در چند پست قبل ، مطلبی تحت عنوان" معرفی کتاب آنلاین" در وبلاگ نوشته شد.
به اطلاع می رساند که این کتاب تحت عنوان "مدیریت اکولوژیک چرای دام در مراتع" توسط
دکتر فاضل امیری و دکتر حسین ارزانی ترجمه و توسط انتشارات دانشگاه آزاد چاپ شده است.
Review participants found that in watershed management, there are still large gaps between science and practical expertise, theory and practice, and desire for collaboration with stakeholders and capacity to manage such collaboration. A practical approach to information gathering, information sharing and information use for pluralist decision-making is needed.
Action-research is also known as adaptive, collaborative, interactive, pluralist or participatory research. It focuses on subjects that reflect local priorities and aims to identify site-specific solutions that can be shared (or at least accepted) by all stakeholders.
To this end, action-research addresses watershed management processes in the context of the existing productive systems, social institutions and cultures. Local views should be gathered, discussed and, when appropriate, compared with relevant scientific knowledge and policy orientations. In this way, action-research promotes a two-way cross-cultural learning process through which expert knowledge is adapted to local environmental and socio-cultural conditions, while local knowledge is enhanced and strengthened by scientific understanding of the issues at stake. Action-research is a multi-stakeholder learning process.
Most government or donor-funded watershed management programmes follow a clearly defined project logical framework specifying what is to be achieved and how. Objectives, outputs and activities are defined during the identification and formulation phase, and are normally based on limited information and superficial consultation with local stakeholders. Although project documents can be revised and amended, the general structure of the logical framework is maintained throughout the life of the project. Timing is also determined in advance, which puts managers under constant pressure to deliver.
This planning format is not compatible with the new approach to watershed management, which requires greater flexibility and long-term planning processes. Different temporal and spatial scales are to be considered, and some degree of uncertainty is to be accepted. Collaborative watershed management programmes should be long-term and planned progressively, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Decision-making should be supported by a steady flow of sound information on both process performance and outcomes.
The relationships among such programmes, local institutions and civil society should be ones of subsidiarity, i.e., the programme should act only on those issues that local government, civil society or private actors cannot deal with themselves. Further differences between watershed management delivered under a project format and that facilitated through a subsidiary programme can be summarized as follows.
Watershed management delivered under a project format |
Watershed management facilitated through a subsidiary programme |
Logical framework-based, planning defined in detail at the beginning of the project, with only minor adjustments allowed during implementation |
Strategic planning with major impact objectives defined in advance; secondary outcomes, outputs and activities identified during the run of the service |
Short-term, intensive presence in the watershed (normally five to ten years) |
Long-term presence, with variable degrees of intensity according to needs |
Primarily responsive to donors and government |
Primarily responsive to local government and civil society |
Priorities often driven by outsiders’ criteria, including delivery pressure |
Priorities primarily driven by insiders’ problems: conflicts, negotiation, fundraising, etc. |
Limited responsibility for fundraising |
Active involvement in fundraising |
Services provided on an all-inclusive, “full-board” basis |
Services subsidiary to stakeholders’ initiatives and resources, and delivered on a cost-recovery basis |
Requires an appropriate exit strategy to ensure that achievements are sustainable |
Sustainability is built day by day |
Revisiting the watershed concept in the light of a more refined view of the interaction among ecological, human and economic-political factors led review participants to challenge some of the foundations on which watershed management has been based for the last 20 years.
Watersheds provide human societies with many goods and services, such as clean water, erosion control, carbon sequestration and conservation of biodiversity. Unlike those of timber, livestock products or minerals, however, the value of these goods and services is rarely expressed in monetary terms. These goods and services are known as “public goods” or “positive externalities”.
The concept of public goods implies that one person’s consumption of a good does not diminish another person’s consumption (non-rivalry) and does not bar anyone else from benefiting from the good (non-exclusion). Watershed-generated environmental public goods include regulation of water flow and quality, sediment delivery and maintenance of landscape beauty.
An externality is a value of a commodity that is not reflected in that commodity’s market price. For example, the value of a forest in controlling stream-bank erosion and sediment load in a river is not reflected in the market price of the forest land, neither is the value of a highland swamp in recharging an aquifer reflected in its price.
Markets fail to recognize the value of watershed public goods and externalities because there are no incentives for beneficiaries to pay providers. As any payment to improve a good or service will benefit all beneficiaries, it is rational for each beneficiary to wait and see whether others will make an investment that improves access to the service. This is a “free-rider strategy”: if all beneficiaries adopt it, the good or service will not be supplied.
However, society generally attaches a high value to the positive externalities of watershed landscapes and will take action to guarantee that they are provided for and conserved. This is the primary justification for the public funding of watershed management programmes. Many countries have laws regulating access to and use of watersheds, but these are often inefficient and difficult to implement.
Efforts have recently been made to create markets for watershed externalities. Under such payment schemes, the beneficiaries of externalities or services pay the providers. This transforms an externality into a tangible income for service providers.
Most people live in watershed or river basin ecosystems that have been moulded to human needs throughout history. With the exception of a few residual and strictly protected areas, the ecology of most watersheds is in many ways human-made.
Four main factors should be considered in appraising watershed human ecology: local population dynamics, local livelihood systems, external interests, and policies, norms and laws (Figure 1). Interactions among these factors largely determine a watershed’s environmental conditions at a given time.
Figure 1
Population dynamics are changes in the number and socio-economic composition of the people living in a given area. They include changes to the balance between births and deaths (“natural growth”), and in- and outmigration.
Local livelihood systems are the most direct link between the human population and the watershed natural resources. They comprise the assets, strategies, norms and institutions that allow households to make a living and reproduce within a particular natural and political environment.
The socio-economic importance of watershed ecosystems goes far beyond local residents’ interests. External actors such as the nation State and decentralized governance units (departments, districts, municipalities, etc.) are the most prominent external actors in watershed human ecology. Global markets and international institutions have become increasingly important in determining access to and use of watershed natural resources over the last 50 years.
States and international agreements regulate access, tenure and use of watershed resources through policies, norms and laws. These regulations may have major implications on in- and outmigration dynamics and livelihood systems, and often play a crucial role in shaping the human ecology of the watershed.
Read the case study >>> Agricultural frontier and demographic transition in the Upper Morona-Santiago watersheds .
The interplay among land topography, vegetation cover (particularly forest cover) and water flows has been the core focus of watershed research and management for the last 20 years. However, some studies and experiences presented by review participants challenge the common wisdom about interactions among these factors. For instance:
The impact of land use and vegetation cover on water flows varies significantly with the type of land use, size of the watershed, climate, soil characteristics, topography, geology, etc. In the past, the need to take into account the specific characteristics of each situation was frequently overlooked. This led to overgeneralizations and oversimplifications in policy-making and practice.
Read the case study:
Himalayan deforestation and downstream floods .
Would you like to know more? Go through the forest hydrology briefing
