Reaching a watershed? Local government reform and water management in India

Recent guidelines issued by central government for watershed development in India fit awkwardly with local government or Panchayati Raj. While decentralisation of development planning and implementation are key objectives at both levels, the roles of the proposed Watershed Committees overlap - and potentially compete - with those of the local government. The balance of power depends on the particular constellation of power within a village: an Overseas Development Institute report highlights the need to demarcate the roles of the local government and Watershed Committees. Failure to do so may result in local elite dominance spilling over from one sphere into the other. Strengthening local government accountability to the underprivileged is crucial to solving the dilemma, the study suggests.

The overlapping roles of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and the new Watershed Committees may signal potential conflict over water resources. PRIs have a mandate for natural resource management but this does not necessarily dovetail with actual watershed boundaries. Although they can plan natural resource management and represent local needs, PRIs are not meant to act as implementing committees or project agencies. Watershed Committees, on the other hand, were set up as implementing bodies, supported by line departments, non-governmental (NGO) expertise, and specialised supervisory teams. They do not, however, have statutory powers or authority independent of specific projects. The two systems are compatible once their different roles are appreciated.

Based on interviews with government representatives, PRIs, NGOs, self-help groups, and academic institutions the research highlighted some of the problems arising from the lack of clearly defined institutional roles:

• Mechanisms for ensuring transparency and accountability within both Watershed Committees and PRIs remain weak and widely misunderstood.
• Links between PRIs and Watershed Committees are built on an ad hoc basis that is unlikely to challenge power structures.
• Progress in literacy, land reform, and empowerment needs to accompany the transferral of responsibility for watershed planning to PRIs.
• Too many rules now exist - first the guidelines and now the PRI - despite growing support for the PRI system.

Areas where the lack of institutional fit could be improved, and local government institutions made more accountable to peoples' water needs include:

• Marginalised members of the self-help groups and Watershed Committees - in particular women - can be encouraged by NGOs to contest local Panchayat elections
• NGOs involved in natural resource management could forge more effective alliances with local government.

Policy lessons include:

• recognising that the boundaries between Panchayats (political) and Watershed Committees (management) are difficult to maintain and that local elites can dominate both
• providing sustained external support for community-based organisations to strengthen the representation of the poor
• increased research on the relationship between PRIs and grassroots organisations to counteract the anecdotal information that feeds the current debate about accountability.

Source(s):
Panchayati Raj and Watershed Management in India: Constraints and Opportunities, Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 114 by P. Baumann, 1998 Full document.

Funded by: Department for International Development, UK

id21 Research Highlight: 4 November 1999

Further Information:
Pari Baumann
Social and Economic Research Associates
Chalcot Road
Primrose Hill
London
NW1 8LH
UK

Tel: +44 (0)171 6079410
Fax: +44 (0)171 6079410
Contact the contributor: PariBaumann@compuserve.com

Overseas Development Institute, UK

Other related links:
Search Eldis for sources on Water resources management