Professional Documents
Culture Documents
&
in association with
Prepared by: Jim Perry (IISD & University of Minnesota), Nick Ahrensberg (DHI), Richard Bahumwire (CREPA), Stefano Barchiesi (IUCN), Livia Bizikova (IISD), Peter Koefoed Bjornsen (DGH), Philip Bubb (WCMC), Steve Carver (University of Leeds), Thomas Chiramba (UNEP DEPI), David Coates (CBD), Richard Kenchington (UNEP DEPI and University of Wollongong), Elizabeth Khaka (UNEP DEPI), Birguy Lamizana (UNOPS), Christo Marais (Dept Water Affairs, South Africa), Nora Mzavanadze (Central European University), Lszl Pintr (IISD), Dimple Roy (IISD), Mark Smith (IUCN), Darren Swanson (IISD), Henry (Hank) Venema (IISD), Alan Watson (Leopold Institute) ISBN: 978-92-807-3253-5 Job Number: DEP/1505/NA Copyright UNEP 2012 Please send enquiries to depiinfo@unep.org or info@iisd.ca Disclaimer: The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or contributory organizations. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, company or area or its authority or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Reproduction: This publication my be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holders, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purposes whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP promotes environmentally sound practices globally and in its own activities. This publication is printed on 100% FSC paper using other eco-friendly 2012 ParticipantOur distribution policy practices. Manual aims to reduce UNEPs carbon footprint.
Authors
Jim Perry (Lead Author) H.T. Morse Distinguished University Professor Associate, International Institute for Sustainable Development Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota St Paul, MN USA 55108 Ph + 01 612 625 4717 Fax + 01 612 625 5299 jperry@umn.edu Nick Ahrensberg Programme Advisor UNEP-DHI Centre Agern All 5 DK 2970 Hrsholm Denmark Ph + 45 4516 9522 Fax + 45 4516 9292 nia@dhigroup.com Peter Koefoed Bjornsen Director UNEP-DGH Centre Agern All 5 DK 2970 Hrsholm Denmark Ph + 45 4516 9073 Fax + 45 4516 9292 pkb@dhigroup.com Steve Carver Senior Lecturer Room G11, East Building School of Geography University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT UK Ph + 44 113 34 33318 s.j.carver@leeds.ac.uk Birguy Lamizana-Diallo Charge du Programme GWP/WAWP UNOPS 03 BP 7112 Ouagadougou 03 Burkina Faso birguy.lamizana@gmail.com Thomas Chiramba (Project Officer) Chief, Freshwater Ecosystems Unit Freshwater and Marine Branch Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI) UNEP POB 47074 001 00 Nairobi thomas.chiramba@unep.org Elizabeth Khaka (Project Officer) Programme Officer Freshwater Ecosystems Unit Freshwater and Marine Branch Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI) UNEP POB 30552 001 00 Nairobi Ph 254 721 746 289 Ph 254 20 762 3990 elizabeth.khaka@unep.org Stefano Barchiesi Junior Professional Associate IUCN Headquarters Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Ph +41 22 999 0255 Fax +41 22 364 9622 stefano.barchiesi@iucn.org Philip Bubb Senior Programme Officer UNEP-WCMC 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL UK Ph + 44 1223 814662 Fax + 44 1223 277314 philip.bubb@unep-wcmc.org Richard Kenchington Professor Australian National Centre for Oceans resources and Security University of Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia rkenchin@uow.edu.au
Richard Bahumwire Organisational Development and Capacity Building Specialist CREPA 03BP 7112 Ougadougou Burkina Faso bahumwire@yahoo.co.uk bahumwire.richard@reseaucrepa.org Livia Bizikova Project Manager International Institute for Sustainable Development 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4 Ph + 01 613 288 2024 Fax + 01 613 238 8515 lbizikova@iisd.ca David Coates Environmental Affairs Officer Inland Waters Convention on Biodiversity 413, Saint Jacques Street, suite 800 Montreal Canada QC H2Y 1N9 Ph + 01 514 287 8715 Fax + 01 613 288 6588 david.coates@cbd.int Christo Marais Head of Operations Natural Resource Management Programmes Department of Environmental Affairs P/Bag X 4390 Cape Town 8000 South Africa Ph +27 021 441 2727 Fax 021 441 2781 maraisC@dwa.gov.za
Nora Mzavanadze PhD Candidate Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy Central European University Nador u. 9 1051 Budapest, Hungary nora.mzavanadze@gmail.com
Lszl Pintr Senior Fellow International Institute for Sustainable Development Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy Central European University Nador u. 9 1051 Budapest, Hungary lpinter@iisd.ca Darren Swanson Deputy Director, Natural and Social Capital Program International Institute for Sustainable Development 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4 Ph + 01 613 958 7746 Fax + 01 613 958 7710 dswanson@iisd.ca Alan Watson Research Social Scientist Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute US Forest Service 790 East Beckwith Avenue Bozeman Montana USA 59801 Fax 02 406 542 4190 awatson@fs.fed.us
Dimple Roy Manager, Natural and Social Capital International Institute for Sustainable Development 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4 Ph + 01 613 958 7737 Fax + 01 613 958 7710 droy@iisd.ca Dawn Tanner Conservation Biologist 2040 Como Ave Suite 103 St Paul MN 55108 tann0042@umn.edu
Mark Smith Director, IUCN Water Programme IUCN Headquarters Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Ph +41 22 999 0117 Fax +41 22 364 9622 mark.smith@iucn.org Henry (Hank) Venema Director, Natural and Social Capital International Institute for Sustainable Development 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4 Ph + 01 613 958 7706 Fax + 01 613 958 7710 hvenema@iisd.ca
Peter Manyara Project Manager UNEP-WRMA Tana Catchment Area Project Water Resource Management Authority POB 1930-60100 Embu Kenya Ph 254 061 2309 370 pmanyara@gmail.com
Wangai Ndirangu Coordinator Water Capacity Building Network (WaterCap) PON 127-00517 Nairobi, Kenya info@watercap.org wangai@betiment.co.ke Jessica C Salas President, Philippine Watershed Management Coalition Immediate Past President, International Rainwater Catchment Systems Association Kahublagan Sang Panimalay Foundation Magsaysay Village San Ag Iolio City The Philippines Ph 63 33 329 7362, 63 917 547 0832 jessica.c.salas@yahoo.com
David Osborn Coordinator Ecosystem Management Programme UNEP POB 47074 001 00 Nairobi Ph 254 (02) 762 5721 david.osborn@unep.org
Kogogo Pamela Were Lecturer, School of Environmental Studies Moi University, Kenya POB 3900-30100 Elderet, Kenya Ph + 254 0720 867 307 werepj@yahoo.com
Preface
The Millennium Ecosystems Assessment Report (MA) released in 2005 discussed the unique relationship between water and ecosystems. It noted that provision of adequate supplies of fresh water is one of the key services that ecosystems provide to humanity. Whilst the availability of water for human uses depends in part on the proper functioning of ecosystems, water is also essential for the proper functioning of ecosystems in the first place. In fact, the MA reported that 15 of 24 identified services provided by ecosystems to humanity, particularly those related to freshwater, are in global decline. This loss has led to reduced water availability, poor water quality and a reduction of capacity to deal with floods and drought. Currently, 1.6 billion people live in areas of physical water scarcity, and this could grow to 2 billion if we stay on the present coursemaking food security even more uncertain. To produce food for a global population of 7 billion peoplethat is projected to rise to over 9 billion by 2050the water required for agriculture will increase from 7,130 km3 to 12,050 km3. Recent research suggests that decline in ecosystems services has led to soil nutrient depletion, soil erosion, increased vulnerability to disease and pests, and loss of buffering capacity to deal with rainfall variability. Inland fisheries are perhaps the most obvious area which will be affected by the decline of ecosystem services: in Africa alone fisheries provide an estimated 100 million people with important levels of daily protein in addition to essential vitamins and minerals. This sector provides close to 30 million tonnes of food and 60 million full- and part-time jobs in fishing and other activities such as processing, with over half these jobs carried out by women. Clearly, we all have a major responsibility to ensure the resilience and sustainability of aquatic ecosystems, in order that they continue providing water for human uses in the upcoming era of anticipated water scarcity in many places around the world. However, the concept of ecosystems is not fully understood in the water sector, and, even in cases where it is, managers and practitioners have limited capacity to translate ecosystems concepts to the local level for any change to take place. This manual, developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Sustainable Development and 10 other partners, is UNEPs contribution to enable those working at the local level within the framework of integrated water resources management to better incorporate ecosystems approaches in their work. Since water is a common unifying theme in ecosystem management, this manual can be adapted for use not only by water managers and practitioners, but also by planners and others to improve their awareness of the contribution of ecosystems and take the necessary action in order to meet the Millennium Development Goals. The manual combines practical and theoretical approaches, making it easy for participants to understand the contribution of ecosystems and their services to the management of water within a catchment. It is our hope that this manual will be used to train managers and practitioners from both water and other sectors, as it is applicable to multiple disciplines. Ibrahim Thiaw, Director of Environmental Policy Implementation United Nations Environment Programme
Contents
Day 1: A Common Starting Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Module 1: Opening and Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Module 2: Starting Here: An initial conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Working lunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Module 3: Complementarities Between IWRM and EM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Module 4: The Structure and Function of Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Day 2: Thinking Like an Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Module 5: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Ecosystem state and Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Module 6: State of Ecosystem Services and Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Mid-term Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Module 7 Field trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Day 3: Thinking and Acting Like a Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Module 8: Understanding Current Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Module 9: Thinking Like a Manager: Beginning the cycle of strategic adaptive management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Module 10: Human Activities Are Central to Ecosystem Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Module 11: Incentives and Tools for Local-scale Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 Module 11 at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 Day 4: Managing Our Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Module 12: Valuing Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Module 13: Trade-offs and Goals for Ecosystem Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Module 14 Field trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Day 5: Putting It All to Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Module 15: Selecting Tools for a Local Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Module 16: Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Module 17: Completing the Cycle of Strategic Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Module 18: Workshop Synthesis and Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Glossary and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
We (UNEP, the people who wrote this material and your workshop facilitators) welcome you to this Ecosystem Management workshop. We think that our facilitated, capacity-development approach offers a stimulating experience and provides you with tools, skills and ideas to take home ready to implement in your own catchment. We expect that most people who join this experience will have an engineering or natural-resource background. We anticipate that most of our audience has experience with integrated watershed resource management (IWRM). We have worked to be sensitive to most potential backgrounds, recognizing that many people who attend this workshop will have a problemsolving, linear orientation. We hope to capitalize on those problem-solving abilities, allowing you to express your ideas and apply them in a broader context. Our orientation is toward people who have responsibility for managing a catchment, often focusing on water in that catchment. In this workshop, we offer you experiences and materials that will allow you to expand IWRM, taking lessons and ideas forward toward an integrated, ecosystem approach, identifying and solving problems in your catchment. We strongly feel that attention to gender roles is critical in addressing any natural resource issue, especially water. This workshop respects and upholds that view. Our approach is based in active, experiential learning. That means we will ask you to play various roles, express yourself in various ways, interact extensively, and have fun. You should expect very few traditional lectures. We ask you to be creative. For example, well ask you to build a conceptual model of the ways critical elements might interact within your catchment. We will take two field trips to a local catchment, offering you a chance to think about your conceptual model, asking which elements of the model do or do not make sense, and allowing you to continue to revise the initial conceptual model toward a final model that will help you more thoroughly implement Ecosystem Management in your own catchment. We are glad you have chosen to spend this time with us and we look forward to working with you. Our agenda for the workshop follows.
Welcome
Agenda
8:009:00 9:009:30 9:3010:00 10:0012:30 12:3013:30 13:3014:30 14:3015:00 15:0017:00
Module 1 Opening and Introductions Module 2 Starting here: An initial conceptual framework Break Module 2 Continues Working lunch Module 3 Complementarities between IWRM and EM Break Module 4 The structure and function of ecosystems
10
8:009:00
module 1 at a glance
Module 1 provides an introduction to this facilitated, active-learning, five-day workshop experience. This workshop helps catchment1 managers frame and implement management objectives that approach a catchment as an ecosystem, valuing ecosystem services as a metric for decision making. Throughout the workshop, we focus at the catchment scale. This scale allows managers and stakeholders to come together to understand and address the interactions between land and water in a relatively small, well-defined space.
1 We use the term catchment to refer to the landscape that drains water to a common point. The terms river basin and watershed are often used to refer to a similar area.
11
Introduction
The ecosystem approach has emerged as a promising, step-wise process for dealing with integration and sustainability of water management. This is because it provides a number of benefits for both people and nature in terms of integrating environment in decision making, strengthening investment in ecosystems and social inclusion, and catalyzing good governance. Moreover, the ecosystem approach is well adapted to the use of a wide variety of management tools and options. In particular, it deploys alternative, non-structural measures to cope with floods and droughts as well as emissions of pollutants into surface and ground waters.
the ecosystem approach focuses on the broader goal of balancing and sustaining ecosystem services . . . [and] complements IWRm as a strategy for the integrated management of not only water, but also the associated land and living resources in a way that maintains ecosystem health and productivity in balance with sustainable water use . . . it links ecosystem service delivery and human needs. (the Critical Connection)
It comes as no surprise that the need for such an approach has increasingly been recognized among water professionals. An ecosystem approach takes into account the role of environmental goods and services, incorporates knowledge about the functioning of the entire catchment ecosystem into planning and management, and focuses on managing water and land resources within catchments and river basins. An ecosystem approach explicitly recognizes the need to maintain river ecosystem health, for example, through protection of vegetation cover in upper-catchments, maintenance of river flow for people downstream, or reduction of pollution for good water quality. In other words, an ecosystem approach incorporates ecosystem services as a way of expressing value and a way to influence behaviour to address water security. Ecosystem management uses an ecosystem approach to apply lessons of holistic ecosystem function within a management-defined area. In the case of this workshop, the management area of focus is the catchment scale.
Audience
This material is oriented toward people who have responsibility and authority for managing a land area (e.g., a catchment or a geo-political jurisdiction within which they have responsibility), who have responsibility for water-resource management as well as the lands that control the quality and quantity of those water resources. In many countries, IWRM and other cross-sectoral ideas have resulted in institutions charged with catchment management. In such situations, it is difficult to avoid following a sectoral approach. Our intent is to engage the individuals most clearly responsible for decisions about management of the lands and waters of a catchment, whatever their institutional affiliation. We have used the concepts and ideas of IWRM because there is a global IWRM momentum that can assist people in on-the-ground decision making. The ecosystem-management approach taken here differs from IWRM by incorporating ecosystem services and landwater interactions to a greater
12
degree. Through this capacity-development experience, we will increase the ability of our participants to take an integrated, ecosystem approach to identifying and solving problems on the ground, or directing people who will do so. We explicitly recognize that men and women play different roles in the management of catchments in different parts of the world. Our intent in this workshop is to highlight and discuss the different roles played by men and women, especially in poor areas, such that gender differences can advance rather than constrain proper management.
overall learning objectives of the workshop our goal is to empower catchment managers and their staff to design and, given adequate resources, implement and evaluate an ecosystem approach to informed decision making about water resources and the landscapes that influence their condition. Further, in recognition of the fact that ecosystem management connects all parts of the landscape, we intend that the training supported by these materials will serve as the base for increased interaction among a range of water managers, natural resource managers and other professionals in a catchment.
At the conclusion of this capacity-development workshop, the successful participant will have experienced hands on, highly interactive problem-solving in and around a problem of relevance to their professional lives. The participant will have a strengthened conceptual foundation and toolkit that allows her/him to frame local problems in an ecosystem context, and empower him/her to develop solutions to such a problem. The successful participant also will understand that ecosystem management is a reflective and adaptive experience. Successful implementation of an ecosystemmanagement approach requires framing objectives with measurable outcomes, collecting information on those outcomes and the forces that control them, reflecting on both the objectives and the controlling forces, adapting either or both as necessary, and implementing again in an iterative and transparent fashion. Finally, engagement and communication with stakeholders is a central element of successful catchment management. We engage participants in ways that strengthen two-way communication with stakeholders.
13
notes on module 1
14
Catchment Context
The workshop facilitators will present an overview of the local catchment we will visit during the workshop. They will discuss the landscape, the people who live and work here, the issues being faced and the decisions that must be made. For future reference, you may find the concept of Watershed Characterization useful. In its typical implementation, the term Watershed Characterization addresses quantitative hydrology. A broader interpretation is often termed Rapid Hydrologic Appraisal or Rapid Watershed Assessment. Similarly, TUL-SEA (Trees in Multi-Use Landscapes in SE Asia) has a wide range of excellent products, including rapid appraisal techniques. It will be helpful to you later if you take notes during this session. As the facilitators present the material, put yourself into the shoes of a catchment manager in this setting. You will be able to picture a series of issues to be addressed, opportunities to resolve problems, places where you question why something is or is not being done. Noting those things will serve you well during the rest of the workshop.
15
those flows). Think about the quality, quantity and timing of the water resource; think about the land characteristics and land management that control those variables. How would you express those relationships in a way that would allow you to explain them clearly to someone else? Ask yourself key questions such as Are womens/mens constraints, needs and views reflected in management of your catchment?; Who are the key players in this catchment?; and What kinds of local and national laws and regulations are used to influence this catchment?
notes on module 2
16
notes
17
18
Natural system integrative elements include: Integration of freshwater management and coastal zone management Integration of land and water management Integration of management of green water (water stored in soil or biomass) and blue water (water in rivers, lakes and aquifers) Integration of surface- and groundwater management Integration of quality and quantity in water-resource management Integration of upstream and downstream water-related interests Integrated management of water stored in the protected areas and water in non-protected areas Human system integrative elements include: Mainstreaming water resource issues, and the ways men and women differently approach those issues into national policies (e.g., economic policy, food policy, environment policy, health policy, energy policy); and Cross-sectoral integration across all major water use sectors, involving all stakeholders, and explicitly addressing gender differences. IWRM is designed to manage water as a resource and create a framework for provision of water services. These targets are achieved through application of the overriding criteria of economic efficiency, equity and environmental sustainability within an enabling environment, an institutional framework and a set of management instruments. While striving to reach these targets, the work is guided by the four basic DublinRio Principles (1992): Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment; Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels; Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water; and Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good. In pursuing IWRM, there is a need to recognize several overriding criteria that take account of social, economic and natural conditions: Economic efficiency in water use: Because of the increasing scarcity of water and financial resources, the finite and vulnerable nature of water as a resource, and the increasing demands upon it, water must be used with maximum possible efficiency. Equity: The basic right for all people to have access to water of adequate quantity and quality for the sustenance of human well-being must be universally recognized.
19
The IWRM framework ame
resource.
recognize that complementary elements of an effective generations
of
the
s and approach water resources management system must be developed and strengthened concurrently. These
complementary elements pproach
recognize
that
complementary
elements
of
an
effective
water
The
IWRM
framework
and
a (Figure 1) include: The enabling environment: the general framework of national policies, legislation and resources
management
system
must
be
developed
and
strengthened
concurrently.
These
regulations and information for complementary
elements
(Figure
1)
include:
water-resource management stakeholders The institutional roles and functions of the national
policies,
legislation
a protection The
enabling
environment:
the
general
framework
of
various administrative levels,nd
regulations
management authority, stakeholders and
information
for
water-resource
management
stakeholders
The management instruments, including operational instruments for effective regulation, The
institutional
roles
and
functions
of
the
various
administrative
levels,
protection
management
monitoring and authority,
stakeholders
enforcement that enable the decision-makers to make informed choices among alternative actions. These choices need to be based on agreed-upon policies, The
management
instruments,
including
operational
instruments
for
effective
regulation,
available resources, that
enable
the
decision-makers
o
make
informed
choices
among
monitoring
and
enforcement
environmental impacts and the tsocial and economic consequences. Figure 1: linkagesimpacts
aPrinciples, structure and targets Among nd
the
social
and
economic
consequences.
environmental
alternative
actions.
These
choices
need
to
be
based
on
agreed-upon
policies,
available
resources,
way that does not undermine the life-support system, which would compromise use by future
Principles
Economic Efficiency
Equity
Environmental Sustainability
Structure
Targets
Figure 1: Linkages Among Principles, Structure and Targets Source: Author diagram
What is cosystem
Management?
What
is
EEcosystem management? A description and definition of an ecosystem, its structure and functions is given in Module 4.The A
description
and
definition
of
an
ecosystem,
its
structure
and
functions
is
given
in
Module
4.The
following key concepts allow easy comparison to IWRM.
following
key
concepts
allow
easy
comparison
to
IWRM.
Definition
of
an
ecosystem
An
ecosystem
is
a
complex
set
of
relationships
among
all
of
the
organisms
and
the
abiotic
environment
found
in
a
defined
spatial
area,
functioning
as
an
ecological
unit.
20
Definition of an ecosystem
An ecosystem is a complex set of relationships among all of the organisms and the abiotic environment found in a defined spatial area, functioning as an ecological unit. An ecosystem can be anything from a small pond to a region or even the whole of planet Earth. Ecosystem management can be defined as working with ecosystem structure and processes to supply defined ecosystem services (e.g., food, fibre, fuel, natural medicines). The four core ecosystem processes that are a part of the functioning of ecosystems at all scales are: Water cycling, through living organisms and ecosystems, as well as the hydrological cycle at the landscape- to continental-scale of evaporation, rainfall, runoff and storage Mineral cycling, in which minerals such as carbon and nitrogen are cycled to and from the physical environment by living organisms, with the amounts and rates of cycling dependent on the composition and structure of the ecosystem Solar energy flow, fuelling ecosystems by energy captured by plants from the sun via photosynthesis. Solar energy flows from plants to herbivores and omnivores and on to carnivores and finally to decomposers, with significant energy lost as heat at each level Biological growth as an ecosystem process, the tendency of ecological systems to increase their biomass and complexity over time
21
An ecosystem represents and includes all plants and animals (i.e., biotic elements) as well as the nonliving (i.e., abiotic elements) within a defined area. Therefore, ecosystem management is the identification of human and non-human attributes society wishes to retain from an area, setting priorities among those, and managing to sustain them. Ecosystem management (i.e., management of the landscape to sustain delivery of water and other ecosystem services) must address water quality, ecological base
22
flow, sediment regime, water yield and major storm events including floods. Centrally, ecosystems and ecosystem management explicitly include the human aspect. Because ecosystems do not have discrete sizes or boundaries, we need a construct to allow us to define edges, goals and flows. IWRM can be seen as one such operational unit, dealing with the water cycle as a core theme. IWRM and the management principles that are inherent in the approach are well developed and an integral part of ecosystem management. Ecosystem management is value added to an IWRM implementation; it can strengthen the ways IWRM is implemented in most cases because it increases attention to environmental flows and environmental issues in the water and on the landscape. For example, adopting an ecosystem approach helps IWRM managers consider ecosystem services outside the water.
notes on module 3
23
What Is an Ecosystem?
The concept of an ecosystem comes from the science of ecology, which is the study of the underlying principles and interactions of organisms and their environment. Ecological science can be very detailed; this section extracts from that science a few core principles that can be easily understood to help practical management. A widely used definition of an ecosystem is that adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA): A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. Although a useful and widely cited definition, defining an ecosystem as a functional unit poses significant challenges in defining boundaries as the basis of ecological functions. Therefore, in this workshop, we do not refer to ecosystems as functional units, because of the problems in defining spatial boundaries of ecological functions. An alternative definition of an ecosystem is the organisms and the abiotic environment found in a defined spatial area, and the interactions among those elements. Clearly, an ecosystem can be defined at any spatial scale, from a small pond to a region, or even the whole of planet Earth. The concept of an ecosystem provides a vision of an area as an ecological system, looking at the interactions among its living elements and their environment, as well as its properties as a living system. One of the main types of interactions of importance in an ecological system is movement of energy and matter through the system. This can mean, for example, the ways trees in a forest capture the suns energy through photosynthesis and the flow of this energy through a food web of herbivores, predators and decomposers.
24
In this workshop on ecosystem management, we recommend using the term ecosystem as a way of thinking and making decisions about land and water resources as ecological systems, without attempting to determine the precise spatial definition of any given ecosystem. Of course, all units of management need to be defined spatially, such as areas under particular land ownership or subject to specific management objectives. For management of water resources, this may mean the definition of a water catchment, which typically does not conform to land tenure or administrative boundaries. However, we recommend describing such a water management unit as a catchment area rather than an ecosystem; its ecological system properties can be considered once it has been hydrologically defined. Although we do not often use spatial boundaries of ecosystems for management, ecosystem mapping and classification schemes can be useful tools. Such schemes often define ecosystems in terms of their dominant vegetation or environmental features (e.g., a pine forest, grassland, lake, rock pool, or mountain ecosystem). The criteria used in those examples illustrate that the concept of an ecosystem is a human construct for describing the natural world. Ecosystems are defined according to the scale of our interests and decision-making powers. For this reason, it may be more useful to spatially classify areas as different types of environment, rather than as ecosystem types.
25
Because ecosystem services are defined in terms of their benefits to people, we should recognize that the value assigned to any ecosystem service is context-dependent. That is, the same feature can be considered a valuable ecosystem service by one group of people but not valued by another group. This value can even differ within a group, depending, for example on gender-specific or age-specific needs. Ecosystem services are not produced in isolation of each other. Rather, most ecosystems can supply a bundle of inter-related ecosystem services. A forest, for example, can provide both wood and non-wood products, regulate climate and water supply, purify air and drinking water, prevent soil erosion and support soil fertility. It can also play an important role in tourism and recreation and in some regions, may have religious value. The complex inter-relations among categories of ecosystem services means that there are often trade-offs in the supply of different services in a particular location. For example, increased flood propensity and reduced water quality often are associated with intensification of food production.
26
Ecosystem Functioning: Core processes and structure for the supply of services
Ecosystem Processes
The functioning of ecosystems, that is, how they work or operate as an ecological system, can be understood in terms of four core ecosystem processes and how these interact with the structure of the ecosystem and landscape. Management for specific ecosystem services needs to consider both the necessary ecosystem structure and the functioning of ecosystem processes to supply those services. Thinking of, and seeing the natural world in this way is central to an ecosystem approach to management.
27
The four core ecosystem processes that are part of the functioning of ecosystems at all scales are: Water cycling Mineral cycling Solar energy flow Biological growth
Water Cycling
Figure 2: Water Cycling Water is essential for life and is cycled through living organisms and ecosystems, as well as at the landscape- to continentalscale of evaporation from the oceans, cloud formation, rainfall and rivers (i.e., the water cycle). In ecosystem management, we are concerned with how to influence the water cycle at scales ranging from plants in a farmers field to catchments and river basins. Management can affect the time water is available in the soil for the growth of plants and all life, and whether rainfall flows into rivers, underground aquifers or evaporates back into the air.
Rainfall
Transpiration
Figure 2 illustrates the different pathways through which water may flow in a terrestrial ecosystem. The physical structure of the ecosystem, especially the vegetation, can greatly influence how much water flows through each of these pathways. If there are few plants and large areas of bare soil, rainfall is likely to quickly run off the surface into rivers and lakes or evaporate back into the atmosphere. If the soil is covered with vegetation, rainfall is more likely to soak into the soil and be retained, sustaining plant growth and organic decomposition (mineral cycling). A fundamental consideration in ecosystem management is determination of the extent of bare soil or vegetation cover required for the desired water cycling. A common myth is that more trees on a landscape means more water delivered downstream. That is highly contextual; it is correct in some settings but clearly untrue in others. If the vegetation does include trees, their roots will aid deeper soil penetration of rainfall and increase transpiration back to the atmosphere. The size and types of trees can have a very significant influence on the rates of water flow to underground aquifers and resultant springs and river flow. In some climates, ecosystem management may aim to remove trees to increase groundwater flows, but consideration should also be made of the potential significance of cloud formation at the regional scale due to transpiration by
28
trees. Ecosystem management of water cycling will need to consider the desired proportions of water from rainfall to flow through plants for ecosystem services based on plant growth (e.g., crops, livestock, timber, landscape values), as well as the volumes and timing of water flow for direct provision of freshwater and the regulation of flow to rivers, wetlands, aquifers and the atmosphere.
mineral Cycling
Figure 3: mineral Cycling
Atmospheric Carbon and Nitrogen
Minerals such as carbon and nitrogen are cycled to and from the physical environment by living organisms, with the amounts and rates of cycling dependent on ecosystem attributes (e.g., composition, structure, food web). Similarly, water is essential for life and is cycled through living organisms and ecosystems. Change in the functioning of any one of these core ecosystem processes is accompanied by a change in the functioning of the others; they are interlinked aspects of the same system.
At the heart of the mineral cycle in an ecosystem is a covered and biologically-active soil. If the ecosystem structure is very simple, as in the right-hand side of Figure 3, the volumes and rates of mineral cycling are low. With low numbers and variety of plants, consequently few animals, and large areas of bare soil, plants cycle few minerals from below-ground to capture and convert the suns energy into food above-ground. There is also little plant or animal growth and so little dead organic matter upon which soil decomposers live and form soil. In the left-hand side of Figure 3, ecosystem structure and the process of mineral cycling are much more complex. The soil is covered by vegetation, which encourages conditions for organic decomposition, and deep-rooted trees bring minerals to the surface. The rate of mineral cycling also is increased by large herbivores such as native grazers and cattle, as well as less-visible insects and other small animals. Herbivores greatly increase the rates of organic decomposition and liberation of minerals for plant and soil growth through their digestion and defecation of plant matter and their physical trampling of dead and living vegetation. The ecosystem processes of mineral and water cycling are very closely linked. In the right-hand side of Figure 3, the mineral cycle can be described as open, because minerals are being lost when it rains and water erodes the bare soil or leaches minerals from the soil as it infiltrates. A sign of an open and poorly functioning mineral cycle in a catchment is river water coloured brown by eroded soil
29
after rainfall. In the left-hand side of Figure 3, the mineral cycle is more closed, as minerals tend to accumulate locally and water run-off after rainfall is likely to be relatively slow and low in minerals.
erg En
at he as oss yl
6 5
Decay
scavengers / Decay
4 Further Predators, Including humans 3 2 Predators, Including humans Plant life on land and in Water Fish, Birds, Insects, Reptiles, and mammals, Including humans
Roughly 90 per cent of the available energy is lost in conversion from one level of the food web to the next, so the energy pyramid depicted above is actually much flatter than shown. The energy pyramid also extends below ground, where the biological community in the soil requires that energy in the form of organic material be conveyed underground through plant roots or surface-feeding worms, termites, dung beetles, and others. When managing land and water resources for particular ecosystem services, being able to think in terms of solar energy flow is important for several reasons. All provisioning services except freshwater supply are the product of living organisms. The production and biomass of these organisms depends directly on the amount of solar energy they can obtain. For the production of crop plants and trees, the application of ecosystem management can be seen as modifying ecosystem structure and processes to provide conditions for their growth. Similarly, production of domestic or wild animals depends on the amount of energy (food) available for them and the ecosystem structure to provide this food. Seeing agriculture in terms of managing the capture and flow of solar energy helps us choose management options. Increases in the capture of solar energy by crops can be achieved by increasing the area planted, their growth rate, and the period of favourable conditions for their growth. Agricultural and other land management practices can favour all of these increases, many of which can be achieved by improving the functioning of the water and mineral cycles for plant growth. Land management for water-based ecosystem services needs to determine the necessary ecosystem structure to promote the desired water service, which will center on the degree of soil cover and the types and structure of the vegetation. The desired vegetation will require a certain functioning
30
of the mineral cycle, including organic decomposition for soil formation, which in turn depends on the availability of solar energy being captured in the form of plant and animal matter for the soil community. Thus, the availability of solar energy transmitted by plants and animals to the soil community should be considered as part of management of water flows and quality.
Biological growth
The concept of biological growth as an ecosystem process describes the tendency of ecological systems to increase their biomass and complexity over time. Over even just one growing season, the amount of solar energy captured (and organic matter produced) in a location will increase, as will the diversity of organisms and complexity of interactions among them and their environment. Obviously, the longer or more constant and favourable the conditions are for biological growth, the greater will become biomass and ecological complexity. That is demonstrated, for example, by the size of the trees and the diversity of species and ecological interactions in the constant growth environment of a tropical rainforest, compared to a temperate zone seasonal forest. Biological growth at the scale of an ecosystem depends on the growth of individual organisms and populations of species. From the perspective of ecosystem management, managers for provisioning ecosystem services seek to promote the growth of valued species, whether domesticated plants and animals or wild species. Managers may also be working with ecosystem-scale of biological growth to encourage growth of soil, vegetation and animal communities for regulating and cultural ecosystem services such as flood mitigation and landscape values. Similarly, decomposition of accumulated organic matter is a core ecosystem process that must be optimized. Biological growth can also be seen as the more complex process of ecological succession. This is the process that occurs after an ecosystem has been simplified by a disturbance, such as a storm or human intervention like plowing land for crops. Ecological succession describes the subsequent stages of increasing ecosystem structural complexity, diversity and biomass from initial disturbance until some limit to growth is reached. An example of ecological succession is the reforestation of abandoned farmland in a humid forest environment. Farmers have long used this process when they leave a farmed area fallow to recover soil fertility. In many settings, biological growth responds to management in unintended ways. For example, overgrazing in South Africa or the Intermountain U.S. reduces vegetative cover, exposing soils. Those soils are subject to erosion, which causes negative downstream impacts and depletes the soil. However, those exposed soils also are readily colonized by invasive plants such (e.g., sicklebush in Africa). These very aggressive plants prevent native grasses from colonizing, offer very poor wildlife habitat and food, and are very resistant to control (The Safari Guide).
31
the Four Core Ecosystem Processes Are Aspects of the same system
While each of the four core ecosystem processes can be considered individually, they are completely interlinked, so change in the functioning of any one of them automatically means change in the functioning of the others. They are just different aspects of the same system. For example, an increase in the plant growth in an area means a change in water and mineral cycles as the plants take more water and minerals from the soil. The increased plant growth will mean that more solar energy is captured and available to herbivores, predators and decomposers, which in turn results in changes in the mineral cycle and the further growth of plants. Ecosystem management always needs to consider the desired of functioning of all four core ecosystem processes. They can be thought of as four different windows or perspectives on the same ecosystem.
Ecosystem Structure
When thinking of the natural world in terms of ecological systems, there are two complementary aspects of the term system: the processes that occur in the system and the structure of the system. The structure is what is physically seen and can be directly altered by management; the structure determines the functioning of the processes. For the purposes of ecosystem management, especially in freshwater systems, the most useful types of ecosystem structure from the perspective of management are Structure of the food web Physical structure of vegetation layers Soil coverage Water bodies Decomposition of organic matter Spatial configuration of species
Climate, topography and soil types are also major determinants of ecosystem structure and processes, but these are less amenable to management actions. It is beyond the scope of this guidance to give details of how ecosystem structure can be categorized and managed in all environments. However, the following are examples of basic questions that can be addressed in most situations, through a combination of local knowledge and objective data collection:
32
Soil Structure
Does the desired functioning of the mineral and water cycles require the entire soil surface to be covered by vegetation? Does the soil need to be more or less porous to rainfall and air? Does the soil need to contain more organic matter for the desired plant community and soil formation?
Water Bodies
Is surface water needed for the desired species and landscape ecosystem services? How does the local water cycle and the level of the water table or underground aquifer need to be managed to ensure sustainability of the desired ecosystem services and water bodies? How does precipitation vary throughout the catchment and the year? Are there rainwater harvesting practices that are important to water management? Storage of precipitation is a critical function of soils in an ecosystem; those waters are made available through plant uptake, springs and groundwater recharge. How is that considered in management?
33
Ecosystem management requires paying attention to the functioning of the four core ecosystem processes and the necessary ecosystem and landscape structure for their desired functioning, as required to deliver the desired ecosystem services. The goals and actions for this will always be location-specific. They will require managers to use local, traditional and scientific knowledge to determine the necessary ecosystem functioning and structure, considering climate, soil types and topography. To help understand the local environment as an ecosystem, it is instructive to consider how the ecosystem processes and structure were before aggressive human use began (approximately the time of the Industrial Revolution in many places of the world), and the subsequent response of the ecosystem to changes humans imposed.
34
notes on module 4
35
module 5: A Conceptual Framework for understanding Ecosystem state and Impact 8:009:30
module 5 at a glance
As we change some attributes and flows, there is a concomitant change in others. We can use the Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework to express those changes
36
or background erosion. Anthropogenic pressures include human activities that lead directly to changes in ecosystem conditions. Anthropogenic pressures are typically but not exclusively thought of as negative influences (e.g., emission of a pollutant into a river system). Drivers or driving forces refer to broader forces of societal change that set the stage for those anthropogenic pressures. Typical examples include demographic change or changes in consumption preferences that create the conditions for polluting activities. Human well-being is very closely coupled with the ability of ecosystems to provide goods and services. Due to that linkage, the DPSIR framework helps identify Impacts. These include both impacts on human well-being and impacts on the ability of ecosystems to provide services. Figure 5: the Four Components of the DPsIR model of Ecosystem state and Function
humAn soCIEIty DRIVERs
step 1
PREssuREs
imPacts step 2 Human well-being Economic Social Goods & Services Ecosystem Services
step 1
Natural processes
step 1
What is happening to the environment and why? What are the consequences for the environment and humanity?
(Source: Pintr et al., 2007) Figure 5 shows a simple representation of the DPSIR components of the framework and their connections. Of course, these connections are anything but simple. Environmental state and trends are usually the net result of multiple, interacting forces of change. In any given ecosystem, there are also
37
many different subsystems and associated variables (e.g., the hydrological regime, soil, biodiversity) that define overall ecosystem conditions. It is also clear that changes in one ecosystem condition can result in cascading sets of impacts. For example, changes in the hydrologic cycle can have implications for agriculture, hydropower production, public health, municipal infrastructure, and others. While recognizing simple cause-effect relationships is important, ecosystem management must take into account the full complexity of these relationships as they play out on the landscape over time. A DPSIR analysis focused on a given ecosystem will identify different relationships. For example, a DPSIR analysis may depend on whether the focus of the analysis is on water, air, soil or some other environmental issue. Yet, from the point of view of the entire ecosystem, it is important to consider each issue singly and identify its interconnections with other issues. Additional considerations arise from the fact that local ecosystems are embedded in regional and global realities. For example, the success of given wetland restoration will be affected by upstream water supply or the stability of the underground aquifer. At a more coarse scale, successful restoration ultimately will be affected by changes in the long-term pattern of drought, wet cycles and other elements of climate. Global and regional trends and processes provide the context and often directly influence the direction and rate of change in local ecosystems (Figure 6). Figure 6: linkages Among landscape units at Various spatial scales
(Source: Pintr et al., 2007) The next sections provide an overview of the use of the DPSIR framework to help us answer the following questions: What is happening to our ecosystem and why? What are the consequences for the ecosystem and for human society? Addressing these questions can be guided by principles focused on sustainability assessment, such as the BellagioSTAMP (i.e., Sustainability Assessment and Measurement Principles) (Box 1).
38
39
7. Broad participation To strengthen their legitimacy and relevance, sustainability assessments should Find appropriate ways to reflect the views of the public, while providing active leadership Engage early on with users of the assessment so it best fits their needs 8. Continuity and capacity Assessments of progress towards sustainable development require Repeated measurement Responsiveness to change Investment to develop and maintain adequate capacity Continuous learning and improvement source: http://www.iisd.org/measure/principles/progress/bellagiostamp/principles.asp
40
table 2: Examples of Priority Environmental Issues From the Asia-Pacific region three categories of primary and secondary environmental concerns in Fiji (sPREP, 2004a) marine and freshwater quality habitat and community modification and Excessive nutrient loading and sedimentation degradation Loss of marine habitats and disruption in rivers and coastal waters due to poor land of coastal processes caused by coastal use practices o Marine pollution from sewage and developments industrial effluents o Land and coastal-based pollutionpoor disposal of liquid and solid waste unsustainable use of living marine resources Over-exploitation of marine resources and inadequate means to monitor over fishing o Use of destructive fishing practices Priority environmental concerns in Papua new guinea (sPREP, 2004b) 1. Declining water quality in rivers and coastal 6. Increasing land degradation 7. Disturbed or unpredictable hydrological waters 2. Increasing environmental risks from hazardous regimes 8. Climate change materials and wastes 3. Inadequate or unsatisfactory water supplies 9. Air pollution 10. Noise pollution 4. Loss of critical habitats and biodiversity 5. Declining coastal and marine resources Water, land, atmosphere and biodiversity are some of the overall natural ecosystem categories within which more specific issues can be identified. The point is to start by seeking agreement on a broad thematic framework, followed by identification of specific priorities, using language that is familiar to ecosystem users or stakeholders in a given place. table 3: Priority issues can be identified based on a range of criteria: SMART, that is, they are . . . specific measurable attainable realistic timely Relevant to stakeholders Significant impact on human well-being Associated with changing dynamics Associated with new scientific insights Address potential future risk Proximal to critical thresholds
The mechanics of prioritization are a critical part of the process (i.e., Who is able to participate and in what role?, How are priorities listed and then how are long lists of issues narrowed down to a manageable few?). There is no golden rule about the number of priority issues a DPSIR analysis can tackle; it depends on the type and condition of the ecosystem, the number and type of participants, and the capacity of the institutions coordinating the analysis. In a new assessment, 1520 priority issues may be as many as the process can credibly handle, but this number may be lower if managers explicitly adopt a gradual learning-by-doing approach where initially only a few ecosystem domains are covered.
41
What Are the specific States or Conditions Beyond the Priority Ecosystem Issues Identified and how Did these states and Conditions Change over time? With the identification of a concise set of priority issues and concerns, the focus of the DPSIR analysis has been established. Because issues or concerns are often expressed using popular terminology, their relationship with specific ecosystem conditions needs to be established. These ecosystem conditions need to be defined precisely enough that in a subsequent step, you can select clear indicators that describe their current state and development over time. Examples for connecting ecosystem states to issues and overall themes are shown in Table 4. table 4: Illustration of Ecosystem states Derived From general Concerns Theme Water Issue Water shortage Algal blooms Ecosystem state examples Groundwater level Recharge rate Concentration of relevant nutrients Biological oxygen demand Turbidity Risk of soil erosion Soil organic matter content Land that is built over Size of protected areas Number of significant invasives Area affected by specific invasives
Land
Biodiversity
To understand how these ecosystem states change over space and time, you will need to identify specific indicators. Indicators represent a measurable description of a specific ecosystem condition and they can serve as instruments to diagnose problems or measure the effects of management action. Indicator selection is usually a separate sub-process involving, or at least consulting technical experts or literature on how relevant environmental variables can be measured. Indicators often rely on data that already exist or can be gathered given existing technical, scientific and capacity constraints. Typically, indicator selection is guided by indicator criteria. There are many potential indicator criteria; some of the more common indicators are: Developed within an accepted conceptual framework Clearly defined and easy to understand Subject to aggregation Objective Developed with reasonable data requirements Relevant to users Limited in number Reflective of causes, processes or results
42
Box 2: selected Examples for Ecosystem state Indicators for north Americas great lakes2 Category: Coastal zone and aquatic habitats Issue: Naturalness of riparian habitat Indicator: Percentage of hardened shoreline Analysis: Shoreline hardening refers to lake shoreline that has been artificially developed and lost its character and most of its function as natural habitat. The process may be irreversible on regular human time scales. Category: Invasive species Issue: Presence and damage caused by non-native species Indicator: Cumulative number of aquatic nonnative species Analysis: The number of non-native species in the Great Lakes is steadily increasing. About 10 per cent of the non-native species can be considered invasive (i.e., has the potential to cause significant damage to ecosystems or human systems).
Exercise
Imagine that you are manager of a catchment. Your stakeholders have commissioned you to sustain delivery of several ecosystem services. Use the following table to indicate how you will know if stakeholder needs have been met: Ecological service Drinking water Flood avoidance Adequate water for irrigation Avoidance of downstream nutrient impacts Avoidance of downstream sedimentation High aquatic biodiversity Indicator measurement
43
What Are the key Pressures and Drivers that Contributed to the specific Changes Identified?
Once changes in ecosystem states and conditions are documented, the next task in the DPSIR framework is to analyze the causes of change. Ecosystems are affected by multiple forces of change, some natural, but others increasingly anthropogenic. As a result of global change, including climate change, the role of human activities as compared with natural forces in determining ecosystem conditions is increasing. With regard to anthropogenic forces, the DPSIR framework differentiates between drivers and pressures. Pressures are more easily identified, as they have a direct relationship with changes in ecosystem conditions. For example, changes in certain water quality variables may be associated with point or nonpoint source emissions or land-use change. Even after pressures are identified, there is still considerable complexity because there usually is more than one pressure contributing to a specific change. The source of pressures may be geographically distant (e.g., acid rain) or may build up over time (e.g., bioaccumulation of toxicants). They may also originate from different sectors (e.g., agriculture, industry, the municipal sector) Drivers represent broad societal processes that create the conditions for the development of human societies in a particular direction. Drivers typically change more slowly and their effects on ecosystem conditions are indirect. Similar to ecosystem state and condition, drivers and pressures can be analyzed with the help of indicators. Whereas state indicators relate to the change of a particular ecosystem variable, driving force or pressure indicators measure changes in processes and activities that contribute to such changes. Table 5 shows examples of typical drivers and pressures. table 5: Exemplary Drivers and Pressures, taken from gEo 4 DRIVERS Consumption and production patterns Demographics Science and technological innovation Economic demand, markets and trade Institutional and sociopolitical frameworks Distribution patterns PRESSURES Sectors Agriculture, fisheries and forestry Transport and housing Finance and trade Energy and industry Security and defence Science and education Culture
Human influence Pollution Land use Resource extraction Modification and movement of organisms
44
45
46
Any given change in environmental conditions is a result of multiple driving forces and states. Such changes may lead to multiple, simultaneous impacts. Identifying impacts can benefit from stakeholder input, because various stakeholders experience different impacts, depending on their specific interests and use of ecosystem goods and services. To bring together the first four elements of the DPSIR framework, we can prepare an impact pathway using any environmental condition as a starting point, identifying multiple pressures and driving forces, and then multiple impacts. The direction and strength of the relationships can be indicated with thick or thin arrows. Such a diagram becomes a useful reference tool to help conceptualize and compare management responses.
47
notes on module 5
48
49
Figure 7: Flow Diagram of a Pathway for using Ecosystem services to Identify management objectives
50
ensure sustainability. Ecosystem services are identified in relation to each of the four core ecosystem processes. For each process, Table 7 offers examples of relevant ecosystem services and how they could be measured. The examples are not a checklist, but rather should be used to prompt thinking about what ecosystem services are required and ways the might be measured. table 7: Exemplary Ecosystem services Related to the Four Core Ecosystem Processes
Exemplary ecosystem services related to the water cycling ecosystem process Provisioning ecosystem services
Water for crop irrigation, cubic metre (m3) per day for x days
Exemplary ecosystem services related to the mineral cycling ecosystem process Provisioning ecosystem services
Mineral levels in the soil necessary for food crops, forage for livestock, or tree growth soil pH, mineral parts per million, % organic matter River or lake water turbidity and quality for aquaculture Drinking water quality for x number of people daily, or yearly
Soil water moisture levels for agricultural crop or tree growth, x % humidity for x days Water flow from springs or pumped from groundwater for livestock and wildlife drinking at x litres per day for x days River water flow or volume in lake for aquaculture Downstream water quality for other users (e.g., or transport, x m3 per day industry, domestic, agriculture, HEP) Drinking water for x number of people daily, or yearly, at x litres per person Downstream water flow and quality for other users (e.g., industry, domestic, agriculture, HEP)
Exemplary ecosystem services related to the solar energy flow ecosystem process Provisioning ecosystem services
Levels of photosynthesis by food crops, forage for livestock and wildlife, tree growthbiomass increase, kilogram/hectare (kg/ha) Levels of sugars and protein in forage for livestock and wildlife, % protein Availability of prey for wild predators valued for hunting, tourism or regulation of prey species
Exemplary ecosystem services related to the biological growth ecosystem process Provisioning ecosystem services
Growth rates and production of food crops, forage for livestock and wildlife, trees, medicinal plants, fish, game species, biomass increase, kg/ha Availability of prey for wild predators hunted commercially or for recreation Availability of organisms to ensure the decomposition process
51
Availability of food and habitat for animals that pollinate and disperse the seeds of crops and wild plants Availability of food for predators that reduce Availability of food and habitat for predators populations of agricultural pests and human that reduce populations of agricultural pests disease agents and human disease agents Production of plant matter to support soil Production of plant matter and animal wastes formation, kg/ha to support soil formation, kg/ha. Global climate regulation through the sequestration Global climate regulation through the of carbon dioxide by vegetation and soils, tonnes of sequestration of carbon dioxide by vegetation carbon/ha and soils, tonnes of carbon/ha
Water Cycling
The water cycle as an ecosystem process can be described in terms of how much and how fast or slow the water is cycling in the locality for each of the pathways to which rain water could flow (Figure 2, Module 4). These pathways are Surface runoff Surface evaporation, infiltration into the soil Transpiration from the soil to the atmosphere through plants Penetration to underground water resources Rainfall
52
The water cycle can also be described in terms of extent of lakes or wetlands, flow rates and number of days at a given level of flow of streams and rivers, and depth of the water table or aquifers. The incidence of droughts and floods are also important aspects of the water cycle, with their severity greatly influenced by the proportion of bare soil in an area and whether the soil surface is permeable to rainwater infiltration and evaporation. Evidence of soil erosion, such as gullies, also indicates problems in the water cycle.
mineral Cycling
The functioning of the mineral cycle is ideally described in terms of the amounts and rates of cycling, but may often be adequately described through indicators instead. Good indicators of the functioning of the mineral cycle include The percentage of ground covered by vegetation and leaf litter The abundance of decomposers such as fungi and dung beetles The abundance of herbivores for the conversion of plant matter into dung and urine Decomposition time of leaf litter and animal dung Presence of a porous or capped soil surface, and of deep or shallow rooted plant Turbidity levels of water bodies The functioning of the mineral cycle in a locality can also be described as open or relatively closed in terms of whether minerals are being lost or maintained on the site. The desired main destinations or sinks of minerals can also be described, such as in the soil, plants, animals, runoff to surface or underground water, or liberation to the atmosphere through fires.
Biological growth
At one level, biological growth can be simply categorized in terms of growth rates of populations of valued species, whether domesticated or wild. An estimate of the biomass of each level of the food web is also an important indicator of its functioning. Biological growth in terms of ecological succession
53
can be described in terms of the desired successional stage that a valued species requires, such as recently disturbed bare ground, vegetation regrowth in the first five years after fire, or mature forest. Some species may require a mosaic of such habitats. Valued landscapes and other cultural ecosystem services may be linked to certain stages of ecological succession. The process of biological growth and ecological succession may also be desired for its impact on other ecosystem processes, such as the mineral cycle and soil formation.
54
Herbivores; include wild and domesticated animals, considering requirements for people to harvest them, their role in grazing and browsing vegetation for desired vegetation growth, landscape values and functioning of the mineral and water cycles, and as prey for predators Plants are the foundation of the food web; consider the levels of photosynthesis necessary for crop production, and to provide solar energy for the herbivores, predators and decomposers, as well as the physical role of plants in the water and mineral cycles For each of these four food web categories, desired ecosystem structure can be described in terms of Desired total biomass Key species presence and abundance for the identified ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, cultural, supporting) Spatial distribution and variation Requirements for biological growth, including water, minerals, food and physical habitat Physical role in the water and mineral cycles
Water Cycle
Consider desired levels of water in the soil and deeper underground resources, vegetation structure, including Grass and herb soil cover and spacing Root depth and biomass Shrub layer and cover Tree layer and cover
Mineral Cycle
Consider the desired main destinations or sinks of minerals, such as in the soil, plants, animals, runoff to surface or underground water, or liberation to the atmosphere through fires, vegetation structure, including Grass and herb soil cover and spacing Food for herbivores and frugivores at ground, shrub and canopy heights Physical retention of dead and decaying vegetation from rain and wind erosion Shrub layer and cover
55
Biological Growth
Consider the growth requirements of valued species, and vegetation growth for desired successional stages: Plant biomass and leaf area at each level of ground, shrubs, canopy and below-ground (roots)
Soil Structure
The most important aspects of soil structure for ecosystem functioning are Whether the surface is bare or covered with vegetation If the soil surface has formed a hard cap that is resistant to water and air flow The depth of the organic layer The soil crumb structure (aggregated soil particles held together with glue provided by decomposing organic matter); the space around each crumb provides room for water and air, which promotes plant growth and organic decomposition
Macro-drivers
In all landscapes, there are coarse-scale, natural drivers of pattern. For example, floods drive interaction between the riparian zone and the river channel in most tropical rivers; annual flooding is critical for distribution of sediment, nutrients, energy and propagules. In other landscapes, the driving force might be fire (e.g., Veldt) or grazing (Kjell et al., 2006).
56
natural environment works or operates as an ecosystem. Existing knowledge and approaches are still valid and used, but with the context and consideration of their effects on ecosystem structure and processes to supply a desired range of ecosystem services. The specific form of management action planning will depend on the circumstances and culture of the managers.
step 6: Evaluate the Risk of Bad landscape transformations From a management Action
Module 4 introduced the concept of ecosystem resilience, the idea of and transformation risk as one way of measuring resilience. Before any planned management actions are implemented, they should be assessed to see if they could increase the risk of transformation of ecosystem functioning to an undesirable state. This first requires identifying possible thresholds for undesirable changes in ecosystem structure and processes. This should be done for each of the ecosystem processes. Each planned management action should be assessed for the risk of it causing the crossing of such thresholds of ecosystem transformation. If the combination of the probability of such a transformation and the impact of its occurrence are too high, then the management action needs to be changed.
57
For management of ecosystem functioning, indicators need to be identified for each of the four ecosystem processes to ensure progress and provide early-warning of problems. Selection of monitoring indicators should be done when management actions are being selected. Consideration of how indicators will be measured and reported is an important part of this process. Some examples of potential indicators of ecosystem functioning can be taken from the examples in Module 6.
notes on module 6
58
Mid-term Assessment: What things are going well and what could be improved? 11:3012:00
59
What did you want to know about the catchment? Did you learn the answers to your questions? What do you understand about who plays what role in the catchment? Were you able to detect and interpret gender differences? Identify at least one change to your groups conceptual model that resulted from this visit.
notes on module 7
60
61
62
how ecosystem services can help dealing with water scarcity. Other environmental flows case studies can be found at the FLOW web site.. Methods for evaluating environmental flows also are reviewed and contrasted in Arthingon and Zalucki (1998). Other resources on the topic of environmental flows include the Global Environmental Flows Network (free registration) and ConserveOnline. More generally, the GWP toolbox provides guidance on understanding water resources and needs in relation to ecosystem assessments. Complementary tools are available for how to manage the water resources knowledge base, evaluate water resources through assessment, use of modeling and Decision Support Systems (DSS), and develop water management indicators. To move from assessment to implementation, development options have to combine resource use and human interaction through planning. It is in this context that integration takes place, cutting across water systems (e.g., river basin plans, groundwater management plans, coastal zone management plans) and disciplines (e.g., risk assessment and management, environmental assessments, social assessments, economic assessments).
63
Additional resources on the topic of governance will have to delve into institutional roles and regulatory instruments. In terms of reformed institutions for better governance, new forms and functions can involve national apex bodies, river basin organizations, regulatory bodies and enforcement agencies, or other service providers in the context of IWRM. Topics within regulatory instruments are defined as ranging from regulations for water quality, water quantity and water services, to land use planning controls and nature protection.
64
Additional publications, case studies and experience sharing forums on the topic of informed investment decisions can be found with the Nature Valuation and Financing Network (NV&F). The aim of NV&F is to stimulate the development and exchange of practical tools and best practice for the valuation of ecosystem goods and services, so that decisions concerning economic development are made with full awareness and understanding of all the costs and benefits involved.
65
use, manage and care for water resources. NEGOTIATE: Reaching agreements over water makes the case for constructive engagement and cooperative forms of negotiation in dealing with complex water issues. It unpacks constructive approaches such as MultiStakeholder Platforms (MSPs) and ConsensusBuilding, and focuses on the diversity of agreements which can be produced to regulate or encourage more fair and effective water allocation and use. New community-led institutions are empowered to make decisions and represent local views and development priorities in higher level forums such as the Mekong Region Waters Dialogues. There, broad participation of multilateral agencies, government, private sector, policy consultants and advisors, members of academia and activists from NGOs has provided for interaction among stakeholders who historically have seldom met to discuss common concerns over water resource use and development in the region. At the local level, villagers also have the opportunity to use indigenous knowledge to conduct participatory research for informing decision making over fish stocks. Other case studies about empowerment and enabled participation can be found at http://iucn. org/about/work/programmes/water/resources/toolkits/negotiate/. One important resource that marginalized people and their allies can use to have a greater positive influence on natural resources policy is IIEEDs Power Tools. This toolkit is comprised of 26 how-to ideas based on experience from around the world, discussion of power tools in theory and practice, related research on policy tools in action, and a directory of many other websites that contain policy tool resources.
66
organizational framework for ecosystem management. As an example, building well-functioning water partnerships requires thorough understanding of the role of the private sector, including strengthening of water utilities, as well as of local authorities and civil society institutions such as community-based organizations. Conflict management, shared vision planning and consensus building will also have to be dealt with for conflict resolution and meaningful negotiations.
notes on module 8
67
module 9: thinking like a manager: Beginning the cycle of strategic adaptive management 10:0012:00
learning objectives for module 9
At the successful completion of this module, an ecosystem manager will have a basic understanding of the rationale for, and the means to undertake, an integrated approach to the first three stages of strategic and adaptive ecosystem management (i.e., ecosystem assessment, shared visioning, and planning a portfolio of ecosystem initiatives).
68
table 8: Principles for Intervening in Complex Adaptive systems (swanson & Bhadwal, 2009) Policy-making stages Policy setup, understanding the issue and policy objective setting synthesis of Principles for Adaptive Policy-making Conduct integrated and forward-looking analysis (Swanson & Tomar, 2009) Understand interactions with the natural, built and social environment (Glouberman et al., 2003; Holling, 1978) Look for linkages in unusual places (Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001) Determine significant connections rather than measure everything (Holling, 1978) Scenario planning helps structure the perceptions of executives about alternative future settings in which their decisions might play out (Ralston & Wilson, 2006) use multistakeholder deliberation (Tyler, 2009) Public discourse and open deliberation are important elements of social learning and policy adaptation (Steinemann & Norton, 2003) Build trust, collaboration, consensus, identity, values, and capacity for social action (Forester, 1999) Use epistemic communities to inform policy design and implementation (Haas, 1992) Co-design and learning (Grin et al., 2010) Promoting Variation (Nair & Roy, 2009) Promote variation and redundancy (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003; Holling, 1978; Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Glouberman et al., 2003) Policies should test clearly formulated hypotheses about the behaviour of an ecosystem being changed by human use (Lee, 1993) Learning and adaptation of the policy be made explicit at the outset and the inevitable policy changes become part of a larger, recognized process (Walker & Marchau, 2003) Enable self-organization and networking (Roy, Nair, & Venema, 2009) Create opportunity for self-organization and build networks of reciprocal interaction (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Berkes et al., 2003; Glouberman et al., 2003) Ensure that social capital remains intact (Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001) Promote effective neighborhoods of adaptive cooperation (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000) Members of the population have to be free and able to interact (Rihani, 2002) Facilitate copying of successes (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001) Decentralize decision making (Barg & Tyler, 2009) Match scales of ecosystems and governance and build cross-scale governance mechanisms (Berkes et al., 2003) Clear identification of the appropriate spatial and temporal scale is vital to integrated management (the ecosystem approach; UNEP, 2000)
69
monitoring and Formalize policy review and continuous improvement (Tomar & Swanson, continuous learn- 2009) ing and improve- Integral to design are the monitoring and remedial mechanismsshould not ment be post ad hoc additions after implementation (Holling, 1978) Fine-tune the process (Glouberman et al., 2003) Conduct selection (Glouberman et al., 2003) Use policy pilots (U.K. Cabinet Office, 2003) Make use of automatic policy adjustment (Bhadwal et al., 2009) Policies should be expected to evolve in their implementation (Majone & Wildavsky, 1978; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999) Understand carefully the attribution of credit (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000)
Chief among these principles from a management perspective is the importance of promoting variation because introducing small-scale interventions for the same problem offers greater hope of finding effective solutions. This principle is based on the appreciation that many interventions will fail and that such failures are simply a feature of how one develops successful interventions in complex adaptive system. It is also understood that in complex adaptive systems possible solutions undergo selection by the system; therefore, important aspects include evaluating performance of potential solutions, and selecting the best candidates for further support and development. Indeed, Buzz Holling, one of the fathers of the adaptive management approach, suggests that integral to design are that the monitoring and remedial mechanisms should not be ad hoc additions after implementation (Holling, 1978). This is amplified by another pioneer in adaptive management, Kai Lee, who recommends that policies should test clearly formulated hypotheses about the behaviour of an ecosystem being changed by human use (1992). Understanding the role of variance, of questioning and re-questioning our management is becoming more critical as we become more aware of climate change and its significance. Climate change is a global phenomenon that is affecting every person, every landscape and every resource. We have many predictions that areas of the earth will become wetter or drier, warmer or colder. Because climates are so complex and so variable, showing changes in average condition is very difficult. We do know that the variance will increase before we see statistically significant changes in average condition. We will see increased floods, droughts, hot spells, cold winters, and other extremes. Journalist Tom Friedman has called this phenomenon Global weirding (Friedman, 2010). That pattern puts extra pressure on ecosystem managers to manage adaptively, to set goals, take action, measure frequently, and alter management practices as necessary. Another set of principles for intervening in complex adaptive systems points to the importance of understanding local conditions, strengths and assets and the interactions with the natural, built and social environment. This is the rationale for beginning any ecosystem management effort with
70
assessment. The key to assessment is obtaining an understanding of current conditions and trends both by respecting historyas complex adaptive systems are shaped by their past (Glouberman et al . 2003), and through a prospective mindto help make societies more resilient to external shocks and more supple in response to rapid change (Homer-Dixon, 2006). Finally, the rationale for being strategic in ecosystem management is twofold. First, given the reality of available human and financial resources, it is simply not possible to focus on managing everything. Second, experience with interventions in complex adaptive systems instructs us to determine significant connections rather than measure everything (Holling, 1978), and in doing so, it is important to look for linkages in unusual places. These principles inform the steps for strategic and adaptive ecosystem management that are outlined in this module, namely Ecosystem assessment: Using a conceptual framework of ecosystem goods and services to understand the systempast, present and futureand to identify leverage points for intervention. Shared visioning: Deliberating with stakeholders to identify a shared vision of the ultimate outcome of management interventions. Portfolio planning: Deliberating with stakeholders and experts to identify and agree on implementation of a variety of ecosystem initiatives that have potential to achieve the ultimate outcome. The portfolio approach embodies the humility of human intervention in complex adaptive systems. We cannot know in advance what will work. It helps us identify co-benefits, situations in which the interest of several stakeholders is advanced by one series of activities. Portfolio piloting: Implementing a portfolio of ecosystem initiatives and monitoring key performance indicators is at the heart of adaptive management. We refer to this stage as piloting to emphasize that, in a complex adaptive system, any ecosystem initiative must always be treated as a hypothesis in need of testing. Monitoring and assessment: The spirit of a pilot test is review and learning; this appreciates that in complex adaptive systems, it will be the system that determines what works and what does not. The ecosystem manager must first and foremost be a learner. Portfolio refinement: The lessons from piloting a variety of ecosystem initiatives will provide the necessary insight or impetus for implementing an improvement in the portfolio. This may include adjustments to a given initiative(s), or the termination of one more initiatives.
71
stakeholder vision
shared objectives
Ecosystem Assessment
The intent of this first stage of strategic and adaptive ecosystem management is to gain an understanding of the current state and trends of the ecosystem from both a socioeconomic and ecologic perspective. A good guiding motto for the ecosystem manager at this stage is respect the past, understand the present, and explore the future. It is commonly recognized that complex adaptive systems are shaped by their past. Knowledge and understanding of this history will properly ground the ecosystem manager and provide a vantage point for seeing opportunities for the future. Understanding the present is the reference point for strategic management because it illuminates the issues and provides information to help prioritize the most pressing of these, as well as to identify issues that are resulting in cumulative effects. Exploring the future trends of key issues is also important for prioritizing issues, communicating the urgency of issues, and providing the context within which actions can be tested for their robustness and adaptability. Thinking like an ecosystem is important at this stage. Module 4 presented a conceptual model of ecosystem goods and services as a foundational tool for ecosystem management. Gaining an appreciation for the goods and services that your ecosystem provides, along with how these services affect the quality of life of people living within the ecosystem is crucial to an integrated assessment of your ecosystem (Figure 9).
72
Freedom of choice and action Opportunity to be able to achieve what an individual values doing and being
(Source: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A framework for assessment. Reproduced with permission of Island Press) Ecosystem assessment requires more than a conceptual model; it also requires a simplified cause and effect systems map to help the ecosystem manager see the integrated story behind particular issues. The Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework is one such simplified systems map. The DPSIR was introduced in Module 6 and is used by UNEP for global and national reporting on the state of the environment. This analytical framework, summarized again in Figure 10, is most successfully applied in a deliberative and participatory manner, harnessing the multiple perspectives of different stakeholders who have interest in the issue and experts who have knowledge about the issue. Three core questions are addressed by the DPSIR framework, including What is happening to the environment and why What are the consequences for the environment and humanity? What is being done and how effective is it?
73
A DPSIR assessment is a useful tool for the ecosystem manager because it can help illuminate the co-benefits among issues. The DPSIR for each of several issues can identify ones that have similar pressures and drivers, impacts and responses. Addressing a single pressure or driver may benefit several environmental states; similarly, the improvement of one environmental state may have benefits for several aspects of well-being. Co-benefits analysis is critical for the next stages of shared visioning and portfolio planning because it helps the manager understand potential joint gains among seemingly disparate stakeholder groups.
74
Your facilitators will ask you to complete a co-benefits matrix, using the format below. table 9: template for a Co-benefits matrix Drivers, Pressures and Impacts Environmental State issues of concern in Commonalities and the ecosystem stakeholders (i.e., a common driver or issue #1 issue #2 a driver influencing another driver or pressure)
state of the environment List state or condition for the issues you have identified. Pressures List the direct pressures on the states you identified above. Drivers List the high-level drivers of change influencing the direct pressures identified above, along with any specific targets that are relevant. Impacts Articulate the primary impacts associated with changes in the environmental state. Use the ecosystem services and wellbeing categories to assist with this analysis.
shared Visioning
If the ecosystem assessment is comprehensive in nature (i.e., not initiated to address a specific issue), an array of pressing ecosystem issues is likely to be identified and in need of attention. How does one proceed given limited financial and human resources? As an ecosystem manager, you will need to prioritize which ones to address first and which will need to be addressed later. That is most effectively achieved through consultation with a stakeholder group that has perceived legitimacy (either an existing council or an informal collection of stakeholders convened for this purpose). The desired outcome at this stage is a shared vision on the ultimate long-term outcomes as they relate one or more issues. We present here a scenario backcasting approach to enable the ecosystem manager to facilitate a multistakeholder process for articulating a shared vision for the ecosystem and to identify priorities. Backcasting is an analytical and deliberative process for articulating an end-vision and developing a pathway to get from the present to that endpoint. The key questions asked in such a process begin with How could we achieve ? This process differs from a scenario forecasting approach in which alternative plausible What if scenarios of the future are developed with the present day as a starting point, unconstrained by a predetermined end vision.
75
(Source; The Natural Step, 2011, reprinted with permission) The intent is to deliberate until a shared space is identified where everyone can agree on the ultimate outcome. Kai Lee offered an account of adaptive management in the Columbia River Basin; he describes this process as creating an arena of bounded conflict. One persons goal may be another persons strategy. The facilitator helps the group move up the spectrum until shared space vision is found, then conduct trials on the strategies/means for achieving the shared vision. Involving stakeholders in the ecosystem assessment process as early as possible makes the shared visioning process easier to initiate and undertake: shared knowledge and ownership of the assessment creates trust and gives the ecosystem assessment legitimacy. The ecosystem assessment is the starting point for articulating a shared vision. The identified future states of the environment provide the framework for the shared vision as these are the ultimate long-term outcomes. With a co-benefits matrix completed for the various environmental state issues of concern in the ecosystem, it is possible for the ecosystem manager to identify key stakeholders and discuss the desired future state of the environment and associated social and economic benefits. Clarifying the actual desired future states of the environment, or in other words, the target, is the core challenge for the ecosystem manager at this stage. Targets should be SMARTSpecific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Setting targets is both art and science. The art is the ability to set achievable and relevant targets and to select from among the different types of targets that can be set for an indicator. The science of target setting ensures that the target is SMART and has a rational basis. Ideally, environmental targets should be science-based and reflect the carrying capacity of the
76
ecosystem. This is not always possible with available time and resources. Many different types of targets can be used by ecosystem managers to make progress towards ecosystem maintenance or restoration (Table 10). For example, benchmark targets compare against performance in other jurisdictions. Thresholds on the other hand, are scientifically based and reflect a critical value for an environmental state indicator, a value that once reached, can elicit irreversible change in the behaviour of the system. A standard is typically a national or internationally accepted and legally bound level of an environmental state or pressure indicator (e.g., water quality standards, pollutant loading limits). Policy-specific targets are typically determined in political deliberation and are often based on past experience (e.g., official development assistance shall be 0.4 per cent of national GDP). table 10: Benchmark targets type of target Benchmark Example Comparison with a documented best -case performance related to the same variable within anotherentity or jurisdiction. The policy is evaluated based on its impact in a given jurisdiction compared with conditions in the benchmark or reference jurisdiction. Example: highest percentage of households connected to sewage system in a comparable jurisdiction thresholds The value of a key variable that will ellicit a fundamental and irreversible change in the behaviour of the system. The policy is evaluated based on its role in making the system move toward or away from the threshold in any given period. Example: maximum sustainable yield of a fishery. Principle A broadly defined and often formally accepted rule. If the definition of the principle does not include a relevant performance measure, the evaluator should seek a mandat e to identify one as part of the evaluation. Example: the policy should contribute to the increase of environmental literacy. standards Nationally and/or internationally accepted properties for proced ures or environmental qualities. The policy is successful if it helps keep performance within specified limits. Example: water quality standards for a variety of uses. Policy-specific targets Determined in a political and/or technical process taking past p erformance and desirable outcomes into account. Example: official development assistance shall be 0.4 percent ofnational GNP.
77
table 11: Examples of types of targets Your facilitators will ask you to use the template below to record the results of your discussion. issue #1 general description Environmental state variable of focus Current state Desired Future state (level and year) key ecosystem services and human well-being aspects supported
Portfolio Planning
You have a shared space defined by your agreement on the desired future state of the ecosystem variables. This stage focuses on describing potential pathways to the desired future. This stage is portfolio planning, and it underscores the importance of exploring and implementing a variety of ecosystem initiatives that have the potential to achieve the desired future. Variation is a critical part of adaptive management and successful intervention in complex adaptive systems. At this stage in the ecosystem management cycle, not all stakeholders are likely to agree on the pathways to the desired future. The potential long-term socioeconomic impacts of scaled-up versions of the ecosystem initiatives will vary among the stakeholder groupsa situation evident in the Columbia River Basin case study mentioned earlier in this module. We present an outcome-based management approach as a way for ecosystem managers to describe and track long-term, medium-term and short-term desired outcomes. Consider the outcomes framework depicted in Figure 12. The ultimate long-term outcome is the result of the shared visioning process; that is, the desired future state of the ecosystem variable of focus. An intermediate outcome represents a change in practice or behaviour that directly contributes to the ultimate outcome. Intermediate outcomes are achieved through immediate outcomes which represent an increase in capacity, awareness or access. Immediate outcomes are achieved via specific activities and their direct outputs (i.e., knowledge and services delivered or infrastructure built).
78
process; that is, the desired future state of the ecosystem variable of focus. An intermediate outcome represents a change in practice or behaviour that directly contributes to the ultimate outcome. Intermediate outcomes are achieved through immediate -IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual UNEP- outcomes which represent an increase in capacity, awareness or access. Immediate outcomes are achieved via specific activities and their direct outputs (i.e., knowledge and services delivered or infrastructure built).
Ultimate
Outcome
Intermediate
Outcomes Immediate
Outcomes Outputs
A long-term outcome representing a sustainable change of state (environmental, social, economic) A medium-term outcome representing a change of behaviour or practice
Activities
(Source: Government of Canada, 2011)
Perry
et
al.,
2011
Participant
Manual
The job of the ecosystem manager is to help stakeholders identify a variety of potential intermediatelevel outcomes (changes in practice and behaviour) that could deliver the desired change(s) in the state of the ecosystem. Table 12 presents a case example of outcome-based planning using the Columbia River Basin as the contextual setting. In this case, the ecosystem manager has facilitated a shared vision of salmon restoration and sufficient hydropower generation. Stakeholders have (hypothetically) selected two ecosystem initiatives designed to achieve the ultimate outcome of an increase in the downstream salmon population. The first initiative tests the impact of increased spillway operation; the second initiative tests the impact of improved fish ladder design. The immediate or short-term desired outcome for these two initiatives, if the results prove the hypothesis that they can increase downstream salmon populations, would be manifest as increased awareness among hydropower planners of the feasibility of scaled-up versions of these initiatives to contribute to ecosystem-wide salmon restoration. Each of the two outcome chains is supported by a specific set of activities and outputs designed to test the hypothesis that the disparate efforts can in fact have a positive impact on salmon populations.
79
table 12: Example Results Chains for a Portfolio of Ecosystem management Activities for the Adaptive management of salmon Restoration and hydropower Development. Results Chain Ultimate Outcomes (change in state of environment, society, economy) Intermediate Outcomes (new/improved policy or practice) Ecosystem Initiative #1 Ecosystem Initiative #2 Spillway Pilot Initiative Fish Ladder Pilot Initiative Restoration of salmon population and hydropower that can meet demand KPI: Total salmon population Target: 20% above baseline counts within five years More frequent spillway Permanent increase in fish ladder operation capacity KPI: Total spillway operation time Target: x hours more per month Awareness among hydropower policy-makers that increased spillway operation is a feasible means to increase salmon population KPI: # of hydropower planners and policy-makers attending presentation on results of spillway experiments Target: (this target should include the specific names of influential persons identified in the impact strategy) Ecosystem initiative results showing the impact of spillway operation on salmon population KPI: Salmon count immediately downstream of ladder Target: x% of upstream count Awareness among hydropower policy-makers that improved fish ladder technology can increase salmon population KPI: # of hydropower planners and policy-makers attending presentation on results of fish ladder experiments Target: (this target should include the specific names of influential persons identified in the impact strategy)
Ecosystem initiative results showing the impact of fish ladder operation on salmon population
KPI: % increase in downstream salmon population. KPI: % increase in downstream salmon Target: 20% population. Target: 20%
Ecosystem initiative to test the impact of increased spillway operation on salmon population (including salmon population and stream flow monitoring).
Ecosystem initiative to test the impact of improved fish ladder design on salmon population (including salmon population and stream flow monitoring).
KPI: Progress toward completion of KPI: Progress toward completion ecosystem experiment of ecosystem experiment Target: Completed on schedule Target: Completed on schedule
80
notes on module 9
81
stakeholder Analysis3
Stakeholders are the people and institutions who have an interest, have something to gain or lose from the ways the catchment is managed. A Stakeholder Analysis is the technique used to identify the key people who have to be won over, to be convinced that your efforts will benefit their definition of successful catchment management. By communicating with stakeholders early and often, you can ensure that they know what you are doing and fully understand the benefits of your project; this means they can support you actively when necessary. Recognize, however, that this is locally and culturally contextual. In some catchments, societies and cultures, it is routine and welcome to have open discussion about peoples roles and about motivating people to become more engaged and more supportive. In other settings, such a discussion might violate traditional or expected roles. Four steps are needed for this exercise. The first step in Stakeholder Analysis is to identify who your stakeholders are. Here, you can use brainstorming. Think of all the people who are affected by your work, who have influence or power over it, or have an interest in its successful or unsuccessful conclusion. Remember that although stakeholders may be both organizations and people, ultimately you can only communicate with individual people. Make sure that you identify the correct individual stakeholders within a stakeholder organization. You might choose to use an Onion Diagram (Figure 13), asking each stakeholder to select the position where he/she thinks she/he stands. An important activity is to disaggregate these stakeholders by gender, age and position to enable you to be as inclusive as possible. In this regard, include consideration of influence held by each individual. For example, management of every catchment is influenced by people at the national government level, and often by people at a major watershed level. However, in some settings, principal decisions are taken at the catchment, sub-watershed level while in others, national priorities and national decision makers might be the people with greatest influence.
82
(Reprinted with permission from TAPUniversity) The next step is to develop a good understanding of the most important stakeholders so that you can consider ways to win their support. You can then record this analysis on a stakeholder map. You must understand your key stakeholders. You need to know how they are likely to feel about and react to your project. You also need to know how best to engage them in your project and how best to communicate with them. The power/interest grid (Table 13) is a useful tool for such an analysis; identify the location of each principal stakeholder on the grid. table 13: Power/Interest grid for stakeholder Prioritization
Interest low Power High Low Keep satisfied Monitor (minimum effort) high Manage closely Keep informed
83
Key questions that can help you understand your stakeholders include: What financial or emotional interest does each have in the outcome of your work? Is that interest positive or negative? What motivates each stakeholder most of all? What information does each want from you? How does that person want to receive information from you? What is the best way of communicating your message to them? What is each persons current opinion of your work? Is it based on good information? Who influences their opinions generally, and who influences their opinion of you? Do some of these influencers therefore, become important stakeholders in their own right? If the opinion of one or more stakeholders is not likely to be positive, what would win them around to supporting your project? If you do not think you will be able to win them around, how will you manage their opposition? Who else might be influenced by their opinions? Do those people become stakeholders in their own right? A good way to answer these questions is to talk to your stakeholders directly. Asking peoples opinions is often the first step in building a successful relationship with them. You can summarize the understanding you have gained on the stakeholder map (Table 14), so that you can easily see which stakeholders are expected to be blockers or critics, and which stakeholders are likely to be advocates and supporters or your project. table 14: stakeholder map Identify Current (C ) and Desired (D) position about intervention for each stakeholder class Stakeholder name Block Let Help Make Diagnosis of Recommended and title stakeholder action to move the position person/group to the desired position
84
The third step in the analysis is to work out power, influence and interest, so you know upon whom you should focus. In this step you have to prioritize your stakeholders. Here you can use tools such as a Power/Interest Grid (Table 13) or the Power, Legitimacy and Urgency Model, classifying stakeholders by their power over your work and by their interest or legitimacy in your work. Someones position on the grid or the diagram shows you the actions you have to take with him/ her. For example, in the Power, Legitimacy and Urgency model, stakeholders 1,2 and 3 in the picture are defined as the Latent Stakeholders, stakeholders in position 4,5 and 6 are defined as Expectant Stakeholders and the stakeholders in position 7 are called Definitive Stakeholders. After you have used this tool and created a stakeholder map, you can use the stakeholder planning tool (Table 15) to plan how you will communicate with each stakeholder. table 15: stakeholder Planning table Stakeholder names & roles Importance Current level (Low, Med, of support High) (Low, Med, High) What do you need from this stakeholder? What is important to this stakeholder? How could this stakeholder block or impede your goals? What is your strategy for enhancing support from this stakeholder?
85
86
notes on module 10
87
module 11: Incentives and tools for local-scale management 15:3017:00 module 11 at a glance
There is a wide range of tools, a full toolbox from which you can choose as you approach management, as you try to control certain properties of the system for societal benefit.
4 When the phrase natural-resource manager is used in Modules 11 and 13, it refers to those who have responsibility and authority for managing a land area (perhaps a catchment or a geo-political jurisdiction within which they have responsibility), and who have responsibility for water resource management as well as the lands that control the quality and quantity of those water resources. Although land managers/farmers/conservationists can also be seen as natural-resource managers, here they are referred to as land managers .
88
When the natural-resource manager considers tools to improve management in the area under his/ her jurisdiction, these issues of governance need to be considered. The following are some of the tools that could be considered by natural-resource managers. Government plays a significant role in how resources are managed. Some tools are government-level and influence a catchment manager but cannot readily be selected by the manager. In the tables below, we downplay government programmes by using a smaller font, suggesting that the manager should be aware of, but usually cannot control those tools.
89
90
91
In 2005, CREPA adopted new sanitation approaches: Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) and social marketing of sanitation, whose goal is to end open defecation (in a field, near a river or elsewhere), and create demand for sustainable sanitation where there is none. These approaches follow a set of principles which recognize the constraints of previous approaches and promote behaviour change as integral to sanitation. The approach puts communities at the centre, encouraging them to take collective responsibility to improve sanitation by igniting a process that changes their sanitation behaviour. Merging CLTS efforts with a robust marketplace that provides low-cost sanitation options shows great promise as a tool for achieving behaviour change on a wide scale by guiding the community to end open defecation. CREPA continues to promote safer practices to achieve new, community-based, social marketing approaches that seek and use the messages that will motivate change. Social marketing offers a staged, customer-focused approach for converting well-understood user needs into demand and then providing the means of satisfying the demand. Social marketing also may be applied to provision and use of services, development and acceptance of products, or adoption of new behaviour. It can be product- or behaviour-focused. When water and sanitation projects do not take adequate account of individual and community behaviour, the expected health benefits are not fully realized. In sanitation projects, goals have tended to focus on numeric outputs, such as latrines constructed, number of people provided access, water points provided, or people accessing these water points. Rarely have projects incorporated outcomes such as the quality of water or behaviours that determine whether new facilities actually provide health benefits. The latter behaviours include hand washing, safe disposal of childrens excreta, personal and household hygiene and food handling. Hygiene and sanitation programmes have commonly been concerned with the supply of education and materials, rather than with satisfying a demand from intended beneficiaries. Commercial marketing uses a demand-creation approach. The social marketing approach used in this CREPA project creates demand by using a strategic, managed process of assessing and responding to felt needs, creating demand and then setting achievable, measurable goals.
92
In creating demand, the following issues should be considered: Demand is created when consumers have motivation, opportunity and ability to purchase sanitation technology which suits their needs; Motivation is triggered not by messages about better health but through direct benefits such as increased convenience, comfort, privacy, safety, avoidance of sexual harassment, and prestige; Social marketing can effectively use well-understood marketing techniques to persuade customers to buy and use a product or a service; Packaging and branding an available product, increasing its availability, determining a reasonable cost, and promoting the product are required in addition to creating demand; and Promotion must focus on how the consumers will know the product/service exists, its benefits, costs and where and how to get it. Successful interventions of creating demand for sanitation, social marketing and EcoSan are now used as indicators of good practice and as screens of evidence to influence policies and programmes in West and Central Africa. The success to date is being used to up-scale the effort to all African countries. Ecosystem services, including water resources, are not different from sanitation in the sense of demand creation. In fact, it will be easier to create demand for ecosystem services than for sanitation because there are no cultural, negative issues attached to ecosystem services like there are for sanitation (e.g., where it is culturally taboo to grow food using fecal fertilizers).
stewardship
Stewardship is used in many ways within the natural-resources context and beyond. Some countries have legal definitions of the term in its natural-resource context. We use the term in its generic sense, implying an approach to resource management that is sensitive to a range of uses and intends longterm sustainability of selected uses. Forest, water and biodiversity stewardship is one of the newest tools in the toolkit. It is more applicable in developed than developing economies and often goes handin-hand with economic development incentives, legislation and regulation, and markets for ecosystem services.
93
Integration of biodiversity guidelines into integrated production systems; Identification of biodiversity champions among land managers/producers; Integration of biodiversity into the branding of the product produced on the land; and Showcasing successful examples.
Box 4: Examples of Branding, marketing, and targeting through Award schemes for outstanding Ecosystem management and Conservation
94
Michael Jenkins (2010), for his work on sustainable forestry, forest conservation and community well-being in Haiti and Brazil (Forest Trends, 2010); and Mark Plotkin and Liliana Madrigal (2008), for their work on the Amazonian conservation and well-being of indigenous Amazonian communities in Brazil, Colombia and Suriname (Amazon Conservation Team [ACT], 2009)
95
micro-credit schemes
Micro-credit schemes in poor communities can often lead to a reduction for the demand of natural resources as resources are being shared. This can be a particularly strong tool for empowering women. Micro-credit schemes are most applicable at a fine spatial scale. As such, they rarely would be sought as a catchment-management tool, but could be a powerful resource for assisting a subset of the population within a catchment. Like many other tools, they are useful as a subset of the toolbox a manager will apply in a given setting.
natural-resource Accounting
To implement any of the above tools in the toolkit of a resource manager, some resource accounting is needed. Especially where only advocacy and extension resources are available, the manager must understand the balance between the demand for ecosystem goods and services and supply from the untransformed and transformed land. The resource manager also has to keep in mind that men and women play different roles in natural-resource management and have different needs and constraints which should be addressed.
96
Possible outcomes General improvement in resource use Measurable changes in land management, but achievable only over the long term
Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation Very little structure is needed for successful implementation Non-governmental organizations like agricultural unions, cooperatives or other land user associations will enhance and broaden the impact of the programme Natural-resource management/agricultural study groups dramatically improve the impact of such programmes Private sector, through their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme, may boost the success of the programme strengths Both resource and tax incentives have short term impacts; the impact will stay intact as long as the incentive is in place Outputs are generally measurable and auditable Normally leads to mainstreaming the programme/ intervention into the economy Challenges
Incentives
subsets Mainstreaming ecosystem management through resource incentives given by national, regional or local governments to achieve economic goals Tax incentives
To be successful, the regional or national government must have access to adequate resources to support the programme; this condition generally is met only in developed countries Sustainable natural-resource management sometimes conflicts with economic development goals of a region or countr y
Possible outcomes Natural-resource management can be mainstreamed into the economy, making the implementation more sustainable With appropriate governance structures in place, the system can be monitored and the probability of success increased
Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation A strong sub-national, regional or national government Collaboration among land users and natural-resource managers
97
Possible outcomes Securing long-term sustainable naturalresource management, assuming that the legislation is implemented successfully Ensuring the involvement of various stakeholders during the decision making process
98
Strengths
99
Possible outcomes Short- to mediumterm programmes to improve natural-resource management Development of agreed national authorities and benefit sharing mechanisms
Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation Carbon market can only be entered through the Clean Development Mechanism and the Verified Carbon Standard for offsetting and sequestration. To make the transaction viable, individual land users have to work as a collective. The economy of scale is such that individuals will seldom be able to enter the market Government support is needed Requires clear land tenure status
Stewardship
subsets Forest Biodiversity Water strengths Stewardship programmes are generally auditable They are generally not as resource-intensive as payments for ecosystem services Formal stewardship agreements could enhance access to corporate and international funding for natural-resource management Challenges Has very little potential in resource-poor regions, unless it goes hand-in-hand with payments for ecosystem services. It will therefore, only work in developed regions If the stewardship programme is linked to a regional or national government, local communities tend not to trust its motives Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation: A strong secretariat is needed to manage the system An extensive advocacy and extension programme has to be linked to any stewardship programme
Possible outcomes Ecosystem services can be secured through biodiversity and forestry stewardship agreements
Possible outcomes Community control over natural-resource management with the objective of restoring and protecting natural resources
100
Possible outcomes Community control over natural-resource management with the objective of restoring and protecting natural resources
Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation: Strong government support, without interfering in the internal affairs of community-based organizations In communal areas, tribal authorities must buy into the system Strong community-based organizations Strong technical support team
Because international markets are increasingly aware of the need for sustainable natural-resource management, the market is growing fast Challenges Only applies to sophisticated markets, which generally means it is largely limited to developed countries A strong secretariat is needed to manage the system Production standards are generally high for eco-labeling Compatibility between international standard and national regulation/legislation Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation Good marketing infrastructure A strong secretariat is needed to manage the system An extensive advocacy and extension programme has to be linked to any eco-labeling programme
Micro-credit schemes
subsets Micro lending schemes Resource sharing schemes strengths Very localized impact Very much pro-poor Links to nature-based enterprise Challenges Finance mechanism not always link to natural resources conservation Limited access to formal markets Objectives of the scheme can sometimes be in conflict with sustainable natural-resource management Limited access to micro-finance Often available only to women Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation Strong, community-based organizational structures Strong financenatural resources conservation linking mechanism
101
Natural-resource Accounting
subsets Resource stocks Resource flows strengths Allows the natural-resource manager to assess the impact of his/her interventions Ensures that expectations are not unrealistic Challenges High levels of expertise needed Data intensive Institutional and governance needed for successful Implementation Scientific support for measuring, monitoring and reporting
notes on module 11
102
Assessment 2003).
103
Valuation is defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) as the process of expressing a value for a particular good or service . . . in terms of something that can be counted, often money, but also through methods and measures from other disciplines (sociology, ecology, etc.). Box 5: Definitions of Value The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) defined value as The contribution of an action or object to user-specified goals, objectives, or conditions (after Farber et al., 2002). According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term value is used in three main ways: Exchange value: The price of a good or service in the market (= market price) utility: The use-value of a good or service, which can be very different from the market price (e.g., the market price of water is very low, but its use value very high; the reverse is the case for diamonds or other luxury goods) Importance: The appreciation or emotional value we attach to a given good or service (e.g., the emotional or spiritual experience some people have when viewing wildlife or natural scenery or our ethical considerations regarding the existence value of wildlife) These three definitions of value roughly coincide with the interpretation of the term value by the three main scientific disciplines involved in ecosystem valuation Economics is mainly concerned with measuring the exchange value or price to maintain a system or its attributes (Bingham et al. 1995) Ecology measures the role (importance) of attributes or functions of a system in maintaining ecosystem resilience and health (Bingham et al. 1995) sociology tries to find measures for moral assessments (Barry & Oelschlaeger, 1996)
104
Box 6: Ecosystem Values Are often not taken Into Account Properly or Fully, or Are only Partially Valued in Decision making, leading to Degradation or Even Destruction of an Ecosystem (adapted from Vorhies, 1999; stuip et al., 2002) Reasons for under-valuation include: market failure, public goods: Many of the ecological services, biological resources and amenity values provided by ecosystems have the qualities of a public good (i.e., many ecosystem services such as water purification or flood prevention are seen as free and are not counted in the market). market failure, externalities: Markets often do not reflect the full social costs or benefits of a change in availability of a good or service. For example, the price of agricultural products obtained from drained wetland ecosystems does not fully reflect the costs, in terms of pollution and lost wetland services imposed on society by the production process. Perverse incentives: (e.g., taxes/subsidies stimulating ecosystem overuse). Many policies and government decisions provide incentives for economic activity that unintentionally works against wise use of ecosystems, leading to resource degradation and destruction rather than sustainable management (Vorhies, 1999). For example, subsidies for shrimp farmers may lead to mangrove destruction. unequal distribution of costs and benefits: Usually, those stakeholders who benefit from an ecosystem service or its overuse are not the same as the stakeholders who bear the cost of degradation. For example, when a wetland is affected by pollution in the upper catchment from agricultural land, people living downstream suffer. The resulting loss of value (e.g., health, income) is not accounted for and downstream stakeholders are generally not compensated for the damages they suffer (Stuip et al., 2002). unclear ownership: Ownership of ecosystems can be difficult to establish. Ecosystems often do not have clear natural boundaries; even when natural boundaries can be defined, they may not correspond with an administrative boundary. As such, user values are not immediately apparent to decision-makers. Evolution of decision-making away from local users and managers: Higher-level decision makers (e.g., provincial, national) often fail to recognize the importance of ecosystems to local people who rely on those ecosystems, either directly or indirectly. net present value: People often do not want to, or are not willing to place a value on the future use of resources. They only consider the value they are getting today. For example, Uganda is considering giving >700 hectares of forest to one investor for conversion to sugar (Box 7). The decision is based on the value of sugar to be produced (i.e., land as agricultural product) ignoring or undervaluing biodiversity and other ecosystems services that might be generated in the long term.
105
Box 7: Ecosystem management and the net Present Value: the mabira Forest, uganda The Mabira Rainforest Forest is one of the largest natural forests in Uganda, acting as a catchment area for the Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga basins. Lake Victoria has the largest surface area of any freshwater lake in the world and is the source of the Nile (the longest river in the world). The catchment is the headwaters of many other rivers, the livelihood of surrounding communities, a home to many endangered species (e.g., rare birds, plants, snakes and other animals), and is a major ecodestination tourism in the country. The forest area covers about 300 square kilometres in the Buikwe District of Uganda. It has been protected as a Forest Reserve since 1932. In August 2006, President Yoweri Museveni ordered the National Forestry Authority (NFA) to study the feasibility of clearing 7,100 hectares, nearly one-fourth of Mabira Forest, to transfer land ownership to Mehta Group, an investment firm, for conversion to sugarcane plantations. President Museveni defended the deforestation plans, saying that he would . . . not be deterred by people who dont understand that the future of all countries lies in processing[sic]. While environmentalists feared the loss of hundreds of endangered species, increased erosion, the loss of livelihoods of local people and negative impacts on water balance and regional climate, supporters argued that giving away the Mabira land would lead to creation of jobs and would address the prevailing sugar scarcity. A cabinet paper said the plan would generate 3,500 jobs, adding 11.5 billion Ugandan shillings to the treasury. The NFA study initially commissioned by President Museveni concluded that the ecological and economic losses from destroying that part of Mabira Forest would be devastating. The report said the plan endangered 312 tree species, more than 300 bird species like the Nahans francolin and the Papyrus gonolek and more than 199 butterfly species. Nine species found only in Mabira and nearby forests would face the risk of extinction. The report said that economic losses as a result of the destruction of part of the reserve would include lost revenue from logging and eco-tourism; Mabira forest receives more than 62 per cent of all tourists visiting forest reserves in the country (The New Vision, 2007, April 19). Nahans francolin is one of the endangered Mabira forest species; Ugandas flora and fauna are steadily losing their natural habitat to human activities.
Photo: Courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons
Senior environmentalist Kiyingi said that further depletion of Mabira forest would reduce water flow of the surrounding streams and rivers, and change rain patterns region wide, in turn negatively affecting economic activities such as agriculture, cattle husbandry and electric power generation. The Ugandan
106
government previously said that low water levels in Lake Victoria were the reason behind the countrys electricity crisis, so the potential loss of electric power generation was a strong argument against conversion of the forest. Environmentalists said that with the water levels in Lake Victoria already low, destroying part of Mabira forest was likely to lower electricity production, which would mean that proposed hydroelectric projects such as Bujagali, the River Sezibwa power plant, would be meaningless. They further argued that, in addition to potential disturbances to the microclimate, destruction of Mabira could violate major global conservation agreements, such as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to which Uganda is a signatory. The CBD requires that the country establish and maintain protected conservation areas. The Kabaka (King) of Buganda and the Anglican church of Mukono Diocese also opposed the deforestation plan and offered alternative lands for sugarcane production. These arguments did not convince the decision-makers. Many people were aware that deforestation brings about drought and fine-scale climatic change, and understood that forests help mitigate climate change. Many were also aware that destroying forests would result in more limited rainfall, lower water levels in rivers and lakes, and reduced agricultural productivity because cattle ranching would be negatively affected. However, other people, including some senior decision-makers in Uganda saw alternative uses for the forest as positive developments. Many would argue that those charged with protecting the ecosystem were destroying it by over-valuing resources extracted today, and undervaluing or forgoing what would be provided for the future. Losing these forests, particularly the Mabira Forest Reserve, would have enormous repercussions for both people and wildlife in Uganda said Achilles Byaruhanga, Executive Director of Nature Uganda (Bird Life in Uganda). Byaruhanga says that Mabira Forest Reserve is listed by Bird Life International as an Important Bird Area (IBA). The forest contains over 300 species of bird, including the Endangered Nahans francolin Francolinus nahani. The forest also supports nine species of primate, a recently identified new mangabey sub-species in Uganda, Lophocebus albigena johnstoni and a new species of Short-tailed Fruit Bat. The fact that we are still discovering new species of large animals in this forest is a pointer to its value for biodiversity. As a result, we are working hard to ensure the Ugandan government understands that holding onto these sites is of utmost importance, both in terms of conserving biodiversity and in terms of poverty reduction and economic growth Byaruhanga emphasizes. (BBC News 2007, April 12) As of this writing (late 2011), the proposed plan was under debate in the Ugandan parliament.
107
5 CBD (2005) includes a closer look at the importance of valuation for including biodiversity losses or gains in national income accounts (SCBD 2005).
108
Box 8: Restoration Costs of Degraded Wetlands: An example from the netherlands In many instances, wetland development projects have caused more harm than good, and wetlands are now being restored at high cost. In the Netherlands, where there is a long and successful tradition of draining wetlands; dikes (banks) have long been the preferred choice for managing water and preventing flooding. With the protection offered by these dikes, large investments in infrastructure, agriculture, housing and industry are now concentrated in former wetlands; the cost of a flood in these areas is very high. However, climate change is posing new risks through increases in sea level and extreme river discharges. This has led to a shift in the trade-off costs of continuing to raise dikes. Less heavily developed former wetlands may get a new lease on life. A costly programme of river totAl VAluE / ImPoRtAnCE restoration has commenced, including broadening floodplains, (re)creating water retention areas in natural depressions and (re)opening secondary channels of rivers (Stuip et al., 2002).
Box 9. Economic Valuation of oil spills Economic valuation of oil spills has shown the direct and indirect damage inflicted upon coastal systems and has provided a basis for financially compensating local people for lost ecosystem services. Often these indirect, previously neglected damages are much higher than direct clean-up and damage costs. For example, the 2002 Prestige Oil spill off the coast of France and Spain led to cleanup costs of over EUR2 billion, but indirect damages to the fishers, tourism-industry, local peoples livelihood and lost natural values was calculated at over EUR5 billion (Garcia, 2003). The oil companys insurance coverage only amounted to a relatively insignificant EUR175 million; the case for compensation is still being debated in court. Comparisons such as this can help determine realistic insurance premiums and thus internalize the so-called external effects. That, in turn, might contribute to quicker implementation of preventive measures (e.g., making oil ships safer, raising oil prices, stimulating development of alternative energy sources).
109
Increase awareness about the many benefits of ecosystems to human well-being and ensure that ecosystems are better taken into account in economic welfare indicators (e.g., in Gross National Product [GNP] calculations) and pricing mechanisms (through internalisation of externalities). In addition to raising awareness about ecosystem benefits in decision making, valuation studies can improve local institutions that manage resources, identify better markets and resource management options for ecosystems and their products, and investigate peoples livelihood strategies and show how these can be used in evaluating the constraints and options for making wise use of ecosystems.
110
(Based on equity & cultural perceptions) Indicators (e.g., - health - amenity value - cultural identity - spiritual value - existence value
Economic
Each ecosystem and each decision is unique in space and time. Data on these values will be most useful if they are obtained through original research on the ecological, sociocultural and economic indicators for each decision-making situation. However, widely available databases such
as Nature Evaluation can allow a desk study which can be refined by Benefit Transfer techniques (see below). Stakeholder involvement is essential in this process and can be used to qualify Internet-based data or information (see Step 2 above).
111
table 16: Ecological Valuation Criteria and Indicators (based on de groot et al., 2003)
short description
Degree of human presence in terms of physical, chemical or biological disturbance.
measurement units/indicators
- Quality of air, water, and soil - % key species present - % of min. critical ecosystem size - Composition, structure and function of the system - Number of ecosystems/ geographical unit - Number of species/surface area Number of endemic species and sub-species - Energy budget (GPP/NPP1) - Carrying capacity - Complexity and diversity - Succession stage/-time/NPP - Restoration costs
Diversity
Variety of life in all its forms, including ecosystems, species & genetic diversity. Local, national or global rarity of ecosystems and species Sensitivity of ecosystems to human disturbance The possibility for renewal or human aided restoration
112
table 17: sociocultural Valuation Criteria and Indicators (after De groot et al., 2003)
short description
Provision of medicines, clean air, water and soil, space for recreation outdoor sports, and general therapeutic effects of nature on peoples mental and physical well-being Valued for cognitive development, mental relaxation, artistic inspiration, aesthetic enjoyment or recreational benefits Valued in reference to personal or collective history and cultural identity Valued in symbols and elements with sacred, religious or spiritual significance Valued for ethical reasons (intrinsic value) or inter-generational equity (bequest value)
measurement units/indicators
- Suitability and capacity of natural systems to provide health services - Restorative and regenerative effects on peoples performance. - Socioeconomic benefits from reduced health costs and conditions - Aesthetic quality of landscapes. - Recreational features and use - Artistic features and use - Preference studies - Historic sites, features and artefacts - Designated cultural landscapes - Cultural traditions and knowledge - Presence of sacred sites or features - Role of ecosystems and/or species in religious ceremonies and sacred texts - Expressed (through, for example, donations and voluntary work) or stated preference for nature protection for ethical reasons
Amenity
To some extent, these values can be approximated by economic valuation methods, but to the extent that an ecosystem service is essential to a persons very identity and existence, that value is not fully captured by such techniques. A measure of importance may be approximated through participatory assessment techniques or group valuation (Table 18).
113
table 18: methods for Quantification of the Importance People Attach to sociocultural Values of Ecosystems (from De groot et al., 2006) Importance people attach to therapeutic value, amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and/or existence value of ecosystems can be approximated by:
Assessment method
Checklist (of issues & stakeholders) Questionnaires (& interviews) Visual media (preferences) Expert jurors/referees Animation technologies for group interaction Judgement (personal & group) Measurement of environmental variables Behavioural observation Interviews with key persons Desk research (e.g., media attention)
Judgement
114
from knowledge that something exists even if they never plan to use it. Many people value existence of blue whales or pandas, even if they have never seen one and probably never will. If blue whales became extinct, those people would feel a sense of loss. Bequest iUNEP-desire to pass on values to future s the -IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual generations.
Development tends to focus on use values, ones with the most obvious benefits to certain Development ends to focus on of non-use nes with the m not bvious benefits to certain s stakeholders, stakeholders.tThe importanceuse values, ovalues should ost obe underestimated. Manytakeholders. The i poor communities place high values on non-use (e.g., spiritual/cultural values) often to evenmportance of non-use values should not be underestimated. Many stakeholders, even poor the extent communities place high alues tangible goods and services. of forgoing immediate,vmore on non-use (e.g., spiritual/cultural values) often to the extent of forgoing immediate, more tangible goods and services. Figure 15: the total Economic Value Framework
Figure 16: The Total Economic Value Framework (De Groot et al., 2006) (Based on De Groot et al., 2006) Economics of ecosystem services can be measured in monetary units and by the ecosystems Economics of ecosystem services can be measured in monetary units and by the ecosystems contribution to employment and productivity. Because employment and productivity can be contribution to employment and productivity. Because employment and productivity can be relatively relatively easily measured through the market, they are usually part of monetary valuation. Monetary easily measured through the market, they are usually part of monetary valuation. Monetary approaches approaches usually fail to account for virtual water. The Water Footprint Network has developed an extensive series of analyses and communications that allow users to understand and express virtual water and its value. Perry et al., 2011 Participant Manual
115
table 19: monetary Valuation methods, Constraints and Examples (from De groot et al., 2006)
mEthoD
Market price
DEsCRIPtIon
The exchange value (based on marginal productivity cost) that ecosystem services have in trade
constraints
EXAmPlEs
Market imperfections Mainly applicable to the and policy failures goods (e.g., fish) but distort market prices also some cultural (e.g., recreation) and regulating services (e.g., pollination). Factor income Measures effect of Care needs to be Natural water quality or prod. factor ecosystem services on taken not to double improvements which method loss (or gains) in earnings count values increase commercial fishand/or productivity) eries catch and thereby incomes of fishers Public pricing Public investments (e.g., Property rights some- Investments in waland purchase, or montimes difficult to tershed-protection to etary incentives, taxes/ establish; care must provide drinking water, subsidies) be taken to avoid conservation measures perverse incentives Avoided (damage) Services that allow It is assumed that The value of the flood cost method society to avoid costs the costs of avoided control service can be that would have been damage or matches derived from the estiincurred in the absence the original benefit. mated damage if flooding of those services However, this match occurred may not be accurate, The value of groundReplacement cost Some services could be which can lead to un- water recharge can be & substitution cost replaced with humanderestimates as well estimated from the costs made systems as overestimates of obtaining water from another source (substitute costs) Mitigation or restoration cost Cost of preventive expenditures in absence of ecosystem service (e.g., flood barriers) or relocation Over-estimates are Part of the recreational Use of ecosystem servalue of a site is reflected vices may require travel; easily made; the in the amount of time the associated costs can technique is data be seen as a reflection of intensive and money that people spend while traveling to the implied value the site The method only Clean air, presence of Reflection of service demand in the prices captures peoples water and aesthetic views people pay for associwillingness to pay for increase the price of surated marketed goods perceived benefits; rounding real estate very data intensive Cost of moderating effects of lost functions (or of their restoration)
116
3. surveys
How much people would be willing to pay (or accept as compensation) for specific services, based on questionnaires or interviews
Group valuation
4. Benefit transfer
There are various sources of bias in the interview techniques; there is controversy over whether people would pay the amounts stated in interviews Same as Contingent Bias in a group CV is Valuation (CV) but as an supposed to be less interactive group process than in individual CV Uses results from other, Values are site- and similar areas, to estimate context-dependent value of a given service and therefore, may in the study site not be transferable
It is often the only way to estimate non-use values. For example, a survey questionnaire might ask respondents to express their willingness to increase the level of water quality in a stream, lake or river so that they might enjoy activities like swimming, boating, or fishing When time to carry out original research is scarce and/or data are unavailable, Benefit Transfers can be used (but with caution)
Market price: The exchange value that ecosystem services have in trade. This is mainly applicable to production functions, but also to some information functions (e.g., recreation) and regulation functions (e.g., water regulation services). Factor income (FI): Many ecosystem services enhance incomes; an example is natural waterquality improvements which increase commercial fisheries catch and thereby, incomes of fishermen. Public investments: New York City decided to use natural water regulation services of largely undeveloped watersheds through purchase or easements (worth about US$100 million/ year) to deliver safe water. It thus avoided construction of a US$6 billion water filtration plant. This implies those watersheds saved New York City an investment of nearly US$6 billion and represents a Willingness-To-Pay value of at least US$100 million/year. Ecosystem trading programmes allow property owners to capitalize on the demand for wetlands banks, with values ranging from US$74,100 to US$493,800 per hectare (Powicki, 1998).
117
Mitigation or restoration cost: The cost of moderating effects of lost functions or of their restoration can be seen as an expression of the economic importance of the original service. For example, this could be represented by the cost of preventive expenditures in absence of ecosystem service (e.g., flood barriers) or relocation. Travel cost (TC): Use of ecosystem services may require travel. Travel costs can be seen as a reflection of the implied value of the service. An example is the amount of money that visitors are willing to pay to travel to an area that they want to visit. Hedonic pricing (HP): Service demand may be reflected in the prices people will pay for associated goods; an example is that housing prices at beaches usually exceed prices of identical inland homes near less attractive scenery.
survey-based Valuation
Contingent valuation (CV): Service demand may be elicited by posing hypothetical scenarios that involve description of alternatives in a social survey questionnaire. For example, a survey questionnaire might ask respondents to express their willingness to pay (i.e., their stated preference as opposed to revealed preference) to increase the level of water quality in a stream, lake or river so that they might enjoy activities like swimming, boating, or fishing (Wilson & Carpenter, 2000). Lately, the related method of contingent choice, asking respondents whether they would pay a predetermined amount, has gained popularity, because it eliminates some of the weaknesses of CV. Group valuation: Another approach to ecosystem service valuation that has gained increasing attention recently involves group deliberation. This evolving set of techniques is founded on the assumption that the valuation of ecosystem services should result from a process of open public deliberation, not from the aggregation of separately measured individual preferences. Using this approach, small groups of citizens are brought together in a moderated forum to deliberate about the economic value of ecosystem services. The end result is a deliberative, group contingent valuation (CV) process. With a group-CV, the explicit goal is to derive a monetary value for the ecosystem service in question, through group discussions and consensus building.
Benefit transfer
In the case of human or financial resource constraints, values can sometimes be taken out of previous studies focusing on a different region or time period. This practice of transferring monetary values is called benefit transfer. As the extensive literature on monetary valuation of ecosystem services has shown, each method has strengths and weaknesses (Farber et al., 2002; Wilson & Howarth, 2002; SCBD, 2005). Costanza et al . (1997) reviewed over 100 studies to examine the link among these valuation methods and the main ecosystem services. They found that each ecosystem service could be evaluated by several monetary valuation methods but most often, only one or two have been applied, suggesting future opportunity. To avoid double counting and to make monetary valuation studies more comparable, a type of rank ordering should be developed to determine the most preferred monetary valuation method(s) for each
118
ecosystem service, supported by a choice-tree to guide the evaluator through the valuation process (cf. Dixon & Pagiola, 1998).
Words of Caution
Deriving values, even if they are accurate, does not guarantee that decisions will be made making full use of them. Just because certain ecosystems are valuable does not mean they will not be managed (e.g., converted) for less economically productive uses. Derived values, if done properly, represent benefits to a large range of stakeholders. Some of these are often removed from a particular area in question and may not be consulted or empowered to influence decisions. In particular, it is often the case that, although it is in the interests of stakeholders collectively to manage for maximum total benefit, it is not so for individual stakeholder groups (or individual people). Ecosystems are often converted into less economically productive uses because benefits to individuals arise from this process. Often, the poorest and most marginalised stakeholder groups suffer through a management process which essentially transfers benefits from the poor to the rich. Valuations are a useful tool within a broader decision-making process, but their use must include transparency, and equity as well as full, effective and meaningful stakeholder participation. Decisions should not be based on mathematical conclusions. The most valuable factor of all is plain and simple common sense. Trade-off decision making (see case study below) should also consider the issue of benefits (values) for whom and why. In this context, values assigned (benefits accrued) to poorer stakeholders should be weighed against those going to better-off stakeholders. A caveat for all outcomes should be no net increase in poverty. Most valuations of ecosystems have shown that it would be more economical to maintain natural capital and to live off the interest (through sustainable use) than it would be to reduce capital as we are still doing in many cases by converting and degrading the remaining ecosystems and their services. It should not be assumed that sustainable management of ecosystems as a whole necessarily means limiting the benefits of some of its services to the few. There are many examples where more holistic, sustainable approaches yield benefits even to key stakeholders dominating particular services.
119
to misinformed policy actions, poorly informed decision making and ill-advised strategic social choices. To make the results of a valuation study fully accessible to all the stakeholders and relevant decisionmakers, communication and dissemination activities are essential. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) concluded that one of the major continuing drivers of loss and degradation of ecosystems was that decision-makers either do not have available to them, or choose to ignore, full information on the total value of ecosystem services when considering approving destruction or conversion of ecosystems. This leads to decisions to convert, despite valuation studies repeatedly demonstrating that the value of naturally functioning ecosystems is frequently (although not always) much greater than the value of their services when converted. The latter is particularly true where such a conversion benefits a single stakeholder group rather than multiple use systems benefiting a range of stakeholders. It is just as important to ensure that the results of the valuation, whether it be undertaken for tradeoff analysis, assessment of Total Economic Value or as part of an environmental impact assessment, are explained and made fully available in appropriate forms to the stakeholders concerned. Some types of stakeholder can be highly influential in decisions concerning maintenance or conversion of ecosystems, and many stakeholders may be unaware of, and surprised by the high value of many types of ecosystem service such as water purification, flood control and recreational and aesthetic services they use. The most appropriate approach to the dissemination of valuation findings to stakeholders will of course vary depending on the purpose of the valuation work and the types of stakeholders involved. That may include workshops and presentations, leaflets and publications, videos, and educational materials for schools and local events. There is a wealth of information and expertise available on choosing appropriate communication, education and public awareness (CEPA) tools (cf., the Ramsar Conventions CEPA Web-site). It is vital to ensure that policy-makers and decision-makers better understand the relevance and importance of maintaining ecosystem services to society (and the consequences of not doing so). The clear and appropriate presentation of valuation is a powerful tool for raising general awareness amongst decision-makers, and in giving them the best possible information as the basis for their making fully informed decisions about proposals for the conversion of ecosystems. Ecosystem valuation is an emerging science, and it is important that those undertaking such valuations share their results and experiences, as methodologies continue to develop and evolve. Online support to implementing valuation guidelines is available through Nature Valuation, which gives access to existing databases, literature, case studies and provides discussion platforms for exchange of information.
120
Examples of total Economic Values and lessons learned One of the most important points about valuation is that it that water-related ecosystem services (e.g., water supply, water quality and, in particular flood protection) deliver high value for ecosystem services. This applies to a wide range of ecosystems. Examples of wetlands and forests are provided here.
Wetland Values
Wetlands provide a wide range of highly beneficial services, averaging over US$4,000 per acre in Wetland
Values
2000 dollars (Figure 16). The overall total for the services assessed is US$3,274/ha/year, but this total does not include services such as ornamental and medicinal resources, historic and spiritual values, Wetlands
provide
a
wide
range
of
highly
beneficial
services,
averaging
over
US$4,000
per
acre
in
2000
sediment control and several others; it is certainly an under-estimation. Actual values for specific dollars
(Figure
17).
The
overall
total
for
the
services
assessed
is
US$3,274/ha/year,
but
this
total
does
wetlands can be much higher, depending on economic setting. For example, a study by Costanza et al. not
include
services
such
as
ornamental
and
medicinal
resources,
historic
and
spiritual
values,
sediment
(1997) obtained much higher estimates for several services; notably flood control (US$4,539/ha/year), control
and
several
others;
it
is
certainly
an
under-estimation.
Actual
values
for
specific
wetlands
can
be
water treatment (US$4,177/ha/year), and For
example,
study
by
Costanza
et
much
higher,
depending
on
economic
setting.
water supplya(US$3,800/ha/year). al.
(1997)
obtained
much
higher
estimates
for
several
services;
notably
flood
control
(US$4,539/ha/year),
water
treatment
Figure 16: the total Economic Value (tEV) of the main (US$4,177/ha/year),
and
water
supply
(US$3,800/ha/year).
Ecosystem services Provided by Wetlands
(us$/ha/year)
Total Economic Value (TEV)* of the main ecosystem services provided by wetlands (US$/ha/yr)
Fuelwood Raw Materials Water Supply
Ecosystem Services
Hunting Climate Regulation Habitat Nursery Biodiversity Water Treatment Fishing Flood Control Amenity/Recreation Aesthetic Information 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(Source: Author diagram) Figure 17: The Total Economic Value (TEV) of the Main Ecosystem Services Provided by Wetlands (US$/ha/year). All figures are average global values based on and taken fromse levels and studies:from two Brander All figures are average global values based on sustainable use levels sustainable u two synthetic taken Schuijt & synthetic studies: Schuijt & Brander (2004) (calibrated for 2000), and Costanza et al. (over 200 case studies. Most (2004) (calibrated for 2000), and Costanza et al. (1997) (calibrated for 1994), together covering 1997) (calibrated figures are from Schuijt & Brander (2004), except those for ost figures are from Schuijt & climate regulation. for 1994), together covering over 200 case studies. Maesthetic information service and Brander (2004), except those for aesthetic information service and climate regulation.
Some
points
to
note:
Actual
values
often
differ
significantly
from
commonly
perceived
values.
The
highest
values
arise
from
the
less-visible
activities.
Most
ecosystems
have
been
managed
based
on
provisioning
services.
These
are
goods
produced
(physical
benefits
to
be
consumed).
121
Some points to note: Actual values often differ significantly from commonly perceived values. The highest values arise from the less-visible activities. Most ecosystems have been managed based on provisioning services. These are goods produced (physical benefits to be consumed). Provisioning services or goods relate only to fuelwood, raw materials, and the products of hunting and fishing (assuming that both are undertaken for food). However, that is not always the case because often recreational hunting/fishing can have high economic value and produce little food. The other services shown in Figure 16 do not produce any tangible goods. Collectively (even individually), these services have a higher value. It is important to include the less visible benefits in valuation and hence decision making. Aesthetic/information services can be valued in dollar terms (not without controversy) and are highly valuable. The combined values of water-related services (water supply, climate regulation, water treatment and flood control) are very high. Even if stakeholders take issue with more culturally related values (e.g., aesthetics), this situation alone argues that ecosystem management decisions should not be biased towards production (i.e., goods derived). The values in Figure 16 serve as a yardstick against which to compare options to convert or degrade an ecosystem, a decision which invariably focuses on goods. Many of the values are mutually supporting. Sustaining flood control or water treatment services does not necessarily compete with aesthetic value or fisheries. However, conversion of the ecosystem to an alternative use to produce goods (e.g., draining a wetland for food production) nearly always produces competing impacts on services (and usually a net loss in overall value).
122
Note the importance of water-related services (i.e., regulation of water flows, waste treatment/water purification and erosion prevention), which collectively represent about 45 per cent of the total value of forests. These services exceed the values associated with raw materials (timber), food and climate regulation (carbon storage) and recreation/tourism combined. In particular, raw materials (timber production) represent an almost insignificant value. However, this latter remains one of the most prominent uses (and overuses) of forests. This observation does not mean that sustainable timber harvesting should not be allowed, but it does illustrate costs of unsustainable logging.
other Examples
Assessing the Benefits of not Converting a Floodplain in Delhi Approximately 3,250 hectares of floodplain between the Yamuna River and the City of Delhi offer benefits such as provision of water, fodder and other materials, fisheries, and recreation. Faced with pressures to convert the floodplain into areas suitable for habitation and industry, decision makers acknowledged the ecological role of the floodplain and yet were unable to establish sufficient justification for conserving it unless economic valuation of ecosystem services demonstrated a positive cost-benefit analysis from not converting it. Value estimates for a range of services totalled US$843/ha/year (2007 prices) (Kumar, 2001). The embankment of the Yamuna would virtually dry the floodplain, causing disappearance of these services. Ecosystem benefits exceeded the opportunity costs of conservation (estimated from the land price, assumed to reflect the discounted value of development benefits) for a range of discount rates from 2 per cent to 12 per cent, justifying the maintenance of the floodplain. The Delhi government halted the embankment plan of Yamuna until further order (Kumar et al., 2001).
123
Valuing the Benefits of Water Provision in new Zealand The Te Papanui conservation Park in New Zealands Lammermoor range provides the Otago region with free water that otherwise would cost NZ$136 million to bring in from elsewhere. The 22,000 hectare, tussock grass area acts as a natural water catchment, supplying water flows valued at NZ$31 million for hydroelectricity, NZ$93 million for urban water supply and NZ$12 million for irrigating 60,000 hectares of Taieri farmland (New Zealand Department of Conservation, 2006).
Value for money: natural solutions for water filtration and treatment
Cities like Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg, Tokyo, Melbourne, New York and Jakarta rely on protected areas to provide residents with drinking water. A third of the worlds hundred largest cities draw a substantial proportion of their drinking water from forest protected areas (Dudley and Stolton, 2003). Forests, wetlands and protected areas with dedicated management actions often provide clean water at a lower cost than substitutes like water treatment plants. new york: Water purification services in the Catskills watershed (US$11.5 billion) were assessed at less than the estimated cost of a filtration plant (US $68 billion plus US$300 500 million/year operating costs). Taxpayer water bills went up by 9 per cent instead of doubling (Perrot-Maitre & Davis, 2001). Venezuela: The national protected area system prevents sedimentation that, if left unattended, could reduce farm earnings by around US$3.5 million/year (Pabon-Zamora et al. 2008).
124
notes on module 12
125
Introduction
People are part of ecosystemstypically the major driver of impacts. Transition from huntergatherer subsistence to agricultural, to urban, to megalopolis has masked the connection between people and ecosystem processes. That transition involves increasing modification and transformation of terrestrial ecosystems and increasingly severe downstream impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems. The ranges and levels of ecosystem service benefits change as the context moves from intact ecosystems to increasingly modified ecosystems, but the level of service depends on use and management. It is typically a gradual process but increasingly major urban, agricultural, industrial, mining and associated water harvest and storage developments are imposing substantial and far reaching changes. The concept of the economic or urban footprint illustrates the reach of demand for ecosystem services beyond the areas that benefit from those services. The impacts, benefits and costs of ecosystem uses can be widely separated (e.g., upstream/ downstream, coastal, oceanic, atmospheric and global). Some ecosystem management goals may be un-recognized because they relate to services that are such basic essentials of life that their delivery is presumed or taken for granted. Realistic goal-setting requires consideration at several physical, ecological and socioeconomic scales. Goals at one point in a catchment may conflict with each other, as well as with goals lower down in the catchment and/ or beyond the catchment in coastal and marine ecosystems. Consideration of realistic goals requires understanding the impacts, dynamics and interactions of past, current and probable uses.
126
127
Intact and modified terrestrial Ecosystems Intact: No detectable human impacts. Minor alienation: Small areas of native vegetation cleared for planting of crops, slash and burn, plots cycle. There may be some erosion from cleared patches. If burning is not well managed, it may lead to extensive fires. Moderate alienation: Small-scale, mixed agriculture, hunting and gathering with limited residential population, significant proportion of habitat intact. Substantial alienation: Industrial-scale agriculture with areas of services, residential, commercial development and associated infrastructure corridors. Some patches of relict habitat. Ecosystem service impacts may be partially offset or contained by national parks, reserves or wildlife corridors and advanced soil and water cycle management. Gross alienation: Large-scale land clearance and deliberate replacement of pre-existing ecological communities with constructed industrial, commercial, agricultural or residential development with few or no relict areas. Typically, the sequence of development of human impacts is evident as a gradient of transformation from intact to highly modified terrestrial ecosystems. In terrestrial ecosystems, linkages are generally unidirectional through the flow of freshwater and associated dissolved and suspended materials transported down catchments towards the sea. Downstream ecosystems that are not directly impacted by human use may be impacted by upstream human activities. Upstream benefits of an activity in one jurisdiction may result in downstream costs in another jurisdiction.
marine Ecosystems
Coastal marine ecosystems are the receiving point of all impacts flowing from catchments through rivers and washing off coastal lands. What happens on land affects the sea, and may do so over long distances. Typically, coastal waters are most immediately impacted by the closest river discharges, but because of the linkages of currents, tides and wind-driven waves, coastal waters may be affected by discharges from more distant rivers and by linkages with offshore waters. The system is complicated. Where almost all flows on land are unidirectional down catchments, flows in the seas and particularly coastal seas are multi-directional and mixed in seemingly unpredictable ways. Cyclical changes of tides, variations in wind regimes and major current systems such as the El Nio/La Nia southern oscillation of the Pacific Ocean, generate complex dynamics below the surface in a system, dynamics that are effectively invisible. Coastal waters, estuaries and wetlands are typically critical habitats for food species that underpin the well-being and economic development potential of coastal communities. This is particularly important in the case of species whose annual spawning cycle coincides with planktonic productivity peaks triggered by run-off from monsoonal rains or spring melting of snow and ice built-up during winter months. The frequency, duration, flow rate and quality of fresh water discharging through river mouths can be critical factors in the breeding success and larval survival of many species.
128
Substantial water harvest typically reduces the frequency and duration of flows to times when storage dams overflow. This can have the effect that flows do not occur until late in the monsoon or melt season with consequent reduction of the opportunity for breeding of coastal species. Water harvest alters the rate of flow down rivers by changing retention in storage systems. Those may have controlled releases, but typically the frequency of high-volume flows and associated downstream transport of organic materials is reduced to times of storage overflows. Flows may also be significantly altered by land use changes. In intact catchments, there are often wetlands that are saturated or filled by seasonal or episodic river overflows or rains. These may occur upland or on coastal plains and estuary margins. In intact systems, the pattern of occasional recharge and gradual discharge of water from wetlands can maintain flows and environmental conditions for breeding and feeding of marine species. Land cover may reduce overland flows, as occurs in the case of freshwater wetlands. Wetlands are often productive areas and are thus attractive for agriculture, yet agricultural use may involve drainage to reduce soil saturation, allow earlier planting, and to divert water to storage for dry season or adjacent dry area irrigation. Land cover may increase flow rates but reduce flow duration in the case of downstream, coastal plain wetlands. These are typically attractive areas for residential or industrial development around growing urban centres where the slow flows and retention of water causes flooding. Flood management often is pursued through creation of deep, straight drainage channels. The loss of habitat resulting from changed land cover is compounded when slow flows that naturally occurred over a period of weeks are compressed into a period of high flows occurring over hours or days, flows which may carry organic matter and nutrients far offshore beyond the nursery habitats of coastal species. Development of catchments usually involves changes in the quality of water reaching coastal marine habitats. In intact systems, freshwater flows carry sediments and gravels from soils and rocks, dissolved minerals and nutrients, and organic matter from plants and animals. These materials flow down rivers and drive the productivity of estuarine and coastal marine ecosystems. In altered catchments, water quality may be changed through increases in sediment loads, minerals, nutrients and organic matter as well as chemicals arising from industrial, agricultural or urban activities. The systems typically have some capacity or resilience to mediate water quality changes from human impacts, but overloads in any or all of the categories can cause changes ranging from short-term damage and disruption to permanent changes, loss of fishery production and coastal vulnerability due to loss of protective ecosystem services.
Jurisdictions
The linkages down catchments and at the coast, through tides, currents and wind-driven waves, often mean that the management of activities and ecological processes involves addressing human activities
129
at levels ranging from the individual or household, to communities and jurisdictions at levels from the local, through provincial, national, regional and global. The benefits derived by one community may result in costs to others in a distant place and jurisdiction.
130
EIA
Applied to specific and relatively short-term (lifecycle) projects and their specifications Takes place at the early stage of project planning once parameters are set Considers limited range of project alternatives Usually prepared and/or funded by the project proponents Focuses on obtaining project permission, rarely with feedback to policy, plan or programme consideration
sEA
Applied to policies, plans and programmes with a broad and long-term strategic perspective Ideally, takes place at an early stage in strategic planning Considers a broad range of alternative scenarios Conducted independently of any specific project proponent Focuses on policy, plan and programme implications for future lower-level decisions
Well-defined, linear process with clear beginning Multistage, iterative process with feedback loops and end (e.g., from feasibility to project approval) Preparation of an EIA document with prescribed format and contents is usually mandatory. This document provides a baseline reference for monitoring Emphasis on mitigating environmental and social impacts of a specific project, but with identification of some project May not be formally documented
Emphasis on meeting balanced environmental, social and economic objectives in policies, plans and programmes. Includes identifying macrolevel development outcomes Inherently incorporates consideration of cumulative impacts
Limited review of cumulative impacts, often limited to phases of a specific project. Does not cover regional-scale developments or multiple projects
131
holistic management
EM is one of many acronyms for holistic management regimes that address biophysical and socioeconomic goals, opportunities and constraints in a multisectoral, coordinated or integrated process. Other terms used to convey a similar message include: Ecosystem-based management (EBM) Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) Integrated Coast and Ocean Management (ICOM) Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Integrated Ecosystem Management (IEM) Integrated Ecosystem and Resource Management (IERM)
Whatever the acronym, planning for holistic management should address the following Multiple, current and potential, human uses and impacts Effective engagement of the communities that value and have management responsibility for the system A systematic process based on well publicized operational principles or decision rules Understanding the best available socioeconomic and biophysical science Establishing an overarching, multisectoral framework that integrates, or at least coordinates the activities and interests of sectors and the environmental opportunities and constraints Identifying sectoral objectives, impacts and outlooks, as well as multisectoral interactions in relation to environmental considerations Establishing an adaptive management regime based on clearly established objectives Commitment to an adaptive cycle in which the effects of management are reviewed through monitoring and performance evaluation against the stated objectives and in the light of new socioeconomic and biophysical science
132
notes on module 13
133
134
notes on module 14
135
Day 5: Putting It All to Work module 15: selecting tools for a local Application 8:0010:00
module 15 at a glance
The workshop to date has offered background in understanding the structure and function of a catchment, as well as the goals and priorities of the human communities that live and work there. We have examined a range of tools for achieving various goals in a catchment. Choice and application of one or more tools is dependent on characteristics of the catchment and goals of the stakeholders. Examining interactions helps a catchment manager build a toolbox of available actions. Having chosen goals, which of the resources in that toolbox will help us attain our goals, and how do we apply those tools?
136
a great deal of energy in managing changes in its distribution and quality. Water that irrigates a landscape receives nutrients and sediment, and carries those from the landscape to the stream channel. Much of that material is either deposited in the stream or taken up by plants and animals. The same water is then re-used for other ecosystem services downstream. The continual and repetitive reuse of water offers a perspective about which we need to be mindful; every management decision has potential downstream implications.
system Function
Application of management principles appropriate in one natural system may not work in another that functions in a different way. For example, fire in tropical forest systems causes widespread devastation. On the other hand, savannah trees are dispersed with a grass layer which dries out during the dry season, making it flammable. The latter will always be prone to fires, whether anthropogenic or climatic. Suppressing fires in such a landscape would be impossible and ecologically unsound. Before natural-resource managers advise individual land managers in the area under their jurisdiction, they need to know how the natural system functions and what current land management practices are. If land managers use fire to rejuvenate grazing, for example, it is useless to try and stop them from doing so. The approach should rather be to convince land managers to try alternatives of timing or location, using well informed advocacy programmes or giving them incentives to improve the fire management regime. Natural-resource managers must understand the difference among the functioning of grasslands, savannahs, boreal forests, tropical forests, semi-desert vegetation types, and heath lands before trying to transfer management approaches from one system to another. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) explains the relationship between the production of a set of services from any region and human well-being. Ecosystems consist of a number of different subsets including natural landscapes such as forest, savannahs, grasslands or heath-lands and agricultural and urban areas, each of which produces a different set of services. When resource management tools are
137
being considered, an ecosystem assessment must be done that takes into account both production of services from each land management type and the flows of materials among areas within the system and between systems.
land tenure
When applying a tool or approach, the resource manager must know the land tenure. It is critical to the success of the ecosystem approach that interventions of land managers lead to better livelihood options for the land owner. Different value systems apply to the four different types of land tenure. Government land has generally been set aside for some purpose. That may include military, conservation (e.g., watersheds, national and regional parks), research or numerous other purposes. Whatever management tools or approaches are being considered, the manager must take into account the primary purpose for the land. Communal land tenure is very common, especially in large parts of the developing world. In some countries, an individual cannot own land; only improvements on the land are owned by the land user. In large parts of Africa, tribal authorities are in charge of land. Rights to use of the land are allocated by these authorities. Community-based naturalresource management approaches are some of the most successful tools for management of communal lands. Local authorities are generally responsible for management of urban land. Very often, there are designated green or open spaces owned by such authorities, managed to deliver a series of services to the communities living under the auspices of the local authority. When natural-resource management approaches and tools are being considered, this authority needs to be consulted. Local authority land is often intensively used and highly impacted by local communities. Where the communities are poor, local authority land is often the only access inhabitants have to land. In richer communities, open land is often seen as a recreational resource. In large parts of the world, private ownership is the most common form of land tenure. Generally, private land owners have more rights to their land than any other land owner or manager.
Water tenure
In many countries, access to natural flows is linked to ownership of the land. This means that a landowner owns the water that flows over his/her land. Some views describe water as a fugitive resource, referring to the fact that if a user does not detain it, it runs away. That idea has serious implications for downstream users and often either regulation or incentives need to be used to ensure that land managers allow enough water to be released from their land to support the needs of downstream users, including other countries.
138
To enhance an ecosystem approach to land management, actions of land managers must be properly regulated; they must be well informed, and whatever land management approach is advocated must lead to better livelihood options to the land owner than before the intervention. Groundwater is a different management challenge than surface water. Surface land management practices influence groundwater flow and recharge. However, that relationship is not often apparent to land managers. Similarly, groundwater abstraction policies are influenced by surface ownership independent of the flow path of the groundwater. In areas that rely on groundwater, the manager will benefit from the services of a geohydrologist, services usually available through regional or national government. Water as a public good. Some of the more progressive water legislation in the world has recognized water as a public good and stipulates that land managers can only register use of a certain amount of water. Regulation through appropriate legislation is generally the most commonly used tool to manage water resources. Sometimes, though, downstream users need more water or water of a better quality than what regulations force land users to release. It is then necessary to offer upstream users, whether public or private, an incentive to either improve the quality or the volume of water released through either legal incentives or payments for watershed services. The best known example of payments for watershed services is the Catskills watershed in New York where farmers are paid to change land management practices to improve water quality, thereby reducing the demand for water purification in New York City. A well-known example of the integration of water resource management and socioeconomic development is the Working for Water programme in South Africa where labour-intensive programmes for removal of invasive alien trees are being used to create much-needed jobs to improve stream flow while improving economic condition of the rural poor. Whatever water management approach is being advocated, it is crucial that it fit into the regulatory framework of the region or country. It is useless to try to apply a model taken from a scenario where water is seen as a private good to a country where water is regulated and managed as a public good.
139
Environmental Flows
Natural-resource managers should never forget the importance of environmental flows. Especially in the case of water, over-subscription of the resource leads to collapse of the natural system. The same applies to grazing and others forms of consumptive use such as harvest of roofing and craft materials from wetlands or medicinal plants and timber resources from woodlands. Each of the latter, however, only impacts the local landscape while over-extraction of water has much wider implications. Lastly, it is important to be sure that the livelihood profile of a community after an intervention will outweigh the livelihood profile before the intervention. Figure 17 was developed to illustrate this point with reference to payments for ecosystem services; it applies to all natural-resource management tools a manager has at his/her disposal.
140
Figure 17: Required Impact of Ecosystem Approach Land Management Tool on Livelihoods
Desired land users Current landuse
Financial benefits
landuse systems
(Source: Bond, 2008, unpublished) table 22: Choosing the Appropriate tool for local Conditions
social costs
land tenure
Land Types
141
Incentives
subsets Resource status (rich vs. poor) Mainstreaming Mostly applicable to ecosystem relatively rich countries management through resource incentives given by national, regional or local governments to achieve economic goals Tax incentives Private Communal
cable to)
land types Coastal Inland water bodies, rivers & wetlands Forest Dryland Mountain
142
Stewardship
subsets Forest Biodiversity Water Resource status (rich vs. poor) Largely applicable to resource rich regions land tenure (applicable land types Coastal Private (biodiversity) Communal Inland water bodies, rivers & wetlands (watershed services & biodiversity) Forest (sustainable timber) Dryland (biodiversity) Mountain (watershed services & biodiversity)
to)
Community-based Natural-resource Management Resource status (rich vs. land types land tenure
poor) Largely applicable to resource poor regions Communal land
Coastal (coastal fisheries) Inland water bodies, rivers & wetlands (watershed services) Forest (carbon, timber) Dryland (wildlife, biodiversity, nature-based tourism) Mountain (watershed services)
143
Micro-credit Schemes
subsets Resource status (rich vs. poor) Micro lending Only applicable to poor schemes communities Resource sharing schemes subsets Stocks Flows Resource status (rich vs. poor) Applicable to all systems land tenure Largely applicable to communal tenure land types Cultivated Urban
Resource Accounting
land tenure Applicable to all types of tenure land types Coastal Inland water bodies, rivers & wetlands Forest Dryland Mountain
144
notes on module 15
145
10:3012:30
module 16 at a glance6
How do we know whether our ecosystem management plan is effective in achieving the goals we established for it? Module 16 offers tools to help you clarify the goals you understand society has for your catchment, and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your ecosystem management plan as you attempt to meet those goals.
6 This module relies heavily on, and is adapted from Deri, Swanson & Bhandari, 2009.
146
Learning can result in behaviour change (i.e., acting differently in the future in response to a stimulus). Monitoring and evaluating the EM process offer learning opportunities. Planning for and making use of these learning opportunities can help us identify lessons that become key inputs for improving the next generation of the EM plan. The idea of monitoring and evaluation typically brings about more apprehension than applause. Negative associations, ranging from the trouble of an extra budget line to the fear of not meeting expectations lead to people avoid evaluation, meaning they do not learn from their experiences and thus do not see their value in improving a process. Further, we often mistake outputs (i.e., products such as the EM plan itself) for outcomes (i.e., improved delivery of ecosystem services). When we do so, we see little added value in evaluation as long as a tangible, credible and legitimate EM plan gets published on time. But there is a powerful alternative. Monitoring and evaluating the EM process attracts attention when you want to make sure stakeholders understand the goals set for a catchment and the ways resources were used to achieve the intended goals. In this context, the EM process is a capacity-development mechanism for periodic reflection and improvement. This approach acknowledges that information itself is not enough; dedicated mechanisms are needed to ensure that societal goals for a catchment are well understood, stakeholders know what measures have been taken to meet those goals, and everyone understands how successful management has been in achieving ecosystem service goals. Moreover, it recognizes that institutional improvement can only happen with concurrent improvements in both individual capacities (e.g., stakeholders understanding of limits on ecosystem services) and institutional capacities (e.g., increased capability to identify and install BMPs). Foundation of Effective monitoring and Evaluation We approach monitoring and evaluation through three steps. First, we review different purposes of evaluation and decide on one or more purposes for evaluation of our EM plan. Second, we identify the primary users of our evaluation, people whose perception will control whether or not our evaluation gets used in guiding the evolution of our EM plan. Third, we decide whether external or internal evaluators best serve our purpose for a given EM plan. There are three fundamental types of evaluation; they can render judgment, encourage improvement, or generate new knowledge (Patton, 1997). Summative evaluation, accreditation, quality control and audits are examples of judgment-intended evaluations. They follow a deductive method by setting clear criteria and standards against which to judge performance, and often they are quantitative in nature. These kinds of evaluations often are commissioned by external parties (e.g., donors) and typically are performed by external evaluators. A summative evaluation could increase the credibility of an EM plan, given its impartiality and objectivity. Formative evaluation (Fettermann, 1996) is improvement-oriented. The intent of this type of evaluation is making things better during implementation of a course of behaviour. Formative evaluations are inductive, posing open-ended evaluation. Evaluators are often internal and it usually is the participants
147
themselves, including some of the primary users, who conduct the evaluation. Formative evaluation has a major benefit (i.e., it is the key to adaptive management) and a less apparent benefit (i.e., it can increase the perceived legitimacy of the catchments ecosystem management approach by involving stakeholders in assessing goals, actions to achieve the goals and outcomes from those actions. Formative evaluations often are applied to cyclical activities, like an EM plan for a catchment, where performance improvement is expected over time. This improvement can involve change in behaviour (e.g., BMPs installed) or change in the state of the environment (e.g., improved water quality downstream from BMPs). Outcome mapping (Carden, 2001) focuses on changes in human behaviour, values, skills and knowledge, acknowledging the complexity and the lifecycle of the outcome. Some outcomes (e.g., institutional transformations from an engineering orientation to an integrated approach) may need decades to fully develop. Although having two elements (i.e., both formative and summative) in evaluation may appear confusing, it is important to recognize that both play central roles in ecosystem management. An EM plan intends to identify and sustain delivery of ecosystem services from a catchment. A summative evaluation, which might be completed on a five-year cycle, empowers accountability and clear reporting. A formative evaluation, which would be less involved and more frequent (e.g., annually) empowers adaptive management. All ecosystem management occurs in a dynamic physical and political environment, especially as climate changes accelerate. Those influences increase the power of well-designed and well-reported evaluation of both types. Discussion Questions 1. What would be some benefits of weaving both formative and summative evaluations into an ecosystem management plan for a catchment? 2. What would be the benefits of planning the evaluations in advance of implementing an ecosystem management plan? 3. How would you estimate the costs of designing an evaluation strategy for your EM plan? users Having decided on the intended purpose of your evaluation, the next step is to clarify who has interest in using the evaluation findings (users), and who will eventually implement the monitoring and evaluation (evaluators). The users of an EM evaluation are individuals who Have the ability to influence the design and revision of the EM plan (i.e., the mandate, knowledge and skills)
148
Have sufficient interest to be engaged in revising the EM plan (i.e., a vested interest, something to be gained from influencing design and implementation of the EM plan for an IEA catchment) Identifying those users is perhaps the single most important step in deciding whether or not the evaluation will be influential. If you know who the users are, what decisions they have to make, and how the evaluation results can support their decisions, you can attract their attention and increase the uptake of evaluation results. The primary users of the evaluation may include Catchment manager and staff Policy and decision-makers in the broad sense (i.e., ministry personnel, local government) Stakeholders who live, work in and value the catchment More remote stakeholders (e.g., national government) may often seem marginally interested. Some of them are relatively active and demand information, while others may appear to be passive and pleased to be informed whenever information is available. Influence that passivity to the degree possible; the more active they are, the more interested they are likely to be in your evaluation, so try to get them involved. Often, the perceived success of an EM plan depends on a single person in the catchment or in the national local or government who is committed and driven. If possible, identify such people (one or more of them) and involve them in performing and/or communicating the results of the evaluation. Evaluators The purpose and the users of your evaluation will shape your preference for internal or external evaluators. A combination of internal and external evaluators is the ideal solution, because it benefits from the dedication and insight of internal members, and the impartial objectivity of external observers and peer reviewers. Evaluators may include: A small internal evaluation task force (including the catchment management core team, which is recommended) External evaluators (e.g., consultants, internal evaluators of another EM plan) A combination of internal and external parties Catchment management staffs are often underfunded; external evaluators often are not a possibility. A great deal can be gained through peer evaluation. An in-country or regional network of catchment managers who have relatively similar catchments can offer the chance to share perspectives at
149
relatively low cost. Such peer evaluations do not offer the credibility of, and cannot make the contribution of an external evaluation. Some catchments have found it positive to engage in a low-cost, peer-evaluation relatively frequently (e.g., every twothree years) and a higher cost, higher visibility evaluation less often (e.g., every 10 years). Planning a self-assessment We have discussed developing a monitoring and evaluation strategy for an EM plan; it is useful to next consider a self-assessment matrix, a key tool for monitoring and evaluating the EM process. Internallyconducted monitoring and evaluation (i.e., self-assessment) requires planning (Lusthaus, Adrien & Carden, 1999) Issues for self-assessment Measures that will help you answer questions you have about the institutional context relevant to your catchment Data sources to answer these questions Data collection methods best suited to your questions, realities and constraints Priorities for and frequency of data collection The following three self-assessment steps might be helpful in guiding an EM monitoring plan Identify major issues and monitoring questions, and develop specific measures for each Identify sources of data and data collection methods Set priorities and frequency of monitoring Identify major Issues and monitoring Questions, and Develop specific measures for Each In a self-assessment, we try to identify major issues that should be monitored and evaluated, and the key questions associated with these issues. For example, have the improvements in ecosystem services that you identified in your EM plan been realized? What other improvements in practices (e.g., changes in land cover, water resource variables) have you observed during and following your EM plan process?
150
notes on module 16
151
152
5. Review and Learning: The spirit of a pilot test is review and learning; this appreciates that in complex adaptive systems, it will be the system that determines what works and what does not. The ecosystem manager must first and foremost be a learner; and 6. Portfolio Refinement: The lessons from piloting a variety of ecosystem initiatives will provide the necessary insight or impetus for implementing an improvement in the portfolio. This may include adjustments to a given initiative(s), or the termination of one more initiatives. Figure 18: the strategic and Adaptive Cycle of Ecosystem management.
153
Group Discussion Question: Have you ever been part of an ecosystem initiative that did not go as planned? What happened and why? How might a more formal review process with multiple project stakeholders and additional analysis have helped to anticipate and mitigate the issues encountered?
154
The U.K. study identified two types of policy pilots: Impact pilotstests of the likely effects of new policies, measuring or assessing their early outcomes. They enable evidence of the effects of a policy change to be tested against a genuine counterfactual, such as is provided by the use of control groups in a medical trial. Process pilotsdesigned to explore the practicalities of implementing a policy in a particular way or a particular route, assessing what methods of delivery work best or are most costeffective (U.K. Cabinet Office 2003). The critical nature of a credible and legitimate monitoring process is also underscored by the U.K. Cabinet Office. They note the following: pilots must be free from real or perceived pressure to deliver good news and be designed to bring out rather than conceal a policys imperfections. To this end, the Ministers and civil servants that are closely involved with the policy should consider distancing themselves from decisions about pilot methods and the dissemination of their findings. (Cited in Tomar & Swanson, 2009) The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is the ecosystem managers primary tool at this stage of the process. KPIs were introduced in Module 8 in the context of an outcome-based management framework that related a specific ecosystem initiative and its outputs to immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes. For a basic review, the anatomy of a KPI is illustrated in Figure 19 and includes the units, title, data source, and target. The target is critical to this discussion. In this context, the target is the level of the KPI at which stakeholders have agreed the hypothesis has been proven, thereby indicating that the ecosystem initiative is a viable means of achieving the ultimate outcome. The ecosystem manager must track two levels of KPIs: Near-term KPIs: These are activity and output KPIs to gauge whether the hypothesis upon which the initiative is based was correct (i.e., can the initiative deliver a positive ecosystem benefit). Using the case example presented in Module 8 for salmon restoration and hydropower development, an output level KPI for the increased spillway operation initiative might be the per cent increase in downstream salmon population, while the activity level KPI might be per cent of spillway operation completed. The latter would be used to track the progress of the project, and the former used to track the success of the project. For a general review, the anatomy of a KPI is depicted in Figure 19, displaying units for the data, a legend, data source and a target.
155
longer-term kPIs: These are the KPIs which gauge the performance of ecosystem initiatives that have been demonstrated to be viable and which stakeholders have agreed to implement at a larger scale across the ecosystem. These are outcome KPIs and include immediate, intermediate and ultimate level KPIs. Referring again to Module 8 and the spillway operation ecosystem initiative, a KPI at the immediate outcome level might gauge the level of awareness among hydropower planners of the viability of spillway operation as a viable means for salmon restoration (e.g., number of hydropower planners attending presentations on results of increased spillway operation projects). An intermediate KPI might then be the total volume and/or duration of spillway operation in the ecosystem. These KPIs in turn, provide the signals for the potential increases in the ultimate level outcome indicator (e.g., total salmon population) and proximity to the agreed target (in this hypothetical case, 20 per cent above baseline counts within five years).
Reviewing the Portfolio and learning What Works and What Does not
Assessing what is working and what is not is the essence of this stage. Here, the ecosystem manager is listening to stakeholders, scientists and signals from the KPIs being monitored. Essentially, the ecosystem manager is in an acute learning mode. Holling (1978) outlined eight broad lessons that provide important rationales for why formal review and continuous learning is necessary for policy interventions. Those include: Since everything is not intimately connected to everything else, there is no need to measure everything. There is a need, however, to determine the significant connections; Structural features (i.e., size, distribution, age, who connects to whom) are more important to measure than numbers;
156
Changes in one variable can have unexpected impacts on variables at the same place but several connections away; Events at one place can re-emerge as impacts at distant places; Monitoring the wrong variable can seem to indicate no change even when drastic change is imminent; Impacts are not necessarily immediate and gradual; they can appear abruptly sometime after the event; Variability of ecological systems, including occasional major disruptions, provides a kind of self-monitoring system that maintains resilience. Polices that reduce variability in space or time, even in an effort to improve environmental quality, should always be questioned; and Many existing impact assessment methods (e.g., costbenefit analysis, input output, crossimpact matrices, linear models and discounting) assume none of the above occurs or, at least, that none is important. Such observations are not just unique to natural resources management. The healthcare sector also deals with such complexity in policy interventions. Glouberman et al . (2003) learned that in working within complex adaptive systems, possible solutions undergo selection by the system itself. They therefore, stress the importance of evaluating performance of potential solutions, and based on this evaluation, selecting the best candidates for further support and development. Tomar and Swanson (2009) provide guidance to policy-makers in creating adaptive policies, describing how formal review can be triggered in three ways: (1) after a specified time period; (2) at a specific KPI level and (3) by stakeholder feedback, including new scientific information. The required periodicityof a time-triggered review depends primarily on the level of risk associated with policy failure and on the pace of change in policy parameters and intended outcomes. As a general rule of thumb, somewhere between an annual and a five-year review is recommended for most policies. In situations where the performance of a policy is highly sensitive to a certain input parameter, or where the impacts of the policy are potentially serious but uncertain, using the KPIs as signposts to trigger the review in addition to time-triggers is merited. Stakeholder feedback always has and always will be an important part of review. Each ecosystem initiative should have an identified expert team that reviews feedback received on the initiative and has the necessary capacity to analyze responses and devise good ways to respond to them. Reviewed on an individual basis, stakeholder feedback is often seen as a host of complaints that cannot all be addressed. But taken in aggregate, a set of seemingly unrelated complaints may actually be telling an important story about an emerging issue or an unintended consequence of a policy instrument. Watershed Development Project In Shifting Cultivation Areas (WDPSCA) In Meghalaya
157
Box 11: Case Study of Formal Review and Learning The Watershed Development Project in Shifting Cultivation Areas (WDPSCA) scheme has taken a watershed basis for treatment of arable and non-arable lands affected by shifting cultivation and to provide alternative farming methods to the farmers. It is implemented through the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India as a Special Central Assistance to the State Plan Programme for the benefit of jhumia (shifting cultivation) families who are living below the poverty line. In Meghalaya, about 530 square kilometres is under shifting cultivation. As the land and water resources are becoming more depleted in the state, the government has taken various conservation measures and developmental programmes in arable and non-arable lands. The jhum control programme is one of the schemes aimed at combatting further deterioration of fertile topsoil. The main thrust of the scheme is to provide an effective supporting base for permanent settlement of the communities engaged in jhum cultivation. Formal review and continuous learning: There is periodical review of progress during the implementation phase at the district, state and national level under Indias national Five-Year Plan process. A system of concurrent evaluation has also evolved through internal as well as external agencies. In such evaluation studies, a critical assessment is made in several ways (e.g., relevance of technological content, involvement of people in the programme, gender equity and equity for poor farmers, facilitation of group action). On completion of the project, an impact evaluation is undertaken by external agencies. Source: Tomar and Swanson (2011) Group Discussion Question: What do you feel are the main barriers to effective monitoring, learning and portfolio refinement? How might they be overcome?
158
Results Chain
ultimate outcomes (change in state of environment, social, economic or aspect)
Ecosystem Initiative #1
Restoration of salmon population and profitable hydropower KPI: Downstream salmon count Target: 20% above baseline counts within 5 years
Ecosystem Initiative #2
Restoration of salmon population and profitable hydropower KPI: Downstream salmon count Target: 20% above baseline counts within 5 years Permanent increase in fish ladder capacity KPI: Salmon count immediately downstream of ladder Target: x% of upstream count Awareness among hydropower policy-makers that improved fish ladder technology can increase salmon population KPI: # of hydropower planners and policy-makers attending presentation on results of fish ladder experiments Target: (this target should include the specific names of influential persons identified in the impact strategy)
More frequent spillway operation Intermediate outcomes (new/improved policy KPI: Total spillway operation time Target: x hours more per month or practice) Awareness among hydropower policy-makers Immediate that increased spillway operation is a feasible outcomes (increased awareness, means to increase salmon population capacity or access)
KPI: # of hydropower planners and policymakers attending presentation on results of spillway experiments Target: (this target should include the specific names of influential persons identified in the impact strategy)
Ecosystem experiment results showing the im- Ecosystem experiment results outputs (knowledge generated pact of spillway operation on salmon popula- showing the impact of fish ladder operation on salmon populaor services delivered) tion KPI: Presentation delivered on results of ecosystem experiment Target: Completed on schedule tion KPI: Presentation delivered on results of ecosystem experiment Target: Completed on schedule
159
Ecosystem experiment to test the impact of increased spillway operation on salmon population (including salmon population and streamflow monitoring). KPI: Progress toward completion of ecosystem experiment Target: Completed on schedule
Ecosystem experiment to test the impact of improved fish ladder design on salmon population (including salmon population and streamflow monitoring). KPI: Progress toward completion of ecosystem experiment Target: Completed on schedule
Foregone revenues from hydropower genera- Foregone revenues from hydrotion; Personnel and operating costs for salmon power generation; Personnel and population and streamflow monitoring operating costs for salmon population and streamflow monitorKPI: Actual versus budgeted expenditures ing Target: Within budget KPI: Actual versus budgeted expenditures Target: Within budget
notes on module 17
160
161
162
References
Amazon Conservation Team (ACT). (2009). Retrieved from www.amazonteam.org Arthington, A.H., & Zalucki, J.M. (1998). Comparative assessment of environmental flow assessment techniques: A review of methods LWRRDC Occasional Paper 27/98. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.73.808&rep=rep1&type=pdf Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M.D. (2000). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier . New York: Basic Books. Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. Balmford, A., et al. (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. J. Sci., 297: 950953. Barg, S., & Tyler, S. (2009). Decentralization of decision-making. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.) Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC Barry, D., & Oelschlaeger, M. (1996). A science for survival: values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 19(3): 905911. Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 12511262. Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., & Swanson, D. (2009). Automatic policy adjustment . In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.) Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC Bingham, G., Bishop, R., Brody, M., Bromley, D., Clark, E., Cooper, W.,. . . & Suter, G. (1995). Issues in ecosystem valuation: Improving information for decision making. Ecological Economics 14, pp.7390. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A. & Renard, Y. (2005) Sharing power: Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world. Retrieved from http://www.iapad.org/sharing_power.htm Calder, I. (2002). Forests and hydrologic services: Reconciling public and science perceptions. Land and Water Research, 2, 112. Carden, F., Earl, S. & Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programs . International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Retrieved from http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
163
UNEP--IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual Creech, H., Jaeger, J., Lucas,N., Wasstol, M., & Chenje, J. (2007). Training Module 3: Developing an impact strategy for your IEA. In L. Pintr, J. Chenje & D. Swanson (Eds.) Integrated environmental assessment training manual. The United Nations Environment Programme and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/ieacp/_res/site/File/iea-training-manual/module-3.pdf de Groot,R.S., van der Perk, J.P., Chiesura, A.& van Vliet, A.J.H. (2003). Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital. Ecological Economics 44 (2-3),187204. Deri, A., Swanson, D., & Bhandari, P. (2007). Training Module 8: Monitoring, evaluation and learning: for improved and increased impact of the IEA process. In L. Pintr, J. Chenje & D. Swanson (Eds.) Integrated environmental assessment training manual. The United Nations Environment Programme and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/ieacp/_res/site/File/iea-training-manual/module-8.pdf Dixon, J. & Pagiola, S. (1998, April). Economic analysis and environmental assessment. Environmental Assessment - Sourcebook Update 23. Environment Dept., the World Bank. Dubai International Award for Best Practices (DIABP), supported by the Municipality of Dubai and Government of United Arab Emirates. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.dubaiaward.ae Easter, K.W., & Perry, J. (2011). Minnesota water policy: Issues, incentives and action. Washington, D.C.: Resources For The Future. (Chapter 1, cited in Module 13) Ellerman, D., (2004). Parallel experimentation: A basic scheme for dynamic efficiency. Retrieved from http://ssrn. com/abstract=549963 Farber, S.C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M.A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41, pp. 375392 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2006). The New Generation of Watershed Management Programmes and Projects. FAO Forestry Papers 150. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0644e/a0644e00.htm Fetterman, D.M., Kaftarian, S.J., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (1996). Empowerment Evaluation. Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fisheries and oceans Canada. (2009). National Recreational Fisheries Awards. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/rec/rfa-ppr/awards-prix-eng.htm Forest Stewardship Council Australia. (1996). 2nd Annual Responsible Forest Management Awards 2009. Retrieved from http://www.fscaustralia.org/index.php?id=57
164
UNEP--IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual Forest Trends. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.forest-trends.org/ Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Foundation Gaia Amazonas. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.gaiaamazonas.org/ Friedman, T. (2010, February 17). Global wierding is here. New York Times. Glouberman, S., Campsie, P., Gemar, M., & Miller, G. (2003). A toolbox for improving health in cities. Caledon Institute for Social Policy. Goltenboth, F., & Hutter, C.P. (2002). Rainforestation farming. Retrieved from http://www.euronatur.org/ fileadmin/docs/projekte/Rainforestation.PDF Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development. New directions in the study of long- term transformative change. New York: Routledge. Government of Canada. (2011). Results-based Management Lexicon. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/cee/ pubs/lex-eng.asp Haas, P.M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46: 135. Holling, C.S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Homer-Dixon, T. (2006). The upside of down: Catastrophe, creativity and the renewal of civilization. Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd. Hunter, M.L., & Gibbs, J.P. (2007). Fundamentals of conservation biology. New York: John Wiley and Sons. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). (n.d.). BellagioStamp principles. Retrieved from http://www.iisd.org/measure/principles/progress/bellagiostamp/principles.asp Kipepeo Butterfly Project. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.kipepeo.org Kjell, D., Bergstrom, R., Duncan, P.S., & Pastor, J. (2006). Large herbivore ecology: Ecosystem dynamics and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, K. (1993). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press Lusthaus, C., Adrien,l M., & Carden, F. (1999). Enhancing organizational performance: A toolbox for selfassessment. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Retrieved from http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9370-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
165
UNEP--IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual Majone, G., & Wildawsky, A. (1978). Implementation as evolution. Policy Studies Review, 12. 103117. Malimbwi, R.E., & Zahabu, E. (n.d.). Chapter 9: The analysis of sustainable charcoal production systems in Tanzania. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Retrieved from www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1321e/i1321e10.pdf Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment Island Press. Retrieved from http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4) Nair, S., & Roy, D. (2009). Promoting variation. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds .), Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC National Geographic 2010 Conservation Trust (2010). Retrieved from http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/ grants-programs/conservation-trust/ Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD). (2006). Applying strategic environmental assessment: Good practice guidance for development cooperation. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. Retrieved from http://www.sourceoecd.org/development/9264026576 Pabon-Zamora, L., Fauzi, A., Halim, A., Bezaury-Creel, J., Vega-Lopez, E., Leon, F., Gil, L. & Cartaya, V. (2008). Protected areas and human well-being: Experiences from Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. In: Protected areas in todays world: Their values and benefits for the welfare of the planet, pp.6776. Secretariat of Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series no. 36, Montreal. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/ doc/publications/cbd-ts-36-en Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pauly, M.V. (1998). Managed care, market power and monopsony. Health Services Research, 33, 1439-1460. Pintr, L., Swanson, D., Abdel-Jelil, I., Nagatani-Yoshida, K., Rahman, A., & Kok, M. (2008). Module 5: Integrated analysis of environmental trends and policies. In L. Pintr, J. Chenje & D. Swanson (Eds.), IEA training manual: A training manual on integrated environmental assessment and reporting. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Division of Early Warning and Assessment. Nairobi/Winnipeg: UNEP/IISD. Powicki, C.R. (1998, JulyAugust). The value of ecological resources. EPRI Journal, 23. Ralston, Bill, & Ian Wilson. (2006). The scenario planning handbook. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western. Ramsar Convention CEPA. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ramsar.org/outreach_index.htm
166
UNEP--IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual Rihani, S. (2002). Complex systems theory and development practice: Understanding non-linear realities. New York: Zed Books. Roy, D., Nair, S. & Venema, H.D. (2009) Self-organization and social networking. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.), Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/ IDRC Ruitenbeek, J. & Cartier, C. (2001, October). The invisible wand: Adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy in complex bio-economic systems. Centre for International Forestry Research. Retrieved from http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-034.pdf Sabatier, P. & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An assessment. I. P. Sabatier, (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press Schuyt, K. & Brander, L. (2004). The economic value of the Worlds wetlands. WWF Living Waters: Conserving the Source of Life. Gland, Switzerland. Skoll Foundation. (2010). Skoll Awards for Social Entrepreneurship Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.skollfoundation.org/skollawards/index.asp SPREP. (2004b). The Priority Environmental Concerns of Papua New Guinea Apia, Samoa. Retrieved from http://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000367_PNG_PEC_Report.pdf Steinemann, A., & Norton, B. (2003). Environmental values and adaptive management. In B. Norton,(Ed.), Searching for Sustainability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stuip, M.A.M., Baker, C.J. & Oosterberg, W. (2002). The Socio-economics of Wetlands. Wetlands International and RIZA, The Netherlands. Swanson, D. A, Barg, S., Tyler, S., Venema, H.D. et al . (2010). Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological forecasting & social change, 77, 924939. Swanson, D. & Bhadwal, S. (Eds.). (2009). Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC Swanson, D., Pintr, L. & Barg, S. (2010). Exploring the intersection of sustainability, accountability and adaptability. Presented at the 2nd National Conference of the Canadian Sustainability Indicators Conference Accountability Through Measurement. Toronto, Canada Swanson, D., & Tomar, S. (2009). Integrated and forward-looking analysis, In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.), Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC
167
UNEP--IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual The Safari Guide. (n.d.). Habitat management and bush encroachment in the Africa Veldt. Retrieved from http:// www.thesafariguide.net/conservation/habitat-management Tomar, S., & Swanson, D. (2009). Formal policy review and continuous learning. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.), Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/ IDRC Tyler, S. (2009). Multi-stakeholder deliberation. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.) Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC U.K. Government Chief Social Researchers Office. (2003). Trying it out: The role of pilots in policy-making [Report of a review of government pilots]. U.K.: Government Chief Social Researchers Office, Cabinet Office. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2000). The ecosystem approach: Decision taken at the Fifth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme, Retrieved www.cbd.int/decisions/?m=COP-05&id=7148&lg=0 Vorhies, F. (1999). Environmental economics explained. In: Valuing Wetlands: Guidance for valuing the benefits for derived from wetland ecosystem services, Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. Walker, W.E., & Marchau, V.A.W.J. (2003). Dealing with uncertainty in policy analysis and policy-making. Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 14. Walker, W.E., Marchau, V.A.W.J., & Swanson, D. (2010). Addressing deep uncertainty using adaptive policies: Introduction to Section 2. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77. Walker, W.E., Rahman, S.A. & Cave, J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 128, 282289. White, M.E. (1997). Listen: Our land is crying. Australias environment: Problems and solutions. Roseburg Publications. Wilson, M.A. & Carpenter, S.R. (1999). Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystems services in the United States 1971-1997. Ecological Applications, 9(3): 77283. Wilson, M.A., & Howarth, R.B. (2002). Distributional fairness and ecosystem service valuation. Ecological Economics, 41, 421429 World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2010). Three of the seven existing species of marine turtle are critically endangered. Retrieved from http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/marineturtles/marineturtles.html
168
UNEP--IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual Workshop Case studies (from Facilitator Manual) Carpathian Environmental Outlook Alburnus, M. (2010, February 1). Rosia Montana gold mining project on hold [Press release]. Retrieved from http://rosiamontana.org/en/index.shtml?cmd[314]=x-314-36018&cmd[316]=x-322-36018&cmd[300]=x -29936018 Regional Environmental Center (REC). (2000). The cyanide spill at Baia Mare, Romania: Before, during and afterA summary/brochure of UNEP/OCHA report. Retrieved from http://archive.rec.org/REC/Publications/ CyanideSpill/ENGCyanide.pdf UNEP. (2010). GEO: Keeping the Global Environment Under Review. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/geo/ UNEP. (2007). Carpathians environmental outlook (KEO). Retrieved from http://www.grid.unep.ch/activities/ assessment/KEO/index.php Traditional Knowledge as Adaptive Management Armitage, D.R. (2002). Traditional agroecological knowledge, adaptive management and the socio-politics of conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 30(1), 7990. Public Participation in Biodiversity and Water Governance in the European Union: The GoverNat project Arnstein, A. (1969). A ladder of citizenship participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 26(4), 216233. European Commission, Directorate General Environment (EC DG Environment). (2010a). The EU Water Framework DirectiveIntegrated river basin management for Europe. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html EC DG Environment. (2010b). The Habitats Directive. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm EC DG Environment. (2010c). Natura 2000 Network. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm GoverNat (2010). Retrieved from www.governat.eu Suskevics, M., Berghofer, A., Rauschmayer, F., & Wittmer, H. (2010). Towards successful participation in European biodiversity and water governance. Policy brief. Retrieved from www.governat.eu/files/files/policy_brief_governat_1_2010.pdf Advocacy Against Burning of Agricultural Residues in the Fields of Lithuania Lithuanian Young Environmentalist Centre (LYEC). (2010). Akcija A noriu gyventi [I Want to Live campaign]. Retrieved from http://www.gamtininkai.lt/As_noriu_gyv.html#
169
UNEP--IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual Ministry of Environment of Lithuania (MoEoL). (2005, April 7). ols deginimas nusikaltimas gamtai [Burning of the grass crime against nature] [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.am.lt/VI/article.php3?article_id=3911 MoEoL. (2008, March 12). U ols deginim prarastos imokos ir administracins nuobaudos [Lost subsidies and administrative fines for field burning] [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.am.lt/VI/article.php3?article_id=7354 MoEoL. (2009, April 3). Ir vl deginama pernykt ol [Last years grass is being burned again] [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.am.lt/VI/article.php3?article_id=8663 State Fire and Rescue Department (SFRD). (2010, April 1). Nedeginkit pernykts ols! [Do not burn last years grass!]. [Press release]. http://www.vpgt.lt/index.php?1169565099 Retrieved June 26, 2010 Chinas Sloping Land Conversion Program Smil, V. (1996). Environmental problems in China: Estimates of economic costs. EastWest Center Special Reports, 5, 162. Uchida, E., Xu, J., & Rozelle, S. (2005). Grain for green: Cost-effectiveness and sustainability of Chinas conservation set-aside program. Land Economics, 81(2), 247264. Van den Dool, A. (2010). Chinas Sloping Land Conversion Program in Pingzhang village, Yunnan province: Effective, efficient, sustainable? [Master of Science thesis] Lund University International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics. Wang, J., Gao, M., & Zhou, G. (2006). Establishment of China green national accounting system. The World Bank -Italian Trust Fund Project Final report. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/Resources/Green_accounting_Final_E N.doc Xu, Z., Bennett, M.T., Tao, R. & Xu, J. (2004). Chinas Sloping Land Conversion Programme four years on: Current situation, pending issues. International Forestry Review, 6(3-4), 317326. Marine Turtle Conservation, Community Livelihoods and Community Well-being: An example of rewards for ecosystem services Montoya, F., & Drews, C. (2006). Livelihoods, community well-being, and species conservation: A guide for understanding, evaluating and improving the links in the context of marine turtle programmes. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Marine and Species Program for Latin America and the Caribbean. San Jose, Costa Rica.
170
UNEP--IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual Trong, S., & Drews, C. (2004). Money talks: Economic aspects of marine turtle use and conservation. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Gland, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.panda.org/downloads/species/moneytalks.pdf World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2009). Gabriel Francia. The art of saving marine turtles. Video produced by Olivafilms.com in association with the World Wildlife Fund. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=622f0QFmCYc&feature=player_embedded The Largest Conservation Battle in Australia: Hydroelectric development and wilderness in South-West Tasmania Australian Human Rights Commission. (2008). Case Study 2: The Murray Darling Basin: an ecological and human tragedy. Native Title Report, 2008, 265299. Retrieved from http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/nt_report/ntreport08/pdf/casestudy2.pdf Australian National Parks (ANP). (2009). Franklin-Gordon Rivers National Park. Retrieved from http://www.australiannationalparks.com/tasmania/franklin/default.htm Dragun, K.A. (1983). Hydroelectric development and wilderness conflict in South-West Tasmania. Environmental Conservation, 10(3), 197204. National Library of Australia. (2010). Dombrovskis collection of Tasmanian wilderness photographs. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an24314453 Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania (PWST). (2008). Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Retrieved from http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=391 Sadler, H. & Dragun, A.K. (1983). Australian High-court decision ensures preservation of the South-West Tasmanian Wilderness Environmental Conservation, 10(3), 355356. The Role of Women in Ecosystem Restoration: The Green Belt Movement of Kenya Maathai, W. (2008). An unbreakable link: Peace, environment and democracy. Harvard International Review, 29(4), 2427. Brownhill, L. (2007, Spring/Summer). Gendered struggles for the commons: Food sovereignty, tree-planting and climate change. Women and Environments International Magazine. The Green Belt Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.greenbeltmovement.org/
171
United Nations Environment Programme P.O. Box 30552 - 00100 Nairobi, Kenya Tel.: +254 20 762 1234 Fax: +254 20 762 3927 e-mail: uneppub@unep.org www.unep.org
International Institute for Sustainable Development Head Office 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4 Tel: +1 (204) 958-7700 Fax: +1 (204) 958-7710 www.iisd.org