FAO E-workshop "Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds"
Discussion Archive
Referring to Session 4:
Sharing benefits and costs from land–water linkages

  Back to list

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.

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

[12-1] Intervention 1 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

This intervention refers to intervention 12, para. 3 by Nilo Alfonso, who asked: "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?"

Yes, of course it is possible to implement natural resource management programmes with very poor people. One of the partner organisations in India supported by Novib is Myrada. Very innovative strategies are being developed: For example, Myrada builds up economic capacities of the poor through self-help groups. After some time, when these have gained both organisational and economic capacities, watershed associations are formed to which the self-help groups then provide loans. There is a need for catalysing external funding, yes, but within a relatively short period, the groups themselves take on the initiatives.

See also [12-7]: I believe that there is an enormous amount of lessons and experiences from developing countries themselves available that is not sufficiently tapped. Hence, I am copying this to some of our partner organisations.

The author is Programme Officer for India and the Himalayas with Novib, The Hague, Netherlands.

Back to list

Back to top

I am enjoying the interventions - may i make a query ?

[16-1] Assuming a wholistic approach to water basins is generally accepted good sustainable science thereby balancing the environmental, social and economical apsects, why would any basin polity refuse to accept funding based on the wholistic sustainable approach ?

[16-2] Furthermore, assuming a basin wholistic sustainable approach can be funded (cash provided for the sustainable infrastructure), who would be acceptable to the polity to implement such a sustainable transaction ?

For example, say the Mekong river basin ?

The following explanations of the terms used in the query are provided bythe author.

(i) "basin polity"

Basin polity refers to the basin's entire political demeanor - for example, using the mekong river basin as an example : there are 6 countries that anthropically "share" the fundamental mekong river basin - PRC, Myanmar, Lao PDR, Kampuchea, Thailand and Viet Nam downstream rounding out the 6 artifical polities.

(ii) "wholistic sustainable approach to water basins"

Wholistic's duality or complimentary is holistic which i assume needs no explanation - the water basin has evolved (emerged) naturally and can be thought of as a whole or a gaia phenomenon.

(iii) "sustainable infrastructure"

Sustainable is pretty well defined globally but if in doubt reference to un agenda 21 or its conventions will assist - infrastructure refers to the classical concept re water, sewage, power, energy, roads, etc - the combination refers to an approach when looking at the whole and moving toward infrastructure subject to the sustainability criterion when developing.

(iv) "sustainable transaction"

I will assume given the fao professional backgrounds that sustainable and transaction standing alone are self explanatory - the "sustainable transaction" combinatorial refers to again the wholistic approach assuring sustainable actions versus the current trend globally of unsustainable actions - in this instance, given the intransigent nature of the status quo locally, regionally and internationally, and, assuming a bona fide viable funding schema is made available which would implement (fund) a sustainable infrastructure per the various scientific plans readily available on-the-shelf, who would be a candidate(s) to oversee the implementation? Who out in our world would accept the responsibility to manage such a sustainable implementation, again, assuming funding is available?

[16-3] Another perspective : Who out in our world would be acceptable to be the secretariat for implementation ? It's been my experience that where large sums of funding exist potential status quo "baggage" follows ?

[16-4] May we stipulate the following :

The status quo does not like change and generally status quo entities rally to each other preventing change - without mutations, evolution does not occur - mutations are not readily welcome within the status quo - it's inexorable that status quos eventually become extinct as is it inexorable that natural selection has always dominated artificial selection – the cosmological history with a nexus with the big bang confirms that status quos are eventually dominated by artificial selection, otherwise evolution would stall -

The author is trustee of the International Foundation for Environmentally, Socially and Economically Sustainable Development, Charleston, SC, USA

Back to list

Back to top

The example mentioned by Wenny Ho in intervention 15 seems very interesting and would deserve a more detailed description. This issue of combining poverty alleviation with watershed management is of critical importance in the field of land and water management. It would be interesting to learn from the author about the typical organization structure of watershed associations, the rationale behind the creation of these associations and their sustainability. The size of the watershed corresponding to an association is certainly an important criteria of success. Do watersheds cover several villages or communities ? What typical water issues are addressed by the watershed associations ?

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

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention refers to interventions 16 and 17.

[21-1] At a more local level than the Mekong: a watershed normally does not coincide with a political region (district/province etc.). You need a combined strategy and knowledge: working at technical level with working with authorities/people. How much do technicians know about political and institutional dimensions?? Technical aspects are equally important as socio-political-institutional ones.

[21-2] Again an example of the same Novib supported partner organisation that is working with self help groups small enough (below village level) to make people really participate, create economic base from which people can undertake other less-quick-in return-activities, working with watershed associations at supra-village level in which representatives of among others the self help groups take place because operational watershed management most of the time should cover more than one village, working with the panchayats (village or sometimes cluster of villages) to assure embedding at the lowest administrative level, working with the districts (district approach: organising platforms for exchange and discussions with actors at district level).

[21-3] The interesting thing is that the supra-village level watershed associations consist of more localised interest groups like the earlier mentioned self help groups. These have been prepared through meetings of their peer groups, so decision making and management capacities have been enhanced.

I must repeat that I am not the "author", I just make use of experiences created by MYRADA, a Novib supported partner organisation and certainly do not wish to be seen as the intellectual brain.

Contact information: Mr. Aloysius Fernandez - myrada@blr.vsnl.net.in

The contributor is Programme Officer for India and the Himalayas with Novib, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention relates to intervention 17 and session 4 in general.

[24-1] Mr Faurès' intervention highlights the need for negotiating platforms for the reconciliation of various stakeholders'interests.

[24-2] The upstream/downstream differences are one dimension of a wider question, which includes local/national differences. Local communities/groups naturally emphasize issues related to primary livelihoods. Siltation is a concern for downstream users and perhaps the country as a whole.

[24-3] Perhaps we need some more documentation of successful negotiating platforms for multiple stakeholders, not only primary but also secondary and tertiary stakeholders.

The contributor works with the Farm Management and Production Economics Service, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention relates to sessions 4 in general and question 17 in particular.

[27-1] The Watershed-L discussions are well focused, and dealing with the critical political, economic and social issues, related to realistic options for successful management of national and transboundary watersheds. From this perspective, allow me to support and refer to Intervention No. 10 by Nabil El-Khodari, No. 12 by Nilo Alfonso, No. 17 by Wenny Ho and No. 16 by Vaughan Davidson.

I would like to raise some well-debated questions for discussion by the watershed specialists participating in the meeting:

[27-2] 1. What is the positive impact, in quantititive terms, including the social, economic and environmental values of conservation measures and investments in the upper watersheds?

[27-3] In my opinion, welfare re-distribution from downstream populations to poor highland communities upstream for the purpose of development and and nature conservation is a primary objective, also in cases of non-democratic or transboundary, inter-jurisdictional structures. It is un-disputed and therefore carries more political and social weight in any structure, well ahead of more disputed and often competing intra-sectoral/disciplinary objectives such as watershed conservation.

[27-4] From this point of view, the option of labour-intensive small-scale drainage, presented in my Intervention No 6 on the Nile Basin is of a general interest. Its potential benefits and possible acceptance may bridge any differences and may eliminate the need for complex mechanisms for compensation between upstream and downstream positions.

[27-5] Downstream benefits may be: (a) improved time-distribution of water resources, (b) reduced harmful effects such as sedimentation of infrastructure and flooding.

[27-6] 2. How can we translate conservation and development programmes into negotiated, voluntary and therefore self-enforcing agreements and cooperation in inter-jurisdictional and transboundary watersheds?

[27-7] While there is no international water law, the 1997 UN Draft Convention [on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses – ed.], although not ratified, constitutes an authoritative restatement of the common law which focuses on engaging States within their own discretionary powers.

[27-8] However, the recent Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Judgement from September 1997 (on the dispute between Slovakia and Hungary) formed an important new evolution to international water law in the context of sustainability by applying minimum international environmental standards in the interest of present and future generations. The wider international community thus emphasises the functional role of governments beyond the discretionary powers of individual watercourse States.

[27-9] 3. From the second question above I defend the opinion that management intervention has to occur essentially at a national level - the political structure and the government remains essentially national - one positive exception being West Africa with a long tradition of constructive regional cooperation.

The contributor is recently retired from FAO, where he worked for the Land and Water Develpoment Division.

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.

[31-1] I think some issues demanding more research are linked to (geographic and time) scales. Related questions of "When are what technologies viable, what kind of experiments do we need, and what are extension messages?"

[31-2] Thoughts came up during field visit to a drought prone area Andhra Pradesh bordering Tamil Nadu, India: How to help farmers strengthen their adaptive farming management knowledge? Case: With a watershed management project, small water reservoirs were created which serve to irrigate during the dry season in an area where there hardly exists any irrigation experience. Management is in hands of watershed management committees. However, if every so often there is a drought, what criteria should farmers/ the committee have to decide when to allow for irrigation, when to restrict (to overcome drought period). A watershed is not a static unit, not in terms of erosion nor rainfall nor.......

[31-3] The question is: is there anything in watershed management like the principle of farmer field schools in IPM [integrated pest management, -ed.] which can strengthen farmers' decision making capacities?

[Editor's Note: Yes, there is - the Water Resources Development and Management Service at FAO has developed Guidelines for Participatory Extension and Training for On-Farm Water Management, which include the management of shared water resources, drainage, flood, and salinity control, and water user associations. For more information, contact Mr Martin Smith under martin.smith@fao.org]

The contributor is Programme Officer for India and the Himalayas with Novib, The Hague, Netherlands.

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

This intervention explores the difference between 'watershed management' and 'watershed development' approaches and suggests a definition for the terms.

[33-1] When looking at the titles of the 28 case studies, the title of case study No 12, struck me most. Its question: "Watershed development - or should it be watershed management", was also debated in the framework of the Konto River Project in East Java, Indonesia (1980-1990). In the book "The price of soil erosion; an economic evaluation of soil conservation and watershed development", I devoted in the first chapter (pages 5 and 6) the following small section to this terminology (I adapted the title): Watershed management - or should it be development?

[33-2] Because of the importance of downstream effects, in particular in (sub-) humid mountainous zones, and in order to follow a logical implementation schedule, soil and water conservation activities should preferably be placed in the framework of watershed management or development.

[33-3] The United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service has long been the leading agency in watershed planning, and this probably explains why the expression 'watershed management' was originally used. This term has been defined in 'Forest Terminology', Society of American Foresters, in 1944, as follows: 'The management of the natural resources of a drainage basin primarily for the production and protection of water supplies and water-based resources, including the control of erosion and floods, and the protection of aesthetic values associated with water' (Hewlett, 1982). In the United States it mainly concerns the control of rivers and streams from state controlled mountainous areas that intersect the valleys, where farmers usually own large properties. The federal authorities can execute conservation works in upstream areas, and they can stimulate farmer participation in the lower areas by means of regulations, subsidies, tax privileges, etc.

[33-4] However in densely populated developing countries, the main organisational bottleneck is formed by the extensively subdivided and tremendously diverse land use by thousands or millions of small farmers or tenants, who often cannot look further than the next harvest. For governments it is almost impossible to approach all these farmers individually (e.g. in the 1970's, farmers in central-south Tunisia could apply for subsidies for terracing, but the procedures were very long and the response was very low). In such situations it is better to speak about 'watershed development', which indicates that it does not only concern the physical resources, land and water, but to a large extent also the human resources.

[33-5] I would prefer to use the term watershed management for protective activities, aimed at the prevention of downstream adverse effects, such as protection forest, gully control etc., or activities which should be financed from public funds.

[33-6] Watershed development is then defined as 'the process of stimulating farmers within a watershed to carry out activities in order to provide resources that are desirable to and suitable for society, but under the condition that sustainable use is made of soil and water resources. Social, economic and institutional factors, operating within and outside the watershed must be considered' (adapted from Gregersen et al., 1987).

[33-7] Since the 1980s the term watershed development has indeed in many cases, among others in India, replaced the term watershed management.

[33-8] The authors of Case Study 12 use the two terms in a slightly different manner, and refer in fact more to water resources development and water resources management. They argue that when the water resources are more or less fully developed, one should - farmers and government alike - focus attention to management. Since I would like to include all natural (and human) resources within a watershed, and not only water, I wonder whether one could really refer to fully developed watersheds (watershed resources).

[33-9] I have found, more generally, that there is a difference in interpretation of these two terms between 'water specialists' and 'soil conservationists'.

The contributor is professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention relates to session 4, question 17: "What types of mechanisms can be used to link upstream and downstream users in different socio-economic contexts and at different watershed scales?"

[37-1] The question of sharing of benefits and costs in watershed management is absolutely critical for the adoption and sustainability of any kind of management practices.

[37-2] But it is not only upstream and downstream that defines who benefits and who pays. Even within a community, even within a household, the benefits and costs are not distributed evenly. When a common forest or grazing land is "closed" to regenerate growth, it is landless and pastoralist households that often pay the greatest price, while the benefits go to households with crop land. Even within households, women may pay the price in terms of reduced access to firewood or fodder for the animals, to meet their responsibilities within the households. Several studies in India have found this to be a problem (e.g. Ahluwalia 1997; Kerr forthcoming)

[37-3] Formal compensation mechanisms may be appropriate, but a necessary first step is to ensure that these groups are recognized as stakeholders, and are included in the planning meetings. This is easier said than done, especially when there are cultural barriers to overcome, and it will slow down the process of getting communities "signed on" to watershed projects. But an evaluation of a sample of watershed projects (not just the showcase NGO or government projects) in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh in India (Kerr forthcoming) found that projects operated by NGOs in Andhra Pradesh performed better, especially on equity grounds, than government projects in Andhra, or government or NGO projects in Maharashtra. This was because some NGOs in Andhra Pradesh work for years to help specific interest groups in the village organize themselves, creating self-help capacity among even the poorest and politically weakest community groups.

[37-4] Much of this work has little to do with watershed management per se, but deals with microcredit and other issues that meet the needs of women and the poorest households. Then they facilitate negotiations among different groups and help enforce agreements that they make. Such attention to social organization is unheard of in most watershed programs. Yet without it, there are serious questions about both the equity and sustainability of watershed improvements.

References:

Ahluwalia, Meenakshi. 1997. Representing Communities: The Case of a Community-Based Watershed Management Project in Rajasthan, India. IDS Bulletin 26(4): 23-35.

Kerr, John. 2000. The role of watershed projects in developing India's rainfed agriculture. EPtd Discussion Paper (forthcoming) IFPRI, Washington. (To request a copy when it becomes available, send an email to A.Abernathy@cgiar.org).

The contributor is Senior Research Fellow with the International Food Policy Research Institute and Coordinator, CGIAR System-Wide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights, Wildwood, Missouri, USA

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention relates to session 4, question 17: "What types of mechanisms can be used to link upstream and downstream users in different socio-economic contexts and at different watershed scales?", and intervention 30 by Mohamed Mechergui.

[38-1] Regarding question 17: I believe this will differ in different regions. For example, where there are powerful water users associations and water does have a price tag attached to it, things may be easier than the case of the Nile river where the users are 'governments' and the political influences attached to water.

[38-2] Nevertheless, the Nile Basin Initiative - as well as the Niger Basin Authority - are some good examples for integrated basin development which also serve as a conflict resolution bodies. This however needs to be supplemented by international treaties (as the case in the Niger but not the Nile). Such agreements should compensate downstream countries for decreased water quality as a result of land use activities (or dams) upstream.

[38-3] Egypt is now cooperating with Upper Nile riparian countries, e.g. Uganda, by sending its irrigation and agricultural experts to help land/water development there. Cooperation is the way to go. In intervention 30, Prof. Mohamed Mechergui stated that "the distribution of water between upstream and downstream depends on the national strategy developed by the authorities... The relation between upstream /downstream resources depends on national strategy"

[38-4] I severely object on the concept of 'national strategy'. In shared water resources there should be no 'national strategy', but rather a regional (basin) one. Egypt did have a 'national strategy' towards the Nile water. This reached up to the level of repeatedly threatening to go into war over Nile waters. Luckily things are moving towards a Nile Basin strategy, thanks to the Nile Basin Initiative.

[38-5] Also, the concept of 'preserving upstream living conditions' seems to be totally unfair. What is really needed - in addition to soil preservation - is to have water development projects to 'improve the living conditions upstream'. At least let us hope that in the case of Nile Basin, there will be less famines in the Horn of Africa and Sudan. What is needed is upstream storage on a large scale - maybe in a series of dams - to control upstream land degradation as suggested elsewhere in this discussion.

This is my 2 cents contribution, I really hope to hear from this distinguished group.

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

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

This is to clarify my statement in response to intervention 38 by Mr Nabil El-Khodari.

As I said: the distribution of water between upstream and downstream depends on national strategy. This statement is made for the watersheds that are inside one country with a national water resource strategy. It is not adressed to big international watersheds which can encompass many countries and where it is required to divide resources between them in some proportion.

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

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention refers to session 4 in general.

[42-1] The Intervention 37 by Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and the case study 12 by Charles Batchelor (and the intervention 39 by Patrick Moriarty) demonstrate well both the complex nature of the issues and the interactions which relate to land use, water resources, poverty and development within a catchment, and the present inadequacy of current management approaches for dealing holistically with these issues and interactions.

[42-2] Perhaps the difficulty has arisen because traditionally two very different sorts of "actors" have been involved in the development of management approaches: those with a "resource focus" leading to the development of catchment scale "Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)" solutions and those with a "people focus" which has led to village or household scale "Sustainable Livelihoods" solutions.

[42-3] It is clear (as demonstrated by many of the interventions in this workshop and the background papers and case studies) that each approach has its limitations. IWRM, catchment scale solutions may not be taking into account properly the impacts at the village or household scale, particularly as they affect the poorest in society. On the other hand there is a danger that village or household scale, people and poverty focussed "Sustainable Livelihoods" solutions may well, without any resource regulation, lead to resource constraints and resource depletion at the catchment scale.

[42-4] Perhaps one of the greatest challenges we face is in finding ways in which we can reconcile these "resource" and "people focussed" approaches to development. The South African "Working for Water" programme provides examples of many of these complex resource, people and poverty interactions and it is planned to investigate how these approaches can be reconciled as part of this evolving programme.

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

This intervention refers to workshop in general.

[44-1] The various interventions have covered many different aspects of land-water linkages in rural watersheds, and provide a wealth of information and ideas. It is my impression that two major issues could be isolated from the discussion.

1. On the one hand, it is clear that we do not yet know enough to predict the effects that certain activities will bring about in a watershed, and that much emphasis is still needed on the monitoring of these effects (both physical and socio-economic);

2. Secondly, there is the question of how to organise people and to assure that most of the stakeholders will be satisfied about the outcome of such activities.

[44-2] With regard to the first issue, it would for example be interesting to know how rivers and streams in the state New Hampshire were brought back to where they were 300 years ago (intervention 32). How was this process monitored and which lessons could be learned from that for other areas? How was the monitoring undertaken of the effects of paddy terraces on streamflow in Japan, leading to subsidisation of paddy production (intervention 14)? And what lessons can be learned from various other forms of long term monitoring, as discussed, e.g. in Russia (intervention 19) and in Zimbabwe (intervention 26) ?

[44-3] Some myths about land-water linkages have already been unravelled (e.g. interventions 4, 11, 26, 29). However, it is clear that more attention should be paid to long term hydrological, physical and socio-economic monitoring in watersheds, or representative sub-watersheds. Maybe all large scale investment programmes in national and transnational (e.g. Niger, Nile) watersheds should spend a small percentage of their costs to such (institutionalised) monitoring activities?

[44-4] The second issue of organising people in watersheds has received also much attention. It is interesting to compare the set-up and characteristics of various types of watershed organisations, as they are established in the USA (intervention 32), India (interventions 15, 21), etc. As mentioned as editor’s note with intervention 31, there do already exist guidelines for water user associations, etc. However, not many experiences have been shared with regard to negotiating platforms for watershed development (intervention 24). Because of the large differences in interests (national security, rural family security and citizen’s financial interests (intervention 32), such platforms are hard to organise and have a difficult task. It is clear that there is still much work to be undertaken in this field, [and it would certainly be interesting to hear of participant’s experience in establishing and working with such platforms! –ed.]

The contributor is associate professor at the Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, The 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 is in response to Mark Hopkins' intervention No. 45 on the importance of property rights and the moderators' points in intervention no. 47 on the lifescape perspective.

[51-1] I agree with Mark that property rights are often very important in providing an incentive for people to undertake watershed management investments. I am coordinator of the CGIAR's System-Wide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi), and we find both of those issues to be critical for many natural resource management activities. Some years ago we were trying to develop a conceptual framework for looking at the links between these institutions and adoption of various technologies. We developed a very simple diagram that plots the spatial and temporal scale of a technology. If it is very short-term to receive the benefits, then land tenure doesn't matter very much, but if the benefits are long-term, then people are not likely to adopt unless they have secure tenure, and we wouldn't expect it to be very well suited to areas with high rates of insecure tenancy. Similarly with spatial scale, if a technology (or natural resource management practice) is above the farm level, then collective action is required, and we would expect less adoption in areas with a low history of cooperation.

[51-2] I'm sorry this is hard to convey in an email, but if you are interested in the paper, you can get it from our web site (http://www.capri.cgiar.org/) or send me an email requesting it.

[51-3] When we plotted various technologies/natural resource management practices on these axes, watershed management came out in the top corner, requiring both property rights and collective action. But when you look at the evidence, the relationships aren't always simple.

[51-4] First, tenure security does NOT mean "ownership" of the land or private property. There is ample evidence that customary tenure arrangements, e.g. in Africa, can give people enough security of tenure to invest, and programs to give title to the land may actually increase insecurity for the cultivators if they lack the education and connections to gain title through formal means.

[51-5] Second, collective action can emerge in some surprising areas. White and Runge have an excellent study of watershed management programs in Haiti, that found that even people who did not have land in the watershed would participate in the labor days for watershed projects, either in the hopes of building good relations with landowners who might later hire them, or just because they felt it was the right thing to do. We need a lot more careful study of the factors that will foster (or hinder) collective action.

References:

Knox, A., Meinzen-Dick, R. and Hazell, P. 1998. Property Rights, Collective Action and Technologies for Natural Resource Management< > . CAPRi Working Paper 1. Washington DC: IFPRI.

White, T. A. and Carlisle F. Runge. 1995. The emergence and evolution of collective action: Lessons from watershed management in Haiti. World Development 23(10): 1683-1698.

The contributor is Senior Research Fellow with the International Food Policy Research Institute and Coordinator, CGIAR System-Wide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights, Wildwood, Missouri, USA

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention refers to intervention 47 by the moderators and in particular the requests 6 - 7 - 8 to discuss the revised criteria and furnish specific examples.

An example for environmental transfer payments from Zamboanga Province, Mindanao/Philippines which I came across more by chance while on mission to prepare an Implementation Completion Report for a World Bank environmental sector loan with a large forestry component earlier this year:

[52-1] At an ISF model site, where upstream farmers had been applying SALT and other SWC methods for approximately 8 years, the quality and quantity of fish stocks downstream, which had been nearly depleted, rose significantly. The fishermen observed increased growth of plants in the water and lower siltation levels. A forester from the ISF site brought the upstream farmers' association and the fishermen's association together and they worked out an agreement: In recognition of the beneficial impact of upstream land management regimes which had reduced erosion, fishermen sell their fish to members of the upstream organisation at a discount (75-80% of market price approximately). This agreement has been in operation since 1997 and the two associations have held quarterly meetings since, always supported by the ISF site staff.

As for the specific criteria proposed in 47 - 7:

[52-2] (i) The impact of upstream land use on downstream water use is well understood. In this case it appeared that there was a clear link between upstream land use management and downstream impact.

[52-3] (ii) The impact of land use on water resources clearly dominates over natural impacts or other anthropogenic impacts. see (i), is this not always a subset of (i)?

[52-4] (iii) The groups of upstream and downstream stakeholders are few and well-organized. The fact that negotiations were conducted between only one upstream organisation (supplier of environmental services) and one downstream organisation (beneficiary) has been crucial in facilitating the agreement in the first place and allowing it to continue over time. The agreement could be interpreted as a form of (what economists' refer to as) Coasean bargaining between the two parties. For this type of bargaining process it is essential that there are only a very limited number of players is involved otherwise transactions costs and free rider incentives make agreements difficult to conclude.

[52-5] (iv) The economic impact of land use on downstream stakeholders can be quantified. Although in some sense the economic impact needs to be quantified to enable successful "bargaining" between the two parties, there isn't always a need for a study to quantify the exact impact. From the farmer's perspective the transfer payment only needs to be high enough to compensate upstream farmers for the extra effort over to the extent that this is not compensated for by increased benefits on site from improved land management. The fishermen will only pay as much as the additional benefit they reap from increased fishery resources. In most cases this opens up a spread of possible levels of transfer payments and the parties involved will have a relatively good feel for the order of magnitude involved. Margins of error in estimating exact impacts therefore don't necessarily impede a satisfactory outcome.

[52-6] (v) 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. Of course this applies, but this criterion is a standard condition for any choice made, so I am not quite clear as to how this adds to the definition of specific criteria for benefit sharing.

[52-7] (vi) There is political commitment to establish upstream-downstream linkages. While this might be necessary if you are talking about large scale schemes, and even more so if watersheds are international, the example shows that on a small-scale basis, and - from what I gather from earlier contributions to the workshop - it is only at this level that we have a realistic chance of determining impacts of changes in natural resource management, there isn't necessarily a need for political intervention or grand institutional changes at all. The key actors are upstream and downstream dwellers and they can act independently of any established policy framework through negotiations. What is needed from the outside might be primarily provision of information and training about the physical and hydrological linkages and maybe support for the negotiation process and the continuation of agreements. In other cases it might be also be important to amend the legal and institutional environment if these create obstacles for the implementation of transfer payments.

[52-8] (vii) There is a strong institutional and legal framework, including land tenure structure, which allows for the implementation of benefit-sharing instruments. The upstream farmers had all been granted tenure rights subject to certain land-use conditions as part of the social forestry programme. This opens up the question why if the farmers have to apply these land use techniques by virtue of their tenure specification and had already been applying them for several years, the fishermen still compensate them for (parts of) the downstream benefits. I don't have sufficient details on the Philippine case, but possible explanations might be enforcement problems for tenure regulations restricting land use practices.

[52-9] An even broader and controversial question needs to be raised in this context: Isn't a policy proposal to compensate upstream farmers for refraining from degrading land use practices a reversal of the polluter-pays-principle which we usually advocate so firmly? Few disagree with the objective to improve the livelihoods of poor upstream farmers, but compensation payments for environmental services might in some cases be counterproductive from an environmental and social point of view. Any transfer payment tied to a specific activity raises the profitability of that activity relative to alternative options. Upstream farming is therefore made relatively more attractive which reduces the incentives for communities to seek alternative means of income, where encouraging alternative livelihood strategies might be preferable from a long term social (move out of subsistence agriculture) as well as an environmental point of view. I would be very interested in hearing/reading about other participants' opinions on these issues.

The contributor is economist with the Investment Centre Division, FAO, Rome.

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 intervention relates to session 4, questions 17 and 18, specifically to river basins organizations.

[57-1] Recent developments in river basin organization reform may provide the desired platforms for bringing together upstream and downstream users. I would like to illustrate this by developments in the Philippines. The following is drawn from the draft report:

A SYNTHESIS OF EXPERIENCE FROM THE FAO-ESCAP PILOT PROJECT ON THE

FORMULATION OF NATIONAL WATER VISIONS TO ACTION

by Le Huu Ti, Economic Affairs Officer, Water and Mineral Resources Section, ESCAP and Thierry Facon, Water Management Officer, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

[57-2] "In previous years, there were attempts on regional and basin planning for which various corresponding institutions were created. In no time these regional and basin agencies were dissolved and sectoral agencies were assigned to continue the programs and projects within the area of basin authorities. Currently, there are only two basin organizations, the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) and the Agno River Basin Development Commission, the latter was created only in 1997. According to a recent study, the government was now again bent in pursuing the river basin management approach and would therefore need advice on approaches and capacity building to strengthen the existing river basin organizations. Recent developments on these two entities point out interesting features in the national efforts to integrate the river basin management approaches into the national development process, particularly into the complex legal and institutional frameworks. As may be interpreted from the features presented below, future achievements on this subject depend mainly on the decision of the government on either decentralization of authority or full commitments to the process of application of river basin management for which strong leadership and community participation are required.

Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA)

[57-3] The LLDA was created to promote the sustainable development of and maintain the ecological integrity in the Laguna Lake Basin which is the largest inland body of water in the Philippines and second largest freshwater lake in Southeast Asia. The existing uses of the lake are for fisheries, navigation and transport, reservoir for floodwaters, power generation, waste sink and irrigation. By far the most important use of the potential of the lake is as a major source of freshwater for domestic and industrial purposes for Metro Manila and surrounding areas in the years to come.

[57-4] LLDA has regulatory powers like the exclusive authority to grant permits for the use of lake waters as well as the authority to grant clearances for all development activities within the region. Because of the importance of the Laguna Lake Basin as a natural resource, and recognizing the rapid industrialization and urbanization in the region which have put the natural environment under tremendous environmental stress, the LLDA has undertaken and initiated the following:

1. Formulated the Laguna de Bay Master Plan which provides the vision for development of the region and describes strategies and programmes of action to realize that vision.

2. Declaration of a multi-use policy in so far dominant use of the lake is concerned. The shift in policy has dictated that the LLDA refocus its priorities from the promotion of fisheries to environmental protection, watershed management and pollution control.

3. LLDA is implementing the Environment User Fee System, which is a market-based instrument designed to motivate industries to comply with all environmental standards by setting stiff disincentives for non-complying industries and attractive incentive for complying industries.

4. LLDA has stepped up its efforts to put a stop to the continuing degradation of the 21 river systems which drain into the Laguna Lake. Using the basin or watershed approach to resource management, the revitalized River Rehabilitation Program encourages multi-sectoral involvement in the effort to save the rivers and ultimately the lake from further environmental degradation.

5. To further upgrade its capability to manage the lake and its watershed in a sustainable manner, the LLDA has commissioned various institutions to undertake important studies and projects.

Agno River Basin Development Commission (ARBDC)

[57-5] The Agno River Basin Development Commission is mandated to oversee and coordinate all development along the Agno River Basin. It shall ensure a holistic approach in water resources planning and management of the river basin.

[57-6] Its core functions include

(1) develop a comprehensive master Plan for the river basin;

(2) coordinate for integration of Master Plan into local and regional plans and investment program;

(3) cause implementation of development program and projects with an overall impact upon the basin;

(4) initiate, receive and recommend project proposals for the development of the basin;

(5) formulate, review and propose improvements on existing policies governing basin's development;

(6) commission, coordinate, monitor all planning studies and researches, other development undertakings on the basin;

(7) coordinate soil erosion prevention, river siltation mitigation, flood control and other projects among concerned government agencies; and

(8) establish a functional basin-wide information and database system including computer generated planning tools such as GIS.

[57-7] Unlike LLDA which is an authority, ARBDC relies mainly on commitment and participation of all related agencies. Under these circumstances, the current strong ARBDC leadership, headed by an Undersecretary of the Presidential Office, has initiated a clear programme of strategic planning and management in this river basin. Important achievements of ARBDC included the establishment of Strategic Plan and ongoing efforts to implement the Strategic Plan."

[57-8] There are some interesting observations that can be made:

1/ LLDA's mandate has evolved from managing a water body, the Laguna Lake, to managing the whole catchment area and the water body. As a result, both upstream users and downstream users become directly interested parties;

2/ Coordination of government agencies is important;

3/ Strategic planning, if conducted properly (in the case of ARBDC,

through a participatory multi-stakeholder process), can bring together all stakeholders from upstream and downstream and from all sectors around a shared vision and a strategic plan;

4/ a basin-wide economic development planning perspective can foster a more equitable development between upstream rural population and downstream urbanized areas;

5/ strong participation may be a key element for the sustainability of river basin institutions, which are subject to general political events.

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

Back to list

Back to top

The following is an abstract for case study 30 (Spanish)

The Water and Watershed Proection Fund (FONAG) as a mechanism for the conservation of the nature reserves Cayambe-Coca and Antisana in Ecuador

The case study describes a proposed financing mechanism for water and watershed protection activities in the upper watersheds of the city of Quito, Ecuador. Local (e.g. the water supply company) and international sources will be contributing to the fund. The fund will be goverened by a board consisting of representatives from the local water and electricity companies, water users, the regional and local government, communities, and non-governmental organizations. It will finance conservation activities with the aim of ensuring a clean, dependable water supply.

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

Back to list

Back to top

The English abstract of the intervention is followed by the full text in French.

Natural resource managers have to deal with high economical and political stakes. They must often make decisions without appropriate knowledge about complex natural phenomenons, e.g. hydric erosion. Therefore, their strategies, are periodically challenged: as in this E-workshop about forestry (=myths !) and, in other places, about policies against soil erosion in the French Alps during the 19th entury or more recently , in the Maghreb.

One question is now answered: everybody, geomorphologists and pedologists, accept that these topics have to be dealt with at a watershed scale, but their limits are different from administrative ones.. new problems!

We have to collect some more success stories as in the Philippines (Background paper No. 3), and at the end I ask two small questions about Intervention 5 and the La Réunion case study (No. 24).

Suite à votre message 59 et avec mes remerciements pour la très intéressante documentation contenue dans cet E workshop.

[60-1] Depuis bien longtemps, et avant que les connaissances acquises soient parfaites, les gestionnaires sont confrontés à des enjeux économiques et politiques auxquels ils doivent faire face en proposant des solutions fondées sur des mesures et des prévisions que l'on sait le plus souvent insuffisantes, mais dont on doit se contenter.

[60-2] La complexité de ces mesures et de ces prévisions répond à celle des phénomènes naturels mis en cause, c'est pourquoi l'érosion hydrique est un domaine de recherche très actif, dont les acquis sont périodiquement remis en cause: on en a vu un exemple dans cet Atelier électronique, dans le domaine des plantations forestières en relation avec leurs effets hydrologiques.De la même façon, on a critiqué , a posteriori , les travaux de restauration des terrains en montagne menés au 19 ème Siècle dans les Alpes françaises , puis ceux de Défense et Restauration des Sols dans le Maghreb.

[60-3] En simplifiant beaucoup, on peut avancer que deux principales catégories de chercheurs s'intéressent à ces mesures : les géomorphologues qui étudient les phénomènes géographiques sur de grandes unités et les pédologues ou agronomes pour lesquels l'érosion des sols est un objet d'études localisées autant écologiques qu'économiques; tous s'accordent à considérer que l'érosion hydrique doit être étudiée et si possible gérée au niveau du bassin versant.

[60-4] Mais ces bassins versants ont des limites différentes de celles des unités administratives... nouvelle difficultés.

[60-5] L'exemple des Philippines est instructif: on a mis au point, malgré ces difficultés et les exigences de simplicité des chercheurs, une pratique simplifiée qui a été acceptée par la population: serait-il possible de recueillir d'autres cas aussi concrets ?

[60-6] Deux questions encore :

1)Dans son intervention n° 5, Thomas Hofer propose une intéressante typologie des bassins versants liant leur dimension à l'impact humain sur les relations terre-eau. Peut on savoir à quelles études il fait allusion, et sont elles citées dans sa bibliographie?

2) Le cas concret 24 sur la Réunion n'a semble-t-il pas attiré l'attention des participants. Était-il hors sujet? ou bien présentait-il un aspect trop administratif et gestionnaire?

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

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

I believe one of the most important recommendations in the land-water linkage tobe addressed to international organizations is the necessity of including basin-wide impacts in the environmental impact assessment for large water/land use schemes in any riparian country of a shared water resource. Approval of all other basin countries should be sought. This applies for both up- and down-stream countries.

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

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

Sorry for the late intervention. I have been travelling. I have been working in watershed development for many years now, and have just published a resource book on social and institutional issues in watershed management. My special interest is in equity and gender issues in micro-watershed management. I would like to share the following thoughts with you.

In recent years watershed management has become the focal point of agricultural and rural development efforts in rainfed areas of India. Beginning with ad hoc soil and water conservation measures over two decades ago, what has evolved is a national level integrated, inter-sectoral, participatory approach to micro-watershed management. One of the main factors that influenced the change from ad hoc soil and water conservation measures to an integrated micro-watershed management approach was the success of a few local initiatives by NGOs in watershed management. Substantial budgetary provisions have been made for the rehabilitation and development of micro-watersheds.

Over the years the watershed development programme has grown rapidly, both in terms of geographical coverage and in the number of government and non-government agencies implementing the programme. "Scaling-up" has taken place formally through the government machinery by way of making funds available directly to the communities through NGOs for programme implementation. And informally through cross-learning between NGOs and village communities. NGOs have played a significant role in the scaling-up process by implementing the programme and strengthening people's institutions.

Several evaluations and consultations between government agencies, NGOs and donors threw up concerns that needed to be addressed in order to make the programme sustainable. Some of the key concerns were inadequate/ineffective participation by the watershed community, insufficient integration of gender and equity concerns, lack of government inter-departmental coordination, inadequate emphasis on capacity building of the staff and community, and lack of monitoring mechanisms.

Large scale implementation of the watershed development programme has been possible through a partnership between the government, NGOs and village communities. However, experience has shown that the needs of the women and resource-poor groups in the communities can be overlooked if the implementation of the soil and water conservation works are begun without involving different members of the sub-groups in the planning process. What is required is a phased implementation of the programme, with greater emphasis on community organisation in the first phase, followed by the implementation of physical works in the second phase. Strengthening peoples institutions contributes to the sustainability of the programme.

The contributor lives in New Dehli, India.

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.

Back to list

Back to top