Abstract
Following on the preceding critical review of ‘new institutional’ and ‘post-development’ literature, the questions raised in this chapter are: What are the linkages between local needs, national goals and international agenda vis-à-vis development of rain-fed areas? How have the institutional forms and practices changed with regard to governance of natural resources in the past two decades as a result of interventions by the state watershed department? What evidence supports the ‘depoliticisation’ thesis in the context of rural development in Rajasthan? And how do the state practices of decentralised management of natural resources converge with the wider processes of democratic decentralisation in the countryside? The chapter presents a brief historical background of water conservation in the state of Rajasthan and the emergence of a new apparatus in the form of the Department of Watershed Development and Soil Conservation (DWD&SC) in the early 1990s. It discusses the changes in the policy guidelines for watershed development and analyses some of the projects implemented by DWD&SC and funded by foreign donors, especially the Swiss-funded People’s Action for Watershed Development Initiative (PAWDI) and the World Bank-funded Integrated Watershed Development Project (IWDP). Finally, it shows the tensions within DWD&SC owing to recent policy changes in favour of democratic decentralisation in the state.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For example, the Rajasthan Canal Project (later to be known as Indira Gandhi Canal) in north-western Rajasthan or the Mahi Dam Project in south-eastern Rajasthan.
- 2.
In Rajasthan, the districts of Ganganagar, Bharatpur and Jaipur (all with secured irrigation facilities) saw the highest increase in net area sown in contrast to the district of Udaipur (having remained mainly rain fed), which experienced negligible changes in the net area sown during 1972–2001 (Rathore 2007).
- 3.
Interview with an Assistant Engineer, DWD&SC, at Udaipur (12/08/2003).
- 4.
The document further states that ‘on the basis of the past experience, it is proposed to take up during the Seventh Plan a new Centrally Sponsored Scheme called the National Watershed Development Programme for Rain-fed Agriculture, to supplement the state’s efforts, by merging the ongoing programmes. The main components of the Watershed Development Programme for Rain-fed (Dry land) agriculture are to harvest water and conserve soil moisture from the low rainfall, which is also highly variable in these areas, and to extend farming practices and cropping systems which increase production by minimising yield risks’. (http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html) (Accessed 09/05/2014).
- 5.
SDC worked closely with the Dryland Department of Government of Karnataka and an NGO called MYRADA, and experimented with self-help groups in their rural development projects in the early 1980s. Ford Foundation has been quite active in agricultural and rural development from early on and played a crucial role in popularizing the concept of ‘participatory’ management of natural resources.
- 6.
http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/welcome.html (Accessed 09/05/2014).
- 7.
The administrative jurisdiction of DPAP, DDP and EAS is with the Ministry of Rural Development of the Government of India while that of NWDPRA is with the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India. The implementing agency for all these programmes in Rajasthan was DWD&SC. NWDPRA is solely implemented by DWD&SC, but there were multiple PIAs for DPAP, DDP and other projects of the Ministry of Rural Development of the Government of India. Besides DWD&SC, other PIAs include NGOs, Forest Department and Panchayat Samitis.
- 8.
In 2005, the administrative control was shifted to the state Department of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, and this had a considerable transition cost, as explained later in this chapter.
- 9.
These figures demonstrate that what started as a technical solution to the problem of rain-fed farming in the late 1980s became a major rural development programme in Rajasthan within a span of one decade.
- 10.
The latest technical committee on watershed development (known as the Parthasarathy Committee, 2006) constituted by the Ministry of Rural Areas, Government of India, recommends a major jump in the budgetary allocation for watershed programmes of the tune of Rupees 10,000 crores per year (Joy et al. 2006: 2994–2296).
- 11.
The tussle over the control of funds and resources between these two ministries has been going on for a long time. In October 1974, the Department of Rural Development came into existence as a part of Ministry of Food and Agriculture. In August 1979, the Department of Rural Development was elevated to the status of a new Ministry of Rural Reconstruction. That Ministry was renamed as the Ministry of Rural Development in 1982. In January 1985, the Ministry of Rural Development was again converted into a Department under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, which was later rechristened as Ministry of Agriculture in September 1985. However, in 1991 the Department was upgraded as the Ministry of Rural Development. Another Department, viz. Department of Wasteland Development, was created under this Ministry in 1992. In March 1995, the Ministry was renamed as the Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment with three departments, namely, the Department of Rural Employment and Poverty Alleviation, Rural Development and Wasteland Development. Again in 1999, the Ministry was renamed as the Ministry of Rural Development.
- 12.
For details, see the Guidelines for Watershed Development, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, 1995 (based on the recommendations of Prof Hanumantha Rao Committee).
- 13.
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act provides constitutional status to the Panchayati Raj System of rural local bodies. Consequently, elections to these rural local bodies were made mandatory every 5 years, and seats were reserved for women, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes. The first elections after the Amendment Act came into force were held throughout the country in 1994–1995. This was a milestone in redefining the rural politics in India. These elected bodies were given several powers of the implementation of development projects and schemes in the following years.
- 14.
Excerpts from interview in Udaipur.
- 15.
The funds for every watershed project were to be used in the following proportion: (a) Watershed Treatment/Development Works- 80 %, (b) Watershed Community Organisation- 5 % (c) Training- 5 % (d) Administrative Overheads- 10 % (GoI 1995: 17).
- 16.
Mosse (2005: 15) argues that ideas like ‘participation’ or community are strategically and politically useful but lack conceptual clarity and are descriptively weak. Further, ‘development interventions are not driven by policy but by the exigencies of the organisations and the need to maintain relationships.[…] Policy models do not and cannot shape actual practice in the way that they claim’ (ibid: 16, emphasis in original).
- 17.
Anirudh Krishna, an Indian Administrative Service officer, was the director of DWD&SC from 1991 to 1994, and he played a key role in the first phase of IWDP in Rajasthan.
- 18.
As informed by an Assistant Engineer who worked in the IWDP, Udaipur.
- 19.
Excerpts from interview on 04/06/2004.
- 20.
Excerpts from interview on 07/07/2004.
- 21.
Excerpts from interview on 10/06/2004.
- 22.
Excerpts from interview on 21/03/2005.
- 23.
Rajasthan secured a total of 33.62 million USD, Orissa 19.43 million USD and Gujarat 19.43 million USD (WB 1999: 63).
- 24.
Excerpts from interview on 27/05/2004.
- 25.
Excerpts from interview on 16/05/2005.
- 26.
My interviews with the presidents of UC in Nauwa, Chriwa and Bhaisra Khurd confirm this.
- 27.
Informal conversation with Rooplal in Bhainsra Khurd village (12/07/2004).
- 28.
The external evaluation report of PAWDI suggests that technically speaking, Retam area does not even require watershed treatment activities. Sahyog Sansthan had been active in this area for some time and just wanted to consolidate its base (SDC 1998: 14).
- 29.
As informed by a senior official of the DWD&SC at Jaipur (14/08/2004).
- 30.
Excerpts from interview in Jaipur on 12/08/2004.
- 31.
The Joint Project Committee was the main decision-making body which involved representatives of the government and the SDC. The NGOs were in direct contact with the SDC. There was a project Coordination Centre at district level that comprised the WD&SC teams of the department and the NGO functionaries.
- 32.
Telephone interview on 20/07/2004.
- 33.
Excerpts from interview at Udaipur on 21/08/2004.
- 34.
As informed by an assistant engineer of DWD&SC who served in PAWDI project team.
- 35.
Association for Rural Advancement through Voluntary Action and Local Involvement.
- 36.
Informal conversation with Veniram in Morath village of Udaipur district on 12/06/2004.
- 37.
Interview in Udaipur on 05/08/2005.
- 38.
Interview in Jaipur on 08/06/2004.
- 39.
Telephone interview on 14/08/07.
References
Alsop, R., Gilbert, E., Farrington, J., & Khandelwal, R. (Eds.). (2000). Coalitions of interest: Partnership for processes of agricultural change. New Delhi: Sage.
ARAVALI. (2001, March). Situational analysis of watershed development programme in Rajasthan. Jaipur: Association for Rural Advancement through Voluntary Action and Local Involvement.
Chhotray, V. (2004). Decentralised development: State practices from India’s watershed development programme. Unpublished PhD thesis, SOAS, University of London.
CTAE. (1999). Impact evaluation report of the IWDP (Plains). Udaipur: College of Technology and Agricultural Engineering.
Doolette, J., & Magrath, W. (Eds.). (1990). Watershed development in Asia: Strategies and technologies. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Evans, P. (Ed.). (1996). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development, 24(6), 1119–1132
FAO. (1997). Soil conservation and management in developing countries (Soils bulletin: 33). Rome: FAO.
Farrington, J., & Bebbington, A. (Eds.). (1993). Reluctant partners? Non-governmental organisations, the state and sustainable agricultural development. London: Routledge.
Ferguson, J. (1990). The anti-politics machine: Development, depoliticisation and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GoI. (1995). Guidelines for watershed development. New Delhi: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
GoI. (2000a). Common principles for watershed development. New Delhi: Rainfed Farming Division, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture.
GoI. (2000b). WARASA – Jan Sahbhagita: Guidelines for national watershed development project for rainfed areas. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture.
GoR. (2001). Watershed development in Rajasthan: Activities and achievements. Jaipur: Department of Watershed Development and Soil Conservation.
Gupta, S. (2014). Worlds apart? Challenges of multi-agency partnership in participatory watershed development in Rajasthan, India. Development Studies Research: An Open Access Journal, 1(1), 100–112.
Joy, K. J., Shah, A., Paranjape, S., Badiger, S., & Lele, S. (2006). Issues in restructuring watershed development. Economic and Political Weekly, 8, 2994–2996.
Krishna, A. (1992, July–December). Delivery systems for rural development: A case study of watershed development in Rajasthan. Prashasanika, XXX(2), 11–24.
Krishna, A. (1997). Participatory watershed development and soil conservation in Rajasthan. In A. Krishna, N. Uphoff, & M. J. Esman (Eds.), Reasons for hope: Learning from instructive experiences in rural development (pp. 255–272). West Hartford: Kumarian Press.
Krishna, A. (2002). Active social capital: Tracing the roots of development and democracy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Krishna, A. (2007). Politics in the middle: Mediating relationships between the citizens and the state in rural North India. In H. Kitschelt & S. Wilkinson (Eds.), Patrons, clients and policies (pp. 141–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, T. M. (1996). Images of community: Discourse and strategy in property relations. Development and Change, 27, 501–527.
Li, T. (2005). Beyond “the state” and failed schemes. American Anthropologist, 107(3), 383–394.
Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid, policy and practice. London: Pluto Press.
NCAER. (1980). Perspective plan of Rajasthan 1974–1989 (Vol. 1). New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Research.
Rathore, M. S. (2007). Natural resource use: Environmental implications. In V. S. Vyas et al. (Eds.), Rajasthan: The quest for sustainable development (pp. 37–76). New Delhi: Academic Foundation.
SDC. (1998). PAWDI project: Report of the external evaluation prepared by S. Walty, S. Dhar, S. Sharma, T. Shah. New Delhi: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.
SDC. (1999, August). Exit study report on PAWDI project phase I. New Delhi: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.
Shah, A. (2005). Economic rationale, subsidy and cost sharing in watershed projects. Economic and Political Weekly, 25, 2663–2671.
Shah, M. (2006). Overhauling watershed programme: Towards reform. Economic and Political Weekly, 8, 2981–2987.
Vaidyanathan, A. (2006). Restructuring watershed development programmes. Economic and Political Weekly, 8, 2984–2987.
WB. (1999, November). Implementation completion report: Integrated watershed development (Plains) project, India. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gupta, S. (2016). National Goals, International Agenda and Local Needs. In: Politics of Water Conservation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21392-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21392-7_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21391-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21392-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)