"Buffalos and wetlands" -- grazing in wetland management

[The following exchange of Forum postings took place over late March 1998 and has evolved from a discussion of  the issue of controlled grazing as part of wetland management to the question of   rethinking the Convention's linchpin concept of wise use. -- Web Editor.]

[23 March 1998, Buffalos and wetlands]

Hi all,

Impact of Water Buffalo (Bubalus bubalus) on Wetland Communities in Azraq Wetland Reserve (Jordan).

Following exclusion of grazing animals from Azraq Wetland Reserve in 1995, the wetland has become totally dominated by Common Reed (Phragmites australis). In an attempt to restore wetland community diversity, particularly that associated with open pools, exposed mud and low marsh, experimental reintroduction of Water Buffalo has been identified as an immediate priority. This will proceed in late March 1998, and we will be monitoring the impacts on:

• Vegetation communities
• Viable seed bank composition
• Fish communities
• Benthic macro-invertebrate communities
• Bird communities

We would be interested to hear from anyone who has used these animals in wetland management in order to share ideas/experiences. It seems they are commonly used, but there have been few studies regarding their impacts. We look forward to hearing from you.

All the best, Des

Des Callaghan, Wetland Management Advisor, Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature, PO Box 6354, Amman 11183, Jordan (des@firstnet.com.jo)

[24 March 1998]

Hi Des,

I found your note on the introduction of the water buffalo to control weeds in a wetland extremely interesting - we have a slightly more complicated version of the weed problem here in India. The Bharatpur Bird Sanctuary was closed to use by local people living around it despite many protests in 1982, based on research done by theBombay Natural History Society. I don't know details of the incident, but some local people were even shot at at that time for protesting. Anyway, some years down the line (four years ago), an international crisis hit Bahratpur - not a single Siberian crane, a star winter visitor at the park, came visiting. Everybody went into a tizzy, trying to figure out why. A few days ago, there was an item in the papers quoting a report by the Bharatpur forest authorites to the effect that the ban on local people had had a negative effect, since their buffaloes (which used to graze in the park) had actually helped control the growth of the weed Paspalum, which has since taken over the park and made it difficult for the siberian cranes to feed. There was a similar problem in Kaziranga Park in Assam (East India), but I don't know too much about that one.

Hope this is helpful -

Anju Sharma, Centre for Science and Environment, 41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 062, India (ANJU%CSE@SDALT.ERNET.IN) http://www.oneworld.org/cse

[24 March 1998]

Hi Anju,

Thanks for your reply to my request re: buffalos and wetlands. Since I posted the request, a few people have contacted me to mention the Keoladeo [India] case; someone has even promised to send me a report on the issue. Our problems at Azraq are not as extreme, but they seem to be comparable stories. I didn't realise they had a similar problem at Kaziranga. I visited the area in November 1996, and indeed I saw large areas dominated by Paspalum. But isn't Assam a fantastic part of India? It's just a shame about the political troubles there. Thanks again for your reply.

All the best, Des

Des Callaghan, Wetland Management Advisor, Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature, PO Box 6354, Amman 11183, Jordan. (des@firstnet.com.jo)

[24 March 1998]

Dear Forum,

A couple of posters have pointed out that the removal of grazing animals is frequently followed by overgrowth of prolific vegetation and deterioration of conserved sites.

This observation is now global. In the arid western United States, livestock exclusion was often the first management initiative on conserved sites.

An author and rancher, Dayton Hyde, referred to the "pink-cheeked ecologists" who hoped to protect cranes on the playa lakes and wet meadows of eastern Oregon by removing grazing. The result was a reduction in crane recruitment, as nesting territories became too overgrown for chicks to negotiate and forage.

Vernal pool areas of California, celebrated for spectacular wildflower growth, have been dimmed by shading out when livestock grazing and fire suppression were implemented.

Indigenous land management practices need to be examined intelligently, not dismissed as primitive, wasteful or destructive. Some practices may be so, but it can be wise to seek out and listen to the leather-skinned resident who has spent a lifetime learning the landscape and integrating experiences before applying a major change in management.

Earle W. Cummings, Wetlands Coordination, California Department of Water Resources, 3251 S Street, Sacramento CA 95816 (earlec@water.ca.gov)

[25 March 1998]

Dear Des,

During the last two years, we on behalf of the National Conservation Strategy Implementation project, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of the Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh, did some studies on Tanguar Haor - a Wetland of International Importance in northeastern Bangladesh. Reports are available from the IUCN-Bangladesh country office.

We also experienced the same problem where large wetlands were taken over on lease by the rich people for fisheries. Because of the lease the traditional activities like grazing and reed/grass collection were stopped forcibly. But ultimately nature took its own turn and most of the wetlands were overgrown with weeds, causing damage to fisheries and other wetland products. The lease holders have now given limited access to the local people for grazing cattle, duckery and subsistence fishing.

Rashid, S. M. A., Centre for Advanced Research in Natural Resources & Management (CARINAM), 70 Kakrail, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh.  Present Address: Division of Biology, School of Science, Nanyang Technological University 469 Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 259756. (NF2678668K@acad21.ntu.edu.sg)

[26 March 1998]

Hi Dr Rashid,

Thank you for your thoughts on buffalos and wetlands. We will be reintroducing our beasts shortly, and monitoring their impacts closely in an enclosure. I think we may have met at a conference some place; maybe Coimbatore (India) or Strasbourg (France). I was closely involved with the Threatened Waterfowl Specialist Group of IUCN until I moved here. Anyway, nice to hear from you, and thanks again for the information.

All the best, Des

Des Callaghan Wetland Management Advisor, Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature, PO Box 6354, Amman 11183, Jordan.

[25 March 1998]

Dear Des

I am sorry I haven’t been here in the last days, and haven’t seen your request. In Israel we have about 80 wetlands reserves, some of them under grazing control of a variety of wild cattle, beef cattle, water buffalo and donkeys. As we have found, it is important to integrate different livestock in order to manage the wetland reserve. The main two reserves which have held water buffaloes for many years are both Ramsar sites: Hula Reserve (Jordan River catchment) and En Afeq reserve (coastal catchment).

I would like to invite you to come to visit our reserves, I will be happy to be your host!  You will have the opportnity to learn directly from our grazing experts who write the management program, the reserve managers who carry the projects, and our hydrologists who are carry the water monitoring programs. I will send you very soon some summaries in English. We have also ecological education centers in these reserves (En Afeq - 35,000 pupils/year) and in both reserves there are programs on the water buffaloes grazing. These programs incorporate the use of computers and connections with pupils in other countries via email. All the programs are running in Hebrew and Arabic as well (there are Jewish and Arabic guides).

Yours,

Dr. Reuven Ortal, Department Director, National Parks and Nature Protection Authority, Aquatic Ecology Department, 78 Yirmeyahu St., 94467 Jerusalem, Israel (ortala@vms.huji.ac.il)

[26 March 1998]

Dear Forum members,

The Keoladeo situation in India also came to mind regarding grazing and wetlands. What strikes me about this discussion is the wide acceptance of the problems which occur with the banning of an existing use such as grazing. It seems to frequently be the case that such use was partly responsible for creating the values for which the wetland was listed as a Ramsar site or gazetted as a national park. However, wetlands continue to be 'set aside' and 'protected' from multiple use.

Is Ramsar to blame? Not so much the Convention itself but the way it is interpreted and applied by the Contracting Parties. While Ramsar has broadened its original emphasis with a greater focus on wise use, this evolution will inevitably be ignored by nations keen to tick the implementation box when it comes to reporting their response to international obligations. Expediency will dominate a political process, and if a minimalist interpretation of Ramsar is available then it is difficult to imagine Contracting Parties addressing the more comprehensive obligations with any commitment or vigour. Politicians answer to a broader constituency, one that is still sold on the idea of conservation excluding multiple use. The serious environmental and social justice issues at stake here - with local communities deprived of their livelihood and the respective ecosystems suffering as a result - require an increased focus on sustainable levels of use.

It's probably best to maintain a healthy level of scepticism about both ends of the spectrum - both the 'pink-cheeked ecologists' and the 'leather-skinned' long-term users to quote another forum correspondent. As population rates change and surrounding land uses alter the make-up of habitats, wetlands managers should not be enslaved to a particular ideology. Grazing at the original stocking rate may not be ideal for a particular wetland, so the conservation and management work should be concentrated on discovering what is sustainable for a particular wetland as well as developing alternative uses.

Sorry about the long response!

Linda Tucker, Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia (Linda_Tucker@uow.edu.au)

[26 March 1998, Re. grazing]

Dear Forum members,

Please excuse me for stating that it was already apparent in the mid 1980s that it was an awful mistake to ban grazing by buffalo in the Bharatpur sanctuary. Instead, a regulated grazing scheme should have been organised. I sincerely hope that something is done about it now. In most European countries, it is a high priority in nature management to organise well-regulated grazing in semi-natural habitats.

It is clear that habitats that are the result of a certain utilisation (semi-natural habitats) and of great conservation value need continued utilisation to be maintained. I admit that it is often a matter of delicate balance, as we of course should keep our hands off true natural habitats that are protected as such. Many conservationists are in fact too eager to manipulate habitats and, for example, predation in such areas, with Ducks Unlimited in North America as the most pronounced example of 'hard managers' (see e.g. Meltofte, H. 1987: What kind of bird fauna do we prefer? - Acta Reg. Soc. Sci. Litt. Gothoburgensis. Zoologica 14: 176-181).

Concerning management of coastal (brackish) meadows, an important paper is soon going to appear in 'Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings Tidsskrift' (the scientific journal of the Danish Ornithological Society / BirdLife Denmark). It is an analysis of 65 years of breeding bird studies on the most important coastal meadow sanctuary in Denmark, Tipperne in western Jutland. The 192-page paper is in Danish, but with 23 pages of English summary. It presents the reasons for one of the greatest successes in Danish nature management, an increase from low numbers in the middle of the century (due to lack of grazing and mowing) to between 2000 and 2500 pairs of breeding waders on 5.45 sq km meadows after careful re-introduction of grazing and mowing. The paper can be ordered from: The Danish Ornithological Society Vesterbrogade 138-140 DK-1620, Copenhagen V DENMARK e-mail: dof@post2.tele.dk (The price is $11, including packing, postage and money exchange fees. The amount should be transferred to bank account no. 0203 296-04-05652 or giro account no. 700-0839.) The reference is: Thorup, O. 1998: The breeding birds on Tipperne 1928-1992. - Dansk Orn. Foren. Tidsskr. 92: 1-192.

Sincerely yours,

Hans Meltofte, D.Sc., Danish Polar Center Strandgade 100H, DK-1401 Copenhagen K Denmark (mel@dpc.dk)

[27 March 1998]

I am not sure that Des Callaghan realised what he was about to start when he 'quietly' asked if anyone knew anything about buffaloes in relation to wetland management. As Des has found out, many people have had experience with buffaloes and wetlands and many have chosen to remove them. Linda Tucker has raised one aspect of this argument and I believe it is a fairly precise statement about narrow and even inept management decision-making and management.

But there is more to the buffalo story than narrow interpretation of the concepts of wise and multiple use.

Many feral Asian water buffaloes were 'removed' from northern Australian wetlands (primarily the coastal floodplains to the east of Darwin and including Kakadu National Park). This was done for disease control (tuberculosis and brucellosis) as feral unmanaged herds of buffaloes were a threat to our export of beef to the USA burger markets. This wholescale harvesting (by adventuresome and tough and innovative buffalo-catchers in cut-down Toyota four wheel drives) and aerial shooting by incredibly accurate marksmen in helicopters was a windfall for wetland conservation.

There were simply too many buffaloes for the land - more than 7/km2 on average and up to 15/km2. The annually drying floodplain-wetlands were denuded of grass and herb cover during the dry season. Low natural barriers that separate the fresh and saline wetlands were destroyed - the freshwater drained away prematurely and tidal water entered. The buffalo were a disaster under the existing management regime (which perhaps equated to minimal intervention in their lives until they were hunted down!).

So, they were removed. Approx 100 000 from Kakadu alone. Now, welcome back Linda - there was little thought given to post-buffalo management needs. The incredulous prevailing attitude of the day was that once the buffalo were removed our lovely 'natural' floodplains would return - just like that. One scientist who suggested (rather strongly perhaps) otherwise was not welcomed back.

What do we have now in the conservation reserves? Virtually no feral buffalo. Lots of grass across the plains and more dry season fires. On some plains the dominant plant species are unwanted (by conservationists) introduced pasture grasses. Lots of lilies and vines and herbs around the previously clear waterholes. Lots of annoyed fishermen who can not access these areas as readily as they did previously. Lots of fire as the grass burns or is burnt most years. Lots of argument about weed species and fire regimes, including the role of traditional Aboriginal burning patterns. Lots of argument with nearby graziers who want the introduced pasture species.

Have we sinply replaced one problem with others? Yes, we have. My judgement is that the 'newer' problems are not as bad - but that is simply one person's value judgement. Could we have done better back in the early 80s when these management-induced changes in response to a problem due to non-management occurred? Possibly, but not assuredly. Remember, the cull was done for economic, NOT conservation reasons. It was a windfall situation.

But, have others learnt from this situation? The more I peruse the responses to Des' request the more I believe not. Can we change this? Or, how do we change this? We need information, and people involved in management need to use this information. We have belatedly started a research program to look at the biological effects of the introduced grass. We have a nice design, but we lack a temporal baseline during the buffalo era. More on this as it unfolds.

What has this to do with Ramsar? I would like to see a greater emphasis on wise use within the meetings and gatherings of parties to the Convention. Practical lessons are out there. How can we access them and learn? I've said enough in this message so I will leave further comment till another occasion.

Thanks Des. Thanks Linda for the mental stimulus.

Ciao

Max Finlayson, Head of Wetland Protection and Management, Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Locked Bag 2, Jabiru, NT 0886, Australia (Email maxf@eriss.erin.gov.au)

[27 March 1998]

Dear Des,

Here in Spain there is at least one experience where water buffalo have been used for grazing in reedbeds (Phragmites australis) and canals with deep water. Maybe you could get in touch with Joan Mayol: jmayol@ocea.es at Parc Natural de S'Albufera de Mallorca who started this program. There has been a monitoring system going on, so they should have a good amount of information on this subject. I hope this helps.

Best wishes

Francesc Giró, Fundació Natura Rambla de Catalunya,121, 6-9 08008, Barcelona, Spain (francesc_giro@compuserve.com)

[28 March 1998, re: Grazing and wetlands]

Dear Forum members,

While I very much agree with the thrust of my colleague and collaborator Linda Tucker's sentiments (above) in an earlier contribution to the Forum, it seems to me that there are some fundamental definitional problems standing in the way of seeing the concept of "wise use" as a white knight. The following definition of wise use was accepted at the Third Meeting of the Parties in 1987:

The wise use of wetlands is their sustainable utilisation for the benefit of humankind in a way compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the ecosystem.

The question which as a lawyer I want to ask ecologists is whether grazing can be compatible with the maintenance of natural properties of the ecosystem. From my untutored perspective, it looks very much as if we are trying to have our cake and eat it. Surely any significant level of grazing is going to affect "natural properties". It might well result in a loss of some species (although I recognise that there is perhaps the much greater threat that not grazing might result in a loss of species which have adapted to this form of management).

Does "natural properties", however, have a narrower meaning which I am missing?  Is there, perhaps, a suggestion that as long as we maintain ecosystem function/services, the fact that we lose a few "redundant" species (if we could identify them) does not really matter. In other words, is the focus of wise use on maintaining ecosystem services rather than protecting biological diversity as an end in itself?

Is not the very problem the use of the notion of "natural properties", given that wetland ecosystems which have been grazed over the years will have inevitably changed in response to human use. Are we kidding ourselves? Is the actual wording of the definition a symbolic statement of a commitment to preservation which we know cannot be achieved (even in relation to listed sites, which, under the terms of the Convention, are supposed to be conserved rather than simply used wisely, let alone unlisted ones).

Do we in the end not only need to change the focus of the Convention from the listing of flagship wetlands to the wise use of all wetlands, but also need to take a 'get real' look at our conceptions of wise use?

David Farrier, University of Wollongong, Australia (David_Farrier@uow.edu.au)

[28 March 1998]

Some thoughts stimulated by David Farrier's very recent comments on Wise Use.

The concept of wise use was inserted into the text of the Convention in 1971. I think that tells us a lot. For example, the architects of Ramsar were forward thinking and were not just locked into species preservation. But the concept of wise use was not formalised until 1987 and then it was linked with the evolving thought about sustainable use. The case studies and guidelines for wise use that followed some 3-6 years later do not seem to have gone back to a legalistic examination of the definition. I would guess that many people would also argue that we waste too much time on examining and re-examining definitions and classifications (and the Ramsar Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) is looking at the Ramsar classification system right now - and I will admit guilt as a party to this task!) rather than taking needed 'action'.

But we do have another feature that does not sit very well with the definition of Wise Use, and it was not mentioned by David - namely, that of "ecological character". This was defined by the Convention in 1996 (Resolution 6.1) after rejection of a recommended definiton based on one that was first put forward by Dugan & Jones (1993) at the IWRB meeting in 1992, Florida and modified slightly by STRP (see paper by myself in 1996 Conference proceedings and below). Myself and a few others do not like the modified definition and in about three weeks I will propose a further modification to STRP. These are listed below in order:

** Dugan and Jones (1993) - The ecological character of a wetland is the sum of the wetland's functions, products and attributes that are derived from the individual biological, chemical, and physical components of the ecosystem and their interactions.

** Resolution 6.1 (1996) - The ecological character of a wetland is the structure and inter-relationships between the biological, chemical, and physical components of the wetland. These derive from the interactions of individual processes, functions, attributes and values of the ecosystem(s).

** Finlayson, van Dam & Humphrey (1998) - The ecological character of a wetland is the sum of the individual biological, chemical, and physical components of the ecosystem and their interactions. These are affected by the inter-relationships between the wetland's functions, products, and attributes, and their utilisation.

(The definitions of values and benefits - products, functions and attributes remain the same - see Res 6.1)

In proposing the latter version we have tried to emphasise the basic linkage between the biological, chemical, and physical components of a wetland and note that these are affected by, but not derived from the values and benefits obtained from the wetland. In fact, the converse is true. We also note that the character of a wetland is affected by the utilisation of the wetland and, in some instances, is so intricately linked that it is difficult to address them separately.

In previously proposing the rejected Dugan & Jones definition in 1996, I also stated that we seemed to be returning to the very basis of the Convention, after 25 years of existence! This was because 'ecological character' was mentioned in the Convention text and not defined until 25 years later. In my mind the ecological character of a wetland is the very essence of what Ramsar is trying to encourage - wise use (after all we do use wetlands, even if passively) and maintenance of the ecological character.

Rather than defend my own recommendations, I invite comment on the above and also ask David (and others) if we could assist with resolving his query by referring more to ecological character rather than natural features and ensuring that the wise use and ecological character concepts sit comfortably. (This is also requested of STRP, but my own efforts have centred on the concepts of early and rapid warning systems, ecological risk assessment and threshold of change - and we will debate these in a pre-STRP workshop in April 1998). Please be aware that I make these comments with the notation that I agree fully with proposals to further address the concepts and practices of wise use and not just bothersome revisions of criteria.

(STRP has been asked to further consider the inclusion of socio-economic criteria for listing sites, but I will wait until STRP has had a chance to do this before commenting. It is a complex issue and further advice has been sought.)

This type of questioning of the definitions, criteria, etc., that currently underpin Ramsar thinking could well result in a proposal to rewrite the text of the Convention. I will leave it to others to debate that at this particular instance, but some points that may excite the debate . . . . On several occasions proponents of wise use have previously called for the reference to waterbirds to be struck from the title of the Convention. This could also apply to the many references to waterbirds in the text of the Convention. The 1996 debate about the Fish & Fisheries Criteria not only raised the issue of socio-economic criteria for listing sites as internationally important, but also speculated on whether or not the entire Convention and its instruments should be reviewed in order to ensure consistency with concepts and terminology. After more than 25 years of a Ramsar text, a major change in membership, internationally changed attitudes towards our planet and its components, is it time to radically overhaul Ramsar . . . . . . .

And, as a finale, I agree with David's last statement which I have reproduced here - "Do we in the end not only need to change the focus of the Convention from the listing of flagship wetlands to the wise use of all wetlands, but also need to take a 'get real' look at our conceptions of wise use?"

(PS - David - Are you aware that the word 'redundant' has also been the subject of very strong ecological debate! But, not here ... .....)

Ciao

Max Finlayson, Head of Wetland Protection and Management, Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Locked Bag 2, Jabiru, NT 0886, Australia (Email maxf@eriss.erin.gov.au)

[28 March 1998. Subject: Guard dogs]

I would like to add a little to the grazing/wetland debate. Before we (RSCN) made the decision to reintroduce buffalo to Azraq, we considered a number of the points made and questions raised in earlier emails to the Forum by various people. The final decision to reintroduce buffalo was based on our opinion that the wetland would potentially be of greater "value" with them than without them, both in biological and social terms. Let me elaborate on this a little.

Firstly, biology. Grazing by large ungulates is a natural process within the Azraq wetland (as with most wetland systems), although the intensity of grazing and the animals concerned have changed markedly over the years. Prior to the herding of animals by humans (which began in our region about 12,000 years ago), the wetland would have been grazed purely by the native fauna, such as the wild ox, gazelles, ostrich, wild ass and oryx (i.e., NOT buffalos). After humans began herding animals, firstly goats and later cattle, the intensity of grazing within the wetland would have increased gradually. In particular, the intensity escalated over the past 100 years or so, as human populations around the wetland increased, and following the introduction of domestic buffalo to the region in 1922. This led to severe over-grazing in the wetland, and hence the decision to exclude all feral ungulates from the reserve in 1995 (which included donkeys, camels, goats, sheep, and of course our friendly buffalo).

But as I have pointed out in an earlier message, complete lack of grazing has led to total dominance of the wetland by Phragmites. Notwithstanding the conservation value of reedbeds, the current situation has led to the virtual elimination of low marsh, open pools and exposed mud areas from the reserve, and hence a tremendous reduction in species and community diversity. Hence, one of our immediate management objectives is to restore and maintain a characteristic range of habitats within the reserve. This means retaining a sizeable area of Phragmites, and restoring the three main lost habitats. We considered the most cost-effective way of doing this on a large scale is by reintroducing grazing (burning, herbicides and cutting were rejected for various reasons).

Unfortunately, all of the native grazing ungulates that once inhabited the Azraq region are now extinct, and our reserve is not big enough to contain viable populations for reintroduction. Thus, we considered the domesticated Water Buffalo was the best beast to do the job, and if it proves successful it will become a keystone species within the system (and hence of particular biological value).

But biology aside, we considered reintroduction of the buffalo would potentially increase the education, interpretation and economic values of the reserve. There are clear education and interpretation values of the buffalos with relation to, for example, ecological links and domestication of wetland species. Also, the beasts would be a tourist attraction, and thus broaden our audience and help meet the financial demands of reserve management (they would be the only buffalo in Jordan, and hence a novelty). Also, many of the local farmers once owned and managed buffalo within the wetland, and are keen to continue to do so once more (and feel resentful that they were banned from the practice in the first place). If our grazing trials are successful, we will increase the buffalo herd and grazing area, and look towards establishing a buffalo management cooperative with local farmers (thereby helping to share the values of the wetland locally). On a more minor note, the beasts ought to be good guard dogs; we have a problem with people illegally entering the reserve (who I suspect are less likely to enter when confronted with a buffalo!).

And so with careful experimental management, we hope buffalos become a significant asset to Azraq Wetland Reserve. However, if the results of the two-year grazing experiment (in an 8 ha enclosure) suggest they are not the best tool for the job, then we will sell the beasts and think again.

To touch on a concern of David Farrier in an earlier posting, if we did establish a grazing cooperative with local farmers, would this be wise use of the wetland (i.e., sustainable utilisation for the benefit of humankind in a way compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the ecosystem)? Well, in the absence of appropriate native species, the aliens (buffalos) would be providing an important ecological process (grazing), necessary for the maintenance of the natural properties of the ecosystem (particularly those associated with low marsh, open pools and exposed mud). And so I think buffalo management at Azraq could lie well within the hazy bounds of wise use (potentially, at least!). Of course, at other sites, or with inappropriate management, it could well be within the bounds of unwise use.

That's all for now. All the best, Des

Des Callaghan, Wetland Management Advisor, Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature, PO Box 6354, Amman 11183, Jordan (des@firstnet.com.jo)

[29 March 1998]

To ALL Ramsar-list subscribers

At least one key point was made by Des Callaghan in his message about Guard Dogs. But first, the guard dog analogy. Experience in northern Australia is that domesticated buffalo are very very docile and even 'friendly'. The feral unmanaged beasts are very very 'unfriendly'.

Now the key point and I will paste a sentence from Des' text. " Of course, at other sites, or with inappropriate management, it could well be within the bounds of unwise use." This is self-explanatory, but seemingly not that well understood, judging by the many inappropriate management actions that seem to be copied rather than assessed.

And in relation to wetlands and grazing by ungulates, a small, but important point that we have had to learn the hard way - Australian wetlands do not contain native ungulates. Wallabies, grasshoppers, ....... do/did the grazing. Non-Aboriginal settlers introduced the ungulates and their (the beasts that is) nasty habits have severely altered our soil structures and vegetation with flow on effects to the water and fauna. Thats why the disease control 'shoot-out' was seen as a windfall for conservation (wise use?).

Now, in Kakadu some Aboriginal people would like the buffalo back as a food resource. We now have one managed small herd (but probably bigger than that in the 8 ha enclosure planned at Azraq). But there are calls for small wild herds to be returned; partly by people who claim they were not consulted by the Big Brother/Sister authority who removed them. Does this type of claim sound familiar?

Perhaps we need to redirect our efforts within Ramsar and really assess the Ramsar armoury of weapons - starting with wise use, what do we want and what guidance do Parties to the Convention need? Then, what do we have and then ......????? And does this mean out with efforts to tighten and update the listing criteria, to reassess the classification scheme, to ensure the integrity of the sites database, to ...... ??? NO, obviously it does not, we need both and Ramsar needs the means to do this. And we need priorities. I consider we need priorities for essential mechanistic processes and for practical actions - but which ones?

Max Finlayson, Head of Wetland Protection and Management, Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Locked Bag 2, Jabiru, NT 0886, Australia (Email maxf@eriss.erin.gov.au)

[30 March 1998]

Thanks to Max Finlayson for his comments on wise use and for introducing the issue of "ecological character" which has also been bothering me.

The Convention formally requires Parties to promote the "conservation" of Listed wetlands and the "wise use" of unlisted wetlands. Presumably, the original intention was that Listed wetlands would be managed more conservatively than unlisted ones. Reading in between the lines of Article 3(2) which sets up the Montreux list for wetlands where there has been a change of ecological character, the objective of "conservation" must be to prevent changes in ecological character.

However, in practice, the Parties have indicated that the wise use criterion is to apply to both Listed and unlisted wetlands.

This must raise the question of why we have the separate categories if they are to be subject to the same management protocol. Currently, that would appear to be wise use, which formally, at least, renders the discussion of change of ecological character redundant.

My understanding from my limited familiarity with the area is that the Parties are trying to move away from the early emphasis on listing wetlands, and are using the concept of wise use, which when first introduced was clearly ahead of its time, to do this. Now we have the Biodiversity Convention, which certainly attempts to move away from a concern with special areas and special species, and also relies on the concept of sustainable use, which would appear to have parallels with wise use. Any revision of Ramsar must necessarily take into account the need to align it with the wording of the Biodiversity Convention. Both Conventions in practice, if not in terms of the strict wording, seem to be moving in a similar direction.

As to Max's suggested definition of ecological character (and his assumption that this would determine wise use), I, as a lawyer, would certainly be able to relate better to what I understand (is this correct, Max?) to be the idea that the shape of wetland ecosystems is inevitably affected by past and existing human uses. Is this idea intended to be captured under the existing definition ( perhaps within the words "interactions of individual processes, functions, attributes and values of the ecosystem(s)")? Can I ask mischievously whether it follows from this that existing uses should not be disturbed, and that the major issue is about new development? Respecting existing human uses would certainly be in line with intragenerational equity imperatives.

I find the existing definition of ecological character particularly dense to the untutored eye, but it should hardly be for a lawyer to complain about dense language if it makes sense to wetland managers. Does it? But is it not also important to make the ideas available to the communities involved in wetland management?

Unless I am missing something, the notion of maintaining "the natural properties of the ecosystem" in the definition of wise use, on the other hand, rests on the assumption, in the words of Bren ((1993) 150 Journal of Hydrology 277) that there is "a definite course that the overall development of the system would have taken without intervention by humanity". The notion that we could discover what this course might have been is presumably a nonsense.

David Farrier, University of Wollongong, Australia (David_Farrier@uow.edu.au)

[30 March 1998]

Thanks to David Farrier for his comments - they have given me something else to consider as I struggle to get back to an early goal of linking the various texts on Wise Use and Ecological Character.

It would seem that the Ramsar Convention text was not written by legal experts. It also seems that it was written by enlightened individuals - and a hearty thanks to them, but ........

I think David's comments about Listed Sites being managed more conservatively than non-listed sites reflects a common practice. I suspect that Listing sites was initially done as a means of developing the Convention and allowing States to sign up and make a statement - i.e., list a site.

I also suspect that many listed sites are flagship sites and do attract more conservative attention than non-listed sites. I further suspect that this was an outcome of a practice (still in existence) where nature conservation agencies handled Ramsar, and many of them were 'on-reserve' agencies. If wise use is to be seen as the cornerstone of Ramsar and be extended beyond the flagship sites, we will surely need to expand the constituency more rapidly and include many more natural resource experts. In doing this we will also need to look again at the concepts of 10-25 years ago and address inconsistencies and changes in perceptions and 'alter' the text, definitions and guidelines, etc., in the Convention toolbox.

Now, the definition of ecological character. Yes, the shape of a wetland ecosystem is affected by past and existing human uses. Further, and this is sometimes difficult for conservationists to see, in some wetlands you can NOT separate the biophysical characteristics from the uses (actually meaning values and benefits - functions, products and attributes) - they are so inter-related that it is nigh impossible to even theorise about treating them separately.

Now for the mischief in David's message. NO, not all existing uses should be maintained. Existing and proposed uses that are sustainable should be considered. Existing uses may not be sustainable - increased population pressures, enhanced technology, declining stocks due to other nasty happenings such as pollution, and changed social perceptions such as opposition to hunting and birdwatching, etc.

As for the 'dense' definition of ecological change. I agree.

Another Ramsar initiative that deserves co-habitation if not marriage with Wise Use/Ecological Character is that of Local Communities and wetland management. We not only need to talk to local communities, but we need to ensure they understand, and we need to listen, and we need to think about what we are told, and we need to talk a bit more, and we need to go and have a look at a wetland and think a bit more.

But this is a long way from David's challenges. So, can we predict the future of a wetland with or without our fellow humans mucking around with the recipe? For a start, we may need to describe the present and that possibly means looking at the ecological character and ........

(And once I was a limnologist and sat in little boats and dangled an oxygen probe over the side and ..........)

Max Finlayson, Head of Wetland Protection and Management, Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Locked Bag 2, Jabiru, NT 0886, Australia (Email maxf@eriss.erin.gov.au)

[30 March 1998]

Great thanks to Des Callaghan for pointing out that grazing is not a human invention. A lot of misunderstanding can be avoided if people realise that animals have been eating plants all the time.

Lars Rosenberg (larsr@pop.hn.se)

[30 March 1998]

Max...

It is difficult to successfully predict the future of a wetland ecosystem or successfully restore one without understanding its ecological history. A process too often overlooked by many who should know better!!

Kevin L. Erwin, President/Principal Ecologist, Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc., 2077 Bayside Parkway, Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 [USA], e-mail: Klerwin@environment.com

[30/3/98]

At 09:44 PM 3/28/98 +1100, David Farrier wrote: "The question which as a lawyer I want to ask ecologists is whether grazing can be compatible with the maintenance of natural properties of the ecosystem. From my untutored perspective, it looks very much as if we are trying to have our cake and eat it. Surely any significant level of grazing is going to affect "natural properties". It might well result in a loss of some species (although I recognise that there is perhaps the much greater threat that not grazing might result in a loss of species which have adapted to this form of management)."

Others, including Des Callaghan and Lars Rosenberg, pointed out that grazing is not a human invention. Animals have been eating plants all the time. Sometimes the animals were assemblages of native herbivores, sometimes they were the livestock of pastoralists, and sometimes, in the absence of grazers, humans addressed the accumulation of plant material by combustion.

It is a difficult enterprise for ecologists to understand the processes of intact and undisturbed ecosystems, partly because enterprising humans have preceded ecologists to virtually every ecosystem, and introduced perturbations. The real issue becomes to establish reasonable objectives for the preferred functioning of an ecosystem, and limit the disturbance to levels that support the objective.

In ecosystems, if no one is eating the cake, there is no way to ensure the cake will remain as attractive, as rich or as satisfying as it first appeared. If you don't eat the cake, you can't have it too.

Earle W. Cummings, Wetlands Coordination California Department of Water Resources 3251 S Street, Sacramento CA 95816   earlec@water.ca.gov

[31 March 1998]

The debate on wise use, ecological character, local communities, etc., is getting interesting. We [in South Africa] have been involved in a similar one on river systems alone, whilch culminated in a project completed by Kevin Rogers entitled "Development of a protocol for the definition of the desired state of riverine systems in South Africa". The results of this project may be of interest here. It developed a consultative management process in which interactions between stakeholders, managers and researchers are facilitated by a decision support system (DSS). The management process consists of 3 subsets of activities:

1. An operational framework for setting and evaluating attainable and acceptable goals; 2. A predictive modelling framework for predicting the consequences of management actions and of system change in general; 3. A system response framework for monitoring natural disturbance/change and system to management actions.

The DSS is essentially a toolbox for servicing the interactive management process. The operational framework consists of 4 processes:

1. A description of the future state in which the managers wish to see the wetlands ("desired state"); 2. A process by which the desired state is translated into operational goals; 3. The selection of a range of management options which might achieve these goals; 4. An evaluation of the consequences of this range of actions in order to select the most appropriate and cost effective for implementation.

To be compatible with the management process, any statement of the desired state has to be:

1. Explicitly translatable into operational goals, which are achievable within the management resource constraints; 2. Compatible with the predictive potential in the programme; and 3. Auditable within the response framework. It would serve little purpose to set a desired state in detail so fine that it could not be predicted and was too costly to achieve, monitor and audit.

This management process has been accepted for use in the Kruger National Park for both its aquatic and terrestrial ecosytems, as well as for a number of smaller protected areas, including Nylsvley.

So instead of setting up a pro-forma for a management plan, which often ends up being no more than a paper exercise, in this country anyway, Rogers has developed a process by which such a plan can be developed within the constraints of the area and its managers, it is adaptable, and its success or otherwise can be measured.

If any one is interested, a limited number of copies are available from me on a first-come basis.

Geoff Cowan, Deputy Director: Ecosystems, S A Wetlands Conservation Programme, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Private Bag x447, PRETORIA 0001 South Africa (nat_geof@OZONE.PWV.GOV.ZA)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Ramsar Forum is an unmoderated mailing list maintained as a service to the public by the Ramsar Convention Bureau in Gland, Switzerland. Facts or opinions posted there do not represent the views of the Convention Bureau or Contracting Parties. For help, contact the list owner (ramsar-owner@indaba.iucn.org).