Community Resource Management in a Tropical Watershed.pdf

8/10/2019 Community Resource Management in a Tropical Watershed.pdf

1/9

Community ResourceManagement a TropicalWatershed A ase Studyt Doracie Zoleta

Using a community watershed as thebasis for managing and developingnatural resources skirts some of thepitfalls of piecemeal development

Uplan d a nd water sh ed a rea s have l ong been seen as reserves for growingpopulations an d as development frontiers. As a result in many tropical countries

the exploitation s destabilizing watershed production systems. In the Philippinesone million hectares of watershed is now degraded. Inland fisheries are subjectedt overfishing agricultural run off mine tailings and industrial an d municipalwaste pollution. In turn these resource use pressures have led t excessive soilloss flooding the drying up of tributaries eutrophication fish kills sedimen-tation species extinction an d the subsequent loss of income.

Most responses to such problems have been technical piecemeal an dfragmented. Usually a fragmented approach reflects a lack of understanding ofhow sy st em co mp on en ts o r adjoining ecosystems funct ion an d interrelate.Fortunately the watershed is a sound uni t for dea ling with resource manage-ment problems as th e case of the Buhi watershed in Buhi Camarines SurPhilippines illustrates.

THE BUHI WATERSHED A SKETCH

The 10 935 hectare Buhi watershed which drains into the 1 800 hectare Lake

Buhi is the source of irrigation for more than 8 000 hectares of agricultural lands. This essay is the winning entrant in WRI s 2nd annual student essay competition

e ST AV/ ./L/ ;SLE O py


2/9

igur

Lake Buhi a nd Its Wa te rs he d

The watershed also meets the domestic an d agricultural water needs of more than10,000 families outside of Buhi. See Figure 1 Buhi s 53,462 residents dependon the watershed for survival.

Some of the resource-use practices employed by the growing population havedestabilized the watershed. Illegal logging, permanent kaingin practices seden

tary slash-and-burn agriculture), tree cutting for fuelwood, an d lack of reforestation have caused serious denudation of the upland Buhi watershed. Today, mostof the watershed s sloping areas are no w bare an d unprotected an d annual soillosses amount to hundreds of metric tons pe r hectare in the steep cultivated lands.The Lake Buhi ecosystem is also deteriorating. Damming the lake outlet,introducing exotic fish species such as Tilapia nilotica an d mossambica motorizingthe traditional fishing technology, an d building up the ne w fishing industry haveaffected lake conditions. And while the lake s sediment content is as high as500 parts per million ppm), lake vegetation is being destroyed by the motorized

E ST AV: fLASLE Opy


3/9

pushnet technology. Overall, the lake s production is dwindling. Even the survivalof the world s smallest commercial fish istichthys luzonensis Smith is at stake.

Buhi s population most of which depends on the watershed for a living isgrowing fast. From 1903 to 1985, rose from 9,692 to 53,462. In 1985, the urban

population was 11,904 most of whom live in upland b r ng ys or villages) whilethe rural populace numbered 41,558. The annual population growth rate is 99;with 59 percent below 9 years of age. While Buhi is an out-migration area ingeneral, migration to the upland areas from the lowland areas is increasing. Bythe year 2000, some 71,054 people are expected to populate the watershed, sodemands upon the natural systems will continue to increase rapidly.

Poverty in Buhi is growing acute. In only twelve upland b r ng ys in the area,some 1,200 cases of second - and third - degree an d 1,000 of first-degreemalnutrit ion were reported among 3,200 children. Perhaps because of thisresource-related poverty, sympathy for the revolutionary New People s Armyis increasing.

HO W UPLAND USE AFFECTS UPLAND RESOURCES

Over the years, slash-and-burn agriculture on slopes of 45 degrees an d morehave, along with heavy downward log-hauling traffic, disturbed th e Buhi water

shed. The soil s erodibility, the land s slope characteristics, frequent heavy rains,usurious interest rates, increasing dependence on cash crops, poor ground cover,increased demand for fuel, an d population increases have only exacerbated theseproblems.

Gradual continued erosion is among the most serious effects of land abuse.Estimates of soil loss in the Buhi area range from 1.2 to 10.1 metric tons per hectareper year on the area s better covered lands to more than a hundred an d possiblyup to several hundred metric tons per hectare per year in the most denuded an d

disturbed areas.Aside from sheet erosion, logging operations have created logging path gulliesof from one centimeter to five meters deep. Half the foot trails once used to haullogs are now impassable.) Erosion also undercuts crop production.

HO W UPLAND USE AFFECTS LAKE RESOURCES

The amount of soil lost to erosion in the Buhi wa te rshed is staggering. A

sediment sample taken by the Philippine s Forest Research Institute at the lake smajor tributaries after an 18-mm rain in 98 revealed a sediment content of at


4/9

Mistichthlls luzonensis Smith rtist A:H. Baldwin of the

U.S. Fish CommissionSource: Division of Fishes,

National Museum of NaturalHistory, Smithsonian

Institution

76

least 500 parts per million ppm). By conservative estimates, 3 metr ic tons ofsoil pe r hectare pe r year or 162,155 tons in all) enter the lake enough to raiseth e lake bottom by on e millimeter pe r year. th e estimated average is 6 metrictons of soi l/ha/yr, as f ishermen in th e area claim it is, the bottom will rise by t\\ omillimeters pe r year.

Am ong th e other noticeable changes in the lake is increasing turbid ity.

. According to Zafaralla et al 1983 ,By November1982, light penetrated down to 100 cm and in May the next year 1cm This declining trend is att1ibuted to the enhanced growth of autotrophic algaeGrowth enhancement is in turn attributed to increasing enrichment ofthe lakc arisillSfrom the combined effectsof the growth of [the use of] fish cages the occurrcncc an unusually prolonged summer and the growth of agriculture in the outlying a r c 1 ~of the sample sites

HO W LAKE USE AFFECTS LAKE RESOURCES

The overuse an d misuse of resources have changed Lake Buhi. Damming tilllake in 1956 kept at least five species of migratory fish ou t forever. C o n s t r u c t i n ~ ~a bigger control s truc ture in 1983 no w appears to have precipitated sulfur up-wellings t ha t h av e killed fish, especially those trapped in fish corrals and c a g l ~T he m ax im um drawdown of water by the control s t r u c t u r ~to irrigate theRinconada Area during the dry months reduced the lake s littoral region, r m p n ~fish-cage production an d depleting th e lake environment s oxygen.

Introducing species, particularly tilapia in 1956, has also caused problems. l 1 H ~


5/9

Female

hardest hit species ha s been sinarapan or tabios M luzonensis . According to local isticizthys luzolletlsis Smithfishermen, when th e tilapia population was booming, the s:narapan populationdeclined. Tilapia c om pe te s with sinarapan for phytoplanktons and also eatssinarapan. Even so, the sinarapan population would still be great but for motorizedpushnets sakag . Using fine mesh nets an d dragging th e bamboo support struc-ture back an d forth uproot the aquatic vegetation Vallisnera sp. in which sinarapanan d other fish lay eggs and hide from predators . In turn dislodged vegetationand upwelled mud increase water turbidity an d reduce light penetration, soproduction falls significantly. Motorized pushnets which catch about 100kilograms of sinarapan in on e operation, are also the vehicles of overharvesting:the sinarapan p op ulat io n h as sunk to a level from which recoverv mav beimpossible. .

Sinarapan is important to most of th e fishing community. Once it was alsoth e cheapest and most readily available protein for th e majority of fishermen,wh o cannot afford to install tilapia fish farms. Considering that fish-farm construc

t ion requires at least Pl OSO OO (U.S. 114.00) as initial capital, depletion of thesinarapan fishery comes as a hard blow to subsistence fishermen, who earn anaverage of P19.00 pe r da y (U.S. 1.36).

As sinarapan populations decline, populations of inn inn Vaimosa dispa andfreshwater shrimp M acrobrachium sp grow. At. p r s ~ n tinn inn a small gobythat ranges in leng th from 20 to 30 mm a n d thIS shnmp are the most commonfish (aside from tilapia available in the town market. The explanation lies thefood chain. Sinarapan an d inn inn have the same food base-phytoplankton. But

*Generic placement of this species is under review.


6/9

unlike sin r p n inn inn can protect itself from possible predators: the male ha sa big mouth in which the eggs are pro tected for th e three-day incubation.

Another observed change n the lake is the thickening water-hyacinth population. These plants can be marketed, but they are allowed to rot in the lake,their decomposition consumes great amounts of oxygen that o ther aquatic an dfishery resources need.

HO W LAKE USE AFFECTS UPLAND RESOURCES

To supplement their very meager earnings, most fishermen have other sourcesof income. Some gather fuelwood. Others ferry logs from the b r ng ys across

to the town proper. Still others cut trees. Some plant rice in low-lying lands nearthe lake. Many wh o do no t ow n lands establish k ingin sites in the uplands toplant camote a root crop , corn, an d other crops. All these activities exert pressureon upland resources. Today, slopes of 3 percent and more are cleared and plantedwith corn, camote, an d cassava.

Fishing itself contributes indirectly to deforestation. The 1,050 fish cages, fishpens, an d more than 150 fish corrals in Lake Buhi are supported by bamboo an dwooden poles that must be changed annually. An average corral requires 4 to

200 bamboo or wooden poles, a fish cage uses four to eight poles, and a fish-pennormally requires thousands. In all, some 14,520 to 20,000 poles are neededannually enough to dep lete the watershed s wood resources unless trees areplanted continuously.

ACTIONS TO DATE

To halt forest destruction, th e Buhi watershed ha s been closed to loggingconcessions an d operations. This ban, however, ha s not been well implemented.Indeed, log hauling is still a common sight.

A somewhat more successfu l effort to pro tect the forests ha s been a jointproject undertaken by th e Philippine s Bureau of Forest Development an d U.S.AID to d ev elo p th e upland area. This project, the Buhi-Lalo Upland Development Pilot Project, involves many farmers in reforestation schemes and in trainingprograms conducted by th e University of the Philippines at Los Banos Programon Environmental Science an d Management. Unfortunately, however, initial

successes were short-lived. A mong o ther problems, some subsistence uplandcultivators an d laborers w ho helped construct graded trails were not p ai d t he


7/9

promised compensat ion. Twice, disgruntled farmers se t fire to one o f th e majortra ining centers . T he t hi rd time, th e facility burned.

Attempts to replenish stocks of sin r p n also failed. In 1976, peop le s t ar t edworrying about th e d is ap pe ar an ce o f t he t ios population. Local authorities

petit ioned t he B ur ea u of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources BFAR), th e Ministryo f N atu ra l Resources MNR , and even th e Office of th e President of th ePhilippines to ban sin r p n collection and motorized pushnets in th e area.Unfortunately, took two years fo r th e BFAR and th e MN R to approve th e bans.By then, the sin r p n ha d all but disappeared.

THE WATER SHED-ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY RESOURCEMANAGEMENT AN D DEVELOPMENT An appraisal of the resource endowments and limitations of the watershed. An analysis of human population dynamics.3. An appraisal and analysis of local people s uses of and demands on the

watershed.4 An appraisal and analysis of outside groups demands on the lake and the

watershed.5. An analysis of the conflicting demands and uses of the watershed dwellers

and outside groups and the identification of ways to deal with them orto reach compromises.

6. An appraisal, analysis, and ranking of the problems besetting the area.7 An analysis of the possible impacts of these problems on the watershed

and the lake over time.8 An appraisal and ranking of possible solutions that could solve the area s

problems.9 A thorough understanding of the legal, institutionaL social, economic,

politicaL an d cultural scenarios in the watershed.10. An assessment of the potentials or prospects for developing the lake and

watershed.11. An appraisal of feasible practical programs and activities that could com

plement each other.12. An appraisal of local people s an d other resource users willingness to

cooperate and affect changes in the watershed.13. An appraisal of local government s efforts and willingness. to initiate,

cooperate, and bring about constructive changes.14. An appraisal of the influences of regional and national policy-makers and

the identification of ways to maximize these efforts through cooperation.15. An appraisal of the benefits and possible problems that would result if the

watershed and lake resources were developed.


8/9

TOWARD MORE EFFECTIVE ACTION

Numerous laws, rules, guidelines, an d regulations have been set and promul

gated both locally an d nationally in the Philippines to deal with resource problems.But conflicting political and economic interests have made i t difficult to executethem an d even their potential effectiveness is open to question given currenteconomic conditions. An approach that may work better is to increase communityawareness of present conditions and more important of current activitiesprobable impacts on th e next generat ion. With a better understanding of theirresource problems, people can collectively solve them an d pressure offendingindividuals an d groups to abandon environmentally unsound activities in favor

of alternative income-generating projects th at h el p rehabilitate th e physicalresource base. At the same t ime, local residents can be organized to pressure th egovernment to regularly an d systematically monitor environmental and socioeconomic conditions.

P er ha ps t he b es t u se of funds in the Buhi area is for implementing projectsto augment local people s income an d enhance th e food supply. o r t w i l ~projects include agroforestry, home gardens, fruit an d forest tree plantations, longterm leases of forest land to th e local people, an d cooperative fish farming. might also m ak e s en se to create a g ro up t ha t w ou ld market the pr odu ce ofsubsistence farmers an d fishermen.

Buhi s problems can b e dealt with m or e effectively if t he who le water sh edis managed as on e development unit an d analyzed as a single functioning system.Experience has shown that the extraction, transformation, and utilization of naturalresources are intimately linked with the human population s social, economic,cultural, an d institutional characteristics. A comprehensive approach dealing withth e systemic characteristics of Buhi watershed an d th e lake could be the onlypractical wa y of resolving resource-management i ssues there . See box.)

The community watershed is t he a pp ro pr ia te focus for managing an ddeveloping a watershed s limited land an d water resources. This approach utilizesthe combined efforts, resources, an d t ime of the area s people, government, an dconcerned public an d private sectors. aims to restore degraded watershed sitesan d maintain th e system s productivity an d sustainability, develop an d harnesswatershed resource potentials, or some combination of these. Th e ultimate goalis to keep the system s capacity for resource production adequate an d to improveth e lives of those wh o depend directly on th e system for survival.

In Buhi, development programs have so far been designed to solve only asingle problem in the uplands or a single p robl em in th e aquatic areas. Yet, thewatershed an d th e lake resources have great potential for development if they


9/9

are viewed.as interconnected nd interacting components of a whole productivesystem. the two adjoining ecosystems were seen as on e large system resourcem n gement nd development w ou ld b e more workable nd effective.

Other ways to better manage development include the more efficient handling

of development funds efforts to demonstr te possible development benefits tolocal people so as to garner their confidence nd participation nd projectarrangements whereby local authorities are empowered to act on local problemsinvolving local resources especially in resource-protection schemes. Moregenerally a comprehensive focussed nd pragmat ic approach to intricateresource problems s a necessity.

s Buhi s case makes clear the resource conditions in a production systemcan best be improved through three mechanisms. First is n inven tory of the

resource system s capabilities. Second is n underst nding of the area s limitations nd development prospects nd of the interrelations mong the resourceusers growth needs nd techniques nd the socio-economic nd institutionalsettings over time. Third the combined efforts of people government nd otherconcerned groups are essential. Without all three a pragmatic resource development program won t become a reality.

DOR IE ZOLET is a Research Intern at the nvironment and Policy nstituteof the East West Center an affiliate of WRI.

Documents

Community Resource Management in a Tropical Watershed.pdf