Although Bolivia is one of the countries with the most water per capita in the world, and demand is about 1% of supply, localised water scarcity continues to breed conflicts. Despite many attempts at integrated watershed management, there have been few successes. Projects have rarely focused on improving efficiency or managing demand. Management has usually been through top-down laws and regulations, few of which have succeeded. This report assesses whether market tools can improve watershed management, and the livelihoods of watershed residents. It describes the studies commissioned as part of the analysis, what they were intended to assess, and their findings. The report concludes by offering lessons learned for negotiating fair deals for watershed services in Bolivia.
There is an extensive international debate about the effectiveness of payments for watershed services and their likely impact on poverty. Should farmers and other land managers be paid for their role in maintaining watershed services? (for example, rewarding them for their role in changes in water quantity and quality and keeping the evenness of water flow in the locality). To address these questions, IIED has run an action-oriented project in the Caribbean, China, South Africa, Bolivia, Indonesia and India that has been trying to develop payments for watershed services and look at their impacts on livelihoods.
Who it's aimed at:
- Policymakers: specifically government departments who are concerned with landuse, water issues, poverty and livelihoods
- The NGO sector (who are interested in the same range of issues)
- Academia: (in particular post grads and lecturers
What readers can get out of it:
All of the three sets of stakeholders will get the following:
- Results from six countries where IIED led a practical intervention and set up relationships between the different stakeholders.
- An understanding of how complex it is to translate the relatively simple theory of payments for ecosystem services into practice
- Highlights from practical experience that show this cannot act as a tool for direct poverty alleviation but that it might have application as an 'integrator' of stakeholders in watersheds.
|
