FAO E-workshop "Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds"
Discussion Archive
Referring to Session 3:
Valuing land–water linkages: assessment of benefits and costs

  Back to list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to list

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to list

Back to top

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Use of natural aquatic resources by rural households

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

Impacts of irrigation development

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

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

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

Conclusions and recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

Back to list

Back to top

This intervention relates to 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REINVESTING IN THE SANDSTONE CREEK WATERSHED
WORLD’S FIRST UPSTREAM FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

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

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

THE SITUATION

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

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

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

PROJECT STATISTICS

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

Sponsors

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

THE BOTTOM LINE

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

SANDSTONE CREEK

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

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

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

NEW OPPORTUNITIES

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

STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE ON OKLAHOMA’S AGING WATERSHED DAMS

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

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

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

Back to list

Back to top

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

[46-1] With reference to sessions 3 and 4, we would like to share with you the directions of ongoing research at SOW-VU (the Centre for World Food Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) in the field of the valuation of renewable resources within an economic framework. We welcome all comments and suggestions for applications.

[46-2] Our approach starts from two observations. On the one hand, engineers have collected ample technical information on the dynamics of natural resource systems and conducted elaborate model simulations. On the other hand, economic models incorporate engineering information in a highly stylised form. They customarily treat all natural inputs as being either fixed or exhaustible, and, except for stock depletion, neglect all feedbacks from economic activity to the environment. The class of models known as Integrated Assessment Models tries to link both disciplines, but these models are less integrated than might seem at first.

[46-3] In view of the above observations, our approach is to apply principles of capital theory to attribute economic value to resource inflows, since capital theory emphasises reproduction of resources instead of mere production, and pays due attention to the cyclical nature of this process, its stock, and its sustainability. Our process-based model can be considered as constituting a set of equations that describe "what happens" physically in the system, whereas the economic valuation can add prices at a given state of the system to indicate how important this is for the economy. Currently, we are testing the empirical applicability of the theoretical framework using the existing "AQUA" model for the Zambezi river basin.

The contributors work at the Centre for World Food Studies (SOW-VU), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands.

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

Some comments on your criteria (intervention 47)....

Re (i): These costs need not be understood at the start of the work, but there must be ways of adequately determining the costs and benefits PERCEIVED by the stakeholders during the course of the development process in order to reach closure (agreement) during the negotiations. Note also that not only may the understanding of these costs and benefits increase as communities begin to focus on watershed development, but also these costs and benefits will change over time depending on the portfolio of activities decided upon and external conditions (weather, prices, trade, ....).

Re (iii): It is my experience that groups organize around priority issues and sometimes opportunities; it is too much to require that these groups be organized BEFORE watershed development starts.

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

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

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.