the formal agreement done. Finally, towards the end of the project
period, the WUA did give a written assurance to the PVS that water
would be provided to sustain the plantation.
In the initial phase due to the presence of an external support
group, the programme developed at a reasonably good pace. However,
towards the end of the third phase when the external group decided
to gradually withdraw, the women faced a lot of obstacles in carrying
the programme forward. Several incidents, which hampered the functioning
of the programme, took place. Free grazing in the plantation area
by some of the landowners themselves, damaging the lining material
of the pond, etc., are all examples of this.
It was these experiences that led to a strong thinking among
the core group for the need to have a legal space for the landless
and the women for assured entitlements over land and water. The
present arrangement of registering a WUA through the Cooperative
Societies Registration Act did not address the concerns of the
landless and also women from the landed households.
Equally important is also to build up a support group within
the village so that the conflicts, misunderstandings and problems
could be amicably settled within the village itself and the programme
could be sustained.
Biomass production and livelihoods
of the landless
Another important issue to be discussed here is whether the landless
families can meet their livelihood needs from the biomass produced
from the wasteland. What was projected in the project proposal
was that a landless family would be able to meet most of their
livelihood needs from the produce that they can get from 2 ha
wasteland and one 0.1 ha intensive cultivation plot. As mentioned
earlier, the women could not go into a production phase in the
0.1 ha plot as most of the project period went in learning and
developing the plot itself. So at the moment there is no data
from the 0.1 ha plot to say how much biomass can be produced from
this. As far as the data from the 0.8 ha plantation is concerned
upto 1998 the results showed that the group could get about 6
T of incremental biomass per ha per year. This means that if the
family gets access to 2 ha of wasteland then they can easily get
about 12 T of biomass every year. This is a bottom line figure
as better productivity can be achieved with little more input
use of nutrients and water. Various biomass and livelihood studies
have shown that the livelihood needs of a family, including the
cash requirements, can be easily met if it can get access to about
12 to 18 T of biomass. Thus, from what has been achieved in the
Khudawadi pilot project one can safely say that a family would
be just able to meet its requirements from the produce of 2 ha
wastelands. To this one should also add what could be produced
on the 0.1 ha intensive cultivation plot. Since the landless would
get only about 60% of the produce under the produce sharing arrangements,
what actually a landless family would get in hand would be only
about 7 T of biomass. Obviously, this would be insufficient to
meet all the requirements of the family. This can very well meet
the fuelwood and fodder requirements of the landless family.
However a detailed monitoring of the same plot was done in March
2001 ie just before deciding to harvest the trees. This data showed
a significant reduction in the total biomass and in fact the dry
weight of the utilisable biomass (fuel wood and poles) was just
3 tons and in financial terms this was not more than Rs 4500 @Rs
1500/ton. This certainly is a set back and raises some fundamental
questions with regard to sustainability of the alternative; choice
of technological alternatives for meeting livelihood needs and
need for phased planning for making the programmes more sustainable
and viable.
It should be mentioned here that the approach taken in Khudawadi
was one of minimum inputs and from the experience of the project
it is very clear that if one has to meet the livelihood needs,
then a faster and a greater biomass growth with the help of nutrients,
including chemical nutrients, and water would be required. The
water used in the Khudawadi plantation was more for establishment
and survival of the plants and not so much for biomass increment.
Downstream processing of at least part of the biomass was also
assumed when the Khudawadi programme was conceived. However, this
did not take place, as it requires a much wider organisational
and technological efforts. Here only a projection can be made
of what would have been the scenario if this value addition had
taken place. Experiences of some of the proto-type projects in
this regard, especially in the infrastructure sector, show that
it is possible to add value by a factor of 4. This means that
if 1 T processable biomass (let us say in the form of small dimension
timber) which has a monetary value of about Rs. 1000 if sold as
firewood, is processed and used as infrastructure material, then
its value can go up to about Rs. 4000. Out of the 14 T of biomass
produced from the 2 ha wasteland; about 5 T could be of processable
biomass in the form of small dimension timber, fibre, etc. Out
of this, 3 T is the share of the landless themselves and the remaining
2 T can be bought from the landowners on a pre-fixed price (provided
there is such an arrangement in the village) so that ultimately
each landless family gets access to about 5 T of processable biomass.
Thus, with 5 T of biomass at its disposal the landless family
would be able to generate an income of about Rs. 20,000 per year.
Of course, the primary concern is sustainable technologies to
enhance productivity, develop arrangements for pooling of biomass
and setting up the necessary processing facilities at the village
or cluster of village level.
The sustenance of the Khudawadi programme
depended on a combination of all of these factors
There was always this uncertainty and doubt as to whether the
programme would continue after the project period is over. This
was mainly due to two reasons: one, the external funding of the
project would be over and hence the question was whether the women
would continue their involvement in the absence of assured wages
coming from the project; two, after the external agency withdraws
whether the women would be able to sort out the problems that
could come up from time to time.
This pilot experiment taught us many a lesson and although today
we are in no position to claim success in the sustainability of
the initiative, we certainly are better placed in terms of addressing
the problems that the experience posed. One of the important things
that we learnt was that when it comes to water use rights for
the landless and the women there is need to look at a variety
of factors. A single right to use water is not sufficient as the
concerned group has no access to land or other resources to develop
an asset base using the water use right-access to a bundle of
rights therefore becomes very critical.
If there has to be a sustainable replication of the experience
then the tasks ahead of us are
|
Lobby for change in the legal
procedures that would include women and the landless as members
of the WUA |
|
Extending the scope of the WUA
beyond the surface irrigation systems to include the watershed
area too. |
|
Granting a bundle of rights for
such groups in order that they are able to better use their
water right. The Khudawadi experience showed us that a mere
right in principle is not sufficient for its effective use-what
is necessary also is the need to
a) allocate entitlements on land,
b) provide the necessary financial support in the establishment
phase of resource development which can come through the poverty
alleviation and other employment schemes,
c) build capacities in the different skills needed for sustainable
productivity enhancement |
The experience of the women in Khudawadi is an example of the positive
direction that is needed, and in spite of its limited achievements
points to the direction that needs to be taken -- to increase the
availability of water (and local natural resource availability in
general), and to get a portion of at least the incremental resource
earmarked for providing minimum water assurance for the women and
access to small plots for intensive cultivation. Therefore two directions
emerge: one, creating a strong presence for women in village affairs
in general and moving on to issues of women's share in economic
activity and property.
Postscript.....
The Khudawadi programme has raised a number of issues in the context
of sustainability and replicability. One of the areas that needed
immediate attention was creating legal space for the landless and
women for clear entitlements over water and a role in the decision
making process in the context of water use and rights.
The other major limitation that affected the sustainability of the
programme was related to technological options in productivity enhancement.
A serious analysis of the approach, methods and practices used for
enhancing the productivity of both land and water was due. The core
group did have an internal meeting looking at these aspects of the
programme.
At both these levels the organisation has made some serious efforts,
which are narrated below
Providing the legal space
Maharashtra government introduced a draft act in 2001 titled
the Maharashtra Farmers Managed Irrigation Systems Act (MFMIS).
In many ways this is a welcome sign and paves the way for better-managed
irrigation systems. However, apart from many other things, here
too there is no specific mention of making the act inclusive for
women and the landless. However using the basis of the draft State
Water Policy and some of the clauses in favour of women in the
MFMIS, SOPPECOM has made an effort to carve out a space for women
and the landless. The suggestions have been divided in three sections.
The first relates to membership of the WUA for women and landless
and their representation in the decision making process, the second
relates to entitlements over water for these groups, and the third
relates to a future review process.
Participation of women
Women’s participation becomes all the more important in
the light of the definition of water user in the act as any ‘individual
or body corporate or an association, using water for agriculture,
domestic, commercial industrial or any other purpose from a government
and or notified source of irrigation’. However, in the draft
act, the participation ensured does not conform to this definition,
it remains confined to holders/occupiers of land in the command.
To ensure the participation of women, we have defined a relevant
woman member of the holder/occupier's household as joint holder/occupier
and give her the right to participation and prefer to give the
joint holder/occupiers equal rights on par with holder/occupiers.
Treating them as a single unit would have deprived the women to
express their independent views. Provisions are made for 33% representation
in the Managing Committee for women.
We have also made a provision to reserve five per cent of the water
for use by women for developing independent livelihood support for
women. This Women's quota shall be under the regulation of the sub-committee
comprising all women members of the Managing Committee.
Participation of other stakeholders and the landless and links with
the community
Technology and the growing demand for water has meant that boundaries
between different water uses, areas and stakes have diminished
and there are more than one type of stakeholders in canal water
as per the broadened definition of water user shows. However,
the WUA is still defined as mainly a body of irrigators or holder
and occupiers of land in the command area. Here we propose a modification
in the current defination of the command area that allows for
the inclusion of the other people in the immediate vicinity as
Associate Members.
Here is an extract from the note that was sent to the State Government
as suggested modifications in this context
First, a service area is required to be delineated for each Minor
that comprises the hamlets, villages and gram panchayats such
that, a) a significant number of the holders/occupiers reside
in them, and b)a significant amount of their area is served directly
or indirectly by the canal water from the Minor. Second, all households
that are not holders/occupiers in the command area of the Minor
including the landless are made Associate members of the WUA.
Third, two persons, the head of household and a joint woman representative
chosen in a manner similar to choosing the joint holder from each
household are deemed to be Associate members.
Associate members do not have mandatory voting rights in the
General Body, though the WUA may grant them additional rights
if it so desires. This means that there is sufficient space for
the more progressive among the WUAs to provide for expanded rights
for the associate members.
However, while individual associate members do not have voting
rights in the General Body, associate members do have the right
to elect two members from themselves, one man and one woman from
landless households, to sit as full members of the Managing Committee.
This ensures that their views are given a serious hearing. Also
the provision that they be drawn from the landless and that they
be elected by all associate members is expected to see that they
represent both interests in the Managing Committee.
This particular draft act does not mention the role of panchayati
raj institutions in the functioning of the WUAs. If water has to
be managed by communities in an integrated manner then it is important
that the panchayti raj institutions have a role from the very outset.
It is with this in mind that we have made a provision for the gram
panchayats to nominate members to the Managing Committee so that
there can be fruitful interaction between the community, its self-governance
structures and its water use organisation.
Incentives for equity
Ideally, water rights, at least in the form of a definite quantum
of minimum water assurance, must vest in people and not in the land
they own. Hence, water rights should be separated from land rights.
The draft Act, as it stands, perpetuates water rights as rights
derived through land rather than as those vested in persons.
We see little hope in the government taking any initiative to
take any radical steps in reversing this system. However, we feel
that in the short term, the least that can be done is to provide
for adequate incentives for those WUAs who provide such minimum
water assurance for their constituents irrespective of their landholding.
So although these provisions cannot be made mandatory there could
be some incentives for WUAs who take pro-active steps towards
equitable access of water through positive discrimination and
ensuring access to water for the landless, the women and other
disadvantaged sections. In our proposed suggestions we have suggested
a concession in water rates for each such step. This is on the
lines of the existing concessions given to the WUA by the ID for
early payment and total recovery.
Provision for review
One of the things that we strongly felt was in connection with
the limitations of the act to meet the broader goals of integrated
water use. In a rapidly changing scenario, in which water use
composition, water use technology as well as water use priorities
are changing rapidly, there is a need for a periodic multi-stakeholder
interaction and joint review to re-determine water use systems,
water allocations, entitlements, and management structures. We
have therefore made an explicit provision for a periodic review
of the same.
Study for technological choices
The other shortcoming of the Khudawadi experience was related
to the choice of technology or rather the role of technology in
enhancing the primary productivity of the soil to meet the livelihood
requirements of the poor in a particular time frame. The low productivity
results were partly due to the soil type and the delay in providing
water but largely due to a lack of understanding of the resource
base to decide on the technological intervention that would be
needed. Post facto analysis indicates that probably selection
of different species in different combinations would have proved
better. Also a judicious use of chemical fertilisers particularly
nitrogen and phosphates would have built the ground for better
productivity in the initial stages. The point being made here
is the need to have a thorough understanding of the resource base
and the area and the environment. It is this understanding that
would finally help in selecting the appropriate technologies for
resource development.
From this point of view SOPPECOM has now undertaken a study of
different technological alternatives in productivity enhancement
particularly on wastelands in different agro climatic regions.
The current study is being supported by the Winrock Foundation
and it essentially looks at different practices and methods used
by both individual farmers and groups in different regions to
use their land and water resource in a manner that has led to
sustainable enhancement of primary productivity. We are looking
at balanced approaches, which have a strategy to use chemicals
in a judicious manner but gradually reduce their use over a period
of time.
We hope that this study will be of use not only to us in our
action programmes but also to other groups working on similar
issues.
The Khudawadi experience has set an agenda for a long-term action
programme that organisation working in the water sector need to
take up. It has demonstrated the limitations of the legislation
in the water sector, the lack of institutional technological and
other kinds of support for the deprived to come forward and establish
their rights and use them meaningfully.
The pilot shows which direction to move in but also demonstrated
the need to make a concerted effort at all the levels to achieve
equity and sustainable productivity enhancement.
References
|
Joy K J and Paranjape Suhas, ,
2002 ‘Women and Water’ unpublished paper |
|
Kulkarni Seema and Joy K J, May
1999 ‘Securing Our Livelihoods’, Report prepared
for the Indo Canadian Co-operation Office |
|
Kulkarni Seema and Rao Nagmani,
October 2002, Gender and Drought in South Asia, paper presented
at Islamabad on Droughts in South Asia. |
|
Maitreyi and SOPPECOM, May 2002, ‘From
Innovations to Policy- Some reflections on women’s experiences
with land development’ unpublished study report |
|
SOPPECOM, March 2002, ‘Suggested modifications
in the MFMIS draft act 2001 of Maharashtra State’ prepared
for submitting to the GOM |
|
|
| |
TOP |
|
|
