Integrated Watershed Management In The Bolivian Andes

MSc thesis by Basile Henry

August 2016

Soil Physics and

Land Management

Integrated Watershed Management In The Bolivian Andes

How To Trigger Long-Term Adoption At Micro-Catchment Level Under The National

Watershed Plan?

II

Integrated Watershed Management In The Bolivian Andes: How To Trigger Long-Term Adoption At Micro-Catchment Level Under The National Watershed Plan? Master thesis Soil Physics and Land Management Group submitted

in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in International Land and Water Management at Wageningen

University, the Netherlands

Study program: MSc International Land and Water Management Student registration number: 920706327060 SLM-80336 Supervisors: Dr. Aad Kessler (Wageningen University) Pr. Aurore Degré (Liège University) Ir. Jaime Huanca (Bolivian Ministry of Environment and Water) Examinator: Prof. Coen Ritsema Date: 31/08/2016 Soil Physics and Land Management Group, Wageningen University

III

Integrated watershed management in the Bolivian Andes: How to trigger long-term adoption at micro-

catchment level under the National Watershed Plan?

Sustainability analysis of two micro-catchments

Master Thesis by Basile Henry

IV

Abstract Land degradation is threatening Humanity worldwide. Arable land potential is decreasing hence

enhancing food insecurity risks in the future. The phenomenon is intense in the Bolivian highlands, subjected to strengthened climatic variability inducing desertification and water erosion processes. The National Watershed Plan (PNC) has been promoted by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to prevent and reverse these processes. Its goal is to boost environmental but also socio-economic resilience. A lot of work has been done at micro-catchment level, the chosen scale to address water and land management practices. Many projects have been implemented with an integrated watershed management (IWM) approach for more than twenty years. Nowadays, the PNC seeks to implement IWM but in a more sustainable way thanks to local socio-political empowerment.

For this study a field survey was realized in two micro-catchments where IWM projects have been implemented for more than eight years. Interviews to farmers and PNC projects’ executives have been conducted and soil and water conservation (SWC) measures have been assessed on field. The overall IWM dynamic was analyzed at all levels from economic, environmental, political and social perspective. In both watersheds concrete IWM mechanisms have been observed but they need further support, especially in environmental and political themes. A successful example of SWC measure implementation has been found in both study areas: The use of small earth dams (atajados) in one and the implementation of sprinkling irrigation in the other. These are measures with a direct impact on local farmers’ livelihood allowing their early motivation and implication. Consequently any IWM program should better match environmental issues with farmer’s needs. This approach will stimulate local collaboration and ensure long-term adoption of sustainable practices.

Key-words: watershed, integrated management, soil and water conservation measures, adoption, sustainability, Bolivian policies, land degradation, social management, local empowerment

Résumé La dégradation des sols menace l’Humanité à l’échelle mondiale. Le potentiel de terres arables

diminue, augmentant les risques d’une future insécurité alimentaire. Le phénomène est intense dans les hauts-plateaux Boliviens, sujets à une variabilité climatique grandissante induisant des processus d’érosion hydrique et de désertification. Le Plan National des Bassins Versants (PNC) a été promu par l’Etat Plurinational de Bolivie afin de prévenir et inverser ces processus de façon à stimuler la résilience environnementale et socio-économique. Beaucoup de travail a été accompli au niveau des micro-bassins, l’échelle choisie pour s’attaquer aux pratiques de gestion des sols et des eaux. Depuis plus de vingt ans, l’approche de gestion intégrée de bassins versants a été développée à travers de multiples projets. Aujourd’hui, le PNC cherche à implémenter cette même approche de façon plus durable, grâce à l’émancipation socio-politique locale.

Durant cette étude, une enquête de terrain a été réalisée dans deux micro-bassins où des projets de gestion intégrée se sont déroulés depuis plus de huit ans. Une série d’interviews aux fermiers et exécutifs des projets du PNC a été menée, complémentée par une évaluation sur le terrain des mesures de conservation des sols et des eaux (CSE). La dynamique générale de gestion intégrée a été observée à

V

travers une perspective économique, environnementale, politique et sociale. L’établissement de méthodes concrètes de gestion dans les deux micro-bassins a été constaté, malgré le besoin d'un support accru dans les domaines environnementaux et politiques. Un exemple de succès d’implémentation de mesures de CSE a été remarqué dans chacune des zones d’études. L’utilisation de petits barrages en terre (atajados) dans l’un et la mise en place d’irrigation par aspersion dans l’autre. Ces mesures ont un impact positif direct sur les moyens de subsistance des fermiers locaux entrainant une motivation et mobilisation précoce de leur part. En conséquence tout programme de gestion intégrée devrait mieux adapter les problèmes environnementaux aux besoins des fermiers. Cette approche stimulera la collaboration locale et assurera l’adoption à long-terme des pratiques de gestion durable.

Mots-clés: bassin versant, gestion intégrée, mesures de conservation des sols et des eaux, adoption, durabilité, politiques Boliviennes, dégradation des sols, gestion sociale, émancipation locale

Resumen La degradación de los suelos es una amenaza nivel mundial ya que el potencial de tierras arables

disminuye, aumentando los riesgos de inseguridad alimentaria en el futuro. El fenómeno se intensifica en el altiplano Boliviano, debido a una variabilidad climática en aumento que induce procesos de erosión hídrica y desertificación. El Plan Nacional de Cuencas (PNC) fue promovido por el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia para prevenir y revertir esos procesos con el fin aumentar la resiliencia del medio ambiente y de los aspectos socioeconómicos. Mucho trabajo se logró a nivel de micro-cuenca, la escala elegida para trabajar sobre las prácticas de gestión de suelos y aguas. Desde más de veinte años, el enfoque de manejo integral de cuencas (MIC) fue desarrollado a través de múltiplos proyectos. Hoy día, el PNC intenta aplicar el mismo enfoque de manera más sostenible gracias al empoderamiento sociopolítico local.

Para este estudio se ha realizado una encuesta a campo en dos microcuencas donde se han ejecutado proyectos de manejo integral de cuencas (MIC) durante ocho años. Se ha logrado entrevistas a los campesinos y a los executivos de los proyectos del PNC así como una evaluación a campo de las medidas de conservación de suelos y aguas (CSA). La dinámica general de MIC se ha observado a todos niveles desde una perspectiva económica, medio-ambiental, política y social. Se ha constatado un establecimiento de métodos concretos de gestión en ambos microcuencas a pesar de la necesidad de apoyo futuro en temas ambiental i institucional. Se ha remarcado un ejemplo de éxito de la implementación de medidas de CSA en ambos zonas de estudio. La utilización de atajados en la primera zona i la implementación de riego por aspersión en la segunda zona. Esas medidas atestiguan de un beneficio directo sobre la subsistencia económica de los campesinos locales permitiendo su motivación y movilización inicial. En consecuencia cualquier plan de MIC debería adaptar mejor los problemas ambientales con las necesidades de los campesinos. Este enfoque fomentará la colaboración local y permitirá la adopción a largo plazo de las prácticas de gestión sostenible.

Palabras clave: cuenca, manejo integral, medidas de conservación de suelos y aguas, adopción, sostenibilidad, políticas de Bolivia, degradación de suelos, gestión social, empoderamiento local

VI

Table of content Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. IV

Résumé .................................................................................................................................................. IV

Resumen ................................................................................................................................................. V

Table of content ..................................................................................................................................... VI

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... IX

List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... XI

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................ XII

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

II. Background .................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Land degradation and water scarcity in the Bolivian Andes ..................................................... 2

A. Land degradation definition and types ................................................................................. 2

B. Climate of the Bolivian Andes ............................................................................................... 2

C. Process, causes and perception of land and water degradation .......................................... 3

D. Need for an integrated approach to tackle land degradation .............................................. 5

2. Watershed management approach: politico-historical context ............................................... 5

A. The neoliberal era .................................................................................................................. 5

B. Transition Years ..................................................................................................................... 6

C. The National Watershed Plan ................................................................................................ 7

D. The pedagogical watershed approach .................................................................................. 8

III. Research framework ..................................................................................................................... 9

1. Problem statement and research objectives ............................................................................ 9

2. Study areas ................................................................................................................................ 9

A. Guardaña pedagogical watershed ......................................................................................... 9

B. Tiquipaya pedagogical watershed ....................................................................................... 10

3. Conceptual framework ............................................................................................................ 11

A. Soil and Water Conservation measures .............................................................................. 11

B. Farmer’s adoption of SWC ................................................................................................... 11

C. IWRM and sustainability of watershed’s project ................................................................ 13

4. Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 14

5. Data collection ......................................................................................................................... 15

VII

6. Data analysis ............................................................................................................................ 16

7. Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 17

IV. Sustainability of integrated management in Guardaña watershed ............................................ 18

1. Environmental ......................................................................................................................... 18

A. Land use systems and irrigation practices ........................................................................... 18

B. Watershed project’s environmental measures ................................................................... 20

C. Sustainable use of natural resources .................................................................................. 28

2. Social ........................................................................................................................................ 30

A. Context and issues ............................................................................................................... 30

B. Empowerment of farmers and leaders ............................................................................... 30

C. OGC empowerment ............................................................................................................. 32

3. Economic ................................................................................................................................. 36


B. Costs and benefits to the farmer ......................................................................................... 37

C. Perception and valuation of watershed services ................................................................ 38

4. Political .................................................................................................................................... 40

A. Stakeholder analysis ............................................................................................................ 40

B. Institutional Coordination and Integration ......................................................................... 41

V. Sustainability of integrated management in Thola P’ujru watershed ........................................ 43

1. Environmental ......................................................................................................................... 43

A. Land use systems and irrigation practices ........................................................................... 43

B. Watershed’s project environmental measures ................................................................... 44

C. Sustainable Use of Natural Resources ................................................................................. 45

2. Social ........................................................................................................................................ 47


B. Empowerment of farmers and leaders ............................................................................... 47

C. OGC empowerment ............................................................................................................. 48

3. Economics ................................................................................................................................ 49


B. Cost and Benefits to the farmer .......................................................................................... 49

C. Perception and valuation of watershed services ................................................................ 50

4. Political .................................................................................................................................... 51

VIII


B. Institutional Coordination and Integration ......................................................................... 51

VI. Compared results ........................................................................................................................ 53

1. Environmental analysis ............................................................................................................ 53

2. Social analysis .......................................................................................................................... 55

3. Economic analysis .................................................................................................................... 57

4. Political analysis ....................................................................................................................... 59

5. General analysis ....................................................................................................................... 61

VII. Discussion on global sustainability .............................................................................................. 63

1. Key conditions of sustainability ............................................................................................... 63

2. Sustainable use of natural resources ...................................................................................... 64

3. Social empowerment............................................................................................................... 65

4. Economic development ........................................................................................................... 66

5. Institutional integration and coordination .............................................................................. 68

VIII. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 70

1. Adoption of SWC measures by farmers .................................................................................. 70

2. Sustainable IWM ..................................................................................................................... 71

3. Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 71

IX. References ................................................................................................................................... 73

X. Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 79

Annex 1 Questionnaire for local farmer and OGC executive .................................................................. 1

Annex 2 Questionnaire for executive of the PNC ................................................................................... 9

Annex 3: Sustainability Note from Helvetas ......................................................................................... 14

Annex 4: Indicator description table and references ........................................................................... 32

IX

List of Figures Figure 1: Cachi Cachi riverbank erosion (Author, 2016) ......................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Structure of the actual Ministry of Environment and Water (Pando et al. 2012) ................... 7 Figure 3: Watershed management scales and level under the PNC-second phase (MMAyA 2014b) .... 8 Figure 4: Four sustainability fields and main components of investigation to analyze IWRM and IWM

(Saavedra, 2016) .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Information gathered during field survey. (Author, 2016) .................................................... 15 Figure 6 : Information gathered during executive interviews (Author, 2016) ..................................... 16 Figure 7: Indicators rating legend (Author, 2016) ................................................................................ 17 Figure 8: Elevation map of Guardaña catchment and classification per major land cover (MMAyA -

VRHR 2012) .................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 9: Grazing llamas on Cañaviri community highlands. Scarce vegetation with low bushes

(Author, 2016) ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 10: Temporary water pumping for horticulture crop in Cachi Cachi community. Signs of

riverbank erosion (Author, 2016) ................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 11: Atajado built in Umitri community. Earth dam with spillover way, cleaning tube and

irrigation tube. (Author, 2016) .................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 12: List of soil and water conservation measures implemented in Guardaña watershed ........ 22 Figure 13: Bijiña built in Cañaviri community in order to increase water availability for llamas and

wild animals (Author, 2016) ........................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 14: Positioning and water levels of sampled atajados in Guardaña catchment (Author, 2016) 24 Figure 15: Atajado built by Helvetas in Mojon Pampa community. Left: water level in 2015, rainy

year. Right: water level in 2016, dry year. (Author, 2016) .......................................................................... 25 Figure 16: Stone ditch damaged by water erosion causing rill formation and soil loss. Lack of

maintenance. (Author, 2016) ...................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 17: Afforestation efforts in Cañaviri (left, 4260m) and Guardaña (right, 3900m) communities.

..................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 18: Collapsing gabions near riverbanks. Successive gabion constructions on top of the other

(left), gabion sagged by water (right) (Author, 2016) ................................................................................. 27 Figure 19: Riverbank protection with willow plantations. Individual Salix viminalis plantations in

Mojon Pampa community (left). Communal Salix babylonica plantations in Caracollito community (right). (Author, 2016) ............................................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 20: Perception of farmers about their future needs (Author, 2016) ......................................... 28 Figure 21: Hierarchical structure of local authorities in Guardaña watershed (OGC Guardaña 2015) 32 Figure 22: Analysis of IWM benefits and costs for local farmers at short and long term (Author, 2016)

..................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 23: Active water contamination by a mining corporation located at the outskirt of the micro-

catchment boundary, under Cochabamba's jurisdiction. (Author, 2016)................................................... 39 Figure 24: Elevation map of Thola P'ujru catchment and classification per major land cover (Veliz,

2016) ............................................................................................................................................................ 43

X

Figure 25: Gabion used as hydric control to reduce water speed and catch sediments (Author, 2016) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 26: List of soil and water conservation measures implemented in Thola P’ujru watershed (SDC 2012) ............................................................................................................................................................ 45

Figure 27: Direct and indirect benefits to Thola P'ujru community from the implementation of SWC measures under PNC projects. (Author, 2016) ........................................................................................... 50

Figure 28: Radar graph of environmental indicators rating for Guardaña and Thola P'ujru watersheds (Author, 2016) (see Annex 4 for indicators description) ............................................................................. 53

Figure 29: Environmental sustainability conditions and indicators (Author, 2016) ............................. 54 Figure 30: Radar graph of socio-cultural indicators rating for Guardaña and Thola P'ujru watersheds

(Author, 2016) ............................................................................................................................................. 55 Figure 31: Socio-cultural sustainability conditions and indicators (Author, 2016) ............................... 56 Figure 32: Radar graph of economic indicators rating for Guardaña and Thola P'ujru watersheds

(Author, 2016) ............................................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 33: Economic sustainability conditions and indicators (Author, 2016) ..................................... 58 Figure 34: Radar graph of politico-institutional indicators rating for Guardaña and Thola P'ujru

watersheds (Author, 2016). ........................................................................................................................ 59 Figure 35: Politico-institutional sustainability conditions and indicators (Author, 2016) .................... 60 Figure 36: Medium ratings per sustainability field (Author, 2016) ...................................................... 61 Figure 37: Guardaña and Thola P'ujru mean scores based on main sustainability components defined

(Author, 2016) ............................................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 38: Four sustainability fields and their twelve conditional components toward sustainable

IWM (Author, 2016) .................................................................................................................................... 63

XI

List of Acronyms

CEP: Constitución del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (Bolivian constitution)

COSUDE: Coopération Suisse au Développement (Swiss Development Cooperation)

CPP: Cuencas Pedagogicas Programa (Pedagogical Watershed Program)

GAD: Gobierno Autonomo Departamental (Autonomous Departmental Government)

GAM: Gobierno Autonomo Municipal (Autonomous Municipal Government

GU: Guardaña watershed

GIRH: Gestion Integrada de Recursos Hídricos (Integrated Management of Water Resources)

IWM: Integrated Watershed Management

IWRM: Integrated Water Resources Management

MIC: Manejo Integral de Cuenca (Integrated Catchment Management)

MMAyA: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua (Ministry of Environment and Water)

OGC: Organismo de Gestion de Cuenca (Watershed Management Organization)

PAC: Plan de Acción Concurente (Concurrent Action Plan)

PDA: Plan de Desarollo de Area (Area Development Plan)

PDC: Plan Director de Cuenca (Watershed Chief Plan)

PNC: Plan Nacional de Cuenca (National Catchment Plan)

PROAGRO: Programa de Desarollo Agropecuario Sustentable (Sustainable Agriculture Development Program)

PROMIC: Programa de Manejo Integral de Cuenca (Integrated Watershed Management Program)

SDC: Servicio Departamental de Cuenca (Watershed Departmental Service)

SWC: Soil and Water Conservation

TP: Thola P’ujru watershed

UTO: Universidad Tecnica de Oruro (Technical University of Oruro)

VRHR: Vice-Ministerio de Recursos Hídricos y Riego (Vice-Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation)

XII

Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisors from both Universities involved in this Erasmus exchange that

allowed for the joint writing of my master thesis. First, my host university, Wageningen with Dr. Aad Kessler from the SLM department who has kindly advised me throughout this long journey from the Netherlands to the Bolivian Andes. Secondly, I would like to thank my host university, Gembloux with Professor Aurore Degré who has bravely accepted to follow me despite the geographical and cultural distance.

I would like to say thank you to Gembloux and the Forest Department, in particular Pr. Hugues Claessens for its open-minded and flexible attitude towards difficult administrative burden between two European universities. Without him this Master Thesis would not have been possible.

I would also like to thank Wageningen University staff for the insights it has given me on new topics and new approaches to science that I could not have discovered so well if not for the Erasmus.

Gracias al Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y Agua, en particular al Ingeniero Jaime Huanca que fue mi supervisor en Bolivia y que ayudó y apoyó me durante toda la duración de mi estancia en eso lindo país.

Quisiera agradecer a mis compañeros de trabajo, en particular a Gustavo que me hizo encontrar la parte más especial de este país: sus tradiciones y su ritmo de vida. Gracias Gustavo para hospedarme y ayudarme, investigar y debatir contigo fue un gusto y espero encontrarte pronto. Gracias también a Gerardo por sus opiniones muy interesantes del mundo, por su amistad y por nuestro viaje al lago. También quisiera agradecer Ing. Jesus Cardeñas, Ing, David Veliz, Ing. Beymar Villaroel, Ing. René Camacho, Ing. Miguel Soliz y Dr. Carlos Saavedra para sus tiempos a contestar mis preguntas y también para su paciencia y ayuda en mis encuestas. Un agradecimiento especial al Ingeniero Miguel Soliz para hospedarme en el PDA, este lugar fue mi casa por un corto tiempo.

Gracias a todos los campesinos y personas executivos que entrevistó, mucho gusto conocerles y espero que les vaya bien en el futuro. Fuera de Bolivia pero no tan lejos, quisiera agradecer a Carolina, que al final fue la primera impulsión que hizo me viajar a Bolivia. Te mando buenas ondas y espero que tu vida sea alegra.

Merci aussi à mes amis, de Gembloux, de Bruxelles et d’ailleurs, à ma famille, mes frères, mes parents, ma grand-mère, mes fidèles liégeois et leur adorable marmaille. Thanks a lot also to Witte Wilma and all its inhabitants, in particular Eva and Kitty for making me feel at home, but also Julian, Erik, Judith, Thomas, Stefanie, Jinthe… You were amazing and I will always remember you as my Dutch family. Ma dédicace finale va au KDO et tous ses occupants qui m’a permis de tenir le coup durant ce dur été, sans oublier bien sûr le kot moustache avec Charlie, Flora, Cyrille, Caro, Pauline, Louise, Xavier et pour terminer cette brave Vodka qui nous observe tranquillement depuis son canapé de nuages…

1

I. Introduction Bolivia has always been a land with a huge diversity of ecosystems. Human settlements have

adjusted to these differences and invented different ways to cultivate the land though sometimes in very harsh conditions. Historically, the Incas are known for inventing the terraces cultivation as a way to exploit high slope soils. Some ancient civilizations are believed to have transformed these apparently unfertile soils into real food production mines, allowing for big population to grow. Nonetheless, these civilizations were declining already when the Spanish conquistadors landed in the New World. Bolivia has survived the colonization period and was relatively spared in comparison with neighbor countries. Therefore it has kept a high indigenous population and ancestral culture. More recently, in the past century, the population growth got boosted and the industrial revolution reached the whole mountainous area of Bolivia. Nowadays, agricultural production is no longer for own consumption and more and more for external commerce. Rural exodus is getting stronger and cities are growing. In this context, the rural area has become a place for more intensive agricultural production, with higher water consumption and higher pressure on soil resources. With climate change increasing the rainfall variability, the “el Niño” phenomena being more frequent and more intense, it has become a challenge to cultivate in the semi-arid areas of the country.

This study intends to focus on integrated watershed management, especially based on national programs to prevent land degradation and increase rural resilience to extreme weather events as floods and droughts. Indeed, an adequate use of soils, water as well as other resources is primordial to ensure sustainability of livelihood in the rural areas, but also national risk prevention. The goal of the Bolivian National watershed plan (PNC) is to tackle all issues related to natural resources management through an integrated approach, working with all stakeholders concerned. From local farmers to governmental authorities, from universities to local watershed management organization, all parts need to work together towards a sustainable socio-economic development without damaging the environment. The goal of this study is thus to get an insight into sustainable management of resources at watershed level, indirectly looking at the impact of government program to improve sustainable use of water and soils. Adoption processes will be closely looked at, both from the residing people and the local institutions related to micro-catchments.

This document is thus structured as follows. The first two chapters will set the scene. Land degradation issues as well as its causes and solutions will be looked at. I will then move on to the history of watershed management approaches in Bolivia, to understand the actual situation nowadays. Then focus on the study area, two micro-catchments where continuous projects have been implemented since the creation of the PNC. Next, the research framework will be developed, with the introduction of concepts and methodology to analyze the sustainability and the adoption levels of PNC programs in the two study areas. Secondly, in the two next chapters I have conducted a detailed analysis for each watershed, describing environmental, economic, social and political conditions thanks to interviews and field survey. Each watershed is described separately, in order to understand the specificities of both. Next I have compared results for each watershed in order to spot the strengths and weaknesses of both. Finally, results will be discussed as well as further recommendations to trigger sustainability of Integrated Watershed Management plans in Bolivia.

2

II. Background

1. Land degradation and water scarcity in the Bolivian Andes

A. Land degradation definition and types Land degradation can be defined as a long term decline of the biologic or economic productivity of

soils (Lal et al. 2012). The World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) defines six different types of land degradation: biological degradation, chemical soil deterioration, physical soil deterioration, water degradation, soil erosion by wind and soil erosion by water (Schwilch, G., Hessel, R. and Verzandvoort 2012). All the degradation types listed above refer to specific process which can be combined, leading ultimately to soil loss or soil fertility reduction. A typical example of this process in the Bolivian Andes can be detailed. Land degradation usually starts with a loss of vegetation cover due to human or natural factors. The soil is then exposed to high solar radiation which kills soil biota. Humus aggregates which can only be maintained by biologic activity start to be degraded. With lower humus content, the soil start to get less porous, its water and air retaining capacity reduces, leading to higher surface water runoff and ultimately reduced crop production (Hugo 2008). Consequently the land yields less consumption goods which has an economic impact on farmers (Kessler & Stroosnijder 2006). In our case study the focus will be on rural areas with a low-density population. These lands are characterized by low-input agricultural systems where degradation often occurs as a loss of vegetation and soil, just the example described above (Kessler & Stroosnijder 2006). The ultimate consequence of soil cover loss is strong erosion processes, the main land degradation threats to Bolivian highlands. Before moving on to the identification of land degradation causes and effects, I will set the climatic context of the study area.

B. Climate of the Bolivian Andes The Bolivian Highlands are characterized by a periodic rainfall season from December to March (Zolá

& Bengtsson 2010). Almost the totality of the yearly rainfall accumulates in these four months period. Unfortunately, the amount of rain can also vary greatly with the years. It is hugely influenced by the El Niño phenomenon that can modify the rainfall pattern over whole South America. In the Bolivian highlands, it decreases strongly the yearly precipitation amount and can provoke severe droughts on the plateau (called “altiplano”), as seen in 1997-1998 and again in 2015-2016 (Hoffmann, 2016). It also increases the risks of floods in the inter-Andean valleys. In both cases, soil fertility decreases because of progressive desertification (lower water availability) and higher erosion rates (surface and bank erosion).

The mean monthly temperature is quite constant during the year with some difference in winter though. The daily temperature range is much higher than the seasonal one, with usually high radiation during the day and high heat loss in the night. This causes much higher evaporation compared to precipitation rates which defines the semi-arid to arid weather and stresses the low water availability on the high Bolivian altiplano (MMAyA 2014b).

3

C. Process, causes and perception of land and water degradation As mentioned before, Bolivian highlands are characterized by low-input agricultural systems where

the main type of land degradation is soil erosion. This gross loss of soil is often irreversible and leads to desertification, due to reduced water intake by degraded soils as explained above. According to official numbers, between 1954 and 1996 the area of eroded soils increased by 86% in Bolivia (Hugo 2008).

The extent of desertification has been measured by geo-satellite images, calculating land reflection indexes. This reflects vegetation cover decrease, the closest visible proxy to soil erosion (Bai et al. 2008). Unfortunately, this is not the most precise measure, as vegetation cover decrease is not the only indicator of land degradation. It is important to realize that most research is focused on physical process of degradation more that on socioeconomic issues, although land degradation is a result of both (Torres et al. 2015). In order to get more specific data, it is useful to go on the field and look at agricultural practices to asses land degradation with socio-economic indicators. The participatory approach allows farmers to quantify themselves soil loss and productivity loss which are not always correlated but show signs of land degradation (Kessler & Stroosnijder 2006). Most importantly, in order to understand the effects, it is necessary to try to find the causes behind it.

According to the FAO, land degradation in Bolivian Highlands is mostly accountable to both socio-economic and biophysical factors. The former includes deforestation, overgrazing, inadequate agricultural practices as well as land-use changes (industrial, domestic and agricultural activities). The latter mainly includes wind and water erosion, as well as aridification (FAO 1993).

On the socio-economic side, it is clear that recent population growth has led to an increased use of natural resources (Orsag 2009). Land previously occupied by original forests has been used for crops, firewood, livestock or construction activities. Land use changes consequently modified land cover as witnessed by this study comparing images from 1985 to 2003 (Brandt & Townsend 2006). A change in irrigation practices, combined with a more arid climate has also salinized some areas of the inter-Andean valleys (Hugo 2008). Biodiversity of the high Andes is also declining, with some endemic forest species being threatened, as the “Polylepis” gender (in Quechua : qiwiña) that only occupies 16% of its potential area nowadays (Gareca et al. 2010). All these indicators show a reduction of vegetation that inevitably leads to higher soil exposure, thus increased wind and water erosion and ultimately loss of soil productivity. The intensification of cultivation practices combined with inadequate management of soils on steep slopes further aggravates the phenomenon. Nevertheless socio-economic factors are to be carefully held responsible for land degradation. For example, a study shows that overgrazing might be a misleading cause of vegetation decrease, therefore climatic factors have to be taken into account as well (Preston et al. 2003).

On the biophysical side, land degradation induced by lower water availability is probably a direct consequence of global warming. Indeed, climate change has brought more frequent and more intense El Niño phenomena since the 1970s, modifying the rain pattern over the whole South American continent. It is accountable for the “crazy rains” mentioned by farmers during participatory assessment (Kessler & Stroosnijder 2006). In fact we can notice higher rainfall variability and a reduced yearly amount of rainfall, phenomenon that intensified in the last twenty years. This can be linked to stronger El Niño

4

oscillations due to global warming of the oceans. It has been observed that dry areas become drier. An old evidence of climate change is assessed by rock glacier melting in the Bolivian Andes witnessing progressive increase in annual mean temperatures (Francou et al. 1999). This temperature rise will have an impact on evaporation rates with a direct impact on water availability. A more recent evidence in the Bolivian highlands is the actual drying of Lake Poopo which can be attributed to global warming though changes in water use certainly had an impact as well (Hoffmann 2016). This endorheic basin has already seen the drying of the Lake back in 1994, again it is difficult to guess whether the lake will reappear one day (Zolá & Bengtsson 2010).

This larger variability in rainfall patterns increases the occurrence of droughts on the highlands, but also floods in the lower valleys, with extreme but widespread rainfall events. Floods are thus more frequent and people try to adapt to them (Preston et al. 1997). Unfortunately, agricultural lands are often the first to be affected by floods which erode greatly the riverbank and decreases the cultivable area (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Cachi Cachi riverbank erosion (Author, 2016)

Now again the perception of farmers about the causes of reduced water availability is often biased. It has been noticed that in regions where precipitation variability increases people tend to blame climate change and not in areas where total annual rainfall decreases (Murtinho et al. 2013). Farmers often do not see the relation between on one hand their own change in irrigation systems and water use and on the other hand the reduced water availability. This theme will be further explored with the case studies.

5

D. Need for an integrated approach to tackle land degradation To tackle the problems of land degradation, caused by migration, climate change and other socio-

economic as well as bio-physical factors, politics must increase the effort for integrated management and strengthens institutions (Schwilch et al. 2014). Despite all the problems mentioned above, land degradation was long not perceived by farmers as a major threat in Bolivia (Kessler & Stroosnijder 2006). Therefore, a new national watershed plan was created in 2006, focusing on integrated water resources management at the watershed scale. It has been shown that hydrology is the principal component of local livelihood and thus the first to evaluate when assessing land degradation (Huber-Sannwald et al. 2006). Hydrology reflect both socio-economic and biophysical phenomenon. Therefore, water resources management at the watershed level got meaningful in Bolivia. In order to improve productivity and reduce land degradation, scientists and farmers should work on a participatory approach (Twomlow et al. 2002). It is only when needs and objectives of farmers match the ones of the government that a constructive project can achieve its goals. The new PNC from 2012 includes this new participatory approach, with the Pedagogical Watershed Program (CPP) as the first pilot project of the kind. This study will now retrace the history of the national watershed plan in order to understand past efforts in Bolivia to fight against land degradation and desertification.

2. Watershed management approach: politico-historical context

The principal institution in Bolivia that can have an impact on land degradation is the one that is responsible for water resources. Nowadays the whole responsibility goes to the Ministry of Environment and Water which is responsible for resources management at the watershed level. In order to understand the evolution of watershed management concept and the impacts on today’s waterscape, it is important to look back at past political history of the country.

A. The neoliberal era Bolivia was long governed by military forces in the past century. Since 1982 and the neoliberal era,

open elections were organized. Bolivia became a democratic country for the first time in its history. Before the 1990s, water management institutions were mainly focusing on hydric control to avoid floods downstream. There was no real consideration of water and land management upstream and the watershed was still a vague concept. Works were mainly conducted by technicians without implication of farmers or other water users (Camacho, 2016). Also, farmers were not really consulted on land and water management issues and projects were mainly conducted in a top-down approach (Kessler 2007).During this era, watershed management got propelled in the 1990s, especially in the year 1993 (Pando et al. 2012). That year administration was restructured inside the Ministry of Sustainable Development with a new “General Direction of Watersheds and Water Resources” (original Spanish name: Dirección General de Cuencas y Recursos Hídricos). This was the first time that the term “watershed” was used in Bolivian government’s administration. From 1993 to 2005, the power was decentralized. More competences were given to departmental prefectures, especially in Cochabamba and Santa Cruz. In this way, new autonomous governmental institutions were created, with the help of international cooperation funds. In 1991, the “Integrated Watershed Management Program” (PROMIC)

6

and the “Canalization Service for Waters of Piray river” (SEARPI), were funded respectively in Cochabamba and Santa Cruz Prefectures (Vuurmans et al. 2013). These two new institutions were accounted responsible for managing watersheds with the help of international donors, as GTZ from Germany for example (Hermoza 2009). Most projects were called “integrated watershed management” projects and englobed upstream and downstream work around water erosion issues.

B. Transition Years From the year 2000 with the Water War of Cochabamba, it got clear that the government failed to

control water repartition among users, stressing the institutional weakness at the time (Pando et al. 2012). Following this event, hard work was conducted to develop a stronger institution addressing all problems related to water for all users, from domestic to industrial, public to private. At the same time, awareness had increased thanks to a decade of experience from PROMIC and SEARPI institutions which started to apply a more integrated approach. From now on, watershed management did not only focus on hydric control as riverbank protection and floods prevention. It started to consider working inside the watershed on the fields, realizing that erosion prevention started at the farmer’s level (Prefectura de Cochabamba 2006).

Following international support from various cooperation agencies from all over the world (USA, Germany, Switzerland, and EU) and national concern for its water resources, a huge policy work was started in 2003. This work was the seed of a new national plan. The arrival on the political scene of a fervent nationalist gave a kick to these new initiatives, and started a new era for Bolivian watershed management. The socialist Evo Moralés revolutionized the country’s development programs.

In 2006, after a few years of preparation by foreign institution in collaboration with the Bolivian government, a new National watershed plan was created in order to further decentralize administration and encourage public participation (Lukat 2012). The Ministry of Water was created and all the competences related to water were merged into this new ministry with three vice-ministries in charge of “irrigation”, “basic services” (sanitation) and “watershed and water resources”. It was the first time in Bolivian history that a single ministry got in charge of all three water-related matters, combining drinking water, watershed and irrigation domains (Ruiz & Gentes 2008).

In 2009, Evo Moralés changed the Bolivian constitution and created the new “Plurinational State of Bolivia” stressing the multi-ethnic identity of Bolivia and decentralizing further the national power to new autonomous departments (GAD) (old prefectures) and municipalities (GAM). The Ministry of Water became the actual Ministry of Environment and Water (MMAyA) as shown hereunder (Figure 2).

7

Figure 2: Structure of the actual Ministry of Environment and Water (Pando et al. 2012)

The new constitution states that water is a fundamental right and that it should be used in a sustainable and equitable way. It stresses the role of the government to manage water resources for irrigation and domestic use at the watershed level (CEP 2009). Therefore, the National watershed plan acts as the main policy instrument to set the resolutions into practice.

C. The National Watershed Plan The particularity of the PNC is its socio-technical approach. Indeed, it seeks to merge the old

integrated watershed management (IWM) concept with a new concept from the Global Water Partnership: “Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.” (GWP, 2000). IWRM is expressed as a way to achieve efficiency, equity and environment sustainability of water resources use according to the new policy paper. IWM is the sustainable use of water resources and IWRM is the social organization behind, in charge of ensuring equitable and efficient use of water for all users. The explicit goal of the Bolivian government is to combine the technical aspect of resources management (IWM) with social and institutional aspects (IWRM) benefiting to all users (Ministerio del Agua 2007). It also introduces the concept of “social water management” at the watershed scale.

The first version of the PNC has been applied from 2006 to 2012 and recently revised. Its strengths and weaknesses have been evaluated by policy reviewers. The confrontation between theory and practice has shown many points of success, but also of potential improvements.

First, the PNC does not specifically address practical aspects of how to get the water users to participate in its management and distribution. Besides, its visibility for farmers is not great. Therefore, policy reviewer have made a few recommendations as to correct these two aspects: producing a more visual and accessible document and increasing capacity building to enforce local participation and autonomous resources management (Vuurmans et al. 2013; MMAyA 2013c).

Secondly, projects are too spread and not very coherent, there should be a more integrated vision per macro-catchment, so the emphasis should be put on Watershed Chief Plans (PDC) (Vuurmans et al.

8

2013). Hence was written a methodology to establish PDC (MMAyA 2014a). Finally, according to some experts, climate change vulnerability budgets have to be included in the next plan to increase adaptation and resilience of rural areas (Kowal 2012).

The new version of the PNC, valid for the years 2013 to 2017 tries to simplify its concept in order to be accessible for unused readers. It has clarified its action lines and specify its objectives and means of assessment (MMAyA 2014b). The policy is thus fighting against various problems, as water contamination, floods, droughts, deforestation, land degradation and desertification. These phenomena are all caused by socio-economic and biophysical factors as explained above and can be further aggravated by unsustainable management of resources. IWRM and IWM are necessary to tackle these problems efficiently. Therefore management instruments and policies have been set to increase coordination and integration at three levels: national, strategic catchment (macro) and micro-catchment (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Watershed management scales and level under the PNC-second phase (MMAyA 2014b)

D. The pedagogical watershed approach New approaches have been recently developed at micro-catchment level (the smallest unit where

IWM/IWRM projects are implemented under the PNC-phase II). Indeed, a new pilot project has been created in order to facilitate local participation and appropriation of IWM concept (Huanca 2012). This new project is called “Pedagogical watershed project” (CPP) and has a quite revolutionary IWM approach towards socio-political empowerment.

The CPP has introduced Watershed Management Organizations (OGCs). The OGCs have been created in order to institutionalize PNC objectives at the very grassroots level in order to perpetuate its vision beyond the PNC’s projects time scope and budget. The new participatory approach leading to the creation of OGC has been reviewed mostly at social level (PROAGRO 2014 ; Vásquez 2015). No study so far has looked at IWM with a global view encompassing political, environmental and economic aspects altogether.

9

III. Research framework

1. Problem statement and research objectives PNC projects are supposed to be cyclic and dynamic with a bottom-up approach, originating from the

local institutions and communities and reaching higher authorities (MMAyA 2013a). Projects are implemented, people and institutions benefit from the PNC, but it is unclear how the policy can ensure long-term development objectives. There is a dynamic process around PNC projects in order to improve it and make it more efficient on the field as attested by all policy reviews and projects’ renewal.

The problem statement of this research is then: “Though the PNC approach suggests cyclic and continuous management process; projects, budgets and evaluation are punctual (2-3 years) therefore their impact and sustainability in the long-term are not known”.

This study will give an insight on the functioning of watershed management programs, through its different components, from the installation of soil and water conservation measures to the creation of the autonomous OGC, notwithstanding the enforcement of local governmental and non-governmental institutions into the process.

The specific goal of this study is to try to see at micro-catchment level if land degradation can be tackled efficiently through PNC approach. It is an investigation about the sustainability of PNC projects at the micro-catchment level. The aim is to understand how to trigger adoption from the grassroots, thanks to the OGC approach, but also thanks to institutional empowerment.

2. Study areas Under the first version of the PNC, IWM projects were implemented in the whole national territory.

But out of the catchments under focus, only a few have received continuous budget with the second version of the PNC towards more development. The CPP, part of the PNC-II, got implemented in six pilot micro-catchments. Out of these six micro-catchments, only a few will receive further budget. Under the advice of my local supervisor, I have decided to investigate in two micro-catchments were the CPP was successful enough to plan for further development (Huanca, 2016). These two micro-catchments have received continuous funding from 2008 through three different projects of the PNC. There is a budget until at least the end of 2016. These two watersheds are thus the ideal study areas to evaluate the sustainability of PNC approaches, thanks to a continuous eight years cycle of IWM projects.

A. Guardaña pedagogical watershed Guardaña watershed is situated in the department of Oruro. It is part of the endorheic macro-

watershed “lake Poopo” for which a Watershed Master Plan is being elaborated (Arteaga 2011). Its size is around 300km² though all actors do not agree on the watershed size because of different boundary definitions (Vásquez 2015). A total of 16 communities (settlements) are part of the socially defined Guardaña watershed. It is located in the altiplano, characterized by a semi-arid weather and harsh environmental conditions, especially in winter. From 2008, an IWM project was conducted inside the

10

micro-catchment, installing terraces, dams and gabions to reduce water erosion in the rainy season and increase water harvesting. In this area, the main concern was about low water availability and soil fertility decline. Changing irrigation patterns mixed with higher rainfall variability has led to unprecedented water stress in the region. Therefore the PNC projects got full support from the population, as it renewed water availability in the watershed. Guardaña is one of the most active micro-catchment in Bolivia thanks to its strong social cohesion. They managed to receive continuous budgets through three different PNC projects described in the analysis part of this report. An OGC was created in 2011, as local authority responsible for water resources management to enhance local participation. I have investigated about the sustainability of IWM and IWRM inside the micro-catchment.

B. Tiquipaya pedagogical watershed Tiquipaya municipality is part of the department of Cochabamba. It is geographically part of the “Rio

Grande Watershed” Master Plan that has recently been published (MMAyA 2013b). It is located in the inter-Andean valleys, thus receives more precipitation and has warmer weather than Guardaña. The particularity of this pedagogical watershed is that it is constituted of three sub-watersheds. Indeed, the local authorities, a sub-central of syndicates were used to work together for the past twenty years. They accepted the government’s project at the condition that they could manage the three watersheds together, as historically united. These watersheds are part of the “Tunari” mountain range that culminates above Cochabamba densely populated valley. Since most rains fall on the mountains, it can really be considered as a “water factory” for urban population downstream. Unfortunately floods and water erosion are frequent, therefore the local PROMIC has been working for now 25 years to reduce risks and improve water and land resources management. The main problems in the catchment are soil erosion by water, as slopes are high and soil is shallow. An important hydric control work has been conducted, together with the extension of sparkling irrigation systems in order to reduce water erosion. The local organization is strong and committed to reduce land degradation and improve their use of resources in a sustainable manner and equitable way. The OGC is getting empowered and has a few active leaders who manage to get new project for the micro-catchment. The OGC is constituted of five communities, distributed among the three sub-catchments.

In this study there will be a specific focus on Thola P’ujru, one of the three sub-catchments (the other two are named Khora and Taquiña). This choice was made because it is the catchment where the PNC has been funding projects since 2008 and has plans and budgets until 2018. Thus, on land degradation issues, only Thola Puj’ru catchment has been investigated because it is the only catchment where structural measures have been installed in the years 2009-2012 with PNC funds (MIC project). From now on we will be talking about Thola P’ujru watershed when discussing integrated watershed management, even though it is only a part of Tiquipaya pedagogical watershed. When talking about the OGC, the whole area will be considered, with the five communities. But when referring to Thola P’ujru, it will be discussed about the two communities settled in this particular sub-catchment. I investigated over this second study area in order to see another successful example in a completely different biophysical and political context.

11

3. Conceptual framework A. Soil and Water Conservation measures Land degradation is the major issue considered in this study. And the PNC is the major policy

instrument to explicitly fight against it through integrated water and land resources management in a long-term perspective. The watershed has been chosen as the scale at which all issues are to be addressed. This presents the advantage of defined hydrological units within which degradation process are independent from other units. As explained in the first chapter, land degradation has several processes inter-twinned. In the case studies, the major land degradation threats have been identified as water erosion on the fields but also on riverbanks and water degradation due to reduced water availability combined with unsustainable agricultural practices.

Soil and water conservation practices can be defined as “activities at the local level which maintain or enhance the productive capacity of the land in areas affected by, or prone to, degradation”(WOCAT 2007). They can be divided in off-farm and on-farm measures, the first ones focusing on degradation processes happening on non-cultivated and non-grazing areas. On-farm measures are then divided between on the one hand measures focusing on livestock management and on the other hand agricultural measures for cultivable areas.

All those measures can address different issues related to land degradation and water scarcity at the micro-catchment scale. Physical actions are thus taken inside the micro-catchment, such as terraces formation, riverbank protection, forestation, irrigation system improvement. They all have as objective to increase water availability, hydraulic control and water quality (Mekdaschi Studer & Liniger 2013). It has been showed that structural measures are necessary but not sufficient to achieve its objective of reduced land degradation and improved water availability (Herweg & Ludi 1999). Therefore, on-farm activities, like management and agronomic measures are of the outmost importance in the CPP projects. They can be implemented through training activities. Farmer’s participation and understanding of what is at stake is essential to achieve long term impact. This will be developed in the next section, about how to promote farmer’s adoption and replication of SWC measures through development programs.

B. Farmer’s adoption of SWC SWC measures are meant to reduce land degradation and thus improve soil productivity and

indirectly human livelihood. Unfortunately, for many years development programs have mainly focused on physical performance of the measures installed, calculating soil fertility and crop yields variation due to structural SWC measures. In Ethiopia for example, where huge erosion is occurring due to high slopes and erratic rainfalls, it has been shown that stone bunds development programs have achieved their goal of improving soil fertility and crop production in a few years (Vancampenhout et al. 2006). This signifies that the project’ performance was good. Of course this is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of a measure, but performance is different than impact. Indeed, in order to ensure a real impact, such structural measures should be maintained and used by local farmers beyond the project’s duration (De Graaff & Kessler 2011). Thus, economic impact on farmers’ livelihood needs to be taken into consideration aside with biophysical performance of the measures (Amsalu & De Graaff 2006). Active participation of farmers is needed and can only be obtained by short-term positive results visible

12

to the farmer from a SWC measure implemented (Kessler 2007). Also, participatory projects should be bottom-up instead of top-down, many participatory projects being often limited to consultation and persuasion from authorities or technicians (Bewket 2007).

Adoption is a long process that starts with the observation and trial of a new measure, continues with effort input into the work and then leads to maintenance and replication of the measure if the adoption process was successful. It has been shown that the perceived profitability of an implemented measure is one of the most important factor to motivate farmers and get them to adopt a new technique or technology (De Graaff et al. 2008). Intrinsic motivation can only be attained when farmer’s perception is favorable towards the measure. Therefore any project should first study the farmer’s attitude towards the presented objectives and evaluate whether there can be an effective collaboration based on joint objectives and risk perceptions on both sides (Greiner et al. 2009). Another study of rural India, Bolivia and Mali shows the importance of social learning process towards a sustainable governance and management of natural resources (Rist et al. 2007).

Socio-politics is getting more and more credit when talking about development programs. There is a debate about what focus group inside rural communities should be specifically targeted. Some stress the importance of assisting and training the poorest farmers with little or no easy access to irrigation and/or market (Jara-Rojas et al. 2012). Others believe that the most progressive farmers should be identified and trained in order to achieve short-term promotion of the measure inside the community (Kessler 2007). According to this theory, social capital defined as the level of cooperation between farmers is another factor of adoption levels by farmers and communities, allowing for a horizontal scaling-up (Teshome et al. 2016). Farmer to farmer training revealed indeed to be quite successful to promote sustainable land management as proved by a study conducted in Burundi (Kessler et al. 2015).

It seems relevant to consider that any development program should focus on both soil and water conservation themes, with better benefits with this integrated approach (Jara-Rojas et al. 2013). The PNC is clearly in that line, concentrating on the watershed unit to implement its integrated management concept. It also makes clear the importance of institutionalizing the watershed management themes, from local to national level. Overall coordination is thus a key aspect. Scaling-up the micro-catchment practices can only be done with an efficient institutional empowerment (Carter & Currie-Alder 2006). This is stated in the actual PNC that stresses the importance of the multi-scale approach (Figure 3).

Adoption can be measured on the field with qualitative indexes, showing discontinuance in the adoption process from the farmers, as shown in this watershed case study from India (Bagdi et al. 2015).

Nevertheless, the approach that will be developed in this study is based on sustainability indexes, as will be explained in the next section.

13

C. IWRM and sustainability of watershed’s project It is probably useful to recall now the definition of integrated water resources management given

previously: “IWRM is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.”(Global Water Partnership 2000) In this definition, four sustainability fields can be extracted: environmental, economic, social and political (Saavedra, 2016) (Figure 4) (see Annex 3).

Figure 4: Four sustainability fields and main components of investigation to analyze IWRM and IWM (Saavedra, 2016)

Firstly, to achieve environmental sustainability, social adoption of SWC measures must take place. The farmers need to manage their resources in a sustainable way, i.e. allow the ecosystem to maintain itself while providing valuable goods for humans in the long term. Secondly, from the social perspective, the use of natural resources and especially water needs to be regulated and equitably shared between users, according to the Bolivian constitution which stipulates that water is a human right that can’t be privatized (CEP 2009). Equitable empowerment of men and women and all farmers’ groups living inside the watershed must take place in order to give legitimacy to the central authority, the OGC. Thirdly, on the economic aspect, farmers need to find a balance between inputs and outputs, investing in environmental protection and conservation to get benefits at short or long-term (ex: a farmer applying soil conservation practices to its crops should increase soil fertility and thus increase his yields in the long run while allowing for the land to produce in a resilient way). This can only be achieved through the sensitization of farmers about watershed services dynamic. They need to get aware that their SWC measures can ensure them future benefits and, most importantly, that their work can serve to others and could be economically valuated (Dillaha et al. 2008). Fourthly and finally, political field has a considerable role to play in IWRM and IWM. All stakeholders involved in watershed management must be taken into account (Proscovia et al. 2013). Clear competences repartition must be defined in order to achieve integrated and coordinated management of resources.

14

4. Research Questions Though the focus is more specifically on micro-catchments which are part of the pedagogical

watershed program, the topic of investigation takes into consideration watershed management approach from a historical perspective. The pedagogical watershed approach will thus be evaluated as a continuation of previous efforts in integrated watershed management. In the following research questions, IWM projects will refer to all watershed projects conducted under the PNC from 2006 until now. Sustainability levels in the four different domains have been compared between the two study areas, analyzing the measures implemented and their impact on IWRM. The ultimate goal was to identify and compare the causes of success or limitations of IWRM and IWM projects under the PNC.

The main research question can then be formulated as follows:

• How can IWM projects achieve sustainable and integrated resources management (land and water) at micro-catchment level under the National Watershed Plan in Bolivia?

In order to answer more specifically the main question, four sub-questions have been developed, corresponding to each of the four sustainability fields defined above:

• How are IWM projects contributing to … o Social adoption of IWM through increased environmental consciousness and resilient SWC

measures implementation? o Equitable empowerment and training of local farmers and leaders, including the

empowerment of the watershed management organization (OGC)? o Economic development through increased benefits and valuation of ecosystem services? o Institutional adoption of IWM through vertical and horizontal integration and empowerment

of the Municipality (GAM)?

The ultimate goal of these research questions is to evaluate the elaboration and the execution of the watershed management plan thanks to active mobilization of all stakeholders, most importantly of the OGC and the GAM, key actors of sustainability as will be shown in the following analysis.

15

5. Data collection The methodology I have followed can be divided in three parts: policy reviewing, field survey and

executive interviews. First of all I have considered all recent policy papers related to the National Watershed Plan in Bolivia, collected at the different governmental institutions I have visited. Secondly I have been investigating inside the watershed, interviewing farmer’s based on a prepared questionnaire and observing implemented structural measures from the project. Thirdly and lastly, I have visited all institutions and organizations involved in the project and asked them about their implication and views.

The policy reviewing included various documents: policy papers, formal agreements, technical reports, bills and other official documents from the VRHR, the International Swiss Cooperation, the municipalities, the OGC’s and the facilitating institutions (the Technical University of Oruro, the Andean Centre for Water Use and Management of the University San Simon and the Departmental Watershed Service of Cochabamba). It was used as a base to set the research and delimit the study.

Next, the field survey was meant to evaluate environmental as well as social and economic sustainability. On-field activities were divided in two parts. First, a quick evaluation of structural measures by means of observations and explanations from the local technician in charge of the project. Second, farmers’ interviews with the help of a specific questionnaire elaborated with the collaboration of a local NGO (Soliz, 2016) (Annex 1). The information gathered is described hereunder (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Information gathered during field survey. (Author, 2016)

Quick evaluation of structural measures

• Geolocation of SWC measures • History of SWC measure installation • SWC measure's distribution among

different communities • State of maintenance of the SWC

measure installed • Visible effectiveness of SWC to achieve

its objectives • Water levels in rivers and dams • Irrigation structures types

Farmers’ interview

• Knowledge about the SWC measures and their purpose

• Participation in the project’s activities • Short insight on socio-economic

situation and agricultural activity • Perception about water resources and

use (irrigation types) • Perception about the watershed

project and the OGC • Perception about external institutions

(governmental and others) • Needs and hopes for the future of the

watershed

16

Last but not least, the consultation of executives was used as a complementary information source in order to evaluate the overall political sustainability through the different institution’s roles in the project. Another questionnaire was elaborated in order to gather the following non-exhaustive list of information (Figure 6) (Annex 2). Not to forget the active participation in a few agriculture fairs and workshops with the benefiters of the project in order to get a full insight on the functioning of the project and its achievements. All interviews were conducted in Spanish with technical support and have been recorded to allow for a better data processing.

Figure 6 : Information gathered during executive interviews (Author, 2016)

6. Data analysis After the data collection, a list of indicators has been defined (see Annex 4). For each sustainability

theme (environmental, social, economic and political), nine to eleven indicators have been chosen (Saavedra, 2016). In total, 40 indicators have been selected as suitable to measure sustainable IWM, based on literature review (Badibanga et al. 2013; Herweg 2007; Bewket 2007; De Graaff et al. 2008; Inter-American Development Bank 2008; Teshome et al. 2016; Jara-Rojas et al. 2013). A rating scale with five modalities has been defined. The rating is gradual and qualitative with values ranging from zero to four, as shown in the figure below (Figure 7). Environmental indicators have scores reflecting the geographic spreading of a certain practice or perception. Economic, social and political indicators have similar ratings signification but are more conceptual so the spreading can’t be only geographic. A score of “0” represents the absence or rare occurrence, “1” shows a weak or isolated presence, “2” and “3” show regular presence and “4” assumes a widespread repartition. It has been chosen to include a dynamic component as well, reflected by the difference between slow and fast improvements, respectively ratings of “2” and “3”.

OGC executives’ interview

• Knowledge about the SWC measures and their purpose

• Role in the OGC’s structure • Perception about water resources and

use (irrigation types) • Perception about the watershed

project and the OGC • Perception about external institutions

(governmental and others) • Needs and hopes for the future of the

watershed

Interview of municipality, facilitating institution and other organizations

officials directly involved in the project

• Perception regarding the watershed management project and the OGC

• Policies development around integrated watershed management

• Implication into the project (#employees, $, duration, future plans)

• Overall coordination between institutional actors

• Opinion about the sustainability of the project

17

Figure 7: Indicators rating legend (Author, 2016)

In order to rate properly each indicator, all information collected was cross-checked. For each score there are at least two sources (interviews and own observations) that lead to the final rating based on in-depth analysis of each watershed. The following chapters of this report have been established consequently. Firstly, Chapter Four and Five deal with a zoom-in of the two micro-catchments to provide detailed analysis for Guardaña and Thola P’ujru respectively. Secondly, the Sixth Chapter synthetizes the information collected by zooming out and comparing results between the two areas thanks to the 40 indicators. It is illustrated with radar graphs. Finally, Chapter Seven deals with concluding remarks, limitations of the study and recommendations for the future.

7. Limitations This research presents a myriad of limitations. The most important one is that indicator ratings can

appear quite arbitrary. Indeed it is difficult to define an objective way to rate them. If another observer had to make the same studies, visiting the same people in the same study area, he will probably have a few differences in the ratings. Therefore the indicators could be further detailed, with in-depth description of the signification of each score to reduce the subjective factor. Nonetheless, since the goal of this study was to compare two watersheds and since there was only one observer, the results can’t be biased with one another.

Another limitation is the absence of quantitative indicators. Accurate measurements would allow for more precision in ratings. But it would be more time-consuming in situ, increasing the field survey period and decreasing economic efficiency of the method. That is why I believe the methodology suggested is a quick and practical way to evaluate the whole picture in a short amount of time. Nonetheless quantitative indicators have a higher scientific weight for presenting results. But field logistics sometimes prevents taking exact measurements leading to wrong conclusions when processing the data.

Finally, it needs to be stressed that the language factor has somehow biased the data collection. Interviews were all conducted in Spanish with a fair understanding of the other. However, it is highly probable that some misunderstandings have leaked through the analysis. This is why information was cross-checked, and one interview source was never enough to assess a fact or a perception. Only the repetition of the same information allowed for a proper data treatment, reducing the bias.

Theme Score Signification0 Absent or very rare1 Slightly present but hardly noticeable at the watershed scale2 Present, with slow improvements3 Widely present, with fast improvements4 Widespread at the watershed scale0 Absent or very poor1 Poor2 Regular, with slow improvements3 Dynamic, with fast improvements4 Strong and widespread at the watershed scale

Environmental Indicators

Economic, social and political indicators

18

IV. Sustainability of integrated management in Guardaña watershed

1. Environmental A. Land use systems and irrigation practices Guardaña watershed has a semi-arid weather with rains (300 to 400mm per year) concentrated

between December and March. The micro-catchment has altitudes varying from 3810m to 4722m (Vásquez 2015). From the physiography of the catchment we can derive three major ecologic strata : the mountain range (above 4200m), the foothills (from 4200m to 4000m) and the plains (below 4000m) (MMAyA - VRHR 2012) (Figure 8). This distinction is also useful to analyze land-use systems, especially different agricultural activities and consequently different use of natural resources. Furthermore, Guardaña watershed’s territory is also divided between 16 communities which all have a central village and neighboring fields and pasture areas. There are 11 communities centered in the plains and foothills, and 5 communities implemented in the mountain range. The differences between the three strata will first be explained in this section, but in next parts a binary distinction will replace the three strata into plains’ and mountains’ communities to simplify the analysis.

Figure 8: Elevation map of Guardaña catchment and classification per major land cover (MMAyA - VRHR 2012)

19

Firstly, in the mountain range slopes are strong and cultivable areas are scarce. Therefore the main agricultural activity is llama breeding since these animals are well acclimated to the local harsh conditions and can feed themselves from the low bushes and herbs growing on this area (Figure 9). The only crops cultivated at this altitude are potatoes, quinoa, oca (oxalis tuberosa), wheat and a few fodder herbs, mainly for livestock production and own consumption, rarely for sales (Ramirez, 2016). These crops are rain-fed and there is no irrigation system, allowing for temporal agriculture alone. Llama’s meat and wool production is the major agricultural output in this stratum. Rural migration for economic reasons has led to increased land abandonment that leaves soils bare after the last crop (MMAyA - VRHR 2012). Adding to llama’s overgrazing and inadequate agricultural practices on slopes, there has been a significant loss of vegetation cover leading to severe water and wind erosion in the whole area. High runoff events combined with a lack of vegetation cover provokes high soil loss in the area, gully erosion and further sedimentation in lower parts of the watershed.

Figure 9: Grazing llamas on Cañaviri community highlands. Scarce vegetation with low bushes (Author, 2016)

In the foothills, a few communities have mixed-agricultural systems, with half grazing lands and half cropping lands. Agriculture is semi-intensive with more individual fields cultivated for own consumption and sales. Major crops are carrots, potatoes, quinoa and barley (Mamani B. , 2016). This zone is basically subject to the same issues than the mountain range stratum, with high water erosion and soil fertility decrease due to overgrazing and vegetation cover loss.

In the plains, farmer’s ancestors used to cultivate quinoa, potatoes and cereals on the slopes in a rotation crop model, with resting periods every five to ten years (Mamani G. , 2016). The low water demand of these native crops allowed for rain-fed agriculture. Nowadays, agriculture has moved to the valley bottom, near the temporary river and has become more intensive. Lands are cultivated all-year and resting periods are scarce. Horticulture production is the main source of income, with carrots and onions crops being major cultivated species (Portillo C. , 2016). Inundation irrigation systems have replaced the old rain-fed agriculture with pumps and canals diverting surface as well as groundwater.

20

Water-demanding crops are now vulnerable to river floods and groundwater depletion. Abandoned fields on slopes are strongly eroded by water and wind due to the loss of vegetation cover. The new intensive cultivation practices combined with regular inundation irrigation use has led to a loss of land production potential, and a higher stress on water resources. Ecosystem services are threatened, as groundwater pumping is not controlled nor monitored which leads to aquifer levels reducing. The main land degradation threats in the plains are riverbank erosion by floods (Figure 10), reduction of soil fertility by intensive agricultural practices, depletion of water resources followed by progressive desertification and biodiversity loss.

Figure 10: Temporary water pumping for horticulture crop in Cachi Cachi community. Signs of riverbank erosion (Author, 2016)

B. Watershed project’s environmental measures i. History of IWM projects

The watershed management projects have first searched to reduce land degradation processes by implementing soil and water conservation practices. This was part of the first phase of the PNC which was applied in Guardaña watershed from 2008 to 2012, under the “Guardaña Integrated Watershed Management Program” (IWM project). The main structural investments in the watersheds were slow-forming terraces, riverbank protection with gabions, infiltration ditches and afforestation (Helvetas & MMAyA-VRHR 2014). But in the beginning, farmers were skeptical and did not perceive the use of many of those measures. As one of the local farmer said: “It looked like a throwback to the 50’s by terracing again, and doing other activities that had no rapid effect and direct benefit, but demanded time and work of the community members; so, many people did not want to participate in that project and did not like the watershed”(Vasquez, 2015, p.16).

21

In 2010, a formal demand was made by a few communities to build atajados (small earth dams used to collect runoff water) to increase water availability (Figure 11). Indeed, at the watershed scale land degradation issues were not perceived as such by most farmers because it was not obvious. Only a few farmers having floods problems, thus directly affected by water erosion were a little conscious about land degradation processes (Mamani G. , 2016). The majority of farmers well perceived water scarcity has a major problem, since their need to irrigate their water-demanding crop was vital for their direct livelihood. Thus when the first atajado was built, people could not believe their eyes, they did not know it was possible to stock surface water and make it available way after the rainy season (Flores, 2016). This encouraged them to take part in the IWM project and eventually gave way to the formation of an OGC which won the CPP and began as a national pilot for the implementation of the PNC-phase II from 2012 (Vásquez 2015). Since 2010 with the IWM project, then the new CPP (from 2013) built many new atajados and continued implementing other SWC measures in minor quantity (except for afforestation efforts).

Figure 11: Atajado built in Umitri community. Earth dam with spillover way, cleaning tube and irrigation tube. (Author, 2016)

ii. SWC measures categories

A summary of major SWC measures implemented since 2008 has been listed and quantified below, thanks to information triangulation (official reports, field surveys and interviews). These SWC measures can be classified according to their area of implementation. I have decided to make a distinction between off-farm measures, i.e. measures that are not directly related to agricultural production, and on-farm measures, directly having an impact on farmers’ agricultural system. Of course, many off-farm measures have an indirect impact on agricultural activities and can benefit to them, but what I wanted to point out is that they mostly do not have direct implications for farmers. For each SWC measure, either a number of replication is indicated, or a percentage of the 16 communities in which it got implemented (all works are communal) (Figure 12).

22

Figure 12: List of soil and water conservation measures implemented in Guardaña watershed

A simple listing is not sufficient to understand the implementation distribution of the SWC measures inside the micro-catchment. It is important to point out the links between the SWC works and the three strata defined in the previous section. Indeed, the repartition of SWC measures is far from homogeneous because local issues depend on socio-economic as well as environmental conditions.

Logically, hydric control works will be found in the plains, near the river. Similarly soil conservation and management activities are mainly concentrated in the plains as well because intensive agriculture causes higher concern for soil degradation in this zone. Next, grazing and livestock management will have more sense in the mountain range, since that is the main area with high breeding activity. Also, slow-forming terraces and forestation works are done at the watershed scale, since there are degraded areas everywhere. Finally, water harvesting techniques will be found in the whole micro-catchment. Let’s now have a closer look at the major SWC measures installed, especially their implementation success or failure and the reasons behind it.

iii. Off-farm: Water harvesting measures

What can be first noted is that atajados are the most implemented measure in the whole watershed, with 100% of the communities having at least one, and up to 8 communal atajados. There is one distinction though. The upper communities have recently built “bijiñas” which resembles atajados but for its function. Indeed, though they are both earth dams used to harvest water, atajados will be found in the plains and the foothills, while bijiñas will be more implemented in the mountain range. Atajados are mainly used to increase water availability for irrigation purposes. They are used to increase crop production through superficial irrigation systems. Therefore they need to be built close from the fields and with irrigation and cleaning tubes (to avoid sedimentation). Atajados improve the availability of

Off-farm measures

Water harvesting •Atajados (31 units 1) •Infiltration ditches (50% communities1)

Control and protection of Degraded Areas •Slow-forming stone terraces (75%

communities1) •Forestation (63% communities1)

Riverbank protection •Gabions (25% communities1) •Willow plantations (44% communities1)

On-farm measures

Soil conservation and management •Organic fertilizer application (1 workshop²) •Fruit trees plantations (no data) •Seeds rotation fund (no data) •Sulfo-calcic application (1 workshop²)

Grazing and livestock management •Protection fences (no data) •Bijiñas (8 units 1)

23

water and possibly increase groundwater infiltration while reducing superficial runoff and thus gully erosion. Bijiñas, on the other hand, should increase surface water availability for wild animals and llama breeding. Therefore they need to be easily accessible and widest as possible. Just piling up a dam of earth is sufficient for bijiñas (Figure 13). Bijiñas building is a way to get back clean surface water during the rainy season and stock it the longest possible in the dry season.

Figure 13: Bijiña built in Cañaviri community in order to increase water availability for llamas and wild animals (Author, 2016)

Atajados and bijiiñas were built since the big success of Lequelequeni’s atajado which awakened local communities and motivated them to ask for more (Flores, 2016). There are actually a total of 31 communal atajados and 9 bijiñas in Guardaña watershed, out of which 22 were sampled and localized on the map below (Figure 14). Many were built with the help of the Municipality, but also the Swiss International Cooperation and the Ministry of Rural Development (Helvetas & MMAyA-VRHR 2014). They were not all built under the PNC projects, but since they are all the result of the PNC’s IWM projects which managed to sensitive the population, we can consider that they are all directly or indirectly a result of the PNC.

Atajados are actively maintained and replicated by local communities, with the recent repair of one dam in the plains by the community of Molle Pongo (Vásquez 2015). Also, a few progressive communities have started building their own atajados, as Huayllumita and Mojon Pampa communities. This can be considered as a high success measure in terms of popularity and sensitization.

Nevertheless, a problem encountered with atajados building is that they are often not connected yet to irrigation structures. There are often delays in building activities and works are often left unfinished, which reduces their effectiveness (Mamani G. , 2016). Water harvesting could be optimized especially since evaporation rates are high in the area. And if the only objective is to increase infiltration for downstream fields, there is actually no monitoring of geohydrology and aquifer dynamics in the area (Cardeñas, 2016). Infiltrated water is never sure to reach supposed beneficiaries and can be lost to

24

another catchment through geomorphologic strata (Edgar, 2016). Therefore, the positioning of new atajados is very important. When a situation is suggested by a community, there is a technical assessment as to determine soil texture (preferably clay), topographic profile (zone of water concentration) and direction of bedrocks (preferably towards downstream fields) (Mamani G. , 2016). Unfortunately, despite an increasing technical support, some atajados are not best situated and do not collect nor stock enough water (Figure 14). This is the main downside about atajados, a lack of knowledge about how to optimize the use of harvested water.

Figure 14: Positioning and water levels of sampled atajados in Guardaña catchment (Author, 2016)

During dryer years, as 2016 so far, the water level in atajados is very low. I chose to fix 2016 as the base level for a very dry year and counted a total of 4 dry atajados and 13 drying atajados (clearly below average water level on pictures) out of 27 visited. There is thus a total of 63% of the sample that will be dry before winter, as radiation rates are high. This survey was done between the 29th of March and the 8th of April and could be used in the future to assess a link between precipitation levels and water harvested hence an indicator of the effectiveness of water harvesting for each atajado. This could be done with the help of a physical witness and pictures comparison (Figure 15).

25

Figure 15: Atajado built by Helvetas in Mojon Pampa community. Left: water level in 2015, rainy year. Right: water level in 2016, dry year. (Author, 2016)

iv. Off- farm: SWC measures to control and protect degraded areas

The second most implemented measures during the successive PNC projects are the slow-forming stone terraces that were built back in 2010 with the IWM project. The objective of these terraces is to reverse land degradation processes on steep slopes in order to cultivate lands in the long-term (Mamani R. , 2016). Unfortunately, though it is widely present, most people do not know what the purpose is as they do not see short-term benefits. When technicians came to work for the construction of these terraces, local farmers participated with labor force, but now no one is maintaining the stone ditches and it is relatively abandoned (Mamani G. , 2016). Nevertheless, it is working in some places, with a slow increase in vegetation cover and slope reduction due to sediment accumulation. There is a hope for future improvements, to the condition that stones are not taken away by physical processes (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Stone ditch damaged by water erosion causing rill formation and soil loss. Lack of maintenance. (Author, 2016)

26

Afforestation works were also done to reverse water erosion by run-off on slopes. Again, success is very much depending on maintenance levels by the community. Some trees were given at individual levels, while others were planted at the community level, with technical help. Overall there is a high mortality rate, especially in the mountain range, due to the harsh meteorological conditions (Figure 17). Also, the trees that were given at the community sometimes are not even planted which shows a lack of interest in forestation works. Again this is due to very long-term benefits to the farmers and no real understanding of the purpose of trees. When asked about the utility of foresting their lands, most answers were void, they just like trees and assume they are good but they don’t know why. If a real training effort is not done, forestation works are doomed to fail, with only a few examples of success thanks to some progressive farmers (Vásquez 2015).

Figure 17: Afforestation efforts in Cañaviri (left, 4260m) and Guardaña (right, 3900m) communities.

Off-farm: Hydric control measures

In the plains of Guardaña, riverbanks are vulnerable to episodic flooding events in the rainy season. Since this occurs exactly at the same period than harvests, it can be disastrous to many farmers having fields next to the riverbanks. Also, slow bank erosion occurs due to extreme runoff events that take away the soils and provoke small landslides. Therefore, some efforts have been done to protect riverbanks from erosion by the river. The main two measures implemented are stone gabions and willow plantations. Gabions are usually dimensioned 1mx1mx10m and positioned on the riverbed, in front of the land it seeks to protect. Unfortunately, with strong sedimentation and runoff processes, many gabions are sagged or collapsed and need to be rebuilt (Figure 18). There are often new gabions built just above previous ones. This presents the advantage that sedimentation occurs which can increase cultivable area in the future. But it is extremely costly, this is why the Ministry of Environment does not want to build gabions any more, it is now up to the Municipality to conduct those works, apart from the PNC (Ramos, 2016).

27

Willow plantations, on the other hand, present lower implementation costs. Indeed, stacks can be

planted one after the other, and grow each into a new tree that will stabilize the riverbank with its roots and buffer floods with its vegetative parts (Figure 19). They are positioned in front of the fields to protect, with equal distance between them. But they need to be rightly located, according to the stream’s strength that depends on the river’s curves and profile. Otherwise, if flooding is severe in the first years, there is a high chance of mortality of the stack. They need to be well into earth and not too far from the riverbank or they get taken away or die in the floods.

Figure 19: Riverbank protection with willow plantations. Individual Salix viminalis plantations in Mojon Pampa community (left). Communal Salix babylonica plantations in Caracollito community (right). (Author, 2016)

It can be noted that this particular measure works best at individual level, because it needs high

maintenance efforts and provokes medium-term benefits to the neighboring fields (Portillo E. , 2016) (Figure 19, left picture).

Also, a combination of stone and trees plantation can be resilient to floods and procure better results, but again, technical studies are needed to determine precisely where and how it should be implemented to reduce failure risks.

Figure 18: Collapsing gabions near riverbanks. Successive gabion constructions on top of the other (left), gabion sagged by water (right) (Author, 2016)

28

v. On-farm measures

Most of on-farm measures were accomplished at watershed level as training activities. Therefore they will be further detailed in the social part.

C. Sustainable use of natural resources

i. General needs

Local people, after 8 years of PNC projects, have identified as central problems the following elements: irrigation water, soils and vegetation conservation, and riverbank control (Helvetas & MMAyA-VRHR 2014). They perceive these problems mostly when it is directly related with their agricultural activity. Their needs differ depending on the community, but out of a sample taken on the field, I found the following numbers (Figure 20). For each community, one or two farmers were asked about their most urgent needs, and here are their answers. It is important to remember that there are 11 plains communities and 5 mountains communities having very different agricultural systems as well as perceptions and needs.

Interviewees Atajados Terraces Irrigation structures

Water harvesting

Riverbank protection

Soil conservation

Mountain communities (5)

80% 20% 0% 100% 20% 20%

Plains communities (11)

91% 18% 27% 91% 36% 36%

All (16) 88% 19% 19% 94% 31% 31%

Figure 20: Perception of farmers about their future needs (Author, 2016)

We can clearly see that the highest score goes to atajados and water harvesting and that irrigation structures and terraces are not very popular. Riverbank protection and soil conservation have mitigated results, with higher concern in the plain communities. Here is a clear output of the past PNC projects, showing the perception of farmers towards the SWC measures implemented. The watershed project has raised the awareness of farmers about the importance to care for Mother Earth and to do so together. They are conscious about the need to harvest water and study soil specificities to increase crop production. The majority of people still living in the watershed is more conscious about environmental issues than the ones living in Oruro who don’t know where drinkable water comes from (Mamani G. , 2016). This happened thanks to the watershed project that is seen positively by most farmers though their conception is more social-oriented than properly about resources use.

29

ii. Soil conservation

They know the fertility is reducing but don’t know why. They forgot the use of ancient practices like fallow lands and multi-year rotations because they need to produce every year for subsistence. They apply natural fertilizers, like sheep manure. Sometimes they use pesticides or herbicides when there is an infection, so it’s not systematic spreading. They are using mechanics as well as animal traction, depending on the size of their fields. There are very few farmers that know how to care for their soils in a long-term perspective. But some education activities from the CPP have trained a few farmers about soil fertility improvement trough organic manure coverage (Mamani G. , 2016). This will be discussed in the socio-cultural evaluation.

iii. Water conservation

Efficient irrigation structures coupled with atajados would improve the water use efficiency and reduce the pressure on groundwater resources. Multiplication of electric pumping might cause GW depletion in the short term. This is a risk to be considered seriously.

All communities want to build more atajados to have more water. But they neglect their water use as surface inundation irrigation is used by almost 100% of the people without limits. There is a project from the local NGO to help for the implementation of sprinkling irrigation but farmers do not see the benefits and therefore are not willing to pay for it. When groundwater levels are decreasing, they just dig deeper to continue pumping.

There is a big difference between lower communities where land is more productive and people use more water and produce more intensively, and medium communities which are further away from markets and still have food and cash crops with smaller fields and more sustainable practices. This depends also on social capital and percentage of immigration to the city, as will be seen in the social analysis.

All in all, water resources are not (yet) depleted but it is a high risk for the coming years if there is no monitoring of groundwater levels and rainfall amounts over the area (Edgar, 2016). There is an urgent need to study the geohydrology and meteorology of the watershed to be able to regulate its water use (Cardeñas, 2016).

iv. Watershed perception

Their environmental perception is very cultural. Mother Earth is almighty and they all respect Her (Mamani G. , 2016). The watershed is seen more as a social organization than as a physical environment. This is due to a very social-oriented campaign by the CPP approach. It explicitly defined the watershed as a “living space” for all. Therefore only a weak percentage (<5%) of interviewed people talked about water and soils, they mainly mentioned the OGC and the institutional help (the watershed project). Unfortunately they don’t see themselves as cause for disturbance of ecosystems and they tend to blame external causes, as climate change or government decision (Clemente, 2016). A lot has to be done about efficient water use and sustainable land management. It can only start with more environmental consciousness. In order to understand the dynamics behind this process, I will now have a look on social organization and the way the watershed’s communities have organized themselves.

30

2. Social A. Context and issues There are huge inequities between mountains and plains communities as the formers don’t live

there anymore and are working in the city or breeding llamas part-time, the latter cultivate carrots/onions and are most of the time on the field.

All farmers need water. But mountain communities need it less than plain communities because their crops are rain-fed and many of them are not cultivating soils any more. Llama breeding is also often done without any one around. So investing in protective measures is a bit useless, maintenance is not done and replication is low except for motivated individuals who are still living in the watershed. There is a need to focus on upper communities if impact at the watershed level is to be achieved.

In the lower part, farmers are much more involved and start to collaborate among communities.

The community unit is the most reliable working target because of its ancestral cohesion although the watershed unit is getting more and more credit with the OGC strengthening.

In this section, a first focus will be made on training activities and the targeted public. Then the OGC’s functioning structure and perception will be looked at in details.

B. Empowerment of farmers and leaders Training from the project has been conducted for years, from different institutions, as the Technical

University of Oruro (UTO), the Ministry of Environment and Water (MMAyA) or the local NGO (all these institutions will be further described in the institutional section). Usually training activities target the whole watershed but sometimes it is at community or familiar level. The problem is that the less favored farmers can’t come if they are too busy trying to make a living. Hopefully some community leaders are trained and then the rest of the community benefits from their learnings.

i. Watershed level

In each watershed workshop, one or two promotors per community come and are trained to a new technique. Then each promotor is in charge of transmitting his new skills and knowledge to the rest of the community. Then a lot depends on the communication and leadership skills of each promotor. Sometimes they are listened to and sometimes not, which can give very different results depending on communities. One good promotor is sometimes enough to “awaken” the whole community (Mamani G. , 2016). For example, in the community of Umitri, one farmer has been trained to use agro-ecologic measures and has promoted it with his community members. As a result the whole community has strongly decreased its use of chemical pesticides or herbicides (Coaquira, 2016).

The CPP project has conducted a few workshops since 2014 with the UTO. They were all done at watershed level and mainly focused on soil management but also on general watershed dynamics. Here is a short list of the most recent workshop themes from the UTO: Sulfocalcics (Biopesticide), Bocashi (organic compost), Animal Health (deparasitation), Collection and plantation of willow stacks, elaboration of biodigesters, pedagogical watershed concept (Cardeñas, 2016)

31

ii. Community level

In order to train people at community level, it is useful to assist to their monthly communal meeting. Unfortunately these meetings are often long and unproductive. Sometimes, as a technician you have to wait to say your word, while internal political games take place. Indeed, each month powerful residents that have migrated to the city come back with their strong vision and they often tend to blaster their opinion without much consideration for others, especially not outsiders (Mamani G. , 2016). So very much depend on the actual leader of the community. He decides to let the technician talk. And he also decides how long, if people can ask questions, if it is necessary to plan activities and further meetings to implement new measures or management. Thus, communal training is often very difficult, unless the whole community approves of one particular project.

Nevertheless, under the CPP project, two new projects have been developed respectively for the mountain and for the plains communities. The first one is aimed at enforcing llama breeding by improving genetic diversity and animal health. Indeed, llamas’ population on the mountain range has exploded due to a lack of control from the villagers who had migrated to the city to make money. This also led to overgrazing, higher pressure on water resources and overall land degradation as well as health problems for llamas. In the past, breeders used to refresh their population with rotation of males and control the number of beasts (Vásquez 2015). Therefore, the new CAYUPACA association aimed at getting again quality meat instead of quantity and genetic degeneration through consanguinity (Mamani N. , 2016). It is constituted of four mountain communities that got together to reinforce their breeding. Thanks to this new project that was started at community-level, with identification of their needs, further familial work could be done (investment of 1.260.000Bs). The second project that was recently started is focused on organic agriculture. Communities from the plains are the main target, though work needs to be conducted at familial level to raise people’s awareness. This second new organization is called ADEPAE-CU and works towards zero chemical inputs in horticulture production (investment of 300.000Bs).

iii. Familial level

The two projects cited above were started at community level with collective meetings, but later the focus got more familiar, with technical assessment and individual trainings. Hence, there has been family-level training for llama breeders which has proved to be very useful.

But in general there is not enough individual training. General workshops happen more often, but there is a lot of talk and not much learning from individuals. Also when people have to move to a meeting room on a voluntary base it is less efficient than when there is a technical support on the field. Of course one should focus on the most progressive farmers, but depending on some communities’ cohesion sometimes the knowledge transfer does not occur.

Another important point that is often neglected is the continuity of training. Workshops are often punctual or over a short period of time, then there is no further evaluation of the actual practical implementation of the new techniques learnt. Therefore there should be maybe more focused group of leaders trained and on a larger term instead of voluntary trainings once in a while and always on

32

different themes. Capacity development is increasing, unfortunately it is only organized at watershed scale and communication is not good.

iv. National exchanges

In the past two years under the CPP, there have been two national exchanges to visit pedagogical watersheds in other departments. According to the local project coordinator, this is still not enough as those exchanges have proved to be extremely useful (Cardeñas, 2016). They allow for dense exchanges of ideas and concepts and allow for the progressive and motivated leaders to compare themselves to other, see new techniques and understand about other organizations and functioning. All farmers who have participated in these national workshops or exchanges were pleased with it. So far, there has only been one national workshop from the Ministry with all watersheds invited, this is still too few… In these occasions, the OGC leaders have to participate. Let’s now understand how the OGC functions and what is its perception inside the watershed.

C. OGC empowerment i. Local political structure

The Watershed Management Organization (OGC) is represented by a committee of five leaders who are democratically elected every year. Each year, a new president is chosen by the 16 communities which have to vote for the best candidate. All leaders are voluntary workers hence it is sometimes difficult to assume their responsibility as they have to do agricultural works as well. The five representatives are the maximal authority of the watershed (Ramos, 2016). On the next level, there are three syndicate units inside the watershed that were historically bound : Jachuyo, Guardaña and Cachi Cachi (Vásquez 2015; OGC Guardaña 2015). Each syndicate unit, called “central”, has two head authorities, the great Mayor and the general Secretary, plus an executive delegate (called “Corregidor”). Then, the third hierarchical step is composed of the 16 communities which all have their own communal Mayor and general secretary. All three hierarchical levels have monthly meetings. And finally, each community has its educative authorities, as well as its health, road and agricultural commission. The overall political structure is summarized hereunder (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Hierarchical structure of local authorities in Guardaña watershed (OGC Guardaña 2015)

1 W

ater

shed

M

anag

emen

t O

rgan

izat

ion

(OG

C)

5 OGC representatives 1 President + 4 leaders

3 Centrals

3 Great Mayors

3 General Secretaries

3 Executive Delegates (Corregidor)

16 Communities 16 Communal Mayors

16 General Secretaries

Commissions Education, Health, Roads & Agriculture Committees

33

ii. Role and responsibilities

The role of the OGC is to represent the watershed and be responsible for integrated management of its resources. Its principles are the same as the Bolivian Constitution stipulates: reciprocity, horizontal management, equity, social control and sustainability (OGC Guardaña 2015; CEP 2009). It is also in charge of searching financial resources and projects. There is also a specific purpose of socializing the watershed concept and train farmers from all communities about sustainable use of environmental resources (Ramos, 2016; Edgar, 2016). As the maximal authority of the watershed, its decisions are priming over central’s or communities’ decisions. It is responsible for solving conflicts between communities. Its main activity is the monthly meeting, but the OGC leaders are constantly requested to represent the watershed, especially in all external activities. When they are invited at political events (it can be an agricultural fair or a TV show) they often bring along their micro-catchment scale model which they are very proud of.

Up to now the OGC clearly has a mediating and political role and not much about resources management and technical enforcement.

iii. Meetings

The OGC is holding regular meetings every 9th of the month. The five committee representatives are leading the debate, with the president giving speaking turns. The vice-president supports the president and the act secretary writes down the key points. Before the reunion, these key points are prepared and discussed with the project coordinator from the UTO together with the five representatives. Close coordination and planning is done between the University and the OGC.

The discussion goes about the watershed, the communities and agricultural production. Depending on the season of the year, topics vary greatly, since farmers have different seasonal activities. Usually in summer they are busy talking about crop production issues, by the end of summer they are concerned about selling their products, and when winter comes then they talk about structural works to harvest water and conserve soils (Mamani G. , 2016). There are a lot of debates and the meeting usually lasts the whole day (from 9am to 5pm). Talks can take a while and sometimes people speak without having anything to say, just to show that they are present. So there is a lot of political game but when the same issue comes on the table, they are all very committed to solve the problem as soon as possible. Unfortunately during these meetings there is not much insight into natural resources management at the watershed scale. It can be noticed that the president plays an important moderating role, as well as a strong persuasion power. The most knowledge the president has, the best he can share it with all farmers of Guardaña watershed.

iv. Planning

Since the CPP contest, each community had to make scale model of their environment. They all had to represent the past, the present and the future of their communal lands. This was used as a base for planning the future SWC activities to be implemented in the watershed on a communal basis. The UTO has kept the results of this contest but unfortunately has not written a document summarizing activities to be prioritized (Mamani G. , 2016). Thus the OGC has a plan but it is still very much dependent on the UTO and information is not easily accessible to farmers. Thus, the planning of activities is discussed on a

34

monthly basis. The OGC presents the planning agreed before the meeting with the UTO, then each community has to formally agree. This can lead to a lot of discussion during the monthly meetings, as it is not possible to work in all communities at the same time, thus careful balancing of activities is needed in order to avoid conflicts (Cardeñas, 2016).

v. Perception

Nevertheless, communal authorities may feel that they are losing power. It can be problematic because each community has also local politics that have a very important symbolic and executive role in social organization. Therefore there is some ambiguity between stakeholders about what topics should be the OGC’s responsibility and which should be the communities’ (Cardeñas, 2016). Though social cohesion is strong between communities, there is a little of ancestral rivalry that can lead to slowdown of processes (Mamani G. , 2016). But all in all the little conflicts present are manageable and do not consist of a threat to the OGC’s functioning.

What can be a limitation to its role though is the lack of relation the OGC has with some isolated farmers or communities inside the watershed, according to the actual president (Edgar, 2016). Also, when one community needs something, they often go directly to the Municipality without consulting the OGC. For example many atajados and gabions were done with municipal support, without direct implication from the OGC. This can be considered positive as it shows self-mobilization from some communities. But it can lead to inequities between communities, especially because some communities have better relations with the local government than others. The goal of the OGC is thus again to moderate and balance investments between communities according to needs and priorities.

vi. Perspectives

The OGC has been functioning for now four years. The motivation of its leaders has been an important factor of development success. The OGC is now recognized at the watershed scale by local communities. Nevertheless, it still needs supports from projects in order to be maintained. An organization without resources soon disappears. The OGC would urgently need to manage its own financial resources in order to be more dynamic, more autonomous and more sustainable in the long-term (Flores, 2016).

Therefore the OGC has recently launched a process to acquire a juridical status that would allow it to manage funds directly. This way the OGC could be a structure that would not depend on other institutions and could directly manage project budgets without intermediary. This process is low but going steady, by the end of 2016 the OGC should get its juridical personality (Cardeñas, 2016). This is of course very important for its external legal recognition and trust.

Once the OGC gets its status, it can start looking for resources and projects, as it has already done more than once in the past. But this time, the money collected would serve directly. In order to achieve this, further empowerment of its leader is crucial. The OGC also needs more law enforcement and socio-political control (Soliz, 2016). Closer coordination with other institutions, especially the municipal government needs to be reinforced. Financial participation of members would be a way to reinforce socio-political recognition as well as bring financial resources (Soliz, 2016). Some farmers from some

35

communities have already started bring one boliviano per person, but the process will take time to be socially accepted (Edgar, 2016).

With an OGC managing its own resources it would also be faster and more resilient to unexpected expenses. Indeed financial delays are extremely big when something that was not planned on the project’s worksheet needs to be spent. The whole procedure needs to be approved by the UTO’s council go through fifteen people then reach the VRHR and the MMAyA, be approved and come back to the project’s coordinator then finally a budget would be available (Mamani G. , 2016). This can take up to a few months which can be very problematic for farmers. Indeed farmers’ needs can evolve very fast depending on natural conditions. For example, this year onion crops were attacked by a disease and farmers lost up to 30% of their yields (Cardeñas, 2016). They would have needed funds to counter the attack but unfortunately it was not planned on the project’s budget. An independent OGC would be much more efficient at tackling urgent needs if being able to mobilize resources at short notice.

36

3. Economic A. Context and issues Economics in the watershed are closely connected to agricultural activity. Indeed, off-farm income

represents usually less than half of total income at household level. But due to the temporal agriculture there is around 10% of average off-farm income mainly taxi drivers and “albanillos” (construction workers) (Soliz, 2016). Inside the watershed there is no lucrative activity that is not directly related to agriculture. All off-farm incomes have to be gained outside, mostly in the cities of Oruro, Cochabamba or La Paz. Migration can be seasonal, during winter, or permanent with young villagers going to upper schools or finding jobs in cities and not coming back. Land tenure is familial hence if all sons and daughters have to inherit the land its size decrease significantly (Vásquez 2015). This is why many young people prefer to leave their land share and start a new life in the cities (Portillo C. , 2016).

Agricultural income strongly differs between mountain and plains communities for the same reasons already mentioned earlier.

The llama breeding families have a constant income through meat and wool sales. Meet can also be transformed in “charque” when salt-dried in the sun. Together with “chuño” (dehydrated potatoes) and other typical products from the Bolivian highlands, charque selling is very lucrative since many tourists are fond of it. Thus llama by-products allow for a medium yearly income of 6900Bs per household.1 This is very low and explains why there is a lot of economic-driven migration from these communities (Paria Pampita, Yunguma, Wichocollo and Cañaviri) (Mamani N. , 2016). Llamas are often left grazing alone for long periods of time. They thus feed on scarce bush vegetation and drink water wherever it is stocked. Llama’s significant population (between 5000 and 10000 heads) needs consistent fresh water which can prove to be difficult to find in dry periods (Ramirez, 2016). The llamas’ overpopulation has led to environmental damage and destroyed some forestation efforts at high altitude as llamas passed protection fences to feed on young tree plantations.

In the plains, crop production has a much larger share, with horticulture cultivation being the most rentable activity. The medium yearly income per household is around 12.360Bs thanks to horticulture production and sales in Oruro, La Paz and Cochabamba cities.2 This income is almost twice as much as upper part communities’ income. This can explain lower migration rates from the plains than from the plateau. This enormous difference is mainly due to better climatic conditions but also easier market access through better roads. Also, this was made possible by the arrival of electricity in the watershed (electric pumps) and the higher value of carrots/onions on the inner Bolivian market. Indeed, the altiplano is the only producer of these root vegetables in all Bolivia, and its production costs are still lower than foreign countries. Nevertheless, increasing emergence of imports from Peru is threatening

1 An average family has around 100 llamas and sleigh around 8 per year. A llama weighs around 40kg in the area, and costs around 20Bs/Kg. By-products (wool) and not-consumed yields (chuño, quinoa, potato) sales brings around 500Bs/year. The medium farm income per household is around 6.900Bs (Mamani B. , 2016; Ramirez, 2016)

2 Considering a family with 1,25ha divided between carrots (1/4ha), oignons (1/4ha), potatoes(1/2ha) and horse beans(1/4ha) and keeping half of the potato production for own consumption, with average benefit per crop respectively of 14600Bs/ha, 25400Bs/ha, 12300Bs/ha and 7300Bs/ha, the medium yearly income is 12 360Bs

37

the Bolivian market, with a risk for farmers not to ensure their subsistence. Prices fluctuation is perceived as a major threat for intensive horticulture farmers.

All in all, the main economic issue at the watershed scale is the high dependency on farm income and thus on water availability. Therefore, off-farm activities should be developed inside the watershed in order to increase the economic resilience of farmers. After evaluating the costs and benefits of SWC measures implemented by the watershed project, an insight will be given as to how to get new economic resources based on environmental services.

B. Costs and benefits to the farmer The project has many direct and indirect impacts on agricultural activity inside the watershed.

Hereunder a short analysis of farmer’s short-term and long-term inputs/outputs allows for a better understanding of costs and benefits for each measure implemented under the project (Figure 22).

Figure 22: Analysis of IWM benefits and costs for local farmers at short and long term (Author, 2016)

By unifying all 16 communities in the project into a political structure (OGC) there is an increasing promotion of their products. For example they are organizing or invited to agricultural fairs where they can increase their sales. But in order for this project to achieve its level of success, incentives had to be used. Nevertheless farmers now know how to get financing. Active involvement of some community leaders has led to continued economic support from various projects for the last 8 years, since the implementation of the MIC project. At national, governmental, academic or municipal level, all institutions have been solicited at least once by Guardaña active community (Vásquez 2015).

Since the MIC project, farmers have never invested their money into any measure. The financial support comes from projects at higher level. As a counterpart, communities have to take part in construction activities and also pay for fuel, but they were supported by communal machinery and government’s technical support. Work were mostly done at community level, but now more and more at the OGC’s level, with atajados being the most successful measure at it benefits to more than one community at a time. The only cost that is not properly evaluated in the project is the cost of maintenance. Indeed, once the constructions done, there are very few that were maintained by

IWM component

Short-term (installation)

Long-term (maintenance)

Short-term benefits

Long-term benefitsLong-term economic

benefits

Atajados/bijiñas Labour (high) Labour, irrigation tubes

increased surface water availabil ity

increased soil water content, increased irrigation water

Increased production per ha

Slow-forming stone terraces

Labour (high) Labour none Restoration of cultivable areas Increased total production

Forestation areas Labour (low) Labour, water none Restoration of cultivable areas Increased total production

Gabions none Labour decreased flood damages

maintained/ increased cultivable area Increased total crop production and production/ha

Willow plantations

Labour (low) Labour, water none maintained/increased cultivable area, increased soil water content and soil ferti l ity

Increased total crop production and production/ha

OGC functioning none five voluntary representatives

External promotion of products

Increased sales and customers Increased agricultural income

Farmer's inputs Farmers' outputs

38

communities though it is their direct responsibility as stipulated in the project. This is especially true for soil conservation practices as stone terraces but also gabions and willow plantations. Nevertheless, as water concern is greater, some atajados that were defective got repaired by autonomous self-motivated communities.

C. Perception and valuation of watershed services Inside the watershed

There is a common sense that if upstream communities build water harvesting structures, it will benefit to the whole downstream population thanks to water infiltration. This assumed fact strengthens the reciprocity feeling inside the watersheds and everybody feels responsible for replicating and maintaining atajados and bijiñas (Ramos, 2016). Nevertheless, land degradation threats are still not perceived as such, farmers often do not see the link between forestation and decreased erosion. This is due to slow physical processes that are hard to understand for non-initiated brains.

There is thus a varied perception about environmental services and their potential economic repercussion. Everything related to water starts to be understood by locals. At least they make the connection between surface and groundwater especially the fact that stocking surface increases water levels in wells (Portillo C. , 2016). Downstream communities now support the construction of atajados in upstream communities though they are historically very community-centered. Yet they don’t quite understand the hydrologic cycle basic connections at the watershed scale. Most farmers consider groundwater resources as eternal, or at least are not too concerned to dig deeper their wells every year in order to reach the aquifers (Edgar, 2016). A proper study of aquifer networks and levels inside and downstream of the micro-catchment is necessary in order to make precise water balance and predict potential groundwater depletion (Cardeñas, 2016). A proper social control should be implemented in order to limit groundwater pumping for more equity and sustainability. Unfortunately sustainable use of water resources is not the first concern of many farmers, as long as they get enough to make a living with their crops. This is particularly true for big horticulture producers (horticulture income superior to 15.000Bs).

Outside the watershed

There is an increasing awareness from farmers that their water conservation work can benefit to downstream water user. Some mention the service of controlling water quality and quantity as to offer drinkable water to the lower communities and in particular the city of Oruro. The watershed could be considered as a “water factory” that would get financial compensation for its work.

Indeed, Oruro is located 20km downstream of Guardaña watershed and probably gets a good share of its drinking water from infiltrated water. In order to put into place this service there would need to be a quantification of this share (geohydrology study), as well as a control of water quality (Cardeñas, 2016).

Water quality is not ensured, as there is no treatment of wastes. Even worse, active industrial contamination has been witnessed in the mountain range (Figure 23) (Cardeñas, 2016; Mamani G. , 2016). This upstream spill of polluted water would be caused by a mining company situated just outside of the micro-catchment’s administrative limit but not physical one. The mine is located just next to Yunguma community, at 4500 meters above sea level and is under the jurisdiction of Cochabamba

39

department. There needs to be a national conflict resolution between the two departments, Oruro and Cochabamba, in order to determine who has to pay for water decontamination or safe deposal of heavy metals. A recent water analysis showed potentially alarming levels of Arsenic that would be the base for further juridical actions (Cardeñas, 2016).

Figure 23: Active water contamination by a mining corporation located at the outskirt of the micro-catchment boundary, under Cochabamba's jurisdiction. (Author, 2016)

If water quality and quantity is controlled, it would be possible to establish a kind of payment from the citizens to the watershed’s farmers. But Oruro citizens don’t know where their tap water comes from so maybe the watershed project could enhance local perception from both the citizens and the GAD (Mamani G. , 2016). If the 60.000 water users of Oruro would pay one Boliviano per year that would already be 60.000Bs for the Watershed Management Committee to invest in protection and control of water sources (Cardeñas, 2016).

Regarding soils, no effort yet is being done to understand the dynamics of soil erosion and sedimentation inside or outside the watershed.

A last ecosystem service that is often forgotten is the leisure value of the watershed. Indeed, eco-tourism could be conducted in the area, as suggested by the “watershed school” concept of the CPP. This concept could be extrapolated to tourists, allowing for a new source of income that could be used by the OGC to invest in integrated watershed management. But it would need time and support from farmers who are already super-busy with their farming activities (Portillo C. , 2016).

40

4. Political A. Stakeholder analysis The first institution to work towards rural development in the area is a Christian NGO funded by the

U.S.A. and called Mundial Vision. Its goal is to reach the poorest families and provide better living conditions and education with a special focus on children. This NGO has implemented a total of 42 Area Development Plans (called PDA in Spanish) in whole Bolivia. Each PDA lasts for fifteen years and aims at providing basic needs to poor rural areas. It has five lines of action: health and nutrition, agriculture, education, formation of leaders and energy.

In Guardaña, the PDA Winaypaj started in 2001 and is now ending its program after fifteen years of work. Its main achievement in the area is the installation of electricity and drinking water for nearly all communities. It revolutionized the education by rising children’s level of primary education from around 20% to 99% today thanks to school building, professor trainings and transport development. It also implemented a very useful device called the “carrot cleaner”, a machine that can function manually or with petrol motor. Finally it originated the creation of the horticulture association which happened in 2012, one year after the OGC got born (Soliz, 2016).

In 2004 the Ministry of Environment and Water (MMAyA) elaborated the first watershed management project that officially started in 2008 as the MIC project under PNC funding. At this time the Prefecture of Oruro (now GAD) took part in the project but dropped it in 2012. With the end of the MIC was created the OGC in 2011 (Vásquez 2015). This structure was strengthened by the PDA, actively training its leaders which in turned led to the creation of the agricultural cooperative between the 16 communities.

The OGC continued searching for new projects and resources which they quickly found with the VRHR and its new CPP. By late 2013, the OGC found a new facilitating institution: the Technical University of Oruro (UTO) being consulted by farmers directly. The UTO thus joined the dance. The CPP funding and the collaboration with the UTO as facilitating institution will come to an end in 2017. Most probably the UTO will elaborate a new project and ask for funding from the MMAyA to continue investigating in the watershed (Cardeñas, 2016).

In most recent evolution, a new project has been funded and elaborated by the Helvetas Swiss Cooperation (anciently COSUDE, one of the main foreign funder of the PNC) and has just started at the start of 2016. It is called the “Concurrent Action Plan” (PAC) and aims at the continuation of MIC and CPP projects. The goal is to achieve long-term integrated management of resources by strengthening both capacities of the OGC and the Municipality in order for them to be autonomous at the end of the project (Saavedra, 2016). The Municipality (GAM) of Sorachachi thus recently started interacting with the OGC and unleashed a budget to hire technicians specifically in charge of the PAC, thanks to the new PNC funding.

Nowadays there is a total of six institutions that try to implement the integrated and sustainable management of watershed resources in Guardaña (UTO, GAM, OGC, PDA, Helvetas, VRHR). Overall coordination is not fulfilled though, with objectives differing a bit between institutions. Nevertheless the

41

tendency is towards more integration. Only lacks the cooperation of the GAD of Oruro, still not very aware of the PNC and its application in a nearby watershed (only 30km between Guardaña and Oruro) (Edgar, 2016). But little by little, raising awareness from the citizens and the departmental authorities has already started thanks to increasing promotion of the Guardaña watershed.

B. Institutional Coordination and Integration i. Evaluation

There are many institutions and organization working on a regular basis inside the watershed. In order to attain integrated management, the OGC should be installing an institutional platform allowing for all institutions to come and expose their objectives, their needs. This would allow for less duplication. For example, there are actually two ministries working with Guardaña watershed, the Ministry of Environment and Water (MMAyA) but also the Ministry of Land and Rural Development. The latter has recently launched a contest called “ACCESSOS” inside the watershed, promoting the building of bijiñas at the community level. This is not officially under the PNC though it is clearly part of integrated watershed management. This lack of coordination could be improved if the OGC was the main responsible authority and would gather everyone around the table to agree on activities so as to avoid duplicate works (Mamani G. , 2016). This is also valid for NGOs or smaller organizations with specific focus, as education, or waste disposal for example (Cardeñas, 2016). The OGC monthly meeting could be more exploited as an inter-institutional platform which would integrate all projects, optimizing communication share and facilitating logistics.

Overall, there is a good coordination between the UTO and the OGC. Maybe there is lack of horizontal field activities to further link both institutions and apply the PNC concept of sharing local and scientific knowledge. For now, it is the role of the CPP technician hired by the UTO to make this link. Unfortunately he is the only field worker from the project (there was another technician but his contract was not renewed) and the watershed measures 300km² with 16 communities. So the task is a bit difficult, especially with the bad state of the roads. There would need to have at least three full-time technicians working in the watershed to increase knowledge sharing and coordination (Cardeñas, 2016). Participatory research could also be led to further enforce links between academics and farmers.

The GAM recently got involved in the watershed and its role will increase progressively. The Municipality already gives visits to the OGC monthly meetings to listen to projects and suggest theirs. Historically the GAM started intervening for the communities when the building of atajados started. The communities needed machinery and had none. Community’s authorities asked to the GAM to lend their material which they agreed with. Now the support from the GAM is official. Anytime there are construction works to be done in the watershed, the GAM offers their material and machinery support. A new agreement has even been signed between the UTO and the GAM about shared incentives: the UTO pays the fuel and the GAM provides the machinery. Nevertheless the municipality’s own budget is still too low to support soil and water conservation practices. That is why the new PAC with its 300.000Bs will greatly help enforce the GAM’s role and collaboration with the OGC.

The main governmental institution which is still not part of any PNC program is the GAD. This is a weakness that needs to be changed, they would need to be sensitized sooner or later (Soliz, 2016).

42

ii. Perspectives

Recent developments have led to the active implication of the Municipality which was never very involved in watershed management programs. Though three MIC projects were implemented in the Municipality of Soracachi since 2002, only one of the three micro-catchments still receives funding. There is a political will at municipal level to develop the other two watersheds in order to reach integrated management on their whole administrative territory (Flores, 2016). The successful watershed (Guardaña) has been very active recently. They have brought a petition to the GAM, asking for the creation of a Risk Management Unit (UGR) inside the council. This unit is supposedly mandatory, according to national law (Soliz, 2016) but does not exist until now. The creation of this unit would allow for the permanent support of two workers from the Municipality: one project coordinator and one technician. They would be in charge of evaluating risks and take rapid and effective actions to mitigate them.

Inside the University, three new faculties will soon start making research in the watershed together with the faculty of agronomy which is currently the only one working in the area. The faculties of anthropology, economics and mechanical engineer will soon send their researchers and technicians to investigate Guardaña watershed (Cardeñas, 2016). Indeed, the investigation part is currently one of the weak points of the project, as geologic, hydrologic and soil studies are urgently needed (Soliz, 2016). More faculties should get involved in the process if additional economic resources get available. Currently there is still too much work conducted by outsiders and external consultants and not by academic researchers (Vásquez 2015).

Finally, the most recent institutional development is taking place thanks to the new PAC. This plan has been organized at national level through a contest. Fifteen watersheds have been selected to enforce this plan which has a specific focus on empowering local institutions, especially governmental and farmer’s cooperatives. This project has thus been signed by the OGC, the GAM and the PDA which acts as a facilitator, administrating the project in the beginning but dropping out by the end of 2016 for the GAM to take the lead until 2017. The PDA has a strong advantage of having its operative infrastructures inside the watershed and an expert leader who has been working in the area for fourteen years. This institution has a much higher knowledge of farmers and communities conditions, hence is respected and has greater impact at all levels. It really is a key actor of the area’s successful development. Since its work is coming to an end, it is urgent that the GAM fills the void, and together with the OGC, builds a common vision for the watershed, its resources and its inhabitants: “para vivir bien”.

43

V. Sustainability of integrated management in Thola P’ujru watershed

1. Environmental A. Land use systems and irrigation practices Thola P’ujru is a micro-catchment sized 16.92km² and located north of Tiquipaya town, near

Cochabamba city. It is part of the Tunari mountain range, with altitude ranging from 2780 to 4480m above sea level. The yearly rainfall amount ranges between 700 to over 1000mm, higher precipitation amounts being correlated with higher altitude. The medium annual temperature is 18.7° at 3200m (PROMIC 2008). The average air humidity is around 60% (PROMIC 2007b). Two villages are settled in this micro-catchment: Laphia community (at 3500m) and Thola P’ujru community (at 3200m).

Steep slopes are noticed in the area, especially in the highest and the lowest part of the micro-catchment (above 4000m and below 3200m). Agricultural activity takes place in between, with the majority of cultivated lands between 3200m and 3600m and the majority of grazing lands between 3600m and 4000m (Figure 24).

Figure 24: Elevation map of Thola P'ujru catchment and classification per major land cover (Veliz, 2016)

44

On one hand, water erosion is severe with gully formations. Rocks are also taken away by floods, endangering the population from the valley. It is very important to work inside the watershed to prevent risk downstream of the outlet. Therefore tremendous hydric control work has been conducted on the main run-off lines with gabions and stone constructions to reduce water speed and catch sediments (Figure 25). On the other hand, due to the high slopes, soils are fragile and shallow and surface water erosion can cause loss of soil particles. Therefore important work has been conducted to avoid soil fertility decrease by water runoff. Sustainable practices have been promoted, as sprinkling irrigation, slow-forming terraces with fodder grass, organic cover and stone bunds. Water availability is supposedly not a problem in the catchment, though irrigation structures could be further developed to increase water use efficiency. Currently sprinkling irrigation has been incentivized at farmer’s level with high success. Replication rates are important, because farmers perceive the fragility of their soil. Indeed soil loss is easily visible in this watershed, taken away by water, rocks or gravity. The main concern nowadays is about water, with increasingly frequent dry years, and a growing urban population downstream. Enhanced collaboration between upstream and downstream communities is needed to avoid future water conflicts.

Figure 25: Gabion used as hydric control to reduce water speed and catch sediments (Author, 2016)

B. Watershed’s project environmental measures The project’s main objective is to “seed environmental conscience” according to the Municipal

leader in charge of all-related watershed’s projects (Veliz, 2016). On the next figure, one can see the MIC’s project’ achievements during its four years’ execution, from 2008 to 2012 (Camacho 2015; SDC 2012) (Figure 26).

45

Figure 26: List of soil and water conservation measures implemented in Thola P’ujru watershed (SDC 2012)

There is a fifth component to be added to the four listed above: extension and communal awareness activities that has been conducted with no less than 94 families out of 108.

Geographically, off-farm measures mainly happened at low, medium high and high altitude, where erosion processes are the strongest while on-farm measures were applied at medium altitude, where the agricultural activity is the most present (near the settlements).

After the MIC project, the CPP project was used as an extension project, with a technician hired for one year. He tried to raise awareness among the population and look at continuity issues. From that approach, a new Concurrent Action Plan has aroused in order to further develop physical measures together with social management. The CPP project was a non-capital investment with a very social focus that was used as an intermediary between two capital investments, the MIC and the PAC. The PAC has a new approach, mixing both non-capital and capital investments in order to attain sustainability (Camacho 2015). The main achievement of the CPP is to have enforced the OGC and trained their members with workshops and field visits. Some conservation activities were also implemented, but to a smaller extent than the MIC previously did.

C. Sustainable Use of Natural Resources i. General

People are mostly aware of degradation processes, especially water erosion on slopes. They know that their land is at risk with rockslides and they have been experimenting forestation projects with Eucalyptus. Now they start to realize that it was not such a good idea because the eucalyptus is sucking all the water from the soil and nothing else can grow (Montaño, 2016). So they understood that native

Off-farm measures

Hydric control •Gabions (10.500m³)

Control and protection of Degraded Areas •Runoff control (1750 ditches) •Forestation (83.142 plants) •Stone disks (183,88m³)

On-farm measures

Soil conservation and management •Slow forming pasta phalaris terraces (64,96has) •Forestation lines (12.700has) •Organic fertilizer application (60,76has) •Infiltration ditches (2550) •Sulfo-caclic application (190,78has) •Seeds rotation fund (111,48has) •Fruittrees plantations (6,45has) •Sprinkling irrigation (61,75has)

Grazing and livestock management •Protection fences (70,07has) •Pasture seeds (19has) •Fodder seeds (90,94has) •Silage preparation (55m³)

46

species plantation was more profitable and would allow for more water availability in the ground. All in all there are progressive farmers who care for the land and are also good leaders thus the whole community follows. Strong cohesion helps in this process.

ii. Water

Historically inundation irrigation was used in the whole area. Thanks to the PROMIC work and incentives, nowadays around 50% of land is now irrigated with sprinklers (Vargaz, 2016). Each farmer has thus mixed irrigation systems. The goal would be to reach 100% of sparkling irrigation in the area but in order to achieve it more tubes are needed (Duran, 2016). This improves greatly the water use efficiency and reduces significantly inter-rill and rill erosion and thus soil loss, allowing for fertility levels to stop decreasing (Montaño, 2016).

They do not perceive water resources as at risk though they are learning how to use water more efficiently. They are mostly progressive about irrigation systems as they allow for less water waste and more reliable water support. They are not stocking water as much because the catchment does it for them, with plenty of sources that come out of the hillside, coming from the high precipitation amounts on the “Cordillera”. Hence the main concern is not about water availability but about equitable distribution among farmers. Indeed there are some minor conflicts due to the location and access to water. Therefore irrigation projects that include the majority of people are of the outmost importance to ensure community’s cohesion. In the future, if water stress increases, it would be useful that their water use is regulated and efficient in order to allow for downstream population to benefit from the “fabrica de agua”.

iii. Soil

Soil degradation is mostly perceived in the steepest area where it is easily visible to amateur’s eyes. Terraces and other structures that allow for reduced soil loss have also very short-term visible effects, encouraging farmers to replicate them. One particular measure catches the attention, the slow-forming terraces with fodder grass, because it has a double function. Grass strips allow for reduced water erosion and increased water and sediment retention thus increasing the soil fertility but the strips also produce alimentation for animals. The loss of cultivable area due to the grass strips is gained by the fodder production. This double advantage has convinced many farmers to replicate the measure on their fields (Vargaz, 2016). The only aspect on which more work should be conducted is about chemical use. Indeed spreading occurs in the catchment due to some diseases, though in Laphia there is a rule about restricting chemical use (Vargas, 2016). Some practices could thus be further improved by efficient training on integrated pest management, for example.

47

2. Social A. Context and issues The OGC “13 de Agosto” is linking all five communities from the three sub-catchments. Nevertheless

in this study only the two communities of Thola P’ujru watershed will be analyzed for the reasons explained in the introduction of this thesis report. The sub-central “13 de Agosto” is a syndicate organization that mostly focuses on protecting the workers’ right, thus actively working towards economic integration and inter-help, a bit like an agricultural cooperative would function. But concerning natural resources, each community is still quite independent, with high differences between communities’ involvement.

The focus will now be on Thola P’ujru watershed and its two communities: Laphia and Thola P’ujru. There is a high inequity between the two communities of the micro-catchment. This has obvious social consequences. But interestingly here, the poorest community is more supportive than the richest. This is link to migration rates. In the community where the majority still shares daily life, the sense of common goods and interests is higher than where people only come to harvest their fields. Thus social coherence is higher in Laphia, with strong community leaders who are respected, with internal debates and sharing of opinions, leading to common objectives and agreements.

Historically Laphia was not the most progressive community, but thanks to a successfully implemented MIC project, farmers got interested and appreciated the attention that was given to them. This has then become the community’s pride and they are all very committed to the cause. In Thola P’ujru it is possible to work with individuals, while in Laphia it has greater impact to work at community’s level. Indeed permanent migration has affected the community of Thola P’ujru, with some lands now being sold to people from the valley. Therefore new buyers have some difficulty to get involved in community management rules and it is useful to work directly with them (Felicidad, 2016). In Laphia, migration rates are below 10% and the community still has a strong communal organization (Duran, 2016).

Water use is regulated in Thola P’ujru, with individual turns of 6 hours every 10 to 15 days (Vargaz, 2016). This water comes from sources and is canalized through earthen structures reaching a water-tank from where manual gates allow for water repartition among communal members.

B. Empowerment of farmers and leaders Interestingly enough, the training and education activities that were conducted in this watershed

have had a far-reached impact on locals. Indeed, much of capacitation activities were done at family level, with technical support, but also at community level with active participation of all members. Nevertheless some workshops might still be out of reach for uneducated people and thus reduce participation (Vargaz, 2016). Moreover some farmers who have heavy-working days in the fields with crops and animals don’t have time to take part in workshops (Montaño, 2016). Exchange of experience also had a great success, with visits to other pedagogical watersheds. Maybe the fact that the technician in charge spoke Quechua, the local dialect, made a big difference. Or the experience of the organism (SDC, anciently PROMIC) allowed for a more efficient training than in other watersheds. It is in all cases

48

evident that replication is higher in this catchment than in Guardaña, maybe thanks to the small size of this catchment (area ratio of 1/20!). It is indeed easier to take care of an area of 15km² than 300km². The support would have to be twenty times more effective in order to achieve the same impact in Guardaña.

C. OGC empowerment i. Evaluation

The OGC is called 13 de Agosto and represents three micro-catchments and five communities. Its role is historically very political. They are recognized by the Municipality and all other organizations that work in the catchment. Nevertheless its role in terms of natural resources management is still quite limited. It is efficient as a structure to ask for projects and budget due to its external political recognition. Further capacitation of its members is needed to sensitize all community members about the importance of natural resources (Duran, 2016). Also, the organization should get more involved in farmer-to-farmer awareness raise, because some farmers are still not aware of the new structure’s existence (Vargaz, 2016). The process has already started, with consultation of each community during workshop for themselves to establish their priority regarding the environment. But the OGC is still a very new concept and has only recently separated its monthly meeting from the sub-central syndicate. It is not perceived yet as working at its full potential (Duran, 2016). At the moment it is represented by a few strong leaders (Benjamin Vargas, Judith Gonzalez) that promote integrated management but further perception evolution from most communities is needed. It is a first step towards community collaboration, though it is clear that they are not as linked as Guardaña watershed.

Nevertheless inside recognition could be increased by using the popularity of the sub-central syndicate. Indeed the OGC is the “right hand” of the syndicate, as communal leader Benjamin says (Vargas, 2016). Nowadays the OGC has designed and published its own Management Plan for the five communities (OGC 13 de Agosto 2015).

ii. Perspectives

The OGC is acquiring increasing political recognition thanks to strong leader voices. These leaders also have useful connections inside the Municipality which helps being listened to (Vargas, 2016). In this case, the OGC is already empowered locally. But it lacks more attention from politicians inside Tiquipaya’s autonomous government. It has still to develop and to defend its environmental approach in the political sphere. Currently there is a huge effort being conducted by the Direction of Mother Earth and the OGC leaders in order to incorporate a new Watershed direction and funding through the municipal Council.

It is considered of the outmost importance for the OGC to fully get responsible for the management of its resources, especially because projects and technicians only last for defined periods of time while watershed management is infinite (Veliz, 2016). As Engineer Veliz said: “the communities need to be the principal actors while we (Municipality) are only guides… The watershed is a working unit without ending, it needs permanent actions”. The OGC, though its actual political strength, needs further support since it is still not fully recognized inside and outside of the watershed. If it doesn’t get it, it will die (Camacho, 2016).

49

3. Economics A. Context and issues Thola P’ujru watershed is composed of two communities: Laphia and Thola P’ujru. Laphia is located

in the higher part (altitude 3600m) and further away from the valley than Thola P’ujru (altitude 3200m). This altitude and distance difference has great repercussion on the two communities’ economics. In the higher part, the majority of the population still lives in the settlement, without electricity. They live of subsistence farming, with a few cash crops, like potatoes or beans and some livestock activity (cows and sheeps). In the lower part, Thola P’ujru lives of floriculture production and doesn’t produce as much food crops as Laphia does. Its population majority has migrated to the town and comes back to the settlement to harvest flowers to sell at Tiquipaya and Cochabamba markets. It has almost no livestock for the simple reason that they can’t take care of it when working in the valley (Vargaz, 2016).

On average, each farmer possesses one to one hectare and a half. On economic value terms, the major crop in Thola P’ujru is flower while it is potatoes in Laphia. Flowers are cultivated all-year round with weekly sales to the market, while potatoes are only sold in summer (November to January). Thus, Laphia community depends on other crops that are produced at different moment of the year, as well as on livestock activity. They sell meat, milk and cheese from their cows and sheep to assure their livelihood (Duran, 2016). So they need to take care of their cattle and stay in the community. On the other hand, Thola P’ujru community does not have much livestock because their grazing area is low. Therefore, added to the flower business, there are many men who work as constructors or taxi drivers in the valley. Economic income in Thola P’ujru is more stable than in Laphia thanks to the constant flower business. Laphia community is thus more economically vulnerable, especially with changing environment conditions.

B. Cost and Benefits to the farmer Since the MIC project in 2008, farmers have benefited from extensive work inside the watersheds,

with trainings and structural investments. Indeed many farmers used to have a negative sold for some crops, due to high input costs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, labor…). This was particularly true for potato crops in both communities (PROMIC 2007c). Thanks to the PROMIC’s work and incentives, seeds were provided, and the situation improved. Here is a short list of their direct and indirect benefits (Figure 27).

All these supports to the farmers have a cost. In the project, farmers had to participate with labor, but also local counterpart, as a share between all community members for integrated projects at the community level. It can create some problems, as shown in this example. An irrigation project was planned by the community itself and budget was asked to the Ministry. Due to the slow administration process, it took more than two years for the project’s budget to be available. In the meantime the community had forgotten their individual monetary engagement in the project and strong resistance was opposed especially because several farmers would not directly benefit from irrigation works. All in all, it is good that farmers participate economically in the project. It makes them more conscious about the issues and also willing to maintain the structures once installed. But community’s cohesion is very important, and sometimes the effort of giving cash money is not well perceived by a population that does not have high living standards.

50

Figure 27: Direct and indirect benefits to Thola P'ujru community from the implementation of SWC measures under PNC projects. (Author, 2016)

C. Perception and valuation of watershed services Some farmers realize that their micro-catchment can be called “fabrica de agua” and that if they take

care of the water and the natural resources upstream, it can benefit to people downstream. Thus maybe more responsibility should be put on farmers, with some incentives or counterpart from the downstream users to motivate them to protect water and use it efficiently (PROMIC 2007a). Negotiations have already started with the Municipal power in order to sensitize them to the work being conducted in Thola P’ujru watershed with the objective of mobilizing more communal resources.

Indeed, it would be a form of payment for environmental services, with the Municipality’s largest population living in the valley. A share of its budget would be spent in integrated watershed management activities in the highlands that would benefit to the whole valley population. Nevertheless this mechanism would need a perception change inside the communal office but also in the population’s mind. With water scarcity risks being more and more emphasized by authorities and observed by people, a mentality change could occur in the coming years. If not, then new water conflicts could arise in densely populated areas and high water demand areas. It is necessary that collaboration increases between rural upland population and urban valley people in order to avoid future conflicts.

Roads construction and maintenance is an obligation from the Municipality (PROMIC 2007c). Maybe further investments could be a fair pay-back for watershed protection services from the communities?

Ecotourism is promoted by some community members. They would see a new income source opportunity as a way to get paid back for environmental care (Duran, 2016).

Benefits

Increased soil fertility

(manure, biofertilizer

and sprinkling irrigation)

Reduced soil loss (grass

strips, stone bunds)

Increased fodder

production (grass strips)

Reduced costs for production diversification

(seeds and plants supply)

Increased income from

livestock production (sanitation measures)

Increased agricultural area

(grazing management,

terraces)

51

4. Political A. Context and issues From the community’s authorities to the Ministry, there are several intermediary instances that are

all more or less involved in the PNC. The Vice-Ministry is still the main governmental funder, with the Swiss Cooperation Helvetas strongly involved in the program. At a lower level, the department of Cochabamba has been involved in IWM since 1991. Nevertheless it is only recently with the arrival of the PNC that active collaboration occurs between the national ministry and the department. Nowadays the communal authority got involved in the new concurrent action plan (PAC) designed by Helvetas. Its objective is, as in Guardaña, to strengthen the Municipality and the OGC’s role and skills in resources management (Villaroel, 2016). There has been a recent shift of project implementation from the departmental SDC to the Municipality of Tiquipaya. This creates a problem of continuity but hopefully, if communal development evolves, there will soon be a new watershed direction inside the main communal instance (Veliz, 2016). Nowadays it is still the department of Natural resources, as an external structure, that has the responsibility of watershed management.

B. Institutional Coordination and Integration i. Evaluation

SDC and the Municipality do not work directly together because the project’s budget is aimed at the Municipality and the CPP’s budget is slow to arrive. Slow administration and bureaucracy is a downside of the project, with some delays in project’s implementation which can greatly affect their effectiveness. Indeed, the new PAC has been approved by communities on a participatory approach, with incentives approved. But the project came with two years delay, allowing people to forget their initial agreement resulting in a renewed effort for economic participation (Villaroel, 2016). Overall coordination can be improved between national, regional and communal levels.

Another aspect is the coordination between academic institutions and local organizations. The PNC encourages a combination of local and scientific knowledge to manage efficiently soil and water resources. Unfortunately, universities often have a very technical approach and do not have the same rhythm as local organizations. They do not react as quickly to environmental changes as local populations have to. And their decision process is much slower than local organization. Therefore some technicians believe this specific component of the PNC can’t be achieved seriously (Villaroel, 2016).

Lastly, Ministries sometimes have duplicate work in same project areas. This is a matter that should be looked at carefully in order to optimize budget and working coherence inside the watershed (Villaroel, 2016).

ii. Perspectives

There is a lot of hope in this matter as the Municipality is increasingly concerned about water resources. As mentioned before, a new direction for watersheds could be created. At least this is what the new PAC aims at, with local leaders from the OGC directly asking it from the authorities. There is still a lot of uncertainties but increasing actions are being led which trigger hope for further development. A

52

matter that needs to be tackled is the competence repartition and responsibility. Indeed financial aspects often slow down implementation processes. It would help if permanent funds were allocated annually at communal scale because national budget is regularly slow to arrive. It would be useful also to give more autonomy at to the Municipality, so that budget would be available faster (Villaroel, 2016).

Another important aspect of institutional development is the attribution of monitoring and evaluation needs after a project’s term. Indeed, many projects are evaluated at the end and then a new project comes without enough continuity since resources and success are not evaluated a posteriori. This can be considered as a downside of the PNC approach so far (Villaroel, 2016).

Further development of IWM projects in the area is due to come soon, as the other two sub-watersheds of Tiquipaya Pedagogical Watershed (Taquiña and Khora) are looking for budgets to extend the work conducted in Thola P’ujru (Veliz, 2016).

53

VI. Compared results Now that both watersheds have been scrupulously analyzed through the four themes we can

compare and discuss sustainability levels. For each theme, nine to eleven indicators of sustainability have been set, according to literature review and own findings (Badibanga et al. 2013; Bewket 2007; De Graaff et al. 2008; Herweg 2007; Inter-American Development Bank 2008; Saavedra 2016; Teshome et al. 2016) (see Annexes 3 and 4).

This chapter is divided in five, one section for each theme and a last one for the general compared analysis. In each section there is a radar graph to better visualize the results. Each graph is followed by interpretations and discussions. Indicators rates vary on a scale from zero to four, as reminded by the figure below, already presented in the methodology section of this report (Chapter III.6 ; Figure 7).

1. Environmental analysis

Figure 28: Radar graph of environmental indicators rating for Guardaña and Thola P'ujru watersheds (Author, 2016) (see Annex 4 for indicators description)

As shown in the above graph, Thola P’ujru watershed (TP) has overall better environmental results than Guardaña watershed (GU) (Figure 28) (for more clarity the abbreviations TP and GU will be used for the two watersheds from now on).

0

1

2

3

4Water erosion concern

Soil conservationconcern

Water quality control

Adaptation to climatechange

Water availability forlivestock

Water availability forirrigation

Reasonable water use

Waste disposal

Oganic fertilizers use

Guardaña watershed (GU) Thola P'ujru watershed (TP)

54

Farmers from TP are more concerned about water erosion problems since their crop lands are on steep slopes, as described before. Visible and effective results of the grass strips slow-forming terraces implementation have motivated farmers to replicate and maintain the practice. Therefore, actions to tackle water erosion as well as soil conservation measures have been socially adopted by a majority of farmers, contrary to the situation in GU. What cruelly lack in GU is concern about soil conservation. Though many farmers are conscious of soil loss and fertility levels decrease in the past decades, only the most affected take actions to protect their soils, contrary to farmers from TP. In TP water quality is ensured thanks to abundant sources and groundwater filtration. But farmers are not especially aware of contamination risks. In GU it is even worse because of abandoned stagnant water and mining contamination upstream.

In GU, the main environmental outcome is that surface water availability has increased greatly with the building of atajados, allowing for higher potential production of livestock and crops, though irrigation systems are still lacking. Hence, GU is better adapted to climate change than TP, thanks to its fast-increasing water harvesting efforts and social adoption behind. In TP where precipitation levels are higher, water harvesting is lower and potential rainfall decrease in the coming years could be damageable.

Water use in GU is problematic, with lower water levels than in TP and higher wastes. Again, sprinkling irrigation has had higher success in TP because clear effects were immediately visible. Indeed, TP’s shallow soils are very sensitive to inundation irrigation. In GU, there is still a lot of work to be done to regulate water use, especially groundwater pumping and inundation irrigation. In both watersheds, the use of organic fertilizer to replace chemical ones is increasing slowly. An urgent environmental matter in both cases is the lack of organized waste disposal, with the contamination of riverbeds and lands though the situation is slightly better in TP than in GU.

It can be noted from the three paragraphs above that in order to achieve environmental sustainability, three main conditions are needed (Figure 29): the understanding of environmental issues and mobilization (adoption), a long-term thinking (resilience) and the management and protection of the environment (consciousness).

Figure 29: Environmental sustainability conditions and indicators (Author, 2016)

Social adoption

•water erosion concern •soil conservation concern •water quality control

Resilient SWC measures

•adaptation to climate change •water availability for livestock •water availability for irrigation

Environmental consciousness

•reasonable water use •waste disposal •organic fertilizers

55

2. Social analysis

Figure 30: Radar graph of socio-cultural indicators rating for Guardaña and Thola P'ujru watersheds (Author, 2016)

Under the socio-cultural analysis, one can see that both watersheds have similar average scores though TP’s ratings are slightly more constant than GU’s (Figure 30). GU demarcates itself with higher score for dynamic leadership, local and watershed cohesion as well as conflict resolution. While TP shows higher scores for women’s share in family income and community’s decisions, as well as better local empowerment.

In GU, dynamic leadership is ensured by 16 communities that all have a few progressive farmers ready to take the lead. In TP, the two communities do not have so many members thus slowing down leadership dynamics with poorer leader renewal. Nevertheless, in TP the fewer leaders have better knowledge and political power than the multiple leaders of GU. Therefore TP has a higher score for local empowerment (it can be interesting to question whether it is useful to have either a few leaders but very well-informed or a continued leader renewal with lower knowledge in IWM themes). Local cohesion is increasing rapidly in GU thanks to an acceleration of the OGC recognition process both inside and outside of the watershed. Common interests link them through the promotion of their watershed for agricultural production’s goods. In TP the cohesion develops more slowly because of less inter-dependence between communities.

The OGC recognition is developing fast in both watersheds where all communities recognize the authority of the OGC. Though watershed’s cohesion is regular and slowly improving in both regions,

0

1

2

3

4Dynamic leadership

Local empowerment

Local cohesion

OGC social recognition

Watershed cohesion

Women income share

Women decisions' share

Conflict resolution

Equitable training

School awarenessprogram


56

community’s knowledge sharing is more dynamic in GU’s 16 communities thanks to greater social cohesion inside each community. One proof of this observation is that most SWC works done in GU are done at communal level while in TP it is mainly individual work.

Another important focus is the gender equity aspect. It is clear that TP has better results in this matter since it contains inside the watershed a local branch of the national “Bartolina Sisa” women’s organization (Gonzalez, 2016). At each OGC meeting, every community is represented by two members, and it has to be one man and one woman. They participate more in the decision-making processes and have often their words, contrary to GU’s watershed, where women have a minor role in decisions-making at the watershed scale. Also, in TP women are responsible of a major part of income, for example through flowers’ harvest and sale. Training is more dynamic in TP since farmers are trained on field with long-term support of technicians from SDC or GAM while in GU trainings can only take place at watershed level. This is again due to size difference between the two watersheds. The implementation of school awareness program about watershed themes has started in local schools of GU though it is still limited to a few interventions of the technician during the classes (Mamani G. , 2016). In TP there are no schools inside the catchment’s boundaries. Schools from Tiquipaya’s municipality do not have any awareness program either (Camacho, 2016).

From the ten factors and the three paragraphs above, we can remember three important socio-cultural conditions for sustainable IWM and classify the factors accordingly (Figure 31).

Figure 31: Socio-cultural sustainability conditions and indicators (Author, 2016)

Leaders empowerment

•dynamic leadership •local empowerment •local cohesion

OGC empowerment

•OGC social recognition •watershed cohesion

Equitable participation

•women income share •women decisions' share •conflict resolution •equitable training •school awareness program

57

3. Economic analysis

Figure 32: Radar graph of economic indicators rating for Guardaña and Thola P'ujru watersheds (Author, 2016)

In the economic analysis, TP has significant higher scores than GU (Figure 32).

First of all, farm income is slowly increasing in both watersheds thanks to the project’s measures. This increase is not quantified but well witnessed by the farmers themselves. Secondly, off-farm activities have a very poor share of sedentary families’ income in both watersheds though the situation is slightly more balanced in TP. It is urgent to develop more off-farm activities inside the watersheds, as eco-tourism or food transformation cooperatives that would provide a more sustainable economic situation to all families. Thirdly, market access is increasing in GU and TP, more rapidly in GU thanks to better roads and increased sales possibilities in the city of Oruro. Fourthly, IWM projects provide better assistance to low-income families in TP than in GU, due probably to the reduced population in TP compared with GU. Finally, farmers from GU are less resilient to prices fluctuation because of the high volatility of horticulture products as carrots and onions, due to the invasion of similar Peruvian products on the Bolivian market. Farmers from TP have the advantage to produce flowers, without much competition on the market since they are the main producers in Cochabamba region. They also have a larger variety of income, from potatoes and beans to cheese and eggs, compared with GU which is very centered either on llama’s meat or root vegetables. GU’s economic resilience is thus lower than TP’s.

Dynamic incentives mechanisms do not have the same achievement level in both watersheds. In GU farmers have never participated financially and always with labor force, thus reducing their implication.

0

1

2

3

4Increasing farm income

Off-farm development

Market access

Assistance to low-incomefamilies

Economic resilience

Dynamic incentives

Autonomous search forsupport

Auto-financing

Perception of watershedservices

Valuation of watershedservices


58

In TP, on the other hand, incentives are being reduced with increasing participation from farmers, both money-wise and labor-wise. This can lead to increased mobilization as will be detailed in the global sustainability analysis. In both watersheds, autonomous search for projects and resources is very high. This result is biased by the fact that I was sent in these two watersheds precisely because they were the most active. It would be interesting to compare with other watersheds where self-mobilization do not attain such levels Auto-financing of the OGC is higher in GU thanks to voluntary and democratic financial participation from farmers that is slowly developing. In TP, such process still does not exist though each individual needs to participate financially in community’s works.

It would be interesting to look at the exact benefits and costs for the farmers to evaluate net benefits in the long-term. This could be done with the help of the payment for ecosystem services concept which is still not very popular in both watersheds. Though a few farmers start talking about it, the majority does not understand the concept. In Guardaña they start to see upstream-downstream connections inside the watershed but do not look at what is happening outside their administrative limits. In Thola P’ujru, it is the other way around, they do not really look at inner connections but more outer, because of the proximity of urban agglomerations downstream. In Thola P’ujru, the OGC has formally asked to Tiquipaya’s GAM to pay for the maintenance of hydric control structure because they are the main benefiters (Vargas, 2016). This is only the first step towards a more integrated payment for ecosystem services in the future.

From the three paragraphs and the ten indicators developed above can be extracted three main economic conditions to sustainable IWM (Figure 33).

Figure 33: Economic sustainability conditions and indicators (Author, 2016)

Economic development

•increasing farm income •off-farm development •market access •assistance to low-income families •economic resilience

Proactive behavior

•dynamic incentives •autonomous search for support •auto-financing

Valuation of watershed services

•perception of watershed services •valuation of watershed services

59

4. Political analysis

Figure 34: Radar graph of politico-institutional indicators rating for Guardaña and Thola P'ujru watersheds (Author, 2016).

On the politico-institutional side, TP clearly has better ratings than GU (Figure 34).

In TP, both horizontal and vertical integration are further advanced thanks to a longer implication of the departmental authorities of Cochabamba (SDC). Nevertheless, in GU, the GAM recently got involved in the IWM projects and future collaboration will probably increase. Thus horizontal integration is improving in both watersheds, though a bit more slowly in GU than in TP. Vertical integration is poor in GU because of the consistent absence of GAD Oruro in any IWM projects so far. This can be considered as a major focus point in future IWM projects. Proper vertical integration must happen, with clear role repartitions between levels. This again is not clear at all in GU compared with TP. In the latter, the GAM, the GAD, the OGC and the communities have more or less defined roles though a lot still has to be done. On the contrary in GU, roles are not clear and not understood by OGC members themselves notwithstanding communal and municipal authorities. Again, the national government acts as a guide towards IWM and provides budget and project in both watershed, but often fail to impulse proper coordination between institutions when it comes to project implementation.

In both watersheds, relations between communities and GAM towards the OGC are good and slowly improving, with still a few misunderstandings and dissimilar objectives. Communities often forget to address the OGC and seek direct support from the GAM. But the OGC clearly has strong collaboration

0

1

2

3

4Horizontal integration

Vertical integration

Clear role assignations

Coordination

Collaboration OGC-communities

Collaboration OGC-GAMSynergy academic-executive

Concertation space

OGC political recognition

Social planning

Norms development


60

with the GAM in both watersheds. The synergy between academic and executive bodies remains low. As explained upper, the two entities have different functioning structures and budget mechanisms. Hence it is very difficult to coordinate actions on the field because reaction time is not equal and budget is not allocated in the same manner. Nevertheless academic collaboration in GU is slightly higher than in TP because of the UTO’s role a project coordinator, whereas in TP, the University of Cochabamba is not actively involved. This point might need a revision in next IWM in order to ensure proper coordination between scientific and executive worlds. Concertation spaces are developed little by little in both watersheds but still do not gather all watersheds’ stakeholders around the table. In GU its visibility and accessibility to outside institution is greater thanks to increasingly popular OGC meetings. In TP these meetings are still very unformal and mainly gather local authorities. Again this is a future important working domain to achieve sustainable IWM.

The OGC political recognition is stronger in TP thanks to historical and political involvement of the syndicate group 13 de Agosto. In GU there are three centrals with a wider geographical scale and a low historical cohesion (they were not working together in the past), whereas in TP there was always one unified sub-central (syndicate group). In both watersheds, integrated watershed management plans have been set but in GU those plans are not written, they were only orally expressed per community, while in TP the workshops have allowed the writing of an official PCGIC (Integrated Watershed Management Communal Plan). In both cases local population has been consulted but the result is not as tangible in GU that in TP leading to its highest social planning score. Finally, norms development also needs to be further triggered, especially in GU where farmers know little to no norms at all about IWM. Such norms should be debated and established during OGC meetings. In TP a few environmental norms have been developed at watershed and community level.

From the three paragraphs and the ten indicators developed above can be extracted three main political conditions to sustainable IWM (Figure 35).

Figure 35: Politico-institutional sustainability conditions and indicators (Author, 2016)

Integration and coordination

•horizontal integration •vertical integration •clear role assignations •coordination

Enforced collaboration

•collaboration OGC-communities •collaboration OGC-GAM •synergy academic-executive •concertation space

Institutional adoption

•OGC political recognition •social planning •norms development

61

5. General analysis For each sustainability field, mean scores have been calculated and are represented below (Figure

36).

Figure 36: Medium ratings per sustainability field (Author, 2016)

TP has almost systematically higher scores, especially in the political and environmental themes. It is probably due to the small size of the watershed compared with GU. Indeed, GU is nearly twenty times bigger which probably induces lower scores because of increased effort needed. Nevertheless, for the social aspect, GU scores higher with an exceptional social cohesion despite its important number of communities (16) covering a huge area, though the five upper communities are yet not very involved in the integrated watershed management program. People feel connected through their river regardless the distance. These numbers have to be taken carefully, especially with the big size difference between GU and TP. Indeed, they do not reflect the heterogeneity of GU and its 16 communities. For example, the communities of Mojon Pampa, Umitri and Lequelequeni from GU are the most progressive. Their social coherence is greater as attested by knowledge sharing (in all three communities different farmers were interviewed with same results). These communities are also the ones with highest replication rates. They are interested by the future of their land and are delighted to be part of government’s projects helping them conserving their watershed. Horizontal scaling-up operates very well inside some communities where charismatic leaders have shared their knowledge and skills. Unfortunately the majority of communities do not have such leaders, hence social cohesion is lower and individual profit often comes first at the watershed scale (individual wells, intensive agriculture…).

To dig further the analysis, all four themes can be compared at once, simplifying overall results in one single radar graph. Mean scores have been calculated for each of the three conditions per theme defined above. The reduction from 40 to 12 factors allows for a simpler comparison between the two watersheds. Compiling the information in such way gives a synthetic view on the situation in GU and TP (Figure 37).

1,44 1,50

2,50

1,55

2,00 1,80

2,40 2,00

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

Environmental Economic Social Political

GU

TP

62

Figure 37: Guardaña and Thola P'ujru mean scores based on main sustainability components defined (Author, 2016)

What can be seen in this graph is that the difference is not so great between the two watersheds, though TP still scores better results. According to this graph, social and institutional adoptions as well as integration and coordination appear better in TP. Overall institutional sustainability is higher thanks to more ancient IWM in that area compared to GU. But remarkably GU scores higher in OGC and leaders’ empowerment, as well as SWC measures resilience, though IWM exist there for less than half of the time it has been present in Cochabamba valley. Collaboration enforcing is also better in GU thanks to strong knowledge sharing among and between communities due to historical bonds. Nonetheless, environmental consciousness is still a serious concern for GU that needs to be addressed urgently in next IWM projects and programs.

As each condition consists of a different number of indicators, some indicators have a higher relative importance compared to other ones. Consequently we can look at the situation from another point of view discussed in the following chapter.

0

1

2

3

4OGC empowerment

leaders empowerment

Equitable participation

Economic Development

Proactive behavior

Valuation of watershed'sservices

Integration and coordination

Enforced collaboration

institutional adoption

Social adoption of IWM

Resilient SWC measures

Environmental consciousness


63

VII. Discussion on global sustainability

1. Key conditions of sustainability As mentioned upper, the 40 indicators have been merged into a new set of 12 general conditions for

assessing sustainable IWM. These conditions would be important sustainability factors to any IWM program. The sustainability framework defined in the methodology can be further developed and discussed. Hereunder is a graphic representation of the twelve conditions distributed per theme (Figure 38).

Figure 38: Four sustainability fields and their twelve conditional components toward sustainable IWM (Author, 2016)

To the twelve conditions have been added two important institutions: the GAM and the OGC, considered both as key actors towards sustainable IWM. The two institutions represent social and political empowerment respectively. Together with a sustainable use of natural resources and enhanced economic profitability a watershed development program can achieve sustainability. It starts with SWC measures, but those can’t be reduced to technical aspects only, they need to be put in a wider approach toward sustainable land management (Herweg 2007). SWC measure implementation success requires good socioeconomic, cultural and environmental conditions, notwithstanding economic profitability (Jara-Rojas et al. 2013). Any of the four themes can’t achieve sustainability on its own therefore they cannot be treated separately. In the next sections, the sub-research questions will be answered one by one. Connections will be made between them in order to show the inter-dependency of any of the four themes.

64

2. Sustainable use of natural resources To reach a sustainable use of natural resources, local perception needs first to be changed. SWC

measures can only be resilient if they are maintained and replicated. It requires a progressive process of adoption of the measure by the farmers. Adoption can be divided into three phases: acceptance (evaluation & trial), actual adoption (effort & inputs) and continued use (long-term maintenance and replication) (De Graaff et al. 2008). Two of the three environmental conditions of sustainability reflect this adoption process. The social adoption is composed of the acceptance and actual adoption phase during which water and soil erosion concern increase. Farmers take actions to reverse the processes on sites which are already subject to land degradation. Further in the process, continued-use arises with environmental consciousness. Farmers become aware of environmental issues and take autonomous actions to prevent risks and conserve their environment. They start to be able to use their resources in a sustainable way.

In order to trigger this process, it is necessary to make farmers perceive land degradation issues. This can be done through a participatory approach basis (Kessler & Stroosnijder 2006). In GU, no many activities of that kind have been conducted on a big scale. Therefore farmers do not perceive land degradation as a threat. Nevertheless a significant proportion does perceive that the watershed’s water resources are vulnerable. Water harvesting practices are clearly increasing. Unfortunately water conservation practices are limited to the building of atajados so far. It would be useful to increase the incentives for improved irrigation system (aspersion), as it is a crucial factor for water conservation adoption (Jara-Rojas et al. 2013). In TP the approach proved to be very successful, with an actual adoption and an increasing number of farmers asking for sprinklers to the government, leading to high replication rates. It is important to note that farmers can acknowledge the effectiveness of a SWC measure to tackle erosion problems and admit increased farm income without adopting the measure (Bewket 2007). This is the case in GU for riverbank protection, where many farmers perceive the problem but do not adopt the SWC measure suggested (willow plantations and gabions). Perception is not sufficient for action in some cases. To enhance water conservation efforts, it could be suggested to pay for irrigation water use, but unfortunately it is not possible in Bolivia because the Constitution has stipulated that water is a common right. Only tap water of downstream users has fees and is regulated by the government. Nonetheless, more regulation on water use would definitely benefit the watershed, as well as downstream settlements. Watershed services can be an efficient economic tool, as will be shown later.

The first sub-research question can be answered: IWM projects in GU and TP allow for a social adoption of environmental measures in different sectors. GU has adopted water harvesting practices while TP started to adopt soil conservation measures. The resilience of SWC measures and the environmental consciousness are on a good path for both domains. Each watershed’s needs clearly differ because of environmental contexts. Nonetheless all resources of the micro-catchment are concerned. Therefore GU should care more about its soils and TP about its waters to reach environmental sustainability.

65

3. Social empowerment Locals’ empowerment is a prerequisite towards social sustainability of any IWM program. Farmers

need to be involved from the beginning of the project, and even before. The earlier the implication is, the better are the chances of success. Participatory approaches must be genuine, not based on consultation but on real implication in the decision process, from formulation to execution (Bewket 2007). Only then can a real local empowerment be realized. In TP participation level is good, though communities were not always very active throughout the IWM project, participation being sometimes limited to passive consultation. On the other hand soil conservation practices implementation proved to be successful in TP thanks to emphasized extension services with active technical support and training, crucial for successful adoption of a new technology (Jara-Rojas et al. 2013). The sprinkling irrigation is increasingly implemented at individual level, with equitable training provided to farmers, though focusing on the poorest first. Grass-strips terraces follow the same logic.

In GU, most IWM activities target the OGC instead of individuals as is often the case in TP. It has been shown that targeting local water community groups (here the OGC) with training activities will permit to reach the largest amount of farmers in the watershed (Jara-Rojas et al. 2013). Empowering the OGC is an efficient strategy to spread environmental consciousness and increase project’s implementation success. But of course it can only be achieved with a high social cohesion and good leadership inside and outside the OGC. The relation between OGC authorities and the ancestral political system inside each community is of the outmost importance. Though GU has 16 communities, it is able to have a strong OGC thanks to ancestral cohesion among the watershed’s area (Vásquez 2015). In GU the implementation success of atajados is linked to the strong political internal influence of the OGC since its creation and not to active extension services as in TP. On the participation level, GU clearly is an example to be followed, as it has searched for incentives and projects itself. Active leaders were empowered by the local NGO which really has an impact on future prospects.

The second sub-research question can be answered: Empowerment of farmers and OGCs has been attained in both watersheds. Nonetheless, we can discuss whether this empowerment is equitable and why it would include some inequities. Indeed, in TP a few very active leaders have been empowered. Or maybe they were already proactive before, nonetheless IWM projects have allowed them to get more knowledge and use it to take the lead inside their community or watershed. There is a risk, given the small size of TP, that the repartition of extension service would be biased because of a few leaders that know everything better than others. In GU, there are also inequities in empowerment and extension activities, though it is more related to environmental differences. The plain communities receive better support than mountain communities, though it is getting more balanced recently (ex: the CAYUPACA project) (Mamani G. , 2016). Concerning the OGC it is clear that IWM project has had great impact to empower this local organism. Nevertheless, it requires future support otherwise there is a chance that without resources, OGCs would disappear (Camacho, 2016; Flores, 2016).

66

4. Economic development Economic development is a third prerequisite to sustainable IWM approaches. Indeed, the economic

factor plays a predominant role in the adoption any SWC practice. Activities promoting SWC measures should focus on increased profitability at farm household level since it is the most relevant factor of adoption in the long term (De Graaff et al. 2008). Continued use of a SWC measure is very much linked to profitability (long-term outputs) and costs of maintenance and use (long-term inputs). Short-term economic result of a SWC measure is essential to trigger the farmer’s autonomy and motivation in the long-term (Kessler 2007). In Bolivia, farmers do not focus on SWC efforts on steep slopes because of high rates of investment for low profitability (De Graaff et al. 2008). This is especially the case in GU, where agriculture on slopes has been abandoned because of high labor input and low fertility of soils on steep slopes. But in TP it is not the case, since most cultivable area is on steep slopes. The difference is due to topographic differences. In both watersheds though, areas where land degradation is the strongest is usually abandoned for economic reasons. It stresses the importance of a good cost-benefit balance of any SWC measure implemented. In GU, the stone terraces are not maintained because it requires labor input and the results will only be seen in more than ten years. Same in TP with hydric control structures that are slowly degraded but would also need important maintenance cost with few short-term benefits.

To trigger IWM, dynamic incentives mechanisms are needed in order to lead to proactive behavior. As engineer René Camacho says: “If you want to change people’s attitude, you need to work on a permanent basis” (Camacho, 2016). Incentives can be used as “alarm clocks” in the beginning, but they need to be diminished little by little and farmers need to understand their own benefit in doing soil and water conservation measures. In this way they will start investing and looking for more financial support in a proactive way, leading to economic sustainability. In TP for example, all farmers need to pay a part of the investments in soil conservation measures support. In GU on the contrary, incentives are only labor and fuel, which do not particularly trigger farmer’s consciousness about the environmental issues. Furthermore, economic incentives should be coupled with extension activities to increase conservation awareness and allow for SWC adoption (Jara-Rojas et al. 2013). Economic resilience is important as there is a higher chance to adopt SWC measures for farms with cash crops and diversified farming system. It is essential, in order to reach sustainability, to “make farming an attractive way of life for the present and future generations” through incentives to poor farms. There is a need to focus on poorest farmers and provide economic and social incentives in a creative way for SWC implementation. Indeed, in GU the poorest farmers are often the least informed and the most in need for support. They need individual support or greater social cohesion in order to start acting towards SWC. It is not different in TP, though poor assistance has been more intensive than in GU, with positive results on soil conservation measures adoption.

A solution for increased economic development triggering sustainable use of natural resources is based on the new concept of payment for watershed services (PWS). “PWS are schemes that use funds from water users (including governments) as an incentive for landholders to improve their land management practices.” (Porras et al. 2013, p.3). PWS are seen as an alternative policy towards IWM, especially regarding water quality and scarcity issues. Nevertheless, PWS would need more monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess the real benefit of land use practice on watershed services (Porras

67

et al. 2013). This mechanism could be developed in GU, asking water users from Oruro to pay to landholders in GU for water conservation activities. But the monitoring and evaluation part would be consequent, with geo-hydrologic study and water quality measurements necessary to establish a proper PWS scheme (Cardeñas, 2016). It is questionable whether such a project would be profitable and if the service could be quantified economically, with on-field control mechanisms. Same goes for TP, though with only 16km² the PWS scheme could be more easily implemented, especially with the population density in the valley. There have been talks about it between the OGC and the GAM, though it is still under a sensitization rather than a negotiation form (Villaroel, 2016).

The third sub-research question can be answered: IWM projects are enhancing economic development in both watersheds. In GU, clear economic support to horticulture activities by the ADEPAECU association procures benefits to farmers. The new CAYUPACA association also supports better llama breeding to increase meat quality hence increasing farm income. The only aspect on which support is lacking is the irrigation system. It is a crucial gap in GU that would be urgent to fill, especially since all water harvesting efforts are partly lost because of very few appropriated irrigation systems (Mamani G. , 2016). Recharging groundwater won’t be sufficient in the long-term with increasing amounts of pumping and water waste through inundation irrigation (Edgar, 2016). Overall, IWM projects could give more economic support to farm development activities in GU, stressing the importance of watershed services. This would enable further SWC efforts in the watershed that would be recognized and valuated economically inside and outside the catchment.

In TP, continuous economic support is ensured by IWM projects, especially thanks to proactive behavior from the local communities. Nevertheless, for the future there is a need to focus on community-based benefits and valuation of watershed services. Indeed TP has a more individual mentality than GU, therefore isolated farmers do get very good economic support. But overall economic development in a sustainable way also needs to be considered from a more global approach, at the community level at least. Otherwise watershed services will only slowly be recognized, whereas it can go much faster through social cohesion processes (Veliz, 2016).

68

5. Institutional integration and coordination On the political side, sustainability of IWM is conditioned by coordinated governance with

institutional empowerment and enhanced collaboration between all levels. In other words, institutional adoption of IWM must take place, with the difficulty that many stakeholders are part of the institutional framework related to the PNC projects.

First it is important to stress that an intense process of power decentralization from national government to local communities is progressively developing in the Bolivian territory since the emergence of Evo Moralés as President. This process has been further increased with the new constitution of the socialist government (CEP 2009). It is sensibly impacting IWM projects that have a more bottom-up approach and focus on empowering Municipalities (GAM) and indigenous authorities (OGC). New norms focusing on sustainable developments, notably on soil conservation theme, are developed through rural development programs that are the responsibility of the government (CEP 2009). An institutional empowerment is taking place. At local level, this needs to be done through capacity building. In GU such activity is witnessed with the active involvement of the local NGO (PDA Winaypaj) for enforcing the collaboration between the OGC and the GAM on IWM themes (Soliz, 2016). The approach consists of mutual understanding and common vision building to enforce decision-making processes (Davies 2016). The goal is to increase the OGC political recognition inside and outside of the watershed’s area (among communities and towards governmental authorities). In TP the process is quite different though the goal is similar. Institutional empowerment is achieved thanks to social planning of activities at community level. Indeed, the OGC is not as socially accepted in TP than in GU. In GU, three separate syndicate entities have come together to form the OGC and debate about Guardaña watershed as a complete new concept. In TP there is no new coalition with the recent OGC creation as it has simply merged with the old existent syndicate group “13 de Agosto”. Therefore OGC empowerment needs to be further supported. Another option would be to support individuals, as is already seen in TP. This can be extremely effective to spread and scale-up capacity as shown in a successful experience in Burundi. Integrated Farm Plan (PIP) approach with contests allow for scaling-up by transforming agricultural ancestral burden into lucrative business, motivating Burundi farmers to be entrepreneurs (Kessler 2015). This in turn leads to enhanced social planning, within families and communities to develop their sense of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

The contest method can also be effective for enhanced collaboration among farmers around SWC if a friendly competitive environment is maintained (Kessler 2007). In GU this had been the case with the scale model contest which was very efficient at promoting farmer’s participation but more specifically their social planning abilities. Later on an enforced collaboration between communities and with the OGC could be expected. Nevertheless the problem is that the contest was punctual and that all the plans that were made are detained by the UTO while most farmers already forgot what they wanted. In TP, plans were also made at community level, but at least there is a written plan that has been developed after the participatory sessions, which shows a higher level of autonomous planning. Also, a proper concertation space between all communities and institutions is of the outmost importance to achieve sustainable governance of resources. A mix between inside and external actors, as well as scientific and non-scientific knowledge is needed to represent the diversity of opinions and enforce collaboration

69

between varied stakeholder groups (Rist et al 2007). In GU it is in process as an increasing number of outsiders come to the monthly meetings of the OGC. Nevertheless, the phenomenon could be improved as there are still many organizations and institutions working in the watershed that do not come to OGC meetings (Cardeñas, 2016). In TP the phenomenon is marginal, as OGC meetings are mostly used for people living inside the micro-catchments with just a few external institutions visiting. Finally, enforced collaboration needs to be triggered by vertical scaling-up in order to expand impact and enhance learning processes between levels (Carter 2006). In GU the OGC is already enforcing its collaboration with the GAM and the UTO through the PAC. The next step will be to involve the GAD of Oruro into IWM. In TP, the GAD of Cochabamba (anciently PROMIC, now SDC) already had great implications in IWM. Scaling-up in TP should now focus on local level, enforcing collaboration between the OGC and the GAM, the GAD staying behind as external support in case of need.

Last but not least, institutional empowerment and enforced collaboration are necessary but not sufficient conditions for sustainability. It lacks integration and coordination of IWM between all actors. A Chilean Study shows that there is a need to articulate soil and water conservation jointly (Jara-Rojas et al. 2013). In both GU and TP unfortunately it is not the case, as already pointed out in this chapter. And it is also important to reduce duplicate works and integrate actions and projects inside and among ministries (Mamani G. , 2016). In GU there are actually several ministries investing money and involving the OGC. Nonetheless many of these activities do not have an IWM approach and can thus represent duplications of budget since they often treat the same issues but from different perspectives. In TP there seems to be less work duplication, again probably due to the smaller size of the catchment. A proper integration involves clear competences attribution. According to the Bolivian constitution, there is an Agro-environmental tribunal in the Bolivian justice body responsible for solving any matter threatening the environment (ex: water resources) (CEP 2009). Thus such mechanism could help solve territory conflicts, as for example the mining contamination in GU from a Cochabamba based industry (different departments). In TP territorial conflict is lower, though there is some rivalry with the neighboring municipality on a small marginal area. Clear competence attribution is a central component of proper institutional integration and coordination at watershed level.

Now the fourth sub-research question can be answered: institutional adoption of IWM is taking place thanks to IWM projects in TP and in GU. Empowerment of Municipality is central in the recent approach, with in both cases PAC budgets aiming at enforcing collaboration with the GAM as well as with the OGC. The long-term objective being autonomous OGC working closely with the GAM and only needing yearly budget that can be integrated as part of Municipality’s common expenses thanks to national and departmental direct funds. Vertical and horizontal integration is also taking place, with a net bottom-up approach and increasing power given to the local authorities. The only breach is the lack of budget and the slow financing mechanisms in place that would need to be boosted in TP and in GU (Villaroel, 2016; Cardeñas, 2016).

70

VIII. Conclusions

1. Adoption of SWC measures by farmers High replication rates of SWC measures with a direct economic benefit to farmers can lead to other

practices being adopted in the long term. As pointed out by Dr. Kessler all SLM programs should start with measures that have rapid and obvious impact on farmer’s livelihood, then adoption and replication processes have higher chances to be triggered (Kessler 2007). Indeed unsuccessful adoption can be linked to the mismatch between the implemented SWC measure and the farmers’ needs, for example a labor-demanding measure (Bewket 2007).

In both watersheds there is an example and a counterexample of the above mentions. In GU, atajados are a perfect example of a SWC with rapid effect on farmer’s perception. Thanks to the building of one atajado, water harvesting got tangible for the population, as it was visible to all. From then on, each and every farmer in GU wants more atajados, because they need water to continue living and producing in the watershed. “Agua es vida” were they saying all the time. On the other hand, forestation efforts were almost vain because there was neither rapid and visible impact nor any economic benefit from planting trees. Therefore some SWC measures still struggle to convince the local population and are not maintained or fully understood once installed (riverbank protection, soil conservation…). But the dynamic is set, so hopefully with the increasing number of atajados farmers will start understanding other environmental issues and start to take actions, as can already be seen in a few progressive communities. In TP fodder grass strips to create slow-forming terraces have had a direct economic profit for those implementing it. Indeed, soil loss was decreased thus land productivity slightly increased. Furthermore, the fodder grass use allowed for reduced cost for animal breeding, allowing for a very good cost/benefit ratio. Sprinkling irrigation is another positive example, affecting positively soil fertility but also access to water and reduced water use thus increased productivity as well. For both SWC measures, fast horizontal scaling-up occurs, meaning high replication and maintenance rates. It is likely that in ten years 90% of farmers have sprinkling irrigation and grass strips on their sloped lands (Camacho, 2016). Farmers are now ready to invest and ask some support from the government to improve their livelihood through more sustainable land management. Though social coherence is less than in GU, the small size and the expertise of the facilitating institution has allowed for high adoption and replication rates. Indeed, maintenance and replication rates are higher in places where there exist future perspectives for projects with an integrated development approach (De Graaff et al. 2008). And the PROMIC institution has been present in the mountain range since 1991. Of course there are also counterexamples in TP as hydric control efforts that are not really maintained nor replicated, because of high labor input and no direct benefits. This SWC measure would need external incentive, for example as a PWS scheme from Tiquipaya Municipality as a shared service of water quantity and quality control.

71

2. Sustainable IWM Guardaña and Thola P’ujru watersheds are probably the most advanced examples of IWM at micro-

catchment level with a socio-political focus in Bolivia. They both have great OGCs that have been empowered, with a few excellent leaders and consequent successful actions to tackle land degradation and climate change issues. In both cases, local political instances are becoming increasingly aware of the need to work urgently on IWM in order to ensure livelihood and prevent environmental risks. In that sense the PNC has achieved its goal of promoting IWM at the micro-catchment scale. Nevertheless, the PNC aims at long-term adoption of IWM which is a never-ending process. And in order to accomplish this objective, the actions must go beyond the project’s executions and budget’s allocations, it needs to be autonomous from the national government and thus become the property and identity of locals. Therefore, GAM and OGC as the main actors of IWM needs further empowerment, as to decentralize PNC actions and seed self-motivation and autonomous management of resources according to needs. Only then could the bottom-up approach from the PNC become dynamic. Continuous management through OGCs and GAMs would ensure long-term impact and sustainability of IWM. Punctual projects would be something from the Past. Unfortunately, as witnessed in this study, there is still a long way to go. Isn’t it incoherent that the last project, PAC, is an 18-month project? It is supposed to achieve long-term impact through efficient empowerment of OGC and GAM. But this kind of project is a bit unrealistic given the short time frame allowed. Or at least there would need to have evaluation and monitoring for the next five next years to be sure that sustainable IWM has been set. There is always a fear that when projects will stop funding, OGCs will die and GAM will move on to other more pressing issues. The problem statement of this research is thus not solved. But the methodology presented in this study could be used in the future as a way to measure impact after a few years, and try to see directly the bottlenecks of sustainability. Direct and effective actions would be needed when any gap had to be filled. This would ensure lower budgets together with achieved objectives. Each watershed has its own mechanisms of course so the methodology can’t be used as a blueprint, but can be adapted according to contexts. The most important is to get knowledge on local farmer’s risk perception and needs before elaborating conservation programs and strategies (Greiner et al. 2009). This would allow for more sustainable IWM through a true bottom-up approach, taking into consideration the grassroots.

To conclude, an IWM project aiming at sustainable and integrated resources management (including land and water) at micro-catchment level needs to be truly bottom-up. It should match farmer’s needs with environmental issues while ensuring a progressive socio-institutional empowerment at local level, stressing the need for resilient management of vital resources to enhance economic profitability.

3. Recommendations From the field survey and careful data analysis accomplished I have synthetized a few points of

recommendations that would enhance sustainable IWM at micro-catchment level. They are divided in the four sustainability themes though boundaries are flexibles and each point has implications in the four fields at once. All these recommendations would help future or actual micro-catchments to reach sustainability objectives. Nonetheless a lot depends on the local context, socio-economic background and political conditions. There is never a 100% chance that the suggested method will work but it can be used as a guideline towards sustainable IWM.

72

Economic • Dynamic incentive mechanism, reducing support while raising awareness • Continuous budget allocation with flexible expenses to adapt to actual needs • Technical assessment at familial level and sensitization about watershed

services, promotion of long-term economic benefits gained from labor or money input

• Development of a Payment for Watershed Services' scheme inside and outside the catchment, water users paying to the caretakers of the "fabrica de agua" (i.e. the watershed)

Social • Active OGC leaders training as soon as the new committee is elected to ensure

continuity of training through enhanced collaboration between ex and new president

• Participatory research to enhance transfer between local and academic knowledge

• OGC empowerment through increased workshops and training with all communities to enhance its political recognition and found a common vision based on consensus agreement

Political • Vertical integration between authorities with clear roles definitions as to avoid

duplicated work and increase effectiveness while avoiding conflicts. • GAM empowerment with dynamic budget allocation allowing for better

resilience and increased adaptation to urgent needs • Reduced administrative load through direct project and budget’s allocations

thanks to increased coordination and integration between levels (horizontal and vertical)

Environmental • SWC measure implementation with fast and visible outputs for benefiters that

encourages further maintenance and replication (ex: atajados in Guardaña and fodder grass strips in Thola P’ujru)

• Increased support to poorest farmers in order to reach more farmers in the long run through slow but steady adoption processes

• Scientific demonstration workshops with pedagogical approach to involve farmers and sensitize them about erosion and soil degradation processes (excursions, experimentations…)

73

IX. References Amsalu, A. & De Graaff, J., 2006. Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces

for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed.

Arteaga, J.F.R., 2011. Informe Técnico de Asesoramiento para la Elaboracion del Plan Estrategico del Programa Poopo, Oruro. Available at: http://www.cuencapoopo.com/atiweb/planestrategicoprogramacuencapoopo.pdf.

Badibanga, T., Ragasa, C. & Ulimwengu, J., 2013. Assessing the Effectiveness of Multistakeholder Platforms. International Food Policy Research Institute Discussion Paper, (April).

Bagdi, G.L. et al., 2015. Post-adoption behaviour of farmers towards soil and water conservation technologies of watershed management in India. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 3(3), pp.161–169. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095633915300800.

Bai, Z.G. et al., 2008. Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use and Management, 24(3), pp.223–234. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00169.x [Accessed July 14, 2016].

Bewket, W., 2007. Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional technologies in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by farmers. Land Use Policy, 24, pp.404–416.

Brandt, J.S. & Townsend, P.A., 2006. Land Use – Land Cover Conversion, Regeneration and Degradation in the High Elevation Bolivian Andes. Landscape Ecology, 21(4), pp.607–623. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10980-005-4120-z [Accessed July 14, 2016].

Camacho, R.V., 2015. Plan de Accion Concurrente Cuenca Thola P’ujru, Tiquipaya.

Carter, S.E. & Currie-Alder, B., 2006. Scaling-up natural resource management: insights from research in Latin America. Development in Practice, 16(2), pp.128–140.

CEP, 2009. Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, Bolivia: Plurinational State of Bolivia. Available at: http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/content/documents/159Bolivia Consitucion.pdf.

Dillaha, T. et al., 2008. Payments for watershed services in developing countries. In American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers - Conference on 21st Century Watershed Technology: Improving Water Quality and Environment 2008. pp. 176–184. Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-70350037852&partnerID=tZOtx3y1.

FAO, 1993. Erosion de suelo en America Latina - Situación ambiental en relación con la erosión en Bolivia. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación,

74

p.Chapter 9. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t2351s/T2351S0c.htm#Situación ambiental en relación con la erosión en bolivia [Accessed July 18, 2016].

Francou, B. et al., 1999. Symptoms of Degradation in a Tropical Rock Glacier, Bolivian Andes. Permafrost and periglacial processes.

Gareca, E.E. et al., 2010. Polylepis woodland remnants as biodiversity islands in the Bolivian high Andes. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(12), pp.3327–3346. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10531-010-9895-9 [Accessed July 14, 2016].

Global Water Partnership, 2000. What is Integrated Water Resources Management? , p.1. Available at: http://www.gwp.org/the-challenge/what-is-iwrm/ [Accessed July 19, 2016].

De Graaff, J. et al., 2008. Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in five developing countries. Applied Geography, 28(1), pp.271–280.

De Graaff, J. & Kessler, A., 2011. Monitoring and assessing the impact of interventions. Lecture notes - Impact Assessment of Land and Water Management.

Greiner, R., Patterson, L. & Miller, O., 2009. Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agricultural Systems, 99, pp.86–104.

Helvetas & MMAyA-VRHR, 2014. Plan de Acción Concurrente - Fortalecimiento del OGC en gestión y manejo sostenible del agua y recursos naturales en la cuenca pedagógica guardaña. , pp.1–29.

Hermoza, Y.M., 2009. Manejo Integrado de Cuencas en la Región Andina - Aportes del Programa MIC a la gestión y generación de conocimientos. Sistematización de la experiencia (2005-2008), Bonn, Germany.

Herweg, K., 2007. Monitoring and assessing the impact of interventions. In J. W. S. Graaff, J. de, Sombatpanit, S., Cameron, J. de, Pieri, C., ed. Monitoring and evaluation of soil conservation and watershed development projects. Science Publishers, p. 496pp.

Herweg, K. & Ludi, E., 1999. The performance of selected soil and water conservation measures—case studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea. Catena, 36, pp.99–114.

Hoffmann, D., 2016. El Súper-El Niño en Bolivia. Cambio Climatico. Available at: http://cambioclimatico-bolivia.org/pdf/cc-20160118-El_S_per_E___.pdf [Accessed July 17, 2016].

Huanca, J., 2012. Programa intercultural “Cuencas Pedagógicas.” , p.38.

Huber-Sannwald, E. et al., 2006. Ecohydrological feedbacks and linkages associated with land degradation: a case study from Mexico. Hydrological Processes, 20(15), pp.3395–3411. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/hyp.6337 [Accessed July 14, 2016].

75

Hugo, G., 2008. Trends in land degradation in South America. Management of natural and environmental resources …, pp.127–146. Available at: http://www.wamis.org/agm/pubs/agm10/agm10_12.pdf.

Inter-American Development Bank, 2008. Bolivia - National Irrigation Program With A Watershed Approach - Loan Proposal,

Jara-Rojas, R. et al., 2013. An analysis of the joint adoption of water conservation and soil conservation in Central Chile. Land Use Policy, 32, pp.292–301.

Jara-Rojas, R., Bravo-Ureta, B.E. & Díaz, J., 2012. Adoption of water conservation practices: A socioeconomic analysis of small-scale farmers in Central Chile. Agricultural Systems, 110, pp.54–62.

Kessler, C.A. et al., 2015. Bringing ISFM to scale through an integrated farm planning approach: a case study from Burundi. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, pp.1–13. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10705-015-9708-3.

Kessler, C.A., 2007. Motivating farmers for soil and water conservation: A promising strategy from the Bolivian mountain valleys. Land Use Policy, 24, pp.118–128.

Kessler, C.A. & Stroosnijder, L., 2006. Land degradation assessment by farmers in Bolivian mountain valleys. Land Degradation and Development, 17(3), pp.235–248.

Kowal, M., 2012. Mitigación y Adaptación al Cambio Climático en el Plan Nacional de Cuencas. , pp.1–159.

Lal, R., Safriel, U. & Boer, B., 2012. Zero Net Land Degradation: A New Sustainable Development Goal for Rio+ 20,

Lukat, E.C.G., 2012. “Scrutinising atajados – an investigation to reassess their viability as a measure for Bolivian national policy towards IWRM.”

Mekdaschi Studer, R. & Liniger, H., 2013. Water Harvesting : Guidelines to Good Practice B. Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) et al., eds., Rome.

Ministerio del Agua, 2007. Plan Nacional de Cuencas - Marco Conceptual y Estratégico.

MMAyA, 2013a. Manual de Procedimientos Operativos para el Ciclo de Proyectos del PNC, La Paz. Bolivia.

MMAyA, 2013b. Marco conceptual y estratégico del plan director de la cuenca del río grande, La Paz. Bolivia.

MMAyA, 2014a. Marco Orientador para la formulación de Planes Directores de Cuencas ( PDC ), La Paz, Bolivia.

76

MMAyA, 2013c. Programa intercultural “Cuencas Pedagógicas” Programa de Desarollo Agropecuario Sustentable (PROAGRO), ed., La Paz, Bolivia.

MMAyA, 2014b. Programa Plurianual de Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos y Manejo Integral de Cuencas, La Paz.

MMAyA - VRHR, 2012. Desarollo de Capacidades en GIRH-MIC en la Cuenca Pedagogica Guardaña, Oruro.

Murtinho, F. et al., 2013. Water Scarcity in the Andes: A Comparison of Local Perceptions and Observed Climate, Land Use and Socioeconomic Changes. Human Ecology, 41(5), pp.667–681. Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84885070549&partnerID=tZOtx3y1 [Accessed October 3, 2015].

OGC 13 de Agosto, 2015. Plan Comunal de Gestion Integral de las Cuencas Thola P’ujru, Khora y Taquiña PCGIC, Tiquipaya.

OGC Guardaña, 2015. Estatutos del OGC CEUN Guardaña, Oruro, Bolivia.

Orsag, V., 2009. Degradación de Suelos en el Altiplano Boliviano - Causas y medidas de mitigación. ANALISIS - Instituto Boliviano de Economía y Política Agraria, 1(3). Available at: http://www.revistasbolivianas.org.bo/pdf/ra/v1n3/v1n3a06.pdf [Accessed July 18, 2016].

Pando, E., Rüde, E. & Lorini, L., 2012. Sistematización del Avance de la Política Sectorial de Cuencas en el Marco de la Declaración de Paris, Bolivia.

Porras, I., Aylward, B. & Dengel, J., 2013. Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries, London.

Prefectura de Cochabamba, 2006. Proyecto: Valorización de Servicios Ambientales como un mecanismo de promoción del desarrollo rural sostenible en las zonas altas de cuencas de la región andina - Caso Cochabamba, Bolivia, cuencas Pajcha, Pintu Mayu y Khora Tiquipaya, Cochabamba.

Preston, D. et al., 1997. Fewer People, Less Erosion: The Twentieth Century in Southern Bolivia Fewer people, less erosion: the twentieth century in southern Bolivia Detailed investigations of household livelihoods in the valleys of Tarija, southern. Source: The Geographical Journal The Geographical Journal, 163(2), pp.198–205. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3060183 [Accessed July 15, 2016].

Preston, D. et al., 2003. Grazing and Environmental Change on the Tarija Altiplano, Bolivia. Mountain Research and Development, 23(2), pp.141–148.

PROAGRO, 2014. Evaluación del Desempeño de Organismos de Gestion de Cuencas (OGCs) en la Region Valles, Cochabamba.

77

PROMIC, 2007a. Análisis institucional y algunas consideraciones en relación a la internalización de las externalidades en la implementación de esquemas de compensación por servicios ambientales en la cuenca Khora Tiquipaya, Cochabamba, Bolivia.

PROMIC, 2007b. Diagnostico Biofísico Cuenca Thola P’ujru Municipio de Tiquipaya Cordillera del Tunari, Cochabamba, Bolivia.

PROMIC, 2007c. Diagnóstico Socioeconómico Cuenca Thola P’ujru Comunidades de Thola P'ujru y Laphia, Cochabamba, Bolivia.

PROMIC, 2008. Proyecto Plan de Manejo Integral - Cuenca Thola P’ujru - Fase I, Tiquipaya.

Proscovia, F. et al., 2013. The Use of Stakeholder Analysis in Integrated Watershed Management : Experiences From the Ngenge Watershed, Uganda. Mountain Research and Development, 33(2), pp.122–131. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/mounresedeve.33.2.122 Accessed: 23-03-2016 20:54 UTC.

Rist, S. et al., 2007. Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: The role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, pp.23–37.

Ruiz, S. & Gentes, I., 2008. Retos y perspectivas de la gobernanza del agua y gestión integral de recursos hídricos en Bolivia. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe/European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, (October), pp.41–59. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25676329.

Schwilch et al., 2014. Impacts of out-migration on land management in mountain areas of Nepal and Bolivia. Available at: http://www.snis.ch/system/files/3743_final_wp_working_paper_schwilchal_under_reivew_2014_1.pdf [Accessed October 3, 2015].

Schwilch, G., Hessel, R. and Verzandvoort, S. (Eds)., 2012. Desire for Greener Land. Options for Sustainable Land Management in Drylands., Bern. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254833930_Desire_for_greener_land__options_for_sustainable_land_management_in_drylands\nhttps://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1994094.

SDC, 2012. Proyecto: Manejo Integral de la Cuenca Thola P’ujru - Fase I Informe fisico-financiero Cierre de proyecto, Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Teshome, A., de Graaff, J. & Kassie, M., 2016. Household-Level Determinants of Soil and Water Conservation Adoption Phases: Evidence from North-Western Ethiopian Highlands. Environmental Management, 57(3), pp.620–636. Available at: "http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0635-5.

78

Torres, L. et al., 2015. Desertification Research in Argentina. Land Degradation & Development, 26(5), pp.433–440. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ldr.2392 [Accessed July 14, 2016].

Twomlow, S. et al., 2002. RD—Rural Development. Biosystems Engineering, 81(3), pp.355–362. Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0036274203&partnerID=tZOtx3y1 [Accessed September 28, 2015].

Vancampenhout, K. et al., 2006. Stone bunds for soil conservation in the northern Ethiopian highlands: Impacts on soil fertility and crop yield. Soil & Tillage Research, 90, pp.1–15. Available at: www.elsevier.com/locate/still [Accessed July 14, 2016].

Vásquez, S.N.D., 2015. Social management in Guardaña watershed A case study of a pilot pedagogical watershed in Bolivia. , (October), pp.1–69.

Vuurmans, J., de Vries, P. & Gutiérrez, R., 2013. Evaluación Final Plan Nacional De Cuencas 2006 - 2012, La Paz. Bolivia.

WOCAT, 2007. Where the land is greener - case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. H. Liniger & W. Critchley, eds.,

Zolá, R.P. & Bengtsson, L., 2010. Long-term and extreme water level variations of the shallow Lake Poopó, Bolivia. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 51(1), pp.98–114. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1623/hysj.51.1.98 [Accessed July 17, 2016].

79

X. Interviews Camacho, R. (2016, April 20th). Interview with René Camacho, forest engineer and senior

officer in the Watershed Departmental Service of Cochabamba. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Cardeñas, J. (2016, April 3rd). Interview with engineer Jesus Cardeñas, professor at UTO and project coordinator of "Guardaña pedagogical Watershed". (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Clemente, E. (2016, March 24th). Interview with Efrain Clemente at the agricultural feria, farmer from Jachuyo community. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Coaquira, F. (2016, April 4th). Interview with Fructuoso Coaquiras, promotor of Umitri community. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Duran, F. (2016, April 19th). Interview with Fransisco Duran, communal leader of Laphia. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Edgar, E. (2016, April 6th). Interview with Edgar Edgar, actual president of the Guardaña Watershed Management Committee. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Felicidad, M. (2016, April 13th). Interview with Maria Felicidad, land owner in Thola P'ujru. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Flores, A. (2016, April 4th). Interview with engineer Abraham Flores, director of water resources at Soracachi Municipal Autonomous Government. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Gonzalez, J. (2016, April 26th). Interview with Judith Gonzalez, leader of "Bartolina Sisa" Women Organization and member of Totora community. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Huanca, J. (2016, February 29th). Interview with Ing. Jaime Huanca, pedagogical watershed project coordinator at the Watershed General Direction (VRHR-MMAyA). (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Mamani, B. (2016, March 16th). Interview with Basco Mamani, farmer of Huayllumita community. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Mamani, G. (2016, March 28th). Interview with engineer Gustavo Mamani, field technician in charge of socialization and execution of the "Guardaña Pedagogical Watershed Project". (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Mamani, N. (2016, April 9th). Interview with Nestor Mamani, authority of Yunguma mountain community. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Mamani, R. (2016, April 5th). Interview with Ruben Mamani, progressive farmer of Huayllumita community. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

80

Montaño, J. (2016, April 13th). Interview with José Montaño, local authority of Thola P'ujru. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Portillo, C. (2016, April 4th). Interview with Clemente Portillo, promotor and active member of Mojon Pampa community. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Portillo, E. (2016, April 4th). Interview with Esteban Portillo, promotor of Mojon Pampa community and 1st Vocal of the OGC. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Ramirez, P. (2016, March 24th). Interview with Pedro Ramirez, general secretary and promotor of Cañaviri community. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Ramos, A. (2016, April 7th). Interview with Anacleto Ramos, ex-president of the watershed management committee (OGC Guardaña). (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Saavedra, C. (2016, May 4th). Interview with Carlos Saavedra from Helvetas International Swiss Cooperation. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Soliz, M. (2016, April 1st). Interview with engineer Miguel Soliz, leader of the local NGO: "PDA Winaypaj". (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Vargas, B. (2016, April 19th). Interview with Benjamin Vargas, vice-president of the Watershed Management Committee "OGC 13 de Agosto" and communal leader of Laphia. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Vargaz, G. (2016, April 13th). Interview with Gregoria Vargaz, inhabitant of Thola P'ujru. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Veliz, D. (2016, April 14th). Interview with David Veliz, forest engineer in charge of Watersheds and Forestation projects inside the Direction for Mother Earth of Tiquipaya Municipality. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

Villaroel, B. (2016, April 13th). Interview with Beymar Villaroel, forest engineer in charge of the PAC project at Tiquipaya Municipality. (B. Henry, Interviewer)

1

Annex 1 Questionnaire for local farmer and OGC executive

Libreta de campo - Informaciones básicos

Número de la entrevista:

Fecha de la entrevista:

Apellido de la persona entrevistada:

Apellido de la comunidad:

Zona de la comunidad en la cuenca: Baja Media Alta

Contacto informaciones

- Dirección:

- Número de móvil:

- Correo:

Estatuto civil

- Profesión:

- Educación (diploma, idioma):

- Casado/a:

- Cuántos niños:

2

Cuestionario

Primera parte: Personal información

1. Actividad agrícola a. ¿Es usted agricultor? ¿Tiene tierras para producción agrícola o ganadera? (Si no a ambos,

va a la segunda parte) b. ¿Cuál es la extensión de sus tierras productivas? c. ¿Qué tipo de cultivos tiene? (llena tabla 1) d. ¿Si hace rotación de cultivos, en qué orden? (llena tabla 1, última columna) e. ¿Qué tipos de prácticas agrícolas use? (llena tabla 2) f. ¿Por qué razones ha elegido por esas técnicas? g. ¿Tiene que riegar? h. ¿A qué frecuencia? (llena tabla 3) i. ¿Qué tipa de riego aplica?

i. Superficial ii. Aspersión

iii. Goteo iv. Otro: ….

j. ¿Hay una reducción o aumentación del agua disponible? k. ¿Hace transformación a menudo para vender? (comida típica)

2. Actividad ganadera

a. ¿Tiene animales mayores? (Vaca, llama) b. ¿Tiene animales minores? (Cerdo, oveja, cabra, gallina,…) c. ¿Cuánto tiene? (llena tabla 4) d. ¿Se hace transformación o consumo? (llena tabla 4) e. ¿Cuánto costa? ¿Qué cuantidad media vende al año? (llena tabla 4) f. ¿Cuántas meses vende al año? (llena tabla 4)

3. Socio-economía a. ¿Cuántas personas vivan en su casa? b. ¿Cuántas personas trabajan? ¿Al campo? c. ¿Tiene hijos profesionales? ¿Cuánto? ¿Cuáles? d. ¿Cuál es el medio ingreso de la familia? e. ¿Cómo está su ingreso divido entre actividades económicos? (llena tabla 5) f. ¿Hay una división del trabajo agrícola entre género? g. ¿Cuáles son los roles de las mujeres? ¿Y de los hombres? h. ¿Quién es el responsable de la familia? (esposo o esposa)

3

Segunda Parte: Participación en el proyecto PNC

1. Información a. ¿Conoce que es una cuenca? b. ¿Qué representa una cuenca para usted? c. ¿Conoce el Plan Nacional de Cuenca? ¿Cómo? d. ¿Qué son los objetivos del PNC?

2. Organización local a. ¿Es usted miembro del OGC? b. ¿Qué son los objetivos del OGC? c. ¿Es usted miembro de otra organización local? d. ¿Qué son los objetivos de las autoridades originarias? e. ¿Cómo está conformado sus autoridades en su comunidad? f. ¿Cuáles actividades concluidas tiene el OGC? g. ¿Cuáles están las actividades planificadas del OGC? h. ¿Quién está financiando esas actividades? i. ¿Conoce alguna normativa sobre la cuenca? j. ¿Ya tiene el OGC un estatuto jurídico? k. ¿Es importante o no? ¿Por qué?

3. CSA medidas a. ¿Conoce prácticas de conservación del suelo y del agua? b. ¿Cuáles? ¿Tiene algas? ¿Cuáles? ¿Para qué? (llena tabla 6) c. ¿Funciona bien? ¿Los objetivos son realizadas? (llena tabla 6) d. ¿Por favor cuéntame la historia de su práctica CSA? e. ¿Cuándo fue implementado? f. ¿Quién le ha implementado? ¿Para qué? g. ¿Cuál es el porcentaje de avance físico? h. ¿A quién pertenece? (comunal/comunidad/familiar) i. ¿Solo es para el momento o para siempre? j. ¿Realizan los trabajos de mantenimiento? k. ¿Quién es el responsable en su comunidad? l. ¿Una vez terminado el proyecto, que vas hacer? ¿Por qué?

4. Capacitación a. ¿Conoce la significación del manejo sostenible de la tierra? b. ¿Ha participado en capacitación de la cuenca? (llena tabla 7) c. ¿Qué ha aprendido? d. ¿Qué institución les ha capacitado? e. ¿Reunión o taller? f. ¿Cuándo participa usted en el taller, hace preguntas? ¿Sobre qué? g. ¿Hace conclusiones y acuerdos? h. ¿Hace replicas en su comunidad lo que aprendido?

4

Tercera parte: Colaboraciones y opinión sobre el PNC

1. Relaciones externas a. ¿Conoce personas del municipio, de la universidad, instituciones nacionales o

departamentales que apoya/trabaja a la cuenca? ¿Qué tipo de apoyo/trabajo? (llena tabla 8)

b. ¿Qué actividades más se realizan en la cuenca? (feria?) c. ¿Con qué organizaciones o instituciones se realiza?

2. Opinión a. ¿Cómo está la cuenca hasta ahora? b. ¿Qué trabajas más falta en la cuenca? c. ¿Qué aspectos son importante en el proyecto? d. ¿Qué piense del PNC? e. ¿Qué haría para mejorar lo?

5

Table 1. Cultivos

Tipo de cultivo Area cultivada Media

producción al año Precio de venta

Meses de venta al año

# rotación

zanahoria

cebolla

papa

quinoa

trigo

nabo

aba

letsuga

otro: ……………..

otro: ……………..

Table 2. Prácticas agrícolas

Practicás agricolas

tracción animal si/no todo/parte area: ……….

mecanización si/no todo/parte area: ……….

uso de plaguicidas si/no todo/parte area: ……….

uso de fertilizantes si/no todo/parte area: ……….

rotación de cultivos si/no todo/parte area: ……….

descanso si/no todo/parte area: ……….

6

Table 3. Riego

Tipo de cultivo

Fuente de agua

meses de riego

frecuencia de riego por mes

observaciones

Table 4. Actividad ganadera

Animales Cuanti

dad Hace

Transformación?

Producto (carne, leche, queso, huevo, lana, ...)

Producción al año

Precio de

venta

Meses de venta al año

vaca

si/no

llama

si/no

cerdo

si/no

oveja

si/no

cabra

si/no

gallina

si/no otro:

……………

si/no

7

Table 5. Ingreso

Actividad económico

Estimo de la parte del ingreso de la familia (%)

agrícola

ganadera

taxi

albanillo

otro: ………….

Table 6. Prácticas CSA

Tipo de prácticas CSA

Conoce?

Tiene?

Cuánto tiene? Para qué?

Funciona bien?

Atajado Terraza de

formación lenta con barreras vivas

Terraza de formación lenta con

barreras muertes

Terraza de banca

Forestación y plantaciones

Zanjas de infiltración

Zanjas de coronación

Cercos de protección (gestion de la ganadera)

Diques de piedras

Diques de gavion

Riego por aspersion

8

Table 7. Capacitación

Actividad de capacitación Ha participada?

Se habla de

CSA?

Detalles de la actividad

Visitas familiares

Reunión comunal

Intercambio local

Intercambio nacional

Cursillo

Taller

otro: …………

Table 8. Relaciones externas

Institución Conoce personas

que apoya a la cuenca?

Conoce personas que trabaja en la

cuenca?

Qué tipo de apoyo?

Qué tipo de trabajo?

Municipio

Universidad

Institución departamental

Institución nacional

Organización local

9

Annex 2 Questionnaire for executive of the PNC Libreta de campo - Informaciones básicos

• Número de la entrevista • Fecha de la entrevista • Apellido de la persona entrevistada • Apellido de la organización o institución y rol de la persona • Contacto informaciones

o Dirección o Número de móvil o Correo o Sitio web

• Estatuto civil o Profesión o Educación (diploma, idioma) o Familia (casado o no, con cuántos niños,…)

Cuestionario

Primera parte: Información profesional

1. Organización a. ¿Qué son los objetivos de la organización por la cual trabajas? b. ¿Cómo lograr eso objetivos? c. ¿Cuáles actividades concluidas tiene su organización? d. ¿Cuáles están las actividades futuros/planificadas? e. ¿Qué son las normativas qué su sociedad debe respetar? f. ¿Qué es el estatuto jurídico de su sociedad? g. ¿De dónde procedan los fondos de su organización? ¿Y cómo están gastados? h. ¿Cómo ve el futuro de su organización?

Segunda Parte: Participación en el proyecto PNC

1. Introducción a. ¿Qué representa una cuenca para usted? b. ¿Qué sería la definición de manejo integral de cuenca según usted? c. ¿Cómo conoce el Plan Nacional de Cuenca?

2. Objetivos del PNC a. ¿Qué son los objetivos del PNC? b. ¿Está de acuerdo con esto objetivos? ¿Por qué? c. ¿Qué es el plan de acción del PNC? d. ¿Está realista? ¿Por qué?

10

3. Ejecución y financiero del PNC

a. ¿Qué son las actividades realizadas? b. ¿De qué manera se eligieron esas actividades? c. ¿Cuáles no son posible de realizar y por qué? d. ¿Qué es el presupuesto del PNC? e. ¿De dónde procedan los fondos? f. ¿Cómo están gastados?

Tercera Parte: Actividades realizadas sobre el PNC

1. CSA medidas (tabla 6) a. ¿Cómo trabaja a nivel de gestión sostenible de la tierra? b. ¿Se hacen prácticas de conservación del suelo y del agua? ¿Cuáles? c. ¿Para qué? d. ¿Cuándo fue instalada? e. ¿Quién le ha instalada y por cuál objetivo? f. ¿A quién pertenece hoy? g. ¿Por cuántos años quedará? h. ¿Funciona bien? i. ¿Hay que mantenerle? j. ¿Quién le mantiene? k. ¿Hay otros proyectos de repetir le? l. ¿Quiere su organización repetirle? ¿Por qué?

2. Educación y capacitación (tabla 7) a. ¿Tiene su organización actividades de formación? ¿Cuáles? b. ¿Qué son los temas de formación? c. ¿Para quién fue realizado? (niños, mujeres, hombres, agricultor…) d. ¿Cómo fue enseñado? ¿Talleres, reunión o asesoramiento técnica? e. ¿Hubo debate con la gente? f. ¿Hubo evaluación de los aprendizajes?

3. Evaluación del proyecto 3.1. ¿Cómo se evalúan las actividades realizadas? 3.2. ¿Hay un sistema de seguimiento? 3.3. ¿Hay un sistema de control? 3.4. ¿Sobre cuántos años? 3.5. ¿Se hace informe de las actividades realizada? 3.6. ¿Hay un presupuesto para actividades de seguimiento y evaluación?

4. Involucración futuro 4.1. ¿Cómo ve la involucración futuro de su organización dentro del PNC? ¿Por qué?

11

Cuarta parte: Colaboraciones y opinión sobre el PNC

3. Relaciones externas (tabla 8) a. ¿Conoce personas del municipio, de la universidad, instituciones nacionales o

departamentales que apoya/trabaja a la cuenca? ¿Qué tipo de apoyo/trabajo? b. ¿Qué actividades más se realizan en la cuenca? c. ¿Con qué organizaciones o instituciones se realiza?

4. Opinión

a. ¿Cómo está la cuenca hasta ahora? b. ¿Qué aspectos son lo más importantes en la cuenca? c. ¿Qué son los mayores exitos en la cuenca? d. ¿Qué son los mayores limitaciones en la cuenca? e. ¿Qué trabajas más falta en la cuenca? f. ¿Qué piense del PNC? g. ¿Qué son los mayores exitos del PNC? h. ¿Qué son los mayores limitaciones del PNC? i. ¿Qué haría para mejorar lo?

12

Table 9. Prácticas CSA

Tipo de prácticas CSA

Conoce?

Tiene?

Cuánto tiene? Para qué?

Funciona bien?

Atajado Terraza de

formación lenta con barreras vivas

Terraza de formación lenta con

barreras muertes

Terraza de banca

Forestación y plantaciones

Zanjas de infiltración

Zanjas de coronación

Cercos de protección (gestion de la ganadera)

Diques de piedras

Diques de gavion

Riego por aspersion

13

Table 10. Capacitación

Actividad de capacitación Ha participada?

Se habla de

CSA?

Detalles de la actividad

Visitas familiares

Reunión comunal

Intercambio local

Intercambio nacional

Cursillo

Taller

otro: …………

Table 11. Relaciones externas

Institución Conoce personas

que apoya a la cuenca?

Conoce personas que trabaja en la

cuenca?

Qué tipo de apoyo?

Qué tipo de trabajo?

Municipio

NGO

Institución departamental

Institución nacional

Organización local

14

Annex 3: Sustainability Note from Helvetas

LA SOSTENIBILIDAD DE LA GESTION INTEGRADA DE LOS RECURSOS HIDRICOS Y EL MANEJO INTEGRAL DE CUENCAS A NIVEL LOCAL

CRÉDITOS

Proyecto Gestión integral del agua

Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y Riego

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua

15

Redacción

Carlos Saavedra Revisión:

Equipo técnico del Proyecto Gestión Integral del Agua

Equipo técnico del Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y Riego

Edición Rigliana Portugal Especialista en Comunicación y Gestión del Conocimiento Proyecto Gestión integral del agua.

Proyecto Gestión integral del agua HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua

Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y Riego

Plan Nacional de Cuencas

Documento de trabajo (documento en construcción)

16

ACRÓNIMOS

GAD Gobierno Autónomo Departamental

GAM Gobierno Autónomo Municipal

GIRH Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos

MIC Manejo Integral de Cuencas

ONG Organización No Gubernamental

OGC Organismo de Gestión de Cuenca

PNC Plan Nacional de Cuencas

VRHR Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y Riego

17

LA SOSTENIBILIDAD DE LA GESTION INTEGRADA DE LOS RECURSOS HIDRICOS Y EL MANEJO INTEGRAL DE CUENCAS A NIVEL LOCAL

1. INTRODUCCION

Cerca del 40% del territorio de Bolivia corresponde a zonas de montaña de la región andina y de los valles. En esta región se encuentran las principales cuencas, particularmente colectoras de recursos hídricos. En esta zona se asienta cerca del 55% de la población nacional. La población rural se dedica a actividades productivas agrícolas con fuerte vinculación a la seguridad alimentaria. Con excepción de pocos valles fértiles y altiplanicies, el paisaje montañoso se caracteriza por el relieve escarpado con escasa cobertura vegetal.

Entre los mayores obstáculos para el logro del vivir bien3 de su población se tiene la degradación de la tierra y sus ecosistemas y el déficit y contaminación hidrica. Esta situación también afecta a las poblaciones aguas abajo, las áreas bajo riego y las ciudades. En consecuencia la afectación económica y social es doble: por un lado, la población de las regiones montañosas escarpadas se empobrece aún más y por otro lado la población de las áreas bajo riego y de las ciudades no pueden desarrollar su potencial económico productivo (Naik, 2010). Cada una de estas problemáticas tiende a agravarse con los efectos de la variabilidad y el cambio climático el cual afecta con mayor intensidad a las poblaciones social y económicamente más vulnerables especialmente mujeres y niños (Jimenez et al, 2006).

La gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos y el manejo integral de cuencas (GIRH/MIC) son dos enfoques complementarios que se han desarrollado para responder a estas y otras problemáticas presentes en una cuenca (Dourojeanni, 2009). La gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos visualiza la cuenca como un sistema de gobernanza hídrico de interés público y colectivo y el manejo integral de cuencas se concentra en las acciones para el uso adecuado del agua y los recursos naturales.

En Bolivia se han desarrollado varias experiencias de Manejo y Gestión Integral de Cuencas que datan desde mediados de la década de 1980 a través de diferente programas a impulso de la cooperación internacional (PROAGRO, 2010) y del gobierno nacional. Estas experiencias han sido implementadas desde el Altiplano de la Paz, Oruro y Potosí hasta los valles de Cochabamba, Chuquisaca Santa Cruz, Tarija, incluido el Chaco.

Desde el 2006, el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia a través de las políticas contenidas en el Plan Nacional de Cuencas (PNC) ha desarrollado instrumentos técnicos y conceptuales en torno a la Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos (GIRH) y el Manejo Integral de Cuencas (MIC).

El tema central de esta política concierne a la seguridad hídrica a través del manejo y la conservación de cuencas, donde el ciclo del agua se regula, como fuente del agua, siempre que no se vulneren las funciones ecosistémicas que brindan las montañas, ríos, lagos, bofedales, bosques y todos los seres que forman parte de este complejo vital (MMAyA, 2014c).

Como estrategia para la sostenibilidad de la gestión de cuencas el PNC previó la conformación de los Organismos de Gestión de Cuencas como instancias que junto con el gobierno municipal desarrolle la réplica y escalamiento de las iniciativas de cuenca. Las experiencias en la implementación de más de 55 proyectos GIRH/MIC en microcuencas en la primera fase del PNC (2006-2012) han contribuido

3 Vivir bien en la política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia se entiende como un proceso estratégico de articulación entre los actores sociales y el Estado para la transformación estructural, vinculando las relaciones sociales y de producción basados en la reciprocidad–complementariedad con formas productivas diversas con el propósito último de cuidar la vida en la búsqueda de equilibrio entre las personas y de éstas con la madre tierra. Además, implica la despatriarcalización y la descolonización del desarrollo para dar paso a las dimensiones cultural e identidad de los pueblos.

18

decisivamente en el aprendizaje de nuevas prácticas y formas de gestionar el agua y los recursos naturales sin embargo ponen en evidencia que existe la necesidad de aunar mucho más los esfuerzos para avanzar en la profundización y consolidación de la sostenibilidad en la gestión integral de cuencas (Vuurmans, de Vries y Gutierrez, 2013).

Con base a los antecedentes previos este documento pretende mostrar algunos mecanismos que contribuyan a la sostenibilidad de la GIRH/MIC a nivel de microcuencas bajo el liderazgo del gobierno municipal y los actores locales de las cuencas.

Este documento sin duda se enriquecerá y actualizará constantemente con las experiencias que se desarrollen en el marco de la segunda fase del PNC (2013-2017), el Proyecto Gestión integral del agua (2015-2018), el Programa de Desarrollo Agropecuario Sustentable III (PROAGRO/GIZ) y otros, por lo cual esta publicación se debe considerar como un proceso de continua construcción.

2. SOSTENIBILIDAD DE LA GIRH Y MIC A NIVEL LOCAL

La Agenda Patriótica 2025 ha establecido las prioridades para la construcción del Desarrollo Integral para Vivir Bien en armonía con la Madre Tierra del país. En este contexto, el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia y la sociedad civil asumen que el uso y acceso indispensable y prioritario al agua, debe satisfacer de forma integral e indistinta la conservación de los componentes, zonas y sistemas de vida de la Madre Tierra, la satisfacción de las necesidades de agua para consumo humano y los procesos productivos que garanticen la soberanía con seguridad alimentaria y la diversificación productiva y el desarrollo integral; con base en estos aspectos es posible establecer los principales resultados que orientan una estrategia plurinacional de gestión integral del agua para vivir bien.

La gestión integral del agua está articulada con diferentes metas de varios pilares de la Agenda Patriótica 2025 y particularmente con los que se refieren a la socialización y universalización de servicios básicos (Pilar 2); soberanía científica y tecnológica con identidad propia (Pilar 4); soberanía productiva con diversificación y desarrollo integral sin la dictadura del mercado capitalista (Pilar 6); soberanía alimentaria a través de la construcción del saber alimentarse para vivir bien (Pilar 8); soberanía ambiental con desarrollo integral, respetando los derechos de la madre tierra (Pilar 9).

Asimismo, la Ley Marco de la Madre Tierra (Ley 037) al respecto de la gestión de cuencas y recursos hídricos cuenta entre sus orientaciones, la de “promover la conservación y protección de las zonas de recarga hídrica, cabeceras de cuenca, franjas de seguridad nacional del país y áreas con alto valor de conservación, en el marco del manejo integral de cuencas (Art. 23-4)”. Este mandato incluye la adaptación y mitigación frente a la variabilidad y el cambio climático y a los riesgos y desastres que pueden ocurrir en las cuencas como parte integral de la GIRH y MIC y de la disminución de la vulnerabilidad de las poblaciones que habitan las cuencas.

El PNC se constituye en una política impulsora del desarrollo de una nueva cultura del agua en Bolivia y un programa en acción para la generación de experiencias, proyectos e instrumentos de gestión desde iniciativas locales de Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos (GIRH) y Manejo Integral de Cuencas (MIC). Desde la gestión 2006 el VRHR ha adoptado, adecuado y desarrollado un marco conceptual sobre la GIRH/MIC y otros conceptos asociados que a continuación se presentan. La Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos se define como: “El proceso que promueve la gestión y el desarrollo coordinado del agua, de la tierra y de los recursos relacionados, con el fin de maximizar el bienestar económico y social con equidad y sin comprometer la sostenibilidad de los ecosistemas vitales” (GWP, 2001). La GIRH es un medio para lograr un equilibrio entre tres objetivos estratégicos: la eficiencia, para lograr que los recursos hídricos cubran la mayor parte posible de las necesidades; la equidad en la asignación de los recursos y servicios hídricos entre los diferentes grupos económicos y sociales; y la sostenibilidad

19

ambiental a partir de la protección de los recursos hídricos y los ecosistemas asociados. El PNC adopta el concepto del Manejo Integral de Cuencas (MIC) que integra el concepto de manejo integrado de recursos naturales y el ambiente de una cuenca. El manejo integral de cuencas es el conjunto de acciones conducentes al uso y aprovechamiento del agua (superficial y subterránea) y los recursos naturales de la cuenca

La incorporación del concepto de MIC al de la GIRH es especialmente relevante cuando las condiciones biofísicas constituyen un riesgo importante respecto a la conservación de la capacidad de regulación hidrológica de la cuenca. Esta situación es típica de las cuencas de alto relieve montañoso como los Andes bolivianos. La fusión de los conceptos ha resultado en la adopción pragmática de un nuevo concepto “GIRH/MIC” considerando que los conceptos GIRH y MIC son ambos necesarios y se complementan entre sí. El concepto del MIC abarca principalmente las tareas técnicas de uso y manejo del agua y los recursos naturales de una cuenca, mientras que la GIRH prioriza y da énfasis a los aspectos sociales e institucionales de la gestión y administración, para posibilitar un uso integrado de los recursos hídricos. El agua es el factor que articula a los diferentes actores, usuarios del agua y de los recursos naturales asociados, así como al territorio de las diferentes partes de una cuenca hidrográfica.

La sostenibilidad se entiende como la “satisfacción de necesidades presentes sin comprometer las capacidades para satisfacer necesidades futuras, manteniendo el equilibrio entre aspectos económicos, ambientales y sociales para promover cambios positivos y duraderos en la población”. El uso del término sostenibilidad ha ido más allá de consideraciones ambientales y de los recursos naturales y es usado para describir la capacidad de un proyecto o sus resultados de continuar existiendo o funcionando más allá del fin del financiamiento o las actividades del agente externo (Fukao, 2004). El desarrollo sostenible y la sostenibilidad suponen la combinación de metas económicas, ecológicas, sociales, institucionales y políticas, como es satisfacer las necesidades básicas, protegiendo el medio ambiente y empoderando a la población, teniendo a las comunidades y autoridades locales como los actores principales.

Para la promoción y consolidación de la GIRH/MIC en microcuencas al menos cuatro dimensiones necesitan ser considerados en relación con la sostenibilidad a nombrar político-institucional, ambiental, económica y social cultural. Estas cuatro dimensiones pueden ser vistas como una cadena en la cual si una de las dimensiones falla en el logro de la sostenibilidad, la GIRH/MIC en el ámbito de las microcuencas no logra consolidarse. En ese sentido las cuatro dimensiones deben considerarse de una manera integral en la gestión de una cuenca con todos los vínculos plenamente conectados. Cada dimensión tiene que ser examinada de una manera amplia en términos de como la sostenibilidad debe ser lograda. Diferentes componentes de estas dimensiones tiene que ser analizadas en sus funciones y su contribución hacia el camino de la sostenibilidad de los procesos y resultados de la gestión integral de cuencas bien entendida.

En ese sentido la sostenibilidad en la GIRH/MIC parte de garantizar la calidad y cantidad de los servicios ecosistémicos de agua-suelo-vegetación y mejorar los medios de vida de la población cuenca basado en sólidos y legítimos procesos de concertación, coordinación e institucionalidad a partir de la convergencia de intereses donde se impulsan el dialogo y consenso por el desarrollo de la cuenca entre el OGC, organizaciones y los gobiernos locales.

Figura 1. Dimensiones de la sostenibilidad en la perspectiva de la GIRH/MIC en microcuencas (Fuente: Morato J, 2014)

20

Para el logro de procesos y resultados sostenibles en la GIRH/MIC a nivel local, el agua y los recursos naturales deben ser conservados y protegidos de la degradación y mantenidos los servicios ecosistémicos de la cuenca y su capacidad productiva. Para el adecuado uso del agua y los recursos naturales tecnologías y prácticas GIRH/MIC adecuados al contexto territorial y cultural son requeridos. Estas prácticas y técnicas debe ser adecuada a las circunstancias locales. Las familias y comunidades deben ser capaces de mantener estas prácticas y obras por si mismos por lo cual estas tecnologías debe ser costo-efectivas. Asimismo, las normas y reglas que definen el acceso al agua, la tierra y recursos naturales asociados deben ser equitativas entre los pobladores de la cuenca. De manera conjunta las instituciones (públicas y privadas) y los actores locales de la cuenca deben contar con mecanismos de coordinación y articulación asi como con una estructura organizacional e institucional interna responsable de la gestión de la cuenca. La instancia de concertación u organismo de gestión de la cuenca (OGC) debe estar basada en la estructura organizativa local. Esta debe involucrar a todos los actores relevantes de la cuenca, particularmente las comunidades, desde la identificación de las problemáticas en la cuenca a todos los niveles de planificación. Finalmente en la dimensión económica, las tecnologías y prácticas deben ser asequibles en términos de costo de la disponibilidad económica de las familias campesinas. La gestión de la cuenca nos debe conducir no solo a una protección y conservacion de la cuenca sino conducir también a incremento en los ingresos asi como en el manejo y conservación de suelos.

La sostenibilidad en el proceso de la GIRH/MIC en una cuenca permitirá avanzar hacia lo que se ha denominado una “cuenca sostenible”, que implica que en este espacio/territorio, los actores de la cuenca desarrollan una gestión integrada del agua y los recursos naturales, que considera entre otros los aspectos/ámbitos sociales, económicos, ambientales, institucionales, normativos y políticos de la sostenibilidad además de integrar el género y equidad social, la adaptación al cambio climático y la reducción del riesgo de desastres. Por lo cual una cuenca sostenible es aquella que mantiene a lo largo del tiempo su capacidad de sostener la vida y los ecosistemas asociados con base al mantenimiento y mejoramiento de las condiciones ecológicas de la cuenca y el aprovechamiento adecuado y eficiente del agua y los recursos naturales por parte de la población. Para este propósito en la cuenca se requiere contar con una gestión continua, persistente y eficiente promovida por todos los actores de la cuenca.

En el siguiente cuadro se muestra las condiciones requeridas para promover procesos sostenibles de GIRH/MIC en microcuenca que son adecuadas al contexto en el que se desarrolló los proyectos GIRH/MIC del Plan Nacional de Cuencas.

21

Cuadro 1: Condiciones requeridas para la sostenibilidad de los procesos/resultados de la GIRH/MIC en microcuencas

1. Ámbito social y cultural 1.1 En la cuenca se desarrollan procesos continuos de comunicación y sensibilización orientada a lograr una población con voluntad política y conocimiento sobre el estado actual de su cuenca y el futuro de ésta, a mediano y largo plazo, así como de los beneficios directos e indirectos que el manejo integral de la cuenca (GIRH/MIC) les ofrece y de los esfuerzos necesarios para su gestión. 1.2 En la cuenca se desarrollan procesos continuos de formación y fortalecimiento de capacidades de la población, en general, y de líderes y lideresas locales en particular para la gestión de su cuenca asi como en temáticas específicas (ejemplo: manejo de suelos, uso eficiente del agua, protección de fuentes de agua, cosecha de agua, etc.)

1.3 En la cuenca se hace una diferenciación por género en el desarrollo de la gestión de la cuenca en como diagnóstico, objetivos/ metas, desarrollo de capacidades, y estrategias.

1.4 En la gestión de la cuenca se vincula la recuperación de los saberes locales con la espiritualidad y el equilibrio con la Madre Tierra. 1.5 Todos los actores de la cuenca participan en las diferentes etapas del proceso de gestión de la cuenca.

2. Ámbito institucional 2.1 En la cuenca se desarrollan procesos continuos de comunicación y sensibilización orientado a lograr instituciones (públicas, sociales, privadas,) con conocimiento y sensibilidad sobre el estado actual de su/s cuenca/s y el futuro de ésta a mediano y largo plazo y los beneficios directos e indirectos de la gestión de cuencas en su jurisdicción.

2.2 En la cuenca se desarrollan procesos continuos de formación y fortalecimiento de las capacidades técnicas e institucionales para la gestión de cuenca en la jurisdicción municipal.

2.3 En la cuenca se tiene previsto la conformación y/o fortalecimiento de una institucionalidad local para responsabilizarse de la gestión de cuencas que incluya mínimamente la participación del gobierno municipal y algún tipo de organización social (ejemplo: plataforma, OGC, centrales, subcentrales).

2.4 El gobierno autónomo municipal tiene interés real (voluntad política) en la gestión de cuencas en su jurisdicción para lo cual dispone de recursos humanos y financieros, estructura institucional, etc.

2.5 En la cuenca se conforma y/o fortalece un espacio de concertación que contribuye a la gestión integral de la cuenca en una perspectiva de largo y mediano plazo y que une la diversidad de intereses.

2,6 El proceso de gestión cuenta con un esquema ejecutivo y organizativo que permite al gobierno autónomo municipal desarrollar las actividades planificadas en la cuenca de manera transparente, eficaz y eficiente en una perspectiva de largo plazo. 3. Ámbito ambiental

3.1 Se desarrollan obras y prácticas GIRH/MIC “resilientes” con base a una priorización y planificación concertada que toma en cuenta una visión a largo plazo por lo cual son relevante para la cuenca.

3.2 Se aplica una estrategia para formalizar las responsabilidades de mantenimiento de las obras y prácticas GIRH/MIC a nivel del GAM y de la población local.

3.3 El agua y los recursos naturales de la cuenca son manejados de una manera integral, donde el agua en calidad y cantidad opera como un elemento integrador asi como de las actividades de producción que se desarrollan.

3.4 En la cuenca se implementa iniciativas consensuada y concurrente o incentivos para la réplica y escalamiento de las obras y prácticas GIRH/MIC.

3.5 La gestión de la cuenca contribuye a la reducción de la vulnerabilidad ante amenazas climáticas y riesgos de desastres de origen hidrometeorológico.

4. Ámbito económico

4.1 El gobierno autónomo municipal tiene gobernabilidad y realiza inversiones públicas en la cuenca que contribuyen a su gestión y al desarrollo productivo de las comunidades.

4.2 El GAM y las organizaciones sociales desarrollan políticas públicas que vincula la gestión de la cuenca con el desarrollo económico y garantizan la continuidad de inversiones y de asistencia técnica en la cuenca

4.3 Las prácticas GIRH/MIC implementadas generan condiciones adecuadas para la mejora de la producción agropecuaria familiar/comunitaria.

22

4.4 Se aprovechan y potencian los servicios ecosistémicos de la cuenca por medio de mecanismos que contribuyen al bienestar económico y social y a generar reciprocidad entre comunidades aguas arriba y aguas abajo de la cuenca

Entre los desafíos de la GIRH/MIC a nivel local desde los ámbitos de la sostenibilidad se puede indicar:

En lo social: Las medidas o prácticas de gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos y manejo integral de cuencas (GIRH/MIC) estructurales y no estructurales implementadas en la cuenca deben contribuir no solo al adecuado aprovechamiento del agua y los recursos naturales sino también a la restauración, conservación ambiental y ecológica de la cuenca generando asi condiciones adecuada para la población de la cuenca, además de reducir la vulnerabilidad de las familias campesinas y permitirle una mayor generación de ingresos y la mejora de sus actividades agrícolas y pecuarias.

Estas prácticas para ser adoptadas y replicadas de manera sostenida por las familias campesinas deben ser aceptadas, apropiadas y adecuadas a su contexto cultural y territorial y tener una relación positiva de beneficio que mejore su producción agropecuaria. Para ello es necesario propiciar una adecuada educación, sensibilización y conciencia social y ambiental sobre los beneficios de la gestión de la cuenca e implementar mecanismos o incentivos que contribuyan a la adopción generalizada de estas prácticas.

En lo institucional: Fortalecimiento de la capacidad institucional para el ejercicio efectivo de las competencias autonómicas de los gobiernos autónomos municipales y el cumplimiento de corresponsabilidad en la gestión de los actores locales que se asientan en la cuenca. En este este sentido es importante contar con una institucionalidad local para la gestión de la cuenca consolidada. Para ello se requiere de voluntad, sensibilidad y capacidad organizativa local de las comunidades (ej. organizaciones de gestión de cuencas) y reconocida y anclada en las estructuras organizacionales locales (ej. sindicatos agrarios, subcentrales, centrales, federación campesina, etc) para gestionar y manejar el agua y los recursos naturales de su cuenca en función de bases sostenibles y de normas aceptables y aplicables por la población de la cuenca.

Adicionalmente, mejorar las capacidades de los actores locales e institucionales para establecer e implementar acuerdos necesarios para colectar, almacenar y analizar sistemáticamente información relacionada con la gestión del agua y los recursos naturales de la cuenca (para fines productivos, de gestión de riesgo y adaptación al cambio climático).

En lo social cultural: que las intervenciones de manejo, restauración o rehabilitación en la cuenca estén vinculados o responden a las necesidades y contexto social y cultura de las comunidades (agua arriba y aguas abajo de la cuenca), y que se genere un compromiso local e institucional para el mantenimiento de las obras y practica desarrolladas (ej. control hidráulica, estabilización de laderas) y a la vez, consideren los aspectos del riesgo frente a eventuales desastres (infraestructura resiliente).

En lo económico-financiero: que las medidas de manejo de cuencas emprendidas permitan la generación de ingresos y rendimientos económico-financieros para las familias campesinas o por el lado de los servicios ambientales generados. Es necesario que los beneficios económicos —que dependen del uso sostenible de los recursos naturales y de la generación y mantenimiento de los servicios ecosistémicos de la cuenca— se den a conocer ampliamente (comunicación masiva), de manera que la familia conozca cuál es su grado de participación y contribución en la economía nacional.

En lo ambiental: que las acciones de manejo de cuencas garanticen la conservación (estabilidad y resiliencia) de los ecosistemas y de los recursos naturales asociados con ellas. También es preciso que el manejo de cuencas considere la reducción de los elementos que ocasionan vulnerabilidad ambiental y climática.

23

1. ANALISIS DE LOS SISTEMAS DE SERVICIO Y FUNCIONES DE APOYO PARA LA GESTION INTEGRAL DE CUENCAS

Un análisis sistémico de los servicios y funciones de apoyo que la gestión integral de cuencas requiere tiene al objetivo orientar al gobierno, agencias e instituciones públicas y privadas en lograr cambios sostenibles a gran escala en la cuenca y su población. Este análisis está enfocado en identificar las limitaciones subyacentes que impiden el desarrollo efectivo de la gestión de cuencas propiamente dicha.

El énfasis de este análisis sistémico es evaluar las diferentes funciones y roles de los actores en la gestión de cuencas. El principal interés de este análisis es la sostenibilidad esto significa considerar no solo el alineamiento existentes de los servicios y funciones de los actores claves en la gestión de su cuencas, sino de qué manera pueden funcionar con mayor eficacia en el futuro, basándose en el compromiso, responsabilidades y capacidades de los actores (gobierno, organizaciones sociales, sector privado, academia, asociaciones, etc) para desempeñar los roles que les corresponden.

Las funciones de apoyo son la variedad de funciones que apoyan a una gestión más efectiva de la cuenca e incluye, por ejemplo los procesos de asesoría, desarrollo de capacidades, informacion, la coordinación, etc. La naturaleza de las funciones y quienes la ejecutan varia de un lugar a otro. Las funciones de regulación actúan para dar las estructuras y marco normativo e institucional a la gestión de la cuenca y rigen la participación, comportamiento y toma de decisiones de los actores. Las normas formales desempeñan un rol regulatorio. Sin embargo su cumplimiento (con frecuencia el aspecto mas problemático) involucra tanto a actores privados como organizaciones sociales y población de la cuenca. Las normas informales, generalmente, son el producto de los sistemas y practicas locales culturales, que incorporan valores y necesariamente definen el alcance hcual el cual las normas formales son aceptadas.

Figura: Versión esquematizada del sistema de servicios y funciones de apoyo de la gestión integral de cuenca

24

Evidentemente, un desarrollo significativo es más que entregar un único, gran resultado -hacer que el cambio sea duradero es lo que diferencia el desarrollo de largo plazo de las medidas paliativas de corto plazo. Sin embargo, en la práctica, la sostenibilidad es dejada en un segundo plano. Frecuentemente, lo que parece tener mayor importancia son los productos finales (entregables) – forestación, agroforesteria, gaviones, control hidráulico, mejora de la seguridad alimentaria, etc. Generalmente, los medios a través de los cuales se puede lograr la sostenibilidad son lo último que se toma en cuenta. La sostenibilidad es una prioridad principal en el análisis sistémico y su propuesta para ésta se distingue de cuatro maneras. En primer lugar, la sostenibilidad es definida. La sostenibilidad siempre está relacionada, tanto con los beneficios finales, como con los medios (o capacidades, fortalecimiento institucional) a través de los cuales se logra dichos beneficios. En el marco del análisis de sistemas, la sostenibilidad puede ser vista como: La capacidad de la gestión de cuenca para asegurar que los bienes y servicios ecosistémicos (agua, suelo, vegetación) relevantes diferenciados continúen siendo aprovechado por la población de la cuenca, más allá del período de una intervención en la cuenca. En segundo lugar, la sostenibilidad está vinculada al incremento de la escala y a la generación de un mayor cambio. La gestión de cuencas nunca es estática –intrínsecamente incorporan la capacidad y el incentivo para ser dinámicos- para crecer y para generar cambios en la cuenca. Por lo tanto, debe enfrentarse un hecho pendiente sobre la sostenibilidad: ¿de qué manera tendrán lugar el escalamiento y el cambio en el futuro? Los objetivos de la sostenibilidad y la escala son consistentes entre sí. En tercer lugar, la prioridad es clara. Como parte esencial del análisis de sistemas para el cambio sistémico, está el reconocimiento de que se debe dar prioridad al desarrollo de capacidades y fortalecimiento institucional en la gestión de cuencas -los medios a través de los cuales continúa el flujo de beneficios-, en lugar de simplemente proporcionar beneficios de manera directa (ej. forestación, fertilizantes, etc). En cuarto lugar, la sostenibilidad se operativiza en cada aspecto y etapas del ciclo de la gestión de cuencas. El análisis de sistemas muestra qué los actores están desempeñando y financiando las diferentes funciones en la gestión. Al considerar la sostenibilidad, también necesitamos determinar quién asumirá la responsabilidad (quién lo hará) y quién desarrollara/pagará por estas funciones en el futuro. Se requiere desarrollar escenarios realistas futuros para una gestión integral de la cuenca. Para que esto sea transparente, las intervenciones deben tomar en cuenta la sostenibilidad en sus objetivos y en su planificación -planificar la sostenibilidad desde un inicio y no a la salida. Por ejemplo, si la provisión de servicios de desarrollo de capacidades o información se considera importante en la gestión de cuencas, entonces existen razones para considerar que será relevante en el futuro. Se plantea una pregunta evidente sobre sostenibilidad: ¿quién proporcionará y quién pagará los servicios de capacitación e información en el futuro?.

25

Figura: proceso del análisis sistémico en el proceso de la gestión de cuencas.

Este análisis sistémico considera que el VRHR y las agencias de cooperación (u otras instancias externas) desempeñan un rol de facilitación. Como actores externos deberán involucrar a los actores de las cuencas en la gestión integral. El rol de facilitador es continuo para los gobiernos locales ya que ellos son el actor central/movilizador en la gestión de la cuenca. Este enfoque busca cambiar la gestión de cuenca a través de intervenciones de facilitación, catalíticas por naturaleza, es decir, que provocan un cambio que altera la forma en que se gestiona la cuenca en el largo plazo, sin que el agente de cambio permanezca dentro la gestión de la cuenca. En ese sentido con la facilitación, las intervenciones pueden incluir:

• Proporcionar acompañamiento y asistencia técnica a los actores responsables de la gestión de la cuenca

• Introducir nuevas tecnologías o prácticas de manejo (ej. medidas de adaptación al cambio climático) y proporcionar asistencia técnica para desarrollarla, asi como apoyo financiero limitado para cubrir el costo inicial de estas iniciativas.

• Establecer un espacio de concertación para la generación y el intercambio de mecanismos y nuevas iniciativas en la gestión de cuencas

• Proporcionar asistencia técnica y cierto apoyo financiero para el desarrollo de normas municipales y locales que consoliden en la gestión de cuencas en la política municipal

• Ofrecer informacion a todos los pobladores de la cuenca, sobre las beneficios de la gestión de cuenca y la responsabilidad para con su gestión.

• Desarrollar iniciativas agroproductiva que dinamicen el desarrollo productivo de la cuenca • Desarrollar un enfoque de coordinación y articulación de los actores de la cuenca

3. EVALUACION DE LA SOSTENIBLIDAD DE LA GIRH/MIC A NIVEL LOCAL

Como mecanismo metodológico para promover la sostenibilidad de la GIRH/MIC en microcuencas con una intervención previa del PNC, el Viceministerio de Recursos Hídricos y Riego y HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation en el marco del Proyecto Gestión integral del agua de la Cooperación Suiza en Bolivia

26

han desarrollado una estrategia de asistencia técnica y acompañamiento en 15 microcuencas centrado en la implementación de un Plan de Acción Concurrente en cada microcuenca. En cada Plan de Acción Concurrente (PAC) de microcuencas se incluyó cuatro lineamientos estratégicos a nombrar: a) desarrollo de prácticas e iniciativas GIRH/MIC complementarias y de mantenimiento, b) desarrollo de capacidades, c) fortalecimiento de los espacios de concertación en la microcuenca y d) fortalecimiento institucional de los gobiernos subnacionales.

Los PAC han previsto diferentes modalidades de organización e implementación siendo unas lideradas principalmente por los OGC y en una proporción menor liderada por los gobiernos autónomos municipales. Estas modalidades de gestión y el avance en el logro de sostenibilidad de los procesos GIRH/MIC en microcuencas serán analizados a lo largo de los dos años de implementación de estos planes de accion concurrente en microcuencas (2015-2017).

Existe un sin número de evaluaciones realizadas sobre programas, proyectos y procesos de gestión de cuencas en America Latina, Asia y África (Vishnudas, 2009; FAO, 2014). La metodología que se propone aplicar en estas 15 microcuencas se basa en una adaptación de las experiencias desarrolladas por la FAO (FAO, 2014), UNESCO (Catano, 2014) y el CATIE (Cervantes, 2008) en la Región Andina y Centroamérica.

Para este propósito se ha desarrollado una serie de criterios adaptados al contexto nacional, que permitan evaluar el nivel de avance hacia el logro de la sostenibilidad de los procesos de gestión integral de cuencas que se presentan en el siguiente cuadro y que se refleja su avance en la Figura 3.

Cuadro 2. Valoración de criterios de sostenibilidad de los procesos GIRH/MIC a nivel local

Criterio Valoración (1-4)4

1) Población –hombres y mujeres- con conocimiento suficiente sobre la condición ambiental/ecológica y dinámica de funcionamiento de su cuenca y de los beneficios de la gestión de su cuencas

2) Población –hombres y mujeres- con voluntad política para mitigar las situaciones que amenazan las condiciones ambientales/ecológicas de la cuenca a corto, mediano y largo plazo

3) Organizaciones sociales fortalecidas, y con claro liderazgo, con conocimiento y capacidad de movilización y relacionamiento en torno a una visión clara de lo que significa para ellos contar con una “Cuenca con una gestión integral ”

4) Líderes –hombres y mujeres- locales con formación sólida en la temática de cuencas y su gestión que actúan como gestores locales de su cuenca

5) Instituciones (públicas, sociales, privadas –con fines lucrativos y no lucrativos como ONG, iglesias, universidades y otros) con conocimiento suficiente sobre la condición ambiental/ecológica y la dinámica de funcionamiento de su cuenca y las acciones a realizar para mejorarla/mantenerla

6) Instituciones con voluntad política para reducir la vulnerabilidad de su cuenca (incremento de la resiliencia de su cuenca) y sobre las situaciones que amenazan la condición ambiental/ecológica de su cuenca a corto, mediano y largo plazo

7) Instituciones con conocimiento y capacidad de movilización, relacionamiento y articulación en torno a una visión clara de lo que significa que su cuenca pueda avanzar sólidamente hacia una “gestión integral de su cuenca

8) Institucionalidad orientada a la gestión integral de la cuenca; institucionalidad entendida como la articulación y coordinación entre instituciones y

4 La valoración corresponde con las siguientes categorías: 1= Muy baja; 2= Insuficiente, 3=Regular y 4= Muy bueno.

27

organizaciones sociales con conocimiento, sensibilidad, capacidad política y normativa para planificar y ejecutar la gestión de la cuenca; y como la creación y/o reorganización de las instancias de gestión existentes y en la modificación de sus estructuras para ejecutar las acciones necesarias

9) Espacios de concertación y articulación donde se concretiza la institucionalidad, se inicia la elaboración de políticas públicas concertadas y se concretiza acciones para la gestión integral de la cuenca

10) Plan/Proyecto de gestión de la cuenca factible y concertado local, regionalmente y a nivel nacional con visión a largo plazo (efectos del cambio climático) con base a un diagnóstico y línea base que incluya enfoque de género y una gestión de Reducción de Riesgos del Desastre (RRD) sensible al cambio climático

11) Implementación de obras y prácticas GIRH/MIC resilientes según el plan/proyecto de gestión de la cuenca que favorecen la adaptación al cambio climático y reducen la vulnerabilidad

12) Responsabilidad y compromiso social de pobladores de las cuencas para el desarrollo de las prácticas de mantenimiento y replica de las obras estructurales y prácticas GIRH/MIC

13) Réplica y escalamiento de las obras y acciones GIRH/MIC en la zona alta, media y baja de su cuenca por parte de las familias campesinas.

Figura 2: Evaluacion de la sostenibilidad de los procesos y resultados de la GIRH/MIC a nivel local

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

41

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

28

4. CONCLUSIONES

Existe un creciente interés del gobierno nacional, las agencias de cooperación, las agencias multilaterales, y los gobiernos subnacionales por mejorar la consolidación de la GIRH/MIC a nivel local, sea a través de la mejora en la dotación y calidad del agua a la población o por iniciativas más integrales tales como la restauración de los ecosistemas, la generacaion de una gobernanza local en la cuenca, etc.

La gestión integral de cuencas o lo que en la Política Nacional de Cuencas ha denominado la promoción de la GIRH/MIC a nivel local, consiste en una gestión conjunta, compartida y colaborativa mediante la cual los diferentes actores locales integran esfuerzos, recursos, experiencias y conocimientos para desarrollar procesos que generen impactos favorables y de sostenibilidad del manejo del agua y los recursos naturales de la cuenca, a corto, mediano y largo plazo. La GIRH/MIC es compleja y requiere de una institucionalidad local sólida y capaz de aglutinar a todos los actores de la cuenca.

La gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos como un ámbito o componente de la gestión de cuencas plantea a partir de la gobernanza nuevos desafíos para el desarrollo de acuerdos institucionales, mayor educación y capacitación a los usuarios y actores locales.

Las cuencas en su mayoría están habitadas por comunidades y familias, las cuales tienen necesidades y oportunidades diferentes una de otra. Estas deben ser reconocidas para que los resultados del proceso de gestión de cuencas sean relevantes respecto al capital social, fomentando un vínculo entre las costumbres locales y el entorno natural, por ello los beneficios deben ser equitativos, seguros y perdurables para todos.

Los beneficios de la gestión integral de cuencas tienen un costo económico que los gobiernos, la sociedad y las organizaciones sociales debe asumir. Los gobiernos deben hacer todos los esfuerzos y proporcionar fondos para las obras y los procesos de gestión integral de cuencas y las organizaciones sociales deben aceptar su corresponsabilidad y compromiso con este proceso en una perspectiva de mediano y largo plazo.

Los procesos sostenibles de gestión integral de cuencas deben dejar de verse como iniciativas meramente ambientales, sino que deben también integrar el análisis socioeconómico e incluir el componente político institucional. Ante esto, deben contemplarse periodos de tiempo adecuados (no menos de cuatro años para las etapas iniciales), situaciones y procesos locales y la integración de los gobiernos y actores locales involucrados en la búsqueda de una mejora real en la calidad de la vida de los pobladores y del entorno natural de la cuenca.

La experiencia en la implementación de los proyectos GIRH/MIC del PNC muestra que avanzar hacia la sostenibilidad en los procesos de gestión integral de cuencas solo se lograra cuando existe un total involucramiento de la población, y de sus líderes tanto políticos como comunales. Es de suma importancia para la sostenibilidad que las familias campesinas y sus organizaciones comprendan los alcances de lo que la gestión de cuencas requiere de ellos. Es de vital importancia para la motivación de la población el lograr un impacto social y económico. Los patrones de comportamiento cambian cuando se ven resultados positivos y a partir de ahí se integran en la idiosincrasia y cultura de las comunidades, los actores de la cuenca deben tener claro que la conservacion no es un fin, sino un medio para lograr los objetivos de desarrollo en la cuenca y de su población.

En muchos aspectos, la sostenibilidad de los proyectos GIRH/MIC y más aun de los procesos de gestión integral de cuencas en Bolivia es todavía muy incipiente. Las experiencias desarrolladas no solo por el Plan Nacional de Cuencas, sino por otras instituciones como el Servicio Departamental de Cuencas de la Gobernación Autónoma de Cochabamba (ex – PROMIC), SEARPI de Santa Cruz, DANIDA en Potosi en Chuquisaca entre otras muestran que la sostenibilidad de los procesos de gestión de cuencas y la adopción de un enfoque integral requiere de muchas condiciones entre las cuales se ha mencionado:

29

• Voluntad política, apoyo legal y convencimiento de los beneficios que tiene la gestión de cuencas por parte de las autoridades a nivel subnacional y locales para llevar a cabo las tareas que la gestión requiere.

• Desarrollo de reformas políticas y normativa que reconozcan plenamente las múltiples funciones de la gestión de cuencas y creen un marco intersectorial adecuado para su ejecución.

• Aplicación de una normativa adecuado al marco competencia de los gobiernos subnacionales para el ejercicio efectivo de sus role en relación con la gestión de cuencas.

• Mejoramiento de los mecanismos institucionales que enlazan las intervenciones en las cuencas con las políticas subnacionales.

• Fortalecimiento de la capacidad y la creación de una mayor conciencia y sensibilidad en todos los niveles.

• Creación de mecanismos financieros de largo plazo de los procesos de gestión integral de cuencas.

• Aplicación de los mejores conocimiento y técnicas disponibles (sociales, ambientales, económicas) para conducir los procesos, conocer en detalle y tiempo real la situación de la cuenca, los pobladores y la forma en que se comporta y reacciona la cuenca frente a las intervenciones que se realiza en la misma

• Creación de un equipo técnico permanente y ubicable para apoyar y asistir a los usuarios en la preparación de propuestas para establecer organizaciones de gestión de cuencas con base a las demandas que se generan a ese respecto

• Existencia de un fondo de financiamiento y otros incentivos requeridos para iniciar las actividades de los organismos de gestión de cuencas.

• Establecer claramente bajo que figura legal y con qué recursos financieros se establecerán los organismos de gestión de cuencas.

• El diseño de un modelo de institucionalidad local para la gestión de la cuenca adecuado a los actores estratégicos de la cuenca.

Finalmente se debe indicar que gestionar, manejar y conservar las cuencas para que la población pueda seguir beneficiándose de sus servicios es una responsabilidad colectiva de la población de las instancias públicas y privadas.

30

5. REFERENCIAS

Benegas, L; Faustino, J; y Gentes, I. 2010. Experiencias y desafíos para la cogestión de cuencas hidrográficas en America Latina. Conclusiones del Seminario Internacional. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente, N 55: 129-133.

Bucardo, E; Jimenez, F. 2010. Condiciones para la implementación del enfoque de cogestión de cuencas en la parte alta de la subcuenca del rio Viejo, Nicaragua. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente, N 56-57: 12-132.

Catano, N; Marchand, M, Staley, S; y Wang Y. 2014. Estimación y validación del índice de sostenibilidad de Cuencas (ISC) para la cuenca del río Reventazón. PHI-LAC. Programa Hidrológico Internacional para America Latina y el Caribe, UNESCO. PHI-VIII Documento Técnico N 35. Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad.

Cervantes, R; Faustino, J; Jimenez F y Benegas, L. 2010. Estrategias y mecanismos para el desarrollo de procesos de cogestión de cuencas hidrográficas. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente No 56-57:66-75.

Cervantes, R; Faustino, J; y Jimenez F. 2010. Principios y criterios para la cogestión de cuencas hidrográficas en America Tropical. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente No 56-57:59-65.

CONAGUA 2009. COP 16: Cuencas Sustentables. La gestión ambiental en las cuencas en México: Una vision prospectiva del agua, suelo y bosques. CONAGUA y SEMARNAT.

Dourojeanni, A. 2008. Elaboración de un modelo de referencia de gestión de aguas por cuencas con fines de evaluación de los sistemas existentes en México. CONAGUA.

Dourojeanni, A. 2009. Diseño de organizaciones de gestión de recursos hídricos por cuenca. Fundación Chile.

Dourojeanni, A. 2013. Recomendaciones con relación al diseño de la estrategia y el modelo institucional para la gestión integrada de cuencas en Chile: Situación.

FAO. 2007. La nueva generación de programas y proyectos de gestión de cuencas hidrográficas. Estudio FAO: Montes, 150. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. Roma, Italia.

FAO. 2014. Experiencias de manejo y gestión de cuencas el Ecuador: Indicadores rápidos para una evaluación rápida. Estudio FAO. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. Quito, Ecuador.

GIZ. 2014. The vulnerability sourcebook: Concept and guidelines for standardised vulnerability assessments. Climate Policy Support Project. Bonn, Germany.

Hernández, A; Jimenez, F, Faustino, J, y Prins, C. Escalamiento territorial de la cogestión de cuencas hidrográficas en las subcuencas de los ríos Higuito y Copan, honduras. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente, N 55: 18-27.

Jimenez, F. 2005. Gestión Integral de cuencas hidrográficas: Enfoques y estrategias actuales. Recursos, Ciencia y decisión. Turrialba, Costa Rica.

Jiménez, F; Faustino, J; Campos, J. 2006. Bases conceptuales de la cogestión adaptativa de cuencas hidrográficas. CATIE. Turrialba, Costa Rica.

Kammerbauer, H; Leon, J, y Faustino, J. 2012. Modelo de cogestión adaptativa de cuencas hidrográficas: Propuesta conceptual basada en la revisión crítica de las experiencias de Honduras y Nicaragua. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente No 59-60:117-122.

Kammerbauer, et al. 2009. Plataformas de concertación: una apuesta por la gobernabilidad local en cuencas hidrográficas. La experiencia de cuatro subcuencas en Honduras y Nicaragua. CATIE. Turrialba, Costa Rica

MMAyA. 2014a. Reporte de monitoreo del Marco de Evaluación de Desempeño (MED) del PNC. Gestión 2013. MMAyA y VRHR/PNC.

31

MMAyA. 2014b. Guía para la elaboración de proyectos de Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos y Manejo Integral de Cuencas (GIRH/MIC), MMAyA, PNC, GIZ.

MMAyA. 2014c. Programa Plurianual de Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos y Manejo Integral de Cuencas 2013-2017, La Paz, Bolivia.

Musálem, K. 2005. Propuesta metodológica para la certificación del manejo de cuencas hidrográficas en América Tropical, CATIE, Costa Rica.

Musálem y Castillejos. 2010. Assessing integrated watershed management and spatial groundwater vulnerability to pollution in priority watersheds of the Yacyreta Dam in Paraguay.

Musálem, K; Jimenez, F. 2013. A rapid assessment tool for integrated watershed management: A case study from La Plata River Basin in South America. Aqua-LAC Vol 5.

Naik, A. 2010. Watershed management: A way to Sustainable development. Palinasami, K; Kumar, D. 2009. Impacts of watershed development programmes: Experiencies

and evidences from Tamil Nadu. Agricultural Economics Research Review. Vol 22 (conference number).

PNUD, 2009. Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano Perú 2009: Por una densidad del Estado al servicio de la gente. Parte II: Cuencas escenarios para el desarrollo humano.

Prins, K. 2009. Análisis y abordaje de conflictos en cogestión de cuencas y recursos hídricos. CATIE. Turrialba, Costa Rica.

PROMIC. 2004. El Manejo integral de cuencas en el desarrollo local, un proceso de construcción y aprendizaje: Experiencias en la cordillera del Tunari. Programa Manejo Integral de Cuencas. Cochabamba, Bolivia.

PROAGRO. 2010. Experiencias de la cooperación alemana en el manejo integral de cuencas y la gestión integral de recursos hídricos en Bolivia. GIZ. La Paz, Bolivia.

Rascón A. 2007. Metodología para la elaboración de la línea base y para la implementación del monitoreo biofísico y socioambiental de la cogestión de cuencas en América Central.

Scherer, R. 2011. Cumulative Effects: A Primer for watershed managers. Subha, V; Savenije, H; Van Der Zaag P. 2005. A conceptual framework for Sustainable watershed

managemetn. ICID 21st Regional Conference. TRIG. 2012. Toward a resilient watershed: Addressing climate change planning in watershed

assessments. The Resource Innovation Group. Oregon, USA. Valle, M; Haenel, T. 2014. Nuevo marco legal e institucional de gestión: la reforma hacia una

mejor gobernanza del agua en Bolivia. Gobernanza: Revista para la cultura democrática del siglo XXI.

Vuurmans, J; de Vries, P; y Gutierrez, R. 2013. Evaluación Final del Plan Nacional de Cuencas 2006-2012. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua, Embajada de los Países Bajos en Bolivia.

Walmsley, J. Carden, M. et al. 2001. Indicators of sustainable development for catchment management in South Africa: Review of indicators from around the world.

WCED (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Annex 4: Indicator description table and references Sustainability field Indicator name Indicator description References

Environmental Water erosion concern Increased actions to tackle water erosion problems by farmers (vegetation cover, riverbank protection, forestation, terraces) F,G,H

Environmental Soil conservation concern Adoption of soil conservation measures by farmers (organic manure, pluriannual crop rotation, …) F,G,H

Environmental Water quality control Adoption of water control and protection measures by farmers to ensure its quality (source protection, cleaning of stagnant water,…) F

Environmental Adaptation to climate change

Increased water harvesting activities to improve resilience to climatic variability (droughts, floods, …) F

Environmental Water availability for livestock Increased surface water availability for livestock C

Environmental Water availability for irrigation Increased surface and groundwater availability for irrigation purposes and domestic use C,E,F,H

Environmental Reasonable water use Adequate and reasonable use of irrigation water to limit wastes and soil erosion (higher water use efficiency) E

Environmental Waste disposal Organized-cleaning of rivers and lands, safe waste disposal by the communities to reduce environmental pollution F

Environmental Oganic fertilizers use Increased use of organic fertilizers compared with chemical ones by local farmers F Economic Increasing farm income Increased farm income due to IWM activities triggering agricultural development B,C,E,G,H

Economic Off-farm development Development of new off-farm activities and innovative products or services (food transformation, ecotourism,...) C,D,F,G

Economic Market access Increased market access for agricultural products (better roads, development of new fairs and customers) C,F

Economic Assistance to low-income families Assistance to families with low income H

Economic Economic resilience Resilience of farmer to prices fluctuation thanks to diversified production C,H Economic Dynamic incentives Dynamic incentive mechanisms leading to increased participation A

Economic Autonomous search for support Autonomous search for incentives and support (projects and budget) A

Economic Auto-financing Auto-financing of activities through democratic economic participation A

Economic Perception of watershed services

Perception of upstream-downstream relations and economic consequences inside the watershed (PES) F,G

Economic Valuation of watershed services

Perception of upstream-downstream relations and possible payback from institutions outside the watershed (PES) F

Socio-cultural Dynamic leadership Continued leadership through renewed leaders F Socio-cultural Local empowerment Empowerment of leaders at watershed level C,F

Socio-cultural Local cohesion Knowledge sharing at community level F,G Socio-cultural OGC social recognition Positive recognition of the OGC inside the watershed C,F Socio-cultural Watershed cohesion Knowledge sharing between communities A,F Socio-cultural Women income share Women participation in family's income F Socio-cultural Women decisions' share Women participation in communities' decisions C,F Socio-cultural Conflict resolution Democratic decision-making and conflict resolution C,F Socio-cultural Equitable training Fair and distributed training activities on environmental issues C,D,G,H Socio-cultural School awareness program Implementation of watershed' sensitization activities at local schools G,H Politico-institutional Horizontal integration Horizontal integration between local organizations (families, communities, OGC and GAM) F Politico-institutional Vertical integration Vertical integration between authorities (local, OGC, GAM, GAD, Estate) F,H Politico-institutional Clear role assignations Clear role definitions between institutions (no duplicates) H Politico-institutional Coordination Public institutions work in a concrete and coordinated way in the watershed towards IWM A,F

Politico-institutional Collaboration OGC-communities Enforced collaboration between communities and the OGC F

Politico-institutional Collaboration OGC-GAM Enforced collaboration between the OGC and the GAM F

Politico-institutional Synergy academic-executive Collaboration between academic and executive worlds, effective impact in field work I

Politico-institutional Concertation space Concertation space for all institutions inside the watershed A,F Politico-institutional OGC political recognition Political recognition and support of the OGC from governmental instances C,A

Politico-institutional Social planning Future projects are planned and coordinated in an integrated way with active participation of all stakeholders D,F

Politico-institutional Norms development Development of norms and regulations towards IWM C

References: (A) Badibanga et al. 2013 ; (B) Bewket 2007 ; (C) Herweg 2007 ; (D) De Graaff et al. 2008 ; (E) Inter-American Development Bank 2008 ; (F) Saavedra 2016 ; (G) Teshome et al. 2016 ; (H) Jara-Rojas et al. 2013 : (I) MMAyA 2013

Integrated Watershed Management In The Bolivian Andes

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Watershed Management In The Bolivian Andes