Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping

Transcription

1 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 1 Module 4: Planning Watershed Level Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping A. General Issues and problems 1 in a watershed context are site-specific, complex, often interlinked and may be related to ecological, socio-economic, technical and institutional issues 2. Awareness of these issues and problems may come from agency representatives, interested professionals such as consulting engineers or planners, or from the Government s regulatory directives. However such perceptions will quite often come from the community itself, whose members are directly affected by the conditions and changes of natural resources prevailing in a given watershed [2]. The participatory identification and thorough analysis of issues and problems in a watershed context is an important initial element of planning as it will result in a clear understanding of the issues and problems. Based upon this scoping can prioritise the key issues and problems that need to be addressed most urgently, and objectives can be defined that reflect a vision of what the future conditions within the watershed should be like. It will also enable the subsequent definition of appropriate strategies to successfully address these issues and problems, as well as maintain desirable conditions and change currently undesirable conditions in a given watershed [1]. As preparatory step for problem analysis and scoping, reconnaissance and base line survey activities are required to establish necessary information about the economic, social and environmental settings within the watershed. We will use the term watershed baseline inventory for these survey activities, and watershed profile to describe their results. We will not explicitly examine the watershed baseline inventory as it is covered in a separate chapter 3. However the chapter does introduce the necessary steps and methods to analyse issues and problems, and to be able to prioritise them and select sub-watershed areas through scoping, and thereby define broad targets to guide the further planning process. It is important to note here that these steps may be iterated, and may also iterate with the collection of base line information about the watershed through the watershed inventory. As for instance, the problem analysis or also the scoping process may reveal significant gaps in information, which can only be filled through the sourcing of additional in-depth information. B. Problem Analysis The planning process typically begins with an identification and analysis of the issues and problems. Box 1: Problem analysis is a partly subjective assessment of the reality, in a watershed context, of the current and expected future state of water and related resources [2]. 1 Issues in contrast to problems: Issue = something to consider, a possible future problem. Problem = a present negative situation. 2 See: Chapter 1.1.5: Key Problems and Challenges in Watershed Management 3 See: Chapter 4.3.3: Watershed Assessment

2 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 2 Clearly identifying and analysing problems may seem simple, but in practice it is often quite difficult. It is therefore important to focus the process from the very beginning by setting a topic, which in a watershed context will naturally be watershed functions, with due consideration given to both upstream and downstream issues. When establishing watershed management guidelines, the topic is more concretely water resources related functions that involve in particular the beneficial economic, social, and ecological uses of water resources 4 (both on-site and off-site 5 ), and consideration is also taken of their interaction with related resources such as land. Depending on the given situation, the topics may be broader than just water and related resources. As for instance, in the establishment of an all-encompassing watershed management plan, general socio-economic development will also need to be considered. The setting of a topic will also need to involve the consideration of the time aspect. Planning is always concerned with future developments, and thus needs to anticipate, forecast, and set future targets. In order to effectively do this it is important to be clear about the planning horizon. Furthermore, it is helpful to split the process of problem analysis into three separate steps, namely: Stakeholder analysis Problem identification Problem structuring Box 2: Problem Analysis for District level IWSM Planning, the Lao PDR [7]: Integrated watershed management in the Lao PDR has been practiced with a focus on general rural development, land use and poverty reduction issues. The scope of the problem analysis has therefore been much broader than purely water and related resources. The problem analysis stage in this planning process includes a thorough identification, analysis and prioritisation of problems based on a comprehensive assessment and analysis of the biophysical and socio-economic conditions, as well as the water related issues of a specific watershed. The comprehensive analysis includes the interpretation and statistical analysis of data to link socio-economic and natural resources conditions with water related issues. In the case of the Lao PDR a comprehensive watershed inventory is carried out before the problem analysis. Stakeholder Analysis Problem analysis requires the consideration of the views of all important stakeholders, thereby making stakeholder analysis an essential part of the process. It can be conducted prior to the problem analysis as part of a watershed inventory, or as a parallel procedure. A basic premise behind stakeholder analysis is that different groups have different concerns, capacities and interests, and that these therefore need to be explicitly understood and recognised in the process of problem analysis. In a watershed context, the state of water and related resources may be a serious problem for one individual, group or organisation, which another does not consider to be a 4 A beneficial use is any use of the water resource conducive to public benefit, welfare, safety, health or enjoyment. Beneficial water uses for example designated by the MRC member states comprise domestic water supply, human primary contact, maintenance of habitat for fish and wildlife and agricultural and industrial water supply [10]. For additional information on beneficial uses please refer to: TA: Beneficial Uses of Water Illustrated by Examples from the Lower Mekong Basin and the USA [4.3.2] 5 In general the term off-site means that something is taking place or is located away from the site of a particular activity [12].

3 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 3 problem at all or perhaps not one of high priority. Only those individuals, groups or organisations who perceive the state of water and related resources to be a problem of high priority will be actively engaged in, and supportive of the planning process. Others may be neutral, reluctant, ignorant, or even counter-productive in their actions [2]. The following questions are pertinent [2] during a stakeholder analysis: Who does and who does not perceive the state of water and related resources as a problem? Who has a basic interest in the use and ownership of water resources and related resources such as land that impact on those? What is the role and power of that user or user group? What important upstream and downstream groups of stakeholders exist within the watershed? Who represents the interests of downstream populations outside the watershed and society at large in consideration of the watershed s contribution to the river basin that it is a part of? Who has a mandate to guide and organise water and land use? For further details on managing a stakeholder analysis please refer to a technical annex 6 and for an example of an actual outcome to a case study 7. Depending on the appearance of the stakeholder landscape, problem analysis may need to be structured in several stages that consider the position of different groups of stakeholders. For instance, the resident population of a watershed may not view off-site (external) impacts as a problem, because these occur outside of their geographical area of interest. At the same time, downstream populations or government agencies charged with water resources management may view off-site impacts as the key problem. This demonstrates the importance of not only conducting a problem analysis in a watershed context with local stakeholders, as otherwise there is the danger of ignoring the interests of downstream populations and society at large. Problem Identification Problem identification involves the compilation of an overview of basic, existing issues and problems that characterise a given situation [8]. In the process of establishing watershed management guidelines, one will need to consider the issues and problems both on-site and off-site affecting the beneficial economic, social, and ecological uses of water resources as well as their interaction with related resources such as land. In this context it is particularly helpful to look at the impairment of beneficial uses. Box 3: The term use impairment describes a given situation where a beneficial use is constrained by the inadequate quality or quantity of water. Inadequate in this sense means that water quality or quantity is lower than the maximum level possible. Basically, the approach of identifying issues and problems means stating them in terms of impairments of beneficial uses of water resources, paying specific attention to the timing and spatial extent of those impairments. 6 See: TA: Stakeholder Analysis [4.3.2] 7 See: CS: Results of a Stakeholder Analysis An Example from the Ping River Basin, Thailand [4.3.2]

4 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 4 In order to begin identifying use impairments, one needs an overview of the beneficial uses that are relevant in the watershed. For each of these uses one needs approximate estimates of the following demand and supply of the water resources that they require: Present demand. Future demand, which is expected at the end of the planning horizon, as far as currently foreseeable as a result of realistic forecasts. This implies that one has an idea of the plans and expectations for future development of actors both on-site and off-site. Present supply. This is the highest amount or quality of water resources available for current usage. Future supply that is expected at the end of the planning horizon, as far as currently foreseeable as a result of realistic forecasts. This is the highest amount or quality of water resources expected to be available for future use. Maximum supply. This is the maximum, either the highest amount or the best quality that would be available for use under ideal conditions. It reflects the maximum capacity of the watershed to supply water resources for a particular use. Furthermore we need an overview of relevant related resources, such as for example land and forests the use of which may have an impact on the beneficial uses of water resources. For each of these we need approximate estimates of: Present use and its impact on the beneficial uses of water resources Future use and its impact on the beneficial uses of water resources, as far as currently foreseeable as a result of realistic forecasts The above information will largely be provided by the watershed assessment 8. Other portions of it, such as the impact of land use on beneficial uses of water resources, may require the statistical evaluation of long-term time series and / or the use of models. A, promising approach to rapidly compile the above information that has recently emerged is the Rapid Hydrological Appraisal (RHA) 9 [6]. Once the above information has become available, we can in principle begin to identify use impairments using the following scheme: 8 For more information see: Chapter 4.3.3: Watershed Assessment 9 For more information see: TA: Introduction to Rapid Hydrological Appraisal in the Context of Environmental Service Rewards [5.5]

5 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 5 Figure 1: Identification of Use Impairments A use impairment is given, when supply is lower than demand, whilst at the same time supply is lower than at its maximum possible level, as is illustrated in cases [A] and [C] in the above chart. The use is then considered to be constrained. A use impairment is obviously not given, when supply is higher than demand, as illustrated in case [B], or when supply is equal to demand, as illustrated in case [D] in the above chart. No one would regard such a situation as a problem. A use impairment is also not given, at least from a management point of view, when supply is lower than demand, but supply is already at its maximum possible level, as illustrated in case [E] in the above chart. People might view such a situation as a problem, but it is one that could not realistically be solved because there would be no means to increase supply. On a time scale, there are two basic cases of use impairments: A present beneficial use is impaired. A future beneficial use is expected to be impaired. The arrows in the above chart indicate how use impairments can be removed, namely by increasing supply so that it becomes higher than demand. In order to increase supply, one firstly needs to investigate the cause of the supply being below its maximum possible level. The two basic causes can be described as follows: The use of a related resource causes the present supply or is expected to cause the future supply to be below its maximum possible level. Another competing use of water resources causes the present supply or is expected to cause the future supply to be below its maximum possible level. In addition to the above scheme, it is helpful to ask the following sequence of questions so as to define problems in terms of use impairments [4]: 1. Please create a long list whilst gathering the information: What are all the use impairments currently observed in the watershed? What are the use impairments anticipated under future growth conditions until the end of the planning horizon?

6 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 6 2. What is the geographical extent of use impairment? Does it occur locally, or in an upstream / downstream context within the watershed (i.e. on-site)? Does it occur outside of the watershed (i.e. off-site)? 3. Why is each use considered to be impaired? What parameters do people use as criteria in deciding that the use is no longer viable? What standards or objectives for the use are currently not being met? 4. Which of these parameters can be measured easily? Is existing data available for any of these? Which can be simulated using simple calculations or computer models? Which are felt or speculative? Examples of Problem Identification The following two examples illustrate the logic underlying the above concept: There is a high present demand to breed fish of species x in cage culture in the main river of the watershed. However, it is currently only possible to breed fish of species y, because the watershed supplies water of a quality that is too low for species x. However, old people remember that species x occurred naturally in the river in former times, when the river water was cleaner. So the maximum supply of water quality the watershed is able to yield, would be sufficient for breeding species x. Therefore low water quality clearly impairs the beneficial use of water for fish breeding. The two likely causes that are identified for the low water quality consist of: high amounts of agricultural chemicals which are used by farmers in the watershed, and a small mine upstream that pollutes the water. There is a high expected future demand for water abstraction from the main river of the watershed. This is to occur throughout the year, as it is for the use of a drinking water plant that supplies the growing population of the watershed s main city. However, there are signs of the declining river water supply in the dry season as the river almost runs dry, which is something that never happened previously. This indicates that the maximum supply of river water that the watershed is able to yield, would allow for sufficient water abstraction. The low quantity of water clearly impairs the beneficial use of water as drinking water. One likely cause that is identified for the low water quality involves the upper areas of the watershed, which after having been used for rotational agriculture for many years, have in recent years been reforested with industrial pine plantations. The pines water consumption for evapo-transpiration is extremely high, and therefore the watershed produces less runoff than it used to ([14], [15], [16]). Problem Structuring Problem identification will give an overview of the nature of the issues and problems, and perhaps also an overview of their relative importance, as well as indicate some directly linked causes. However it will not explain how they are interrelated, and show the possible cause-effect relationships that exist between them. It is for this reason that further and more elaborate problem structuring is required. The following figure illustrates the schematic cause-effect relationships between land use and sustainable use of water resources as well as the actors involved. It functions as an example for the multitude of aspects that might need to be considered in a thorough and systematic problem structuring approach.

7 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 7 Institutions Incentives, Driving Factors Land Use Aquaculture Irrigated Agriculture Wet Season Suppl. Irrig. Rice Dry Season Irrig. Rice Lowl.Irrig. Non-Rice Irrig. Annual Upl. Crop Irrigated Perennials Land Users Rainf. Rice Rainfed Agricul. Annual Upl. Cropping Pasture Perennial Cropping Shifting Cultivation Plantations Forestry Wasteland Other Forests Protected Areas Actors Sectors Land Use Types Water Resources Maintenance of Flows Maintenance of Water Quality Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems + Biodiversity Watershed Functions Eco- System Fishe ries Water Supply Irrigation Hydropower Navigation Beneficial Uses Poverty Alleviation Figure 2: Land Use and Water Resources: Cause Effect Relationships and Actors [11] The problem tree approach is a very common tool used in problem structuring. It links the results of problem identification together with the various issues or factors which may contribute towards identified problems. It is done by arranging the identified problems and other accompanying issues or factors into a tree-shaped hierarchy of cause-effect relationships, and thereby identifying underlying or root causes of the problems. It can also help to further rank problems according to their relative importance. Those problems at the top of the hierarchy, which have many other issues and problems as contributing factors are likely to be those which should be prioritised and for which planning should find solutions. The problem tree can frequently be used at later, more detailed stages of the planning process. It is particularly used during the objectives analysis stage, when specific objectives for solving key problems are formulated and related indicators to measure success are identified [4]. The elements of the problem tree are then re-formulated as an objectives tree. This is done by re-wording the problems, beginning at the top of the problem hierarchy, as positive statements or objectives 10. Further information on conducting problem structuring using the problem tree approach is provided in a technical annex 11, while the results of some actual problem structuring exercises are presented as case studies 12. A full overview of the entire process of problem analysis, in the context of designing logical frameworks (or log frame) can be found in the MRC log frame guidelines [8]. 10 See also: Chapter 4.3.4: Development of Objectives and Indicators 11 See also: TA: Problem Tree Analysis [4.3.2] 12 See also: CS: Results of a Problem and Objective Analysis, and the Application of the Logical Framework Approach An Example from the Nam Tong Watershed, the Lao PDR [4.3.2] CS: Results of a Problem Analysis An Example from the Kbal Chhay Watershed, Cambodia [4.3.2]

8 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 8 In order to identify the underlying causes related to incentives and driving factors, it may be helpful to use the analytical framework Natural Resources and Governance [3] 13 so as to extend and deepen the problem analysis. Especially carrying out its situation analysis (Part I of the analytical framework) would be relevant at this stage. C. Scoping Once problem identification and analysis have been conducted, there still remains the challenge of agreeing on the priorities among these issues and problems. The stakeholders need to determine which uses of water resources and which watershed areas urgently require interventions, and which of them do not. This process is called scoping [2]. The priority uses and areas identified during scoping require standards and targets to govern their management, or even concrete management interventions, while other uses and areas of lower importance will require them only later or maybe even not at all. This also implies the identification of target groups (resource users) who will be expected to implement standards or otherwise be involved in interventions. Box 4: Scoping is a stakeholder consultation and negotiation process that establishes broad agreed priorities and targets, and gives the subsequent detailed planning process overall direction. Scoping addresses the following fundamental issues: The setting of priorities must take place through appropriate consultation and negotiation processes that involve all important stakeholders. Stakeholder support that is achieved through the procedure of stakeholders coming to an agreement on the priorities and course of action is the most important element in watershed management. A lack of this support, and any disagreement about which issues are to be addressed and which problems are to be solved, present the biggest obstacles, even if the stakeholders agree on most issues and problems found in the watershed [4]. Any setting of standards or design of interventions have transaction costs, or in other words will require different kinds of expenditure, whether in terms of time, effort, or money. Given the situation that these resources are limited, there is the need to set priorities. Scoping can be a challenging process because of the differences in perception and the various priorities that exist among the group of participating stakeholders. It is not usually difficult to generate a comprehensive overview of use impairments. However it is much more difficult to set priorities given these various use impairments. These are issues that must be resolved, including the decision on which use impairments most urgently demand attention. A decision must also be reached as to which of them can be deferred until later, and perhaps then could be addressed during a more affluent time. The Scoping Process The scoping process has two important components [4]: Focusing (what?): Identification of issues and problems that have an overriding importance in the watershed and which should therefore be considered in depth as intervention areas, during the subsequent detailed planning process. 13 For an introduction see: Chapter 1.3.4: Incentives to Promote the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Watersheds For detailed information see: Manual on Natural Resources and Governance [3].

9 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 9 Boundary setting (where? when?): Limitation of the plan to a specific geographical area and also to a particular time period. Focussing is in principle a multi-stakeholder decision making process 14, during which the results of the problem analysis are reviewed, with particular attention being given to the cause-effect relationships as presented in the problem tree(s). There is a selection of problems (use impairment of water resources) that are considered to be the most important, and broad targets for their solution are negotiated among the group. Whilst targets are being negotiated there are a number of issues that need to be taken into account: Firstly there are overarching goals and standards which have been agreed upon by society and have been set by a particular government that are relevant for watershed management. These include policies and commitments made by ratifying international or regional conventions 15. Additionally there are goals and targets that have been set in national and sub-national policies 16 ; development plans; water resources sector plans or sector plans for the development of related resources such as forests. The existence of national watershed management guidelines or policies, which obviously need to receive particular attention during the scoping process. The identification of underlying cause effect relationships (impact chains) that have brought about present or are likely to cause future use impairments. A reasonable understanding and awareness of these cause effect relationships is essential for the selection of broad strategies to develop workable solutions. The consideration of strategic options regarding tradeoffs between different use impairments. As the different uses of water resources are interrelated, restoring one use may result in the further impairment of another use. The review of strategic options regarding standards or restrictions for the use of related resources. For instance, the question of whether interventions should target conservation, land use patterns or rather structural measures may need to be negotiated. Boundary setting is often carried out through the prioritisation of catchments using agreed static or dynamic criteria 17. This is in principle the application of the critical watersheds concept 18 at the catchment level. It identifies those catchments where essential watershed functions are already critically endangered due to human interventions or are likely to become critically endangered in the near future [9]. In these critical catchments the application of standards or management interventions are most urgently required. 14 This term is used to describe processes which aim to bring together all major stakeholders in a new form of decision-making structure on a particular issue. These processes are based on the recognition of the importance of achieving equity and accountability in communication between stakeholders, as well as involving an equitable representation of stakeholder groups and their views. They are based on transparency and aim to develop partnerships and strengthened networks between stakeholders [5]. 15 See also: Chapter 2.1: International and Regional Policy Framework 16 See also: Chapter 2.2: National Policies 17 See also: CS: Prioritisation of Sub-watersheds in the Nam Neun Watershed, the Lao PDR [4.3.2] 18 See also: Chapter 1.2.2: Critical Watersheds and Watershed Classification TA: Map Reconnaissance Level Identification of Critical Watersheds in the Lower Mekong Basin [1.2.2]

10 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 10 Box 5: Based on experiences in the Ping River basin in Thailand, the approach to selection of sub-areas should be: (1) able to build on existing data from readily available secondary sources; (2) relatively easy to implement within a very short time frame; and (3) simple enough to be readily communicated to a wide range of stakeholders. Selection of sub-areas will typically consider a range of variables, for the combination and valuation of which there are various techniques available (ranking, scoring, etc), as those for instance described by Thomas [13]. It would be helpful to ask the following questions during the scoping process [4]: Which are the most important use impairments for the stakeholders out of the long list that was developed during problem analysis? It may be helpful to aim for a relatively short list of no more than five in order to reduce complexity. These will then become the focus of the planning initiative. What specific targets do the stakeholders wish to meet in order to consider an impaired use to be restored? What are the specific time periods the stakeholders want to set in order to apply these targets? Should this be throughout the year or only during the dry season? What is the size of the area over which they want to apply these targets? Should this be over the entire area that is currently impaired, or only over a smaller portion of it? The following provides an overview of the major water resources uses and issues to be considered when setting broad targets during scoping ([2], [4]): Water quantity: Setting targets for water quantity requires an estimation of the water demands of various users for withdrawal uses (e.g. abstraction for irrigation) or for non-withdrawal uses (e.g. fish cage culture or recreation). An examination of water quantity needs to consider total annual volumes, seasonal volumes and water levels that are needed to satisfy the needs of different water users. The fundamental question is whether or not the watershed has or will have enough water for all intended uses. The following key questions have to be answered: What proportion of reliable annual flows is currently required to meet the withdrawal demands and service non-withdrawal uses? What proportion of estimated withdrawals is consumed that is not returned to the hydrological system? How are these supply-to-demand ratios likely to change in the future considering aspects such as population growth and the increasing uses by agriculture? Water quality: Although quality standards are subjective, workable criteria and standards that can be used to define targets are usually in place at a national level. There are for example minimum standards for the supply of drinking water or for the operation of hydropower turbines. These criteria and standards are usually defined by water resources or environment ministries. Furthermore, there are some rules and procedures in place for Lower Mekong Basin wide water quality monitoring, which have been agreed upon between the riparian countries 19. Fisheries: Fish stocks are usually a good indicator of a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Setting targets for watershed fisheries encompasses two principles, namely: (a) desired species composition and desired stocks of each species, but also (b) secondary conditions in terms of the habitat conditions required to support a selfcontaining population. Physical habitat conditions include water depth, flow, 19 See also: MRC Water Utilisation Programme 2005: Technical Guidelines for the Implementation of the Rules for Water Quality [10].

11 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 11 temperature, suitable chemical parameters, and the availability of appropriate spawning and nursery habitat. Hydropower generation: In many watersheds hydroelectric power generation is the largest and most important user in terms of economic value. Hydropower generation imposes special requirements on watershed management, usually related to maintaining a minimum water level throughout the seasons, and reducing erosion leading to the silting up of reservoirs and damage to turbines. Upstream water and land uses affect river sedimentation and flow regimes, with potential detrimental effects on water volumes, as well as reservoir capacity and life span. A typical performance target can be to maintain water flow and quality that is necessary for continuous hydropower generation during a set reservoir s lifetime. Navigation: Shipping and boating are essential uses of rivers and lakes in many watersheds. Navigation uses are constrained by water conditions such as channel depth, width, turbulence, and availability of locks. Commercial navigation depends on the duration of the navigation season, which depends on water depth. This once again may vary for different classes of vessels depending on their maximum draft. Recreation or nature-based tourism: Targets for recreational uses and tourism may be set. For instance, the beauty of the landscape and a diverse pattern of water bodies and water-related ecosystems such as riparian forests may need to be maintained or enhanced. A direct target could be land or water surface made available and managed for recreational uses. If recreational activities include swimming or bathing, clean water bodies are required. Ecology and conservation: Many watersheds contain elements that are rare or of specific ecological, aesthetical, recreational, historical or cultural value. It may be appropriate to set targets as to what degree the natural character, state and function of any specific watershed ecosystem area should be maintained. Land use: Land use and related changes may have a profound impact on both water quantity and quality 20. For instance, agriculture and other on-farm uses both consume water (e.g. irrigation) and impact on water quality (e.g. erosion, fertiliser use). Therefore, targets for certain land uses may need to be set in combination with the targets for water quality and quantity. This obviously requires a good understanding of the interactions of land use and the hydrological cycle, and may need to be supported by computer based modelling. In some cases the ideal conditions or targets for two water and land uses will differ and may even be incompatible, such as for example a conflict between irrigated agriculture and hydropower generation over optimum water levels. Such conflicts, if not already apparent, are likely to emerge in public negotiations during scoping, and may need to be resolved through conflict management techniques 21. The Output of the Scoping Process In a watershed context, the outputs of successful scoping are ([2], [4]): A clear prioritisation of existing problems (use impairments) to be solved and anticipated problems to be avoided. This will be a sub-set of the results of initial problem analysis. 20 See also: Chapter 1.2.5: Impacts of Vegetation and Land Use on Water Resources CS: The Hydrological Impacts of Deforestation A Case from the Mekong Basin [1.2.5] CS: Hydrological Consequences of Landscape Fragmentation in the Uplands of Northern Viet Nam [1.2.5] TA: Impact of Different Vegetation Types on Water [1.2.5] 21 See also: Chapter 1.3.6: Conflicts and Conflict Management

12 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 12 Targets for maintenance and / or restoration of watershed functions, formulated as broad targets for the restoration of currently impaired uses of water resources, or broad targets to prevent future impairment of those uses, both specified in terms of content, location and timing. Broad strategic directions for the management of related resources. Focus, contents, methodologies and organisation applied during the subsequent more detailed planning exercise. Consensus among stakeholders on the above. Conclusion In conclusion, we can say that scoping establishes an overall understanding of the appropriate course of action to address the watershed s most important issues and problems. It should be noted here that scoping represents a potential cut-off point as the course of action could be the do nothing option. This would be in cases where no use impairments exist or the existing use impairments are considered to be insignificant, while also no significant future use impairments are expected during the planning horizon. Scoping will likely result in the identification of areas that need more detailed information. This will then have to be addressed by a second, more focused and in-depth round of watershed inventory 22. The additional information gathering will refine the problem analysis for those problems that have been prioritised, and will supply information to 23 reformulate the broad targets into final clear objectives and indicators. Example As a result of scoping, the following broad targets and strategic directions could for example be identified, which would then require further focus during the subsequent more detailed planning exercise: Broad Targets: Presently impaired use: fish breeding Target: Improve the water quality of the watershed s main river and subsequent use of water for fish cage culture Future potentially impaired use: navigation Target: Ensure that the water remains at a sufficient level for navigational use of the watershed s main river Presently impaired use: irrigation Target: Increase water availability for the irrigation of arable land in the watershed s lowland areas Future potentially impaired use: water contribution to the river basin Target: Maintain water contribution to downstream areas outside the watershed at a volume of at least two thirds of the current amount by the end of planning horizon Identified problems to be addressed: Lowland: Intensive use of agro-chemicals degrades the water quality, especially in the dry season. 22 See: Chapter 4.3.3: Watershed Assessment 23 See: Chapter 4.3.4: Development of Objectives and Indicators

13 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 13 Upland: Watershed functions are under threat from intensifying non-forest land uses. The most significant threats consist of erosion from agricultural areas (water quality), reduced infiltration in those same areas (timing of flow) and water consumption by industrial tree crops (water quantity, especially in the dry season). Such uses need to be restricted by site appropriate and workable land management options. Alternative off-farm (other than agriculture / forestry) income generation options may need to be created for local people. Midland: A hydro-electric power station on a tributary of the watershed s main river needs more transparent operating rules in order to stabilise water availability downstream, particularly as it relates to navigation in the dry season. Overall setting: Over the years, water flow at the outlet point of the watershed has been decreasing gradually in both quality and quantity, while water consumption on the main river into which the watershed feeds, is expected to double. References and Sources for Further Reading [1] Anon: Toward Community-Based Watershed Management in Santo Andre, Sao Paulo, Brazil. [2] DSE, 2001: Integrated Watershed Management Planning. Training Manual. [unpublished] [3] Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) 2004: Natural Resources and Governance: Incentives for Sustainable Resource Use. Manual. [4] Heathcote, I.W. 1998: Integrated Watershed Management Principles and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto. [hardcopy] [5] Hemmati, M. 2001: Multi-stakeholder Processes: What are they about? and How should they be done? UNED Forum. [6] Jeans, K.; Noordwijk, M.v.; Joshi, L.; Farida, A.W.; Leimona, B. 2006: Rapid Hydrological Appraisal in the Context of Environmental Rewards. World Agroforestry Centre [7] MAF, 2002: Guidelines District Level Integrated Watershed Management Planning Facilitators Manual. MAF / DANIDA Capacity Building Project. [8] MRC, 2001: Application of the Log Frame Approach for Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting in MRC. Revised Draft. [unpublished] [9] MRC / GTZ Watershed Management Project, 2004: Watershed Management Component. Glossary. [unpublished] [10] MRC Water Utilisation Programme 2006: Technical Guidelines for the Implementation of the Rules for Water Quality. Draft. [unpublished] [11] MRC / AIFP, 2006: The MRC Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Programme (AIFP) for A Concept Paper. [unpublished] [12] Thefreedictionary.com, 2007: Definition off-site.

14 Chapter 4.3.2: Problem Analysis and Scoping 14 [13] Thomas, D.E. 2005: Developing Watershed Management Organisations in Pilot Sub-Basins of the Ping River Basin. Final Report to ONEP. Preliminary Version. [unpublished] [14] Vincent, J.R. et al 1995: The Economics of Watershed Management: A Case Study of Mae Tang Natural Resource and Environment Programme, Thailand Development Research Institute. [15] Walker, A. 2002: Forests and Water in Northern Thailand. Resource Management in Asia Pacific. Working Paper No [16] Walker, A. 2002: Agricultural Transformation and the Politics of Hydrology in Northern Thailand: A Case Study of Water Supply and Demand. Resource Management in Asia Pacific. Working Paper No Additional Visualisation Materials VM: Land Use and Water Resources: Cause-Effect Relationships and Actors [4.3.2]