ecosystem management: concept to local-scale implementation: participant manual

1

Participant Manual

2012 Participant Manual

UNEP- -IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual

2

Prepared by: Jim Perry (IISD & University of Minnesota), Nick Ahrensberg (DHI), Richard Bahumwire (CREPA), Stefano

Barchiesi (IUCN), Livia Bizikova (IISD), Peter Koefoed Bjornsen (DGH), Philip Bubb (WCMC), Steve Carver (University of

Leeds), Thomas Chiramba (UNEP DEPI), David Coates (CBD), Richard Kenchington (UNEP DEPI and University of Wollongong),

Elizabeth Khaka (UNEP DEPI), Birguy Lamizana (UNOPS), Christo Marais (Dept Water Affairs, South Africa), Nora Mzavanadze

(Central European University), László Pintér (IISD), Dimple Roy (IISD), Mark Smith (IUCN), Darren Swanson (IISD), Henry (Hank)

Venema (IISD), Alan Watson (Leopold Institute)

ISBN: 978-92-807-3253-5

Job Number: DEP/1505/NA

Copyright UNEP 2012

Please send enquiries to [email protected] or [email protected]

Disclaimer: The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or contributory organizations.

The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion

whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory organizations concerning the legal status of any

country, territory, city, company or area or its authority or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or

boundaries.

Reproduction: This publication my be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non profit

purposes without special permission from the copyright holders, provided acknowledgement of the source is made.

UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purposes whatsoever

without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

&

in association with

UNEP promotes environmentally sound practices globally and in its own activities.

This publication is printed on 100% FSC paper using other eco-friendly practices. Our distribution policy

aims to reduce UNEP’s carbon footprint.

2012 Participant Manual 3


3

AuthorsJim Perry (Lead Author)H.T. Morse Distinguished University ProfessorAssociate, International Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation BiologyUniversity of Minnesota St Paul, MN USA 55108Ph + 01 612 625 4717Fax + 01 612 625 [email protected]

Thomas Chiramba (Project Officer)Chief, Freshwater Ecosystems UnitFreshwater and Marine BranchDivision of Environmental Policy Imple-mentation (DEPI)UNEPPOB 47074001 00 [email protected]

Elizabeth Khaka (Project Officer)Programme OfficerFreshwater Ecosystems UnitFreshwater and Marine BranchDivision of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI)UNEPPOB 30552001 00 NairobiPh 254 721 746 289Ph 254 20 762 [email protected]

Nick AhrensbergProgramme AdvisorUNEP-DHI Centre Agern Allé 5 DK 2970 Hørsholm DenmarkPh + 45 4516 9522 Fax + 45 4516 [email protected]

Richard BahumwireOrganisational Development and Capac-ity Building SpecialistCREPA03BP 7112 OugadougouBurkina [email protected] [email protected]

Stefano BarchiesiJunior Professional AssociateIUCN HeadquartersRue Mauverney 281196 Gland Switzerland Ph +41 22 999 0255 Fax +41 22 364 9622 [email protected]

Peter Koefoed BjornsenDirectorUNEP-DGH Centre Agern Allé 5 DK 2970 Hørsholm DenmarkPh + 45 4516 9073 Fax + 45 4516 [email protected]

Livia BizikovaProject ManagerInternational Institute for Sustainable Development161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4Ph + 01 613 288 2024Fax + 01 613 238 [email protected]

Philip BubbSenior Programme OfficerUNEP-WCMC 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL UKPh + 44 1223 814662Fax + 44 1223 [email protected]

Steve CarverSenior LecturerRoom G11, East Building School of Geography University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT UKPh + 44 113 34 [email protected]

David CoatesEnvironmental Affairs OfficerInland WatersConvention on Biodiversity413, Saint Jacques Street, suite 800 Montreal Canada QC H2Y 1N9Ph + 01 514 287 8715Fax + 01 613 288 [email protected]

Richard KenchingtonProfessorAustralian National Centre for Oceans resources and SecurityUniversity of WollongongNSW 2522 [email protected]

Birguy Lamizana-DialloChargée du ProgrammeGWP/WAWPUNOPS03 BP 7112 Ouagadougou 03Burkina [email protected]

Christo MaraisHead of OperationsNatural Resource Management Pro-grammes Department of Environmental AffairsP/Bag X 4390Cape Town 8000 South AfricaPh +27 021 441 2727Fax 021 441 [email protected]

Nora MzavanadzePhD CandidateDepartment of Environmental Sci-ences and PolicyCentral European UniversityNador u. 91051 Budapest, [email protected]



4

László Pintér Senior FellowInternational Institute for Sustainable De-velopment Department of Environmental Sciences and PolicyCentral European UniversityNador u. 9 1051 Budapest, [email protected]

Dimple RoyManager, Natural and Social CapitalInternational Institute for Sustainable Development161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4Ph + 01 613 958 7737Fax + 01 613 958 [email protected]

Mark SmithDirector, IUCN Water Programme IUCN HeadquartersRue Mauverney 281196 Gland Switzerland Ph +41 22 999 0117 Fax +41 22 364 9622 [email protected]

Darren SwansonDeputy Director, Natural and Social Capi-tal ProgramInternational Institute for Sustainable Development161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4Ph + 01 613 958 7746Fax + 01 613 958 [email protected]

Dawn TannerConservation Biologist 2040 Como AveSuite 103St Paul MN [email protected]

Henry (Hank) VenemaDirector, Natural and Social CapitalInternational Institute for Sustain-able Development161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4Ph + 01 613 958 7706Fax + 01 613 958 [email protected]

Alan WatsonResearch Social Scientist Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research InstituteUS Forest Service790 East Beckwith AvenueBozeman Montana USA 59801Fax 02 406 542 [email protected]



5

Invited Expert ReviewersRichard BahumwireOrganisational Development and Capac-ity Building SpecialistCREPA03BP 7112 OugadougouBurkina [email protected] [email protected]

Delia CatacutanSenior Social ScientistWorld Agroforestry Center (ICRAF)Nairobi, KenyaPh 254 0719 867 [email protected]

Thomas Chiramba (Project Officer)Chief, Freshwater Ecosystems UnitFreshwater and Marine BranchUNEP Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI)POB 47074001 00 [email protected]

Elizabeth Khaka (Project Officer)Programme OfficerFreshwater Ecosystems UnitFreshwater and Marine BranchUNEP Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI)POB 30552001 00 NairobiPh 254 721 746 289Ph 254 20 762 [email protected]

Peter ManyaraProject ManagerUNEP-WRMA Tana Catchment Area ProjectWater Resource Management AuthorityPOB 1930-60100Embu KenyaPh 254 061 2309 [email protected]

Christo MaraisHead of OperationsNatural Resource Management Programmes Department of Environmental AffairsP/Bag X 4390Cape Town 8000 South AfricaPh +27 021 441 2727Fax 021 441 [email protected]

Doris MuttaAssociate Project OfficerUNEP Nairobi ConventionPOB 32552-00100Nairobi, KenyaPh 254 20 762 [email protected]

Wangai NdiranguCoordinatorWater Capacity Building Network (Wa-terCap)PON 127-00517Nairobi, [email protected] [email protected]

Benard OpaaWetland SpecialistNational Environmental Manage-ment Authority (NEMA) KenyaPOB 67839-00200Nairobi, KenyaPh + 254 720 563 [email protected]@nema.go.ke

David OsbornCoordinatorEcosystem Management ProgrammeUNEPPOB 47074001 00 NairobiPh 254 (02) 762 [email protected]

Jessica C SalasPresident, Philippine Watershed Man-agement CoalitionImmediate Past President, International Rainwater Catchment Systems Associa-tionKahublagan Sang Panimalay Foundation Magsaysay VillageSan Ag Iolio City The PhilippinesPh 63 33 329 7362, 63 917 547 [email protected]

Silas MogoiUNV Programme OfficerUNEP DEPIPOB 47074001 00 NairobiPh 254 722 844 [email protected]

K’ogogo Pamela WereLecturer, School of Environmental StudiesMoi University, KenyaPOB 3900-30100Elderet, Kenya Ph + 254 0720 867 [email protected]



6

PrefaceThe Millennium Ecosystems Assessment Report (MA) released in 2005 discussed the unique relationship between water and ecosystems. It noted that provision of adequate supplies of fresh water is one of the key services that ecosystems provide to humanity. Whilst the availability of water for human uses depends in part on the proper functioning of ecosystems, water is also essential for the proper functioning of ecosystems in the first place. In fact, the MA reported that 15 of 24 identified services provided by ecosystems to humanity, particularly those related to freshwater, are in global decline. This loss has led to reduced water availability, poor water quality and a reduction of capacity to deal with floods and drought.

Currently, 1.6 billion people live in areas of physical water scarcity, and this could grow to 2 billion if we stay on the present course—making food security even more uncertain. To produce food for a global population of 7 billion people—that is projected to rise to over 9 billion by 2050—the water required for agriculture will increase from 7,130 km3 to 12,050 km3. Recent research suggests that decline in ecosystems services has led to soil nutrient depletion, soil erosion, increased vulnerability to disease and pests, and loss of buffering capacity to deal with rainfall variability.

Inland fisheries are perhaps the most obvious area which will be affected by the decline of ecosystem services: in Africa alone fisheries provide an estimated 100 million people with important levels of daily protein in addition to essential vitamins and minerals. This sector provides close to 30 million tonnes of food and 60 million full- and part-time jobs in fishing and other activities such as processing, with over half these jobs carried out by women.

Clearly, we all have a major responsibility to ensure the resilience and sustainability of aquatic ecosystems, in order that they continue providing water for human uses in the upcoming era of anticipated water scarcity in many places around the world. However, the concept of ecosystems is not fully understood in the water sector, and, even in cases where it is, managers and practitioners have limited capacity to translate ecosystems concepts to the local level for any change to take place.

This manual, developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Sustainable Development and 10 other partners, is UNEP’s contribution to enable those working at the local level within the framework of integrated water resources management to better incorporate ecosystems approaches in their work. Since water is a common unifying theme in ecosystem management, this manual can be adapted for use not only by water managers and practitioners, but also by planners and others to improve their awareness of the contribution of ecosystems and take the necessary action in order to meet the Millennium Development Goals.

The manual combines practical and theoretical approaches, making it easy for participants to understand the contribution of ecosystems and their services to the management of water within a catchment. It is our hope that this manual will be used to train managers and practitioners from both water and other sectors, as it is applicable to multiple disciplines.

Ibrahim Thiaw,

Director of Environmental Policy Implementation United Nations Environment Programme



7

ContentsDay 1: A Common Starting Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Module 1: Opening and Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Module 2: Starting Here: An initial conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Working lunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Module 3: Complementarities Between IWRM and EM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Module 4: The Structure and Function of Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Day 2: Thinking Like an Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Module 5: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Ecosystem state and Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Module 6: State of Ecosystem Services and Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Mid-term Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Module 7 Field trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Day 3: Thinking and Acting Like a Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Module 8: Understanding Current Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Module 9: Thinking Like a Manager: Beginning the cycle of strategic adaptive management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Module 10: Human Activities Are Central to Ecosystem Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Module 11: Incentives and Tools for Local-scale Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

Module 11 at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

Day 4: Managing Our Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Module 12: Valuing Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Module 13: Trade-offs and Goals for Ecosystem Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Module 14 Field trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Day 5: Putting It All to Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Module 15: Selecting Tools for a Local Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Module 16: Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Module 17: Completing the Cycle of Strategic Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Module 18: Workshop Synthesis and Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Glossary and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163



8

WelcomeWe (UNEP, the people who wrote this material and your workshop facilitators) welcome you to this Ecosystem Management workshop. We think that our facilitated, capacity-development approach offers a stimulating experience and provides you with tools, skills and ideas to take home ready to implement in your own catchment. We expect that most people who join this experience will have an engineering or natural-resource background. We anticipate that most of our audience has experience with integrated watershed resource management (IWRM). We have worked to be sensitive to most potential backgrounds, recognizing that many people who attend this workshop will have a problem-solving, linear orientation. We hope to capitalize on those problem-solving abilities, allowing you to express your ideas and apply them in a broader context. Our orientation is toward people who have responsibility for managing a catchment, often focusing on water in that catchment. In this workshop, we offer you experiences and materials that will allow you to expand IWRM, taking lessons and ideas forward toward an integrated, ecosystem approach, identifying and solving problems in your catchment. We strongly feel that attention to gender roles is critical in addressing any natural resource issue, especially water. This workshop respects and upholds that view.

Our approach is based in active, experiential learning. That means we will ask you to play various roles, express yourself in various ways, interact extensively, and have fun. You should expect very few traditional lectures. We ask you to be creative. For example, we’ll ask you to build a conceptual model of the ways critical elements might interact within your catchment. We will take two field trips to a local catchment, offering you a chance to think about your conceptual model, asking which elements of the model do or do not make sense, and allowing you to continue to revise the initial conceptual model toward a final model that will help you more thoroughly implement Ecosystem Management in your own catchment.

We are glad you have chosen to spend this time with us and we look forward to working with you. Our agenda for the workshop follows.



9

AgendaDay 1: a common starting PointModule 1

• Opening and Introductions8:00–9:00

Module 2 • Starting here: An initial conceptual framework

9:00–9:30

Break 9:30–10:00Module 2 Continues 10:00–12:30Working lunch 12:30–13:30Module 3

• Complementarities between IWRM and EM13:30–14:30

Break 14:30–15:00Module 4

• The structure and function of ecosystems15:00–17:00

DAy 2: thInkIng lIkE An ECosystEmModule 5

• A conceptual framework for understanding ecosystem state and impact8:00–9:30


• State of ecosystem services and functioning10:00–11:30

Mid-term assessment: What things are going well and what could be improved? 11:30–12:00• Module 7 Field trip• On-site discussion (17:00–18:00 )

13:00–18:00

DAy 3: thInkIng AnD ACtIng lIkE A mAnAgERModule 8

• Understanding current conditions8:00–9:30


• Thinking like a manager: Beginning the cycle of strategic, adaptive management

10:00–12:00

Lunch 12:30–13:30Module 10

• Human activities are central to ecosystem management13:30–15:00


• Incentives and tools for local-scale management15:30–17:00



10

DAy 4: mAnAgIng ouR ECosystEmsModule 12

• Valuing ecosystem services8:30–9:30


• Trade-offs and goals for ecosystem management10:00–12:00


• Field trip: We return to the same catchment, applying our conceptual model to that local condition, demonstrating good management practices that are currently in place.

13:00–18:00

Day 5: Putting it aLL to Work

8:00–12:00

Module 15• Selecting tools for a local application

8:00–10:00


• Monitoring and evaluation10:30–12:30


• Completing the cycle of strategic adaptive management13:30–15:00


• Workshop synthesis, closing, evaluations15:30–17:00



11

Day 1: A Common starting Point

Day 1 at a glanceThe workshop begins by recognizing and building upon what you already know, starting with familiar ground. As a participant, you will work with others in a group to develop an initial framework about how catchments, landscapes and ecosystems are structured and how they function. You will use this framework during our visit to a local catchment on Day 2 where we will develop a common visual reference and ask you to begin to refine your initial model.

During the afternoon session, we will focus on background knowledge that will improve your understanding and revision of your initial framework.

• We will ground this session in IWRM, using IWRM as a reference point and demonstrating ways ecosystem management (EM) complements IWRM.

• We will show that • Ecosystems have relatively similar patterns of structure and function• As we change some attributes and flows, there is a concomitant change in others• We can use a framework (Driving Forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses, or DPSIR) to

express those changes• People find that those attributes and flows are useful, and valuable. We use the concept of

ecosystem services to express that value

module 1: opening and Introductions8:00–9:00

module 1 at a glanceModule 1 provides an introduction to this facilitated, active-learning, five-day workshop experience. This workshop helps catchment1 managers frame and implement management objectives that approach a catchment as an ecosystem, valuing ecosystem services as a metric for decision making. Throughout the workshop, we focus at the catchment scale. This scale allows managers and stakeholders to come together to understand and address the interactions between land and water in a relatively small, well-defined space.

learning objectives for module 1

• Develop an understanding of workshop goals, objectives and approach• Begin to develop familiarity with facilitators and other participants

1 We use the term catchment to refer to the landscape that drains water to a common point. The terms river basin and watershed are often used to refer to a similar area.



12

IntroductionAn ecosystem approach for water

The ecosystem approach has emerged as a promising, step-wise process for dealing with integration and sustainability of water management. This is because it provides a number of benefits for both people and nature in terms of integrating environment in decision making, strengthening investment in ecosystems and social inclusion, and catalyzing good governance. Moreover, the ecosystem approach is well adapted to the use of a wide variety of management tools and options. In particular, it deploys alternative, non-structural measures to cope with floods and droughts as well as emissions of pollutants into surface and ground waters.

the ecosystem approach focuses on the broader goal of balancing and sustaining ecosys-tem services . . . [and] complements IWRm as a strategy for the integrated management of not only water, but also the associated land and living resources in a way that maintains ecosystem health and productivity in balance with sustainable water use . . . it links eco-system service delivery and human needs. (the Critical Connection)

It comes as no surprise that the need for such an approach has increasingly been recognized among water professionals. An ecosystem approach takes into account the role of environmental goods and services, incorporates knowledge about the functioning of the entire catchment ecosystem into planning and management, and focuses on managing water and land resources within catchments and river basins. An ecosystem approach explicitly recognizes the need to maintain river ecosystem health, for example, through protection of vegetation cover in upper-catchments, maintenance of river flow for people downstream, or reduction of pollution for good water quality. In other words, an ecosystem approach incorporates ecosystem services as a way of expressing value and a way to influence behaviour to address water security.

Ecosystem management uses an ecosystem approach to apply lessons of holistic ecosystem function within a management-defined area. In the case of this workshop, the management area of focus is the catchment scale.

Audience

This material is oriented toward people who have responsibility and authority for managing a land area (e.g., a catchment or a geo-political jurisdiction within which they have responsibility), who have responsibility for water-resource management as well as the lands that control the quality and quantity of those water resources. In many countries, IWRM and other cross-sectoral ideas have resulted in institutions charged with catchment management. In such situations, it is difficult to avoid following a sectoral approach. Our intent is to engage the individuals most clearly responsible for decisions about management of the lands and waters of a catchment, whatever their institutional affiliation. We have used the concepts and ideas of IWRM because there is a global IWRM momentum that can assist people in on-the-ground decision making. The ecosystem-management approach taken here differs from IWRM by incorporating ecosystem services and land–water interactions to a greater



13

degree. Through this capacity-development experience, we will increase the ability of our participants to take an integrated, ecosystem approach to identifying and solving problems on the ground, or directing people who will do so. We explicitly recognize that men and women play different roles in the management of catchments in different parts of the world. Our intent in this workshop is to highlight and discuss the different roles played by men and women, especially in poor areas, such that gender differences can advance rather than constrain proper management.

overall learning objectives of the workshopour goal is to empower catchment managers and their staff to design and, given adequate resources, implement and evaluate an ecosystem approach to informed decision making about water resources and the landscapes that influence their condition. Further, in rec-ognition of the fact that ecosystem management connects all parts of the landscape, we intend that the training supported by these materials will serve as the base for increased interaction among a range of water managers, natural resource managers and other profes-sionals in a catchment.

At the conclusion of this capacity-development workshop, the successful participant will have experienced hands on, highly interactive problem-solving in and around a problem of relevance to their professional lives. The participant will have a strengthened conceptual foundation and toolkit that allows her/him to frame local problems in an ecosystem context, and empower him/her to develop solutions to such a problem. The successful participant also will understand that ecosystem management is a reflective and adaptive experience. Successful implementation of an ecosystem-management approach requires framing objectives with measurable outcomes, collecting information on those outcomes and the forces that control them, reflecting on both the objectives and the controlling forces, adapting either or both as necessary, and implementing again in an iterative and transparent fashion. Finally, engagement and communication with stakeholders is a central element of successful catchment management. We engage participants in ways that strengthen two-way communication with stakeholders.

Integrating gender as a Core Consideration of Ecosystem management

During this entire workshop, gender is considered as a central theme. Gender considerations are culturally contextual; they are involved differently depending on the culture within which the discussion takes place. Incorporating gender as a central theme is a planning approach, a methodology which increases the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of interventions. This approach brings the respective needs of women and men to the heart of planning. This is particularly important for ecosystem management because women play key role as users and often managers of water and natural resources. Throughout this workshop, and your personal application of ecosystem management, priority should be given to methods that encourage equal participation of men and women in group discussions, discussions in pairs, a system of rotating chairs, limited speaking time per participant, and monitoring male/female distribution in working groups.



14

notes on module 1



15

module 2: starting here: An initial conceptual framework9:00–12:30

module 2 at a glanceThink and interact about your local experiences and your “personal” catchment. Use your depth of experience in catchment management as a platform from which to build a conceptual framework that describes how a generic catchment “works.” How do resources flow, attributes change, and people benefit as things change?

• 30minSmall-group discussion• 30minOverview of the local catchment• 90min Groups develop initial conceptual framework of a catchment• 30min Plenary report back from the groups

learning objectives for module 2• Become exposed to and familiar with the local catchment we will use for reference during

the training• Be able to frame a conceptual model for a catchment, describing both its material flows and

its stakeholders

Catchment Context

The workshop facilitators will present an overview of the local catchment we will visit during the workshop. They will discuss the landscape, the people who live and work here, the issues being faced and the decisions that must be made. For future reference, you may find the concept of Watershed Characterization useful. In its typical implementation, the term Watershed Characterization addresses quantitative hydrology. A broader interpretation is often termed Rapid Hydrologic Appraisal or Rapid Watershed Assessment. Similarly, TUL-SEA (Trees in Multi-Use Landscapes in SE Asia) has a wide range of excellent products, including rapid appraisal techniques.

It will be helpful to you later if you take notes during this session. As the facilitators present the material, put yourself into the shoes of a catchment manager in this setting. You will be able to picture a series of issues to be addressed, opportunities to resolve problems, places where you question why something is or is not being done. Noting those things will serve you well during the rest of the workshop.

how Does All of this Work?

During the rest of this session, you will work in a group of three to five people to develop a conceptual model or mind-map of the catchment and the ways people use resources. In this context, we ask you to picture the flows of water through the landscape, and the ways people use and influence those flows. This model should include the biophysical attributes of the catchment, the various stakeholders who have interest in those attributes, and ownership (i.e., the institutional setting that is used to control



16

those flows). Think about the quality, quantity and timing of the water resource; think about the land characteristics and land management that control those variables. How would you express those relationships in a way that would allow you to explain them clearly to someone else? Ask yourself key questions such as Are women’s/men’s constraints, needs and views reflected in management of your catchment?; Who are the key players in this catchment?; and What kinds of local and national laws and regulations are used to influence this catchment?

notes on module 2



17

Working lunch 12:30–13:30

schedule lunch with your group: Tomorrow afternoon, we will visit a local catchment, a location we will use as a reference for discussion throughout the workshop. During lunch, identify at least three things you would like to see, know, or learn about, or people you want to meet in that local catchment.

notes



18

module 3: Complementarities Between IWRm and Em13:30–14:30

module 3 at glanceHuman well-being, broadly defined, is the central goal of all natural-resource management, including water management and ecosystem management. In this context, it is critical to interpret human well-being to include aesthetic, spiritual and extractive/consumptive values. IWRM is a globally important, widely accepted and adopted way of managing quantity and quality of waters for human well-being. It ties together surface- and groundwater, as well as policy and science. Ecosystem management (EM) can—but does not always—adopt the same endpoints as IWRM; EM takes a broader, more holistic and more landscape-based approach to reaching the desired end states.

learning objectives for module 3At the end of this module, the successful participant will:

• Understand the concepts and scope of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and the elements that are subjected to integration

• Understand the differences and similarities between IWRM and EM

What is Integrated Water Resource management (IWRm)?

IWRM is fundamentally different from traditional water-resource management. Traditional water-resource management is concerned with the management of water supply and demand in terms of both quantity and quality. IWRM broadens the biophysical scope of traditional management and explicitly includes the socioeconomic context.

Definition of IWRM IWRM is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of healthy ecosystem functioning.

Definition of ecosystem management An ecosystem consists of all of the organisms and the abiotic environment found in a defined spatial area, and their inter-relationships. Ecosystem management is the process of working with ecosystem processes to sustain the delivery of defined ecosystem services.

IWRM involves integration of the following two major “systems” and of the elements within each system:

• The natural system, with its critical importance for resource availability and quality; and• The human system, through which men and women differently determine priorities for

resource use, waste production and pollution, and development priorities.



19

Natural system integrative elements include:• Integration of freshwater management and coastal zone management• Integration of land and water management• Integration of management of “green water” (water stored in soil or biomass) and “blue

water” (water in rivers, lakes and aquifers)• Integration of surface- and groundwater management• Integration of quality and quantity in water-resource management• Integration of upstream and downstream water-related interests• Integrated management of water stored in the protected areas and water in non-protected

areas

Human system integrative elements include:• Mainstreaming water resource issues, and the ways men and women differently approach

those issues into national policies (e.g., economic policy, food policy, environment policy, health policy, energy policy); and

• Cross-sectoral integration across all major water use sectors, involving all stakeholders, and explicitly addressing gender differences.

IWRM is designed to manage water as a resource and create a framework for provision of water services. These targets are achieved through application of the overriding criteria of economic efficiency, equity and environmental sustainability within an enabling environment, an institutional framework and a set of management instruments. While striving to reach these targets, the work is guided by the four basic Dublin–Rio Principles (1992):

• Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment;

• Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels;

• Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water; and• Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an

economic good.

In pursuing IWRM, there is a need to recognize several overriding criteria that take account of social, economic and natural conditions:

• Economic efficiency in water use: Because of the increasing scarcity of water and financial resources, the finite and vulnerable nature of water as a resource, and the increasing demands upon it, water must be used with maximum possible efficiency.

• Equity: The basic right for all people to have access to water of adequate quantity and quality for the sustenance of human well-being must be universally recognized.



20

• Environmental and ecological sustainability: The present use of the resource should be managed in a way that does not undermine the life-support system, which would compromise use by future generations of the same resource.

The IWRM framework and approach recognize that complementary elements of an effective water resources management system must be developed and strengthened concurrently. These complementary elements (Figure 1) include:

• The enabling environment: the general framework of national policies, legislation and regulations and information for water-resource management stakeholders

• The institutional roles and functions of the various administrative levels, protection management authority, stakeholders

• The management instruments, including operational instruments for effective regulation, monitoring and enforcement that enable the decision-makers to make informed choices among alternative actions. These choices need to be based on agreed-upon policies, available resources, environmental impacts and the social and economic consequences.

Figure 1: linkages Among Principles, structure and targets

What is Ecosystem management?

A description and definition of an ecosystem, its structure and functions is given in Module 4.The following key concepts allow easy comparison to IWRM.

UNEP-‐IISD Ecosystem Management Participant Manual

Perry et al., 2011 Participant Manual

• Environmental and ecological sustainability: The present use of the resource should be managed in a way that does not undermine the life-‐support system, which would compromise use by future generations of the same resource.

The IWRM framework and approach recognize that complementary elements of an effective water resources management system must be developed and strengthened concurrently. These complementary elements (Figure 1) include: • The enabling environment: the general framework of national policies, legislation and regulations

and information for water-‐resource management stakeholders • The institutional roles and functions of the various administrative levels, protection management

authority, stakeholders • The management instruments, including operational instruments for effective regulation,

monitoring and enforcement that enable the decision-‐makers to make informed choices among alternative actions. These choices need to be based on agreed-‐upon policies, available resources, environmental impacts and the social and economic consequences.

Figure 1: Linkages Among Principles, Structure and Targets What is Ecosystem Management?

A description and definition of an ecosystem, its structure and functions is given in Module 4.The following key concepts allow easy comparison to IWRM. Definition of an ecosystem

An ecosystem is a complex set of relationships among all of the organisms and the abiotic environment found in a defined spatial area, functioning as an ecological unit.

Structure

EconomicEfficiency Equity Environmental

Sustainability

Management InstrumentsØ AssessmentØ InformationØ Allocation

Instruments

EnablingEnvironmentØ PoliciesØ Legislation

InstitutionalFrameworkØ Central -

LocalØ River BasinØ Public -

Private

Management of wateras a resource

Principles

Framework forprovision of

water servicesTargets

Source: Author diagram



21

Definition of an ecosystem An ecosystem is a complex set of relationships among all of the organisms and the abiotic environment found in a defined spatial area, functioning as an ecological unit.

An ecosystem can be anything from a small pond to a region or even the whole of planet Earth. Ecosystem management can be defined as working with ecosystem structure and processes to supply defined ecosystem services (e.g., food, fibre, fuel, natural medicines). The four core ecosystem processes that are a part of the functioning of ecosystems at all scales are:

• Water cycling, through living organisms and ecosystems, as well as the hydrological cycle at the landscape- to continental-scale of evaporation, rainfall, runoff and storage

• Mineral cycling, in which minerals such as carbon and nitrogen are cycled to and from the physical environment by living organisms, with the amounts and rates of cycling dependent on the composition and structure of the ecosystem

• Solar energy flow, fuelling ecosystems by energy captured by plants from the sun via photosynthesis. Solar energy flows from plants to herbivores and omnivores and on to carnivores and finally to decomposers, with significant energy lost as heat at each level

• Biological growth as an ecosystem process, the tendency of ecological systems to increase their biomass and complexity over time

Analysis of Differences and similarities Between IWRm and Ecosystem management

Clearly, IWRM and Ecosystem Management have elements in common; water is an ecosystem service required from nearly all catchments. Water security controls the lives of millions of people and depends on the characteristics of the ecosystems surrounding the waters. The Critical Connection, an analysis of water security and ecosystem services offers more depth on that relationship and may be an additional useful resource. This analysis of differences and similarities deals with three selected aspects: scope, content and specificity. It is often claimed that IWRM and ecosystem management are essentially the same thing. This could be correct if one assumed a very wide interpretation of IWRM. However, when one looks at how IWRM typically is applied, there are different emphases between the two approaches.

table 1: Complementarity between IWRm and Ecosystem management

typical management objectivesIWRM Ecosystem Management

• Both water quality and water quantity• Water provides part of the basis for

sustainable livelihoods• Protection and conservation of water

resources to sustain functions and characteristics

• Targeted toward human well-being• Supply defined ecosystem services such

as provisioning services (e.g., food, fibre), regulating services, cultural services

• Watershed or catchment scale services



22

typical geographic scopeIWRM Ecosystem Management

• Transboundary• National• River basin• Sub-basin• IWRM typically is applied at an aggregate

level

• Ecosystem macro-units (e.g., biomes, eco-regions), meso-units (forests, wetlands, lakes, islands) and micro-units such as farm level

• Ecosystems cross river basins or other hydrologic lines

• There always is a mosaic of ecosystems in a landscape

• Ecosystem management typically is applied at a disaggregated level

typical thematic ContentIWRM Ecosystem Management

• Water cycling• Mineral cycling and biological growth to the

degree they have a significant influence on changes in water quality and quantity

• Human systems in terms of water use, wastewater production, cross-sectoral water requirements and stakeholder involvement

• Natural systems in terms of land and water interaction and upstream-downstream linkages

• Interaction between human and natural systems

• Water cycling• Mineral cycling• Solar energy flow• Biological growth• Carbon cycling• Land use (e.g., grazing, fire)• Humans as part of the biosphere• Food web• Vegetation layers• Soil coverage• Water bodies• Spatial configuration of species

typical Value statementsIWRM Ecosystem Management

• Economic efficiency• Environmental and ecological sustainability• Social equity and equity in access• Gender plays a strong role

• Values usually are defined on a case by case basis

• Human well-being as influenced by ecosystem integrity and ecosystem stability

• Gender plays a strong role

An ecosystem represents and includes all plants and animals (i.e., biotic elements) as well as the non-living (i.e., abiotic elements) within a defined area. Therefore, ecosystem management is the identification of human and non-human attributes society wishes to retain from an area, setting priorities among those, and managing to sustain them. Ecosystem management (i.e., management of the landscape to sustain delivery of water and other ecosystem services) must address water quality, ecological base



23

flow, sediment regime, water yield and major storm events including floods. Centrally, ecosystems and ecosystem management explicitly include the human aspect. Because ecosystems do not have discrete sizes or boundaries, we need a construct to allow us to define edges, goals and flows. IWRM can be seen as one such operational unit, dealing with the water cycle as a core theme. IWRM and the management principles that are inherent in the approach are well developed and an integral part of ecosystem management. Ecosystem management is value added to an IWRM implementation; it can strengthen the ways IWRM is implemented in most cases because it increases attention to environmental flows and environmental issues in the water and on the landscape. For example, adopting an ecosystem approach helps IWRM managers consider ecosystem services outside the water.

notes on module 3



24

module 4: the structure and Function of Ecosystems15:00–17:00

module 4 at a glanceEcosystems are spatially bounded interactions among plants, animals, and their abiotic environment. All ecosystems have a range of attributes, such as their structure (kinds and numbers of components) and function (rates at which various processes occur). In any given ecosystem, a subset of those attributes is of value to humans; very often, freshwater is among the highest priority of those attributes. Those valued attributes are ecosystem services, a metric that allows us to quantify the goods and services humans wish to retain from a given ecosystem. Ecosystem management consists of identifying those ecosystem services, and managing for their sustainability.

learning objectives for module 4• Understand ecosystem functioning in terms of structure and process to such a degree that

you can frame management objectives in such terms• Understand what ecosystem services are and that they are often “bundled”

What Is an Ecosystem?The concept of an ecosystem comes from the science of ecology, which is the study of the underlying principles and interactions of organisms and their environment. Ecological science can be very detailed; this section extracts from that science a few core principles that can be easily understood to help practical management.

A widely used definition of an ecosystem is that adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA):

A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living envi-ronment interacting as a functional unit.

Although a useful and widely cited definition, defining an ecosystem as a “functional unit” poses significant challenges in defining boundaries as the basis of ecological functions. Therefore, in this workshop, we do not refer to ecosystems as “functional units,” because of the problems in defining spatial boundaries of ecological functions. An alternative definition of an ecosystem is the organisms and the abiotic environment found in a defined spatial area, and the interactions among those elements. Clearly, an ecosystem can be defined at any spatial scale, from a small pond to a region, or even the whole of planet Earth. The concept of an ecosystem provides a vision of an area as an ecological system, looking at the interactions among its living elements and their environment, as well as its properties as a living system. One of the main types of interactions of importance in an ecological system is movement of energy and matter through the system. This can mean, for example, the ways trees in a forest capture the sun’s energy through photosynthesis and the flow of this energy through a food web of herbivores, predators and decomposers.



25

In this workshop on ecosystem management, we recommend using the term ecosystem as a way of thinking and making decisions about land and water resources as ecological systems, without attempting to determine the precise spatial definition of any given ecosystem. Of course, all units of management need to be defined spatially, such as areas under particular land ownership or subject to specific management objectives. For management of water resources, this may mean the definition of a water catchment, which typically does not conform to land tenure or administrative boundaries. However, we recommend describing such a water management unit as a catchment area rather than an ecosystem; its ecological system properties can be considered once it has been hydrologically defined.

Although we do not often use spatial boundaries of ecosystems for management, ecosystem mapping and classification schemes can be useful tools. Such schemes often define ecosystems in terms of their dominant vegetation or environmental features (e.g., a pine forest, grassland, lake, rock pool, or mountain ecosystem). The criteria used in those examples illustrate that the concept of an ecosystem is a human construct for describing the natural world. Ecosystems are defined according to the scale of our interests and decision-making powers. For this reason, it may be more useful to spatially classify areas as different types of environment, rather than as ecosystem types.

What are ecosystem services?

The simplest and most widespread definition of ecosystem services is the benefits people obtain directly and indirectly from ecosystems. A similar definition is that ecosystem services are the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life both possible and worth living. Examples of ecosystem services include products (e.g., food, fuel, and water), regulation of floods, prevention of soil erosion, buffering against disease outbreaks, and nonmaterial benefits such as the recreational and spiritual benefits of natural areas.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment grouped ecosystem services into four broad categories: • Provisioning services are products obtained from ecosystems, including food, fibre, fuel,

genetic resources, ornamental resources, freshwater, biochemical, natural medicines and pharmaceuticals.

• Regulating services are benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes including air quality regulation, climate regulation, water regulation, erosion regulation, water purification, waste treatment, disease regulation, pest regulation, pollination and natural hazard regulation.

• Cultural services are non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences, including cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relations, sense of place, cultural heritage values, recreation and ecotourism.

• Supporting services are necessary for sustaining the production of all other ecosystem services. Examples are primary production (plant growth) and nutrient cycling for soil formation and water quality regulation.



26

Because ecosystem services are defined in terms of their benefits to people, we should recognize that the value assigned to any ecosystem service is context-dependent. That is, the same feature can be considered a valuable ecosystem service by one group of people but not valued by another group. This value can even differ within a group, depending, for example on gender-specific or age-specific needs.

Ecosystem services are not produced in isolation of each other. Rather, most ecosystems can supply a bundle of inter-related ecosystem services. A forest, for example, can provide both wood and non-wood products, regulate climate and water supply, purify air and drinking water, prevent soil erosion and support soil fertility. It can also play an important role in tourism and recreation and in some regions, may have religious value. The complex inter-relations among categories of ecosystem services means that there are often trade-offs in the supply of different services in a particular location. For example, increased flood propensity and reduced water quality often are associated with intensification of food production.

What is Ecosystem management?

Ecosystem management can be defined as working with ecosystem functioning to supply defined ecosystem services. The functioning of ecosystems depends on the interactions among core ecosystem processes and the structure of the ecosystem. This section explains what an ecosystem is, what ecosystem services are, and how thinking in terms of ecosystem structure and processes can help management.

In many ways, ecosystem management is a small but significant redirection of management goals and energies. In other ways, ecosystem management is a new perspective or way of thinking about existing management of land and water resources (e.g., farming, forestry, supply of water resources, recreation and tourism, or biodiversity conservation). An ecosystem management perspective helps to achieve these objectives for using land and water resources by including understanding of how the natural environment works or operates as an ecosystem. Understanding the natural world as an ecosystem helps to design management activities that are more likely to produce intended results on a sustainable basis.

Ecosystem management also sees people as not only dependent on ecosystems but also as part of ecosystems. We depend on ecosystems for services such as food and freshwater, we influence them as we harvest products, we alter them through farming and other land uses, and we emit our wastes into the natural world. This section principally addresses the biophysical management of ecosystems. It is crucial to have skills in the social and economic aspects of how we manage and affect the natural environment, but these are not the focus of this section. For situations where communities are part of management of natural resources, the book Sharing Power: Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world (Borrini-Feyerabend, et al., 2004) is recommended as a guide to the social and organizational process and skills required for success.



27

using the Concept of Ecosystem services in managementWhen using the concept of ecosystem services in the management of an area, it is easiest to start with identification of the desired provisioning services, often called economic goods because they are the physical things that can be valued, harvested and consumed or sold. Under conventional land and water resource management approaches, management objectives have often been to maximize production of these physical goods. One way of viewing ecosystem management is to expand the definition of production beyond provisioning services to include the maintenance of regulating and supporting services which underpin provisioning services, and to include consideration of cultural services.

Provisioning services are relatively easy to identify and manage because they are tangible, and identification of their beneficiaries is straightforward. In contrast, an important aspect of many regulating services is that they often function at more coarse scales than local management units. For example, regulation of water flows predominantly occurs at a catchment scale; regulation of climate functioning is at regional to global scales. The beneficiaries of regulating services are consequently harder to define and it is more difficult to directly include them in management decisions. Similarly, cultural ecosystem services benefit not only the people physically present on or near a land or water area, but also people who value these areas just because they know that they exist even if they never visit them. This latter component is intrinsic or existence value.

Inclusion of regulating ecosystem processes in management planning naturally leads to thinking in terms of the functioning of the landscape as an ecosystem. A basic understanding of the four core ecosystem processes provides the key to including ecosystem functioning in management. These processes are similar to the supporting services in the MA classification in that they are necessary for production of all other ecosystem services.

Ecosystem Functioning: Core processes and structure for the supply of services

EcosystemProcesses

The functioning of ecosystems, that is, how they work or operate as an ecological system, can be understood in terms of four core ecosystem processes and how these interact with the structure of the ecosystem and landscape. Management for specific ecosystem services needs to consider both the necessary ecosystem structure and the functioning of ecosystem processes to supply those services. Thinking of, and seeing the natural world in this way is central to an ecosystem approach to management.



28

The four core ecosystem processes that are part of the functioning of ecosystems at all scales are:

• Water cycling• Mineral cycling• Solar energy flow • Biological growth

Water Cycling

Figure 2: Water Cycling

Water is essential for life and is cycled through living organisms and ecosystems, as well as at the landscape- to continental-scale of evaporation from the oceans, cloud formation, rainfall and rivers (i.e., the water cycle). In ecosystem management, we are concerned with how to influence the water cycle at scales ranging from plants in a farmer’s field to catchments and river basins. Management can affect the time water is available in the soil for the growth of plants and all life, and whether rainfall flows into rivers, underground aquifers or evaporates back into the air.

Figure 2 illustrates the different pathways through which water may flow in a terrestrial ecosystem. The physical structure of the ecosystem, especially the vegetation, can greatly influence how much water flows through each of these pathways. If there are few plants and large areas of bare soil, rainfall is likely to quickly run off the surface into rivers and lakes or evaporate back into the atmosphere. If the soil is covered with vegetation, rainfall is more likely to soak into the soil and be retained, sustaining plant growth and organic decomposition (mineral cycling). A fundamental consideration in ecosystem management is determination of the extent of bare soil or vegetation cover required for the desired water cycling.

A common myth is that more trees on a landscape means more water delivered downstream. That is highly contextual; it is correct in some settings but clearly untrue in others. If the vegetation does include trees, their roots will aid deeper soil penetration of rainfall and increase transpiration back to the atmosphere. The size and types of trees can have a very significant influence on the rates of water flow to underground aquifers and resultant springs and river flow. In some climates, ecosystem management may aim to remove trees to increase groundwater flows, but consideration should also be made of the potential significance of cloud formation at the regional scale due to transpiration by

Evaporation from water surfaces

Runoff to rivers, lakes, and sea

Retention in soil

Rainfall

Underground flow to springs, rivers, seas

Transpiration

Penetration to deeper crevices and underground water reservoirs




29

trees. Ecosystem management of water cycling will need to consider the desired proportions of water from rainfall to flow through plants for ecosystem services based on plant growth (e.g., crops, livestock, timber, landscape values), as well as the volumes and timing of water flow for direct provision of freshwater and the regulation of flow to rivers, wetlands, aquifers and the atmosphere.

mineral Cycling

Figure 3: mineral CyclingMinerals such as carbon and nitrogen are cycled to and from the physical environment by living organisms, with the amounts and rates of cycling dependent on ecosystem attributes (e.g., composition, structure, food web). Similarly, water is essential for life and is cycled through living organisms and ecosystems. Change in the functioning of any one of these core ecosystem processes is accompanied by a change in the functioning of the others; they are interlinked aspects of the same system.

At the heart of the mineral cycle in an ecosystem is a covered and biologically-active soil. If the ecosystem structure is very simple, as in the right-hand side of Figure 3, the volumes and rates of mineral cycling are low. With low numbers and variety of plants, consequently few animals, and large areas of bare soil, plants cycle few minerals from below-ground to capture and convert the sun’s energy into food above-ground. There is also little plant or animal growth and so little dead organic matter upon which soil decomposers live and form soil.

In the left-hand side of Figure 3, ecosystem structure and the process of mineral cycling are much more complex. The soil is covered by vegetation, which encourages conditions for organic decomposition, and deep-rooted trees bring minerals to the surface. The rate of mineral cycling also is increased by large herbivores such as native grazers and cattle, as well as less-visible insects and other small animals. Herbivores greatly increase the rates of organic decomposition and liberation of minerals for plant and soil growth through their digestion and defecation of plant matter and their physical trampling of dead and living vegetation.

The ecosystem processes of mineral and water cycling are very closely linked. In the right-hand side of Figure 3, the mineral cycle can be described as open, because minerals are being lost when it rains and water erodes the bare soil or leaches minerals from the soil as it infiltrates. A sign of an open and poorly functioning mineral cycle in a catchment is river water coloured brown by eroded soil

Atmospheric Carbon and Nitrogen




30

after rainfall. In the left-hand side of Figure 3, the mineral cycle is more closed, as minerals tend to accumulate locally and water run-off after rainfall is likely to be relatively slow and low in minerals.

solar Energy Flow

Almost all ecosystems are fuelled by energy captured by plants from the sun via photosynthesis. This energy flows through food webs, from plants to herbivores and omnivores and to carnivores and finally to decomposers, with the amount of energy decreasing at each level (Figure 4). Thus, solar energy doesn’t cycle, but flows through the ecosystem.

Roughly 90 per cent of the available energy is lost in conversion from one level of the food web to the next, so the energy pyramid depicted above is actually much flatter than shown. The energy pyramid also extends below ground, where the biological community in the soil requires that energy in the form of organic material be conveyed underground through plant roots or surface-feeding worms, termites, dung beetles, and others.

When managing land and water resources for particular ecosystem services, being able to think in terms of solar energy flow is important for several reasons. All provisioning services except freshwater supply are the product of living organisms. The production and biomass of these organisms depends directly on the amount of solar energy they can obtain. For the production of crop plants and trees, the application of ecosystem management can be seen as modifying ecosystem structure and processes to provide conditions for their growth. Similarly, production of domestic or wild animals depends on the amount of energy (food) available for them and the ecosystem structure to provide this food.

Seeing agriculture in terms of managing the capture and flow of solar energy helps us choose management options. Increases in the capture of solar energy by crops can be achieved by increasing the area planted, their growth rate, and the period of favourable conditions for their growth. Agricultural and other land management practices can favour all of these increases, many of which can be achieved by improving the functioning of the water and mineral cycles for plant growth.

Land management for water-based ecosystem services needs to determine the necessary ecosystem structure to promote the desired water service, which will center on the degree of soil cover and the types and structure of the vegetation. The desired vegetation will require a certain functioning

Figure 4: solar Energy Flow

6

5

4

3

2

1

sun

Plant life on land and in Water

Fish, Birds, Insects, Reptiles, and mammals, Including humans

Predators, Including humans

Further Predators, Including humans

scavengers / DecayEnergy lo

ss as heat

Decay




31

of the mineral cycle, including organic decomposition for soil formation, which in turn depends on the availability of solar energy being captured in the form of plant and animal matter for the soil community. Thus, the availability of solar energy transmitted by plants and animals to the soil community should be considered as part of management of water flows and quality.

Biological growth

The concept of biological growth as an ecosystem process describes the tendency of ecological systems to increase their biomass and complexity over time. Over even just one growing season, the amount of solar energy captured (and organic matter produced) in a location will increase, as will the diversity of organisms and complexity of interactions among them and their environment. Obviously, the longer or more constant and favourable the conditions are for biological growth, the greater will become biomass and ecological complexity. That is demonstrated, for example, by the size of the trees and the diversity of species and ecological interactions in the constant growth environment of a tropical rainforest, compared to a temperate zone seasonal forest.

Biological growth at the scale of an ecosystem depends on the growth of individual organisms and populations of species. From the perspective of ecosystem management, managers for provisioning ecosystem services seek to promote the growth of valued species, whether domesticated plants and animals or wild species. Managers may also be working with ecosystem-scale of biological growth to encourage growth of soil, vegetation and animal communities for regulating and cultural ecosystem services such as flood mitigation and landscape values. Similarly, decomposition of accumulated organic matter is a core ecosystem process that must be optimized.

Biological growth can also be seen as the more complex process of ecological succession. This is the process that occurs after an ecosystem has been simplified by a disturbance, such as a storm or human intervention like plowing land for crops. Ecological succession describes the subsequent stages of increasing ecosystem structural complexity, diversity and biomass from initial disturbance until some limit to growth is reached. An example of ecological succession is the reforestation of abandoned farmland in a humid forest environment. Farmers have long used this process when they leave a farmed area fallow to recover soil fertility.

In many settings, biological growth responds to management in unintended ways. For example, overgrazing in South Africa or the Intermountain U.S. reduces vegetative cover, exposing soils. Those soils are subject to erosion, which causes negative downstream impacts and depletes the soil. However, those exposed soils also are readily colonized by invasive plants such (e.g., sicklebush in Africa). These very aggressive plants prevent native grasses from colonizing, offer very poor wildlife habitat and food, and are very resistant to control (The Safari Guide).



32

the Four Core Ecosystem Processes Are Aspects of the same systemWhile each of the four core ecosystem processes can be considered individually, they are completely interlinked, so change in the functioning of any one of them automatically means change in the functioning of the others. They are just different aspects of the same system. For example, an increase in the plant growth in an area means a change in water and mineral cycles as the plants take more water and minerals from the soil. The increased plant growth will mean that more solar energy is captured and available to herbivores, predators and decomposers, which in turn results in changes in the mineral cycle and the further growth of plants. Ecosystem management always needs to consider the desired of functioning of all four core ecosystem processes. They can be thought of as four different windows or perspectives on the same ecosystem.

EcosystemStructureWhen thinking of the natural world in terms of ecological systems, there are two complementary aspects of the term system: the processes that occur in the system and the structure of the system. The structure is what is physically seen and can be directly altered by management; the structure determines the functioning of the processes. For the purposes of ecosystem management, especially in freshwater systems, the most useful types of ecosystem structure from the perspective of management are

• Structure of the food web • Physical structure of vegetation layers • Soil coverage• Water bodies • Decomposition of organic matter• Spatial configuration of species

Climate, topography and soil types are also major determinants of ecosystem structure and processes, but these are less amenable to management actions.

It is beyond the scope of this guidance to give details of how ecosystem structure can be categorized and managed in all environments. However, the following are examples of basic questions that can be addressed in most situations, through a combination of local knowledge and objective data collection:

StructureoftheFoodWeb

• Is there sufficient plant growth to sustain the desired crop and animal species and also provide energy for the biological soil community?

• Are the populations and movements of herbivores sufficient for the desired functioning of the mineral cycle and to maintain the vegetative cover and structure as desired?

• Are the populations of predators sufficient to limit population outbreaks of pest species?



33

PhysicalStructureofVegetationLayers• Does the desired functioning of the mineral and water cycles require ground level

vegetation and/or bushes and trees, considering their root systems and water requirements, and the conditions for biological decomposition at soil level?

• What are the vegetation structure requirements of the desired populations of wild herbivores, predators, pollinators and seed dispersers?

• How might we optimize basal vegetation structure, and/or overall vegetative structure?

SoilStructure• Does the desired functioning of the mineral and water cycles require the entire soil surface

to be covered by vegetation? • Does the soil need to be more or less porous to rainfall and air? • Does the soil need to contain more organic matter for the desired plant community and soil

formation?

WaterBodies• Is surface water needed for the desired species and landscape ecosystem services?• How does the local water cycle and the level of the water table or underground aquifer

need to be managed to ensure sustainability of the desired ecosystem services and water bodies?

• How does precipitation vary throughout the catchment and the year? Are there rainwater harvesting practices that are important to water management?

• Storage of precipitation is a critical function of soils in an ecosystem; those waters are made available through plant uptake, springs and groundwater recharge. How is that considered in management?

SpatialConfigurationofSpecies• If crop species are grown as monocultures or multiple species together, will this permit the

necessary functioning of the mineral and water cycles, including the requirements of the biological soil community?

• How are trees needed in the landscape, considering the mineral and water cycles and desired cultural and other ecosystem services?

While ecosystem structure does determine the functioning of ecosystem processes, this relationship is not a fixed or linear one because we are working with living organisms and systems which have great complexity, growth and adaptation as a result of evolution. As the ecosystem processes change, they also change ecosystem structure. For example, increasing retention of water and minerals in a locality due to increased vegetation cover may result in conditions that favour the growth of trees or the expansion of a wetland area.



34

Ecosystem management requires paying attention to the functioning of the four core ecosystem processes and the necessary ecosystem and landscape structure for their desired functioning, as required to deliver the desired ecosystem services. The goals and actions for this will always be location-specific. They will require managers to use local, traditional and scientific knowledge to determine the necessary ecosystem functioning and structure, considering climate, soil types and topography. To help understand the local environment as an ecosystem, it is instructive to consider how the ecosystem processes and structure were before aggressive human use began (approximately the time of the Industrial Revolution in many places of the world), and the subsequent response of the ecosystem to changes humans imposed.

Ecosystem Resilience and transformation Risk

Another valuable result of thinking of the natural world as an ecological system is that systems can have properties or behaviours that only occur because of the combination of all the components of the system. One such emergent property is the degree of resilience the system has to absorb pressures or stresses without significantly altering its structure and functioning. For example, pollutants may accumulate to a specific, threshold level, beyond which the populations of some plants or animals collapse, with the resulting changes in mineral cycling and solar energy flow lead to a major reorganization of the ecosystem and changes in its properties.

The resilience of an ecosystem can be estimated in terms of the risk of its transformation to an undesirable state. The transformation risk for each ecosystem process might be assessed under current management practices and the practices necessary to deliver the desired ecosystem services. Possible example of this could be:

• What is the minimum level of minerals and moisture required in the soil for the growth of desired trees or grass, or flows to aquifers? What is the risk that we will transform the ecosystem in such a way that mineral and water cycling become constraints on ecosystem function?

• What nutrient levels in a lake or river result in populations of algae and plankton that threaten ecosystem services (i.e., the system undergoes eutrophication)? What is the risk of such a transformation occurring under different management options?

• At what percentage of bare ground in a catchment does the erosion of minerals and soil result in unacceptable deterioration in water quality for industry or domestic use? What is the risk of different management practices resulting in such a threshold percentage of bare soil?

The Murray Darling Basin in Australia provides an example of water mismanagement in ways that have had tragic consequences for humans and for the ecosystem (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2008). Over a period of 50 years, waters were diverted for irrigation, irrigated crops were planted in inappropriate areas and invasive species were introduced for intended human gain. The waters have become saline, often to the point of being unusable for most human benefit. The land is denuded in many areas (White, 1997).



35

notes on module 4



36

Day 2: thinking like an Ecosystem

Day 2 at a glance• We now have a series of three to five conceptual models developed by groups in the

workshop. The facilitators will offer a synthetic model that combines those and serves as a common model we will use for the rest of the workshop. We will explore and refine our conceptual models during today’s visit to a local catchment. We will discuss the relationships among all original group-models, showing how various groups each took a distinct path, but there are similarities, allowing us to come to a common ground.

module 5: A Conceptual Framework for understanding Ecosystem state and Impact8:00–9:30

module 5 at a glanceAs we change some attributes and flows, there is a concomitant change in others. We can use the Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework to express those changes

learning objectives for module 5• Understand the concept of the DPSIR as a conceptual framework to map complex cause-

effect linkages• Learn how to apply the framework to identify causal inter-linkages among elements of an

ecosystem, and be ready to apply that to the local catchment in the afternoon field trip

overview of the DPsIR Framework

To intervene in ecosystems in the interest of achieving certain management goals and objectives, we must understand the ecosystem’s state and trends, what forces affect them, and the impacts of ecosystem change. Because no two ecosystems are the same, the specifics of an analysis will differ case-by-case. However, similarities among ecosystems in terms of structure, function and dynamics allow us to use general frameworks to guide analysis.

The DPSIR framework has been developed over the last 30 years to analyze the dynamic interaction of human society and the environment. In this module, you will learn about the first four elements of the framework (i.e., Driving forces, Pressures, State, and Impact) of the framework. The Response component of the framework will be introduced in later modules in more detail, and there we refer back to these first four components.

The underlying idea of the DPSIR framework is that the state of the environment or of an ecosystems is the combined result of natural and anthropogenic forces of change, collectively called Pressures. Natural forces include those that occur largely without human intervention, such as volcanic eruptions



37

or background erosion. Anthropogenic pressures include human activities that lead directly to changes in ecosystem conditions. Anthropogenic pressures are typically but not exclusively thought of as negative influences (e.g., emission of a pollutant into a river system).

Drivers or driving forces refer to broader forces of societal change that set the stage for those anthropogenic pressures. Typical examples include demographic change or changes in consumption preferences that create the conditions for polluting activities.

Human well-being is very closely coupled with the ability of ecosystems to provide goods and services. Due to that linkage, the DPSIR framework helps identify Impacts. These include both impacts on human well-being and impacts on the ability of ecosystems to provide services.

(Source: Pintér et al., 2007)Figure 5 shows a simple representation of the DPSIR components of the framework and their connections. Of course, these connections are anything but simple. Environmental state and trends are usually the net result of multiple, interacting forces of change. In any given ecosystem, there are also

humAn soCIEIty

imPacts

EnVIRonmEnt

DRIVERs

PREssuREs

stAtE & tREnDs

Direct influence through human interventionsSectors

Human influences

Natural processes

Indirect influence through human development

Water, land, atmosphere, biodiversity

Human well-being

Economic Social Goods & Services

Ecosystem Services

step 2

step 2

step 1

step 1

step 1

What is happening to the environment and why?

What are the consequences for the environment and humanity?

step 1

Figure 5: the Four Components of the DPsIR model of Ecosystem state and Function



38

many different subsystems and associated variables (e.g., the hydrological regime, soil, biodiversity) that define overall ecosystem conditions. It is also clear that changes in one ecosystem condition can result in cascading sets of impacts. For example, changes in the hydrologic cycle can have implications for agriculture, hydropower production, public health, municipal infrastructure, and others.

While recognizing simple cause-effect relationships is important, ecosystem management must take into account the full complexity of these relationships as they play out on the landscape over time. A DPSIR analysis focused on a given ecosystem will identify different relationships. For example, a DPSIR analysis may depend on whether the focus of the analysis is on water, air, soil or some other environmental issue. Yet, from the point of view of the entire ecosystem, it is important to consider each issue singly and identify its interconnections with other issues.

Additional considerations arise from the fact that local ecosystems are embedded in regional and global realities. For example, the success of given wetland restoration will be affected by upstream water supply or the stability of the underground aquifer. At a more coarse scale, successful restoration ultimately will be affected by changes in the long-term pattern of drought, wet cycles and other elements of climate. Global and regional trends and processes provide the context and often directly influence the direction and rate of change in local ecosystems (Figure 6).

Figure 6: linkages Among landscape units at Various spatial scales

(Source: Pintér et al., 2007)

The next sections provide an overview of the use of the DPSIR framework to help us answer the following questions:

• What is happening to our ecosystem and why?• What are the consequences for the ecosystem and for human society?

Addressing these questions can be guided by principles focused on sustainability assessment, such as the BellagioSTAMP (i.e., Sustainability Assessment and Measurement Principles) (Box 1).



39

Box 1: BellagiostAmP – Principles for sustainability Assessment and measurement1. guiding vision: Assessing progress towards sustainable development is guided by the goal

to deliver well-being within the capacity of the biosphere to sustain well-being for future generations

2. sustainability assessments consider• The underlying social, economic and environmental system as a whole, and the interactions

among its components• The adequacy of governance mechanisms• Risks, uncertainties and activities that can have an impact across boundaries• Implications for decision making, including trade-offs and synergies3. Adequate scope

Sustainability assessments adopt• An appropriate time horizon to capture both short- and long-term effects of current policy

decisions and human activity• An appropriate geographic scope ranging from local to global4. Framework and indicators

Sustainability assessments are based on• A conceptual framework that identifies the domains that core indicators have to cover • The most recent and reliable data, projections and models to infer trends and build

scenarios• Standardized measurement methods, wherever possible, in the interest of comparability• Comparison of indicator values with targets and benchmarks, where possible5. transparency

The assessment process toward sustainable development• Ensures that the data, indicators and results of the assessment are accessible to the public• Explains the choices, assumptions and uncertainties determining the results of the

assessment• Discloses data sources and methods• Discloses all sources of funding and potential conflicts6. Effective communication

In the interests of effective communication, to attract the broadest possible audience and to minimize the risk of misuse, sustainability assessments

• Use clear and plain language • Present information in a fair and objective way that helps build trust• Use innovative visual tools and graphics to aid interpretation and tell a story• Make data available in as much detail as is reliable and practical



40

7. Broad participationTo strengthen their legitimacy and relevance, sustainability assessments should

• Find appropriate ways to reflect the views of the public, while providing active leadership • Engage early on with users of the assessment so it best fits their needs8. Continuity and capacity

Assessments of progress towards sustainable development require• Repeated measurement • Responsiveness to change• Investment to develop and maintain adequate capacity• Continuous learning and improvement

source: http://www.iisd.org/measure/principles/progress/bellagiostamp/principles.asp

What Is happening to the Ecosystem and Why? Successful management requires that we begin by understanding the current state and dynamics of the ecosystem and the conditions that led to the present situation. Answering these questions is the starting point of the DPSIR analysis and should involve addressing the following sub-questions:

• What are the priority issues and concerns in the ecosystem?• What are the specific states or conditions beyond the priority ecosystem condition

identified and how have those states and conditions changed over time?• What are the key pressures and drivers that contributed to the specific changes identified?

What Are the Priority Issues and Concerns in the Ecosystem?

Given the complexity of ecosystems, at any given time, a very large number of issues require the interest of an ecosystem manager. However, without losing a whole-ecosystem perspective, it helps to identify priorities and establish focus that can guide both analysis and management.

Because the variance in size, socioeconomic context and other surrounding factors of ecosystems generates large differences among them, the mix of priority issues tends to differ from place to place. Priorities may also change over time, as a result of new ecosystem dynamics, new social priorities or new scientific insights. Therefore, periodic review is essential.

Nevertheless, as described in the previous modules, ecosystems have many common features that can serve as a starting point for priority issue identification. Another possible starting point could be social and managerial priorities already identified for the ecosystem in question or in other, similar ecosystems. Table 2 offers examples of prioritized environmental issues from Fiji and Papua-New Guinea, two island states from the same region which have very different priorities.



41

table 2: Examples of Priority Environmental Issues From the Asia-Pacific region

three categories of primary and secondary environmental concerns in Fiji (sPREP, 2004a)marine and freshwater quality

• Excessive nutrient loading and sedimentation in rivers and coastal waters due to poor land use practiceso Marine pollution from sewage and

industrial effluents

habitat and community modification and degradation

• Loss of marine habitats and disruption of coastal processes caused by coastal developmentso Land and coastal-based pollution–poor

disposal of liquid and solid wasteunsustainable use of living marine resources

• Over-exploitation of marine resources and inadequate means to monitor over fishingo Use of destructive fishing practices

Priority environmental concerns in Papua new guinea (sPREP, 2004b)1. Declining water quality in rivers and coastal

waters2. I ncreasing environmental risks from hazardous

materials and wastes3. Inadequate or unsatisfactory water supplies4. Loss of critical habitats and biodiversity5. Declining coastal and marine resources

6. Increasing land degradation7. Disturbed or unpredictable hydrological

regimes8. Climate change9. Air pollution10. Noise pollution

Water, land, atmosphere and biodiversity are some of the overall natural ecosystem categories within which more specific issues can be identified. The point is to start by seeking agreement on a broad thematic framework, followed by identification of specific priorities, using language that is familiar to ecosystem users or stakeholders in a given place.

table 3: Priority issues can be identified based on a range of criteria:

SMART, that is, they are . . . Relevant to stakeholdersspecific Significant impact on human well-beingmeasurable Associated with changing dynamicsattainable Associated with new scientific insightsrealistic Address potential future risktimely Proximal to critical thresholds

The mechanics of prioritization are a critical part of the process (i.e., Who is able to participate and in what role?, How are priorities listed and then how are long lists of issues narrowed down to a manageable few?). There is no golden rule about the number of priority issues a DPSIR analysis can tackle; it depends on the type and condition of the ecosystem, the number and type of participants, and the capacity of the institutions coordinating the analysis. In a new assessment, 15–20 priority issues may be as many as the process can credibly handle, but this number may be lower if managers explicitly adopt a gradual learning-by-doing approach where initially only a few ecosystem domains are covered.



42

What Are the specific States or Conditions Beyond the Priority Ecosystem Issues Identified and how Did these states and Conditions Change over time?With the identification of a concise set of priority issues and concerns, the focus of the DPSIR analysis has been established. Because issues or concerns are often expressed using popular terminology, their relationship with specific ecosystem conditions needs to be established. These ecosystem conditions need to be defined precisely enough that in a subsequent step, you can select clear indicators that describe their current state and development over time. Examples for connecting ecosystem states to issues and overall themes are shown in Table 4.

table 4: Illustration of Ecosystem states Derived From general ConcernsTheme Issue Ecosystem state examplesWater Water shortage Groundwater level

Recharge rateAlgal blooms Concentration of relevant nutrients

Biological oxygen demandTurbidity

Land Soil degradation Risk of soil erosionSoil organic matter content

Urbanization Land that is built overBiodiversity Loss of natural habitat Size of protected areas

Invasive species Number of significant invasivesArea affected by specific invasives

To understand how these ecosystem states change over space and time, you will need to identify specific indicators. Indicators represent a measurable description of a specific ecosystem condition and they can serve as instruments to diagnose problems or measure the effects of management action. Indicator selection is usually a separate sub-process involving, or at least consulting technical experts or literature on how relevant environmental variables can be measured. Indicators often rely on data that already exist or can be gathered given existing technical, scientific and capacity constraints.

Typically, indicator selection is guided by indicator criteria. There are many potential indicator criteria; some of the more common indicators are:

• Developed within an accepted conceptual framework• Clearly defined and easy to understand• Subject to aggregation• Objective• Developed with reasonable data requirements• Relevant to users• Limited in number• Reflective of causes, processes or results



43

Box 2: selected Examples for Ecosystem state Indicators for north America’s great lakes2

Category: Coastal zone and aquatic habitats Issue: Naturalness of riparian habitatIndicator: Percentage of hardened shorelineAnalysis: Shoreline hardening refers to lake shoreline that has been artificially developed and lost its character and most of its function as natural habitat. The process may be irreversible on regular human time scales.

Category: Invasive speciesIssue: Presence and damage caused by non-native speciesIndicator: Cumulative number of aquatic non-native speciesAnalysis: The number of non-native species in the Great Lakes is steadily increasing. About 10 per cent of the non-native species can be considered invasive (i.e., has the potential to cause significant damage to ecosystems or human systems).

Exercise

Imagine that you are manager of a catchment. Your stakeholders have commissioned you to sustain delivery of several ecosystem services. Use the following table to indicate how you will know if stakeholder needs have been met:

Ecological service Indicator measurementDrinking water

Flood avoidance

Adequate water for irrigation

Avoidance of downstream nutrient impactsAvoidance of downstream sedimentationHigh aquatic biodiversity

2 Source: EPA and Environment Canada (2009)



44

What Are the key Pressuresand Driversthat Contributed to the specific Changes Identified?Once changes in ecosystem states and conditions are documented, the next task in the DPSIR framework is to analyze the causes of change. Ecosystems are affected by multiple forces of change, some natural, but others increasingly anthropogenic. As a result of global change, including climate change, the role of human activities as compared with natural forces in determining ecosystem conditions is increasing.

With regard to anthropogenic forces, the DPSIR framework differentiates between drivers and pressures. Pressures are more easily identified, as they have a direct relationship with changes in ecosystem conditions. For example, changes in certain water quality variables may be associated with point or nonpoint source emissions or land-use change. Even after pressures are identified, there is still considerable complexity because there usually is more than one pressure contributing to a specific change. The source of pressures may be geographically distant (e.g., acid rain) or may build up over time (e.g., bioaccumulation of toxicants). They may also originate from different sectors (e.g., agriculture, industry, the municipal sector)

Drivers represent broad societal processes that create the conditions for the development of human societies in a particular direction. Drivers typically change more slowly and their effects on ecosystem conditions are indirect.

Similar to ecosystem state and condition, drivers and pressures can be analyzed with the help of indicators. Whereas state indicators relate to the change of a particular ecosystem variable, driving force or pressure indicators measure changes in processes and activities that contribute to such changes. Table 5 shows examples of typical drivers and pressures.

table 5: Exemplary Drivers and Pressures, taken from gEo 4DRIVERS• Consumption and production patterns• Demographics• Science and technological innovation• Economic demand, markets and trade• Institutional and sociopolitical frameworks

• Distribution patternsPRESSURESSectors

• Agriculture, fisheries and forestry• Transport and housing• Finance and trade• Energy and industry• Security and defence• Science and education• Culture

Human influence• Pollution• Land use• Resource extraction• Modification and movement of

organisms



45

What Are the Consequences for Ecosystems and humanity?As shown on the DPSIR diagram (Figure 5), ecosystem changes impact human well-being and ecosystem conditions. Some impacts affect human well-being directly (e.g., new pathogens extending their range as a result of climate change), while others concern the ability of ecosystem’s capacity to provide goods and services. Additional examples of impacts that directly affect human well-being may include impacts of ecosystem change on agricultural production or impacts on industrial production and distribution systems.

Impacts on ecosystems may affect their ability to provide goods and services necessary for human well-being. The notion of ecosystem goods and services has been adopted by several high-profile global assessments, such as GEO and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. A general classification of ecosystem goods and services is shown in Table 6.



46

table 6: Examples of ecosystem services from the millennium Ecosystem Assessment



47

Any given change in environmental conditions is a result of multiple driving forces and states. Such changes may lead to multiple, simultaneous impacts. Identifying impacts can benefit from stakeholder input, because various stakeholders experience different impacts, depending on their specific interests and use of ecosystem goods and services.

To bring together the first four elements of the DPSIR framework, we can prepare an impact pathway using any environmental condition as a starting point, identifying multiple pressures and driving forces, and then multiple impacts. The direction and strength of the relationships can be indicated with thick or thin arrows. Such a diagram becomes a useful reference tool to help conceptualize and compare management responses.



48

notes on module 5



49

module 6: state of Ecosystem services and Function10:00–11:30

module 6 at a glanceThe desired state of a catchment or other area under management can be defined in terms of ecosystem services needed for quality of life, income generation and the ecosystem functioning to supply these services.

learning objectives for module 6At the end of the module, the successful participant will

• Be able to identify ecosystem services necessary for the human communities’ quality of life and income generation in their catchment

• Determine the necessary functioning of the ecosystem to deliver the desired services, in terms of ecosystem processes and structure

• Plan and monitor ecosystem management actions with this knowledge

Determining management objectives in terms of Ecosystem services, Processes and structure

We have defined ecosystem management as working with ecosystem functioning to supply defined ecosystem services. This module explains the seven steps for setting management objectives with this perspective (Figure 7). An emerging way to encourage good practices and to share costs and benefits among the stakeholders in the catchment involves harnessing the value and specifying the rewards of ecosystem services. Figure 7 illustrates the process of identifying and evaluating ecosystem services in management.



50

(Source: Author diagram) step 1: What Are societal Priorities for Ecosystem services?

In Step 1, we determine which ecosystem services are necessary to give the quality of life and income for the users, managers of the land or water area, and “off-site” or downstream beneficiaries. The identification of ecosystem services is done in relation to each of the four core ecosystem processes. For each process, we first identify the necessary provisioning and cultural services, and then identify the regulating services that help to maintain them. Ideally, for each service, the desired value and a minimum and maximum acceptable value are determined. It is critical in this step to carefully and explicitly bring in local ecological knowledge, as well as the views of any indigenous and native people who are stakeholders in the catchment. In identifying ecosystem services, we must recognize that ecosystem services may be delivered at spatial and temporal scales that are distinct from our management practice. For example, many catchments are finding that carbon offsets are valuable components of financial planning for an ecosystem. Those benefits are realized at the global scale over decades; practices are conducted at a local scale over years.

An important element in this step is to understand local hydrology. Catchments are hydrologically defined. Understanding where and how water is delivered (e.g., as rainfall), how hydrology changes along the axis of the stream channel and with land use, and how different ecosystems services require different water quantities and qualities is critical to sustaining those services. In that regard, it is important to recognize that the ecosystem itself is a stakeholder here. Environmental flows are those that maintain the functions of the ecosystem (e.g., fish habitat, water for wildlife). The timing and volume of those minimum base flows must be identified and quantified or at least estimated to

step 2

step 3step 4

Figure 7: Flow Diagram of a Pathway for using Ecosystem services to Identify management objectives



51

(Source: Author diagram) step 1: What Are societal Priorities for Ecosystem services?

In Step 1, we determine which ecosystem services are necessary to give the quality of life and income for the users, managers of the land or water area, and “off-site” or downstream beneficiaries. The identification of ecosystem services is done in relation to each of the four core ecosystem processes. For each process, we first identify the necessary provisioning and cultural services, and then identify the regulating services that help to maintain them. Ideally, for each service, the desired value and a minimum and maximum acceptable value are determined. It is critical in this step to carefully and explicitly bring in local ecological knowledge, as well as the views of any indigenous and native people who are stakeholders in the catchment. In identifying ecosystem services, we must recognize that ecosystem services may be delivered at spatial and temporal scales that are distinct from our management practice. For example, many catchments are finding that carbon offsets are valuable components of financial planning for an ecosystem. Those benefits are realized at the global scale over decades; practices are conducted at a local scale over years.

An important element in this step is to understand local hydrology. Catchments are hydrologically defined. Understanding where and how water is delivered (e.g., as rainfall), how hydrology changes along the axis of the stream channel and with land use, and how different ecosystems services require different water quantities and qualities is critical to sustaining those services. In that regard, it is important to recognize that the ecosystem itself is a stakeholder here. Environmental flows are those that maintain the functions of the ecosystem (e.g., fish habitat, water for wildlife). The timing and volume of those minimum base flows must be identified and quantified or at least estimated to

step 2

step 3step 4

ensure sustainability. Ecosystem services are identified in relation to each of the four core ecosystem processes. For each process, Table 7 offers examples of relevant ecosystem services and how they could be measured. The examples are not a checklist, but rather should be used to prompt thinking about what ecosystem services are required and ways the might be measured.

table 7: Exemplary Ecosystem services Related to the Four Core Ecosystem ProcessesExemplary ecosystem services related to the water cycling ecosystem process

Exemplary ecosystem services related to the mineral cycling ecosystem process

Provisioning ecosystem services Provisioning ecosystem servicesWater for crop irrigation, cubic metre (m3) per day for x days

Mineral levels in the soil necessary for food crops, forage for livestock, or tree growth – soil pH, mineral parts per million, % organic matter

Soil water moisture levels for agricultural crop or tree growth, x % humidity for x days

River or lake water turbidity and quality for aquaculture

Water flow from springs or pumped from groundwater for livestock and wildlife drinking at x litres per day for x days

Drinking water quality for x number of people daily, or yearly

River water flow or volume in lake for aquaculture or transport, x m3 per day

Downstream water quality for other users (e.g., industry, domestic, agriculture, HEP)

Drinking water for x number of people daily, or yearly, at x litres per personDownstream water flow and quality for other users (e.g., industry, domestic, agriculture, HEP)Exemplary ecosystem services related to the solar energy flow ecosystem process

Exemplary ecosystem services related to the biological growth ecosystem process

Provisioning ecosystem services Provisioning ecosystem servicesLevels of photosynthesis by food crops, forage for livestock and wildlife, tree growth–biomass increase, kilogram/hectare (kg/ha)

Growth rates and production of food crops, forage for livestock and wildlife, trees, medicinal plants, fish, game species, biomass increase, kg/ha

Levels of sugars and protein in forage for livestock and wildlife, % protein

Availability of prey for wild predators hunted commercially or for recreation

Availability of prey for wild predators valued for hunting, tourism or regulation of prey species

Availability of organisms to ensure the decomposition process



52

Cultural ecosystem services Cultural ecosystem servicesPresence and population size of species and ecological communities valued for spiritual, recreational or educational reasons

Individual and group cultural practices and well-being based on farming, hunting, management and contact with land and water ecosystems and speciesPresence and population size of species and ecological communities valued for spiritual, recreational or educational purposes

Regulating ecosystem services Regulating ecosystem servicesAvailability of food for animals that pollinate and disperse the seeds of crops and wild plants

Availability of food and habitat for animals that pollinate and disperse the seeds of crops and wild plants

Availability of food for predators that reduce populations of agricultural pests and human disease agents

Availability of food and habitat for predators that reduce populations of agricultural pests and human disease agents

Production of plant matter to support soil formation, kg/ha

Production of plant matter and animal wastes to support soil formation, kg/ha.

Global climate regulation through the sequestration of carbon dioxide by vegetation and soils, tonnes of carbon/ha

Global climate regulation through the sequestration of carbon dioxide by vegetation and soils, tonnes of carbon/ha

step 2: What Ecosystem Functions Are needed to Deliver those services?

In Step 2, we determine the functioning of each of the four ecosystem processes necessary to deliver the desired ecosystem services (there will be considerable overlap in the results among processes because the processes are different aspects of the same system). The necessary functioning of each ecosystem process may be different for different ecosystem services. Catchment-specific consideration will also be required to account for variation in climate, topography and soil types. This means that some prioritization and trade-offs among the desired ecosystem services from an area may be necessary. As a result, there may be a compromise in the level of functioning of the ecosystem processes to satisfy a range of ecosystem services. The identification in Step 1 of desired ecosystem services in relation to the ecosystem processes helps to determine the main features of the processes that are required for each land unit or water body being managed.

Water Cycling

The water cycle as an ecosystem process can be described in terms of how much and how fast or slow the water is cycling in the locality for each of the pathways to which rain water could flow (Figure 2, Module 4). These pathways are

• Surface runoff• Surface evaporation, infiltration into the soil• Transpiration from the soil to the atmosphere through plants• Penetration to underground water resources• Rainfall



53

The water cycle can also be described in terms of extent of lakes or wetlands, flow rates and number of days at a given level of flow of streams and rivers, and depth of the water table or aquifers. The incidence of droughts and floods are also important aspects of the water cycle, with their severity greatly influenced by the proportion of bare soil in an area and whether the soil surface is permeable to rainwater infiltration and evaporation. Evidence of soil erosion, such as gullies, also indicates problems in the water cycle.

mineral CyclingThe functioning of the mineral cycle is ideally described in terms of the amounts and rates of cycling, but may often be adequately described through indicators instead. Good indicators of the functioning of the mineral cycle include

• The percentage of ground covered by vegetation and leaf litter• The abundance of decomposers such as fungi and dung beetles• The abundance of herbivores for the conversion of plant matter into dung and urine• Decomposition time of leaf litter and animal dung• Presence of a porous or capped soil surface, and of deep or shallow rooted plant • Turbidity levels of water bodies

The functioning of the mineral cycle in a locality can also be described as open or relatively closed in terms of whether minerals are being lost or maintained on the site. The desired main destinations or sinks of minerals can also be described, such as in the soil, plants, animals, runoff to surface or underground water, or liberation to the atmosphere through fires.

solar Energy FlowThis ecosystem process can be described in terms of the biomass and diversity of species at each level of the food web. For plants, it could also be described by measures such as Leaf Area Index, growth rates and duration of growth, and sugar and protein content of forage for herbivores. The desired biomass and diversity of herbivores and predators should be assessed, both in terms of provisioning and cultural services and their roles in the functioning of the other ecosystem processes. The flow of solar energy below ground also needs to be ensured, and indicators for this could be the depth of the organic soil layer, or estimates of the abundance of soil community invertebrates like earthworms or dung beetles.

Biological growthAt one level, biological growth can be simply categorized in terms of growth rates of populations of valued species, whether domesticated or wild. An estimate of the biomass of each level of the food web is also an important indicator of its functioning. Biological growth in terms of ecological succession



54

can be described in terms of the desired successional stage that a valued species requires, such as recently disturbed bare ground, vegetation regrowth in the first five years after fire, or mature forest. Some species may require a mosaic of such habitats. Valued landscapes and other cultural ecosystem services may be linked to certain stages of ecological succession. The process of biological growth and ecological succession may also be desired for its impact on other ecosystem processes, such as the mineral cycle and soil formation.

step 3: What Ecosystem structure Is needed to support those Functions?

As explained in Module 4, when thinking of the natural world in terms of ecological systems, there are two complementary aspects: the processes that occur in the system and the structure of the system. The structure is what is physically seen and can be directly altered by management. This section introduces ways that ecosystem structure can be described and measured to influence the desired functioning of ecosystem processes. This process should begin by building a description of the food web in terms of the requirements of the decomposers, then the predators, and finally herbivores and plants. Descriptions of the soil structure and vegetation layers should follow.

The descriptions of the functioning of the ecosystem processes in Step 2 will already have produced useful information on the desired ecosystem structure, because the processes are often measured using indicators of physical aspects or structure of the system. A description is produced for the desired ecosystem structure for each of the four ecosystem processes. These descriptions are then reviewed to identify any conflicting descriptions. For example, the presence of trees may be identified for their deep roots and leaf production in the cycling of minerals, but this could conflict with an objective of increased groundwater infiltration because of transpiration by trees. The reconciliation of such potential conflicts will be made in terms of the priorities for the supply of ecosystem services as determined in Step 1.

Food Web structure

The first aspect of ecosystem structure to consider is the food web, because this at the centre of all the ecosystem processes and helps to brings practical ecological thinking to management planning. Whilst a scientific description of an ecosystem food web can be very complex, for the practical purposes of ecosystem management, it is only necessary to make relatively broad descriptions.

The concept of an ecological food web overlaps with the ecosystem process of solar energy flow and with descriptions of the basic categories of plants, herbivores, predators and decomposers sufficient to start management planning. However, writing the descriptions should start with the requirements of each category (or trophic level) in the following order

• Decomposers are fundamental to soil formation and the mineral cycle and are usually overlooked

• Predators; address their role in regulating the populations of desired species and pest species, as well as any cultural ecosystem services identified from the existence of and hunting of predators



55

• Herbivores; include wild and domesticated animals, considering requirements for people to harvest them, their role in grazing and browsing vegetation for desired vegetation growth, landscape values and functioning of the mineral and water cycles, and as prey for predators

• Plants are the foundation of the food web; consider the levels of photosynthesis necessary for crop production, and to provide solar energy for the herbivores, predators and decomposers, as well as the physical role of plants in the water and mineral cycles

For each of these four food web categories, desired ecosystem structure can be described in terms of• Desired total biomass• Key species presence and abundance for the identified ecosystem services (provisioning,

regulating, cultural, supporting)• Spatial distribution and variation• Requirements for biological growth, including water, minerals, food and physical habitat• Physical role in the water and mineral cycles

Vegetative layer structureThe physical structure of the vegetation has a major effect on the functioning of the ecosystem processes and is an aspect of ecosystem structure that can be relatively easily managed.

WaterCycle

Consider desired levels of water in the soil and deeper underground resources, vegetation structure, including

• Grass and herb soil cover and spacing• Root depth and biomass• Shrub layer and cover• Tree layer and cover

MineralCycle

Consider the desired main destinations or sinks of minerals, such as in the soil, plants, animals, runoff to surface or underground water, or liberation to the atmosphere through fires, vegetation structure, including

• Grass and herb soil cover and spacing• Food for herbivores and frugivores at ground, shrub and canopy heights• Physical retention of dead and decaying vegetation from rain and wind erosion• Shrub layer and cover

SolarEnergyFlow

Consider the levels of photosynthesis necessary for crop production, and to provide solar energy for the herbivores, predators and decomposers, including

• Plant biomass and leaf area at each level of ground, shrubs, canopy and below-ground (roots)



56

BiologicalGrowthConsider the growth requirements of valued species, and vegetation growth for desired successional stages:

• Plant biomass and leaf area at each level of ground, shrubs, canopy and below-ground (roots)

SoilStructure The most important aspects of soil structure for ecosystem functioning are

• Whether the surface is bare or covered with vegetation• If the soil surface has formed a hard cap that is resistant to water and air flow• The depth of the organic layer• The soil crumb structure (aggregated soil particles held together with “glue” provided by

decomposing organic matter); the space around each crumb provides room for water and air, which promotes plant growth and organic decomposition

Macro-drivers In all landscapes, there are coarse-scale, natural drivers of pattern. For example, floods drive interaction between the riparian zone and the river channel in most tropical rivers; annual flooding is critical for distribution of sediment, nutrients, energy and propagules. In other landscapes, the driving force might be fire (e.g., Veldt) or grazing (Kjell et al., 2006).

step 4: map the landscape to Identify Ecosystem structures

Step 4 considers the spatial distribution or configuration of vegetation and crops, water bodies, livestock, wildlife, recreation and cultural values, and other resources as part of the necessary ecosystem structure for the desired services. It is not possible to give specific guidance on this step due to the diversity of physical circumstances and required services that can exist. The overall principle that needs to be kept in mind with this step is to be guided by the likely effects of landscape and waterscape structure on the desired functioning of the ecosystem processes. This will obviously require local knowledge. Also, the potential for actually changing the spatial configuration of landscape and waterscape structure will depend greatly on local topography and the resources available. This step may well involve a long-term plan and periodic steps.

step 5: Plan management Actions to Change landscape structures

Step 5 is the stage of planning actions to move toward the desired structure of the ecosystem and landscape. The full range of actions will be determined by the variety of circumstances, desired ecosystem services, and local and scientific knowledge. As stated at the beginning of this module, in some ways ecosystem management is a new perspective or way of thinking for current land and water resource managers (e.g., for farming, forestry, supply of water resources, recreation and tourism, cultural or spiritual values, or biodiversity conservation). An ecosystem management perspective helps achieve these objectives for using land and water resources by including understanding of how the



57

natural environment works or operates as an ecosystem. Existing knowledge and approaches are still valid and used, but with the context and consideration of their effects on ecosystem structure and processes to supply a desired range of ecosystem services. The specific form of management action planning will depend on the circumstances and culture of the managers.

step 6: Evaluate the Risk of Bad landscape transformations From a management Action

Module 4 introduced the concept of ecosystem resilience, the idea of and transformation risk as one way of measuring resilience. Before any planned management actions are implemented, they should be assessed to see if they could increase the risk of transformation of ecosystem functioning to an undesirable state. This first requires identifying possible thresholds for undesirable changes in ecosystem structure and processes. This should be done for each of the ecosystem processes.

Each planned management action should be assessed for the risk of it causing the crossing of such thresholds of ecosystem transformation. If the combination of the probability of such a transformation and the impact of its occurrence are too high, then the management action needs to be changed.

step 7: Design monitoring and Evaluation to Assess Ecosystem service Delivery

Module 17 describes the adaptive management cycle, an essential part of which is monitoring. When practicing management of ecosystem functioning, it must not be assumed that our understanding of ecosystems and their response to management is sufficient to make fixed plans. The complexity and variability of the natural world mean that we must frequently measure progress toward our goals, and make needed adjustments. In some cases, this may require a complete re-planning if our initial assumptions and plans do not produce the intended results.



58

For management of ecosystem functioning, indicators need to be identified for each of the four ecosystem processes to ensure progress and provide early-warning of problems. Selection of monitoring indicators should be done when management actions are being selected. Consideration of how indicators will be measured and reported is an important part of this process. Some examples of potential indicators of ecosystem functioning can be taken from the examples in Module 6.

notes on module 6



59

Mid-term Assessment: What things are going well and what could be improved?11:30–12:00

module 7 Field trip13:00–18:00

module 7 at a glanceWe will visit a local catchment. In small groups, we will explore the catchment, discuss management actions and needs that we can observe, and discuss the conceptual framework useful in guiding management of this catchment. Each group will make changes they feel are appropriate to the conceptual framework. Upon return, groups will share frameworks, focusing on how their group modified the conceptual framework to tailor it to fit the catchment. Sharing frameworks will help individuals identify how they can consider changes that would make the conceptual framework most useful in their home catchment.

learning objectives for module 7• Offer you grounding in a local reality • Develop on-the-ground familiarity with conditions, goals and management actions of a local

catchment• Strengthen your abilities to use this local catchment as a reference in discussion of

principles and cases



60

Post-visit to local catchment • What did you want to know about the catchment?• Did you learn the answers to your questions?• What do you understand about who plays what role in the catchment? Were you able to detect

and interpret gender differences?• Identify at least one change to your group’s conceptual model that resulted from this visit.

notes on module 7



61

Day 3: thinking and Acting like a manager

Day 3 at a glanceDay 3 focuses on decision making, on the ways we make decisions about the resources we have and the ways we allocate management energies. Throughout the day, participants will be engaged in understanding the management cycle, being adaptive, choosing tools and guiding decisions to achieve water resource and ecosystem service outcomes.

module 8: understanding Current Conditions8:00–9:30

module 8 at a glanceAs we consider management actions, we need a starting point. We have to have an initial state, a condition of our catchment and our ecosystem today, so we know what to maintain and what to change.

learning objectives for module 8The successful participant will

• Understand how the ecosystem approach can be applied to real-world conditions • Learn about some of the tools available to help with implementation• Relate these tools to his/her own context • Receive guidance on selecting tools useful for that context• Adapt the lessons learned to his/her practical needs

During the Workshop

The focus of this module is to bring together representatives from the same home catchment to work on developing a thorough understanding of current ecosystems conditions, or the State variable from DPSIR. We use interactive discussion and comparison among catchments to develop this knowledge. There are many resources and toolkits that may be useful as you leave the workshop and continue applying ecosystem management to your catchment. The remainder of the text of this module provides resources to get you started; we also refer to many excellent Internet resources that are available.



62

Information Base for managing Ecosystems

The development of an information base forms a key element to supporting the establishment of legal, economic or outreach instruments for managing ecosystems. Whereas knowledge lies at the centre of any learning process, learning is broader than information. It combines traditional and innovative strategies such as teaching, testing of new ideas or staff exchanges to assist practitioner networks and support professional updating.

The Water And Nature Initiative (WANI) has produced a series of toolkits that is particularly suited for this purpose. It can fulfill both information requirements and capacity needs. The series was developed to support learning on how to mainstream an ecosystem approach in water resource management. Aimed at practitioners, policy-makers and students from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governments and academia, the toolkits are built on practical case studies to show how key principles of sustainable water management are implemented in river basins.

The Global Water Partnership (GWP) Toolbox is an online resource where several tools are presented in a hierarchical manner with each tool embedded in the wider perspective of IWRM. The GWP Toolbox allows water-related professionals to discuss and analyze the various elements of the IWRM process, and facilitates the prioritization of actions aimed at improving water governance and management. It aims to facilitate the engagement of those professionals and specialists with a broader community for the solution to water-related problems.

The problems faced by water managers are many and diverse, as are the political, social and economic conditions, so no blueprint for the application of IWRM can be given. For this reason, the characteristics of each tool in the GWP Toolbox are described in a way that allows the user to select a suitable mix and sequence of tools that would work in a given country, context and situation.

Ecosystem services Are Part of the solution to Water scarcity

A useful toolkit to support learning around this topic is FLOW: The essentials of environmental flows. This guide offers practical advice for implementation of environmental flows in the river basins of the world. It explains how to assess flow requirements, change the legal and financial frameworks as necessary, and involve stakeholders in negotiations. FLOW sets out a path taking the user from conflict over limited water resources and environmental degradation to a water management system that reduces poverty, ensures healthy rivers and shares water equitably.

Various countries are at different stages of recognizing and using environmental flows as a water resources management tool. Therefore, strategies for capacity building in ecosystem management differ by country. As an example, FLOW outlines the strategy for building capacity on environmental flow assessment that has been successful in Tanzania. Within a range of activities, multiple scenarios of basin management and development pathways have been created for consideration by the water authorities and stakeholders of the Pangani River Basin. There, adaptable flow management is proving



63

how ecosystem services can help dealing with water scarcity. Other environmental flows case studies can be found at the FLOW web site.. Methods for evaluating environmental flows also are reviewed and contrasted in Arthingon and Zalucki (1998).

Other resources on the topic of environmental flows include the Global Environmental Flows Network (free registration) and ConserveOnline. More generally, the GWP toolbox provides guidance on understanding water resources and needs in relation to ecosystem assessments. Complementary tools are available for how to manage the water resources knowledge base, evaluate water resources through assessment, use of modeling and Decision Support Systems (DSS), and develop water management indicators. To move from assessment to implementation, development options have to combine resource use and human interaction through planning. It is in this context that integration takes place, cutting across water systems (e.g., river basin plans, groundwater management plans, coastal zone management plans) and disciplines (e.g., risk assessment and management, environmental assessments, social assessments, economic assessments).

Improved Water governance underpins Action

Effective water governance capacity is the foundation of efficient management of water resources. Water governance reform processes must work towards building capacity in a cohesive and articulated approach that links national policies, laws and institutions within an enabling environment that allows for their implementation. RULE: Reforming water governance shows how national water reform processes can deliver good water governance by focussing on the principles and practice of reform. RULE guides managers and decision makers on a journey which provides an overview of what makes good law, policy and institutions, and the steps needed to build a coherent and fully operational water governance structure.

As an example of how improved water governance underpins action, the ecosystem approach to IWRM was incorporated into the strategic vision for inter-institutional coordination of the Tacaná catchment. The Tacaná straddles the Guatemalan–Mexican border; in the catchment, the community initiated a decentralized, communitarian policy arrangement based on local initiatives. The arrangement included participation in cooperative settings with governmental bodies and other stakeholders, an approach that aimed to develop and execute specific goals in the region. This approach has had a profound effect on the development of a new water policy for Guatemala, an approach that incorporates democratization of decision making and the costs and benefits of ecosystem services for poor people.

Developing water policies is the first step in the implementation of an ecosystem approach. Policies set goals for water use, protection and conservation. However, specific knowledge will be required on how to prepare national water resources policy as well as to identify the relationship between other national policies and water resources. Further, as part of the same enabling environment, lessons learned and tools for use in the development of water law will be valuable background for improved regulatory capacity whether those lessons address water rights, legislation for water quality or reform of existing legislation.



64

Additional resources on the topic of governance will have to delve into institutional roles and regulatory instruments. In terms of reformed institutions for better governance, new forms and functions can involve national apex bodies, river basin organizations, regulatory bodies and enforcement agencies, or other service providers in the context of IWRM. Topics within regulatory instruments are defined as ranging from regulations for water quality, water quantity and water services, to land use planning controls and nature protection.

lack of transboundary Coordination Impairs Action

A useful toolkit to support learning around this topic is SHARE: Managing waters across boundaries. This publication provides an overview of the world’s shared water resources and insights for managing these resources. Using case studies from around the world, it describes the benefits to be gained from cooperation and the challenges of constructing legal frameworks, institutions, management processes, financing, and partnership strategies to govern transboundary waters equitably and sustainably.

An example of how support for dialogue and negotiation between States can result in new mechanisms for transboundary cooperation on basin management is the bilateral agreement signed between Burkina Faso and Ghana. In this case, the multistakeholder approach mobilized a partnership among Ministries, decentralized local administration and civil society to form a transboundary water management forum in the Volta River Basin. This led to formalization of a joint technical committee on IWRM as well as commitment to establish a basin authority that involves all six riparian States.

IUCN has published a range of case studies describing how transboundary coordination enables . Another valuable resource on the topic of transboundary governance is the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database maintained by Oregon State University’s Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation.

Investment Decisions support Implementation of an Ecosystem Approach

A useful tool to support learning around this topic is VALUE: Counting ecosystems as water infrastructure. This practical guide explains the most important techniques for the economic valuation of ecosystem services, and how their results are best incorporated in policy and decision making. It explains, step by step, how to generate persuasive arguments for more sustainable and equitable development decisions in water resources management. It shows that investments in nature can be investments that pay back.

As an example, an economic valuation of the Okavango Delta resources was carried out including studies on the wildlife-based tourism industry. New income-generating activities for poor people resulted from combining ecosystem management with enterprise development. Support for innovation in water resources management by local stakeholders created new opportunities for development of small-scale enterprises that build value in communities from sustainable management of freshwater ecosystems.



65

Additional publications, case studies and experience sharing forums on the topic of informed investment decisions can be found with the Nature Valuation and Financing Network (NV&F). The aim of NV&F is to stimulate the development and exchange of practical tools and best practice for the valuation of ecosystem goods and services, so that decisions concerning economic development are made with full awareness and understanding of all the costs and benefits involved.

Financial Incentives support Implementation of an Ecosystem Approach

Payments for watershed services are an emerging innovation in water management. PAY: Establishing payments for watershed services offers a hands-on explanation of the issues that need to be addressed when establishing these payment schemes. It explains what watershed services are and discusses their valuation. It then highlights the technical, financial, legal and social aspects of establishing payments schemes for maintaining or restoring watershed services critical for downstream water security.

Major financing commitments by national governments have followed mobilization of action on restoration and sustainable management of ecosystems. One such example is the Quito Water Protection Fund in Ecuador. To ensure that appropriate measures could be taken to protect highland water resources for long-term natural regeneration, a pool of local utilities and water-intense companies endorsed the constitution of a private trust fund for water conservation. This has shown how payments for watershed services can be included in IWRM planning through an equitable and informed multistakeholder platform.

Financing and incentive structures are an essential part of the enabling environment for implementation of an ecosystem approach. The incentives to meet water needs can stem from investment policies as well as financing options such as grants and internal sources or loans and equity capitals. Other resources on the topic of economic instruments include pollution and environmental charges, water markets and tradable permits and subsidies.

More generally on payments for ecosystem services, the Natural Capital Project is compiling a database of conservation project case studies from around the world and developing new tools to identify which parts of a watershed provide the greatest carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and tourism values. The African Pro-poor Rewards for Environmental Services (PRESA) resource library collects relevant materials on payments for environmental services, including assessment tools, journal articles, and policy briefs. Rewards for Use and shared investment in Pro-poor Environmental Services (RUPES) is a programme dedicated to developing practical environmental service schemes that can be adapted to work in different Asian countries with different circumstances.

Empowerment Enables Participation in Action

Water practitioners are increasingly called upon to negotiate workable agreements about how to best



66

use, manage and care for water resources. NEGOTIATE: Reaching agreements over water makes the case for constructive engagement and cooperative forms of negotiation in dealing with complex water issues. It unpacks constructive approaches such as MultiStakeholder Platforms (MSPs) and Consensus-Building, and focuses on the diversity of agreements which can be produced to regulate or encourage more fair and effective water allocation and use.

New community-led institutions are empowered to make decisions and represent local views and development priorities in higher level forums such as the Mekong Region Waters Dialogues. There, broad participation of multilateral agencies, government, private sector, policy consultants and advisors, members of academia and activists from NGOs has provided for interaction among stakeholders who historically have seldom met to discuss common concerns over water resource use and development in the region. At the local level, villagers also have the opportunity to use indigenous knowledge to conduct participatory research for informing decision making over fish stocks.

Other case studies about empowerment and enabled participation can be found at http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/water/resources/toolkits/negotiate/. One important resource that marginalized people and their allies can use to have a greater positive influence on natural resources policy is IIEED’s Power Tools. This toolkit is comprised of 26 how-to ideas based on experience from around the world, discussion of power tools in theory and practice, related research on policy tools in action, and a directory of many other websites that contain policy tool resources.

Building Consensus legitimatizes Action by Actors

NEGOTIATE: Reaching agreements over water is particularly targeted at water practitioners interested in designing, leading or participating in processes enhancing water resource management and resolving water resource conflicts or disputes. In so doing, the toolkit gives an overview of the skills that water professionals need to build meaningful stakeholder participation to decision-making over water.

When multistakeholder platforms are empowered to reform governance of river basin management, charters and codes of conduct for coordinating and integrating management of negotiated water resources often result in resolution of conflict, sharing of benefits, new investment and restored ecosystem services.

This was the case in the Komadugu Yobe Basin of northwest Nigeria. The broad composition of the IWRM committees in the basin and their involvement in decisions and programmes allowed for a water management agency that represents the interests of all stakeholders including civil society. Through support and re-organization of the Basin Coordinating Committee, transboundary cooperation has also been established at the federal level.

Other resources on the topic of stakeholder participation include tools for creating the appropriate



67

organizational framework for ecosystem management. As an example, building well-functioning water partnerships requires thorough understanding of the role of the private sector, including strengthening of water utilities, as well as of local authorities and civil society institutions such as community-based organizations. Conflict management, shared vision planning and consensus building will also have to be dealt with for conflict resolution and meaningful negotiations.

notes on module 8



68

module 9: thinking like a manager: Beginning the cycle of strategic adaptive management

10:00–12:00

learning objectives for module 9• At the successful completion of this module, an ecosystem manager will have a basic

understanding of the rationale for, and the means to undertake, an integrated approach to the first three stages of strategic and adaptive ecosystem management (i.e., ecosystem assessment, shared visioning, and planning a portfolio of ecosystem initiatives).

Ecosystems Behave like Complex Adaptive systemsImplementing an ecosystem approach in a place-based context necessitates a plan–do–check process that is strategic, analytic, deliberative, and adaptive. Why is such an approach necessary? We simply can’t do everything with limited resources; the inherent complexity demands a synthetic view that is both quantitative and rooted in multiple perspectives; and the inherent uncertainty and dynamics require continuous review, learning and adjustment.

The interaction of human, natural and socioeconomic systems is increasingly being viewed as a complex adaptive system. A complex adaptive system is . . .

. . . made up of many individual, self-organizing elements capable of responding to others and to their environment. The entire system can be seen as a network of relationships and interac-tions, in which the whole is very much more than the sum of the parts. A change in any part of the system, even in a single element, produces reactions and changes in associated elements and the environment. Therefore, the effects of any one intervention in the system cannot be predicted with complete accuracy, because the system is always responding and adapting to changes and the actions of individuals.” (emphasis added) (Glouberman et al., 2003)

Successful intervention in such a system therefore, requires a process that embraces unpredictability, continuous learning and adjustment. Swanson et al . (2009) provide a summary of principles for intervening in complex adaptive systems (Table 8) as compiled from literature across many sectors including natural-resource management, healthcare, information technology, and business management. These principles were compiled from the perspective of public management and policymaking, and point to the level of sophistication that is needed to manage complex adaptive systems (e.g., ecosystems).



69

table 8: Principles for Intervening in Complex Adaptive systems (swanson & Bhadwal, 2009)Policy-making stages

synthesis of Principles for Adaptive Policy-making

Policy setup, understanding the issue and policy objective setting

Conduct integrated and forward-looking analysis (Swanson & Tomar, 2009)• Understand interactions with the natural, built and social environment

(Glouberman et al., 2003; Holling, 1978)• Look for linkages in unusual places (Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001)• Determine significant connections rather than measure everything (Holling,

1978)• Scenario planning helps structure the perceptions of executives about

alternative future settings in which their decisions might play out (Ralston & Wilson, 2006)

use multistakeholder deliberation (Tyler, 2009)• Public discourse and open deliberation are important elements of social

learning and policy adaptation (Steinemann & Norton, 2003)• Build trust, collaboration, consensus, identity, values, and capacity for social

action (Forester, 1999)• Use epistemic communities to inform policy design and implementation (Haas,

1992)• Co-design and learning (Grin et al., 2010)

Policy design and implementation

Promoting Variation (Nair & Roy, 2009)• Promote variation and redundancy (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003; Holling,

1978; Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Glouberman et al., 2003)• Policies should test clearly formulated hypotheses about the behaviour of an

ecosystem being changed by human use (Lee, 1993)• Learning and adaptation of the policy be made explicit at the outset and the

inevitable policy changes become part of a larger, recognized process (Walker & Marchau, 2003)

Enable self-organization and networking (Roy, Nair, & Venema, 2009)• Create opportunity for self-organization and build networks of reciprocal

interaction (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Berkes et al., 2003; Glouberman et al., 2003)

• Ensure that social capital remains intact (Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001)• Promote effective neighborhoods of adaptive cooperation (Axelrod & Cohen,

2000)• Members of the population have to be free and able to interact (Rihani, 2002)• Facilitate copying of successes (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Ruitenbeek & Cartier,

2001)Decentralize decision making (Barg & Tyler, 2009)• Match scales of ecosystems and governance and build cross-scale governance

mechanisms (Berkes et al., 2003)• Clear identification of the appropriate spatial and temporal scale is vital to

integrated management (the ecosystem approach; UNEP, 2000)



70

monitoring and continuous learn-ing and improve-ment

Formalize policy review and continuous improvement (Tomar & Swanson, 2009)• Integral to design are the monitoring and remedial mechanisms—should not

be post ad hoc additions after implementation (Holling, 1978)• Fine-tune the process (Glouberman et al., 2003)• Conduct selection (Glouberman et al., 2003)• Use policy pilots (U.K. Cabinet Office, 2003)• Make use of automatic policy adjustment (Bhadwal et al., 2009)• Policies should be expected to evolve in their implementation (Majone &

Wildavsky, 1978; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999)• Understand carefully the attribution of credit (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000)

Chief among these principles from a management perspective is the importance of promoting variation because “introducing small-scale interventions for the same problem offers greater hope of finding effective solutions.” This principle is based on the appreciation that “many interventions will fail and that such failures are simply a feature of how one develops successful interventions in complex adaptive system.” It is also understood that in complex adaptive systems possible solutions undergo selection by the system; therefore, important aspects include evaluating performance of potential solutions, and selecting the best candidates for further support and development. Indeed, Buzz Holling, one of the fathers of the adaptive management approach, suggests that “integral to design are that the monitoring and remedial mechanisms – should not be ad hoc additions after implementation” (Holling, 1978). This is amplified by another pioneer in adaptive management, Kai Lee, who recommends that policies “should test clearly formulated hypotheses about the behaviour of an ecosystem being changed by human use” (1992).

Understanding the role of variance, of questioning and re-questioning our management is becoming more critical as we become more aware of climate change and its significance. Climate change is a global phenomenon that is affecting every person, every landscape and every resource. We have many predictions that areas of the earth will become wetter or drier, warmer or colder. Because climates are so complex and so variable, showing changes in average condition is very difficult. We do know that the variance will increase before we see statistically significant changes in average condition. We will see increased floods, droughts, hot spells, cold winters, and other extremes. Journalist Tom Friedman has called this phenomenon Global weirding (Friedman, 2010). That pattern puts extra pressure on ecosystem managers to manage adaptively, to set goals, take action, measure frequently, and alter management practices as necessary.

Another set of principles for intervening in complex adaptive systems points to the importance of understanding local conditions, strengths and assets and the interactions with the natural, built and social environment. This is the rationale for beginning any ecosystem management effort with



71

assessment. The key to assessment is obtaining an understanding of current conditions and trends both by respecting history—as complex adaptive systems are shaped by their past (Glouberman et al . 2003), and through a prospective mind—to help make societies more resilient to external shocks and more supple in response to rapid change (Homer-Dixon, 2006).

Finally, the rationale for being strategic in ecosystem management is twofold. First, given the reality of available human and financial resources, it is simply not possible to focus on managing everything. Second, experience with interventions in complex adaptive systems instructs us to determine significant connections rather than measure everything (Holling, 1978), and in doing so, it is important to look for linkages in unusual places.

These principles inform the steps for strategic and adaptive ecosystem management that are outlined in this module, namely

• Ecosystem assessment: Using a conceptual framework of ecosystem goods and services to understand the system—past, present and future—and to identify leverage points for intervention.

• Shared visioning: Deliberating with stakeholders to identify a shared vision of the ultimate outcome of management interventions.

• Portfolio planning: Deliberating with stakeholders and experts to identify and agree on implementation of a variety of ecosystem initiatives that have potential to achieve the ultimate outcome. The portfolio approach embodies the humility of human intervention in complex adaptive systems. We cannot know in advance what will work. It helps us identify co-benefits, situations in which the interest of several stakeholders is advanced by one series of activities.

• Portfolio piloting: Implementing a portfolio of ecosystem initiatives and monitoring key performance indicators is at the heart of adaptive management. We refer to this stage as piloting to emphasize that, in a complex adaptive system, any ecosystem initiative must always be treated as a hypothesis in need of testing.

• Monitoring and assessment: The spirit of a pilot test is review and learning; this appreciates that in complex adaptive systems, it will be the system that determines what works and what does not. The ecosystem manager must first and foremost be a learner.

• Portfolio refinement: The lessons from piloting a variety of ecosystem initiatives will provide the necessary insight or impetus for implementing an improvement in the portfolio. This may include adjustments to a given initiative(s), or the termination of one more initiatives.



72

Ecosystem Assessment

The intent of this first stage of strategic and adaptive ecosystem management is to gain an understanding of the current state and trends of the ecosystem from both a socioeconomic and ecologic perspective. A good guiding motto for the ecosystem manager at this stage is respect the past, understand the present, and explore the future.

It is commonly recognized that complex adaptive systems are shaped by their past. Knowledge and understanding of this history will properly ground the ecosystem manager and provide a vantage point for seeing opportunities for the future. Understanding the present is the reference point for strategic management because it illuminates the issues and provides information to help prioritize the most pressing of these, as well as to identify issues that are resulting in cumulative effects. Exploring the future trends of key issues is also important for prioritizing issues, communicating the urgency of issues, and providing the context within which actions can be tested for their robustness and adaptability.

Thinking like an ecosystem is important at this stage. Module 4 presented a conceptual model of ecosystem goods and services as a foundational tool for ecosystem management. Gaining an appreciation for the goods and services that your ecosystem provides, along with how these services affect the quality of life of people living within the ecosystem is crucial to an integrated assessment of your ecosystem (Figure 9).

shared objectives

stakeholder vision

shared objectives

Figure 8: the strategic and Adaptive Cycle of Ecosystem management

(Source: D. Swanson)



73

(Source: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A framework for assessment. Reproduced with permission of Island Press)

Ecosystem assessment requires more than a conceptual model; it also requires a simplified cause and effect systems map to help the ecosystem manager see the integrated story behind particular issues. The Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework is one such simplified systems map. The DPSIR was introduced in Module 6 and is used by UNEP for global and national reporting on the state of the environment. This analytical framework, summarized again in Figure 10, is most successfully applied in a deliberative and participatory manner, harnessing the multiple perspectives of different stakeholders who have interest in the issue and experts who have knowledge about the issue. Three core questions are addressed by the DPSIR framework, including

• What is happening to the environment and why• What are the consequences for the environment and humanity?• What is being done and how effective is it?

security • Personal Safety • Secure Resource Access • Security From Disasters

Basic material for good life • Adequate Livelihoods • Sufficient Nutritious Food • Shelter • Acess to Goods

Health • Strength • Feeling Well • Access to Clean Air and

water

good social relations • Social Cohesion • Mutual Respect • Ability to Help Others

ECosystEm sERVICEs

supporting • Nutrient Cycling • Soil Formation • Primary Production • ...

Provisioning • Food • Fresh Water • Wood and Fiber • Fuel • ...

Regulating • Climate Regulation • Flood Regulation • Disease Regulation • Water Purification • ...

Cultural • Aesthetic • Spiritual • Eucational • Recreational

ConstItuEnts oF WEll-BEIng

Freedom of choice and action

Opportunity to be able to achieve

what an individual values doing and

being

LIFE ON EARTH - BIODIVERSITY

ARRoW’s ColoR Potential for medication by socioeconomic factors

ARRoW’s WIDth Intensity of linkages between ecosystem services and human well being

Low

Medium

High

Week

Medium

Strong

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Figure 9: Ecosystem services and human Well-being (mA, 2003)



74

(Source: Pintér et al., 2007)

A DPSIR assessment is a useful tool for the ecosystem manager because it can help illuminate the co-benefits among issues. The DPSIR for each of several issues can identify ones that have similar pressures and drivers, impacts and responses. Addressing a single pressure or driver may benefit several environmental states; similarly, the improvement of one environmental state may have benefits for several aspects of well-being. Co-benefits analysis is critical for the next stages of shared visioning and portfolio planning because it helps the manager understand potential joint gains among seemingly disparate stakeholder groups.

Figure 10: Driving forces-Pressure-state-Impact-Response Framework



75

Your facilitators will ask you to complete a co-benefits matrix, using the format below.

table 9: template for a Co-benefits matrix

Drivers, Pressures and Impacts Environmental State issues of concern in the ecosystem

Commonalities and stakeholders (i.e., a common driver or a driver influencing another driver or pressure)

issue #1 issue #2state of the environment

List state or condition for the issues you have identified.

PressuresList the direct pressures on the states you identified above.

DriversList the high-level drivers of change influencing the direct pressures identified above, along with any specific targets that are relevant.

ImpactsArticulate the primary impacts associated with changes in the environmental state. Use the ecosystem services and well-being categories to assist with this analysis.

shared Visioning

If the ecosystem assessment is comprehensive in nature (i.e., not initiated to address a specific issue), an array of pressing ecosystem issues is likely to be identified and in need of attention. How does one proceed given limited financial and human resources? As an ecosystem manager, you will need to prioritize which ones to address first and which will need to be addressed later. That is most effectively achieved through consultation with a stakeholder group that has perceived legitimacy (either an existing council or an informal collection of stakeholders convened for this purpose). The desired outcome at this stage is a shared vision on the ultimate long-term outcomes as they relate one or more issues.

We present here a scenario backcasting approach to enable the ecosystem manager to facilitate a multistakeholder process for articulating a shared vision for the ecosystem and to identify priorities. Backcasting is an analytical and deliberative process for articulating an end-vision and developing a pathway to get from the present to that endpoint. The key questions asked in such a process begin with How could we achieve …? This process differs from a scenario forecasting approach in which alternative plausible What if scenarios of the future are developed with the present day as a starting point, unconstrained by a predetermined end vision.



76

(Source; The Natural Step, 2011, reprinted with permission)

The intent is to deliberate until a shared space is identified where everyone can agree on the ultimate outcome. Kai Lee offered an account of adaptive management in the Columbia River Basin; he describes this process as creating an arena of bounded conflict. One person’s goal may be another person’s strategy. The facilitator helps the group move up the spectrum until shared space vision is found, then conduct trials on the strategies/means for achieving the shared vision.

Involving stakeholders in the ecosystem assessment process as early as possible makes the shared visioning process easier to initiate and undertake: shared knowledge and ownership of the assessment creates trust and gives the ecosystem assessment legitimacy. The ecosystem assessment is the starting point for articulating a shared vision. The identified future states of the environment provide the framework for the shared vision as these are the ultimate long-term outcomes.

With a co-benefits matrix completed for the various environmental state issues of concern in the ecosystem, it is possible for the ecosystem manager to identify key stakeholders and discuss the desired future state of the environment and associated social and economic benefits.

Clarifying the actual desired future states of the environment, or in other words, the target, is the core challenge for the ecosystem manager at this stage. Targets should be SMART—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Setting targets is both art and science. The art is the ability to set achievable and relevant targets and to select from among the different types of targets that can be set for an indicator. The science of target setting ensures that the target is SMART and has a rational basis. Ideally, environmental targets should be science-based and reflect the carrying capacity of the

Figure 11: scenario Back-casting



77

ecosystem. This is not always possible with available time and resources.

Many different types of targets can be used by ecosystem managers to make progress towards ecosystem maintenance or restoration (Table 10). For example, benchmark targets compare against performance in other jurisdictions. Thresholds on the other hand, are scientifically based and reflect a critical value for an environmental state indicator, a value that once reached, can elicit irreversible change in the behaviour of the system. A standard is typically a national or internationally accepted and legally bound level of an environmental state or pressure indicator (e.g., water quality standards, pollutant loading limits). Policy-specific targets are typically determined in political deliberation and are often based on past experience (e.g., official development assistance shall be 0.4 per cent of national GDP).

type of target Example

Benchmark Comparison with a documented best -case performance related to the same variable within anotherentity or jurisdiction. The policy is evaluated based on its impact in a given jurisdiction compared with conditions in the benchmark or reference jurisdiction.

Example:highestpercentageofhouseholdsconnectedtosewagesysteminacomparablejurisdiction

thresholds The value of a key variable that will ellicit a fundamental and irreversible change in the behaviour of the system. The policy is evaluated based on its role in making the system move toward or away from the threshold in any given period.

Example:maximumsustainableyieldofafishery.

Principle A broadly defined and often formally accepted rule. If the definition of the principle does not include a relevant performance measure, the evaluator should seek a mandat e to identify one as part of the evaluation.

Example:thepolicyshouldcontributetotheincreaseofenvironmentalliteracy.

standards Nationally and/or internationally accepted properties for proced ures or environmental qualities. The policy is successful if it helps keep performance within specified limits.

Example:waterqualitystandardsforavarietyofuses.

Policy-specifictargets

Determined in a political and/or technical process taking past p erformance and desirable outcomes into account.

Example: official development assistance shall be 0.4 percent ofnational GNP.

table 10: Benchmark targets



78

table 11: Examples of types of targets

Your facilitators will ask you to use the template below to record the results of your discussion.

issue #1general description

Environmental state variable of focus Current state

Desired Future state

(level and year)key ecosystem services and human well-being aspects supported

Portfolio PlanningYou have a shared space defined by your agreement on the desired future state of the ecosystem variables. This stage focuses on describing potential pathways to the desired future. This stage is portfolio planning, and it underscores the importance of exploring and implementing a variety of ecosystem initiatives that have the potential to achieve the desired future. Variation is a critical part of adaptive management and successful intervention in complex adaptive systems. At this stage in the ecosystem management cycle, not all stakeholders are likely to agree on the pathways to the desired future. The potential long-term socioeconomic impacts of scaled-up versions of the ecosystem initiatives will vary among the stakeholder groups—a situation evident in the Columbia River Basin case study mentioned earlier in this module.

We present an outcome-based management approach as a way for ecosystem managers to describe and track long-term, medium-term and short-term desired outcomes. Consider the outcomes framework depicted in Figure 12. The ultimate long-term outcome is the result of the shared visioning process; that is, the desired future state of the ecosystem variable of focus. An intermediate outcome represents a change in practice or behaviour that directly contributes to the ultimate outcome. Intermediate outcomes are achieved through immediate outcomes which represent an increase in capacity, awareness or access. Immediate outcomes are achieved via specific activities and their direct outputs (i.e., knowledge and services delivered or infrastructure built).



79

(Source: Government of Canada, 2011)

The job of the ecosystem manager is to help stakeholders identify a variety of potential intermediate-level outcomes (changes in practice and behaviour) that could deliver the desired change(s) in the state of the ecosystem. Table 12 presents a case example of outcome-based planning using the Columbia River Basin as the contextual setting. In this case, the ecosystem manager has facilitated a shared vision of salmon restoration and sufficient hydropower generation. Stakeholders have (hypothetically) selected two ecosystem initiatives designed to achieve the ultimate outcome of an increase in the downstream salmon population. The first initiative tests the impact of increased spillway operation; the second initiative tests the impact of improved fish ladder design. The immediate or short-term desired outcome for these two initiatives, if the results prove the hypothesis that they can increase downstream salmon populations, would be manifest as increased awareness among hydropower planners of the feasibility of scaled-up versions of these initiatives to contribute to ecosystem-wide salmon restoration. Each of the two outcome chains is supported by a specific set of activities and outputs designed to test the hypothesis that the disparate efforts can in fact have a positive impact on salmon populations.



(level and year) Key ecosystem services and human well-‐being aspects supported

Portfolio Planning

You have a shared space defined by your agreement on the desired future state of the ecosystem variables. This stage focuses on describing potential pathways to the desired future. This stage is portfolio planning, and it underscores the importance of exploring and implementing a variety of ecosystem initiatives that have the potential to achieve the desired future. Variation is a critical part of adaptive management and successful intervention in complex adaptive systems. At this stage in the ecosystem management cycle, not all stakeholders are likely to agree on the pathways to the desired future. The potential long-‐term socioeconomic impacts of scaled-‐up versions of the ecosystem initiatives will vary among the stakeholder groups—a situation evident in the Columbia River Basin case study mentioned earlier in this module.

We present an outcome-‐based management approach as a way for ecosystem managers to describe and track long-‐term, medium-‐term and short-‐term desired outcomes. Consider the outcomes framework depicted in Figure 12. The ultimate long-‐term outcome is the result of the shared visioning process; that is, the desired future state of the ecosystem variable of focus. An intermediate outcome represents a change in practice or behaviour that directly contributes to the ultimate outcome. Intermediate outcomes are achieved through immediate outcomes which represent an increase in capacity, awareness or access. Immediate outcomes are achieved via specific activities and their direct outputs (i.e., knowledge and services delivered or infrastructure built).

Figure 12: Outcome-‐based Management Framework

Ultimate Outcome

Intermediate Outcomes

Immediate Outcomes

Outputs

Activities

Knowledge generated or services delivered

Actions taken which mobilize inputs to produce outputs

A short-term outcome representing an increase in awareness, capacity or access

A medium-term outcome representing a change of behaviour or practice

A long-term outcome representing a sustainable change of state (environmental, social, economic)

Figure 12: outcome-based management Framework



80

table 12: Example Results Chains for a Portfolio of Ecosystem management Activities for the Adap-tive management of salmon Restoration and hydropower Development.

Results Chain Ecosystem Initiative #1 Spillway Pilot Initiative

Ecosystem Initiative #2 Fish Ladder Pilot Initiative

Ultimate Outcomes (changeinstateofenvironment,society,economy)

Restoration of salmon population and hydropower that can meet demand

KPI: Total salmon populationTarget: 20% above baseline counts within five years

Intermediate Outcomes(new/improved policy or practice)

More frequent spillway operation

KPI: Total spillway operation timeTarget: x hours more per month

Permanent increase in fish ladder capacity

KPI: Salmon count immediately downstream of ladder Target: x% of upstream count

Immediate Outcomes(increased awareness, capacity or access)

Awareness among hydropower policy-makers that increased spillway operation is a feasible means to increase salmon population

KPI: # of hydropower planners and policy-makers attending presentation on results of spillway experimentsTarget: (this target should include the specific names of influential persons identified in the impact strategy)

Awareness among hydropower policy-makers that improved fish ladder technology can increase salmon population

KPI: # of hydropower planners and policy-makers attending presentation on results of fish ladder experimentsTarget: (this target should include the specific names of influential persons identified in the impact strategy)

Outputs(Knowledge generated or services delivered)

Ecosystem initiative results showing the impact of spillway operation on salmon population

KPI: % increase in downstream salmon population.Target: 20%

Ecosystem initiative results showing the impact of fish ladder operation on salmon population

KPI: % increase in downstream salmon population.Target: 20%

Activities(ecosystem management projects)

Ecosystem initiative to test the impact of increased spillway operation on salmon population (including salmon population and stream flow monitoring).

KPI: Progress toward completion of ecosystem experimentTarget: Completed on schedule

Ecosystem initiative to test the impact of improved fish ladder design on salmon population (including salmon population and stream flow monitoring).




81

notes on module 9



82

module 10: human Activities Are Central to Ecosystem management13:30–15:00

module 10 at a glanceMaintaining and changing various characteristics uses the concept of ecosystem service valuation. That requires that we ask valuable to whom? We use stakeholder analysis to ascribe valuation among competing interests

learning objectives for module 10• Understand that there is a wide variety of views involved in management of any catchment• Gain exposure to a series of tools for drawing that range of stakeholders into a discussion

about the catchment

stakeholder Analysis3

Stakeholders are the people and institutions who have an interest, have something to gain or lose from the ways the catchment is managed. A Stakeholder Analysis is the technique used to identify the key people who have to be won over, to be convinced that your efforts will benefit their definition of successful catchment management. By communicating with stakeholders early and often, you can ensure that they know what you are doing and fully understand the benefits of your project; this means they can support you actively when necessary. Recognize, however, that this is locally and culturally contextual. In some catchments, societies and cultures, it is routine and welcome to have open discussion about people’s roles and about motivating people to become more engaged and more supportive. In other settings, such a discussion might violate traditional or expected roles.

Four steps are needed for this exercise. The first step in Stakeholder Analysis is to identify who your stakeholders are. Here, you can use brainstorming. Think of all the people who are affected by your work, who have influence or power over it, or have an interest in its successful or unsuccessful conclusion. Remember that although stakeholders may be both organizations and people, ultimately you can only communicate with individual people. Make sure that you identify the correct individual stakeholders within a stakeholder organization. You might choose to use an Onion Diagram (Figure 13), asking each stakeholder to select the position where he/she thinks she/he stands. An important activity is to disaggregate these stakeholders by gender, age and position to enable you to be as inclusive as possible. In this regard, include consideration of influence held by each individual. For example, management of every catchment is influenced by people at the national government level, and often by people at a major watershed level. However, in some settings, principal decisions are taken at the catchment, sub-watershed level while in others, national priorities and national decision makers might be the people with greatest influence.



83

(Reprinted with permission from TAPUniversity) The next step is to develop a good understanding of the most important stakeholders so that you can consider ways to win their support. You can then record this analysis on a stakeholder map.

You must understand your key stakeholders. You need to know how they are likely to feel about and react to your project. You also need to know how best to engage them in your project and how best to communicate with them. The power/interest grid (Table 13) is a useful tool for such an analysis; identify the location of each principal stakeholder on the grid.

table 13: Power/Interest grid for stakeholder Prioritization

Interestlow high

Power High Keep satisfied Manage closelyLow Monitor

(minimum effort)Keep informed

Figure 13: the onion Diagram for stakeholder Analysis



84

Key questions that can help you understand your stakeholders include:

• What financial or emotional interest does each have in the outcome of your work? Is that interest positive or negative?

• What motivates each stakeholder most of all? • What information does each want from you? • How does that person want to receive information from you? What is the best way of

communicating your message to them? • What is each person’s current opinion of your work? Is it based on good information? • Who influences their opinions generally, and who influences their opinion of you? Do some of these

influencers therefore, become important stakeholders in their own right? • If the opinion of one or more stakeholders is not likely to be positive, what would win them around

to supporting your project? • If you do not think you will be able to win them around, how will you manage their opposition? • Who else might be influenced by their opinions? Do those people become stakeholders in their own

right?

A good way to answer these questions is to talk to your stakeholders directly. Asking people’s opinions is often the first step in building a successful relationship with them. You can summarize the under-standing you have gained on the stakeholder map (Table 14), so that you can easily see which stake-holders are expected to be blockers or critics, and which stakeholders are likely to be advocates and supporters or your project.

table 14: stakeholder map

Identify Current (C ) and Desired (D) position about intervention for each stakeholder classStakeholder name and title

Block Let Help Make Diagnosis of stakeholder position

Recommended action to move the person/group to the desired position

Adapted from work by Fred Nader, NLT



85

The third step in the analysis is to work out power, influence and interest, so you know upon whom you should focus. In this step you have to prioritize your stakeholders. Here you can use tools such as a Power/Interest Grid (Table 13) or the Power, Legitimacy and Urgency Model, classifying stakeholders by their power over your work and by their interest or legitimacy in your work.

Someone’s position on the grid or the diagram shows you the actions you have to take with him/her. For example, in the Power, Legitimacy and Urgency model, stakeholders 1,2 and 3 in the picture are defined as the Latent Stakeholders, stakeholders in position 4,5 and 6 are defined as Expectant Stakeholders and the stakeholders in position 7 are called Definitive Stakeholders.

After you have used this tool and created a stakeholder map, you can use the stakeholder planning tool (Table 15) to plan how you will communicate with each stakeholder.

table 15: stakeholder Planning table

Stakeholder names & roles

Importance (Low, Med, High)

Current level of support (Low, Med, High)

What do you need from this stakeholder?

What is important to this stakeholder?

How could this stakeholder block or impede your goals?

What is your strategy for enhancing support from this stakeholder?



86

An Intimate Debate About stakeholder Involvement

IntroductionStakeholders are the core of our decision making. All successful managers understand that there is a range of stakeholders that influences every decision on a catchment. The degree to which, and the ways in which, those stakeholders are informed and involved often controls the success of any management intervention. Nearly all managers also would agree that there are many opportunities for seemingly inappropriate involvement (e.g., a person or institution may dominate the conversation to advance their personal best interest to the detriment of others, a manager may invest valuable time and resources in stakeholder involvement but recoup little in terms of better decisions).

Your facilitators will lead you through a debate exercise that will help you better understand various stakeholder roles and ways to manage them.

limitations of stakeholder Analysis

Ideally, a stakeholder analysis should be performed regularly or even continuously, because the relevant stakeholders, their power and associations may change quickly. It is impossible for management to satisfy completely all demands of all stakeholders. Therefore, managing becomes a balancing act or even a reconciliation or synthesizing act.



87

notes on module 10



88

module 11: Incentives and tools for local-scale management15:30–17:00

module 11 at a glanceThere is a wide range of tools, a full toolbox from which you can choose as you approach management, as you try to control certain properties of the system for societal benefit.

learning objectives for module 11• Understand the breadth of tools available for guiding ecosystem management• Appreciate ways that those tools can be evaluated • Understand ways tools can be selected, and things to consider in that selection

Incentives and tools that might Be useful in local landscapesNatural-resource managers4 are often faced with complex challenges, and often have limited resources at their disposal to address these challenges. There are however, many tools and resources that can assist in addressing the challenges faced by managers. Seldom is a single resource or tool sufficient to address the challenges of communities living off the land in rural and semi-rural areas. Managers need to identify the most appropriate tools to address the challenges faced by communities in the area under their jurisdiction. It is important to recognize that each catchment management experience requires a suite of tools; the catchment manager must view the catchment and the surrounding landscape and community as a system and use that context to select and adapt the tools to be used. Further, catchment practices are culturally and ecologically contextual; practices that are appropriate within area can be shared but must be calibrated for local application. In fact, often the most effective practices will be ones that have evolved from local knowledge and are being applied by stakeholders themselves.

Livelihood challenges nearly always revert back to sufficient access to water, land and/or the resources available on the land. In a nutshell, it comes back to the optimum use of water and land to supply the livelihood needs of the community in a sustainable manor. Livelihoods are influenced by the availability of natural resources, local politics, the social setting, health needs and financial resources. In practice, this is translated into societal instruments, including

• National and regional policies, laws, traditions and customs• Local, regional and national institutional arrangements, and governance• Commercial interests • Non-governmental organization involvement in natural-resource management • Floods and fires as critical and positive parts of many ecosystems

4 When the phrase natural-resourcemanager is used in Modules 11 and 13, it refers to those who have responsibility and authority for manag-ing a land area (perhaps a catchment or a geo-political jurisdiction within which they have responsibility), and who have responsibility for water resource management as well as the lands that control the quality and quantity of those water resources. Although land managers/farmers/con-servationists can also be seen as natural-resource managers, here they are referred to as landmanagers .



89

When the natural-resource manager considers tools to improve management in the area under his/her jurisdiction, these issues of governance need to be considered. The following are some of the tools that could be considered by natural-resource managers. Government plays a significant role in how resources are managed. Some tools are government-level and influence a catchment manager but cannot readily be selected by the manager. In the tables below, we downplay government programmes by using a smaller font, suggesting that the manager should be aware of, but usually cannot control those tools.

Advocacy and Extension

To improve rural livelihoods in any landscape, whether coastal, dry land, forest, cultivated or urban, the efficient management of land, water and energy can contribute fundamentally to the growth of local industries while ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources. Natural-resource managers can assist both rural and urban communities through well informed advocacy and extension programmes.

Bio-renewable energy such as wind, solar and energy-efficient, biomass-based systems could contribute to sustainable resource management. Water conservation and demand-management interventions will further contribute to sustainable livelihoods. Water conservation and demand management however is not only applicable to human use but also to the way in which land is managed for other purposes. The catchment manger should begin with an understanding of possible outcomes (derived from the tables below), then examine required resources to decide which tool applies in a given situation.

The type and density of vegetation influence the way in which water is used in the landscape. There is a number of tools available to natural-resource managers that can be used to support local community efforts to optimize the use of water and land. Through improving water use efficiency, land managers can improve soil carbon which can also affect global issues such as climate change, desertification and loss of biodiversity. To address development challenges, land managers need to understand the linkages among land use change (e.g., deforestation and conservation of forest, grasslands and croplands), agricultural resource management (e.g., soil, water, vegetation and biodiversity) and the vulnerability or resilience of rural livelihoods. taking into account the different constraints, needs and views of women and men.

Examples of sustainable practices include water wise food production (i.e., improved irrigation systems), rain water harvesting, selection of appropriate crops, and sustainable consumptive utilization of resources (e.g., grazing, building materials, and energy/fuel wood). Many of those goals can be achieved (i.e., we can increase BMPs in many landscapes) by empowering stakeholders. The best way to empower stakeholders is through communication.



90

government purchase of servicesUnder some governance scenarios, natural-resource managers have access to more than advocacy and extension to promote sustainable resource management or an ecosystem approach to resource management. These are often some of the most under-estimated tools available to natural-resource managers. There are two broad categories of government incentives that they can access

• Mainstreaming ecosystem management through resource incentives given by national, regional or local governments to achieve economic goals. Very often, especially in developing countries, unemployment is a major challenge in rural communities. Through creative initiatives, natural-resource managers can access rural economic development resources to promote sustainable natural-resource management

• Especially in richer economies, tax incentives may be available to promote improvement of land management practices

legislation and regulation

Natural resources in all countries are regulated through legislation, in some countries better than others. In nearly all if not all, there are acts governing water, land, biodiversity and the environment in general. In poorer countries, there is often a lack of legislation while in richer countries legislation is often in place but fragmented. Some developing and developed countries have highly progressive legislation but there is a lack of capacity to implement it. A common flaw in the legislative process is having a law or policy passed by the authorities but never assigned to an implementing agency or never allocated funding for implementation. The opportunity for the catchment manager is to understand the legislation available, and use whatever legislation is appropriate to accomplish the tasks required for the catchment, calling upon enforcement as necessary to optimize natural-resource management.

markets for ecosystem services

The market for ecosystem services is a relatively new tool in the toolkit for natural-resource managers. The market includes

• Rewards (payments) for watershed services• Carbon sequestration and offsetting• Markets for biodiversity • Corporate social investment markets (e.g., often associated with biodiversity conservation

programmes with significant social benefits)• Upstream-downstream linkages; upstream best management practices such as buffers and

riparian filters increase the benefits received by downstream users, and often there are ways to link the two economically

• It also is possible to create a market demand for ecosystem services through use of social media and social marketing tools, helping people understand the benefits of various cultural practices



91

Box 3. Example of markets for Ecosystem services

Creating Demand for services CREPA’s experience in sanitation promotion for the past 22 years in West and Central Africa has provided lessons that are instructive here. Subsidized construction of toilets, provision of improved latrines, and mere health education programmes were used in the beginning where the goals were outputs, focusing on the number of latrines constructed, or people given access to them. However, these approaches failed to generate demand for sanitation and sustainable services beyond the original subsidy or to provide solutions replicable at scale. The desired outcome was increased public health. The original problem of open defecation and spread of diarrheal diseases continued as if there was no intervention at all. It became apparent that providing improved and safe sanitation facilities would only improve people’s health if the sanitation facilities were well maintained, were routinely used and people had good personal hygiene.

CREPA1 initiated EcoSan interventions in West Africa; EcoSan is a successful urban, peri-urban and rural sanitation intervention which re-uses human excreta. Based on the success of EcoSan, some CREPA member states (e.g., Burkina Faso, Senegal) have adopted this approach through policies and programme agendas. The approach considers the whole value chain from collection, storage, transportation and treatment to reuse/final disposal. EcoSan aims to improve food security and livelihoods by turning waste into a resource, providing a sustainable and cyclical waste management process, by using existing demand for the sanitation services and users’ willingness-to-pay, and developing sustainable practices through innovative technology.

This ecological sanitation project was developed by CREPA through a participatory approach, which included promotion of a business model through provision of sanitation facilities at the household level; households pay for the service of emptying the UD toilet and transporting the product to the treatment sites. The project also includes capacity building for small-scale EcoSan dealers, and a functional system of collection, storage, and reuse of the toilet. The strong involvement of the national and municipal authorities in supporting transformation of fecal materials and urine for productive agricultural resource as well as involvement of the private sector, NGOs and a users’ association in the implementation process was a key element to success. The project has been successful in large part because the private sector has become involved in supplying sanitation services in response to the demand. The tested project model was so successful that it was scaled up in other countries like Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire and Cameroon.

The introduction of mobile EcoSan units, in response to the demand for sanitation in Ouagadougou, has been an important tool for CREPA’s dissemination of the approach and the social marketing of sanitation in Burkina Faso. The EcoSan approach not only creates demand for sanitation and health, but it increases food security for vulnerable households, provides employment to small-scale EcoSan dealers and youth, and income generation from market gardening.



92

In 2005, CREPA adopted new sanitation approaches: Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) and social marketing of sanitation, whose goal is to end open defecation (in a field, near a river or elsewhere), and create demand for sustainable sanitation where there is none. These approaches follow a set of principles which recognize the constraints of previous approaches and promote behaviour change as integral to sanitation. The approach puts communities at the centre, encouraging them to take collective responsibility to improve sanitation by igniting a process that changes their sanitation behaviour.

Merging CLTS efforts with a robust marketplace that provides low-cost sanitation options shows great promise as a tool for achieving behaviour change on a wide scale by guiding the community to end open defecation. CREPA continues to promote safer practices to achieve new, community-based, social marketing approaches that seek and use the messages that will motivate change. Social marketing offers a staged, customer-focused approach for converting well-understood user needs into demand and then providing the means of satisfying the demand.

Social marketing also may be applied to provision and use of services, development and acceptance of products, or adoption of new behaviour. It can be product- or behaviour-focused. When water and sanitation projects do not take adequate account of individual and community behaviour, the expected health benefits are not fully realized. In sanitation projects, goals have tended to focus on numeric outputs, such as latrines constructed, number of people provided access, water points provided, or people accessing these water points. Rarely have projects incorporated outcomes such as the quality of water or behaviours that determine whether new facilities actually provide health benefits. The latter behaviours include hand washing, safe disposal of children’s excreta, personal and household hygiene and food handling. Hygiene and sanitation programmes have commonly been concerned with the supply of education and materials, rather than with satisfying a demand from intended beneficiaries. Commercial marketing uses a demand-creation approach. The social marketing approach used in this CREPA project creates demand by using a strategic, managed process of assessing and responding to felt needs, creating demand and then setting achievable, measurable goals.

Photo courtesy Richard Bhaumwire, CREPA



93

In creating demand, the following issues should be considered:• Demand is created when consumers have motivation, opportunity and ability to purchase sanitation

technology which suits their needs;• Motivation is triggered not by messages about better health but through direct benefits such as

increased convenience, comfort, privacy, safety, avoidance of sexual harassment, and prestige;• Social marketing can effectively use well-understood marketing techniques to persuade customers

to buy and use a product or a service;• Packaging and branding an available product, increasing its availability, determining a reasonable

cost, and promoting the product are required in addition to creating demand; and• Promotion must focus on how the consumers will know the product/service exists, its benefits, costs

and where and how to get it.

Successful interventions of creating demand for sanitation, social marketing and EcoSan are now used as indicators of good practice and as screens of evidence to influence policies and programmes in West and Central Africa. The success to date is being used to up-scale the effort to all African countries.

Ecosystem services, including water resources, are not different from sanitation in the sense of demand creation. In fact, it will be easier to create demand for ecosystem services than for sanitation because there are no cultural, negative issues attached to ecosystem services like there are for sanitation (e.g., where it is culturally taboo to grow food using fecal fertilizers).

stewardshipStewardship is used in many ways within the natural-resources context and beyond. Some countries have legal definitions of the term in its natural-resource context. We use the term in its generic sense, implying an approach to resource management that is sensitive to a range of uses and intends long-term sustainability of selected uses. Forest, water and biodiversity stewardship is one of the newest tools in the toolkit. It is more applicable in developed than developing economies and often goes hand-in-hand with economic development incentives, legislation and regulation, and markets for ecosystem services.

Community-based natural-resource management (CBnRm)CBNRM is a multifaceted approach to natural-resource management combining economic, political and institutional goals. From an economic perspective, it aims to provide institutions collective decision making that enhances productivity of non-agricultural systems by allowing high value land uses such as wildlife and nature-based tourism. CBNRM has been used successfully in several African countries.

Branding, marketing and targeting

Biodiversity branding is often associated more with wealthy societies; the market responds more positively where the economy is strong and household incomes are high. Branding goes hand-in-hand with the following implementation strategies:

• Identification of flagship species to be branded as mascot of the initiative;• Establishing an enabling environment for land managers to join the initiative, like defining

partners’ roles and responsibilities, securing funding, and other resources;



94

• Integration of biodiversity guidelines into integrated production systems;• Identification of biodiversity champions among land managers/producers;• Integration of biodiversity into the branding of the product produced on the land; and• Showcasing successful examples.

Box 4: Examples of Branding, marketing, and targeting through Award schemes for outstanding Ecosystem management and Conservation

DubaiInternationalAwardforBestPracticesThe award was established in 1995 by Sheikh Maktoum Bin Rashid Al Maktoum during a high-level United Nations conference in Dubai. the awards are granted every two years. A best practices data base has been created, with over 2,700 examples from 140 countries. groups of technical experts and an international jury participate in the selection process. twelve awards are given at a time. nominated best practices

• Should “Have a demonstrable and tangible impact on improving people’s quality of life;• Are the result of effective partnerships between the public, private and civic sectors of

society; and• Are socially, culturally, economically and environmentally sustainable” (DIABP, 2008). • The following best practices related to ecosystem management have received awards

(DIABP, 2008):• In 1998, Ian Gordon and Washington Ayiemba (Kenya) shared the award for their work in

preservation of Arabuko-Sokoke forest and community livelihood improvement programme (Kipepeo Butterfly Project (2006).

• In 2004, Alba-Ter Consortium (Spain) was recognized for effective river basin management. • In 2006, International Crane Foundation (Vietnam) received the award for the initiative to

protect the Lepironia wetland in the Mekong Delta while improving the livelihoods of the local community.

• In 2008, Tropical Forest Trust was recognized for involving indigenous people in the decision-making of forestry management.

SkollAwardforSocialEntrepreneurship

The Skoll Foundation was established in 1999 to support social entrepreneurs and innovators around the world. The Skoll Award focusses on so called “critical challenges of our time: tolerance and human rights, health, economic and social equity, peace and security, institutional responsibility, and environmental sustainability” (Skoll Foundation, 2010).

Examples of Skoll Award recipients include:• Martin von Hildebrand (2009), for community well-being and environmental conservation

work with the indigenous groups of the Colombian Amazonian basin (Foundation Gaia Amazonas, 2010);



95

• Michael Jenkins (2010), for his work on sustainable forestry, forest conservation and community well-being in Haiti and Brazil (Forest Trends, 2010); and

• Mark Plotkin and Liliana Madrigal (2008), for their work on the Amazonian conservation and well-being of indigenous Amazonian communities in Brazil, Colombia and Suriname (Amazon Conservation Team [ACT], 2009)

ResponsibleForestManagementAward

The Australian chapter of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) organizes an annual award ceremony in seven categories related to sustainable forestry management, including ones for large and small foresters, custodians, retailers and others (FSC Australia, 1996).

NationalRecreationalFisheriesAwardThe Canadian state agency Fisheries and Oceans of Canada is responsible for sustainable development and safe use of Canadian waters. The agency established a National Recreational Fisheries Award “to honour individuals and organizations for their contribution to the conservation, restoration and enhancement of Canada’s recreational fisheries and their habitat” (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009). In 2010, all five awards went to people whose work has contributed to salmon conservation in Canada.

NationalGeographicSociety/BuffettAward

This award is given for leadership in African Conservation and Latin American Conservation. “National Geographic presents them annually in recognition of outstanding work and lifetime contributions that further the understanding and practice of conservation” (National Geographic, 2010).

Selected award recipients include:• Denise Marçal Rambaldi (2008), for nature conservation work in protecting golden lion

tamarin in one of Brazil’s endangered biodiversity “hot-spots;”• John Makombo (2010), for conservation fork in Uganda’s national parks and wildlife

reserves; and• Jaime Incer (2006), for leading the environmental and conservation movement in

Nicaragua.

government of Indonesia’s kalpataru AwardEvery year, on the occasion of World Environment Day, the Government of Indonesia presents an Environment Award called Kalpataru, presented to for individuals and groups who provide extra ordinary services to the environment. The award is given in several categories, including environmental pioneer, environmental devotee, environment rescuer and environment builder.



96

micro-credit schemesMicro-credit schemes in poor communities can often lead to a reduction for the demand of natural resources as resources are being shared. This can be a particularly strong tool for empowering women. Micro-credit schemes are most applicable at a fine spatial scale. As such, they rarely would be sought as a catchment-management tool, but could be a powerful resource for assisting a subset of the population within a catchment. Like many other tools, they are useful as a subset of the toolbox a manager will apply in a given setting.

natural-resource Accounting

To implement any of the above tools in the toolkit of a resource manager, some resource accounting is needed. Especially where only advocacy and extension resources are available, the manager must understand the balance between the demand for ecosystem goods and services and supply from the untransformed and transformed land. The resource manager also has to keep in mind that men and women play different roles in natural-resource management and have different needs and constraints which should be addressed.

understanding those natural-resource-management toolsAdvocacyandExtension

subsets• Water-wise food production (improved irrigation

systems)• Rainwater harvesting• Crop selection • Sustainable consumptive utilization of resources

(e.g., grazing regimes, building materials, energy/fuel wood)

• Fire management• Non-consumptive use of natural resources (e.g.,

nature-based tourism)• Water for transportation

strengths• Once a community or local government has

taken ownership of a resource management approach, it generally becomes entrenched, resulting in a long-term impact

• In comparison to other tools, it could have a wide impact with limited resources

• Generally, it is less resource-intensive than other tools

• Could start at school and be carried through to adult education and advocacy programmes

• Peer education is generally very successfulChallenges• Advocacy and extension are long term

interventions; results could take a decade or longer to obtain visible/tangible results

• There is no guarantee land users will accept the programme

• Many such programmes are instituted within a project context, which does not ensure or even favour sustainability



97

Possible outcomes• General improvement in resource use• Measurable changes in land management, but

achievable only over the long term

Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation• Very little structure is needed for successful

implementation• Non-governmental organizations like

agricultural unions, cooperatives or other land user associations will enhance and broaden the impact of the programme

• Natural-resource management/agricultural study groups dramatically improve the impact of such programmes

• Private sector, through their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme, may boost the success of the programme

Incentivessubsets• Mainstreaming ecosystem management through

resource incentives given by national, regional or local governments to achieve economic goals

• Tax incentives

strengths• Both resource and tax incentives have short

term impacts; the impact will stay intact as long as the incentive is in place

• Outputs are generally measurable and auditable

• Normally leads to mainstreaming the programme/ intervention into the economy

Challenges• To be successful, the regional or national

government must have access to adequate resources to support the programme; this condition generally is met only in developed countries

• Sustainable natural-resource management sometimes conflicts with economic development goals of a region or country

Possible outcomes• Natural-resource management can be

mainstreamed into the economy, making the implementation more sustainable

• With appropriate governance structures in place, the system can be monitored and the probability of success increased

Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation• A strong sub-national, regional or national

government• Collaboration among land users and

natural-resource managers



98

LegislationandRegulationsubsets• Land• Environmental• Biodiversity• Water

strengths• If well implemented and resourced, this is the most effective way of

ensuring sustainable natural-resource management• Once on the statute books, it is difficult to change so it has a long-

term effectChallenges• There could be legislation that impacts negatively on sustainable

natural-resource management, thus undermining the work of natural-resource managers

• It takes long and extensive consultation to get legislation and regulations on the statute books. It therefore, makes it difficult for local natural-resource managers to impact legislation and regulations

• Improper law enforcement will hamper the successPossible outcomes• Securing long-term

sustainable natural-resource management, assuming that the legislation is implemented successfully

• Ensuring the involvement of various stakeholders during the decision making process

Institutional and governance needed for successful Implementation:• Strong sub-national, regional or national government• Adequate natural-resource management capacity to implement and

police natural-resource management activities



99

MarketsforEcosystemServicessubsets• Market for watershed

Services• Carbon market, emission

reduction credit• Markets for biodiversity

services• Corporate social

investment (e.g., water neutral programmes)

Strengths• Resource-poor regions can access international funding for natural-

resource management• The world economy is becoming more and more aware of the

importance of environmental sustainability• The carbon market especially is growing fast, and opportunities are

becoming more readily available• Could be implemented in a pro-poor way, supporting developing

countries in managing natural resources in a more sustainable way • Does not always have to take the form of monetary payments

for services. Informal exchange of resources can be implemented successfully

• As long as both suppliers and buyers of services adhere to the agreement, security of the resource is nearly guaranteed

• Can be implemented through debt-swap mechanismsChallenges• Any payment for watershed services must be greater than potential

income from other sources• Transaction costs to access markets for ecosystem services are very

high and largely unaffordable to resource poor countries unless they receive international support

• A payments-for-ecosystem-services project has to fit into regional or national legislative framework. If it does not fit, it has little chance of success

• Because of high transactions costs, payments for ecosystem services programmes are dependent on a collective approach to natural-resource management

• Buyers of ecosystem services are generally not willing to commit to long-term agreements. The market is therefore, aimed at short to medium term agreements

• Payments for watershed services are normally aimed at the local water sector. Unless the sector has access to adequate resources, it will not work, which means that it will largely be applicable to more developed regions

• Corporate social investment is generally aimed at short term interventions

• The financial incentives are not always received by the most appropriate party (e.g., local community)



100

Possible outcomes• Short- to medium-

term programmes to improve natural-resource management

• Development of agreed national authorities and benefit sharing mechanisms

Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation• Carbon market can only be entered through the Clean Development

Mechanism and the Verified Carbon Standard for offsetting and sequestration.

• To make the transaction viable, individual land users have to work as a collective. The economy of scale is such that individuals will seldom be able to enter the market

• Government support is needed• Requires clear land tenure status

Stewardshipsubsets• Forest• Biodiversity• Water

strengths• Stewardship programmes are generally auditable• They are generally not as resource-intensive as payments for

ecosystem services• Formal stewardship agreements could enhance access to corporate

and international funding for natural-resource managementChallenges• Has very little potential in resource-poor regions, unless it goes

hand-in-hand with payments for ecosystem services. It will therefore, only work in developed regions

• If the stewardship programme is linked to a regional or national government, local communities tend not to trust its motives

Possible outcomes • Ecosystem services can

be secured through biodiversity and forestry stewardship agreements

Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation:• A strong secretariat is needed to manage the system• An extensive advocacy and extension programme has to be linked to any stewardship programme

Community-basedNatural-resourceManagement(CBNRM)subsets• Wildlife• Ecosystem services• Nature-based tourism• Corporate social

investment

strengths• Generally pro-poor• There are a number of successful CBNRM programmes, especially in

Africa, that can be used as examplesChallenges• Financial implications could become so important that they

undermine sustainable natural-resource management• Availability of supported national and sub-national regulation/

regulation

Possible outcomes • Community control

over natural-resource management with the objective of restoring and protecting natural resources

Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation:• Strong government support, without interfering in the internal

affairs of community-based organizations• In communal areas, tribal authorities must buy into the system• Strong community-based organizations• Strong technical support team



101

Possible outcomes • Community control

over natural-resource management with the objective of restoring and protecting natural resources

Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation:• Strong government support, without interfering in the internal

affairs of community-based organizations• In communal areas, tribal authorities must buy into the system• Strong community-based organizations• Strong technical support team

Eco-labellingandMarketingsubsets• Organic• Biodiversity• Social and fair trade

strengths• Because international markets are increasingly aware of the need

for sustainable natural-resource management, the market is growing fast

Challenges• Only applies to sophisticated markets, which generally means it is

largely limited to developed countries• A strong secretariat is needed to manage the system• Production standards are generally high for eco-labeling• Compatibility between international standard and national

regulation/legislationPossible outcomes • Long-term markets for

sustainably produced products

Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation• Good marketing infrastructure• A strong secretariat is needed to manage the system• An extensive advocacy and extension programme has to be linked

to any eco-labeling programmeMicro-creditschemes

subsets• Micro lending schemes• Resource sharing

schemes

strengths• Very localized impact• Very much pro-poor• Links to nature-based enterpriseChallenges• Finance mechanism not always link to natural resources

conservation• Limited access to formal markets• Objectives of the scheme can sometimes be in conflict with

sustainable natural-resource management• Limited access to micro-finance• Often available only to women

Possible outcomes • Collective resource

management

Institutional arrangements and governance needed for successful implementation• Strong, community-based organizational structures• Strong finance–natural resources conservation linking mechanism



102

Natural-resourceAccountingsubsets• Resource stocks• Resource flows

strengths• Allows the natural-resource manager to assess the impact of his/her

interventions• Ensures that expectations are not unrealisticChallenges• High levels of expertise needed• Data intensive

Possible outcomes • A realistic picture of

the natural resource potential of an area

Institutional and governance needed for successful Implementation• Scientific support for measuring, monitoring and reporting

notes on module 11



103

Day 4: managing our Ecosystems

Day 4 at a glance• We base our work in the plan–do–check model of adaptive management. We stress that all

EM actions are experimental; there are no single, deterministic solutions. • We need to know who the actors are, what their motivation is, what their capacity is, how

we will encourage them to take action and then how we will assess the results. • As we consider management actions, we need a starting point. We have to have an initial

state, a condition of our catchment (our ecosystem) today, so we know what to maintain and what to change

• Competing interests means everything is a trade-off. How do we balance stakeholder interests and expressions of value to develop realistic goals for an ecosystem management approach to managing a catchment?

• Having chosen goals, which of the resources in that toolbox would actually help us attain those goals, and how would we apply those specific tools?

module 12: Valuing Ecosystem services8:30–9:30

module 12 at a glanceChoosing among those tools requires setting value on those ecosystem services; that allows us to have a currency, a way of selecting among the choices

learning objectives for module 12• Gain exposure to the process of ecosystem service valuation and learn to treat it with a

cautious eye• Demonstrate an ability to think about valuation from several perspectives• Be able to discuss the various roles of valuation in ecosystem-scale decision making

Economic valuation of ecosystems is a rapidly developing discipline and there are now many different methods available for undertaking different aspects and purposes of ecosystem valuation. Valuation forms one of the many types of ecosystem assessment which can and should be used for different purposes and at different scales in support of ecosystem wise use, management and decision-making.

What is Valuation?

To make better decisions regarding use and management of ecosystem services,2 their importance to human society must be assessed. The importance or value of ecosystems is viewed and expressed differently by different disciplines, cultural conceptions, and philosophical views (Box 5).

2 Throughout this module, the term “services” is used to include both goods and services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).



104

Valuation is defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) as “the process of expressing a value for a particular good or service . . . in terms of something that can be counted, often money, but also through methods and measures from other disciplines (sociology, ecology, etc.).”

Box 5: Definitions of “Value” The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) defined value as “The contribution of an action or object to user-specified goals, objectives, or conditions” (after Farber et al., 2002). According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term value is used in three main ways:

• Exchange value: The price of a good or service in the market (= market price)• utility: The use-value of a good or service, which can be very different from the market price

(e.g., the market price of water is very low, but its use value very high; the reverse is the case for diamonds or other luxury goods)

• Importance: The appreciation or emotional value we attach to a given good or service (e.g., the emotional or spiritual experience some people have when viewing wildlife or natural scenery or our ethical considerations regarding the existence value of wildlife)

These three definitions of value roughly coincide with the interpretation of the term value by the three main scientific disciplines involved in ecosystem valuation • Economics is mainly concerned with measuring the exchange value or price to maintain a system

or its attributes (Bingham et al. 1995) • Ecology measures the role (importance) of attributes or functions of a system in maintaining

ecosystem resilience and health (Bingham et al. 1995)• sociology tries to find measures for moral assessments (Barry & Oelschlaeger, 1996)

Why Is Ecosystem Valuation Important?Because of the many services and multiple values of ecosystems, many different stakeholders are involved in ecosystem use (and misuse), often leading to conflicting interests and over-exploitation of some services (e.g., fisheries or waste disposal) at the expense of others (e.g., biodiversity conservation and flood-control). In addition, there are many structural shortcomings in economic accounting and decision-making procedures leading to incomplete cost-benefit analysis of planned interventions in ecosystems.

Increasingly, it is being shown that sustainable, multifunctional use of an ecosystem is usually not only ecologically more sound, but also economically more beneficial, both to local communities and to society as a whole (Balmford et al . 2002). To ensure more balanced decision-making (i.e., ensure that multiple uses and values are considered), it is crucial that the full importance (value) of ecosystems is recognised. Such information has often not fully been taken into account when making decisions about economic development and hence, degradation of ecosystems still continues. Thus, better communication of ecosystem values, and the costs and benefits of alternative uses of ecosystems, to decision-makers and the general public is crucial.



105

Box 6: Ecosystem Values Are often not taken Into Account Properly or Fully, or Are only Partially Val-ued in Decision making, leading to Degradation or Even Destruction of an Ecosystem (adapted from Vorhies, 1999; stuip et al., 2002)

Reasons for under-valuation include:• market failure, public goods: Many of the ecological services, biological resources and amenity

values provided by ecosystems have the qualities of a public good (i.e., many ecosystem services such as water purification or flood prevention are seen as free and are not counted in the market).

• market failure, externalities:Markets often do not reflect the full social costs or benefits of a change in availability of a good or service. For example, the price of agricultural products obtained from drained wetland ecosystems does not fully reflect the costs, in terms of pollution and lost wetland services imposed on society by the production process.

• Perverse incentives: (e.g., taxes/subsidies stimulating ecosystem overuse). Many policies and government decisions provide incentives for economic activity that unintentionally works against wise use of ecosystems, leading to resource degradation and destruction rather than sustainable management (Vorhies, 1999). For example, subsidies for shrimp farmers may lead to mangrove destruction.

• unequal distribution of costs and benefits: Usually, those stakeholders who benefit from an ecosystem service or its overuse are not the same as the stakeholders who bear the cost of degradation. For example, when a wetland is affected by pollution in the upper catchment from agricultural land, people living downstream suffer. The resulting loss of value (e.g., health, income) is not accounted for and downstream stakeholders are generally not compensated for the damages they suffer (Stuip et al., 2002).

• unclear ownership: Ownership of ecosystems can be difficult to establish. Ecosystems often do not have clear natural boundaries; even when natural boundaries can be defined, they may not correspond with an administrative boundary. As such, user values are not immediately apparent to decision-makers.

• Evolution of decision-making away from local users and managers: Higher-level decision makers (e.g., provincial, national) often fail to recognize the importance of ecosystems to local people who rely on those ecosystems, either directly or indirectly.

• net present value: People often do not want to, or are not willing to place a value on the future use of resources. They only consider the value they are getting today. For example, Uganda is considering giving >700 hectares of forest to one investor for conversion to sugar (Box 7). The decision is based on the value of sugar to be produced (i.e., land as agricultural product) ignoring or undervaluing biodiversity and other ecosystems services that might be generated in the long term.



106

Box 7: Ecosystem management and the net Present Value: the mabira Forest, uganda

The MabiraRainforestForest is one of the largest natural forests in Uganda, acting as a catchment area for the Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga basins. Lake Victoria has the largest surface area of any freshwater lake in the world and is the source of the Nile (the longest river in the world). The catchment is the headwaters of many other rivers, the livelihood of surrounding communities, a home to many endangered species (e.g., rare birds, plants, snakes and other animals), and is a major eco-destination tourism in the country. The forest area covers about 300 square kilometres in the Buikwe District of Uganda. It has been protected as a Forest Reserve since 1932.

In August 2006, President Yoweri Museveni ordered the National Forestry Authority (NFA) to study the feasibility of clearing 7,100 hectares, nearly one-fourth of Mabira Forest, to transfer land ownership to Mehta Group, an investment firm, for conversion to sugarcane plantations. President Museveni defended the deforestation plans, saying that he would “. . . not be deterred by people who don’t understand that the future of all countries lies in processing”[sic]. While environmentalists feared the loss of hundreds of endangered species, increased erosion, the loss of livelihoods of local people and negative impacts on water balance and regional climate, supporters argued that giving away the Mabira land would lead to creation of jobs and would address the prevailing sugar scarcity. A cabinet paper said the plan would generate 3,500 jobs, adding 11.5 billion Ugandan shillings to the treasury.

The NFA study initially commissioned by President Museveni concluded that the ecological and economic losses from destroying that part of Mabira Forest would be devastating. The report said the plan endangered 312 tree species, more than 300 bird species like the Nahan’s francolin and the Papyrus gonolek and more than 199 butterfly species. Nine species found only in Mabira and nearby forests would face the risk of extinction. The report said that economic losses as a result of the destruction of part of the reserve would include lost revenue from logging and eco-tourism; Mabira forest receives more than 62 per cent of all tourists visiting forest reserves in the country (The New Vision, 2007, April 19).

Senior environmentalist Kiyingi said that further depletion of Mabira forest would reduce water flow of the surrounding streams and rivers, and change rain patterns region wide, in turn negatively affecting economic activities such as agriculture, cattle husbandry and electric power generation. The Ugandan

Nahan’s francolin is one of the endangered Mabira forest species; Uganda’s flora and fauna are steadily losing their natural habitat to human activities.

Photo: Courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons



107

government previously said that low water levels in Lake Victoria were the reason behind the country’s electricity crisis, so the potential loss of electric power generation was a strong argument against conversion of the forest.

Environmentalists said that with the water levels in Lake Victoria already low, destroying part of Mabira forest was likely to lower electricity production, which would mean that proposed hydroelectric projects such as Bujagali, the River Sezibwa power plant, would be meaningless. They further argued that, in addition to potential disturbances to the microclimate, destruction of Mabira could violate major global conservation agreements, such as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to which Uganda is a signatory. The CBD requires that the country establish and maintain protected conservation areas. The Kabaka (King) of Buganda and the Anglican church of Mukono Diocese also opposed the deforestation plan and offered alternative lands for sugarcane production. These arguments did not convince the decision-makers.

Many people were aware that deforestation brings about drought and fine-scale climatic change, and understood that forests help mitigate climate change. Many were also aware that destroying forests would result in more limited rainfall, lower water levels in rivers and lakes, and reduced agricultural productivity because cattle ranching would be negatively affected. However, other people, including some senior decision-makers in Uganda saw alternative uses for the forest as positive developments.

Many would argue that those charged with protecting the ecosystem were destroying it by over-valuing resources extracted today, and undervaluing or forgoing what would be provided for the future.

“‘Losing these forests, particularly the Mabira Forest Reserve, would have enormous repercussions for both people and wildlife in Uganda’ said Achilles Byaruhanga, Executive Director of Nature Uganda (Bird Life in Uganda). Byaruhanga says that Mabira Forest Reserve is listed by Bird Life International as an Important Bird Area (IBA). The forest contains over 300 species of bird, including the Endangered Nahan’s francolin Francolinus nahani. The forest also supports nine species of primate, a recently identified new mangabey sub-species in Uganda, Lophocebus albigena johnstoni and a new species of Short-tailed Fruit Bat. ‘The fact that we are still discovering new species of large animals in this forest is a pointer to its value for biodiversity. As a result, we are working hard to ensure the Ugandan government understands that holding onto these sites is of utmost importance, both in terms of conserving biodiversity and in terms of poverty reduction and economic growth’ Byaruhanga emphasizes.” (BBC News 2007, April 12)

As of this writing (late 2011), the proposed plan was under debate in the Ugandan parliament.



108

When should Valuation Be undertaken?Valuation should be as explicit as possible whenever decisions are made. That applies to all decision-making levels (including personal, corporate and government decisions). All resource allocations, whether implicit or explicit, are influenced by ecological as well as social and economic values.

Often, changes in values are not made explicit, leading to decisions that have unwanted and avoidable side effects. Because most development decisions are based on market and economic considerations, it is especially important to make a proper assessment of all the monetary consequences of decisions. However, monetary valuation should always be seen as an addition to, not as a replacement for ecological, social and cultural values in the decision-making process.

There are three situations in which it is particularly important to carry out valuation studies.

• Assessment of total economic value (tEV): (i.e., determining the total contribution of ecosystems to the local or national economy and human well-being5). TEV of ecosystems should be explained and communicated to all stakeholders, creating the boundary conditions for policy making to stimulate conservation and sustainable use of this natural capital and prevent degradation or destruction. In some cases where TEV is unobtainable, there is the opportunity to express total ecological value. For example, draining a wetland results in loss of a range of ecological services that are valuable to society but difficult to quantity economically (Hunter & Gibbs, 2007, p. 75).

• trade-off analysis: (i.e., evaluating costs and benefits of alternative development options for a given ecosystem to make informed decisions about possibilities and impossibilities for sustainable, multifunctional use of ecosystem services [SCBD, 2005]). Including all values in trade-off analyses and decision-support systems is essential for achieving wise use of ecosystems (i.e., outcomes that are ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable and economically sound). There are many examples of the local economic value of intact ecosystems exceeding that of converted or otherwise altered ecosystems. For example, services provided by intact mangroves in Thailand are worth about US$60,000 per hectare compared to about US$17,000 when used as shrimp farms. Canadian intact freshwater marshes have a value of about US$8,800 per hectare compared to US$3,700 for drained marshes used for agriculture (Balmford et al., 2002).

• Impact assessment: (e.g., analysis of the effects of proposed wetland drainage or other destructive practices on wetland services). In many cases, there will be good reasons for converting natural ecosystems into another type of land (or water) use. However, in many occasions, loss of ecosystems and services is caused by accidents (e.g., oil spills, Box 9) or unintended side-effects (externalities) of economic activities.

totAl VAluE / ImPoRtAnCE

5 CBD (2005) includes a closer look at the importance of valuation for including biodiversity losses or gains in national income accounts (SCBD 2005).



109

When should Valuation Be undertaken?Valuation should be as explicit as possible whenever decisions are made. That applies to all decision-making levels (including personal, corporate and government decisions). All resource allocations, whether implicit or explicit, are influenced by ecological as well as social and economic values.

Often, changes in values are not made explicit, leading to decisions that have unwanted and avoidable side effects. Because most development decisions are based on market and economic considerations, it is especially important to make a proper assessment of all the monetary consequences of decisions. However, monetary valuation should always be seen as an addition to, not as a replacement for ecological, social and cultural values in the decision-making process.

There are three situations in which it is particularly important to carry out valuation studies.

• Assessment of total economic value (tEV): (i.e., determining the total contribution of ecosystems to the local or national economy and human well-being5). TEV of ecosystems should be explained and communicated to all stakeholders, creating the boundary conditions for policy making to stimulate conservation and sustainable use of this natural capital and prevent degradation or destruction. In some cases where TEV is unobtainable, there is the opportunity to express total ecological value. For example, draining a wetland results in loss of a range of ecological services that are valuable to society but difficult to quantity economically (Hunter & Gibbs, 2007, p. 75).

• trade-off analysis: (i.e., evaluating costs and benefits of alternative development options for a given ecosystem to make informed decisions about possibilities and impossibilities for sustainable, multifunctional use of ecosystem services [SCBD, 2005]). Including all values in trade-off analyses and decision-support systems is essential for achieving wise use of ecosystems (i.e., outcomes that are ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable and economically sound). There are many examples of the local economic value of intact ecosystems exceeding that of converted or otherwise altered ecosystems. For example, services provided by intact mangroves in Thailand are worth about US$60,000 per hectare compared to about US$17,000 when used as shrimp farms. Canadian intact freshwater marshes have a value of about US$8,800 per hectare compared to US$3,700 for drained marshes used for agriculture (Balmford et al., 2002).

• Impact assessment: (e.g., analysis of the effects of proposed wetland drainage or other destructive practices on wetland services). In many cases, there will be good reasons for converting natural ecosystems into another type of land (or water) use. However, in many occasions, loss of ecosystems and services is caused by accidents (e.g., oil spills, Box 9) or unintended side-effects (externalities) of economic activities.

totAl VAluE / ImPoRtAnCE

Box 8: Restoration Costs of Degraded Wetlands: An example from the netherlands

In many instances, wetland development projects have caused more harm than good, and wetlands are now being restored at high cost. In the Netherlands, where there is a long and successful tradition of draining wetlands; dikes (banks) have long been the preferred choice for managing water and preventing flooding. With the protection offered by these dikes, large investments in infrastructure, agriculture, housing and industry are now concentrated in former wetlands; the cost of a flood in these areas is very high. However, climate change is posing new risks through increases in sea level and extreme river discharges. This has led to a shift in the trade-off costs of continuing to raise dikes. Less heavily developed former wetlands may get a new lease on life. A costly programme of river restoration has commenced, including broadening floodplains, (re)creating water retention areas in natural depressions and (re)opening secondary channels of rivers (Stuip et al., 2002).

Box 9. Economic Valuation of oil spills

Economic valuation of oil spills has shown the direct and indirect damage inflicted upon coastal systems and has provided a basis for financially compensating local people for lost ecosystem services. Often these indirect, previously neglected damages are much higher than direct clean-up and damage costs. For example, the 2002 Prestige Oil spill off the coast of France and Spain led to cleanup costs of over EUR2 billion, but indirect damages to the fishers, tourism-industry, local people’s livelihood and lost natural values was calculated at over EUR5 billion (Garcia, 2003). The oil company’s insurance coverage only amounted to a relatively insignificant EUR175 million; the case for compensation is still being debated in court. Comparisons such as this can help determine realistic insurance premiums and thus internalize the so-called external effects. That, in turn, might contribute to quicker implementation of preventive measures (e.g., making oil ships safer, raising oil prices, stimulating development of alternative energy sources).

how Are Ecosystem Valuation studies used?

More and better information on the sociocultural and economic benefits of ecosystem services is needed to:

• Demonstrate the contribution of ecosystems to the local, national and global economy (building local and political support for conservation and sustainable use);

• Convince decision makers that benefits of conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems usually outweigh costs, explaining the need to better factor ecosystems into development planning through more balanced cost-benefit analysis;

• Identify users and beneficiaries of ecosystem services to attract investments and secure sustainable financial streams and incentives for maintenance or restoration of these services (i.e., make users pay, ensure that local people receive a proper share of the benefits); and



110

• Increase awareness about the many benefits of ecosystems to human well-being and ensure that ecosystems are better taken into account in economic welfare indicators (e.g., in Gross National Product [GNP] calculations) and pricing mechanisms (through internalisation of externalities).

In addition to raising awareness about ecosystem benefits in decision making, valuation studies can improve local institutions that manage resources, identify better markets and resource management options for ecosystems and their products, and investigate people’s livelihood strategies and show how these can be used in evaluating the constraints and options for making wise use of ecosystems.

A Framework for Ecosystem Valuation

Five main steps for valuation are explained below. Additional activities needed for a complete assessment include analysis of pressures, trade-offs and management implications.

• Step 1: Analysis of policy processes and management objectives (whyundertake the valuation?) Insight into the policy processes and management objectives is essential to set the stage for a discussion of the kind of valuation needed (e.g., to assess the impact of past or ongoing interventions, analyze trade-offs of planned ecosystem uses, determine the Total Value of the intact ecosystem). This stage of the valuation process includes determining how values relevant to policy and management decisions will be generated.

• Step 2: Stakeholder analysis and involvement (who should do the valuation, and for whom?) (Module 11) Early in the process, the main stakeholders should be identified because the involvement of stakeholders is essential in almost all steps of the valuation procedure.

• Step 3: Function analysis (identification and quantification of services; whatshould be valued?) An inventory of ecosystem ecological processes and components is translated into functions which provide specific ecosystem services. These services should be quantified in units based on actual or potential sustainable use levels.

• Step 4: Valuation of services (howto undertake the valuation?) (see below) The benefits of ecosystem services identified in Step 3 should be expressed in measurement-appropriate units (e.g., ecological, sociocultural, economic indicators) and monetary units.

• Step 5: Communicating ecosystem values (to whom to provide the assessment results?) Results of the valuation must be fully accessible to all stakeholders and relevant decision makers. Online support sites such as Nature Evaluation ) offer access to existing databases, literature, case studies, and discussion platforms for exchange of information.

Valuation of Ecosystem services: total value and types of valueThe Total Ecological Value of an ecosystem is based on ecological, sociocultural and economic values (Figure 14). Each type has its own criteria and value-units, briefly described below.

Figure 14: Components of the total Value of an Ecosystem

totAl VAluE / ImPoRtAnCEEcological

(Based on ecological sustainability)

Indicators (e.g.,- naturalness- diversity- uniqueness- sensitivity- renewability

sociocultural(Based on equity &

cultural perceptions)Indicators (e.g.,- health- amenity value- cultural identity- spiritual value- existence value

Economic(Based on efficiency &

cost-effectiveness)Indicators (e.g., - productivity- employment- income

Each ecosystem and each decision is unique in space and time. Data on these values will be most useful if they are obtained through original research on the ecological, sociocultural and eco-nomic indicators for each decision-making situation. However, widely available databases such as Nature Evaluation can allow a desk study which can be refined by Benefit Transfer techniques (see below). Stakeholder involvement is essential in this process and can be used to qualify Internet-based data or information (see Step 2 above).

Ecological Value (importance) of Ecosystem services

At a global scale, ecosystems and their species play location-specific roles in the maintenance of essential life support processes (e.g., energy conversion, biogeochemical cycling, and evolution) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003). The magnitude of this ecological value is expressed through indicators such as species diversity, rarity, ecosystem integrity (health), and resilience. These values relate primarily to supporting and regulating Services (Table 16).



111

Valuation of Ecosystem services: total value and types of valueThe Total Ecological Value of an ecosystem is based on ecological, sociocultural and economic values (Figure 14). Each type has its own criteria and value-units, briefly described below.

Figure 14: Components of the total Value of an Ecosystem

totAl VAluE / ImPoRtAnCEEcological

(Based on ecological sustainability)

Indicators (e.g.,- naturalness- diversity- uniqueness- sensitivity- renewability

sociocultural(Based on equity &

cultural perceptions)Indicators (e.g.,- health- amenity value- cultural identity- spiritual value- existence value

Economic(Based on efficiency &

cost-effectiveness)Indicators (e.g., - productivity- employment- income

Each ecosystem and each decision is unique in space and time. Data on these values will be most useful if they are obtained through original research on the ecological, sociocultural and eco-nomic indicators for each decision-making situation. However, widely available databases such as Nature Evaluation can allow a desk study which can be refined by Benefit Transfer techniques (see below). Stakeholder involvement is essential in this process and can be used to qualify Internet-based data or information (see Step 2 above).

Ecological Value (importance) of Ecosystem services

At a global scale, ecosystems and their species play location-specific roles in the maintenance of essential life support processes (e.g., energy conversion, biogeochemical cycling, and evolution) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003). The magnitude of this ecological value is expressed through indicators such as species diversity, rarity, ecosystem integrity (health), and resilience. These values relate primarily to supporting and regulating Services (Table 16).



112

Criteria short description measurement units/indicatorsnaturalness/Integrity(representativeness)

Degree of human presence in terms of physical, chemical or biological disturbance.

- Quality of air, water, and soil- % key species present- % of min. critical ecosystem size- Composition, structure and function of the system

Diversity Variety of life in all its forms, including ecosystems, species & genetic diversity.

- Number of ecosystems/ geographical unit

- Number of species/surface area

uniqueness/rarity Local, national or global rarity of ecosystems and species

Number of endemic species and sub-species

Fragility/vulnerability(resilience/resistance)

Sensitivity of ecosystems to human disturbance

- Energy budget (GPP/NPP1)- Carrying capacity

Renewability/re-creat-ability

The possibility for renewal or human aided restoration

- Complexity and diversity- Succession stage/-time/NPP- Restoration costs

1 GPP – Gross Primary Production; NPP = Net Primary Production

sociocultural Value (importance) of Ecosystem servicesFor many people, natural systems are a crucial source of non-material well-being through their influence on physical and mental health, historical, national, ethical, religious, and spiritual values. A particular mountain, forest, or watershed may have been the site of an important event in their past, the home or shrine of a deity, the place of a moment of moral transformation, or embodiment of national ideals. These are cultural services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003), usually described as therapeutic, amenity, heritage, spiritual or existence (Table 17).

table 16: Ecological Valuation Criteria and Indicators (based on de groot et al., 2003)



113

sociocultural Criteria

short description measurement units/indicators

therapeutic Provision of medicines, clean air, water and soil, space for recreation outdoor sports, and general thera-peutic effects of nature on peoples’ mental and physical well-being

- Suitability and capacity of natural systems to provide “health services”

- Restorative and regenerative effects on peoples’ performance.

- Socioeconomic benefits from reduced health costs and conditions

Amenity Valued for cognitive development, mental relaxation, artistic inspira-tion, aesthetic enjoyment or recre-ational benefits

- Aesthetic quality of landscapes.- Recreational features and use- Artistic features and use- Preference studies

heritage Valued in reference to personal or collective history and cultural identity

- Historic sites, features and artefacts- Designated cultural landscapes- Cultural traditions and knowledge

spiritual Valued in symbols and elements with sacred, religious or spiritual significance

- Presence of sacred sites or features- Role of ecosystems and/or species in reli-

gious ceremonies and sacred texts

Existence Valued for ethical reasons (intrinsic value) or inter-generational equity (bequest value)

- Expressed (through, for example, donations and voluntary work) or stated preference for nature protection for ethical reasons

To some extent, these values can be approximated by economic valuation methods, but to the extent that an ecosystem service is essential to a person’s very identity and existence, that value is not fully captured by such techniques. A measure of importance may be approximated through participatory assessment techniques or group valuation (Table 18).

table 17: sociocultural Valuation Criteria and Indicators (after De groot et al., 2003)



114

Assessment method

Importance people attach to therapeutic value, amenity value, heritage value, spiritual value and/or existence value of ecosystems can be approximated by:Judgement Attitude Well-being Perception

Checklist (of issues & stakeholders) ü ü ü üQuestionnaires (& interviews) ü ü ü üVisual media (preferences) ü ü ü üExpert jurors/referees ü

Animation technologies for group inter-action

ü

Judgement (personal & group) ü

Measurement of environmental vari-ables

ü

Behavioural observation ü

Interviews with key persons ü

Desk research (e.g., media attention) ü

Economic Value of Ecosystem servicesEcological, sociocultural, and economic values all have their separate role in decision making and should be seen as essentially complementary pieces of information in the decision-making process. The concept of Total Economic Value (TEV) (Figure 15) has become a widely used framework for understanding utilitarian value of ecosystems. TEV is the sum of use and non-use values.

use values are composed of three elements: direct use, indirect use and option values. Direct (extractive, consumptive, structural use) value represents goods which can be extracted, consumed or enjoyed directly. Indirect (non-extractive, functional) value represents the services the environment provides. Option value refers to reserving the option to act at a later date. Option values also consider the possibility that even though something appears unimportant now, information received later might lead us to re-evaluate it.

non-use values are benefits the environment may provide, but do not involve using it in any way, directly or indirectly. Often, the most important such benefit is existence, the value that people derive from knowledge that something exists even if they never plan to use it. Many people value existence of blue whales or pandas, even if they have never seen one and probably never will. If blue whales became extinct, those people would feel a sense of loss. Bequest is the desire to pass on values to future generations.

table 18: methods for Quantification of the Importance People Attach to sociocultural Values of Eco-systems (from De groot et al., 2006)



115

Development tends to focus on use values, ones with the most obvious benefits to certain stakeholders. The importance of non-use values should not be underestimated. Many stakeholders, even poor communities place high values on non-use (e.g., spiritual/cultural values) often to the extent of forgoing immediate, more tangible goods and services.

(Based on De Groot et al., 2006) Economics of ecosystem services can be measured in monetary units and by the ecosystem’s contribution to employment and productivity. Because employment and productivity can be relatively easily measured through the market, they are usually part of monetary valuation. Monetary approaches usually fail to account for virtual water. The Water Footprint Network has developed an extensive series of analyses and communications that allow users to understand and express virtual water and its value.

monetary Valuation of Ecosystem services

The relative importance people attach to values and their associated ecosystem services can be expressed economically. Financial valuation methods fall into three basic types (Table 19):

• Direct market • Indirect market • Survey-based (i.e., contingent valuation and group valuation)

If site-specific data are unavailable, a benefittransfer approach can useful (i.e., using results from similar areas to approximate the value of a given service). This method is limited, but as more data become available from new case studies, benefit transfers become more reliable.



of Total Economic Value (TEV) (Figure 16) has become a widely used framework for understanding utilitarian value of ecosystems. TEV is the sum of use and non-‐use values. Use values are composed of three elements: direct use, indirect use and option values. Direct (extractive, consumptive, structural use) value represents goods which can be extracted, consumed or enjoyed directly. Indirect (non-‐extractive, functional) value represents the services the environment provides. Option value refers to reserving the option to act at a later date. Option values also consider the possibility that even though something appears unimportant now, information received later might lead us to re-‐evaluate it. Non-‐use values are benefits the environment may provide, but do not involve using it in any way, directly or indirectly. Often, the most important such benefit is existence, the value that people derive from knowledge that something exists even if they never plan to use it. Many people value existence of blue whales or pandas, even if they have never seen one and probably never will. If blue whales became extinct, those people would feel a sense of loss. Bequest is the desire to pass on values to future generations. Development tends to focus on use values, ones with the most obvious benefits to certain stakeholders. The importance of non-‐use values should not be underestimated. Many stakeholders, even poor communities place high values on non-‐use (e.g., spiritual/cultural values) often to the extent of forgoing immediate, more tangible goods and services.

Figure 16: The Total Economic Value Framework (De Groot et al., 2006) Economics of ecosystem services can be measured in monetary units and by the ecosystem’s contribution to employment and productivity. Because employment and productivity can be relatively easily measured through the market, they are usually part of monetary valuation. Monetary approaches

Figure 15: the total Economic Value Framework



116

mEthoD DEsCRIPtIon constraints EXAmPlEs

1. D

irect

mar

ket V

alua

tion

Market price The exchange value (based on marginal productivity cost) that ecosystem services have in trade

Market imperfections and policy failures distort market prices

Mainly applicable to the “goods” (e.g., fish) but also some cultural (e.g., recreation) and regulating services (e.g., pollina-tion).

Factor income or prod. factor method

Measures effect of ecosystem services on loss (or gains) in earnings and/or productivity)

Care needs to be taken not to double count values

Natural water quality improvements which increase commercial fish-eries catch and thereby incomes of fishers

Public pricing Public investments (e.g., land purchase, or mon-etary incentives, taxes/ subsidies)

Property rights some-times difficult to establish; care must be taken to avoid perverse incentives

Investments in wa-tershed-protection to provide drinking water, conservation measures

2. In

dire

ct m

arke

t Val

uatio

n

Avoided (damage) cost method

Services that allow society to avoid costs that would have been incurred in the absence of those services

It is assumed that the costs of avoided damage or matches the original benefit. However, this match may not be accurate, which can lead to un-derestimates as well as overestimates

The value of the flood control service can be derived from the esti-mated damage if flooding occurred

Replacement cost & substitution cost

Some services could be replaced with human-made systems

The value of ground-water recharge can be estimated from the costs of obtaining water from another source (substi-tute costs)

Mitigation or res-toration cost

Cost of moderating ef-fects of lost functions (or of their restoration)

Cost of preventive expen-ditures in absence of eco-system service (e.g., flood barriers) or relocation

Travel cost meth-od

Use of ecosystem ser-vices may require travel; the associated costs can be seen as a reflection of the implied value

Over-estimates are easily made; the technique is data intensive

Part of the recreational value of a site is reflected in the amount of time and money that people spend while traveling to the site

Hedonic pricing method

Reflection of service demand in the prices people pay for associ-ated marketed goods

The method only captures people’s willingness to pay for perceived benefits; very data intensive

Clean air, presence of water and aesthetic views increase the price of sur-rounding real estate

table 19: monetary Valuation methods, Constraints and Examples (from De groot et al., 2006)



117

3. s

urve

ysContingent valua-tion method(CVM)

How much people would be willing to pay (or ac-cept as compensation) for specific services, based on questionnaires or interviews

There are various sources of bias in the interview techniques; there is controversy over whether peo-ple would pay the amounts stated in interviews

It is often the only way to estimate non-use values. For example, a survey questionnaire might ask respondents to express their willingness to in-crease the level of water quality in a stream, lake or river so that they might enjoy activities like swim-ming, boating, or fishing

Group valuation Same as Contingent Valuation (CV) but as an interactive group process

Bias in a group CV is supposed to be less than in individual CV

4. Benefit transfer Uses results from other, similar areas, to estimate value of a given service in the study site

Values are site- and context-dependent and therefore, may not be transferable

When time to carry out original research is scarce and/or data are unavail-able, Benefit Transfers can be used (but with caution)

Processes for ValuationDirect market Valuation

• Market price: The exchange value that ecosystem services have in trade. This is mainly applicable to production functions, but also to some information functions (e.g., recreation) and regulation functions (e.g., water regulation services).

• Factor income (FI): Many ecosystem services enhance incomes; an example is natural water-quality improvements which increase commercial fisheries catch and thereby, incomes of fishermen.

• Public investments: New York City decided to use natural water regulation services of largely undeveloped watersheds through purchase or easements (worth about US$100 million/year) to deliver safe water. It thus avoided construction of a US$6 billion water filtration plant. This implies those watersheds saved New York City an investment of nearly US$6 billion and represents a Willingness-To-Pay value of at least US$100 million/year. Ecosystem trading programmes allow property owners to capitalize on the demand for wetlands banks, with values ranging from US$74,100 to US$493,800 per hectare (Powicki, 1998).

Indirect market ValuationWhen there are no explicit markets for services, it is necessary to resort to indirect means. A variety of techniques can be used to establish the (revealed) Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) or Willingness-To-Accept compensation (WTA) for the availability or loss of these services:

• Avoided cost (AC) Services allow society to avoid costs that would have been incurred in the absence of those services. Examples are flood control (which avoids property damages) and waste treatment (which avoids health costs) by ecosystems.

• Replacement cost (RC): Services could be replaced with anthropogenic systems; an example is natural waste treatment by marshes which can be (partly) replaced with costly artificial treatment systems.



118

• Mitigation or restoration cost: The cost of moderating effects of lost functions or of their restoration can be seen as an expression of the economic importance of the original service. For example, this could be represented by the cost of preventive expenditures in absence of ecosystem service (e.g., flood barriers) or relocation.

• Travel cost (TC): Use of ecosystem services may require travel. Travel costs can be seen as a reflection of the implied value of the service. An example is the amount of money that visitors are willing to pay to travel to an area that they want to visit.

• Hedonic pricing (HP): Service demand may be reflected in the prices people will pay for associated goods; an example is that housing prices at beaches usually exceed prices of identical inland homes near less attractive scenery.

survey-based Valuation• Contingent valuation (CV): Service demand may be elicited by posing hypothetical scenarios

that involve description of alternatives in a social survey questionnaire. For example, a survey questionnaire might ask respondents to express their willingness to pay (i.e., their stated preference as opposed to revealed preference) to increase the level of water quality in a stream, lake or river so that they might enjoy activities like swimming, boating, or fishing (Wilson & Carpenter, 2000). Lately, the related method of contingent choice, asking respondents whether they would pay a predetermined amount, has gained popularity, because it eliminates some of the weaknesses of CV.

• Group valuation: Another approach to ecosystem service valuation that has gained increasing attention recently involves group deliberation. This evolving set of techniques is founded on the assumption that the valuation of ecosystem services should result from a process of open public deliberation, not from the aggregation of separately measured individual preferences. Using this approach, small groups of citizens are brought together in a moderated forum to deliberate about the economic value of ecosystem services. The end result is a deliberative, group contingent valuation (CV) process. With a group-CV, the explicit goal is to derive a monetary value for the ecosystem service in question, through group discussions and consensus building.

Benefit transferIn the case of human or financial resource constraints, values can sometimes be taken out of previous studies focusing on a different region or time period. This practice of transferring monetary values is called benefit transfer.

As the extensive literature on monetary valuation of ecosystem services has shown, each method has strengths and weaknesses (Farber et al., 2002; Wilson & Howarth, 2002; SCBD, 2005). Costanza et al . (1997) reviewed over 100 studies to examine the link among these valuation methods and the main ecosystem services. They found that each ecosystem service could be evaluated by several monetary valuation methods but most often, only one or two have been applied, suggesting future opportunity.

To avoid double counting and to make monetary valuation studies more comparable, a type of rank ordering should be developed to determine the most preferred monetary valuation method(s) for each



119

ecosystem service, supported by a choice-tree to guide the evaluator through the valuation process (cf. Dixon & Pagiola, 1998).

Absolute Values Versus Comparative Values

Valuations are controversial. This is particularly the case when comparing one place with another. Valuations should be relevant to the area to which they are applied. In many cases, it is not the actual value derived that is important but the comparison of the values among various services that a particular ecosystem provides. The objective of valuation is not to put a price on any one service but to allow all the various services to be compared equitably and, as far as possible, quantitatively.

Words of Caution

Deriving values, even if they are accurate, does not guarantee that decisions will be made making full use of them. Just because certain ecosystems are valuable does not mean they will not be managed (e.g., converted) for less economically productive uses. Derived values, if done properly, represent benefits to a large range of stakeholders. Some of these are often removed from a particular area in question and may not be consulted or empowered to influence decisions. In particular, it is often the case that, although it is in the interests of stakeholders collectively to manage for maximum total benefit, it is not so for individual stakeholder groups (or individual people). Ecosystems are often converted into less economically productive uses because benefits to individuals arise from this process. Often, the poorest and most marginalised stakeholder groups suffer through a management process which essentially transfers benefits from the poor to the rich.

Valuations are a useful tool within a broader decision-making process, but their use must include transparency, and equity as well as full, effective and meaningful stakeholder participation. Decisions should not be based on mathematical conclusions. The most valuable factor of all is plain and simple common sense. Trade-off decision making (see case study below) should also consider the issue of benefits (values) for whom and why. In this context, values assigned (benefits accrued) to poorer stakeholders should be weighed against those going to better-off stakeholders. A caveat for all outcomes should be no net increase in poverty.

Most valuations of ecosystems have shown that it would be more economical to maintain natural capital and to live off the interest (through sustainable use) than it would be to reduce capital as we are still doing in many cases by converting and degrading the remaining ecosystems and their services. It should not be assumed that sustainable management of ecosystems as a whole necessarily means limiting the benefits of some of its services to the few. There are many examples where more holistic, sustainable approaches yield benefits even to key stakeholders dominating particular services.

Communicating Ecosystem Values

Ecosystems form part of the total wealth of nations, but because many ecosystem services are not traded in the market, their values are not captured in conventional systems of national accounting. As a result, conventional measures of wealth give incorrect indications of the state of well-being, leading



120

to misinformed policy actions, poorly informed decision making and ill-advised strategic social choices. To make the results of a valuation study fully accessible to all the stakeholders and relevant decision-makers, communication and dissemination activities are essential.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) concluded that one of the major continuing drivers of loss and degradation of ecosystems was that decision-makers either do not have available to them, or choose to ignore, full information on the total value of ecosystem services when considering approving destruction or conversion of ecosystems. This leads to decisions to convert, despite valuation studies repeatedly demonstrating that the value of naturally functioning ecosystems is frequently (although not always) much greater than the value of their services when converted. The latter is particularly true where such a conversion benefits a single stakeholder group rather than multiple use systems benefiting a range of stakeholders.

It is just as important to ensure that the results of the valuation, whether it be undertaken for trade-off analysis, assessment of Total Economic Value or as part of an environmental impact assessment, are explained and made fully available in appropriate forms to the stakeholders concerned. Some types of stakeholder can be highly influential in decisions concerning maintenance or conversion of ecosystems, and many stakeholders may be unaware of, and surprised by the high value of many types of ecosystem service such as water purification, flood control and recreational and aesthetic services they use.

The most appropriate approach to the dissemination of valuation findings to stakeholders will of course vary depending on the purpose of the valuation work and the types of stakeholders involved. That may include workshops and presentations, leaflets and publications, videos, and educational materials for schools and local events. There is a wealth of information and expertise available on choosing appropriate communication, education and public awareness (CEPA) tools (cf., the Ramsar Convention’s CEPA Web-site).

It is vital to ensure that policy-makers and decision-makers better understand the relevance and importance of maintaining ecosystem services to society (and the consequences of not doing so). The clear and appropriate presentation of valuation is a powerful tool for raising general awareness amongst decision-makers, and in giving them the best possible information as the basis for their making fully informed decisions about proposals for the conversion of ecosystems.

Ecosystem valuation is an emerging science, and it is important that those undertaking such valuations share their results and experiences, as methodologies continue to develop and evolve. Online support to implementing valuation guidelines is available through Nature Valuation, which gives access to existing databases, literature, case studies and provides discussion platforms for exchange of information.



121

Examples of total Economic Values and lessons learned One of the most important points about valuation is that it that water-related ecosystem services (e.g., water supply, water quality and, in particular flood protection) deliver high value for ecosystem services. This applies to a wide range of ecosystems. Examples of wetlands and forests are provided here.

Wetland Values

Wetlands provide a wide range of highly beneficial services, averaging over US$4,000 per acre in 2000 dollars (Figure 16). The overall total for the services assessed is US$3,274/ha/year, but this total does not include services such as ornamental and medicinal resources, historic and spiritual values, sediment control and several others; it is certainly an under-estimation. Actual values for specific wetlands can be much higher, depending on economic setting. For example, a study by Costanza et al. (1997) obtained much higher estimates for several services; notably flood control (US$4,539/ha/year), water treatment (US$4,177/ha/year), and water supply (US$3,800/ha/year).

Figure 16: the total Economic Value (tEV) of the main Ecosystem services Provided by Wetlands (us$/ha/year)

(Source: Author diagram)

All figures are average global values based on sustainable use levels and taken from two synthetic studies: Schuijt & Brander (2004) (calibrated for 2000), and Costanza et al. (1997) (calibrated for 1994), together covering over 200 case studies. Most figures are from Schuijt & Brander (2004), except those for aesthetic information service and climate regulation.



Wetland Values

Wetlands provide a wide range of highly beneficial services, averaging over US$4,000 per acre in 2000 dollars (Figure 17). The overall total for the services assessed is US$3,274/ha/year, but this total does not include services such as ornamental and medicinal resources, historic and spiritual values, sediment control and several others; it is certainly an under-‐estimation. Actual values for specific wetlands can be much higher, depending on economic setting. For example, a study by Costanza et al. (1997) obtained much higher estimates for several services; notably flood control (US$4,539/ha/year), water treatment (US$4,177/ha/year), and water supply (US$3,800/ha/year).

Figure 17: The Total Economic Value (TEV) of the Main Ecosystem Services Provided by Wetlands (US$/ha/year). All figures are average global values based on sustainable use levels and taken from two synthetic studies: Schuijt & Brander (2004) (calibrated for 2000), and Costanza et al. (1997) (calibrated for 1994), together covering over 200 case studies. Most figures are from Schuijt & Brander (2004), except those for aesthetic information service and climate regulation. Some points to note: • Actual values often differ significantly from commonly perceived values. The highest values arise

from the less-‐visible activities. Most ecosystems have been managed based on provisioning services. These are goods produced (physical benefits to be consumed).

Total Economic Value (TEV)* of the main ecosystem services provided by wetlands (US$/ha/yr)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Aesthetic Information

Amenity/Recreation

Flood Control

Fishing

Water Treatment

Biodiversity

Habitat Nursery

Climate Regulation

Hunting

Water Supply

Raw Materials

Fuelwood

Ecos

yste

m S

ervi

ces

Average Value (US$/ha/yr)

Provisioning Services Cultural & Aesthetic Services Regulation Services Supporting Services



122

Some points to note:• Actual values often differ significantly from commonly perceived values. The highest

values arise from the less-visible activities. Most ecosystems have been managed based on provisioning services. These are goods produced (physical benefits to be consumed).

• Provisioning services or goods relate only to fuelwood, raw materials, and the products of hunting and fishing (assuming that both are undertaken for food). However, that is not always the case because often recreational hunting/fishing can have high economic value and produce little food. The other services shown in Figure 16 do not produce any tangible goods. Collectively (even individually), these services have a higher value.

• It is important to include the less visible benefits in valuation and hence decision making.• Aesthetic/information services can be valued in dollar terms (not without controversy) and

are highly valuable. • The combined values of water-related services (water supply, climate regulation, water

treatment and flood control) are very high. Even if stakeholders take issue with more culturally related values (e.g., aesthetics), this situation alone argues that ecosystem management decisions should not be biased towards production (i.e., goods derived).

• The values in Figure 16 serve as a yardstick against which to compare options to convert or degrade an ecosystem, a decision which invariably focuses on goods.

• Many of the values are mutually supporting. Sustaining flood control or water treatment services does not necessarily compete with aesthetic value or fisheries. However, conversion of the ecosystem to an alternative use to produce goods (e.g., draining a wetland for food production) nearly always produces competing impacts on services (and usually a net loss in overall value).

Values of Ecosystem services of tropical Forests

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), an initiative led by economists and established to provide more informed policy advice, has undertaken recent assessments of the value of ecosystems. One is for tropical forests, which are mainly located in developing countries (Table 20).



123

Note the importance of water-related services (i.e., regulation of water flows, waste treatment/water purification and erosion prevention), which collectively represent about 45 per cent of the total value of forests. These services exceed the values associated with raw materials (timber), food and climate regulation (carbon storage) and recreation/tourism combined. In particular, raw materials (timber production) represent an almost insignificant value. However, this latter remains one of the most prominent uses (and overuses) of forests. This observation does not mean that sustainable timber harvesting should not be allowed, but it does illustrate costs of unsustainable logging.

other Examples

Assessing the Benefits of not Converting a Floodplain in DelhiApproximately 3,250 hectares of floodplain between the Yamuna River and the City of Delhi offer benefits such as provision of water, fodder and other materials, fisheries, and recreation. Faced with pressures to convert the floodplain into areas suitable for habitation and industry, decision makers acknowledged the ecological role of the floodplain and yet were unable to establish sufficient justification for conserving it unless economic valuation of ecosystem services demonstrated a positive cost-benefit analysis from not converting it. Value estimates for a range of services totalled US$843/ha/year (2007 prices) (Kumar, 2001). The embankment of the Yamuna would virtually dry the floodplain, causing disappearance of these services. Ecosystem benefits exceeded the opportunity costs of conservation (estimated from the land price, assumed to reflect the discounted value of development benefits) for a range of discount rates from 2 per cent to 12 per cent, justifying the maintenance of the floodplain. The Delhi government halted the embankment plan of Yamuna until further order (Kumar et al., 2001).

tropical Forests Value of ecosystem services2 (in us$ / ha/ year – 2007 values)

Ecosystem service Average maximum number of studies

Provisioning services

Food 75 552 19

Water 143 411 3

Raw materials 431 1,418 26

Genetic resources 483 1,756 4

Medical resources 181 562 4

Regulating services

Improvement of air quality 230 449 2

Climate regulation 1,965 3,218 10

Regulation of water flows 1,360 5,235 6

Waste treatment/water purification

177 506 6

Erosion prevention 694 1,084 9

Cultural services

Opportunites for recreation and tourism

381, 1,711 20

total 6,120 16,362 109

table 20: Values of Ecosystem services in tropical Forests



124

Valuing the Benefits of Water Provision in new ZealandThe Te Papanui conservation Park in New Zealand’s Lammermoor range provides the Otago region with free water that otherwise would cost NZ$136 million to bring in from elsewhere. The 22,000 hectare, tussock grass area acts as a natural water catchment, supplying water flows valued at NZ$31 million for hydroelectricity, NZ$93 million for urban water supply and NZ$12 million for irrigating 60,000 hectares of Taieri farmland (New Zealand Department of Conservation, 2006).

using Valuation to Assess levels of Compensation and steer Policy

Valuation has a long history in influencing policy. As long ago as 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil spill accelerated development and use of new methodologies to estimate biodiversity value and ecosystem services, caused new policy responses consistent with the polluter-pays principle (including compensation payments based on ecosystem service values that were compromised), and led to mandatory rules for double-hull shipbuilding (79 per cent of all oil tankers globally now have double-hull design).

In 2006, the Indian Supreme Court drew up a scale of compensatory payments for converting different types of forested land to other uses. The court based the rates on a valuation study by the Green Indian States Trust (GIST, 2006) which estimated values (e.g., timber, fuel wood, non-timber forest products and ecotourism, bio-prospecting, forest ecological services, non-use values for conserving charismatic species such as the Royal Bengal tiger and Asian lion) for six classes of forests. Compensatory payments are paid by those who obtain permits to convert forest to other uses; payments go into a publicly managed afforestation fund to improve the country’s forest cover. In 2009, the Supreme Court’s decisions directed RS10 billion (~EUR143 million) to be released every year for afforestation, wildlife conservation and creation of rural jobs (GIST, 2006).

Value for money: natural solutions for water filtration and treatment

Cities like Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg, Tokyo, Melbourne, New York and Jakarta rely on protected areas to provide residents with drinking water. A third of the world’s hundred largest cities draw a substantial proportion of their drinking water from forest protected areas (Dudley and Stolton, 2003). Forests, wetlands and protected areas with dedicated management actions often provide clean water at a lower cost than substitutes like water treatment plants.

• new york: Water purification services in the Catskills watershed (US$1–1.5 billion) were assessed at less than the estimated cost of a filtration plant (US $6–8 billion plus US$300–500 million/year operating costs). Taxpayer water bills went up by 9 per cent instead of doubling (Perrot-Maitre & Davis, 2001).

• Venezuela: The national protected area system prevents sedimentation that, if left unattended, could reduce farm earnings by around US$3.5 million/year (Pabon-Zamora et al. 2008).

Ecological infrastructure for protection against natural hazards



125

Restoring and Protecting mangroves in VietnamPotential damage from storms, flooding and landslides can be reduced by a combination of land use planning and maintaining/restoring ecosystems to enhance buffering capacity. Planting and protecting nearly 12,000 hectares of mangroves cost US$1.1 million but saved annual expenditures on dike maintenance of US$7.3 million (Tallis et al., 2008).

how Protected Areas can generate Benefits: selected examples

• Brazilian Amazon: Ecosystem services from protected areas provide national and local benefits worth over 50 per cent more than the returns to smallholder farming (Portela, 2001). They draw three times more money into the state economy than would extensive cattle ranching, the most likely alternative use for park lands (Amend et al., 2007).

• Cambodia’s Ream national Park: Effective protection is estimated to generate benefits from sustainable resource use, recreation and research worth 20 per cent more than benefits from current destructive uses. The distribution of costs and benefits favours local villagers, who would earn three times more under a scenario of effective protection than with aggressive management (de Lopez, 2003).

• scotland: The public benefits of protecting the European network of protected areas, the Natura 2000 network are estimated to be more than three times the costs, including direct management and opportunity costs (Jacobs, 2004).

notes on module 12



126

module 13: trade-offs and goals for Ecosystem management10:00–12:00

module 13 at a glanceCompeting interests means everything is a trade-off. This session helps us addresses multiple stakeholder interests and expressions of value to develop realistic goals for an ecosystem-based approach to managing a catchment. We discuss the interests of in-stream environmental flows, downstream users and groundwater as interested interests in the considerations.

learning objectives for module 13• Understand the issues of scale and linkage that apply in the context of realistic goals for

provision of ecosystem services• Appreciate the need to consider multiple, current, potential and cumulative uses and

management activities in evaluating the extent to which goals are realistic• Understand the potential of opportunity and constraint analysis in assessing goals for use of

ecosystem services

Introduction

People are part of ecosystems—typically the major driver of impacts. Transition from hunter–gatherer subsistence to agricultural, to urban, to megalopolis has masked the connection between people and ecosystem processes. That transition involves increasing modification and transformation of terrestrial ecosystems and increasingly severe downstream impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems. The ranges and levels of ecosystem service benefits change as the context moves from intact ecosystems to increasingly modified ecosystems, but the level of service depends on use and management. It is typically a gradual process but increasingly major urban, agricultural, industrial, mining and associated water harvest and storage developments are imposing substantial and far reaching changes.

The concept of the economic or urban footprint illustrates the reach of demand for ecosystem services beyond the areas that benefit from those services. The impacts, benefits and costs of ecosystem uses can be widely separated (e.g., upstream/ downstream, coastal, oceanic, atmospheric and global).

Some ecosystem management goals may be un-recognized because they relate to services that are such basic essentials of life that their delivery is presumed or taken for granted. Realistic goal-setting requires consideration at several physical, ecological and socioeconomic scales. Goals at one point in a catchment may conflict with each other, as well as with goals lower down in the catchment and/or beyond the catchment in coastal and marine ecosystems. Consideration of realistic goals requires understanding the impacts, dynamics and interactions of past, current and probable uses.



127

modification, linkage, scales and Jurisdictions terrestrial EcosystemsFrom the point that humans first arrive at an untouched landscape, their decisions become part of local ecosystem dynamics. The initial humans may move on, leaving all natural processes relatively intact but at some later point, others arrive and use the area and its resources in ways that range from undetectable impact to gross alienation and transformation of soils, water flows and pre-existing plant and animal communities.

At the lowest levels of impact, human demands for food, water, shelter and resources may be so slight that there is no detectable change in the natural diversity and ecosystem processes of the area. In this situation, human needs and demands are met within the resilience of self-maintenance capacity of the ecosystem.

As human demands increase with growth in population and economic engagement, the need for food may lead to:

• Levels of hunting that significantly reduce or extinguish target species; • Clearance or gross modification of vegetation for agriculture that significantly reduces plant

communities and affects the animals that depend upon them; and • Harvest of water for urban, agricultural or industrial purposes at levels that compromise

a wide range of ecological functions, particularly in times of reduced rainfall or natural disaster

Typically, ecological services are taken for granted until there is very obvious impact and evidence that cannot be ignored, such as decline or scarcity of natural resources, fewer animals to hunt and fish to catch, reduced availability of timber, firewood or water, or falling crop yields. Those perceptions may develop slowly because declines are first explained as sequences of poor seasons. They may be further masked by the phenomenon of shifting baselines where each generation sees the conditions at the time it became aware or started an ecosystem service-dependent activity as its baseline and discounts accounts of bigger yields or easier conditions in previous generations as exaggeration (Pauly, 1998).

Water pricing provides one opportunity to use resource allocation to cause changes in the ways in which water is used. There are several ways in which to construct a water pricing scheme (Easter & Perry, 2011). Examples include a fixed charge per unit of time, a constant, per-cubic meter rate, a rate that decreases as use increases (supporting large-volume users like industry), a rate that increases as use increases (advantaging small users such as households), a staggered rate (a particular price per cubic meter for the first volume and a second price for the remaining volume), a constant price for the physical service and an additional cost per unit of water used, and peak-load or seasonally-adjusted pricing.



128

Intact and modified terrestrial Ecosystems

• Intact: No detectable human impacts. • Minoralienation: Small areas of native vegetation cleared for planting of crops, slash and

burn, plots cycle. There may be some erosion from cleared patches. If burning is not well managed, it may lead to extensive fires.

• Moderatealienation: Small-scale, mixed agriculture, hunting and gathering with limited residential population, significant proportion of habitat intact.

• Substantialalienation: Industrial-scale agriculture with areas of services, residential, commercial development and associated infrastructure corridors. Some patches of relict habitat. Ecosystem service impacts may be partially offset or contained by national parks, reserves or wildlife corridors and advanced soil and water cycle management.

• Grossalienation: Large-scale land clearance and deliberate replacement of pre-existing ecological communities with constructed industrial, commercial, agricultural or residential development with few or no relict areas.

Typically, the sequence of development of human impacts is evident as a gradient of transformation from intact to highly modified terrestrial ecosystems. In terrestrial ecosystems, linkages are generally unidirectional through the flow of freshwater and associated dissolved and suspended materials transported down catchments towards the sea. Downstream ecosystems that are not directly impacted by human use may be impacted by upstream human activities. Upstream benefits of an activity in one jurisdiction may result in downstream costs in another jurisdiction.

marine Ecosystems

Coastal marine ecosystems are the receiving point of all impacts flowing from catchments through rivers and washing off coastal lands. What happens on land affects the sea, and may do so over long distances. Typically, coastal waters are most immediately impacted by the closest river discharges, but because of the linkages of currents, tides and wind-driven waves, coastal waters may be affected by discharges from more distant rivers and by linkages with offshore waters. The system is complicated. Where almost all flows on land are unidirectional down catchments, flows in the seas and particularly coastal seas are multi-directional and mixed in seemingly unpredictable ways. Cyclical changes of tides, variations in wind regimes and major current systems such as the El Niño/La Niña southern oscillation of the Pacific Ocean, generate complex dynamics below the surface in a system, dynamics that are effectively invisible.

Coastal waters, estuaries and wetlands are typically critical habitats for food species that underpin the well-being and economic development potential of coastal communities. This is particularly important in the case of species whose annual spawning cycle coincides with planktonic productivity peaks triggered by run-off from monsoonal rains or spring melting of snow and ice built-up during winter months. The frequency, duration, flow rate and quality of fresh water discharging through river mouths can be critical factors in the breeding success and larval survival of many species.



129

Substantial water harvest typically reduces the frequency and duration of flows to times when storage dams overflow. This can have the effect that flows do not occur until late in the monsoon or melt season with consequent reduction of the opportunity for breeding of coastal species.

Water harvest alters the rate of flow down rivers by changing retention in storage systems. Those may have controlled releases, but typically the frequency of high-volume flows and associated downstream transport of organic materials is reduced to times of storage overflows.

Flows may also be significantly altered by land use changes. In intact catchments, there are often wetlands that are saturated or filled by seasonal or episodic river overflows or rains. These may occur upland or on coastal plains and estuary margins. In intact systems, the pattern of occasional recharge and gradual discharge of water from wetlands can maintain flows and environmental conditions for breeding and feeding of marine species.

Land cover may reduce overland flows, as occurs in the case of freshwater wetlands. Wetlands are often productive areas and are thus attractive for agriculture, yet agricultural use may involve drainage to reduce soil saturation, allow earlier planting, and to divert water to storage for dry season or adjacent dry area irrigation. Land cover may increase flow rates but reduce flow duration in the case of downstream, coastal plain wetlands. These are typically attractive areas for residential or industrial development around growing urban centres where the slow flows and retention of water causes flooding. Flood management often is pursued through creation of deep, straight drainage channels. The loss of habitat resulting from changed land cover is compounded when slow flows that naturally occurred over a period of weeks are compressed into a period of high flows occurring over hours or days, flows which may carry organic matter and nutrients far offshore beyond the nursery habitats of coastal species.

Development of catchments usually involves changes in the quality of water reaching coastal marine habitats. In intact systems, freshwater flows carry sediments and gravels from soils and rocks, dissolved minerals and nutrients, and organic matter from plants and animals. These materials flow down rivers and drive the productivity of estuarine and coastal marine ecosystems. In altered catchments, water quality may be changed through increases in sediment loads, minerals, nutrients and organic matter as well as chemicals arising from industrial, agricultural or urban activities. The systems typically have some capacity or resilience to mediate water quality changes from human impacts, but overloads in any or all of the categories can cause changes ranging from short-term damage and disruption to permanent changes, loss of fishery production and coastal vulnerability due to loss of protective ecosystem services.

Jurisdictions

The linkages down catchments and at the coast, through tides, currents and wind-driven waves, often mean that the management of activities and ecological processes involves addressing human activities



130

at levels ranging from the individual or household, to communities and jurisdictions at levels from the local, through provincial, national, regional and global. The benefits derived by one community may result in costs to others in a distant place and jurisdiction.

goals, opportunities, Constraints: the context for realistic management

Goal setting relative to ecosystem service delivery requires an understanding of the processes, rates and variability of

• Biophysical processes that underpin delivery of the service• Existing and possible human uses and impacts that affect delivery of the service to the

propose point of use • Biophysical processes that are likely to be affected by the use• Existing and possible human uses at, and downstream of the point of use that are likely to

be affected by the use

Typically, considerations of environmental and social conditions and constraints occur through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in the context of a specific, well advanced proposal. Often, such assessments are limited to local considerations based on cost and limitations of time, which preclude careful consideration of the broader context of ecosystem services.

Ideally, development of proposals will take place in the context of a Strategic or Integrated Environmental Assessment (SEA or IEA) at a broad scale that addresses upstream and downstream linkages, ecosystem services, uses and dependencies. Such a consideration can provide a systematic basis for synthesizing current information and identifying gaps for EIA for a specific project within the strategically assessed area. SEA can simplify and improve the EIA process through prior understanding of the broader context and the specific matters that should be addressed in design and management.



131

table 21: EIA and sEA Compared (oECD, 2006)

EIA sEAApplied to specific and relatively short-term (life-cycle) projects and their specifications

Applied to policies, plans and programmes with a broad and long-term strategic perspective

Takes place at the early stage of project planning once parameters are set

Ideally, takes place at an early stage in strategic planning

Considers limited range of project alternatives Considers a broad range of alternative scenarios

Usually prepared and/or funded by the project proponents

Conducted independently of any specific project proponent

Focuses on obtaining project permission, rarely with feedback to policy, plan or programme consideration

Focuses on policy, plan and programme implications for future lower-level decisions

Well-defined, linear process with clear beginning and end (e.g., from feasibility to project approval)

Multistage, iterative process with feedback loops

Preparation of an EIA document with prescribed format and contents is usually mandatory. This document provides a baseline reference for monitoring

May not be formally documented

Emphasis on mitigating environmental and social impacts of a specific project, but with identification of some project

Emphasis on meeting balanced environmental, social and economic objectives in policies, plans and programmes. Includes identifying macro-level development outcomes

Limited review of cumulative impacts, often limited to phases of a specific project. Does not cover regional-scale developments or multiple projects

Inherently incorporates consideration of cumulative impacts



132

holistic managementEM is one of many acronyms for holistic management regimes that address biophysical and socioeconomic goals, opportunities and constraints in a multisectoral, coordinated or integrated process. Other terms used to convey a similar message include:

• Ecosystem-based management (EBM)• Integrated Catchment Management (ICM)• Integrated Coastal Management (ICM)• Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM)• Integrated Coast and Ocean Management (ICOM)• Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)• Integrated Ecosystem Management (IEM)• Integrated Ecosystem and Resource Management (IERM)

Whatever the acronym, planning for holistic management should address the following• Multiple, current and potential, human uses and impacts• Effective engagement of the communities that value and have management responsibility

for the system• A systematic process based on well publicized operational principles or decision rules• Understanding the best available socioeconomic and biophysical science • Establishing an overarching, multisectoral framework that integrates, or at least coordinates

the activities and interests of sectors and the environmental opportunities and constraints• Identifying sectoral objectives, impacts and outlooks, as well as multisectoral interactions in

relation to environmental considerations• Establishing an adaptive management regime based on clearly established objectives• Commitment to an adaptive cycle in which the effects of management are reviewed

through monitoring and performance evaluation against the stated objectives and in the light of new socioeconomic and biophysical science



133

notes on module 13



134

module 14 Field trip13:00–18:00

module 14 at a glanceWe will apply our conceptual model to a local condition, demonstrating that good management practices are currently in place.

learning objectives for module 14• Develop a more practical understanding of the DPSIR framework• Understand that the field site, the local catchment is a useful learning tool for this workshop• Develop the ability to review management practices in a catchment and discuss from that

review the apparent goals and priorities that have been established on that catchment

We recently visited a local catchment and reviewed watershed practices. It was apparent that the people managing those lands and those waters have specific goals for their management. In many cases, it was not explicit, not apparent to us what those goals were. Today, we will review what we saw and learned about on that field trip, and will frame those observations in terms of goals (implicit as well as explicit), practices we see being applied on the ground, and our view about the relationship between those goals and those practices.

the DPsIR framework allows us to understand goals and practices on that catchment

The DPSIR is a conceptual tool that allows us to express relationships within an ecosystem, rather than just describing various states and conditions. When you look attributes of a catchment, a land area or water body, you are able to describe and often quantify various attributes (e.g., standing biomass, rates of erosion, agricultural productivity). Each of those attributes is the product of a series of relationships in the ecosystem. For example, productivity is a function of management practices like delivery of water and fertilizer, erosion control practices, and soil fertility. Use that context to parse out the issues you see facing management decision making in this catchment.



135

notes on module 14



136

Day 5: Putting It All to Work

module 15: selecting tools for a local Application8:00–10:00

module 15 at a glanceThe workshop to date has offered background in understanding the structure and function of a catchment, as well as the goals and priorities of the human communities that live and work there. We have examined a range of tools for achieving various goals in a catchment. Choice and application of one or more tools is dependent on characteristics of the catchment and goals of the stakeholders. Examining interactions helps a catchment manager build a toolbox of available actions. Having chosen goals, which of the resources in that toolbox will help us attain our goals, and how do we apply those tools?

learning objectives for module 15• Understand how tools for catchment management are selected for a local application• Be able to express a metric or framework useful for selecting tools for application, and for

evaluating them after application

Choosing and Applying tools to Achieve specific outcomes

Natural-resource managers need to develop an understanding of what the services are, how to quantify the goods or service in question and what they are worth to society. Often, ecosystem services generated on a piece of land benefit people living downstream from that land. Provisioning services (e.g., fresh water and genetic resources) may have major benefits to people not living on the land in question. To protect and manage these services, the natural-resource manager needs the requisite knowledge, skill and the tools to convince stakeholders. This can be a significant challenge. The manager needs to know which tools are appropriate, which resources are available and how those resources can be used to make natural-resource management under his/her jurisdiction more sustainable. Those specifics will depend on the characteristics of the land the manager is managing.

Frequently, inappropriate approaches are recommended in areas where they simply won’t work. Advisors/consultants may attempt to transfer approaches from land management under some remote, dissimilar socioeconomic, climatic, geographical and vegetative scenario to an area with a completely different set of variables, most often leading to failure.

the Repeated Value of Water

Water is one of few resources that is repeatedly used and re-used as it passes through a landscape. Water falls as precipitation, interacts with the landscape, and provides benefits to human and non-human communities. Those benefits include things like plant growth, drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat. As the water passes along its channels toward the sea, its quality is changed, and we invest



137

a great deal of energy in managing changes in its distribution and quality. Water that irrigates a landscape receives nutrients and sediment, and carries those from the landscape to the stream channel. Much of that material is either deposited in the stream or taken up by plants and animals. The same water is then re-used for other ecosystem services downstream. The continual and repetitive re-use of water offers a perspective about which we need to be mindful; every management decision has potential downstream implications.

Rich Versus Poor

Approaches that are implemented successfully in one continent/country under a specific socioeconomic scenario may not work in another continent/country with a completely different socioeconomic or biophysical scenario. A commonly made mistake is applying tools from developed countries with a specific culture to a developing country. It is common to have the same intervention result in different outcomes within the same country. Very often, advisors assume that value systems in a specific target country are the same as where a tool was developed. Resource-poor communities don’t see the same benefits in a landscape that a rich community would see in that same area. If the individual living off the land is poor and worries about the source of their energy (heat) or food for the next day, they don’t worry as much about the aesthetic or tourist value of a tree or wild animal in the landscape. Unless the natural-resource manager is able to secure another source or substitute the heat or food with an alternative, the intervention will be likely to fail.

system Function

Application of management principles appropriate in one natural system may not work in another that functions in a different way. For example, fire in tropical forest systems causes widespread devastation. On the other hand, savannah trees are dispersed with a grass layer which dries out during the dry season, making it flammable. The latter will always be prone to fires, whether anthropogenic or climatic. Suppressing fires in such a landscape would be impossible and ecologically unsound. Before natural-resource managers advise individual land managers in the area under their jurisdiction, they need to know how the natural system functions and what current land management practices are. If land managers use fire to rejuvenate grazing, for example, it is useless to try and stop them from doing so. The approach should rather be to convince land managers to try alternatives of timing or location, using well informed advocacy programmes or giving them incentives to improve the fire management regime. Natural-resource managers must understand the difference among the functioning of grasslands, savannahs, boreal forests, tropical forests, semi-desert vegetation types, and heath lands before trying to transfer management approaches from one system to another. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) explains the relationship between the production of a set of services from any region and human well-being. Ecosystems consist of a number of different subsets including natural landscapes such as forest, savannahs, grasslands or heath-lands and agricultural and urban areas, each of which produces a different set of services. When resource management tools are



138

being considered, an ecosystem assessment must be done that takes into account both production of services from each land management type and the flows of materials among areas within the system and between systems.

land tenure

When applying a tool or approach, the resource manager must know the land tenure. It is critical to the success of the ecosystem approach that interventions of land managers lead to better livelihood options for the land owner. Different value systems apply to the four different types of land tenure.

• Government land has generally been set aside for some purpose. That may include military, conservation (e.g., watersheds, national and regional parks), research or numerous other purposes. Whatever management tools or approaches are being considered, the manager must take into account the primary purpose for the land.

• Communal land tenure is very common, especially in large parts of the developing world. In some countries, an individual cannot own land; only improvements on the land are owned by the land user. In large parts of Africa, tribal authorities are in charge of land. Rights to use of the land are allocated by these authorities. Community-based natural-resource management approaches are some of the most successful tools for management of communal lands.

• Local authorities are generally responsible for management of urban land. Very often, there are designated green or open spaces owned by such authorities, managed to deliver a series of services to the communities living under the auspices of the local authority. When natural-resource management approaches and tools are being considered, this authority needs to be consulted. Local authority land is often intensively used and highly impacted by local communities. Where the communities are poor, local authority land is often the only access inhabitants have to land. In richer communities, open land is often seen as a recreational resource.

• In large parts of the world, private ownership is the most common form of land tenure. Generally, private land owners have more rights to their land than any other land owner or manager.

Water tenure

• In many countries, access to natural flows is linked to ownership of the land. This means that a landowner owns the water that flows over his/her land. Some views describe water as a fugitive resource, referring to the fact that if a user does not detain it, it runs away. That idea has serious implications for downstream users and often either regulation or incentives need to be used to ensure that land managers allow enough water to be released from their land to support the needs of downstream users, including other countries.



139

To enhance an ecosystem approach to land management, actions of land managers must be properly regulated; they must be well informed, and whatever land management approach is advocated must lead to better livelihood options to the land owner than before the intervention.

Groundwater is a different management challenge than surface water. Surface land management practices influence groundwater flow and recharge. However, that relationship is not often apparent to land managers. Similarly, groundwater abstraction policies are influenced by surface ownership independent of the flow path of the groundwater. In areas that rely on groundwater, the manager will benefit from the services of a geohydrologist, services usually available through regional or national government.

• Water as a public good. Some of the more progressive water legislation in the world has recognized water as a public good and stipulates that land managers can only register use of a certain amount of water. Regulation through appropriate legislation is generally the most commonly used tool to manage water resources. Sometimes, though, downstream users need more water or water of a better quality than what regulations force land users to release. It is then necessary to offer upstream users, whether public or private, an incentive to either improve the quality or the volume of water released through either legal incentives or payments for watershed services.

The best known example of payments for watershed services is the Catskills watershed in New York where farmers are paid to change land management practices to improve water quality, thereby reducing the demand for water purification in New York City. A well-known example of the integration of water resource management and socioeconomic development is the Working for Water programme in South Africa where labour-intensive programmes for removal of invasive alien trees are being used to create much-needed jobs to improve stream flow while improving economic condition of the rural poor.

Whatever water management approach is being advocated, it is crucial that it fit into the regulatory framework of the region or country. It is useless to try to apply a model taken from a scenario where water is seen as a private good to a country where water is regulated and managed as a public good.

Cultural Beliefs and Practices

Whatever tools or natural-resource management approaches are being considered by managers, the process has to take into account cultural beliefs and practices of local communities. Cultural beliefs and practices are too diverse and there are too many different scenarios in place across the world for it to be practical or fair to highlight specific examples. It is, however, crucial that land managers take cultural beliefs and practices into account when advocating land management practices to land users. Often in the past, ignoring cultural beliefs and practices has led to the failure of otherwise sound natural-resource management programmes. Cultural beliefs and practices may also be recognized as part of the definition of the cultural ecosystem services that are desired or valued from an area.



140

Bundling tools and marketsNo single tool listed in this document will solve all natural-resource management problems in a country or a region. It is therefore, important for natural-resource managers to integrate approaches, using multiple tools to enhance an ecosystem approach to natural-resource management. No natural resource system can optimally serve human society function without regulation. Some countries have excellent legislation but lack the capacity to implement it. Natural-resource management and socioeconomic development, payments for ecosystem services, incentives, advocacy and education can all be bundled within a regulatory framework to improve natural-resource management.

Impact of Perverse Incentives/subsidies

Natural-resources managers must remain aware of the possible impact of perverse incentives or subsidies that could still be on statute books. Especially in some developed countries, there are cases where land uses that would sustain natural diversity or other ecosystem services are discouraged through perverse legal incentives. There are examples of countries where natural forests are being unsustainably harvested to make way for more economically productive landscapes based on introduced species such as plantations forests. To make matters worse, land users may struggle to obtain licenses to harvest native woodland species if they decide to restore native rather than introduced species. Natural-resource managers must remain aware of such legislation in their respective countries and develop strategies for dealing with the problems if they exist.

Environmental Flows

Natural-resource managers should never forget the importance of environmental flows. Especially in the case of water, over-subscription of the resource leads to collapse of the natural system. The same applies to grazing and others forms of consumptive use such as harvest of roofing and craft materials from wetlands or medicinal plants and timber resources from woodlands. Each of the latter, however, only impacts the local landscape while over-extraction of water has much wider implications.

Lastly, it is important to be sure that the livelihood profile of a community after an intervention will outweigh the livelihood profile before the intervention. Figure 17 was developed to illustrate this point with reference to payments for ecosystem services; it applies to all natural-resource management tools a manager has at his/her disposal.



141

(Source: Bond, 2008, unpublished) table 22: Choosing the Appropriate tool for local Conditions

Advocacy & Extensionsubsets• Water wise

food production (i.e., improved irrigation systems),

• Rain water harvesting

• Crop selection • Sustainable

consumptive utilization of resources (e.g., grazing regimes, building materials, energy/fuel wood)

• Fire management

• Non-consumptive use of natural resources (e.g., nature-based tourism)

Resource status (rich vs. poor)

• Applicable to both resource poor and rich regions

land tenure• Applicable to all

land tenure types, especially private and communal land

• Land Types• Coastal• Inland water

bodies, rivers & wetlands

• Forest• Dryland• Mountain• Cultivated• Urban

• Carbon• Watershed services• Bio-diversity• landscape beauty

landuse systems

Desired land users

Current landuse

Fina

ncia

l ben

efits

socia

l cos

ts

Figure 17: Required Impact of Ecosystem Approach Land Management Tool on Livelihoods



142

Incentivessubsets• Mainstreaming

ecosystem management through resource incentives given by national, regional or local governments to achieve economic goals

• Tax incentives

Resource status (rich vs. poor)• Mostly applicable to

relatively rich countries

land tenure (appli-cable to)• Private• Communal

land types• Coastal• Inland water


• Forest• Dryland• Mountain

Legislation&regulationsubsets• Land• Environmental• Biodiversity• Water

Resource status (rich vs. poor)


land tenure types, especially private and communal land

land types (appli-cable to)• Coastal• Inland water


• Forest• Dryland• Mountain• Cultivated• Urban

MarketsforEcosystemServices(resourceexchange,notnecessarilymonetary)subsets• Market for

watershed Services

• The carbon market

• Markets for biodiversity

• Corporate social investment (e.g., water neutral)

Resource status (rich vs. poor)• Applicable to both

resource rich and poor regions

land tenure (appli-cable to)• Private• Communal• To a limited extent,

government land

land types• Coastal

(biodiversity)• Inland water

bodies, rivers & wetlands (watershed services & biodiversity)

• Forest (carbon, biodiversity & watershed services)

• Dryland (watershed services, carbon & biodiversity)

• Mountain (watershed services)



143

Stewardshipsubsets• Forest• Biodiversity• Water

Resource status (rich vs. poor)• Largely applicable to

resource rich regions

land tenure (applicable to) • Private• Communal

land types• Coastal

(biodiversity)• Inland water

bodies, rivers & wetlands (watershed services & biodiversity)

• Forest (sustainable timber)

• Dryland (biodiversity)

• Mountain (watershed services & biodiversity)

Community-basedNatural-resourceManagementsubsets• Wildlife• Ecosystem

services• Nature-based

tourism• Corporate social

investment

Resource status (rich vs. poor)• Largely applicable to

resource poor regions

land tenure• Communal land

land types• Coastal (coastal

fisheries)• Inland water

bodies, rivers & wetlands (watershed services)

• Forest (carbon, timber)

• Dryland (wildlife, biodiversity, nature-based tourism)

• Mountain (watershed services)



144

Reporting&Communicatingsubsets• Community

stakeholders• Peer institutional

stakeholders• National and

international NGOs

Resource status (rich vs. poor)• Largely resource rich

regions

land tenure (applicable to)• All

land types• Coastal• Forest• Dryland• Cultivated• Inland waters• Mountain

Labelling&marketingsubsets• Organic• Biodiversity• Social & fair

trade

Resource status (rich vs. poor)• Largely resource rich

regions

land tenure (applicable to)• Private • Communal

land types• Coastal (sustainable

use of marine resources)

• Forest (sustainable forest products)

• Dryland (organic and free range)

• Cultivated (organic)

Micro-creditSchemessubsets• Micro lending

schemes• Resource sharing

schemes

Resource status (rich vs. poor)• Only applicable to poor

communities

land tenure• Largely applicable

to communal tenure

land types• Cultivated• Urban

ResourceAccountingsubsets• Stocks• Flows

Resource status (rich vs. poor)• Applicable to all systems


types of tenure

land types• Coastal• Inland water


• Forest• Dryland• Mountain



145

UplandForestation,RiparianBuffers(seeCalder,2002)subsets• Tree planting• Removal of trees• Charcoal

production (Malimbwi & Zahabu, n.d.)

• Rainforestation (Goltenboth & Hutter, 2002)

Resource status (rich vs. poor)• Applicable to all systems


types of tenure, but more common on public lands

land types• Forest• Dryland• Mountain

notes on module 15



146

module 16: monitoring and Evaluation10:30–12:30

module 16 at a glance6

How do we know whether our ecosystem management plan is effective in achieving the goals we established for it? Module 16 offers tools to help you clarify the goals you understand society has for your catchment, and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of your ecosystem management plan as you attempt to meet those goals.

learning objectives for module 16At the conclusion of Module 16, the successful participant will:

• understand the role of information in decision making• understand the ways adaptive management can improve decisions and sustainability, and

yet demonstrate that adaptive management requires M&E information

As part of designing an effective evaluation, you will need to develop measures to monitor and evaluate key outcomes from your EM plan; those should be directly related to the ecosystem services you understand society wishes to sustain from this catchment.

In Module 16, we argue that to achieve sustainable ecosystem management, a manager needs to monitor and evaluate the processes through which management is achieved as well as the specific levels of various ecosystem services produced, and use lessons learned from adaptive approaches to management to improve the next implementation of the EM plan.

We begin with an understanding of how monitoring, evaluation and learning can be used as complementary tools that build on each other’s impact to improve an EM process. Monitoring is a planned, systematic process of observation that closely follows a course of activities, and compares what is happening with what is expected to happen. Monitoring the implementation of an EM plan makes sure the delivery of ecosystem services meet societal goals, while working within the scope of allocated resources (i.e., time, financial, human, informational, technical). Evaluation is a process that assesses achievement against preset criteria. Evaluations can have a variety of purposes and follow distinct methodologies (e.g., process, outcome, performance). Evaluation of an EM plan determines the extent to which ecosystem service levels (i.e., our outcomes) are comparable with the originally intended purpose, and what lessons can be learned for a subsequent phase of the EM plan. Learning is a cognitive transformation that occurs during information collection and information processing.

6 This module relies heavily on, and is adapted from Deri, Swanson & Bhandari, 2009.



147

Learning can result in behaviour change (i.e., acting differently in the future in response to a stimulus). Monitoring and evaluating the EM process offer learning opportunities. Planning for and making use of these learning opportunities can help us identify lessons that become key inputs for improving the next generation of the EM plan.

The idea of monitoring and evaluation typically brings about more apprehension than applause. Negative associations, ranging from the trouble of an extra budget line to the fear of not meeting expectations lead to people avoid evaluation, meaning they do not learn from their experiences and thus do not see their value in improving a process. Further, we often mistake outputs (i.e., products such as the EM plan itself) for outcomes (i.e., improved delivery of ecosystem services). When we do so, we see little added value in evaluation as long as a tangible, credible and legitimate EM plan gets published on time.

But there is a powerful alternative. Monitoring and evaluating the EM process attracts attention when you want to make sure stakeholders understand the goals set for a catchment and the ways resources were used to achieve the intended goals. In this context, the EM process is a capacity-development mechanism for periodic reflection and improvement. This approach acknowledges that information itself is not enough; dedicated mechanisms are needed to ensure that societal goals for a catchment are well understood, stakeholders know what measures have been taken to meet those goals, and everyone understands how successful management has been in achieving ecosystem service goals. Moreover, it recognizes that institutional improvement can only happen with concurrent improvements in both individual capacities (e.g., stakeholders’ understanding of limits on ecosystem services) and institutional capacities (e.g., increased capability to identify and install BMPs).

Foundation of Effective monitoring and Evaluation

We approach monitoring and evaluation through three steps. First, we review different purposes of evaluation and decide on one or more purposes for evaluation of our EM plan. Second, we identify the primary users of our evaluation, people whose perception will control whether or not our evaluation gets used in guiding the evolution of our EM plan. Third, we decide whether external or internal evaluators best serve our purpose for a given EM plan.

There are three fundamental types of evaluation; they can render judgment, encourage improvement, or generate new knowledge (Patton, 1997). Summative evaluation, accreditation, quality control and audits are examples of judgment-intended evaluations. They follow a deductive method by setting clear criteria and standards against which to judge performance, and often they are quantitative in nature. These kinds of evaluations often are commissioned by external parties (e.g., donors) and typically are performed by external evaluators. A summative evaluation could increase the credibility of an EM plan, given its impartiality and objectivity.

Formative evaluation (Fettermann, 1996) is improvement-oriented. The intent of this type of evaluation is making things better during implementation of a course of behaviour. Formative evaluations are inductive, posing open-ended evaluation. Evaluators are often internal and it usually is the participants



148

themselves, including some of the primary users, who conduct the evaluation. Formative evaluation has a major benefit (i.e., it is the key to adaptive management) and a less apparent benefit (i.e., it can increase the perceived legitimacy of the catchment’s ecosystem management approach by involving stakeholders in assessing goals, actions to achieve the goals and outcomes from those actions.

Formative evaluations often are applied to cyclical activities, like an EM plan for a catchment, where performance improvement is expected over time. This improvement can involve change in behaviour (e.g., BMPs installed) or change in the state of the environment (e.g., improved water quality downstream from BMPs). Outcome mapping (Carden, 2001) focuses on changes in human behaviour, values, skills and knowledge, acknowledging the complexity and the lifecycle of the outcome. Some outcomes (e.g., institutional transformations from an engineering orientation to an integrated approach) may need decades to fully develop.

Although having two elements (i.e., both formative and summative) in evaluation may appear confusing, it is important to recognize that both play central roles in ecosystem management. An EM plan intends to identify and sustain delivery of ecosystem services from a catchment. A summative evaluation, which might be completed on a five-year cycle, empowers accountability and clear reporting. A formative evaluation, which would be less involved and more frequent (e.g., annually) empowers adaptive management. All ecosystem management occurs in a dynamic physical and political environment, especially as climate changes accelerate. Those influences increase the power of well-designed and well-reported evaluation of both types.

Discussion Questions

1. What would be some benefits of weaving both formative and summative evaluations into an ecosystem management plan for a catchment?2. What would be the benefits of planning the evaluations in advance of implementing an ecosystem management plan?3. How would you estimate the costs of designing an evaluation strategy for your EM plan?

users

Having decided on the intended purpose of your evaluation, the next step is to clarify who has interest in using the evaluation findings (users), and who will eventually implement the monitoring and evaluation (evaluators).

The users of an EM evaluation are individuals who• Have the ability to influence the design and revision of the EM plan (i.e., the mandate,

knowledge and skills)



149

• Have sufficient interest to be engaged in revising the EM plan (i.e., a vested interest, something to be gained from influencing design and implementation of the EM plan for an IEA catchment)

Identifying those users is perhaps the single most important step in deciding whether or not the evaluation will be influential. If you know who the users are, what decisions they have to make, and how the evaluation results can support their decisions, you can attract their attention and increase the uptake of evaluation results.

The primary users of the evaluation may include• Catchment manager and staff• Policy and decision-makers in the broad sense (i.e., ministry personnel, local government)• Stakeholders who live, work in and value the catchment

More remote stakeholders (e.g., national government) may often seem marginally interested. Some of them are relatively active and demand information, while others may appear to be passive and pleased to be informed whenever information is available. Influence that passivity to the degree possible; the more active they are, the more interested they are likely to be in your evaluation, so try to get them involved. Often, the perceived success of an EM plan depends on a single person in the catchment or in the national local or government who is committed and driven. If possible, identify such people (one or more of them) and involve them in performing and/or communicating the results of the evaluation.

Evaluators

The purpose and the users of your evaluation will shape your preference for internal or external evaluators. A combination of internal and external evaluators is the ideal solution, because it benefits from the dedication and insight of internal members, and the impartial objectivity of external observers and peer reviewers.

Evaluators may include:• A small internal evaluation task force (including the catchment management core team,

which is recommended)• External evaluators (e.g., consultants, internal evaluators of another EM plan)• A combination of internal and external parties

Catchment management staffs are often underfunded; external evaluators often are not a possibility. A great deal can be gained through peer evaluation. An in-country or regional network of catchment managers who have relatively similar catchments can offer the chance to share perspectives at



150

relatively low cost. Such peer evaluations do not offer the credibility of, and cannot make the contribution of an external evaluation. Some catchments have found it positive to engage in a low-cost, peer-evaluation relatively frequently (e.g., every two–three years) and a higher cost, higher visibility evaluation less often (e.g., every 10 years).

Planning a self-assessment

We have discussed developing a monitoring and evaluation strategy for an EM plan; it is useful to next consider a self-assessment matrix, a key tool for monitoring and evaluating the EM process. Internally-conducted monitoring and evaluation (i.e., self-assessment) requires planning (Lusthaus, Adrien & Carden, 1999)

• Issues for self-assessment• Measures that will help you answer questions you have about the institutional context

relevant to your catchment• Data sources to answer these questions• Data collection methods best suited to your questions, realities and constraints• Priorities for and frequency of data collection

The following three self-assessment steps might be helpful in guiding an EM monitoring plan• Identify major issues and monitoring questions, and develop specific measures for each• Identify sources of data and data collection methods• Set priorities and frequency of monitoring

Identify major Issues and monitoring Questions, and Develop specific measures for Each

In a self-assessment, we try to identify major issues that should be monitored and evaluated, and the key questions associated with these issues. For example, have the improvements in ecosystem services that you identified in your EM plan been realized? What other improvements in practices (e.g., changes in land cover, water resource variables) have you observed during and following your EM plan process?



151

notes on module 16



152

module 17: Completing the Cycle of strategic Adaptive management13:30–15:00

module 17 at a glance• The Cycle of Strategic and Adaptive Management• Portfolio Planning• Reviewing and Learning• Portfolio Refinement

learning objective for module 17The ecosystem manager who completes this module will understand how to complete the cycle of strategic and adaptive ecosystem management with respect to piloting a portfolio of ecosystem initiatives, reviewing and learning what works and what does not, and refining the initiatives based on lessons learned and outcomes achieved.

the Cycle of strategic and Adaptive management for EcosystemsModule 8 introduced the rationale and steps for beginning the cycle of strategic and adaptive ecosystem management. The first three stages of the cycle were covered in Module 8, including ecosystem assessment, shared visioning, and planning a portfolio of ecosystem initiatives. This module describes how to complete the process via Stages 4, 5 and 6 (i.e., piloting the portfolio of ecosystem initiatives, review and learning, and portfolio refinement, respectively). For review, the stages for strategic and adaptive ecosystem management are presented in Figure 18 and summarized below:

1. Ecosystem Assessment: Using a conceptual framework of ecosystem goods and services to understand the system—past, present and future, and to identify leverage points for intervention;

2. Shared Visioning: Deliberating with stakeholders to identify a shared vision of the ultimate outcome of management interventions;

3. Portfolio Planning: Deliberating with stakeholders and experts to identify and agree on implementation of a variety of ecosystem initiatives that have potential to achieve the ultimate outcome. The portfolio approach embodies the humility of human intervention in complex adaptive systems—we can never know in advance what will work and what will not. Also, it helps us identify co-benefits, situations in which the interest of several stakeholders is advanced by one series of activities;

4. Portfolio Piloting: Implementing a portfolio of ecosystem initiatives and monitoring key performance indicators is at the heart of adaptive management. We refer to this stage as piloting to emphasize that in a complex adaptive system, any ecosystem initiative must always be treated as a hypothesis in need of testing;



153

5. Review and Learning: The spirit of a pilot test is review and learning; this appreciates that in complex adaptive systems, it will be the system that determines what works and what does not. The ecosystem manager must first and foremost be a learner; and

6. Portfolio Refinement: The lessons from piloting a variety of ecosystem initiatives will provide the necessary insight or impetus for implementing an improvement in the portfolio. This may include adjustments to a given initiative(s), or the termination of one more initiatives.

(source: Pintér et al., 2007)

Figure 18: the strategic and Adaptive Cycle of Ecosystem management.



154

Group Discussion Question: Have you ever been part of an ecosystem initiative that did not go as planned? What happened and why? How might a more formal review process with multiple project stakeholders and additional analysis have helped to anticipate and mitigate the issues encountered?

Piloting a Portfolio of Ecosystem Initiatives

This is the implementation stage of strategic and adaptive ecosystem management, where the ecosystem manager pilots a variety of ecosystem initiatives aimed at achieving a shared long-term outcome. The term piloting is used purposefully in this module. It is meant to convey the notion that adaptive ecosystem management is about testing hypotheses of the performance of policies. Acceptance of this notion necessitates a credible and legitimate monitoring process to track the actual outcomes of an initiative. A credible process is necessary to ensure that stakeholders can believe the results. A legitimate process is necessary to ensure that stakeholders can trust the results.

Policy Pilots

The Cabinet Office of the United Kingdom reported on the design and implementation of policy pilots. Their review noted that “an important innovation in recent years has been the phased introduction of major government policies or programs, allowing them to be tested, evaluated, and adjusted where necessary, before being rolled out nationally” (U.K. Cabinet Office, 2003).

They observed that the practice of policy pilots has been relatively widespread in the United States owing in part to its federal structure, which in many instances has implemented and evaluated a policy within one state before being rolled out nationally. The recommendation of the U.K. Cabinet Office is:

The full-scale introduction of new policies and delivery mechanisms should, wherever possible, be preceded by closely monitored pilots. Phased introduction not only helps to inform implementation, but also to identify and prevent unintended consequences. A pilot is an important first stage of regular, longer-term policy monitoring and evaluation.



155

The U.K. study identified two types of policy pilots:

• Impact pilots—tests of the likely effects of new policies, measuring or assessing their early outcomes. They enable evidence of the effects of a policy change to be tested against a genuine counterfactual, such as is provided by the use of control groups in a medical trial.

• Process pilots—designed to explore the practicalities of implementing a policy in a particular way or a particular route, assessing what methods of delivery work best or are most cost-effective (U.K. Cabinet Office 2003).

The critical nature of a credible and legitimate monitoring process is also underscored by the U.K. Cabinet Office. They note the following:

… pilots must be free from real or perceived pressure to deliver ‘good news’ and be designed to bring out rather than conceal a policy’s imperfections. To this end, the Ministers and civil servants that are closely involved with the policy should consider distancing themselves from decisions about pilot meth-ods and the dissemination of their findings.

(Cited in Tomar & Swanson, 2009)

The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is the ecosystem manager’s primary tool at this stage of the process. KPIs were introduced in Module 8 in the context of an outcome-based management framework that related a specific ecosystem initiative and its outputs to immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes. For a basic review, the anatomy of a KPI is illustrated in Figure 19 and includes the units, title, data source, and target. The target is critical to this discussion. In this context, the target is the level of the KPI at which stakeholders have agreed the hypothesis has been proven, thereby indicating that the ecosystem initiative is a viable means of achieving the ultimate outcome.

The ecosystem manager must track two levels of KPIs:

Near-termKPIs: These are activity and output KPIs to gauge whether the hypothesis upon which the initiative is based was correct (i.e., can the initiative deliver a positive ecosystem benefit). Using the case example presented in Module 8 for salmon restoration and hydropower development, an output level KPI for the increased spillway operation initiative might be the per cent increase in downstream salmon population, while the activity level KPI might be per cent of spillway operation completed. The latter would be used to track the progress of the project, and the former used to track the success of the project. For a general review, the anatomy of a KPI is depicted in Figure 19, displaying units for the data, a legend, data source and a target.



156

longer-term kPIs: These are the KPIs which gauge the performance of ecosystem initiatives that have been demonstrated to be viable and which stakeholders have agreed to implement at a larger scale across the ecosystem. These are outcome KPIs and include immediate, intermediate and ultimate level KPIs. Referring again to Module 8 and the spillway operation ecosystem initiative, a KPI at the immediate outcome level might gauge the level of awareness among hydropower planners of the viability of spillway operation as a viable means for salmon restoration (e.g., number of hydropower planners attending presentations on results of increased spillway operation projects). An intermediate KPI might then be the total volume and/or duration of spillway operation in the ecosystem. These KPIs in turn, provide the signals for the potential increases in the ultimate level outcome indicator (e.g., total salmon population) and proximity to the agreed target (in this hypothetical case, 20 per cent above baseline counts within five years).

Reviewing the Portfolio and learning What Works and What Does not

Assessing what is working and what is not is the essence of this stage. Here, the ecosystem manager is listening to stakeholders, scientists and signals from the KPIs being monitored. Essentially, the ecosystem manager is in an acute learning mode.

Holling (1978) outlined eight broad lessons that provide important rationales for why formal review and continuous learning is necessary for policy interventions. Those include:

• Since everything is not intimately connected to everything else, there is no need to measure everything. There is a need, however, to determine the significant connections;

• Structural features (i.e., size, distribution, age, who connects to whom) are more important to measure than numbers;

Figure 19: Anatomy of a key Progress Indicator (kPI).



157

• Changes in one variable can have unexpected impacts on variables at the same place but several connections away;

• Events at one place can re-emerge as impacts at distant places;• Monitoring the wrong variable can seem to indicate no change even when drastic change is

imminent;• Impacts are not necessarily immediate and gradual; they can appear abruptly sometime

after the event;• Variability of ecological systems, including occasional major disruptions, provides a kind of

self-monitoring system that maintains resilience. Polices that reduce variability in space or time, even in an effort to improve environmental quality, should always be questioned; and

• Many existing impact assessment methods (e.g., cost–benefit analysis, input output, cross-impact matrices, linear models and discounting) assume none of the above occurs or, at least, that none is important.

Such observations are not just unique to natural resources management. The healthcare sector also deals with such complexity in policy interventions. Glouberman et al . (2003) learned that in working within complex adaptive systems, possible solutions undergo selection by the system itself. They therefore, stress the importance of evaluating performance of potential solutions, and based on this evaluation, selecting the best candidates for further support and development.

Tomar and Swanson (2009) provide guidance to policy-makers in creating adaptive policies, describing how formal review can be triggered in three ways: (1) after a specified time period; (2) at a specific KPI level and (3) by stakeholder feedback, including new scientific information. The required periodicityof a time-triggered review depends primarily on the level of risk associated with policy failure and on the pace of change in policy parameters and intended outcomes. As a general rule of thumb, somewhere between an annual and a five-year review is recommended for most policies. In situations where the performance of a policy is highly sensitive to a certain input parameter, or where the impacts of the policy are potentially serious but uncertain, using the KPIs as signposts to trigger the review in addition to time-triggers is merited.

Stakeholder feedback always has and always will be an important part of review. Each ecosystem initiative should have an identified expert team that reviews feedback received on the initiative and has the necessary capacity to analyze responses and devise good ways to respond to them. Reviewed on an individual basis, stakeholder feedback is often seen as a host of complaints that cannot all be addressed. But taken in aggregate, a set of seemingly unrelated complaints may actually be telling an important story about an emerging issue or an unintended consequence of a policy instrument.

Watershed Development Project In Shifting Cultivation Areas (WDPSCA) In Meghalaya



158

The Watershed Development Project in Shifting Cultivation Areas (WDPSCA) scheme has taken a watershed basis for treatment of arable and non-arable lands affected by shifting cultivation and to provide alternative farming methods to the farmers. It is implemented through the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India as a Special Central Assistance to the State Plan Programme for the benefit of jhumia (shifting cultivation) families who are living below the poverty line.

In Meghalaya, about 530 square kilometres is under shifting cultivation. As the land and water resources are becoming more depleted in the state, the government has taken various conservation measures and developmental programmes in arable and non-arable lands. The jhum control programme is one of the schemes aimed at combatting further deterioration of fertile topsoil. The main thrust of the scheme is to provide an effective supporting base for permanent settlement of the communities engaged in jhum cultivation.

Formal review and continuous learning: There is periodical review of progress during the implementation phase at the district, state and national level under India’s national Five-Year Plan process. A system of concurrent evaluation has also evolved through internal as well as external agencies. In such evaluation studies, a critical assessment is made in several ways (e.g., relevance of technological content, involvement of people in the programme, gender equity and equity for poor farmers, facilitation of group action). On completion of the project, an impact evaluation is undertaken by external agencies.

Source: Tomar and Swanson (2011)

Group Discussion Question: What do you feel are the main barriers to effective monitoring, learning and portfolio refinement? How might they be overcome?

Box 11: Case Study of Formal Review and Learning



159

Portfolio Refinement and ongoing Implementation In this stage, the ecosystem manager has a better understanding of what works and what does not in terms of achieving the ultimate outcomes. Those initiatives that are most promising are strengthened for longer-term implementation and those that are failing are dropped. But there should always be a mixed portfolio given the complexity and adaptive nature of the ecosystem; and actions should always be monitored for their ability to test the hypotheses that were formulated regarding their performance.

table 23: Example Results Chains for a Portfolio of Ecosystem management Activities for the Adap-tive management of salmon Restoration and hydropower Development.

Results Chain Ecosystem Initiative #1 Ecosystem Initiative #2

ultimate outcomes (changeinstateofenvironment,social,economicoraspect)

Restoration of salmon population and profit-able hydropower

KPI: Downstream salmon countTarget: 20% above baseline counts within 5 years

Restoration of salmon population and profitable hydropower

KPI: Downstream salmon countTarget: 20% above baseline counts within 5 years

Intermediate outcomes

(new/improved policy or practice)

More frequent spillway operation

KPI: Total spillway operation timeTarget: x hours more per month

Permanent increase in fish ladder capacity

KPI: Salmon count immediately downstream of ladder Target: x% of upstream count

Immediate outcomes

(increased awareness, capacity or access)

Awareness among hydropower policy-makers that increased spillway operation is a feasible means to increase salmon population

KPI: # of hydropower planners and policy-makers attending presentation on results of spillway experimentsTarget: (this target should include the specific names of influential persons identified in the impact strategy)

Awareness among hydropower policy-makers that improved fish ladder technology can increase salmon population

KPI: # of hydropower planners and policy-makers attending presen-tation on results of fish ladder experimentsTarget: (this target should include the specific names of influential persons identified in the impact strategy)

outputs(knowledge generated or services delivered)

Ecosystem experiment results showing the im-pact of spillway operation on salmon popula-tion

KPI: Presentation delivered on results of eco-system experimentTarget: Completed on schedule

Ecosystem experiment results showing the impact of fish ladder operation on salmon popula-tion

KPI: Presentation delivered on results of ecosystem experimentTarget: Completed on schedule



160

Activities(ecosystem manage-

ment projects)

Ecosystem experiment to test the impact of increased spillway operation on salmon population (including salmon population and streamflow monitoring).


Ecosystem experiment to test the impact of improved fish lad-der design on salmon population (including salmon population and streamflow monitoring).


resources(financial and human

resource require-ments)

Foregone revenues from hydropower genera-tion; Personnel and operating costs for salmon population and streamflow monitoring

KPI: Actual versus budgeted expendituresTarget: Within budget

Foregone revenues from hydro-power generation; Personnel and operating costs for salmon popula-tion and streamflow monitor-ing

KPI: Actual versus budgeted ex-pendituresTarget: Within budget

notes on module 17



161

module 18: Workshop synthesis and Closing15:30–17:00

Thank you for your engagement, contributions and energies. We hope that you feel better informed about ecosystem management, feel you have better knowledge and tools for implementing EM, and have a clear idea how you would develop, implement and evaluate an EM plan for your catchment. Equally important, we hope you have made new contacts and reinforced old ones that will help you engage with colleagues who manage a range of resources in your catchment, leading toward an ecosystem-level management plan for your area.

As we close the workshop, we offer and request the following:• Your facilitators have requested that you offer two significant, professional things you will

do differently as a result of this workshop. For each they have requested that you identify the action you will take, the target (i.e., how will you know if it achieved) and a timeframe (date by which you expect it to be achieved), and your e-mail address. These two objectives are a conversation between you and the facilitators; they will not be shared more broadly.

• We will conduct a workshop evaluation in which we ask you a few brief questions about the content, the facilitation, the catchment field trips and the venue. This summative evaluation is anonymous; please be completely honest with us. Your comments are very important to us and will help us improve future offerings of, and future versions of this training.

• Closing celebration. We are very pleased that you have chosen to join us in this effort. We will have a closing celebration in which we identify the contributions of each person.



162

glossary and abbreviations

EM Ecosystem Management

DPsIR Driving Force-Pressure-state-Impact-Response

FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations

IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development

IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme



163

References

Amazon Conservation Team (ACT). (2009). Retrieved from www.amazonteam.org

Arthington, A.H., & Zalucki, J.M. (1998). Comparative assessment of environmental flow assessment techniques: A review of methods LWRRDC Occasional Paper 27/98. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.73.808&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M.D. (2000). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier . New York: Basic Books. Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Balmford, A., et al. (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. J. Sci., 297: 950–953.

Barg, S., & Tyler, S. (2009). Decentralization of decision-making. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.) Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC

Barry, D., & Oelschlaeger, M. (1996). A science for survival: values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 19(3): 905–911.

Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251–1262.

Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., & Swanson, D. (2009). Automatic policy adjustment . In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.) Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC

Bingham, G., Bishop, R., Brody, M., Bromley, D., Clark, E., Cooper, W.,. . . & Suter, G. (1995). Issues in ecosystem valuation: Improving information for decision making. Ecological Economics 14, pp.73–90.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A. & Renard, Y. (2005) Sharing power: Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world. Retrieved from http://www.iapad.org/sharing_power.htm

Calder, I. (2002). Forests and hydrologic services: Reconciling public and science perceptions. Land and Water Research, 2, 1–12.

Carden, F., Earl, S. & Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programs . International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Retrieved from http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html



164

Creech, H., Jaeger, J., Lucas,N., Wasstol, M., & Chenje, J. (2007). Training Module 3: Developing an impact strategy for your IEA. In L. Pintér, J. Chenje & D. Swanson (Eds.) Integrated environmental assessment training manual. The United Nations Environment Programme and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/ieacp/_res/site/File/iea-training-manual/module-3.pdf

de Groot,R.S., van der Perk, J.P., Chiesura, A.& van Vliet, A.J.H. (2003). Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital. Ecological Economics 44 (2-3),187–204.

Deri, A., Swanson, D., & Bhandari, P. (2007). Training Module 8: Monitoring, evaluation and learning: for improved and increased impact of the IEA process. In L. Pintér, J. Chenje & D. Swanson (Eds.) Integrated environmental assessment training manual. The United Nations Environment Programme and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/ieacp/_res/site/File/iea-training-manual/module-8.pdf

Dixon, J. & Pagiola, S. (1998, April). Economic analysis and environmental assessment. Environmental Assessment - Sourcebook Update 23. Environment Dept., the World Bank.

Dubai International Award for Best Practices (DIABP), supported by the Municipality of Dubai and Government of United Arab Emirates. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.dubaiaward.ae

Easter, K.W., & Perry, J. (2011). Minnesota water policy: Issues, incentives and action. Washington, D.C.: Resources For The Future. (Chapter 1, cited in Module 13)

Ellerman, D., (2004). Parallel experimentation: A basic scheme for dynamic efficiency. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=549963

Farber, S.C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M.A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41, pp. 375–392

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2006). The New Generation of Watershed Management Programmes and Projects. FAO Forestry Papers 150. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0644e/a0644e00.htm

Fetterman, D.M., Kaftarian, S.J., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (1996). Empowerment Evaluation. Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fisheries and oceans Canada. (2009). National Recreational Fisheries Awards. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/rec/rfa-ppr/awards-prix-eng.htm

Forest Stewardship Council Australia. (1996). 2nd Annual Responsible Forest Management Awards 2009. Retrieved from http://www.fscaustralia.org/index.php?id=57



165

Forest Trends. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.forest-trends.org/

Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Foundation Gaia Amazonas. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.gaiaamazonas.org/

Friedman, T. (2010, February 17). Global wierding is here. New York Times.

Glouberman, S., Campsie, P., Gemar, M., & Miller, G. (2003). A toolbox for improving health in cities. Caledon Institute for Social Policy.

Goltenboth, F., & Hutter, C.P. (2002). Rainforestation farming. Retrieved from http://www.euronatur.org/fileadmin/docs/projekte/Rainforestation.PDF

Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development. New directions in the study of long- term transformative change. New York: Routledge. Government of Canada. (2011). Results-based Management Lexicon. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/cee/pubs/lex-eng.asp

Haas, P.M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46: 1–35.

Holling, C.S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Homer-Dixon, T. (2006). The upside of down: Catastrophe, creativity and the renewal of civilization. Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd.

Hunter, M.L., & Gibbs, J.P. (2007). Fundamentals of conservation biology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). (n.d.). BellagioStamp principles. Retrieved from http://www.iisd.org/measure/principles/progress/bellagiostamp/principles.asp

Kipepeo Butterfly Project. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.kipepeo.org

Kjell, D., Bergstrom, R., Duncan, P.S., & Pastor, J. (2006). Large herbivore ecology: Ecosystem dynamics and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, K. (1993). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press

Lusthaus, C., Adrien,l M., & Carden, F. (1999). Enhancing organizational performance: A toolbox for self- assessment. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Retrieved from http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9370-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html



166

Majone, G., & Wildawsky, A. (1978). Implementation as evolution. Policy Studies Review, 12. 103–117.

Malimbwi, R.E., & Zahabu, E. (n.d.). Chapter 9: The analysis of sustainable charcoal production systems in Tanzania. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Retrieved from www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1321e/i1321e10.pdf

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment Island Press. Retrieved from http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx

Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4)

Nair, S., & Roy, D. (2009). Promoting variation. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds .), Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC

National Geographic 2010 Conservation Trust (2010). Retrieved from http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/grants-programs/conservation-trust/

Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD). (2006). Applying strategic environmental assessment: Good practice guidance for development cooperation. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. Retrieved from http://www.sourceoecd.org/development/9264026576

Pabon-Zamora, L., Fauzi, A., Halim, A., Bezaury-Creel, J., Vega-Lopez, E., Leon, F., Gil, L. & Cartaya, V. (2008). Protected areas and human well-being: Experiences from Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. In: Protected areas in today’s world: Their values and benefits for the welfare of the planet, pp.67–76. Secretariat of Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series no. 36, Montreal. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-36-en

Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pauly, M.V. (1998). Managed care, market power and monopsony. Health Services Research, 33, 1439-1460.

Pintér, L., Swanson, D., Abdel-Jelil, I., Nagatani-Yoshida, K., Rahman, A., & Kok, M. (2008). Module 5: Integrated analysis of environmental trends and policies. In L. Pintér, J. Chenje & D. Swanson (Eds.), IEA training manual: A training manual on integrated environmental assessment and reporting. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) – Division of Early Warning and Assessment. Nairobi/Winnipeg: UNEP/IISD.

Powicki, C.R. (1998, July–August). The value of ecological resources. EPRI Journal, 23.

Ralston, Bill, & Ian Wilson. (2006). The scenario planning handbook. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western.

Ramsar Convention CEPA. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ramsar.org/outreach_index.htm



167

Rihani, S. (2002). Complex systems theory and development practice: Understanding non-linear realities. New York: Zed Books.

Roy, D., Nair, S. & Venema, H.D. (2009) Self-organization and social networking. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.), Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC

Ruitenbeek, J. & Cartier, C. (2001, October). The invisible wand: Adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy in complex bio-economic systems. Centre for International Forestry Research. Retrieved from http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-034.pdf

Sabatier, P. & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An assessment. I. P. Sabatier, (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press

Schuyt, K. & Brander, L. (2004). The economic value of the World’s wetlands. WWF Living Waters: Conserving the Source of Life. Gland, Switzerland.

Skoll Foundation. (2010). Skoll Awards for Social Entrepreneurship Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.skollfoundation.org/skollawards/index.asp

SPREP. (2004b). The Priority Environmental Concerns of Papua New Guinea Apia, Samoa. Retrieved from http://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000367_PNG_PEC_Report.pdf

Steinemann, A., & Norton, B. (2003). Environmental values and adaptive management. In B. Norton,(Ed.), Searching for Sustainability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stuip, M.A.M., Baker, C.J. & Oosterberg, W. (2002). The Socio-economics of Wetlands. Wetlands International and RIZA, The Netherlands.

Swanson, D. A, Barg, S., Tyler, S., Venema, H.D. et al . (2010). Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological forecasting & social change, 77, 924–939.

Swanson, D. & Bhadwal, S. (Eds.). (2009). Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC

Swanson, D., Pintér, L. & Barg, S. (2010). Exploring the intersection of sustainability, accountability and adaptability. Presented at the 2nd National Conference of the Canadian Sustainability Indicators Conference – Accountability Through Measurement. Toronto, Canada

Swanson, D., & Tomar, S. (2009). Integrated and forward-looking analysis, In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.), Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC



168

The Safari Guide. (n.d.). Habitat management and bush encroachment in the Africa Veldt. Retrieved from http://www.thesafariguide.net/conservation/habitat-management

Tomar, S., & Swanson, D. (2009). Formal policy review and continuous learning. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.), Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC

Tyler, S. (2009). Multi-stakeholder deliberation. In D. Swanson, & S. Bhadwal (Eds.) Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. New Delhi/Ottawa: Sage/IDRC

U.K. Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office. (2003). Trying it out: The role of ‘pilots’ in policy-making [Report of a review of government pilots]. U.K.: Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, Cabinet Office.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2000). The ecosystem approach: Decision taken at the Fifth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme, Retrieved www.cbd.int/decisions/?m=COP-05&id=7148&lg=0

Vorhies, F. (1999). Environmental economics explained. In: Valuing Wetlands: Guidance for valuing the benefits for derived from wetland ecosystem services, Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.

Walker, W.E., & Marchau, V.A.W.J. (2003). Dealing with uncertainty in policy analysis and policy-making. Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 1–4.

Walker, W.E., Marchau, V.A.W.J., & Swanson, D. (2010). Addressing deep uncertainty using adaptive policies: Introduction to Section 2. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77.

Walker, W.E., Rahman, S.A. & Cave, J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 128, 282–289.

White, M.E. (1997). Listen: Our land is crying. Australia’s environment: Problems and solutions. Roseburg Publications.

Wilson, M.A. & Carpenter, S.R. (1999). Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystems services in the United States 1971-1997. Ecological Applications, 9(3): 772–83.

Wilson, M.A., & Howarth, R.B. (2002). Distributional fairness and ecosystem service valuation. Ecological Economics, 41, 421–429

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2010). Three of the seven existing species of marine turtle are critically endangered. Retrieved from http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/marineturtles/marineturtles.html



169

Workshop Case studies (from FacilitatorManual) CarpathianEnvironmentalOutlook

Alburnus, M. (2010, February 1). Rosia Montana gold mining project on hold [Press release]. Retrieved from http://rosiamontana.org/en/index.shtml?cmd[314]=x-314-36018&cmd[316]=x-322-36018&cmd[300]=x -299-36018

Regional Environmental Center (REC). (2000). The cyanide spill at Baia Mare, Romania: Before, during and after—A summary/brochure of UNEP/OCHA report. Retrieved from http://archive.rec.org/REC/Publications/CyanideSpill/ENGCyanide.pdf

UNEP. (2010). GEO: Keeping the Global Environment Under Review. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/geo/

UNEP. (2007). Carpathians environmental outlook (KEO). Retrieved from http://www.grid.unep.ch/activities/assessment/KEO/index.php

TraditionalKnowledgeasAdaptiveManagementArmitage, D.R. (2002). Traditional agroecological knowledge, adaptive management and the socio-politics of

conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 30(1), 79–90.

PublicParticipationinBiodiversityandWaterGovernanceintheEuropeanUnion:TheGoverNatprojectArnstein, A. (1969). A ladder of citizenship participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 26(4),

216–233.

European Commission, Directorate General Environment (EC DG Environment). (2010a). The EU Water Framework Directive—Integrated river basin management for Europe. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html

EC DG Environment. (2010b). The Habitats Directive. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm

EC DG Environment. (2010c). Natura 2000 Network. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm

GoverNat (2010). Retrieved from www.governat.eu

Suskevics, M., Berghofer, A., Rauschmayer, F., & Wittmer, H. (2010). Towards successful participation in European biodiversity and water governance. Policy brief. Retrieved from www.governat.eu/files/files/policy_brief_governat_1_2010.pdf

AdvocacyAgainstBurningofAgriculturalResiduesintheFieldsofLithuaniaLithuanian Young Environmentalist Centre (LYEC). (2010). Akcija “Aš noriu gyventi“ [“I Want to Live” campaign].

Retrieved from http://www.gamtininkai.lt/As_noriu_gyv.html#



170

Ministry of Environment of Lithuania (MoEoL). (2005, April 7). Žolės deginimas – nusikaltimas gamtai [Burning of the grass – crime against nature] [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.am.lt/VI/article.php3?article_id=3911

MoEoL. (2008, March 12). Už žolės deginimą – prarastos išmokos ir administracinės nuobaudos [Lost subsidies and administrative fines for field burning] [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.am.lt/VI/article.php3?article_id=7354

MoEoL. (2009, April 3). Ir vėl deginama pernykštė žolė [Last year’s grass is being burned again] [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.am.lt/VI/article.php3?article_id=8663

State Fire and Rescue Department (SFRD). (2010, April 1). Nedeginkit pernykštės žolės! [Do not burn last year’s grass!]. [Press release]. http://www.vpgt.lt/index.php?1169565099 Retrieved June 26, 2010

China’sSlopingLandConversionProgramSmil, V. (1996). Environmental problems in China: Estimates of economic costs. East–West Center Special Reports,

5, 1–62.

Uchida, E., Xu, J., & Rozelle, S. (2005). Grain for green: Cost-effectiveness and sustainability of China’s conservation set-aside program. Land Economics, 81(2), 247–264.

Van den Dool, A. (2010). China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Pingzhang village, Yunnan province: Effective, efficient, sustainable? [Master of Science thesis] Lund University International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics.

Wang, J., Gao, M., & Zhou, G. (2006). Establishment of China green national accounting system. The World Bank -Italian Trust Fund Project Final report. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/Resources/Green_accounting_Final_E N.doc

Xu, Z., Bennett, M.T., Tao, R. & Xu, J. (2004). China’s Sloping Land Conversion Programme four years on: Current situation, pending issues. International Forestry Review, 6(3-4), 317–326.

MarineTurtleConservation,CommunityLivelihoodsandCommunityWell-being:AnexampleofrewardsforecosystemservicesMontoya, F., & Drews, C. (2006). Livelihoods, community well-being, and species conservation: A guide for

understanding, evaluating and improving the links in the context of marine turtle programmes. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Marine and Species Program for Latin America and the Caribbean. San Jose, Costa Rica.



171

Troëng, S., & Drews, C. (2004). Money talks: Economic aspects of marine turtle use and conservation. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Gland, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.panda.org/downloads/species/moneytalks.pdf

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2009). Gabriel Francia. The art of saving marine turtles. Video produced by Olivafilms.com in association with the World Wildlife Fund. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=622f0QFmCYc&feature=player_embedded

TheLargestConservationBattleinAustralia:HydroelectricdevelopmentandwildernessinSouth-WestTasmania

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2008). Case Study 2: The Murray Darling Basin: an ecological and human tragedy. Native Title Report, 2008, 265–299. Retrieved from http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/nt_report/ntreport08/pdf/casestudy2.pdf

Australian National Parks (ANP). (2009). Franklin-Gordon Rivers National Park. Retrieved from http://www.australiannationalparks.com/tasmania/franklin/default.htm

Dragun, K.A. (1983). Hydroelectric development and wilderness conflict in South-West Tasmania. Environmental Conservation, 10(3), 197–204.

National Library of Australia. (2010). Dombrovskis collection of Tasmanian wilderness photographs. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an24314453

Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania (PWST). (2008). Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Retrieved from http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=391

Sadler, H. & Dragun, A.K. (1983). Australian High-court decision ensures preservation of the South-West Tasmanian Wilderness Environmental Conservation, 10(3), 355–356.

TheRoleofWomeninEcosystemRestoration:TheGreenBeltMovementofKenyaMaathai, W. (2008). An unbreakable link: Peace, environment and democracy. Harvard International Review,

29(4), 24–27.

Brownhill, L. (2007, Spring/Summer). Gendered struggles for the commons: Food sovereignty, tree-planting and climate change. Women and Environments International Magazine. The Green Belt Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.greenbeltmovement.org/

United Nations Environment Programme

P.O. Box 30552 - 00100 Nairobi, Kenya

Tel.: +254 20 762 1234

Fax: +254 20 762 3927

e-mail: [email protected]

www.unep.org

International Institute for Sustainable Development

Head Office

161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba,

Canada R3B 0Y4

Tel: +1 (204) 958-7700

Fax: +1 (204) 958-7710

www.iisd.org

ecosystem management: concept to local-scale implementation: participant manual

Documents