participation in the program and for investment in land improvement: this was the case in China under the Loess I Project and the Red Soils II Project, and also in Tunisia (see Box 31).Box 31: The Contribution of Land Tenure Security to Achieving Watershed Management GoalsThe China Loess I Project benefited from land tenure reforms, which created strong incentives for investment in land improvement. These reforms were part of a generally promarket agricultural policy environment that helped achieve project livelihoods objectives. Productive new technologies were available, and improved communications removed regional marketing constraints and provided farmers with countrywide market channels.The policies required are not always evident at the outset, and a progressive approach may be needed. For example, the Tunisia northwest project did not initially provide for work on land tenure issues, but the land tenure and fragmentation constraint emerged from the demand-driven process. As a result, the project started to support land consolidation of small fragmented farms. By the end of the project, a total of 2,100 ha was under review or already mapped, and titles for approximately 1,200 ha had already been issued.However, projects generally did not satisfactorily analyze or deal with land or water tenure issues.Despite the importance of land tenure for watershed management, none of the projects reviewed had a land tenure component, and although it has emerged as a significant problem, land tenure has not received increased emphasis in the design of more recent projects. In addition, although watershed management is in principle intended to deal with problems of both water and land resources, not one of the projects reviewed addressed the issue of water rights, even though downstream uses would plainly be affected by the management changes introduced upstream (on water, see the section, Considering the Effects on the Water Cycle, in Chapter 5 below).nonetheless, there have been opportunities for reform during projects.In India Karnataka, government was reluctant to address up-front policy and legal issuesrelating to land. however, there were subsequent opportunities for reforms. When constraints emerged during implementation, the project supported a legal review of common land resource management, and subsequently helped to develop a new memorandum of understanding signed between the community and land agency (for example, forestry and local authority) that set out guidelines for management and benefit sharing. With the questions of future benefit sharing resolved with greater clarity, communities are now less reluctant to invest time and money in managing common resources developed through the project.27common pool resources covering large areas of watersheds of interests are common in many countries; their sustainable management is complex and difficult. However, little knowledge on issues and how to tackle them could be gleaned during the review.Very sparse information was available in any of the project documentation covered in the review on the management of common pool resources and how they were integrated in the overall watershed
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..
