FAO E-workshop "Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds"
Discussion Archive
Referring to Session 5:
Conclusions and recommendations

  Back to list

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

[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