WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING: PRACTICAL

APPROACHES²

T. C. Sheng, Professor
Watershed Management,
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 USA

SUMMARY
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.

INTRODUCTION

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.

CHALLENGES TO WATERSHED PLANNERS

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.

QUICK IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM AREAS

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.

CONSIDERING MANAGEMENT POSSIBILITIES

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.

PLANNING MECHANISMS
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.

DATA COLLECTIONS
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.

FEASIBILITIES, ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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.

FORMULATION OF PLANS
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.

REFERENCES
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.