Designed Process

Formal MOU between Grama Panchayati/ Watershed Committee and PFA and DWMA

Knowledge Level

The formal MOU is not signed between Grama Panchayati and PFA in majority of the cases (63%) cases. When MOU was signed, it was completed as an administrative formality (25%).

Use of Knowledge

Even when it was not required (as per previous guidelines), formal MOU was singed between watershed committee and PFA. This helped to strengthen their partnerships and develop role clarity.

Designed Process

Awareness Generation exercises to reach out to women and resource poor to improve their knowledge base of the project. 

Knowledge Level

Grama Sabha, Kalajatha are most common methods of creating awareness.

Small group meetings (12% of villages) improved the understanding of the communities to a great extent about the program and developed rapport between PFA team and these groups.

▪    Message of project did not directly reach women during awareness camps in 40% of villages.

▪    PFA does not interact with women are not members of these groups. This practice is predominant in APRLP projects.

Use of Knowledge

In limited number of cases, women leaders (women Sarpanch and women leaders of caste groups) took lead role to reach out other women in the village.

Another common practice is to talk to women who are already organized in SHG and VO.

Designed Process

Identification of 50 hect compact block for first phase, to provide experiential learning to communities. 

Knowledge Level

In 38% of watersheds, this process is not followed. Either village leader or MDT/WDT dominated this process, where compact block was selected for this purpose. Entire village participated in this process in only one village.

Designed Process

Approval of Action Plan for 50 hect Micro Plan

Knowledge Level

In 40% of watersheds, this event never took place as the plans are not prepared at all or not approved formally. In about 15% watersheds, plans are not approved, but the activities are implemented In remaining watersheds, either Grama Panchayati or Village Organization or Watershed Committee approved the plans in Grama Sabha or within the meeting of concerned institution.

Designed Process

Participation of wife and husband in Net Planning

Knowledge Level

In 60% of projects, wife and husband participated in net planning process. As a result, men had opportunity to know the process of planning and contents of action plan on their land.

However, in remaining 40% of projects, men dominated the planning process on private lands.

Designed Process

Gender Scrutiny of Action Plans: Village Organization conducts gender scrutiny of action plans and ensures that women get adequate space in action plan.

Knowledge Level

The influence of PIA/ WDT and DWMA is much stronger and visible compared to Village Organization during approval of action plans (in 50% of watersheds). Village Organization has a say only in 12% watersheds. Obviously this is in APRLP watersheds. The process of gender scrutiny is fairly weak process.

Use of Knowledge

About 68% watershed plans did not give any priority to the needs of women. Only in one case, action plan is revised to accommodate needs of women.

Designed Process

Formal approval of action plans by DWMA. Approved action plans will be shared with concerned groups, DWMA. 

Knowledge Level

DWMA did not formally communicate the approval of action plans to Grama Panchayati/ Village Organization (in 57% cases).  In 30% of watersheds, DWMA formally shared the copies of approved action plans with all Village Organization, Grama Panchayati and PFA. Performance of NGO PIA in Non APRLP is better in this regard. 

Designed Process

Role of Village Level Institutions in approval of action plans

Knowledge Level

In majority of cases (78%), Grama Panchayati either did not have a role or have a vague role. Village Organization had a say in watershed projects and its contents (in 42% projects). 

Designed Process

Continuous capacity building inputs consistent with project cycle will enhance not only capacity but also transparency of the project. 

Knowledge Level

Compared to Non APRLP projects, there is considerable consistency in APRLP projects in terms of providing capacity building inputs.

Only 18% of watersheds have conducted more than 20% training programs in he entire project period. Of three such sample watersheds, two belong to Non APRLP (NGO PIAs)

In majority of the training programs (75%), women participated, in all categories of projects. All watersheds participated in exposure visits, except one watershed. Most common practice is to see best practices within the district.

Designed Process

Before approval of action plans, discussions on contents of action plans and non negotiables of Watershed Based Livelihoods Projects. These non negotiables are: mandatory contribution from users, ban on machines and contractors and so on.

Knowledge Level

In 28% of watersheds, knowledge about the “mandatory contribution” is not there among general public of the village. Either PFA did not share this information or shared with limited number of leaders in the village.

In 75% of cases, receipts are not issued as the contribution itself is dubious. Though genuine contribution is mobilized in 25% of cases, receipts are issued only in 12% of cases. Remaining 12% of these cases, receipts are kept with watershed committees, but not issued to users. 

80% of projects have followed contractorship method to execute works. This system cannot be transparent. 

Use of Knowledge

Deduction from wages of laborers is a common practice, as a result of ignorance about the need for genuine contribution from users.

DWMA deducts the required amount at source itself and deposits with WDF in 20% of cases. Though village leadership is aware of this, laborers are not aware of this practice.

Designed Process

Applications from users as a tool to establish demand as well as transparency in decision of interventions.

Knowledge Level

In 69% of watersheds, the method of collecting applications from users groups is not followed. Though the net planning method is followed for planning, this does not substitute for applications on works on CPRs.

Applications from user groups are sought in 30% of the cases. Interestingly this practice is more pronounced in Non APRLP watersheds.

Use of Knowledge

In the absence of instruments like application form, the role of project authorities becomes more prominent and dominating, leading to less transparent program processes.

Designed Process

Books and records are maintained by village level institutions. They are available at the village. Cheque payment is the desired process.

Knowledge Level

50% of the watershed based institutions do not have this strength. PIA/ WDT maintain the records and keep them with it.

In 25% of watersheds, village functionary maintains the records, but they are kept with WDT.

In remaining 25%, the records are maintained and kept with the village level functionaries/ institutions.

Payments by cheque are most common practice. Payment by cash is made only in two cases.

The user group leader or person who implemented the works (mainly in contractorship mode) received the cheque (In 63% of cases). Though watershed committee/ village organization made these payments. The influence of PIA/ WDT is very obvious on the process of payment.

Use of Knowledge

In three villages (21%), the location of cheque book is not clear. In 35% watersheds, WDT/ PIA keep the cheque books. Remaining watershed institutions have cheque books with themselves. The patterns are  not very clear (vis a vis – type of projects and PIAs).               

Designed Process

Creation of Watershed Development Fund for maintenance purpose.  

Knowledge Level

The knowledge about watershed development fund (WDF) is fairly high (70%) in the sample watersheds. Though the details of the fund (amount and purpose) are not clear, the existence of the fund is known to all. In 30% of villages, the knowledge of WDF is limited to village leadership only.