Watershed management for sustainable water supply

1. Novlloyd Celeste
August 4, 2016

3. Objectives
1. Relationship of Forest and Watershed in Water supply
2. Why Watershed Management?
3. Watershed Services
4. Why invest in Watershed management?
5. Benefits of Watershed Management
6. Watershed Management Policy, Issues and Concerns
7. Approaches in Watershed Management
8. Conclusion

4. Relationship of Forest and Watershed in the
delivery of sustainable water supply
Forest is a major user of water
 Forest and agricultural land greatly affect water quality and flow. Conversion
of forest to other land use affect water quality.
 Land use alter natural hydrologic cycle (Barnes et al 2009)
- Removal of trees increases flood risk which resulted from induced water
discharge. Recent hydrology research shows that forest removal or clear
cutting increases downstream water yields or stream flow(Calder et al 2007)
 tree canopies reduce groundwater and stream flow, through interception of
precipitation and evaporation and transpiration from the foliage.

5. 2. Able to get high water quality
This is achieved through minimization of soil erosion on site,
reduction of sediment in water bodies (wetlands, ponds, lakes,
streams, rivers) and trapping or filtering of other water pollutants in
the forest litter, particularly through the following mechanisms
(Calder et al 2007).
3. Improve water storage capacity, soil infiltration, can also influence
the timing of water delivery

6. Should we cut trees to get more water supply?
NO!
Clearing forest may increase downstream water yield, but it is only
transitory, temporary and short-lived.
It may also posed additional risk like flooding. Then if forest
regrow, the same problem will occur - water scarcity.
It is therefore unsustainable approach to achieve sustainable
water supply. (Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape
2008)

7. Why watershed management?
Watershed Management- the process of guiding and organizing land and other
resource uses in a watershed to provide desired goods and services without
adversely affecting soil, water and other natural resources (DENR Memo Circular
No. 2008-05).
Scientific research shows that watershed management increase water quality.
Sustainable Development Goals (2015- 2030)
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for
all
6.1 by 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable
drinking water for all

8. Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote
sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land
degradation and halt biodiversity loss
15.2 by 2020, promote the
implementation of sustainable management
of all types of forests, halt deforestation,
restore degraded forests, and increase
afforestation and reforestation by x% globally.
Source: facebook.com

9. Watershed Services
Use Values Non-use Values
Productive use - irrigation, domestic,
municipal, industrial, power
generation, fisheries and livestock
raising)
Consumptive and non-consumptive
(e.g. recreation)
Not consumed but preserved for future use
Non marketed goods and services

11. Why do we need to invest in
watershed management?
“The benefits from watersheds cannot be obtained
for free. Watershed management has a financial cost,
which society has to bear.”
– FAO-

12. Benefits from watershed functions
Reliable water supply
Future generation will have water supply
Avoid flood and landslide
Recreation
Livelihood

13. Estimating the Benefits of Watershed Management
Aggregate (total no. of households WTP)
P 1,023,019.00 /mo.
P 12,276,229.00 /yr.
Mean (individuals WTP)
P 49.32 /mo.
P 591.87 /yr.
Source: Celeste, 2010

14. Watershed management policy issues and concerns
Conflicting land-uses and practices within watershed areas
- threatening activities includes firewood gathering, charcoal
making, selling of non-timber and timber products (Wunder, 2005)
which many of the land users practiced in CPHPL (Malabarbas and
Celeste, 2016).
Inappropriate land classification and disposition of watershed areas
Continued encroachment and illegal occupancy
Lack of economic incentives for watershed management and
protection.

15. Lack of social and political considerations in implementing
watershed management programs (Javier, 1999)
- Conflict of interest between upland (tenured migrants) and
lowland settlers (Celeste, 2010)
Limited adoption and institutionalization of the watershed as a
planning unit approach (Javier, 1999)
Reduction of budget allocation for watershed management
Lack of general watershed management plan

16. Approaches for watershed management
 Non market based
Landcare approach - combination of
conservation farming, agroforestry and
natural resource management (Mercado
and Sanchez)
- refers to a group of people who are
concerned about land degradation
problems and interested in working
together

17. Landcare Technologies
Source: Mercado and Sanchez

18. Market based incentives
- Institutional and financial arrangements for
collaborative watershed management
- market-based mechanisms should be developed to
recover the operation costs of watershed management
though PES schemes

19. Service Buyers:
Tourists/ water users/lowland communities
Impacts/benefits
Climate change mitigation, resilience, clean water
Environmental Services (ES) produced
(e.g. watershed protection) Water supply,
Biodiversity, recreation, tourism, etc.
Farming System or Land use Change (e.g.
slash and burn to agroforestry
Service Providers:
Landholders/farmers/upland communities
PaymentMechanism
(e.g.wateruserfee,touristfee,adopter
incentive)
Figure 1. PES framework
Payment for
environmental
services (PES)
Willingness to Accept
Willingness to Pay
Determinants:
Income (compensation)
Land use rights (Fortenbacher, D.,
and Alave, K. 2014)
Share of the forest classified as
productive.” (Lindhjema and
Mitanib, 2012)
Expensive, highly technical and
laborious adoption measures
(Ngilangil, et al 2013).
Financial support for adopting land
use change (Fortenbacher, D., and
Alave, K. 2014)

20. Source: Herminia A. Francisco

21. Payment for Environmental Services
Costa Rica – pioneer in PES scheme
- sellers are private landowners who are contracted to
implement conservation activities, such as reforestation and other
forest management, in exchange for cash payments from buyers such
as hydroelectric companies, among others, that have conservation
interests.
Northwestern Oregon - a local wastewater facility is paying upstream landowners
to plant shade trees along the Tualatin River. Instead of installing refrigeration
systems at two treatment plants—a $35 million expense with additional annual
operating costs—the water utility is investing $6 million in direct landowner
incentives to achieve the same water quality goals (USDA, 2007)

22. Colombia –
the PES scheme involved farmers in the Guabas River who negotiated with upstream
landowners to adopt improved land-use practices for the maintenance of dry-season river
flows.
User fees are collected from downstream farmers as payments for watershed protection
services provided by the upstream farmers.
Maasin Watershed
- Rehabilitate the major source of domestic water for Iloilo City in the Visayas Region amid
growing concern over its fast degradation (Salas)
Balian Watershed (Non-cash payments)
- Downstream residents mobilized themselves and negotiated with the landowners for the
latter to plant trees and, in return, the former would protect these private lands from illegal
encroachment through regular patrol and monitoring activities

23. Mt. Kanlaon Natural Park/La Tondeña Distillery
- Draw water inside the park
- It engaged the local communities in reforestation and forest rehabilitation,
and trained farmers in agro-forestry as payment for the watershed protection
services the farmers provide.
REECS - PES program called the Bayad Kalikasan
- to help promote sustainable management of Philippine forests and
coastal resources by undertaking PES-related research, producing bulletins
and other information materials on PES, and by conducting workshops
other forums

24. Conclusion
 Local financial investments
 Local technical and managerial capacity
 Sound political culture
 Clear national mandates
Water Crisis Act 1995 or RA 8041
Clean Water Act
NIPAS Act
 Balanced approach in watershed management (land use mgt. and
hydrologic cycle)
Successful watershed management approach requires
(Catacutan and Duqueb 2006)

25. Thank You

26. Delia Catacutanb and Caroline Duqueb 2006. Challenges and opportunities in managing Philippine Watersheds: The
case of Manupali watershed in the southern Philippines
FAO. WHy invest in watershed management? Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2007
Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape 2008
Barnes et al 2009, Forests, Water and People: Drinking water supply and forest lands in the Northeast and Midwest
United States, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry 2009
I. Calder, T. Hofer, S. Vermont and P. Warren, Unasylva 229, Vol. 58, 2007
Derek Osborn, Amy Cutter and Farooq Ullah, 2015, UNIVERSAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Understanding the
Transformational Challenge for Developed Countries REPORT OF A STUDY BY STAKEHOLDER FORUM MAY 2015
Joseph R. Makuch . The Role of Trees & Forests in Healthy Watersheds Managing Stormwater, Reducing Flooding, and
Improving Water Quality)