Who Should Participate in Watershed Management?
Efficient watershed management includes control over
tree cutting, grazing, and land clearing; forestation and replanting; erosion
and gully control by structural and nonstructural measures; promotion of
biodiversity; and strong surveillance. It is obvious that in a free-for-all
uncontrolled watershed environment, a strong surveillance is critical factor.
However, based on the well documented rent-seeking practices of the public
agencies for watershed management, who should then be assigned this
responsibility? As all these stated negative happenings are local in nature, many
people will argue to let there be a local management organization to do the
surveillance and enforcement. On the other hand, there is equally strong
argument to avoid such local arrangements as the local influential people grab such
entities and
then they start misusing the watershed resources for personal benefits. Both
are valid view points and we think that by proposing appropriate watershed
governance and management systems, the stated concerns of both sides can be
addressed.
In order to
eliminate or minimize all stated negative externalities, watershed management
has to have sufficient built-in incentives program for the local population.
Most people abuse the watershed out of necessity to make or save money even if
we ignore the corrupt and greedy persons.
Therefore, to have a successful watershed management program it has to
be managed by the users who stand to benefit directly and such benefit is
critical for their livelihood. This
involves training them on many aspects like: herd/flock sizes and area seasonal
stocking rates; basic financial management so they can decide on options;
secure, easily accessible and affordable means for saving assets so the need
for walking bank accounts is reduced; improved animal genetics – same or more
income from reduced animal numbers; optimal plant spacing and plant types mix
based on rainfall pattern, soil types and land slopes; and etc.
Deforestation also occurs because of a genuine need to
have firewood as the only source available for cooking food and heating water
in a cold environment. Kerosene oil has already been tried as an incentive but
such supply is hard to sustain for any government. Had there been bio-gas
technology promoted, there would have been lesser deforestation as result of
having access to better source of fuel and energy. There seems a huge potential
to promote a technology that uses animals’ manure as the only raw material for
meeting local needs of fuel and energy instead of wood burning where
deforestation is an unavoidable outcome.
Another thread to watersheds is the haphazard and
illegal cutting of trees to meet the demand of wood industry for commercial
gains. This kind of illegal tree-logging is either done by influential people or
through the connivance and rent-seeking actors of public agencies. Most of our
deforestation is happening due to this insatiable demand of the wood industry.
This can’t be eliminated in a corrupt environment. However, it is worth
considering to regulate this process in a way that watershed environment is
least damaged; in addition to legal fees or charges, why can’t we add another
condition that the deal will also include planting double the area that cleared
by the logging process of forest trees.
Just for record, a watershed management organization
was established in 1960’s for Mangla Dam whose scope was extended to selected
small dams as well, and the initial results were encouraging. It implemented
innovative incentives by giving kerosene oil to local communities to discourage
the use of firewood, in addition to conventional measures like control of
logging, replanting, and structural measures. However, the situation
deteriorated later when political forces overtook the institutes, leading to
massive illegal logging, uncontrolled grazing, and corruption in replanting and
civil works for erosion control.
The above stated behavior proves a general perception
that exclusive monopoly and discretion breed germs of corruption and
rent-seeking practices. Therefore, we need to propose watershed governance and
management systems where local participation, transparency and accountability
are made integral part to minimize monopoly and discretion of one particular
arrangement and where checks and balances are carefully worked out. Moreover,
success of watershed management is tied to local governance, public legal and
technical support and the pro-user package of incentives for an effective,
enhanced and sustainable watershed functions.
No comments:
Post a Comment