Iwb caulfield report iwrm ecuador by Join For Water

Have the Interventions of the “Consortium” of NGOs Led to the Basis for the Local Sustainable Integrated Water Resource Management of the Apangoras and Garcia Micro‐River Basins? – A Surface Hydrology and Socioeconomic Assessment

Mark Caulfield September 1st 2013 Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc in Environmental Management for Distance Learning Students of the University of London, Centre for Development, Environment and Policy (CeDEP), School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)

Contents CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... I LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... III ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... IV BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1 RESEARCH QUESTION, OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES ....................................................... 3 RESEARCH QUESTION: ................................................................................................................ 3 OBJECTIVE: .............................................................................................................................. 3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES: ................................................................................................................. 3 OPERATIONAL HYPOTHESES: ....................................................................................................... 4 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................... 5 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................. 5 SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECTS OF IWRM ........................................................................................... 7 PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF IWRM ‐ ECOHYDROLOGY AND AGROFORESTRY ............................................... 9 METHODOLOGY: .............................................................................................................. 12 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY: ...................................................................... 13 CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS: ............................................................................................... 14 RESULTS: .......................................................................................................................... 16 HYDROLOGICAL PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................. 16 LOCAL IWRM OF THE MICRO‐RIVER BASINS – ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY RESULTS ............................. 24 LOCAL SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF THE MICRO‐WATERSHEDS –ANALYSIS OF THE FOCUS GROUPS AND IN‐DEPTH INTERVIEWS RESULTS .............................................................................. 29 INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 36 HYDROLOGICAL PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................. 36 ACCESS TO WATER AND LIVELIHOODS ......................................................................................... 38 LOCAL IWRM OF THE MICRO‐RIVER BASINS ................................................................................ 41 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................... 44 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 44 FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................................................................................. 45

ANNEX 1: BACKGROUND TO THE PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE MICRO‐RIVER BASINS ...................................................................................................... 52 PHYSICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE MICRO‐WATERSHED ........................................... 52 SOCIO‐ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND CHALLENGES ................................................................... 54 ANNEX 2: STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FIELD SURVEY ........................................... 55 ANNEX 3: SEMI‐STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FOCUS GROUPS AND IN‐DEPTH INTERVIEWS .................................................................................................................... 59 ANNEX 4: LIST OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED OR WHO PARTICIPATED IN FOCUS GROUPS ........................................................................................................................... 74 ANNEX 5: KEY FIELDWORK DIARY NOTES ......................................................................... 75

List of Tables Table 1: Results – Key Stakeholder Interviews and Focus Groups Table 2: Integrated Water Resource Management Conditions Table 3: List of Key Stakeholders Interviewed or Who Participated in Focus Groups Table 4: Key Fieldwork Diary Notes

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the help of the two main NGOs comprising the Consortium of NGOs whose interventions have been assessed in this research project, Protos and Sendas. In particular I would like to thank Anne Coutteel and Helder Solis from Protos and Isabel Cordero, Victor Idrovo, Paola Granizo, Yessyca Naula and Franklin Zhiminaicela from Sendas for facilitating my trips to Cuenca, Cañar and the project area. I would also like to thank Geovany Espinoza who helped in the administration of survey questionnaires to the local communities. Finally I would like to thank my supervisor Oscar Forero for his support and guidance during the research project.

iii

Abstract The objective of this research was to assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the interventions led by the “Consortium” of NGOs on the Apangoras and Garcia micro‐river basins and whether these interventions have led to the basis for the local sustainable integrated water resource management of the micro‐river basins. The research applied both the eco‐hydrology and political ecology research frameworks to conduct the assessment. After applying a simple correlation model using Spearman’s Rho, the hydrological data available from the micro‐river basins proved insufficient to conclude if there had been a statistical improvement in hydrological ecosystem services for the micro‐ river basins as a result of the interventions. Nevertheless from a physical assessment of the micro‐river basins localised cases of site‐specific improvements were observed. The data gathered to assess the socioeconomic impacts of the interventions through in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with key stakeholders, structured surveys with 120 community members and an ethnographic analysis of the fieldwork results demonstrated that the improved access to irrigation water interventions significantly improved agricultural production and as a result economic income or livelihoods. However, a significant number of community members reported no change to their livelihood. This high percentage of community members reporting ‘no change’ could be a result of either internal experimental bias towards such responses or a diminishing in the impacts of better access to irrigation water as a consequence of the socioeconomic and cultural changes that are currently taking place within the communities of the micro‐river basins. Finally, from the data gathered and analysis conducted it was concluded that while significant progress has been made, a number of gaps still remain for the

comprehensive implementation of IWRM within the micro‐river basins. Nevertheless, a basis for such management had indeed been created.

Background Non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) and governmental agencies dedicated to economic and social development and environmental protection have been active in the two micro‐river basins of Apangoras and Garcia for over three decades looking to address a number of socioeconomic and environmental challenges created by the Ecuadorian agrarian and land reforms of the 1970s1. This dissertation will focus on the work conducted by the “Consortium” of NGOs (Protos2, Sendas3, and Veco4) in these two micro‐river basins. In 2002 and 2003 the Consortium began its work in the region, beginning with an environmental assessment of the micro‐river basins. Based on the findings, a project was developed focused on Typical Landscape in the Apangoras and Garcia Micro-River Basins

improving the integrated water resource management of the

micro‐river basins in order to ensure the sustainability of the hydrological resources for the benefit of the inhabitants. This new project ran from 2003‐2007. The main objectives were to finalise the irrigation canal infrastructure system from two previous intervention projects (‘Cuenca Alta del Río Cañar 5 ’ and ‘Desarrollo Forestal Campesino 6 ’), create an Environmental Management Committee for the micro‐river basins, develop micro‐ river basin management plans, and promote and execute land management measures that would help protect the environmental services of the watersheds. 1

For a brief introduction to the physical and socioeconomic background of the micro-river basins please refer to Annex 1. 2 A Belgian NGO dedicated to better water management (www.protos.be) 3 An Ecuadorian NGO focused on social justice and gender issues (www.sendas.org.ec) 4 A Belgian NGO specialising in sustainable agriculture issues (www.veco-ngo.org) 5 Upper Basin of River Cañar 6 Forestry Peasant Development

In 2007, one of the original consortium NGOs, Veco, decided to focus its efforts on the establishment and technical assistance to a local agricultural cooperative called Chuya Mikuna. Financial support for this cooperative was maintained until May 2013. A close relationship between Chuya Mikuna and the work of the Consortium was maintained throughout the intervention period. The remaining NGOs from the Consortium began a new phase in their work in 2007 with the aim of strengthening the Environmental Management Committee of Bulu Bulu River Sub‐Basin with three main pillars of action: •

environmental education and awareness raising in the local communities of the micro‐river basins;

•

physical protection of the micro‐river basins through the promotion and execution of better land management practices – agroforestry, protection of springs and the creation of bio‐corridors to protect water bodies (phytotechnology7); and

•

engagement and advocacy with local government to raise awareness and promote the institutionality of the Environmental Management Committee.

The final project cycle for the Consortium runs from 2011 until the end of 2013 when the Consortium have decided to wind down their activities in the region. The main focus of this project cycle is to continue with the physical protection of the watersheds through the promotion and execution of better land management practices and fundamentally to broaden the water resources management tools of the micro‐river basins to neighbouring micro‐river basins of the River Bulu Bulu sub‐ basin.

The use of plants, trees and bushes to solve scientific and engineering problems

Research Question, Objectives and Hypotheses Research Question: Have the interventions of the “Consortium” of NGOs led to the basis for the local sustainable integrated water resource management of the Apangoras and Garcia micro‐river basins?

Objective: The principal objective of this research is to assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the interventions led by the “Consortium” of NGOs (improved access to water, environmental education and awareness raising, the promotion of agroforestry and water source protection, the technical environmental support to local institutions and the creation of the Environmental Management Committee of the Bulu‐Bulu River Sub‐Basin) on the Apangoras and Garcia micro‐ river basins and whether these interventions have led to the basis for the local sustainable integrated management of the micro‐river basins.

Specific Objectives: •

To assess the environmental status of the micro‐river basins and analyse the hydrological impact that the physical interventions (the promotion of agroforestry and water source protection) have had on the micro‐ watersheds’ environmental services of buffering peak rain events and enhancing base flow release during dry‐seasons between 2006‐2012.

•

To assess with stakeholders the impacts that the interventions of the “Consortium” have had on the livelihoods of local inhabitants. More specifically to report on the improvements (or lack of them) that riverine communities have experienced in relation to improving access to water for agriculture and thereby enhancing agricultural and pastoral production and income of households.

•

To evaluate the success (or failure) of the development for the basis of the local integrated management of the hydrological resources of the Apangoras and Garcia micro‐river basins through environmental education and awareness raising campaigns; the technical environmental support to local institutions; and the creation of the Environmental Management Committee of the Bulu‐Bulu River Sub‐Basin.

Operational Hypotheses: 1. The agroforestry and water source protection interventions promoted by the Consortium has improved the environmental services of the watersheds by buffering peak rain events and enhancing base flow release during the dry‐ season. 2. The development of irrigation systems in the communities of the Apangoras and Garcia micro‐river basins has improved the livelihoods of the inhabitants of the micro‐river basins by improving access to water for agriculture and thereby

enhancing

agricultural

and

pastoral

production

and

income/livelihoods of households. 3. The environmental education and awareness raising campaigns and the technical environmental support to local institutions and the creation of the Environmental Management Committee of the Bulu‐Bulu River Sub‐Basin has effectively set the basis for the development of the local integrated management of the micro‐river basins.

Literature Review and Conceptual Framework Integrated Water Resource Management The current state of wetland ecosystems globally is of great concern. Rivers, lakes and groundwater are being degraded primarily due to over‐withdrawal, misuse and contamination caused by inefficiencies of the agro‐food industry (UNEP 2011). It is estimated that more than 50% of wetlands have been lost during the last century (IUCN 2000). To address this alarming trend, over the past decades many systems of integrated water resources management (IWRM) have been promoted and developed. IWRM emerged as a concept in the 1980s. Since then, IWRM has evolved considerably. The Agenda 21 process of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 highlighted IWRM as an important concept for water management. More recent global pronouncements have similarly underlined its significance such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, where the target to ‘develop IWRM and water efficiency plans by 2005, through actions at all levels’ was agreed (UNESCO 2009).

The Global Water Partnership (GWP)8 defines IWRM as “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” (GWP 2010). Such a river basin approach is recognized as a comprehensive process for managing water resources in a more sustainable manner (UNESCO 2009). According to a study funded by the World Bank in 2008, during the preceding 15 years, the approaches to watershed management under the IWRM framework had 8

GWP was founded in 1996 by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) to foster integrated water resource management (IWRM) (www.gwp.org)

been generally successful in achieving the goals of upland soil and water conservation and of intensification of natural resource use to increase the incomes of the upland population in sustainable ways (World Bank 2008). However, despite progress, well‐developed, tested, scientifically robust, socially acceptable and economically viable approaches to implement IWRM at the river basin level are still not widely available (UNESCO 2009). According to the Principles of Integrated Water Resource Management drafted by UNESCO as a contribution to the World Water Assessment Programme’s Third UN World Water Development Report there are a number of important conditions, although not pre‐requisites, for the implementation of IWRM: •

Political will and commitment;

•

Basin management plan and clear vision;

•

Participation and coordination mechanisms, fostering information sharing and exchange;

•

Capacity development;

•

Well‐defined flexible and enforceable legal frameworks and regulation;

•

Water allocation plans;

•

Adequate investment, financial stability and sustainable cost recovery;

•

Good knowledge of natural resources present in the basin; and

•

Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation.

(UNESCO 2009). In addition to these conditions, many argue that the establishment of a River Basin Organization (RBO) is an important factor for the implementation of IWRM. RBOs are the institutions that usually manage the basin‐wide hydrological planning for all users’ needs for water resources and the environmental protection of the river basin. RBOs are particularly important in ensuring full public and stakeholder participation in decision‐making and the smooth running of community relations (UNESCO 2009).

IWRM contrasts with the sectoral approaches to water resource management that are currently the norm in many countries. Sectoral approaches address water needs and ecosystem requirements in siloes where responsibility for drinking water rests with one agency, for irrigation water with another and for the environment with yet another. This can cause poor coordination in water resource development and management (UNDP, GWP and CAP NET 2005) While IWRM appears to be a straightforward system of governance, in practice it is difficult to apply. The myriad of uses, ownerships, political and social constraints and biophysical systems in large watersheds limit application of this ideal approach (FAO 2004). As a result, often on the ground, IWRM begins in sub‐basins or micro‐river basins and is then slowly scaled up as much as possible to the full river basin.

Socioeconomic Aspects of IWRM Land and water are natural resources upon which poor people rely for their livelihoods disproportionately more than people with higher income levels (Hussain and Hanjra 2004). As such, the equitable access to these resources is widely regarded as one of the most important factors for combating poverty (Castillo and Namara 2007). Improved access to reliable irrigation water has long been identified as an important tool to combat poverty in rural regions, particularly in arid or semi‐arid areas. Indeed access to irrigation has become the largest investment of agricultural spending of the developing world (Jones 1995). Access to irrigation water is thought to enable farmers to adopt new technologies and intensify cultivation. This in turn increases productivity, leading to improved incomes, new openings in employment opportunities; all of which results in more sustainable livelihood strategies, and the general improvement of quality of life in rural areas (Hussain and Hanjra 2004).

A comparative review of empirical studies investigating the impacts of improved access to irrigation on poverty alleviation found that: •

Cropping intensity is higher in irrigated settings than in rainfed settings, which often enables farmers to raise nearly an extra crop a year;

•

Labour employment per hectare, and wage rates, are higher in irrigated settings compared to non‐irrigated settings;

•

Income in irrigated settings is higher than in the rainfed settings, and a 50% difference in income between the two settings is not uncommon; and

•

Evidence exists of lower poverty rates in irrigated settings compared to rainfed environments.

(Hussain and Hanjra 2004) Research into the socioeconomic benefits of IWRM reflect these studies. The UN Water Report in 2012 reported upon IWRM implementation experiences over the past 20 years regarding the perceived impacts on socioeconomic development of participating countries. The Report found that the most common social impact was an improvement in water supply access while the most common economic impact was an increase in productive efficiency related to water use, most commonly for agriculture (UN‐Water 2012).

Irrigation Infrastructure in Garcia Micro River Basin

While strong evidence exists regarding the poverty alleviation potential of improving access to irrigation and IWRM, there are nuances to this general rule of thumb. For example, it has been found that greater poverty alleviation impacts can be achieved in regions where the distribution of land and water is inequitable (Brabben et al 2007); where agriculture contributes significantly to GDP and employs many people (Faures 2007); and where improved water access is provided for multiple‐uses, not

only irrigation (Van Koppen, Moriarty and Boelee 2006). Furthermore, improved access to irrigation has less of an impact on poverty alleviation under circumstances where income is extremely low and the local rural economy is poorly developed such as in much of Sub‐Saharan Africa (Mellor 2002); or where irrigation is controlled by large‐scale absentee farmers who have consumption patterns intensive in capital and imports (Faures 2007).

Physical Aspects of IWRM ‐ EcoHydrology and Agroforestry In the early days of forest hydrology, there was an assumption that under any hydrological and ecological circumstance, forest is the best land cover to maximize water yield, regulate seasonal flows and ensure high water quality (FAO and CIFOR, 2005). This assumption gave rise to broad policy initiatives to conserve or extend forest cover in upstream watersheds in order to enhance water availability for agriculture, industrial and domestic uses, as well as to prevent flooding in downstream areas (FAO and CIFOR, 2005). However, this belief began to be challenged during the 1980s and 1990s when a more nuanced understanding of the processes and interactions within the hydrologic ecosystems was developed. This improved understanding of the hydrologic ecosystems grew from the investigation into the three basic pathways for water to reach a river: •

Directly by over‐land‐flow (within minutes of the rainfall event);

•

Through ‘Interflow’ or ‘Soil‐quick‐flow’ (usually within one day); and

•

Via (deep) groundwater flows, taking longer time.

(van Noordwijk et al. 2004) This growing pool of research began to reveal that while upstream forest cover plays a very important role in ensuring the delivery of high‐quality water downstream, earlier generalizations about the benefits of upstream forest cover on downstream annual and seasonal flows were generally fallacious and misleading (FAO and CIFOR, 2005).

Current forest hydrology research now highlights that forest ecosystems are in fact major users of water because tree canopies reduce groundwater and stream flow, through interception of precipitation and evaporation and transpiration from the foliage (Calder, Hofer, Vermont and Warren 2007). It has been found that the further downstream you go in a river‐basin and the greater the intensity of rainfall, the smaller the effect of human‐induced land‐use change is on the flows of the watershed. Instead factors such as the size and morphometry of the basin, what happens in other tributary streams, the direction of the storm path and the intensity and duration of the storm are more important predictors of river basin flow (FAO 2008). At the local scale, in addition to the characteristics of a precipitation event, it seems that the depth of soil and the presence of trees are the main factors influencing water flows. The depth of soils influence the amount of water the ground can store before saturation point, while deep‐rooted trees can make the soil mantle more receptive for storing water from a new event (FAO 2008). In degraded agricultural catchments improved water infiltration as a result of enhanced tree‐coverage is even (theoretically) likely to outweigh the extra evaporation loss from tree‐coverage, resulting in increased rather than reduced dry‐season flows – but this has rarely been seen in empirical studies and requires further investigation (IUFRO, 2007). According to current understanding therefore the most effective means of diminishing the risks of floods and improving base flows in degraded ecosystems is by increasing the water storage capacity of the soil through soil/erosion protection measures and extra infiltration possibilities. Such measures can be provided by enhanced land‐coverage of plants, trees or bushes such as those found in agro‐ forestry systems (van Noordwijk et al. 2004).

Despite all the recent advances in understanding however, the role of the configuration of forests and trees and the provision of environmental services still needs to be better understood (CGIAR 2011).

Methodology: The dissertation applies the Eco‐Hydrology and Political Ecology research frameworks. Ecohydrology is an evolving concept applied to environmental problem‐solving (Zalewski et al., 1997). The eco‐hydrology framework is used to explain and quantify the relationships between hydrological processes and biotic dynamics at a catchment scale (UNEP 2004). This research framework is therefore applicable to the evaluation of the physical impacts on the hydrological environmental services of Apangoras and Garcia micro‐ river basins resulting from the phytotechnological interventions led by the Consortium. The Political Ecology research framework studies the relationships between the environmental, political, economical and social mechanisms applied to address environmental problems and for improving management and governance of ecosystem services. The political ecology framework is used to elucidate differences in uses of these mechanisms and to explain how different interest groups enter into conflict, make alliances or reach agreements to advance governance of ecosystem services improving governance of the natural resource base and the services it provides. The political ecology framework is used for assessing the success (or failure) of both the techno‐scientific and socio‐political instruments promoted by the Consortium for improving management of natural resources and governance of the ecosystem services of the Apangoras and Garcia micro‐river basins. The research comprises both a literature review and field work.

Data Collection and Analysis Methodology: To assess the first operational hypothesis, in‐situ hydrological flow and precipitation data from one of the main water bodies of the Apangoras micro‐river basin, compiled by the PROMAS9 research consortium since January 1st 2006, was analysed to assess for any improvements in the watershed functions (the buffering of peak rain events and the enhancement of the base flow release during dry‐seasons) between 2006‐2012. Specifically, the hydrological data was assessed with a Spearman’s Rho correlation to ascertain whether the base flow of the watershed had improved and whether there had been a reduction in magnitude of peak flows. If apparent this would be observable in the lines‐of‐best‐fit for the correlations, with the lines‐of‐ best‐fit gradually becoming more horizontal over the years of analysis.

Hydrological Flow Measuring Point, Apangoras Micro-River Basin

Additional

data

was

generated

through

conducting

in‐depth

interviews, focus groups, and a semi‐ structured

questionnaire

with

inhabitants of the micro‐river basins as well as technical experts (see more details below). This data helped the assessment of the current environmental status of the micro‐river basins and the analysis of how the interventions from the Consortium have influenced the management of hydrological ecosystem services. To investigate the second operational hypothesis, a structured questionnaire (see Annex 2) was administered to 120 inhabitants of the micro‐river basins regarding their access to water for agriculture as well as changes in their agricultural and pastoral production and family income over the years of intervention. A Chi2 Test 9

A research consortium in the Investigation Department of Cuenca University, Ecuador, supported by the University of Leuven, Begium, the University of Gent, Belgium, the Ecuadorian National Secretariat for Water (SENAGUA), ElecAustro (power company), and ETAPA (potable water company)

was applied to this data to establish whether communities’ perceive improvements in their agricultural and pastoral production and as a result their economic income or livelihoods. To investigate the third operational hypothesis, focus groups and semi‐structured in‐ depth interviews were conducted with community members as well as with other key stakeholders and technical experts. For the interviews and focus groups an adapted form of Participatory Rural Appraisal using a semi‐structured questionnaire (see Annex 3) was used. This enabled the capturing of perceptions, considerations and opinions from specialists, the riverine communities and from those working in the management bodies. Furthermore, secondary sources such as documents produced and compiled by the Consortium as well as by local institutions were reviewed and informed the discussions of the focus groups and helped to interpret the in‐depth interviews. Analysis of data generated began by coding and classifying the narratives of interviews and of documents. A summary review narrative was produced. The review was then compared against the data generated from running the statistical analyses. A comparison was then made between progress made toward IWRM within the micro‐river basins and the main conditions for IWRM as highlighted in UNESCO’s Principles for Integrated Water Resource Management.

Constraints and Limitations: A number of constraints and limitations exist as regards the implementation of this investigation. Firstly, the hydrological data available does not extend back to the whole period of time that was initially planned. Changes to hydrological systems generally take many years to occur, so a period of eight years is considered short in

hydrological terms. To be able to effectively assess the hydrological changes in the micro‐river basins it would have been more suitable to make the assessment over a period of at least two decades from 1993 to 2013. Moreover, the data available had a number of periods throughout the eight years of monitoring where the automatic monitoring equipment mal‐functioned or became damaged leaving certain months with poor quality data. Another constraint to the hydrological data is that it did not provide more detailed flow data. A break‐down of the data to smaller fractions of time (eg, every 5 minutes) would have facilitated an analysis of peak flows and the time it took peak precipitation events to flow through the landscape. This analysis would have greatly improved the analysis of hydrological ecosystem services particularly as regards the ability to reduce flood risk. Unfortunately with daily mean discharge values, this type of analysis is not feasible. A final constraint with the hydrological data available was that a water quality assessment was only conducted once in the eight (8) years of monitoring. Therefore no investigation as regards the potential improvements to water quality the phytotechnology interventions could have had in the watersheds was possible. As regards the socioeconomic assessment of the watersheds, the main constraint to the investigation was that no baseline data exist for the socioeconomic conditions of the local populations of the micro‐river basins. In particular it would have been beneficial to have baseline data as regards agricultural production and economic income prior to the interventions in order to effectively compare pre‐ and post‐ interventions scenarios. As a consequence of this lack of data a simple study of perceptions of changes had to be conducted.

Results: Hydrological Performance The hydrological data are presented by year of study from 2006 to 2012. The data presents daily precipitation averages along the Y‐axis against the daily flow averages along the X‐axis. Linear and quadratic ‘best lines of fit’ are inserted in to each of the scatter‐plots. The results of a Spearman’s Rho correlation analysis are then presented after each scatter plot for the corresponding year’s data.

Correlations Spearman's rho

Precipitation

Precipitation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1‐tailed) N

Flow

Correlation Coefficient

Flow **

1.000

.577

.000

245

.577

1.000

Sig. (1‐tailed)

.000

245

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1‐tailed). a. Year = 2006

The spearman’s Rho analysis confirms there is a significant correlation between precipitation and river flow in the 2006 hydrological data. Nevertheless, the R2 score of 0.176 (linear) and 0.176 (quadratic) indicates that the correlation is not a strong linear or quadratic relationship.

Correlations Spearman's rho

Precipitation

Precipitation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1‐tailed) N

Flow

Correlation Coefficient

Flow **

1.000

.491

.000

282

.491

1.000

Sig. (1‐tailed)

.000

282

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1‐tailed). a. Year = 2007

The spearman’s Rho analysis confirms there is a significant correlation between precipitation and river flow in the 2007 hydrological data. Nevertheless, the R2 score of 0.123 (linear) and 0.235 (quadratic) indicates that the correlation is not a strong linear or quadratic relationship.

Correlations Spearman's rho

Precipitation

Precipitation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1‐tailed) N

Flow

Correlation Coefficient

Flow **

1.000

.624

.000

313

.624

1.000

Sig. (1‐tailed)

.000

313

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1‐tailed). a. Year = 2008

The spearman’s Rho analysis confirms there is a significant correlation between precipitation and river flow in the 2008 hydrological data. Nevertheless, the R2 score of 0.460 (linear) and 0.550 (quadratic) indicates that the correlation is not a strong linear or quadratic relationship.

Correlations Spearman's rho

Precipitation

Precipitation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1‐tailed) N

Flow

Correlation Coefficient

Flow **

1.000

.536

.000

191

.536

1.000

Sig. (1‐tailed)

.000

191

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1‐tailed). a. Year = 2009

The spearman’s Rho analysis confirms there is a significant correlation between precipitation and river flow in the 2009 hydrological data. Nevertheless, the R2 score of 0.641 (linear) and 0.701 (quadratic) indicates that the correlation is not a strong linear or quadratic relationship, although somewhat stronger than previous years.

Correlations Spearman's rho

Precipitation

Precipitation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1‐tailed) N

Flow

Correlation Coefficient

Flow **

1.000

.471

.000

214

.471

1.000

Sig. (1‐tailed)

.000

214

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1‐tailed). a. Year = 2010

The spearman’s Rho analysis confirms there is a significant correlation between precipitation and river flow in the 2010 hydrological data. Nevertheless, the R2 score

of 0.320 (linear) and 0.321 (quadratic) indicates that the correlation is not a strong linear or quadratic relationship.

Correlations Spearman's rho

Precipitation

Precipitation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1‐tailed) N

Flow

Correlation Coefficient

1.000

.399

.000

324

.399

1.000

Sig. (1‐tailed)

.000

324

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1‐tailed). a. Year = 2011

Flow

The spearman’s Rho analysis confirms there is a significant correlation between precipitation and river flow in the 2011 hydrological data. Nevertheless, the R2 score of 0.241 (linear) and 0.251 (quadratic) indicates that the correlation is not a strong linear or quadratic relationship.

Correlations Spearman's rho

Precipitation

Precipitation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1‐tailed) N

Flow

Correlation Coefficient

Flow **

1.000

.563

.000

270

.563

1.000

Sig. (1‐tailed)

.000

270

Correlations Spearman's rho

Precipitation

Precipitation Correlation Coefficient Sig. (1‐tailed) N

Flow

Correlation Coefficient

Flow **

1.000

.563

.000

270

.563

1.000

Sig. (1‐tailed)

.000

270

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1‐tailed). a. Year = 2012

The spearman’s Rho analysis confirms there is a significant correlation between precipitation and river flow in the 2012 hydrological data. Nevertheless, the R2 score of 0.569 (linear) and 0.570 (quadratic) indicates that the correlation is not a strong linear or quadratic relationship. If the hydrological performance were to be improving over the years a trend toward a more horizontal best‐line‐of‐fit (either linear or quadratic) would be observed. However, as can be observed from the scatter‐plots above this does not seem to be occurring. Thus based on this simple correlations model the hypothesis that the phytotechnological interventions the consortium have helped undertake in the watersheds have improved the hydrological ecosystems services at the watershed level seems not to be supported. As outlined in the Constraints and Limitations Section of this Report, this may be a result of the hydrological data constraints and limitations rather than the fact that no changes occurred to the hydrological systems of the watershed.

Local IWRM of the Micro‐River Basins – Analysis of the Survey Results The results from the analysis of the structured survey of 120 community members of the two micro‐river basins are presented below. The results provide information regarding the local sustainable integrated management of the micro‐river basins. The responses are presented as percentages of the communities’ responses and

where appropriate a Chi2 test for goodness of fit is applied to test whether the responses adhere to the null hypothesis of equal distribution or whether there is a statistically significant difference in the responses. Access to Water and Livelihoods 40% of respondents reported improved access to water for irrigation purposes as a result of the interventions of the Consortium of NGOs.

Based on the question whether there “has been an improvement in agricultural production since receiving improved access to irrigation water?” 48% of those respondents who had received improved access to irrigation water reported improved agricultural production compared to only 22% reporting worsened production. Around 30% reported no change in production patterns over the past decade. After applying the Chi2 Test to the responses, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in distribution of responses can be rejected with a significance of 0.001.

Based on the question whether there “has been an improvement in domestic economic income or livelihood since receiving improved access to irrigation water?” 38% of those respondents who had received improved access to irrigation water reported an improvement of income, 52% reported no change in income and only around 10% reported a worsening in income. After applying the Chi2 Test to the responses, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in distribution of responses can be rejected with a significance of 0.000.

Improved Agricultural Practices Based on the questions whether the respondents “grow plants, bushes or trees on their agricultural or pastoral land for production purposes” and whether this practice is “traditional, a newly learned practice or a traditional practice that has intensified over the years” over 90% of respondents replied that agroforestry is an integral part

of their farming systems and that 48% responded that this practice was traditional but had intensified recently. After applying the Chi2 Test to the responses of both questions, it can be concluded that the null hypothesis that there is no difference in distribution of responses can be rejected with a significance of 0.000 in both cases.

Improved Environmental Management Based on the question whether there “has been an improvement in environmental management of the micro‐watersheds over the past decade?” around 70% reported an improvement in the environmental management, while only around 10% reported a worsening in the environmental management.

After applying the Chi2 Test to the responses, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in distribution of responses can be rejected with a significance of 0.000.

Knowledge of Institutions Based on the question whether community members knew of “the Environment Committee of Bulu‐Bulu?” or whether they knew of the NGOs “Protos or Sendas” only around 22% reported knowing of the Environment Committee, while around 42% reported knowing either Protos or Sendas. After applying the Chi2 Test to the responses regarding knowledge of the Environment Committee, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in distribution of responses can be rejected with a significance of 0.000. It can therefore be concluded that the majority of community members are unaware of the Environment Committee of Bulu‐Bulu. However, after applying the Chi2 Test to the responses regarding knowledge of the NGOs, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in distribution of responses cannot be rejected with a significance of 0.199. It therefore appears that within the communities more people are aware of the work of the NGOs than of the Environment Committee.

Local Sustainable Integrated Management of the Micro‐Watersheds – Analysis of the Focus Groups and In‐Depth Interviews Results A table providing an overview of participants in the focus groups and in‐deph interviews is presented in Annex 3. A table presenting a summary review narrative of the study of the micro‐river basins either through focus groups or semi‐structured in‐depth interviews with key stakeholders is presented in Table 1. The results are presented by ‘Module’ or theme, which had been identified prior to administering the semi‐structured questionnaire or focus groups based on material provided by the NGOs and the objectives of the research. The results reflect the most salient and most repeated

statements from the focus groups and in‐depth interviews and were developed following coding of the responses to the questionnaires. Table 1: Results – Key Stakeholder Interviews and Focus Groups Module 1 ‐ Perceptions Regarding Land‐Use and Landscape Changes a.

Common Practice – A high percentage of inhabitants of the micro‐watersheds apply agroforestry practices – mostly for hedgerows, although also within pastoral land and crops.

Traditional Practice that has Increased in Intensity – Agroforestry is a traditional practice, although clearly with the interventions of the NGOs and other actors the practice has intensified notably over the past decade.

Land‐Use Change (Livestock) – A significant trend in land‐use change is occurring with the conversion of arable farming to livestock farming. The reasons for this land use change provided include absenteeism, increased value of livestock farming, less available labour.

Agricultural Frontier – The agricultural frontier is still expanding, however deforestation is not occurring as severely as in previous decades.

Landslides – Landslides are still common occurrences.

Benefits of Agroforestry – There is a broad recognition within community members of the benefits of vegetation cover and trees for agricultural production and watershed management.

Native Species – Native species (such as alder, laurel, Guabisay and Turpac,) are being used now more than foreign exotic species (such as pine or cypress) in agroforestry practices.

Land‐Use Change (Size of Plots) – Parallel and contradictory trends in land‐use change are occurring – on the one hand plots are becoming smaller and less economically viable with family land being sub‐divided between off‐spring; on the other hand different adjacent plots of land are being bought by individuals with money gained by emigration consolidating these plots to create larger farms.

Module 2 ‐ Perceptions Regarding Changes to the Hydrological and Soil Conditions a.

Climate Change – There is a common perception that the climate in the region is changing and that more extremes of weather have occurred over the last decade. Moreover, many members of the communities report that the seasons (wet and dry) are no‐longer as marked as they used to be.

Smaller Flows – Many members of the communities report that these climatic factors have also impacted flows in the streams and rivers of the micro‐river basins – in particular as regards smaller flows between October‐December.

Soil Quality – The quality of the soil was reported to have both improved and worsened depending on the interviewee.

Improved Hydrology – A number of interviewees and participants in focus groups reported concrete examples of improved hydrological conditions in very localised sites.

Module 3 ‐ Perceptions Regarding Changes in Access to Water, Agricultural Practices and Economic Income a.

Access to Water – There is a general consensus that the developed irrigation infrastructure has improved access to water in the micro‐river basins.

Maintenance of Irrigation Systems – In general, it was reported that irrigation systems are still well maintained by the communities in ‘mingas’ (community working).

Irrigation Management – The irrigation systems are managed by the communities in so‐called ‘Juntas de Riego’ that organize who receive how much water, for how long and for how many days a week.

Irrigation and Production – Irrigation systems, where they exist have enabled production throughout the year. However, the end use for the water is changing from agriculture to pasture. Some members of the communities reported that the irrigation systems were no longer used as efficiently as when they were first installed.

Irrigation and Conflict – There are some very small conflicts regarding access to irrigation systems, but they have been easily resolved.

Pre‐Land‐Reform (forest cover) – Prior to the agrarian and land‐reforms of the 1970s the Apangoras and Garcia micro‐river basins were virtually fully forested. Since then, they have been deforested for agriculture.

Pre‐Land‐Reform (agricultural practices) – Slash and burn practices were promoted by the governments after the agrarian and land‐reforms of the 1970s to increase agricultural 10

conversion. Traditional practices promoted by the NGOs are now becoming the norm again . h.

Improved Agricultural Practices – It was widely reported that agricultural practices and knowledge have improved over the last decade.

Agro‐Ecology – Many members of the communities talk about their agro‐ecological and organic practices.

Crop‐Planning – Crop‐planning has improved with the help of the local organization Chuya Mikuna.

Livelihoods – In general, most interviewees reported that economic incomes have not changed over the past decade, although some reported minor improvements. Nevertheless, all reported that improved access to water where it has occurred has improved livelihoods.

Access to Labour ‐ Emigration is causing a lack of access to labour.

Module 4 ‐ Perceptions Regarding the Environmental Management Committee of the Micro‐ Watersheds a.

Environment Committee (knowledge) – Only a minority of community members reported knowledge of the Environment Committee of Bulu Bulu. However, all stakeholders from local

Such traditional practices include the integration of native plants and trees into agricultural systems in particular in pastoral systems and hedgerows between fields.

institutions were aware of their work. b.

Environment Committee (cross‐roads) – Those who knew of the Committee’s work believed it had done a good job however, the organization lay at a cross roads, having lost momentum over the last year with the then president being off on pregnancy leave and the new president just beginning to take up the leadership.

Environment Committee (future) – Given that the new President is part of Ducur Parish it is expected that the Committee will be integrated into the Parish. Indeed this was confirmed by the President who also reported that the Committee will now have its own budget, although not sufficient to employ technical experts.

Environment Committee (technicians) – It was noted a number of times that the work of the Committee was too much overshadowed by the technical experts from the NGOs. Therefore the community members were more knowledgeable about the NGOs and in particular the technical experts than the Committee itself.

Environment Committee (communication) – It was suggested a number of times that the communication and socialization of the Committee with the local communities of should have been improved. The work being conducted on its behalf was good, but there was a lack of recognition that the Committee was organising this work.

Environment Committee (community participation) – Improved participation of the communities in the work of the Committee is required.

Environment Committee (culture) – From an institutional perspective the Committee has been a good experience creating a culture of environmental management of the water bodies of the micro‐watersheds.

Environment Committee (paternalism) – The Committee should have adopted a more bottom‐up approach with the better integration of community members rather than a technocratic approach regarding interventions from experts, which has created some aspects of paternalism within the communities.

Chuya Mikuna – Chuya Mikuna as an organization is a lot more recognized by community members than the Committee. Partly this is due to the fact that the organization must work directly and more consistently with the community members, but also because the technical experts of the organization are employed directly by Chuya Mikuna and are therefore recognized as such.

Module 5 ‐ Perceptions Regarding the Future Environmental Management of the Micro‐Watersheds a.

Enforcement – A means of ensuring community members participate in environmental/hydrological protection are necessary. A new ‘ordinance’ is being discussed that proposes the provision for the institutional structure of local IWRM as well as sanctions and incentives regarding the protection of springs and water bodies on private land.

Geographical Scope of Environment Committee – The integration of the Environment Committee into Ducur Parish is a positive development as is the work to broaden its geographical scope to

the broader Bulu Bulu river sub‐basin. There is a need to look into how down‐stream communities/areas can support up‐stream communities in the protection of water bodies. Payment for Ecosystem Services? c.

Management of the Environment Committee – The management processes of the Environment Committee need to be fully taken up by local authorities. There is a need to integrate more institutions into the governance process – other parishes and counties along the Bulu Bulu River basin. The proposed Bulu Bulu River Sub Basin Management Plan, which was developed by the Environment Committee, will be approved by Cañar County Council and then presented to the Ministry of Environment for approval. Technical expertise will still required for future developments in the application of IWRM and the establishment of a River Basin Organization.

Data – Longer‐term measurements and data should be conducted and used to understand the impact on and changes to the hydrological flows of the micro‐watersheds. There is a need to investigate the impacts of climate change and climate change adaptation on the micro‐river basins.

Socioeconomic Changes – A number of socioeconomic changes are occurring in the communities of the micro‐river basins (emigration, land‐use change, economic diversification) affecting traditional community affairs and processes. These changes need to be taken into account in any future management of the micro‐watersheds. Moreover, the improved road infrastructure due to be finished in the coming few months will bring its own socioeconomic benefits and challenges potentially changing further the socioeconomic make‐up of the communities and therefore any management organization of the micro‐river basins.

Module 6 ‐ Perceptions Regarding the Interventions Undertaken and Module 7 ‐ Historical Context of the Interventions of the Consortium and Local Institutions a.

Successes (nurseries) – The community nursery scheme has worked very well and provides enhanced access to cheap supplies of seedlings for agroforestry.

Successes (awareness and education) – An important aspect of the work of the Consortium was to raise awareness through workshops and education campaigns before embarking of watershed protection measures. As a result environmental awareness has improved significantly during the years of intervention.

Successes (practicality) ‐ The Consortium has been very practical in its approach and therefore achieved more than governmental organizations have been able to. There is also less politicization of the issues making the processes fairer. The Ministry of Environment on the other hand, is very bureaucratic and does very little – you have to pay them to intervene. Having undertaken this process through the NGO consortium has enabled more flexibility.

Successes (replication of work) – The County Council is looking to replicate the work of the consortium in the other parishes of the county.

Remaining Work – Management of the watersheds has improved but much still remains to be done in particular as regards scaling up the interventions to neighbouring regions,

approving the Management Plan for River Bulu Bulu Sub‐Basin and the institutionalization of the Environment Committee (or River Basin Organization). f.

Participation of Communities – It was reported that the methodology used by the NGOs in the development of improved local management of the watersheds was very good and participatory.

Paternalism – However, there were also some aspects of paternalism and expectations raised within the communities that they should expect to receive goods and services from external institutions – seedlings, infrastructure, technical support etc. “If I don’t receive anything, I won’t do anything”

Progress Towards Local IWRM in the Micro‐River Basins Table 2 provides an overview of the progress made within the micro‐river basins towards the achievement of the conditions for IWRM as outlined in UNESCO’s Principles for Integrated Water Resource Management. Results are based on information provided in the in‐depth interviews and focus groups as well as a review of documentation provided by the ‘Consortium’ and local institutions. Table 2: Integrated Water Resource Management Conditions Successfully implemented in the Garcia and Apangoras

Condition

Watersheds?

Political will and commitment.

All political and institutional actors demonstrated strong political will and commitment to IWRM. It is an issue given relatively high priority even at the national level in Ecuador.

Basin management plan and A Sub‐Basin Management Plan for Bulu‐Bulu River has been clear vision.

drafted, but not officially approved by the government authroties. 11

Participation and coordination Regular meetings of the “Mesa Cantonal del Ambiente ” currently mechanisms, information

fostering take place organised by the Unidad de Gestion Ambiental of sharing

exchange.

and Cañar County Council. These meetings facilitate coordination and information sharing and exchange between organisations active at the micro‐basins level (parishes, environment committee, NGOs). Sub‐basin level processes do not currently exist.

Capacity development.

Capacity development is improving with enhanced delivery systems for irrigation and domestic water supplies at the micro‐basins level.

Well‐defined

flexible

and A new ‘ordinance’ is in the process of being approved at county

11 12

Cañar County Environmental Roundtable Environmental Management Unit

Table 2: Integrated Water Resource Management Conditions Successfully implemented in the Garcia and Apangoras

Condition

Watersheds?

enforceable legal frameworks level with enforceable legal frameworks. There is a process to try and regulation.

to adopt the same or an amended version of the ‘ordinance’ at provincial level.

Water allocation plans.

Currently do not exist in a comprehensive form even at the micro‐ basins level.

Adequate investment, financial A budget for the Environment Committee has been secured, stability and sustainable cost however a comprehensive plan for financial stability and recovery.

sustainable cost recovery is still lacking even at the micro‐basins level.

Good knowledge of natural The draft River Bulu‐Bulu Sub‐Basin Management Plan provides an resources present in the basin.

extensive overview of the natural resources present in the sub‐ 13

basin. The ‘Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial’ also provides for such information. Comprehensive monitoring and A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme is still evaluation. Existence

lacking even at the micro‐basins scale. of

River

Basin Embryonic organisations exist at the micro‐basins level that could

Management Organisation.

be scaled up to create a RBO.

Red = Condition not achieved even at local micro‐basin level Orange = Condition not achieved although progress has been towards achieving the objective Green = Condition met at the local micro‐basin level and in certain cases at the sub‐basin level

County Council Land Management Plan

Interpretation and Discussion Hydrological Performance From the statistical analysis of the limited available data it could not be asserted that there has been an improvement in the hydrological performance of the ecosystem services in the micro‐river basins. A significant improvement would be reflected in ‘the best‐lines‐of‐fit’ for the hydrological flow data. If this were the case for Apangoras river, gradually, throughout the course of the eight year monitoring, ‘the best‐lines‐of‐fit’ would have become more horizontal or less steep. However, as can be seen in the Results Section no such trend was observed. Therefore, with the data available, the first operational hypothesis could not be corroborated. Research conducted elsewhere suggests that in degraded agricultural catchments the extra infiltration associated with enhanced land‐coverage of trees such as those found in agro‐forestry systems might improve the hydrological services of a watershed by buffering peak rain events and improving gradual release or base flows. The present results obtained through this research prove insufficient as to back up such assertions. Nevertheless, this may not be particularly surprising given that as highlighted by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) in 2007 such improvements are still rarely seen in empirical studies and require further investigation (IUFRO 2007). As outlined in the Constraints and Limitations Section of this Report, this may be a result of the hydrological data constraints and limitations rather than the fact that no changes occurred to the hydrological systems of the watershed. As previously mentioned, changes in the hydrological environment can take many years to occur, therefore the relatively short period of data available for analysis may not have been sufficient to pick up any significant changes to the hydrological systems of the watersheds. Moreover, baseline hydrological data from the pre‐interventions period was not available which would have facilitated the analysis allowing for a comparison with a more marked difference in the land‐use of the watersheds.

Finally, the lacking data points during some of the months of flow monitoring could also provide a reason why the statistical analysis was unable to detect a significant change in the hydrological systems of the watersheds. An improved analysis of peak flows and peak rain events at a more detailed time scale would have improved the accuracy of data analysis and may have improved the probability of detecting changes to the hydrological systems of the watersheds. Notwithstanding the constraints and limitations to the hydrological data there are other reasons that may help explain why no significant micro‐river basin scale change in the hydrological systems were detected. The scale of intervention while fairly extensive and within a relatively very small section of a full river‐basin, may not have been enough to have led to significant changes in the hydrological systems. Watersheds are extensive areas making interventions to change their hydrological systems particularly challenging and labour intensive. It is possible, quite simply, that not enough land‐use change had occurred to improve the hydrological properties of the land. Despite the fact that no statistical evidence was found for the improved hydrological performance of the watershed ecosystem services, at the localised level in very specific sites in the micro‐ river basins, members of the communities reported

tangible

improvements

the

hydrological systems. An example of such a tangible improvement was on a farm in Rodeo Community, where the farmer, with the help of the consortium of NGOs, changed to an agro‐ forestry system of both arable and livestock Example of Improved Hydrological Functioning of Water Body in Garcia Micro-River Basin

farming and also protected the springs and streams on his land with trees and plants. According to his reports as well as reports from

employees of the NGO Sendas, prior to the interventions the springs and streams

had regularly dried up during Summer months, or were reduced to very low flows. However, after the interventions the flows had significantly improved in reliability throughout the year. A number of similar examples were reported throughout the watersheds.

Access to Water and Livelihoods Around 40% of the members of the different communities of the micro‐river basins now have access to irrigation water systems. As such the interventions of the Consortium have clearly improved access to water in the micro‐river basins. Moreover, importantly for those who have access to these irrigation systems 50% reported that they have improved agricultural production. A statistically significant amount compared to those who reported either ‘no change to production’ or a ‘worsening in production’. Furthermore, it appears that this improved production has improved the economic incomes or livelihoods of 38% of community members in their own eyes, a statistically significant amount. Based on these results it can be concluded that the data support the second operational hypothesis. This conclusion supports the results of previous studies as summarised by Hussain and Hanjra (2004). Notwithstanding this positive conclusion, it is important to highlight that the majority of community members, around 52%, responded that economic incomes or livelihoods had not changed as a result of the interventions and a further 10% responded that their economic incomes or livelihoods had worsened since their improved access to irrigation. It is possible that these results could reflect an experimental design bias for respondents to under‐report any economic income or livelihood improvement they have experienced to the interviewer. Indeed, economic incomes and livelihoods are sensitive topics for many people to talk about. To avoid such bias if it were available

it would have been more reliable to investigate this aspect comparing baseline statistical data with new quantitative data generated in the field. However, the baseline data does not exist so a post‐intervention perspective had to be undertaken basing the analysis on perceptions of improvement. While not the perfect solution, the fact that a significant section of the population, 38%, did report improvements of livelihoods indicates that improvements did occur. As a further explanation of the number of respondents who reported either ‘no change’ or a ‘worsening’ in livelihoods, a number of points raised regularly during the in‐depth interviews and focus groups are important to highlight. The most important factor that could help explain a relatively high proportion of responses of community members reporting no significant improvement in their livelihoods could be that despite the improvements provided by better access to irrigation water, these improvements could be counteracted by the ostensible socioeconomic changes that are occurring in the communities of the micro‐river basins. As was reported, on a regular basis during the focus groups and in‐depth interviews emigration of the young to larger urban areas, towns and cities nearby (such as Cañar and Cuenca) as well as places further afield including abroad (USA and Spain) is a major socioeconomic factor affecting the communities. This emigration has a number of consequences, including but not limited to the following issues that were reported during the focus groups and in‐depth interviews: •

Absentee land‐ownership – where the main owners of the properties live and work the majority of the time outside the communities and only return either during the weekends or specific times during the year.

•

Consolidation of land and construction of bigger houses – the improved economic incomes of emigrants or family members of emigrants often allow them to build bigger, non‐traditional style houses and purchase adjoining properties enhancing a trend of land consolidation in the local communities.

•

Economic diversification – the improved economic incomes of emigrants allow them to send back money to relatives or, after a period of time of emigration, to return home to establish new micro‐enterprises in the local Typical New House Constructed with Money Gained from Emigration

communities. •

Labour shortages – the emigration of the young leaves the local communities without a sufficient supply of labour to conduct labour intensive activities such as agriculture despite better production possibilities with access to irrigation water.

In addition to these migration‐fuelled changes to the local socioeconomic structures, there is also a clear trend of land‐use change, in particular the conversion of farming systems based on seasonal crops to a farming system based on livestock. The main reasons given to explain this trend were the poor return on investment for arable crops and the fact that livestock farming was less labour intensive and therefore freed up time for family members to dedicate themselves to other economic activities. While livestock‐farming systems still requires access to irrigation water for pasture, this potential use is a lot less critical than for arable farming. Furthermore, contrasting with the trend mentioned above toward land‐ consolidation, is the parallel trend of land fragmentation. In those areas where emigration‐enhanced income has not enabled property owners to purchase adjacent land, land fragmentation is occurring. As land is passed from generation to generation following the colonization of the upper watershed areas of River Bulu‐ Bulu Basin in the 1970s, the original size of the properties are fragmenting as they are split between the off‐spring of owners in their wills when they die. This land‐ fragmentation trend is decreasing the economic efficiency and sustainability of these smaller farms pushing their owners into either emigration or the search for

economic activities other than farming. Leaving the productive use of the land for sustenance farming only. As a result of these socioeconomic trends and changes the impact of improved access to irrigation water is likely to be diminished. As Faures (2007) states improved access to irrigation enhances livelihoods most where agriculture contributes significantly to GDP and employs many people (Faures 2007). It therefore follows that as agriculture in the micro‐river basins begins to contribute less to the overall proportion of GDP as well as less employment (even if it still accounts, overall, for a high percentage of these two factors), the less impact improved access to irrigation will have on the inhabitants of the micro‐river basins.

Local IWRM of the Micro‐River Basins As can be viewed in Table 2 above the conditions for the comprehensive local integrated management of the micro‐river basins have not yet been fully met. Major gaps to achieving the conditions for IWRM remain, in particular as regards progress towards the development of ‘water allocation plans’ and a ‘monitoring and evaluation programme’. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that IWRM is not a dichotomous concept, where a watershed either achieves IWRM or not. Rather it is a concept with gradations of implementation and success. IWRM requires more than simply achieving the goals set out in the UNESCO Conditions, it also requires land and water‐users (ie, the population of the watersheds) to participate actively and effectively in the management of the water and land resources of the micro‐river basins. This is a factor in IWRM that the interventions have clearly improved as can be viewed in the fieldwork notes summary in Annex 5.

From the results from the survey of communities it is evident that improved agricultural land‐management practices of agro‐forestry are the norm in the micro‐ river basins. 50% of respondents reported that these practices had intensified over the past 10 years while 70% of respondents indicated that the environmental management of the watersheds had improved over the last 10 years. The results from the focus groups and in‐depth interviews support these findings as does the ethnographic analysis of the general impressions gained during the fieldwork. All interviewees demonstrated broad awareness of the environmental Agroforestry in Pastureland Supported by the Consortium

challenges facing the communities, in

particular as regards the impacts of land degradation on access to water and the sustainability of the water bodies of the watersheds. Important progress toward the IWRM in the micro‐river basins was also evident in the establishment and technical assistance to the Environment Committee of the Sub‐Basin of River Bulu‐Bulu. As a measure of this success the representative of the Environmental Management Unit of the County Council of Cañar indicated that they would use the same methodology for establishing similar committees in other micro‐ basins within the county. However, from the survey results and the results of the focus groups and in‐depth interviews, while the Environment Committee gained significant recognition for its work at the institutional level, at the community level it was not well recognised by community members. Only 22% of respondents indicated that they were aware of the Committee and its work. This figure differs significantly to 42% of community members who were aware of the Consortium NGOs and their technical experts.

A lack of public recognition for the Committee is important given that IWRM requires full public participation (UNESCO 2009), this was particularly evident in the at community level as noted in the summary of fieldwork notes in Annex 5. An explanation for the lack of recognition of the Committee within the communities was raised a couple of times in the in‐depth interviews. While many activities and interventions were officially being undertaken by Committee, these activities were executed by the technical experts of the NGOs, leading to a blurring of lines between the Committee and NGOs interventions and a lack of recognition for the Committee and its work in the communities. Finally two major success stories for the development of local IWRM were the proposals for the “Ordinance Regarding the Protection of Natural Paramo Forests, Natural Springs and Water Sources for the Protection of Water in the County of Cañar” and the proposal for the “Bulu‐Bulu River Sub‐Basin Management Plan”. While both documents still required full legal approval at the time of writing, it was understood that this would happen without major incident. The new Ordinance proposes the provision for the institutional structure of local IWRM as well as sanctions and incentives regarding the protection of springs and water bodies on private land. The existence of such a proposal clearly reveals the political will and commitment in the county to water resource management as noted in the summary of fieldwork notes in Annex 5. In conclusion, while comprehensive IWRM has not been achieved in the micro‐river basins, it has been established that significant progress has been made to laying the basis for the integrated management of the hydrological resources of the watersheds. Despite some mixed results therefore, the third operational hypothesis is supported by the findings of the investigation.

Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research General Conclusions The hydrological data available proved insufficient as to assert that there is statistical evidence of improved hydrological ecosystem services for the micro‐river basins. Nevertheless localised cases of site‐specific improvements were observed. This finding aligns closely with previous research into the impacts of land‐use interventions in severely degraded watersheds. From the outset it was made evident that there would be a lack of access to sufficiently rich and comparable data. The lack of statistical evidence for improvement could also be the consequence of the scale of interventions needed in order to have an empirically observable impact on the hydrological systems, even at the micro‐watershed level. The socioeconomic impacts as a result of the improved access to irrigation water interventions also confirm current research literature. Community members reported significantly improved production as a result of better access to irrigation water as well as improved economic income or livelihoods. However, a significant number of community members reported no change to their livelihood. This high percentage of community members reporting ‘no change’ could be a result of either internal experimental bias towards such responses or a diminishing in the impacts of better access to irrigation water as a consequence of the socioeconomic and cultural changes that are currently taking place within the communities of the micro‐river basins. These socioeconomic changes may be making it less easy for members of the communities to fully utilize the full potential that the benefits of improved access to irrigation water provide. Finally, and possibly most importantly it can be concluded that while significant progress has been made, a number of gaps still remain for the comprehensive implementation of IWRM within the micro‐river basins. Nevertheless, a basis for such management has indeed been created.

Further research As a follow‐up to this investigation it would interesting to undertake a comparative study between the progress made within this watershed with another similar watershed (in terms of hydrological and socioeconomic conditions) to ascertain to what extent the interventions have sped‐up the implementation of IWRM. It would also be interesting to further investigate the hydrological impacts of land‐ use change in severely degraded agricultural areas using other methods of analysis such as longer‐term data or analyses of peak rain events and peak flows.

References: Alcamo, J.; Doll, P.; Kaspar, F.; Siebert, S. 1997. Global change and global scenarios of water use and availability: An application of Water GAP 1.0. Kassel, Germany: CESR (Center for Environmental Systems Research), University of Kassel. Alcamo, J.; Henrichs, T.; Rosch, T. 2000. World Water in 2025: Global modeling and scenario analysis. In: World Water Scenarios Analyses, ed. F. R. Rijsberman. Marseille: World Water Council. Brabben, T. et al. 2004. Irrigation Can Sustain Rural Livelihoods: Evidence of Bangladesh and Nepal. Wallingford, UK. Calder, I., Hofer, T., Vermont, S. and Warren, P. 2007. Towards a New Understanding of Forests and Water. Unasylva, Vol. 58 April 2007 3‐10 Castillo, G. and Namara, R. 2007. Chapter 4 Reversing the Flow: Agricultural Water Management Pathways for Poverty Reduction in Water for Food, Water for Life. IWMI Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). 2011. Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance. CGIAR 6th Research Programme. Finlayson, C.M.; D’Cruz, R. 2005. Inland Water System. In: Hassan, R.; Scholes, R.; Ash, N. eds. Ecosystem and Human Well‐Being: Current State and Trends: Findings of the Conditions and Trends Working Group. Island Press, Washington, DC. http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.289.aspx.pdf Faures, J. 2007. Chapter 9 Reinventing Irrigation in Water for Food Water for Life. IWMI.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2001. Crops and drops: Making the best use of water for agriculture. Rome, Italy: FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2003a. Agriculture, food and water: A contribution to the “World Water Development Report”. Rome, Italy: FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2003b. Unlocking the water potential of agriculture. Rome, Italy: FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2004. Proceedings of the European Regional Workshop on Watershed Management. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2005. Forests and Water FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research). 2005. Forests and floods: Drowning in Fiction or Thriving on Facts? Global Water Partnership (GWP). 2010. Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) – At a Glance. Hussain, I. and Hanjra, M. A. 2004. Irrigation and Poverty Alleviation: Review of the Empirical Evidence. Irrigation and Drainage 53: 1–15 (2004) IUCN. 2000. Vision for Water and Nature: A World Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Management of Water Resources in the 21st Century. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO). 2007. Research spotlight: how do forests influence water? IUFRO Fact Sheet No. 2. Vienna, Austria.

IWMI (International Water Management Institute). 2000. World Water Supply and Demand in 2025. In: World Water Scenario Analyses, ed. F. R. Rijsberman. Marseille: World Water Council. Jones, W. I. 1995. The World Bank and Irrigation. Operations Evaluations Study. World Bank Washington DC. Lehner, B.; Döll, P. 2004. Development and Validation of a Global Database of Lakes, Reservoirs

and

Wetlands.

Journal

Hydrology

296

(1–4):

1–22.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.028 Mellor, J.W. 2002. Poverty Reduction and Biodiversity Conser‐ vation: The Complex Role for Intensifying Agriculture. A Viewpoint Series on Poverty and the Environment. World Wildlife Fund. Washington, DC MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005a. Ecosystems and Human Well‐ Being: General Synthesis. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005b. Ecosystems and Human Well‐ Being: Wetland and Water Synthesis World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Island Press. Purwanto and Ruijter. 2004. Hydrological Impacts of Forest, Agroforestry and Upland Cropping as a Basis for Rewarding Environmental Service Providers in Indonesia. Fahmuddin Agus, Farida and Meine van Noordwijk (Editors). Proceedings of a workshop in Padang/Singkarak, West Sumatra, Indonesia 25‐28 February 2004. Raskin, P.; Gleick, P.; Kirshen, P.; Pontius, G.; Strzepek, K. 1997. Water futures: Assessment of long‐range patterns and prospects. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute.

Rijsberman, F.; Bossio, D.; Noble, A. D. 2006. The impact of land degradation and improved land management on water productivity. In: International conference of soil, water and environmental quality – issues and strategies, New Delhi, India, January 28 ‐ February 1, 2005. Seckler, D.; Amarasinghe, U.; Molden, D. J.; de Silva, R.; Barker, R. 1998. World water demand and supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and issues. IWMI Research Report 19. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. Shiklomanov, I. A. 1998. World water resources: An appraisal for the 21st century. IHP Report. Paris, France: UNESCO. Shiklomanov, I. A. 1991. The world’s water resources. In: Proceedings of International Symposium to Commemorate 25 Years of the IHP. Paris, France: UNESCO/IHP. pp. 93‐126.; UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), GWP (Global Water Partnership) and CAP NET (Capacity Building for IWRM). 2005. Integrated Water Resource Management Plans. Training Manual and Operational Guide. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2012. Status Report on The Application of Integrated Approaches to Water Resources Management United Nations Environment Programme. Boelee, E (ed) 2011. Ecosystems for Water and Food Security. Nairobi; Colombo: International Water Management Institute. UNEP. 2004. Integrated Watershed Management ‐ Ecohydrology & Phytotechnology Manual. Editors: Maciej Zalewski (ICE‐PAS) Iwona Wagner‐Lotkowska (CEHS‐UL). UNESCO. 2009. IWRM Guidelines at River Basin Level Part 1 Principles.

Van Koppen, B., Moriarty, P. and Boelee, E. 2006, Multiple Use Water Services to Advance the Millennium Development Goals. Research Report 98. IWMI. van Noordwijk, M., Fahmuddin, A., Suprayogo, D., Kurniatun, H., Gamal, P., Verbist, B., and Farida. 2004. Role of Agroforestry in Maintenance of Hydrological Functions in Water Catchment Areas. Proceedings of a workshop in Padang/Singkarak, West Sumatra, Indonesia 25‐28 February 2004. Vorosmarty, C. J.; Green, P.; Salisbury, J.; Lammers, R. B. 2000. Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289: 284‐288. Wallace, J. S. 2000. Increasing agricultural water efficiency to meet future food production. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82: 105‐119. Wallace, J. S.; Gregory, P. J. 2002. Water resources and their use in food production. Aquatic Sciences 64 (2002): 363‐375. WHO (World Health Organization). 2013. Water Sanitation and Health Website: http://www.who.int/ water_sanitation_health/hygiene/en/ World Bank. 2008. Managing Land and Landscapes Sourcebook. Web Edition January 2008. World Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development Department World

Meteorological

Organization.

2013.

The

Dublin

Principles.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/documents/english/icwedece.html Zalewski M., Janauer G. S. & Jolankai G. (eds.). 1997. Ecohydrology ‐ A new Paradigm for the Sustainable Use of Aquatic Resources. International Hydrological Programme UNESCO. Technical Document on Hydrology No 7. Paris, 58 pp.

Zomer, R.J. et al. 2009. Trees on farm: analysis of global extent and geographical patterns of agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper No. 89. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.

Annex 1: Background to the Physical and Socioeconomic Context of the Micro‐River Basins

Physical and Socioeconomic Context of the Micro‐Watershed The Apangoras and Garcia micro‐river basins are located within two parishes, Chontamarca and Ducur, which form part of Cañar County, Cañar Province, Ecuador. A total of 14 indigenous and mestizo communities are located within the micro‐river basins seven in Garcia and eight in Apangoras (the community of Jalu Pata straddles both basins). According to national census data from 2010 there are a total of 7538 inhabitants in the two parishes (3979 in Chontamarca and 3559 in Ducur) although most residing outside the geographical area of the current study. The smallest of the communities of the micro‐river basins, Apangoras Bajo comprises of no more than six houses, while the largest ones have around 50 houses. The emigration rate is high throughout the area with most families having 1‐2 members working outside the parishes or even abroad (INEC 2011). The two micro‐micro‐river basins form part of the River Bulu Bulu sub‐basin, which flows west discharging into the Pacific ocean. Garcia micro‐river basin has a surface area of around 984 ha, while Apangoras is just over half the size with around 544 ha. According to INAMI14 statistics the micro‐watersheds receive around 1100‐1400mm of precipitation a year in a concentrated period between January and June. The months July‐December are usually dry. The climate belongs to the Moderate Fresh Tropical climate zone (INAMI 2013).

National Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology, Ecuador

The micro‐river basins consist mainly of moderate to steep slopes. Apangoras micro‐ watershed consists of 40% of slopes between 5‐15% (30% at 15‐25%). Garcia micro‐ watershed on the other hand consists of 42% of slopes between 5‐15% (34% at 15‐ 25%) (Ducur Parish 2013). Apangoras micro‐river basin has four main tributaries: Chilchil la Capilla, Rodeo, Granadillas and Apangoras. Garcia micro‐river basin also has four (4) main tributaries: Rumihurco, Garcia, Tasqui, Caparina. A number of the small tributaries are seasonal with significant flows only in the winter (December‐June). In total some 106 water bodies are present in the two (2) micro‐basins (Ducur Parish 2012). Water from the two micro‐river basins is used for both human domestic consumption and irrigation or water for livestock. There are eight water capture areas for drinking water and four irrigation canal networks (Caparina, Apangoras Alto, Apangoras Bajo and Chilchil la Capilla). Those communities and inhabitants without access to this infrastructure often withdraw water directly from natural springs, streams or rivers through hose‐pipes for both domestic and agricultural use. There are three types of land use in the micro‐watersheds: pasture and agriculture, tree and bush vegetation, and eroded soils and degraded pasture. The majority of land surface of the micro‐river basins is occupied by pasture and cultivation (333 ha or 63.8% in Apangoras and 630 ha or 65.1% in Garcia) (Ducur Parish 2013). Native Vegetation covers 191 ha or 14.5% of land surface in Apangoras and 115 ha or 11.9% of land surface in Garcia. Tree vegetation in the micro‐river basins is found mainly on slopes greater than 50% with an altitude of between 2400 and 2800 m. Both native primary forest and secondary forest (with exotic species) are present. Exotic vegetation (Pine and Cypress) can be found in 1.3% or 10 ha in Garcia micro‐ river basin (Ducur Parish 2013). Degraded pasture covers a surface area of around 297 ha (110 ha in Apangoras and 187 ha in Garcia). These areas can be found between 1800 m and 2600 m. Livestock

farming is replacing subsistence systems in the micro‐river basins. Pastureland is often found on slopes of 25% or even 50% and more (Ducur Parish 2013). Land is owned privately in the micro‐river basins. 86% of the family properties are of 5ha or less in size; 10% are of between 5‐10 ha; 2% are between 10‐20 ha; and 2% are greater than 20ha. The larger the properties the more livestock is reared (Ducur Parish 2013).

Socio‐Environmental Changes and Challenges The micro‐river basins experienced major physical and socioeconomic changes during the 1970s Ecuadorian agrarian and land reform policies, which encouraged the clearance of large extensions of native forests for agriculture. Trees and forests were systematically burned down and land‐rights were awarded to colonizers of the land in small ‘parcels’. As a result of these reforms, as well as the natural topography and extreme precipitation patterns of the area (high precipitation in the winter and low precipitation in the summer) an imbalance in the hydrological conditions of the micro‐river basins was created with flooding occurring downstream during winter months and droughts during the Summer months. Landslides and severe erosion problems also became evident throughout much of the micro‐river basins. Weak local institutional structures compounded these problems leading to the deterioration of natural resources (loss of biodiversity, erosion, hydrological services). Incidences of socio‐environmental conflicts became common as a result of disputes over access, use and distribution of water and land.

Annex 2: Structured Questionnaire for Field Survey

Lugar / Comunidad de residencia: Encuestador:

Fecha: Hora:

Introducción: Esta encuesta es para investigar los impactos socioeconómicos percibidos de las comunidades de las microcuencas de Apangoras y García como consecuencia de las intervenciones de un consorcio de ONGs y instituciones locales sobre la gestión ambiental de las microcuencas durante los 10 últimos años. La encuesta incluye preguntas sobre su acceso al agua para uso agrícola; su producción y practicas agrícolas y sus percepciones sobre estos cambios en sus vidas cuotidianas. En el informe de la presente investigación no se utilizaran los nombres propios de los participantes. La información recolectada es estrictamente confidencial. Bajo las condiciones de anonimato, esta de acuerdo con participar de esta encuesta? MODULO 1: Acceso al Agua E Impacto en la Producción Agrícola y en Ingresos Económicos Tiene Usted acceso a un sistema de riego? Como se llama el sistema de riego que utiliza? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Nombre: Desde cuando tiene el acceso? 1. En los últimos 2 años ( ) 2. En los últimos 5 años ( ) 3. En los últimos 10 años ( ) 4. Hace mas de 10 años ( ) 5. Nunca ( ) El sistema de riego es fiable durante todo el ano? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Cuando utiliza el sistema de riego? Indique los meses. 1. Enero ( ) 2. Febrero ( ) 3. Marzo ( ) 4. Abril ( ) 5. Mayo ( ) 6. Junio ( ) 7. Julio ( ) 8. Agosto ( ) 9. Septiembre ( ) 10. Octubre ( ) 11. Noviembre ( ) 12. Diciembre ( )

MODULO 1: Acceso al Agua E Impacto en la Producción Agrícola y en Ingresos Económicos Para que utiliza el sistema de riego? 1. Agricultura ( ) 2. Pasto ( ) 3. Ambos ( ) Desde cuando usted tiene acceso al sistema de riego ha mejorado su producción agrícola/pastoral? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( )

Sus ingresos económicos han mejorado en los últimos 10 años a causa del mejor acceso al agua de riego? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) MODULO 2: Practicas Agroforesteras Usted ha sembrado plantas/arbustos/arboles en la tierra que utiliza (agricultura/pasto)? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Cuando empezó a sembrar plantas/arbustos/arboles para mejorar su producción/la gestión ambiental en la zona? 1. Hace muchos años, es una practica tradicional ( ) 2. Recién, es una practica aprendida de hace algunos años (de instituciones) ( ) 3. Es una práctica tradicional, pero ha incrementado la intensidad ( ) 4. Nunca ( ) Por que razones siembra plantas/arbustos/arboles en la tierra? 1. Mejorar la producción ( ) 2. Mejorar la gestión ambiental ( ) 3. Tradición ( ) 4. Para ornamentos ( ) 5. Leña ( ) 6. Razones espirituales ( ) 7. Otro ( )

MODULO 3: Cambios en la Producción Agrícola Ha habido cambios en su producción agrícola/pastoral en los últimos 10 años? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Cuales han sido estos cambios? 1. Mejor calidad de producción ( ) 2. Mayor cantidad producida ( ) 3. La calidad de producción ha empeorado ( ) 4. La cantidad de producción ha disminuido ( ) 5. Mas cosechas cultivadas en el año agrícola ( ) 6. Cultivos son posibles ahora durante todo el año ( ) 7. Otros cambios? Cuales? ( ) Por que razones han ocurrido estos cambios? 1. Mejor acceso a un sistema de riego ( ) 2. Mayor fiabilidad del sistema de riego ( ) 3. Mayor fertilidad del suelo ( ) 4. Menor acceso a un sistema de riego ( ) 5. Sistema de riego poco fiable ( ) 6. Menor fertilidad del suelo ( ) 7. Cambio a pastoreo / ganaderia ( ) 8. Mayor acceso a tecnología (maquinaria) ( ) 9. Mayor acceso a pesticidas ( ) 10. Mayor acceso a fertilizantes ( ) 11. Mejora en la planificación de cosechas ( ) 12. Un Mejor sistema agrícola ( ) 13. Otros, explíqueme por favor ( ) 14. No se ( ) MODULO 4: Gestión Ambiental de la Microcuenca y Conocimiento de Instituciones Usted conoce el trabajo del Comité de Gestión Ambiental Bulu Bulu? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) En general cree que el Comité hace un buen trabajo? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Usted conoce el trabajo de las ONGs SENDAS o Protos? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Usted cree que se ha mejorado la gestión de los recursos hídricos (ríos, quebradas, vertientes) en la microcuenca en los últimos 10 años? (no se contaminan tanto, no se sobre‐usa el agua, se cuidan los vertientes, no se cortan los arboles etc.) 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( )

MODULO 4: Gestión Ambiental de la Microcuenca y Conocimiento de Instituciones Cuales son los problemas mas graves para los recursos hídricos en la microcuenca? 1. Calidad de agua (basura) ( ) 2. Calidad de agua (Sobre‐uso de fertilizantes/pesticidas) ( ) 3. Calidad de agua (contaminado por ganado y otros animales) ( ) 4. Se sobre‐usa (falta de agua porque se utiliza demasiado) ( ) 5. No se cuidan los vertientes y se secan ( ) 6. Se cortan los arboles (mal tratamiento de la tierra) ( ) 7. Deslaves/Derrumbes ( ) 8. Otro (especifique) ( )

Annex 3: Semi‐Structured Questionnaire for Focus Groups and In‐Depth Interviews Nombre del entrevistado: Lugar / Comunidad de residencia: Encuestador:

Organización a que pertenece: Rol en la organización: Años en el rol:

Fecha: Hora:

Introducción: Esta encuesta es para investigar los impactos hidrológicos y socioeconómicos percibidos de las comunidades de las microcuencas de Apangoras y Garcia como consecuencia de unas intervenciones de un consorcio de ONGs y instituciones locales sobre la gestión ambiental de las microcuencas durante los 10 últimos años. La encuesta incluye preguntas sobre los cambios de paisaje y uso de suelo en las microcuencas, sus percepciones sobre los cambios hidrológicos y socioeconómicos como consecuencia de los cambios de paisaje y uso de suelo en las microcuencas y el Comité de Gestión Ambiental del Rio Bulu Bulu. En el informe de la presente investigación no se utilizaran los nombres propios de los participantes. La información recolectada es estrictamente confidencial. Bajo las condiciones de anonimato, esta de acuerdo con participar de esta encuesta? Se entiende también que al firmar usted me da autorización de utilizar las fotos que Firma: he tomado de su finca. MODULO 1: Cambios en el paisaje y el uso de suelo (corriente y pasado) Que entiende usted de la practica de agroforestria?

MODULO 1: Cambios en el paisaje y el uso de suelo (corriente y pasado) En su opinión los agricultores aplican la agroforestria en los sistemas de agricultura y ganadería en las microcuencas en que porcentaje hoy en dia? 1. 0% ( ) 2. 10‐25% ( ) 3. 25‐50% ( ) 4. 50‐75% ( ) 5. 75‐100% ( ) Cuando se empezó a sembrar plantas/arbustos/arboles para mejorar la producción/la gestión ambiental en las microcuencas? 1. En los últimos 2 años 2. En los últimos 5 años 3. En los últimos 10 años 4. Siempre ha sido una práctica regular 5. Nunca Que cambios en el paisaje y uso de suelo ha observado durante los ultimos10 años? 1. Se ha intensificado el sembrado mas plantas/arbustos/arboles para mejorar su producción/la gestión ambiental en la zona ( ) 2. Se ha convertido mucha de la tierra de vocación agrícola a pastizal ( ) 3. La frontera agrícola ha aumentado ( ) 4. Hay mas derrumbes ( ) 5. Ha habido deforestación significativa ( ) 6. No ha habido cambios significativos ( ) 7. He observado otros cambios que no se han mencionado ( ) Otros comentarios: Cambios observados significativos para usted

MODULO 2: Percepciones de la hidrología y condiciones de suelo en las microcuencas (corriente y pasado) Ha percibido cambios en la precipitaciones anuales dentro de los últimos 10 años? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Cuales han sido estos cambios? 1. Un incremento de precipitación ( ) 2. Un decrecimiento de precipitación ( ) 3. Extremos de precipitación (sequia o lluvias fuertes) ( ) 4. Otros ( ) 5. No se ( ) Ha observado cambios en los caudales de las quebradas en los últimos 10 años? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Cuales han sido estos cambios? 1. Caudales mas grandes ( ) 2. Menos Caudal ( ) 3. Caudales mas fiables durante todo el ano ( ) 4. Caudales menos fiables durante la época seca ( ) 5. Mas temporales con alto riesgo de inundacion ( ) 6. Menos frecuancia de alto riesgo de inundacion ( ) 7. Otros cambios? Cuales (ej.. turbulencia) ( ) 8. No se ( ) Ha percibido cambios en la calidad de suelo en los últimos 10 años en comparación con antes? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( )

MODULO 2: Percepciones de la hidrología y condiciones de suelo en las microcuencas (corriente y pasado) Cuales han sido estos cambios respecto del suelo? 1. Hay menos erosión del suelo (ej. Derrumbes) ( ) 2. Hay mas erosión de suelo ( ) 3. La tierra es mas fértil ( ) 4. La tierra es menos fértil ( ) 5. Otros ( ) 6. No se ( ) Otros comentarios:

MODULO 3: Percepciones sobre acceso al agua, producción agrícola y ingresos económicos (corriente y pasado) En su opinión las comunidades tienen un mejor acceso a sistemas de riego hoy en día en comparación a hace 10 años? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Que sistemas de riego se utilizan? Como funcionan estos sistemas de riego? Como se regula y controla el acceso y/o suministro al riego? Cuanto se paga? Hay juntas de riego? Conoce como funcionan? Hay conflictos sobre acceso a estos sistemas de riego? Como se resuelven los conflictos? Sabe usted cuántos y quiénes son los beneficiarios de estos sistemas de riego?

MODULO 3: Percepciones sobre acceso al agua, producción agrícola y ingresos económicos (corriente y pasado) Cuando se instalaron estos sistemas de riego? 1. En los últimos 2 años 2. En los últimos 5 años 3. En los últimos 10 años 4. Hace mas de 10 años 5. No se Son los sistemas de riego fiables durante todo el ano? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Cuando hay mas demanda y/o dificultades para acceder al sistema de riego? Indique los meses y grado de dificultad (3‐dificil, 2 muy difícil, 3 extremadamente difícil) 1. Enero ( ) 2. Febrero ( ) 3. Marzo ( ) 4. Abril ( ) 5. Mayo ( ) 6. Junio ( ) 7. Julio ( ) 8. Agosto ( ) 9. Septiembre ( ) 10. Octubre ( ) 11. Noviembre ( ) 12. Diciembre ( )

MODULO 3: Percepciones sobre acceso al agua, producción agrícola y ingresos económicos (corriente y pasado) Llega el agua potable por tubería a la mayoría de las comunidades de las microcuencas? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Si hay juntas de funcionamiento de acceso a agua potable, sabe usted como operan? Hay conflictos por acceso agua potable gestionado por las juntas Como se resuelven los conflictos? Sabe usted cuantos son los usuarios de estos sistemas de agua potable gestionado por las juntas? Si no llega el agua por tubería, de donde proviene el agua potable que se utiliza en casa? Podría calcular en porcentajes? 1. Vertientes naturales ( ) 2. Quebradas ( ) 3. Otros ( )

MODULO 3: Percepciones sobre acceso al agua, producción agrícola y ingresos económicos (corriente y pasado) Sabe usted si se trata el agua que llega a las comunidades de la microcuencas? Poner porcentajes 1. No se ( ) 2. Se trata por: a. Filtración ( ) b. Cloro ( ) c. Hervir 3. Entiendo que no se trata el agua ( ) Cuanto se paga por el suministro de agua potable administrada por las juntas?

Sabe usted cuanto del pago es destinado al tratamiento de agua?

Ha percibido cambios en la producción agrícola en los últimos 10 años? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Cuales han sido estos cambios? 1. Mejor calidad en la producción ( ) 2. Mayor producción en cantidad ( ) 3. Ha empeorado la calidad de producción ( ) 4. Ha disminuido la cantidad de producción ( ) 5. Hay mas cosechas ( ) 6. Ahora es posible cultivar durante todo el año ( ) 7. Otros cambios? Cuáles? ( )

MODULO 3: Percepciones sobre acceso al agua, producción agrícola y ingresos económicos (corriente y pasado) Cuales cree usted son las razones de estos cambios ocurridos? 1. Mejor acceso a un sistema de riego ( ) 2. Mejor fiabilidad del sistema de riego ( ) 3. Mejor fertilidad del suelo ( ) 4. Menor acceso a un sistema de riego ( ) 5. Menor fiabilidad del sistema de riego ( ) 6. Menor fertilidad del suelo ( ) 7. Cambio a un sistema de ganado ( ) 8. Mas acceso a tecnología (maquinaria) ( ) 9. Mas acceso a pesticidas ( ) 10. Mas acceso a fertilizantes ( ) 11. Mejor planificación de cosechas ( ) 12. Mejor sistema agrícola ( ) 13. Otros ( ) 14. No se ( ) Cree usted que los ingresos económicos de las comunidades de las microcuencas han mejorado en los últimos 10 años? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Por que razones cree que estos cambios han ocurrido? 1. Mejor producción agrícola/disminución de la producción agrícola ( ) 2. Ingresos de fuentes adicionales/ menos fuentes de ingreso ( ) a. Ganadería b. Migración de familares c. Otros empleos 3. Mas apoyo gubernamental/los subsidio gubernamentales han disminuido ( ) 4. Otro ( )

MODULO 3: Percepciones sobre acceso al agua, producción agrícola y ingresos económicos (corriente y pasado) Otros comentarios:

MODULO 4: Comité de Gestión Ambiental Bulu Bulu En general cree que el Comité hace un buen trabajo? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Su opinión cuenta en las decisiones que hace el Comité? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Usted ha asistido una o más veces a una reunión del Comité? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Usted ha tenido algún rol dentro del Comité en el pasado? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Si si, cual fue el papel y por cuanto tiempo? Se siente debidamente informado de las acciones del Comité? 1. Si ( ) 2. No ( ) Que podría hacer el Comité para mejorar su trabajo? 1. Mejorar la comunicación ( ) 2. Mejorar el apoyo técnico sobre temas ambientales ( ) 3. Mejorar la participación de las comunidades en las decisiones ( ) 4. Otro, que? ( )

MODULO 4: Comité de Gestión Ambiental Bulu Bulu Otros comentarios:

MODULO 5: Indicadores para medir el éxito de la gestión sostenible de las microcuencas En su opinión, como se podría estimar el éxito de la gestión sostenible en las microcuencas? Cuáles cree son los futuros desafíos ambientales más grandes en las microcuencas? Cuales son los desafíos socio‐económicos más importantes que enfrentan las comunidades) de las microcuencas en el futuro? Cuales son los desafíos de gobernanza (gestión y manejo) más grandes que enfrentaran los habitantes de las microcuencas en el futuro?

MODULO 6: Procesos de las intervenciones y la gobernanza Como funciona el Comité de Gestión Ambiental Bulu Bulu? Como se deciden las prioridades de trabajo? Ha habido dificultades en el desarrollo del Comité? Como se ha enfrentado estas dificultades? Si se presentan conflictos locales como los enfrenta el Comité a ; cual es el procedimiento para dirimir conflictos? Considera usted que el Comité es una institución representativa de los intereses de las comunidades locales?

MODULO 8: Contexto histórico de las intervenciones del consorcio de las ONGs y instituciones locales en las microcuencas Como se han organizado los consorcios para permitir la intervención de las ONGs? Cual fue el rol especifico que jugaron las ONGs en el proceso de desarrollo de las intervenciones? Que métodos utilizaron las ONGs? Como promocionaron el consorcio las ONGs? Como se podría mejorar futuras intervenciones de las ONGs?

Annex 4: List of Key Stakeholders Interviewed or Who Participated in Focus Groups Table 3: List of Key Stakeholders Interviewed or Who Participated in Focus Groups

Stakeholders

Method

4 X Community Members

Focus Group

6 X Community Members

Focus Group

5 X Community Members

Focus Group

5 X Community Members

Focus Group

Community Member