Click here to Login |
participatory & assessment of ISPWDK Phase-II in three watersheds Executive summary The project provides many interesting lessons with regards to decentralization processes. These include the way in which full representation of the village community – women and men – has been brought about through voluntary VDS membership; the representation of all social groups in the village and women in decision-making bodies; the truly village-based decision-making in VDS gram sabhas; the delegation of work to different sub-committees; the rotation of responsibilities amongst different individuals; and mechanisms such as public displays of maps and figures to ensure transparency and accountability. An important point is that in all financial disbursements and decision-making, there is no accumulation of power; it is all decentralized, even within the village level institution. These practices have huge potential for influencing and complementing the functioning of the larger Gram Panchayats. There are generally good relations between the VDS and GPs in the project area, the former serving as a “grooming ground” for individuals who have gone on to higher office in the GPs (in the 2004 elections, a total 23 persons active in the VDSs were elected to GP office), but, more importantly, creating a general community expectation and insistence on democratic processes. The review team identified strong potential for replication in many areas of the programme. A core feature is the whole concept of the VDS as village-based institutions that can support and strengthen democratic processes within GPs. Aspects not already mentioned in this summary include the approach to community contribution (paid by villagers not as a sharing of implementation costs, but as an additional fund for maintenance and village development); the use of indigenous technologies wherever possible; and the system of MIS which is “bottom up” rather than “top down”. Whilst the overall findings of the review were positive, a number of concerns were raised by community members, which are detailed in a final chapter. According to them, watershed works under ISPWDK phase I was not fully completed by the DLDB according to the agreed plan. As this has created tensions in the community, they requested that these areas be treated. Under phase II, a problematic area has been the treatment of CPRs – notably lands owned by the Forest Department. Whilst works have gone ahead, and local understanding with FD staff exists, future management responsibilities and access rights require greater clarification. Other aspects of community concern relate to the continuation of, and building on, the achievements to date. Thus it was clearly expressed that (a lower level of) support and capacity building be extended to the VDS to ensure their sustainability; that advice and support be given, particularly in the management of VDS funds (amassed from community contributions); and that mechanisms be developed for continuing support to the poor and marginalized, and gender balanced development. |
|
