This paper emphasizes problem-oriented surveys and planning of watersheds. Various challenges and constraints in developing countries are pointed out and suitable strategies discussed. Management possibilities and alternatives to be considered at the planning stage are briefly spelled out. For planning, a joint entity with decentralized implementation is suggested. The needs of establishing data base and evaluation systems in addition to data collection are also explained. Finally, the preparation of a concise and practical report and the needed follow-ups are briefly described.
Watershed management planning in developing countries is usually hampered by limited manpower, resources and time. Therefore, the work should be carried out as practical and economical as possible. The final products should be oriented to problems and their management rather than theories and academic studies.
As watershed problems grow with population and time, their management tasks are almost endless. Planners must keep in mind that planning is a continuous process and that there is no single plan or programme, regardless how sound it is, that can solve the problems forever and completely. When major problems are tackled and data bases are established, such plans should be considered useful and beneficial. Too ambitious a plan causes nonapproval and nonoperation. Also, a small success is better than a big failure.
To begin watershed planning, planners should be prepared to face many challenges. They need also to determine what principles should be best observed and what courses taken. The following include some major challenges frequently confronting planners in developing countries:
i) Political views may differ considerably from those of technical persons on types of management work, priority areas and timing.
ii) Government goals may not always coincide with the interests of farmers or watershed inhabitants.
iii) An ideal physical plan or the most effective work may not always be socially receptive by local communities or farmers.
iv) Sometimes intangible benefits of a watershed programme may outweigh tangible benefits, whereas the former cannot be easily assessed by monetary terms.
v) Planning from bottom up may waste lots of time and energy in watersheds populated with illiterate farmers, yet, involvement of local communities in planning process is a necessity.
There are no universal answers to these challenges. Each should be carefully examined-in the context of the given conditions and existing environment. As stated in a World Bank paper, watershed project design is inevitably a compromise. Selecting a practical approach to obtain early agreement of the plan, and initiating operations which benefit both people and the watershed are much more fruitful than arguing for a perfect answer or remaining undecided.
² Paper presented by T. Michaelsen.
National Reconnaissance and Watershed Classification
At the national level, a quick, reconnaissance type of survey, assisted by airphotos, is often sufficient for identifying areas of major watershed problems. For instance, in Jamaica such a survey was practically completed in three months for the 11,300 sq. km island by one technical person. It is not advisable for less-developed countries to spend many years on a detailed survey.
A quick classification of a nation's watersheds can also be (often) made by using existing data and knowledge of reservoir watersheds, forestry and wildland watersheds, agricultural watersheds, municipal watersheds, etc. Such a classification helps pinpoint major problems and establish management policies and priorities.
Problem Oriented Surveys at Watershed Level
At the local or watershed level, further surveys or investigations are needed to obtain basic information for formulating management plans. These surveys should be problem oriented, in a way similar to a doctor's approach to a patient. Healthy patients or watersheds should not be ignored but they should be put on routine maintenance while special attention or urgent treatment is given to serious ones. The "right medicine for the right illness" will not only save money and time but also lives.
Watershed problems can generally be categorized as follows:
i) Physiographical problems (e.g., steep slopes, heavy rains, excessive runoff, problem soils, etc.)
ii) Resources use problems (e.g., shifting cultivation, forest destruction, fire, overgrazing, uncontrolled mining, poor road construction, etc.)
iii) End problems (e.g., erosion, sedimentation, flood, water pollution, water shortage, etc.)
iv) Socio-economic and other problems (e.g., illiteracy, low acceptance or innovation, labour shortage, land tenure, poor infrastructures, etc.)
Detailed surveys or investigations should be centered on the major watershed problems identified during preparatory missions or preliminary investigations.
A practical watershed plan should consider, at the every beginning, the management possibilities and suitable strategies. For example, some foreign experts or outsiders may simply suggest that people be moved out of the watersheds. It may sound attractive but they don't realize the difficulties and expenses of resettlement, not to mention creating social problems. Solving a problem in one place by creating more problems at other places is not a wise policy to pursue.
Management possibilities need to consider the following:
i) Technological aspects: Whether the present technology is sufficient for copping with major problems in the watersheds or more local trials are still needed. What will be the effect of the transfer of exotic technology, etc.
ii) Available resources: What are the possible sources for obtaining resources, monetary and otherwise, for the proposed watershed programme? The magnitude of the programme should not exceed the expected resources.
iii) Institutional ability: The strengthening of any institution is limited because it needs time to train technical staff. The programme should only grow as fast as trained and experienced staff are available.
iv) People's acceptance: Although this will depend on a continuous effort of education and extension, extreme care should be given to (avoid) those management practices which are against local culture, religion or tradition. People's acceptance is a key to the success of most watershed programmes, but it is always a slow process.
v) Expected outputs: What can be accomplished at the end is often an ambiguous and neglected subject. Exaggeration of results may attract funding but it will cause despair to many funding agencies eventually. The planner should be frank at the planning stage and realize the limits of management practices.
Extent of Coordination
The extent of coordination among various agencies depends on the degree of integration of a watershed programme. Generally speaking, because of the composite nature of watersheds, no single agency could plan or manage a watershed fully. Coordination is almost a must. Nevertheless, the word "coordination" is more often spoken than accomplished in developing countries due to a lack of qualified staff and resources in each agency. Only when there is surplus staff and its main tasks are being accomplished will an institution render assistance to the others. Usually, the least efficient agency controls the rate of progress of work. Therefore, only the essential agencies should be coordinated into the programme. Likewise, with the degree of integration. A watershed is a land mass involving all human activities. If every activity is to be integrated, it will need no less a complex government bureaucracy to manage them. Sometimes, it is difficult even to call a meeting.
Each country has its different institutional set-up and its unique environment. Essential agencies vary from one country to another. Experience in many countries indicates that more than seven or eight agencies becomes impractical. The overall responsibility usually rests with one organization, the chief organizer such as a forestry or watershed conservation agency.
After the coordinating agencies are decided upon, the ways and means of coordination should be spelled out at the early stage of planning to avoid duplication or confusion.
Involvement of Local Communities
If there are local bodies such as local governments, farmers' associations, private interest groups and specially organized districts, their appropriate representatives can be involved in watershed planning. Care should be given, however, with regard to those too strongly in party politics so that to involve one does not cause trouble or make others uncooperative.
Another technique is to directly survey farmers or inhabitants. In developing countries, farmers are mostly illiterate, hard to find in the day time and are conservative. They may not like to be bothered by many repeated socio-economic surveys of this nature. Their answers may not be very useful unless the questionnaires are properly designed and tested.
Organizing Proper Bodies for Planning
First, there should be one agency designated to initiate the work. Usually this agency should have its chief responsibility in managing watersheds or has an invested interest in watershed products (i.e., irrigation, electricity authority or municipal governments).
A steering committee should be organized involving representatives of essential agencies and local communities with the organizer as the convener. The committee thereafter monitors the processes of design, survey, analysis and final reporting. If required, the committee will be involved in implementation and evaluation.
Below the steering committee, a number of field survey teams are usually needed. A team can have members from different agencies but its leader should be drawn from an agency involved with surveys. For instance, the leader of a soil conservation planning team should come from a soil conservation agency although members may come from extension crops and soil department, farmer's associations, etc. The leader will not only report progress to the steering committee but also serve as a bridge from his/her mother organization to the committee. Periodically, all the teams need to meet and report their progress and problems to the steering committee. Any interteam matters should also be settled in committee meetings.
Funding for planning can be provided mainly by the chief organizing agency because it has more interest than others or it may be shared among coordinated agencies.
At the end of the planning, each agency should agree to an overall plan consisting of work schedule, staff needs and budget. When no external aid is available each should share the cost and programme in their regular budget,³ year by year, according to the overall plan. The programme will eventually be carried out by each responsible agency in the watersheds with mutually understood objectives and overall supervision. Sometimes, a liaison office is needed in the field to represent the steering committee.
This kind of joint and coordinated planning and decentralized implementation proves effective in many developing countries. The work is done more efficiently and fruitfully than piecemeal approaches and staff-borrowing type of undertakings whereby each agency considers its own responsibility, may not be willing to do others a favour.
Preparatory Work
There is a general tendency in survey and planning to collect more data than necessary in one area and insufficient information in another. Therefore, before data collection, preparatory work should determine what is really needed, how it can be collected and where to get it.
Valuable existing data, maps and reports should not be overlooked in order to save time, money and efforts.
Data to be collected should be relevant, to the point and useful for the final analysis and report. Survey forms or tables should be concise, practical, well designed and checked in the field before use. In the case of land capability and land use planning, for example, the smallest unit should be compatible to small farms and the capability class should promote safe land use rather than eliminate their use totally.
Data should be collected or produced in an orderly manner so that all of the necessary planning work can be completed in a controlled time period. Appendix I shows a flow chart used in the physical planning of a watershed in Jamaica.
Data Requirements and Collecting Techniques
Data required for watershed planning varies for different management objectives, watershed problems and given conditions, but can generally be categorized as follows:
i) Physiographical data including location, elevation, sub-watersheds, soils, geology, land forms, slopes, drainage patterns, etc.
ii) Land use and cover types including forest, grass/range lands, cultivated lands, orchards, wildlife reservations, recreation areas, urban, water area, eroded areas, land capabilities, etc.
iii) Climate and hydrology including precipitation, wind, evaporation, temperature, streamflow, sediment, etc.
iv) Socio-economic data including demography, land tenure, farming systems, education, infrastructures, human resources, farm enterprises, rural employment, production, income, marketing, transportation, credits, labour, etc.
v) Institutional and cultural data including policy and administration, legislation, extension services, farmer's organizations, community and private groups, traditions, religions, cultural practices, acceptance to innovations, group actions, etc.
vi) Management oriented data including watershed problems, environment impacts, land management techniques, treatment needs, infrastructure requirements, research and training needs, unit cost, sectoral cost, cash flows, work schedule, financial arrangements, expected benefits and results, etc.
³ The foreign-aid funds could also be divided among the main agencies for implementing their respective tasks.
To do the above surveys and analysis, multi-disciplinary teams of professionals and technical persons are often needed. However, in a small developing country where professionals are scarce, a body consisting of an engineer, an economist, a sociologist, and a forester or agronomist, together with some field assistants may do a satisfactory job.
The general techniques employed for such field-oriented surveys includes simple statistics and sampling, airphoto interpretation, mapping and design of questionnaires, most of which can be taught and learned by sub-professionals or technical assistants.
Establishing Data Base
In some advanced developing countries, computers can be employed for storing most of the basic data for future use. For instance, periodic surveys on land use, farm incomes or erosion/sediment data will provide clear pictures of changes. The effect of watershed management work over time can thus be evaluated.
Assessment of Feasibilities
The economic assessment of project feasibility is one of the measures often employed in planning. However, economic viability is not the only criterion for decision making. Watershed projects, not like simple engineering works, have their special characteristics which are not easily assessed by monetary means, i.e., long term and intergeneration benefits, externalities, spatial distribution of costs and benefits, intangible and indirect benefits.
Besides the usual cost and benefit analysis with and without project and the calculation of internal rates of returns, etc., the social values or benefits should also be added for overall assessments of watershed projects. For developing countries, social benefits derived from increased employment, equitable distribution of wealth, improving the farming environment and farmer's well being, providing better infrastructures, etc., should be weighed heavily in the final assessment.
Selection of Alternatives and Strategies
There are many ways to achieve management goals. During the planning stage, many alternatives should be explored so that the best alternative can be chosen. For instance, if the main objective is to restore vegetation on steep slopes for protection, expensive reforestation may not be the best answer. Alternatives could include protecting the existing land for natural regeneration/succession or supplementary planting/seeding. Some technological alternatives need field trials which can be built into the beginning of the implementation stage. Alternatives in (cause) and effect, in incentive needs vs. education, in group actions vs. individual assistance, etc., among others, should be fully considered.
For a watershed project to be successful, strategies for extension, for streamlining operations, cost control, for inducing farmer's participation and for work maintenance, should be chosen well before beginning implementation. Constraints in physical, technical, administrative and budgetary aspects should be clearly identified and resolved in the planning stage.
Making Realistic Recommendations
Watershed planners are not always the ones to execute projects and tend to make recommendations that are good in theory but questionable in practice. Examples include past plans to move large farming communities out of watersheds, to complete treatment of large watersheds in 3 to 4 years, or for governments to increase staff inappropriate with its existing structure.
Planning should by no means be only for planning's sake. To sell the plan to either the government or to any international aid agency, recommendations have to be relevant, responsible and realistic.
Evaluation
Many watershed plans lack a process that periodically evaluates progress and implementation results. To do this, a data base should first be established and various evaluation methodologies be described such as sediment sampling, runoff, erosion checking, farm income surveys, etc. An evaluation mechanism should be established and maintained such as keeping the steering committee or the liaison officer after planning.
After all the surveys, investigations, discussions and studies on alternatives, priorities and strategies, a written plan will finally be produced. The problems confronting planners are always the appropriate contents, timing, responsibility and follow-up.
Appropriate Contents
Contents may vary from one plan to another but some general principles acre suggested. The plan should be:
i) As concise as possible. A plan is prepared mainly for administrative use and not for purely academic study. Because most administrator are very busy, an abstract or summary (including recommendations) should be put at the beginning of the report, leaving technical details, methodology, drawings and maps at the end or attached as appendices.
ii) As practical as possible. Watershed problems should be analyzed; objectives, goals, and work progress be clearly set; responsibilities of each agency or sector should be well defined; budgetary sources should be identified; expected results, benefits and financial viabilities estimated; and strategies described. The report should present alternatives and be flexible for necessary adjustment.
iii) As illustrative as possible. Charts, simple diagrams and photos should be included. "A picture is worth a thousand words."
Completion in Time
"Delay" is the word describing most multi-disciplinary planning done by several agencies. A way to avoid delay is to decide during initial planning, the contents of the plan or report, approximate length of each chapter and section, persons who are responsible for preparing them, date of submission, and the duty of the chief editor. The scales of various maps, size of drawings and pictures need also be decided, otherwise they may cause unnecessary delays.
Follow-ups
Planning is not considered to be completed if it ends up in a filing cabinet or on a bookshelf. Close follow-up is necessary but, more often than not, is neglected. Those responsible for planning should, by modification or compromise if necessary, get the plan properly financed and approved for action.
Bochet, J. 1983. Management of upland watersheds: Participation of the mountain communities. FAO Conservation Guide, No. 8, Rome.
de Graff, J. 1981. Economic aspects of watershed development. FAO/UNDP JAM/78/006 Project Working Paper 5, Kingston.
Eren, T. 1972. Project formulation in watershed management. In FAO Report No. TA 3112, Rome.
Hill, I. D. 1982. Natural resources surveys in agricultural development planning: a quick and clean method. In Agricultural Administration Vol. 10. Applied Science Publishers Ltd. England.
Gregersen, H. M. and K. Brooks. 1978. Economic analysis of watershed projects. Paper presented to 12th session of the Working Party on the Management of Mountain Watersheds. Rome.
Sfeir-Younis, A. 1983. Economic aspects of soil conservation programs in less-developed countries. In Water International Vol. 8. The Netherlands.
Shaner, W. W. 1979. Project Planning for Developing Economics. Praeger Publishers. New York.
Sheng, T. C. 1975. Physical survey of watersheds. In Lecture Notes: Watershed Management and Soil Conservation Training Course. FAO/UNDP JAM505 Project Working document, Kingston.
Sheng, T. C. 1981. Physical planning for watersheds. FAO/UNDP JAM/78/005 Project Working Paper 17. Kingston.
Spears, J. S. and R. D. H. Rowe. 1980. Preliminary Guidelines for Designing Watershed Rehabilitation Projects. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
