In the Mariño Watershed in the Peruvian province of Abancay in the southern Andes, altitudes range from 5,400 to 1,900 meters above sea level, encompassing perpetually snow-covered landscapes and areas featuring delicate orchids, which thrive in balmy temperatures. Water flows from glacial ridges through forested wetlands toward urban valleys, supporting subsistence economies, commercial farming operations and city life along the way.

However, unequal power relations between the various stakeholders can lead to conflict, and poor environmental and livelihood outcomes, notes a new CIFOR Infobrief, which is based on two studies with partner organizations AgroParisTech, the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE) and Peru’s sanitation authority, known by its Spanish acronym, SUNASS.

“When decision-makers and scientists consider trade-offs among ecosystem services, they usually focus on the biophysical aspects, but what about the trade-offs between the wellbeing of the different stakeholders?” said Bruno Locatelli, co-author and scientist with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and France’s Agricultural Research Institute (CIRAD).

“Our work seeks to fill this research gap through identifying who controls, who manages and who benefits from these services using the 300 square kilometer Mariño Watershed in Abancay province as a case study,” he said.

IMBALANCES LEADING TO CONFLICT

To understand how power relationships play out in the Mariño area, scientists started by organizing workshops with local stakeholders. Notably, these included farmers, small agri-businesses, tour operators, authorities and the local drinking water provider.

“The concept of ecosystem services piqued their curiosity and, in listening to each other, they started seeing their shared landscape through different lenses: as a provider of water, of food, of scenic beauty,” said Locatelli.

Beyond greater awareness of the various perspectives, the process brought to light a mismatch between the people who protected ecosystems services and those who benefited.  

For example, communities at high elevations use and conserve the wetlands and mountain forests that regulate the flow of water, while tap water company EMUSAP and manages its distribution to the downstream provincial capital city of Abancay, 900 km southeast of Peru’s capital Lima, under the supervision of the National Water Authority.

“That means that the upstream communities influence the quantity and quality of the water, but they do not have a say concerning broader watershed management and water allocation,” explained Locatelli. Communities are direct ecosystem service managers, while public sector organizations such as the National Water Authority are indirect managers with the power of controlling and authorizing water consumption and the use of other services.

“The failure to balance the needs of direct/indirect managers and beneficiaries of an ecosystem service is a recipe for conflict,” he said. For example, there were times when the eastern part of the watershed was left with almost no water for agricultural use. To try and solve the problem, some farmers groups opened channel gates to redirect water to their fields, but it put them at odds with other farmers whose fields got less water as a result.

DOMINANCE AND INFLUENCE

Researchers also examined the extent to which the various actors were dominant – with the capacity to withhold benefits through force or authority — and influential – with the capacity to provide information to change somebody’s opinion, attitude or behavior. “Enforcing laws and supervision are examples of domination, while providing advice and sharing information are instances of influence,” said Locatelli.

For each of the ecosystem services under study, scientists found that the public sector was the most dominant, while the private sector had little power of any sort. “Conflicts were more likely when really powerful and really powerless actors were involved,” says the Infobrief.