HomeNatural Resources
	The Micro watershed as a place for planning the use and management of natural resources, Socio-Territorial approach by Jan van Wambeke, Senior Land and Water Officer

I. DEFINITION

Although the meaning of watershed is of public knowledge, it is important to emphasize that the micro watershed must be considered as a scope of planning under a social, economic and operational approach, besides the territorial and hydrological approach traditionally considered. Thus, the micro watershed is defined as "a small first or second class watershed, in which a certain number of families live (Community) making use and managing the resources of the area, mainly the soil, water, vegetation, including crops and native vegetation, and fauna, including domestic and wild animals. From the operational point of view, the micro watershed has an area that may be planned by a technician counting on local resources and/or a number of families that may be treated as a social nucleus that shares some common interests (water, roads, organization, etc.)".

Indivisible interactions take place in the micro watershed between the economic aspects (related to assets and services produced in its area), social aspects (related to behavior patterns of direct and indirect users of the watershed resources) and environmental aspects (in relation to how natural resources behave or react under the aforementioned aspects). Therefore, the actions to be carried out in the micro watershed must take all these interactions into consideration.

II. WHY THE MICRO WATERSHED?

The micro watershed is the logical scope to plan the use and management of natural resources, looking for the sustainability of the production systems, contributing thus to food and nutritional security. It is in this scenario where the strongest interactions between the use and management of natural resources (anthropic action) and the behavior of these same resources (reaction of the environment) takes place. No other scope of action that could be considered (municipality, district, small village, farm, producers association, cooperative, route or sector, etc.) keeps this relation in such a close and tangible way.

To take the micro watershed as a scope of planning of actions oriented at introducing changes in the production systems, seeking to conciliate and integrate the goals of production and protection of natural resources, is a technical and strategic option dictated by the nature of the interactions between these resources.

An action related to the use and management of the land and water of a certain importance which is normally carried out in the micro watershed presents a measurable impact at the short or medium term, whether positive or negative, on the recovery or deterioration of the soil, the balance of biomass and the vegetal cover, the amount and quality of the water, the fauna, among other important variables for the sustainability of the production systems.

To consider the micro watershed as a planning scope presents the following advantages:

Based on the close relation previously described, the micro watershed planning facilitates the perception of the individuals and the community of the existing interactions between production (use and management of resources by humankind) and the behavior of the natural resources used for this same production (soil, water, forests). Thus, it favors more easily an understanding on the need to promote corrections and changes in the actual form of acting.

The micro watershed allows that both the users of the water of the watershed (population, livestock breeders, irrigators, etc.), as well as outsiders (dwellers of towns, cities, industries, etc.) perceive the close relationship which they have with the direct land users, through the water. The perception of this relation is fundamental to state the principles of payments for environmental services at local scale.

Although the micro watershed is not a requirement for the organization, it makes possible and facilitates the establishment of an organized productive process, to generate a production scale that can accede to markets that demand amount, quality and continuity, since this type of organization depends on factors such as: conservation, shared use and management of water, relation of vicinity for the handling of issues of transport, road improvement, purchase and sale, construction and maintenance of shared productive infrastructure (dams, tanks, water distribution systems, green houses for the production of seedlings, etc.), among others.

The micro watershed may facilitate the interactions between different subjects and institutions that serve the communities (agriculture, roads, drinking-water, health, education, etc.), both at local (municipalities, NGO´s) and national level (ministries, independent institutions, projects, etc.). In this way, human, material and financial resources may be optimized in activities of extension, investigation, promotion and development in general.

The micro watershed is a geographic, hydrological, economic, social and environmental scope complementary to other scopes. Inwards, it complements with the farm (family) and the community (social structure); outwards, it complements with natural scopes, such as the sub watershed and watershed or political-administrative scopes, such as parishes, municipalities and the states. In no situation, these scopes are exclusive.

III. FROM THE FARM TO THE MICRO WATERSHED

The fact of taking the micro watershed as a scope of planning and execution of actions, does not eliminate the farm from this process. The farms continue to be the primary unit of decision making at rural level and every action planned is indeed implemented at this level. The aforementioned implies that everything planned at micro watershed level needs to be coordinated with what each producer plans individually, in his own farm or production plot.

Producers generally make decisions thinking from the borders inwards. Technicians are also used to rationalize and plan actions for a specific item or for the production system of the farm. Therefore, the approach of planning and execution of actions at micro watershed level requires changes in relation to how to reflect, rationalize and make decisions, on the part of producers and technicians.

People must adapt themselves to share, make and accept community decisions on several aspects of the use and management of their natural resources, which were previously done individually. This can be a long process, in which it is necessary that some important aspects are constantly focused by the extensionists and producers, as a way to induce the beginning of the process of changes. The most important aspects are:

• The farm is not isolated: Producers must understand that the farm is not isolated in the environment. It is part of a scope which involves geographic, hydrologic, environmental, economic and social elements. At the same time, it has influence in this greater scope and is influenced by it. If this relation is not clear to the dwellers, they will hardly share actions to correct the problems in this scope.

• The responsibility lies in everyone: In the traditional rationality, it is common that the producer blames the neighbor or other people for the damages or bad agricultural practices that affect the environment of the micro watershed. Hardly ever does he feel as the one responsible and therefore, he does not undertake change actions. The planning at micro watershed level requires the acknowledgement of the fact that responsibility lies in each one of them and that important impacts will only be obtained if the majority (ideally all) undertake joint actions.

• Decision-making: One of the most complex processes to be implemented with micro watershed settlers, is to make them feel as a community and start to share decision-making in the management of their natural resources. The population is used to share decision-making for infrastructure (school, clinic, transport, communication, security, etc.), which does not involve changes of use and management in what belongs to themselves: land, production system, the farm and, of course, the costs and income. The plan of the micro watershed is only feasible when the settlers are conscious and willing to make and to accept community decisions. In this sense, apparently the shortest way to train and obtain the required awareness is to start with small actions which may be of interest to the majority.

• The need for self organization: Make decisions and implement shared actions at micro watershed level requires organization. Nevertheless, it is necessary to get organized for a purpose and not as a purpose. In this sense, the organization must be seen as an instrument to reach objectives which are not individually accessible . The experience has demonstrated that the organization must serve initially to facilitate or improve the conditions of production, marketing and life of the people. After that, they are in condition to start dealing with other more complex subjects, such as the improvement in the use and management of the natural resources in the micro watershed. It is very difficult to expect that a community of limited financial resources, with low self-esteem and motivation, be willing to organize themselves in order to deal with matters which will not bring immediate tangible benefits to them. When the settlers get to value better the importance of the natural resources for their economic well-being, they will begin to consider its preservation with more interest and make use of the same existing organizations to plan and execute shared community actions. In this case, the organizations of the watershed in their different forms (authority of the watershed, management committees, water committee, etc.) have more probability of success

IV.MICRO WATERSHED SELECTION CRITERIA

The criteria that may be chosen to select micro watersheds depend on the objective of the action to be developed. Four great groups of criteria can be identified:

Strategic : These are criteria that may be established at a macro level, within the framework of national, departmental or municipal policies. For example, drinking-water supply to populations, presence of dams, biological corridors or protected areas, location of the micro watershed in areas with integral development plans, etc.

Institutiona l: Criteria related to the role played by institutions; for example, location in the zones of attention or coverage of them, type of public attended, priority in environmental aspects, etc.

Operational : Criteria related to aspects of logistic, such as: distance of the offices, size of the micro watershed (area and population), possibilities of coordination with other institutions and actors, among others.

Technical, agricultural and environmental : Criteria related to biophysics aspects (head of sub watershed or watershed, water availability, level of deterioration of the natural resources, risk for the population, etc.) and socioeconomic (dominant production systems, level of organization, motivation for the change, investment capacity, relevance of the water flow as drinking-water for the population, among others).

In general terms, 8 selection criteria could be recommended. The purpose of these criteria is to facilitate the institutional work and to obtain results with a shorter term impact:

1. Count with water availability to promote the irrigation of small areas. It is a fact that the market oriented productive transformation is much easier and feasible if a certain level of production through irrigation can be programmed, mainly in the dry season.

2. Presence of an important percentage of land and soils that offer a certain security to the more intensive production, without high risks of deterioration or loss of harvests.

3. Higher presence of owners than tenants. The land insecurity (real or psychological) that predominates in the rural areas is the cause for the short-term rental contracts. This prevents or hampers investment in practices of environmental improvement on the part of the tenants.

4. Presence of producers motivated to impel a process of change based on the effort shared between them and the institutions.

5. Presence of certain experience with non traditional items, with market-oriented production.

6. Place with logistical capacity to offer a continuous and opportune technical assistance and with easy access to the market.

7. Relevance of the micro watershed in the scope of the municipality in terms of drinking-water supply for the populations, supply of diversified agricultural products, touristic potential, preservation of natural resources, among others. The consideration of this criterion may facilitate or increase the interest of the municipalities and the organized urban society in supporting rural development plans in the micro watersheds.

8. The micro watershed must be representative of a greater scope (sub watershed, watershed), to which the experiences, techniques and improved procedures of use and sustainable management of the natural resources may be extrapolated at a minor cost and a faster way.