Implementation of IMCAM Principles in Support of Convention for Biological Diversity Objectives

Guidance for the Implementation of IMCAM Principles in Support of Convention for Biological Diversity Objectives

Rapporteurs

Dr Martin Le Tissier Prof. Peter Burbridge

Preamble At least 40 per cent of the world's economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources. In addition, the richer the diversity of life, the greater the opportunity for medical discoveries, economic development, and adaptive responses to such new challenges as climate change.

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) aims to promote the conservation of biological diversity for the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of biodiversity—the variability within living beings and their relationships to one another and the environment that supports them. For a single species, diversity spells change: variability allows the species to combine the adaptation to its current environment with adaptability to new situations. For ecosystems, diversity spells stability: larger numbers of species result in more complex flows of energy, matter and information, which, in turn, tend to make ecosystems more resilient to changes.

Biodiversity is not just a measure of sustainable development or a concern of environmentalists; it is essential to many people's lives. Poor people are the most dependent on the diverse resources provided by biodiversity, and are most vulnerable when biodiversity is lost. However, poverty often forces people to give priority to immediate needs, and use resources unsustainably. In turn, this has led to the widespread degradation and loss of many habitats. The poor often depend on common property resources as the basis for their livelihoods, whereas control and ownership of property and/or resources generally form the basis of economic trade and wealth creation. The demands placed on resource use and exploitation by richer societies and the Private Sector can also reduce the resources available for poorer societies and/or generate a market where the resources collected by the poor are undervalued. An example is the paper pulp industry that is probably responsible for the degradation of a greater area of mangrove than that resulting from ‘local’ activity but which places restraints on local communities.

Box1: The value of Biodiversity to the Public Sector Companies can manage biodiversity risks and capture biodiversity opportunities that include: • Securing the license to operate, • Strengthening the supply chain, • Bolstering stakeholder relationships, • Appealing to ethical consumers, • Ensuring sustainable growth, • Attracting socially responsible investors, and • Improving employee productivity.

By capturing these biodiversity opportunities, a company will enhance its performance. For most companies, there is a ‘win win’ business case for biodiversity – benefiting both the business and the natural environment in which it operates.

The Impact of Habitat Deterioration Change is a natural phenomenon in all ecosystems and habitats. As ecosystems change species shift roles, biodiversity provides cross-scale resilience – species combine to spread risk and benefits.

Human use of species and ecosystem services is an integral part of ecosystem biodiversity, often a very long standing one. A unique feature of human interactions is the creation of novelty over short spaces of time compared to natural evolutionary processes. Use brings about changes to ecosystem composition, structure and function. Within the timescale of evolutionary processes, communities show successional changes as system develop so that the biodiversity of flora and fauna helps provide stability, especially in dynamic environments such as the coastal zone. However, within the time scale

Box 2. Examples of habitat loss: • Approximately half of the World’s wetlands have been degraded.

• Over half of the World’s mangroves have been degraded.

• Nearly 60% of the World’s coral reefs are degraded or threatened with degradation.

1

of the past generation human population growth, changes in distribution and migration, particularly into the coastal zone, have assumed unprecedented levels and have been the most significant factors in the current levels of environmental degradation (Box 2). It is important to recognise that deterioration of habitats can originate from direct over-exploitation of resources and from reclamation of areas of land for alternative purposes e.g. mangrove to aquaculture. The consequence of the rate and intensity of current patterns of resource exploitation and alteration of landscapes has meant that natural processes of buffering and amelioration of change have become overwhelmed. This has led to the failure of natural regenerative processes leading to a loss of biodiversity and a concomitant loss of ecosystem functionality. To reverse these trends intervention in the form of rehabilitation and restoration is required to accelerate processes of recovery and recreation of habitats so that ecosystems can continue to provide goods and services. In the coastal zone, loss of natural ecosystem function and services can prove extremely costly putting societies and economies at risk (Box 3).

Box 3. The value of natural coastal defences The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affaires, Government of UK have recently evaluated the risk and cost of maintaining coastal defences in England and Wales that artificially constrain much of the coastline as well as the increased vulnerability to flooding from climate change scenarios: These costs can be taken as an approximate proxy for the value of services provided by natural coastal systems and their native biodiversity able to accommodate changes in the environment.

• Approximately 10% of the population of England and Wales live within areas potentially at risk from flooding or coastal erosion, whilst approximately 12% of the agricultural land is also located in these areas; • Property worth over £220 billion and agricultural land worth approximately £7 billion is located within these areas potentially at risk; • Without any flood and coastal defences, the annual average economic damage from flooding and coastal erosion in these areas would be over £3.5 billion/year; • The capital works and maintenance investment needed to continue to provide and maintain present defence standards is in excess of £0.3 billion/year; • Accommodating climate change is likely to require a further increase in investment of between 10% and 20% over and above that required to meet indicative standards under present day conditions.

See: National Appraisal of Assets at Risk from Flooding and Coastal Erosion, including the potential impact of climate change Final Report July 2001. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/NAAR1101.pdf.

The Convention on Biological Diversity and Restoration The CBD recognises that the conservation of biodiversity is threatened by existing and on-going degradation of habitats and has urged Parties to pursue restoration as an objective. This includes consideration of the issue of liability and redress, including restoration and compensation, for damage to biological diversity and bearing in mind the need to provide a balanced approach to the use and conservation of biological diversity. In the marine and coastal environment, the CBD has identified Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (IMCAM) as an appropriate mechanism for implementing these objectives. However, within existing IMCAM literature there is little guidance of tools and/or instruments for the implementation of restorative activity.

Box 4 Terminolgy: Deterioration of habitat falls into three categories which impact the stability and quality of biodiversity: Habitat degradation results in loss of quality and ability to support biological communities. Its adverse effects can be immediate or cumulative.

Habitat loss is the outright destruction of habitat. Its impacts upon biological communities are immediate and catastrophic.

Habitat fragmentation stems from habitat loss and is the disassembly of habitats into discontinuous, often isolated, patches. Its adverse effects are cumulative and not immediately noticeable.

Management interventions to remedy the impacts and effects of habitat deterioration are generally categorised by the planned end-point: Rehabilitation is where functional characteristics of an ecosystem, or component, are re-established.

Restoration is where the ecosystem, or component thereof, is re-established in its original condition.

2

Restoration is a form of active management that tries to return a system to stability. However, current restoration programmes have proved largely unsuccessful because: 1. Successional processes, timescales, and sensitivity of species are not known or have not been considered.

2. A persistence in top-down patterns of decision making and imbalance in power between project agencies and communities so that coastal communities have been largely marginalized in the international debates on the control over biodiversity.

3. In many developing countries restoration has had a conservation purpose that restricts human use or access to resources.

4. Scientific knowledge of marine biodiversity is incomplete and scattered.

5. Today’s coastal marine biodiversity is largely a result of the traditional management systems, an expression of coastal indigenous peoples and local communities’ traditional ecological knowledge systems (TEKS).

A consequence of this is that traditional single sector/discipline approaches do not work because they (i) presume equilibrium and constancy of system, and (ii) do not account for variability and complex relationships leading to unpredictability leading to a tendency to break system into parts leading to a narrow conservative process. In practice this means that often a ‘fix’ produces a suite of “new” problems either on- and/or off-site or may not be sustainable in the medium to long term. A unique feature of human interactions is that they create novel states in environments over short spaces of time compared to natural processes. The alternative to this is adaptive management that acknowledges the changes that humans produce and must respond to, and which encourages partnerships between the public and private sectors to generate co-management of activities that promote a wider ownership, responsibility and stewardship of the environment.

The role of Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management in Restoration 1 IMCAM is an instrument that support an adaptive management approach and lead to more successful restoration of habitats because it that seek to unite Government and Community, Science and Management, Sectoral and Public interests. An important outcome of this approach is that goals of restoration can be tailored to local and regional needs because it inculcates a series of principles that include recognition of natural processes, resource exploitation and the conflict resulting from interactions between multiple users within a landscape context (Box 5).

Box 5. Principles of Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management:

1. Responsible Economic Sectors and Authorities at All Levels of Government Should Cooperate in the Management and Stewardship of Coastal and Marine Areas.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

1

Promote Public Participation and Involvement of all Interested and Affected Groups.

Understand the Effects that Traverse the Land-Water Boundary and Manage the Coastal Area as a Unit.

Investigate the Limits of Acceptable Change in the Coastal Area and Limit Development Accordingly.

Require or Encourage Non-Coastal Dependent Development to be sited away from the Coastal Area and Important Coastal Ecosystems.

Require Environmental Impact Assessments and Assure Faithful Compliance of the Recommendations.

Work with the Natural Processes of the Dynamic Coastal System.

Discourage Development in Areas Vulnerable to Natural Hazards.

Protect Areas of High Ecological Value.

Coastal Development should Respect Public Access and Traditional Uses.

Avoid Pollution of Ecosystems by Ensuring Proper Disposal of Effluents, Runoff, and Discharges.

Restore or Rehabilitate Damaged Ecosystems.

Use Economic Instruments that Encourage Full-Cost Accounting and Promote Compliance with Good Practices for Coastal Developments.

In this document the terms ‘Restoration’ and ‘Rehabilitation’ are used interchangeably.

3

However, recent analyses of IMCAM 2 literature and an on-line discussion (http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/) suggested that technology for the engineering of habitat restoration was advanced particularly in North America and Europe. In contrast, the relative absence of habitat restoration programmes, particularly outside of North America and Europe, appears to be focussed on absence or weakness of institutional, administrative, and legislative arrangements for the development of integrated management of marine and coastal ecosystems, plans and strategies for marine and coastal areas, and their integration within national development plans. Therefore, the challenge for IMCAM is to provide support in areas of project design, management and modalities of implementation, as well as technical issues, which recognise that traditional activities may have already altered the landscape, so restoration may require reverting to these processes. To this end restoration must manage for resilience3 that relates to the system itself and human organisation, which may require a more interventionist approaches for more heavily degraded habitats.

Current barriers to IMCAM supporting restoration activity Although IMCAM explicitly seeks to develop a holistic process that integrates all components of the coastal system – community; State; market as well as environment – barriers appear to exist to its achievement centred on issues of Ecological function and change in time and space; Governance of the coastal landscape; Single sectoral approaches; and Integration of multi-sector and discipline technologies. A theme running through all of these issues is the incorporation of humans within the coastal landscape instead of as spectators.

Ecological functions of habitats - scale (time and space), change There is a strong need to understand the physical conditions and processes of systems being restored from the ecological perspective of where the degraded landscape had both come from and where ‘natural’ processes were taking it. This is in recognition that ecosystems are variable, changing constantly in time and space: If restoration ‘challenged’ the direction of natural processes, then the result could be a system even less able to provide natural goods and services. One method to overcome such potential problems is to consider the area to be restored within a perspective of landscape ecology where each component of the system is explored against the role and function of adjacent components such that, for instance, the manner of restoration of one component could effectively form a buffering/supportive role mitigating pressures and change for other components of the landscape.

The juxtaposition of human activity and ecosystem function The need to inculcate a participatory approach amongst communities in order to understand the underlying reasons for change and impacts on human uses/interactions is important in order to plan future uses/interactions in a manner that supports restorative activity and made it sustainable through promoting good stewardship of the resources and facilities that the environment provide for human communities. In order for communities to support restored ecosystems there is a need to ‘sell’ the benefits of the restoration activity and provide support for changes to communities practices that might be required – especially where exploitation of resources become altered.

The relationship of community interactions with ecosystems is often confused by a lack of appreciation that communities are very heterogeneous, and the needs and demands of different groups can be conflictory. Community management includes the task to convince that compromise and adjustment will be essential from all stakeholders and concepts of win-win or win-loose are too simplistic. Participation is habitually too confined to the Community-State axis to the exclusion of the market that often provide the strongest drivers on resource interactions between humans and their environment. An example of the need for understanding of ecosystem functioning within a human-use context is provided in the Box 6.

2

IMCAM includes other integrated methodology terms for coastal management such as ICM; ICZM, ICAM. The stability of a system describes its ability to maintain itself whereas resilience describes the ability of a system to absorb and accommodate disturbance without changing.

3

4

Box 6: Melaleuca leucodendron Wetlands, Vietnam The Context and Coastal System - The Mekong Delta in Vietnam had extensive areas of freshwater Melaleuca wetland forest that provided many different forms of renewable resources ranging from wood products, honey, animals consumed as food through to medicinal plants, as well as important environmental services such flood mitigation, breeding and nursery areas for fish and rare and endangered species of birds. The wetlands have been altered through the application of herbicides, draining, burning and mechanical clearance of vegetation resulting from the effects of war and reclamation for agriculture. The primary obstacles to successful rehabilitation were 1) the effects of drainage that lowered the water table and exposed underlying potential acid sulphate soils (PASS) leading to acidification of waters drained from the wetlands, groundwater and the soils, 2) continuing pressures on land to meet the needs of landless farmers and the production of food crops, and 3) adoption of the canals created to drain the wetlands as arteries of water based transport.

Alternative Approaches to Rehabilitation - Rehabilitation from the perspective of agricultural specialists argues that further drainage and flushing of acids out of the soil is adequate for rice cultivation. While technically feasible, other issues are not addressed, such as the impact on fisheries, domestic water supplies, the loss of economic resources and environmental services, and the impact of flooding hazards.

An alternative approach, based on a holistic approach, considers the integrated functioning of the system based upon combining the rehabilitation of the hydrology and functions of the wetland forest system with a mixed cropping and forest product management system. This approach built upon and modified a model that divided the degraded wetlands into 10-hectare units: 7.5 hectares devoted to replanting of Melaleuca and 2.5 hectares allocated to agriculture. There was no significant modification of hydrology, canals were retained to form firebreaks and the agricultural system was paddy rice based. This approach seeks to re-establish the functions of the wetland forest system while meeting the needs of different economic interests: Examples include; Forestry and the production of primary and secondary forest products; Agriculture where farmers can take part in integrated agro-silviculture systems; Fisheries; Flood mitigation; and Nature Conservation.

See: Clark, J.R. 1996. Coastal Zone Management Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Case Study: Vietnam, MekongDifficulty in repairing damaged wetlands by P.R. Burbridge, pp 626-629.

Linking ecosystem function to the Human Dimension A key feature of restoration of habitats is that it is an activity where there is a strong need for cooperation and understanding between different agencies ranging from technical expertise that comprehends ecosystem functioning, the system of governance that determines strategies and implementation of policy to the civil society that can engender an enabling condition to provide the space in time and space for restorative activity to occur: These linkages are illustrated in Box 7 using shrimp aquaculture as an example.

Box 7: Rehabilitation of Wetlands Reclaimed for Shrimp Aquaculture Development Context - Over the past 20 years there has been a major expansion of brackish water shrimp aquaculture along tropical coastlines of Southeast Asia, Latin America and, to a lesser extent, Africa. Mangrove forests are favoured for shrimp pond development with a consequent loss of this habitat. While there have been economic gains, there have been corresponding negative economic and ecological impacts. The impact of these losses is often born by people living in rural communities who have no say in decisions to convert mangrove while the economic benefits are often gained by wealthy investors from urban centres.

Factors influencing sustainability of shrimp culture - The sustainability of brackish water shrimp culture depends on high standards of site selection, pond preparation, water management, hygiene and disease control, and economic considerations.

Key points for Sustainable Restoration: A. Ecosystem Functions and Multiple Use Management of Coastal ecosystems. Mangroves, as is the case for many coastal ecosystems, perform many environmental and economic functions that help to sustain a wide variety of human activities. However, they are often the responsibility of single sectoral agencies, whose mandate focus on the more tangible resource features such as the trees and secondary forest products to maximize product related revenues. In addition, the single sector mandate gives little incentive to protect ecological functions of value to other sectors such as fisheries leading to low incentives to maintain or rehabilitate the mangrove.

B. Integrated planning and management. Management of mangrove and other coastal systems is generally poorly developed in both developed and developing nations so that there is no optimization of the sustainable use of the flows of economic and environmental resources. A multi-sector approach is required to illustrate the broad range of economic, ecological and social benefits that could be gained by rehabilitating degraded

5

mangrove through cross-sectoral governance and harmonization of natural resources management policies and strategies.

C. Land rights. Reclamation of mangrove, salt marshes and other inter-tidal systems is seen by many entrepreneurs and landless people as a way of gaining land. While it is possible to insist on a strictly legal process of evicting squatters or developers, more may be gained by treating these people as stakeholders and integrating them into the rehabilitation process. This reduces resistance, delays and costs and people become part of the solution.

See: Stevenson, N.J., Lewis, R.R., and P.R. Burbridge. 1990. Disused Shrimp Ponds and Mangrove Rehabilitation. In W. Streever (ed.) An International Perspective on Wetland Rehabilitation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Pp 277-297.

Governance In the context of IMCAM, “Governance” extends beyond comprehension of the ‘institutions, rules and systems of the state and how they operate and relate towards those they seek to govern’ to include the ecosystem. This is because IMCAM seeks to focus upon interacting ecological, economic and social components in order to understand societal goals and design mechanisms by which institutional structures and processes can lead to sustainable management of the coastal zone and activities. A defining feature of IMCAM is that it addresses the allocation of resources and the interactions among often competing uses within specified geographic areas so that issues of participation by multiple stakeholders and their property rights are issues that should be included in the governance process.

The criteria for good Governance In order for governance to be effective, it is important that communities affected by restoration projects be included within the process of governance so that the decision-making process is accountable in order to promote ownership of the outcomes and good stewardship of the resources, goods and services provided by the environment that are almost always shared between different stakeholders. An example of the evolution of a process of governance that led to a change in the way decision making is applied to ecosystem management is given in Box 8.

Box 8: Biodiversity and flood protection After floods in 1953 the Dutch began to lay plans for the "Delta Project", a series of dikes and dams that would complete the North Sea fortifications. However, by the middle 1960’s, a small number of Dutch citizens had become concerned that by creating a wall between the salt water of the sea, and the fresh water of the river deltas, these barriers had disturbed and largely destroyed the tidal ecologies and biodiversity of their respective estuaries. A tidal zone is a complex ecosystem made up of individual niches with their own characteristics. In the Eastern Scheldt Delta a complex food web supports a high diversity of organisms ranging from plankton to birds. The Eastern Scheldt Delta is one of the three most important over-wintering grounds for birds in Europe.

A combination of political will and technological ingenuity created a way for the Dutch people to meet the needs both of safety and of the environment. The political included small citizens’ groups as well as politicians who recognised that, in addition to issues of ecology and of safety, there were matters of economy and of quality of life that affected fishing, shellfishing, and tourism industries.

The technological piece of the solution was founded on a simple observation: it is only intermittently that storms create the threat of floods. In fact, the kind of flood that threatens the North Sea coast of the Netherlands are called "storm surges". If a dike could be designed that would be shut only when there was a threat of a storm surge, and would otherwise be open, the tides would continue to come and go and the Delta’s ecology would remain essentially intact. Safety, environment, and economy would be protected.

Sixty-six giant towers, with steel gates between them, now stretch across 5.6 miles of seabed. Although the new design doubled the cost of a conventional dike, it successfully protects the tidal environment. Moreover, the economic activity, such as fishing and tourism, which continue to thrive help offset the higher price.

See: http://www.solutions-site.org/cat1_sol26.htm.

The role of stakeholders Especially important is the need to develop mechanisms so that there was dialogue and understanding between Primary (those individuals and groups who are ultimately affected by an activity, either as beneficiaries (positively impacted) or disbeneficiaries (adversely impacted)), Secondary (individuals or institutions with a stake, interest or intermediary role in the activity) and Key (those who can significantly influence or are important to the success of an activity) stakeholders. This is crucial in

6

order to promote a climate of compliance with management necessary to sustain the restoration outcomes, which might include some legislative authority ceded to local organisations/institutions. A further critical component is the issue of property rights that might encompass space within the landscape and/or resources, which may be linked to the power of an individual stakeholder’s voice and their relative needs. This can mean that there may be external (to the restoration activity) pressures to any given stakeholder group that may lead to a weak voice, but which does not necessarily mean that they have no interest or claim in the activity and outcomes. Indeed recognition of other pressures external to those operating within the realms of the restoration activity are important factors that should be considered within the management process. An example of the demands of governance and competing demands is given in the Box 9.

Box 9: The Wadden Sea- Development of Integrated Governance The Ecosystem and the Human Activities it Sustains - The Wadden Sea is one of the World’s largest and most important inter-tidal wetland ecosystems of great ecological, economic and social importance. This is based on the great biological productivity and diversity of a complex mosaic of coastal ecosystems (mud flats, sand banks, sea grass beds, salt marshes, mussel beds, islands, estuaries and river systems) providing an important habitat for migrating birds as well as spawning, nursery and feeding areas for fish. Its landscape provides renewable resources sustain a wide range of economic activities from fisheries to tourism and recreation.

Governance - Three sovereign nations share responsibility for this ecosystem (Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany). Growing awareness of the unique and valuable nature of the Wadden Sea combined with mounting concern over deterioration in environmental conditions resulted in a Tri-Lateral agreement formulated with objectives of developing a unified vision for the future of the Sea, harmonization of their respective development objectives and policies, better integration of management strategies and the application of ecosystem management.

Achievements and Obstacles - The three Wadden Sea nations have set an example of trans-national governance of a common ecosystem. Significant progress has been made towards the objectives, and a major part of the Sea now enjoys strong environmental protection. Multiple use management is being adopted by the three states who are also attempting to unify their interpretations of and effective use of international agreements which can strengthen the protection of the coastal and marine ecosystems (e.g. EC Habitats Directive, Ramsar Convention, Bonn Convention, Berne Convention, EC Bird Directive, EU Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, and the EC Water Framework Directive). However, there are factors that hinder full integration and rapid harmonisation: These include; 1. Three different legal bases for managing the Wadden ecosystem.

2. The concept of sustainable development has not been full translated into working management objectives and achievable targets or common policy as to how the concept should be implemented.

3. There are distinctly different management approaches and jurisdictional boundaries that have been adopted in each the three nations. While each is appropriate to their respective legal and governance systems, there are few common principles for guiding and, where necessary, controlling development activities.

4. None of the three management systems has real control over issues and problems outside their jurisdictions (e.g. diffuse land based sources of pollution).

5. Differing development pressures and attitudes influence the application of controls over individual rights of access to and use of resources of the Wadden Sea. 6. Strong pressures from different resource users to avoid restrictions on economic activities.

7. Different opinions on the sustainability of large scale engineering modifications to marine and coastal areas relating to coastal defence, infrastructure development.

See: WWF 1991. The Common Future http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Projects/waddlink.htm.

for

the

Wadden

Sea,

WWF,

Husum,

Germany.

Sectoralism The challenge of ensuring that all sectors are represented in the restoration process centres upon inclusion of all stakeholders within the restoration process and the integration of secondary stakeholders (in this case those that design and implement the project) in the restoration activity. This requires a holistic approach to collect all the various stakeholders together and promote their wide inclusion in the restoration process and activity: this suggests that stakeholders are part of the mosaic of nature that make up the landscape and embeds them firmly as an integral component of the system.

It also recognises that within the assembly of agencies that are involved in restoration projects there is conflict and competition for ownership of the landscape and resources within the restoration area that often results in single-agency implementation of activity: These issues are illustrated in Box 10.

7

Box 10. Review of sectoral policies and legislation related to wetlands There are often several policies that affect the management of wetlands either directly or indirectly. Wetland conservation and management is a shared responsibility of many institutions and organizations. The development of a National Wetland Policy should, as a matter of necessity, take into account the successes, failures and relevance of these sectoral policies in order to avoid duplication. Similarly, National Wetland Policies should consider existing legislation that is relevant to wetlands to ensure that new policies do not conflict with the existing legislation.

In Uganda’s case, a series of studies were commissioned to specifically review existing legislation. These studies identified that there was almost no legislation in Uganda directly related to wetlands as an entity. However, there was reference to swamps (only one type of wetland) in the Public Lands Act and Public Health Act. The studies also noted that the enforcement of these laws was not sufficient to guarantee wetland conservation. Legislation, while in itself is not sufficient, does serve as a good backing for specific policy. The inclusion of wetland issues in sectoral legislation is only relevant in as far as it relates to those sectors and may not reflect the cross-sectoral nature of wetlands. Putting legislation ahead of, or in the place of, wetland policy could have negative connotations. This is because legislation, in Uganda’s case, was in the past often designed to restrict human activities but included little or no incentives for wetland conservation.

Legislative review is also important as it helps to identify the negative aspects of policies affecting wetlands and those actions that need to be taken to modify such legislation. This can ensure that new laws do not conflict with laws in place or make them unworkable. The review further helps to identify the mandate of institutions with responsibilities for wetland management.

Once the Policy was adopted in Uganda, it was felt that it would be imperative that legislation be put in place to support the implementation of this Policy. It was recognized that this legislation could take the form of a separate law, such as an Act of Parliament, or be a part of an umbrella of environmental legislation, regulations and bylaws. In Uganda, the Cabinet approved guidelines for the preparation of legislation to enforce the National Wetland Policy. At the same time, the Government was formulating a National Environmental Policy. As a result, provisions for wetland protection were incorporated into the National Environment Statute. This is to be followed by detailed regulations at the national level and appropriate ordinances and bylaws at the district and local levels respectively.

See: http://www.ramsar.org/key_guide_nwp_cs_e.htm.

Sectoral barriers to restoration Where single sector agencies implement restoration projects then the results are often not sound ecologically so that ecosystem function is not re-created. Therefore, a multi-sectoral approach is necessary in order to promote a process that enables restored habitats to behave in a ‘natural’ manner within the broader landscape. Functionality of ecosystems should include the present needs of stakeholders as well as the suite of functions that any given piece of landscape might have provided prior to degradation. To this end, biodiversity is an integral component of a wide range of descriptors that determine the functionality of an ecosystem that must considered as an essential and fundamental element within restoration.

The resulting complexity may become an effectively a barrier to successful restoration of habitats that requires huge resources to overcome. If not overcome then restoration becomes an issue of consensus building between competing groups whereby the effectiveness of the outcome becomes diluted in order to attain the consensus. This is particularly important for the issue of degradation of habitats and biodiversity in urban areas where the planning process can be removed from issues of the natural environment and resource availability. Crucially, this is a major role for science to ameliorate as sound science could maintain a focus and rigor to the arguments as shown in Box 11.

Box 11. Rehabilitation of the Mangrove Wetlands in the Indus Delta, Pakistan Context - The delta of the Indus River extends over some 225 square miles and was, at one time, colonised by a variety of different mangrove species. However, the number of species declined from the 1960s and by the 1980s Avicenia formed the dominant species. The perceived loss of biodiversity led to major efforts began to reestablish the former diversity of mangrove species through planting schemes. The replanting schemes were led by the Forestry Department, supported by NGOs and donors, who planted species that had disappeared in the specially prepared sites.

Obstacles to Successful Restoration - The replanting schemes had limited success because the major impoundments and water abstraction in the river system had gradually altered the hydrology and sediment budget of the estuary. This change in environmental conditions caused a number of conditions, namely:

8

1. The reduction in sediments and organic material has altered the morphology of the delta to the point where it was subsiding, possible exacerbated by regional sea level rise; 3. Reduction in freshwater flows has increased the salinity of the delta waters and soils; 4. Contamination of the freshwater by agricultural and other wastes has altered the chemistry and nutrient budget if the estuary and delta; Together, these factors have added to the environmental stress on the mangrove. As a result, the species that have less tolerance to deep water, long periods of inundation and increased salinity could not survive in the numbers previously recorded. In contrast, species such as Avicenia marina are better adapted to such stressful conditions and often form the first colonisers along prograding shorelines with muddy substrates making them better adapted as survivors when conditions deteriorate.

Lessons Learned 1. A broad systems perspective in which major environmental processes are analysed to determine the root cases for decline in the health, productivity and biological diversity of a coastal system is essential to the formulation of sustainable strategies for their rehabilitation; 2. It may not be feasible to re-establish former levels of biodiversity due to the irreversible conditions caused by competing development objectives and pressures.

P. Burbridge 1989, Study undertaken for the World Conservation Union (IUCN): Assessment of coastal resource management issues in Pakistan and preparation of recommendations for IUCN action and investment, 1989.

Technical methodologies and mechanisms Technology is not a major barrier to effective restoration although the issue of combining different technologies, often originating from different actors in the process, towards a common goal is a problem. Here the use of tools that afford an auditable mechanism to rationalise and appraise different approaches is important in order to arrive at efficient and equitable management whereby the outcomes effectively provide incentives for the different actors to provide appropriate inputs to the restoration process. The concept of managed re-alignment that seeks to re-establish the buffering capacity of natural coastal ecosystems for coastal protection whilst incorporating the local social and economic demands is an example of a mechanism that attempts to use technological innovation and expertise within a broad planning environment: an illustration of this approach is given in Box 12.

Box 12. Managed Realignment, Nigg Bay, Scotland The Context and Coastal System - Wetlands along the Bay have been reclaimed for agriculture but with sea level rise, the sea walls protecting the reclaimed land are eroding. At the same time, the sea walls prevent the natural adjustment of the shore through the development of mudflats and salt marshes. The low value of the agricultural land reclaimed from the former salt marsh and mudflats makes it uneconomic to continually repair and strengthen the sea wall. At the same time, there is increasing public awareness of the environmental services provided by mudflats and salt marshes, including their role in helping to conserve biological diversity and in reducing risks from coastal flooding. As a result, there is increased public support for innovative measures to rehabilitate reclaimed coastal habitats.

Rehabilitation through Managed Realignment - Twenty five hectares of reclaimed land have been purchased by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in order to rehabilitate the area by breaching the sea wall. Before any action was taken, the RSPB discussed their rehabilitation plans with all adjacent landowners to gain their consent, and consulted community groups and local NGOs to explain the proposed actions. The area now forms a buffer zone that absorbs sea wave and wind energy, which reduces pressures on adjacent shorelines.

This has led to a saving of some 4200 Euros per kilometre in the public costs of maintaining sea defences in other parts of the Bay. Key Points for Technical consideration: 1. Managed realignment and rehabilitation of reclaimed areas can form a cost-effective and environmentally sound alternative to hard engineering and inflexible and costly coastal defences; 2. There are economic and social benefits in terms of re-invigorated coastal ecosystems that can absorb the high energy from winds and waves, which help to reduce erosion and coastal flooding; 3. Coastal systems such as beaches, sand dunes, mudflats and salt marshes will be able to migrate shoreward to accommodate sea level changes; 4. Public consultation is essential to ensure that managed realignment and rehabilitation of former coastal systems as an alternative to hard defences is fully understood by all interested and affected parties;

9

5. With managed realignment, there is time to consider alternatives and to plan for relocation of development that may become increasingly vulnerable to environmental changes; 6. To be fully effective, managed realignment and coastal and marine habitat rehabilitation needs to be considered within a broad planning and management framework where the plans management strategies and investment of different sectors and levels of governance can support integrated coastal management. The EU Water Framework Directive and the EU Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management represent powerful tools that can help governments formulate policies and sustainable management strategies to deal with sea level rise and hazards associated with coastal flooding and erosion.

Ref. Royal Society for Protection of Birds, 2003. Nigg Bay RSPB Reserve Coastal Realignment Project, RSPB Scotland, Inverness

Conclusion The principle barriers to restoration, and hence the incorporation of biodiversity objectives, is not the technology and mechanistic side of habitat restoration but, rather, the process of policy and decision making needed to plan and implement restoration goals. The study points to the need for IMCAM to provide suitable guidance to building partnership and consensus amongst the plethora of agencies and stakeholders involved in restoration activity in order for it to be successful. Interestingly, no-one questioned the role and importance of biodiversity issues to achieve successful habitat restoration Thus, perhaps biodiversity, and the gains and losses it can bring through habitat restoration or destruction respectively, could in itself be a useful tool to build consensus if the objectives are presented in a careful and suitable manner. An emerging mechanism that might form an enabling forum to allow full consideration of Ecosystem, Governance, Sectoral and Technological issues within a decision-making framework is the Driver-Pressure-Impact-State-Response (DPSIR) framework illustrated in Figure 1 that provides a general framework for organising information about state of the environment. The framework assumes cause-effect relationships between interacting components of social, economic and environmental systems. Each component in the DPSIR generates a demand for information from different stakeholders, particularly from policy-makers but also from scientists, educators, advocacy groups and civil, society.

10

DRIVING FORCES Socio-economic activities and processes that lead to environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity: Urbanisation, transport/trade, Agriculture intensification /land use change, Tourism and recreational demand, Fisheries and aquaculture, Industrial development.

Modify, substitute, remove POLICY RESPONSES Actions of human system to solve environmental problems: habitat restoration.

Generate

Eliminate, reduce, prevent Restorate, influence Compensate, mitigate

Stimulate, ask for

IMPACTS The changes in processes and functions of ecosystems leads to consequential impacts on human welfare via productivity, health, amenity and existence value changes.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES Direct stresses on the natural environment: Land conversion and reclamation, dredging, pollution, water abstraction, and estuarine & coastal engineering works, dams, barrages, congestion.

Influence, modify ENVIRONMENTAL ‘STATE’ CHANGES Conditions and tendencies in the natural environment: loss of habitats & biological diversity.

Provoke, cause

Figure 1. The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model for restoration.

See: http://www.ceroi.net/reports/arendal/dpsir.htm and http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/54/2715388.doc.

11