S.A.P.I.EN.SSurveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment andSociety 

7.2 | 2014Vol.7 / n°2 - Large-Scale Restoration

Electronic versionURL: http://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1541ISSN: 1993-3819

PublisherInstitut Veolia

Electronic referenceS.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014, « Vol.7 / n°2 - Large-Scale Restoration » [Online], Online since 23 April 2014,connection on 23 October 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1541

This text was automatically generated on 23 October 2020.

Licence Creative Commons

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The State of United States Aquatic RestorationSiobhan Fennessy and Jeffrey JacobsGaëll Mainguy (ed.)

300,000 Hectares Restored in Shinyanga, Tanzania — but what did it really take to achievethis restoration?Edmund BarrowGaëll Mainguy (ed.)

CASE STUDY: Community Based Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation (CBEMR) in IndonesiaFrom small (12-33 ha) to medium scales (400 ha) with pathways for adoption at larger scales (>5000 ha)Ben Brown, Ratna Fadillah, Yusran Nurdin, Iona Soulsby and Rio AhmadGaëll Mainguy (ed.)

Participatory governance of Marine Protected Areas: a political challenge, an ethicalimperative, different trajectoriesSenegal case studiesMarie-Christine Cormier-SalemGaëll Mainguy (ed.)

Restoration of rice landscape biodiversity by farmers in Vietnam through education andmotivation using mediaK.L. Heong, M.M. Escalada, H.V. Chien and L.Q. CuongGaëll Mainguy (ed.)

Oregon’s Restoration Economy: How investing in natural assets benefits communities andthe regional economyCathy P. Kellon and Taylor HesselgraveGaëll Mainguy (ed.)

A 10-year ecosystem restoration community of practice tracks large-scale restoration trendsRobert Daoust, Terry Doss, Mark Gorman, Matt Harwell and Cheryl UlrichGaëll Mainguy (ed.)

Transborder Drylands Restoration: Vision and Reality After Three Decades of InnovativePartnerships on the U.S.-Mexico BorderTom BarryGaëll Mainguy (ed.)

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

1

The State of United States AquaticRestoration

Siobhan Fennessy and Jeffrey Jacobs

Gaëll Mainguy (ed.)

EDITOR'S NOTE

This manuscript was published as part of a special issue on the subject of largescale

restoration of ecosystems.

1 The last twenty-five years have seen increasing interests in both the science and

practice of aquatic ecosystem restoration in the United States. Aquatic ecosystems were

heavily altered in the U.S. during the early and mid-twentieth century for purposes of

flood control, navigation, water supply, and agricultural and urban development. Over

time, and with changing social preferences, it became clear that past successes in water

resource development often led to the loss of important functions and services

provided by aquatic ecosystems. Restoration activities began as a result, in part driven

by legal imperatives, such as the 1973 Endangered Species Act and 1972, 1977, and

other amendments to the Clean Water Act.

2 Aquatic restoration activities span a range of activities and scales. Examples include:

systematic, long-term restoration of some degree of pre-regulation river and stream

flow; discrete river flow or reservoir release experiments; deliberate drawdown of river

levels in navigation pools behind dams; and, physical construction of meanders, cutoffs

and wetlands in floodplains and adjacent to river channels. At smaller scales,

restoration activities may be carried out by individual landowners, or farmers; at larger

scales, the resources and authorities of state and the U.S. federal government often are

required. To this end, in 1996 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers added a new mission

area of ecosystem restoration to its traditional responsibilities of flood risk

management and support of navigation. Their focus is on integrated restoration

including wetland, riparian, river and coastal habitats.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

2

3 As the demand for aquatic ecosystem restoration in the U.S. has increased, the science

of restoration and the need for regionally-based restoration programs, has grown

accordingly. The challenges of restoration are many and include our incomplete

understanding of the complexity of ecosystems and the limit this places on our ability

to predict ecosystem response to restoration efforts. As a result, many U. S. federal and

state agencies now employ an adaptive management framework to advance the science

of restoration while working to achieve project goals. Adaptive management couples

predictions on what is expected to occur in a restoration project, with appropriate

monitoring to discover what did occur, and stipulates that management actions be

revised to align the two. It provides a flexible approach to learning so that the most

effective and sustainable restoration strategies can be implemented (NRC, 2004).

4 The best restoration projects have been designed to add to our scientific understanding

of ecosystems and their functions, and to provide social and economic benefits such as

water supply enhancement, or species preservation. Adopting an experimental

approach to restoration, in which alternative approaches are tested systematically and

cause and effect relationships are explored, moves the science of restoration forward

more rapidly. Adaptive, science-based restoration has been laid out as a series of steps

including: 1—making project goals explicit; 2—basing project design on the most

current ecological knowledge; 3—assessing the response of the system quantitatively by

collecting data both before and after the project is implemented; and 4—analyzing the

data to determine whether project goals are being met (Zedler, 2005).

5 Adaptive management in restoration is particularly valuable for projects centered on

unique, large-scale ecosystems such as the Florida Everglades or the Chesapeake Bay.

The Everglades, a once vast mosaic of interconnected habitats, has experienced nearly

150 years of drainage, channelization and water control (NRC, 2012). The Chesapeake

Bay, the largest and most diverse estuary in the U.S., is threatened by nutrient and

sediment inputs that have substantially altered its ecological condition, leading to

harmful algal blooms and reduction of fish populations (NRC, 2011). Adaptive

management actions in both ecosystems recognize that continued assessment and

feedback will help fill critical knowledge gaps, acknowledge tradeoffs in decision-

making, and ultimately maximize restoration success, leading to more successful

restoration efforts elsewhere.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Research Council [NRC] (2004). Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning.

Washington, D.C. National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2011). Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake

Bay. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2012). Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades. Washington, D.C.:

National Academies Press.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

3

Zedler, J.B. (2005). Restoring wetland plant diversity: a comparison of existing and adaptive

approaches. Wetland Ecology and Management 13: 5-14.

AUTHORS

SIOBHAN FENNESSY

Kenyon College and member, National Research Council Water Science and Technology Board

JEFFREY JACOBS

Director, National Research Council Water Science and Technology Board

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

4

300,000 Hectares Restored inShinyanga, Tanzania — but what didit really take to achieve thisrestoration?

Edmund Barrow

Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This manuscript was published as part of a special issue on the subject of largescale

restoration of ecosystems. This manuscript was reviewed by two anonymous referees.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

5

Box 1. Facts and Figures: Shinyanga Ecosystem Restoration

* Location: Shinyanga region is in north Tanzania, and south of Lake Victoria; the region has an

area of approximately 50,000 sq.km.

* Ecosystems: Heavily modified Miombo and Acacia woodland ecosystems (mostly converted to

other forms of use).

* Size of Community: Approximately 833 villages with a population of 2.25 million people.

* Restored Area: Between 1986 & 2004 approx. 300,000 hectare (& probably considerably more by

2014) – most farmers had their own restored patches together with restored village forests.

* Budget (estimate over 25 years): Approx. US$ 1.9 million, or approx. $6.4 per restored Ha (figures

based on estimates of investment).

* Instutional and Technical Partners: Government of Tanzania (Ministry of Natural Resources

and Tourism), Government of Norway, Shinyanga Regional, District and Village Governments,

variety of NGO’s, ICRAF, IUCN.

* Main Objectives and Benefits: Restore goods and services of Miombo and Acacia woodlands in

the region; support equitable community and village ownership and management of woodlands.

Restoration contributes $14 per person per month across the whole region (see Table 1).

Background

1 Shinyanga region, in north Tanzania (and south of Lake Victoria), is one of the

country’s poorer regions, has over 2.25 million people with an average growth rate of

2.8% p.a. (1990s), and covers 50,000 square kilometres with a population density of 42

people per square kilometre. The high population density, combined with the people’s

agro-pastoral land use depending on livestock, subsistence, and cash cropping,

exacerbated already serious problems of land clearing both prior to, and after 1986

(Barrow et al., 1988; Kilihama, 1994; Maro, 1995; Mlenge, 2005; Otsyina et al., 1993). The

region has an average annual rainfall of 600-800 mm, which is erratic and poorly

distributed. The natural vegetation in Shinyanga historically consisted of extensive

Miombo and Acacia woodlands (Burtt, 1942; Malcolm, 1953).

2 Shinyanga by 1985 represented an ecosystem in transition, and was called the “Desert

of Tanzania” by President Julius Nyerere (Ghazi et al., 2005). Woodlands were cleared to

eradicate tsetse fly, create land and space for agriculture and cash cropping, and cater

for the needs of a growing population. As a result the system was close to collapse, and

ecosystem conversion came at a cost. The goods and services that trees and woodlands

provided were lost. Fuelwood took between 2-4 hours to collect. The end of dry season

forage so badly needed by oxen was no longer readily available, thereby compromising

land cultivation. Wild fruit and medicinal plants were difficult to find. In short, all

those things vital for the livelihoods of the Sukuma people were disappearing.

The “What” — 300,000 plus hectares restored

3 In response, in 1986, the Government of Tanzania started the Shinyanga Soil

Conservation Programme, or HASHI (Swahili: Hifadhi Ardhi Shinyanga) (Barrow et al. ,

1988). This helped establish the basis for restoration and enhancing the resilience of

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

6

the overall system. Resilience refers to the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance

and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same

function, structure and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to

change in order to maintain the same identity (Folke et al., 2010). The Government of

Tanzania was the major donor, with additional funding from the Government of

Norway. The key vehicle for restoration was “Ngitili” or “enclosures” or “fodder

reserves” in the Sukuma language (Malcolm, 1953).

4 During a detailed survey (late 1990s) of a sample of 172 villages, there were 18,607

Ngitili (group or village, household or individual) covering an area of about 78,122 ha

(Maro, 1995). The average size of group or village Ngitili was 164 ha, while the average

size of the individual Ngitili was 2.3 ha Ninety per cent of the people in the 833 villages

of Shinyanga had their own Ngitili. By 2004, approximately 300,000 ha of Ngitili had

been restored (Table 1). This resulted in a mosaic of woodlands, savannahs and

agricultural land without tsetse. The HASHI experience went way beyond the dreams of

many of the early proponents. This was acknowledged at the Johannesburg World

Summit on Sustainable Development (2002), where the HASHI programme was selected

as one of the Equator Initiative Award winners.

Table 1. Some outcomes from the Ngitili study. In all cases, $ refers to US dollars

Issue Outcome

Economic value of restored Ngitili.

$14 per month per person (c.f. national

average rural consumption is $8.50 per

month per person)

Costs of wildlife damage due to restoration. Approximately $65 per family per year

Average value of 16 natural resource products used

per annum.

Per household: $1,200 p.a.

Per village: $700,000 p.a.

Per district: $89,620,000 p.a.

Species of tree, shrub and climbers found. 152

Other flora found (dry season only).Up to 30 different families of grass, and

herbs

Bird and mammal species recorded (in dry season

only).145 bird and 13 mammal species

Reduction in time to collect certain natural

resources.

Fuelwood: 2 to 6 hours

Pole: 1 to 5 hours

Thatch: 1 to 6 hours

Water: 1 to 2 hours

Fodder: 3 to 6 hours

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

7

Percentages of households using Ngitili products for

various reasons in seven districts (average, and

whole range).

Education: 36% (10--61%)

Diversify nutrition: 22% (7-55%)

Fodder and forage: 21% (10-37%)

Medicinals (over 30 spp): 14% (5-36%)

Fuelwood: 61% (54-63%)

Estimates of carbon sequestration (but villages

would not be able to trap all the value, and this is

averaged over 25 years).

Total carbon sequestered: 23.21 million

tonnes

Equivalent in CO2: 42.6 million tonnes

Total value of sequestration: $213 million

Average value (25 years): $10,227 per village

per year

Average value (25 years): $3.8 per person per

year

Sources: (Ghazi et al., 2005; Monela et al., 2005; Otsyina et al., 2008)

How and why did all this happen?

5 While there are important technical aspects to forest landscape restoration (FLR), the

reality is that FLR is more of a social construct, and social issues need to be integrated

and respected to ensure success in the short and longer term. FLR is an approach to

managing the dynamic and often complex interactions between people, natural

resources and land uses that comprise a landscape (Maginnis et al. , 2007). I briefly

examine a number of these social issues that underpinned the success of the

restoration in Shinyanga.

Changes in politics: Ujamaa

6 The Tanzania political process of “Villagization” (or “Ujamaa”) aimed to transform

rural society and create rural economic and social communities where people would

live together for the good of all, instead of living on scattered homestead plots. Land

was farmed by cooperative groups rather than individually. Nyerere's philosophy of

Ujamaa was rooted in traditional African values and had, as its core, the emphasis on

family and communalism of traditional African societies (Ibhawoh & Dibua, 2003).

Nyerere (1962) noted:

“…we must reject the capitalist methods which go with it. One of these is the

individual ownership of land. To us in Africa, land was always recognised as

belonging to the community. Each individual within our society had a right to the

use of land…. But the African's right to land was simply the right to use it” (p.4).

7 The failure of Ujamaa was predicated on three main factors: a. failure to gain the

necessary ideological acceptance amongst villagers; b. use of coercion militated against

the effective operation of Ujamaa; and c. efforts to build Ujamaa villages were greatly

constrained by bureaucrats who held out government aid as incentives to peasants to

move into villages. Nevertheless, the Ujamaa villages were seen as important units for

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

8

the provision of social services to the people, and was also a development strategy,

based on a self-reliance (Ibhawoh & Dibua, 2003).

8 Since the 1960s, Ujamaa did much to undermine existing land use and further

exacerbate the clearance of woodlands. Under Ujamaa, land was nationalized and

people lost rights to tree and forest products, thus removing incentives to conserve

them. It serves as an example of how even well-intentioned policies can have serious

negative results, as villagization no longer encouraged the management of woodlands

and Ngitili. Indeed many Ngitili were destroyed during this period as the process of

villagization undermined traditional institutions and practices (Monela et al., 2005).

9 Early attempts at tree planting largely failed, as they lacked local ownership and were

top-down in implementation. By 1987, this started to change, as policies that

encouraged forest degradation were replaced by supportive ones, and transformed

pressures to degrade the environment into incentives to restore it. Access to, and

control over resources increased the willingness of individuals and groups to restore

and manage them sustainably. This policy change was one of the keys to unleashing the

restoration that subsequently happened. While tenure changes were a fundamental

building block, on their own such changes would not have been sufficient.

Policy change: Village and Forests

10 Since HASHI started, there has been an increasingly enabling policy and legal

framework for natural resource management in Tanzania, including those relating to

forestry, land tenure and local government reform. This included linking land tenure

with forest policy reform, which created the enabling environment for local (farmer,

village, group) security of rights and responsibilities to invest for the longer term

(Alden Wily & Mbaya, 2001). The HASHI programme was well grounded in government

policies, but more than that, official government approaches started to respect and

integrate the importance of local knowledge and local institutions. In the early days of

participatory processes including the use of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), HASHI

was an early adopter — in a period where “top-down” and expert driven development

was still more the norm (Chambers, 1983). The increased local interest in natural

resource management, for improving Ngitilis was also supported by the decision to take

a longterm (nearly 25 years) approach and investment by the Governments of Tanzania

and Norway.

Local need: recognized loss of tree products

11 By 1986 the people of Shinyanga had started to understand the impacts of the

woodland clearance of the previous decades. This included losses of important products

(food sources for livestock, tree products for household use, medicinals), increased

levels of efforts to collect key household needs (fuelwood, medicinals, water). These

pressures were felt particularly by women. Local need for the products of Ngitili became

increasingly important and helped drive local ownership of what needed to be done.

This in turn enhanced the adaptive capacities of the Sukuma people and their

institutions, and the importance of restoring diverse ecosystems and their services.

12 The Sukuma agro-pastoralists (and their customary institutions) are the main

stakeholders, together with village, district, regional and national government officials,

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

9

and Non-Governmental Organizations and community groups. The private sector was

not much involved — though many of the products from restored Ngitili were marketed

through the private sector at local and regional levels. But there was a significant

change as the private sector (at the local level) engaged with the production of tree

seedlings (Box 2).

Box 2.

In 1986, there was one Government tree nursery in Shinyanga region producing approximately one

million mainly exotic tree seedlings per annum. Many of these seedlings were unwanted and

unplanted at the village level. By 2004 there were over 1,500 tree nurseries spread all over the

region — as there was demand for seedlings, mostly indigenous, and a willingness to pay. Local

entrepreneurs at the village and district levels had their own nurseries and were selling seedlings.

Meanwhile the government nursery produced about 10,000 seedlings mainly for research.

Multiple benefit flows (people, gender, livestock, education, health)

13 Table 1 demonstrates the multiplicity of benefits from restored Ngitili, while Box 3

reflects local comments about what the restoration meant to them. Other Sukuma

agro-pastoralists pointed out that trees and catchment conservation improved water

quality. Restored woodlands provided fodder for oxen at the critical end of dry season

times. Revenues from the sale of tree products, such as honey and poles, helped pay for

children’s schooling. The multiplicity of tree goods (fuel, building timber, fruits, gum,

medicines, fodder) and services (water catchment, erosion reduction, cultural) spread

the risk of crop failure and enhanced resilience. This in turn helped diversify the local

economy, added variety to the diet (and improved nutrition), provided for contingency

needs (in the event that, for example, one income stream should fail), provided cash

needs (education, home improvement), and enabled local people to re-enter the local

markets to trade in tree products (medicinals, honey, fruits for example).

Box 3.

“Trees gave birth to livestock,” says one villager, referring to the fact that the sale of tree products

allowed him to buy livestock. “I now only spend twenty minutes collecting fuelwood. In the past I spent

between two to four hours collecting fuel” says a Sukuma lady as she now uses fuelwood harvested

from the family Ngitili. In a number of villages the sale of Ngitili products “built our teachers house”,

and “financed my two sons’ University Education”.

14 There were clear benefits to women (Table 1), who use many of these products, as the

time taken to collect fuelwood, fruits and wild foods was dramatically reduced, thereby

enabling women to focus more quality time on the home and their children. While

gender inequalities may often be pervasive, and even ‘gender-neutral’ programs may

deepen inequalities (Bandiaky, 2007), the HASHI programme did produce important

benefits for women. Gender-responsive forestry policies need to consider a wide range

of issues, including ownership, usufruct rights, access to forest-generated income,

participation in decision-making, and traditional knowledge (Martin, 2004). It would

seem that the involvement of women and being able to address gender related issues in

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

10

HASHI paid dividends — as it is very clear (Table 1) that women gained large benefits

from the restoration.

Local knowledge

15 HASHI relied on the rich local knowledge of the Sukuma people about their natural

resources and ways of managing them. Ngitili were traditionally used for conservation

and restoration of rangelands, and governed under customary law (Barrow & Mlenge,

2003; Malcolm, 1953). The traditional knowledge and institutions for managing their

natural resources combined with supportive village governments, was key to creating

the right management framework, and building on such local knowledge — not

replacing it. Post Ujamaa, the traditional knowledge about the importance of trees and

reserved grazing areas was still known, and there were still residual miombo and acacia

trees as a basis for restoration (Ghazi et al., 2005; Monela et al., 2005).

16 HASHI recognized the importance of Ngitili, and the traditional knowledge as the basis

for the restoration. Unlike many programmes of the time, the empowering approach of

HASHI in promoting Ngitili as the vehicle for restoration was critical as this increased

local people’s ownership over, and capacity to manage their own natural resources

(Kaale et al., 2002). It enhanced the adaptive capacities of the communities in Shinyanga

(institutions, respect of knowledge, local ownership). In order to protect and restore

those goods and services, participatory planning including women’s groups, youth,

village government, and individual farmers, was essential to try and ensure equitable

forest management and to try to avoid elite capture.

Respect for local institutions

17 The strength, robustness, and legitimacy of local institutions for forest management

are key to the success of decentralization. Local institutions can provide efficient

monitoring and sanctioning (Bromley et al. , 1992; Ostrom, 1990). However, the

establishment or strengthening of community institutions encounters challenges such

as:

defining boundaries—which can lead to a resurgence of otherwise dormant conflicts;

gaining official recognition and relevant powers—which can determine their relative

importance;

introducing responsive and accountable local government systems—which can conflict with

the recognition of traditional authorities;

recognizing heterogeneity—which can raise intra-village or local power struggles; and

creating equitable gender representation—where equal representation does not necessarily

result in equal participation in decision-making.

18 By 1986, it was clear that nearly all the aspects of resilience had been lost, including the

institutions of management (Ngitili, local guards or Sungusungu, and the local

management institution of Dagashida). But knowledge of these important institutions

had not been lost. The HASHI programme recognized, and legitimated the importance

of the traditional practices (knowledge, institutions) of managing forests with Ngitili,

and used the traditional knowledge as the basis for the restoration. It is clear that the

social and ecological memory is important, as the social memory and the genetic

repository of the Miombo and Acacia woodlands was an important additional factor.

•

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

11

19 The success of the restoration (ecosystem outcome) was a result of local people

restoring ecosystem functionality as a livelihood strategy. Local environmental

knowledge was important. The reinvigoration of traditional institutional arrangements

(Ngitili, Dagashida and S ungusungu) was essential for demonstrating that adaptive

capacities, though weakened, had not been lost (Mlenge, 2005). One major contribution

of the HASHI programme was allowing traditional institutions to function, which

worked by removing constraints (Barrow & Mlenge, 2008).

Role of personalities and champions

20 The HASHI staff worked closely with both district government staff and village

government (Ghazi et al. , 2005). Early on, though, more traditional top down

approaches were used. In the early stages of restoration, HASHI provided hundreds of

thousands of mostly exotic seedlings, from one central tree nursery. Few of these were

planted. The villagers told HASHI experts, “we want to plant our trees, not yours”

(pers. comm., W. Mlenge, 1987).

21 The HASHI programme leader made a very important shift in focus: rather than telling

what villagers should do, he started to understand and respect their detailed local

knowledge, ownership rights, and customary institutions. At a time of generally “top-

down development”, such empowering and participatory approaches, though well

justified, were fraught with risk. The fact that these now seemingly simple risks were

taken by the HASHI project leader and his staff is testament to the importance they

attributed for having such approaches. These relatively simple decisions demonstrate

the importance champions and personalities can play, and helped to lay the foundation

for overall success. At a time when participatory approaches were in their infancy,

most decision-making was technical and expert-driven. The importance of the right

personalities at the right time was another critical success factor, albeit one that

cannot be planned for.

Important conservation gains can also be achieved

22 At a time when conservation is increasingly being asked to justify itself in the context

of livelihood security, poverty reduction and the Millennium Development Goals (and

now the Sustainable Development Goals), the HASHI experience offers refreshing and

detailed insights into the reasons for considering biodiversity conservation as a key

component of livelihood security and poverty reduction. Restored natural trees and

woodlands are important livelihood and economic assets. But in achieving significant

livelihood outcomes, it is clear that large areas of biodiversity were restored in the

context of underlying livelihood objectives (Table 1). It demonstrates that natural

resource assets are more important in terms of livelihood security and economic

benefits than is generally assumed. There is a clear message here for government

investment in Poverty Reduction Strategy implementation, viz that the environmental

goods and services have to be more clearly taken into account and invested in at the

local, district and national levels. Further, and though not part of the original

objectives, Ngitili also made a significant contribution to carbon sequestration (Table 1)

as well as being important for risk management and resilience enhancement.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

12

But gains can be fragile: elite capture

23 Yet within this success there are dangers that need to be acknowledged, understood

and, where possible, mitigated. Elite capture, where resources designated for the

benefit of the larger population are usurped by more powerful individuals — be it

economic, political, educational, ethnic, or otherwise (Dutta, 2009) — is one such

change. There are examples of where the powerful and rich try to usurp the process for

their own benefit, and consolidate and further strengthen their own rights at the

expense of the less powerful. This can create landlessness and inequity, or differential

benefit accrual and wealth capture, as men may benefit more than women, and those

with large land holdings can benefit disproportionately to those with smaller holdings

(Shepherd, 2008). This is another kind of rigidity trap known as ‘success to the

successful’ (Meadows, 2008), where from a development perspective, the villages and

peoples of Shinyanga need to know how they can address such power shifts, for

example by ensuring village government is representative and downwardly

accountable to the villagers (Ribot, 2004). This implies the need for careful monitoring

of unintended consequences, the importance of checks and balances, and the need for a

self-critical approach.

24 Cross-scale interactions by powerful stakeholders have the potential to undermine

trust in resource management arrangements (Adger et al. , 2006). If government

regulators, for example, mobilize information and resources to reinforce their

authority, this may disempower other stakeholders such as resource users. To counter

this at the local level, user groups need to create and have their own social and political

capital.

25 Even before the restoration started, social structures were not equitable, and better-off

households were able to capture a bigger slice of the restoration benefits compared to

the poorer (with little or no land) or weaker (women). These differences were

recognized, and efforts were made to improve equity, where, for example Ngitili were

used as one of the strategies through which some communities indirectly cushion the

vulnerability of households classified as poor, e.g. the elderly, widows, and households

with no assets (Monela et al., 2005).

26 Successful processes such as Ngitili cannot be left to take care of themselves. Folke et al.

(2009: 105, Figure 5.1) summarize the importance of learning and feedback loops to

help pick up such issues. Table 2 articulates these learning and feedback loops in the

case of Shinyanga. If balance and equity are to be achieved, they need to be constantly

re-negotiated so that the poorer and less powerful can also improve their livelihoods.

27 Shepherd (2008) stated that “poor women explained to us that wealthy men were

rapidly acquiring land for their private Ngitili forests (for grazing their cattle) while

too little was being set aside for communal Ngitili for the needs of poorer users” (p.3).

Putting in place participatory monitoring (to assure that some of those danger signs

are picked up and addressed early) and evaluation (so that external perspectives can

help point out potential problem areas together with the means to address them) are

important in the longer term and beyond the project cycle. This demonstrates the

importance of continued interaction, and ensuring that there are mechanisms to

ensure equity both within the family (gender), and within the village (to reduce elite

capture).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

13

Table 2. Learning and Feedback Loops in Shinyanga: a Continuous Process

Over the nearly 30 years of the HASHI programme, learning has been a central theme at village,

government and NGO levels. Much of the learning originated in the recognition of the rich local

knowledge and institutional base of the Sukuma people. From the first learning that the people

wanted to plant/restore “their” trees as opposed to those of the Government, this fostered a

culture of “learning from the people, building on what they know” (W. Mlenge, personal

communication, 1987).

Loop 1: Government Forest Authority produced many (over one million) mostly exotic trees, which

were, in the main, left unplanted by villages and people.

Learning: Listen to and respect what trees local people want to plant and restore, build on

importance of local institutions (Ngitili, traditional Sukuma guards, or Sungsungu).

Loop 2: HASHI support for natural restoration and tree planting using species people wanted,

respecting local institutions, and ensuring that such knowledge and institutional systems are

respected by government.

Learning: Success can sow the seeds for its demise. As the restoration increased in scale and scope,

governance becomes an issue as land, hitherto with little value, assumed significant value —

resulting in elite capture becoming an important issue to deal with and manage.

Loop 3: Local governance to respect farmers, groups and villages restoration is still an issue, and

could be exacerbated by climate change impacts. Restoration now spread beyond the region to

neighbouring regions.

Learning: Need for improved tenure and secure rights for local people, as well as enhanced legal

recourse for such people, combined with the importance of downwardly accountable

representative government (especially at district and village levels).

28 Fair negotiated tenure rights would appear central to fostering equity, and reducing

incidences of elite capture. Here ‘institutional choice’ matters (Ribot et al. , 2008).

Donors, governments and NGOs may selectively engage elite elements of civil society,

and so reinforce existing hierarchies of exclusions. Sometimes customary authorities

can compromise or enhance representation. Choices of local partners and the structure

of local representation influence the formation and consolidation of accountable and

responsive local government.

Conclusions and key lessons

29 Natural resources are important livelihood options to meet cash needs (education,

building), for fuel and building timber, and to provide valuable medicinals at the local

levels. These are also key qualities for risk management and resilience enhancement in

that: a. there is diversity (different products); b. there are governance systems that are

self-organizing (village government, traditional institutions); c. the techniques are both

sustainable and owned locally (types of restoration, methods used); and d. there is

learning and adaptation (different types used and scales of Ngitili). The main outcomes

were largely a result of building social capital (appropriate local institutions which

enhanced cooperation and built adaptive capacities), restoring the natural capital

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

14

(ecosystem functionality), and developing transforming structures (policies that

supported traditional knowledge and local institutions) (Barrow & Mlenge, 2008).

30 The Ngitili case is an example of trends that will become more common: if resources

acquire greater value, there will be greater competition for ownership of them. The

responses need to include improved tenure and improved legal recourse for the poor,

or we shall see increased injustice and impoverishment. Combined with ensuring

representation and downwardly accountable local government at all levels (but

especially district and village), local rights and authority to act is the way that people

can have a chance of adapting successfully in increasingly uncertain times. Community

action can lead to significantly improved ecosystems, even if the goal was not

ecosystem restoration.

31 The Ngitili example moved forest management from reserved forests to where even the

smallest Ngitili is recognized as important. The main principles underlying Ngitili are

simple: common sense, as this relates to forage and tree needs of the Sukuma people, so

it is easy to adapt and replicate, which has now happened in at least two neighbouring

regions (Mwanza and Tabora). But local ownership is key. Outsiders can play a

supportive role (policy, technical, facilitation) in a context that embraces local

knowledge and institutions in combination with local government institutions. This

enables trade-offs to be made at the local level, supports local level decision-making,

and recognizes the role that champions (often modest or even hidden) play at different

levels.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Adger, N., K. Brown & E. Tomkins (2006). The political economy of cross-scale networks in

resource co-management. Ecology and Society 10(2): 9.

Alden Wily, L. & S. Mbaya (2001). Land, People and Forests in Eastern and Southern Africa at the

Beginning of the 21st Century. The Impact of Land Relations on the role of Communities in Forest Future.

Nairobi, Kenya: IUCN Eastern Africa Programme.

Bandiaky, S. (2007). Engendering exclusion in Senegal's democratic decentralization:

subordinating women through participatory natural resource management. Conservation and

Society 6(1): 62-73.

Barrow, E., P. Brandstrom, M. Kabelele & I. Kikula (1988). Soil Conservation and Afforestation in

Shinyanga Region: Potentials and Constraints. Mission Report to NORAD, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.

Nairobi: Norad, Tanzania.

Barrow, E. & W. Mlenge (2003, May). Trees as key to pastoralist risk management in semi-arid

landscapes in Shinyanga, Tanzania, and Turkana, Kenya. Paper presented at the International

Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forest and Biodiversity, 26-30 May 2003, Bonn, Germany.

Barrow, E. & W. Mlenge (2008). Case Study 2: Forest Restoration in Shinyanga, Tanzania. In:

Fisher, R.J., S. Maginnis, W. Jackson, E. Barrow et al. (Eds.) Linking Conservation and Poverty

Reduction: Landscapes, People and Power, pp. 53-61. London: Earthscan.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

15

Bromley, D., D. Feeny, S. McKean, P. Peters et al. (1992). Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice,

and Policy. San Francisco: Institute of Contemporary Studies Press.

Burtt, B.D. (1942). East African Vegetation Communities. J. Ecology XXX(1): 67-146.

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman.

Dutta, D. (2009). Elite Capture and Corruption: Concepts and Definitions. India: National Council of

Applied Economic Research.

Folke, C., R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer et al. (2010). Resilience Thinking: Integrating

Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4): 20.

Folke, C., F. Stuart Chapin III & P. Olsson (2009). Transformations in Ecosystem Stewardship. In:

Stuart Chapin III, F., G.P. Kofinas & C. Folke (Eds.) Principles of Ecoystem Stewardship: Resilience-

Based Natural Resource Managagement in a Changing World, pp. 103-125. New York: Springer.

Ghazi, P., E. Barrow & G. Monela (2005). Regenerating Woodlands: Tanzania's HASHI project. In :

World Resources Institute (Ed.) The Wealth of the Poor — Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty, pp.

131-138. New York: World Resources Insitute in collaboration with UNDP.

Ibhawoh, B. & J. Dibua (2003). Deconstructing Ujamaa: the legacy of Julius Nyerere in the quest

for social and economic development in Africa. Africa Journal of Political Science 8(1): 59-83.

Kaale, B., W. Mlenge & E. Barrow (2002, February). The potential of Ngitili for forest landscape

restoration in Shinyanga Region — a Tanzania case study. Paper presented at the International Expert

Meeting on Forest Landscape Restoration, 27-28 February 2002, Heredia, Costa Rica.

Kilihama, F.B. (1994). Trees and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge about Agroforestry Practices in the

Rangelands of Shinyanga Region, Tanzania. University of Wales, Bangor.

Maginnis, S., J. Rietbergen-McCracken & W. Jackson (2007). Introduction — What is FLR. In :

Rietbergen-McCracken, J., S. Maginnis & A. Sarre (Eds.) The Forest Landscape Restoration Handbook,

pp. 1-4. London: Earthscan.

Malcolm, D.W. (1953). Sukumaland, An African People and Their Country: A Study of Land Use in

Tanzania. London: OUP.

Maro, R.S. (1995). In Situ Conservation of Natural Vegetation for Sustainable Production in Agro-Pastoral

Systems. A Case Study of Shinyanga, Tanzania. Agriculture University of Norway, Aas.

Martin, A. (2004). Forestry Fact Sheet. Available from http://genderandenvironment.org/admin/

admin_biblioteca/documentos/

Meadows, D.H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Vermount: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Mlenge, W. (2005). Ngitili: An Indigenous Natural Resources Management System in Shinyanga,

Tanzania. Nairobi: Arid Lands Information Network - Eastern Africa.

Monela, G.C., S.A.O. Chamshama, R. Mwaipopo & D.M. Gamassa (2005). A Study on the Social,

Economic and Environmental Impacts of Forest Landscape Restoration in Shinyanga Region, Tanzania (pp.

xvii +205). Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania: Forestry and Beekeeping Division of the Ministry of Natural

Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania, and IUCN — The World Conservation Union

Eastern Africa Regional Office.

Nyerere, J. (1962). The basis for African socialism. Government Printer, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

16

Otsyina, R., S. Minae & D. Asenga (1993). The Potential of Ngitili as a Traditional Agroforestry System

among the Sukuma of Tanzania. Nairobi: ICRAF.

Otsyina, R., C. Rubanza & E. Zahabu (2008). Contribution of Tree Planting and Conservation Activities to

Carbon Offsets in Shinyanga. Dar-es-Salaam.

Ribot, J. (2004). Waiting for Democracy in the Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization.

Washington: WRI.

Ribot, J., C. Ashwini & T. Lakina (2008). Institutional choice and recognition in the formation and

consolidiation of local democracy. Conservation and Society 6(1): 1-11.

Shepherd, G. (2008). Forest restoration, rights and power: what's wrong in the Ngitili forests of

Shinyanga? Arborvitae, IUCN 36: 3.

RÉSUMÉS

This paper presents ecosystem (Miombo and Acacia woodland) restoration that has taken place

in Shinyanga, Tanzania since 1985. Prior to 1985, the region had been degraded of its Acacia and

Miombo woodlands (as part of tsetse fly eradication and cash crop based agricultural expansion).

As a result, these two ecosystems nearly collapsed. By 2004, more than 300,000 ha of woodland

had been restored across the 833 villages of the region with an economic value of US$14 per

person per month. Nearly every family had their own restored patch of woodland, while groups

and villages had much larger areas of restored woodlands. While the details of this large scale

ecosystem restoration are reasonably well known, the underlying reasons for the success of the

restoration are less well known. They go way beyond the technicalities of ecosystem restoration.

The case study explores how issues of personalities, enabling policy, decentralized and

participatory governance, gender, traditional knowledge and institutions, contribute to

woodland restoration (where all scales count — from small family forests to larger village

forests). Both the more technical aspects of ecosystem restoration and all the socio-political

aspects were central to this success. However even these issues are part of ongoing processes of

negotiating and re-negotiating local level governance and management arrangements. Overall

the combination of the ecosystem restoration and governance arrangement resulted in more

resilient communities, land use and ecosystems.

INDEX

Keywords : Forest landscape restoration, Tanzania, traditional knowledge, policy, multiple

benefits, governance, champions, elite capture, livelihood and conservation benefits

AUTEURS

EDMUND BARROW

Director of IUCN’s Global Ecosystem Management Programme, IUCN, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196

Gland, Switzerland, E-mail: Edmund.Barrow@iucn.org

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

17

CASE STUDY: Community BasedEcological Mangrove Rehabilitation(CBEMR) in IndonesiaFrom small (12-33 ha) to medium scales (400 ha) with pathways foradoption at larger scales (>5000 ha)

Ben Brown, Ratna Fadillah, Yusran Nurdin, Iona Soulsby et Rio Ahmad

Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This manuscript was published as part of a special issue on the subject of largescale

restoration of ecosystems. This manuscript was reviewed by three anonymous referees.

Facts and Figures

Location

1 Tanakeke Island is located just off the mainland of South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia

(Figure 1). A coral atoll, the island exhibits coral reef, seagrass and over-wash

mangrove forest ecosystems, with a small proportion of terrestrial area. The main

livelihood of most islanders is seaweed farming which takes place in expansive sub-

tidal lagoons. Fishing along the reefs and out to sea is undertaken by the entire

community of 10 073 inhabitants.1 During the 1990s, 1200 ha of the island’s 1776 ha of

mangrove forest were converted to shrimp/milkfish aquaculture ponds (Ukkas, 2011).

Of this total, 800 ha are community owned – yet largely disused – as Tanakeke Islanders

have difficulty purchasing external inputs, maintaining dike walls and productivity,

and have largely converted to seaweed mariculture. Tenure over 400 ha of converted

mangrove forests has been granted to the Ministry of Transmigration, and as such has

not yet been considered for mangrove rehabilitation (ibid.). The remaining 576 ha of

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

18

mangroves is frequently clear-felled, for charcoal production, fuelwood, construction

poles, fishing equipment and structural supports for seaweed mariculture.

Figure 1. Tanakeke Island, South Sulawesi

A: This landsat photo was taken in 1976, depicting 1776 hectares of intact over-wash mangroveforest. (Source: Landsat.org, Global Observatory for Ecosystem Services, Michigan State University,http://landsat.org.)

B: The recent Quickbird image reveals approx. 1200 hectares of conversion to aquaculture ponds,which took place in the 1990s and early part of the 21st century. The inset indicates the location ofTanakeke approximately 12 km off the southeast corner of South Sulawesi.

Source: Quickbird Satellite Image. Longmont, Colorado : Digital Globe, 2010

2 Of the 800 ha of community owned ponds, 400 ha were made available for Ecological

Mangrove Rehabilitation (EMR) (Lewis, 2005, 2009b) over a four year period, the

process and results of which are discussed below.

3 Social organising and physical work were initiated and implemented by Mangrove

Action Project – Indonesia as part of the 4.5 year, USD 7.7 million Restoring Coastal

Livelihood (RCL) project funded by the Canadian International Development Agency

(CIDA) and OXFAM-GB. Yayasan Konservasi Laut, a local NGO partner based in

Makassar, provided community organising and policy assistance. Numerous

government agencies were involved in terms of coordination, training, and policy

development at four levels:

Village level: Village Government, Community Representative Board (BPD);

Sub-district/District level: Fisheries Dept., Forestry Dept., Planning Dept., Social Agency,

Technical Outreach and Extension Agency (PPL), Multi-stakeholder Mangrove Management

Working Group (KKMD);

Provincial level: Fisheries Dept, Forestry Dept, Planning, Technical Outreach and Extension

Agency (PPL), KKMD;

National level: Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forestry, Mangrove Management

Agency (BPHM I), Multi-stakeholder Mangrove Management Working Group (KKMN).

4 The University of Hasanuddin provided technical support, background studies,

guidance and eight university undergraduate and graduate volunteers. Additional, on-

going technical support is being provided by National University of Singapore –

Geography Department (modeling, substrate elevation measurements) and Charles

Darwin University – Research Institute for Environment and Livelihoods (carbon stock

assessment, livelihood monitoring guidance).

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

19

Main Objectives

Improved hydrology and promotion of natural revegetation in 400 ha of disused aquaculture

ponds with minimal need for planting mangroves.

1250 – 3750 volunteer (not planted) seedlings established and growing healthy (compared to

benchmark) three years after initial hydrological rehabilitation.

Re-establishment of the natural biodiversity of mangrove fauna (species and community

associations) – based on previous surveys and interviews with elders.

Development of community based mangrove management regulations; primarily delineating

sustainable timber harvest practices and zones, as well as village conservation forests (hutan

pangandriang).

Improved community awareness and vigilance through formation of forest management

learning groups (FMLGs) and “Womangrove” groups, development of sustainable livelihood

alternatives and support of environmental education for school children.

Formation of a KKMD at the district level with a long-term mandate to guide conservation

and sustainable utilisation of Tanakeke Island’s mangrove ecosystem.

Legitimisation of village community management plans by the KKMD.

Benefits to Community

Storm protection. Villages on the Western end of the island have experienced extreme

flooding events and erosion of landforms after conversion of mangroves to aquaculture.

Enhanced fisheries. Although not scientifically monitored, communities are currently

monitoring crab, shrimp and fish populations in tidal creeks twice a year through

participatory monitoring. Fisheries studies will be built into future projects, with the intent

of re-establishing 75% of a functional fisheries equivalent to the mangrove area within seven

years of restoration.

Improved growth of tree biomass. Current clear-felling practices (on 6-8 year cycles) and dense

re-growth have resulted in low overall biomass production.

Increased resilience of the mangrove system due to enhanced biodiversity; especially re-

establishment of mangrove species at lower intertidal elevations (Sonneratia alba, Avicennia

marina and A. alba).

Development of non-timber forest products for subsistence use and local markets.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

20

Figure 2. From Vulnerability to Resilience

From the onset of the mangrove rehabilitation effort, local communities and other stakeholdersexpressed concern that improved mangrove management was essential to ensure the long-termecosystem services and other benefits. Use of mangrove wood on the island is unavoidable, due tolack of terrestrial area, and distance to the mainland where liquefied petroleum gas and kerosene aresold. Nonetheless, lack of managed timber harvest was identified as the biggest threat to the future ofTanakeke’s mangroves. Clear felling for charcoal production (top) places villages at risk of increasedimpacts from waves, wind and flooding. Villages along the Western (windward) side of the island haveall experienced increased flooding due to clear felling of coastal mangroves for charcoal productionand pond development. Bottom: Villagers from Lantang Peo, Tanakeke Island, participated in acookstove comparison between an “improved” fuel-efficient cookstove and a pair of traditional stoves.This activity was run as part of a Forest Management Field School, intended to develop more resilientsocio-ecological systems.

Photos: top – Ben Brown; bottom – Abdul Munir Roy Alfatoni

Case Study – Community Based Ecological MangroveRehabilitation

Presentation of the Challenges

5 The following four challenges were identified by local communities and other

stakeholders during this project:

Resolving land tenure/utilisation rights

6 An initial concern during project conceptualisation was committing to a total amount

of mangrove rehabilitation without prior resolution of land tenure issues. Many

mangrove restoration projects by-pass this time-consuming process, electing to plant

mangroves in inappropriate areas (sub-mean sea level intertidal mudflats) as these

areas are free from land-tenure issues. The resulting attempts at afforestation mostly fail

(Lewis, 1999, 2005, 2009b; Erftemeijer & Lewis, 2000) except in the off-chance where

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

21

significant sedimentation is occurring, which raises the substrate level to or above

mean sea level.

7 An initial visit to the provincial forestry department of South Sulawesi clarified that

both forested lands and aquaculture ponds on Tanakeke Island fell outside of their

direct jurisdiction, and were rather, under the jurisdiction of the district Bureau of

Land Management (Badan Pertanahan – Takalar), who issue private ownership

certificates. Of the 800 ha of community owned ponds, less than half had formal

certificates, but all 800 were recognised by traditional ownership. An additional 400 ha

of ponds had been developed for aquaculture by the Ministry of Transmigration, but

were not considered for rehabilitation under the RCL as they are still actively managed.

8 The majority of coastal community members in each of the six partnering villages,

either with or without formal ownership, were eager to rehabilitate disused ponds,

although some owners wished to revitalise their ponds for aquaculture. It was also

common that additional land owners pledge their ponds for rehabilitation, in year two

after initial rehabilitation in each village.

9 Pond owners, both formal and informal, required assurances that once rehabilitated to

mangroves, they would maintain land ownership over their areas, fearing that restored

forests might subsequently be claimed by the district or provincial forest department.

This issue was resolved through a series of public forums which led to the development

of community forestry management plans, where legal title over rehabilitated forests

was declared to be retained by individual owners, with the following conditions:

Rehabilitated lands may not be clear-cut in the future. Timber harvest would be allowed in

accordance with village forestry management plans (see Figure 2).

Access to non-timber forest products including fisheries products is to be open to all

community members.

Landowners will no longer be required to pay land or aquaculture taxes, as their ownership

certificates are now classified as conservation/sustainable utilisation easements.

Traditional owners without certificates will be assisted by the project and the newly formed

district level KKMD to register their lands with the Bureau of Land Management and tax

office.

Each village will designate a hutan pangandriang, which is a strict reserve for ecological

services.

10 These stipulations also provide communities with long-term assurance that mangroves

will not be encroached upon or degraded by outside stakeholders.

Challenge to normative, project-oriented, over-simplified planting practices

11 As stated above, the majority of mangrove “restoration” projects in this region of the

world involve preparing seedlings in polybags or direct root propagules (usually of the

genus Rhizophora), which are then hand-planted in straight rows at spacings of less than

a metre. Little attention is paid to planting appropriate substrate elevations (between

mean sea level and high mean water spring). Fences are sometimes constructed to

protect against livestock grazing. Little to no monitoring is undertaken, and mortality

is often blamed on livestock, poor planting practices, poor planting material, pests, or

high waves/currents.

12 Overcoming this was achieved through EMR workshops, after which workshop

participants prepared mechanisms to build community awareness about the EMR

•

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

22

process (described in section 2.0). A study tour to a previous successful EMR site

(Tiwoho, North Sulawesi) was also used to build consensus for the EMR process.

Developing near-term sustainable livelihood assistance while communities wait

for mangrove recovery.

13 Coastal communities in Indonesia often consider themselves poor, due to lack of cash

savings, although many have substantial capital assets (home, boat, farmland,

fishponds, etc.). Many rural coastal community members, however, are genuinely poor,

with incomes of less than $2 a day in the four RCL work districts. Livelihood assistance

in this project took two major forms: 1) improved management of existing natural

resource based livelihoods (often reducing reliance on external inputs) and 2)

development of alternative livelihoods. Without a livelihoods focus, it was feared that

communities would be less supportive of mangrove rehabilitation efforts, especially

leeward communities which were not directly threatened by the strong winds and

waves experienced on the windward side of the island.

Building gender awareness, ensuring equal female participation throughout

process,

14 Women are responsible for half of the food production and collection on Tanakeke

Island, yet do not have formal title to land, and are often excluded from decision-

making (Restoring Coastal Livelihoods, 2012). Prior to the project, male stakeholders all

too easily discounted female participation in mangrove rehabilitation and management

programs. A concerted effort, not only to involve women equally as participants, but to

involve all project participants in gender awareness trainings and activities was

required. Today, “Womangrove” groups have a strong voice in how mangrove

resources will be managed and used on the island, with gender sensitivity embedded in

all programs, government meetings, processes and regulations. Representatives of four

out of six Womangrove groups on Tanakeke are members of the KKMD.

Description of the Pool of Expertise

15 Mangrove Action Project (MAP) learned the principles of EMR and strategic breaching

of pond walls from a pioneer in the field, Roy R. Lewis III of Florida, USA, who has

served as lead practitioner on several thousand hectares of mangrove rehabilitation in

the USA and Latin America as well as leading technical trainings in Asia (Lewis 2005,

2009a,b) Ben Brown of MAP-Indonesia has led ten EMR trainings in Southeast Asia, and

designed successful EMR projects in North Sumatera (10 ha), Riau (33 ha), and North

Sulawesi (12 ha) prior to the 400 ha of EMR on Tanakeke Island. The MAP-Indonesia

EMR team consists of three full-time ecology staff, three full time community

organisers, eight university volunteers, and twelve villagers from Tanakeke Island

trained in community organising. This gender-balanced team is assisted by technical,

planning and regulatory government agencies from the sub-district and district level,

and technical extensionists from district and provincial level.

16 Additional technical support is being provided by a pair of regional universities. Ph.D.

Dan Friess of National University of Singapore – Geography Division and his student

Rachel Oh are assisting with substrate elevation measurements and modeling. Ph.D.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

23

Lindsay Hutley and Clint Cameron from Charles Darwin University – Research Institute

for Environmental and Livelihoods (CDU-RIEL) are assisting with a carbon stock

assessment, while Ph.D. Natasha Stacey, also of CDU-RIEL is assisting with livelihoods

and social welfare indicators.

Funding Resources and Mechanisms

17 The RCL project totals CAD 7.7 million, funded 90% by CIDA and 10% by OXFAM-GB who

also facilitate the project out of Makassar, South Sulawesi. The project works in four

districts in South Sulawesi: Takalar, Maros, Pangkep and Barru. Among its goals are 400

ha of mangrove rehabilitation and 2000 ha of improved management of intertidal

resources. Mangrove rehabilitation at Tanakeke Island totals 400 ha with an additional

25 ha being implemented on the mainland in the district of Maros. The total cost of 425

ha of mangrove rehabilitation is USD 440,000 (including physical rehabilitation,

community organising and governance work) plus USD 150,000 to support MAP staff

assigned to EMR over a four-year period. This works out to a project total of 425 ha of

restoration at a cost of USD 590,000 or $1388/ha.

18 The value of mangroves, once restored, has not yet been determined. A participatory

Total Economic Valuation2 is being carried out on Panikiang Island, which serves as the

nearest reference forest for Tanakeke, three districts to the North in the Barru District.

19 A KKMD is being formed at the district level in Takalar, enabled by Presidential Decree

73, 2012 and described in the National Mangrove Strategy. The KKMD will be able to

access short and medium term government budgets in order to continue support of

rehabilitation, monitoring and management activities, being termed Adaptive

Collaborative Management. No form of carbon finance has yet been considered for this

site.

Regulatory Context: Facilitating Actions or Constraints

20 Both a bottom-up and top-down approach was used in this project. Community leaders

in each village helped identify poor and vulnerable community members who comprise

at least 75% of any activity group. Initial activities include; EMR, livelihoods

development (through a program called Coastal Field School), and literacy programs.

After these activities were run for one or more seasons, community members became

engaged in a process to designate community based mangrove management

regulations. This activity eventually became formalised as a Forest Management Field

School participated in by FMLGs. A pair of curricula for this had originally been created

by the Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC) based in Bangkok in

2002, and translated into Bahasa Indonesia for the purposes of dissemination

(Miagostovich, 2002b, 2002c). Currently these curricula are being used to build the

capacity of forestry extensionists (called PPL) at the sub-district and district levels.

21 After 1-2 years in FMLGs, group members gain audiences with government officials to

present their community forestry management plans for formal government

acknowledgement. These government officials are prepared beforehand, during office

and field visits, and participation in trainings, workshops and seminars.

22 Regarding the top-down approach, MAP met with national level government officials

tasked with mangrove management and coastal community welfare. Most prominent

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

24

amongst these were agencies such as the Directorate General of Watersheds and Social

Forests, the Office of Mangrove Management (BPHM) and the National Mangrove

Working Group (KKMN). In 2013, the head of BPHM Region I visited South Sulawesi for

a public consultation to adapt the National Mangrove Strategy, to fit the needs of the

Province. Subsequently, a regional KKMD was formed at the Provincial level, with

management of Tanakeke Island and promotion of EMR explicitly mentioned in three

points of an eleven point agenda. In late 2013, a district level KKMD was initiated in

Takalar District to more adequately address the specific mangrove management needs

of Tanakeke Island. Members of FMLGs and Womangrove groups both continue to

participate in the District KKMD.

Details of Restoration Plans and Results

23 The EMR process, as developed by R.R. Lewis and Mangrove Action Project contains six

steps (Lewis, 2005, 2009a,b; Brown & Lewis, 2006):

Ecological assessment (autecology and community associations in reference forest and the

rehabilitation site).

Hydrological assessment (in reference forest and the rehabilitation site).

Disturbance Assessment.

Land ownership resolution, planning & design.

Implementation.

Monitoring and Mid-course corrections.

24 This general pattern was followed during the projects in Tanakeke, but in practice

required the addition of numerous sub-steps (up to 22), predominantly dealing with

community organising. Below we present a process involving nine major steps, which

takes into consideration the evolution of the process as mangrove rehabilitation efforts

expanded from an initial site to six villages over four years.

Step One: Rapid Assessments

25 Experienced mangrove rehabilitation practitioners meet with village leaders and walk

around the perimeter of the mangrove area, occasionally transecting the area to gain a

quick understanding for the potential of rehabilitation. On Tanakeke Island this

process began in Lantang Peo village. A quick walk revealed approximately 45 ha of

aquaculture ponds adjacent to the village. Ponds on the outskirts of the aquaculture

complex were largely disused (for approximately 6 years), and showed excellent levels

of natural colonisation, due to lack of dike wall maintenance. These ponds served as

chronoseres, aiding in the understanding of local natural revegetation processes and

thus natural breaching of pond walls. The “empty” ponds in the middle were recently

disused (fewer than three years beforehand), mostly unvegetated (<550 plants/ha) and

were not excavated, so that substrate levels in the middle of the ponds were adequate

for seedling colonisation, although deeper troughs adjacent to dike walls filled with

fluid mud were unable to support colonisation. It was rapidly assessed that species

normally located at lower elevations in the intertidal zone (Sonneratia alba, Avicennia

marina) were largely absent from the site, having been removed historically due to

community preference for Rhizophora species. Subsequently, the lower extent of the

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

25

mangroves (coastal mangrove zone) was missing, as Rhizophora mangroves were not

able to colonise these lower substrate elevations with higher wave energy.

26 In terms of community willingness to be involved in mangrove rehabilitation, within 36

hours of the initial field visit, 30 pond owners had pledged 30 ha of disused ponds for

rehabilitation. The majority of community members had given up on aquaculture,

switching their main livelihood to the mariculture of carageenan seaweeds. The

community was well aware of the benefits of mangroves, and wished their forests back,

for fisheries production, timber, and storm protection. Planting projects, however,

initiated by the government in the past, had been largely unsuccessful. Determining

why required more deliberate assessment.

27 This pattern of rapid community support for mangrove rehabilitation continued

throughout the project in the next five villages, assisted by testimonials from the

villagers of Lantang Peo, including the village head, Daeng Opu.

Step Two: Social Assessments

28 It was the intent of the project to provide equal opportunity to women and to

vulnerable and poor community members. As such, village leaders were asked to assist

in identification of vulnerable community members, who were to make up at least 75%

of all program participants, with greater than 50% women. The following assessments

were undertaken in a variety of settings including community meetings, field schools

and other activities:

stakeholder analysis;

gender analysis;

gendered seasonal calendar;

land tenure/ownership survey.

Step Three: EMR Technical Training

29 Three EMR technical trainings were run over the course of four years with members of

all six participating villages. Trainings ran for four days and covered the major points

of EMR including: a review of past projects; a review of the environmental needs of

mangroves; field surveys of hydrology, ecology and disturbance; mapping exercises;

development of a draft rehabilitation plan; and draft community organising plan and

monitoring.

Step Four: Baseline Surveys

30 MAP-Indonesia has developed a baseline survey and monitoring methodology

described in detail in section 3.6. These surveys were informed by methods from a time

zero survey developed for the Cross Bayou Restoration project (Florida Dept. of Env.

Protection, 1999), as well as the “Long Plot Method For Determining Biomass,”

developed by Norm Duke and colleagues at James Cook University. (TropWATER, 2013)

Step Five: Stakeholder Meetings and Design

31 Informal discussions, focus group discussions, and community meetings (musyawarah)

are run quite often in the build-up to a community based EMR effort. During the initial

project in Lantang Peo, government was minimally consulted. Over time, government

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

26

agents are increasingly involved, to the point where formal multi-stakeholder forums

are initiated. Ramping up government involvement over time is intentional, in order to

provide community members with opportunities to build skills, knowledge and

experience to a point where they are empowered enough to meet with government

officials on equal footing.

Step Six: Implementation

32 All six mangrove rehabilitation projects on Tanakeke Island involved:

Local community labor with hand tools;

Strategic Breaching of Dike Walls (Brown & Lewis, 2006);

Creation of tidal channels;

Periodic hand distribution of all native propagules into the rehabilitation area;

Planting trials;

Mounding trials (increasing substrate height with fill from dike walls. Occasional inclusion

of beach wrack, charcoal or bamboo into the substrate.

33 No substantial addition of fill, or erosion control measures were attempted in the

Tanakeke project. Some amount of hand-planting is taking place in certain villages, up

to 10% of any given village site.

34 Heavy machinery was not used on Tanakeke Island, due to distance from the mainland

and lack of excavated ponds to repair. The 25 ha trial in Maros District, scheduled for

2014, will use heavy machinery to selectively breach dike walls, dig tidal channels and

created mounded areas, in combination with local labor and hand tools.

Step Seven: As-built Surveys and Monitoring

35 Described below in 3.6.

Step Eight: Development of Forest Management Learning Groups

36 MAP-Indonesia translated a pair of training manuals from the RECOFTC on

development of FMLGs (Miagostovich, 2002b, 2002c). These curricula use the field

school methodology, which was already familiar to community participants and

extensionists in South Sulawesi, who took part in the RCL Coastal Field School program,

as well as prior farmer field school programs in the region.

37 The long term objectives of FMLGs are (Miagostovich, 2002a):

Identifying, generating and testing locally appropriate forest management practices to

ensure local users’ needs are being met;

Improving the capacities, knowledge and confidence of users to more actively manage local

forest area to satisfy local needs;

Strengthening the capacities, knowledge, analytical skills and confidence of facilitators in

working with local forest users;

Improving the relations between users and forest department staff.

Gradually improving existing management plans to ensure that they are addressing the

changing needs of local people;

Generating locally developed information and create opportunities for networking and the

spread of locally appropriate information.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

27

Step Nine: Mid-course Corrections

38 Mid-course corrections are informed by analysis of data collected during both

participatory and academic monitoring activities (see section 3.6). Communities and

mangrove rehabilitation practitioners determine appropriate mid-course corrections

during community meetings. Common mid-course corrections on Lantang Peo

included:

Hand-digging perpendicular branches on tidal channels;

Connecting tidal channels;

Closing off select dike wall breaches to increase flows and (scouring effect) through primary

channels;

Continued propagule dispersal;

Augmentation planting;

Creating mounded areas above MSL.

39 A search for halophytic grass species growing near mean sea level was undertaken but

unsuccessful. In other projects, planting of halophytic grasses is used to stabilise

substrates, capture mangrove propagules, and enhance edaphic conditions for

mangrove colonisation (Friess et al., 2011; Lewis & Dunstan, 1975).

Monitoring Methods

40 A pair of monitoring methods are employed in this project, both academic and

community-based/participatory.

Academic Monitoring

41 Academic monitoring consists of baseline surveys, as-built surveys and periodic

monitoring, undertaken by a team of community members, MAP staff and volunteers

from University of Hasanuddin.

42 Baseline surveys include autecology, community associations, hydrological features,

disturbances and land ownership. As-built surveys rectify the mangrove rehabilitation

plan using a GPS to place ecological and hydrological repairs on a site map. Monitoring

of vegetation and development of tidal channels uses the following method.

43 Prior to rehabilitation of each site, ten 20m x 5m vegetation plots (Duke et al., 2013)

were permanently established shore-left in a random stratified design. Within each

100m2 plot, total counts of trees (dbh3 > 2.5 cm, height > 130 cm), saplings (dbh < 2.5 cm,

height > 100 cm) and seedlings (height < 100 cm) of each species were determined. Girth

of each tree was recorded using a tape measure and from this the cross-sectional area,

or basal area (BA), was calculated to give an indication of growth and dominance. Tree

height was recorded using an extendable height stick. Heights of the first ten saplings

and seedlings encountered were recorded.

44 All current and historical water flows were mapped using a GPS tracking device and

personal interviews with village elders. Measurements were repeated at quarterly

intervals during the first year, semi-annually two and three years after the initial

intervention, and annually thereafter (planned and funded for a total period of five to

seven years depending on the starting time of the intervention).

•

•

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

28

45 To reduce variability caused by small areas of localised high recruitment (on dike walls

and previously abandoned ponds), only plots located in “empty” (< 550 trees per ha

before rehabilitation), recently disused (< 3 years) shrimp ponds were used in data

analyses. The relationship between average stem densities over time were examined

per site using a correlation analysis. Changes in mangrove densities between the

baseline survey and most recent survey were analyzed with paired student t-tests using

“months since rehabilitation” and “average densities” as group factors at 95%

confidence levels.

Participatory Monitoring

46 Participatory monitoring was developed as a community organising activity, to engage

the local community in tracking the success or failure of their efforts, and in

prescribing mid-course corrections. A simplified, highly graphic data sheet was created

to allow all community members to participate, even those uncomfortable with

reading. An example of the data sheet is provided in Figure 3. Community organisers

and members of the academic monitoring team lead community groups in indoor

discussions about monitoring, and then head to the field for full day monitoring events,

twice a year. The results of each event are discussed and saved for comparison over

time.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

29

Figure 3. Two levels of mangrove rehabilitation monitoring: 1) academic and 2) participatory

A: The academic EMR monitoring team working on a long-plot at a 10 month old site in Balang DatuPesisir. Monitoring in the first year takes place quarterly, semi-annually in years 2 and 3, and annuallythereafter for a total period of at least 5 years. (Photo: Ben Brown.) B: Participatory monitoring takesplace twice a year. Here a community member records data in front of the group immediately afterreturning from the field. (Photo: Rio Ahmad.) C: The participatory monitoring data sheets are graphicand user friendly. They qualitatively track the amount and diversity of vegetation and select biota, aswell as the condition of dike walls and drainage channels forming in the rehab area.

Source: RCL Project Data Sheet

Governance: Forms of Cooperation, Innovations etc.

47 As described above, Presidential Decree No. 72, 2012 put forth a National Mangrove

Strategy, in which multi-stakeholder boards were called for at the national, provincial

and district levels (known as KKMN and KKMD respectively). This project had both a

bottom-up and top-down approach. Grassroots development of community skills,

knowledge and experience in mangrove rehabilitation and mangrove resource

management was accomplished through EMR, Coastal Field Schools and environmental

education programs. The project also actively initiated the development of a multi-

stakeholder forum, which, although mandated by central government, was slow in

forming at the provincial level. Providing real-life examples of mangrove management

for the working group to “champion,” enabled the more earnest development of the

KKMD, and set the stage for equitable participation by community practitioners.

48 Improving the capacity of forestry and fisheries extension agents ensures that

increased collaboration will take place in the field, between government and

community. Formalisation of this process involved development of Coastal Field

School, FMLG and EMR curricula as well as training of trainer programs.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

30

49 Into the future, the KKMDs formed at the Provincial and District levels will be able to

access government budgets, but alternative sources of financial support from business

and potentially carbon finance are being considered.

Findings

Analysis of the Key Factors for Success

50 A table summarising recruitment for four sites on Tanakeke Island is presented along

with a representative chart depicting recruitment at Lantang Peo village (Time Zero

[T0] + 32 months) in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Recruitment at four sites on Tanakeke monitored as of Nov. 2013, and a chart depictingchanges in seedling density over time for Lantang Peo (T0 + 32 months)

SiteSize

(ha)

Months After Initial

Rehabilitation

Avg. Mangrove

Density/ha

Species

Recruiting

Lantang Peo 64 32 2171 6

Balang Datu

Pesisir54 10 1450 3

Bangko Tinggia 39 10 900 4

Dande Dandere 33 7 767 2

Average 47.5 14.75 908 3.75

Image 2000000900003E0300001741281356A5.wmf

The average density of the Lantang Peo site is 2171 plants per hectare 32 months following initialrehabilitation. There is an increase in species present within the site, from 2 prior to rehabilitation to 5species established and growing after 32 months. The additional 3 species are the same as speciesthat have been dispersed within the site during rehabilitation. A linear analysis has indicated there is astrong positive relationship between average site density and months since initial rehabilitation (R2 isclose to 1.00). An independent two-tailed t-test shows there is a real change in the average density ofthe population, i.e. the change seen is not due to sampling variability (Stat = 2.44 > t Critical two–tail =2.07).

Source: Authors

51 The oldest site of the six villages, Lantang Peo, has already exceeded success criteria for

mangrove recruitment and early growth, averaging 2171 plants per hectare, and

showing a natural biodiversity for the site based on comparison with references

(historical and Panikiang Island reference forest). Note, there is no upper mangrove or

terrestrial area at this site, which explains the relatively low species diversity.

52 Three relatively new sites which were monitored in November, 2013 along with

Lantang Peo include Balang Datu Pesisir (T0+10 months), Bangko Tinggia (T0+10

months) and Dande Dandere (T0+7 months), which were already exhibiting densities of

1450, 900 and 767 mangroves per hectare. All sites showed a strong positive linear

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

31

correlation between average mangrove density and time after rehabilitation except for

the Bangko Tinggia site, which showed weak positive linear correlation.

53 A pair of sites rehabilitated In the past two years was monitored in February, 2014, but

the data was not yet ready for presentation at the time of writing. A full monitoring

summary for this data can be made available upon request from the author.

54 In terms of analysis, there has been significant recruitment of mangroves into

rehabilitated ponds, with target densities reached within 2-3 years of ecological and

hydrological rehabilitation. Nearby chronoseres (6-8 years after pond abandonment

and dike wall degradation) show that mangrove densities can reach upwards of

6000-8000 plants per hectare, yet are currently dominated by Rhizophora apiculata,

which was anthropogenically selected for by local fisherfolk over time.

55 Members of each of the six participating villages on Tanakeke also participated in a

pair of study tours, one to a reference forest in Panikiang Island, Barru District, South

Sulawesi, and one to and older EMR site, at Tiwoho Village, Bunaken National Park,

North Sulawesi.

56 After the trip to the reference forest, community members themselves observed that:

Mangroves grow better on Panikiang island, due to:

Nearer proximity to the mainland and a major river, supplying freshwater and sediment;

“Better” spacing of mangroves, less dense because not planted by humans;

Availability of fuelwood from terrestrial parts of the island – lack of pressure on timber from

local community;

Clear local regulations on protection of mangroves.

Mangroves on Tanakeke may not grow as large, overall, as those on Panikiang, but can grow

better if managed better by the local community.

57 Participants also travelled to Tiwoho Village in North Sulawesi to meet community

members who were involved in EMR of 12.28 ha of ponds. This project relied solely on

the use of manual labour to strategically breach dike walls, and block unnatural

drainage channels (see Figure 5E&F). Hand-digging of tidal channels was not

undertaken. A mix of planting and natural recruitment took place. Study tour

participants prepared transects in three areas of the rehabilitation site ranging from

T0+7 years to T0+10 years, to better understand the long-term trajectory of mangrove

rehabilitation. The group found mangrove densities ranging from 9,467-27,093 stems/

ha, with an average of five species recruited per area. The total number of recruits in

the approximately 15 ha site (12 ha of ponds and 3 ha of adjacent area) was measured at

24 species.

58 The apparent success of the low-cost method of strategically breaching dike walls is

clear to community participants, who are keen to continue applying the method in

Tanakeke Island. The method seems feasible for disused aquaculture ponds that have

not been excavated with heavy equipment. Deeper ponds, with stronger dike walls,

may or may not require the use of heavy equipment and fill material. At a certain scale,

greater than 100 hectares, heavy equipment may also be required, even in non-

excavated ponds.

59 Certainly at larger scales, landscapes requiring thousands of hectares of repair, use of

heavy equipment will be required, but the same use of strategic breaching and tidal

creek creation may be feasible. Projects have already been identified in Indonesia of up

to 7,500 ha (Tanjung Panjang, Gorontalo) and up to 60,000 ha (Mahakam Delta, East

•

•

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

32

Kalimantan). Political will of local stakeholders to rehabilitate a portion of disused

ponds has already been established, and EMR and Strategic Breaching of Pond Walls —

with a high degree of genuine community involvement — are recommended as best

practice approaches.

Figure 5. Community Based EMR in South and North Sulawesi.

A: Members of a “Womangrove” group hand-dig a 1.2 km tidal channel, to facilitate drainage ofdisused shrimp ponds at Lantang Peo village, Tanakeke Island, as part of mid-course corrections 12months after initial rehabilitation. B: The resultant, meandering tidal channel. Material on the side ofthe channel was eventually moved away into island-like mounds in the middle of ponds. C: Naturalrecruitment of Sonneratia alba and Rhizophora apiculata 32 months after initial rehabilitation. D: Themiddles of some ponds are being recruited as well, again by Sonneratia alba and Rhizophora apiculata.E: Villagers from Tiwoho, North Sulawesi spent several weeks in the shrimp ponds (abandoned since1991), filling in man-made drainage channels, and strategically breaching fish pond dike walls. F: Thesite had been hand planted by the government 6 times over a nine year period, with total mortality ineach instance. After hydrological improvements, mangroves grew back in three major sections, todensities ranging from roughly 5000 - 20,000 seedlings per hectare. A biodiversity survey revealed 32species of true mangroves in and adjacent to the mangrove rehabilitation area.

Source: All photos by Ben Brown

Knowledge Gaps

Low cost methods for substrate elevation measurement at large-scale;

Sizing tidal channels during restoration;

Solutions for enhancing recruitment in fluid substrates;

Calculating rates of sedimentation with low-cost methods;

Developing benthic macroinvertebrate indicators;

How to convince government, aid projects, to abandoned simple planting practices;

Clear cost benefit analysis of mangrove vs. aquaculture.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

33

Main Challenges and Innovations

Achieving low-cost, effective rehabilitation.

Developing rural coastal community awareness and capacities to the point where they were

empowered and experienced enough to engage government agents in meaningful and

productive dialogue.

Engagement of men and women alike in gender analysis and gender sensitisation trainings

and development of “Womangrove” groups to ensure high quality female participation in

rehabilitation and future management.

Key hydrological innovations strategic breaching, hand dug drainage channels.

Key ecological innovations; human assisted propagule distribution, especially of pioneering

species which were anthropogenically selected against during 75+ years of logging.

Integration of methods into National Mangrove Strategy through Multi-stakeholder

Mangrove Working Groups (KKMN and KKMD).

Establishing meaningful demonstrations at scale (25 ha and 400 ha) to be able to engage

government and other stakeholders to undertake large-scale efforts (7500 ha - Tanjung

Panjang, Gorontalo Province to 60,000 ha – Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan Province).

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Brown, B. & R.R. Lewis (2006). Five Steps to Successful Ecological Restoration of Mangroves. Lewis, R. et

al. (Eds.) Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Yayasan Akar Rumput Laut (YARL) and the Mangrove Action

Project.

Duke, N.C., J. Mackenzie & A. Wood (2013). Preliminary assessment of biomass and carbon content of

mangroves in Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic

Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Report 13/24, James Cook University, Townsville,

Erftemeijer, P.L.A. & R.R. Lewis (2000). Planting mangroves on intertidal mudflats: habitat

restoration or habitat conversion? In: Enhancing Coastal Ecosystems Restoration for the 21st Century.

Proceedings of the ECOTONE VIII Seminar, Ranong, Thailand, 23-28 May 1999, pp. 156-165.

Bangkok: Royal Forest Department of Thailand.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (1999). Time zero report for the Cross Bayou

mangrove restoration site. Prepared by R. R. Lewis III for The Cross Bayou Project Review Group.

Pinellas County, Florida.

Friess, D.A. et al. (2011). Are all intertidal wetlands naturally created equal? Bottlenecks,

thresholds and knowledge gaps to mangrove and saltmarsh ecosystems. Biological Review. doi:

10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00198.x Cambridge Philosophical Society

IUCN Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group (2006). Valuation, rehabilitation and conservation of

mangroves in tsunami affected areas of Hambantota, Sri Lanka: Economic valuation of tsunami affected

mangroves. Ranasinghe, T. & M. Kallesoe. Sri Lanka: The World Conservation Union (IUCN)

Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

34

Lewis, R.R. & F.M. Dunstan (1975). The possible role of Spartina alterniflora loisel in establishment

of mangroves in Florida. In: Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Restoration of Coastal

Vegetation in Florida. Tampa, Florida: Hillsborough Community College.

Lewis, R.R. (1999). Key concepts in successful ecological restoration of mangrove forests. In:

Proceedings of the TCE-Workshop No. II, Coastal Environmental Improvement in Mangrove/Wetland

Ecosystems, 18-23 August 1998, pp. 19-32. Bangkok: Danish-SE Asian Collaboration on Tropical

Coastal Ecosystems (TCE) Research and Training.

Lewis, R.R. (2005). Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of

mangrove forests. Ecological Engineering 24: 403–418.

Lewis, R.R. (2009a). Mangrove field of dreams: If you build it, they will come. Society of Wetland

Scientists – SWS Research Brief. No 2009-0005

Lewis, R.R. (2009b). Methods and criteria for successful mangrove forest restoration. In: Perillo,

G.M.E., E. Wolanski, D.R. Cahoon & M.M. Brinson (Eds.) Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem

Approach, pp. 787-800. Elsevier Press.

Miagostovich, M. (2002a). Building forest users’ capacity to develop silvicultural practices. In:

International Learning Workshop on Farmer Field Schools (FFS): Emerging Issues and Challenges, 21-25

October 2002, pp.413-434. Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Miagostovich, M. (2002b). Forest Management Learning Group (FMLG) - The Facilitator’s Field Manual.

Bangkok: Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC)

Miagostovich, M. (2002c). Forest Management Learning Group (FMLG) - The Trainer’s Manual. Bangkok:

Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC)

Restoring Coastal Livelihoods (2011). Kajian Risilian [Resilience Assessment]. Situational and

Contextual Field Assessment and Analysis Restoring Coastal Livelihoods Project.Prepared by

Jajang Agus Sonjaya. Makassar, Indonesia.

TropWATER (2013). Preliminary assessment of biomass and carbon content of mangroves in Solomon

Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. A Report for the MESCAL Project, IUCN Oceania Office, Suva

Report No. 13/24 May 2013. Prepared by Duke, N.C, J. Mackenzie and A. Wood. Centre for Tropical

Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER). James Cook University, Townsville,

Australia. 37 pp. http://research.jcu.edu.au/research/tropwater/resources/

13%2024%20mangrove%20biomass%20and%20carbon.pdf

Ukkas, M. (2011, July). Status of Tanakeke Island mangroves and livelihoods since aquaculture

development. Paper presented at Restoring Coastal Livelihoods Regional Seminar on Ecological

Mangrove Rehabilitation, July 18-22, 2011, Makassar, Indonesia.

NOTES

1. South Sulawesi Department of Statistics – 2010 Census

2. Following the methodology provided in IUCN Ecosystems & Livelihoods Group (2006).

3. Diameter at breast height

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

35

RÉSUMÉS

While successful examples of large-scale (5 000-10 000 ha) ecological wetland/mangrove

rehabilitation projects exist worldwide, mangrove rehabilitation efforts in Indonesia, both large

and small, have mainly failed. The majority of projects (both government programs and non-

government initiatives) have oversimplified the technical processes of mangrove rehabilitation,

favouring the direct planting of a restricted subset of mangrove species (from the family

Rhizophoracea), commonly in the lower half of the intertidal system (from Mean Sea Level down

to Lowest Atmospheric Tide) where mangroves, by and large, do not naturally grow. Aside from

lack of appropriate technical assessment, these lower inter-tidal mudflats are often targeted for

rehabilitation because true degraded mangrove forests are frequently linked to tenurial issues

that require significant effort and investment to resolve.

Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation (EMR) has been implemented and well documented for the

past several decades in New World mangrove systems (Lewis, 2005, 2009b) and was selected as a

best practice for adaptation and trials in Indonesia. Whereas in the US, the five-step process

primarily focuses on biophysical assessments and eco-hydrological repair, when applied to the

Indonesian scenario, EMR requires both lower-cost biophysical approaches and greater attention

to socio-cultural-political approaches common in sustainable development and coastal resource

management programs.

The adaptation of EMR was initially tested in small-scale projects, ranging from 12-33 ha in sites

from the islands of Sumatera and Sulawesi. Biophysical adaptations included use of low-cost

biophysical assessment methods, reliance on manual labour, strategic breaching of aquaculture

ponds dike walls, manual construction of tidal channels, and human assisted propagule dispersal

while socio-political adaptations included land tenure settlement, increased use of training of

trainers programs, gender assessments and sensitisation, enhanced community organising,

coordination with numerous government agencies and participatory monitoring. Initial projects

succeeded in rehabilitating mangrove coverage and diversity, while catalysing community-based

or collaborative management. The most recent Community Based Ecological Mangrove

Rehabilitation (CBEMR) project took place on Tanakeke Island, South Sulawesi, where 1776 ha of

mangroves were reduced to approximately 576 ha over two decades due to development of 1200

ha of aquaculture ponds. At least 800 ha of ponds on the island were disused as of the start of a

four-year project to restore 400 ha at a cost of US$590,000 and initiate adaptive collaborative

management. Local communities from six villages willingly made their ponds available for

rehabilitation, as their main livelihood had switched to seaweed mariculture and they recognised

the urgent need to restore mangrove coverage for fisheries value and storm protection. The

initial site restored (43 ha) has naturally recruited to an average density of 2171 stems/ha., 32

months after initial restoration. Three more recent sites have already demonstrated natural

recruitment between 767-1450 seedlings within 7-10 months after restoration. Local

communities have developed mangrove management groups and regulations for both remnant

mangrove forests and rehabilitation areas, which have been acknowledged at higher levels of

government. The implementation of gender analyses, gender sensitisation and the development

of Womangrove groups have been crucial to ensure the equal involvement of women in the

process of mangrove rehabilitation and management. The process of CBEMR at this point is being

considered for upscaling and replication, and has been included as a best practice in both the

South Sulawesi Provincial and Indonesian National Mangrove Strategies. The CBEMR process has

been recommended by the Ministry of Forests – Natural and Protected Forest Management

Agency (PHKA) as a requisite practice to restore the 4000 ha in the Tanjung Panjang Nature

Reserve in Gorontalo Province, which nearly completely and illegally converted to aquaculture

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

36

ponds over the past two decades. CBEMR and strategic breaching is also being considered for

restoration in Indonesia’s largest contiguous converted mangrove forest, which includes 60 000

ha of largely abandoned and disused shrimp ponds in the Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan. The

proven effectiveness of the CBEMR process at small and medium scales relies on its ability to

resolve both biophysical and socio-political issues underscoring mangrove forest degradation in

Indonesia. If and when this is applied to large-scale restoration, it is sure that continued

attention will need to be paid to both biophysical and socio-political approaches.

INDEX

Keywords : Community-Based, Collaborative, Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation, Indonesia

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

37

Participatory governance of MarineProtected Areas: a politicalchallenge, an ethical imperative,different trajectoriesSenegal case studies

Marie-Christine Cormier-Salem

Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This manuscript was published as part of a special issue on the subject of largescale

restoration of ecosystems. This manuscript was reviewed by four anonymous referees.

This paper is a revised version of a book chapter originally published in french by the

IRD (Cormier-Salem, 2014, in press)

Introduction

1 Despite an international consensus in favour of increasing the number of Marine

Protected Areas (MPA) and enlarging them (Bonnin et al., in press), controversy

surrounds their effectiveness and legitimacy, especially in the context of developing

countries. This is particularly true in Africa, a continent scarred by varying levels of

conflict, ecological crisis, impoverishment and State disengagement (De Santo, 2013). In

terms of their ecological effectiveness, questions are repeatedly raised concerning the

minimal size, boundaries and configurations of MPA (Agardy et al., 2011). In terms of

their economic and social legitimacy, spatial and social justice and amenities for local

communities are recurring issues (Potts et al., 2014; Trimble et al., 2014). According to

Charles and Wilson (2009), it is possible to identify ten conditions that determine their

success: attachment to place; high level of participation; effective governance; co-

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

38

building of knowledge (scientific vs vernacular or local); the role of rights and customs;

consequences of displacement of communities; costs and benefits; the place of the MPA

in the larger region.

2 On the assumption that the resilience of socio-ecosystems owes less to the management

of resources, strictly speaking, than to the governance of the regions, this article will

focus on two of the points highlighted by Charles and Wilson, namely effective

governance and participation, and the close links between them. What is “good”

governance? Is participation by the local population effective? To what extent are the

local or indigenous people key players in the governance of MPA? We will study the

MPA policies implemented in Senegal. After considering the way concepts and

management of the coastal areas and their resources have developed—from the

creation of sanctuaries for flagship species to the co-management of MPA—we will

explain why we regard Senegal as a pioneer in the adoption of these new paradigms,

before analysing the problems and limitations inherent in operationalising these

models. Three case studies will be used: the Saint Louis MPA, the Bamboung

Community-Managed MPA in the Saloum Delta and the Mangagoulack ICCA

(Indigenous and Community Conserved Area) in Casamance.

3 Our mainly empirical methodology is based on a set of surveys conducted since 2005

along the West African coast, and Senegal in particular. Individual and group

interviews were followed up by regular monitoring and contacts with Parks officials

and protected areas and with local populations from 20091. The purpose of these

surveys was to identify and characterise the stakeholders involved in governance of the

coastal area and their relationships with one another (decision-makers, managers,

users, private and public operators, NGOs, scientists, etc.) and to gain an understanding

of the knowledge, practices and institutions mobilised in this governance (values

attributed to biodiversity, old and new systems of access and use, informal and formal

agreements, standards and mechanisms) as well as conflicts and the methods used to

resolve them, focusing not only on heritage-related, territorial and identity-related

claims, but also old and new systems of mutual aid and alliance. Analysis of this

empirical body of work is supplemented by theoretical consideration of concepts based

on a bibliographical analysis of various written sources (from government reports to

scientific articles). This article will not attempt to summarise these, since the subject is

so broad and has given rise to numerous scientific works (Cormier-Salem, 2006a; Weigel

et al., 2007; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2009b; Dahou, 2010; Touré, 2011; Lavigne Delville,

2011; Ingold, 2014).

Towards sustainable and shared governance of MPA:institutional articulations and coordination betweenstakeholders

New paradigms

4 The context has changed since the first marine sanctuaries were created to provide

integral protection for emblematic species. New challenges have arisen, particularly in

terms of the concept of sustainable development, which entered the media spotlight

after the Brundtland report and was formalised at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Article

8 (j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, concerning the problem of in situ

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

39

conservation, recommends including consideration of “the knowledge, innovations and

practices of indigenous and local communities”. This article has been on the agenda of

all the Party Conferences since 1996. The reference to traditional ecological knowledge

has become an intrinsic part of ecologically correct discussion. It goes without saying

that the challenges are immense: “indigenous and local communities” are now seen as

the primary beneficiaries of shared advantages. Links have been officially established

between local practices, biodiversity conservation and sustainable management,

joining the many social science studies which criticised Hardin’s theory and stressed

the relevance of community management methods. As well as clear recognition of the

right of communities to manage, i.e. to control the resources in their own region as part

of a move towards governance, which is replacing co-management strategies (Berkes,

1989; Ostrom, 1990; Agrawal, 2005), cultural diversity is also recognised as a key aspect

of biodiversity. Across the world, areas of megabiodiversity are often located in places

where poor and marginalised communities live. The survival of these peoples and the

maintenance of their practices appear to be essential components of diversity

conservation (Posey, 1996). Accordingly, the identity and territorial claims of these

minorities include a recognition not only of their cultural and political uniqueness but

also of their privileged links with their environment and the associated biodiversity

(Cormier-Salem & Roussel, 2002).

5 The evolving nature of these issues is clearly visible in the area of international

negotiations. Was not the fight against poverty also the leitmotif of the Johannesburg

Sustainable Development World Summit in August 2002, ten years after the Rio Earth

Summit? Calls for equity and respect for cultural differences have been reiterated loud

and clear. We have yet to ensure that these are put into practice.

6 With the way now open for the construction of local heritages, a number of practical,

political and ethical problems arise. How can we preserve migratory species that do not

recognise national borders, such as migratory birds or schools of fish? We need to

acknowledge the multitude of local heritages and create a regional network of

protection areas and corridors. Recognising that MPA are not islands (Janzen, 1983), all

policies endeavour to one degree or another to factor in the ecological and social

interdependencies underpinning these regional projects, as well as regional solidarities

(Bonnin & Rodary, 2008; Mathevet et al., 2010).

7 Although these concepts of solidarity (ecological/social/regional), environmental

justice, shared governance, etc. are rapidly gaining ground, changes in standards of

public action and particularly the level of acceptance of the MPA by local communities,

recognition of local rules and agreements and the actual sharing of the advantages

created as a result of biodiversity conservation are all open to question (see Nagoya

Protocol; see MEA framework with reaffirmed links between the preservation of

ecosystem services and the well-being of the populations; see ecotourism initiatives,

promotion of local products, etc.).

8 When it comes to natural resources, in West Africa the pendulum has swung between

centralised and decentralised, state and community, private, public and participatory

management since the 1960s. Newly independent States took over from colonial

administrations and reaffirmed ownership of so-called empty or common land. Since

the 1980s however, numerous failures and conflicts caused by a lack of public services

on the one hand and land tenure insecurity on the other have led to the

implementation of new methods of collective action (Blundo, 2002; Dahou, 2010;

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

40

Lavigne Delville, 2011). Decentralisation and deconcentration policies aim to transfer

the management of resources to the local communities, who are considered to have a

vested interest in their preservation since they depend on them for their continued

existence and are therefore in the best position to ensure compliance with the rules.

The co-management of protected areas meets a requirement not merely for economic

efficiency (principle of subsidiarity) and political efficiency (primacy of social control

over administrative control), but also social justice, restoring the rights of the

communities and ensuring that they receive an equal share of the benefits derived

from nature. Over and above the consideration of the territorial and identity claims of

the local communities, governance, which has gone hand in hand with sustainable

development since the 1990s, is a system of institutional articulations, negotiation and

conflict resolution (Cormier-Salem, 2007). Participation in governance encompasses

various concepts, which often overlap but are nevertheless very different in terms of

collective decision processes, ranging from simple consultation to coordination and

negotiation (Thouzard, 2006). These methods are implemented at different spatial-

temporal levels, mobilise different players, and occur in different stages. These terms

often slot together or succeed one another as the process develops. According to

Mermet (2012), negotiation is “a decision system in which players who are

interdependent but have different interests or views engage in dialogue in order to

seek a mutually agreeable solution.” We will examine the operationality of this

definition and these new models based on the coastal biodiversity conservation policies

in place in Senegal.

A pioneer in MPA governance: Senegal

9 In Senegal, as in the rest of the world, the first MPA fulfilled a pressing need to protect

so-called heritage animal species included on the IUCN red lists and in several

international conventions, such as the 1979 Bonn conventions on the protection of

migratory species (avifauna, ichtyofauna and marine mammals) and the habitats that

shelter them, mangrove swamps to the fore. The first Senegalese coastal areas (there

are no marine areas as such) to be classified, in 1971, were migratory bird habitats.

Initially Ramsar sites, they later became a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (Saloum Delta

with Bird Island in Senegal) and National Parks (Barbary Spit and Djoudj in the Senegal

River Delta and Madeleine Island off Dakar) (see Figure 1) (Cormier-Salem, 2006a).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

41

Figure 1. Location of the three MPA on the Senegalese coast. CMPA=Community-Managed MPA

Sources: DivaGIS, GoogleEarth, GRDR , DPN, IRD. Graphic by M.-C. Cormier-Salem and M.Fabre, UMR PALOC, IRD.

10 This sanctuary approach, focused on one element of biodiversity, was followed in the

1990s by so-called ecosystemic and regional approaches, “anchored in the local way of

life” (Cormier-Salem & Roussel, 2002): in accordance with the Biodiversity Convention,

ratified by Senegal, notably Article 8J concerning recognition of the knowledge and

traditions of indigenous communities. Given the specific context of West Africa, where

60% of the population live near the coast and fishing and seaside tourism are hugely

important, it is recognised that coastal biodiversity must be preserved both with and

for local users. The ecoregional approach that developed during the 1990s appears to be

the most appropriate way to manage not only migratory species (mullet, sharks, sea

turtles), but also the fishermen who migrate at this level. Nor should fishermen any

longer be unilaterally regarded as predators or pillagers, but as responsible producers

involved in the governance of their region.

11 Government services, the DPN (National Parks Department) to the fore, organised

consultation workshops between all the stakeholders in the supply chain, including the

Saint Louis workshop in Senegal in May 2000 on the management and conservation of

shark populations. At Nouakchott in February 2002, a workshop on MPA as fishing

regulation tools brought together representatives from the various stakeholder groups

with an interest in MPA (decision-makers, MPA managers, NGOs, professionals, experts

and scientific researchers, etc.) in the countries belonging to the SRFC (Sub-Regional

Fisheries Commission). Set up in 1985, the SRFC initially had six members: Cape Verde,

Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Republic of Guinea, with Sierra Leone

joining at a later date. A Regional Conservation Programme for Marine and Coastal

Areas (PRCM2) was then launched under the auspices of the SRFC and with support

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

42

from the IUCN, WI, WWF and FIBA. Its remit was to formulate action plans on sea

turtles and sharks (Cormier-Salem, 2006b). This workshop was tasked with formulating

a coordinated strategy for the sub-region, which was submitted to the Council of

Ministers of the SRFC in March 2003 in Dakar, and then presented in September 2003 in

Durban (South Africa) at the 5th IUCN World Congress on Protected Areas. Under the

strategic guidelines of the Environment section of NEPAD and the commitments made

at this Congress, the Senegalese government created five new MPA by Presidential

decree of 4 November 2004 (see Table 1) and set up a regional network of MPA

(RAMPAO), harnessing the experience of the PRCM and other joint initiatives, including

the Senegal-Mauritania Biodiversity Project and UNESCO’s AfriMAB3 Network (Cormier-

Salem, 2006a).

Table 1. Overview of the Senegalese Marine Protected Areas network

Protected areas Surface

areaInterest from biodiversity perspective

Somone Nature Reserve of

Community Interest (RNICS),

created in 1999.

700 haHighly diversified avifauna including: spoonbill,

pelican, cormorant, egret, curlew, sandpiper, etc.

Palmarin Community Nature

Reserve (RCP), created in 2003.10,430 ha

Reproduction site for sea turtles, striped hyena,

jackals, monkeys, very important avifauna.

Bamboung Community-Managed

Marine Protected Area, created in

2004.

7,000 haSpawning and feeding grounds for ichtyofauna,

manatees, dolphins and sea turtles.

Saint Louis Marine Protected

Area, created in 2004.49,600 ha

Sustainable protection and conservation of

fisheries.

Cayar Marine Protected Area,

created in 2004.17,100 ha

Protection of sites of special interest for

maintaining and renewing fishery stocks in and

around the conservation area.

Joal Fadiouth Marine Protected

Area, created in 2004.17,400 ha

Spawning ground and reproduction site for sea

turtles.

Abene Marine Protected Area,

created in 2004.11,900 ha

Sustainable protection and conservation of

fisheries.

Source: Website of the Ministry of Ecology and Protection of Nature (4 March 2013)

12 Its resolutely sub-regional strategic positioning aside, Senegal promoted a

participatory approach very early on. The number of community reserves increased,

although they had very different statuses: some were co-managed with the

Government (through the DPN, the DEFCCS or PGCRN4), while others were supported by

local associations such as Popenguine, on the Petite Côte, in partnership with the IUCN,

and then the Senegalese NCD Association (Nature Community Development). In this

connection, it is significant that Macky Sall’s government (March 2012) created a

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

43

Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Nature with a Community Marine

Protection Area Department, a clear indication of the shift in public policy.

You use the term “Community-Managed” areas? Fromrhetoric to the reality on the ground

13 Although the number of so-called community-managed reserves is steadily growing,

what role does civil society play in their governance? How does power sharing work in

practice? We will analyse the problems and limitations of the various participation

methods based on three MPA in Senegal, chosen according to a north-south divide,

from the Senegal Delta (Saint Louis MPA) to the Saloum Delta (Bamboung MPA), then to

Casamance (Mangagoulack ICCA) (see Figure 1). Although this article focuses on the

internal contradictions of these strategies, we should also highlight on the one hand

the avowed desire to promote innovative instruments of collective action and on the

other the power games played between stakeholders that happen in all societies and

extend beyond the framework of the MPA, revealing equal levels of complicity and

conflict.

Saint Louis MPA: an MPA on paper only?

14 Created by Presidential decree of November 2004, the Saint Louis MPA, covering a total

area of 496 km2, is the largest in Senegal and responded to the need to repopulate the

seabeds alongside one of the country’s main fishing grounds and to keep foreign

trawlers away (see Figure 2). The populations directly affected by this MPA are an

homogeneous group despite their different fishing methods. They are all Wolof who

live on the island of Guet Ndar, a district of Saint Louis comprised solely of fishing

families, known as Guet Ndariens, who have a deep attachment to their community and

are bound by strong family ties. We applaud the avowed desire of the Government and

its departments to involve the Guet Ndariens in the various stages of the process, from

choosing the MPA site to defining the management plans. However, significant

challenges and problems specific to this complex region emerged when the initiative

was implemented. The first constraint, mentioned by all the stakeholders, was the

obvious lack of space (see Figure 3). The Guet Ndar district is located on a narrow sandy

spit, the Barbary Spit, which is vulnerable to sea erosion and one of the most densely

populated communities in Senegal (160,000 inhabitants per km2). The steady increase

in the number of fishermen has led to a high building density (traditionally there are

no two-storey houses in this district) and put growing pressure on fish resources

against a general background of fish depletion and competition for access both to

fishing zones, especially between small-scale fishermen, trawlers and shrimpers, and to

landing stages, between fishermen, fish wholesalers and fish processors (Aziz, 2007;

surveys carried out by the author, 2009-2014).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

44

Figure 2. The Saint Louis MPA in the Senegal River Delta Transborder Biosphere Reserve

Sources: SIRENA Project, DPN, Landsat. Graphic by M.-C. Cormier-Salem and M. Fabre, UMR PALOC,IRD

Figure 3. Guet Ndar beach and district in Saint Louis

Photo: M.-C. Cormier-Salem

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

45

15 The choice of the MPA site, opposite the Guet Ndar district and directly adjacent to the

new River mouth, was contested on both physical and human grounds: the site was rich

in shrimp and demersal species, but was dangerous and had become the only route by

which canoes could put to sea. The drilling of the “relief canal” on the Barbary Spit in

2003 initially enabled fishermen to unload their catches along the banks of the Senegal

River, sheltered from the swells, downstream of the bridge connecting Saint Louis

island to Guet Ndar, instead of on the beach along the Atlantic. Subsequently, the

strong coastal dynamics, characterised by sea erosion, particularly to the south of the

river mouth (two new breaches occurred in September 2012), combined with endlessly

shifting sandbanks, made navigation very hazardous and led to frequent canoe

accidents (see Figure 4). The coastal and marine areas are steadily contracting, while

Senegalese fishermen are denied access to the Mauritanian waters further north.

Figure 4. Dramatic coastal erosion: the village of Doun Baba Gueye in ruins

Photo: M.-C. Cormier-Salem

16 A second major constraint concerns the overlap between the territories of the MPA and

the Barbary Spit National Park (PNLB) on the one hand and the Senegal River Delta

Transborder Reserve (RBDTS) on the other, which have different statuses and powers.

The PNLB, created in 1976, originally covering an area of 800 ha and increased to 2,000

ha in 1977, stretches to the southern bank of the Senegal River (see Figure 2). One-fifth

of its area (350 ha) overlaps with the MPA. Protection is integral in the PNLB, while in

the MPA, usage and access rights vary according to zone, season and fishing gear. In

principle, the MPA is the buffer zone for the Park. There is no coordinating body

between the two protected areas, and the PNLB warden does not sit on the MPA

management committee.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

46

17 The Senegal River Delta, shared between Senegal and Mauritania, was added to the

UNESCO MAB (Man and the Biosphere) list5 on 27 June 2005. However, only one-third of

the Saint Louis MPA lies inside the RBTDS, with the remainder in international waters.

Furthermore, the MPA is strictly Senegalese (see below). The status of this MPA should

be clarified, or even revised, to ensure consistent management of this stretch of coast,

which could form one of the three management units of the RBTDS (Borrini-

Feyerabend & Hamerlynck, 2010). This overlap between protected area territory is

exacerbated by the partitioning of management structures and the conflicting

prerogatives of Government departments, notably the DPN and the Fisheries

Department.

18 A third problem concerns the random nature of the MPA boundaries. The rectangle

delineated on the official location maps reveals the lack of any bio-ecological or social

basis; the northern boundary corresponds to the Senegal-Mauritania land border

extending straight into territorial waters. Faced with the impossible task of

implementing the limits of the MPA, a single (very small) zone was marked out (not

until October 2010) at the mouth of the river, on the southern bank, and thus in the

local waters of the PNLB. Four markers were positioned to indicate the limits of the

zone considered to be the richest, namely rocky seabeds or kher. This site was chosen

based on the knowledge of the old fishermen; consideration of this “traditional”

knowledge is highlighted by MPA personnel to underpin their strategy of participatory

governance. However, strong tides caused one of the markers to disappear very

quickly. Here again, the comments of the fishermen were highly critical: the markers

were placed too close to the coast (16-22.5 km) and in a PNLB zone where fishing is

permitted, just to the south of the new mouth of the Senegal River, the fishermen’s

obligatory route out to sea. This area of sea is also extremely rough.

19 The last problem relates to a lack of understanding between stakeholders. Despite the

avowed desire for a participatory approach voiced at the big awareness raising and

information meetings organised by the Northern National Parks Information Office

(BIPNN), a decentralised public body of the DPN, and the resources invested with a view

to making campaigns sustainable (funds from WWF, FFEM6, FAED7, etc.), the MPA

appears to have been set up hastily, demanding acceptance from local stakeholders

without any true negotiation. Apart from confusion about the status of the various

protected areas in the area (between MPA and National Parks in particular), the main

stakeholders, namely canoe captains and seagoing fishermen, were the big losers in

terms of the consultation process. This lack of participation by socially disadvantaged

populations and those who make their living from the sea (often the young) was also

apparent both at the coordination meetings prior to the creation of the MPA and in the

management bodies, namely the annual general meeting and the management

committee. The latter, set up in 2007 and chaired by a well-known old fisherman, had

great difficulty renewing its mandate in December 2010, as numerous conflicts relating

to the legitimacy and representativeness of its members emerged. Furthermore, the

lack of scientists, Government and Fisheries Department representatives raised

questions about the committee’s ability to monitor and coordinate the management

plans. A case in point was the innovatively designed artificial reefs. These were

manufactured from sand and cement by local craftsmen based on traditional

knowledge to attract octopus and shrimp, but ultimately came to be seen as a very

expensive PR exercise devoid of any real local benefit.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

47

20 Lastly, to say nothing of the problems experienced when implementing the initiative

due to the lack of infrastructure and Fisheries surveillance post equipment8, the MPA

caused heightened tensions with the Guet Ndarien community. According to our own

surveys (2011 and 2014), the majority of fishermen objected to the MPA in a very tense

atmosphere compounded by restrictions on fishing trips, a long hiatus in the

distribution of permits allowing Senegalese fishermen to fish in Mauritanian waters

and a rotation system for fishing trips (alternate days) in a bid to limit pressure on

Senegalese waters. The opinions of the fishermen appeared to vary however depending

on their fishing methods. According to Aziz (2007), driftnet and line fishermen were the

most strongly opposed to the MPA owing to their lack of options: fishing was all they

knew and they could only fish in the MPA. Fishermen using purse-seine nets did not

believe the MPA was a suitable vehicle for managing the mobile (deep-sea) fisheries

shared with Mauritania. They wanted access to Mauritanian waters and stressed the

positive role of the MPA in prohibiting trawler access to the area in particular. The

position of fishermen who go on long fishing trips in their ice canoes or work with fish

collection boats (their canoes are towed by the boat owners, enabling them to reach

rocky seabeds remote from the coast and inaccessible to trawlers) was more

ambiguous. Since they only pass through the MPA, they had no interest in it and did

not object to total protection of the coastal habitats, which would enable the seabeds to

be repopulated.

The Bamboung Community-Managed Marine Protected Area in the

Saloum Delta: an exclusive preserve

21 The Saloum Delta, site of Bamboung Community-Managed MPA, comprises three sea

inlets: Saloum to the north, Diombos in the centre (of which the Bamboung bolong is a

tributary) and Bandiala to the south. In order to understand the distinctive nature of

this MPA, it is necessary to define its environment as per Charles and Wilson (2009), in

other words its socio-spatial characteristics, since this territory is so strongly disputed

and its assets are the subject of contradictory claims (Cormier-Salem, 2000, 2006; Dahou

& Abdel Wedoud, 2007; Dahou, 2008).

22 The first factor to consider is the heterogeneous nature of the rural communities and

the diverse range of resource management strategies and practices. Schematically, the

islands between Saloum and Diombos, which make up Gandoul, are inhabited by Serer

Niominka, very early specialists in navigation and sea fishing. They are (full-time)

professional fishermen who travel long distances and stay in fishing stations in the

Delta or outside the Delta (in Casamance, Guinea Bissau, etc.) for months or even years

at a time. These islands have seen a mass exodus of young people, who were some of

the first to attempt the hazardous crossing to Europe by canoe. These migrations have

complex repercussions in terms of lineage solidarity and social and economic

recomposition (analysis of which exceeds the scope of this chapter, see Dahou, 2008;

Cormier-Salem et al., 2010). The islands between Diombos and Bandiala, Betanti and

Niombato, are mainly inhabited by Soce, natives of Gabou (consequently close to the

Manding) and still largely farmers (Cormier-Salem et al., 2010). The Rural Community of

Toubacouta, where Bamboung MPA is located, contains large numbers of foreigners

who have settled there over the years. Among them are Jola palm wine growers, Malian

and Burkina Faso fish smokers, Lebou fishermen, Wolof traders, French tourist

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

48

operators, etc.. Unlike Guet Ndar, the community includes a wide variety of “local”

stakeholders, of different origins, activities and statuses.

23 The second factor to consider is the overlap of protected areas that have different

statuses (see Figure 5). The Saloum Delta National Park comprises the Fathala forest

and islands and islets partially colonised by mangroves. When it was created in 1976, it

covered 76 km2. In 1981 the protected area was extended to 180 km2 and classified as a

Biosphere Reserve based on the UNESCO model, containing three zones (central,

peripheral and buffer). The Saloum Delta National Park is the central zone of the

Biosphere Reserve of the Saloum Delta (RBDS). The RBDS was added to the list of

Ramsar sites in 1984. It covers an area of between 240 and 260 km2, the boundaries of

the protected land areas being somewhat fluid (Cormier-Salem, 2006). Finally, the

Saloum Delta was added to UNESCO’s list of world heritage sites in 2011. This rush

towards heritage preservation coincided with an overlap of powers between

Government departments, which as in the case of Saint Louis, led to legitimacy

conflicts, exacerbated by the amphibian nature of the environment. The 1962 National

Domain Act for example transferred ownership of the marine environment and control

of fishing activities to the DPN (Cormier-Salem, 2000). This also coincided with the

hijacking and monopolisation of public funds for private purposes, as shown by the

proliferation of tourist camps and associations, NGOs, management committees, beach

committees, etc. and other operators seeking a “green” windfall. Whether one criticises

the non-governmentality or under-administration of these MPA (Nguinguiri, 2003) or

their “over-government” (Diallo, 2012), the multiplicity and incompatibility of the legal

and regulatory references in the RBDS (Dahou & Weigel, 2005) or the hybridisation of

the rules of access and use (Diallo, 2012), there can be no doubt that coordination

between stakeholders is extremely difficult due to the large number of institutions

involved, and the creation of a community-managed integral reserve like Bamboung

MPA is a real challenge.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

49

Figure 5. The Bamboung Community-Managed MPA in the Biosphere Reserve in the Saloum Delta

Sources: Directorate of Geographic and Cartographic Works, Senegal; Centre forEcological Monitoring; SIRENA Project; Landsat. Graphic by M.-C. Cormier-Salem and M.Fabre, UMR PALOC, IRD

24 Created by the same Presidential decree of November 2004 as the Saint Louis MPA, the

Bamboung MPA, covering an area of 70 km2, led to the closure of the Bamboung bolong,

which forms the central integral protection zone of this area. The MPA is bounded to

the north by the Diombos sea inlet, and to the south by the Diogaye and Kabaye forests.

It was initiated and driven by a Senegalese marine environment protection association,

the Oceanium Dakar, as part of the Narou Heuleuk project, and funded by the FFEM. The

site, a known spawning and feeding ground for many estuarine species (ichtyofauna,

manatees, dolphins, sea turtles), was chosen by a team of biologists who were also put

in charge of monitoring it. The MPA was created following a consultation process

involving fourteen villages in the Toubacouta Rural Community; from the outset the

aim was to promote income-generating activities for these villages by establishing an

ecotourist camp, Keur Bamboung, and recruiting and training eco-guards and eco-

guides from each village.

25 Although the locally elected representatives of this villages clearly supported this

initiative, the same could not be said for the population as a whole, especially the

women trading in shellfish who believed that the fruits of the mangrove swamps

(oysters, ark clams, yeet and Cymbium) would rot unless gathered; nor the Niominka

fishermen from the Gandoul islands (villages of Bassul, Diogan, etc.) who “traditionally”

set up camp in this area and for whom the bolong was a favoured fishing location (see

Figure 6). Thus, unlike the Saint Louis MPA, governance in Bamboung MPA is

participatory but exclusive, i.e. solely benefiting the villages along the Bamboung

bolong, although these villagers are not indigenous and do not form a homogeneous

group (e.g. the village of Sippo includes Soce, Jola, Bambara, Wolof, many of whom are

not indigenous but assimilated or living together in harmony). The “enclosure”9 of the

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

50

Bamboung bolong was condemned by the professional Niominka fishermen, who

regarded themselves as the only true indigenous population. Ethnic one-upmanship

was compounded by legal one-upmanship (Dahou & Abdel Wedoud, 2007), as the

Niominkas’ “right of the axe” (or first farmers) clashed with the right of the original

Soce inhabitants. The permanent or temporary closure of the Bamboung bolong was a

further bone of contention: apparently some villagers initially accepted the closure

because they thought it would only be temporary. Others deliberately chose the

Bamboung bolong to protect their resources and preserve them from outsiders, be they

neighbours or foreigners. Given the previous and now renewed abundance of fish in

this site following its biological rest period, there is now no question of re-opening it.

Opening the bolong for shellfish collection is the only option that might be considered.

Figure 6. Local governance, an uncertain pathway to participatory democracy: a bridge in theSaloum Delta

Photo: M.-C. Cormier-Salem

26 Another issue of a more ethical nature concerns the eco-tourist camp at Keur

Bamboung, which is based less on fair tourism than tourism “in” nature. The camp is

not self-managed by the villagers. The local economic benefits are limited, most of the

few jobs it provides (around twenty in total) being menial positions (cooks, maids,

oarsman, excluding the volunteer eco-guides and eco-guards who are paid at the end of

the mission), while the estimated population of the fourteen peripheral villages which

joined the MPA is 30,000. It is surprising that besides canoe and kayak excursions into

the mangrove swamps and nature trails through the bush, the open air activities on

offer also include recreational fishing. Tourists are granted rights that are denied to

the locals, even to cater for their own fish consumption (Sarr et al., 2009).

27 Lastly, the lack of transparency in the management of the MPA and in particular the

unequal distribution of the camp profits serve to heighten tensions: following the

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

51

general meeting held in Toubakouta in December 2013, a steering committee was set up

to clarify the status of this MPA; the mandates of the management committee officers

were renewed, with broad representation of all the stakeholders. This should facilitate

communication between the bodies and make coordination easier.

The Kawawana ICCA in Casamance: NIMBY!

28 The establishment and governance of the Community Conserved Area (ICCA) of the

Rural Community of Mangagoulack, known as Kawawana10, are very different from

those of the other MPA. Kawawana was created on the initiative of an association of

fishermen in this RC, supported by the American NGO CENESTA (GEF funding) and

FIBA11, which funded the “Kawawana on the move!” study conducted by scientists and

Oceanium, all active supporters of the concept of participatory biodiversity

conservation (Borrinni-Feyerabend et al., 2009a). Kawawana is an institutional

innovation that officially recognises ancient rights of use and access to the bolongs and

spaces of amphibian areas (Cormier-Salem, 1992).

29 It was created in 2004 by a decree of the governor of Ziguinchor province after a

lengthy process of application for official recognition (the file was submitted four

times). The governor attended the plenary session as well as visiting the various

regional technical departments (which were permitted to have their say). The decree

only came into force after ratification by the Fisheries Department. The regional

council order establishing Kawawana made provision for the transfer of skills.

However, Kawawana is not co-managed with the State and its departments: it is an

independent organisation that carries out surveillance and ensures compliance with

bans, but cannot apply sanctions. Some fishermen have received training from the

Fisheries Department but are not certified; if they catch offenders red-handed, they

have to take action through the officials of the Fisheries department.

30 The Kawawana association of fishermen had 135 members in 2004 and 200 in 2011. It is

made up entirely of Diola fishermen from the Mangagoulack Rural Community, which

includes eight villages (Boutène, Affiniam, Diattok, Tendouck, Boutegol, Mangagoulack,

Elana and Bode) and one hamlet (Djilapao). It is headed by Salatou Sambou, president of

the community association of Mangagoulack RC, who hails from the village of

Mangagoulack.

31 Unlike Bamboung, which is more or less enclosed and continuous, Kawawana is not a

delineated area, but has been zoned to follow the outline of the bolongs (see Figure 7).

Three zones were defined, symbolised by colours (red, orange and yellow). Usage rights

subject to varying levels of restrictions and ad hoc sanctions were assigned to each

(ranging from warnings through seizure of equipment and produce to fines). The

central yellow zone—the Tendouck bolong, an essential transport route between

Ziguinchor and the villages of Boulouf—has the fewest restrictions. Fishing with

outboard motors, fishing with non-selective or illegal equipment such as monofilament

nets, and the gathering of green timber are all banned, while the transport of people

and goods (timber, fish, etc.) and the gathering of oysters and deadwood are permitted.

In the eastern or orange zone, the many-branched bolongs of the villages are an

important farming area for the residents of the RC (timber, oysters, salt, fish). In

addition to the practices banned in the yellow zone, it is also forbidden to sell fishing

produce outside the villages of the RC. Only residents of the RC are permitted to gather

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

52

and freely sell oysters and deadwood; foreigners are also permitted to fish subject to

obtaining authorisation through a warden who must inform the chief of the village in

which the fisherman intends to set up camp. The western or red area corresponds to

the Mitij bolong, which is a sacred bolong where activities of any kind are strictly

forbidden (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. The Kawawana ICCA in Casamance

Source: Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2009a, CIRAD, Google Earth, CSE. Graphic by M.-C.Cormier-Salem and M. Fabre, UMR PALOC, IRD

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

53

Figure 8. Even the busana, the small dugout canoes of Casamance, are controlled and licensed

Photo: M.-C. Cormier-Salem

32 With regard to governance, Kawawana has five bodies: the board of Kawawana, the

general meeting of the ICCS (at which all categories of the Mangagoulack Rural

Community are represented; over 150 people attended the last meeting in June 2011),

the Council of the Mangagoulack Rural Community, a Council of Elders and a scientific

advisory committee. Decisions are taken by the meeting rather than the president.

33 It emerged from our conversations with the association of fishermen and from surveys

conducted outside the zone that at present Kawawana is a model worthy of emulation.

Besides conserving the mangrove and its resources, it has improved social well-being,

to the extent that there are now fewer conflicts between fishermen. Indeed, the rules

defined and observed by Kawawana are even respected by fishermen from outside, such

as those from the Batine district of Thionk-Essyl who can come and fish in the

Tendouck bolong provided they sell their catch to the Mangagoulack RC. Above all,

since priority is given to local consumption, fish stocks are more abundant and

supplying the population of the Rural Community is less expensive, thus resulting in a

better diet for everyone.

34 Nevertheless, certain limits to the Kawawana model have been suggested: firstly, the

approach is still too sectoral: the management plans only cover fishing and exploitation

of the bolongs, rather than the territory as a whole, despite the fact that all the

stakeholders are supposed to be involved (traders, farmers, oyster collectors, rice

growers). Secondly, not all the stakeholders participating in the governance of the

Mangagoulack Rural Community are involved in the Committee, including the people

living in the villages outside the bolongs and the Fisheries Department officials. This

leads to conflicts of legitimacy between Kawawana and the State departments. Thirdly,

the personalisation of Kawawana with its president called into question over its

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

54

longevity. Lastly, since the ultimate aim is to halt the mass exodus of young people, an

age-old phenomenon that has been exacerbated by insecurity and several years of civil

war, activities need to be diversified still further. Clear interest has been expressed in

processing plants (smoking, drying), on-site marketing to promote local industries, one

or more eco-tourist camps and, lastly, saline solar ponds.

35 Other Rural Communities (Thionk-Essil, Tiobon, Bandial, Petit Kassa, Tobor, etc.) are

interested in adopting a similar approach, but there is a case for questioning whether

transferring this model is appropriate, particularly in terms of territorial solidarity.

Increased local recognition of territories and heritages could lead to partitioning, land

enclosures and a withdrawal into communities. “Non-indigenous” people, ejected from

community land, will have no choice but to restrict their fishing to “non-heritage”

areas and species, a state of affairs aptly summed up by the widely used term NIMBY

(Not In My Back Yard).

Conclusion: between participatory democracy andspatial injustice

36 Protected marine areas, regarded by some as fishery management tools, by others as

maintenance tools for ecosystem services and by yet others as instruments of regional

governance, continue to divide opinion among scientists, managers and decision-

makers concerning their appropriateness. This term encompasses notions of

effectiveness and legitimacy (ecological, economic and social) and has led to the

promotion of “community-managed” MPA in a bid to make them acceptable. In fact,

sustainable management of resources or reasonable use of the environment’s natural

diversity is less important than local governance and the regulation of social

relationships (Weber, 1996). As the three community-managed MPA in Senegal (Saint

Louis, Bamboung and Kawawana) demonstrate, the definition of “good” governance is

open to question. The strategies implemented in Senegal highlight the diverse methods

used to encourage participation by “local” stakeholders (from coordination to

negotiation, membership and decision-making) and the trajectories of governance.

Apart from the limitations already discussed and specific to each case studied, it is clear

that in the end, decision-making remains the prerogative of certain individuals, leaders

or “important people” whose legitimacy is based on their knowledge and more

importantly, on their religious, economic or sociopolitical power. The heightening of

tensions (between groups and categories of stakeholders) and the onset of power games

following the emergence of new stakeholders (heritage mediators) and new networks

(via NGOs) indicate the problems associated with the transition from State

management to local governance and explain the current tendency to return to

centralised management and privatisation of resources or enclosure of land. In the

context of developing countries (disengagement from the State, impoverishment and

rising inequalities, difficult balance between global and local standards, etc.), there is a

case for questioning the place of participatory democracy in public policies on regional

development. We may well cast a critical eye over the new methods of collective action,

but that should not stop us welcoming the innovations (technological, institutional,

economic, legal) they bring with them and the mobilisation of stakeholders in new

arenas. These factors may indeed reveal or even exacerbate conflicts, but they also

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

55

enable knowledge to be shared, rules to be redefined and social connections and

networks to be reactivated (Beuret & Cadoret, 2010; Ostrom, 2011).

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Agardy, T., G. Notarbartolo di Sciara & P. Christie (2011). Mind the gap: Addressing the

shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Marine

Policy 35: 226-232.

Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality. Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. London:

Duke University Press.

Aziz, S.A. (2007). Contribution à la mise en place d’un dispositif de gestion concertée de l’Aire Marine

Protégée de Saint Louis au Sénégal. [Contribution to the establishment of a concerted management plan for

the Marine Protected Area of Saint Louis in Senegal.]. Engineering degree thesis, Montpellier Sup’Agro

Institute for Hot Regions / WWF West African Marine Environments, Dakar.

Berkes, F. (Ed.) (1989). Common Property Resources. Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable

Development. London: Belhaven Press.

Beuret, J.E. & A. Cadoret (2010). Gérer ensemble les territoires. Vers une démocratie coopérative.

[Managing territories together. Towards a cooperative democracy.] Paris: Charles Léopold Mayer.

Blundo, G. (2002). La gouvernance, entre technique de gouvernement et outil d'exploration

empirique. [Governance, between technique of government and tool for empirical exploration.]

Bulletin de l’APAD: 23-24.

Bonnin, M. & E. Rodary (2008). Gouvernance et connectivité écologique. Vers une responsabilité

partagée de la conservation de la nature. [Governance and ecological connectivity. Towards

shared responsibility in nature conservation.] In: Eberhard, C. (Ed.) Traduire nos responsabilites

planetaires. Recomposer nos paysages juridiques [Translating our planetary responsabilities.

Reconstructing the legal landscape.], pp.567-81. Brussels: Bruylant.

Bonnin, M., R. Laë & M. Behnassi (in press). Les Aires Marines Protégées en question. Défis Scientifiques

et Enjeux Sociétaux. [Marine Protected Areas in Question. Scientific Challenges and Social Issues.] IRD.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., C. Chatelain C. & P. Tous (2009a). Kawawana en marche ! Rapport pour

l’Association des Pêcheurs de la Communauté Rurale de Mangagoulack. [Kawawana on the move!

Report for the Fishers’ Association of the Rural Community of Mangagoulack.] CENESTA, PNUD/

FEM/SGP and FIBA.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M. Pimbert, M.T. Farvar, A. Kothari & Y. Renard (2009b). Partager le

pouvoir: cogestion des ressources naturelles et gouvernance partagée de par le monde. [Sharing the power:

co-management of natural resources and shared governance throughout the world.] IIED.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. & O. Hamerlynck (2010). Réserve de Biosphère Transfrontière du Delta du

Sénégal. Proposition de Gouvernance Partagée. [Senegal River Delta Transborder Biosphere Reserve.

Proposition for Shared Governance.] SIRENES Participative Management Project, Phase 2 of the

PRCM12. Nouakchott/Dakar: PRCM/IUCN/CEESP.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

56

Charles, A. & L. Wilson (2009). Human dimensions of marine protected areas. ICES Journal of

Marine Science 66(1): 6-15.

Cormier-Salem, M.-C. & B. Roussel (2002). Patrimoines et savoirs naturalistes locaux. [Heritage

areas and local naturalist knowledge.] In: Martin, J.Y. (Ed.) Développement durable ? Doctrines,

pratiques, évaluations [Sustainable development? Doctrines, practice, analysis.], pp. 125-142. Paris, IRD.

Cormier-Salem, M.-C. (1992). Gestion et évolution des espaces aquatiques: la Casamance. [Management

and evolution of aquatic spaces: Casamance.] Paris: Orstom.

Cormier-Salem, M.-C. (2000). Appropriation des ressources, enjeu foncier et espace halieutique

sur le littoral ouest-africain. [Appropriation of resources, real estate issues and fishing space on

the west African coast.] In: Chauveau, J.P., E. Jul-Larsen & C. Chaboud (Eds.),Les pêches piroguières

en Afrique de l’Ouest. Pouvoirs, mobilités, marchés. [Canoe fishing in West Africa. Possibilities, instabilities,

markets.] pp. 205-29. Paris: Karthala-CMI-IRD.

Cormier-Salem, M.-C. (2006a). Vers de nouveaux territoires de la conservation. Exemple des

littoraux ouest-africains. [Towards new conservation territories. The example of the West

African coast.] Annales de géographie 651(5): 597-617.

Cormier-Salem, M.-C. (2006b). Requins, raies et autres chimères en marche vers le patrimoine.

[Sharks, rays and other chimaera, steps towards heritage areas.] In: Chaussade, J. & J. Guillaume

(Eds.) Pêche et Aquaculture. Pour une Exploitation Durable des Ressources Vivantes de la Mer et du Littora,

pp. 141-60. Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Cormier-Salem, M.-C. (2007). Enjeux du développement durable dans les pays du Sud: du discours

à la pratique. [Issues in sustainable development in southern countries: from discourse to

practice.] In: Veyret, Y. (Ed.) Le développement durable [Sustainable development], Ch.18, pp. 367-385.

Paris: SEDES, Capes-Agrégation Géographie.

Cormier-Salem, M.-C., C. Bernatets & O. Sarr (2010). Mangrove system sustainability. Public

incentives and local strategies in West Africa. In: Hoanh, C.T. et al. (Eds.) Tropical Deltas and Coastal

Zones: Food Production, Communities and Environment at the Land-Water Interface, Ch.30, pp. 409-421.

Wallingford: CAB International.

Cormier-Salem, M.-C. (2014, in press). De la conservation à la concertation. Quelles AMP pour

quelle gouvernance territoriale? [From conservation to negotation. Which MPA for which

regional governance?] In: Bonnin, M., R. Laë & M. Behnassi (Eds.) Les Aires Marines Protégées en

question. Défis scientifiques et enjeux sociétaux. IRD.

Dahou, T. & O.C. Abdel Wedoud (2007). L’autochtonie dans les Aires Marines Protégées. Terrain de

conflits en Mauritanie et au Sénégal. [Indigenity in Marine Protected Areas. Disputed territory in

Mauritania and Senegal.] Politique africaine 108:173-190.

Dahou, T. (2008). L’“itinérance” des Sereer Niominka. De l’international au local ? [The

“itinerance” of the Sereer Niominka. From international to local?] In: DiopP, M.-C. (Ed.) Le Sénégal

des migrations, pp. 321-42. Paris: Karthala.

Dahou, T. (2010). Gérer les ressources sans gouverner les hommes, le dilemme des aires marines

protégées (Saloum Sénégal). [Managing resources without governing people, the dilemma of

marine protected areas (Saloum Senegal).] Anthropologie et sociétés 34(1).

Dahou, T. & Weigel, J.Y. (2005). La gouvernance environnementale au miroir de politiques

publiques. Le cas des aires marines protégées ouest-africaines. [Environmental governance

reflected in public politics. The case of west-African marine protected areas.] Afrique

Contemporaine 1(213): 217-231.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

57

De Santo, E. M. (2013). Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push for quantity

over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal of Environmental Management,

124, : 137-146.

Diallo, M. (2012). Gouverner un patrimoine naturel dans le Delta du Saloum: entre logiques de

conservation, conflits d’intérêts et stratégies d'acteurs. [Governing a natural heritage area in the Saloum

Delta: between the rationale of conservation, conflicts of interest and strategies of stakeholders.] Masters II

thesis, EHESS, Marseille.

Ingold, K. (2014, in press). How involved are they really? A comparative network analysis of the

institutional drivers of local actor inclusion. Land Use Policy URL: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.

2014.01.013.

Janzen, D.H. (1983). No park is an island, increase in interference from outside as park size

decreases. Oikos 41: 402–410.

Lavigne Delville, P. (2011). Du nouveau dans la “participation” au développement? Impératif

délibératif, populisme bureaucratique et participation cachée. [Back to “participation” in

development? Debating imperatives, bureaucratic populism and hidden participation.] In: Jul-

Larsen, E et al. (Eds.) Une anthropologie entre pouvoirs et histoire. Conversations autour de l’œuvre de

Jean-Pierre Chauveau, pp. 160-87. Paris/Marseille/Uppsala: Karthala-IRD-APAD.

Mathevet R., J.D. Thompson, O. Delanoé, M. Cheylan et al. (2010). La solidarité écologique: un

nouveau concept pour la gestion intégrée des parcs nationaux et des territoires. [Ecological

solidarity: a new concept for integrated management of national parks and territories.] Natures

Sciences Sociétés 18: 424–433.

Mermet, L. (2012). Un tramway pour Cancun: quelles perspectives pour la recherche en

négociation sur les dossiers environnementuax complexes ? [A tramway for Cancun: some

perspectives for research into negotiation of complex environmental cases?] Négociations 1(17):

63-75.

Nguinguiri, J.C. (2003). Gouvernance des aires protégées: l’importance des normes pratiques de

régulation de la gestion locale pour la faisabilité des réformes dans le bassin du Congo.

[Governance of protected areas: the importance of practical standards of local management

regulation for the feasibility of reforms in the Congo basin.] Bulletin de l’APAD 26.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy

Studies Journal 39(1):7–27.

Posey D. (1996). Provisions and mechanisms of the convention on biological diversity for access to

traditional technologies and benefit sharing for indigenous and local communities embodying traditional

lifestyles. OCEES Research Paper. Oxford Center for the Environment, Ethics and Society.

Potts, T., D. Burdon, E. Jackson, J. Atkins et al. (2014). Do marine protected areas deliver flows of

ecosystem services to support human welfare? Marine Policy 44: 139-148.

Sarr, O., M.-C. Cormier-Salem, C. Bernatets & S. Boulay (2009). Is ecotourism in marine protected

areas a relevant way for sharing benefits from biodiversity conservation? A case study in West

Africa. In: Krause, A. & E. Weir (Eds.) Ecotourism: Management, Development and Impact. Tourism and

Hospitality Development and Management series, pp.159-79. Nova Science Publishers.

Thouzard, H. (2006). Consultation, concertation, négociation. Une courte note théorique.

[Consultation, dialogue, negotiation. A short theoretical note.] Négociations 1(5): 67-74.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

58

Touré, E-H. (2011). Les conventions locales pour la gestion des ressources naturelles au Sénégal:

entre autonomisation et problèmes d'appropriation. [Local conventions for management of

natural resources in Senegal: between autonomy and problems of appropriation.] VertigO 11(1).

URL: http://vertigo.revues.org/10863; DOI: 10.4000/vertigo.10863

Trimble, M., L.G. de Araujo & C.S. Seixas (2014). One party does not tango! Fishers' non-

participation as a barrier to co-management in Paraty, Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management 92:

9-18.

Weber, J. (1996). Conservation, développement et coordination: peut-on gérer biologiquement le social ?

[Conservation, development and coordination: can social issues be managed biologically?] Paper

presented at the Panafrican Symposium, Gestion Communautaire des ressources naturelles

renouvelables et développement durable [Community management of renewable natural

resources and sustainable development], 24-27 June 1996, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Weigel, J.-Y., B. Cazalet & S. Mohamed Saleck (2007). Les aires marines protégées d’Afrique de l’Ouest.

Gouvernance et Politiques publiques. [West African marine protected areas. Governance and public policy.]

University of Perpignan, Princeton University Press & IRD.

NOTES

1. These programmes were undertaken at the IRD (Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement, the

French Institute for Development Research, www.ird.fr) in collaboration with the National

Museum of Natural History, under the banner of a joint research unit (UMR) called “PALOC”

(“Local heritages”, www.paloc.fr). The programme was supported by the National Research

Agency (ANR) for Biodiversity and the International Joint Research Laboratory (LMI) “PATEO”

(“Water resources, patrimonies and territories”).

2. In French, Programme Régional pour la Conservation des zones Côtières et Marines.

3. A network within UNESCO’s Man And Biosphere programme, focussing on Africa.

4. DPN: National Parks Department; DEFCC: Water, Forest, Hunting and Soil Conservation

Department; PCGRN: Natural Resources Community-Managed Management Project.

5. Inscription on such a list is the formal procedure for recognising the remarkable nature of an

area and attributing it a protected status at an interantional level. A state such as Senegal has to

elaborate a consistent report to justify this inscription and give guarantees they will respect

their duties for protecting this area.

6. French Global Environment Facility (in French, Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial).

7. Fund Supporting the Environment and Development (in French, Fonds d’Appui à l’Environnement

et au Développement).

8. At the time of our visit, none of the surveillance post equipment was working – neither the

radars and radios nor the patrol boat.

9. This very strong term, used by the president of the association of women who gather shellfish

in one of the villages in Gandoul, condemns the land privatisation promoted by the Bamboung

MPA.

10. KAWAWANA is the acronym for Kapoye Wafwolale Wata Nanang, a Diola expression meaning

“Our heritage, for us all to preserve.”

11. International Foundation of the Banc d’Arguin (in French, Fondation Internationale du Banc

d’Arguin).

12. Regional Marine and Coastal Conservation Programme for West Africa

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

59

RÉSUMÉS

The procedure for designating and establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPA) has changed

profoundly since the 1990s, as a consequence of global changes and new dictates related to

biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Far beyond protection of flagship species

such as marine turtles and large marine mammals, the goal is now to conserve and even increase

the services associated with coastal ecosystems to the benefit of all stakeholders. References to

community management of resources, territorial solidarity, or environmental justice have

become common. The political processes undertaken have nevertheless taken a range of

different trajectories, since the stakeholders (private, public, NGOs, local collectives) have

different interests; their standards and rules are often incompatible; the efficacy of the

negotiation process is debatable. In this article, after questioning the legitimacy of MPA (to what

extent are they useful tools ? —in responding to what aims?), the difficulties of putting into

practice this new paradigm of participative governance is analysed and illustrated using three

case studies of coastal Senegalese MPAs and the consequences of local intervention: the Saint

Louis MPA, the Bamboung Community-Managed MPA in the Saloum Delta, and the Mangagoulack

ICCA (Indigenous and Community Conserved Area) in Casamance. In conclusion, the principal

lessons and perspectives of these approaches are presented.

INDEX

Keywords : Biodiversity conservation, Marine Protected Area, Local communities, Participation,

Co-management, Governance, Spatial justice

AUTEURS

MARIE-CHRISTINE CORMIER-SALEM

DR IRD, UMR 208 PALOC IRD/MNHN, Dakar, Senegal, E-mail: marie.cormier@ird.fr

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

60

Restoration of rice landscapebiodiversity by farmers in Vietnamthrough education and motivationusing media

K.L. Heong, M.M. Escalada, H.V. Chien et L.Q. Cuong

Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This manuscript was published as part of a special issue on the subject of largescale

restoration of ecosystems. This manuscript was reviewed by two anonymous referees.

Introduction

1 Rice in Vietnam is grown under intensive cultivation conditions to maximize

production. Farmers usually grow two crops a year and in some cases three crops in

large continuous areas, applying high levels of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Pests

are often considered to be major constraints to yields and the farmers’ main control

tactic is spraying pesticides. Because of poor spray equipment and poor knowledge, a

large proportion of farmers’ sprays are misused (Heong & Escalada, 1997; Bandong et

al., 2002). Farmers tend to focus on highly visible leaf damage like that caused by the

leaf-feeding caterpillars in the early crop stages. However, this damage has little effect

on yields because of plant compensation (Graf et al., 1992). These early season sprays

instead destroy biodiversity and biological control ecosystem services and make the

rice more vulnerable to more destructive secondary pests such as planthoppers (Way &

Heong, 1994; Heong & Schoenly, 1998; Heong, 2009). Believing that rice pests breed in

neighboring habitats, farmers also tend to spray these habitats with pesticides.

However, the most important rice pests are monophagous and thus such practices are

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

61

of no use, and do more harm by destroying the rich biodiversity of resident predators

and parasitoids.

2 Mass media campaigns to motivate rice farmers for change have been highly successful

in Vietnam. The campaign to reduce early season spraying has helped in reducing

farmers’ loss aversion attitudes and thus also insecticide sprays by 53% (Escalada et al.,

1999; Heong et al., 1998). In a follow up campaign advocating farmers to reduce

insecticide sprays, seed and fertilizer rates (locally named “Three Reductions, Three

Gains”), farmers reduced their seed and fertilizer rates by 10% and 7% respectively and

their insecticide sprays by 33% (Huan et al., 2008). High seed rates used by rice farmers

have been known to promote denser crop canopy which coupled with high fertilizer

rates and insecticide use have been known to promote pest and disease development

(Huan et al., 2005). In 2004, a drama program developed using entertainment-education

principles (Singhal & Rogers, 1999) was launched. This program, called locally “My

Homeland Story”, consisted of 104 twenty-minute episodes broadcast weekly and

depicting the daily struggles of village families in rice cultivation, managing pests,

dangers of pesticides, social and family lives. An evaluation survey of farmers,

conducted six months after the completion of the program, showed that farmers who

had listened to at least two episodes of the program reduced their insecticide sprays by

60%, their fertilizer and seed rates by 9% and 33% respectively (Heong et al., 2008).

3 Encouraged by these successes, we embarked on a TV series to educate and motivate

rice farmers to restore biodiversity and ecosystem services by reducing insecticide use

and growing nectar rich flowering plants on the rice bunds and margins (Figure 1). The

flora on the bunds provide Shelter, Nectar, Alternate hosts and Pollen (abbreviated

SNAP) to conserve the natural enemy fauna to protect the rice crop (Gurr et al., 2012).

For instance, mymarid parasitoids of planthoppers live on alternative hosts on the

bunds (see review by Gurr et al., 2010), crickets that are ferocious predators of pest eggs

breed in bund habitats dominated by Bracharia mutica and forage in rice fields at night

(de Kraker et al., 1999), and spiders also use such habitats for shelter and breeding (Yu

et al., 2002). Coupled with withholding insecticide sprays in the early crop stages,

biological control services are further enhanced. These practices are referred to as

“ecological engineering” and the Ecological Engineering TV series (locally known as

Cong Nghe Sinh Thai)1 was developed using entertainment education concepts. The

present paper describes the development of the TV series, the motivating messages, the

evaluation survey and changes in the key variables monitored.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

62

Figure 1. Ecological engineering is both to restore and to conserve biodiversity, ecologicalfunctions and ecosystem services

Methodology

4 A multi-stakeholder engagement process modified from Escalada and Heong (2012) was

adopted in formative research, designing and development of the TV series, the

launching program, implementing on-the-ground support and the evaluation survey.

The stakeholders involved were drawn from research, universities, extension, the TV

station, the video producers and local government officials. A co-funding mechanism

was developed in which the Vinh Long Provincial TV station supported the air time and

program development management of the forty episodes, the International Rice

Research Institute (IRRI) supported the video production and research activities, and

the Vinh Long local government co-financed the launching ceremony and on-the-

ground activities. The scriptwriters in the video production team, in discussion with

the technical team from research and extension, developed the story lines in each

episode, and the technical team then edited and finalized the episodes. On-site filming

was conducted by the video team, engaging professional actors and actresses, and the

scientists. The footages filmed were then edited into the fifteen-minute episodes for

weekly broadcasts. A total of forty episodes were on air each Saturday from 16:40 to

17:00pm and each was repeated the next day (Sunday) at 08:00am. The episodes were

then made available on the Vinh Long TV website2.

Monitoring and Evaluation

5 We conducted a series of focus group discussions with farmers in different villages to

monitor progress, and using the feedback developed a formal evaluation questionnaire

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

63

that was translated into Vietnamese and pretested. We employed local university

students and trained them to conduct the survey of the 593 farmer households in three

provinces. The structured survey instrument was in three parts: i—basic profile

information of respondents; ii—the related crop production practices and the

respondents’ beliefs with regard to pest control; iii—ecological engineering practices

and their perceived barriers to adoption. The completed questionnaires were then

encoded using the spreadsheet program Excel, the data cleaned and uploaded into SPSS

version 15 for analyses.

6 In the evaluation survey, we introduced belief statements and asked farmers to score

how true they were using a response cue card of scores from 1 to 5, where 1 =

“Definitely not true”, 2 = “In most cases not true”, 3 = “Maybe true”, 4 = “In most cases

true” and 5 = “Always true”. We conducted reliability assessments using Cronbach’s

alpha (Bland & Altman, 1997) to examine for consistency and reliability of the belief

statements. The reliability analysis was used to study the properties of a measurement

scale and the items that compose the sum of scores. It provides information about the

relationships between individual items in the scale and computes the Cronbach alpha

that evaluates for internal consistency. The closer the Cronbach’s alpha is to 1, the

higher is the internal consistency (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). It is widely accepted that if the

alpha value is 0.70 or higher for a set of items, it can be considered reliable (Santos,

1999). The belief scores were computed into an index using the equation below:

7 (equation 1)

8 The index varies from zero to 1.0, where zero indicates the most constraining and

unfavorable while 1.0 indicates the most favorable.

9 We constructed two indices from the belief scores using equation 1 and used them to

compare differences in viewers and non-viewers. In addition we compared farmers’

responses to key belief statements of the two groups.

Results

10 Of the 593 farmers interviewed, about 41% had not watched any of the TV series

episodes (non-viewers). Most farmers (60%) watched five or fewer episodes and only 7%

had watched more than fifteen episodes. Farmers who had viewed the TV series

sprayed significantly less insecticide (19% less), used less nitrogen fertilizer (6% less),

used lower seed rates (12% less) and applied their first insecticide sprays later in the

season. The yields of viewers were marginally higher than those of non-viewers

(difference of 0.2 t/ha) (see Appendix 1 for details).

11 Farmers who had watched the TV series could recall what they learned from the series.

Table 1 shows the most common lessons farmers cited. Although the idea of growing

nectar flowers on the bunds for pest management was only launched in 2011, a higher

proportion of TV series viewers had recalled the various lessons they had learned.

Table 1. TV series viewers’ recall of what they had learned and benefits from the TV series

What farmers learned from the TV series % farmers recalling*

Nectar flowers can attract natural enemies to help pest control. 29.9

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

64

Nectar flowers can help reduce insecticide use. 14.8

Flowers on the bunds can help protect the environment. 11.3

Flowers help to beautify the rural landscape. 10.1

Applying “three reductions, three gains”** (Huan et al., 2008). 13.3

If insecticides are to be used, apply them correctly. 11.9

Techniques in flower growing. 9.6

Benefits farmers recalled

Helped in reducing production costs. 52.2

Helped in reducing chemical inputs. 29.4

Improved environmental protection. 28.0

Increased net incomes. 34.6

Increased natural enemies. 27.7

Reduced pest infestations. 13.0

Reducing labor in pesticide spraying. 11.2

* Note that multiple responses were possible: each farmer may have recalled more than one of thelessons or benefits, ** Three reductions, three gains” was a program launched by the Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam in 2004 to motivate rice farmers to reduce seed andfertilizer rates and insecticide sprays.

Details in Huan et al. (2008)

12 In addition, the TV series viewers cited various benefits they had obtained from the TV

educational series. A high proportion cited reducing production cost, chemical inputs,

increasing net incomes and reducing labor costs as benefits.

Belief indices

13 We computed two indices from the belief statements. Those related to ecological

engineering beliefs (EEInd) and those related to perceived belief barriers (PBInd) and

compared differences between viewers and non-viewers (see Appendix 2 for details).

14 Perceived barrier attitudes may obstruct or favor the actual adoption even if behavioral

and subjective norm attitudes may be favorable. Health communication research has

shown that the lack of perceived behavioral control can impede adoption of healthy

lifestyle practices (Glanz et al., 2002). For instance a common perceived barrier to

joining a gym is that it is expensive despite increased knowledge of the benefits of

physical activities.

15 There were highly significant differences in both indices between viewers and non-

viewers. Viewers scored higher (0.73) indicating that their attitudes towards ecological

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

65

engineering practices had gained positively compared to the non-viewers (0.64) by

about 14%. The increase in perceived barriers attitudes was about 9%. It is evident that

the TV series had favorably modified farmers’ beliefs regarding ecological engineering

practices and perceived barriers.

16 We further analyzed the differences in farmers’ beliefs in key belief statements: Table 2

presents beliefs related to ecological engineering practices and Table 3 the beliefs

related to perceived barriers.

17 There were significantly more farmers believing in statements that favor ecological

engineering among the viewers than the non-viewers. The largest difference was in the

belief that “flowers on the bunds can help farmers reduce insecticides”, (37.6% of

viewers and 21.1% of non-viewers). This difference is consistent with the reduction in

insecticide sprays of viewers. The next belief of significance was “flowers on the bunds

are homes to spiders and predators”, (35.9% of viewers and 21.5% of non-viewers).

Table 2. Key beliefs related to ecological engineering practices and comparison between viewersand non-viewers of the TV series in percent of farmers who said that the statements were “alwaystrue”

Belief statements

% farmers believing statement is

always true

χ 2

ViewersNon-

viewers

Flowers on bunds can attract bees and parasitoids

to protect rice.32.2 21.1

25.7

**

Flowers on bunds are homes for spiders and

predators.35.9 21.5

30.6

**

Flowers on bunds help farmers reduce insecticide

use.37.6 21.1

24.8

**

Flowers on bunds can help reduce planthopper pest

outbreaks.30.8 19.8 13.2 *

Flowers on bunds make rice landscapes beautiful. 68.3 55.419.6

**

Note: * = significant at p = 0.05, ** = significant at p = 0.01.

18 On perceived barrier beliefs, the differences between viewers and non-viewers were

slight and were not significant. There were no significant differences in most of the

beliefs except for two: “Flowers on the bunds attract more pests and diseases”, which

changed favorably from 7.4% of non-viewers to 5.7% of viewers, and the companion

statement “Non-rice habitats are sources of rice pests and diseases” which changed

favorably from 9.9% of non-viewers to 8.5% of viewers. Two beliefs changed negatively,

although these differences were not significant. This implied that some of the

perceived barriers to adopting ecological engineering practices had remained

anchored. Some perceived barriers were difficult to modify because they were

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

66

concerned about the physical conditions of their fields, like “the bunds are too

narrow”.

Table 3. Comparison of key perceived barrier beliefs between viewers and non-viewers of the TVseries in percent of farmers who said that the statements were “always true”

Belief statements

% farmers believing statement is

always true

χ 2

ViewersNon-

viewers

Flowers on bunds attract more pests and disease

to rice.5.7 7.4

21.0

**

Non-rice habitats are sources of rice pests and

diseases.8.5 9.9

28.9

**

Flowers on bunds will die when we burn straw

after harvest.30.8 35.5 2.3 ns

Bunds are for walking and planted flowers will not

survive.16.5 15.7 2.3 ns

Bunds are too narrow, no place to grow flowers. 20.8 18.6 5.7 ns

Note: ns = not significant, * = significant at p = 0.05, ** = significant at p = 0.01

Discussion

19 The comparison of beliefs and practices between viewers and non-viewers of the TV

series revealed some evidence of change. The TV episodes had focused on providing

information and motivation for farmers to modify their beliefs, adopt the growing of

flowering plants on the bunds and reduce seed and fertilizer rates and insecticide

sprays. There are significant reductions in these inputs among viewer farmers, and

they also had slightly higher yields. Since farmers’ adoption is the net outcome of

several key belief attributes, we computed two indices to compare viewers and non-

viewers. We found that farmers’ attitudes towards ecological engineering practices

were favorably improved among the viewers. In addition, significantly more viewers

had favorable attitudes towards insecticide reduction and growing of nectar-rich

flowers. The perceived barrier index among viewers was also favorably increased,

although this index had remained just slightly above 0.5, an indicator of indifference. It

was quite apparent that some perceived barriers could not be modified, such as “bunds

are too narrow”. The TV series had a stronger effect on farmers’ beliefs in insecticide

use, and this was reflected in significant reductions in insecticide use. Some beliefs

related to the growing of flowers on the bunds were also favorably modified. However,

unless some of the key perceived barriers could be overcome or additional motivation

introduced, like paying farmers for environmental services (FAO, 2007), adoption of

flower growing on the bunds as an ecological engineering method would probably not

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

67

increase markedly. Among the issues that would need to be addressed are the bunds’

width and straw burning. Ideally, we should consider modifying the geometry of the

rice landscape with a well-balanced mosaic of paddy fields and other habitats to

maximize biological control. However, since most rice fields had been established

decades ago, only small adjustments are possible, but a well-balanced landscape should

be considered and form the basis of new rice land developments.

20 The TV series did succeed in initiating changes in farmers’ beliefs. Among the main

factors that contributed to the success were the engagement and participation of key

stakeholders. To ensure that we had quality partnerships, we used decision theories

and sociological tools and a six phase engagement process (Escalada & Heong, 2012).

The process focused on jointly identifying the issues, needs and opportunities,

developing and evaluating intervention options and prototype materials, and

developing hypotheses, instruments and data for evaluation. In the first three phases,

partners participated in focus group discussions and scoping studies to assess issues,

needs and key opportunities in terms of communication. For instance, partners found

that farmers were unable to see, understand or appreciate parasitism, but they knew

and appreciated bees. This was discussed in a workshop and since parasitism by

hymenopteran parasitoids is believed to be a vital function for biological control

services (Gurr et al., 2010) we “distilled” science knowledge into simple rules. For

example, parasitoids were called “small bees” that “eat pests” and should therefore be

conserved. The cluster of simple rules that partners developed was “Flowers along

bunds bring in bees and their relatives”; “The bee relatives attack eggs that

planthoppers lay”; and “Insecticides will kill bees and their relatives”.

21 In the fourth phase, farmers were invited to evaluate the growing of nectar flowers on

bunds, and through further focus group discussions with participating farmers we

developed deeper understanding of their beliefs on the practices and the barriers to

adoption. Phase five focused on developing key communication messages for the TV

series. The three main messages developed were:

Flowers in rice environments attract and support bees and beneficial insects to protect rice

from invading planthoppers.

Insecticide use is reduced to avoid killing bees and beneficial insects.

Incomes are increased.

22 The brand name of “Cong Nghe Sinh Thai” was also developed by partners in this phase

(Escalada & Heong, 2012). The TV series was launched in a formal event broadcast live

nationwide over Vinh Long TV, and followed by other publicity activities to popularize

the series. The final phase was the evaluation of the impact of the TV series on farmers’

beliefs and practices where partners jointly conducted the survey and shared the

results. The six phase multi-stakeholder participatory process helped to engage

stakeholders in all stages of the development of the approach and gained buy-in from

policy makers, research, extension and farmers.

23 An important challenge will be the longer-term sustainability of the TV series. The

radio soap opera launched in 2004 was on air for 104 episodes and a continuation

program supported through a World Bank Development Market Place Award broadcast

another 135 episodes. The present TV series has been on air for forty episodes and we

expect a continuation of the series for another twenty episodes funded by a German

project called LEGATO. The challenge now is to mainstream such programs into the TV

1.

2.

3.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

68

station’s regular programming. To maintain a long TV series will require funding. A

further threat to sustain the gains made by the TV series is “advertising piracy” where

the TV series is being used to advertise new pesticides.

Acknowledgements

24 The authors are grateful to Dr Guy Trébuil for his continuous encouragement and

facilitation for us to write up the case study for publication, the deputy director of Vinh

Long TV station for agreeing to broadcast the series with minimal air time costs. This

project was made possible by funding provided by an Asian Development Bank (ADB)

regional research and development technical assistance (RDTA) to the International

Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes 50: 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Bandong, J.P., B.L. Canapi, C.G. dela Cruz & J.A. Litsinger (2002). Insecticide decision protocols: a

case study of untrained Filipino rice farmers. Crop Protection 21: 803-816.

Bland, J.M. & D.G. Altman (1997). Statisitcs notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314: 572. doi: http://

dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572.

Escalada, M.M. & K.L. Heong (2012). Using decision theory and sociological tools to facilitate

adoption of biodiversity-based pest management strategies. In: Gurr, G.M., S.D. Wratten & W.E.

Snyder (Eds). Biodiversity and Insect Pests: Key Issues for Sustainable Management, pp. 199-213.

Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Escalada, M.M., K.L. Heong, N.H. Huan & V. Mai (1999). Communications and behavior change in

rice farmers' pest management: The case of using mass media in Vietnam. Journal of Applied

Communications 83: 7-26.

Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] (2007). State of Food and Agriculture 2007 – Paying

farmers for environmental services. Rome: FAO.

Glanz, K., B.K. Rimer & F.M. Lewis (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory,

Research and Practice. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.

Gliem, J.A. & R.R. Gliem (2003, October). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha

reliability coefficients for Likert-type scales. Paper presented at the Midwest Research-to-

Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, October 8-10 2003, The

Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Graf, B., R. Lamb, K.L. Heong & L.T. Fabellar (1992). A simulation model for the population

dynamics of the rice leaffolders (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and their interactions with rice. Journal

of Applied Ecology 29: 558-570.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

69

Gurr, G.M., J. Liu, D.M.Y. Read, J.L.A. Catindig et al. (2010). Parasitoids of Asian rice planthopper

(Hemiptera: Delphacidae) pests and prospects for enhancing biological control. Annals of Applied

Biology 158: 149-176. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.2010.00455.x

Gurr, G.M., K.L. Heong, J.A. Cheng & J. Catindig (2012). Ecological engineering against insect pests

in Asian irrigated rice. In: Gurr, G.M., S.D. Wratten & W.E. Snyder (Eds). Biodiversity and Insect

Pests: Key Issues for Sustainable Management, pp. 214-29. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Heong, K.L. (2009). Are planthopper problems due to breakdown in ecosystem services? In:

Heong, K.L. & B. Hardy (Eds.) Planthoppers – New Threats to the Sustainability of Intensive Rice

Production Systems in Asia, pp. 221-32. Los Banos, Philippines: International Rice Research

Institute.

Heong, K.L. & M.M. Escalada (1997). Pest Management Practices of Rice Farmers in Asia. Los

Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.

Heong, K.L., M.M. Escalada, N.H. Huan & V. Mai (1998). Use of communication media in changing

rice farmers' pest management in South Vietnam. Crop Protection 17(5): 413-25.

Heong K.L., M.M. Escalada, N.H. Huan, V.H. Ky Ba et al. (2008). Entertainment-education and rice

pest management: a radio soap opera in Vietnam. Crop Protection 27: 1392-7.

Heong, K.L. & K.G. Schoenly (1998). Impact of insecticides on herbivore-natural enemy

communities in tropical rice ecosystems. In: Haskell, P.T. & P. McEwen (Eds.) Ecotoxicology:

Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms, pp. 381-402. London: Chapman and Hall.

Huan, N.H., L.V. Thiet, H.V. Chien & K.L. Heong (2005). Farmers’ evaluation of reducing pesticides,

fertilizers and seed rates in rice farming through participatory research in the Mekong Delta,

Vietnam. Crop Protection 24: 457-464.

Huan, N.H., H.V. Chien, P.V. Quynh, P.S. Tan et al. (2008). Motivating rice farmers in the Mekong

Delta to modify pest management and related practices through mass media. J International Pest

Management 54: 339-346. de Kraker, J., A. Van Huis, J.C. Van Lenteren, K.L. Heong & R. Rabbinge

(1999). Egg mortality of rice leaffolders Cnaphalocrocis medinalis and Marasmia patnalis in

irrigated rice fields. BioControl 44: 449-71.

Santos, R.A. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of

Extension 37(2): Tools of the Trade—2TOT3.

Singhal, A. & E.M. Rogers (1999). Entertainment–Education—A Communication Strategy for Social

Change. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Way, M.J. & K.L. Heong (1994). The role of biodiversity in the dynamics and management of insect

pests of tropical irrigated rice—a review. Bulletin of Entomological Research 84: 567-87.

Yu, X.-P., X.-S. Zheng, H.-X. Xu, Z.-X. Lu, J.-M. Chen & L.-Y. Tao (2002). A study on the dispersal of

lycosid spider, Pirata subpiraticus between rice and Zizania fields. Acta Entomologica Sinica 45:

636-40.

ANNEXES

Appendix 1. Profiles of viewers and non-viewers, their input practices and yields.

Parameters Viewers Non viewers F values Sig

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

70

Sample size (N) 351 242

Age (years) 49.2 49.7 0.24 ns

Years in rice farming (years) 24.5 23.8 0.50 ns

Education (years) 8.1 7.0 18.3 **

Yield last season (t/ha) 6.1 5.9 4.6 *

Seed rate (kg/ha) 167.4 186.7 26.5 **

Nitrogen application (kg/ha) 88.9 94.3 4.1 *

Number of insecticide sprays last season 2.1 2.6 21.1 **

Day of first insecticide application 31.0 26.7 22.0 **

% farmers with no insecticide application 8.0 4.1

Note: ns = not significant, * = significant at p = 0.05, **= significant at p = 0.01.

Appendix 2. Comparison of the belief indices of ecological engineering and

perceived barriers between viewers and non-viewers of the TV series on

ecological engineering.

Ecological engineering (EEInd) Perceived barriers (PBInd)

Number of belief statements 9 8

Cronbach reliability index 0.912 0.752

Viewers Non-viewers F value Viewers Non-viewers F value

Index values 0.73 0.64 21.6** 0.59 0.54 9.7**

Note: ** = significant at p = 0.01.

NOTES

1. Awarded the Gold medal in Science Education in the 32nd National Television Festival 19-22

December 2012 held in Vinh City, Nghe An, Vietnam.

2. http://thvl.vn

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

71

RÉSUMÉS

A TV series using entertainment-education principles and broadcast over Vinh Long Television

station in Vietnam helped changed rice farmers’ beliefs and pest management practices. The

evaluation survey conducted two months after the end of the broadcast showed that farmers

sprayed significantly less insecticides (19% less), used less nitrogen fertilizer (6% less), and used

lower seed rates (12% less). In addition, there were significantly more farmers believing in

statements that favor ecological engineering among the viewers than the non-viewers. Viewers

scored higher in the belief index compared to the non-viewers by about 14%, indicating that

their attitudes towards ecological engineering practices had gained positively. Although there

was about a 9% increase in favor of ecological engineering adoption, there are at least two

barriers that remain unchanged.

The TV series had succeeded in initiating changes in farmers’ beliefs and adoption of ecological

engineering practices. This might be due to entertainment-education content and the

engagement of key stakeholders and partners in the project process. Decision theories and

sociological tools and a six phase engagement process were used to ensure quality partnerships.

INDEX

Keywords : Rice, Entertainment-education, Vietnam, Ecological engineering, Pest management,

Perceived barriers

AUTEURS

K.L. HEONG

International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines, Current affiliation – Centre for Agro

Biosciences International (CABI), Serdang, Malaysia.

M.M. ESCALADA

Visayas State University, Baybay, Leyte, Philippines

H.V. CHIEN

Southern Regional Plant Protection Center, Long Dinh, Vietnam

L.Q. CUONG

Southern Regional Plant Protection Center, Long Dinh, Vietnam

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

72

Oregon’s Restoration Economy: Howinvesting in natural assets benefitscommunities and the regionaleconomy

Cathy P. Kellon et Taylor Hesselgrave

Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This manuscript was published as part of a special issue on the subject of largescale

restoration of ecosystems. This manuscript was reviewed by two anonymous referees.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

73

Box 1. facts and figures

* Location: USA; Pacific Northwest; Oregon State

* Ecosystems: River basins covering nine Level III ecoregions: Coast Range, Willamette Valley,

Cascade Mountains, Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills, Columbia Plateau, Blue Mountains,

Snake River Plain, Klamath Mountains, Northern Basin and Range Desert. Source: For more

information, see Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division, Ecoregion Maps and

GIS Resources: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii_iv.htm (Accessed April 11,

2014).

* Population: 3.9 million people in the state of Oregon, U.S.

* Size of Restored Area: 2,314 miles of riparian habitat improved; 642 miles of in-stream habitat

treated; 686,570 acres of uplands improved; 37,122 acres of wetlands improved; 2,043 stream miles

reopened to access by anadromous species.

* Budget: $411.4 million dollars invested in 6,740 watershed restoration projects.

* Study Period/Duration: 2001-2010

* Partners: University of Oregon Ecosystem Workforce Program, Oregon Watershed Enhancement

Board, U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Restoration Center

* Study Objectives: Quantify the market benefits of watershed restoration expenditures in order to

build public support for habitat restoration.

Introduction

1 Watershed restoration is the practice of restoring degraded aquatic and terrestrial

habitats to functional, self-sustaining conditions. More than one billion dollars is spent

on river restoration each year (Bernhardt et al., 2005) as restored watersheds provide

an array of generation-spanning ecosystem services and benefits (MEA, 2005). However,

measuring all ecological, health, cultural and economic impacts of restoration is

difficult, costly, and uncertain. As such, reported watershed restoration outcomes tend

to be easily quantified, project implementation metrics such as the numbers of stream

miles improved or acres treated. However, in today’s fiscal climate it is more important

than ever to demonstrate the multiple ways that conservation work benefits not just

the environment but also our economy. Recently, Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley (2010)

produced economic multipliers specific to watershed restoration in the state of Oregon,

making it possible to estimate the economic activity stimulated by restoration

investments.

2 This paper uses the multipliers from Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley (2010) to examine the

employment and economic impacts of watershed restoration expenditures in Oregon,

and to discuss the utility of these estimates in reaching conservation policy goals.

Ecotrust1, a nonprofit in Portland, Oregon, undertook this assessment in order to

daylight the market benefits of salmon habitat restoration. Our mission is to inspire

fresh thinking that creates economic opportunity, social equity and environmental

wellbeing; and we assume that by quantifying restoration benefits we can build public

support for, and improve public policies in favor of, watershed restoration.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

74

Background on restoration and economics

3 In order to restore ecosystems at a meaningful scale, conservationists and researchers

must make the social and economic benefits of doing so more explicit (Knight et al.,

2006; Holl & Howarth, 2000). This is felt most keenly during adverse economic

conditions when debates over shrinking public budgets devolve into zero-sum game

arguments; namely, spending money on environmental protection or enhancement is a

sacrifice to economic growth. Even though the need for ecosystem restoration is

usually a consequence of economic activity, the resources provided to carry it out are

influenced by current economic circumstances (Edwards & Abivardi, 1997).

Nonetheless, a recent survey of over a thousand peer-reviewed restoration papers

found that restoration practitioners are failing to draw links between ecological and

socioeconomic benefits, underselling the evidence that restoration is a worthwhile

investment for society (Aronson et al., 2010).

Estimating the benefits of protected or restored habitat

4 As the majority of the goods and services provided by nature are not valued in the

formal market economy, economists have created novel approaches to incorporate

environmental benefits into economic analyses, such as the Total Economic Valuation

(TEV) framework, see Pearce et al. (1989). TEV is comprised of both use values (direct,

indirect and option) and non-use values (bequest and existence) that together

constitute the total economic value of the natural resource or ecosystem in question.

However, the majority of TEV studies address only one use value, such as air

purification services, rather than providing a complete estimate for all use and non-use

values. TEV studies utilize a variety of non-market valuation methods such as hedonic

pricing, travel cost, contingent valuation, and experimental choice analyses. Robbins &

Daniels (2012) provide an excellent overview of these methods in the context of

restoration, and De Groot et al. (2013) conducted a synthesis cost-benefit analysis on a

range of ecosystem restoration projects, finding that the majority of projects were not

only profitable but were also high-yielding investments.

5 The contribution of such economic studies to the field of restoration is critical to

furthering knowledge and uniting disciplines. However, it is important to recognize

their limitations. TEV studies are long-term, expensive efforts that need to be carefully

and correctly designed to produce relevant results. Even with adequate time and

resources, such studies can be highly sensitive to key assumptions, biases, and inherent

uncertainties; if improperly executed, results may be unreliable (Schultz et al., 2012).

Estimating the economic impacts generated by habitat restoration

project expenditures

6 Recently, economic thinking about restoration has expanded to examine the short-

term, market benefits that restoration expenditures stimulate in local communities

(e.g. see Edwards et al. 2013). These types of analyses are identical to those undertaken

to assess the economic impact of federal investments in construction projects, for

example. As in traditional construction, restoration project expenditures are made as

payments to contractors, payments for equipment and materials, and as wages to

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

75

personnel managing and performing the restoration work. These businesses and

employees in turn circulate that money throughout the economy as they supply their

own business and labor needs, stimulating further economic activity. In economics this

process is called the ‘ripple’ or ‘multiplier effect’, as the initial outlay of spending

ripples and multiplies throughout various sectors of the economy related directly and

indirectly to the project. Economists use input-output (I-O) modeling or the economic

multipliers derived from I-O models to conduct these analyses and it is the basis for the

following case study. For more information on I-O models, see Annex A.

Case study: Restoration and the local economy inOregon

7 In the western United States, billions of dollars have been spent over recent decades to

recover anadromous salmon species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act

(ESA). Broad support and participation from the private and public sectors is needed to

address the limiting factors to salmon viability, especially the improvement of stream

and watershed health. In Oregon, there is strong state-led support of watershed

restoration. The state generates restoration funding from state lottery funds and sales

of salmon license plates and pools this with federal allocations for salmon recovery.2

The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), a state agency, manages these

funds and makes grants available to local watershed councils, tribes, soil and water

conservation districts, and other groups for on-the-ground restoration projects. Most

projects are designed to recover watershed processes like habitat connectivity and

floodplain dynamics. Landowners and other private citizens, community organizations,

interest groups, and all levels of government are involved in project organization,

design and implementation.3

8 This paper examines the employment and economic impacts of watershed restoration

expenditures made in Oregon over the ten year period of 2001–2010, using economic

multipliers to determine the total direct, indirect, and induced impacts resulting from

these investments.

Methods

9 Project data were gathered using the OWEB’s Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory

(OWRI)4, an extensive public database documenting watershed projects around the

state. For the period of 1995-2009, the OWRI has descriptive information on 13,625

projects.

10 We queried the OWRI for watershed restoration projects that:

were completed in Oregon during the ten year period of 2001–2010;

included cash expenditures (excluding projects supported solely with in-kind contributions);

and

listed specific restoration activities, such as “riparian vegetation enhancement” or “fish

passage barrier removal”, with associated total expenditure data.

11 A total of 6,740 watershed restoration projects were returned.5 All project expenditures

were converted to 2010 dollars using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s implicit price

1.

2.

3.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

76

deflators for government consumption expenditures and gross investment. In-kind

funding, while critical to restoration efforts, was not included in this analysis.

12 To determine the economic impacts of restoration investments, we used multipliers

supplied by Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley (2010) who examined the employment and

economic impacts of public investment in forest and watershed restoration in Oregon.

Type I multipliers measure only the direct and indirect effects while Type II multipliers

measure the direct, indirect and induced effects of the investment. For more

information about economic and employment multipliers, see Annex A.

13 First, all project expenditures were totaled by the restoration activity categories used

by OWRI and Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley (2010), described as follows:

Fish Passage — removal of barriers to fish passage such as culverts and dams;

In-stream — enhancement of stream habitat and function;

Riparian — enhancement and restoration of native riparian vegetation;

Road — inventory, construction, reparation, or decommission of roads;

Upland — agricultural water management, juniper management, and noxious weed

treatments;

Urban — urban centered actions removing sources of watershed pollution;

Wetland — restoration of wetland and estuarine habitat;

Combined — a diverse combination of some of the above project types.

14 Then, the associated multipliers (see Table 1) were applied to the totaled expenditures

in each respective activity category. Where projects included multiple activities, the

relevant multiplier was applied to the portion of total expenditures associated with

that activity. Because multipliers for road and urban projects were not developed by

Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley (2010), we used the “Combined” multiplier.

15 Table 1 details the economic multipliers and employment effects estimated by Nielsen-

Pincus & Moseley’s (2010) stimulated per $1 million invested. Jobs supported may be

full-time, part-time, temporary, seasonal, or permanent.

Table 1. Economic multipliers and employment effects

Economic multipliersEmployment effects per

$1 million invested

Restoration Activity Type I Type II Direct + Indirect Direct + Indirect + Induced

Fish passage 1.8 2.3 10.6 15.2

In-stream 1.7 2.2 10.5 14.7

Riparian 1.7 2.4 17.5 23.1

Upland 2 2.6 10.8 15

Wetland 1.8 2.4 12.5 17.6

Other/Combined 1.8 2.3 10.4 14.7

Source: Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley (2010)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

77

16 To determine the total direct, indirect and induced economic output and employment

resulting from restoration investments, we multiplied project investments in each

category of restoration work by the relevant multiplier. We then summed the total

economic activity by project to arrive at a state total. We also present the total

economic activity results by county in Annex B.

Results

17 The average number of activities undertaken per project was one, although some

projects reported as many as five separate activities. The most popular types of

restoration activities were road (24% of projects), riparian (24%) and upland work

(21%). While fish passage restoration comprised only 16% of study projects, it

constituted the greatest proportion of expenditures by project type (29% of total

expenditures), followed by upland (24%) and road (15%) restoration. Urban restoration

work was least common, occurring in only 0.2% of the study projects and constituting

only 0.1% of total expenditures.

18 A total $411.4 million dollars was invested in 6,740 watershed restoration projects

completed throughout the state of Oregon over the period 2001–2010. We estimate that

these expenditures contributed between $752.4 million and $977.5 million in economic

output and supported 4,628 to 6,483 jobs, see Table 2. Results are also presented by

county, see Figure 1 and Annex B.

Table 2. Oregon restoration projects: Estimated economic impacts by project type, 2001-2010(2010$)

Project

Type

Total expenditures

(million $)

Estimated economic output

(million $)

Estimated employment

(jobs)

Combined $14.4 $25.9 – $33.0 149 – 211

Fish

Passage$117.4 $211.4 – $270.1 1,245 – 1,785

Instream $53.3 $90.6 – $117.2 559 – 783

Riparian $29.0 $49.3 – $69.6 508 – 670

Road $60.5 $108.8 – $139.1 629 – 889

Upland $100.8 $201.5 – $262.0 1,088 – 1,512

Urban $0.2 $0.4 – $0.6 3 – 4

Wetland $35.8 $64.4 – $85.9 447 – 630

TOTAL $411.4 $752.4 – $977.5 4,628 – 6,483

Source: Authors' estimates using data from OWEB (2012) and Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley(2010)

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

78

Figure 1. Oregon restoration projects by county

Estimated employment (in orange) and economic output (in green), 2001–2010.

Source: Authors' estimates using data from OWEB (2012) and Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley(2010)

19 The job creation potential of restoration activities compared with investments in other

sectors of the economy is favorable. Figure 2 displays findings from the literature and

compares two types of restoration project investments, labor-intensive projects and

average projects (Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley, 2010), with estimates from investments

made in transportation infrastructure, renewable energy, building retrofits, coal, and

oil and natural gas (Heintz et al., 2009a, 2009b). Restoration activities create more jobs

per $1 million of investments than comparable green investments in renewable energy,

building retrofits, and transportation infrastructure; more than twice the number of

jobs as comparable investments in coal; and more than three times the number of jobs

as comparable investments in oil or natural gas.

Figure 2. Number of jobs per $1 million of investment by sector

Employment estimates obtained from three studies using economic input-output models to tracedollars through economies.

Source: Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley (2010) and Heintz (2009a, 2009b)

20 The majority of watershed habitat restoration in Oregon occurs outside its major urban

areas, hence, the majority of associated jobs are likely located in rural counties and

communities: places hard hit, generally speaking, by the 2008 economic downturn with

recent unemployment rates in excess of both state and national averages (Beleiciks &

Krumenauer, 2012; Young, 2013). Restoration activities bring a range of employment

opportunities for those working in construction, project management, engineering,

natural resource sciences, and other fields. Restoration also stimulates demand for the

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

79

products and services of local businesses such as plant nurseries, heavy equipment

companies, and rock and gravel companies. In addition, these dollars tend to stay in the

local economy: Hibbard and Lurie (2006) found that approximately 80% of OWEB’s

restoration investments stay in the county where the project is located.

Discussion: The utility of estimating the economicimpact of restoration

21 There is a systemic lack of acknowledgement of the value of functional ecosystems

within our market economy, which arguably contributes to flawed decision making

(EFTEC, 2005; Hurd, 2009). Intuitively, in the face of shrinking public budgets and

difficult decisions about the distribution of scarce resources, it is useful, if not essential,

to make the economic case for restoration. This is especially salient to those of us in the

conservation nonprofit sector. As practitioners, with our own limited resources, we

wish to know what kinds of information and outreach strategies are effective in the

pursuit of improved environmental and social welfare.

22 Ecotrust created a four-page brochure6 to publicize the findings of this report. We

defined the target audience as elected officials and government staff, especially those

responsible for budget allocations of restoration funds. The information and brochure

have been presented to local and national audiences at several non-academic

conferences, in a national earned media campaign in collaboration with NOAA

Restoration Center, via social media networks, and in numerous individual meetings

with restoration stakeholders and public decision-makers. To date, the reception has

been overwhelmingly positive, from across the country and the political spectrum.

23 Since release of the brochure, Ecotrust staff and researchers at the University of

Oregon regularly receive inquiries as to the possibility of extending this type of

analysis to other regions. We enthusiastically support continued research into and

development of such economic tools, as organizations like ours are subsequent

consumers and purveyors. Yet, we argue that there is an equally pressing, concomitant

need to study the impact of this information on individuals and institutions.

24 While we have found that quantifying and communicating the economic gains of

watershed restoration reframes the conversation with key stakeholders, it is not clear

whether this translates into lasting, favorable outcomes, be those demonstrable

changes in public opinion or other, more practical support in the form of greater

private landowner participation in restoration projects; changed policies that

recognize watershed restoration as an investment strategy in rural economies and

green infrastructure; or increased federal or state budgets for restoration.

25 We recognize that establishing causality with respect to policy outcomes or behavioral

change is a complicated endeavor. However, there is much to be explored in terms of

changed perception or attitude. For example, are common economic impact metrics,

such as number of jobs, more persuasive than intergenerational benefit claims because

they avoid the associated pitfalls of temporal discounting? Or by providing data on the

market benefits of environmental restoration, are perceived trade-offs diminished,

thereby minimizing the psychological burden for decision-makers? Regardless, it is

probably safe to assume that funding will continue to fall short of the amount needed

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

80

for large-scale ecosystem restoration. Hence, we stand to increase our collective impact

with an improved understanding of the influence of different economic arguments.

Conclusions

26 The act of restoring watershed health provides local jobs and bolsters regional

economies. In our case study analysis, we estimated that $411.4 million in watershed

restoration expenditures made over ten years in the state of Oregon generated up to

$977.5 million in economic output and supported up to 6,483 jobs.

27 Beyond short-term market impacts, it is important to remember that a critical

assessment of restoration’s value would not be complete without considering its

primary intended benefits to ecosystem health. Restoration investments continue to

accrue and pay out over time with long-term improvements in wildlife populations and

aquatic and terrestrial habitat. And intact watersheds create enduring benefits, from

enhanced fishing opportunities to the provision of critical ecosystem services, which

are vital to the welfare of communities and cultures.

28 We believe that meaningfully characterizing and effectively communicating the

interdependencies of ecosystems and economies is critical to addressing the immense

environmental challenges of the 21st century. Whether our aim is the recovery of wild

salmon in the western United States or the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions,

alternative models of economic development that properly value for functioning

ecosystems need to be expanded and strengthened. By applying common economic

impact assessment techniques to environmental conservation activities, we are

hopefully aiding in the transition to a more reliable prosperity. In addition to

replicating these kinds of economic impact studies, there is much to gain from more

rigorous exploration of how making the economic case for environmental wellbeing is

an imperative for achieving modern environmental goals.

Acknowledgements

29 The authors would like to thank the Ecosystem Workforce Program at the University of

Oregon, especially Cassandra Moseley and Max Nielson-Pincus, for their good work

developing the multipliers used in this study and advising us in our application of their

research; Bobbi Riggers of the Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory database

system for her assistance in querying and interpreting restoration project information;

all the Whole Watershed Restoration Initiative partners, especially Ken Bierly of the

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Megan Callahan Grant and Lauren Senkyr of

NOAA’s Restoration Center, and Scott Peets and Jim Capurso of the U.S. Forest Service

for their support of this work; Kristen Sheeran and Carolyn Holland of Ecotrust for co-

funding the study and brochure; Kate Carone of Ecotrust for her editorial and

intellectual support; and the many dedicated, talented individuals who plan, design,

implement, and monitor salmon habitat restoration projects.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

81

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Aronson, J. et al. (2010). Are socioeconomic benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta-

analysis of recent papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 other scientific journals.

Restoration Ecology 18: 143–154.

Beleiciks, N. & G. Krumenauer (2012, November 19). Key workforce challenges: More severe in

Oregon's rural areas. Published online on 19th November 2012 by Oregon Employment

Department at: http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00008442. Accessed

Dec. 9, 2012.

Bernhardt, E.S., M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr et al. (2005). Synthesizing

U.S. river restoration. Science 308: 636-637.

De Groot, R.S., J. Blignaut, S. Van Der Ploeg, J. Aronson, T. Elmqvist & J. Farley (2013). Benefits of

investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Ecology 27: 1286–1293.

Edwards, P.J. & C. Abivardi (1997). Ecological engineering and sustainable development. In:

Urbanska, K.M., N.R. Webb & P.J. Edwards (Eds.) Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development,

pp. 325-352. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, P.E.T., A.E. Sutton-Greir & G.E. Coyle (2013). Investing in nature: Restoring coastal

habitat blue infrastructure and green job creation. Marine Policy 38: 65–71.

Economics for the Environment Consultancy [EFTEC] (2005). The economic, social and ecological

value of ecosystem services: A literature review. Prepared for the Department for Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). London, UK: EFTEC.

Heintz, H., R. Pollin & H. Garrett-Peltier (2009a). How infrastructure investments support the U.S.

economy. Amherst, University of Massachusetts: Political Economy Research Institute. URL:

http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/efc9f7456a/publication/333/

Heintz, H., R. Pollin & H. Garrett-Peltier (2009b). The economic benefits of investing in clean energy:

How the economic stimulus program and new legislation can boost U.S. economic growth and employment.

Amherst, University of Massachusetts: Political Economy Research Institute. URL: http://

www.peri.umass.edu/economic_benefits/

Holl, K.D. & R.B. Howarth (2012). Paying for restoration. Restoration Ecology 8(3): 260-267.

Hibbard, M. & S. Lurie (2006). Some community socio-economic benefits of watershed councils: A

case study from Oregon. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49: 891-908.

Hurd, J (2009). Economic benefits of watershed restoration. In: The Political Economy of Watershed

Restoration Series. Missoula, MT: Wildlands, CPR. URL: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/files/

Economic_Benefits_1.pdf

Knight, A.T., R.M. Cowling & B.M. Campbell (2006). An operational model for implementing

conservation action. Conservation Biology 20: 408–419.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA] (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for

Assessment. Washington D.C.: Island Press. URL: http://www.maweb.org

Nielsen-Pincus, M. & C. Moseley (2010). Economic and employment impacts of forest and watershed

restoration in Oregon. Working Paper Number 24. Eugene, Oregon: Ecosystem Workforce Program,

University of Oregon. URL: http://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/downloads/

WP24.pdf

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

82

Pearce, D., A. Markandya & E.B. Barbier (1989). Blueprint for a Green Economy. London, U.K.:

Earthscan Publications.

Robbins, A.S.T. & J.M. Daniels (2012). Restoration and economics: A union waiting to happen?

Restoration Ecology 20(1): 10-17.

Schultz, E.T., R.J. Johnston, K. Segerson & E.Y. Besedin (2012). Integrating ecology and economics

for restoration: Using ecological indicators in valuation of ecosystem services. Restoration Ecology

20(3): 304-310.

Young, M (2013, March 25). Joblessness in Oregon, county by county. The Oregonian. Retrieved

from http://www.oregonlive.com/money/index.ssf/2013/03/

joblessness_in_oregon_county_b.html

ANNEXES

Annex A: Economic Multipliers

Input-Output (I-O) models are quantitative economic models that represent the

interdependencies between different sectors of regional economies using complex

matrix operations. The matrices are comprised of regional and national accounts

relating the production of commodities by industry and the use and distribution of

commodities by intermediate and final users. The integrated economic data underlying

the I-O accounts originate from a variety of sources regarding industry purchasing

patterns, employment and earnings statistics, regional supply capacities, and more.

The underlying data of an I-O model is specific to the timeframe in which the data was

collected.

The key concepts underlying I-O models have been built upon by several economists

over several decades. I-O models are the most comprehensive economic accounts at the

level of the whole economy, and they are used in the calculation of important accounts

of the economy such as measures of gross domestic product (GDP), and other national

income and product accounts (NIPAs) by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

When a final-demand dollar enters the regional economy, some of it remains and is

used to purchase other regional commodities, while a portion leaves the economy in

the form of savings or to purchase commodities produced outside the region, imports.

To conduct an analysis of a change in final demand, the user inputs the expected

change into the existing I-O model; the I-O model tracks the circulation of these dollars

throughout the economic structure of the regional economy, running subsequent,

iterative impact rounds until the initial dollars no longer remain in the economy, and

then outputs the estimated final effects of the inputted change in final demand. In

other words, the initial change in final demand is multiplied throughout the economic

model to estimate the direct, indirect and induced output, income, and employment

effects (explained further below). In this process, the I-O model effectively utilizes and

creates economic multiplier(s) specific to the analysis. Once the economic multipliers

specific to the analysis and the region are known, as in the case of this study, it is

possible to conduct similar, though perhaps less comprehensive, analyses using only

the economic multipliers and not the entire I-O model itself.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

83

Economic multipliers measure the changes in economic activity or output resulting

from an initial expenditure or investment. For example, a multiplier of 1.5 implies that

$1.00 of direct expenditure on restoration generates an additional $0.50 in economic

activity, resulting in a total economic impact of $1.50. Multipliers capture the ripple

effects of economic activity; simply put, a direct change in one industry affects other

industries. The multiplier effect includes direct, indirect, and induced economic

activity. Direct effects are the most straightforward; they include the economic

activities associated with the restoration activity itself. Indirect effects account for the

demands for services, supplies, equipment and other inputs produced by related

industries to support the restoration work. Finally, induced effects capture the

increased spending and economic activity that result when those employed in sectors

linked directly and indirectly to restoration activities spend their income on goods and

services. Employment multipliers measure the number of jobs created in the economy

as a whole from each job created to do restoration work. Type I multipliers measure

only the direct and indirect effects while Type II multipliers measure the direct,

indirect and induced effects of the investment.

To derive the economic multipliers used in this study, Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley (2010)

study used the I-O modeling software IMPLAN, U.S. Census Bureau payroll statistics,

and OWRI data from completed Oregon forest and watershed restoration projects. The

resulting multipliers, therefore, are appropriate for our analysis.

Annex B: Results by County

The 36 counties in Oregon varied considerably both in terms of total number of

restoration projects completed, from 48 in Jefferson County to 746 in Lane County, and

total expenditures, from $0.7 million in Gilliam County to $35.2 in Deschutes County.

Discrepancies between total numbers of projects and project cost totals are largely due

to the type of restoration activities undertaken. On average, a county completed 182

restoration projects and made average expenditures of $11.1 million dollars over the

ten year period of 2001–2010.

Lane County had the largest number of projects (746) constituting 11% of total projects,

followed by Douglas (527) and Clatsop (506) counties. Deschutes County had the largest

cash expenditures ($35.2 million), constituting 9% of total restoration project cash

expenditures, followed by Klamath ($29 million) and Douglas County ($27.9 million).

Table 3 displays total restoration project numbers, expenditures, and their estimated

economic impacts by county.

Table 3. Oregon restoration projects: Estimated economic impacts by county,

2001-2010 (2010$).

CountyNumber of

projects

Total expenditures

(million $)

Estimated economic

output (million $)

Estimated

employment (jobs)

Baker 127 $7.0 $13.1 – $17.2 81 – 112

Benton 190 $6.3 $11.2 – $14.6 71 – 100

Clackamas 178 $13.9 $24.9 – $32.1 151 – 215

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

84

Clatsop 506 $27.4 $49.0 – $63.2 303 – 426

Columbia 198 $8.1 $14.5 – $18.7 89 – 126

Coos 468 $17.6 $31.3 – $40.8 204 – 286

Crook 119 $4.3 $7.7 – $10.1 50 – 70

Curry 253 $6.5 $11.6 – $15.0 72 – 102

Deschutes 65 $35.2 $67.7 – $87.9 380 – 528

Douglas 527 $27.9 $49.2 – $63.5 303 – 426

Gilliam 51 $0.7 $1.3 – $1.7 7 – 10

Grant 209 $9.9 $18.2 – $23.7 116 – 161

Harney 74 $3.8 $7.2 – $9.4 43 – 61

Hood River 92 $26.2 $50.2 – $64.9 284 – 399

Jackson 141 $11.9 $21.4 – $27.4 128 – 182

Jefferson 48 $2.9 $5.2 – $6.8 34 – 47

Josephine 179 $2.6 $4.6 – $6.0 33 – 45

Klamath 93 $29.0 $55.0 – $72.3 336 – 470

Lake 81 $9.0 $16.6 – $21.7 104 – 146

Lane 746 $21.4 $37.8 – $49.5 255 – 355

Lincoln 272 $8.5 $15.0 – $19.5 99 – 138

Linn 199 $8.8 $15.8 – $20.5 100 – 142

Malheur 191 $13.9 $27.3 – $35.6 153 – 212

Marion 179 $4.2 $7.4 – $9.9 59 – 80

Morrow 50 $0.7 $1.4 – $1.8 8 – 11

Multnomah 65 $20.4 $35.8 – $46.9 240 – 335

Polk 155 $6.0 $10.8 – $14.0 67 – 94

Sherman 121 $2.0 $3.9 – $5.1 23 – 32

Tillamook 324 $19.3 $34.5 – $44.4 211 – 296

Umatilla 152 $16.6 $31.0 – $39.9 178 – 251

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

85

Union 108 $7.8 $14.3 – $18.8 92 – 128

Wallowa 95 $5.9 $10.9 – $14.1 66 – 92

Wasco 96 $4.8 $9.2 – $11.9 54 – 75

Washington 97 $6.8 $12.3 – $15.8 75 – 106

Wheeler 112 $4.3 $8.2 – $10.6 49 – 68

Yamhill 112 $3.5 $6.2 – $8.1 39 – 55

Multi-

county67 $5.9 $10.5 – $13.9 73 – 101

TOTAL 6,740 $411.4 $752.4 – $977.5 4,628 – 6,483

Source: Authors' estimates using data from OWEB (2012) and Nielsen-Pincus &

Moseley (2010).

NOTES

1. www.ecotrust.org

2. For more information about Oregon lottery allocations, see http://www.oregonlottery.org/

About/Lottery101/HowareFundsAllocated.aspx. Congress established the Pacific Coastal Salmon

Recovery Fund (PCSRF) in 2000 to protect, restore, and conserve Pacific salmon and steelhead

populations and their habitats. NOAA Fisheries manages the PCSRF program and provides

funding to states and tribes to implement restoration projects in the Pacific Coast region —

Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho and Alaska; see http://

www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/

recovery_planning_and_implementation/pacific_coastal_salmon_recovery_fund.html (accessed

December 30, 2013).

3. See http://www.oregon-plan.org/OPSW/Pages/about_us.aspx (accessed June 1, 2012).

4. Available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/MONITOR/Pages/OWRI.aspx (accessed

Sept. 9, 2011).

5. It should be noted that although the OWRI is the most comprehensive database documenting

watershed restoration projects and likely includes the majority of restoration projects occurring

in the state, it does not include all restoration projects and efforts. Furthermore, some projects

recorded within OWRI did not make our cut due to missing data or project input error. Thus

there were additional watershed restoration projects completed in Oregon during the same time

period that our analysis did not include. This suggests that our findings likely underestimate the

total employment and economic impacts of restoration projects in the state over this period.

6. See http://www.ecotrust.org/wwri/downloads/WWRI_OR_brochure.pdf.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

86

RÉSUMÉS

For nearly twenty years in the western United States, billions of dollars have been spent to

recover anadromous salmon species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Broad

support and participation from the private and public sectors is needed to address the limiting

factors to salmon viability, especially the improvement of stream and watershed health.

However, in today’s fiscal and political climate it is more important than ever to demonstrate the

multiple ways that conservation work benefits not just the environment but also our economy.

This paper examines the employment and economic impacts of watershed restoration

expenditures made in Oregon from 2001–2010, making use of multipliers developed by the

University of Oregon’s Ecosystem Workforce Program. We collected data on salmon habitat

restoration projects from a statewide database system, the Oregon Watershed Restoration

Inventory, and grouped project activities according to the University of Oregon restoration

employment and economic multiplier categories. To determine the total direct, indirect, and

induced economic output and employment resulting from restoration investments, we multiplied

the total project investment in each category of restoration work by the relevant multiplier. We

then summed the total economic activity by project type to arrive at a total per county and the

state.

We found that a total of US$411.4 million was invested in 6,740 watershed restoration projects

throughout the state of Oregon from 2001 to 2010, resulting in the generation of between $752.4

million and $977.5 million in economic output and 4,628 to 6,483 jobs. The jobs created by

restoration activities are located mostly in rural areas, in communities hard hit by the economic

downturn. Restoration activities bring a range of employment opportunities for people in

construction, engineering, natural resource sciences, and other fields. The job creation potential

of restoration activities compared with investments in other sectors of the economy is favorable.

Restoration also stimulates demand for the products and services of local businesses such as

plant nurseries, heavy equipment companies, and rock and gravel companies. Unlike in other

economic sectors, restoration jobs can’t be outsourced to distant locations, so these dollars tend

to stay in the local and state economy. Restoration investments also continue to accrue and pay

out over time. Long-term improvements in habitat create enduring benefits, from enhanced

recreational and fishing opportunities to the provision of critical ecosystem services.

These findings are good news to the people of Oregon and there is tremendous opportunity to

extend and replicate this work to other regions. Being able to effectively communicate the

interdependencies of ecosystems and economies is critical to addressing the immense challenges

of the 21st century. As long as we continue to frame trade-offs in simplistic terms like jobs versus

the environment, we will be relegated to making incremental change. Whether our aim is the

recovery of wild salmon in the Western United States or the abatement of greenhouse gas

emissions; alternative models for economic development need to be redoubled. We have found

that quantifying and presenting the economic benefits of watershed restoration reframes the

conversation and opens doors to new alliances.

INDEX

Keywords : Restoration, Habitat, Salmon, Economics, Jobs, United States

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

87

AUTEURS

CATHY P. KELLON

Director, Water & Watersheds Program, E-mail: cathy@ecotrust.org, Ecotrust, 721 NW Ninth

Avenue, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97209, www.ecotrust.org

TAYLOR HESSELGRAVE

Economist & Project Manager, E-mail: thesselgrave@ecotrust.org, Ecotrust, 721 NW Ninth

Avenue, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97209, www.ecotrust.org

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

88

A 10-year ecosystem restorationcommunity of practice tracks large-scale restoration trends

Robert Daoust, Terry Doss, Mark Gorman, Matt Harwell et Cheryl Ulrich

Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This manuscript was published as part of a special issue on the subject of largescale

restoration of ecosystems. This manuscript was reviewed by four anonymous referees.

NOTE DE L'AUTEUR

This manuscript was prepared by the inaugural Board of the Large-scale Ecosystem

Restoration Section of the Society for Ecological Restoration.

Evolution of a Community of Practice for Large-scaleEcosystem Restoration

1 In 2004, an effort was undertaken to bring together engineers, managers, planners,

policy-makers and scientists — all identifiable as restoration practitioners — at the first

National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration1 (NCER) under the leadership of the U.S.

Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This forum focused initially on

a number of large-scale, federally funded ecosystem restoration projects in the United

States (including Glen Canyon, Everglades, San Francisco Bay/Delta, Chesapeake Bay,

Great Lakes, Louisiana Coastal Area, Puget Sound, and the Upper Mississippi River),

with ecosystem restoration practitioners from other ecosystems welcome. The overall

objectives of these efforts were to disseminate information regarding large-scale

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

89

ecosystem restoration efforts, so that those efforts would be more prominent in

practitioners’ thoughts, and incorporated into their research considerations and plans,

and to help foster information and knowledge exchange on large-scale ecosystem

restoration. The forum started with some fundamental questions for ecosystem

restoration practitioners, such as “Are there local, regional and national policies

guiding restoration?” Additionally, these conferences presented information on

important restoration trends and real-time results. The conference was considered

“successful” from an information sharing perspective such that the organizers

committed to holding biennial conferences in the future to continue dialogue and

expand discussions on restoration themes.

2 Recognizing a need for long-term sustainability of the conference and its purpose,

within five years (at the 3rd National Conference), conference planners focused on

identifying a long-term organizational path forward, exploring governance options

ranging from forming a stand-alone organization to merging with another society. The

impetus was to identify a self-supporting entity that included more restoration

programs, organizations, and academic communities to support efforts to reach a

greater number of restoration practitioners. At this point the National Coalition for

Ecosystem Restoration was formed and formal conversations about the fate and

organizational structure of NCER were initiated.

3 Between 2009 and 2011, NCER engaged the Society for Ecological Restoration2 (SER) and

America’s Great Waters Coalition (a newly formed coalition, existing independently

from NCER)3 (Ulrich, 2012). By 2013, NCER members had reached agreement with the

Board of SER and a new SER Section, the Large-scale Ecological Restoration Section

(LERS) was formed. As the LERS umbrella organization, SER is dedicated to reversing

ecological degradation and restoring the earth’s ecological balance for the benefit of

humans and nature. Their guiding principles are that ecological restoration: is an

engaging and inclusive process; requires the integration of knowledge and practice; is

relevant and essential to the formation and implementation of related federal and state

policy by elected officials and policymakers; and is practiced locally with global

implications.

4 The mission of the LERS community of practice is to:

advance public education and enlightenment concerning large-scale ecosystem resources;

provide a forum for an interchange of ideas, approaches, lessons learned, and data

developed relevant to planning, policy, science, and engineering of large-scale ecosystem

restoration;

develop and encourage large-scale ecosystem restoration as a discipline by supporting

student education, curriculum development, and research; and

encourage and evaluate the educational, scientific, engineering, and technological

development and advancement of all branches of large-scale ecosystem restoration and

practice.

5 Over the past decade, this large-scale ecosystem restoration communication effort has

focused on a large range of thematic topics; here we outline some of the larger

historical themes and outline some future directions for the new LERS Section of SER.

This community of practice has also engaged in a number of additional themes not

presented here, including examining funding trends and restoration implementation

trends (Hassett et al., 2005).

•

•

•

•

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

90

Tracking a Decade of Restoration Themes

Defining Success

6 Defining ecosystem restoration “success” was an initial main theme a decade ago, since

the definition of actual restoration goals and objectives would allow for adaptive

management of restoration projects, as well as determining if funding appropriated

toward those projects was being efficiently prioritized. In part, this focus was a

function of the relative young age of many of the federally funded restoration projects

a decade ago. The other major driver of this was the first forum focused on identifying

similarities and differences across projects throughout the U.S. — often through

sessions that brought examples from different restoration programs. For example, in

Everglades restoration, a large part of this dialogue focused on whether defining

success involved achieving a ‘Xerox reduction’ of the original ecosystem, or success

defined through a ‘cookie cutter’ approach by restoring a particular habitat or parcel of

land to historical ecosystem attributes (USACE & SFWMD, 1999).

7 At present, most current dialogue is evolving away from the basic question of “What is

success?” towards adaptively redefining “How do we successfully restore an

ecosystem?” One example of this type of dialogue surrounds the work of the Mississippi

River-Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. This Task Force is designed to

facilitate the cooperative actions of federal agencies, states, and tribes within the

Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin to reduce the size of the Gulf hypoxic zone, while

protecting and restoring the human and natural resources of the Mississippi River

Basin (“the Coastal Goal”). Early efforts to do so have fallen far short of goals the Task

Force set (Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 2008). In

2013 a number of aspects of the program were reevaluated, including the need to

explore the benefits of supplementing the Coastal Goal with other, more readily

achievable, incremental measures to track nutrient reduction activities and nutrient

load reduction results towards addressing the longer-term restoration goal (Mississippi

River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 2013). This represents a different

scale of discussion among practitioners for articulating restoration goals than smaller,

but not less important, restoration projects (e.g. Matthews et al., 2009). One potential

future area this discussion thread may take may be how to define success for novel

ecosystems (see below).

Adaptive Management

8 Adaptive management (AM) has been a long-standing theme for this group of

restoration practitioners. Adaptive management in ecosystem restoration focuses on

developing a structured approach to address uncertainties, test hypotheses, and link

science to decision making to allow for making adjustments to restoration

implementation in order to improve the probability of restoration success. Much of this

dialogue has focused on authorities and establishing frameworks for implementing

adaptive management under existing regulatory authorities, individual agency

mandates, and with complicated interagency organizational structures. This discussion

thread has involved an extensive dialogue between scientists, planners and managers,

including discussion on how to implement new policy and guidance such as that from

the National Research Council (National Research Council, 2004), the U.S. Department

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

91

of Interior (Williams et al., 2007), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2009).

One example of the importance of the LERS community of practice is in emphasizing

the sharing of lessons learned such as the development and articulation of the key AM

lessons learned from the first decade of Everglades restoration (e.g. LoSchiavo et al.,

2013). Because establishing AM frameworks takes a long period of time, AM will

continue to be a major theme for this group of practitioners with future focus on

completing the adaptive management feedback loop to adjusting restoration

implementation to improve success.

Adaptive Governance

9 Adaptive governance has been a recurring theme. The role of adaptive governance

(Folke et al., 2005; Olsson, 2006) is to establish and promote frameworks by which

decision-makers can discuss, identify, and approve decisions to adjust management

policies, plans, and actions. As the discussion on AM has evolved over time, most

restoration programs have recognized the challenges with implementing AM within

their existing management and planning structures (e.g. Chadzon et al., 2009; Calmon et

al., 2011). As a result a number of senior scientists, planners, and managers brought

detailed focus to the need to advance adaptive governance. Scholz and Stiftel (2005)

defined five critical challenges for governance models: 1—representation; 2—

deliberative process design; 3—scientific learning; 4—public learning; and 5—problem

responsiveness. Governance models can be a complex topic (e.g. one adaptive

governance challenge is implementing AM with clear linkages between science and

management) and likely to remain a theme for LERS in the future. LERS will also need

to focus on overcoming significant challenges to effectively implementing adaptive

governance; among them the all-too-prevalent political fragmentation of authority, as

well as determining how policy makers can develop and use scientific knowledge

effectively.

Linking Science with Management Decision Making

10 The interface between science and management has been an undercurrent theme for

the past decade of this group. Early on, this forum helped create an atmosphere that

fostered collaboration between restoration scientists and managers to work beyond a

mentality of "If the managers would just get out of the way or listen to what the

scientists say to do, we would be restoring ecosystems faster" and “pointy-headed

scientists don’t produce anything useful.” The focus then became a two-part dialog: 1

—“What science information do the decision makers need?”; and 2—“What is the

management relevance/implication of the science?” For the Everglades restoration

example, practitioners leveraged the NCER community to help advance their work on

communication tools, advancing from the early calls for effective science to be brought

to the restoration planning table (e.g. Harwell, 1998) to specific indicators that are used

by policy makers in making large-scale ecosystem restoration decisions (e.g. Doren et

al., 2009; Smith, 2011; USACE & SFWMD, 2011). The future direction of this theme with

LERS may include exploring principles of strategic communication, based upon three

pillars: message; audience; and vehicle (the communication format) to inform a broader

audience of decision-makers (e.g. agency program and technical managers, Congress

and state legislatures, and the general public).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

92

Current and Future Themes

11 Here we highlight a few areas of current and future themes this community of practice

are likely to engage, including novel ecosystems, ecosystem goods and services, urban

ecosystem restoration, climate change and ecosystem resilience, and sustainability.

However, these themes are not intended to be exhaustive. The new LERS section of the

Society for Ecological Restoration is working to identify additional themes and this may

include the call to develop thorough reviews of congruence or mismatches between the

practitioner community and the academic literature for a particular theme (e.g.

advancing synthesis work from Holl et al., 2003 and Doyle & Drew, 2008).

Novel Ecosystems

12 Most ecosystems are now sufficiently altered in structure and function so as to qualify

as novel ecosystems; systems that include different species and functions require us to

change how we approach conservation, restoration and environmental management

(i.e. such systems may be effectively immune to traditional, practical restorative

efforts) (Seastedt et al., 2005; Hobbs et al., 2009). An ongoing dialogue among

practitioners regarding the ecological, ethical, social, cultural, and political natures of

novel ecosystems will be central to determining how to intervene in them effectively

and responsibly.

Ecosystem Goods and Services

13 Valuation of ecosystem goods and services is a difficult and sometimes controversial

undertaking and the literature is replete with example valuations (e.g. MEA, 2005).

Ecologists and economists have often been criticized for trying to place a monetary

value on nature often in the absence of credible data to back up the attempt, and recent

research has focused on clarifying final (actual) ecosystem services with ecological-

based functions that provide an indirect benefit (e.g. Johnston & Russell, 2011).

Nonetheless, federal and state agencies charged with protecting and managing natural

resources often make difficult spending decisions that involve cost-benefit analyses

that should include the monetary value (benefit) of the natural resources being

protected or restored. Therefore, an ongoing discussion regarding ecosystem economic

valuation will prove to be useful in advancing related policies and activities that

protect or restore ecosystems and their services. One recent example is the call for

attention to ecosystem goods and services as a part of the scientific effort to

understand the impact to the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010

(National Research Council, 2013).

Urban Ecosystem Restoration

14 Ecological restoration often aims to recreate past (i.e. ‘pre-settlement’) ecosystem

conditions; a goal that is effectively impossible in urban areas where human activities

have eliminated that possibility in most cases. Urban ecosystem restoration may also

involve a different type of attention to utilizing regulatory tools (e.g. Lord et al., 2002).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

93

Drawing on past efforts, and upon the results of ongoing and future research, a future

objective of our work can be to help project managers determine what kind of

restoration is desirable and possible in an urban setting.

Climate Change and Ecosystem Resilience

15 The intersection between the dynamism of climate change and ecological impacts (e.g.

Harris et al., 2006; National Research Council, 2008) and activities by natural resource

managers (e.g. Scarlett, 2010) is a current area getting significant attention. Addressing

climate change, including the focus on enhancing ecosystem resilience and

development of climate adaptation plans (CEQ, 2011; U.S. Army Engineer Institute for

Water Resources, 2013a, 2013b) in restoration efforts will likely remain a large theme

for this group of restoration practitioners.

Sustainability and Large-scale Ecosystem RestorationPractitioners

16 All large-scale ecosystem restoration programs emphasize the importance of

maintaining longevity in effort, commitment, resources and science monitoring. Many

tie long-term objectives to maintaining ecosystem resilience, improving ecosystem

services, and improving sustainability of the natural system. Similarly, maintaining and

enhancing a community of practice increases the chance for long-term, sustainable

ecosystem restoration efforts. Sharing lessons learned across programs, providing

guidance to new programs, and fostering scaling of important restoration practices to

restoration programs of different sizes will be invaluable for sustainability of

restoration science (e.g. LoSchiavo et al., 2013). With potential decreases in funding

and/or increasing demands for resources to be spread across multiple restoration

programs, scientists, practitioners, planners and managers engaged with the work of

the LERS Section of the Society for Ecological Restoration will better anchor their

arguments to provide longevity, and ultimately sustainability of their restoration

efforts. LERS aims to contribute towards other “restoration knowledge hubs” (Menz et

al., 2013).

Conclusions

17 The large-scale ecosystem issues that society faces today are multi-jurisdictional,

multifaceted, intergenerational and interconnected, and none will be adequately

solved, let alone understood, unless the scientific community embraces a way of

thinking, planning and implementing that also is multi-jurisdictional, multifaceted,

intergenerational and interconnected. The new LERS section of the Society for

Ecological Restoration stands poised to facilitate the development of just such a

perspective, by advancing public education, providing a forum for information

exchange, supporting student education, curriculum development, and research, and

nurturing the development and advancement of all branches of large-scale ecosystem

restoration and practice.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

94

Acknowledgements

18 The journey to establish this community of practice encompassed two important five-

year windows. We wish to acknowledge the level of organic enthusiasm by all those

involved in the first five years of NCER to set up the National Community, including the

wisdom, perseverance, and infectious enthusiasm of Dr. G. Ronnie Best (U.S. Geological

Survey, retired) who helped lead the effort to respond to former U.S. Army Corps of

Engineer’s Chief, Lieutenant General Robert Flowers and his call for better integration

and sharing of scientific information and communication of that information for use in

resource management decisions. We appreciate the many people involved with the

active dialogue and efforts in the past five years to bring the Large-scale Ecosystem

Restoration Section into existence. We also thank the America’s Great Waters Coalition

and the Society for Ecological Restoration for wisdom and advice on our journey. We

wish to thank several anonymous reviewers for useful comments on this manuscript.

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views or policies of

organizations of the authors. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the

USEPA, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products or websites

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Calmon, M., P.H.S. Brancalion, A. Paese, J. Aronson et al. (2011). Emerging threats and

opportunities for large-scale ecological restoration in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Restoration

Ecology 19:154-158.

Chazdon, R., C.A. Harvey, O. Komar, M. Van Breugel et al. (2009). Beyond reserves: A research

agenda for conserving biodiversity in tropical cultural landscapes. Biotropica 41:141-153.

Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] (2011). National action plan: Priorities for managing

freshwater resources in a changing climate. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. URL:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/2011_national_action_plan.pdf

Doren, R.F., J.C. Trexler, A.D. Gottlieb & M.C. Harwell (2009). Ecological indicators for system-wide

assessment of the greater Everglades ecosystem restoration program. Ecological Indicators 9(6): S2-

S16.

Doyle, M. & C.A. Drew (2008). Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration. Washington DC: Island Press.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson & J. Norberg (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological

systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30: 441-73.

Harris, J.A., R.J. Hobbs, E. Higgs & J. Aronson (2006). Ecological restoration and global climate

change. Restoration Ecology 14(2): 170-176.

Harwell, M.A. (1998). Science and environmental decision making in South Florida. Ecological

Applications 8(3): 580-590.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

95

Hassett, B., M. Palmer, E. Bernhardt, S. Smith, J. Carr et al. (2005). Restoring watersheds project by

project: Trends in Chesapeake Bay tributary restoration. Frontiers in Ecology 3: 259-267.

Hobbs, R.J., E. Higgs & J.A. Harris (2009). Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and

restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(11): 599-605.

Holl, K.D., E.E. Crone & C.B. Schultz (2003). Landscape restoration: Moving from generalities to

methodologies. BioScience 53: 491-502.

Johnston, R.J. & M. Russell (2011). An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem services.

Ecological Economics 70(12): 2243-2249.

Lord, C.P., E. Strauss & A. Toffler (2002). Natural cities: Urban ecology and the restoration of

urban ecosystems. Virginia Environmental Law Journal 21: 317.

LoSchiavo, A.J., G.R. Best, R.E. Burns, S. Gray et al. (2013). Lessons learned from the first decade of

adaptive management in comprehensive Everglades restoration. Ecology and Society 18(4): 70.

Matthews, J.W., A.L. Peralta, D.N. Flanagan, P.M. Baldwin et al. (2009). Relative influence of

landscape vs. local factors on plant community assembly in restored wetlands. Ecological

Applications 19: 2108-2123.

Menz, M.H.M., K.W. Dixon & R.J. Hobbs (2013). Hurdles and opportunities for landscape-scale

restoration. Science 339: 526-527.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA] (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force (2008). Gulf hypoxia action plan

2008 for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico and improving water

quality in the Mississippi River basin. Washington, DC: Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed

Nutrient Task Force. URL: http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/msbasin/upload/

2008_8msbasin_ghap2008_update082608.pdf

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force (2013). Reassessment 2013 –

Assessing progress made since 2008. Washington, DC: Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed

Nutrient Task Force. URL: http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/msbasin/upload/

hypoxia_reassessment_508.pdf

National Research Council (2004). Adaptive management for water resources project planning.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press. URL: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?

record_id=10972

National Research Council (2008). Ecological impacts of climate change. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press. URL: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12491

National Research Council (2013). An ecosystem services approach to assessing the impacts of the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. URL:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18387

Olsson, P., L.H. Gunderson, S.R. Carpenter, P. Ryan et al. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating

transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 18.

Scarlett, L. (2010). Climate change effects: The intersection of science, policy, and resource

management in the USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29(3): 892-903.

Scholz, J.T. & B. Stiftel (Eds.) (2005). Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for

Collaborative Planning. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

96

Seastedt, T.R., R.J. Hobbs, & K.N. Suding (2008). Management of novel ecosystems: Are novel

approaches required? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 547–553.

Smith, C.B. (2011). Adaptive management on the central Platte River – Science, engineering, and

decision analysis to assist in the recovery of four species. Journal of Environmental Management 92:

1414-1419.

Ulrich, C. (2012, April 9). Taking ecosystem restoration to the next level – National Community

for Ecosystem Restoration and Society for Ecological Restoration. Livebetter Magazine 19.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] (2009). Implementation guidance for Section 2039 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007): Monitoring ecosystem restoration. CECW-PB.

Jacksonville, FL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. URL: http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/

library/WRDA/wrda07Sec2039a.pdf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida Water Management District [USACE & SFWMD]

(1999). Central and Southern Florida Project comprehensive review study. Final integrated feasibility

report and programmatic environmental impact statement. CESAD-ET-P. Jacksonville, FL: U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District and West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water

Management District. URL: http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/comp_plan_apr99/

summary.pdf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida Water Management District [USACE & SFWMD]

(2011). CERP Guidance Memorandum 56: Formal guidance to integrate AM into CERP program and project

management. Jacksonville, FL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District and West Palm

Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. URL: http://www.cerpzone.org/

documents/cgm/CGM_56_Adaptive_Management.pdf

U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources (2013a). Benchmarks for incorporating adaptive

management into water project designs, operational procedures, and planning strategies. Report 1 – Federal

agency inventory of adaptive management practices and policies. 2013-R-11. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Engineer Institute for Water Resources. URL: http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/

iwrreports/2013-R-11_Benchmarks_Adaptive_Mgmt_Report_1.pdf

U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources (2013b). Benchmarks for incorporating adaptive

management into water project designs, operational procedures, and planning strategies. Report 2 –

Recommendations for Federal agency implementation of adaptive management for climate change

adaptation. 2013-R-11. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources. URL:

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/2013-

R-12_Benchmarks_Adaptive_Mgmt_Report_2.pdf

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro & C.D. Shapiro (2009). Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of the

Interior technical guide. Washington, DC: Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department

of the Interior.

NOTES

1. http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/ecosystem/index.html

2. http://ser.org/

3. http://greatwaterscoalition.org/

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

97

RÉSUMÉS

In 2004, a group of large-scale ecosystem restoration practitioners across the United States

convened to start the process of sharing restoration science, management, and best practices

under the auspices of a traditional conference umbrella. This forum allowed scientists and

decision makers to interact in a new type of setting, with science being presented from a

perspective that informed ecosystem restoration decisions, and decision makers articulating

their decision needs in a manner that informed the types of science questions that needed to be

addressed. From that beginning, a core ecosystem restoration practitioner group has formed a

community of practice that continues to build and maintain momentum for this type of

ecosystem restoration engagement. In the fall of 2013, this community of practice became

permanently organized as the Large-scale Ecosystem Restoration Section within the Society for

Ecological Restoration. Over the past decade, this community has evaluated and expanded upon

ecosystem restoration themes ranging from defining and measuring success, adaptive

management, adaptive governance, and linking science with management decision-making.

Current and future themes include novel ecosystems, ecosystem goods and services, urban

ecosystem restoration, and climate change and ecosystem resilience.

INDEX

Keywords : Community of practice, Restoration practitioners, Large-scale ecosystem restoration

AUTEURS

ROBERT DAOUST

ARCADIS US, Inc., Plantation, FL 33324 USA, E-mail: Robert.Daoust@arcadis-us.com

TERRY DOSS

BioHabitats, Inc., Glen Ridge, NJ 07028 USA

MARK GORMAN

Northeast‐Midwest Institute, Washington, DC 20001 USA

MATT HARWELL

US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL 34561 USA

CHERYL ULRICH

LERS pro-tem President, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 USA

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

98

Transborder Drylands Restoration:Vision and Reality After ThreeDecades of Innovative Partnershipson the U.S.-Mexico Border

Tom Barry

Gaëll Mainguy (éd.)

NOTE DE L’ÉDITEUR

This manuscript was published as part of a special issue on the subject of largescale

restoration of ecosystems. This manuscript was reviewed by four anonymous referees.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

99

Box 1. Facts and Figures: Overview of CLO’s Transborder Drylands Restoration on Mexico Border

* Location: U.S.-Mexico borderlands in southeastern Arizona and northeastern Sonora and

northwestern Chihuahua, including the upper watershed of the Río Yaqui.

* Scale of Restoration Area: More than 4000 sq. kilometres subject to range of conservation and

restoration programs, within which 748 sq. kilometres being actively restored by Cuenca Los Ojos

(CLO).

* Biotic Provinces: Nearctic, Neotropical, Chihuahuan Desert and Sonoran Desert, encompassing

seven major ecological communities found in the 1100-2500 m elevation range on CLO ranches in

Mexico.

* Duration of Restoration Operations: Since 1983 on CLO’s Arizona ranches, and since 1999 at its

Mexican ranches.

* Budget: Private funding for CLO restoration projects, while Malpai Borderlands Group relies on

foundation funding for its conservation easements and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service depends on

federal funding.

* Partners: Array of dozens of private and public partners including U.S. and Mexican NGOs

(including Naturalia, Border Restoration, The Nature Conservancy, Sky Island Alliance and Pro-

Natura) and U.S. and Mexican government agencies (including SEMARNAT, CONAP, USFWS, and

NRCS).

* Area Biodiversity: 8 native fishes, neotropical bird migration route involving 380 species, 77

known grasses, and over 80 mammals.

* Main Objectives: Habitat recovery, increased biodiversity, watershed restoration, rise of

restoration economy, and restoration of wildlife corridor with a special focus at Rancho San

Bernardino on slowing and distributing waters from flash floods, restoring grasslands, and refilling

deeply incised arroyos.

* Main Benefits: Rise in water table, restoration of desert wetlands from 4% to 15% of its original

size, revegetation of 3,500 hectares with native grasses, creation of five miles of perennial river

flow, and increased diversity including reintroduction of threatened species. Construction of more

than 40,000 rock check dams, 50 large wire gabion dams, and 50 large berms for erosion control

and water-harvesting, resulting in 809 hectares of new riparian vegetation.

Introduction

1 The restoration of arid and semi-arid ecosystems merits increased global attention

because of their global expanse — constituting at least 40% of the planet’s land surface

— and accelerating degradation (Adeel et al., 2005; FAO, 2001; Lal, 2005). But there is no

consensus on a clear path forward — in part because of the scarcity of models and in

part because of the vigorous debates about restoration and degradation thresholds

(Bestelmeyer et al., 2013).

2 When targeted landscapes span fortified international borders or zones characterized

by widespread illegal activity, the complexities and challenges of drylands restoration

strategies are compounded. A case study of such a situation is described here: Cuenca

Los Ojos (CLO) is restoring severely altered riparian areas and aridlands on the Mexico-

U.S. border. At a time when the U.S. government is fortifying its southwest border, CLO

is advancing an alternative paradigm that advocates restoring transborder ecosystems

and generating sustainable cross-border economies.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

100

Cuenca Los Ojos (CLO) Description

3 The Cuenca Los Ojos foundation is a nonprofit project created by Valer and Josiah

Austin whose institutional mission is “to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the

borderland region through land protection, habitat restoration, and wildlife

reintroduction”1.

4 The Austins moved from New York City in 1983 to begin ranching in southeastern

Arizona. The El Coronado Ranch, which is situated on the western flanks of the

Chiricahua Mountains in the borderland area, was badly eroded and overgrazed,

prompting the Austins to reduce cattle grazing and initiate land-restoration projects.

Their restoration strategy primarily involved erosion control and water harvesting

techniques on their Arizona ranches, which encompass some 32 000 hectares.

5 Traces of pre-Columbian indigenous communities remain throughout the transborder

region in the form of thousands of trincheras (rock check dams), primarily used to

increase cultivable land and to ensure year-round supplies of drinking water, while also

stemming erosion2. Although initially the Austins relied almost exclusively on trincheras

for erosion control and water harvesting, over the past fifteen years they have also

been erecting larger erosion control structures built with gabions (rock-filled baskets

formed by a mesh of galvanized wire). Gabion check dams function like trincheras in

trapping water-borne sediment while slowing down the rush of storm water down

arroyos and streams. Also like trincheras, gabion dams eventually fade into the

landscape as they become covered by alluvium and vegetation. Since the early 1980s,

the Austins estimate they have erected more than 40,000 trincheras, earthen berms, and

gabions on their U.S. and Mexico properties.

6 Institutionalizing their commitment to land restoration, the Austins founded Cuenca

Los Ojos (meaning “basin of springs”) and the civil association Cuenca Los Ojos, A.C. in

Mexico. CLO is the institutional instrument to manage their restoration projects and to

attract funds to maintain this restoration work. Recognizing that their vision of

reviving regional biodiversity and wildlife corridors couldn’t be fully realized without

restorative projects south of the border, the Austins purchased Rancho San Bernardino

in 1999, and they currently own 42 500 hectares along Mexico’s northern border (see

Figure 1).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

101

Figure 1. CLO’s Restoration Area on the Mexican Border. (Used with permission from CLO.)

7 CLO has launched its restoration projects in a continental biodiversity hotspot. CLO’s

properties encompass all the ecosystems of a region variously described as the Apache

Highlands (Marshall et al., 2004) and the Mexican Highlands (Woodward & Durall, 1996).

Principal vegetation associations include Chihuahuan desert scrub at 1100 m to pine–

oak forests at 2500 m in the Sierra San Luìs (Marshall, 1957). The discontinuous

mountain ranges that span the border along the north-south continental divide are

known as the Sky Islands or Madrean Archipelago.

8 CLO manages land restoration projects on five ranches in Mexico that form a nearly

unbroken 22 km stretch of borderland, extending east from the San Bernardino Valley

into the northern outcrops of the Sierra Madre Occidental. These ranches had been

heavily grazed since the 1820s with the creation of the San Bernardino Land Grant (C.O.

Minckley, 2013) and especially after the beginning of large-scale cattle ranching by

Anglo-Americans and fire exclusion in 1870 (Bahre, 1991). Farming in the San

Bernardino Valley using water from artesian wells also resulted in the steady

encroachment of woody desert shrubs (largely mesquite and creosote) over the largely

brush-free grasslands of the ciénaga that historically spanned this transborder

ecoregion.

Rancho San Bernardino as Demonstration Project

9 Rather than concentrating its resources on restoring and conserving the most

biodiversity-rich and scenic of its Mexico properties in the Sierra San Luìs, CLO made

the strategic decision to focus its resources on Rancho San Bernardino, which was the

most severely degraded of its Mexico borderland ranches (V. Austin, personal

communication).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

102

10 Rancho San Bernardino sits at the junction of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts and

the Mexican subtropics and the Great Plains grasslands (Spector, 2002). The headwaters

or important tributaries of the Río Yaqui pass through Rancho San Bernardino and

other CLO’s Mexico properties. The Río Yaqui is the largest river system west of the

Continental Divide in northwestern Mexico and flows nearly 400 miles southwest

through Sonora, finally emptying into the Sea of Cortez. Rancho San Bernardino

provides a valuable opportunity to assess both riparian and grassland restoration. The

San Bernardino Ranch and the adjacent San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge on the

north side of the border encompass the uppermost extent of the Río Yaqui watershed,

and subsurface pumping of the aquifer is not practised elsewhere in this area.

11 Overgrazing, alfalfa farming, and gravel mining on the ranch and around its perimeter

since the late 1880s dramatically degraded the landscape and lowered the water table

by as much as 9 m in some sections (R.L. Minckley, 2013; Minckley & Brunelle, 2007).

Soon after the Austins purchased Rancho San Bernardino, CLO removed the cattle and

began its extensive erosion control projects. CLO’s Rancho San Bernardino restoration

project is a natural landscape scale ecological experiment, which aims to return areas

that are currently hardpan scrublands to their former status in the mid-1800s as a

mosaic of grassland, desert, and riparian habitat (Bahre, 1995; Marrs-Smith, 1983;

Humphries, 1987).

12 CLO targeted Rancho San Bernardino for two main reasons: 1, to demonstrate how

closely monitored erosion control techniques can restore surface water flows and

groundwater reserves even in a landscape sundered by deeply incised channels, and 2,

to restore the critical function of the San Bernardino Valley in the sustainability of the

Río Yaqui watershed and associated transborder wildlife corridor.

13 The successes, shortcomings, and challenges of the restoration projects on Rancho San

Bernardino are instructive for possible future restoration projects in the imperiled

desert habitats of the U.S.-Mexico transborder West. This case study can also point to

the possibilities of successful cross-border restoration efforts in conflictive drylands

regions around the planet.

Methodology and Monitoring of CLO’s RestorationEfforts

14 CLO is simultaneously pursing a wide range of restoration techniques on Rancho San

Bernardino including the installation of a variety of erosion control structures,

cultivation of native grasses for seed, restoration of grasslands through shrub removal

and planting native grasses, and fostering biodiversity. CLO is also leading the way

forward in Mexico with respect to advocating the use of prescribed burns in sustainable

land practices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge manager Radke, 2013) reported

that, "Grassland restoration is being accomplished through prescribed burning and

removal of invasive mesquite trees, providing benefits to resident and migratory

wildlife" (p.6).

15 CLO’s primary focus, however, is on restorative strategies intended to facilitate the

filtration of water into the soil, thereby recreating a historical landscape characterized

by perennial surface flows, a vast cross-border ciénaga, and groundwater that can be

tapped by native desert grasses.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

103

16 Valer Austin, who directs CLO’s restoration efforts in Mexico, has relied primarily on

empirical knowledge gained by fifteen years of erosion control and water-harvesting

efforts on the Austins’ ranches north of the border. The restoration techniques on

Rancho San Bernardino have also been informed by close observation of the

conservation and restoration practices on the two USFWS refuges that adjoin CLO

properties. On a February 6, 2012 visit to CLO’s Mexico ranches, Valer Austin stresses

that the key to successful land restoration is the acquired ability to “read the land” and

observe how humans and forces of nature have altered the landscape. This empiricism

also includes “an unwavering determination to get sustainable land management right,

and to be constantly learning from your mistakes” (V. Austin, personal

communication).

17 CLO, however, is committed to the scientific evaluation of its restoration projects, and

has collaborated with scores of researchers and scholars from U.S. and Mexican

institutions. In its mission statement3, CLO stresses its commitment to “scientific

research and sustainable resource management techniques”, and it has hosted more

than 100 researchers at its ranch headquarters. Rancho San Bernardino is becoming a

focal point of research about the drylands restoration, including the effectiveness of

gabion dams.

18 The erection of erosion control structures has a long history marked by many failures

(Peterson & Hadley, 1960; Peterson & Branson, 1962), and some environmental experts

warn that check dams and gabions should have no place in stream and land restoration,

noting that extreme weather events regularly destroy well-intentioned erosion control

structures, resulting in greater flood damage (Zeedyk & Clothier, 2012).

19 There is no playbook of large-scale drylands restoration that CLO could depend on to

guide much of its work, especially with respect to erosion control and aggradation of

deeply incised channels. Gabion dams on Rancho San Bernardino are constructed in

incised channels that are on average six metres deep and can be as wide as 100 metres.

Erosion control structures also include earthen berms as wide as 900 metres, and

cement spillways with reservoirs.

20 There is a long record of successes and failures of erosion control structures in

networks of small gullies. DeLong and Henderson (2012) noted, however, that “we are

unaware of a comparable attempt to use gabions and berms for the sole purpose of

ecological restoration along >10 km of arroyo channels draining watersheds on the

order of ~400 km2 and larger.”

21 Research to develop detailed topographic surveys using terrestrial and airborne laser

detection and remote sensing, coupled with hydrological modeling, field observation,

and stream-flow sensors is providing data on the impacts of restoration efforts on

sediment and hydrology (Delong & Henderson, 2012; Henderson & DeLong, 2012;

Jemison et al., 2012).

22 Remote sensing monitoring by the U.S. Geological Survey of Rancho San Bernardino

shows vegetation growth around gabions and berms despite documented drought.4

Comparing gabions used for urban flood control in the Mexican border city of Nogales

with those at San Bernardino, researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey and the

University of Arizona posited that the success or failure of gabion structures is closely

related to the goals of installation, noting that the gabion dams on Rancho San

Bernardino were constructed for riparian restoration not flood control (Gass et al.,

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

104

2013). USGS members observed that a combination of restorative practices “has

successfully restored ecosystem function to riparian corridors in this once lost, but not

forgotten cieñega wetlands” (L. Norman, personal communication, March 2014).

23 DeLong and Henderson (2012) concluded that the interactions between engineering,

sedimentation, flood hydrology, and vegetation growth contribute to the resilience of

the erosion control techniques at Rancho San Bernardino, working together to prevent

a serious failure of the gabion dams. DeLong, who has been monitoring erosion control

at the San Bernardino Ranch since 2007, observed that “some of these techniques can

be more broadly applied to stabilize subsurface and surface water resources

throughout other dry regions”5. DeLong and Henderson (2012) suggested that the

continuing quantification of restoration efforts at San Bernardino “may prove useful in

guiding similar large-scale ecological restoration efforts in degraded dryland

landscapes.”

24 Despite the drought — including the declining winter precipitation in the Chiricahua

Mountains — water is returning to this degraded landscape (Broska, 2009). In large

part, the reduction of the erosive scouring of the landscape during extreme rain events

during the monsoon seasons is increasing the availability of seasonal and permanent

water (Radke, 2013). When hosting a delegation of some twenty visiting ranchers from

neighboring Chihuahua at the San Bernardino Ranch on October 12, 2013, Valer Austin

explained that the end objective of the gabions and trincheras was not to collect surface

water but rather to restore a landscape that absorbs rather than sheds water — “to

function like a sponge” (V. Austin, personal communication).

25 Among the signature achievements of CLO and the Rancho San Bernardino restoration

project is the recolonizing of the upstream and downstream wetlands with native fish

without the need for active reintroduction projects (Radke, 2013). Surveys during

2008-2011 documented the presence of six of the eight Río Yaqui native fishes in the

San Bernardino Creek, pointing to the success of CLO’s restoration work in slowing

erosion, raising groundwater levels, and giving rise to dense stands of cattail and

bulrush along the once barren creek (C.O. Minckley, 2013).

26 Researchers from the Universidad de Sonora have documented the increasing

biodiversity on Rancho San Bernardino as part of a plan to have the ranch designated

as a privately owned wildlife reserve. The researchers concluded that the “huge

change” at the ranch — which has a “history of agriculture and livestock exploitation

beyond the capacity of recovery” — in the retention of sediment and water has resulted

in the attraction of many diverse species of mammals and birds. Monitoring over short

periods documented the presence of 85 bird species (Cárdenas-García & Olguín-Villa,

2013) and 26 species of mammals (Bonillas-Monge & Valdez-Coronel, 2013).

Cattle and Drylands Restoration

27 The impact of livestock on the aridlands of this transborder region is a subject of

debate amongst environmentalists, government agencies, and the ranching

community. To a large degree, this debate is about differing philosophies and priorities.

Environmentalists who prioritise biodiversity and the restoration of natural habitats

generally oppose grazing cattle on public lands and in stressed ecosystems (Brown &

McDonald, 1995). Others, including sectors of the environmentalist community, argue

that livestock can play a critical role in maintaining and restoring healthy desert

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

105

grasslands, especially when ranchers adopt holistic range management techniques

(Schwartz, 2013). The “Working Wilderness” slogan of the Malpais Borderlands Group

(Sayre, 2005) is emblematic of a highly contested land-management philosophy

positing that healthy open landscapes depend on livestock grazing by spreading seed,

making soil more permeable to water, and keeping grasses trimmed and growing.

28 Recent research about land conditions subsequent to cattle removal in sections of the

San Bernardino Valley helps inform this discussion (R.L. Minckley, 2013). For the past

three centuries, livestock have been a constant feature on this arid and semi-arid

landscape. The removal of cattle by USFWS in the early 1980s in the newly created San

Bernardino refuge and across the border by CLO in 1999 presented Robert Minckley

with the opportunity to study the impact of cattle on the spectrum — riparian,

grassland, and desert shrub — of desert habitats in the San Bernardino Valley. As might

be expected, the comparative survey found that vegetation responds rapidly to reduced

grazing or no grazing in areas with surface water, leading to habitats “with great

vertical development not previously found or barely present in grazed areas” (ibid.:

321). Minckley noted that in the areas of the refuge and CLO’s Rancho San Bernardino

with water “the capture of carbon in thick tree trunks is greatly increased, and the

litterfall and carbon addition to soils and watercourses is increased manifold” (ibid.:

321).

Land is Giving Again

29 Speaking in Spanish to groups of Mexican preparatory students on a 2013 field trip to

Rancho San Bernardino that I witnessed (see Figure 2), Valer Austin offered a concise

narrative sweep of the region’s exploitative history. “For the last couple of hundred

years, we humans have been taking, taking, always taking from nature,” she observed,

“and now it’s our time to start giving back.”

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

106

Figure 2. Rancho San Bernadino.

In a deeply incised arroyo, CLO's Valer Austin explains how to "read the land" to Mexican students on afield trip to Rancho San Bernardino.

Photo: Tom Barry.

30 CLO has increasingly insisted that sustainability strategies must extend beyond a

narrow focus on land protection. Conservation and restoration efforts should “address

the environmental, social and economic challenges of the region in a strategic and

integrated fashion” (CLO, 2008: 2) Furthermore, “The area needs to be protected as a

wildlife corridor…. [But] the border region should also be an area of rich cultural

exchange between people of two nations. Instead it has become a zone of contention.”

CLO says that it “hopes that this effort would be seen as an alternative to the many top-

down, security-driven actions being implemented by the U.S. government on the

border at great cost to local communities, the environment, and cross-border

cooperation” (ibid.: 3).

31 As the land heals from overgrazing and interventionist restorative techniques, CLO is

reaching out to its Sonoran and Chihuahua neighbors with proposals to participate in

Borderlands Restoration, a CLO partner, terms “community-based collaborative” land

restoration” (Pulliam, nd). These collaborative initiatives include a partnership with

Don Cuco Sotol, which produces and markets sotol liquor. CLO invited the family

enterprise with an international market to harvest fleshy hearts of the agave-like sotol

plant in the Sierra San Luìs. In return, the family has agreed to take measures to ensure

that the natural rates of sotol growth are maintained.

32 CLO is also cultivating native grasses and experimenting with seed harvesting with the

intention of fostering a social enterprise that markets these native grass seeds — which

currently are only available from U.S. distributors. CLO, working closely with

Borderlands Restoration L3C, is also exploring plans to cultivate and distribute desert

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

107

plants that attract hummingbirds and other pollinators such as bees, butterflies, moths,

and bats — all of which have experienced habitat loss as a result of desertification.

33 Another hopeful sign that a restoration economy is emerging can be found south of

Rancho San Bernardino in the Ejido 18 de Agosto. During a November 21, 2012 visit,

ejido representative Marcelino Alfaro and other community members recounted in

personal communication how the ejidatarios initially opposed CLO’s restoration project,

fearing that CLO’s restoration projects were capturing scarce water, thus further

limiting their own access to surface and subsurface water. Today, however, the

ejidatarios are erecting their own trincheras and gabions, while reporting that the Río

San Bernardino is once again running year-round through their land and well levels

have stabilized or risen despite the record-breaking drought.

Restoration Partnerships

34 The restoration initiatives of CLO are part of an emerging and evolving framework of

collaboration and governance involving public and private actors on both sides of the

border.

35 On the U.S. side, the most influential private participants in the emerging governance

are CLO, The Nature Conservancy, Sky Island Alliance, Borderlands Restoration, Animas

Foundation, and the Malpai Borderlands Group. Many of the ranchers associated with

the Malpai Borderlands Group sign “conservation easements” in which private

foundations compensate the ranchers for the development potential of their ranch,

thus giving them an incentive to maintain their ranching lifestyle, not sell their land,

and keep the rangeland from being subdivided (Sayre, 2005). Working closely with

these private groups are U.S. and state agencies that are major stakeholders in the

region such as the U.S. Geological Survey, Natural Resources and Conservation Service,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Arizona Game and Fish

Department.

36 On the Mexican side, since the late 1990s CLO has broken new ground in establishing

working agreements and forging common restoration agendas with an impressive

array of local, state, and federal agencies, including Secretariat of Environment and

Natural Resources (Semarnat) National Forest Commission, National Ecology Institute,

National Commission for Protected Areas, among others, and winning Mexican

governmental and university awards in the process. With respect to advancing its

vision for restoring the entire Río Yaqui and Sierra Madre Occidental wildlife corridor,

CLO also works closely with the Mexican NGOs Pro-Natura and Naturalia, both of which

have established nature refuges along the western flanks of the Sierra Madre

Occidental in Sonora. Ranchers from the region now visit Rancho San Bernardino to

learn about CLO’s erosion control and grassland restoration projects and methodologies

(Figure 3).

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

108

Figure 3. Chihuahua ranchers standing on gabions at Rancho San Bernardino see how this type oferosion control is filling in incised arroyo with sediment and contributing to revegetation offormerly barren channel

Photo: Tom Barry

Questions and Challenges

37 As CLO is drawing increased national and international attention because of its cutting-

edge on the San Bernardino ranch, discussion is turning to the many unanswered

questions about drylands restoration and to the challenges of maintaining and

expanding CLO’s work.

38 Two unanswered questions raised by the Rancho San Bernardino experiment are: What

is the relationship between increased surface water on the ranch and groundwater

levels, and by extension to the regeneration of the desert grasslands? Can restorative

techniques endurably replace deeply rooted woody desert shrubs with native grasses,

and would such a project pass a cost-benefit evaluation?

39 There are also pressing questions about cattle and the restoration of aridlands. If the

principal goal of large-scale restoration of desert landscapes is to restore entire

ecosystems and associated wildlife corridors, what role, if any, do livestock have in

contributing to this goal? A more practical question faced by ranchers and land

managers is whether the livestock industry is economically sustainable as surface and

subsurface water diminishes, droughts persist, and temperatures rise.

40 Although the impressive results at Rancho San Bernardino (and on other CLO

properties) have made it a model of large-scale restoration of arid and semi-arid

landscapes, there are many challenges in sustaining this model, growing it, and

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

109

replicating it in other regions. These challenges largely revolve around questions about

political will, institutional frameworks, and finances.

41 For the most part, the successes (and shortcomings) of the experiment are almost

wholly dependent on the vision, determination, and economic resources of the CLO

principals. Can governmental and nongovernmental entities overcome the border

divide and create cross-border frameworks and funding mechanisms for maintaining

CLO restoration projects well into the future? Can Rancho San Bernardino serve as a

pilot project for an ecoregion-wide restoration strategy with diverse biodiversity,

carbon sequestration, and sustainable economy goals? If so, what would be the

governance frameworks and funding sources for this transborder land restoration? Can

transborder collaboration on land restoration and on building restoration economies

supplant border security as a more constructive borderlands paradigm?

42 Most casual observers of degraded arid and semi-arid landscapes in the southwestern

United States and northwestern Mexico dismiss these drylands as “badlands” or

wastelands with little ecological or economic worth. A visit to the San Bernardino

Valley — and especially to the land restoration projects of CLO and the neighboring

USFWS refuges – would surely alter that impression. Monitoring of these projects by

scores of scientists and scholars is also creating a new body of knowledge and literature

on drylands restoration that will prove valuable to other large-scale drylands

restoration projects around the globe.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Adeel, Z. et al. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:

Desertification Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Bahre, C.J. (1991). A Legacy of Change: Historic Impact on Vegetation in the Arizona Borderlands.

Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

Bahre, C.J. (1995). Human impacts on the grasslands of southeastern Arizona. In: McClaran, M.P.

& T.R. Devender (Eds.) The Desert Grassland, pp.230-64. Tucson, Arizona: The University of

Arizona Press.

Bestelmeyer B.T. et al. (2013). A test of critical thresholds and their indicators in a

desertification-prone ecosystem: more resilience than we thought. Ecol. Lett. 16: 339–345.

Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23216915. Accessed 3 February 2014.

Bonillas-Monge, M.E. & C.M Valdez-Coronel (2013). Richness of mammals on the San Bernardino

Ranch in the Municipality of Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico. In: Gottfried, G. et al. (Eds.) Merging

Science and Management in a Rapidly Changing World: Biodiversity and Management of the

Madrean Archipelago III and 7th Conference on Research and Resource Management in the

Southwestern Deserts, pp.316-321. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

110

Broska, J. (2009). Water resources of the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, San Bernardino

Valley, Arizona. Research Paper. Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service.

Brown, J.H. & W. McDonald (1995). Livestock grazing and conservation on southwestern

rangelands. Conservation Biology 6: 1644-1647.

Cárdenas-García, M. & M. Olguín-Villa (2013). Bird list of San Bernardino Ranch in Agua Prieta,

Sonora, Mexico. In: Gottfried, G. et al. (Eds.) Merging Science and Management in a Rapidly

Changing World: Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago III and 7th

Conference on Research and Resource Management in the Southwestern Deserts, pp.316-321.

Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station.

Cuenca Los Ojos [CLO] (2008). Bi-national borderlands ecological restoration program. Prepared

for Cuenca Los Ojos Planning and Implementation Meeting, Rancho San Bernardino, Nov. 17-19,

2008.

DeLong, S. & W. Henderson (2012). Can erosion control structures in large dryland arroyo

channels lead to resilient riparian and cienega restoration? Observations from LiDAR, monitoring

and modeling at Rancho San Bernardino, Sonora, MX (#EP23C-0825). Poster presented at the

American Geophysical Union (AGU), Fall meeting, San Francisco, California. http://

fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/eposters/eposter/ep23c-0825/.

Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] (2001). Soil Carbon Sequestration for Improved Land

Management. World Soil Resources Reports 96. Rome, Italy: FAO.

Gass, L., L.M. Norman, M.L. Villarreal, C. Tolle, M. Coe & P. Jamwal (2013, April). A test of methods

to measure vegetation change adjacent to gabions in Sonora, Mexico using Landsat imagery.

Poster presented at the Santa Cruz River Research Days, 15-16 April 2013, Tucson, Arizona.

Retrieved from http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/images/stories/pdfs/Presentations/

SCRResearchDays/2013/scrrd2013_gass_poster.pdf

Henderson, W.M. & S. DeLong (2012, December). Evaluating dryland ecological and river

restoration using repeat LiDAR and hydrological monitoring (#EP31C-0831). Paper presented at

the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall meeting, 3-7 December 2012, San Francisco,

California.

Humphreys, R.R. (1987). 90 Years and 535 Miles: Vegetation Changes Along the Mexican Border.

Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.

Jemison, N. et al. (2012, December). Evaluation of arroyo channel restoration efforts using

hydrological modeling: Rancho San Bernardino, Sonora, MX (#EP31A-0790). Paper presented at

the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall meeting, 3-7 December 2012, San Francisco,

California.

Lal, R. (2001). Potential of desertification control to sequester carbon and mitigate the

greenhouse effect. Climatic Change 51(1): 35-72.

Marrs-Smith, G. (1983). Vegetation and flora of the San Bernardino Ranch, Cochise County,

Arizona. M.S. Thesis. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University.

Marshall, J. (1957). Birds of the pine-oak woodland in southern Arizona and adjacent Mexico.

Pacific Coast Avifauna 32: 1-125.

Marshall, R. et al. (2004). An ecological analysis of conservation priorities in the Apache

Highlands Ecoregion. Report prepared by The Nature Conservancy of Arizona, Instituto del Medio

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

111

Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora. http://skyislandaction.org/SIAC-

Library/Apache%20Highlands%20Report%20no%20ArcView%20figs.pdf

Minckley, C.O. (2013). Observations on the seasonal distribution of native fish in a 10-kilometer

reach of San Bernardino Creek, Sonora, Mexico. In: Gottfried, G. et al. (Eds.) Merging Science and

Management in a Rapidly Changing World: Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean

Archipelago III and 7th Conference on Research and Resource Management in the Southwestern

Deserts, pp.316-321. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station.

Minckley, R.L. (2013). Trajectory and rate of desert vegetation response following cattle removal.

In: Gottfried, G. et al. (Eds.) Merging Science and Management in a Rapidly Changing World:

Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago III and 7th Conference on Research and

Resource Management in the Southwestern Deserts, pp.124-126. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Minckley T.A. & A. Brunelle (2007). Paleohydrology and growth of a desert cienega. Journal of

Arid Environments 69: 1–12.

Peterson, H. V. & F. A. Branson (1962). Effects of land treatments on erosion and vegetation on

range lands in parts of Arizona and New Mexico. Journal of Range Management 15(4): 220-6.

Peterson, H.V. & R.F. Hadley (1960). Effectiveness of erosion abatement practices on semiarid

rangelands in western United States. International Association of Scientific Hydrology

Publication 53: 182-191.

Pulliam, R.H. (nd). Call for a Sky Island Corridor Initiative. A White Paper Prepared by

Borderlands Restoration, L3C.

Radke, W.R. (2013) National wildlife management on the United States/Mexico border. In:

Gottfried, G. et al. (Eds.) Merging Science and Management in a Rapidly Changing World:

Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago III and 7th Conference on Research and

Resource Management in the Southwestern Deserts, pp.5-9. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Sayre, N. (2005) Working Wilderness: The Malpai Borderlands Group and the Future of the

Western Range. Tucson, Arizona: Rio Nuevo Publishers.

Schwartz, J.D. (2013). Cows Save the Planet and Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal

the Earth. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Spector, S. (2002). Biogeographic crossroads as priority areas for biodiversity conservation.

Conservation Biology 16: 1480-1487.

Woodward, D.G. & R. Durall (1996). United States-Mexico Border Area, as Delineated by a Shared-

water Resources Perspective. Fact Sheet 1. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Zeedyk, B. & V. Clothier. (2012). Let the Water Do the Work: Induced Meandering and Evolving

Method for Restoring Incised Channels. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Quivara Coalition.

NOTES

1. http://www.cuencalosojos.org/

2. “In Flight: Adriel Heisey’s Images of Trincheras Archaeology” - An Exhibition of Arizona State

Museum and the Mexican National Institute of Anthropology and History. http://

www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/exhibits/heisey/index.shtml.

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

112

3. See http://www.cuencalosojos.org/

4. http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/science/aridlands/SanBernardino.html

5. Ruben Layne Ruiz, “San Bernardino Example: Dr. Steve DeLong talks about water restoration

on Rancho San Bernardino, Sept 17, 2013,” at: http://youtu.be/yTMoJbRhGCI

RÉSUMÉS

Cuenca Los Ojos (CLO) is a private organization dedicated to large-scale restoration of degraded

arid and semi-arid ecosystems. Incorporated both in Mexico and in the United States, CLO has

land-restoration projects that span 748 square kilometres in the Mexico-U.S. borderlands region.

This case study focuses on CLO’s restorative operations on the Mexican side of this increasingly

fortified border region. It examines the progress, shortcomings, and challenges of the restoration

underway on the 10 000 hectares of Rancho San Bernardino, which abuts the international

border in northeastern Sonora. CLO’s achievements over the past 15 years — in controlling

erosion, refilling and vegetating deeply incised arroyos, increasing surface and subsurface water,

and expanding biodiversity — point to the value of considering the Rancho San Bernardino

experiment as a global model. That this experiment has coincided with a prolonged drought also

marks it as a model for drylands restoration in the hotter, drier conditions predicted with

climate change. Similar large-scale restoration projects might also benefit from a review of CLO’s

strategies for fostering cross-border cooperation, building multisectoral alliances among private

and governmental participants, restoring transborder wildlife corridors, and creating links

between land restoration and emerging restoration economies.

INDEX

Keywords : Drylands, Restoration, Border, Sonora, Arizona

AUTEURS

TOM BARRY

Center for International Policy, 2000 M Street, Suite 720, Washington, DC 20036, 8 Hillside Street,

Pinos Altos, NM 88053, E-mail: Tfbarry2007@gmail.com

S.A.P.I.EN.S, 7.2 | 2014

113