Making Soil and Water Conservation Sustainable 381In the years that followed, conservation structures were constructed solely by
the State. Although these were initially effective, it was soon realized that the
approach could not be extended because of the high cost of operation and mainte-
nance. The lack of involvement of farmers was also understood to be a problem,
but at the same time they were considered to be ignorant. Most technical literature
emanated from the US, and training opportunities for professionals were again on
US Soil Conservation Service programmes.
The technocratic model of development of watersheds became the predominant
approach at this stage and formed the basis for the formulation of 5-year plans and
allocation of resources for soil conservation. These began with the objective ‘to gov-
ern, regulate and administer the use of land both under private and public ownership,
so as to facilitate the optimum use of land resources in the interests of the present and
future generations’ (Planning Commission, 1964), but the plans consisted of techni-
cal and engineering solutions with repeated emphasis on the education of farmers
who had to be made aware of the new technologies. Problems with implementation
and maintenance followed. When cultivators in Madhya Pradesh were reluctant to
undertake earthwork, the department entrusted it to contractors. The contour bund-
ing was completed with bulldozers, with no attention paid to the interests of farmers.
In Maharashtra, Gujarat and Mysore, farmers were said to have taken to large-scale
contour bunding, but it later became clear that ‘the aspects of conservation farming
practices or follow-up are neglected. As a consequence ... the project is not serving
the purpose for which it was set up’ (Planning Commission, 1964).
Soil conservation continued with a technocratic emphasis. Between 1963 and
1990, national initiatives spent Rs4215 million (equal to US$149 million at cur-
rent prices) on soil conservation in River Valley Projects (Fernandez, 1993), but
farmers did not perceive any benefits from the structures. Indeed, many levelled
and destroyed the measures because of the loss of cropland to conservation and the
increase in observed soil erosion. The lack of compliance encouraged authorities to
seek legal solutions. Several states passed laws to prevent ‘wilful’ destruction and to
allow specified ‘improvements’ to be made on farmers’ fields, and allocated the
costs of these improvements between the farmers and the state. In some places,
provisions were made for compulsory treatment of the fields of farmers refusing
land treatment. In many cases this led to increased alienation with, for example,
people uprooting plantations and destroying fencing and conservation measures.
Fundamental Contradictions of Recent Soil and Water
Conservation Programmes
The ‘complete’ conservation technology package
Like other practices in agricultural development, most soil and water conservation
programmes have begun with the notion that there are technologies that work,