FAO E-workshop "Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds"
Discussion Archive
Referring to Session 1:
Understanding and categorizing land–water linkages

  Back to list

My intervention refers to Session 1 in general and to Questions 2 and 5 in particular.

[4-1] I would like to propose an example of the complexity of the land-water interactions and the difficulties encountered by planners and managers in taking into account these interactions. A few years ago, I participated in a preparation mission for a large scale watershed management project in Morocco. In Morocco, watershed management is the responsibility of the Forestry Department. The project implementation team was issued from a long tradition of well trained foresters who had worked extensively in upland afforestation and forest management. The project intended to adopt a participatory approach to watershed management, thus broadening considerably the scope of the project, putting people in the center of the land management process in order to ensure the sustainability of the project achievements.

[4-2] At the same time, hydrologists were requested to assess the possible impact of the project on sedimentation in Morocco's large dams. Sedimentation in Morocco is a critical problem: the country's large irrigation systems and cities rely extensively on those reservoirs for water supply. In 1994, 8% of the total capacity of dams had already been lost by sedimentation. The overall watershed area ranged from 1 000 to 50 000 km2, and specific sediment yield varied between 300 and 3 000 T/km2/yr, according mostly to the geology of the watershed.

[4-3] By assessing the impact of the proposed land conservation practices on sedimentation rate in reservoirs, it was expected that such improvement could be quantified and valued in order to be accounted for in the overall financial analysis of the project.

[4-4] It became clear to the hydrologists, however, that whatever the extent of the land which would be included in the watershed management project, the impact on sedimentation in reservoirs would be negligible. The main reasons for this were stated as follows:

1. The areal extent of land which would benefit from some kind of erosion control measure represents only a fraction (a few percent) of the total area of each watershed and could therefore contribute only marginally to reduction in sedimentation.
2. Due to the participatory approach, which would concentrate on the improvement and reduction of erosion of farmer's land, the badlands, which are the areas contributing most to sedimentation would not be treated by the project, as they did not represent any interest for farmers in the uplands. In this case, the fact that natural erosion rate was very important compared to human-induced erosion was considered as a serious constraint.
3. The alarming rate at which dams are filling require an action which can have immediate effects. In this case, any significant action in upland areas would show benefit after several decades due to the size of the watersheds. The Water Resources Department was not in a position to wait for decades before results could be observed and had to find other remediation actions.
4. The extremely high variability of the erosion and sediment transport processes made any assessment of average yearly rate irrelevant: most of the erosion and sediment transport occur on the occasion of major events (storms, leading to landslides, etc. ) on which soil and water conservation actions would show little impact.

[4-5] In conclusion, the team could not produce any significant figures showing the impact of watershed management activities on the sedimentation in reservoirs. Different results may apply to other areas, with smaller watersheds and different geological conditions, but in this specific case, unfortunately, each one of the four reasons described above was sufficient to discard any clear linkage between land management and water resources.

The author is Water Resources Officer with the Land and Water Development Division (AGL), FAO, Rome

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention addresses session 1 in general, and questions 4, 5 and 10 in particular.

Dear participants of the electronic workshop on land-water linkages in rural watersheds,

[5-1] as you all know, the workshop has started on Monday. Until now it is still rather quiet. I assume this is due to your intensive reading of the excellent background material which was compiled by the workshop moderators. I think it is a very good and timely initiative of the Land and Water Development Division of FAO to hold such a workshop and I am impressed by the number of registrations from all over the world. I hope there will be a lot of interesting discussion and sharing of experience over the next weeks. There is large scope to contribute experiences, to critically comment on the many statements which are made in the background and discussion papers as well as in the case studies.

[5-2] Although I have not yet managed to read through all the background material available for the workshop I would like to throw some provocative statements into the discussion. The thoughts base on my work experience in watershed management at different geographical scales in the overall Himalayan region as well as on my present assignment in the sustainable mountain development programme and the coordination unit for the International Year of Mountains at FAO.

Land-water linkages at different geographical scales: how strong is the impact of human activities?

[5-3] Among the questions formulated for the first session I would like particularly refer to items 5 and 6 which were in the center of interest during my work in the overall Himalayan region, and make some provocative statements. The discussion reaches beyond small to medium sized watersheds.

[5-4] The following newspaper headline serves as starting point for my comments:

"The severe floods in Eastern India and Bangladesh are not the result of a natural disaster, but of a ruthless exploitation of wood which has been practised over centuries in the forests of the Himalayas" (Basler Zeitung, 15.9.1998). Such a headline is just one example of many others and makes the following assumptions:

• The forest cover in the Himalaya is rapidly decreasing (which, by the way, only holds true for certain areas, e.g. in the Western Himalayas of Pakistan)
• There is a direct link between forest removal in the Himalayas and flooding in the lowlands of the Ganga and Brahmaputra river systems
• The mountain people with their forest management practices are responsible for the inundations in the plains, a politically highly sensitive statement.

[5-5] In spite of a number of publications on recent studies there are a lot of misconceptions floating around these complex issues. The newspaper statement reflects the still widespread wrong assumption, that land-water linkages identified in small and medium sized watersheds can just be extrapolated to large watersheds. In many studies it can be documented that in small watersheds (<5000km2) the human impact on land-water linkages is dominant. In medium sized watersheds (5000-20,000km2) it is already difficult to distinguish between man made and natural impacts on the land-water linkages. In large watersheds (>20,000km2) natural factors (heavy rainfall events, deep landslides, etc) clearly are the main factors influencing land-water linkages. Such a statement means that land use practices in the Himalaya do not seem to have much to do with flood processes in Bangladesh.

[5-6] Of course, there is a significant contribution of "base flow" from the highland catchments of the Brahmaputra and the Ganga to the floods, but this input is just one element of many others and for sure not a flood triggering one. This in turn means that forest clearing, abandonment of grazing lands or inappropriate agricultural practices in a highland watershed might have disastrous consequences in terms of soil erosion, increased surface runoff and flood flow in that particular watershed (small scale effect) but that this impact is levelled off further downstream (large-scale effect).

[5-7] Finally this means that big projects in upland areas such as afforestation programmes should be realised to improve the ecological conditions of and the livelihood opportunities in the mountain areas themselves, but not with wrong expectations of preventing floods in the lowlands! We are convinced, though, that further efforts are needed to clarify or eradicate misconceptions regarding land-water linkages at different geographical scales. A further clarification of these issues might smoothen political discussions in international river systems and might assist mountain communities to develop or maintain sustainable land use strategies and practices.

[5-8] This contribution is a very pronounced one, many of you might disagree with certain statements or might want to differentiate or modify them based on your own experiences. You are most welcome to do so, a critical discussion of these findings would be very interesting and useful. It would of course be particularly interesting to learn if this differentiation of land-water linkages according to scales as discussed for the Himalayan region is similar in other mountain areas of the world. I am looking forward to a critical exposure and discussion of these ideas.

The complexity of land-water linkages: a big challenge

[5-9] It is obvious that the land-water linkages in rural watersheds are very complex: there are different types of linkages, these linkages differ according to scales, they need to be differentiated into man-made and natural impacts and finally they differ according to agro-ecological zones and socio-economic conditions. Complexity usually implies that it is difficult to get an overview. However, "users" of scientific results (planners, decision makers, politicians, etc.) need clear, synthesised and to the point answers to ecological questions. Apart of a critical discussion of the issues, one useful output of this first conference session could be a synthesis of the present understanding and categorisation of land-water linkages and the identification of gaps. Which workshop participants would take the challenge to create such a synthesis, on maximum 2 pages, with graphs, arrows, boxes or whatever? Maybe the workshop moderators could even think of a competition for that with nice prices for the winners, e.g. a land-water T-shirt? This sounds like a joke, but the effort to synthesise these linkages in a short, clear and graphically attractive form would be a really useful exercise.

The electronic workshop on land-water linkages in the framework of the International Year of Mountains

[5-10] You might all be aware of the fact that, based on a proposal of the Kyrgyz Republic, the UN General Assembly has declared 2002 as the International Year of Mountains (IYM). This decision offers a good opportunity and exciting challenge in the follow-up to Chapter 13 (Sustainable Mountain Development) of Agenda 21. It provides a unique platform to reinforce the long-term process started at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio of raising public awareness and ensuring adequate political, institutional and financial commitment to concrete action for sustainable mountain development, hopefully well beyond 2002. FAO was assigned the lead agency role for the IYM.

[5-11] One of the main objectives of the IYM is to increase awareness of, and knowledge on, mountain ecosystems, their dynamics and functioning, and their overriding importance in providing a number of strategic goods and services essential to the well being of both rural and urban, highland and lowland people, particularly water supply and food security. The ongoing electronic workshop and each of your messages will significantly contribute to this important objective. I hope you will be very active in the workshop and share your thoughts with the other participants!

Please visit the website of the IYM:

English: http://www.mountains2002.org
French: http://www.montagnes2002.org
Spanish: http://www.montanas2002.org

Selected bibliography:

HAMILTON, L., 1987: What are the impacts of Himalayan deforestation on the Ganges-Brahmaputra lowlands and delta? Assumptions and facts. Mountain Research and Development, 7 (3): 256-263.

IVES, J.D., MESSERLI, B., 1989: The Himalayan Dilemma. Reconciling development and conservation, 295 pp. Routledge, London.

KUSTER, H., 1993: Dynamics of forest cover in the Indian Himalaya: an investigation in the upper Beas catchment (Kulu-Valley, Himachal Pradesh). In: Messerli, B., Hofer, T., Wymann, S., 1993: Himalayan environment: Pressure-problems-processes. Geographica Bernensia G38, 206 pp. Institute of Geography, University of Berne.

HOFER, T., 1993: Himalayan deforestation, changing river discharge, and increasing floods: Myth or reality? Mountain Research and Development, 13 (3): 213-233.

MESSERLI, B., HOFER, T., 1995: Assessing the impact of anthropogenic land use changes in the Himalayas. In: CHAPMAN, G.P., THOMPSON, M., (Eds): Water and the quest for sustainable development in the Ganges Valley. Global Development and the Environment Series. Mansell, London.

HOFER, T., MESSERLI, B., 1997: Floods in Bangladesh - Process understanding and development strategies. A synthesis paper prepared for the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. Institute of Geography, University of Berne.

HOFER, T. 1998: Floods in Bangladesh: A highland-lowland Interaction? Geographica Bernensia G48, Department of Geography, University of Berne

HOFER, T., 1998: Do land use changes in the Himalayas affect downstream flooding? - traditional understanding and new evidences. Memoir Geological Society of India. No. 41, 1998: pp. 119-141, Bangalore

The author is Forestry Officer (Sustainable Mountain Development and Conservation), with the Coordination Unit - International Year of Mountains, FAO, Rome, Italy

Back to list

Back to top

Case Study - The Nile Basin: mutual cooperation and shared downstream and upstream social and water benefits through low-cost drainage, flood reclamation and water conservation in upper Eastern Nile: upper sub-catchments of Blue Nile, Atbara and, upper Baro-Akobo-Sobat sub-basin (Reference: Water and agriculture in the Nile basin; Nile basin initiative; report to ICCON, background paper prepared by FAO, draft June 1999)

[6-1] The urgency and importance of upper watershed improvement and small-scale drainage and reduced water losses, resulting in substantial enhancement of the available downstream flows and also reduced harmful impacts of disastrous flood and sedimentation, at very high social and economic downstream costs in the upper Eastern Nile, represents a well known but also much disputed option in the Nile. The option, which is reportedly being implemented locally, opens opportunities to address primary social and economic causes, including poverty alleviation and a way out of the subsistence farming trap and related environmental degradation in one of the poorest areas in the world. It is also an acceptable option to resolve looming water conflict and enhance upstream-downstream cooperation to eliminate future water conflicts in the Nile.

[6-2] Due to the degraded upper watersheds, the catchments are subject to frequent local floods, resulting in high actual evaporation losses, and reduction or entirely lost potential from stagnant water on large areas of annually flooded land. The priority is therefore for small-scale drainage, especially in the Abbay (Blue Nile) river, considered to be still recoverable, while the Tekezo (Atbara) upper catchment areas are almost fully degraded. Such small-scale interventions, together with construction of small- to medium-sized reservoirs in the upper tributaries, are recommended in order to reduce the floods and the resulting water losses.

[6-3] The conservation issues are closely related to rural poverty, and the priority strategy is to encourage investment in support of development to enable transfer out of the purely subsistence economy. In addition, improved flood protection would have a major positive impact on rainfed agricultural production. Efficient water use and irrigation applied to reclaimed high capability land also frees more water for use in adjacent areas with land but no water. Within-basin small-scale irrigation based on water harvesting, small reservoirs and shallow groundwater (often highly under-utilized) based on community work and labour-intensive approaches, has considerable potential. The trade-offs are between, on the one hand, the costs of watershed management, as a long-term undertaking, including necessary structural change, and, on the other hand, the social and economic benefits from hydropower generation and consumptive water uses of additional water in neighbouring basins or further downstream in the basin.

[6-4] The option identified is: Selectively reduced and controlled flooding, through small-scale drainage in tributary watercourses in annually flooded areas not contributing to groundwater recharge or to environmental or biodiversity values. This options is seen as a major opportunity to save substantial volumes of water currently lost by evaporation, at low costs and providing development, income and employment as well as flood protection of agricultural land to the most poor areas in the upper catchments. While the option remains to be studied further, the potential for water savings are clearly highly significant: While a remote sensing assessment of actually flooded areas would provide a safer estimate of the actual water saving potential from actually annually flooded areas, the indications are that the immediately reachable annual water gains in the Nile could be as high as 5-10 km3.

[6-5] The option is an immediate action the would form part of and build on the wider, longer-term structural change in the whole Nile basin for relocation of parts of intensive and water consuming agricultural and livestock production from the drier, arid areas to higher rainfall areas in the upstream parts in the basin, and with transfer to improved rainfed cultivation. The wider integrated approach option includes crop management, and agricultural and crop pricing policy, and is supplemented with macro-policy measures and structural change, supporting development towards service and manufacturing in drier areas, including promotion of high-yielding commercial agricultural production and even promoting intra-basin and external agricultural trade in the longer term for a sustainable regional food balance. The economies of rainfed and irrigated cropping are compared in the Table below, based on information from the Baro-Akobo-Sobat river basin.

Table: Benefit per unit area (US$/ha) of rainfed versus irrigated cropping in the Baro-Akobo-Sobat River basin (Ethiopia)

Note: Irrigation capital development cost is in the range of: US$ 8 200 to $US 9 200/ha. The irrigation returns are feasibly high for fodder, and - if the opportunity values of the water are disregarded - also for sugar cane and rice. However, as long as no alternative sources of livelihood are available, the social irrigation benefits for rural poverty alleviation are considerable.

Source: Ministry of Water Resources, Ethiopia, 1996. TAMS-ULG Baro-Akobo-Sobat River Basin Integrated Development Master Plan.

[6-6] There are surveys that indicate that the annually locally substantially flooded area, developed into saturated badlands and without ecological value, within feasible reach for small-scale low-cost, labour-intensive drainage reclamation, falls in the area of 350000-500000 ha. This indicates total potential water savings with important social impact upstream and high social, economic and environmental values to downstream users in the water-scarce lower basin. The downstream social and economic flood and sedimentation control benefits are equally high, as these harmful impacts represent major constraints to agricultural and economic development not only in the upper but also particularly in the lower basin.

[6-7] The case is seen to have general application in several large internationally shared watercourses in semi-arid regions. The option points at the need for technology and capacity to address low-cost labour-intensive and environmentally sound small-scale drainage of locally flooded waterlogged areas. In this win-win solution, that does not imply any concession and should therefore be acceptable to all parties, it would also be possible to arrive at partial international agreement to open and actively address such particular options related to priority social and environmental and rurally related issues with substantial water benefits - upstream and downstream in a large internationally shared basin.

The author has recently retired from FAO, where he worked with the Land and Water Development Division.

Back to list

Back to top

Good morning everyone,

I'm interested in understanding and managing hydrological processes leading to flow at the outlet (which means that I don't consider losses of water such as deep percolation or evapotranspiration) and I just would like to put a stone in the building of this workshop.

Firstly I present a few personal reflections related to Session 1, particularly to questions 1, 2 and 6. Then, I propose to introduce three conceptual points in the discussion. Finally, I ask a question following interventions 4 and 5.

I) A few personal reflections

[7-1] The hydrological functioning of the watershed is complex, due to

• numerous and simultaneous processes,
• spatial variability of processes,
• spatial heterogeneity of the watershed characteristics,
• scale effects
• non-linearities.

Some of these points are related to the watershed system itself, on which man can have an influence, and some of them are related to hydrometeorological events.

[7-2] The watershed is made up of a hydrographic network and a set of hillslope elements. The network drains all the hillslopes' flows and then leads water indistinguishably downstream. The characteristic scale of river flows is often shorter than the hillslope ones'. Moreover, most of threshold effects appear within hillslopes. There is a major hiatus effect between these two sub-systems.

[7-3] Thus the watershed appears to be a structured system where the hydrographic network is a key point, through its spatial geometrical organization and also through its dynamic influence. This is extremely important for short-term considerations, such as flood management, much more than for long-term budget studies; and this seems to me also relevant for associated elements such as chemical solute elements and erosion materials. This is important in the concept of de-synchronization (Cf. Discussion paper 1 - § 15).

[7-4] But hillslope characteristics play a major role in the watershed

dynamic as soon as

• their patterns are coherent with the hydrographic network,
• the watershed is small enough to give them an importance in the whole temporal scale,
• their structural management changes their temporal scale, enough to make them dominant in the watershed dynamic.

[7-5] Finally, the rainfall variability is also a source of complexity and the rainfall field pattern interacts with the hydrographic geometric and dynamic organization, and with the hillslope pattern.

[7-6] According to these points, I propose to consider separately rivers and hillslope anthropic actions (see for example Case study 18).

[7-7] In order to illustrate these few reflection elements, I can give some examples:

• Case study 3 deals with the problem of small dams (hydrographic management) impact on the hydrograph shape, according to geographical pattern scenarios.
• We are now studying the effects of rice terraces in an Indonesian watershed (hillslope management):

1. How can we optimize the terraces management in order to store water at the right time and thus reduce the flood peak?
2. Can we build the new terraces at some optimal places, such as isochrones zones corresponding to the watershed lag-time, to have a better efficiency ?

• In Brittany - France (Cf. Case study 17), there is a true problem of agriculture-related pollution. Chemical elements (pesticides, nitrates) are drained by the hydrographic network through the different hillslope flows. Different remediation solutions are now being proposed. Among them, structural management such as hedgerow rebuilding, permanently vegetated strips at the interface between hillslope fields and channels, low wetlands conservation, etc.

[7-8] But for all these examples, the main problem is time. Indeed, as J.M. Faurès says in intervention 4, stakeholders don't have much time to wait for experimental results to generalize decisions. We face here two major points:

• the natural system as well as human mentalities present a great inertia,
• aiming to prevent effects of extreme events needs to deal with events that by definition occur rarely. This introduces another scale problem in the debate: the frequency scale.

II) Three conceptual questions.

[7-9] The 'self-organized criticality' theory could be an interesting scheme to consider the interactions between time, size and frequency scales in the debate.

[7-10] Structural management of downstream zones can change processes and characteristic scales, and thus have strong backward effects on upstream dynamics. I am facing this problem with lowland management in Burkina Faso (Cf. Case study 2).

[7-11] In front of the time problem discussed above, modelling may be useful, as far as the model is deterministic enough to study a priori the impact of structural change in the watershed. This is a major problem in modelling.

What do you think about these points?

III) Short question following interventions 4 and 5.

[7-12] Forest management and influence on hydrological and erosion budgets is not my speciality. But I just want to lead your attention on one historical example. When Vikings arrived in Iceland at the end of the first millennium, it was a much forested territory. But the new settlers over-used this resource for wood. They destroyed the kind of equilibrium and forest nearly disappeared from the island. This had major consequences: loss of fertility, and of soils themselves, and now erosion is the main environmental problem of Iceland. It seems to me that a threshold of human activity has been reached. What do you think about the gravity level of disturbance and about the idea of a point of no return?

The author is Enseignant-Chercheur at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Rennes, Rennes, France

Back to list

Back to top

A myth: All sediment is a pollutant.

In Colorado, USA, attempts to reduce sediment from natural sources and processes has resulted in some streams being incised. The energy required to support sediment reduces the energy available to erode banks.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention deals with the problem of water allocation between upstream and downstream riparians in the international river basins of the Niger and the Nile. It gives an overview of water development projects in the two basins, and compares the impact of upstream dams and diversion structures on downstream water availability. The author concludes that it is important to arrive at basin treaties acceptable to all riparians for equitable use, protection and management of water resources in the basins. There is an urgent need to further investigate the downstream impact of upstream structures. As a first step for integrated management of basin-wide water resources, he proposes the implementation of basin-wide hydrologic monitoring and forecasting systems.

The Nile and Niger: A comparison

[10-1] The condition in the Nile River is similar to the conditions on the Niger River. Nigeria's concern as the downstream country of the Niger is the same as Egypt's concerns over the Nile. While the Nile River riparians recently formed the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), the Niger Basin countries formed the Niger Basin Authority (NBA).

[10-2] The Niger Basin countries realized early that unfavourable conditions (in the form of drought and climate change) can be contained if the river system management is undertaken as a planned scientific, legal and socio-economic activity for optimum coordination of the basin wide resources to meet the needs of the society in the riparian states.

[10-3] Fortunately, the principal rivers of West Africa are international and the need for cooperation by riparian states has been long appreciated. In fact, river systems have tended to form the basis of general economic cooperation which transcends water resources development. Several treaties and agreements were concluded between 1963 and 1972 and more are expected to be signed while existing ones are upgraded in the 1990s to meet the need for sustainable and conflict-free development.

[10-4] On the other hand, on the Nile River, such realization came on very late. The Nile Basin Initiative was established only recently to search for basin-wide water development projects. These are expected to be presented to the international community on 2002.

[10-5] Furthermore, there are no basin-wide agreements over the use of the Nile water. The only viable one is the 1959 agreement between Egypt and Sudan only, excluding the rest of the Nile Basin countries. This agreement is rejected by Ethiopia.

[10-6] While the Niger River riparians requested from the UNDP in 1974 the establishment of a hydrological forcasting system that was granted by UNESCO/WMO resulting in the Hydo-Niger Telemetric project, such projects are very recent on the Nile River and probably not yet in operation for basin-wide forecasting.

Niger Water Development Projects:

[10-7] Four major dams have been in operation in the Niger basin before the Hydro-Niger project came into existence. They are;

• The Kainji Dam (1968) on the Niger in Nigeria, purely for hydropower generation;
• The Selingue Dam (1980) on the Sankarani River, a major tributary of the Niger in Mali Republic. It currently irrigates 2000 ha and produces 44 MW of electricity.
• The Markala Irrigation Project on the Niger River in Mali. It abstracts about 450 square meter/s (sic!) from the Niger and channels it through canals for irrigation purposes. This is said to be the largest irrigation scheme in Black Africa, about 60,000 ha, and with expansions still being designed;
• The Lagdo Dam in Cameron on the Benue River. Before the construction of the dam, the Benue's contribution to the Niger at Lokoja was about 60% of the total flow below the confluence.

[10-8] Two major dams have come into full operation after the Hydro-Niger Project. They are the Jeba Dam on the Niger River and the Shiroro Dam on the Kaduna River, a major tributary of the Niger, both in Nigeria. Both projects are for power generation only.

[10-9] Examples of the continuing exploitation of the Niger River as a major source of water are two proposed projects being vigorously pursued; these are the Tossaye and Kandadji dams, both on the Niger River. The Tossaye dam will store 2.5-4.5 BCM of water to irrigate 83,000 ha and generate 40 MW of electrical energy. It is a joint venture of Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso governments. The Kandadji, in the Niger Republic, is also for irrigation and power generation.

[10-10] The existing and planned water projects by upstream riparian states have already caused Nigeria much concern as a result of the depletion of the flow from the Upper Niger attributed to increasing abstractions in Mali, Burkina Faso and the Benin Republic. Unfortunately, the projects are mainly for irrigation development. Irrigation water use normally transfers water outside the river channel and consumes much of it. Such water utilization is likely to dominate water project development in the Upper and Middle Niger. The implications for Nigeria as the downstream riparian user is clear: it will ahve less and less water for its own projects which will be starved of adequate water. A Presidential Committee has already been set up in Nigeria to study the situation in great detail and make adequate recommendations for necessary action.

[10-11] Nile Water Development projects:

• Old Aswan Dam, Egypt (1902) with a current capacity of 5.4 BCM.
• The Aswan High Dam, Egypt (1971) with a total capacity of 165 BCM and power generation of 2100 MW.
• The Owen Falls Dam (1954), Uganda (by an agreement between Uganda and Egypt in 1949 to provide long-term
• storage capacity for the benefit of Egypt and hydro-electric power - 150 MW - for the benefit of Uganda).
• Sennar Dam: On the Blue Nile, Sudan (1925), with a capcity of 780 million CM and electric power generation of 15 MW.
• Jabel el Aulia Dam: On the White Nile, Sudan (1937), provides 2.5 BCM of storage water at Aswan for developing 600,000 feddans (252,000 ha) in Egypt.
• Roseries Dam: on the Blue Nile, Sudan (1966). It provides an annual storage of 3 BCM for irrigation in Sudan and 210 MW electrical power. A second stage with storage capacity of 7 BCM is planned but has not yet started.
• Khashm El-Girba Dam: on the River Alberta, Sudan (1964), provides 1.3 BCM for irrigation and 13 MW electrical power.

[10-12] In addition to the above dams there are projects to minimize water loss by evaporation in the swamps of Bahrel-Jebel, Bahrel-Zeraf, Bahrel-Ghazal and the Sobat River. The total annual loss is estimated at 42 BCM. These projects include the Junglei Canal Project with an estimated water benefit of 4.7 BCM after the first phase which does not require storage in the equatorial lakes. Nearly 70% of the excavation of the proposed 360 km long canal has been completed. The project was stopped in 1983 for security reasons in Southern Sudan.

[10-13] Another project under study - to convey the water from the tributaries of Bahr El-Ghazal to the White Nile - is the construction of a 'Northern Canal', 455 km long starting from Gogrial in River Jur, and a 'Southern Canal', 200 km long to collect water from The Na'am, Yei and Khors tributaries of Bahr el-Ghazal to Bahr el-Jebel entering it near Shambe. The expected average water benefit at Aswan is about 7 BCM.

[10-14] Furthermore, tong-term storage in the Equatorial lakes, e.g. Lake Mobutu Sese Seko (Albert) will increase the expected water benefit from the Jongli Canal Scheme by at least 4 BCM annually.

[10-15] There are also studies for storage at River Sue, the

Busseri and the Yie for storing water of Bahr el-Ghazal. Other projects at River Sobat basin and Marchar Marshes can produce annual water benefit of 4 BCM as measured at Aswan. In addition, projects in the equatorial Lakes Plateau and the Ethiopian Plateau may substantially increase the yield of the Nile for the benefit of its basin inhabitants.

Conclusion:

[10-17] There is a need to arrive at a Nile Basin treaty acceptable to all riparians for the equitable use, management and protection of the Nile River. Such a treaty may be facilitated by small to medium scale projects between the riparian countries for the benefit of all. This should pave the way for the major projects.

[10-18] There is urgent need to investigate further the impact of upstream development in the Niger and Nile basins, in the interest of downstream users. The existing and planned dam projects should also be monitored for the same reason. Downstream development projects should be realistically studied. Egypt must reconsider its desert reclamation projects requiring huge amounts of water resources that are not currently available and are not consistent with anticipated increased Upper Nile Riparian use and climate change. These projects should ideally be postponed till Upper Nile projects and national water conservation programs yield additional water resources.

[10-19] Rational development of the Niger and Nile basins' water resources require optimization, redistribution and joint control of available water through adequate monitoring and application of basin-wide forecasting system. This will promote integrated development policy for the water development projects and forestall conflict and sabotage and the hostility that may result.

References:

Oyebande, L and Balogun, I (1992): Environmentally sound management of the Niger River System. Presented at the "International Conference on Protection and Development of the Nile and other Major Rivers", Cairo, 3-5 February, 1992. Quoted from: Shady, A. et al (Eds) (1996): Management and Development of Major Rivers. Oxford University Press, pp. 200-218.

Afifi, A. and Ezzat, M. (1992): Nile Control and Conservation Projects. Presented at the "International Conference on Protection and Development of the Nile and other Major Rivers", Cairo, 3-5 February, 1992. Quoted from: Shady, A. et al (Eds) (1996): Management and Development of Major Rivers. Oxford University Press, pp. 393-409.

The author is moderator of the Nile River mailing list. He resides in Canada.

Back to list

Back to top

[11-1] I would be interested to hear more details of Dwight's study in Colorado (intervention 9). I would agree that we need to think carefully about what we hope to achieve with erosion control measures. Below is an extract from the book "The Blue Revolution" which makes this point.

[11-2] The term "land degradation", like the term "desertification", has no universally accepted definition. The dictionary describes degradation as a loss of strength, efficacy, or value; the wearing away of higher lands. Inevitably the recognition of degradation is subjective. The farmer will recognise degradation where he can no longer grow a crop. Nevertheless it is possible that this "degraded" land might be providing a more valuable water crop. "Degradation" of soils and slopes in the mountains, whether naturally occurring or accelerated by man, may be the reason for the fertility of soils in the alluvial plains in the valleys. Paradoxically "degraded" and polluted watercourses may often support a wider variety of animal life than when in the pristine state. Deforestation, particularly when it occurs in the tropics, is conventionally and simplistically regarded, almost synonymously, with land degradation.

[11-3] No attempt is made here to provide a definition of the term "land degradation" but the warning is given that because any definition will be subjective and necessarily vague, the issue does not lend itself easily to rational and scientific analysis. Often it becomes difficult to discern between myth and reality, and between cause and effect, when dealing with land degradation issues. Conventional wisdom on the processes and mechanisms leading to degradation, and the extent of the problem, needs to be treated with some circumspection.

[11-4] It has also been suggested that obfuscation benefits the vested interests of institutions, consultants and scientists whose existence and livelihoods are dependent on the fostering of crisis scenarios and the design and implementation of what may be economically indefensible amelioration schemes. The wisdom and economic benefits of soil conservation programmes, which have been widely promoted in Africa and Asia, are now under question (Stocking, 1996; Enters, 1998).

[11-5] Nevertheless land degradation, in its many guises, is a major issue in land and water resource management and it is urgent that the cause and processes responsible are understood, and the extent of the problem properly assessed, so that it can be addressed within the context of integrated water resources management.

References:

Calder, I.R. 1999. The Blue Revolution. London: Earthscan.

Enters, T. 1998. Methods for the economic assessment for the on-and off-site impacts of soil erosion. Issues in Sustainable Land Management No. 2, Bangkok: International Board of Soil Research and Management.

Stocking, M. 1996. Soil erosion - breaking new ground. p. 140-154, in: M.

Leach and R. Mearns (eds) The Lie of the Land. London: Villiers.

The author is Director of the Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

Back to list

Back to top

[12-1] Intervention 4 of M. Faurès is very interesting. It shows that there is not an easy solution when you deal with something alive like a watershed.

About Intervention 6 by Bo Appelgren:

[12-2] I almost fully agree with Mr. Appelgren in his view about Blue Nile basin, I have been in the area and it is quite interesting. His description of the upper part of the catchments is exact: they are highly degraded. For me, Ethiopia was the biggest lesson of what erosion can do to a country. There is a belt in the northern part of Ethiopia where erosion has finished the soil, and there is almost no life in that area.

[12-3] But there is an important point: I would like to know his opinion about the human factor. In paragraph [6-3] he very well expresses ..."The conservation issues are closely related to rural poverty". Any recovering in those catchments has to involve peasants training, and reforestation. This leads to another problem: Economy. With very poor people not living, but just surviving, how can you implement reforestation programs, or erosion control, or water harvesting or whatever if there is no external funding?

[12-4] Small reservoirs can be a help, to control erosion and to implement small scale irrigation systems, but difficult to work in highly exploited areas where the owning of the land could be less than 0.5 ha.

[12-5] What is the solution to poor peasants working in deforested areas, highly prone to different kinds of erosion, lack of technical formation, poor quality of seed and many other negative factors?

[12-6] There is a huge study of the Blue Nile Basin carried out by U.S. Soil Conservation Department. It has a strong technical background to utilize the hydraulic potential for hydropower generation, complete with dams, tunnels under the mountains, pipelines, power houses, everything. This is just a dream for now - maybe in a future, when water becomes a precious resource, it could be implemented.

[12-7] My last comment for today. All the opinions I've seen come from very highly qualified experts, and that is very good, because there is a lot of experience behind those opinions, but in developing countries, usually most of the technicians are young, with very meager resources, if any. They can conduct research and experiments on a small scale only, but now they have been working for a few years, and they might have valuable experiences to be shared, and - why not? -, used. Is there a way to encourage those people to express their opinions at the beginning of the workshop, let say to make them comfortable, to write about their experiences?

Many thanks to you for your time.

The author is an engineer with the Ministry of Agriculture in La Habana, Cuba.

Back to list

Back to top

The English summary is followed by the full text in French.

This intervention focuses on case study 3, and questions 5 and 6 (session 1).

Case study 3 concerns a region without large groundwater reserves, water supplies are from surface resources and linkages soil-water are clearly identified. Things are different if geologic formations (in developed as in developing countries) offer large groundwater reserves for human, industrial and agricultural needs. In this case, water runs slowly and far inside the earth, and the way from upstream land users to downstream water users is long and perhaps unknown.

I think that in order to classify land-water linkages, we have to distinguish between surface or groundwater supply. In the latter case, a distinction has to be made whether the distance from upstream to downstream users in terms of time and/or space is far or not . This is suggested in discussion paper 1 [D1-6] and this is the question 5 session 1 (size of the watershed).

In the case of groundwater flows and large-scale basins, the answer to question 6 "Is our knowledge and understanding adequate in regard to the environmental processes involved in land-water linkages?" is negative.

In the introductory note, question 6 asks "Should the discussion focus on watersheds of small to medium scale up to a size of a few hundred km2?" My answer is NO because it seems to me that the discussion would be reduced only to research and study cases. People on charge of development and managing of land-water linkages are facing actual and complex cases.

J'interviens en référence au cas No. 3 ,et aux questions 5 et 6 (session 1).

[13-1] Le cas 3 concerne une région dont le sous sol renferme peu de réserves d'eau souterraines et ce sont les eaux de surface qui répondent aux besoins alimentaires,industriels ou agricoles. Ici les liens sols-eaux entre amont et aval, entre gestionnaires du sol et utilisateurs sont clairement établis .

[13-2] Il n'en est pas de même dans les régions (en pays développés comme en pays en développement) dont le sous sol est formé de couches sédimentaires où les eaux souterraines jouent un grand rôle dans l'agriculture (irrigation par aspersion) dans l'industrie (forages),et l'alimentation en eau potable(AEP).

[13-3] Dans ce cas, l'eau chemine dans le sol longtemps et loin, si bien que l'amont du bassin versant est distant et souvent indéterminé: il n'est généralement pas possible d'établir avec certitude les origines des sources de pollution. (nitrates, arseniates, phytocides etc..) et de ce fait je me demande si la notion de périmètre de protection autour d'un forage pour l'AEP a grande signification dans ce cas.

[13-4] Je pense donc que dans la typologie des liaisons sols-eau il faut distinguer selon que les eaux utiles pour l'aval sont en surface ou sont souterraines, et selon que l'origine géographique des eaux souterraines est proche ou lointaine dans le temps et/ou dans l'espace. Celà est d'ailleurs suggéré en le document de discussion 1 [D1-6] et on rejoint ici la question 5 de la session 1 (size of the watershed).

[13-5] Dans le cas que j'évoque, (eaux souterraines et bassins versants de taille grande et/ou plus ou moins indéterminé, la réponse à la question 6 ("Is our knowledge and understanding adequate in regard to the environmental processes involved in land-water linkages?") est certainement négative, sauf dans certains cas qui ont été spécialement étudiés, notamment du fait de leur importance économique. (for example : Nappe de la Beauce dans le Bassin Parisien, étudiée et modélisée par le BRGM)

[13-6] Introductory note, à la question 6 demande "Should the discussion focus on watersheds of small to medium scale up to a size of a few hundred km2?"

Je réponds NON car il me semble que c'est alors se limiter à la Recherche et à des cas d'études trop simples alors que les gens qui ont en charge le développement et la gestion des liaisons sols-eaux entre amont et aval ont en face d'eux des cas concrets et complexes.

The author is Bénévole Ingénieur du GREF Retraité with the Plan Bleu/Méditerranée. He resides in France.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention is related to Questions 8 and 12 of Session 2, as well as Questions 13,14,15 of Session 3.

[14-1] This workshop is quite timely. Clarifying issues related to land-water linkages has important implications for policy and investment. Further to intervention 4 by Jean-Marc Faurès, the time scale is also an important factor. Even assuming that a participatory watershed management approach works, it may not work quickly enough for results in terms, say, of reduction of sediment load to contribute to extending the lifetime of reservoirs. And the sediments already in the hydrographic network (bed and banks) will continue to flow down while watershed management is taking place.

[14-2] Nevertheless, some land use patterns have observable macro-effects and should be corrected. For instance, a combination of deforestation, over-grazing and cultivation of marginal lands because of subsidies for mechanization has had a devastating effect on watersheds in Iran. Policies having led to this situation can easily and should be corrected.

[14-3] I was involved for many years in the Fouta Djallon programme [in the upper watershed of the Niger river in Guinea -ed.]. Many donors agreed to fund watershed management rpogrammes on the ground that the source of many African rivers should be protected. Each donor was supposed to select a pilot watershed and observe the impact of intervention on this watershed as well as a reference watershed. What happened first was that reference watersheds were dropped. Then either classical watershed protection interventions took place but were not monitored, or they were monitored but there were no previous data to compare new data with (a common situation which makes evaluation almost impossible in many rural watersheds in developing countries), or the watershed management protection was dropped altogether in favor of global rural development approaches. Finally some donors evaluated their programmes, found that their interventions could not be expected to have any impact and questioned with some reason the existence of the erosion phenomenon in the watersheds. In any case, after many years, interventions had covered only 0.5 % of the total watershed, so could not be expected to have any measurable hydrological impact. Meanwhile, fund raising efforts were continuing for watershed management, justified by the impact of erosion on hydrological regimes in downstream countries.

[14-4] Many rural developement programmes in upstream watersheds are now funded and justified by upstream-downstream linkages. They are typically implemented following a local participatory approach. "Beneficiary populations" are supposed to contribute in general local materials and sometimes significant labour contributions. Much effort is put into convincing these people that they should implement soil conservation, torrent correction or bank protection works.

[14-5] For those works that obviously have no positive impact for the upstream populations, correctly designed structures would be too costly for them to agree to contribute to their contruction; lighter structures using inappropriate techniques are then constructed and rapidly washed away. Or, the type of techniques that can be supported by a programme is restricted to those that can be implemented in a participatory manner. Attempts to apply them, for instance for treatment of excessive slopes in danger of land-slide, fail, and the major sources of sediment (the landslides, bank erosion, road construction) are not treated.

[14-6] As a minimum, some clarity should be made in these programmes by establishing a clear distinction between the interventions that directly benefit the upstream populations and those that are intended to benefit the downstream populations, and, on that basis, modulating the expected contributions by populations and government.

[14-7] On indicators, I would like to mention some studies which have been made in Japan to try and quantify the public goods and positive externalities of rice paddy cultivation. These sorts of studies are an illustration of the importance of the topic of the workshop. An assessment of land-water linkages should play an important role in the current policy debate, particularly in Asia, on the various roles (or "multiple functions") of agriculture. This is an important issue in international trade negotiations.

According to research by the Mitsubishi Research Institute and others (Quoted in H. Tsutsui, Multiple functions and diversified use of paddy fields in Japan, Proceedings of the Asian Regional Workshop on Sustainable Development of Irrigation and Drainage for Rice Paddy Fields, Tokyo, July 24-28, Japanese National committee of ICID):

• [14-8] flood prevention: total water storage capacity of paddy fields in Japan is estimated at around 4.4 billion m3, which is much higher than the total storgae capacity of dams constructied for flood control. Peak runoff from paddy field areas is 3 times less than peak runoff from 75% urbanized areas. Several municipalities therefore subsidize paddy production. This subsidy amounts to between 20 and 80% of the gross income from rice production. Total benefit from paddy fields for flood prevetion is equivalent to constructing flood control dams worth 1.95 trillion yen per year.
• [14-9] groundwater recharge: Groundwater recharge is estimated at 160 million m3 per day in whole Japan. This supports pumping for domestic and industrial use. Benefit of groundwater recharge based on the contruction of the equivalent reservoirs is estimated at 800 billion yen per year.
• [14-10] soil erosion control: 40% of paddy fields are terraced sloped land. Total benefit assessed by the construction cost of soil sedimentation dams is estimated to be about 40 billiion yen per year.
• [14-11] preservation of landscape and biodiversity: willingness to pay in Nara Prefecture for the preservation of paddy fields is estimated at about twice the value of gross production of paddy rice (at Japanese prices). Willigness to pay of the paddy fields in mountaneous areas was 74% and 91% higher than those in flat areas and suburbs, respectively.

The author is Water Management Officer at the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.

Back to list

Back to top

This is a reaction on the interventions by Wenny Ho and Jean Marc Faurès (15 and 17)

[18-1] After the success story of the Treadle Pump on poverty alleviation in Bangladesh, IWMI (the International Water Management Institute) is studying other locally applied water management systems which can contribute directly to poverty alleviation. Mainly in South Asia we are identifying small-scale interventions which might have scope to be applied on a much larger scale.

[18-2] One of the techniques studied is the Paal system in Rajasthan, India. Paals are a traditional water harvesting system. A Paal is a bund across a seasonal river (nala): which retains surface and rain water. The soil moisture increases and the water table rises.

[18-3] These structures were abandoned after many farmers left during the separation of Pakistan. They were privately owned, and not maintained anymore (filled with sediments or breached after toping over). In 1987, after a survey for rural development option, it turned out that lift irrigation was not applicable in this area. Instead, farmers were indicating the usefulness of the old water harvesting structures. Pradan picked this up and they revived and slightly improved (added spillways) these structures and implemented new ones.

[18-4] Nowadays Paals are mostly owned by a small group of farmers because landholdings have split. Also field bunds are made to store water in that particular field. According to Pradan, field bunds improve the impact of the paals and increase their live time. Both the upstream (submerged) and downstream side of the paal are cultivated. Crops are wheat, mustard, onion and a combination of millet and pigeon pea. During the initial period of the green revolution Paals were not popular because they take a so much land. Paals seems to be quite effective in this part of the region, because there is a shallow impermeable soil layer, which caused a relatively quick recharge the groundwater level. The recharged wells provide the crucial possibility to do a supplementary irrigation gift: 1 irrigation turn is necessary for mustard and about 8 turns for wheat.

[18-5] Pradan works via the local Panchayats. In the period '87-'92 21 paals were revived. After '92 Paals were built in a concentrated manner, following a watershed approach to increase the effect of the paals. So far an area of 5500 hectares is developed. Pradhan only intervenes after a request from a local group of farmers who meet regularly. The cost of an average paal is 15-20.000 Rs. 35% of the cost is paid by the beneficiaries. For the individual field bunds beneficiaries have to participate more. Pradan is supporting a federation of farmers where all farmers groups are represented. Main tasks are improving the availability of good quality inputs and to develop new ideas (crops, cultivation methods)

[18-6] Important research questions for IWMI are: how do Paals contribute to poverty alleviation; what are the downstream effects of Paals; what level of organisation is required to implement and maintain Paals; what is the scope for replicating these systems elsewhere.

The author works in the Poverty, Gender and Water Project of the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka

Back to list

Back to top

Good Afternoon everyone,

I would like to present my opinion and an example regarding questions 5 and 6.

[19-1] We have some experience with studying the problem of small river degradation within different landscape zones of Russian during the period of intensive agriculture (Golosov et al., 1997). The area under tillage has increased by up to 50% and more of the total area since about 300 years in the northern part of the forest-steppe zone, 250 years in the southern part of forest steppe zone and the northern part of the steppe zone, and 100-150 years in southern part of steppe zone.

[19-2] Fortunately, we have high-quality old maps which show the detailed structure of river net. So we were able to compare the changes in river length during the period of intensive agriculture for different periods of time. We found that the total length of small river net decreased on 30-50% during this period because of changed surface water runoff and increased sediment input from cultivated slope to the river valley. However, we believe that natural causes (fluctuations in precipitation) were the main reasons of river net degradation. These fluctuations are correlated with the level of the Caspian Sea. An increased volume of sediment from cultivated slopes in the interfluve filled up the small river channels, however, and after the increase of precipitation, permanent flow did not appear in the valley bottoms.

[19-3] This example demonstrates that combination of anthropogenic and natural causes usually influence the degradation of water resources, and detailed spatial and temporal analysis should be done for a quantitative assessment of the influence of natural and anthropogenic factors.

Reference:

Golosov V.N., Panin A.V. and Ivanova I.I. (1997) Small river aggradation in European Russia during the period of intensive agriculture. In: Wang S.S.Y., Langendoen E.J. and Shields F. D. (eds.). Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision: Stabilization, Rehabilitation, Restoration. University of Mississippi, pp.615-620.

The author is professor at the Moscow State University, Department of Geography, Moscow, Russian Federation.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention is a belated contribution to session 1, question 4: What are the relations between land use and living aquatic resources and ecosystems?

Introduction

[20-1] Small-scale aquatic resources play an important but poorly quantified role in the livelihoods of rural people in many developing countries, and are also important reservoirs of biological diversity. The development of irrigated agriculture implies major modifications to aquatic habitats as well as changes in the livelihood options available to the local population, both of which are likely to impact on the ecology and use of aquatic resources. To quantify and understand these impacts, we have conducted an extensive field study in Southern Laos. Here we report on some key, preliminary results.

Methods

[20-2] The aquatic resource use and irrigation impact study was designed as a replicated, paired comparison of household fishing effort and yield and fish species richness between irrigated and non-irrigated sites. The study covered weir and dam irrigation schemes with command areas ranging from 17-515 ha (average 155 ha). A total of ten paired sites were surveyed for each type of irrigation scheme. The survey was designed to detect differences between irrigated and non-irrigated sites at key periods rather than estimate total annual fish catches, hence information on the latter should be regarded as indicative.

Use of natural aquatic resources by rural households

[20-3] Participation in natural aquatic resource use was near universal, with 83% of households fishing during the survey period. The estimated average weekly household catch was 1.15 kg , which suggests an annual household catch of about 60 kg with a market value of about 90 US$. This represents about 15-20% of average total household income (in cash and in kind). Work on within and between-household differentiation in fishing effort and catch is ongoing.

Impacts of irrigation development

[20-4] Weir irrigation schemes were associated with a 40% (90%CI [5%, 67%]) reduction in household fish catches from a non-impacted mean of 0.58 kg/week. This difference reflects a change in fishing effort as well as in the ecology of the resource.

[20-5] Dam irrigation schemes were associated with no significant overall effect on household catches in villages in the vicinity of the newly created reservoir. However, catches from floodplain areas declined significantly by 58% (90%CI [2%, 90%]) from a non-impacted average of 1.5 kg/week. This was largely but not fully compensated by increased catches from the reservoir. Hence reservoirs should not be regarded as adding to total aquatic habitat and productivity, but as partial compensation for downstream impacts. Net impacts may be spatially differentiated, and overall negative impacts on household catches may occur downstream of the dam where the reservoir is less accessible.

[20-6] None of the irrigation schemes had significant effects on local fish species richness. Measured effects on species richness were as follows: weir schemes -3% (90%CI [-30%, +16%]), dam schemes +8% (90%CI [-22%, + 30%]).

Conclusions and recommendations

[20-7] The development of individual, small-to-medium scale irrigation schemes is associated with moderate, but significant negative impacts on local aquatic resources. Hence aquatic resources impacts should be considered in cost-benefit analyses and environmental assessments of small and medium scale irrigation schemes.

[20-8] The significant-but-moderate nature impacts implies that natural aquatic resources remain productive and contribute to household food security and income within irrigated agricultural systems. Hence these resources should be managed and where possible enhanced, and considered in the assessment of the value irrigation water where allocation decisions are made. Proliferation of small-to-medium scale irrigation schemes may lead to cumulative impacts in excess of those established here. This should be assessed and managed on a catchment scale.

[20-9] We are currently working in a project to devise improved guidelines for the consideration of aquatic resources issues in irrigation planning and management.

This research was undertaken by Sophie Nguyen Khoa, Kai Lorenzen & Caroline Garaway of Imperial College, London; Bounthanom Chamsingh, Douangchith Litdamlong & Nick Innes-Taylor of the Regional Development Committee for Livestock and Fisheries in Savannakhet, Laos; and Darrell Siebert of the Natural History Museum, London.

Kai Lorenzen, the project leader, is a lecturer in freshwater fisheries at Imperial College. The research was supported by the UK Department for International Development.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention relates to session 1, question 2.

[25-1] I am enjoying the workshop. I have a small remark followed by a question on prevention of erosion and deforestation/de-vegetation, and watershed restoration. Erosion and deforestation/de vegetation are strongly linked to the socio-economic framework and lifestyle of the people living within and in the vicinity of the watershed in question.

[25-2] I will take Ethiopia as an example. Ethiopia has over 62 million people and over 80 million livestock and is one of those countries who are severely impacted by erosion and deforestation/de vegetation. About 90% of the population rely on forest for cooking fire-wood and construction. Justifiably, in many parts of the country cattle are the primary sources of cash. Furthermore, social recognition is strongly a function of the size of cattle one owns. On the other hand, cattle are the major cause of erosion not only by grazing the vegetation that provides protection to the soil from being eroded, they also cause the soil to loosen by walking through. Loose soil can be easily eroded by runoff and/or wind. Thus, firewood and cattle are the major watershed enemies causing severe degradation by erosion and deforestation/de-vegetation that is taking place in Ethiopia. I have not done any study or assessment in other countries, but I believe the same is true in countries with the same or lower level of economy. Without efforts to remove these hurdles, conservation and restoration plans will remain superficial.

[25-3] The watershed conservation and protection plan should include efforts to change the economy, life style, and perception of the people as an integral part of the conservation and preservation plan. We cannot tell people not to use forest wood for cooking without providing alternatives. Similarly, advising them to abandon their cattle may not be the solution. Education will help change perception, but it is long-term and cannot provide immediate solution.

[25-4] Let me pose a question - what is the most effective, tested and proven (if any), approach that can protect soil and forest and restore watershed without or with very minimal impact on the people's livelihood?

The contributor is Engineering Project Manager with the St. Johns River Water Management District, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Back to list

Back to top

Dear all,

This intervention relates mainly to questions 11 and 12 and the identification of land-water linkages, in particular question 5.

[26-1] Let me first say how positive to see so many interventions questioning some of the old shibboleths regarding 'land and water degradation'. I have enjoyed Ian Calder's attacks on the myths of forestry in the past [see also background paper 1 for this workshop –ed.], and it is now good to see 'sediment' starting to enjoy the same treatment! While there has been considerable de-mythologising of the degradation 'story' in agriculture and soil and water management circles it has less to receive the same treatment in water circles.

[26-2] In this message I would like to discuss a 'story' related to the myth of the 'poor agricultural practices in the headwaters leading to increased siltation in reservoirs'. The story relates to South Eastern Zimbabwe, the area I describe in case study 19. A major agribusiness user of water in Zimbabwe are the large sugar estates of the 'lowveld'. These estates rely on an extensive series of mid-catchment storage dams, and like so many others of their sort 'sediment' is their great bugbear. That the 'increased' sediment is blamed on the poor farming practices, deforestation, over-grazing etc. etc. of the 'indigenous', 'subsistence' farmers of the headwaters will come as no surprise.

[26-3] Following the devastating drought of early 1990s some of the sugar estates started outreach programmes to work with the farmers in the headwaters to 'improve' their land management. By the late 1990s those involved in the outreach programme were reporting positive results - the suspended solids entering their dams were decreasing dramatically - a simple open and shut case? Not really - the outreach programme was tiny, and the catchment area large (1,000s of sq. km). To a disinterested observer it seemed highly unlikely that changes in how the headwaters were managed could have been responsible for these dramatic falls in sediment load. What then had changed, and what could explain the improvement?

[26-4] In Zimbabwe and much of southern Africa, rainfall over the past 100 years or so has been observed to follow a cyclical pattern of above and bellow 'average' rainfall - roughly ten years of above, ten years of below. The patterns may be related to ENSO [El Niño Southern Oscillation –ed.], they may be being intensified by global climate change, they may continue in the future - all that is certain is that they have been observed since records began.

[26-5] The 1970s were by and large a wet decade, the 1980s, however, were one of the driest on record, and were capped in 1991/92 by a total drought over much of the region. Our research demonstrated that this cyclical pattern was reflected in groundwater levels, talking to local farmers suggested it was also reflected in livestock numbers - these build slowly during wet periods, only to crash during droughts.

[26-6] The combination of our research and what we learned from local farmers allows an alternative 'narrative' to that of the cane farmers to be developed. This suggests that during the long dry years, water levels drop, shrubs and grass die, and livestock (before dying) exacerbates the situation by eating everything available, turning the area into a 'desert'. During this period sediment levels generally increase, as what rain does come is un-mitigated by vegetation and can erode easily. In particular large storm events at the end of the dry period can move huge quantities of 'stored' soil. However, once a wetter period is entered, browse and crop cover quickly returns, aided by low livestock numbers, and erosion more or less ceases - waiting until the next dry cycle.

[26-7] Photographs of our study site in the 1990's show a bare expanse of red earth, incomparable to the lush 'humid' vegetation seen since 1994. Sediment that we measured leaving a small headwater catchment where there was no outreach programme and subsistence agriculture was being practised never exceeded 5 tonnes/ha - far from the 70-100 reported from so many plot based experiments.

[26-8] This is a narrative or story (just like for the sugar farmers) - to have 'scientific proof' of it, it would be necessary to monitor sediment loads (and other key parameters) for at least a full 20 year cycle! However it corresponds well to what is known of erosion and how it happens from other arid and semi-arid regions. In some parts of Australia for instance erosion takes place in hundred year events! Set your silt traps in the wrong year and you risk getting some pretty silly results!

[26-9] What are the 'lessons' if any to be drawn from this story? As usual the recommendation to 'do more research' to better understand the 'reality' underlying erosive processes - however this is often unrealistic in terms of the need to do something 'now'. The unpalatable message may therefore be to avoid building dams in arid and semi-arid areas (they are after all in addition to the sedimentation problem hugely wasteful in terms of water lost to evaporation). Large parts of Africa are after all 'erosion surfaces' - erosion is, has been and will continue to be a part of how these landscapes work (just think of the Nile floods and their life giving sediment - before the dam that is!) - expecting sediment loads to be similar to those of northern mountain dams is simply unrealistic.

[26-10] A final lesson that relates both to this story and to the work reported in case study 19 relates to scale. The lesson is simply that the answer to Benjamin's question about whether we should concentrate on the small to intermediate level must be a resounding yes. Land water interactions are only measurable at the small scale - working on minimising sedimentation in the catchment of a micro-dam in a 5 sq. km catchment may be worthwhile - trying to improve land management in Ethiopia in the hopes of seeing a result at Aswan is not. Improving tank maintenance in India will lead to measurable improvements in local groundwater, but will not affect flooding in Bangladesh.

The contributor is Project Officer - Community integrated water resource management at the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, Netherlands

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention relates to intervention 25 by Getachew Belaineh, who asked "What is the most effective, tested and proven (if any), approach that can protect soil and forest and restore watershed without or with very minimal impact on the people's livelihood?" It refers to the Sandstone Creek Watershed Project, which can be accessed under

http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/pl566/pdf/OK/sanston.pdf

The text from this page can be found at the bottom of this message.

[28-1] 31,500 hours of researching watershed management leads me to suggest that you examine this site and related ones in detail. The project area which is situated in Sayre, Oklahoma, USA. My visits with affected landowners indicate a clear appreciation of how this project rescued their farms from certain loss and has restored them to prosperity. 35 years in landscape grading tells me that this spectacularly successful project could have been done more rapidly and at even less cost with "latest & best" methods.

[28-2] Onsite/upstream retention is, in almost every case, the quickest and cheapest means to improve the welfare of all persons in a watershed. (Except those who profit from water management-related schemes)

[28-3] If you will contact ordinary NRCS [U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service, -ed.] technicians who work with landowners to plan and design the needed facilities and vegetation regimes instead of professional engineers you will discover a wholly different world of facts and opinions.

[28-4] Civil engineers have necessary functions, of course, but the non-engineers who deal with low-tech rainwater management know that they can build a million-gallon rainfall retention capacity for about $100. Civil engineers have escalated this cost to $5,500 for protecting against a million gallons of floodwater in Southern CA, providing a good opportunity to recognize the astounding economy of simple cures for simple problems as opposed to over-engineering that funnels public wealth to a planning elite.

REINVESTING IN THE SANDSTONE CREEK WATERSHED
WORLD’S FIRST UPStrEAM FLOOD CONtrOL PROJECT

On April 14, 1935, the worst single storm of the Dust Bowl picked up acres of Oklahoma soil and blew it so far dirt settled on cities several states away. World War I had encouraged food production and more acres than was needed was plowed up. What topsoil that did not blow away was washed away by rains that easily eroded the barren landscape. Streams, creeks, and rivers were clogged with sediment and prime farmland and towns were flooded.

The birth of the Soil Conservation Service in 1935 spawned a national movement of conservation land treatment to reduce erosion on the uplands, and flood control dams to reduce flooding in the lowlands. Not just a state, but a national infrastructure of conservation measures was put in place to protect our natural resources and way of life. In 1952, Oklahoma completed construction on Sandstone Creek Watershed, a part of this infrastructure. Sandstone Creek was the world’s first completed upstream flood control project.

THE SITUATION

Flood control dams are approaching the end of their designed life.

Twenty four dams were constructed between 1950 and 1952 in the Sandstone Creek Watershed to control flooding and reduce erosion. These 24 upstream flood control dams are part of the 2,094 dams that have been built in Oklahoma under the small watershed program. These dams have functioned well and have prevented millions of dollars of flood related damages to crop and pasture lands, roads, and bridges. These dams will soon reach the end of their 50 year designed life.

The Sandstone Creek Watershed is one of 131 Water-shed Projects in Oklahoma. Many will reach the end of their designed life within the next 10 years.

PROJECT STATISTICS

• Size: 68,770 acres (107 square miles) in Roger Mills and Beckham Counties
• Number of Dams: 24
• Project Start: Construction began in 1950
• Project Completion: Construction completed in 1952
• Design Life: 50 years
• Primary Purposes: Watershed protection and flood reduction
• Population Served: 3,000 people in the watershed area plus tourists and others for recreation

Sponsors

• Upper Washita Conservation District
• North Fork of Red River Conservation District

THE BOTTOM LINE

The cost of losing this important infrastructure far exceeds the cost associated with reinvesting in existing watershed projects: protecting planned benefits, enhancing incidental benefits, and taking advantage of opportunities that improved water-shed structures could provide.

SANDSTONE CREEK

Sandstone Creek Watershed was constructed under the authority of Public Law 534. Through PL-534, Congress has invested $11,656,354 in current dollars for the construction of the project. The local sponsors and landowners have contributed $385,158 (current dollars) in land treatment practices, easements, and operation and maintenance of the project dams over the last 47 years.

The monetary benefits of the project have exceeded the project costs at the rate of $1.77 of benefits for every $1 of cost. In addition, many other benefits which impact the area significantly have been realized:

• Improved stream water quality
• Over 700 acres of permanent water for livestock, fish, and wildlife
• Recreation
• Fifty-thousand acres of improved upland wildlife habitat
• Cultural resources protected
• Safer roads and bridges

NEW OPPORTUNITIES

New economic, social, and environmental opportunities, coupled with potential new partners, could offer additional benefits for the Sandstone Creek Watershed. More recreation, rural fire protection, new water supplies, more wildlife habitat, and more wetlands, are all viable possibilities.

STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE ON OKLAHOMA’S AGING WATERSHED DAMS

Sandstone Creek is one of 131 Oklahoma watersheds completed or still under construction. These combined projects represent a $2 billion dollar infrastructure in Oklahoma. Local project sponsors have invested over 25 percent of the costs.

Two thousand and ninety four flood control dams have been built as part of these projects. Construction of the dams started in 1948 to control flooding and reduce erosion. Most were designed with a useful life of 50 years. Only a small number of these dams are in critical need of rebuilding or repair at this time, but many were built over a short period of time and will soon reach their 50-year design life. An organized approach is needed to analyze the extent of repair and rebuilding needed, to prioritize those with the greatest need, and to make necessary repairs or improvements.

The contributor resides in St Pauls, North Carolina, USA.

Back to list

Back to top

Referring to intervention No. 26 by Patrick Moriarty I have to report that the forestry myths are still alive and well in some quarters and sustained "attacks on the myths of forestry" may still be necessary. See the recent report relating to the Mekong floods:

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: owner-irn-wcd@netvista.net
Subject: LS: UN agency blames Mekong floods on deforestation

BANGKOK, Sept 22 (Reuters) - A United Nations agency said on Friday deforestation was a major cause of the floods that have devastated Indochina and the Mekong delta in the last month. The UN's Economic & Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) said in a statement forests in most Asian countries had been reduced to about 25 percent of land area in 1995 from 70 percent in 1945.

Whilst I also feel positive about the new questioning attitude to "land and water degradation" I feel that in the background the "erosion game" still has many players. Stocking (1996) warns us that "scientists are just one set of actors in the 'soil erosion game', a game in which it is advantageous a) not to admit you do not know the answer; b) to make unverifiable assumptions so that, if your answers provide bad advice, blame does not attach to the professionals; and c) to exaggerate the seriousness of the process to gain kudos, prestige, power, influence and, of course, further work".

Reference: Stocking, M. 1996 Soil erosion - breaking new ground. In: M.Leach and R. Mearns (Eds.) The Lie of the Land, Villiers Publication, London. pp.140-154.

The contributor is Director of the Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

Back to list

Back to top

I enjoy all the interventions until now. We now get to the point of discussing the critical political, economic and social issues, related to realistic options for successful management of national and transboundary watersheds.

[30-1] I agree on intervention 27 and particularly paragraph [27-9] which deals with the distribution of water. Similar ideas were presented in intervention 7 [7-6] and 17. As mentioned in my case study 18, and as recommended by intervention 7, the distribution of water between upstream and downstream depends on the national strategy developed by the authorities.

[30-2] Generally, and in regions like North Africa in particular, the main strategy is to build big dams and develop irrigated areas which helps to resolve production problems. Soil conservation in upstream areas is necessary so that we can increase the life of dams. To conserve the living conditions of people upstream, we began to build small hydraulics (small dams, terraces,...). These artificial reservoirs are used by upstream farmers to increase their income. They reduce transport of solids to big dams but decrease water resources downstream.

[30-3] The question that is raised now: What will be the minimum capacity of those small hydraulics in upstream compared to the strategic water resource downstream? In my case study (No. 18) I suggested that the capacity of small reservoirs in upstream areas should be optimised with respect to runoff and in relation to high and low rain intensity. The relation between upstream /downstream resources depends on national strategy, but the capacity of reservoirs in upstream areas depends on the capacity of downstream reservoirs and on the rainfall intensity.

The contributor is Professor at the Institut National Agronomique de Tunisie, Tunis, Tunisia.

Back to list

Back to top

I am catching up on correspondence and the many interventions. Therefore, my comments will be overlapping. The discussions are excellent.

[32-1] As to experimentation / research versus implementation on solving land degradation problems. To me the issue is not more experimentation. Yes, there is always the need to do more refining, but we really have the knowledge and tools to take care of probably 90 % of land use problems in the world's watersheds. The remaining 10% is where we need research to help us refine techniques. We know how to inventory soils , geology, vegetation, climate, demographics, etc. We have the tools to work with in order to produce all kinds of models to display / understand what is or is not happening in a watershed or river basin of any size. GIS and computer programs help us develop model variations. The real issue is having people understand that after years, and probably centuries, of manipulating a watershed without either understanding " the big picture ", not caring, or being a victim of historic, difficult-to-break practices it may take years to prevent or stop degradation.

[32-2] In my state of New Hampshire it has been a long road to bringing rivers and streams back to where they were 300 years ago. And many think they are not there yet. In the late 1850's the state was 20% forested. Today it 84%. It took 75 years to get to that condition. Ten years ago the figure was 87%. New Hampshire is undergoing growth or sprawl symptoms. A town of 15,000 is being added every year. No different than population growth elsewhere. While the " loss of forest " is going on there are organizations and people involved making sure we do not go back to the 1800's condition.

[32-3] C. Cudennec ( intervention 7) asked the question about logging generating landslides. There is a lot of information about this, particularly from the Northwest US. FAO published a report on the subject about 20 years ago. Yes, logging can result in landslides / erosion. It depends on the type of logging, soils, geology, slope, rainfall, etc. It may take 8-10 years or more for the root system to decay after logging and provide channels for water movement that contributes to slope failure. The massive landslides in southern Thailand 10 years ago resulting from conversion to rubber plantations is a good example of what happens with vegetation conversion. The road system associated with logging or mountain development is probably a major contributor to landscape failure if not correctly engineered.

[32-4] Nilo Alfonso ( intervention 12 ) and Wenny Ho ( interventions 15 and 21 ) talked about how to involve people. People involvement, of course, is the key to watershed rehabilitation. Alfonso related the problem to poverty. Watershed degradation also occurs in the most developed countries. Alfonso, Ho and Jean-Marc Faurès ( intervention 17 ) allude to the need for organization. This is another key. Associated with involving people and organization is the watershed size --- small , medium or large. The larger the watershed, the less interest the general public has. They may read about catastrophes downstream in the paper, but what happens is to far removed for upland dwellers to connect with. Organizationally river basin work ---the Nile, Amazon, Mekong, Mississippi, Ural, Tiber, etc. is the responsibility of governments. Citizens become involved at the local, small watershed level. Yet they need / require leadership and assistance from the national government.

[32-5] I note the US is missing from the list of examples. The US is looked upon as developed, forgetting that 100 years ago there were many examples of watershed degradation similar to what is happening, or has happened, in other parts of the world. One hundred years ago the government, recognizing the national need to do something initiated a number of programs ; not at the same time but as experience matured. These included the US Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, land grant colleges and others. Eventually the programs evolved to collaborative approaches and cooperative undertakings. Today there are many small watershed associations managed principally by volunteers, with technical assistance by government. This is simply stated, but the point to be made is that watershed degradation occurring over possibly centuries, cannot be rehabilitated over night. It takes time.

[32-6] John Dixon ( intervention 24 ) asked who the stakeholders are ? Simply put ---the PEOPLE. Of course there are levels of stakeholders. At the national level the leadership is a stakeholder in assuring that national resource security is not misused putting the country into economic and social degradation. At the local land owner / user level they want family security. The city dweller is a stakeholder in not wanting to pay higher taxes to do something like watershed rehabilitation they cannot comprehend.

[32-7] Getachew Belaineh ( intervention 25 ) indicated there probably is no proven tested approach to watershed rehabilitation management. He is both right and wrong. He is right to think that watersheds are different geologically, climatically , vegetationally, and most important economically, socially and politically. The wrong part is that there are proven examples like Phewa Tal in Nepal, The Ural river of Kazachstan, small watersheds of northern Thailand and in western Pakistan. In the US the PL566 program started in the 1930's contributed greatly to reducing peak flood flows. Again the tools are well known, but they must be configured to fit the situation.

[32-8] Session 3, No.16 posed the question of time and scale on land use impacts. I again refer to the 75 years it took to " rehabilitate " the landscapes of New Hampshire. Thierry Facon ( intervention 14 ) alluded to the time factor with donors. Unfortunately donors normally do not have the patience, nor money, to invest in seeing through the complete restoration of a watershed. Their outlook is 3 - 5 years per project and whether they continue or not may depend on success of the project or what happens with internal government policy. The USAID implemented two 20 year projects in Nepal, a major break from the traditional 3 - 5 years efforts. The 20 years were broken down into discrete 5 year segments with activities that were considered achievable. Some activities worked and some did not. The smaller the watershed the less time it takes for rehabilitation depending on how the people are involved. The larger the watershed ( river basin) the time it takes because people other than those living on the land are involved.

The contributor is President of the Berkshire Institute at Greylock, Walpole, New Hampshire, USA

Back to list

Back to top

As a relative newcomer to watershed issues, I am learning a great deal from this workshop, both the papers and the email discussion. My thanks to the organizers. What follows is mostly a summary of observations from several of the senior soil and water conservation engineers in the Atlantic Canada region. It is relevant (belatedly!) to Session I, questions 2 & 3 and Session II, question 9 of this workshop and possibly also to some of sessions 3 & 4.

[34-1] Since the mid-seventies, soil conservation practices have become an essential element of the potato production systems in the Canadian province of New Brunswick's (NB) Upper St. John River Valley and more recently in Prince Edward Island (PEI). Undulating slopes, excessive runoff, highly erosive soils, soil compaction, stone picking, organic matter depletion, loss of soil available water holding capacity and crop productivity have compelled potato producers to adopt and implement soil conservation systems to ensure the long term sustainability of agriculture. Sheet and inter-rill erosion are being addressed through better rotations, conservation tillage, residue management, mulching, winter cover cropping, crop rotation and strip cropping. On more complex topographical conditions, integrated water erosion control systems such as diversion terraces combined with strip cropping systems and grassed waterways have been effectively implemented, decreasing the incidence of rill and gully erosion on the most sensitive crop land.

[34-2] Various erosion or runoff prediction models have been tested in the region (RUSLE, WEP, etc.). Research plot, farm field and watershed scale research has been underway in the region for over 12 years. It is estimated that from 60% to 70% of the land base currently in potatoes in both PEI and NB is experiencing excessive or unsustainable soil loss as a result of farming the complex and undulating slopes. While the adoption of soil conservation practices has been difficult due to market pressures, farming efficiency, land tenure and land availability issues, producers are becoming increasingly aware of the need to adopt agronomically, environmentally and economically sustainable production systems. Progress is being made, with significant acreages in New Brunswick and PEI now protected with appropriate combinations of soil and water conservation measures in the field.

[34-3] Recent occurrences of very intense rainstorms have heightened public and professional awareness of the environmental issues associated with soil erosion. For example, the increase in potential risks for pesticide contamination of watercourses. Pesticides can and have entered watercourses during intense rainfall events attached to eroded soil particles and may cause local stream fish kills. Also, non-point-source pollution from agriculture is increasingly becoming an important environmental issue at the watershed scale in the region in critical areas such as municipal surface drinking water supplies or lakes. Therefore agriculture in the region must constantly continue to develop and adopt cost effective soil conservation management technologies and strategies. These may need to be better integrated with other pesticide and best management practices in the near future.

[34-4] Do effective soil conservation technologies and strategies now also have to take into account developing concerns for the potential impacts of global climate change? There has been considerable international scientific discussion in recent years about the impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs - particularly CO2, CH4 and N2O) on our atmosphere and on global warming. Scientific modeling and measurements suggest that GHG emissions to our atmosphere may be driving global warming and climate change. Predictions are that global warming will have significant impacts on our atmosphere and our climate. The potential impacts of climate change in Atlantic Canada may include increased variability in climate, increased frequency of extreme climate events, local droughts, intense rainfall events, increased soil erosion and runoff, flooding, sea-level rise and coastal inundation. Serious potential environmental and economic impacts of climate change may need to be examined and agricultural adaptation measures considered.

[34-5] However, today's growing challenge with the regional potato industry really still remains the slow rate of adoption of conservation technologies on the land due to limited technical support, unfavourable short-term economics, a lack of long term financial support programs, market pressures, land availability and land tenure. Positive on-farm economics from soil conservation efforts need to be clearly demonstrated. Soil conservationists in the region have noted that the successful adoption of soil conservation systems requires extensive educational and awareness activity combined with on-farm technology adaptation and related cost-benefit information before producers implement the changes. The agricultural industry must play a stronger leadership role in promoting conservation and land stewardship. Regional policy needs and gaps need to be identified and addressed. Our governments must be more aware of the need for more integrated policy instruments, research and long-term programs to address soil and water conservation issues that will produce general societal benefits in the region. (on-field and nearby in-stream benefits, both upstream for the farmers & public, and also downstream ?)

See the ECSWCC Web site for more information on related regional issues: http://www.ccse-swcc.nb.ca

The contributor is soils specialist at the Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre, Saint-André, NB, Canada.

Back to list

Back to top

Referring to intervention 29 by Ian Calder -

[35-1] I completely agree with you position about influence of deforestation on flooding. In Russia, during snow-melting, we have high level floods in the taiga areas. I also agree that erosion rates are overestimated for most areas of tropical, subtropical and arid zones. However, the comparison of sediment discharges in a river with mostly undisturbed basins (less than 30% from total area is arable land) and in a river with mostly disturbed basin (more than 70% from total area is arable land) demonstrates that they are 5-7 times higher in the latter case. So we need to define the sediment delivery coefficient for small watersheds with different pathways from agricultural land to the river channels.

[35-2] The example from intervention 26 demonstrates how both climatic fluctuation(as the main reason) and land-use changes influence on erosion rate and sediment delivery. But we still know too little about relationship between natural and anthropogenic factors which are responsible for sediment redistribution within river basins, especially for Asia, Africa and Latin America.

[35-3] It seems to me that it is necessary to develop a well-structured sediment and sediment-associated pollutant redistribution database, which should include the lot of information concerning this problem. As the result, we will have very many "holes" for each study, and we will probably have a clear understanding what we should do in future.

The contributor is professor at Moscow State University, Department of Geography, Moscow, Russian Federation.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention relates to session 1, questions 1, 2, and 5, as well as intervention 33 by Jan de Graaff.

Dear All,
Jan de Graaff makes a number of interesting points (Intervention No. 33) with respect to the differences between watershed development and watershed management.

[39-1] I found particularly interesting his definition from the Society of American Foresters of watershed management as being essentially related to the management of land for the benefit of water (to paraphrase). While this definition is now increasingly under attack, a number of the contributions to the e-conference still seem to take this approach - looking at how 'poor land management' can be improved so as to maximise available water resources at some other point in the catchment - normally in the lower reaches. In fact, certainly in most developing countries the focus has shifted to what Jan de Graaff refers to as 'watershed development' - that is the sustainable management and use of ALL the natural resources of a given area - typically at a very localised scale. A recently published book of 28 examples (from Asia, Africa and Latin America) of 'watershed management' did not actually deal with 'blue' water at all [1]!

[39-2] Taking Jan de Graaff's suggestion one stage further, I feel that in addition to a need to separate the water and 'livelihoods' focussed elements of watershed intervention, it is also necessary to separate the largely local issues attached to land management/water quantity linkages (quality, as has been mentioned, is a different issue entirely), and the decisions to do with allocation made at the larger catchment or river basin scale ("Catchment management"?).

[39-3] Jan de Graaff refers to the millions of small farmers typical of densely populated developing countries, and identifies these as the 'bottleneck' to implementing the sort of sweeping water resource focussed land use management schemes that may be possible in less densely populated and wealthier regions. The reality is that whether we agree or disagree on the 'downstream effects of good land management' the only approach to improved land management in these areas is one that addresses directly the needs of the local population. The results of the interventions must quickly, and visibly improve the productivity of their farming systems, otherwise it will be rejected - particularly where it demands extra work. For example, there is neither the capacity to use subsidy to create sweeping land use change, nor is such a subsidy likely to be rational in economic terms - given the relatively low value added to water through large, inefficient irrigation schemes.

[39-4] Only gradualistic interventions aimed at helping to speed up the process of sustainable land use intensification will help. Whether a land management option that specifically increases some aspect of the water resource is chosen by communities will depend largely on whether water is a scarce resource or not for them. As Charles Batchelor mentions in his case study, only where water has become locally scarce and valued will people find it a rational use of their time and labour to undertake management interventions to raise water tables etc.

[39-5] Finally, a remark on the side: An interesting point about the definition of the US forest service is that it comes from the US! With an average coefficient of runoff into river systems of roughly 40%, the US is second only to Europe at 50%, at the opposite end of the scale Africa has 10% [2]! The implications of these differences are often lost when trying to make broad generalisations about 'land water linkages' that seem to suggest that the value of making a given land use change - "afforestation" for example - will be the same irrespective of the landscape in which it is performed. In fact, in most semi-arid countries, the most important productive resource by far is the green water - soil moisture - that never becomes 'blue' ground or surface water but is used by plants and evaporates. Green water is followed in importance by groundwater, with surface resources coming a poor third! It is interesting that this workshop has, at least not explicitly, chosen to look at land-water linkages as they affect green water resources at all, and continues to give prominence to surface over groundwater!

References:

[1] Hinchcliffe, F., Thompson, J., eds. (1999) Fertile ground - The impacts of participatory watershed management, IT Publications, London

[2] McMahon, T.A., Finlayson, B.L., Haines, A.T., Srikanthan, R., (1991) Global runoff - continental comparisons of annual flows and peak discharges, CATENA paperback

The contributor is Project Officer - Community integrated water resource management with the International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC), Delft, Netherlands.

Back to list

Back to top

As a relative newcomer to the workshop many thanks for the summary of interventions 1-26 which I have found most useful. Providing I'm not too late I would like to make some comments relating primarily to the earlier topics of discussion (Sessions 1 and 2).

[45-1] In my work as an independent land resource consultant, the main factor that has struck me as a major cause of land degradation (whatever that may be considered to be (q.v.)) is that of land tenure. In many, if not most, rural areas, the insecurity of tenure is the major factor in so-called land misuse. Farmers are, not surprisingly, unwilling to invest in soil conservation measures, water conservation structures, hedgerows and trees if that land can be taken away from them at any time. As a consultant working on river basin master plans (Rift Valley Lakes and Omo-Gibe) in Ethiopia in the early to mid 1990s, at a time when land tenure reform was being discussed, we called for (to no avail) a means whereby farmers could be given security of tenure in return for undertaking simple soil conservation measures such as planting hedgerows around their fields and homesteads.

[45-2] I agree up to a point with Nilo Alfonso (intervention 12) that in subsistence agriculture farmers simply do not have the means to implement erosion control measures or reafforestation without outside intervention. However, there are instances where land pressure has increased to such a degree that the local community has had no option but to change its land use practices by itself. Rice terraces are a prime example, as are the stone terraces in Yemen and also in Konso in south-western Ethiopia. In Konso, a semi-arid area, a man has to build a terrace before he is allowed to marry, it appears to work! Also in SW Ethiopia the Wolayta area around Sodo with a population density of around 400/km2 has much less visible erosion than the area to the north around Hosaina. However land pressure in Wolayta is huge and there are food shortages, (it is known as an area of green famine), a coping strategy is to convert from cereal crops to enset.

[45-3] In response to Ian Calder's Background Paper I would like to add the myth that 'shifting cultivators are the main initiators of erosion' in (previously) forested hilly areas. This myth pertains, not so much with land and water professionals and field workers but more worryingly, in the corridors of power and with the decision makers. An example either of the very slow rate of knowledge transfer between professionals in the field and decision makers or merely the existence of convenient scapegoats.

[45-4] In relation to this and as a practical definition of land degradation (Ian Calder, intervention 11), the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh are characterised by a monsoon climate, steep slopes, poor soils, extensive deforestation and increasing land pressure due to in-migration which has led to soil erosion over much of the area. This is commonly attributed to shifting cultivation or jhum even though jhum accounts for only 4-6% of the total area. The area under jhum cultivation varies from year to year and is decreasing. The fallow period, historically 10-20 years, has declined to around 3 years and productivity has declined to the extent that many jhumias feel that jhum is no longer sustainable in that the area of land that can be farmed in a season is no longer capable of feeding the average family. One solution proposed is, of course, that of hedgerow intercropping, and species trials are being carried out in a number of locations.

[45-5] On this point I would readily agree with Ian Calder's Background Paper that agroforestry still has a long way to go before it is likely to be enthusiastically embraced by farmers who are asked to give at least 20% of their land over to hedgerows or tree crops with a subsequent huge increase in labour. Taking the Philippines as an example, despite long-term research and extension, farmer adoption of soil conservation technologies remains low. In high profile projects such as in Southern Mindanao, reported adoption rates are in the order of 40-60% although fewer than 30% of farmers who had started SALT (Sloping Agricultural Land Technology) in Southern Mindanao, had maintained or expanded it. Farmers needed grants to undertake SALT practices and even with grants, agroforestry farmers (SALT 3) failed to sustain contoured hedgerows, probably due to loss of productive area while waiting for trees to produce. There was a high correlation between security of tenure and SALT uptake. The most innovative farmers, those who readily took to SALT technology tended to be land owners rather than tenants.

[45-6] In practice, the most likely way to get SALT or any other conservation farming practices to be adopted and succeed, is by raising environmental awareness among farming communities and associating economic activities with viable environmental conservation measures. But because the land area is decreased (for instance by about 21% for a 0.04ha plot on 16% slope and 3-4m hedgerow interval) then the need to intensify production can also lead to an increase in the use of inorganic fertilisers and pesticides with long term environmental implications.

[45-7] Whilst it appears that although there may be net financial benefit after 3-5 years, before then, the loss in area cultivated is not compensated for by higher yields. The World Bank has expressed doubts whether the loss in croppable area from SALT can ever be compensated for by higher unit returns. There is little doubt, however, that hedgerow cropping is a useful tool in combating soil erosion per se. If governments wish to see it introduced as part of an overall strategy of reversing land degradation and combating rural poverty (the support of development to enable transfer out of a purely subsistence economy, as stated by Bo Appelgren in intervention 6), they will have to subsidise farmers for the loss of productive land and the increased labour requirements.

The contributor is Land Resources Consultant in Winchester, UK

Back to list

Back to top

Good day everyone,

as the workshop is entering the second half, allow us to share some brief observations. First of all, we would like to thank you very much for the interesting interventions so far. The contributions have been very focused and have shed a lot of light on this extremely complex issue with which we are dealing. We suggest we explore some of the (yet) darker corners...

Part 1: The Landscape Perspective

[47-1] Many interventions have outlined interesting examples regarding land use impacts on water resources in different climatic and socio-economic conditions. One open issue is the scale at which land use practices have a verifiable impact on water resources availability and quality. This information is absolutely crucial when we discuss benefit-sharing instruments between upstream and downstream resource users.

[47-2] Obviously, when land use impacts do not extend beyond the plot level, it does not make sense to talk about benefit-sharing arrangements on a watershed scale. On the other hand, if there are measurable impacts of upstream land use on downstream water resources, such arrangements may lead to a better use of land and water resources in the watershed. Clearly, the relevant scale(s) will differ with regard to the type of impact. Also, environmental conditions (climatic, topographic, socio-economic...) may determine the scale in which impacts can be observed.

[47-3] A first desk study yielded the following results (see discussion paper 1, par. 52):

Legend:
x Measurable impact
- No measurable impact

[47-4] At a first glance, two conclusions may be drawn from these results:

1. There are certain impacts of land uses which extend beyond the field or plot level and can affect downstream users.

2. Generally, land-use impacts on water resources are only measurable in basins of up to a few hundred square kilometers, with the exception of some quality aspects.

[47-5] Some of your comments e.g. by Thomas Hofer (int. 5) and Patrick Moriarty (int. 26) support these assumptions with regard to floods and erosion. Also, the case studies which were submitted deal mostly with watersheds of a smaller scale. Can we, as workshop forum, verify or contest these first assumptions on the basis of our experiences with natural resource management in watersheds?

2. The Lifescape Perspective

[47-6] So far, many participants have agreed that the sharing of costs and benefits arising from natural resource management practices by upstream and downstream users in watersheds is very important. (e.g. R. Meinzen-Dick, int. 37). It was suggested that institutions or "negotiating platforms" (J. Dixon, int. 24) for different stakeholders are needed in this process. Also, secure land tenure arrangements were noted as an important prerequisite to countering land degradation on a watershed scale (Mark Hopkins, int. 45)

[47-7] Maybe it would be a helpful first step to draw up a set of criteria, or conditions, which have to be fulfilled for the successful implementation of such benefit-sharing mechanisms. The following might serve as a first draft of such criteria (modified after discussion paper 2, par. 31ff):

1. The impact of upstream land use on downstream water use is well understood.
2. The impact of land use on water resources clearly dominates over natural impacts or other anthropogenic impacts.
3. The groups of upstream and downstream stakeholders are few and well-organized.
4. The economic impact of land use on downstream stakeholders can be quantified.
5. The incentives to upstream and downstream resource users offered by the benefit-sharing instruments are high enough so that the users give preference to the instruments over alternative solutions to their problems.
6. There is political commitment to establish upstream-downstream linkages.
7. There is a strong institutional and legal framework, including land tenure structure, which allows for the implementation of benefit-sharing instruments.

[47-8] As a forum, can we endorse and validate these criteria on the basis of our concrete experiences? Which of these criteria need to be modified or amended on the basis of past experiences in watershed management? Are any of these criteria superfluous, i.e. is the implementation of benefit-sharing arrangements feasible in the absence of the condition?

[47-9] As of yet, no intervention has provided a concrete example of the application of instruments for benefit-sharing among upstream and downstream users in rural watersheds. What are the experiences of the forum? Which instruments have yielded promising results? Which problems and constrains have been encountered in the implementation process?

We’re looking forward to your reactions. Keep up the good work.

Best regards from Rome,
The Moderators

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention relates to sessions 1 and 4, more specifically to the questions raised in intervention 47 by the moderating team.

The table presented by the moderators in their message 47 is interesting in many respects.

[49-1] What is interesting is that even if the fact that groundwater recharge impacts of watershed management are not measurable beyond 100km2 or negligible (or very local) has been documented, it has not prevented in many cases most or all of the resources to supposedly deal with a groundwater depletion problem to be directed chiefly towards watershed management and measures such as siltation dams (even after they were found not to work).

[49-2] It may be that continuing to pretend that the groundwater depletion of the plains can be treated by watershed management (distribution of resources, contracts and work) is very convenient to governments because they can be seen doing something (usually at the expenses of tax-payers from other countries) while avoiding to take the necessary measures which are not popular (licencing, charging for electricity and water, etc.). The watershed management projects, especially if participatory, are also popular with donors (of course, poverty in the watershed areas is very severe). Characteristically also, the measures implemented in the plains where extraction takes place are also popular subsidies to "improve" water use efficiency (lining of canals, adoption of modern irrigation technology, etc.). These programs may actually lead to an increase in irrigated areas and accelerated depletion in the absence of the needed unpopular measures. Readers could be forgiven if reading the above evokes an association with areas such as the Quetta Valley in Baluchistan, Pakistan.

[49-3] Secondly, the moderating team concludes that generally, land use impacts on water resources are only measurable in basins of up to a few hundred square kilometers, with the exception of some quality aspects. The water quality aspect has been indeed rather neglected so far in this conference - with the exception of sediment loads, of course - in favor of quantity aspects. In fact, the "exception of the quality aspects" is rather important. This exception has the advantages of being rather well documented, of being quantified, that the economic impact can be measured in terms of, say, treatment, processing plants, etc., and that both polluters and downstream stakeholders are identified quite clearly, both for point and non-point pollution sources. It is also become central to the environmental/ water/ agriculture policy debate and regulations, for instance in Europe. Salt is also an interesting issue (Colorado River, salt permits in the Murray Darling basin). I would therefore think that at least, as far as water quality is concerned, one will be able to find numerous examples of policies and practices from developed countries.

[49-4] This issue of water quality is also interesting because an accepted principle of water resources management applies, the polluter pays principle. This principle applies to all economic activities, including agricultural activities, and to upstream users as well as downstream users.

[49-5] So, whatever the platform for negotiation or the sharing of benefits called for, this principle should not be negotiable, together with the legitimacy of developing and enforcing environmental rules and regulations, with its corollaries (taxing pollutants or emissions, polluters sharing in the cost of reduction or mitigation measures). It could be considered legitimate that a preliminary to the discussion of benefit-sharing is the acceptance of cost-sharing by upstream users for the pollution they are responsible for. Public debate, stakeholder representation in platforms such as river basin organizations or committees can certainly help in facilitating awareness and acceptance of this principle. Benefit-sharing mechanisms seem to derive from, on the one side, equity considerations (including the willingness not to overburden rural populations with costs associated to taxes and environmental considerations while their income is already lower than those of urban areas), and, on the other side, efficacy considerations (win-win situations such as adoption of IPM are more likely to produce the desired environmental effect, or the cost of adapting to environmental regulations may be partly covered).

[49-6] At a recent debate in France - Colloque Maîtrise de l'impact des activités agricoles sur l'environnement - Assemblée Nationale, le 17 juin 1999 - the Ministry of Agriculture’s plan to reduce nitrate pollution by livestock industry (PMPOA) introduced in 1993 was assessed to be less than effective in reducing pollution by growers for the main reason that its incentive part (or, as it was termed, the "non-polluter non-payer" principle) was not accompanied by a sanction on pollution (the "polluter pays" principle). It was therefore estimated that the incentive scheme (subsidy schemes to adapt infrastructure and practices) should be accompanied in the future by a tax on pollutants emission (options being indirect, a tax on polluting inputs or through the water fees, or direct, such as the tax on N-balance as practiced in the Netherlands).

[49-7] In France, the debate on upstream/downstream or rural/urban seems to be framed by the notion of multifunction agriculture and has international (WTO), European, national, and local (Basin agencies and lower politico-administrative levels). Policy, regulation and financial instruments (taxes and incentives) are at all these levels. Farmers secure quantitative and qualitative food security, maintain landscapes, have to respect the environment and they expect a decent income commensurate with urban populations; consumers expect quality and safe products, they don't want to pay too much however, they expect clean water and nice and pleasant landscapes. Increasingly, they are willing to pay for all this, either directly as consumers or indirectly as tax payers.

[49-8] At the European level, environmental and water directives and the common agricultural policy apply. The principle of eco-conditionality of direct financial assistance has recently been adopted. This is an interesting example of sharing both benefits and costs. Governments are responsible for implementing the CAP. In France, various incentive instruments exist: PMPOA (see above), Fertimieux and Irrimieux related to fertilizers and water use efficiency. A more recent instrument, the Contrat Territorial d'Exploitation, allows the provision of financial incentives in the framework of a contract that stipulates the adoption of best practices and the fulfilling/ acknowledgement of the production of public good such as landscape. Water fees and eco-taxes [will] complement the system.

[49-9] The benefit-sharing can also be direct: consumers can pay more for quality products or products that are produced with environment-friendly practices, provided that this is recognized through quality or provenance labeling. They can pay directly for landscape with economic returns to upstream/farmers through eco-tourism and "normal" tourism. The water fee can include the financing of measures to assist upstream users in adapting to environmental regulations.

The contributor is Water Management Officer at the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.

Back to list

Back to top

[50-1] As a quiet but observant participant of the conference, I wanted to congratulate the moderating team for providing an excellent summary of the interventions which helps us to clarify our messages. In particular, I was worried that the underlying message of the forum after the sophisticated discussion regarding "forest myths" may be interpreted in such a way that natural processes are so complex and dominate over anthropogenic induced processes, such as conservation, reforestation, etc., that the latter are not significant to stabilize watersheds.

[50-2] I may be a bit a extreme, but the general natural resource degradation we are experiencing all over the world makes me wary to be so technical that we confuse the public even more. I agree that conservation efforts are scale-dependent and site-specific, and that we should not overgeneralize. At the same time, I prefer that people prevent deforestation in order to protect water resources. This belief has taken a long time to take hold and it is still not so widely accepted in Latin America as to be able to tell people "well, it all really depends on this and that".

[50-3] Regard the criteria for institutional mechanisms, another criterion that I would add is that the users that pay and those who benefit have decision-making autonomy and a transparent mechanism where they can participate in how the money is managed and spent. Government intervention may be necessary but not to use the funds for general bureaucratic maintenance.

[50-4] I recall the example in the Cauca Valley of Colombia, South America, where large scale downstream agricultural users are paying a user fee to water user associations that work as private foundations in implementing watershed conservation projects (see background paper 4). The local authority oversees the technical aspects, works with these organizations and even helps in the payment process, but the resources are managed independently by each organization. This whole structure may be modified in the near future by the central government that is regulating the water user fee.

The contributor works as environmental management consultant for EcoDecision, Quito, Ecuador.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention reacts to numerous contributions (see references in the text). In particular, the author outlines the evolution of watershed management in New Hampshire, USA.

I again find myself reacting to all the interventions that have been stored for the last week or so. This conference is excellent, having generated a lot of food for thought.

[53-1] Regarding Ian Calder’s remarks on forestry myths (Int. 29): Deforestation, logging, or the clearing of vegetation is a contributor to floods, or at least has an effect on the hydrograph, depending on the extent of the conversion. The effect is more noticeable with smaller watersheds. The dilution affect plays a role in larger watersheds ( river basins ) by masking what may have taken place upstream. Lets not play down the forestry myth used by laypeople/ politicians/ newspaper writers, but capitalize on their interest to educate them on the value of good watershed management.

[53-2] Jan de Graaff (Int. 33) revisited the difference between watershed management and development management. I am not sure that the US department of Soil Conservation introduced the term watershed management. By legislative mandate the SCS, as a government agency, was given the leadership in watershed management. However, other agencies like the US Forest Service and the private sector were either practicing or advocating management of watersheds since the beginning 1900's.

[53-3] The management of watersheds, no matter of size, is concerned with the holistic application, use, administration, coordination, etc. of all those activities associated with social, economic, political and environmental events. De Graaff seems to imply that watershed management, or management of resources in a watershed, does not take into account human resources. Management only includes physical resources.

[53-4] Certainly the management of a watershed, no matter how large or small, and no matter how many pieces of ownership there are, needs a holistic perspective and the active role of the stakeholders. In many respects the stakeholders do not change, but their identified role does. The larger the watershed (basin) commonly, the greater is the role of government. The smaller the watershed, the greater is the role of local people supported by government.

[53-5] Development within a watershed (tourism, agriculture, business growth , etc.) is fully consistent with watershed management. There is no advantage to introduce a separate approach called development, when management is the objective.

[53-6] Patrick Moriarty (Int. 39) refers to de Graaff’s discussion on management vs. development. He suggests that water quality should be separated out from quality. Quality and quantity go together.

[53-7] I sense thoughts creeping into the discussion about turf management; i.e.; water specialist and soil conservationists. Management of resources within a watershed requires all of the science/ expertise that is needed to effectively meet the goal agreed upon. There are thoughts about categorizing ecosystems--- water vs. watersheds. We need to move beyond whose territory it is if we are going to be successful in scientifically, socially and economically manage watersheds.

[53-8] The millions of small farmers that may be downstream or upstream are not bottlenecks. They are land users that need to be educated as to management. We have to show them that they can make money if better practices are used.

[53-9] Ian Calder (Int. 42) talks about the complex nature of interactions, the inadequacy of present approaches to deal with management and different actors "mudding -up " the waters. By its very nature what we are talking about is complex with no pat answer, models or case studies yes, but a formula or two that can be assigned to every situation, no. I refer back to my comments on interventions 33 and 39: The management of a watershed in a way that all of its resources, natural and human, are brought into "harmony" or possibly "restored" is a dream. The human influence has changed things to the degree that we cannot return to the original.

[53-10] De Graaff (Int. 44) alludes to the research versus practical approach. There is (1) emphasis on monitoring and (2) how to organize, suggesting they are different and pointing out that more long term studies are needed. What distinguishes a watershed manager from a water scientist, for example, is that a manager is asked to manage for society needs within environmental constraints brought forward by specialized scientists and compromised through discussions with the stakeholders.

[53-11] Calder asked about the New Hampshire situation and organizations that have evolved mentioned in my Intervention 32. Part of the answer to 75 years of "rehabilitation" in New Hampshire and formation of the many organizations is that large scale ( river basin ) work is more resource focused and small scale work is people focused.

[53-12] New Hampshire soils are poorly suited for agriculture, except those along the river terraces or flood plains. In the late 1800's there was transition from pioneering of land settlement to industrialization. The infertile mountain soils could not provide for incomes beyond bare subsistence. Children migrated to towns or places of employment, often sending money home to parents to keep the family farm alive (does that sound familiar?). People started realizing the need to prevent erosion and floods caused by poor use of the landscapes. For example, the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire’s Forest formed and with it a major reforestation effort. The White Mountain National Forest was created to protect the headwaters of major rivers. Then there were programs of the 1930 depression years to put people to work on rehabilitation programs.

[53-13] At the same time businesses flourished (except for those not surviving the depression), people began forming watershed associations. The university extension services began operating. Government scientists inventoried and conducted research on how to rehabilitate or introduce better land use methods. Today. the government and universities are still there, but working mainly as consultants and advisors to the citizens.

[53-14] Was all this accomplished as a grand scheme? No! Did some people have the vision of restored watersheds? Yes ! And they still do. As mentioned frequently in this conference, watershed management is a long term outlook. This fits in with John Dixon’s statement (Int. 48) that groups organize around priority issues. In New Hampshire the "government " did the spade work, giving the people the opportunity to capitalize on an investment they could not afford, even though they started it.

[53-15] Who has benefited? The list is long. The state as a whole benefits as being recognized as a place to raise a family with a high quality of life rating. Less money is spent on restoration and more on released funds for education. Tourism has become big business. Jobs in all sectors have increased. Forestry remains a major employer.

[53-16] Are all these benefits assignable to watershed management? I guess it depends on your perspective. But, when you relate to a history of going from 20% forested area to 84 % with reduction of man-induced erosion to nil, water quality is way up, and the salmon fisheries show signs of return, then watershed management has been justified.

The contributor is President of the Berkshire Institute at Greylock, Walpole, New Hampshire, USA

Back to list

Back to top

Much enjoying the interventions. With reference to Intervention No. 47 by the Moderating Team, please allow three supplementary comments of a diverse nature. While the participation has so far involved mainly experts from western institutions, it would be valuable to read the views of senior managers and experts in river basins in developing countries, who are connected by email as part of established consultative river basin networks, and motivated and interested to subscribe and contribute in this e-workshop.

[54-1] The scale of the river basin is critical to the effectiveness and the penetration of management interventions, as one ultimate use of data and scientific evidence. As seen in the table [presented in Int. 47], meso-basins, of some 100-500 square kilometres, within well defined jurisdictions, normally at the state or national level, seem to be optimal in this respect. Beyond, and possibly also below, that range, management arrangements are likely to be less effective or meet with more conflict.

[54-2] Communication needs to be based on common methods of expression. Agro-climatological zones, easily and widely understood, allow for assessment and extrapolation of actual and potential agricultural land use and production, in relation to land use capacity and environmental hazards. The context allows for easy spatial extrapolation and transfer for use and discussion of country data within the basin area.

[54-3] Confrontational discussion of development and economic land use versus environmental conservation represents only narrow aspects of sectoral thinking and appropriation of the budgetary resources cake. There is recent important progress to get the discussion out of the sectoral trap referring to the broader debate of balanced social ethics based on ethical principles of human dignity, association, participation, and solidarity.

[54-4] Reference is made to the core report of the UNESCO Working Group on the Ethics of the Use of Freshwater Resources (June 2000), which is published in English by the Fundación Marcelino Botin, Madrid; e-mail pas@fmbotin.es. The report concludes that there are three elements for social ethics to balance decisions related to water - and, I like to argue, also land:

1. "building on a sense of purpose for active co-designing with nature"
2. "balance between human values regarding conservation and the use of new technology"
3. "balance the sacred and the utilitarian in water - and land" (Water - and land – must not only be regarded as a means but also an end in itself).

The contributor has recently retired from FAO, where he worked with the Land and Water Development Division.

Back to list

Back to top

After reviewing all of the fascinating watershed case studies and discussion interventions presented, I have several comments and many more questions.

[55-1] (1) Effective land-water watershed management seems to require long term planning based upon sound environmental principles that are immune to economic and political change. However, all production and development strategies have social, political and environmental consequences. Is it plausible that regulatory mechanisms such as a ‘user pays/polluter pays’ framework can be imposed upon future populations, local and national governments and industry when water is largely free and unregulated these days in rural areas? I am afraid that such a mechanism, if implemented, would be manipulated by government for industry so that the poor would pay and that the corporations would be given tax exemptions for any fees that they may incur based upon the dubious argument that they are providing jobs for the poor. I am looking for a mechanism for a mechanism here. Can anyone suggest how social inequality in watersheds can be prevented in a user pays/ polluter pays framework?

[55-2] (2) As Peters and Meybeck suggest in their discussion paper, many watershed problems and solutions seem to be as path dependant as the water flowing through the landscape. In my research on agriculture practices and water quality in Saskatchewan, Canada, it is obvious that many water quality problems seem to become obvious only after a period of time has elapsed. Due to this time lag, some solutions are difficult or even impossible to achieve. In addition, there seem to be many confounding variables that prevent effective management of watersheds and the protection and delivery of clean water. These include different property regimes within watersheds, economic development strategies that compromise sustainable water management and competition for water between industry, agriculture, government and private users.

[55-3] Therefore, some key challenges for effective watershed management are as follows:

- Can corporations concerned with increasing profits, farmers and small businesses concerned with economic survival, and governments concerned with sovereignty and re-election harmonize their objectives with watershed management to provide ample clean water to all users?

- In what kind of accountable, transparent context is this possible?

- If it is not possible, are we not condemned to mopping up after watershed disasters?

[55-4] I think the solutions begin with public education and long term political planning that transcends party politics with enhancement of environment resources as a primary objective.

[55-5] In an ideal world, governments would mobilize to provide the regulatory national and local frameworks for private enterprise to profit from improving the delivery and quality of water. In providing corporate incentives to protect watershed resources and water quality and by providing clear public water quality information, governments also would fulfill their function to taxpayers as protectors of human and environmental health. In this way, the interests of the state, the economy and the welfare of taxpayers can be harmonized for the greater good of future resource management.

[55-6] However, in the real world, it seems that even disaster is not enough to mobilize government to fulfill its basic obligation to protect the health of its citizens. In Canada, the world’s most developed country according to the UN human development index, a water-related illness disaster in the town of Walkerton (Ontario) in the spring of 2000 left 7 people dead and 2,300 ill from consuming contaminated municipal drinking water. A report released the week of October 9, 2000 by Dr. McQuigge, the chief medical officer of the area around Walkerton, confirmed that the water was contaminated by E. coli bacteria from cattle manure washed into municipal wells by rainwater. Since Walkerton, increased testing across the country has found high levels of bacteria in municipal water supplies prompting many boil water notices this summer across the country. [1] How many more people will have to die or become ill before government takes watershed management seriously?

[55-7] (3) Water quality and availability in many watersheds have become compromised by human activity and this process will continue as populations and industry increase. This will increase the need for public education, aqua-diversification, water treatment and filtration as well as regulated land use policies. Given that effective watershed management is possible, should the bulk of future resources be directed primarily at damage control, i.e. separating and treating water, instead of damage prevention, i.e. restricting development?

I appreciate any suggestions or feedback. Thanks for your attention and consideration.

Reference:

[1] Mackie, Richard. 2000. "Health officer issues water warning: Walkerton-type tragedies could strike other cities, doctor says". The Globe and Mail, Toronto, October 11, p.9.

The contributor is graduate student in sociology at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention refers to interventions 25, 26, 29 and 50 on truisms and myths with regard to land-water linkages, especially in forestry, and the impact on public opinion and policy.

[56-1] I couldn't agree more with comments about the insidiousness and persistence of many technical myths related to forestry. One faces this especially in countries like the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand, where the bureaucracies which formerly had (or still have) a mandate for tropical forest (i.e. timber) management, are now responsible for the management/ development of watersheds and the 'environment' in general.

[56-2] The issue raised in Intervention 50 [the risk of confusing the public by overly technical debates on land-water linkages, –ed.] is well taken. I think however one has to be clear about the types of topics over which one might wish to avoid confusing "the public" in technical, conceptual or critical discussion.

[56-3] First, I think that the direct debates among policy 'elites' like ourselves need not form the content of messages intended for public education. We should be as concerned about the use of scientific generalities or myths by the powerful (i.e., government, military, NGOs, media, international agencies) than similar misconceptions in the hands of the rural poor. The latter have more influence on the structural conditions that ultimately challenge watershed management efforts. We believe the myths that bolster our interests.

[56-4] Second, generalizing about the harm caused by deforestation is very different than being simplistic about watershed management and what it will achieve, how and at what costs TO WHOM. Unfortunately, among the public, the message conveyed is that deforestation causes floods. US media sound bites about flood disasters in China and Honduras are somewhat recent cases. While expecting scientifically sophisticated treatment from media is rarely realistic, the forestry myths behind the diagnosis of catastropic disasters or pressing environmental trends, like water shortages, are important. Visible environmental changes create policy changes in the their immediate aftermath - and perpetuate myths. Policy is reactive. Policy makers react more to disasters or urban water shortages (and the causal myths that accompany them) than subtle, scientifically accurate assessments.

[56-5] I think one has to distinguish between discussions of the patently political goal of policy change and the scientific/technical goals of testing causal explanations. Scientists and other technically informed people have a responsibility not to oversell explanations and technical approaches, even though the technical prescriptions are frequently used in unintended ways. Questioning assumptions and discovering myths is one check on this within the technical community. How such questioning is used in the political arena is often as unpredictable as how science gets applied in policy. Here, political aims to influence policy in a technical way run up against goals of scientific validity and humility.

[56-6] That said, as some have noted (intervention 32) there is plenty of technical knowledge and tools to be implemented. Who needs to understand, however, which facts must be considered? Telling poor farmers that it may take many years to alter ecological trends of watershed degradation may be unrealistic. Similarly it may be unrealistic to expect politicians to support long-term measures AND subsidize (not punish) the rural "stewards" when in many contexts few political consequences exist for failing to do so.

The contributor is Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Natural Resources & CIIFAD-Philippines Program, Cornell University, New York, USA

Back to list

Back to top

This is a summary of case study 29.

Influence of land use on the hydrological properties of volcanic soils: the case of catchments providing water to Andean cities

[58-1] The catchment of Río Paute is situated in the southern Andes of Ecuador. Climate is varying from cold tropics in the high zones, temperate tropics in the middle, populated part, and warm tropics in the lower zones. Rainfall is extremely variable, between 600 and 3000 mm per year. Competition for water is very strong within the catchment, water is mainly used for drinking water supply, irrigation and power generation.

[58-2] The highlands of the watershed (approximately above 3300 meter above sea level) are commonly called "paramo" or neotropical alpine grasslands. Vegetation is mainly Stipu Ucha. The soils are Andosols. They consist of volcanic ash with a very low bulk density (below 1) and a high water retention capacity (saturation of up to 200% in relation to dry matter) (FAO et al., 1998, Swindale, 1969, Van Wambeke, 1992). This water retention is mainly due to the presence of allophane clay forming typical hollow spheres with a diameter of 35 to 50Å. The spheres show microscopic pores so water can be stored inside (Wada, 1995).

[58-3] It is well known that the paramo has an extraordinary capacity for regulating water flows. However, it is not clear to which extent different phenomena are responsible for the water retention and slow releasing : retention in the soils, retention in vegetation, retention in organic matter layers, retention in swamps, lakes, forests, etc. This study analyses the effect of land use on the water retention capacity of the Andosols in the south of Ecuador.

[58-4] Cultivation of the volcanic ash soils in the south of Ecuador clearly has an influence on its hydrophysical properties. However, it is difficult to apply the classical concepts of e.g. saturation, field capacity and wilting point to these soils, since such concepts are based on equilibrium between gravitary, capillary and hygroscopic forces. In the andosols other forces are active. As a consequence, there exist methodological difficulties and it is not yet possible to assess impact of different events related to these soils.

[58-5] At this stage of the research it is not possible to indicate to which extent different aspects are responsible for the high water regulating capacity of the paramo. As a consequence, it would be very difficult to enter into negotiations between downstream users and stakeholders affecting water production upstream, since it is not known which of their actions are affecting downstream water availability. The authors believe this lack of information base for impact assessment, is not only the case in watersheds with those "rare" andosols, but also in most other environments.

W. Buytaert B. De Bièvre, J. Deckers and G. Dercon are with the Institute for Land and Water Management, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; and the Programa para el Manejo del Agua y del Suelo - PROMAS, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador

Back to list

Back to top

[61-1] In my view, the List as proposed in Intervention No. 59: The Way Forward - Conclusions and Recommendations, by the Moderating Team covers well the principal areas for the conclusion of the E-meeting. The following, as underlined, are possible additions to suggestions nos 1, 2 and 3.

[61-2] ad 1) Can we prioritize land-use impacts on water resources that should be the focus of further work on the issue? There is an immediate and longer-term demand for policy, supported by hard scientific evidence.

Added:
Recent disastrous floods and land-slides, in all regions, at high social, economic and environmental costs point at the result of long term abuse, over-exploitation and inappropriate land-use in the upstream as well as the downstream sections of major catchments in all regions. There is a priority need to identify and agree on causes and responsibilities, institutions and functions to reduce risk and manage such man- made disasters.

[61-3] ad 2) Can we identify regions, climate zones, and socio-economic conditions, in which land-water linkages play an especially important role and need to be addressed as a matter of priority?

Added:
Common to all regions there is the need to recognize the wider global context of water ethics and discuss water and land conservation not only as a means but as an end in itself.

[61-4] ad 3) Can we identify successful or promising benefit-sharing mechanisms by upstream and downstream people, which should be the focus in further work?

Added:
The difference in approaches in, on the one hand, small rural communities, with a tradition in conservation of the commons, constrained by poverty and lack of capital resources, and, on the other hand, larger catchments and more wealthy and developed societies, with open access and limited information and capacity to manage common property. These distinctions call for different approaches to address poverty and inadequate credit markets on the one hand, and state regulatory and enforcement intervention on the other. In transboundary basins, it would be important to adapt to and support recent trends of change in international environmental law, where governments are given general responsibility for environmental conservation and positions of sovereignty transferred into functional roles for implementation.

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the excellent E-event. Looking forward to reading the proceedings when available.

The contributor has recently retired from FAO, where he worked with the Land and Water Development Division.

Back to list

Back to top

For what it is worth here it is.

Management of watersheds, no matter of size, is concerned with the holistic application, use, administration, coordination and corrective actions associated with social,economic, political and environmental events. Management of resources within a watershed requires all of the science and expertise needed to effectively meet the goal of stakeholders. The hierarchy of stakeholders ( communities ) influencing how watersheds are managed includes the individual, the farm or piece of land, village, city, district or county, province, country, region, and world. These stakeholders influence organization, resource property rights, government policy, management approach, market or end use and support given to projects or programs. The stakeholders are a factor related to , either directly or indirectly, business, sale and marketing of products and approval of how land and products will be assessed or taxed to carry out or participate in a program or project. Further, there are divisions within the stakeholder hierarchy by class , caste, gender, religion , ethnicity, geographical origin, length of settlement and whether they live upstream or downstream. Who are the stakeholders is complex, but the combination of a watershed community make-up must be linked to carry out management.

The fact that management of resources in watersheds is both program and project oriented has contributed to misunderstanding of what it really is. On the one hand there are programs being simultaneously developed at national and multinational levels and on the other at the local ( micro watershed ) level. Development within a watershed is fully consistent with water (shed) management. Development includes tourism, agriculture, business growth, etc. Rising population, increasing urbanization and greater demand on all ecosystem resources are high priority reasons to insure that investment is made on the health of our watersheds. In the US alone there are 4000 plus watershed associations dedicated to pro-actively educating citizens about the value and necessity of watershed management.

While there is need to do more refining on the techniques of land degradation affecting the quality and quantity of water produced within and from a watershed we have the knowledge and tools to take care of probably 90% of land use problems in the worlds watersheds. The remaining 10% is where we need research to help refine techniques. We know how to inventory soils, geology, vegetation, climate demographics, etc. We have the tools to work with in order to produce all kinds of models to display/ understand what is or is not happening in a watershed or river basin of any size. GIS and computer programs help us develop model variations. The real issue is having people understand that after years , and probably centuries, of manipulating a watershed without understanding " the big picture ", not caring , or being a victim of historic, difficult - to -break practices it may take years to stop degradation.

It is recommended that watershed management be linked as a key activity of the newly energized mountain forum -- year of the mountain program. Mountain forum has affiliated all of the worlds mountain systems, where most of the water downstream flows from. This could help put across the idea that problems or issues facing policy makers, local resource users and managers, staff developers, researchers, etc are universal. The degree of problems may be different, but the solution is generally the same whether it is in the US, Nepal , Egypt. Russia, or Costa Rica.

The contributor is President of the Berkshire Institute at Greylock, Walpole, New Hampshire, USA

Back to list

Back to top

Firstly, many apologies for being a poor workshop participant. My excuse is that I have been constantly on the move during the last 6-8 weeks - in South Africa, then Palestine and now in India. I have done my best to keep up with the discussions/interventions but please excuse any comments below that might be inappropriate or repetitions of earlier contributions.

Some thoughts and suggestions:

1. As regard to final recommendations to policy makers, local resource managers, researchers etc, my very biased view is that much better use could and should be made of existing resource-related information. It is a simple fact that, in most countries, large quantities of resource-related information exist. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to access or use this information because: Data are fragmented in that they are held by different organisations and, in some cases, by different departments or individuals within these organisations;· Spatial and non-spatial data are stored in a wide range of formats (e.g. maps, remotely-sensed images, tables of figures, text, graphs, etc.) and media (e.g. in year books, research papers, on computer disks etc.);

Spatial and temporal scales, at which data have been collected, vary enormously;

Data quality is extremely variable.

The challenge is to consolidate and quality control this existing information and then to use it to obtain as clear a picture as is possible of the current status of water resources, past and future water resource demands and the potential impacts (again past and future) of human activity on the quantity and quality of water resources at different scales.

Hopefully, our recent work in India has shown that:

1) This is entirely possible (at a low cost) and

2) Consolidating, using and presenting information in formats, that policy makers can understand, can bring about relatively rapid changes in policy.

2. I did not see much discussion during the workshop on the impacts of falling groundwater levels (as a result of extraction for irrigation etc) on the hydrology of catchments and, hence, on water resource availability.

My current view is that this is becoming a much more serious issue in dry areas of India than, say, land use change.

From my experience, I would say that a fundamental reason for our lack of understanding of interactions between surface and subsurface hydrology is the fact that hydrologists (i.e. surface hydrologists) tend to concentrate on land and surface water linkages and hydrogeologists tend to concentrate on land and groundwater linkages. As these studies are usually carried out independently, a lot of the important interactions are missed.

3. I did not see much discussion on the impacts of urbanisation on: the hydrology of catchments, demands for water resources, availability of water for agriculture, groundwater quality, downstream surface water quality, etc.

It is unfortunate that the majority of hydrological studies of land and water linkages tend to take place in rural headwater catchments (i.e. there are very few studies that recognise the fact that urban areas are important features of the landscape). It is a simple fact, however, that there are hugely important linkages between urban and peri-urban areas and the surrounding areas. These linkages will become more and more important (particularly in dry areas) as urban populations grow. For example, over 50% of India's population now lives in urban areas and India's urban population is set to double in approximately the next 25 years.

Hope these comments are useful.

Finally, congratulations to you and the rest of the team for the excellent organisation of the workshop.

The contributor is hydrologist at Water Resources Management Ltd., Brentor, Devon, UK.

Back to list

Back to top

To elaborate on Dr Batchelor's comment on the importance of urban areas [Intervention 65], we at the University of California, Santa Barbara (Trent Biggs, Tom Dunne) have completed a regional survey of water chemistry in the Amazon basin, and have found that some solutes, such as Cl in both the wet and dry seasons, and total dissolved nitrogen in the dry season, are influenced by urban areas--with up to 80% of the increase in chloride in deforested regions being due to urban areas (Biggs et al, submitted to Water Resources Research).

In addition, we have recently shown (in preparations) that small areas of intense agricultural production dominate increases in total dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus, with a much smaller influence from deforested ranching regions. Determining locations of this intensive development may be paramount in developing a sound water quality management strategy.

Trent Biggs is graduate student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Back to list

Back to top

I would like to thank FAO and the team for inviting me to write one of the background papers and for the excellent organisation of the conference.

I think the future will view this conference as one of the major victories in the "Blue Revolution" that is taking place in the way we manage land and water.

No longer can (or should) we consider the management of land and water as just a resource issue, or in isolation. The challenge for us now is to find management solutions, which might involve upstream-downstream compensation mechanisms, agro-environment payments or whatever, which enable land to be managed productively, which sustain livelihoods, which deliver Conservation, Amenity, Recreation, Environmental (CARE) products, and which also deliver the good quality water in the quantities we need.

To achieve these solutions we must also continue to seek out and expose, through the application of good science, the pseudo-science myths upon which much of our current land and water management and development policy is based, and which continue to lead to massive wastes of development funds on projects with unachievable objectives. We need also to continue to explore and exploit new mechanisms, such as this e-mail conference and e-journals (which are currently being developed), which are tailored to bridging the obvious yawning gap in culture and understanding between the research and policy communities, and which will allow the important debates, which have been started here, to continue

Ian Calder is Director at the Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research, University of Newcastle, UK.