in my opinion sustainable watershed management is the goal while integrated watershed management is the approach. 

The second one could be non-sustainable:) And very often it is.

Suitable watershed management should be holistic ergo integrated which refers to ecological and socioeconomic components. Management related only to water resources (or any other natural resource or landscape itself) could be hardly called integrated. Integrated watershed management should be based on sustainability.

Thank you all for your  feedback. it is very helpful and hopeful :)

in my opinion sustainable watershed management is the goal while integrated watershed management is the approach. 

Sustainable watershed management refers to longterm integration of socio economic and ecological surroundings of a particular area i.e watershed. Whereas integrated watershed management is simply integration of natural and man made resources for its judicious use may be for shorter or longer time. However, ultimate objectives are welfare of mankind by utilizing of existing resources with any further degradation.

These are two complementary or synonymous terminologies. I think Sustainable watershed management is an objective or goal which can be achieved through an integrated watershed management approach that consider a proper and area-specific hydro-logical, ecological, socioeconomical and cultural approach. 

I would agree with Nadia - sustainability is and should always be a goal, integrated watershed management is the approach. A way to reach sustainability in IWM might be to include some ideas of the ecosystem services approach, such as considering multipe goals and (ecosystem) functions within the management as well as the quantification of trade-offs among - for instance - land and water use, biodiversity and water availability (or others). (see also my paper "Modelling ecosystem services – Challenges and promising future direction", which is available on ResearchGate).

I largely agree with my forerunners. Sustainability is a goal that has to be attained throgh integrated management.  But Integrated management  is an approach that involves and co-ordinates all skills and stakeholders concerned wit a goal that could not necessarily be sustainability. In fact it could be addressed to increase efficiency in mining natural resources

I largely agree with my forerunners. Sustainability is a vision or a long run goal that has to be attained through integrated management in the very short run. From the practical or quantitative point of view, sustainability is an impossible task in many countries where water consumption is more than ten folds of water renewability. In these countries, only Integrated management is possible as an approach that involves and co-ordinates all skills and stakeholders concerned with a goal of demand management to balance the demand with the supply.

"Integrated watershed management" is a euphemism invented to avoid upsetting some people and organizations whose use of land and water is in fact unsustainable.  It's a term frequently used by scientists and policymakers to talk about the need for change in human use of land and water without actually saying or even implying anything specific about what needs to change.   The phrase is most popular among that subset of planners who believe that environmental problems can be solved by the mere process of planning, rather than government regulation and informed decisionmaking.  

Thank you professor Frissel and I strongly agree with your answer.

The replies by Nadia and Christopher are very compatible...if the IWM approach is really applied with good knowledge and control, and at full commitment with the local stakeholders and the environment, focusing on land use according to its real capacity and water use with equity and efficiency. In our real world there are many cases which urgently requiere changes (policies, regulations, institutional roles...) in order to get closer to the IWM concept.    

Nadia's answer is appropriate.

Sustainability is the aim to maintain the natural resources for long period of time, through integration of various Technics within a watershed.  Though, conceptually   watershed is the area draining at an outlet; but, Integrated watershed management is inclusion of all available measures that are economical, acceptable by the society, maximize returns with minimum inputs in a defined area (watershed); in such a way that the quality of soil, water, air and ecology remains same.

I suppose to put a finer point of my answer, in the paradigm of "integrated watershed management" that critical question of who determines which measures are "economical and socially acceptable" remains undefined and unanswered.  Too often, scientists and others approach and interpret their work simply assuming that economic and social phenomena  have fixed, known limits.  Yet we also understand that fiscal, regulatory, and educational policy itself--as well as scientific knowledge and indigenous cultural and practical knowledge-- all strongly influence both economic feasibility and social perceptions of acceptable practices and desirable outcomes.   

In my answer I was being a bit flippant, as well as making a point about the important role of semantics in the larger social-political milieu.  We puzzle over the scientific meaning of a terms that were invented essentially for political purposes--exactly what some entrenched interests would prefer that we spend our time doing.  But I agree for the most part the answers align fairly well.  I liked Nadia's answer too. 

I sense from the magnitude of answers that integrated watershed management  means more and more included resources for management of the human intention for the  river economy and the environmental and social/cultural impact that it imposes due to economic activity generated from forestry, agriculture, fishery, and rest uses of land. Economic activity generated from the above has some major impacts on the environment and society that need to be seen holistically so for example we do not examine the tree not even  the trees but the system of trees in a systematic way of doing.  so integration may  refer  to some short of ad hoc management in the field that will guide planning processes and which will show commitment to sustainability  . its hardly possible to not underestimate integration of resources because life is randomly situated  and our decisions tend to be falsified sometimes due to they prefer order which in life is not established but constructed only artificially by humans. if humans did not existed  watersheds would be dynamic in nature and not diminished in  the long run. so its a case of human - nature relationship I guess.

Sustainable watershed management is possible with Integrated watershed management only. What I understand with Integration is working in the interest of Watershed, social, economical, environment issue on long term basis by group of experts from different subjects  with public participatory mode. 

There are certainly relevant points in all of the contributions above. My experience tells me that it always ends up in the area of Christopher's statement about the "...semantics in the larger social-political milieu". So there are some (or better: a couple of tons of) references around and it may be of help to start from the semantics and sources and then work your way down to the contents.Allow me  some suggestions for points of departure for your research (the cited references are most probably available via the WWW).

IWRM (integrated water resource management, which covers probably your term "integrated watershed management") : term coined in the surroundings of UN organizations and UN events (Rio summit etc.), became accordingly (a) the baseline of a number of bi- and multilateral governmental programs and funding schemes in development cooperation and (b) a standard term in a lot of national water plans (probably at least in part in order to facilitate access to the funding schemes). Clear definitions and/or specifications do not exist, but there is at least some kind of general framework. A (in my opinion) good summary of this framework was provided by Medema et al. (2008). Stated elements there are (1) the constitution of a sustainable approach to managing water resources, (2) an enhancement in water resource sustainability, (3) the production of a better understanding of human–ecosystem interactions, (4) the maximization of social and economic welfare generated from water and land resources, and (5) the reduction of disruption to the water cycle and to aquatically dependent ecosystems (reference: Medema W., B. S. McIntosh, and P. J. Jeffrey (2008) From premise to practice: a critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecology and Society 13(2): 29.). Ok, the reference is already about 6 years old but I would dare to argue that there weren't any substantial changes in the paradigm until then.

Sustainable watershed management: term for the scientific classification of approaches to water management, i.e. a management that fulfills the scientific/ technical criteria to make something sustainable. Suffers from the usual ambiguity of the use of the term "sustainability", since there are several types of "sustainability" (static-dynamic, physical-economic etc.) as the "inventor" of the principle already stated in 1713 (Carl von Carlovitz, Sylvicultura oeconomica. Leipzig, 1713, reprint available, but may be of little help only since it is in (older) German language).

As already stated by some of the contributors: you will get a very different answer about the definition of each of both terms, depending on the scientific or professional field of the respondent (I worked with ecologists, hydrologists, hydro-geologists, water engineers and a number of related disciplines on water management over the last 15 years and would agree only with a few selected parts of their definitions - but then, I am a socio-economist, which may explain a lot ... )

So, a brief conclusion would be:

• IWRM (or integrated watershed management) claims to include sustainable watershed management as one of its topics, but goes beyond this issue
• both terms lack generally agreed-upon scientific and technical specifications
• my comments here above imply nothing about the suitability and/or applicability of the both terms (for a critical review on IWRM see e.g. Biswas, A. K. (2004). Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment. A Water Forum Contribution. Water International, 29(2), pp. 248–256 ). As Christopher stated: it's semantics in the first place ..

hope that helps & best regards

I offered a course on integrated water resources development and management during the last years for an international and interdisciplinary group of students.  I have recently retired, so I try to add to the discussion what I think is missing somehow.

The definition: IRWM is general and traditionally aimed at economic objectives only, sustainable is more specific as it adds ecology and social equity (the three e's). I am convinced that the fourths dimens is missing which is technology. Often non technical members tend to argue that technology is a supportive diiscipline, I think that technology is the spearhead of development. If we e.g. add new technologies such as seawater desalination and solar energy production, the water scarcity of region can improve dramatically.  

High dimension: Developing and managing sustainable water resource systems involve the problem of spatial and temporal scales. It is hampered by a most inhomogeneous mixture of inter- and transdisciplinary actors (decision makers, stakeholders, planners, operators, ...). The systems are transient which means the system structure change in time. Often the systems are never in the state they have been planned for.

Decision support: The decision making process today can be supported most efficiently by new (planning) technologies. Simulation and optimisation technologies combined with multicriteria assessment schemes as well as open and fast communication systems offer the platform for sustainable water system development. 

My conclusion is that we have everything available necessary to come to wise decisions. The bottleneck frequently is the inability of decision makers and often also other stakeholders for fair compromises.

You find several contributions on my researchgate platform

 I am sure  that your points of management are very influential among different cases and case studies  and I admire the strength of the typologies that have been circulated in the discussion. The key note that I feel responsible to shape is that w come from different contexts with different mind maps and all of as have derived information based on their studies and experience which for all of as is significant and as such we have departed from a general phraseology of such management options to more expert based advice . so even if I have made an interesting question your answers are more interesting in the bottom line.

I quite like Nadia's elegant and simple answer. From a practical point of view, integrated watershed management is often outside the realm of lead Govt agencies given that their responsibilities within a watershed (eg. water, forest, agriculture, fisheries) operate in silos. So whilst each one aims for "sustainability" their perspectives are different and this is why true integration is often lacking.

I agree with Nadia. Sustainable watershed management is the goal, considering the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability, while integrated watershed management involves the coordinated work of all actors involved, directed to reach such a goal

Nadia's answer seems to be very simple and interesting. Actually development of watershed can be done only by integrating all components and fields where as to make this development sustainable again integration is very important.

Integrated watershed management being done by integrating all sorts of activities such as drainage line treatment, construction of mechanical structures at required sites, vegetative measures, land leveling, terracing, tillage practices along with package and practices for crop production, agro forestry and horticulture as per land utilization capability classes. Also introduction of animal component and some financial activities for land less peoples of watershed. 

When it works nicely and produce enhanced yields and income for beneficiaries of watershed than we have to sustain it for long lasting these effects.

Yes, generally speaking IWM is the approach encompassing all the players in an integrated manner, within a given watershed. On the contrary Sustainable Watershed management is management of the endowments (both natural and manmade) within the given watershed in a way that adequate ENERGY and MASS balance is maintained not only for current users but also for the future users of the resources. In simple terms we may say DEPLETION AND REPLENISHMENT must balance each other. Thanks.

As Hugo said: sustainable WM is the goal (future), IWRM is the means (present).

...put in a frame of a literature review, this discussion could make an opinion paper.. ;o)

Here you find a recent dissertation by Jochen Hack:

http://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/3876/

It contains such an actual literature review

Thanks to Manfred . The thesis is an excellent source of information on the topic under discussion

Sustainable watershed development is the defined Goal and the Integrated watershed development is the process to achieve that Goal.

I agree with the answer above and slightly specify as follows. The term sustainable is not one goal/objective, but multi-objective, which makes the process and applied tools much more complex (multi-objective assessment of planning/operation alternatives.