Impact of water control projects on fisheries resources in Bangladesh

Bangladesh is a very flat delta built up by the Ganges—Brahmaputra—Meghna/Barak river systems. Because of its geographical location, floods cause huge destruction of lives and properties almost every year. Water control programs have been undertaken to enhance development through mitigating the threat of disasters. This structural approach to flood hazard has severely affected floodplain fisheries that supply the major share of protein to rural Bangladesh, as exemplified by the Chandpur Irrigation Project. Although the regulated environment of the Chandpur project has become favorable for closed-water cultured fish farming, the natural open-water fishery loss has been substantial. Results from research show that fish yields were better under preproject conditions. Under project conditions per capita fish consumption has dropped significantly, and the price of fish has risen beyond the means of the poor people, so that fish protein in the diet of poor people is gradually declining. Bangladesh is planning to expand water control facilities to the remaining flood-prone areas in the next 15–20 years. This will cause further loss of floodplain fisheries. If prices for closed-water fish remain beyond the buying power of the poor, alternative sources of cheap protein will be required.     

Focusing biodiversity research on the needs of decision makers

The project on Biodiversity Uncertainties and Research Needs (BURN) ensures the advancement of usable knowledge on biodiversity by obtaining input from decision makers on their priority information needs about biodiversity and then using this input to engage leading scientists in designing policy-relevant research. Decision makers articulated concerns related to four issues: significance of biodiversity; status and trends of biodiversity; management for biodiversity; and the linkage of social, cultural, economic, legal, and biological objectives. Leading natural and social scientists then identified the research required to address the decision makers' needs and determined the probability of success. The diverse group of experts reached consensus on several fundamental issues, helping to clarify the role of biodiversity in land and resource management. The BURN participants identified several features that should be incorporated into policy-relevant research plans and management strategies for biodiversity. Research and assessment efforts should be: multidisciplinary and integrative, participatory with stakeholder involvement, hierarchical (multiple scales), and problem- and region-specific. The activities should be focused regionally within a global perspective. Meta-analysis of existing data is needed on all fronts to assess the state of the science. More specifically, the scientists recommended six priority research areas that should be pursued to address the information needs articulated by decision makers: (1) characterization of biodiversity, (2) environmental valuation, (3) management for sustainability—for humans and the environment (adaptive management), (4) information management strategies, (5) governance and stewardship issues, and (6) communication and outreach. Broad recommendations were developed for each research area to provide direction for research planning and resource management strategies. The results will directly benefit those groups that require biodiversity research to address their needs—whether to develop policy, manage natural resources, or make other decisions affecting biodiversity.     

The community vs. the market and the state: Forest use inUttarakhand in the Indian Himalayas

Most writers on resource management presume that local populations, if they act in their self-interest, seldom conserve or protect natural resources without external intervention or privatization. Using the example of forest management by villagers in the Indian Himalayas, this paper argues that rural populations can often use resources sustainably and successfully, even under assumptions of self-interested rationality. Under a set of specified social and environmental conditions, conditions that prevail in large areas of the Himalayas and may also exist in other mountain regions, community institutions are more efficient in managing resources than either private individuals or the central government. In advancing this argument, the paper undermines the often dogmatic belief in the universal superiority of private forms of ownership and management.     

Analysis of Lower Green Bay and Fox River,Collingwood Harbour,Spanish Harbour,and the Metro Toronto and Region remedial action plan (RAP) processes

This article presents a model of remedial action planning, which includes four key variables that determine progress in plan development and implementation and explain the differing level of achievement in individual sites. The model is illustrated by the characteristics and developments of four remedial action plan (RAP) processes (Lower Green Bay and Fox River, Collingwood Harbour, Spanish Harbour, and the Metro Toronto and Region RAPs). Differences in the local context of the plans have, to a significant degree, predisposed individual planning and implementation experiences. Local context includes three variables, namely geographical—technical and sociopolitical aspects and the previous history of water pollution management in the area. RAP precursors are a necessary precondition for progress in planning and substantive achievements. While there is a tendency that most geographically focused RAPs in administratively simple areas accomplish most, the motivation and political clout of RAP participants are strongly intervening factors. Resource input from upper levels of government, in particular financial commitment for plan implementation, is the fourth necessary ingredient for progress due to the RAPs' weak regulatory and institutional framework. Unfortunately, upper levels of government have shown widespread reluctance to lead in remedial action planning. This was only in part offset by local commitment and support for RAP and its cause.     

Why ecosystem management can't work without Social science: An example from the California northern spotted owl controversy

It is increasingly obvious that social science, while not a sufficient condition for making ecosystem management effective, is a necessary condition. A social science typology of ecosystems is developed, applied, and shown to have substantial and unexpected implications for the practice of ecosystem management. Ecologists and environmental scientists, in particular, will find some conclusions uncomfortable. The application involves a case material from the California northern spotted owl controversy.     

Ecosystem management to achieve ecological sustainability: The case of South Florida

The ecosystems of South Florida are unique in the world. The defining features of the natural Everglades (large spatial scale, temporal patterns of water storage and sheetflow, and low nutrient levels) historically allowed a mosaic of habitats with characteristic animals. Massive hydrological alterations have halved the Everglades, and ecological sustainability requires fundamental changes in management.The US Man and the Biosphere Human-Dominated Systems Directorate is conducting a case study of South Florida using ecosystem management as a framework for exploring options for mutually dependent sustainability of society and the environment. A new methodology was developed to specify sustainability goals, characterize human factors affecting the ecosystem, and conduct scenario/consequence analyses to examine ecological and societal implications. South Florida has sufficient water for urban, agricultural, and ecological needs, but most water drains to the sea through the system of canals; thus, the issue is not competition for resources but storage and management of water. The goal is to reestablish the natural system for water quantity, timing, and distribution over a sufficient area to restore the essence of the Everglades.The societal sustainability in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) is at risk because of soil degradation, vulnerability of sugar price supports, policies affecting Cuban sugar imports, and political/economic forces aligned against sugar production. One scenario suggested using the EAA for water storage while under private sugar production, thereby linking sustainability of the ecological system with societal sustainability. Further analyses are needed, but the US MAB project suggests achieving ecological sustainability consistent with societal sustainability may be feasible.     

Pressures,trends, and impacts in coastal zones: Interactions between socioeconomic and natural systems

This paper assesses the status of coastal zones in the context of expected climate change and its related impacts, as well as current and future socioeconomic pressures and impacts. It is argued that external stresses and shocks relating to sea-level rise and other changes will tend to exacerbate existing environmental pressures and damage in coastal zones. Coastal zones are under increasing stress because of an interrelated set of planning failures including information, economic market, and policy intervention failures. Moves towards integrated coastal zone management are urgently required to guide the coevolution of natural and human systems. Overtly technocentric claims that assessments of vulnerability undertaken to date are overestimates of likely future damages from global warming are premature. While it is the case that forecasts of sea-level rise have been scaled down, much uncertainty remains over, for example, combined storm, sea surge, and other events. In any case, within the socioeconomic analyses of the problem, resource valuations have been at best only partial and have failed to incorporate sensitivity analysis in terms of the discount rates utilized. This would indicate an underestimation of potential damage costs. Overall, a precautionary approach is justified based on the need to act ahead of adequate information acquisition, economically efficient resource pricing and proactive coastal planning.     

Hydropower,adaptive management,and Biodiversity

Adaptive management is a policy framework within which an iterative process of decision making is followed based on the observed responses to and effectiveness of previous decisions. The use of adaptive management allows science-based research and monitoring of natural resource and ecological community responses, in conjunction with societal values and goals, to guide decisions concerning man's activities. The adaptive management process has been proposed for application to hydropower operations at Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, a situation that requires complex balancing of natural resources requirements and competing human uses. This example is representative of the general increase in public interest in the operation of hydropower facilities and possible effects on downstream natural resources and of the growing conflicts between uses and users of river-based resources. This paper describes the adaptive management process, using the Glen Canyon Dam example, and discusses ways to make the process work effectively in managing downstream natural resources and biodiversity.     

Adaptive management: Promises and pitfalls

Proponents of the scientific adaptive management approach argue that it increases knowledge acquisition rates, enhances information flow among policy actors, and provides opportunities for creating shared understandings. However, evidence from efforts to implement the approach in New Brunswick, British Columbia, Canada, and the Columbia River Basin indicates that these promises have not been met. The data show that scientific adaptive management relies excessively on the use of linear systems models, discounts nonscientific forms of knowledge, and pays inadequate attention to policy processes that promote the development of shared understandings among diverse stakeholders. To be effective, new adaptive management efforts will need to incorporate knowledge from multiple sources, make use of multiple systems models, and support new forms of cooperation among stakeholders.     

SOUND POLICY OR SMOKE AND MIRRORS: DOES ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT MAKE SENSE?1

ABSTRACT: Protection of ecosystems as entities on the landscape has attracted a wide range of support. Ecosystem-based public policies are claimed to be more effective, efficient, and scientifically sound than other approaches to environmental and natural resource policy. The ecosystem concept was never intended to serve as a public policy guide or to determine landscape units for land management purposes. This paper critically examines the use of the ecosystem concept in public policy and land use management and analyzes the proposed rule to manage the National Forest System according to ecosystem management principles. The concept is found to be unsuitable as a basis for guiding environmental and natural resource public policies in general while the proposed rule to manage the national forests according to ecosystem management principles is shown to be incoherent.