Watershed Governance & Management in Pakistan-4 : Post # 5

Concepts of  Governance at Different levels in the Literature

A governance system is a complex package of policies, programs and institutions which, in concert, are intended to provide a specific outcome. The outcomes chosen involve fundamental decisions about how, why and by whom decisions are made, the direction, type and scope of information flows, the responsibilities of economic, community and public sectors, and how activities are encouraged, monitored and enforced.  Addressing the underlying causes of resource competition requires changing the fundamental ground rules that define who is involved in making resource management decisions, what powers these different actors exercise, and how they are held accountable for their decisions. Such innovations in governance are important largely because they are systemic, altering the underlying systems and relationships in which resource management decisions are made.

Moving from overall concept of governance to more specific like water governance, our brief about groundwater management present its different definitions as: “Water governance has been defined as the political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources and delivery of services at different levels of society (GWP, 2003) or, as described by Moench et al. (2003), water governance is the set of systems that control decision-making with regard to water resource development and management. Hence, water governance is much more about the way in which decisions are made (i.e. how, by whom, and under what conditions decisions are made) than the decisions themselves.”

Watershed governance is a subset of water governance. It includes the institutional and legal shift toward ecologically-based water allocations, ecosystem-based land and water use decisions, comprehensive demand management and soft path approaches. The overarching goal of watershed governance is to provide alternatives to current systems of water governance and planning that are focused too narrowly on water in isolation from its broader interactions across sectors and within the ecosystem.

Functional watershed governance is essentially an environment created to sustain and enhance watershed functions. What are those potential watershed functions that are to be sustained and enhanced? Generally, the following five watershed functions are considered important:

1.      It collects water from rainfall;

2.      It stores water of various amounts and for different times;

3.      It releases water as runoff;

4.      It provides diverse sites for chemical reactions to take place; and

5.      It provides habitat for flora and fauna.

The first three functions are physical in nature and are termed hydrologic functions. The last two are the ecological functions. Human activities affect all the functions of a watershed. For example, when buildings and other impervious areas such as cemented court yards, streets and other similar structures cover the ground, infiltration decreases and most of the water runs off into collection ditches where stream channel erosion may occur. Furthermore, reduced infiltration may result in less recharge of the groundwater stored in aquifers which supply most of Pakistan’s drinking needs. With both urban and agricultural land uses, chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides can mix with rain entering the soil and may reach groundwater, causing pollution of public and private wells.

 Obviously, for managing such watershed functions on sustainable basis, we need to have managerial conditions, actions and results. However, to do so, most important is the availability of conducive environment, policies, programs and institutional arrangements in place and functional to allow and implements decisions for watershed management. This stated conditional points to have a functional watershed governance system to sustain and enhance watershed functions. In other words, if we are facing crisis in the management of our different river watersheds, it is essentially then the crisis of watershed governance that is the root-cause of this problem. The watershed governance is only the subset of water governance and then everything comes under overall governance in the country.

 While discussing various governance systems, it is important to note that the watershed governance systems have a number of characteristics that set them apart from the other governance systems. For one, they often seek to give priority to non-human beneficiaries (i.e. plants and animals). In addition, they often seek to bank (save) and redistribute environmental benefits to future generations of people. Further, unlike many policy arenas (include issues such as health care), they typically give science strong voice in agenda setting and evaluation. Finally, they tend to require more comprehensive and integrated responses than other policy issues because watershed health is typically threshold bound and not attainable through incremental steps (e.g. 90 percent of what is necessary to prevent drinking water contamination and fish extinction may still constitute failure).

Watershed Governance & Management in Pakistan-3

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.

Watershed Governance & Management in Pakistan - 2

Catchment Areas for Different Rivers in Pakistan

In Pakistan, like many other countries, proper watershed management is essentially portrayed a phenomenon for the downstream benefits only. Generally, watershed management is confined to the following two main reasons: (i) to reduce the sedimentation rates of reservoirs, and (ii) to slow the rate rainwater enters the river thus reducing flood peaks and enhancing the winter flows. Of course, these are crucial factors for the downstream beneficiaries but how can such statements motivate the inhabitants of a watershed without direct benefits for them? When watershed management is considered to be an integration of human, land and water resources; the dominant objective of any watershed program must be the well-being of local users so that they can play effective role in sustaining and enhancing all potential watershed functions.

We feel that our watershed management is a serious mess at present time because of lack of serious efforts and if some programs were designed to improve watershed conditions, they did not have sufficient built-in incentives for the local watershed inhabitants or users. When nothing positive can be expected without the willing and sustained cooperation and participation of the watershed users, it does not make sense not to include all relevant incentives that are essential for creating favorable conditions to ensure better livelihood of the watershed users through improved land and water resources. Once a watershed governance and management is developed through willing participation and based on the well-being of the local users, crucial factors for the downstream beneficiaries like less reservoirs’ sedimentation and change in flow pattern will automatically happen. This will apply to all other advantages that are associated with improved watershed management. So, we need to change our strategy; avoid putting the cart before the horse; instead, let the horse to take its right position to make things work.

Geographically, Pakistan has little control over the catchment areas of three eastern rivers; Sutlej, Ravi, and Chenab. There are no dams in Pakistan on these rivers and also the flows to Pakistan are controlled by India. Hence, Pakistan does not lose much by not having control in the catchment areas of these rivers. 

However, the issues regarding two western rivers; Jhelum and Indus are serious. Two major dams, Mangla and Tarbela—the life line of Pakistan both for irrigation and power generation are located on these rivers. About 31.2 % of the catchment area of the Jhelum River lies in Pakistan and rest (68.80 %) is located within disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Sixty percent of the catchment area of the Indus River is located in Pakistan and rest of the watershed lies in Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir (15%), China (10%), India (7%) and Afghanistan (7%). In case of the Chenab River, Pakistan has only 9.1 % catchment area and rest of the watershed part lies either under the Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir or within Indian own borders. 

As far as the catchments areas located in other countries or their administered territories, Pakistan may not have enough leverage to get watershed measures implemented there. Luckily, major catchment areas of these two dams are in Pakistan where there is considerable scope for improvement.

Mangla Dam, commissioned in 1967 has lost 20% of its live storage which has been compensated by raising of dam completed in 2011. Tarbela Dam was commissioned in 1976 with a gross storage capacity of 11.62 MAF. With an annual silt load of 430 million tons, it has serious sedimentation problems, lost about 47% of its storage capacity by 2005 and is losing about 0.12 MAF of its live storage every year. In order to avoid clogging of power tunnels, the delta formed by deposited sediments in the reservoir is being kept away by raising the dead storage level which has resulted in further reduction of live storage. And, there is no provision in design for raising of Tarbela Dam and the only alternative to compensate for reduced storage would be to construct another multi-billion dollar dam.

And let’s not forget about 68 small and medium dams (the referred figure includes 50 small dams with total capacity of only 0.311 MAF as reported by FAO/ Aqua-stat data of 2009) in Punjab, KPK, and Baluchistan provinces with a total storage capacity of about 5.59 MAF (Roohi, 2006) whose catchment areas are totally in Pakistan and because of their widely spread locations, improved watershed management in catchment areas of these dams will have much wider benefits and environmental impact. In addition, there are 1600 mini dams  with total storage capacity of 0.03 MAF (FAO, 2009) with small catchment areas that can easily be identified within the vicinity of these mini dams.

Watershed Governance & Management in Pakistan-1

With the climatic change phenomenon being a fact of life, we do expect floods to increase in the near future due to excessive glacier-melt & erratic but intensive rainfalls in the watershed areas & beyond. Every year in Pakistan, we face the same incidents, we suffer huge losses of life and property, do hardly anything to prevent floods and then wait for the next year for the same kind of calamity. What a vicious cycle that we got in.

Our national leadership being from the vocal & organized urban setting, there is hardly any real concern about the loss of valuable lives & the destruction in the rural sector what to speak of preventing the flood-water,  a blessing if conserved in a water-short country, to remain a permanent bane for us. If any doubt about this observation, just look at the party manifestos issued before the recent general elections, hardly this issue was even mentioned; committing to a solution package, it would be just expecting too much anyway.

Deteriorating watershed conditions are further aggravating the situation that the climatic change brings in for us to face. An effective one way to lower the impacts of extreme consequences of the referred happening, floods & droughts, is to ensure watershed management. For such desired management to succeed, there has to an effective watershed governance. In a country with all institutions in place, the national governance is just next to nothing; how can we expect a good news from the water sector where hardly serious attention has been paid to even conceive an effective water governance structure? 
  
Moreover, Pakistan's 75% renewable water resources originate from the foreign lands, India & Afghanistan. Having not-so-friendly relationships with the both countries, it is hard to initiate any joint efforts to govern & manage the respective watershed regions of different rivers to allow maximum seepage of snow & rainwater in the ground to minimize the incidents of  floods/ flash floods. 

Unfortunately, the trans-boundary watersheds are located where an unrest & insurgency abound. This is another factor that has made things bad to worse. Our watersheds were already in bad shape because of illegal logging in connivance with the corrupt officials, dependence on wood-use for cooking and warming rooms by the inhabitants of the regions, with no watershed governance put in place and criminal negligence by all concerned entities. However, with the onslaught of sharia-brigade, there is no will & writ left to set things right even within the watershed regions that fall within Pakistan.

So, the on going extremism / terrorism is clearly linked & impacting upon our water resources in creating both acute flooding as well as acute drought conditions. If flooding results because of not enough time & space for water to seep into the ground to minimize over-surface flows; droughts happens when river flows drop to 15 % in winters and there is no significant contributions from  the seeping water in the ground or the water storage facilities on-ground. 

To be continue------        

Brief History of Water Dispute between India & Pakistan

Many people are still stuck in the past and blame US, World Bank and India for pressurizing Pakistan to accept an unfair Indus Water Treaty in 1960. After 53 years of the agreement, does it matter if the treaty was fair or unfair? Our professional & politicians have to move on and present people new ideas to live within the available & agreed water resources instead bemoaning about something that is done deal. Moreover, whether this deal was good or bad, all civilized nations have to honor their commitments made with all stakeholders and international guarantors.

However, it does not mean that the treaty was as -per the international water laws. As a matter of fact, upper riparian and dominant regional power was calling all kind of shots as almost all Pakistani rivers originated from the foreign lands. 

Had Pakistan took this issue with a tribunal established in 1947 to decide about the joint assets/ resources till 31st march 1948, we might have secured a better deal. By missing the referred avenue to settle water issue with India, the present Pakistan was left at mercy of the Indian up-stream control & manipulations. Came April 1. 1948, many canals originating from Indian Punjab went dry. Indian squeezed unpleasant concessions to reopen those canals because of the desperate situation that existed in Pakistani Punjab. 

When negotiations got stuck, US/ World Bank played a role that helped to have serious engagement between India and Pakistan on the trans-boundary transaction of river flows. India had all the cards in hand and hence insistence on the international laws on established water rights went no where and finally it was dropped. 

When there two civil service officers heading their respective delegations, both sides agreed to a settlement but later India changed its position. Had this settlement been accepted, Pakistan would have kept its two rivers, The Sutlej & Ravi, not as remnants of past rivers like Hakra. 

In a way, division of water resources has been almost proportional to the size of the Indus Basin in India & Pakistan. However, this proportional division was not based on the quantity from each river but division of rivers themselves. India got full rights on the Sutlej, Ravi & Beas and Pakistan got full rights to the remaining three western rivers called the Indus, Jhelum & Chenab with some riders. 

Without quibbling over already established water rights as per the international laws, within the bind that Pakistan was in, still the treaty kept Pakistan afloat. One unfair aspect of the treaty is that Indian side sought & got additional rights like irrigation water, hydro-power generation using run-of-the-river projects, etc., within Indian administered Kashmir but there was no allowances either debated or agreed for mitigating environmental consequences along the Sutlej & Ravi rivers. Perhap blame of this goes to the negotiators if they did not raise this issue or the high-handedness of President Gen.Ayub Khan & his minister for fuel & natural resources, Zulifqar Ali Bhutto, who forced & agreed to sign the Indus Water treaty in 1960 without seeking such minimum provision.