Contents/Contenido. The role of western science in wetland management by Aboriginal communities in the Top End of Australia 7

Transcripción

1

2

3 Published and printed by: Ducks Unlimited, Inc., One Waterfowl Way, Memphis, TN , USA Prepared with financial assistance of: Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of International Conservation. Copyright: Please address requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights to the author(s) of the particular paper. ISBN Citation: Carbonell M, Nathai-Gyan N & Finlayson CM (eds) Science and local communities: Strengthening partnerships for effective wetland management. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., USA. Hardcopies and cd-rom available from: Ducks Unlimited, Inc. One Waterfowl Way Memphis, TN USA Also available from: This volume is based on a symposium on Science and Local Communities: Strengthening Partnerships for Effective Wetland Management that took place during the Millennium Wetland Event held in Quebec, Canada, 6 12 August The presentation of material and geographical designations employed in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Ducks Unlimited Inc., the editors or the funding agencies.

4 Contents/Contenido Introduction 1 Introducción 4 The role of western science in wetland management by Aboriginal communities in the Top End of Australia 7 MJ Storrs, DM Yibarbuk, PJ Whitehead & CM Finlayson O Desafio De Conservar As Florestas Inundáveis Amazónicas No Brasil 14 A Pires, E Moura, G Disconzi & A da Silva Benchimol Distribution and abundance of waterfowl in the Ramparts River wetland complex, Sahtu Settlement Area, Northwest Territories, Canada 19 Ducks Unlimited Canada & K ahsho Got ine Renewable Resources Council La Cuenca del Río Tempisque y las Iniciativas Comunales para el Manejo de sus Humedales 25 J Jiménez & V Gutiérrez Community science traditional knowledge: a common but differentiated approach. The case of the higher basin of Lerma River wetlands, Mexico 29 M Bastida Muñoz & GP Encina Popular knowledge and science: Using the information that counts in managing use of a mangrove in Saint Lucia, West Indies 35 N Samuel & A Smith Nariva must not die: An integrated effort for wetland conservation in Trinidad and Tobago 40 N Nathai-Gyan, D Boodoo & K Deonanan iv

5 Analysis of Ramsar s guidelines for establishing and strengthening local communities and indigenous people s participation in the management of wetlands (Resolution vii.8) 45 CM Finlayson, M Carbonell, T Alarcón & O Masardule Análisis de ls Lineamientos de Ramsar para Establecer y Fortalecer la Participación de las Comunidades Locales y los Pueblos Indígenas en el Manejo de los Humedales (Resolución VII.8) 51 CM Finlayson, M Carbonell, T Alarcón & O Masardule Summary and Recommendations 57 Compiled and edited by Larry Mason Resumen y Recomendaciones 60 Compilado y editado por Larry Mason Appendix 1 List of participants / Lista de participantes 63 Appendix 2 Ramsar Wetlands Convention: Resolution VII.8 on local communities and indigenous people 68 Appendix 3 Ramsar Wetlands Convention: Guidelines for establishing and strengthening local communities and indigenous people s participation in the management of wetlands 71 Apéndice 4 La Convención de Ramsar sobre los Humedales: Resolución VII.8: Participación de las comunidades locales y de los pueblos indígenas 80 Apéndice 5 La Convención de Ramsar sobre los Humedales: Lineamientos para establecer y fortalecer la participación de las comunidades locales y de los pueblos indígenas en el manejo de los humedales 84 v

6 Introduction Although there have been considerable strides made in many countries with the involvement of local communities in participatory systems of wetland management, efforts are required to take this initiative one step further and also link scientists with managers and local communities. Science should always be the basis for wetland management, but more often than not valuable information generated by scientists does not reach the local communities and, conversely, local communities do not get the opportunity to communicate their needs to the scientific community. In the case of the latter, this is compounded by the fact that considerable investments of time are spent on scientific studies which are of little relevance to the needs of local wetland managers and the needs of local communities. While scientists and technical people usually do not consult either governments or communities about their needs, communities to a large extent distrust not only governments but also research, which in many cases is considered worthless given the health and social justice circumstances these communities live in. On the other hand, governmental decisions are often taken without regard to scientific backing and community participation. However, we all know that if scientists and local communities were involved they would supply at least some of the knowledge that government officials should rely on when making decisions. Participation and consultation on matters relating to our well being, and that of future generations, is a fundamental right that goes beyond the legal right of governments to make decisions on our behalf. So, what happens when scientific/technical people and communities learn to trust each other, respect each other s views, opinions and, needs, and eventually reach consensus? Can they make a difference and influence governmental decisions? Do they indeed achieve conservation of wetland biodiversity? Do they achieve wise use of wetlands for the benefit of the communities? Can wise use of wetland resources be integrated with the pressing social/health needs of local communities, many of which are linked to resource misuse and misunderstanding? The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Guidelines for establishing and strengthening local communities and indigenous people s participation in the management of wetlands, adopted in Resolution VII.8 in Costa Rica (1999), were developed to aid Contracting Parties in the implementation of wetland conservation through participatory processes. The need for a Symposium that would address the collaboration, or lack thereof, between local communities and the scientific community in relation to wetland conservation was identified in the hope that it would trigger a few answers, and perhaps more questions. The Wetland Millennium Event that took place in Quebec, Canada (6 12 August 2000), seemed a perfect opportunity to organize a Symposium on Science and local communities and gather scientists and members of local communities willing to exchange ideas and experience. Because of the time available at the Event and because of other circumstances (such as budget) it was decided to restrict the papers to case studies from the Americas, with one exception from Australia. 1

7 The Guidelines developed and adopted by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands were considered the basic ground for the Symposium Science and local communities and the starting point for the discussions. However, the aim of the Symposium was not to review old information and reach old conclusions, but rather to look ahead beyond these guidelines. These are an excellent start but their real value is in their application on the ground and not in their redrafting. It is now necessary to link scientific with traditional knowledge and the legitimate right of all stakeholders to participate in wetland management through a process of clear consent, mutual trust and unquestioned respect. This Symposium was used to prove that this is possible and that it is already happening in several countries in the Americas and in Australia, and that to consider that there is any other way of achieving wetland conservation nowadays is a recipe for failure. The overall objective of the Symposium was to provide an instructive and evocative opportunity to both local communities and the scientific community to contribute to improving the present approach to wetland management. Papers in this volume include those presented at the Symposium plus one from Mexico. All aim to illustrate the problems and challenges of science/technical people, NGOs and communities working together to improve wetland management and conservation. They are examples of partnerships between scientific/technical people and communities taking advantage of each other s expertise and knowledge for the benefit of wetland conservation. Most papers in this publication also show and discuss the benefits of science and communities and NGOs and communities working in concert as an alternative to, or as a tool to assist, government management and wise use of wetlands. They speak about government-related factors that influenced the establishment of the partnership between communities and scientific/technical people; prove that science can support community goals of wise use of wetland resources and that traditional knowledge can assist research and technical decisions; demonstrate the values of open participation, conflict management and consensus building; and concluded that the resultant products merit the time and effort invested. Additionally, we hoped to learn how the communities as well as the scientists/technical people viewed the relevance of research vs. social/health issues in achieving wise use of wetlands. But unfortunately most authors did not consider these questions in their papers. The round table at the Symposium, following the presentation of papers, was used to stimulate audience participation and, as a result, the Symposium sent the message across that citizen participation at the community or indigenous people s level is not simply a matter of political correctness, courtesy or even of good intentions. It is a fundamental citizen s right. The results of the round table discussion and major points or conclusions resulting from the different presentations are compiled and presented in this publication ( Results and Suggestions ). Approximately 50 people participated in the Symposium from more than 15 different countries. The US Fish and Wildlife Service Office of International Conservation, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Organizing Committee of the Millenium Wetland Event kindly provided the funds that facilitated the participation at the Symposium of several colleagues. We are very grateful to our colleagues who travelled from far away to share their experience, and knowledge, as well as their failure and success stories. We are especially grateful to Mr Larry Mason and Dr Max Finlayson for their constant support, patience and invaluable contributions before, during and after the meeting. Special thanks go to Clay Rubec for believing in us and sharing our concern for communities involvement in wetland 2

8 conservation and management. We also thank Ann Webb and Gail Barrowcliff for preparing this report for publication. We hope this publication will be a humble contribution to a better understanding and an improved collaboration between all of us working for, fighting for and depending on wetlands. Organizers of the Symposium Nadra Nathai-Gyan and Montserrat Carbonell we all live downstream 3

9 Introducción Aunque se han realizado esfuerzos considerables en varios países para involucrar a las comunidades locales en sistemas participativos de manejo de humedales, es necesario llevar estas iniciativas un paso más adelante e involucrar a los científicos en los esfuerzos que realizan los manejadores y las comunidades locales. La ciencia debería ser siempre la base del manejo de los humedales, pero con frecuencia mucha de la información valiosa generada por investigadores no llega a las comunidades locales, y a su vez, las comunidades locales no tienen la oportunidad de hacer conocer sus necesidades a la comunidad científica. En este último caso, la considerable inversión de tiempo hecha en estudios científicos poco relacionados con las necesidades de los manejadores de los humedales y las necesidades de las comunidades locales, agrava la situación. Mientras que los científicos y los técnicos no suelen consultar ni a los gobiernos ni a las comunidades acerca de cuáles son sus necesidades, las comunidades desconfían bastante, no sólo de los gobiernos, sino también de la investigación, la cual es considerada irrelevante, en muchos casos, dadas las circunstancias de salud e injusticia social en las que ellos viven. Por otro lado, los gobiernos toman decisiones, a menudo, sin contar con datos científicos y sin hacer partícipes a las comunidades. Sin embargo, todos sabemos que si los científicos y las comunidades locales estuvieran involucrados, ellos podrían proporcionar por lo menos una parte del conocimiento que las agencias gubernamentales deberían considerar a la hora de la toma de decisiones. La participación y la consulta en temas relacionados con nuestro bienestar y el de las generaciones futuras, constituyen un derecho legítimo que va más allá del derecho legal que tienen los gobiernos al tomar decisiones en nombre de todos. Entonces, qué sucede cuando los científicos/técnicos y las comunidades aprenden a confiar unos en otros, a respetar sus visiones, opiniones y necesidades y, eventualmente, a llegar a un consenso?. Pueden lograr un cambio e influir las decisiones del gobierno?. Consiguen en verdad la conservación de los humedales?. Logran llevar a cabo el uso racional de los humedales para el beneficio de las comunidades?. Puede integrarse el uso adecuado de los humedales con las necesidades sociales y de salud acuciantes de las comunidades locales, muchas de las cuales son resultado del uso irracional y la falta de entendimiento?. Los Lineamientos para establecer y fortalecer la participación de las comunidades locales y de los pueblos indígenas en el manejo de los humedales adoptados por Resolución VII.8 en la COP7 de la Convención de Ramsar sobre Humedales, en Costa Rica (1999), fueron desarrollados para asistir a las Partes Contratantes en la implementación de medidas de conservación de humedales basadas en procesos de participación ciudadana. Pocos meses después se vio la necesidad de realizar un simposio en el que discutiera la colaboración, o ausencia de colaboración, entre las comunidades locales y la comunidad científica en relación a la conservación de humedales con la esperanza de obtener algunas respuestas a las preguntas que nos hacemos y plantear nuevas preguntas también. El Wetland Millennium Event que tuvo lugar en Québec, Canadá (6 12 de agosto de 2000), se presentó como una oportunidad excelente para organizar el Simposio sobre Ciencia y Comunidades Locales y atraer la participación de científicos y miembros de comunidades deseosos de compartir ideas y experiencias. Debido a la disponibilidad de tiempo para el Simposio y otras circunstancias (tales como presupuesto) decidimos limitar las presentaciones a 4

10 estudios de caso únicamente de países de América pero con la excepción de la presentación de Australia. Los Lineamientos de Ramsar fueron considerados la base para el Simposio Ciencia y Comunidades Locales y fueron el punto de partida para las discusiones. No obstante, el objetivo del Simposio no fue hacer una revisión de información existente y llegar a conclusiones ya conocidas, sino mirar hacia delante, más allá de los Lineamientos. Estos constituyen un excelente comienzo pero su verdadero valor se encuentra en su implementación en el terreno y no en hacerlos nuevamente. Ahora es necesario establecer el contacto entre el conocimiento científico y el tradicional, y el derecho legítimo de todos los interesados en participar en el manejo de los humedales a través de un proceso de consenso claro, confianza mutua y respeto incuestionable. Este Simposio sirvió para demostrar que esto no sólo es posible sino que ya está ocurriendo en varios países de América y en Australia, y que considerar la posibilidad de conservar los humedales de otra forma en la actualidad, es fórmula para el fracaso. El objetivo general del Simposio fue facilitar tanto a las comunidades locales como a la comunidad científica la oportunidad de hacer aportes, de una forma instructiva y aleccionadora, al manejo de humedales tal y como se practica en la actualidad. En la presente publicación se incluyen además de las presentaciones hechas en el Simposio sobre Ciencia y Comunidades Locales un artículo de México. Todos los artículos analizan los problemas y los desafíos encontrados por los investigadores/técnicos, las ONG y las comunidades locales al trabajan en coordinación para el manejo eficaz de los humedales. Estos artículos son ejemplos de alianzas desarrolladas entre científicos/técnicos y comunidades para beneficiarse mutuamente de sus experiencias y conocimientos para el bien de la conservación de los humedales. La mayoría de las experiencias transmitidas en esta publicación muestran y discuten, además, los beneficios del trabajo entre científicos y comunidades, o entre ONG y comunidades, como alternativa o como herramienta para prestar ayuda a los gobiernos en el manejo y uso racional de los humedales. Exponen factores relacionados con el gobierno que influyeron para que se estableciera la asociación entre las comunidades y los científicos/técnicos; demuestran que la ciencia puede apoyar las metas de la comunidad relacionadas con el uso adecuado de los recursos de los humedales y que el conocimiento tradicional puede asistir las decisiones técnicas y de investigación; muestran los valores de la participación abierta, el manejo de conflictos y el logro de consenso; y concluyen que el producto resultante amerita el tiempo y el esfuerzo invertido. Así mismo, deseábamos saber la opinión tanto de las comunidades como de los investigadores/técnicos sobre la importancia de la investigación vs. los aspectos sociales/salud en el logro del uso racional de los humedales. Sin embargo, esta fue una pregunta que la mayoría de los artículos no consideraron. Durante la mesa redonda durante el Simposio, después de las presentaciones, se estimuló la participación de todos los presentes, y como resultado el Simposio concluyó que la participación ciudadana al nivel de las comunidades locales y pueblos indígenas no es simplemente una cuestión de etiqueta política, cortesía o inclusive buenas intenciones. Se trata de un derecho legítimo de los ciudadanos. Los resultados de las discusiones de la mesa redonda y los puntos principales o conclusiones de las presentaciones se encuentran resumidas en esta publicación ( Resultados y Sugerencias ). 5

11 Aproximadamente unas 50 personas participaron en el Simposio, representando más de 15 países. Varios de nuestros compañeros pudieron viajar y participar en el Simposio gracias al generoso aporte económico de la Oficina de Conservación Internacional del Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de los EE.UU., la Agencia Canadiense para el Desarrollo Internacional (CIDA) y el Comité Organizador del Millennium Wetland Event. Agradecemos de forma especial a todos nuestros compañeros que viajaron desde muy lejos para compartir su experiencia y conocimiento, así como sus errores y sus éxitos. Gracias muy especiales al Sr. Larry Mason y al Dr. Max Finlayson por su constante apoyo, paciencia y valiosas contribuciones antes, durante y después del Simposio. En forma muy particular, gracias a Clay Rubec por creer en nosotras y compartir nuestra inquietud por la participación de comunidades en la conservación y el manejo de humedales. También agradecemos la colaboración de Ann Webb y de Gail Barrowcliff en el trabajo de edición de este informe. Confiamos esta publicación contribuya humildemente a un mejor entendimiento y una mayor colaboración entre todos los que trabajamos en, luchamos por y dependemos de los humedales Organizadoras del Simposio Nadra Nathai-Gyan y Montserrat Carbonell todos vivimos aguas abajo 6

12 The role of western science in wetland management by Aboriginal communities in the Top End of Australia MJ Storrs 1, DM Yibarbuk 2, PJ Whitehead 3 & CM Finlayson 4 1 Caring for Country Unit, Northern Land Council, PO Box 42921, Casuarina, NT 0811 Australia, michael.storrs@nlc.org.au 2 Djelk Community Rangers, Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, Maningrida, NT 0822 Australia, michael.storrs@nlc.org.au 3 Key Centre for Tropical Wildlife Management, NT University, Darwin, NT 0909 Australia 4 National Centre for Tropical Wetland Research, C/- Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Locked Bag No 2, Jabiru, NT 0886 Australia, maxf@eriss.erin.gov.au Abstract An incursion of the invasive Central American weed, Mimosa pigra, was the catalyst to initiate a process of wetland management planning on Aboriginal lands in the Blyth-Liverpool Rivers region of central Arnhem Land, northern Australia. The Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, with the assistance of the Northern Land Council, strengthened community capacity to undertake wetland management by brokering resources and training which led to the establishment of the Djelk Community Ranger Program. Scientific concepts were introduced through collaborative inventory surveys with the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist and more recently the investigation of sustainable wildlife utilization and management with the Key Centre for Tropical Wildlife Management at the Northern Territory University. Based on this experience, we argue that Aboriginal communities are best supported in the process of wetland management planning through assistance with concrete local issues before being asked to consider more abstract scientific and management policy issues operating over broader scales. Western science should be emphasized late on a continuum of management planning that develops as the community s capacity to participate in and control the process increases. Scientists and research organizations willing to assist in building the community s capacity to manage resources locally and negotiate effectively are most likely to deliver positive outcomes for both wetland conservation and community welfare. This is a particularly important issue while government, industry and conservation groups are still struggling at the policy level to resolve competing pressures for development and conservation. 7

13 Resumen La incursión de la planta invasora centroamericana, Mimosa pigra, sirvió de catalizador para iniciar el proceso de planeamiento del manejo de un humedal en las tierras aborígenes de la región de los ríos Blyth-Liverpool, en el área del Arnhem Central, en el norte de Australia. La Corporación Aborigen Bawinanga, con el apoyo del Consejo de las Tierras del Norte, fortaleció la capacidad de la comunidad para realizar el manejo del humedal a través de la custodia de los recursos y la capacitación, que llevaron al establecimiento del Programa de Guardas Comunitarios de Djek. Se introdujeron conceptos científicos mediante los inventarios realizados en colaboración con el Instituto de Investigación Ambiental de la Autoridad Científica y, más recientemente, por medio de la investigación del uso sustentable y manejo de la vida silvestre en conjunto con el Centro Coordinador (Key) del Manejo de la Vida Silvestre Tropical de la Universidad de los Territorios del Norte. En base a esta experiencia sostenemos que es mejor apoyar a las comunidades aborígenes en temas específicos relacionados con el manejo de los humedales a escala local, que pedirles que consideren aspectos operativos científicos y de manejo más abstractos y a una escala mayor. La ciencia occidental debería aplicarse en las etapas tardías del ciclo continuo de planeamiento del manejo, que se desarrolla a medida que aumenta la capacidad de la comunidad para participar y controlar dicho proceso. Los científicos y las organizaciones de investigación que deseen ayudar al fortalecimiento de la capacidad de la comunidad para manejar los recursos a nivel local, y sean capaces de negociar eficazmente, se encontrarán mejor ubicados para producir resultados positivos en el área de conservación de los humedales y el bienestar de la comunidad. Este es un tema especialmente importante en un momento en que el gobierno, la industria y los grupos de conservación están luchando a nivel político para resolver las presiones opuestas del desarrollo y la conservación. Background and historical perspective Aboriginal people have managed wetlands in northern Australia for millennia. The need for external advice or assistance has arisen chiefly from recent changes driven by non-aboriginal settlement and associated land management practices (see Storrs & Finlayson 1997) over the past 200 years. These include pressures from weeds and feral animals, changed fire regimes, and infrastructure development. Changing community aspirations have also led Aboriginal people to consider commercial uses of wetland resources, which may also require new approaches to achieve sustainability. Aboriginal landowners have limited personal resources and community organizations often focus on more immediate social problems such as inadequate housing, poor health, substance abuse and resultant domestic violence, and land ownership conflicts. Even when the community accords a high priority to land management, the capacity to manage rapidly emerging threats, such as weeds, feral animals and changed fire regimes is generally low. The local capacity to access appropriate technical assistance and to integrate advice, research and technology into local practice is constrained by low literacy, limited experience and scarce community resources. Some management agencies are also reticent about committing resources outside formal and legally binding agreements. 8

14 The Northern Land Council (NLC) is a statutory authority representing Aboriginal people in the northern half of the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia. In 1995 the NLC established the Caring for Country Unit (CFCU) to assist Aboriginal landowners with land management and sustainable development projects. The resource service now known as the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation (BAC) was established in 1973 to support Aboriginal people from the Blyth- Liverpool wetlands region in central Arnhem Land who wanted to live in outstations on their traditional lands rather than in the government administered settlement of Maningrida (population 1200). Over the years, the BAC has grown in response to the increase in outstation numbers, currently about 35, and the 800 or so people they support. In 1995 the BAC, with assistance from the CFCU, established the Djelk Community Ranger Program to assist landowners with land management issues. Objectives The BAC s aim was to maintain the natural environment largely for cultural reasons but also to utilize it (preferably using traditional skills) to provide jobs and as a source of non-welfare (social security) income. The expected result was increased community capacity to undertake wetland management. The initial hypothesis was that introduction of wetland management concepts and application of science-based approaches would be best achieved through locally significant practical examples, involving a range of collaborators. Methods Following a weed awareness campaign, an incursion of the invasive Central American weed Mimosa pigra (Mimosa) was discovered on the floodplain of a Liverpool River tributary in The BAC asked the NLC for assistance to manage it. Two local men were employed on a shortterm Commonwealth (federal) government grant that provided resources and training in weed control techniques. From this issue-based beginning, the CFCU worked with the BAC and specifically-invited advisors to develop a community-based land management program that was to become known as the Djelk Community Rangers. A team of land management workers was chosen by the community to represent different clans in the area. Employment was based on the Community Development Employment Program (a government-funded unemployment relief scheme). Broad-based education was brokered from the Northern Territory University that focused on contemporary land management, but also developed participants literacy and numeracy skills. Further resources were obtained including the employment of a suitably experienced land management coordinator to enable the Djelk Ranger Program to become a comprehensive land management program. The Program now has a Ranger Station with visitor quarters and a field laboratory as well as a complement of machinery. Additional work projects were developed in collaboration with government and non-government organizations that dealt with other weeds, feral animals, soil erosion, rock art protection and flora and fauna surveys. A local Geographic Information System (GIS) was developed with the help of the Northern Territory University. Field trips and attendance at workshops locally and at other institutions were used to increase the 9

15 Rangers knowledge and networking skills. In addition, short-term training for individual Rangers was provided by local scientific institutions. As the Rangers confidence and capability to deal with western-based land management was enhanced, scientific research was brokered. The Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist was engaged in a collaborative project to undertake an inventory of the wetlands (plants, aquatic invertebrates and freshwater fish). Other issues-based collaborative research projects (e.g. palaeo-geomorphology and groundwater hydrology) were brokered not only to elicit information for management planning but also to enhance skills of rangers in scientific studies and also simply dealing with outsiders. The BAC and Djelk Rangers developed initiatives involving the sustainable use of natural resources. These included crocodile egg collection and hatchling for sale to crocodile farms, adult crocodile harvest for skin and meat, harvesting of plant products for essential oils and cosmetics, buffalo hunting safaris and sports fishing tours. More recently, the Northern Territory University s Key Centre for Tropical Wildlife Management was engaged to investigate the development of such initiatives to ensure the sustainability of harvesting operations. Other investigations include the viability of commercial fishing (ocean fish, trepang, mud crabs), the harvesting potential of small freshwater fish for the aquarium trade and the aquacultural potential of freshwater turtles. The CFCU has produced a proforma wetland management plan based on Ramsar guidelines. This has been incorporated into the university course and is being further developed by the Djelk Community Rangers. The plan will be used within the community as an action plan and outside the community as a vehicle for organising and presenting approaches to government and other agencies for funding or other support. A number of technical reports and papers were presented in scientific fora to increase awareness and knowledge of the area, and boost the standing of individuals from the community. Results and lessons learnt Using a concrete issue such as weed (Mimosa) control to introduce wetland management enabled community members to be involved in on-site control that helped strengthen their feelings of responsibility for their country (land). The success of on-ground action built community confidence as well as the technical and institutional capacity to deal with other land management and science-based issues. The Djelk Community Ranger Program is now among the most active and successful community-based land management programs in northern Australia. Thus, the general principle of initiating programs based on practical problems with good prospects of timely achievement was supported. Science projects were initiated or chosen based on their relevance to the community and the researcher s ability to conduct research in a culturally appropriate way. The emphases were: Empower the community: Over a number of generations, missionaries and government protectors of Aborigines took decision-making powers away from Aboriginal people. More recently, Aboriginal land-owners in northern Australia have expressed frustration at their exclusion from decision-making processes affecting management of natural resources (see Whitehead & Storrs 1999). Scientists should use a participatory approach to research on Aboriginal land that empowers its land-owners, as outlined in the Ramsar guidelines for 10

16 involving local communities in wetland management. When done effectively, this gives Aboriginal communities a measure of control, strong and informed input into the research objectives and methods, and access to results that have been rendered meaningful and relevant through participation. Help build the community s capacity: As a general rule, science-based projects should start small, genuinely involve land-owners and local people from the outset, offer immediate tangible benefits such as local employment or access to otherwise unavailable equipment, contribute to capacity-building and then grow with the community s ability to deal with new demands. Collaboration: Given the limited material resources of Aboriginal landowners and their representative organizations, there is generally a need for landowners to develop a strong partnership of collaboration with a variety of stakeholders. These may include government and non-government organizations, researchers, training providers and business enterprises. The approaches, expectations and outcomes sought by all parties in collaboration need to be transparent at the commencement of collaboration. Difficulties can arise because the various participants have their performance judged in fundamentally different and potentially incompatible ways. Community participants are judged by the benefits they bring to the community and the extent to which they achieve full community participation in solving problems. Research scientists, who are often best-placed to assist communities with problem solving, are judged by the number of peer-reviewed publications in areas of current theoretical interest, so that time spent in consultation and building links can be seen as wasted. These and other issues can be managed, but it is important that participants understand the constraints and pressures all act under, so that expectations and delivery remain in balance. It is particularly important that researchers avoid redefining management questions into theoretically attractive and analytically tractable forms that lose connection with the management issue. Consider the scientific knowledge base of the community: Whilst contemporary management theory and practice emphasize the importance of achieving agreement about broader strategic goals and issues before taking specific actions, this process can be truly successful only if all participants share a substantial base of knowledge and experience. Particularly when important issues are novel and originate outside the region, exposing community members directly to aspects of these issues and potential responses is necessary before they can genuinely participate in more abstract and comprehensive land management planning processes. Respect the traditional knowledge base of the community: Ecological knowledge from traditional sources should not be melded with contemporary, science-based knowledge into a single new hybrid. Aboriginal people do not feel any obligation to have their knowledge validated against relevant western science. Such an approach ignores the inseparability of traditional knowledge and practice from a strong culture, and puts at risk the strengthening and empowerment of communities that is an essential element of effective local land management programs. Contemporary science-based knowledge should be seen as an important and useful adjunct to indigenous people s own knowledge, to be used where it appears likely to contribute to improved outcomes for landholders and the community. Two-way learning: Scientists were engaged to work on issues-based projects important to the community that involved two-way learning. Both traditional knowledge and scientific investigation were used, and research programs were linked to training of local people in data gathering and other scientific techniques. Scientists learned from indigenous participants details 11

17 of the regional ecology and the manner in which interactions between people and natural systems are managed. Cooperation and compromise: Much conflict exists among and within Aboriginal communities over land ownership and its use. A participatory planning approach can contribute to resolution of disputes and misunderstandings within communities, but there is a need for additional efforts and mechanisms to achieve cooperation between communities, within and across catchments, to deal with larger-scale, regional issues. Funding: Agencies funding scientific research need to be more informed, realistic and flexible in project funding rather than adhering rigidly to a one size fits all formula. General outcomes need to be stipulated, but how the researchers and community get to that point should be achieved after careful consultation. Too often project proposals are artificially structured to meet a funding body s requirements sometimes at considerable cost to the quality of the ultimate local outcomes. Conclusion Aboriginal landowners seeking to address land management issues invariably refer to their cultural obligation to care for the land and to a commitment to maintain its natural and cultural values for future generations. Thus there is a basic congruence between Aboriginal aspirations and the objectives of many conservation interests. However, having recently regained a measure of control over their lands, Aboriginal people are not eager to take on a new form of paternalism to replace the old. It should not be assumed that communities will readily accede to an external agenda in exchange for financial or other support to improve local conservation management capability. Scientists and conservation organizations should involve themselves with Aboriginal communities only on the clear understanding that community members may seek outcomes that differ markedly from the traditional western conservation model and, could indeed, improve on that model. It is apparent that the standard Australian approaches to conservation, with their emphasis on protected lands (parks and reserves) are failing in northern Australia, with many mammals and birds apparently in decline over large areas (e.g. Franklin 1999). Thus, there is every incentive to pursue alternatives, especially if they involve active and informed management of ubiquitous processes, like fire in the savannas. By taking a grass roots approach to the initiation of a land management program, as described in this paper, control remains within the community. Once a certain degree of local capacity is developed and options for meeting management challenges have been explored without threats of external intervention, the community may then make informed decisions about potential comanagement arrangements with government. Further, demonstrations of the commitment and capacity of local communities may encourage government to look at devolving wildlife management powers to community agencies, increasing local responsibility and participation as full partners in achieving agreed regional land and conservation management outcomes. Aboriginal communities are increasingly looking for ways to maintain subsistence use of wildlife and develop sustainable commercial uses that could provide an alternative to radical landscape change, or reliance on exotic species of plants or animals. While Aboriginal land-owning groups are increasingly focused on such integration and seeking to identify economic options that avoid the excesses of western agricultural practice, government and industry struggle to resolve at a 12

18 policy level competing pressures for development and conservation. Aboriginal land-owners cannot afford to wait for models from government, but governments should consider supporting tests of the alternatives initiated and conducted by the indigenous peoples of northern Australia. The Australian community has a great deal to gain by assisting traditional land-owners to maintain high standards of land management in those areas of northern Australia that support many biodiversity hotspots (Woinarski & Braithwaite 1990). Acknowledgments We thank the Quebec 2000 Secretariat and Environment Australia for providing funding for Dean Yibarbuk and Michael Storrs to attend the Millennium Wetland Event. Thanks to Montse Carbonell and Nadra Nathai-Gyan for their organization of the Symposium. And finally thanks to Kate Duigan for useful comments and input. References Franklin DC Evidence of disarray among granivorous bird assemblages in the savannas of northern Australia: A region of sparse human settlement. Biological Conservation 90, Storrs MJ & Finlayson CM Overview of the conservation status of wetlands of the Northern Territory. Supervising Scientist Report 116, Supervising Scientist, Canberra. Whitehead PJ & Storrs MJ Synthesis and outcomes. In Proceedings of Wise use of wetlands in northern Australia: Indigenous use, eds P Whitehead, M Storrs, M McKaige, R Kennett & M Douglas. A workshop held at Batchelor, Northern Territory 29 September to 1 October 1998, Centre for Tropical Wetlands Management and Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management, Northern Territory University, Darwin. Woinarski JCZ & Braithwaite RW Conservation foci for Australian birds and mammals. Search 21,

19 O Desafio De Conservar As Florestas Inundáveis Amazónicas No Brasil A Pires 1, E Moura 1, G Disconzi 2 & A da Silva Benchimol 1 1 Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentable, Mamirauá, Amazônia, Brasil, andreap@pop-tefe.rnp.br 2 IBAMA, SAIN, Av. L4, Brasília, Brasil, gdisconzi@yahoo.com Abstract The Mamirauá Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR) is the largest ( ha) area in Brazil protecting flooded forests, and the only functional area conserving the várzea flooded forests, which are present along many Amazon white water rivers. It is situated in the Médio Solimões region in the State of Amazonas. During the first few years, , the Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá (IDSM), responsible for the implementation of the Reserve, carried out several scientific studies, with a multidisplinary approach. These studies and strong community participation were used for the development of the management plan for the wise use of the natural resources of the várzea. With this objective in mind, the scientific results were discussed in detail with the local communities and the government organizations and local NGOs. This approach was a new model for the integrated management of the resources, where the social component, with 5300 inhabitants of 51 communities living along the rivers and other stakeholders, is fundamental for the conservation of biodiversity. This population was the first one in Brazil to have the right to stay in the area guaranteed and use wisely its natural resource, as established by the law. Additionally, they are benefiting from compensation being implemented to improve their quality of life. This model includes zoning, from areas of strict preservation to areas with sustainable use; norms and recommendations for the use of the most important natural resources in the area; a system for control and prosecution; suggestions for economic alternatives to help reduce the demand on natural resources; activities for extension, research and monitoring. This model is being implemented in a pilot area of ha and once it is proven to work adequately it will be applied to the rest of the area. Resumen A Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá (RDSM) é a maior área ( ha) brasileira de conservação de florestas inundáveis, e a única unidade de conservação de florestas de várzea, que estão presentes ao longo de muitos rios amazônicos de água branca. Fica localizada na região do Médio Solimões, no Estado do Amazonas. Em sua primeira fase, de 1992 a 1995, o Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá (IDSM), responsável pela implantação da Reserva, realizou vários estudos científicos de caráter multidisciplinar para a elaboração de um plano de manejo para uso sustentado dos recursos naturais da várzea com ampla participação comunitária. Com este objetivo, os resultados científicos foram amplamente 14

20 discutidos com as comunidades locais e organizações governamentais e não governamentais atuantes na área, propondo um novo modelo de manejo integrado de recursos onde o componente social formado por 5300 habitantes, distribuídos em 51 comunidades ribeirinhas, de moradores e usuários, é parte fundamental para a conservação da biodiversidade. Esta população, de forma pioneira no Brasil, terá garantido o seu direito de permanecer na área e usar os seus recursos de forma sustentada, em acordo com as normas establecidas, e de se beneficiar de medidas compensatórias que estão sendo implementadas com o propósito de melhorar sua qualidade de vida. O modelo inclui um sistema de zoneamento, com áreas de preservação total e áreas de uso sustentado; normas e recomendações para a utilização dos recursos naturais mais importantes na área; sistema de fiscalização e vigilância; diminuição da demanda sobre os recursos naturais através de alternativas econômicas; atividades de extensão, pesquisa e monitoramento. O modelo está sendo implantado em uma área focal de ha para posterior avaliação e ser replicado, futuramente, para a área restante. O Modelo De Manejo Florestal Comunitário Em Mamirauá Antes da implantação da RDSM, a extração da madeira era a principal atividade econômica das populações ribeirinhas da várzea durante o período da enchente, quando a renda das famílias diminui em cerca de 75% (Banco de dados do IDSM, 1995). Esta extração era feita de forma bastante prejudicial à manutenção dos principais estoques. Os esforços dos programas de manejo florestal, de educação ambiental e de fiscalização da reserva por agentes ambientais comunitários, contribuíram para uma redução de 25,7% na extração ilegal da madeira. O desafio agora é implantar formas sustentadas de utilização dos recursos madeireiros. O Manejo Florestal Comunitário (MFC) é uma das alternativas econômicas, apresentadas como medidas compensatórias às restrições estabelecidas pelo Plano de Manejo da RDSM. O MFC propõe-se, desta forma, a contribuir com a melhoria da renda das comunidades e com a conservação das florestas de várzea da RDSM. Apesar de existirem algumas experiências promissoras em manejo florestal na Amazônia, ainda é um desafio implementar um modelo que possibilite a exploração econômica dos recursos madeireiros com a conservação de ecossistemas florestais tropicais. Nos últimos 20 anos cresceu o interesse no uso de métodos de manejo florestal participativos envolvendo uma maior rede de atores sociais compartilhando as diversas etapas e responsabilidades do manejo. Na RDSM está sendo implantado, desde 1996 um modelo próprio de manejo florestal participativo, dando-se prioridade à participação comunitária, O adequado aproveitamento do saber tradicional sobre as matas alagadas, e as orientações técnicas para o melhor aproveitamento dos recursos com finalidades econômicas contribuem para garantir a base de sustentação para a implementação das atividades. O manejo florestal comunitário foi implantado em cinco comunidades piloto, em 1996, e a partir deste ano de 2000 estará sendo estendido gradativamente às demais comunidades da reserva, ao longo dos próximos cinco anos. A participação das comunidades no manejo florestal tem demonstrado a nova compreensão de que o manejo florestal não deve ser privilégio de grandes indústrias, que dispõem de capital para investimento, e pessoal tecnicamente capacitado. Com apoio técnico e organizacional é possível que comunidades rurais assumam o manejo florestal, participando ativamente de decisões técnicas como a intensidade de exploração, fundamentadas 15