Homesteads and watersheds
MANY people are talking about watersheds these days, without knowing perhaps what it exactly means. For better understanding, I think that watershed areas should be defined in physical geographic terms, instead of conceptual figurative terms. Better still, we should carve out actual “watershed areas” that should have an outer core with fixed boundaries and an inner core that will serve as the buffer zone. For good measure, the fixed boundaries should have property markers (mohons) and the buffer zones should be fenced in. If we are really serious about protecting the watershed areas, this is the only way to do it.
I was part of the team that developed the Geographic Information Systems ( GIS) for Makati City, and it was there that I learned that no GIS could ever be accurate, not unless it is based on the mohons. Many GIS users make the mistake of creating their GIS maps based on the flat maps that are available to them. It turns out that many, if not all, of the flat maps were drawn without using the mohons as boundary markers, such that these flat maps were not really accurate. To make matters worse, the maps would even overlap each other.
It would be reasonable to assume that by now, some of the lands within the outer core might already be private properties or might already have property claimants. If it is not too late, the government should buy back these properties or cancel the claims. If that is not possible, the lands could remain as private properties, but these should be subject to very strict environmental regulations. At all costs, and by whatever means, the lands within the inner core should not only remain as public lands, but should also be declared as protected forest areas.
Thanks to modern technology, we now have Google Earth where we could already see satellite-based maps of most land areas. Unfortunately, some of these are also based on flat maps, so it is always better to have more relialble GIS maps that are based on mohons. On the upside, these online maps can already make it possible for us to detect when the land areas are already turning green with new forest growth, or if they are already turning brown because of disap- pearing trees or grasslands.
I am hot on the idea of giving away homesteads to families that would like to be tree farmers who will live at the outer core, planting trees, growing cash crops and raising farm animals. They could also take care of the tree farms inside the inner core, but will not be allowed to stay there because the inner core should be a no man’s land. Until now, we have problems with slash- and- burn farmers (kaingeros) who destroy the forests, but we could put an end to that by turning them into tree farmers who can also double as forest rangers.
As simple as ABC, every water district needs a watershed area to sustain its water supply. As simple as 123, we now know that trees have at least three benefits. First, they hold the water in the soil, thus preventing floods. Second, they absorb carbon dioxide, thus cleaning the air. Third, they also produce oxygen, thus allowing us to breath better. On the money side, there is a lot to earn from carbon credits, but that is another story. What is important now is that Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) Chairman Rene Villa has agreed to try the idea of having homesteads in watersheds as soon as possible.
As simple as bacon and eggs, the watershed projects of LWUA actually match perfectly with the National Greening Program of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). LWUA wants the water, DENR wants the trees. It is already obvious that more trees in watershed areas would either prevent or lessen floods in the lowlands, and that is good for our national security. If that is not a good enough incentive for us to make this happen, you might as well know that the tree farms could also produce food for our tables, and lumber for our houses and schools.
For feedback, e-mail iseneres@yahoo.com or text
+639997333011