GEF-Satoyama Project Working Paper:

Values, Knowledge and Governance ofSocio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes

August 2019

GEF-Satoyama Project Working Paper: Values, Knowledge and Governance of Socio-ecological
Production Landscapes and Seascapes

Copyright © 2019 Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-4-88788-229-4

Although every effort is made to ensure objectivity and balance, the publication of research
results or translation does not imply IGES endorsement or acquiescence with its conclusions or
the endorsement of IGES funders. IGES maintains a position of neutrality at all times on issues
concerning public policy. Hence conclusions that are reached in IGES publications should beunderstood to be those of the authors and not attributed to staff-members, officers, directors,
trustees, funders, or to IGES itself.
The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) is an international research instituteconducting practical and innovative research for realising sustainable development in the
Asia-Pacific region.
Published by:
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0115 Japan
Tel: +81-46-855-3700 / E-mail: iges@iges.or.jp
www.iges.or.jp
Conservation International Japan
5-7-1-507 Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan, 110-0022
Tel: +81-3-5315-4790
www.conservation.or.jp
Recommended citation:
Yasuo Takahashi, Federico Lopez-Casero, Yoji Natori and Devon Dublin. 2019. GEF-Satoyama
Project Working Paper: Values, Knowledge and Governance of Socio-ecological Production
Landscapes and Seascapes. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan, andConservation International Japan, Tokyo.

GEF-Satoyama Project Working Paper:

Values, Knowledge and Governance ofSocio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes

Yasuo Takahashi and Federico Lopez-Casero
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Yoji Natori and Devon Dublin
Conservation International Japan2019

Acknowledgements:
We sincerely thank all the GEF-Satoyama Project subgrantees (see below) for their support ofthe production of this report, including submission of full project data in their regular project
reports, responses to the online survey, as well as their dedicated efforts to review individual
project case studies. We also thank Ms. Orissa Samaroo of CI-GEF Project Agency, Mr. Fabiano
Godoy, Ms. Adrienne McKeehan, Ms. Whitney Yadao-Evans and Ms. Nicole Han of Conservation International, Ms. Makiko Yanagiya and Ms. Monica Kobayashi of the Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity, Mr. Kenji Nakajima of the Ministry of the Environment ofJapan, Prof. Kuang-Chung Lee of National Dong Hwa University, Dr. Robert Blasiak of Stockholm
Resilience Center, Ms. Yoko Watanabe of United Nations Development Programme and Mr.
Yohsuke Amano of the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability for their participation in and insightful comments during the Consolidation Workshop in
August 2019 in Mauritius. The GEF-Satoyama Project was funded by the Global Environment
Facility and executed by the team consisted of Conservation International Japan, Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies and United Nations University Institute for the Advanced
Study of Sustainability.
GEF-Satoyama Project subgrantees:
Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot:
Inter Mountain Peoples’ Education and Culture in Thailand Association (IMPECT) / Chiang Mai, Thailand
Project title: Promoting and enhancing the Karen indigenous sustainable socio-ecological production
system in northern Thailand
Fauna & Flora International (FFI) / Kachin State and Tanintharyi Region, Myanmar
Project title: Conservation and sustainable use of freshwater ecosystems in Myanmar
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) / Nagaland, India
Project title: Mainstreaming community-conserved areas for biodiversity conservation in Nagaland
Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot:
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) / Analanjirofo, Madagascar
Project Title: Integrated adaptive management to protect ecological integrity in the socio-ecologicalproduction landscape (SEPL) of the south-east watershed of Makira Natural Park
Environmental Protection & Conservation Organisation (EPCO) / Mahébourg, Mauritius
Project title: Mainstreaming the contribution of coastal wetlands biodiversity for sustainable economic & livelihood development at Cité La Chaux ‘Barachois’, Mahébourg.
Green Islands Foundation (GIF) / Mahé Plateau, Seychelles
Project title: The development of a co-management plan, designed by fishers, to minimise the impactof the Seychelles artisanal fishery on threatened species.
Dahari / Anjouan Island, Comoros
Project title: A landscape management model for conserving biodiversity in the Comoro Islands
Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot:
Amazónicos por la Amazonía (AMPA) / Bolívar, Peru
Project title: Consolidation of the participatory management of the Alto Huayabamba Conservation
Concession – AHCC as a production landscape, and strengthening of partnerships for conservation,
production and research in the Peruvian Amazon
Fundación para la Investigación y Desarrollo Social (FIDES) / Manabí and Esmeraldas, Ecuador
Project title: Improvement of the livelihoods of the communities through the sustainable management of productive landscapes and biodiversity conservation in mangrove (Estuaries Chone and Portoviejo), the dry forest (Cordillera del Balsamo) and rainforest (Commune Playa de Oro).
Universidad Industrial de Santander (UIS) / San Vicente de Chucurí, Colombia
Project title: Reconciling biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in agroforestry cultivation systems in the Colombian Andes: a model for Colombia’s post conflict era.

Foreword
This publication aims at compiling and disseminating good practices and lessons learnt fromthe outcomes of the GEF-Satoyama Project, which supported on-the-ground demonstration ofsustainable management of socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) in
ten countries in three biodiversity hotspots. Conservation International Japan had the privilege of serving as the lead Executing Agency for the project working closely with United Nations University Institute for Advanced Study of Sustainability, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
Conservation International has been actively contributing to the Satoyama Initiative, an international effort to promote synergies between people and nature in production landscapes andseascapes, with a belief that the only way to protect biodiversity in these areas of economic
activity is to work together with local communities to maximize the flow and value of ecosystem services from biodiversity. In 2015, the Global Environment Facility gave us the opportunity to take the ideas and partnership developed under the Satoyama Initiative further tothe field for demonstration and to compile knowledge generated from the Project for amplification and capacity building.
IGES, as one of the joint executing agencies, undertook detailed study on the values generated
from sustainable management of SEPLS in the target regions in response to the barriers facedby the communities, particularly having the SEPLS’ approach recognized and valued by society,capturing and sharing traditional knowledge, and improving governance of SEPLS.
We believe this document becomes a valuable resource as well as source of inspiration andinnovation for those who engage in similar projects or geographies, as SEPLS can be a solution
for sustainable development with nature and people in harmony.

Yasushi Hibi
Chair, Executing Team, GEF-Satoyama ProjectManaging Director, Conservation International Japan
Vice President for Asia Policy, Conservation InternationaliExecutive Summary
The “GEF-Satoyama Project” (the “Project”), a global project funded by the Global Environment Facility since 2015, aims to mainstream conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) for a society in harmony withnature. This paper showcases the experiences of ten demonstration projects in SEPLS from the
Indo-Burma, Tropical Andes and Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands regions, which wereselected through calls for proposals in these three regions and received financial support by
the Project, focusing around the three questions that are important for SEPLS. These are: How
can various stakeholders become aware of the values of SEPLS; how can traditional knowledge
gained from SEPLS be maintained and used; and how can the governance of SEPLS be
strengthened?
Review and analysis of the demonstration projects showed that they were tackling the issues
pertinent to the values, traditional knowledge and governance as vital and interconnected
constituents of SEPLS. The preliminary outcomes of their efforts were illustrated in various
ways, such as reduced negative drivers affecting biodiversity (particularly resource overexploitation, land use and land cover changes, climate change and pollution) as well as stronger institutions to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable forms of production in SEPLS.
More specifically, we found that:•

SEPLS provide a wide array of values to people. Collaborative research on threatened species in SEPLS, and local entrepreneurship harnessing core values of SEPLS, particularly
food, help people better recognize these values.

•

Traditional knowledge is an integral part of SEPLS that enables people to use and manage
various resources sustainably, but is in decline. Effective measures to address this decline
include community schools that complement modern education and that facilitate
knowledge exchange between elders and youths; reinforcing traditional ecological production; and institutional efforts to integrate traditional knowledge into science and policies, e.g. through adaptive co-management.

•

Governance in SEPLS can be strengthened through effective collaborative management
schemes and involving local communities in rule- and decision-making processes. Effective
collaborative management consists of effective communications between all stakeholders,financial support and policies.

There are interlinkages among perceived and realized values, traditional knowledge and governance. This means that the development and implementation of polices related to SEPLS
must systematically take into account the values of the different ecosystems that are relevantto the affected communities. They should, furthermore, draw from both scientific and traditional knowledge and be inclusive of and coherent between the different sectors and levels ofgovernance. Effective communication and consensus-building between all the stakeholders is,therefore, key. In other words, public policies that are coherent among the different sectors
and levels of government, and that recognize local values, traditional knowledge, customary
rights and community institutions would provide enable environment for sustainably managing
SEPLS.

ii

Table of Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................................. i
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ii
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background and general description of the GEF-Satoyama Project ........................ 1
1.2 Research objectives, basic concepts and outline of the paper ................................ 2
2 Methodologies ................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Analytical framework................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Methods.................................................................................................................... 5
3 Project case studies ......................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Thailand: “Promoting and Enhancing the Karen Indigenous Sustainable
Socio-ecological Production System in Northern Thailand” ................................... 7
3.2 Colombia: “Reconciling biodiversity conservation and agricultural production
in agroforestry cultivation systems in the Colombian Andes” ............................. 18
3.3 Mauritius: Mainstreaming the Contribution of coastal wetlands biodiversity
for Sustainable Economic & Livelihood Development at Cité La Chaux‘Barachois’, Mahébourg. ....................................................................................... 38
3.4 Peru: “Consolidation of the participatory management of the Alto
Huayabamba Conservation Concession – AHCC as a production landscape,and strengthening of partnerships for conservation, production and researchin the Peruvian Amazon” ...................................................................................... 48
3.5 Myanmar: Conservation and sustainable use of freshwater ecosystems in
Myanmar ............................................................................................................... 55
3.6 Madagascar: Integrated adaptive management to protect ecological integrityin the Socio-Ecological Production Landscape (SEPL) of the south-east
watershed of Makira Natural Park........................................................................ 61
3.7 India: Sustainable Management of SEPLS and Mainstreaming of Biodiversity
Conservation in the State of Nagaland, India ....................................................... 67
3.8 Comoros: “A landscape management model for conserving biodiversity in the
Comoro Islands” .................................................................................................... 73
3.9 Ecuador: Improvement of the livelihoods of the communities through thesustainable management of productive landscapes and biodiversity
conservation in mangrove (Estuaries Chone and Portoviejo), the dry forest(Cordillera del Balsamo) and rainforest (Commune Playa de Oro) ...................... 79
3.10 Seychelles: “The development of a co-management plan, designed by fishers,
to minimise the impact of the Seychelles artisanal fishery on threatened
species” ................................................................................................................. 85
4 Synthesis........................................................................................................................ 91
4.1 How to get the values of SEPLS recognised among stakeholders? ........................ 91
4.2 How to maintain and use indigenous and local knowledge of SEPLS? .................. 96
4.3 How to improve the governance of SEPLS? ........................................................... 99
5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 107
References .......................................................................................................................... 109

iii

1

Introduction

1.1 Background and general description of the GEF-Satoyama ProjectWith increasing human population and ecological footprint, global conservation of biodiversity cannot be achieved solely by protected areas. It is thus important to extend conservation efforts beyond
protected area boundaries. The areas where primary production activities support biodiversity andvice versa, or ‘socioecological production landscapes and seascapes’ (SEPLS), could be a priority forsuch efforts. They often are important as buffers against anthropogenic disturbance and provide vitalconnectivity between protected areas, but are also important for the conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity in their own right. In response, in 2015 the “GEF-Satoyama Project1” waslaunched.
The GEF-Satoyama Project (the “Project”) is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), implemented by Conservation International’s CI-GEF Project Agency and executed by Conservation International Japan in cooperation with the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of
Sustainability (UNU-IAS), the Secretariat of the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative(IPSI) and the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). The Project aims to achieve societies in harmony with nature, with sustainable livelihoods based on traditional and modern wisdom,and making significant contributions to global targets for the conservation of biological diversity.
The Project focuses on SEPLS, which integrate the values of biodiversity and diverse ecosystems withsocio-economic production activities. Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems underpins human wellbeing. The Project intends to address the barriers that SEPLS face globally, such as insufficient recognition of their values and dynamic nature, land use transformations, degradation andweak governance. In doing so, it contributes to the achievement of multiple global biodiversity targets and the Sustainable Development Goals.
Under its first and main component, “on-the-ground demonstration”, the GEF-Satoyama Project invests in demonstration projects in three global biodiversity hotspots: Indo-Burma, Tropical Andes,
and Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands, to enhance livelihoods and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Intended outcomes include effective conservation
management in these areas, improved conservation status of globally threatened species and protection of traditional knowledge. The demonstration projects have been selected through calls for
proposals in the three hotspots. The implementers of these demonstration projects partner with the
GEF-Satoyama Project team to achieve the goal of the GEF-Satoyama Project: society in harmony
with nature.
The second component focus on improving “knowledge generation” to increase understanding, raiseawareness and promote mainstreaming of biodiversity in production landscapes and seascapes. The
component supports the synthesis of relevant knowledge and information about SEPLS globally,
through a global mapping of priority SEPLS and case study analysis addressing barriers that SEPLS
face.

1

For more information on the GEF-Satoyama Project, visit: http://www.thegef.org/projects; project ID:
5784 and http://gef-satoyama.net/

1

1.2 Research objectives, basic concepts and outline of the paper
The research component of the GEF-Satoyama Project explores ways in which local communities
recognize the values of SEPLS; the indigenous and local knowledge associated with the use andmanagement of SEPLS; and the forms of effective, transparent and inclusive governance for SEPLS, aswell as their interplay for ensuring the sustainability and resilience of SEPLS.
The objectives of the research component of the GEF-Satoyama Project are to identify:
1) Ways of recognizing the values of SEPLS (including the drivers threatening these values), as
well as strategies for the conservation and enhancement of identified values
2) Assess the relevance of indigenous and local knowledge for the sustainable use, management and conservation of high-value SEPLS
3) Develop an assessment tool for governance of high-quality SEPLS through a multi-stage andmulti-stakeholder engagement process.
The totality of the values of SEPLS is not sufficiently understood. In SEPLS, people interact with nature
in diverse ways, and thus attribute different values to SEPLS. SEPLS often fall under different ownership and management schemes in which various stakeholders are involved. Many producers prioritize
short-term production gains over conservation of biodiversity. SEPLS do, however have the potential
to serve as vital habitats for several globally threatened species, particularly in buffer zones of protected areas.
Traditional knowledge can promote sustainable use and management of natural resources. It includes
knowledge of the use of animals and plants for food, medicines, and other necessities, andknowledge of “indicator species”, such as frogs whose presence indicates clean water. Suchknowledge is often embedded in resource management systems and social institutions: e.g., customary rules on tree and non-timber forest product harvesting, fishing restrictions and rotational farming.
In addition, indigenous peoples often hold an animistic worldview on nature, such as beliefs in naturespirits and taboos, which influences how they treat the natural environment. Traditional knowledge,
however, is in decline. Major causes of the decline include changing values and lifestyles, modern
education, difficulties in knowledge transmission, population outflow from rural to urban areas, landtransformation for commercial monoculture, and its limited recognition by governments.
Governance of SEPLS refers to all public and private interactions to solve problems affecting the SEPLS,
to create opportunities through the formulation and implementation of innovative policies andmeasures. There are a variety of actors involved in addressing the drivers that affect biodiversity andecosystem services. However, weak governance can impede the sustainability of SEPLS, such as insufficient participation of key stakeholders, particularly local communities, lacking recognition of customary ownership or management rights, lack of transparency and accountability, which often involves corruption, capture of decision-making processes by a few elites.
After introducing the methodologies employed, this paper presents individual case studies of the 10
GEF-Satoyama demonstration projects conducted in the Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands, Tropical Andes, and Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspots. The paper then provides a synthesis of the values,
knowledge and governance of SEPLS, and discusses the interlinkages between these three key aspects, based on comparative analysis between the case studies.

22Methodologies

2.1 Analytical framework
In ten project case studies, we documented the values that local communities and other stakeholders associate with SEPLS, traditional knowledge of SEPLS and governance of SEPLS referring to theframeworks proposed by earlier studies. We also documented the efforts of the projects to enhance
the recognition of the values of SEPLS among a wider range of stakeholders, to maintain and use traditional knowledge for managing SEPLS, and to strengthen the governance of SEPLS. Upon these, we
analysed how the values, traditional knowledge and governance of SEPLS were interrelated.
The values of SEPLS for people could be well captured by adopting generic framework for eliciting thevalue of nature. Among diverse terminologies and frameworks used to explain the value of nature,including ecosystem goods and services, nature’s gifts, nature’s benefits to people, or nature’s contributions to people, we adopted the recent categorization of nature’s contributions to people (NCP)
proposed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES) (Box 1) (see IPBES (2017) for more detailed explanation). The NCP framework was useful tocapture a wide array of the values of SEPLS comprehensively with clear and well-established categories. Referring to the NCP category, we investigated the state of these values recognized by different
stakeholders, and how the projects envisage to enhance the recognition among a wider array of
stakeholders.
Box 1. Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) categories

1. Habitat creation and maintenance
2. Pollination and dispersal of seeds and other propagules
3. Regulation of air quality
4. Regulation of climate
5. Regulation of ocean acidification
6. Regulation of freshwater quantity, location and timing
7. Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality
8. Formation, protection and decontamination of soils and sediments
9. Regulation of hazards and extreme events
10. Regulation of organisms detrimental to humans
11. Energy
12. Food and feed
13. Materials and assistance
14. Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources
15. Learning and inspiration
16. Physical and psychological experiences
17. Supporting identities
18. Maintenance of options
Source: IPBES (2017)

For describing traditional knowledge of SEPLS, we referred to the definition of traditional ecologicalknowledge proposed by Berkes (2008), that is, “cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief,evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission,
about the relationship of living being (including humans) with one another and with environment”.
Described in other words as “knowledge – practice – belief complex”, traditional knowledge encompasses:3Local knowledge of land, animals, plants, soils and landscape: Local empirical knowledge of animals,
plants, soils, and landscape, including information on species identification and taxonomy, life histories, distributions and behavior, which has survival value and is readily accepted cross-culturally
Land and resource management systems: which uses local environmental knowledge and includes
practices, tools and techniques
Social institutions: Sets of rules-in-use, norms and codes of social relationships, including social organizations for coordination, cooperation and rule-making, and also including institutions ofknowledge that frame the processes of social memory, creativity and learningWorld view: which shapes environmental perception and gives meaning to observations of the environment; has components of observational order and conceptual order providing the interpretationof our observations of the world around us; and also includes religion, ethics, belief systems androunds out the knowledge-practice-belief complex that describes traditional knowledge.
The questions on traditional knowledge during the field study followed the three broad groups ofquestions on traditional knowledge outlined in the IPBES’s overall approach to recognizing andworking with traditional knowledge, or what IPBES determines as indigenous and local knowledge(ILK) (IPBES/5/L.6):
a.

What are the contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities in terms of theirknowledge, practices and world views to the management and conservation of nature, deliveryof nature’s contributions to people and ensuring a good quality of life at the regional and global
scales?

b.

What are the most important pressures and factors undermining these contributions, as well asaffecting the quality of life of present and future generations of indigenous peoples and local
communities?

c.

What policy responses, measures and processes exist to strengthen and improve the governanceof nature and nature’s benefits to people with regard to indigenous peoples and local communities and their knowledge and practices?

Among different aspects of governance of SEPLS, we documented the ownership, use/management
rights and stakeholders of land, waterbodies and resources in SEPLS, as well as the policies andmeasures for addressing the decline or degradation of biodiversity in SEPLS. For a project case study
in Colombia in which in-depth investigation on governance issues was carried out, we assessed theeffectiveness of governance referring to the generic framework of quality-of-governance (Table 1;
Lopez-Casero, Cadman, & Maraseni, 2016).
Table 1. Generic framework of Quality-of-Governance Assessment
Principle
Meaningful
participation

Productive
deliberation

Criterion
Interest representation

Organisational responsibility
Decision making

Implementation

Source: (Lopez-Casero et al., 2016)

4

Indicator
1) Inclusiveness
2) Equality
3) Resources
4) Accountability5) Transparency
6) Democracy7) Agreement
8) Dispute settlement
9) Behavioural change
10) Problem solving11) Durability

For synthesis, we analyzed how the values, traditional knowledge and governance of SEPLS interact
and hence can contribute to the sustainability and resilience of SEPLS. Such interaction can be illustrated by few examples, e.g., traditional knowledge associated with important benefits from SEPLS topeople which in turn work effectively to maintain the sustainability and resilience of SEPLS, and therecognition of traditional customary ownership, rights, rules and practices in government/public policies contributing to the governance of SEPLS.

2.2 Methods
This study relied on multiple data and information sources, including documents available throughthe project operation, an online questionnaire surveys targeting all ten grant projects, field studies of
selected grant projects, comparative analysis and synthesis, as well as the feedback from the grantees on the initial findings during the review process and at the project’s consolidation workshop heldin August 2018.

2.2.1 Reviewing project documents
The study extracted data and information from the documents submitted from the grantees in thecourse of the project selection and implementation, including project proposals, quarterly technicalreports, highlights reports, as well as the annual reports. They provided baseline data on the profileof the SEPLS in their project sites, socio-economic status of the local communities and major threats
to SEPLS, as well as the major efforts and achievements of the individual projects.

2.2.2 Online survey
The online questionnaire survey was developed using LimeSurvey2 online platform, which allows forsequential queries that only provide to the respondents the relevant options to select and spaces tofill depending on their answers to the former questions. This not only minimizes the burden on the
respondents to complete a long questionnaire, but also helps them better understand what thequestions ask them to respond. The survey consisted of seven question groups, where the respondents were asked to answer to the questions on the major ecosystem domains that constitute the
SEPLS in the project site (Box 2).
The focal person in each of the ten demonstration project proponents were invited to participate in
the online survey by direct email sent between May 5th and 9th, 2017, in which the URL for the
online survey was indicated. An oversight in the logic of this original survey required us to request
project proponents by emails sent between August 16th and 18th, 2017 to complete a follow-up
survey capturing information about drivers of declining trends in ecosystems and species populations.
Reminder emails were sent to the focal person periodically, until both surveys were completed. The
results of the online survey regarding the ten grant projects were analyzed and visualized using the
CIRCOS3 diagram and tabular formats, and also described based on rudimentary contents analysis.

23

https://www.limesurvey.org/
http://circos.ca/

5Box 2. Question groups and their sequence in the online questionnaire survey

Question 1 - Nature: types and descriptions of major ecosystems
Question 2 - Nature: important species
Question 3 - Benefits to people from ecosystems and species
Question 4 - traditional knowledge
Question 5 - Drivers of decline and degradation
Question 6 - Governance: policies and measures
Question 7 - Governance: ownership, management right holders and stakeholders

2.2.3 Field investigation
We also conducted field studies to allow for more in-depth investigations on the three research
themes, i.e. values, traditional knowledge as well as governance. In so doing we selected one projectfrom one region that clearly featured one of the three themes, so that we could cover all the three
regions and the three themes in a set of three projects. Also considering the access to the project site,
we conducted field studies of the projects listed below:•

Values: Cite La Chaux and Mahebourg villages, Grand Port region, Mauritius (19 – 28 June 2017)[Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot]•

Traditional knowledge: Mae Tae Khee (Khun Tae), Mae Yod Khee and Mae Um Pai villages,
Chiang Mai and Maehongson Provinces, Thailand (18 – 29 May 2017) [Indo-Burma Biodiversity
Hotspot]•

Governance: San Vincente de Chucuri, Eastern Cordillera of the Columbian Andes (5 – 14 June2017) [Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotpsot]

In each project site, we conducted field survey employing a sequential mixed methods approach as
described below in four steps:1.

Preparatory meeting with the representative of the project team: Semi-structured interviews
and participatory mapping to validate their responses to the online survey and to obtain additional information on the SEPLS and their stakeholders.

2.

Focus group interviews with local community members: Focus group interviews using both
open-ended questions, based on a common interview guide, and quantification tools such as
weighted ranking, participatory mapping and other stimuli.

3.

Key informant interviews with government and public authorities: We identified key informants
through the former steps 1 and 2, mainly from the officials or experts in government or publicauthorities being highly engaged in SEPLS. We interviewed them using interview guide andbased on the outputs of the former steps.

4.

Briefing the field study results to the project team: We briefly reported the initial results of the
field study to and obtained feedback from the project team for data validation.

6

3

Project case studies

This section presents an overview of ten demonstration projects. The first three case studies are on
SEPLS where an in-depth field investigation was conducted.

3.1 Thailand: “Promoting and enhancing the Karen indigenous sustainable socio-ecological production system in northern Thailand”
The Karen people in the mountainous northern Thailand have long been living based on mixed
agroecosystems applying traditional rotational farming (RF) for over 300 years. This landscape is themain sources of their livelihood and food security. They have accumulated knowledge on species,
ecosystems and managing the land and natural resource sustainably.
This section presents the benefits from ecosystems and species to the Karen people in northern
Thailand, the role of Karen’s traditional knowledge in their management of the land and natural resources, and importance of governance on traditional socio-ecological production landscape. The
report used both primary and secondary data. The primary data were collected through field visits,
questionnaires and focus group interviews with 62 villagers in three Karen communities and key
stakeholders in May 2017, and an online survey conducted from April to June 2017. The secondary
data came from the preliminary results of a GEF-Satoyama demonstration project in Thailand implemented by the Inter Mountain Peoples’ Education and Culture in Thailand Association (IMPECT),
and other sources.
Box 3. IMPECT project overview

IMPECT’s project, titled “Promoting and Enhancing the Karen Indigenous Sustainable Socio-ecological Production System in Northern Thailand” aims to support three Karen communities
to become a model of community-based sustainable development by building on their traditional
knowledge and natural resource management systems.
The project combines this with innovative and technologically advanced community-controlled
mapping, monitoring and information systems and with increased economic productivity both forhuman wellbeing and for biodiversity. The project seeks to raise public awareness in society atlarge about the role of the evolving Karen management systems in relation to sustainable development (SDGs) and biodiversity (Aichi Biodiversity Targets) and will seek to feed into the development and implementation of local and national policies and laws that enable and support
community-based sustainable governance and management of biodiversity.
The methodology is based on very close collaboration with, and the highest possible level of participation of community members, including women and youth. It will combine methods for the
documentation, appreciation and revitalization of traditional knowledge with state-of-the-art
modern mapping technology.

3.1.1 Landscape description and project overview
Three Karen villages (Mae Tae Khi, Mae Yod Khee and Mae Um Pai) are located in the mountainous
areas with an elevation range of 800-1,800 meters in two provinces in northern Thailand (Figure 1).
The villages are surrounded with diverse kind of forests. The major vegetation is the Hill Evergreen
forest, followed by Pine forest, Deciduous forest and Dry Dipterocarps forest. Wildlife remains in theforests, such as barking deer, wild pig and wild birds.

7

The three villages share similar geographic and climatic conditions, while the patterns of land use are
more distinct. The land uses in the three villages are classified as forestland, agricultural land andresident area (Table 2), but they have different proportions of forest and agricultural lands. The agricultural land dominates in the areas of Mae Um Pai. Forestland dominates in Mae Tae Khi and Mae
Yod Khee. Agricultural land is divided into rotational farming (RF), permanent field and paddy field.
The RF system involves cultivating land in a few plots within the RF area, while leaving other plots
under fallow to regain their fertility, and maintaining forest cover around the RF areas (Figure 1). The
rotational faming of native rice mixed with native vegetables and herbs is practiced in the higher altitude in agricultural lands. Permanent field is located in the lower altitude, including agroforestry,
vegetable farming and paddy rice fields surrounding permanent fields.
Table 2. Land classes in three villages in year 2017
VillagesType of land use
Total areas (rai)Forest lands (rai) Agricultural lands (rai) Residential areas (rai)Mae Tae Khi
12,622
3,867
364
16,853Mae Yod Khee
15,644
15,546328
31,518Mae Um Pai
1,347
3,387
114
4,848
Note: One rai is equal to 0.16 haii) Landscape of Mae Yod Kheeiii) Landscape of Tae Khi Villagei) Location of the three Karen villagesiv) Landscape of Mae Um Pai Village
Figure 1. Location of project site in Thailand

8

The total population of each of the three Karen villages in 2013 is shown in Table 3. The major
sources of their incomes originated from farming. Rotational farming constitutes the main income
source of Mae Yod Khee and Mae Um Pai, while paddy farming and commercial crops are the main
sources of incomes of Mae Tae Khi. The Mae Tae Khi community was encouraged to plant paddy andcommercial crops in the permanent fields, and most of the rotational farming was designed as protected forest areas under laws created by the Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plants
Conservation (DNP).

Figure 2. Rotational farming in Mae Um Pai
Table 3. Population size of the study villages in 2013

Villages
Male
FemaleMae Tae Khi
375
385
Mae Yod Khee
266
235
Mae Um Pai
231
209
Sources: Bureau of Registration Administration, 2013

Total population
760
501
440

Households
212
104
48

3.1.2 Values
In all three villages the Karen communities benefit from a range of different NCPs, which were identified through an online survey in 2017. Figure 3 illustrates the linkages between different ecosystemdomains and important species and their values for the local communities. Natural forest and more
intensively managed resource forest provide multiple contributions to people, including pollinationand seed dispersal (NCP 2), air quality regulation (NCP 3), climate regulation (NCP 4), freshwater flow
regulation (NCP 6), soil regulation (NCP 8) and learning (NCP 15). Managed forest and farmland were
found to contribute to high levels of food and feed (NCP 12), but also provided places for learningand inspiration (NCP15) for older to younger generations on how the land and natural resources
should be managed. These constitute Karen’s view of nature. These, however, are not adequately
taken into account in managing forest reserves by the Forest Department, which partially overlap
Karen’s land uses. The Forest Department sees Karen’s land uses, including rotational farming, as theprimary cause of deforestation. Divergent view of nature such as this underlies long arguments between the Karens and the government (See section 3.1.4 for details).

9Ecosystem domain (dark green, light green, green,green, grey)
B1: Natural/ protected forest
B2: Managed/ resource forest
B4: Freshwater wetland
B8: Farmland
B9: Settlement/Urban
Important species (purple)
SP1: Yo Hhaw (Pangolin)
SP2: Hswai bau dei (Yellow Leg Crab)
SP3: Do P' Loo (Root Banana Fish)
SP4: Dei bu (Jub Frog)
SP5: Teen Hung Doi (Paris polyphylla Smith)
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP2: Pollination and seed dispersal
NCP3: Air quality regulation
NCP4: Climate regulation
NCP6: Freshwater quantity, flow and timing regulation
NCP8: Soil Formation, protection and decontamination
NCP12: Food and feed
NCP14: Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources
NCP15: Learning and inspiration
NCP17: Supporting identities

Figure 3. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

In addition, focus group interviews during the field study found important species and different ecosystem services from forest land and rotational farming. The study tried to distribute male and female participants equally in the focus groups to enhance the exchange of opinions (Table 4). The
field survey included key informant interviews from seven institutes, including 1) Inter Mountain
Peoples Education and Cultural in Thailand Association (IMPECT), 2) Indigenous Knowledge and People Foundation (IKAP), 3) Pgaz K’Nyau Association for Sustainable Development (PASD), 4) Karen
Network for Culture and Environment (KNCE), 5) Op Luang National Park, 6) Cross Cultural Foundation and 7) Princess Sirinthorn Anthorpology Center (SAC).

Table 4. Number of villagers for focus group interviews in each village
Village

Sample size for focus group interviews
MaleFemaleTotal

Mae Tae Khi

12

8

20

Mae Yod Khee

10

8

18

Mae Um Pai

12

12

24

Total

62

10

The values from two ecosystem domains (forest and rotational farming) for three Karen villages are
explained in Table 5. NCP4 (Ocean acidification) was omitted. All participants in three Karen villages
agreed that both forest and rotational farming provided them sources of natural food and medical
herbs (NCP11&13), conservation of native plant species (NCP1), freshwater quantity (NCP5), and increasing fresh air (NCP2).
The participants identified five major types of wildlife species and valuable plant species in forest
land and rotational farming areas in their communities. Table 6 presents the several mammal andnative plant species. All participants confirmed that there was high plant species diversity in rotational farming. Native rice species, in particular Oryza sativa and some species of vegetables andherbs are now difficult to find in the lowland. They pointed the importance of wildlife species thatthey found in the forest areas such as barking deer and wild birds.
Table 5. Description of values from forest and rotational farming in three Karen villages
NCP category

NCP description
ForestRotational farming
1.Pollination and dispersal of seeds  Stocks of native plants and ani-  Diverse native plant species (vegetaand other propagules
mal species and varieties
bles, herbs, rice, fruits)
2.Regulation of air quality
 Increasing fresh air and mois Increasing fresh air and moistures
tures from trees
from trees
 (DS) Increasing air pollution fromburning the field
3.Regulation of climate
 Increasing carbon stocks
 Increasing carbon stocks (DS)Increasing GHG emissions fromburning the fields
4.Regulation of ocean acidification
none
none
5.Regulation of freshwater quantity  Increasing rainfall Water retention in the plots of years
5-12 rotational farming
6.Regulation of freshwater quality  Increasing clean water supply Better quality of surface water by
putting charcoal from burnet fields
into streams
7.Formation, protection and de-  Soil erosion and sedimentation  Soil erosion and sedimentation concontamination of soils and sedicontrol
trol
ments
8.Regulation of hazards and ex-  Reducing flush floods
 Reducing flush floods
treme events
 Providing wind breaking zone Providing wind breaking zone for thefor the villages
villages
9.Regulation of organism detri-  Increasing animal and insect
 Reducing weeds, animal and insect
mental to humans
pests
pests from burning the fields
10. Energy
 Fuel wood Fuel from wood and crop residues
from clearing fields
11.Food and feed
 Wild birds and animals
 Rice, bean, mix vegetables and fruits, Wild foods (i.e. mushroom,
insects and wild animals (i.e. rats,
bamboo, insects, honey)
birds)
12.Materials and assistance Timber, Cotton
 Cotton
13.Medicinal, biochemical and ge-  Local medical herbs
 Local medical herbs
netic resources
14.Learning and inspiration
 Sacred groves for performing
 Festivals and rituals i.e. praying therituals
gods of territory, gods of paddy
 Cemetery forest for burying thefields, gods of mother of rice, gods ofdead and respected objects
fire, gods of rotational farming and Sacred watershed forest
harvesting rice
15.Physical and psychological expe-  Beauty of natural forests
 Green zone of villages
riences
16.Supporting identifies
 Providing the natural learning  Traditional land management andcenter to local young people
rotational farming practices

11

Table 6. Important wildlife species and valuable plant species for people in three Karen communities
VillagesMae
Tae Khi

Mae
Yod
Khee

Mae
Um Pai

Ecosystem services from different land use types
Forest lands
Rotational farming
Wildlife species
Plant species
Wildlife species
Plant species
 Monkey (Scientific name:  Native herbs
 Wild birds
 Rice (Oryza sativa)
Macaca mulatta),
 Cucumber (Cucumis sa Barking deer (Muntitivus)acus),
 Corn (Zea mays Linn)
 Drongo (Dicruridae), Native herbs (e.g. Haw
 Magpie (Copsychus
Wor in local name)saularis), Reticulated python(P. reticulatus) Deer (Cervidae), Native herbs
 Cattle (Bos
 Rice (Oryza sativa),
 Pangolin (Pholidota),taurus), Cucumber (Cucumis sa Wild pig (Sus Scrofa), Buffalo (Bubativus),
 Barking deer (Muntilus bubalis), Pumpkin(Cucurbitaacus) Wild pig (Susmoschata Decne.),Scrofa) Native herbs,
 Leaf mustard (Brassica
juncea) Barking deer (Munti Bamboo
 Wild birds
 Rice (Oryza sativa),acus),(Thyrsostachys Native herbs
 Jungle fowl (Gallus),
siamensis)
 Asian palm civet (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus),
 Red-whiskered bulbul(Pycnonotus jocosus),
 Quail (Coturnix japonica)

3.1.3 Traditional knowledge
In line with Berkes’ framework (see methodology section), the following subsection presents the local knowledge of land, animals, plants, soils and landscape and the local knowledge on the land andresource management systems, as well as the social institutions and world view of the community(Table 7).

3.1.3.1 Local knowledge of land, animals, plants, soils and landscape
Karen people hold a considerable body of knowledge of:• Local names and habits of wild fauna & flora (most emblematic endangered species found usuallyin National Park area and rotational farming• Pollinators (bees) and seed dispersing animals (birds), and pollination and seed dispersal of trees• Knowledge of watershed forest• Empirical knowledge of soil erosion and unstable conditions• Empirical knowledge of maintaining soil fertility• Role of natural vegetation in the prevention of hazards, such as flash floods and landslides• Diseases/pests that affect crops; animals that help control the diseases/pests; some predators• Some knowledge of edible wild fruits & vegetables• Taxonomy and demography of useful trees12• Medicinal property of trees, e.g. Chor Tum Mae (local name), which is used to treat wounds, and
Tod Kad Wa (local name) for treatment of snake bites

Table 7. Summary of traditional knowledge and its holders associated with ecosystems and important
species
Ecosystem
Species

Traditional knowledge
Domain1.Natural/prot 1.Knowledge
ected forest
3.Social Institutions

Knowledge holders
Trend Spiritual Traditional
Local comWomen Elders
leaderdoctormunityDescription
Learning center of biodiversity
knowledge
Customary law used in area to takecare forest
Sacred sites classified as taboo areas
Medicine

Yo Hhaw
1.Knowledge(Pangolin)
2.Managed/re 1.Knowledge Herbal
source forest 2.Mgt. system For Food security
For Social economic from non-timber
forest product4.Freshwater 1.Knowledge Seeing animals in water indicateswetlandquality of water
3.Social Insti- Sacred water sources as mechanism
tutionsfor protect it
Hswai bau 1.Knowledge Indicator of clean and healthy waterdei (Yellow
leg Crab)
8.Farmland
1.Knowledge Seed variety knowledge keep going
though in-situ process
2.Mgt. system Rotational Farming Knowledge
3.Social Insti- Spirituality, knowledge and practicetutions
9.Settlement 1.Knowledge Knowledge about the geography of/urbanplaces location of village
3.Socical Institutions
Dei bu (Jub 1.Knowledge
Frog)
Teen Hm 1.Knowledge
Doi (White
Turmeric)

House style Knowledge
Indicator of clean and healthy water,
as well as of wet weather
Herbal

↘

⃝

⃝

↘

⃝

⃝

↘

⃝

⃝

↘

⃝

↘
↘

⃝
⃝

↗

⃝

↘

⃝

↘

⃝

↘

⃝

⃝

↘

⃝

↘

⃝

→

⃝

→

⃝

↘

⃝

↘
↘

⃝
⃝

⃝
⃝

↓ rapidly decreasing; ↘ decreasing; → not changed; ↗ increasing; ↑ rapidly increasing
Source: Online survey

3.1.3.2 Local knowledge of land and resource management systems
Based on the information gathered from field survey and interviews with Karen people in the study
sites in 2017, the study found that rotational farming (RF) is carried out based on their traditional
knowledge for conserving and planting native plant species (e.g. rice, vegetables and herbs). Traditional knowledge and its implications to biodiversity and ecosystem services are described distinguishing three categories:(1) Regulating services: The survey found that the Karen communities continue to apply organic pest
control methods using homemade bio-pesticides, which are generally made from insect pests,

13such as grasshoppers and ants. They maintain water permeability of the land and thus prevent
erosion by gently piercing the soil surface for planting and weeding. The Karen methods of rotational farming (RF) maintain high land productivity in terms of biomass and nutrients. The RF
practices allow regrowth of natural vegetation for the length of the fallow period. The soil is replenished from the nutrients stored in the vegetation(2) Material provision: The study observed that RF continues to be practiced for subsistence foodand cash crop production using various domesticated and native plant species, which constitutethe rich agrobiodiversity in the Karen landscape. Some of the native rice varieties are now difficult to find in the lowland.
(3) Non-material value: The survey found that traditional and collective RF practices underpin strongsocial cohesion among the community members, e.g. through frequent exchanges of food andother products, as well as labor sharing among households. Moreover, generating and sharing
knowledge of farming are important part of Karen social life. Their songs and folktales are mediums for passing on knowledge from old to young on how the land and natural resources should
be managed. Many of their songs with folktale lyrics include norms relating to natural resourceuse.

3.1.3.3 Social institutions
Karen communities share the knowledge they have of farming and how the land and natural resources should be managed among their members in their traditional social institutions. Karen
people share knowledge, labor and food throughout the cropping cycle. The have also formed
corporations for watershed forest conservation

3.1.3.4 World view
Karen people’s beliefs in spirits and gods have contributed to conserve the forests such as sacredgroves for performing rituals and ancestor sanctuary, and watershed forests. These beliefs haveshaped norms and taboos relating to natural resource use. The protected forest areas are places forlearning about biodiversity and rituals from the spiritual leader to younger people. Karen beliefs inspirits and gods also contributed to classify forests. Karen songs and folktales are mediums for passing on knowledge from old to young on how the land and natural resources.
The study found main causes of the loss of Karen’s traditional knowledge on forest and agriculturalland management and use in the study sites are:1) The Government of Thailand has been promoted the formal education system in Thai language toindigenous children and youth. Some youth who finished the elementary school in their Karen communities leave the villages to study in the city, and prefer to work in the city rather than in their villages because they can earn more and make their lives better. Numbers of youth who still live in villages and work in the RF fields are declining; and
2) The rights of indigenous people on the use of their land and resources may not recognized by theGovernment of Thailand. A policy to conserve forests and a policy to promote the planting of cash
crops in the northern highland, which resulted in conversion of RF to permanent farming.

3.1.4 Governance
The governance systems in the landscape differ depending on the type of land-use and legal status of
the area. Table 8 shows the different ownership and management rights within the Karen communities.

14

Table 8. Ecosystem governance structure in three Karen communities
Land-use type
Ownership

Protected/natural forest
Forestry Department and Department of National Parks.

Rotational farming

Stakeholder type
Government

Local Karen communities

Individual
Government

Local Karen communities
Royal Forest Department (RFD)

Individual
Government

Sub-District Administrative Organization

Government

Management right Forestry Department and Departholder
ment of National Parks.
Other
ers

stakehold- Royal Forest Department (RFD)
Sub-District Administrative Organization
Local Karen communities

Individual
Cross Cultural Foundation
Princess Sirinthorn Anthorpology Center(SAC)
Provincial Cultural Office
Indigenous People Network Organization
Inter Mountain Peoples Education and Cultural in Thailand Association (IMPECT)

Non-governmental
Government
Government
People organization
Non-governmental

Source: Online survey

The levels of governance and the main key stakeholders involved in the management of natural resources and ecosystems in the three Karen communities are as follows.
1. National Administration:Land rights and forest resource management

The forest resources have been protected under laws created and enforced by the Royal Forest Department (RFD) and Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plants Conservation (DNP). The andthe RFD and DNP hold the main responsibilities for forest management in Thailand, including themanagement of protected areas e.g. National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Non-Hunting Areas, Parks,
Biosphere Reserves, First-Class Watersheds, and Second-Class watersheds.
Some parts of the protected forest overlapped with the Karen villagers’ farmland, and this has resulted in conflicts and encroachment of forests for agriculture. The Government blames their rotational farming for extensive forest loss. Over the past two decades, the Karen communities claimed
their rights of land that they used before the designation of protected area by the Government ofThailand, and represented to the Government that their traditional knowledge on land use in particular traditional rotational farming was not a major cause of forest loss and environment problems.
However, there is no policy in Thailand that distinguishes the rights of indigenous people. The Karen’s traditional RF contributes to conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems need scientific evidence and documents.
2. Sub-National Administrative and Local Level consists of Non-Government Organization, local authorities and Society Organization
Land rights

In the past, the Cross-Cultural Foundation as non-government organization provided free legal services for indigenous people in Thailand to claim their rights of land and try to solve the conflicts between the officials and indigenous people in relevance in this issue. However, the process of judgement required more enforcement and time.
Use rights of land and natural resources

15

The People organization and NGOs (Cross Cultural Foundation) and Princess Sirinthorn Anthorpology
Center (SAC) under the Ministry of Culture has been collaborated with Provincial, District and Subdistrict Administrative Organization to establish the Karen special cultural zone in the northern Thailand. The Karen people have rights on the use of their land and resources within the Karen special
cultural zone. The areas of Mae Yod Khee villages in the study sites were recognised as the special
cultural zone with approval from local authorities in Chiang Mai Province: Sub-district Administrative
Organization, Provincial Cultural Office, and Indigenous People Network Organization.
Karen cultural and language conservation

At present, the SAC in cooperation with the Inter Mountain Peoples Education and Cultural in Thailand Association (IMPECT) Pgakenyaw Association for Sustainable Development (PASD) and Karen
Network for Culture and Environment (KNCE) support the Karen communities in the study sites toimprove their child education system in the Karen’s language, to conserve Karen’s traditional
knowledge and culture, and to promote slow food and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystemfrom Karen’s traditional rotational farming system to the Government and urban people.
The study found that main direct drivers of deforestation and forest degradation over the past two
decades were the clearance of forests for agriculture, urban development and mismanaging logging
concession (Figure 4.). The Government of Thailand has promoted intensive monocrop agriculture
for food industry development. The conversion from traditional agroecosystem to intensive monocrop agriculture have resulted in extirpation of wildlife and native plant species. The indirect driversof deforestation and forest degradation were population growth, development of economics andtechnology. There is strong conservation policy in the National Park and Forestry Department but
weak law enforcement to combat illegal logging activities. The Government need to develop policies
for forest conservation and management in Thailand and increase the role of Karen communities inforest management and conservation of biodiversity.

Figure 4. Ecosystem governance structure in the landscape of the Karen communities163.1.5 Interplay between the values, traditional knowledge and governance
The study identified the interplay between values, traditional knowledge and governance contributing to the sustainable forest and agricultural land management and use, and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services as shown in Table 9. The results show that current policies constraint on community forest uses and reduce rotational farmlands. Conservation approaches must
recognize Karen people’ customary tenure and include local communities to manage the forest andfarmlands as win-win solutions in conversion. The study shows that Karen people belief in spirits andgods and their traditional knowledge was used to conserve the sustainable forests and agriculturalland management.
Table 9. Interplay of values
Ecosystem type
Natural Forest andProtected Forests

NCPs• Habitat creation andmaintenance• Learning and inspiration

Regulation of freshwater
quantity, location andtimingRotational farming

Traditional knowledge• Local knowledge on
the use of land andresources within forest reserves andprotected areas• Belief in spirits andgods were used toconserve the forests
Belief in spirits andgods were used to conserve the watershed• Habitat creation andmaintenance• Pollination and dispersal of seeds

Local knowledge forconserving wild animals-insects(bees), andplanting native plant
species

Formation and protectionof soils

Local knowledge formaintaining soil andapplying organic fertilizers and pesticides

Medicinal plants andgenetic resources

Local knowledge on
medical herbs

Food and feed

Local knowledge on
native plants and fruits,
hunting wild animals(rats, wild pigs, wild
birds)
Traditional knowledge
on weaving

Materials and assistance

Learning and inspiration

Their sharing of thelocal knowledge fromold to young by using
songs and folktales

Governance: Stakeholders and issues
1) The Department of National Parks,
Wildlife, and Plants Conservation (DNP)
Main issue: Development of policies forbiodiversity conservation and forest
management
2) The Royal Forest Department (RFD)
Main issue: Promoting community-based
forest management
Community groups
Main issue: There was an agreement ofpublic water using and management
among communities
The Karen Network for Culture and Environment (KNCE)
Main issue: Promotion of slow food andconservation of biodiversity and ecosystem from Karen’s traditional rotationalfarming system
Karen communities, Local Scientists
Main issues: Sustainable farming system
recognized by scientists of Chiang Mai
University
Spiritual leader, Medicine man, Elders ofcommunities
Main issue: Traditional knowledge ofusing of herbs for treatment someone
has been bitten by poisonous snakes,
stomach wounds, and etc.
Karen villagers (Male)
Main issue: Traditional knowledge ofmaking tools from woods for trapping
rats and birds in the rotational farming
Karen villagers (Female)
Main issue: Traditional knowledge on useof herbs and natural materials to color
yarn and fabric
The Princess Sirinthorn Anthorpology
Center (SAC)
Main issue: Establishment of the Karen
special cultural zone
The Cross Cultural Foundation
Main issue: Improvement the Karen’s
education system in the Karen’s communities

Note: the forest area of three communities are Research Forest (Pa Sanguan) under Forestry Department;
only some part of Khun Tae farming area is in a national park.

17

3.2 Colombia: “Reconciling biodiversity conservation and agricultural production
in agroforestry cultivation systems in the Colombian Andes”
In Los Yariguíes landscape in the Eastern Colombian Andes diversified agroforestry systems with cacao and coffee coexist within with fragments of natural and planted forests used to varying degrees,agroforestry schemes including fruit trees and cattle pastures. These production landscapes harbor adiverse fauna and flora and provide essential ecosystem services, but are threatened by agriculturalintensification, conservation strategies, coal mining, post-conflict rural development and global
market pressures. Within the landscape, located on the north-western slopes of the Yariguíes mountain range, lies the micro-watershed of Las Cruces, which constitutes the area of the GEF-Satoyama
project conducted by Universidad Industrial de Santander (UIS) in the municipality of San Vicente de
Chucurí, Department of Santander, Colombia (Figure 5. Project area map). The following section isbased on the results of the questionnaire survey responded by individual researchers at UIS, but also
the findings of a field study including key informant interviews and focus group discussions conducted in May 2017 and a review of complementary literature.

Box 4. UIS project overview

UIS is conducting the GEF-Satoyama project titled “Reconciling biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in agroforestry cultivation systems in the Colombian Andes” in the micro-watershed of Las Cruces which is dominated by cacao and coffee production of national importance and lies in the buffer zone of the Serranía de los Yariguíes National Park (PNSY).
The landscape harbours a high level of biodiversity and endemism. The project aims to contributeto the conservation of these biodiverse production landscapes by: (1) identifying existing management strategies reconciling biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provisioning with
agricultural production and (2) Converting the autochthonous tacit knowledge about managing
these diversified agroecosystems into explicit expert knowledge using a participatory approach.
Through that the project aims to empower the local community to not only conserve theirknowledge and meet future challenges, but also share it and inspire the emerging population of
post-conflict farmers in Colombia.

3.2.1 Description of landscape/seascape and project overview
The wider landscape known as Los Yariguíes, named after the indigenous people who inhabited thislandscape until the end of the 19th century is located in the central part of the Department of Santander in the North-West of Colombia. The landscape is shaped by the Serranía de los Yariguíes
mountain range, which stretches from North to South and the parts of which with a higher elevation
form part of the National Park (NP) Serranía de los Yariguíes (green areas, Figure 5b). With an average annual precipitation of over 2,000 mm, the western slopes are part of the municipalities of San
Vicente de Chucurí and El Carmen de Chucurí and share similar geographic, climatic and socio-ecological features.
The socio-ecological production landscape that is subject of this case study is the micro-watershed of
micro-basin (microcuenca) of the Las Cruces stream within the municipality of San Vicente. The SEPLS
of Las Cruces is located in the northern part of the western slopes of the Los Yariguíes mountain
range (Las Cruces micro-basin in Figure 5c), area with the black borders in Figure 5a and red borders
in Figure 5b) and hosts the project area of UIS’ GEF-Satoyama Project. The natural vegetation ofthese slopes is pre-mountainous humid forest as predominant natural ecosystem between 1,150 and
1,550 m.a.s.l. (Olaya, E., Velosa, R., Rodriguez, A., Bueno-Castellanos, J., Holguín, 2010, 75). The far

18

eastern area of San Vicente hosts the western part of northern tip of the National Park (NP) Serraníade los Yariguíes (area highlighted in dark green), which was declared in 2005 and which has a total of
59,063 ha.

a. National Park Serranía de Los Yariguíes (green
colour, including the northern renaturation area indark green) and contiguous GEF-Satoyama project
area (selected farms in the micro-watershed Las
Cruces within black boundary) (Source on NP map:
Unión Temporal)b. Micro-watershed Las Cruces outside the National Park (redboundary)c. Map of Las Cruces micro-watershed: The red circled area indicates the Natural Park, and the green highlightarea the NP fragment within the micro-watershed (Source: Tatiana Rodrigues)

Figure 5. Project area map

19

The micro-watershed of Las Cruces (hereafter ‘Las Cruces’) has a total approximate area of 5,700
hectares, out of which 2,200 ha are located within the National Park Serranía de los Yariguíes andconsist of near natural forests and secondary forests in regeneration (Fundación Natura 2012). The
rest of the micro-watershed (approx. 3,300 ha) forms the socio-ecological production landscape(SEPL) described in this paper and within which UIS’ project activities have taken place. It consist ofdiverse ecosystems (Figure 5c, Table 10), including small-scale agroforestry schemes producing cocoa,
coffee and fruits as well as grassland, forest fragments, settlements and freshwater bodies (Online
survey).
The town San Vicente de Chucurí, which has an extensive municipal area that Las Cruces is only afragment of, was founded in 1887 and was gradually colonized by settlers in the following decades.
The recent armed conflict, which lasted more than 50 years, forced the displacement of the rural inhabitants. While San Vicente had over 54,000 inhabitants in 1985, its population started to decline
reaching a minimum of less than 32,000 people between 1993 and 1998. It experienced a demographic recovery reaching 34,881 inhabitants in 2015 (DANE, 2015), as many farmers have returned.

Table 10. Main ecosystems in the Micro-watershed Las Cruces (Source: Fundación Natura 2012)
Ecosystem

FeaturesNatural/ protected
forestManaged/ resource
forestFarmland(cropland)
Grassland/ rangeland
Waterbodies

Near natural forests and secondary forests in regeneration, within
National Park Serranía de los Yariguíes
Agroforests with cacao and/or coffee, often polycultures withfruits and fragments of secondary forest
Fruit orchards, vegetables and crops: 15 ha (2 - 96 ha) seizedfarms, including fragments of pastures, agroforests and forest
Cattle pastures as well as silvo-pastural schemes with NCPs (soilprotection, water regulation, biodiversity conservation)
3 main streams: Quebrada Las Cruces, Quebrada la Seca, Quebrada La Verde
Includes urban area of San Vicente (approx. 127 ha) with green
areas, such as Parque Munincipal de Miraflores

Settlement/ urban
TOTAL

Estimated
Area (ha)2,200

Trend in area

~500-1,000

Substantially
increasing
Increasing

1,600

Decreasing~800-1,000

Decreasing

16

No change

140

Increasing

5,700

-

3.2.2 Values
All ecosystems in the landscape fulfil a series of ecosystem values or nature’s contributions to people(NPCs). The communities in the landscape of the UIS project attribute a series of values to the different ecosystems found in the area. The information obtained from the online survey, informant
interviews and focus group discussions has been complemented with information available fromstudies that have been conducted in the landscape of UIS’ GEF-Satoyama Project area.
Figure 6 illustrates the linkages between the ecosystems identified by the project implementer (UIS)in the landscape and the NCPs each of these provide in the understanding of UIS (online questionnaire survey). A key finding is that both the natural and managed forest ecosystems (B1 and B2) provide the largest number of values or NCPs – largely the same ones, even though to varying degrees(Table 11). The table also clarifies that different stakeholders, e.g., farmers, local development authorities, water suppliers, women and school teachers associate different values with the SEPLS.
The provision of “food and feed” is the only NCP that all ecosystems contribute to, which stresses thesocio-ecological importance of this landscape in addition to its ecological importance in terms of biodiversity conservation. Grassland (B3) is the ecosystem that provides the least NCP according to UIS,
specifically the NCP of “food and feed”. The number of NCPs is higher in the case of silvo-pasturalschemes: soil protection, water regulation and biodiversity conservation. Figure 6 also shows the20relevance of the species of flora and fauna identified as particularly important for the local community by UIS. Of these, the walnut, Juglans neotropica (SP3), contributes to the largest number of
NCPs.
The role of animals for pollination (bees, butterflies, other insects), and dispersal of seeds (bats) is
recognized by the farmers and other community members interviewed during the survey. Commonly
found insects include wasps and ants (Interview with farmer L). Another important NCP is regulationof climate as air quality and the microclimate of the western slopes of the Los Yariguíes mountain
range, which is characterized by regular rainfall, frequent fog, lack of drought conditions and highevapotranspiration. A range of NCPs are subsequently presented in detail, including habitat provision.

21

Table 11. Nature’s contribution to people (NCP) in the natural forest and agroforestry ecosystems
NCPs
1. Habitat
creation &maintenance

2. Pollination &seed dispersal
3. Regulation of
air quality
4. Regulation ofclimate
5. Regulation of
freshwater quantity, location &timing
6. Regulation of
freshwater quality
7. Formation andprotection of soils
and sediments
8. Regulation of
hazards and extreme events
9. Regul. of detrimental organisms
10. Energy
11. Food and feed

12. Materials andassistance
13. Medicinal &genetic resources
14. Learning &inspiration
15. Physical andpsychological experiences
16. Supporting
identities

Natural forests

Agroforestry

Endangered and vulnerable species, included unMammals (Armadillo,
described ones, e.g. Odontophorus strophium (EN), porcupine, anteater, bat,
Juglans neotropica (EN), Caryodaphnopsis (unagouti), birds, insects,
described), Magnolia (undescribed), Aotus lemureptiles, amphibians, etc.
rinus (VU); Tremarctos ornatus (VU); etc.
Wildlife not perceived as a NCP by some farmers
Facilitation by animals of pollination (bees, butterflies, other insects), and dispersal of seeds (bats) [Farmers]
Regulation of CO2/O2 balance: Forests recognizedMore limited than in natas a ‘lung’ural forests
Microclimate (western slopes of Los Yariguíes mountains); regular rainfall, frequent fog, lack of drought conditions, etc.
Recognition that forests provide pure water.
More limited than in natWater springs (located in NP) used for drinking
ural forests.
water, occasional irrigation during drier periods
Humid soil requires aland for coffee cherry washing and livestock.
most no irrigation.
Filtration of particles, pathogens, excess nutrients,
More limited than in natand regulation of water quality (e.g. drinking water, ural forests, but recogcoffee cherry washing)
nized
Sediment retention and erosion control on slopes
Soil formation & maintenance of soil structure & processes: local soil not very
fertile, but with moderate to high contents of organic materials
Cocoa growing contributes to soil improvement
Degradation or storage of chemical and biological pollutants in soils
Some mitigation of impacts on humans or theirMore limited than in natinfrastructure caused by e.g. hazards (floods, landural forests, but recogslides, avalanches) wind, storms, droughts
nizedRegulation of pests, pathogens, predators etc. that affect humans, plants andanimals
Production of fuelwood, electricity (Hydropower)
Honey, food (jams, jellies, beverages) from edible
Food from managed/
wild fruits (blackberries, Madroño [Garcinia
domesticated organisms,
madruno]) and tubers (yucca)
e.g., cocoa, coffee, fruits,
Game through hunting or poachingeggs, cattle, fish, poultry,
Feed for domesticated animals
dairy products (milk)
Production of materials from organisms in forest and agroforestry ES for: Construction (bamboo, wood) & ornamental purposes
Direct use of living organisms for decoration (ornamental plants), company(pets), transport and labour (incl. herding, guidance, guarding)
No indigenous knowledge about medicinal herbs,
Some plants used, e.g.
but some plants used for medicinal purpose, e.g.
Artemisia: mosquito reinfusion from bark to reduce fever (Madroño)
pellent
Provision for education (school project)
Acquisition of knowledge and development of skills for well-being, scientificinformation, and inspiration for art
Eco-tourism, including birdwatching in ProAves
Cacao tourism
reserve for national and international tourists.
Aesthetic enjoyment
Relaxation, recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, hikGardening
ing, birdwatching, hunting, poaching
Bird watching
Landscape as basis for religious, spiritual & social experiences.
Opportunities for people to develop a sense of place; source of satisfaction
Basis for narratives and myths, celebrations, habitats, species or organisms

22

SourceFarmers,
women’sorganization,
FedeCacao,high school
Farmers
Women, highschoolFarmers,
FedeCacao
Farmers,
NGO Natura,
Water supplier
Farmers,
Water supplier
Farmers,
Women,
FedeCacao,
NGO Natura
Farmers
NGO Natura
Women
Farmers, JAC
Farmers

Farmers,
FedeCacao

Farmers

High school
students,
NGO ProAves
High school
students,
women,NGO ProAves
Farmers,
FedeCacao

Ecosystem domain (dark green, green, ochre, blue,
light green)
B1: Natural/protected forest
B2: Managed/resource forest
B3: Grassland /rangeland
B5: Freshwater wetland
B8: Farmland
B9: Settlement/Urban
Important species (purple)
SP1: Perdiz santandereana / Gorgeted wood quail(Odontophorus strophium)
SP2: Gray-bellied night monkey (Aotus lemurinus)
SP3: Nogal / Colombian walnut (Juglans neotropica)
SP4: Panela quemada (Caryodaphnopsis [undescribed])
SP5: Molinillo (Magnolia resupinatirolia)
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP2: Pollination and seed dispersal
NCP6: Freshwater quantity, flow and timing regulation
NCP7: Freshwater and coastal water quality regulation
NCP8: Soil formation, protection and decontamination
NCP9: Hazards and extreme events regulation
NCP12: Food and feed
NCP13: Materials and assistance
NCP14: Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources
NCP15: Learning and inspiration
NCP16: Physical and psychological experiences
NCP17: Supporting identities

Figure 6. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

3.2.1.1 Habitat provision for threatened species of flora and fauna
The two main ecosystems for the habitat provision for threatened species of flora and fauna in the
Las Cruces watershed are natural forests and, to a lesser degree, managed forests including agroforests. The natural forest ecosystem on the western slopes of the Los Yariguies range is pre-montane,
humid forest (Bosque húmedo premontano): 800 – 1,800 masl, which includes two biomes in Las
Cruces: subandino and andino (Figure 7). Both are very rich in tree species some of which are rare asa result of a high degree of human intervention. An important tree in the higher altitude is the Pink
trumpet tree or roble (Tabebuia rosea), which is key for the habitat of the Spectacled Bear, whichfeeds on its fruits. Highly appreciated for their timber are punte (Aniba perutilis), anime (Protium aracouchini), móncoro (Cordia gerascanthus), cedro carmín (Cedrela odorata) and sapán (Chianthratropis brachipetala). The natural forest ecosystem hosts at least two rare undescribed tree species andan endangered tree species identified by UIS researchers (Table 12).

23

Figure 7. Subandino (left) and andino types (center) of pre-mountainous, very humid forest, and agroforest with coffee and banana

Table 12. Endangered or rare species in the ecosystems of (near) natural (or protected) forest and managed forest (agroforestry) in the micro-watershed Las Cruces
Classification
Plants (903 vascularplant species counted in
Los Yariguíes)

Mammals (82 species
countedin
Los
Yariguíes: 26 bats and
56 terrestrial mammals(CAS, 2017).

Birds (501 species in Los
Yariguíes and 346 species counted in Bird
Reserve, out of which
13 are included in the
IUCN Red List) (Interview with reserve representative)
Amphibians (31 species
in Los Yariguíes)
Reptiles (26 species in
Los Yariguíes)

Endangered/rare species & IUCN category
Panela quemada (Caryodaphnopsis,
undescribed) (NE)
Molinillo (Magnolia resupinatifolia
recently described by Aguilar-Cano etal. 2018)) (NE)

Trend

NCP

Decreasing

High quality timber
Source of food for beesHigh quality timber
Kitchen utility to grind chocolate bar
Sense of place (ornamental tree)

Colombian walnut or nogal (Juglans
neotropica) (EN)

Decreasing

Gray-bellied night monkey (Aotus cf.
lemurinus) (VU)
Spectacled Bear (Tremarctos ornatus)(VU)

Not known

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) (VU)
Puma (Puma concolor) (NT)Black Inca (Coeligena prunellei) (EN)
Gorgeted wood quail or Perdiz santandereana (Odontophorus strophium)(EN)
Chestnut
belliedhummingbird(Amazilia castaneiventris), endemic
Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea)

Decreasing
Not known
Not known
Increasing

Rana Venenosa (Myniobates
linensis) (EN), endemic
Talla Equis (Bothrops asper)
Coral (Micrurus dumerilii).

viro-

Decreasing-

Medicine (herbalist)
Extraction of poison for fishing
Source of food for bees
Source of nitrogen
Aesthetic value (Ecotourism)
Pet (Donegan, et al., 2014, 78)
Expression of sense of place
Aesthetic value (Ecotourism)
Poaching (Donegan et al., 2014, 78)
Aesthetic value (Ecotourism), hunting
Aesthetic value (Ecotourims), hunting
Aesthetic value (Ecotourism)
Hunting (food)Sense of place
Aesthetic value (Ecotourism)
Aesthetic value (Ecotourism)-

Aesthetic value (Ecotourism)

-

-

-

-

Decreasing

The fauna of Serranía de los Yariguíes is rich and abundant, including a number of threatened species,
which are included the IUCN Red List 2017-2 (IUCN, 2017). The premontane forests support theworld’s largest remaining population of the critically endangered Gorgeted Wood-Quail (Odontophorus strophium). Montane forests also support the Mountain Grackle (Macroagelaius subalaris [CR])and threatened mammals such as Spectacled Bear (Tremarctos ornatus [VU]). The presence of 82
species of mammals could be confirmed in the Los Yariguíes landscape: 26 bats and 56 terrestrial
mammals (CAS, 2017). Two of the species are endemic within the context of Colombia: grey belliednight monkey (mico nocturno andino, Aotus cf. lemurinus) (VU), and a squirrel known as ardilla run-24

cha (Microsciurus santanderensis). With respect to birds, in the National Park 501 species have beencounted, out of which 15 are endemic, and 14 are included in the IUCN Red List (2 CR, 6 EN and 6 VU)(CAS, 2017). One of the endangered species is the gorgeted wood quail (perdiz santandereana,
Odontophorus strophium), as identified in the landscape by the GEF-Satoyama project implementer.
35 migratory species pass the area (T. M. Donegan et al., 2010). In ProAves’ bird reserve, apart fromthe gorgeted wood quail, 346 bird species are found, including 13 IUCN listed birds, such as the endemic chestnut bellied hummingbird (Amazilia castaneiventris), white-mantled barbet (Capito hypoleucus), parker’s antbird (Cercomacra parkeri), and Cerulean Warbler (Reinita Cielo Azul, Setophaga
cerulea).
Not all stakeholders perceive habitat creation for wildlife as an NCP. While some farmers, and particularly environmental NGO representatives and school children do appreciate the presence of wildlife,“some participants perceive wild animals as a problem rather than a positive matter” (Resilience assessment workshop). Many also see no benefit in having a protected area (ibid.)
Overall, the biological values are particularly high from natural forests in both the National Park andProAves´ bird reserve. However, natural forests and agroforestry outside the National Park are also
important for habitat maintenance. People appreciate the “very high agro-biodiversity” in theirlandscape (ibid). Many of the above tree species are used in agroforestry systems (Table 11): Móncoro and balso blanco provide shadow for cocoa and cedro carmín is used in both coffee and cacao
plantations, but they are also planted for their timber, including anime, which has a very good aroma.
The fruit of madroño (Garcinia madruno) is mainly eaten in its natural form, but the pulp is used toelaborate jellies and juices. The infusion made out its bark is used to reduce fever (Farmer L).
While the National Park and bird reserve represent the main sanctuary of threatened species, rare
species are also found occasionally in the agroforestry schemes, such as deer (Mazama americana),
paca (tinajo, Cuniculus paca) Northern Naked-tailed Armadillo (cola de trapo, Cabassous centralis)and puma (Puma concolor). Still quite commonly found in agroforests and secondary forests are armadillo (Dasypus movemcintus), Central American agouti (ñeque, Desyprocta punctata), anteater(oso hormiguero, Tamandua mexicana), porcupine (Coendou prehensilis), common vampire bat(murciélago vampiro, Desmodus rotundus) and tayra (Eira barbara) (Interviews with farmers). Five of
the 13 IUCN listed bird species are associated with the coffee agroforestry scheme (Interview with
ProAves staff). Overall, while the biological values are particularly high from natural forests in boththe National park and ProAves´ bird reserve, managed forests and agroforests outside the NP are
also important for habitat maintenance.

Figure 8. Porcupine on avocado tree in agroforest system

25

3.2.1.2 Regulation of freshwater quantity and quality
At least 68 rivers and streams emerge in Los Yariguíes mountain range. Many supply the municipal
water systems of San Vicente de Chucurí, including the El Chucurí River and the Quebrada (mountainstream) Las Cruces. Quebrada Las Cruces is the main water source of the aqueduct supplying the urban area of San Vicente. Its spring is inside the National Park Serranía de los Yariguíes.
Stakeholders recognize the importance of freshwater provision through the mountain streams as
main waterbodies. However, the contribution to hazard reduction is less clear. The areas is affected
regularly by intense rainfalls, which have led to landslide and flash floods in 2005, 2009 and 2011. As
a result, the farmers perceive both benefits and danger from the freshwater ecosystem. The contribution of the forest ecosystem to the mitigation of hazard risks and to regulating freshwater quantityand quality was traditionally less perceived (Resilience indicators assessment). Awareness of the importance of properly managing the mountain streams including their shores and riparian forests increased with the launch of a payment for ecosystems services (PES) scheme known as ARA in 2009(see below).

3.2.1.3 Formation and protection of soils and sediments
The landscape provides two main ecosystem services with respect to the soil:• Sediment retention and erosion control (steep slopes)• Soil formation & maintenance of soil structure & processes (very fertile, rich in nitrogen)On the western slopes of Los Yariguíes mountain range, the slope gradients usually range between
25% and 50%, and occasionally over 50%. The soils have a low level of evolution (tropepts and orthents) and are well drained, superficial to moderately deep (Mantilla Blanco, Argüello Angulo, &Méndez Aldana, 2000), and susceptible to erosion (interviews with farmers). It is estimated that 60%of the soils are extremely acid (pH lower than 5.5), and 40% are classified as moderately to slightly
acid (pH 5.5 to 6.5). The content of organic materials is low (less than 1.9%) on 19% of the soils, medium (2.0-2.6%) on 30% and high (more than 3.0%) on 51% of the soils (ibid). In conclusion the soil
fertility is sufficient to grow a variety of crops, including cocoa and coffee, but to achieve higher
yields the application of fertilizers Is required (Interview FedeCacao).

3.2.1.4 Food provision
Both natural and managed forests provide some food sources, particularly honey but also edible wild
fruits (e.g. blackberries, madroño) and tubers (yucca). Managed forests may include fruit production
under agroforestry besides the typical cocoa and coffee production. Many of the cultivated fruits,
including cocoa, and some wild fruits are used to make jams, jellies, wines.
The principal ecosystem for food provision is farmland, usually coffee and cocoa plantations fruit orchards and vegetable fields. Cocoa and coffee are traditionally grown under agroforestry or withother fruit trees such as avocado, which used to be the main fruit produced in San Vicente earlier, or
citrus trees, which provided shadow conditions (‘sombrío’). However, while the ideal farm includes
other crops apart from cocoa, it is not required to grow all together as a ‘stew’ (‘sancocho’), but it ispreferable to plant different fruit trees separately (Interview FedeCacao). Most farms in Las Cruces
are farms are low-intensive in the use of chemical inputs, as farmers traditionally use little and mainly organic fertilizers. The highest production is around 1,200 kilos per hectare, which is still profitable.
If the production is 1,200 kilos per hectare a farm with 4 hectares can only be profitable if all family
members are involved in its management (ibid). For both sale and subsistence, the farmers produce
mainly citric fruits and tropical fruits including avocados, and in higher elevation blackberries, as well
as a range of different vegetables. Additional food products are obtained from other ecosystems,
such as eggs and poultry in settlements, cattle and dairy products (milk) on grasslands, and fish from
freshwater bodies (ponds).

26

3.2.1.5 Physical and psychological experiences, including ecotourism
Physical and psychological experiences are particularly linked to the ecosystems of natural forests,
managed forests and farmland. For both natural and managed forests farmers, both male and female,and high school students, including urban and rural, mainly mentioned relaxation, recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, hiking and birdwatching. In the natural forest hunting is another experience practiced either by some landowners or illegally as poaching by others.
In terms of tourism the landscape is already a known destination for cocoa – and particularly chocolate – production, but without reaching yet its full potential. The products of the region include“Chocolate Chucureño” (Chucurí chocolate and hot chocolate) and “Café Chucureño” (Chucurí organic coffee). An experimental cocoa farm managed by FedeCacao is open to visitors. Ecotourism in
the landscape exists, but is still rather limited considering the potential for observing nature andwildlife near or in the National Park (NP). San Vicente has additional ecotourism attractions, such as:• The forests and mountains of Los Yariguíes and their threatened fauna and flora;• The Camino de Lenguerke, a historic stone trail built in the 1800s, which leads through the NP;• The indigenous history and artefacts of the region, some of which are within San Vicente town;
and• San Vicente and other old towns surrounding the mountain range with colonial architecture.
Ecotourism is best possible in a privately owned bird reserve managed by the NGO ProAves (below).
The reserve is named Reinita Cielo Azul after one of the threatened bird species, the Cerulean Warbler Bird, and currently covers 207.6 ha of tropical rainforest. Its altitudinal range is between 1600 to2500 m.a.s.l. It was the first reserve in Latin America established specifically for the protection of migratory birds as an Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) site in 2005. Most of the reserve is locatedwithin the National Park. Camera traps in the reserve have also photographed the endangered orrare mammals such as the spectacled bear and the puma. The reserve is largely natural forest but
includes a small coffee plantation under agroforestry, which partly sustains the expenses of maintaining the reserve. The reserve is visited by tourists, who generally come from outside the landscapeand are able to afford staying overnight at the accommodation of the reserve. Most of the tourists
are foreigners, which has let locals to believe that that the reserve is “reserved” for foreigners.
Moreover, some locals even believe that the reserve wants to capture their oxygen. ProAves iscountering with communication efforts to reduce prejudices and raise environmental awareness (Interview ProAves).

3.2.3 Traditional knowledge
Traditional knowledge was lost with the end of indigenous settlements in the area. Local knowledge
exists, particularly on tree species, and animals affecting crops (Key informant interviews). In linewith Berkes’ framework (see methodology section), the following subsection presents the local
knowledge of land, animals, plants, soils and landscape and the local knowledge on the land and resource management systems, as well as the social institutions and world view of the community.

3.2.1.6 Local knowledge of land, animals, plants, soils and landscape
Farmers, both male and female, are the key knowledge holder, having local empirical knowledge
with respect to most of the NCPs found in the landscape (Table 13). They generally have knowledgeof:• Local names and habits of wild fauna, particularly the most emblematic endangered species
found usually in the NP area but occasionally also in managed forests, including agroforests.
• Pollinators (bees, other insects and bats), as many farmers produce honey• Watershed dynamics, including differential water flow rates per stream• Chemical water characteristics, including its color and indication about the mineral contents

27

•
•
•
•

Soil erosion and unstable conditions that can lead to landslides
Soil fertility and the specific soil requirements of crops
Diseases that affect crops and how to control these
Taxonomy and demography of useful trees, and its pollination and seed dispersal features.

Farmers have more limited knowledge on the use of small wild plants, including herbs and edible
wild fruits and tubers. This includes the production local beverages, jams, jellies from wild fruits andthe uses of wild fauna as game. Blackberries are mostly cultivated in higher elevations. Medicinal
property of trees, e.g. infusion made from the bark of madroño (Garcinia madruno). Farmers are able
to recognize many birds through their sounds. Many urban dwellers have knowledge of recreationalspots and local trails including for hiking (Interviews). There are local guides, who have knowledge on
species’ names. Hunters and poachers have local empirical knowledge on the animals they hunt
(online survey). The wild fruits of molinillo (Magnolia sp.) are used as a kitchen tool, especially togrind solid chocolate when preparing hot chocolate (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Molinillo tool (for chocolate grinding)

3.2.1.7 Local knowledge of land and resource management systems
Farmers, both male and female, have local empirical knowledge of land and resource management
systems that are relevant when obtaining benefits from nature in terms of:a) Regulation of freshwater quantity and quality: Aqueducts and their maintenance, sewer systemsb) Formation & protection of soils and sediments, particularly by the complex agroforestry schemesc) Food and feed: The farmers have knowledge of the diverse agroforestry schemes for the production of coffee, cocoa or diverse fruits, such as the optimal shadow conditions and possible impactsof trees on the crops in terms of water and nutrient competition. Farmers also know how to rear
livestock in silvi-pastoral schemes, including some veterinary skills (online survey). Farmers also
have knowledge of organic cultivation and pest control methods on their farmland.
d) Materials & assistance: Production and use of locally sourced wood in construction and as fuelwood.

3.2.1.8 Social institutions and World view
Local communities have local knowledge and the practice of organizing in both formal and informalgroups for the management of common resources in their community, including the provision of social support as a safety net. These groups also have skills in infrastructure development and maintenance, complementing the municipal authorities. In terms of their world view, ILK is linked to two
NCPs:

28

a)

b)

Physical & psychological experiences, particularly spiritual experiences and religious traditions:
These include knowledge, myths and legends related to unusual growth of water levels and avalanches (online survey), but also features of rare animals/plants (e.g. Toxicodendron striatum).
Supporting identities: The social, economic and ecological features of the landscape provide local people with a sense of both place and pride, e.g. the production of cocoa, chocolate, avocados and coffee. This is also true for the most emblematic endangered species. Social traditions
and festivities are important as a source of identity and satisfaction.

Table 13. Summary of ILK and ILK holders associated with ecosystems and important species (based on
online survey)
Ecosystem
Species

ILK
Domain2.Managed/
1.Knowledge
resource forest

3.Grassland/rangeland

1.Knowledge

5.Freshwater/inland waterbodies

1.Knowledge

4.World view
8.Farmland

1.Knowledge

ILK holders
Description

mainly of timber species and animals
used by hunters
Medicinal properties of trees
plant taxonomy and demography of useful trees, and its pollination and dispersal
syndromes
how to grow livestock and food for theiranimals
how to heal animals
watershed dynamics, differential water-flow rates per stream
physical-chemical characteristics of water(explanations about the color and minerals on it)
Myths and legends related to the unusual
growth of water levels and avalanches
crops soil and temperature requirements↓

Hunters Loggers Farmers
⃝

⃝

↓
↓

City
dwellers

⃝
⃝

⃝

⃝

→

⃝

→

⃝

→

⃝

↘

⃝

→

⃝

→

⃝

→

⃝

↘

⃝

↘

⃝

↘

⃝

↘

⃝

→

⃝

1.Knowledge

Molinillo

Nogal

Local empirical knowledge of pest management and Local environmental per2.Mgt. system
ception, summarized in Peasant Culture:
3.Soc. Institutions Food, building techniques (including local
timber), local beverages, social tradi4.World viewtions, religious traditions.
1.Knowledge
identification and taxonomy of the specie, seed nursing, seedling requirements,
trees demography and fruit processing as
kitchen tool
1.Knowledge
identification and taxonomy of the specie, seed nursing, seedling requirements,
trees demography and wood processing

Trend

Panelaquemada1.Knowledge

Perdiz santandereana

1.Knowledge

identification and taxonomy of the specie, seed nursing, seedling requirements,
trees demography, wood processing andhouse and fence building using this wood
habits and daily activity, preferred foodsources, reproductive biology and demography. (because was a highly hunted
specie in the past)
Specie recognition through the bird
sound as a scientific level↓ rapidly decreasing; ↘ decreasing; → not changed; ↗ increasing; ↑ rapidly increasing29⃝

Knowledge of the forest (natural and managed) ecosystems and their components and uses is decreasing, but not the knowledge on other ecosystems (farmland, grassland and waterbodies). The
reasons for the loss of ILK with respect to forest ecosystems include the decrease in rural populationand changes in ways of life, which reduces the intergenerational knowledge transmission.

3.2.4 GovernanceThree levels of governance are relevant for the management of ecosystems in Las Cruces:
1) the national level: Central government, particularly the management of the National Park2) the subnational level: particularly the environmental agency Autonomous regional corporationof Santander (Corporación Regional Autónoma de Santander - CAS); and3) the local level, which comprises the local administration of the municipality and the ward level:
civil society organisations, particularly the community associations.
Figure 10 presents an overview of the ecosystem governance structure including the main actors andtheir main forms of interaction in Las Cruces micro-watershed within the landscape.

Figure 10. Ecosystem governance structure in the micro-watershed Las Cruces, Los Yariguíes landscape(Own elaboration with contribution from Corina Buendía)30

3.2.1.9 Key stakeholders
The key stakeholders of ecosystem governance in the SEPLS of UIS’ GEF-Satoyama Project include:- Farmers in the micro-watershed of Las Cruces, including landowners within the National Park
- Local community organizations in the watershed- Representative of cocoa producers, including their federation and local growers’ organizations- National Park authorities: Parque Nacional de La Serranía de los Yariguíes (Local office in San Vicente)- Environmental NGOs ProAves (dedicated to the conservation of birds and threatened flora/fauna)
Fundación Natura (managing a payment for ecosystem services scheme known as ‘ARA’), and Unión
Temporal (undertaking National Park renaturation activities)- Water supplier: APC Manantiales de Chucurí (Community owned private company)
The ownership and management rights of most of the farmland and forests are held by private farmers, except for the National Park, which is public land owned by the State and managed by the local
NP office staff. The farmer communities participate in the public management of their landscapes
through their Community Action Groups (Juntas de Acción Comunal - JCA) and Water Supply and
Sewer System Corporations (Corporaciones de Aqueductos y Alcantarillados – CAA).
•

Community Action Groups (JAC) and Water Supply and Sewer System Corporations (CAA)

According to Colombian law a “Community Action Group is a social organization […], not for profit,with solidarity purposes, the status of a legal person and its own assets, and is integrated voluntarily
by the residents of an area, who join efforts and resources seeking integrated and sustainable development on the basis of participatory democracy” (Law 743/02, Art. 8, a.). There are seven JAC in
the Project area, one for each major settlement outside the urban area of San Vicente. They are organized by their own statutes which elaborate on the general regulatory principles provided by Asojunta (Asociación de Juntas de Acción Comunal), the umbrella organization. The JAC consist of committees and have a president, secretary and treasurer. Regular member come together in general
assemblies that take place regularly or as needed. Engagement in the JAC is voluntary, and the main
motivation is “to help the local people” (Interview President L). In terms of gender representation,
female participation is considerable, but most presidents are male. The JACs’ main objectives andactivities focus on the infrastructure development, such as the construction and maintenance of ruralroads and improvements of settlements, including the provision of electricity access. The JAC are notdedicated to the management of natural resources. Another important role of JAC support to community members in need. Neighboring JACs typically collaborate and interact with the municipality injoint implementation of activities and sharing the costs. For any of their initiatives, the JAC need approval from the town hall, providing proof of available funding.
The CAA are responsible for the management of the aqueducts and play an important role in early
warnings regarding possible landslides. Five corporations cooperate with the town hall and participate in the community-based water supply company (see below). The statutes of the CAA are stricter
than the JAC’s (Interview CG). Water management by the local communities is not free of conflictwith the NP authorities. The CAA have a water concession for five years (previously 10 years), which
will be renewed only if the CAA agree to install water meters. Currently the issue is with the town
hall. The nearby private hydropower plant ISAGEN has supported local farmers with the provision oftools and fertilizers. However, communities see vested interests in ISAGEN’s funding for land purchases by NP.
•

Water supply company: Administración Pública Cooperativa Manantiales de Chucurí

The water supply company, Administración Pública Cooperativa (Cooperative Public Administration)
Manantiales de Chucurí (APC) began to function in 2007 (Interview APC manager). This was possible
after a change in legislation in Colombia, which allowed for the creation of community-based companies by local mayors. The legal status is of the APC is that of a private company, because it isowned by the community. For the foundation of the APC in San Vicente all major local stakeholders

31were consulted, including five JAC, and representatives of traders, businesses, TV, radio, the fire brigade, etc. The APC now has 21 diverse member organizations, which are able to outvote the Town
Hall. Before the community took control of the APC, users did not pay for the water, chlorine was not
added to the water, and the water tubes were not well maintained. The APC introduced a payment
scheme and secured a stable supply of water and to improve water quality partly through the below
PES scheme ARA. The company can generate some profit but needs to reinvest in the community.
The APC has supported projects proposed by the community, such as educational facilities, but also
the provision of subsidies for the CAA, which manage the aqueducts in the upstream areas (ibid.).
•

PES Scheme ‘ARA’ (managed by Fundación Natura)

Both the effects of a serious drought and disastrous flash flood in 2011 increased the recognition for
the value of clean water and other ecosystem services, such as hazard control. The NGO Fundación
Natura proposed the introduction of a payment for ecosystem services scheme, and concluded anagreement with the Town Hall of San Vicente on the Programa Acuerdos Recíprocos por el Agua (ARA
– Programme for Mutual Agreements on the Water). Fundación Natura, the Town Hall and the APC
work closely together in the Work Committee, which manages the PES scheme. ARA aims to promote
the conservation of the forests in Las Cruces, in order to improve the regulation of the quantity andquality of the water for the urban center of the municipality. This PES scheme constitutes an initialeffort of shared environmental responsibility of the institutions, the private owners of the land thatimportant for the water regulation, and the beneficiaries of the ecosystem services. ARA has converted:• Landowners to providers of environmental services, which they are aware of and committed to• Institutions and the Municipal Town hall to agents responsible for financing the provision of environmental services for the water regulation of San Vicente• Beneficiaries of the municipal aqueduct to funders of the system through a voluntary contribution,
in exchange for the obtained environmental services (Inteview Fundación Natura).
Since its introduction, 59 landowner families have participated in ARA with 61 pieces of land basedon individual agreements concluded since 2011. The farmers committed to keeping a belt of at least
30 meters on each side of the mountain streams under conservation. This includes allowing for theoriginal vegetation to naturally regenerate and stopping deforestation. The landowners who participate do not receive cash, but a compensation for conservation in the form of supplies, such as organic fertilizers, seeds, materials for construction, tools or even septic tanks. As a result of ARA, theforested area has increased and the content of mud in the water has significantly decreased (ibid.)•

Cocoa and coffee producer organisations and their initiatives

The National Federation of Cocoa (Federación Nacional de Cacaoteros - FedeCacao) was establishedin 1960, responding to the need for an organization to represent and defend the interests of farmers
nationwide. Overall cocoa grows on approximately 180,000 hectares in Colombia, an estimate basedon the total national production of 56,000 tonnes. The membership fee is 3% of the cocoa produce
sold to FedeCocoa, which goes into a National Cocoa Fund, which serves three purposes: Marketing,research (on agroforestry, genetic material, fertilizers, quality, diseases, etc.) and technology transfer.
In terms of internal governance, the farmers elect their municipal representatives in an assembly
every four years. FedeCacao has an office in San Vicente de Chucurí, which is known as the “national
capital of cocoa”, its main agricultural product.
In the municipality, around 3,500 cocoa producers are members of FedeCacao with a total area under cocoa cultivation of approximately 14,000 to 15,000 hectares. Cocoa producers with an area notless than half a hectare or at least 500 cocoa trees in full production are eligible to become members.
Production in San Vicente is rather high at 800 – 3,000 kg per hectare, which is considerably higher
than the national average of 400 kg/ha (Interview FedeCacao). The local FedeCacao collaborates withother stakeholders, including NP authorities and ARA in awareness raising of cocoa growers that thenatural resources need to be well managed and conserved. FedeCacao conducts a series of activities

32

such as promoting good agricultural practices through the certification scheme Buenas Prácticas
Agrícolas (BPA). BPA certifies proper management practices, an orderly production process andabout determining the production costs, income and profitability. BPA certification serves as a firststep in achieving certification, such as UTZ, Rainforest Alliance and Fair Trade. A few farms are certified as organic, but generally cannot achieve a price premium. However, some buyers would be willing to pay 10-15% higher prices for certified organic cocoa (ibid).
Apart from FedeCacao, local cocoa farmers organisations include Asocaviz, Fuinmucar and Aprimujer,
a women’s organisation. As an organisation representing women of farm households, Aprimujer, the“association for the integral promotion of rural women” (Asociación Municipal para la Promoción
Integral de la Mujer Rural) was founded in 2000. The association now has 128 female members, allbelonging to farm households that grow cocoa. The members usually sell their cocoa produce to thehead office of Aprimujer, which in turn sells to FedeCacao. Aprimujer has contributed to women being more involved in cocoa cultivation and gradually benefitting more from the farm income. It has
also promoted the production of jams, jellies and wines based on the mucilage of cocoa beans, andbeen active in motivating young people to continue with the farm activities of their parents. Aprimujer has received support from various organizations, including FedeCacao for capacity-building activities.
With respect to coffee, 160 farms are certified by the Rainforest Alliance (Interview with CG). The
background is that many farms were contaminating the creek with pesticides and as part of the coffee cherry washing process. As part of the program, basins were constructed for the washing andgradual decomposition of the coffee cherries including a filtering process through several pits, toprevent the polluted water to reach and water flows. Farmers have to keep a natural barrier of 15-20
meters between their field and any stream. Once certified the farmers are able to sell their coffee as
Rainforest Alliance certified with a slight price premium. Currently they are not obtaining a benefit
from their certification (ibid).
•

National Park Administration Serranía de Los Yariguíes and environmental agency CAS

The Colombian System of National Natural Parks is a national Special Administrative Unit without
juridical personality but with administrative and financial autonomy and jurisdiction in all the national territory. The entity is in charge of the administration and management of the Systems of National
Natural Parks and of the coordination of the National System of Protected Areas. The administrationof the National Park (NP) Serranía de los Yariguíes has its office in San Vicente de Chucurí.
Colombian law (Decree 622/1977) prohibits implementation of agriculture, livestock rearing inside
the national park areas. National Parks has developed a strategy of “sustainable systems for conservation”, which consists of linking productive systems with biodiversity conservation activities. However, legally this strategy can only be implemented around, not inside the park area. Moreover, implementation of the strategy is less advanced in the case of the NP Serranía de los Yariguíes as compared to other NPs (Expert interview, 2017). As private farms constituted part of the area on which
the NP was declared, the NP Administration concluded 22 land purchase agreements with farmers in
Las Cruces. However, 14 private properties remain with the NP (Expert interview), as the owners
have so far objected selling their land to the NP. Although the relationship with local communities in
San Vicente is affected by issues such as restricted access and water use, in comparison to other areas of the NP and to other Parks conflicts are relatively small. For instance, in the south-west of the NP
the drivers (illegal logging, poaching, deforestation, etc.) are higher (ibid.) The NP Administration has
commissioned biologists organized in Unión Temporal to undertake renaturation activities on theformer private farms.
The subnational environmental administration is highly centralized. The environmental agency Autonomous Regional Corporation of Santander (CAS) is in charge to support the implementation ofpolicies, plans, programs and projects on the environment and renewable natural resources and implement legal provisions on their disposal, administration, management and use, as to regulations,33

standards and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment. CAS has its office in Bucaramanga,the capital of the department, and their staff visit the municipality only occasionally. Farmers need torequest special permits to extract wood of native species from their farms. This had led to conflicts
with the CAS, which strictly controls the logging of native species (Expert interview).
•

ProAves NGO

The environmental NGO ProAves is a Colombian organization, legally recognized since 2002. ProAves
has 27 reserves in Colombia, three in Santander, including the above Reinita Cielo Azul.

3.2.1.10 Drivers
There are a series of drivers of changes in ecosystems and biodiversity in the landscape and policies
in place to address these (Figure 11). A number of negative drivers have led to a significant decline
and degradation of the typical agroforestry schemes in the landscape in the past decades. The main
driver was the armed conflict, which displaced many rural inhabitants particularly in the 1980s and90s. Since then some farmers have returned which has led to a demographic recovery. Other main
direct drivers of ecosystem degradation include:
•
•
•
•
•

Changes in land use due to the establishment of the National Park and farm abandonment
Increasing demand for certain crops (coffee, cocoa) and decreasing local production of meat
Urbanization and infrastructure development, despite rural abandonment
Resource overexploitation (endangered plant and animal species for food and wood)
Bad agricultural practices, including pollution of streams, e.g. due to coffee bean washing, erosion and soil degradation.

Figure 11. Configuration of the linkages between ecosystem degradation and species decline, direct drivers and the existing policies for targeting the drivers in the micro-watershed Las Cruces

Indirect drivers include: Policies and governance system: After the declaration of the National Park, the newly protectedareas in higher elevations have experienced an increase in natural forest and biodiversity, because of reforestation and other renaturation measures on previous farmland. On the other
hand, public environmental policies outside the NP on curbing illegal logging, hunting and re-

34








ducing pollution through coffee bean washing have been largely ineffective, partly given the lackof interaction between local communities and environmental authorities in the landscape. Initiatives by NGOs promoting the conservation of the forest along streams and environmentallyfriendly farming practices such as the PES scheme ‘ARA’ and certification schemes have been
more successful in contributing to erosion control on slopes and the regulation of freshwater
quantity, location and timing. The most difficult, if not conflictive, relationship in Las Cruces is
between the local community, represented by the JACs and CAAs, and the National Park authorities as outlined above. This conflict is due to the restricted access to the Park, the pressure on
the remaining landowners within the PA to sell their land and the control over the water sourcesfrom the NP area that the downstream communities use. Interviewees agreed that CAAs for thewater issue but also JACs as broader community-based organizations have a potential key role inrepresenting the community in any conflict settlement. While many local representatives of the
NP office and environmental NGOs favor a more participatory approach to ecosystem management, a move in this direction would require a stronger commitment of the line agencies at the
subnational/and or national level. Power struggles have also existed the management of thewater supply company APC, but the recent involvement of local people in the interaction withthe farmers has been key to reduce mistrust. Good interaction exists between the APC and National Parks, but interaction with the subnational environmental agency CAS is reported as poor
(Key informant interviews).
Economic: Colombia’s opening to globalization, including through free trade agreements, hasalso contributed to the loss of many agricultural production schemes, which were unable tocompete in the global markets. A higher domestic and international demand for coffee and cacao production has led to a decrease of cattle rearing and the area of grassland. The increasing
certification of cocoa and coffee plantations opens new opportunities for the farmers.
Socio-cultural: Mistrust of local communities, partly due to negative experiences with promises
made by authorities and other external actors in the past, has been an important driver for in
the delayed or ineffective implementation of projects and policies for ecosystem management.
This includes initial obstacles in the introduction of the ARA PES scheme but also the conflicts
between the National Park authorities and the farmer and water user communities.
Demographic: While migration to urban areas has decreased with the end of the armed conflict,many young people are attracted by perceived opportunities in urban areas and cities.
Science and technology: Efforts by the local community have maintained and further developed
the water supply infrastructure and rural road network.

During the field survey a trial assessment workshop was conducted with 11 participants – farmers,
who have land in the National Park area and have formed an informal interest group. Participants
defined their landscape with a mapping exercise and a discussion what the term ‘territory’ (territorio– term generally used in Colombia for the surrounding landscape) and ‘management’ (gestión) mean
to them. Subsequently the participants were asked to conduct both a quantitative and qualitative
assessment against a set of generic indicators of quality of governance in terms of their perceived
involvement in the ecosystem management of their SEPLS.
The results of the quantitative assessment are summarized in Table 14. Generally, the participants
assessed the quality of governance in the management of the overall landscape from the perspectiveof their involvement, and gave a low scoring for most indicators. For indicators 9 and 10 they preferred to distinguish between behavioral change and problem solving of issues surrounding their land(located in the National Park) and the overall landscape. A follow up assessment is planned.

35

Table 14. Ranking of governance quality in the management of the landscape by farmers group that participated in the trial governance assessment workshop organized during the field survey
Indicators(See Table
1)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Ranking (1:low, 5: high)Overall
SEPLS

1
2

9

X
X

X

X

X

X

10

Own
land

Overall
SEPLS

X
X

11

Own
land
X

X

X

3
4

X

5

X

3.2.5 Value-knowledge-governance interplay in Los Yarigues landscapeThe thematic focus areas of this study, the values, traditional knowledge and governance of ecosystems in the landscape, are interlinked and influence each other. Table 15 illustrates the interplay for
two types of ecosystem, Natural forest and agroforestry systems.
The table shows that for each major ecosystem and most of the NCPs it provides, farmers, community organizations and other key stakeholders hold a considerable body of local knowledge, despite
the comparatively late settlement of the SEPLS and little knowledge exchange between some stakeholder groups. However, the migration and widespread lack of interest in agriculture of the younger
generation in Las Cruces does not bode well for the maintenance of the existing rich local knowledge
and practices. With respect to governance, as the existence of conflicts of interests discussed above
demonstrates, the structure and processes of ecosystem governance are in many cases not efficient,transparent and effective enough to ensure meaningful stakeholder participation and productive decision-making and implementation processes. Mistrust, largely due to the past armed conflict andunfulfilled political promises, lack of communication and regulations that do not provide for the inclusion of key stakeholders in the management of key ecosystems constitute barriers that need to be
overcome to improve the relationship between key stakeholders and strengthen the ecosystem governance structure and processes in Las Cruces.
UIS’ GEF-Satoyama project, which has established model farms for knowledge exchange and promoted significant stakeholder dialogue, is therefore a key process that has the potential to create adurable impact in the management of the landscape. It will be key to ensure the durability of theknowledge exchange and build long-term relationship build on trust between farmers, other community members and stakeholders from outside the landscape for the sustainable management of
Las Cruces.

36

Table 15. Interplay of values, traditional knowledge and governance in the Las Cruces watershed, Los
Yariguies landscape
Ecosystem
Protected
natural forest

NCPs
Habitat creation andmaintenanceRegulation of air
quality

Traditional knowledge
NP management based on
scientific knowledge
Local stakeholders: Local
names and habitats of wild
fauna and flora

Regulation of freshwater quantity, location and timing

Local knowledge (LK) of
location, quantity and timing of water sources

Regulation of water
quality

LK of aqueducts
Modern technology tomeasure quality
LK of production of fuelwood

EnergyPrivate (near)
natural forests and agroforests

Pollination and dispersal of seeds

LK of pollinators and see
dispersing animals

Regulation of hazards
and extreme events

LK of appropriate species
considered in PES scheme

Formation and protection of soils

LK of tree species thatprevent soil erosion

Detrimental organisms regulation
Medicinal plants andgenetic resources
Food and feed
Materials and assistance
Learning and inspiration
Physical and psychological experiences

LK of diseases affecting
crops, predators
LK on wild plants limited,
but some examples
LK of edible flora & fauna
LK of use of specific natural
material
Skills for well-being, inspiration for art
LK of hiking trails. Guides’,hunters’, farmers’ LK of bird
& other species
Spiritual experiences
Sense of place
Source of satisfaction
LK of diverse agroforestry
and crops and pastoral
livestock rearing

Supporting identities
Agroforestry,silvo-pastoral
schemes

Food and feed

37

Governance: Stakeholders and issues (if any)
• National Park Administration (NP)• Issues: Local stakeholders largely excluded
from access and jobs in the natural regeneration activities. No knowledge ex-change between NP and local communities. Remaining
landowners unwilling to sell.
• Water Supply & Sewer System Corporations• APC Manantiales de Chucurí: Public-private
partnership-based water supply company• NCP recognized by ‘ARA’ PES scheme• NP: managing the area of main water sources• Main issue: Water ownership disputed between communities and NP authorities• Water Supply and Sewer System Corporations (community group)• APC Manantiales de Chucurí (see above)• Farmers (for own consumption)• Issue: Communities see vested interests in
ISAGEN’s funding for land purchases by NP• Farmers mainly on agroforests• NP scientists mainly on natural forests• Issue: No information exchange between NP
administration and locals• NGO Fundación Natura: PES scheme ‘ARA’• Farmers as landowners (suppliers)• Dwellers in urban area (beneficiaries)• Water Supply & Sewer System Corporations• Farmers (male and female)• Sustainable farming practices for erosion
control on slopes recognized by PES scheme• Farmers (male and female)• Community Action Groups (JCA):• Farmers (male and female)• Issue: Traditional knowledge party lost [?]• Farmers (male and female)• Farmers (incl. Women’s group)• Community Action Groups• Students and school teacher• Farmers (incl. Women’s group)• Farmers (incl. Women’s group)• Students and school teachers• Local tourist guides and tourists• ProAves staff and visitors of bird reserve• Students and school teacher• Farmers (including Women’s group)• Farmers (male and female)• Farmer organizations: FedeCacao & FedeCafe

3.3 Mauritius: Mainstreaming the contribution of coastal wetlands biodiversity forsustainable economic & livelihood development at Cité La Chaux ‘Barachois’,
Mahébourg.
3.3.1 Description of the Barachois seascape and project overview
The Mauritius Island’s coastal seascape is comprised of seven major ecosystem domains, i.e., beaches, lagoons, coral reefs, estuaries, saltmarshes, mangroves and sheltered bays (Fagoonee, 1990).
“Barachois” indicates a coastal lagoon segregated from the ocean by permeable stone walls established for fish raring (Figure 12 and 13), mostly before 1800 under the French rule (Paul & Balkema,
1987). Now 33 barachois are recognized along the Mauritius Island’s coastline, located in estuaries or
nearby groundwater outlets where a complex brackish water ecosystem is formed (Coche, 1982). It
however has become increasingly abandoned mainly due to management difficulties and subsequently turned into waste dumping sites. The project aims to pilot barachios rehabilitation in
so-called “Mahebourg Barachois” located on the south-eastern coastline nearby Mahebourg, theGrand Port district center (Box 5). The barachois waterbody (24 ha) with the stone walls that segregate it from the outer sea, mangroves, dry scrubs along the outer coastline (7 ha) as well as an adjacent community in a township called “Résidences La Chaux” (18 ha) constitute the project site (Table
16).

Figure 12. Mahebourg Barachois from the sea
Photo: John Olsen (www.photopirate.com/)38

Top left: Satellite image of the Mauritius Island andthe project site location (Source: Google Maps);
Top right: Mahebourg lagoon (Source: Google Maps)
Bottom: Land use map of the project site (Source:(Deja, 2016))

Figure 13. Project site map

Box 5. An overview of the EPCO’s “Barachois Project”

The project aims to establish a sustainable and collaborative development model for the restoration, conservation and active management of degraded natural resources, ecological processes and biodiversity of a coastal wetland in order to support local livelihood and enhancequality of life. It will pilot reinstating ecosystem services offered by coastal wetlands tostrengthen local and national capacity, and to harmonize policy and institutional frameworks.
Giving a second life to the Barachois will make the area productive, healthy and more appealing,
and demonstrate the tremendous contribution of biodiversity to sustainable economic development. It also will create local community business and additional income through the meansother than direct fishing for the most needy who are entirely dependent on coastal resources,
which will in turn decrease pressure on lagoon fishing and will allow natural resources and biodiversity to gain ground.
The project encompasses the following five major activities:
 Restore the natural ecological processes of the coastal wetland through conservation andactive management; Rehabilitate the barachois for sustainable mariculture activities development; Build local capacity for sustainable use and management of coastal resources; Develop alternative employment opportunities for local residents; and Develop a sustainable model of collaborative management and raise awareness about thenecessity of the link between natural resources and human wellbeing among stakeholders,
government agencies and the general public.

39

3.3.2 Values
The configuration of the linkages between different ecosystem domains, important species found inthese ecosystems, and the ecosystem goods and services deriving from different ecosystems in the
barachois seascape was initially captured by an online survey and presented in a CIRCOS diagram(Figure 14). Here food (NCP 12) was the value commonly derived from all ecosystem domains. Other
values ware attached to different ecosystem domains, e.g. mitigation of storm and cyclone hazards(NCP 9) by mangrove, sea urchins and shells from lagoon as materials (NCP 13) for ornament crafts,
medicinal ingredients from mangrove tree roots (NCP 14) from mangrove, and recreation for local
people and tourists (NCP 16) in barachois and lagoon. The diagram also indicates the importance for
local community of the commodities brought from outside the seascape, and opportunities for recreation, available within the township area.

Ecosystem domain (light green, red, grey)
B6: Coastal ecotone
B7: Inshore sea, e.g. coral reef, lagoon
B9: Urban or settlement
Important species (purple)
SP1: Mangrove (Bruguiera gymnorrhiza)
SP2: Mangrove (Rhizophora mucronata)
SP3: Crabs (Scylla Serrata, Thalamita crenata)
SP4: Gazon pic fesse (Zoysia tenuifolia)
SP5: Mauritius Fody (Foudia rubra) EN
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP9: Hazard and extreme event regulation
NCP12: Food and feed
NCP13: Materials and assistance
NCP14: Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources
NCP16: Physical and psychological experiences

Figure 14. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

In addition, focus group interviews during the field study elicited the values that different groups ofpeople in the Résidences La Chaux community hold towards different aspects of the three ecosystemdomains, except for the township area (Table 16). Also value scores assigned to different aspects ofthe three ecosystem domains by the five focus groups are presented in Figure 15.
Overall five groups agreed on the highest importance of two major functions of the coastal landscape.
One is the mangrove’s functions to provide a shelter against cyclones/storm waves, surges and wind.
The other relates to fish reproduction and harvesting, where the functioning of the three ecosystemdomains are slightly different but inseparably linked. Mangrove has a critical role in fish reproduction
by the provision of spawning and nursing ground, and also produces crabs which are mainly harvested by kids for household consumption. Barachois provides a wider variety of marine vertebrates
and invertebrates, such as mollusks, crabs, eels and shrimps, which are harvest by local people mainly for their household consumption. This has high importance for households to cope up with theperiod of joblessness. Lagoon is the main fishing ground for professional artisanal fishers, which pro-40

vides the main cash income sources to the community. In a survey with 49 fishers in Résidences La
Chaux and Mahebourg, 76% of fishers stated that their monthly income are not sufficient to cover
their daily expenses, and 90% expressed constantly declining fish catch over time (Deja, 2016).
The value scores across the five focus groups differed in several aspects of the seascape. Fishers
stressed that they are still learning to utilize barachois wisely, and thus placed priceless value on it.
They also emphasized the importance of live baits for fishing that they collect in mangroves andbarachois. Skippers appreciated the value of barachois waterbody and endemic birds for tourist attraction –the aspect that were entirely not recognized by the fishers’ group. Women and elders
group tend to appreciate the beauty of seascape and animals. The women’s group emphasized theimportance of mangrove and the barachois for children to learn swimming, and also to enhance environmental awareness.
Table 16. Description of the values that five stakeholders associated with three ecosystem domains
in the Mahebourg barachois seascape
Ecosystem
Mangrove

Species

NCP category
01.Habitat creation andmaintenance

07.Regulation of freshwater and coastal water
quality
08.Formation, protection
and decontamination ofsoils and sediments
09.Regulation of hazards
and extreme events
15.Learning and inspiration
16.Physical and psychological experiences
17.Supporting identities
Mangrove tree 14.Medicinal, biochemi(Bruguiera
cal and genetic resources

NCP description
Nursery for juvenile fish, crabs and shrimps-mangroves protect them from predatorsand provide shade to keep water temperature stable. Bird nests in mangroves. Important for maintaining all elements people
obtain in coastal sea (maintain coastal ecosystem functioning)
Filtration of water

Beneficiaries
Fishers

Prevents erosion

Whole community

Barrier against cyclone/storm wave, surge
and windParents teach their children not to cut mangrove trees
Beautiful scenery -tourists visit to take pictures
Beauty (seascape)Mangrove roots used as medicinal ingredient for diabetes treatment

Fishers and skippers

Supplemental food for local people (Kidscollect crabs at night and sell them for pocket money)
Baits for fishing (fish, shrimp, worm, etc.)

Whole community

Safe place to keep and repair boats. Boatowned by hotels are kept in the barachois
when cyclones comeWorms used for fishing baits

Fishermen, skippers and boatownersKids learn swimming and fishing

Local community(Mostly kids)
Local community

tourists
Whole community
whole community

gymnorrhiza;
Rhizophoramucronata)

Barachois

Crabs

12.Food and feed

Fish, shrimp,
worm, small
crams/snails,
algae, crabs

12.Food and feed

09.Regulation of hazards
and extreme events
12.Food and feed
15.Learning and inspiration
16.Physical and psychological experiences
16.Physical and psycho-

Relaxation and recreation e.g. Safe place for
elders and kids to swim, picnics, recreation
fishing
Tourist destination, e.g. kayaking

41

Fishermen

Skippers

logical experiences
18.Maintenance of options

LagoonN/aPeople are still learning to use barachois
more effectively; unforeseen values anticipated by someCrabs, fish
12.Food and feed
Mollusks (tektek, bigorno), sea urchins, fish,crabs, eels, shrimps are harvested and collected by local people, especially for copingwith temporal unemployment period. Kids
collect crabs and sell for their pocket money
Gazon pic
08.Formation, protection Prevents coastal erosion
fesse
and decontamination ofsoils and sediments
Migratory
16.Physical and psycho- Some local people are curious about the
birds
logical experiences
birds that are only seen in limited periods(summer) of a year
16.Physical and psycho- Tourist destinations (coral reefs, lagoons andlogical experiencesislands) and activities e.g. diving and sailing.
Not only used as tourist destination, but also
used by locals for boat trips and fishing for
leisure. Beautiful seascape.
13.Materials and assisSea urchins and shells harvested for manutancefacturing ornaments. Used for room decorations and for presents
Fish, octopus 12.Food and feed
Fish, lobsters, squids, octopus and otherseafood species
Dolphins
16.Physical and psycho- Tourist attraction (tourists pay tips to skiplogical experiences
pers when skippers successfully locate andshow dolphins to them)
Mauritius
16.Physical and psycho- Tourist attraction
Fody (EN)logical experiences

42

Whole community

Whole community

Whole community

Whole community

Tourism sector (e.g.
skippers)

Tourists, local
beach hawkers andcraftspeople
Local fishermen/whole community
Tourists, skippers

Skippers(Animals &plants) Lagoon

Barachois

Mangrove

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Nursery for fish, crabs and shrimps
Water filteration
Prevent erosion
Barrier against cyclone/storm wave, surge and windBaits for fishing (fish, shrimp, worm, etc.)
Food (crabs)
Mangrove tree roots used for diabetes medicine
Kids learn mangrove protection
Tourists taking pictures
Beautiful
Safe place to keep and repair boats
Fish, molluscs, crabs, shrimps -cope with job insecurity…
Baits for fishing (worm)
Kids learn swimming and fishing
Swimming (mainly kids and elders), fishing, etc.
Tourist kayaking
Learning to use more effectively
Fish, lobsters, squids, octpus, etc.
Recreation and tourism
Seashells for ornaments -for tourists /for decoration and…
Gazon pic fesse (Barachois) prevents coastal erosion
Migratory birds (Barachois) are curious, seen only in…
Dolphins (lagoon) for tourists attraction
Mauritius Fody (ns) for tourists attraction
Skippers

Fishermen

Women

Youth

EldersFigure 15. Aggregate of the ecosystem value scores by five focus groups (the highest value score by individual group is 10, meaning that the highest aggregate score is 50)

3.3.3 Traditional knowledge
The responses to the online survey indicated no traditional or local ecological knowledge existing in
the local community for the sustainable management of the coastal seascape. All focus groups wereunanimous that they have not inherited any collective knowledge on sustainable use and management of seascapes handed down from their ancestors, aside the use of mangrove roots for diabetes
medication and individualized knowledge on fishing grounds. They instead claimed that they havestarted learning and accumulating knowledge with the project.
Collaborative learning and knowledge generation thus constitute a critical part of the project. In thisregard, crab aquaculture testing in barachois is one of the core activities (Figure 16). It also isworthwhile referring to a successful case in crab and oyster aquaculture in another barachois locatedin Poudre d’Or on the northern coast, which can provide good insight to crab aquaculture in the Mahebourg barachois. Given no traditional knowledge on seascape management handed down throughgenerations, the project can play pivotal role in generating new knowledge, and brokering outside
knowledge into the project site, to establish sound knowledge basis for sustainable seascape management.

43

Table 17. Traditional knowledge on seascape management
Category

Ecosystem

Local and empiricalknowledge

Mangrove

Resource management system
Social institutions

Fishers

Knowledge holder
Elders Whole community

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Currently
noCurrently
noCurrently no

Currently
noCurrently
noCurrently no

Barachois

LagoonBarachois

Barachois

Description
Use of mangrove roots for medicinal ingredients for the treatment of diabetes
Location and timing for the collection of fish,
mollusks, crabs and other marine invertebrates for food and for fishing baits
Fishing ground
The Barachois Project is generating local
knowledge on the management of barachois
ecosystem complex and on crab aquaculture
The project is proposing to establish a local
cooperative with community members including fishers, women and youth for aquaculture and ecosystem management in barachois

Figure 16. A crab cage prepared for crab aquaculture testing in the barachois and adjacent mangrove
ponds. It uses Strawberry Guava (Psidium catteleyanum) wood, brought from the Black River Gorge
National Park. Strawberry Guava, an invasive plant
species, is now rapidly spreading and suppressing
native vegetation in humid areas throughout Mauritius. The project team was supported by the National Parks and Conservation Services (NPCS) tocollect Guava wood, as a part of an invasive alien
species eradication program. Guava wood is durable in water, and can be continuously collectedfrom the NP for free.

3.3.4 GovernanceDifferent governance regimes are in place within respective ecosystem domains (Table 18). For these basis the influences of the French (1715-1810) and British (1810-1968) rules
cannot be ignored, which brought plantation economy, slavery, and power transfer to the Indiansupon the nation’s independence (Hollup, 2000).

The inshore sea outside barachois is governed under classical top-down and command-and-control
regime under the government which is largely dominated by Indian Hindus. This mainly focuses on
the issuance of the fishing license, collection of statistics and surveillance of fish catch by licensed
fishers, setting closing seasons and restricting fishing gears. Law enforcement operations are carriedout by district-level Fisheries Post under the National Fisheries Protection Services. These so far havebeen proved ineffective, with illegal fishing continuing and fish catch per effort being kept in decline.
Fisher folks, mostly Creoles, have never developed community-based resource management systems
and institutions for inshore fisheries. They simply have no other means than illegally fishing to makeends meet, in a circumstance where the government can hardly support the issuance of fisheries license.

44

The Mahebourg barachois belongs to the Ministry of Agro-industry and Food Security (Figure 17). The
Ministry oversees the developments in barachois through administrative instruments, such as environmental impact assessment (EIA) and permits. The National Ramsar Committee, a cross-ministerial
coordination body chaired by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, is also engaged in the administrative procedures relating to barachois, as barachois is classified into wetlandsin the national land use classification.

Table 18. Ecosystem governance structure
Ecosystem domain
Coastal ecotone (mangrove)
Ownership
Ministry of Agroindustry
and Food Security (Overseen under the National
Ramsar Committee)
Management The government holds theright holder right to manage the mangrove area however nomanagement has been
applied for more than 40
years.

Inshore sea (lagoon)
Ministry of Ocean Economy,
Marine Resources, Fisheries
and Shipping
The Ministry of Ocean
Economy, Marine Resources,
Fisheries and Shipping andthe beach authority are in
charge of the area but nomanagement is carried out.

Settlement /urban
Ministry of Housing and
Lands

The Grand Port District
Council hold ultimate
management rights however the public are able tomanage their local area e.g.
gardens in a limited manner.
Other stake- Ministry of Agro-Industry
Ministry of Ocean Economy, Social Welfare Centre
holdersand Food Security (Ramsar Marine Resources, Fisheries Committee, Grand Port
Committee); Ministry ofand Shipping, Ministry ofDistrict Council, National
Environment and Sustaina- Environment and Sustainable Development Unit (NDU),
ble Development
Development, Ministry of
Ministry of Agro Industry
Agro-Industry and Food Seand Food Security.
curity, Fisheries Post of Mahebourg, Beach Authority,
Fisheries Training and Extension Centre (FiTEC), Competent Authority Seafood.
Local environmental NGOs: Local environmental NGOs:
Mouvement Aide Agricole
Ecosud (Lagon Bleu ProEcosud (Lagon Bleu Project), (MAA), La Voie de Maheject), Mauritian Wildlife
Reef Conservation, Mauritius bourg
Foundation (MWF)
Marine Conservation Society(MMCS)
Kolektif ecoguards
Kolektif Ecoguard, La Voie de Residences la Chaux ’s asMahebourg.
sociations, Ocean Women,
Mouvement Bien-Etre Résidences La Chaux, Nu Zenfan Cite, Mahebourg Espoir,
Association of elders.
The whole community
The whole community inThe whole community
cluding registered and unregistered fishers, Mahebourg fishers
All businesses
All businesses
All businesses
MCB Forward Foundation, MCB Forward Foundation,
MCB Forward Foundation,sponsors from local andsponsors from local and insponsors from local andinternational companies
ternational companies
international companies
through CSR (Corporate
through CSR (Corporate Sothrough CSR (Corporate
Social Responsibility)
cial Responsibility)
Social Responsibility)
Mauritius Oceanographic
SMEDA (Small and Medium
Institute (MOI), Albion Fish- Enterprises Development
eries Research Centre (AFRC), Authority, FAO (Food andAgricultural Organisation).
University of Mauritius
University of Mauritius,
Local schools(Faculty of Agriculture and Ocean Study department
Faculty of Ocean Studies)
Indian Ocean Commission DCP, Indian Ocean CommisDecentralized Corporation(Biodiversity project)sion (Smartfish Project)
Programme (DCP)
Local, national and global
Local, national and global

45

Stakeholder type
Government or
publicGovernment or
publicGovernment or
publicNon-governmental

Formal community org.

Individual

Local business
Other private
sectorResearch institutions
Schools/ universities
International org.
Other stakeholder

experts for mangrove restoration and conservation

experts for mariculture andmarine biodiversity conservation

Figure 17. Configuration of the linkages between ecosystem degradation and species decline, direct drivers and the existing policies for abating the drivers

In 2014 the state government passed a decision that promote aquaculture development in thestate-owned barachois. This allowed private proponents to lease state-owned barachois for three
years under a concession agreement with the government, which is renewable upon successful results in the previous project period. The Mahebourg barachois is the one owned by the state government, and was recently leased out to EPCO for the barachois rehabilitation project. The management right of the barachois is delegated to EPCO under the concession agreement. It is imperative
for the Project to closely coordinate with the Fisheries Post for monitoring and law enforcement upon the introduction of the planned crab aquaculture, as poaching is reportedly the major cause of
production loss in barachois aquaculture (Coche, 1982).
As EPCO’s involvement in the barachois management is project based and time limited, a permanent
local institution needs to be established and operationalized with a view to filling the governancevacuum after the project end. A new national legislation on fisheries co-management, said to be enacted in November 2017, is expected to create enabling environment for establishing and operationalizing such a local institutional arrangement.

3.3.5 Value-knowledge-governance interplay in the Barachois seascape
The linkage between the value, knowledge and governance within three ecosystem domains arepresented in Table 19. Currently the local community attributes the highest economic value to lagoon, amongst out of the three, as fishing grounds and tourist destinations. However, the sustainability of the resources in lagoon is highly contested due to excessive resource appropriation. Fisheries
law enforcement cannot solely be effective in the face of the desperate needs of the fishers’ community to make ends meet, as well as of the lack of their knowledge and capacity for sustainable resource management. This calls for the need of alternative economic means and filling the knowledge
and policy gaps for sustainable resource management.

46

Barachois –once extensively developed along the Mauritian coastline under French rule before centuries but currently has become increasingly abandoned- is now revisited for its potential to boost
aquaculture production and thereby to provide an alternative to the diminishing capture fisheries. To
do so the generation and adoption of localized knowledge pertaining to resource management system and institutions holds the key, taking into account rapidly changing circumstances including
technologies, market opportunities and stakeholders.
Mangrove and coastal dry scrub vegetation surrounding the barachois continue to play importantrole for cyclone hazard mitigation, fish reproduction, local food security and recreational uses. The
rehabilitation of native vegetation of the coastal lands can attract pro-nature tourists to the barachois area. To do so, institutional setting needs to be carefully designed to bridge the different interest of fisheries and tourism sectors in the community.
Considerations are also needed to look at the value-knowledge-governance interplays across thethree ecosystem domains, i.e. mangroves, barachois and lagoon, as these are inseparable component of socio-ecological system in the coastal seascape of the project area.
Table 19. The interplay between the value, traditional knowledge and governance within three major
ecosystem domains in the project site.
Ecosystem domain NCP*
Traditional knowledge
Governance: issues and stakeholders
Mangrove
1, 7, 8, 9, General understanding of the func- The area is owned by the Ministry of Agroin12, 14, 15, tions of mangrove ecosystems per- dustry and Food Security, and managed by
16, 17tinent to the NCP listed in the left
EPCO under concession, overseen by thecolumn. Knowledge and practices for National Ramsar Committee.
proactive sustainable management
were not found.
The project developed an inventoryof plants in mangrove and coastal
scrub areas, and plans to rehabilitate
native vegetation.
Barachois
12
Currently local people harvest fish, The Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Remollusks, crabs and other marine
sources, Fisheries and Shipping oversees theinvertebrates in barachois for subbarachois area managed by EPCO undersistence food and for fishing baits.
concession. The Mahebourg Fisheries Post
Now the project is piloting crab aq- will assist law enforcement and surveillanceuaculture and thereby generating
once aquaculture has started. The Project
knowledge for boosting production established a Local cooperative of 52 comin and sustainably managing baramunity members, including fishers, womenchois ecosystem complex.
and youth to undertake aquaculture andecosystem management.
Lagoon12
Fishers own knowledge on fishing
The Fisheries Directorate of the Ministry ofgrounds, but no collective
Ocean Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries
knowledge, management practiceand Shipping oversees fisheries management
and social institution for the proac- through the enforcement of the Fisheries Law
tive management of fisheries for its by its district fisheries post in Mahebourg.
sustainability* NCP 1 Habitat creation and maintenance; 7 Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality; 8 Formation, protection
and decontamination of soils and sediments; 9 Regulation of hazards and extreme events; 12 Food and feed; 14 Medicinal,
biochemical and genetic resources; 15 Learning and inspiration; 16 Physical and psychological experiences; 17 Supporting
identities

47

3.4 Peru: Consolidation of the participatory management of the Alto Huayabamba
Conservation Concession – AHCC as a production landscape, and strengthening of partnerships for conservation, production and research in the Peruvian
Amazon3.4.1 Description of landscape project overview
The landscape of the Alto Huayabamba Conservation Concession - AHCC (143,928.09 ha) is located in
the Peruvian Yungas and Paramos ecoregions (known locally as Bosques Montanos and Jalca respectively). Both are habitats of priority species and provide different ecosystem services to most of the
population that inhabits Huayabamba and Huallaga basins. The buffer zone of the AHCC includes theBosque Seco del Marañón ecoregion. The total estimated area of the landscape cover both the AHCC
(Figure 18) and its buffer zone in La Libertad to the west, totaling 249,803.97 ha (Questionnaire survey).
The main ecosystems of the landscape are natural forest and human influenced settlement areas,
where both small-scale economic and subsistence agriculture are practiced. Subsistence agricultureis basically for self-consumption, they are developed by people from the settlements of Nuevo Bolívar and El Progreso, who live within the AHCC. Small-scale economic agriculture is practiced in thebuffer zone of the AHCC (population of the province of Bolívar, La Libertad), where the Association ofOrganic Producers produces quinoa and other Andean grains. The forests of the landscape located in
the San Martín region have experienced pressure from extensive animal husbandry caused by migrants from the highlands of La Libertad region, a part of which is included in the buffer zone of the
AHCC because of its ecosystem services. Many villagers have migrated looking for new productive
areas under the misconception that these areas were suitable for agricultural production. As a result,these people are even poorer and have been the main driver behind Yungas deforestation and Paramos degradation. The concession was granted to AMPA by the Peruvian State for its administration
for a period of 40 years in 2006 with the objective of preventing the deforestation and degradationof the Yungas by migrants from the highlands of La Libertad. The management of the concession by
AMPA has been strengthened by financial support and additional activities under the GEF-Satoyama
Project.
Among the species of animals, plants or other organisms considered most important in terms of theirthreatened species status, endemism or values for local people, AMPA identified the following five:
Yellow-tailed woolly monkey (Oreonax flavicauda), white-bellied spider monkey (Ateles belzebuth),Andean night monkey (Aotus miconax), spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) and a tree species locally known as queñual (Polylepis multijuga). All these species depend on the natural forest as theirhabitat, but the three primate species are also found in the surrounding forests of the settlement
areas. All five are included in the IUCN Red List either as vulnerable, endangered (white-bellied spider
monkey) or critically endangered (yellow-tailed woolly monkey).

48

Figure 18. Map of the GEF-Satoyama project area (Buffer zone area to the west) and the AHCC (light anddark grey areas within the boundaries): Forest areas within the AHCC are shown in deep green, while
Páramo areas without forest are in light green (Source: AMPA)

49

Box 6. AMPA project overview

This project, implemented by Amazónicos por la Amazonía (AMPA), is titled “Consolidation of theparticipatory management of the Alto Huayabamba Conservation Concession – AHCC as a production landscape, and strengthening of partnerships for conservation, production and research in the
Peruvian Amazon”) and has the objective to guarantee the conservation of the priority areas of
Peruvian Yungas and Paramos. AMPA´s goal is to contribute to improve the life quality of people
settled in the AHCC and its buffer zone.
The project focuses on the consolidation of wild honey and organic quinoa, like sustainable productive chains. In addition, it develops some capacities of local young people in the research andmonitoring habitat of Oreonax flavicauda. While AMPA had already achieved a decrease in the
deforestation rates since it commenced managing the concession, the activities promoted under
the GEF-Satoyama project contribute to further reduce the deforestation and degradation caused
by farmer migrants within the AHCC. The AHCC users are current members of associations thatsigned conservation agreements with AMPA, in which they state their commitment to stop deforestation activities and to support the recovery of logged areas. Involving the communities in forest
management contributes to ensure forest conservation.
AMPA´s GEF-Satoyama project has shown that wild honey has a higher efficiency than the traditional crop-coffee, in the role of created more carbon storage and increased the family income.
Currently AMPA is seeking to consolidate these initiatives and empower their partners, the communities, to be involved in the conservation of critical endangered and endemic species and thecontribution in the production landscapes. The project has 4 components: a) Development of sustainable productive activities; b) Organizational and business reinforcement for associations; c)
Promoting sustainable management of ecosystems; d) Participatory monitoring with young people. According to AMPA these are in line with the national development goals of Peru and the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets (GEF-Satoyama website).

3.4.2 Values
The project implementer, AMPA, identified eight Nature’s contributions to people associated withthe three main ecosystem domains (Natural/protected forest, farmland and settlements areas) andspecies present at the site (Figure 19). Pollination and seed dispersal (NCP1) was the most frequently
recorded NCP, being associated with the natural/protected forest, farmland and settlement ecosystems, as well as with the three primate species among the five important species. Food and feed
(NCP12), and medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources (NCP14) are also provided by both ecosystems. Quinoa is grown in the buffer zone outside the AHCC (Farmland). The buffer zone is settled
by peasant communities and members of the Association of Organic Producers. Geographically they
are located in the province of Bolívar, La Libertad. Although they are outside the AHCC these populations have also performed anthropic pressure within the AHCC. NCP1, and the NCPs of ´climate regulation´ and ´freshwater quantity, flow and timing regulation´ were rated as ‘critically important’ totheir beneficiaries, the local community. Soil formation, protection and decontamination is another
NCP that is provided by the natural forest and is considered ´important´. A certain proportion of thesettlers in Nuevo Bolívar and El Progreso are migrants, who came to the area decades ago. They previously lived on pasturage and subsistence agriculture, with limited knowledge on the regulating
contributions of nature (i.e. NCP2, 4, 6, 8), and hence were blamed for causing deforestation. They
have now become more interested in the production activities that are compatible with forest conservation (See section 3.4.4 for details).

50

Ecosystem domain (deep green, grey)
B1: Natural/protected forest
B6: Farmland
Important species (purple)
SP1: Yellow-tailed woolly monkey
SP2: White-bellied spider monkey
SP3: Andean night monkey
SP4: Spectacled bear
SP5: Queñual (Polylepis multijuga)
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP2: Pollination and seed dispersal
NCP4: Climate regulation
NCP6: Freshwater quantity, flow & timing regulation
NCP8: Soil formation, protection & decontamination
NCP12: Food and feed
NCP13: Materials and assistance
NCP14: Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources
NCP15: Learning and inspiration

Figure 19. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

According to an AMPA representative, the community of the Nuevo Bolívar settlements (within the
AHCC) as well as the community in the zone of influence are recently aware of the importance ofprimates. The monitoring AMPA is conducting involves some people of Nuevo Bolívar and El Progresoand is expected to provide more information about primates. The spectacled bear is also recognizedby the communities. The wood of quiñuales (Polylepis multijuga), which is endemic to montane forests in the Peruvian Northern Andes, has traditionally served as structures in houses as well as material supply for tools used by the local communities (NCP 12).

3.4.3 Traditional knowledge
Quinoa is produced using ancestral knowledge, but adapting it to the principles of organic agriculture
and new technologies. As a result of the inputs by AMPA as the concession holder, the previously
diminishing traditional knowledge has been identified and secured traditional knowledge of the quinoa producers, is outside the AHCC, in the Farmland (Table 20). According to an AMPA representative, the people of the Nuevo Bolívar and El Progreso settlements, who are immigrants from the Sierra de La Libertad who entered the SEPLS more than 50 years ago to cut the forest and develop
livestock and subsistence agriculture, also hold traditional knowldge. They are not natives proper,
but they know the use of some medicinal plants and fruits of the forest, which they use sporadicallyin their daily life. This traditional knowldge will be within the AHCC.

51

Table 20. Traditional knowledge for the use and management of different ecosystem domains and species
Traditional knowledge
DomainDescription
8.Farmland 2.Mgt. system Quinoa is being produced under organic principles,
adapting ancestral knowledge to new technologies.
Ecosystem

Trend

Knowledge holders
Farmers↗

⃝↓ rapidly decreasing; ↘ decreasing; → not changed; ↗ increasing; ↑ rapidly increasing

3.4.4 Governance
The governance systems in the landscape differ depending on the type of ecosystem and legal statusof the area.
Table 21 shows the different ownership and management rights within the Alto Huayabamba Conservation Concession area in the two main ecosystems identified by the subgrantee.

Table 21. Ecosystem governance structure in the Alto Huayamba landscape
Ecosystem type
Ownership

Protected/natural forest
Peruvian state

Farmland & Urban/Settlement

Individual local community
members (e.g. farmers)
Management right Non-governmental organization AMPA:
holderConcession for 40 years from 2006)
Other
ers

Stakeholder type
Government or public
Individual
Non-governmental

stakehold- Regional Environmental Authority - ARA
San Martín

Association of Beekeepers (APA) of AHCC
Research Institute of the Peruvian Amazon– IIAP
Users of the AHCC (farmers)

Individual local community
members (e.g. farmers)
Agriculture Agency of Bolívar

Individual

Municipal government of San
Martín: urban planning

Government or public

AMPA

Non-governmental

Government or public

Formal communityorg.
Research institution
Individual

Source: Questionnaire survey

In the AHCC, the management rights are with AMPA as the concession holder. AMPA is responsible
for meeting the objectives of forest and biodiversity conservation and reporting its progress to the
Peruvian state. According to the Ecological and Economic Zoning, it was determined that the headwaters of the Huayabamba river basin are located on lands with priority for protection and ecologicalconservation. Based on this, AMPA conserves this area for its biodiversity the diverse ecosystem services that it provides to the local population. Users of the Alto Huayabamba Conservation Concession
include the population of the settlements of Nuevo Bolívar and El Progreso, who migrated to the area decades ago and have put pressure on the forest by deforestation for pasture development andsubsistence agriculture. They are now changing to productive activities compatible with the conservation of forests.
In the buffer zone of the AHCC it is mainly independent farmers, who own and manage the land.
Here AMPA has been promoting the production of organic quinoa and wild bee honey. There are also52

three farmer communities in the municipalities of Bambamarca, Bolívar and Uchumarca, who manage their areas collectively and have recognition by the Peruvian state.
Other stakeholders include:







Regional Environmental Authority - ARA San Martín: It is responsible for environmental conservation of the Regional Government of San Martín and directly supervises the Conservation
Concessions located in San Martín region, but lacks capacity to enforce its norms, which
generates problems with garbage management.
Association of beekeepers (APA), formed by users of the Alto Huayabamba Conservation
Concession, of the settlements of Nuevo Bolivar and Progreso.
Research Institute of the Peruvian Amazon - IIAP: This State institution dedicated to scientificresearch and sustainable development of the Amazon, which has carried out activities in the
Alto Huayabamba Conservation Concession.
Agricultural Agency of Bolívar with a local office of the Regional Management of Agricultureof the Regional Government La Libertad, responsible for promoting agricultural activity in theprovince of Bolívar.

The survey identified a series of drivers that are responsible for the ecosystem and biodiversity
changes in the landscape. The main direct driver, which used to be prevalent in the landscape before
AMPA took over the management of the concession and the overall landscape, was deforestationand forest degradation (Figure 20). Land use change and the disorderly increase of settlements also
compromised the viability of endangered species populations. Under the management of the concession by AMPA regulatory measures such as patrolling by communities, market and incentive-based livelihood promotion activities, voluntary agreements and education activities have largely addressed this driver and the underlying indirect socio-cultural, economic and governance related
drivers. The conservation of the environment is linked with the promotion of apiculture in collaboration with APA and organic production of quinoa in partnership the Association of Organic Producersof the Province of Bolivar. AMPA has drawn the attention of the central government to these efforts,
seeking recognition at the national level.
In addition, poor waste management in the expanding settlement areas has contributed to an increasingly serious pollution of water streams in the farmland ecosystems in the buffer zone of the
AHCC. This contamination can indirectly affect the agricultural crops. The responsibility to lead initiatives to control the contamination of streams is of the Provincial government, having in its regulation
the care of water sources. However, it has no capacity to enforce its norms, which generates problems with the management of the garbage.

3.4.5 Interplay between the values, traditional knowledge and governance
The ecosystem domain of the natural protected forest shares three NCPs with the farmland and settlement ecosystems but has additional NCPs, namely habitat creation, climate regulation, regulationof freshwater quantity and timing, as well as learning and inspiration (Table 22). The fact that the
management rights are with AMPA, which is explicitly committed to biodiversity conservation, can beunderstand as a governance related indirect driver for the recognition and, more proactively, theenhancement of these additional NCPs. In the settlement/urban areas, AMPA’s promotion of existing
ILK of quinoa production among the farmers, who hold the ownership and management rights of
their land, can be expected to improve the NCP of “food and feed” in the ecosystem domains of urban/settlement areas [and farmland].

53

Figure 20. Configuration of the linkages between ecosystem and biodiversity changes, their direct andindirect drivers and corresponding policies and actions

Table 22. Interplay between the value, ILK and governance within the two major ecosystem domains
Ecosystems/species Value (NCP*)
Natural/protected 1. Pollination and seed dispersal
forest3. Climate regulation
5. Freshwater quantity, flow &timing regulation
7. Soil formation, protection &decontamination
11. Food and feed
13.Medicinal, biochemical andgenetic resources
14. Learning and inspiration
Farmland1. Pollination and seed dispersal
7. Soil formation, protection &decontamination
11. Food and feed
13.Medicinal, biochemical andgenetic resources
Settlement/urban 1. Pollination and seed dispersal
11. Food and feed
13.Medicinal, biochemical andgenetic resources

ILK
Governance: issues and stakeholders
None recorded on this eco- In the AHCC, the management rights
system
are with AMPA as the concession
holder. AMPA is responsible formeeting the objectives of forest andbiodiversity conservation and reporting its progress to the Peruvian state.

Quinoa is produced using
In the buffer zone of the AHCC indeancestral knowledge, butpendent farmers own and manage
adapting it to the principles the land. There are also three farmerof organic agriculture and communities, which manage their
new technologies.
areas collectively.
Quinoa is produced using
In the buffer zone of the AHCC indeancestral knowledge, butpendent farmers own and manage
adapting it to the principles the land. There are also three farmerof organic agriculture and communities, which manage their
new technologies.
areas collectively.

54

3.5 Myanmar: Conservation and sustainable use of freshwater ecosystems in Myanmar.
3.5.1 Landscape and project overview
Project was implemented in 3 project locations namely Indawgyi Wildlife Sanctuary and Hponganrazi
Wildlife Sanctuary situated in the upper Ayeyarwady Basin in Kachin State and Lenyar proposed National Park situated in the Sundaic lowland forest in the Tanintharyi Region (Figure 21). Indawgyi
project area includes 117,600 hectares of natural/protected forest and lake area, and a further
16,000 hectares of freshwater wetlands (Figure 22). Protected forest area including rivers and tributaries of Hponganrazi Wildlife Sanctuary is about 270,000 hectares and Lenyar proposed National
Park (Figure 23) is about 176,000 hectares. Key objectives of the project are to enhance local
knowledge on endemic fish species, sustainability of fisheries resources and to improve fisheries
management by co-management approach in collaboration with local communities and relevant
government departments. The project aims to integrate community-managed fisheries and conservation zones into the legally-recognized protected area zones and management plans.

Figure 21. Project areas in Myanmar

55

Figure 22. Indawgyi MAB map including FCZs.

Figure 23. Lenyar (proposed) National Park project area56Box 7. FFI project overview

There was currently little useful data to aid the conservation of freshwater fishes and to assess thethreats they faced in Myanmar. A recent IUCN study highlighted the need for extensive new work on
freshwater species in the Eastern Himalaya region which includes the Ayeyarwady Basin, where 31%of assessed freshwater species are currently listed as Data Deficient (Allen et al. 2010). The last comprehensive assessment of Myanmar freshwater fauna dates back to the late 19th century (Day, 1889).
From 2014, FFI, with support from CEPF commissioned Maurice Kottelat, has built local capacity onfish taxonomy and to undertake fish surveys in the Upper Ayeyarwady basin and Tanintharyi/Lenya
watershed. These surveys significantly increased the number of known fish species in Myanmar andalso discovered1 genus and about 20 new species to the science. Among them, 1 genus namely Malihkaia and 4 new species namely M. aligera, Schistura nubigena and S. wanlainensis and Exostoma
sectile from Hponganrazi Wildlife Sanctuary and 3 new species namely Schistura indawgyiana,
Lepidocephalichthys eleios and Amplyceps improcerum from Indawgyi Wildlife Sanctuary were published.
Threats to the Ayeyarwady and Tanintharyi watershed include planned hydropower dams, migrant
fishers and unsustainable fishing practices, and pollution from artisanal gold mining. Direct use of
freshwater species through unsustainable fishing practices has currently the largest impact on aquatic
biodiversity, and overfishing is believed to be the main threat.
While some protected areas including freshwater areas have been established (e.g. Indawgyi and Inle
Lake), their coverage is patchy and their placement is sub-optimal for the protection of freshwater
biodiversity. None of the protected areas have yet established fish conservation zones (FCZs) or fisheries management regulations. FCZs offer refuges for aquatic species from exploitation, and can improve the resilience of fish populations in the face of other, broader threats.
This project aims to:Complete the gap analysis for freshwater key biodiversity areas (KBAs) in the Upper
Ayeyarwady and Tanintharyi/Lenya watershed;

Pilot locally-managed freshwater fisheries areas including fish conservation zones for the protection of freshwater KBAs; and

Integrate community managed freshwater fisheries areas/fish conservation zones into protected area zonation and management plans to facilitate legal recognition.

3.5.2 Values
The project proponent identified a total of two NCPs associated with the ecosystem domains andspecies present at the site (Figure 24). Learning and inspiration (NCP15) was the most frequently
recorded NCP, being associated with both the natural/protected forest ecosystem and wetland ecosystem, as well with as all five important species. In addition, the endemic pipe fish (Microphis
dunckeri) supports the identity of the local community and science. In all cases these NCPs were rated as ‘critically important’ to the local community. Nevertheless, an attention needs to be paid ininterpreting this result, which mainly derived from the perspective of the project implementation
agency. As noted in the project description, the project clearly recognizes other values of SEPLS for
different stakeholders, e.g. freshwater fish for the livelihood and subsistence of local communities, aswell as hydropower potential for energy companies, that may come in conflict of the sustainability of
SEPLS.

57

Ecosystem domain
B1: Natural/protected forest (deep green)
B4: Freshwater wetland (olive green)
Important species (purple)
SP1: Eastern Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock
leuconedys) VU
SP2: Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) CR
SP3: White-rumped vulture (Gyps bengalensis) CR
SP4: Saurus crane (Grus antigone) VU
SP5: Pipe fish (Microphis dunckeri) LC
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP15: Learning and inspiration
NCP17: Supporting identities

Figure 24. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

3.5.3 Traditional knowledge
The water surface area of Indawgyi is about 16,000 hectares and local communities depend theirfisheries livelihood on this area for their daily income and nutritional source. The communities In
Hponganrazi Wildlife Sanctuary and Lenyar proposed National Park have been depending to the fisheries for their subsistence income and also daily nutritional source. The project recognized local
communities’ traditional knowledge on fish spawning habitats and nursery areas. Therefore, consultation meetings with the communities were conducted and selected priority areas for the establishment of co-managed Fish Conservation Zones based on their traditional knowledge together with thescientific survey results. The project proponents did not identify any particular traditional knowledge
at their project site.
Table 23. Traditional knowledge for the use and management of SEPLS
Ecosystem

Traditional knowledge

DomainDescription
5. Freshwater 1. Local and empirical knowledge fish spawning habitats and nursery areas* Not indicated in the survey response

58

Trend

Knowledge
holders
FishersNI*⃝3.5.4 Governance
Both ownership and management rights over the forest and freshwater wetland systems are government or public (Table 24). In addition, the project proponents recognized a large number of otherstakeholders in these ecosystems. These include several government departments, two
non-governmental and two formal community organizations, as well as two university research institutes, other schools and universities, and five international organizations.
Infrastructure development, pollution from gold mining and invasive species are the direct drivers ofdecreasing trends in the integrity and area of the forest, lake and wetland ecosystems (Figure 25).
Indirect driver such as the population increase and migrants caused pressure to the natural environment and resources. Additionally, shifting cultivation, hunting and fishing as local livelihoodmeans had resulted in resource over-exploitation and ultimately caused declines in the populationsof the eastern hoolock, Chinese pangolin, white-rumped vulture and saurus crane. The population ofthese species has now recovering owing to the wildlife sanctuary establishment and community-based conservation efforts. With the exception of infrastructure development, the direct drivers
are being addressed through regulatory instruments already in place or currently being negotiatedunder the project. A school program is implemented to increase awareness of these problems.
The project proponents highlighted the importance of public support of and adherence to regulations, as well as the active participation of both local and international organizations in educational
programs, in conjunction with the responsible government departments.
In the Resilience Indicators workshop local people expressed that law enforcement in the area wasvery weak. Communities in the project areas have started establishing fish conservation zones, andprohibiting unsuitable fishing practices. They also create community fishery group and social services
group to manage natural resources, and cooperate with village teams. Local organizers are collaborating with government and local community to integrate community managed fisheries areas andfish conservation zones into protected area zonation and management plans in order to facilitate
legal recognition.

Table 24. Ecosystem governance structure
Ecosystem typeProtected/natural forest
Ownership
Government
Management
Forest Departmentright holder
Other stakehold- Department of Fisheries, General Aders
ministrative Department, Police Department
Fauna & Flora International, Friends ofWildlife

Freshwater wetland
Government
Forest Department

Stakeholder type
Government
Government

Department of Fisheries, General
Government
Administrative Department, Police
Department
Fauna & Flora International, Friends of Non-governmental
Wildlifeorg.

In Chit Thu, Indawgyi Natural Conservation and Development Association

In Chit Thu, Indawgyi Natural Conservation and Development Association

Formal communityorg.

All villages around Indawgyi Lake and 7
project villages in Putao District
Myikyina University, Moenhyin University
CEPF, Helmsley, Norad, ACB-kfw,
GEF-Satoyama, BIZ

All villages around Indawgyi Lake and7 project villages in Putao District
Myikyina University, Moenhyin University
CEPF, Helmsley, Norad, ACB-kfw,
GEF-Satoyama, BIZ

Schools/universities

59

Research institution
International org.

Figure 25. The configuration of the linkages between ecosystem and biodiversity changes, their direct andindirect drivers and corresponding policies and actions

3.5.5 Values–knowledge–governance interplay in the Indawgyi landscape
Table 25 highlights the linkage between the values and governance within the two ecosystem domains and the five species. These ecosystems and species present high value to the local community
in their provision of learning opportunities and inspiration. Additionally, the endemic pipe fish Microphis dunckeri contributes to both the identity of the local community and to wider science. The
current poor state of knowledge on the freshwater fish species in the project area emphasizes theimportance of preserving the ecosystems, for the preservation of their learning and inspirational
value. However, resource over-exploitation, pollution and invasive species are key threats to the integrity of these ecosystems and need to be addressed for the long-term sustainability of both theecosystems and their species.
Efforts to protect and maintain these ecosystems and their important species to date primarily include regulatory and educational instruments. The long-term effectiveness of these policies and actions will require continued cooperative efforts between government departments, the public, andother stakeholders including local community groups and international organizations.

Table 25. The interplay between the value, knowledge and governance within the two major ecosystemdomains and five species in the project site
Ecosystem domain
Natural/protected
forestFreshwater wetland
Eastern hoolock gibbon, Chinese pangolin, white-rumped
vulture, saurus cranePipe fish

NCP
Knowledge
Governance: issues and stakeholders
15. Learning and inspiration None recorded in online survey Regulatory instruments and educational programs are the main activities
15. Learning and inspiration None recorded in online survey currently addressing pressures on these
15. Learning and inspiration None recorded in online survey ecosystems and species. A range ofstakeholders are engaged across the
project area, including research institutes, domestic and international or15. Learning and inspiration None recorded in online survey ganizations, and NGOs, including FFI.
17. Supporting identities60

3.6 Madagascar: Integrated adaptive management to protect ecological integrityin the socio-ecological production landscape of the south-east watershed of
Makira Natural Park.
3.6.1 Landscape and project overview
The project aims to address forest loss and degradation in the southeast basin of Makira forest in the
Makira Natural Park, located in low and mid-altitude rainforest in eastern Madagascar. The forest in
the project area extends to 372,000 hectares, and underpins the livelihoods and security of surrounding communities through the provision of goods and services (Box 8).

Figure 26. Project area map

61

Figure 27. Project also works to improve the productivity of rice paddies. (photo by Yoji Natori, Conservation International)

Box 8. WCS project overview

The Makira Natural Park represents the largest remaining contiguous tract of low and mid-altitude
rainforest in eastern Madagascar. It constitutes an important genetic corridor between other protected forests across the north of Madagascar, and ensures the ecological integrity of one of the most diverse and intact areas of Madagascar. The Makira forests also support the terrestrial and marine livelihoods of thousands of households and protect their means of subsistence by protecting the watersheds, by preventing flooding of plains, and in reducing the sedimentation of the downstream Antongil bay.
However, the Makira forests are highly threatened by the demands from the 90,000 people living in
the Makira landscape, which in turn affect the livelihoods of people that depend on them. The biggest
threat is slash and burn agriculture (tavy) for rain-fed rice growing to meet subsistence needs, followed by, e.g. bushmeat hunting, non-timber forest products collection, illegal logging and mining.
One area of particular ecological and social fragility within Makira is its southeast watershed, which is
not only ecologically important and fragile, but also highly exposed to the threats from the surrounding communities, while still pertains the high – yet largely untapped - potential for sustainable natural
resource-based livelihood activities.
This project aims to improve the ecological integrity of the southeast basin of Makira forests and thewellbeing of the surrounding local communities through: Securing ecological function and enabling adaptive management of natural resources within thelandscape through sylvicultural maintenance and community-based monitoring; Empowering local communities and enhancing their livelihoods based on a sustainable use ofnatural resources of the SEPL with private sector partners, including certified clove production;and Promoting good governance practices amongst all stakeholders based on traditional knowledge.

62

3.6.2 Values
The project proponent recognized multiple values deriving primarily from the protected forests tothe communities living adjacent to the forest, which fall under as many as 13 NCP categories (Figure28). Multiple values of the endangered primate species inhabiting in the forests were recognized,
encompassing pollination, food, tourist attraction and supporting local identities. It is vital here torecognize the three value types, i.e. regulating, material and non-material contributions, associatedwith the white fronted brown lemur (Eulemur albifrons) that may come in conflict. It also should be
noted that the values elicited here does not incorporate those attributing to the areas outside forests,
such as paddy fields (Figure 27) that constitute the main livelihoods of the local communities.

Ecosystem domain (deep green)
B1: Natural/protected forest
Important species (purple)
SP1: Indri (Indri indri) CR
SP2: Black and White Vari (Varecia variegata subcincta)
CR
SP3: Silky Sifaka (Propithecus candidus) CR
SP4: White fronted brown lemur (Eulemur albifrons) EN
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP2: Pollination and seed dispersal
NCP3: Air quality regulation
NCP4: Climate regulation
NCP6: Freshwater quantity, flow and timing regulation
NCP7: Freshwater and coastal water quality regulation
NCP8: Soil formation, protection and decontamination
NCP9: Hazard and extreme event regulation
NCP11: Energy
NCP12: Food and feed
NCP13: Materials and assistance
NCP14: Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources
NCP16: Physical and psychological experiences
NCP17: Supporting identities

Figure 28. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

These include the provision of the habitats for endangered and critically endangered primate species,
which play critical role to maintain the integrity of the forest ecosystem through seed dispersal, andpertain values for local people as tourist attraction (NCP 16) and in their worship (NCP 17). White
Fronted Brown Lemur (Eulemur albifrons) is exploited for food by local communities. Among the 13
NCP, air quality regulation (NCP 3), climate regulation through carbon sequestration (NCP 4), theregulation of freshwater quantity, flow and timing that benefit local water supply and hydropower

63

(NCP 6), protection from cyclones (NCP 9), as well as firewood supply (NCP 11) were valued relatively
higher than other NCP.

3.6.3 Traditional knowledge
The online survey clarified that, while the local elders well maintain traditional knowledge of plants
and animals in forests, the management of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) having been practiced in traditional and sustainable ways has become less practiced. Elders maintain beliefs in thespirits that the three primate species represent, i.e., Black and White Vari, Indri and White Fronted
Brown Lemur; and overall the community members share ecological knowledge of Black and White
Vari, Indri and Silky Sifaka. Traditional knowledge in these sorts have still been handed down toyounger generations only verbally and not in writing. With respect to local knowledge, in the Resilience Indicators Workshop people expressed that they are proactively innovating agriculture andconservation practices, including sustainable rice cultivation, permaculture, agroforestry, as well assustainable clove and cacao productions that merit controlling soil erosion. Therefore, since the 2016
agricultural seasons, 575 farmers have been supported to adopt the improved rice system. In thesouth of Makira, 1,500 households received support for the establishment of agroforestry composed
mainly of cocoa and cloves
Table 26. Traditional knowledge for the use and management of different ecosystem domains and species
Ecosystem
Traditional knowledge
Knowledge holders
Trend
Species
DomainDescription
NTFP gatherers Elders Local community
1.Natural/ pro- 1.Knowledge Knowledge of forest animals and plants↗
⃝
tected forest
2.Mgt. system Environmental knowledge on sustainable↘
⃝
NTFP extraction
Black andWhite Vari

1.Knowledge

Species identification and taxonomy, life
histories, distributions and behavior

4.World view Traditional and natural religious beliefs
1.Knowledge Species identification and taxonomy, life
histories, distributions and behavior
4.World view Traditional and natural religious beliefs
Silky Sifaka
1.Knowledge Species identification and taxonomy, life
histories, distributions and behavior
4.World view Traditional and natural religious beliefs
White fronted 4.World view Traditional and natural religious beliefs
brown lemur
Indri

↘
↗

⃝
⃝

↘
↗

⃝
⃝

→

⃝

↗

⃝

→

⃝

↓ rapidly decreasing; ↘ decreasing; → not changed; ↗ increasing; ↑ rapidly increasing

3.6.4 Governance
Forests in the project area belongs to the Makira Natural Park and thus owned by the government,
i.e. the Ministry of Environment, Water, Forest and Tourism, and are managed by an NGO Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS) under the government’s concession. A network of community associations (COBAs) are delegated to manage their adjacent forests under community-driven natural resource management agreement and plans (Table 27).
Forest clearance for farmland expansion, illegal logging, residential area expansion and bushmeat
hunting constitute the major direct causes of forest loss and degradation and subsequently threat
the viability of the populations of endangered primate species (Figure 29). These are triggered by anumber of indirect drivers, such as the pressures from increasing human population, demand for
cash crops, NTFPs and bushmeat, overreliance of the poor on forest resources, ICTs supporting illegal

64logging and hunting, as well as weak governance. The project tackles these issues by several means,including the introduction of co-management that engages voluntary agreement and collaborative
law enforcement, NTFPs certifications and export, environmental education as well as the provisionof alternative crops and protein sources. WCS plays a pivotal role in designing and implementing aseries of interventions, in which the government and community-based organizations participate
under a co-management scheme.
Table 27. Ecosystem governance structure
Ecosystem type
Ownership
Management right holder
Other stakeholders

Protected/natural forest
Ministry of Environment, Water, Forest and Tourism
Wildlife Conservation Society
Network of community associations (COBAs)

Stakeholder type
Government or public
Non-governmental
Formal community org.

Figure 29. The configuration of the linkages between ecosystem and biodiversity changes, their direct andindirect drivers and corresponding policies and actions

3.6.5 Values–knowledge–governance interplay in the Makira landscape
The interplay between the values, traditional knowledge and governance of the forest ecosystem
and residing endangered lemur species are found (Table 28). These provide the basis for ensuring thesustainability of the integrity of the forest ecosystem, as well as the viability of lemur populations.
NTFPs harvested in forests constitute important livelihood sources for adjacent communities, but
their resource sustainability is now contested due to increasing population pressure and the loss of
traditional knowledge on sustainable NTFP harvest. To ensure resource sustainability, NTFP certification has introduced in which traditional and modern knowledge are integrated, and producers are
incentivized to implement best sustainable practices.
Lemur species have two conflicting value aspects for local people, i.e. their intrinsic value as the representation of ancestral spirits that support people’s identities, vs. utilitarian value for bushmeat.
Given that mainly elders appreciate the spiritual value, and that the ecological knowledge of lemurs

65held by wider local community members have been disappearing, the latter can override the former
in decades. However, the co-management scheme implemented by the project can offer an opportunity where the local traditional beliefs are respected and integrated into the formal reciprocal
agreement with the government and natural resource management plans.
Table 28. The interplay between the value, knowledge and governance within three major ecosystemdomains in the project site.
Ecosystems and species Value (NCP*)
Makira Forest
12. NTFPs such as
honey and small
mammals
Indri; Black and White 12. Bushmeat
Vari; Silky Sifaka; and16. Tourist attraction
White footed brown
17. Traditional beliefs
lemur

Knowledge
Governance: issues and stakeholders
Knowledge on sustainable use of
NGO (WCS) is now implementing NTFPNTFPs held by NTFP gatherers,
certification and product export to incenwhich is currently in decline
tivize the adoption of best practices
Traditional beliefs in the spirits
Natural resource management delegateddwelling in lemur species mainto local communities and collaborative
tained mainly by elders.
patrols executed under co-management
Local communities share ecological scheme. Alternatives for livelihoods andknowledge on lemurs, which is
cash are explored to mitigate anthropocurrently in moderate decline.
genic pressures.
* NCP 12 Food and feed; 16 Physical and psychological experiences; 17 Supporting identities663.7 India: Sustainable management of SEPLS and mainstreaming of biodiversity
conservation in the State of Nagaland, India.
3.7.1 Landscape and project overview
The project is situated in the Zunheboto district of North-east Indian state of Nagaland and spansover an area of 5794.24 ha, covering three villages, namely Sukhai, Ghukhuyi and Kivikhu (see Figure30). The primary ecosystem of the project area is dense to very dense forests which are extremelyrich in biodiversity and ecosystem services, but areas cleared for 2-year shifting cultivation, as well as
areas under renaturation are also characteristic of the landscape. The project surrounding areas include the well-known Ghosu bird sanctuary, which hosts more than 20 endangered bird species. The
project areas, including the buffer zone, contain large extent of natural/protected forests (10822.54
ha). The other dominant ecosystems within the project area include (a) managed/ resource forests(2331.62 ha), (b) farmland (2074.1 ha), and (c) rural settlements (127.56 ha) (Questionnaire survey).
The project proponents identified that all forested ecosystems including both protected and managed forests decreased since the past 10 to 20 years, while farmland increased considerably, owing
to shifting cultivation, predominantly by conversion of forests to farmland.

Figure 30. Location and Land-use map of Nagaland and project area (top) and detailed land-use map of
the project area, with boundary of the project areas and location of the villages marked in red (bottom).

67

Despite its rich natural forested landscapes, the local biodiversity is threatened by indiscriminate
hunting, tree felling and habitat destruction through reduced fallow shifting cultivation - which is locally known as Jhum cultivation. Indiscriminate hunting, on the other hand, is a significant driver ofwildlife loss in the project areas, which led to potentially cascading effects from unraveling ecologicalinteractions with serious consequences for ecosystems and the services. The local community, Sema,
traditionally used a variety of traps and snares, which were replaced by guns and destructive fishingpractices (e.g. dynamite or electric currents) in modern times. This led to alarming decline in wildlife
over the past. In the questionnaire survey, three avian species were identified by the proponents as
locally important which require special attention considering their cultural and ecological values. This
includes (a) Great Barbet (Psilopogon virens) which is socio-culturally important to local communities
due to its value as a 'timekeeper', (b) Blyth's Tragopan (Tragopan blythii) and (c) Indian cuckoo (Cuculus micropterus) (locally called Kasu pa po in the Sema language). These birds belong to ‘Least
concern’ to ‘vulnerable’ category as per the IUCN classification, however, accordingly to the questionnaire survey the population of Blyth's tragopan is of critical concern as it is seldom encounteredrecently.

Box 9. TERI project overview

In Nagaland, traditional conservation and wise-use practices have helped protect biodiversity overthe centuries. Despite this, rampant hunting, forest degradation and tree felling are greatly
threatening the State’s biodiversity. The revival of traditional conservation practices through thecreation of Community-Conserved Areas, however, offers hope for conservation, as communities
set aside parcels of forests within productive, jhum (shifting cultivation) landscapes. Yet, CCAs facenumerous challenges- in their creation, effectiveness and sustainability.
To ensure the future of Nagaland’s CCAs and thereby its biodiversity, a multi-pronged approach
was taken in this project, which includes alternative livelihood opportunities through the development of wildlife tourism, legal recognition, ecological restoration, and ecological monitoring. The
objectives of this project were to support community-based conservation, in order toa) mobilize support for the formation of CCAs including larger networks of contiguous forest
patches in Zunheboto districtb) Revive traditional conservation practices (e.g. hunting bans during the breeding season)c) Carry out ecological assessments of these CCAs including the status of the Vulnerable Blyth’s
Tragopan and other globally threatened species,d) develop community-based ecotourism initiatives e) Formalize and mainstream a network of
CCAs along with the Nagaland Government and Forest Department. (GEF-Satoyama website).
TERI, the project proponent was able to instigate the above-mentioned changes, through active
community participation. This in turn, led to the desired transition towards sustainability, while
respecting traditional and customary rights.

3.7.2 Values
The project implementer, TERI, identified seven Nature’s contributions to people (NCPs) associatedwith the ecosystem domains and species present at the site (Figure 31). Pollination and seed dispersal (NCP2), freshwater flow regulation (NCP 6), energy production (NCP 11), food and feed (NCP 12)
were the most frequently documented value, which were primarily derived from natural/protectedareas. The project proponents reported that the protected forests are considered important watersheds and contribute regulating freshwater flow, which is required for sustaining local agriculture

68and human habitat. Forests also provide wood which is used as a major fuel source in local households. In addition, the secondary/managed forests also contribute to freshwater flow regulation (NCP
6), energy source (NCP 11) and tourist attraction (NCP 16) respectively. Managed forests further provide traditional medicines; although, these are less utilized now. Of the other landscapes, waterbodies contribute significantly to NCP 16 (supporting identifies). For instance, the proponents reveledthat Tizu river is an important place-identify which is shared by all the community members living
along its length. Contrarily, apart from providing food and feed (NCP 12), the entire lifestyle of theSema community revolves around the jhum cycle-hunting, festivals, practices, thus, farmland also
begets the cultural identify among the villagers (NCP 17). In terms of species, all the three locallyimportant species contribute to tourism (NCP 16), while Great Barbet (Psilopogon virens) particularly
contribute to seed dispersal (NCP 2).

Ecosystem domain (deep green, green, blue, )B1: Natural/protected forest
B2: Secondary/Manage forests
B5: Waterbodies
B8: Farmland
B9: Settlements
Important species (pink)
SP1: Great Barbet (Psilopogon virens)
SP2: Blyth's Tragopa (Tragopan blythii)
SP3: Indian cuckoo (Cuculus Micropterus)
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP2: Pollination and seed dispersal
NCP3: Regulation of air quality
NCP6: Regulation of freshwater
NCP11: Energy Production
NCP12: Food and Feed
NCP13: Material and assistance
NCP14: Medicine and genetic resource
NCP16: Physical and psychological experience
NCP17: Supporting identities

Figure 31. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

3.7.3 Traditional knowledge
The protected/natural forests have innumerable folkloric stories woven around the plants and animals, for example why some birds and animals look the way they do. The local communities believe
in lycanthropy-souls of people enter bodies of tigers or leopards-tigers, which are rarely killed by
Naga communities. The Sema Nagas, however had several periodical restrictions (gennas) and taboos
for the killing of certain game; or example, whoever killed a tiger had to remain chaste for six days.
While on the first day he could not eat rice, for the remaining six days he could not eat vegetables
except chillies nor any meat except pork and had to sleep away from home on a bed of split bamboo69

to prevent sound sleep, lest the spirit of the slain beast attack him. In some tribes such as the Changs
this genna is observed for thirty days. Various animals were not eaten including several birds formany reasons. In addition, amongst Semas, those who killed a tiger or leopard must abstain fromeating plants called chiiye, ashebaghiye, tsughukutsiye, or aghiye. In case of waterbodies, restrictionof fishing or use of poisonous roots and during the spawning season was noted. For, farmland, propitiation of the spirit with rice, and rice beer to beg forgiveness for animals, plants, birds and reptiles
inadvertently harmed during clearing of forest land for shifting cultivation (jhum). Moreover, agricultural calendar attuned to nature-sowing of paddy only when Orion (Phogwosiilesipfemi) at zenith
or after Kasupapo (Indian cuckoo, Cuculus micropterus) is heard calling. There are also number ofstories linking humans in villages and wild nature.

Table 29. Traditional knowledge for the use and management of different ecosystems
Ecosystem
1. Natural/ protected forest
5. Freshwater
8. Farmland

Domain2. Mgt. system
4. Worldview
2. Mgt. system
2. Mgt. system
4. Worldview

Traditional knowledge
Description
Periodical restrictions (gennas) and taboos for the killing of certain game
Folkloric stories woven around the plants and animals, e.g. why some birds andanimals look the way they do; lycanthropy
Restriction of fishing or use of poisonous roots during fish spawning season
Agricultural calendar attuned to nature-sowing of paddy
Propitiation of the spirit with rice and rice beer to beg forgiveness for sacrificing
living organisms during clearing of forest land for shifting cultivation

3.7.4 Governance
The governance systems in the landscape differ depending on the type of ecosystem and legal statusof the area. Technically, the all protected/natural forests are conserved under the federal forest
conservation act, which comes under the jurisdiction of the state forest department. However, theproject area being tribal-dominated and isolated, it is often difficult to restrict overexploitation offorests and other biological resources by the local communities. Therefore, governance of forests islargely communal in nature in Nagaland and driven by customary practices. At present, local communities are setting up community conserved areas (CCA), but these have not yet received any legal
sanctity within the conservation framework. The main purpose of CCA is to regulate illegal hunting
and logging in protected areas, such as banning hunting during the breeding session and to create
patches of sustainably managed forests within the Jhum landscapes. Amongst the Semas, Konyaks
and Changs, ownership of land vests with the village chief (Akukao). The chief controls the land andhence all power and privileges lie with him to control farmland. The chief decides who gets a piece ofland (forest) to farm based on the needs of each member of the village community. The proponents
mentioned, that although govt. is supposed to implement the Wildlife (Protection) Act, it does not doso since the customary rights are protected under Article 371 A of the Indian Constitution, but few
people are aware that such a law is applicable in Nagaland. Table 30 shows the different ownershipand management rights within the project area, with four major ecosystems.
The survey identified two important local drivers responsible for ecosystem and biodiversity changes
in the local landscape (Figure 32). Nonetheless, the two direct drivers are magnified with number ofindirect drivers. The main direct drivers for the project sites are (1) shifting cultivation (locally known
as Jhum cultivation) and (2) illegal and indiscriminate hunting of wildlife. Jhum cultivation is a practice involving the slash-and-burn of felled trees within a densely forested patch, generally on themountain slope. Although shifting cultivation has traditionally been practiced in the area, the proponent informed that that the original cultivation cycles was thirty years, however due to increasing
population, it is now turned to 7 years or even less. Hunting, on the other hand, is direct conse-70quence of population growth and changes in socio-cultural values, which is also fueled by week law
enforcement. The village council is the main formal decision-making body at the local level, whichholds a comparatively strong autonomy given both the traditional village-level governance in Nagaland and the above constitutional recognition of the Naga people’s customary rights. In the project
area, decision-making on jhum cultivation, particularly the next jhum cycle, traditionally on the sidelines of a harvest festival, and involves the village council traditional chieftains and the wider community.
Table 30. Ecosystem governance structure in the Zunheboto landscape
Ecosystem
type
Ownership

Protected/naturalforestInformal/traditional
community organization

Managed Forests

Waterbodies

FarmlandStakeholder typeCommunity

Informal/traditional
community organization

Community
Informal/traditional
community organization

Community
Informal/traditional Community
community organi- Individual
zation, also village
chief (Akukao)
Community

Management Informal/traditionalright holder community organization
Informal/traditional
community organization (e.g. group offorest users or
farmers who meet
regularly but are notregistered)Village-chief (Akukao)

Other
Illegal timber operstakeholders ations

Individual

Individual
Forest community
organizations
Village council

Non-governmental
Government

Source: Questionnaire survey

71

Figure 32. Configuration of the linkages between ecosystem and biodiversity changes, their direct andindirect drivers and corresponding policies and actions

3.7.5 Interplay between values, traditional knowledge and governanceAs could be expected, there are significant overlap of NCPs derived from the three major ecosystems,
i.e. protected forests, managed forests and farmland. These include (a) NCP-2: Regulation of air quality (b) NCP-11: Food and Feed as well as NCP-15 (Physical and psychological experience). Also, all thethree ecosystems are rich with traditional and customary knowledge. Communities, in general, play apivotal role for the governance of all the three ecosystems, although technical, the local governmentis responsible. Additionally, village chiefs play a very important role in resource allocation, particularly for farmland, which also showcase the strong community bonding and respect for traditionaland customary rights. Table 31 summarizes the interplay between the value, traditional knowledge
and governance within the three major ecosystem domains.
Table 31. Interplay between the value, traditional knowledge and governance within the three major
ecosystem domains
Ecosystems/species Value (NCP*)
Natural/protected 2. Regulation of air quality
forest5. Regulation of freshwater
10. Energy Production
11. Food and Feed
13. Medicine
15. Physical and psychologicalexperience
Managed forests 2. Regulation of air quality
5. Regulation of freshwater
10. Energy Production
15. Physical and psychologicalexperience
Farmland1: Pollination
11: Food and Feed
16. Supporting identities

Traditional knowledge
1: Local knowledge of land,
animals, plants
3: Social institutions

Governance: issues and stakeholders
Although forest is concerned technically by the state, in Nagaland, community play a significant role in forest
governance, as well as, communities
are the most important stakeholder.

1: Local knowledge of land, Community conserved area, managed
animals, plants
by informal groups is the main agency
3: Social institutions
responsible for governance, such as
restriction of hunting and illegal logging. The main stakeholder is the
local community.
2: Land and resource man- Although individual farmers are reagement systemsponsible for farming, the village
3: Social institutions
chief (Akukao) allocate the land tocommunity members.

72

3.8 Comoros: A landscape management model for conserving biodiversity in the
Comoro Islands.
3.8.1 Landscape and project overview
Despite forming part of one of the world’s hottest hotspots for biodiversity conservation, the Comoro Islands lack any terrestrial conservation measures. The country lost 24% of its forest between
1990 and 2015 (FAO, 2015), a consequence of high poverty rates, extremely high population pressure, and a high dependence on agriculture for livelihoods - amongst other factors. The main threats
to natural forest cover are the extension of the agricultural frontier and the cutting of old-growthtrees for timber. Charcoal, wood for cooking and for ylang ylang distillation come mainly from agroforestry areas.
The heavy deforestation threatens the livelihoods of both the local population – through loss of water resources and soil fertility – and endemic biodiversity, with over 20 terrestrial species listed asvulnerable or worse on the IUCN’s Red List. The situation is particularly critical on Anjouan where
population pressure at over 600 people/km2 is one of the highest in the world. The Moya forest in
the south of the island is a managed resource forest, largely secondary forest, on an estimated areaof 5,992 ha (questionnaire survey), which is used for agroforestry, and the provision of wood andwater. Apart from the key ecosystem services the Moya forest provides for 34,000 beneficiaries it
was identified by CEPF identified as a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA).
Box 10. Dahari project overview

This project, titled “A landscape management model for conserving biodiversity in the Comoro
Islands”, seeks to consolidate a community-led model for landscape management for the Comoros, combining forest and biodiversity protection with agricultural and agroforestry developmentin 10 villages surrounding the Moya forest KBA in Anjouan. The project, implemented by the NGO
Dahari, will support over 2000 farmers and thus 10,000 direct beneficiaries to improve their revenues from agriculture and agroforestry.
The project will map traditional knowledge regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different trees for different purposes, and combine this with scientific understanding to propose improved agroforestry regimes. At the same time at least 400 hectares of forest conserving key ecosystem services, notably water provisioning, will be put under management by communities supported by local authorities, and at least 40 hectares conserving biodiversity hotspots. A fourthcomponent will look to integrate the model into national policy and legislation. Lessons learnt will
be recorded in peer-reviewed articles and be applicable to Small Island Developing States (SIDS)
and any seascapes and landscapes with high agriculture and natural resource dependency.

73

Figure 33. Maps showing the Dahari’s GEF-Satoyama project area. (Source: Dahari and Google map)

Figure 34. The areal details of the Moya forest landscape (below). Source: Dahari and Google map

Among the species of animals, plants or other organisms considered most important in terms of theirthreatened species status, endemism or values for local people, Dahari identified the following five:the Anjouan scop's owl (Otus capnodes), the Comoro ground gecko (Paroedura sanctijohannis), theLivingstone's fruit bat (Pteropus Livingstonii), the mongoose lemur (Eulemur mongoz) and the butterfly Papilio aristophantes. The IUCN lists the Livingstone’s fruit bat as Critically Endangered, and theother four as Endangered.

74

3.8.2 Values
The project implementer, Dahari, identified six NCPs associated with the ecosystem domains andspecies present at the site (Figure 35). Pollination and seed dispersal (NCP 2) were the most frequently recorded NCP, being associated with both the resource forest ecosystem and two of the fiveimportant species (the Livingstone fruit bat and the mongoose lemur). Climate regulation (NCP 4),
freshwater flow regulation (NCP 6) as well as food and feed (NCP 12) were rated as ‘critically important’ to the local community. The importance of freshwater supply is increasing as deforestation
has led to a decrease in the number of rivers of 40-50%. The provision of ‘energy’ is another NCP thatis provided by the resource forest and is considered ´important’, as the main wood use is for cooking.
The Anjouan scop’s owl also plays a moderately important role in the regulation of detrimental organisms eating rodents in the field. Overall, the local communities and authorities, which primarily
own and manage the landscape for production purposes, have relatively homogenous perception of
the value of SEPLS which centers on the functions of SEPLS that support their productions.

Ecosystem domain (light green)
B2: Managed/resource forest
Important species (purple)
SP1: Anjouan scop's owl
SP2: Comoro ground gecko
SP3: Livingstone's fruit bat
SP4: Mangoose lemur
SP5: Papilio aristophantes
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP2: Pollination and seed dispersal
NCP4: Climate regulation
NCP6: Freshwater quantity, flow & timing regulation
NCP10: Detrimental organism regulation
NCP11: Energy
NCP12: Food and feed

Figure 35. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

3.8.3 Traditional knowledge
The transmission of information is mainly oral between the generations of farmers in the communities. This is the main factor why IKLP is increasingly being lost, particularly on the tree species in the
resource forest that help protect the water sources (Table 32). Therefore, Dahari’s project intervention seeks to harness traditional knowledge about indigenous and commonly-used introduced tree
species in the Comoros – their advantages and disadvantages for different purposes – and combining75

this with expert support from international partners. The integration of these two knowledge systems will allow identifying a variety of tree and crop regimes depending on what goals are prioritizedfor different areas (water preservation, biodiversity conservation, revenue generation and/or fertilization).
Knowledge also exists on the role of species in rodent control, and the contribution to seed dispersal
and forest regeneration. However, the authorities do not take into account the IKLP and local initiatives in their decisions on natural resource management. The absence of public authorities in integrated resource management and challenges to assume their responsibilities explain the existing gap
between the national law and the local rules. Science based in-depth research on local biodiversity isalso lacking (questionnaire survey).

Table 32. Traditional knowledge for the use and management of different ecosystem domains and species
Ecosystem
Species
2.Managed/resource
forestAnjouan scop's owl
Livingstone's fruit bat
Mangoose lemur

Traditional knowledge
Domain1.Knowledge
1.Knowledge
1.Knowledge
1.Knowledge

Description
Knowledge about species being able to protect thewater resource
Rodent control
Contribute to seed dispersal and forest regeneration
Contribute to seed dispersal and forest regeneration

Trend

Knowledge
holders
Farmers

↘

⃝

NK
NK
NK

⃝
⃝
⃝

↓ rapidly decreasing; ↘ decreasing; → not changed; ↗ increasing; ↑ rapidly increasing
NK: not known

3.8.4 Governance
Informal community-based natural resources management committees in the villages of the Moya
Forest hold both the main ownership and management of the resource forests in the landscape(Table 33). They are part of the traditional village governance structures that exist in the Comoros
and particularly Anjouan but generally informal and not structured. However, governance of natural
resources forest ecosystems is usually weak at all levels, including the local authorities, with low levels of capacity and community cohesion. This complicates achieving effective community management within and between villages. In the Moya Forest, there are plans to create a terrestrial protected area (online questionnaire survey).
Table 33. Ecosystem governance structure in the landscape
Ecosystem type
Main ownershipManagement right holder
Other stakeholders

Managed/resource forest
Natural resources management committees
Natural resources management committees
Local authorities, UNDP
Dahari
Farmers
ICRAF,
CEPF, EU, Bangor University (UK)

Stakeholder type
Informal community org.
Informal community org.
Government or public
Non-governmental
IndividualDistant end users
International organisations

Some meeting regularly realized with majors (Moya, Adda, Ngandzalé), the Director of the environment in Anjouan, the representing of the UNDP. The objectives were to exchange about the field activities to promote the participation and with the Director it was to organize a workshop to reflecting
about the tree cut rules.

76

The resource forest ecosystem has experienced deforestation and forest degradation due to a number of direct drivers including extension of the agricultural frontier, and an overexploitation of natural resources, particularly wood for charcoal, cooking and ylang ylang distillation (Figure 36). Underlying indirect drivers include a high population growth and density, a high dependency on agriculture
for livelihoods, lack of employment in industry and tourism, poor social cohesion and weak governance. While the community-based natural resource management committees don’t have really theright to manage but they support the farmer for their natural resources management and use theforests they lack capacity. Insufficient local governance institutions and the absence of the Statenegatively affect the management of natural resources & biodiversity conservation. But currently the
UNDP support the Comorian government to create some protected areas whole the islands.

Figure 36. Configuration of the linkages between ecosystem and biodiversity changes, their direct andindirect drivers and corresponding policies and actions

Combining forest and biodiversity protection with agricultural and agroforestry development in ten
villages surrounding the Moya forest KBA in Anjouan. In the Comoro Islands, the community members find that community rules exist and certain areas of the landscape are protected, however theserules are not documented. They also find that in the areas, awareness-raising on sustainable management of natural resources is carried out, but resource management and use remains unsustainable. Water management committees that work on management of natural resources are also recognized during the workshop, and these committees are supported by Dahari, but they manage only
some portions of the forest. Thus, the participants of the workshop came up with the action plans todevelop the written rules for forest management and biodiversity conservation practices, organize
village meetings inviting community members, water management committees and local authorities
to discuss rules for tree cutting, promote the role of committees in water management in the villages
including forest management, and conduct awareness-raising meetings for management of tree cutting in the area.

773.8.5 Interplay between values, traditional knowledge and governance
Table 34 summarizes the interplay between the value, traditional knowledge and governance within
the two main ecosystems. Traditional knowledge of local communities and their natural resource
management committees related to tree species and their role and water resources conservation has
been important to ensure NCPs such as pollination and seed dispersal as well as regulation of freshwater quantity and flow. The involvement of the local community in the management of the resource forests through the committees has been a key governance factor for the conservation of thisecosystem domain. However, the lack of capacity for appropriate management, insufficient local institutions and the absence of the State in the management of the forests have contributed to theirdegradation.
Through the project intervention, Dahari has provided support to the natural-resource management
committees empowering them to monitor and control their natural resources and has sought to involve local authorities in this process. Dahari has also concluded a protection agreement of a Livingstone fruit bat roost site with the landholder as one of four agreements. The aim is to preserve theenvironment of the Livingstone fruit bats, by protecting its roost sites and by supporting the regeneration of the natural forest surrounding its habitat. Dahari will in turn support the landholder to improve his agricultural income and to promote his environmental protection efforts. The landholder
committed himself not to cut any trees on the roost site, and to replant it with newly grown naturalforest trees.
Table 34. The interplay between the value, traditional knowledge and governance within three major
ecosystem domains
Ecosystems/species Value (NCP*)
Managed /1. Pollination & seed dispersal
resource forest
3. Climate regulation
5. Freshwater quantity, flow &timing regulation
9. Detrimental organism regulation
10.Energy
11.Food and feed
Farmland1. Pollination & seed dispersal
5. Freshwater quantity, flow &timing regulation
11.Food and feed

Traditional knowledge
Governance: issues and stakeholders
Knowledge of tree species Community-based natural resource manthat help protect the wa- agement committees have the right to
ter sources and species
manage and use the forests but lack capacimportant for rodent con- ity.
trol, and the contribution Insufficient local governance institutions
to seed dispersal andand the absence of the State in the manforest regeneration
agement of natural resources & biodiversity
conservation.
Knowledge of traditional Insufficient local governance institutions
agricultural practices
and the absence of the State in agriculture
management783.9 Ecuador: Improvement of the livelihoods of the communities through the sustainable management of productive landscapes and biodiversity conservationin mangrove (Estuaries Chone and Portoviejo), the dry forest (Cordillera delBalsamo) and rainforest (Commune Playa de Oro).
3.9.1 Landscape/seascape and project overview
The project area encompasses three ecosystem domains, i.e. mangrove, coastal dry forest and rainforest, which represent the Ecuadorian coastal landscapes and seascapes with rich biodiversity andvital ecosystem services that underpin the livelihood and security of rural communities (Figure 37,
Box 11).

Playa de Oro(rainforest)

Chone River Estuary(mangrove)

Cordillera del Balsamo(dry forest)
Portoviejo River Estuary(mangrove)

Figure 37. FIDES’s project site locations

79

Box 11. FIDES project overview

Mangroves provide a number of important ecological functions, especially the support for the reproduction of marine vertebrates and invertebrates that constitute major protein sources and economic
gains for local communities. However, mangroves have cleared by 60% in Ecuador and 80% in Manabi
province for developing shrimp aquaculture ponds, which led to the sharp decline of fish, mollusks
and crabs in few decades. To secure the remnant mangroves and recover the lost functions, mangrove
areas in Chone River Estuary were gazetted as a protected area in 2004, and those in Portoviejo became a community protected area in 2011. Since then a series of restoration efforts have been undertaken, including mangrove replanting and integrated river basin management.
Coastal dry forest in Ecuador entails high endemism and biodiversity, but has lost by 90% for timber
extraction, farmland expansion and urbanization. Against this backdrop, ten private landowners in
Cordillera del Balsamo are voluntarily protecting the dry forest, and currently processing the registration of their lands as Provincial Protected Areas under the Ecuadorian protected areas system.
The lowland rainforests on the Santiago river banks, extending to 10,000 hectares and covered largely
by pristine vegetation, are protected by the Playa de Oro, an afro-descendant community under theircustomary ownership and management. Cocoa growing in a mixed agro-ecosystem is their main income sources, and currently community tourism is on rise.
The project aims to strengthen biodiversity conservation and restoration in these three ecosystemdomains to ensure the livelihoods and security of local people by:Restoration of ecosystems and the goods and services they provide to local communities throughcommunity-based diagnosis, management and restoration activities;
Livelihood support through the improvement of artisanal salt production, community tourism
and organic cocoa production and marketing;
School education and community leadership programmes; andAdvocacy for the policy uptake of the Chone River Estuary recovery plan and the Portoviejo river
basin management plan.

3.9.2 Values
The project proponent recognized different values that local communities associate with different
ecosystem domains and inhabiting species (Figure 38). Among these, food supply (NCP 12) was valued the highest, including cocoa from agroforests by the Playa de Oro people; and fish, crabs andmollusks reproducing or caught in mangroves for coastal communities. Tourism, including science
tourism (NCP 15, 16), takes place in all ecosystem domains, where rare animals such as the Ecuadorian Capuchin (Cebus albifrons aequatorialis), categorized as critically endangered (CR) by the IUCNRed List, attract visitors’ attention. The diagram also highlights the multiple value aspects of mangroves, encompassing carbon capture (NCP 4), mitigating groundwater salinization (NCP 7), waterand sediment filtration (NCP 8), protection from storm and hurricane hazards (NCP 9) in addition to
NCP 12, 15 and 16 mentioned above.

80

Ecosystem domain (deep green, yellow green, lightgreen)
B1: Natural/protected forest
B2: Managed/resource forest
B6: Coastal ecotone
Important species (purple)
SP1: Ecuadorian Capuchin (Cebus albifrons aequatorialis) (CR)SP2: Perro de monte (Speothos venaticus) (VU)
SP3: Blue crab (Cangrejo azul)
SP4: Black shell (Concha prieta)
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP4: Climate regulation
NCP7: Freshwater and coastal water quality regulation
NCP8: Soil formation, protection and decontamination
NCP9: Hazard and extreme event regulation
NCP12: Food and feed
NCP15: Learning and inspiration
NCP16: Physical and psychological experiences

Figure 38. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

3.9.3 Traditional knowledge
The Playa de Oro people, residing in the lowland rainforest, own knowledge on the medicinal properties from wild plants, and practice traditional agroforestry relying on lunar calendar especially forpruning. The coastal communities living adjacent to mangrove forests practice customary resource
management systems linked to their mythological beliefs, such as Community Vedas (meaning closed
season). They also have the knowledge on the identification of Black shell (Cancha prieta) and Blue
crab (Cangrejo azul). These knowledge and management practices are all in decline, while critical for
local communities to secure the functioning of each ecosystem domain and thus for supporting theirlivelihood (Table 35).
Table 35. Traditional knowledge for the use and management of different ecosystem domains and species
Ecosystem domain
Species
Domain1.Natural/protected forest 1.Knowledge
2.Managed/resource forest 2.Mgt. system
6.Coastal ecotone, e.g.
mangrove

2.Mgt. system

Black shell (Concha prieta) 1.Knowledge
Blue crab (Cangrejo azul) 1.Knowledge

Traditional knowledge
Description
Medicinal properties of the parts of someplants (roots, seeds, flowers, bark)
Lunar calendar for agricultural activities, especially pruning.
Community Vedas (closed season) based on
the intervention of mythological beings (LaTunda and El Riviel)
Information on identification and taxonomy
Information on identification and taxonomy

Trend

Knowledge holders
Local community

↘

⃝

↘

⃝

↘

⃝

↘
↘

⃝
⃝

↓ rapidly decreasing; ↘ decreasing; → not changed; ↗ increasing; ↑ rapidly increasing

81

3.9.4 Governance
The four project sites under three different ecosystem domains, i.e. mangroves (Chone River andPortoviejo River Estuaries), coastal dry forest and lowland rainforest, are spatially disconnected andunder completely different governance regimes (Table 36). Among the two mangrove sites, theChone River Estuary mangrove is owned and managed by the state under its protected area systemwith limited local participation. The small mangrove fragments in the Portoviejo River Estuary are
currently managed by the community and in process towards registration as a community protectedarea under the national protected area system. The coastal dry forests are privately owned andmanaged, to which FIDES provide support for the preparation and implementation of management
plans. The lowland rainforests on the Santiago riverbanks are owned and managed by the Playa de
Oro commune in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment under its Social-Forest Programme.
The survey identified downward trend of ecosystem integrity or the population of important species
in mangroves and lowland rainforests, among the three ecosystem domains.
Mangrove loss and degradation are caused by the expansion of shrimp farms, house and hotel constructions, overfishing, water pollution and waste dumping, which subsequently resulted in the reduction of fish, crab and mollusk stocks (Figure 39.a). Behind these are increasing urban and rural
populations, expanding shrimp farms for cash gains, socio-cultural shift away from artisanal fisheries,
as well as the limited linkage between statutory law and customary local governance. Regulatory
measures are in place to abate the direct causes, such as the protected areas designation by thestate, the size and seasonal limits by state for crab catch, as well as the regulations on waste andsewage management by the local government. The mangrove fragments in the Portoviejo Estuary
are now under communal management, and in process for the co-management agreement under
the National Protected Area System (SNAP).
The integrity of the lowland rainforests is relatively well maintained under the Playa de Oro’s communal tenure, but few inhabiting mammalian species that move across wilder landscapes, such as
Bush Dog (Speothos venaticus), are in decline due to habitat loss and hunting in neighboring areas(Figure 39.b). Although limited within the areas owned by the Playa de Oro commune, effective governance is in place that employed financial conservation incentive and a co-management scheme.
Table 36. Ecosystem governance structure
Ecosystem type Mangrove
Ownership
The Chone River Estuary: StateThe Portoviejo River Estuary:
Community
Management Primarily managed under theright holder
national protected area system.
Some remnants are under community concession for custodyand sustainable use (formal
community organizations)
Other
stake- Ministry of the Environment,
holders
Local governments.
FIDES

Coastal dry forest Lowland rainforest
Private landowners Playa de Oro community (formal(private)
community organization)
Private landowners Playa de Oro community (formal(private)
community organization) has
communal management right offorests in general, except for thecocoa farms which are managed
by individual community members
Provincial govern- Ministry of the Environment
ment of Manabí(socio-forest program) in Playade Oro Community.
FIDES Foundation
FIDES
Cerro Seco Founda- Playa de Oro communitytion
Private Owners
Network National(Nodo El Bálsamo)

82

Stakeholder type

Government or
publicNGO
Formal community org.

Figure 39. Configuration of the linkages between ecosystem degradation and species decline, direct drivers and the existing policies for abating the drivers in mangrove (a); lowland rainforests (b) and dry forests(c)83

3.9.5 Value–knowledge–governance interplay in Ecuadorian coastal landscapes and seascapesInterlinkage between value, traditional knowledge and governance in lowland rainforests and in
mangroves was inferred from the online survey results (Table 37). In lowland rainforest, cocoa production in mixed agroecosystem is a main income source for Playa de Oro people, in which they
maintain traditional agricultural practices, such as pruning, based on lunar calendar. They also haveknowledge on the use of plant roots, seeds, flowers and barks for medication, implying that theseresources falling under NCP 14, while not elicited by the values question, are valuable for them. Playade Oro people can take advantage of their tenure and management rights under co-management
scheme to maintain these traditional knowledge and customary practices that pertain to valuable
rainforest goods.
Coastal communities have the ecological knowledge on Black Shell and Blue Crab that they harvest
for food and for cash. They also have customary fisheries management system based on their mythological beliefs, such as closing seasons, which can complement the national regulations on seasonaland size limits for crab catch. Currently the two mangrove sites are in contrary governance regimes:
The Chone River Estuary mangrove is protected under the state’s protected area system with limited
community participation; while the Portoviejo River Estuary mangrove is protected by the community with limited legal support. Here the linkage between the government’s and community’s roles in
an integrated governance scheme would be the key, so that traditional knowledge and customary
management practices support the resource sustainability.

Table 37. The interplay between the value, knowledge and governance within three major ecosystemdomains
Ecosystems/species Value (NCP*)
Lowland rainforest 12. Cocoa
14. Medicinal

Mangrove

Traditional knowledge
Knowledge on the medicinal properties of the parts of some plants(roots, seeds, flowers, bark); Lunar
calendar for agricultural activities,
especially pruning.
12. Fish, crabs Knowledge on Black shell and Blueand mollusks crab; Community Vedas (closed
for food andseason) based on mythologicalfor cashbeings (La Tunda and El Riviel)Governance: issues and stakeholders
Co-management scheme in place where the Playa de Oro commune has customary ownershipand management rights and collaborate with thegovernment under its social forestry programme.

Chone River Estuary is protected under thestate’s protected area system, where local community’s participation is limited; Portoviejo River
Estuary is protected under community protectedarea currently with limited legal support. National regulations on season/size limits for crab harvest is in place* NCP 12 Food and feed; 14 Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources843.10 Seychelles: The development of a co-management plan, designed by fishers,
to minimize the impact of the Seychelles artisanal fishery on threatened species.
3.10.1 Seascape and project overview
The project aims to assess and mitigate artisanal fishers’ impacts on threatened fish species in Seychelles through artisanal catch surveys, the development of fisher-led measures to reduce impacts
on threatened species, and elaborating these measures into fisheries co-management plan (Box 12).
While the project interventions take place mainly in the coastal areas of Mahé Island where 90% ofartisanal catch is landed, it aims to benefit the marine biodiversity widely in the Mahé Plateau that
extends to 3,900,000 hectares (Figure 40).

Figure 40. Project area map

Box 12. GIF project overview

Fishing is a vital economic sector for Seychelles and central to national food security. In 2012 thefisheries sector employed approximately 5,500 people, including from 1,300 to 1,400 artisanal fishers, and constituted 12% of total formal employment. However, many species have become rare oreven disappeared from the catch and there is historical evidence of extinctions in the past. Seeingthat the conventional fisheries management through the top-down imposition of regulations has
proven unsuccessful, in 2014 the government passed the new Fisheries Act that prescribes the enabling mechanisms for co-management approaches.
The project assesses a baseline of threatened species occurrence in the artisanal fishery, in the mainisland of Mahé where 90% of artisanal catch is landed, through fisher consultation, literature review
and an intensive 12-month survey of artisanal catch. The project also will facilitate artisanal fishers todevelop a pragmatic, fisher-led measure to reduce artisanal fishing pressure on threatened species.
These measures will be developed into an artisanal fishery co-management plan for threatened species to be implemented under the 2014 Fisheries Act.

85

3.10.2 Values
The Seychelles’ coastal seascape is represented by inshore sea, where the bottom is mainly coveredby coral reefs and seagrass. Among the six NCP identified by the survey, food provision (NCP 12) fromreef flats and seagrass beds in coastal ecosystem, and five threatened fish species were valued thehighest (Figure 41). The two ecosystems are also important as learning grounds for school kids andscientists, as well as for inspiring local arts (NCP 15). Shallow sea habitats especially reef flats and sea
grass beds host fish species that could serve as an attraction to tourists for snorkeling and diving(NCP 16). Local people obtain multiple values from coastal ecotone e.g. coral reefs, such as the regulation of coastal waters and sedimentation in coastal lagoons (NCP 7), protection of coastal infrastructure from extreme weather events (NCP 9) and the use of coastal spaces for social gatherings(NCP 17). These values were not uniformly perceived by local people in different occupations. The
five threatened species listed in Figure 41 were important for food for fisheries sector. In contrast,
they were important tourist attraction and hence provide vital non-material value to the tourism
sector.

Ecosystem domain (light green, red)
B6: Coastal ecotone
B7: Inshore sea, e.g. coral reef, lagoon
Important species (purple)
SP1: Green humphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon
muricatum) (VU)
SP2: Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) (EN)SP3: Great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) (EN)SP4: Blacksaddled coral grouper (Plectropomus laevis)(VU)
SP5: Scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) (EN)
Ecosystem services (NCP) (yellow)
NCP7: Freshwater and coastal water quality regulation
NCP9: Hazard and extreme event regulation
NCP12: Food and feed
NCP15: Learning and inspiration
NCP16: Physical and psychological experiences
NCP17: Supporting identities

Figure 41. Connection between ecosystem domains, species and ecosystem services (NCP). The diagram
illustrates the area of major ecosystems that constitute the SEPLS in proportions (top-right arcs), the species inhabiting in these ecosystems that were recognized as important either for biodiversity conservationor for local people (bottom arcs in purple, connected to their habitat ecosystem domains by thin lines),
and the value of these ecosystems and species for local people falling under each NCP category (top-leftarcs in yellow, connected to the ecosystem domains and species from which these values derive).

3.10.3 Traditional knowledge
Local community, including fishers, the youths and elders, share a common understanding of ecosystems such as coral reefs and sea grass beds as important habitats for Threatened fish species(Table 38). However, there is, in general, limited knowledge on the ecology of these species. Species-specific knowledge may increase with promulgation of results on data and projects targetingthese species.

86Table 38. Knowledge for the use and management of different ecosystem domains and species
Ecosystem
Species

Traditional knowledge
Domain7.Coastal and near 1.Knowledge
shore sea

Blacksaddledcoralgrouper

1.Knowledge

Scalloped
hammerhead
shark
Green
humphead parrotfish
NapoleanwrasseGreat hammerhead shark

2.Mgt. system

1.Knowledge

2.Mgt. system
1.Knowledge

Trend

Description
Coral reef and sea grass bed areimportant ecosystem for fish species
Important foraging grounds forjuvenile sharks
Varying colourations and patterns
at different life stages and as per
the sex of the fish
The species is targeted andcaught during the Southeast season
Reef-dwelling fish

All specimen caught of this species in trap fishery are juveniles
This species is becoming very
scarce in artisanal catch

Fishers

Knowledge holders
Youth
Local
Elders/kids
community

↗

⃝

⃝

⃝

↗

⃝

⃝

⃝

→

⃝

↓

⃝

→

⃝

↓

⃝

↓

⃝

⃝

↓ rapidly decreasing; ↘ decreasing; → not changed; ↗ increasing; ↑ rapidly increasing

3.10.4 Governance
The state government manages Seychelles’ coastal seascape, where different ecosystem domains
and sectoral issues fall under the jurisdictions of different ministries (Table 39). Coastal ecotones aremanaged by a number of government entities namely the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, Ministry of Habitat, Infrastructure and Land Transport, the Seychelles Fishing Authority,
the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, The Ministry of Tourism, Civil Aviation, Ports and Marine.
The involvement of each entity depends on the location and management aspect. In some cases,
wetland management at district level is taken up by local community groups under co-management
schemes. There are several other stakeholders engaging in the management or use of Seychelles’
coastal zones as listed in Table 39.
The Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change oversees the management of biodiversity
and habitats, and the Seychelles Fishing Authority is responsible for all fisheries management-related
activities in Seychelles. The Seychelles Maritime Safety Administration of the Ministry of Tourism,
Civil Aviation, Ports and Marine has the general responsibility for all leisure-related activities (commercial or private) that take place within inshore waters. Several other governmental andnon-governmental organizations and individuals listed in Table 39 are involved in the use and management of the inshore sea resources.
Near-shore habitats; coral reef and sea grass bed habitats, and inshore sea ecosystems have become
degraded due to numerous direct drivers, which subsequently affect all twenty-two Threatened species monitored under this project. These include, but are not limited to green humphead parrotfish(Bolbometopon muricatum), Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus), blacksaddled coralgrouper(Plectropomus laevis), great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) and scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna
lewini). (Figure 42). Direct drivers include land reclamation, which can result in loss of near-shore
habitats, overfishing, and climate change, which can result in escalating storm hazards and rising sea
temperatures. These direct drivers are triggered by a number of indirect drivers including population
increase, demand for fish export, enhanced living standards leading to coastal developments andadvanced fishing techniques.

87

Table 39. Ecosystem governance structure

Ecosystem
type

Near-shore ecotone (coral reef/ Inshore sea (lagoon)sea grass beds)

Stakeholder type

Ownership

No entities legally own near-shore eco- No entities legally own inshore lagoon Government or
publictones in Seychelles. However, many habitats in Seychelles.
agencies are responsible for the management of different aspects dependingon the area and types of use of thesesites.
Management State government: A number of govern- State government: likewise, many gov- Governmentorright holder
ment entities, depending on the man- ernment entities are responsible for for public
agement area and site are responsible for the management of inshore sea areas in
the management of near-shore ecotones Seychelles, depending on the managenamely: The Ministry of Environment, ment area and site namely: The Ministry
Energy and Climate Change, Ministry of of Environment, Energy and Climate
Habitat,InfrastructureandLand Change, Ministry of Habitat, InfrastrucTransport, the Seychelles Fishing Author- ture and Land Transport, the Seychelles
ity, the Ministry of Fisheries and Agricul- Fishing Authority, the Ministry of Fisherture, The Ministry of Tourism, Civil Avia- ies and Agriculture, The Ministry of Tourtion, Ports and Marineism, Civil Aviation, Ports and Marine.
Other
stake- Seychelles Conservation and Climate The Seychelles National Parks Authority Governmentorholders
Adaptation Trust (SeyCCAT), a recently play a role in the management of inshore publicestablished fund, supports projects waters, and the Seychelles Fishing Augeared towards conservation and man- thority for the management of fisheries
agement of near-shore ecotones.
Seychelles Conservation and Climate
Adaptation Trust (SeyCCAT), a recently
established fund, supports projects
geared towards conservation and management of inshore sea zones.
A number of non-governmental organiza- The Marine Conservation Society of Sey- Non-governmentaltion may also get involved in projects chelles, Global Vision International,
geared towards management, conserva- Green Islands Foundation carry out protion and enhancement of coastal ecosys- jects and research in inshore waters
tems namely Sustainability for Seychelles,
Marine Conservation Society of Seychelles.
Local registered community groups, such Several fishermen association across Formal community org.
as the Port Glaud Action Group, are del- Mahe island
egated by the government to manage
wetland ecosystems in their districts
under an agreement with the government.
Artisanal fishers use coastal zones to Fishers and local communities use in- Individual
moor their boats and shelter from stormy shore reef and lagoons for fishing withweathertraps, nets and line and hooks
Tour/Boat charter operators offer excur- Local businesssions, diving and snorkeling to tourists ininshore waters
Schools and the university of Seychelles Schools offer snorkeling, outings in la- Schools/ universiutilise coastal ecotones for outdoor goon around the islands for students as ties
learning and researchlearning experiences
International org.
Several international organizations anddonors fund projects related to integrated coastal zone management and mangrove protection e.g. the Mangrove For
the Future Initiative by IUCN, GEF SGP.

88

Figure 42. Configuration of the linkages between ecosystem degradation and species decline, direct drivers and the existing policies for abating the drivers

A number of legislations, policies and actions are in place to address these direct drivers (Figure 42).
Land and coastal developments are regulated under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
Act, the State Land and River Reserves Act as well as the Environmental Protection Act, which areoverseen by the Ministry of Habitat, Infrastructure and Land Transport and the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change respectively. These laws ensure the implementation of public information and consultation processes, such as information sessions for the development project
proponents and public consultations in the environmental impact assessment procedures, which areoften supported by local expert NGOs.
To prevent overfishing, the Seychelles Fishing Authority enforces fishing regulations, e.g. sites andgears restrictions, under the provisions of the Fisheries Act. GIF conducts artisanal catch survey andadvocates, in collaboration with the Fishers’ Associations, for sustainable fishing rules and practices.
It should be noted that GIF’s project proposal indicated the ineffectiveness of the conventional
top-down imposition of the fisheries regulations by the government authority and envisages its support to the establishment of a bottom-up fisheries management under a co-management scheme inline with the provisions of the 2014 Fisheries Act. Upon the fulfilment of this goal, the project willreinforce the institutional setting for regulating overfishing.
The application of the National Climate Strategy and the Sustainable Development Strategy seek tomitigate local climate change-related issues, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change.

3.10.5 Value–knowledge–governance interplay in Seychelles’ seascapeInterplay between value, knowledge and governance in Seychelles’ near-shore habitats and inshore
sea was inferred from the online survey results (Table 40). Coral reefs and sea grass beds support fish
reproduction and proliferation and are of a primary importance for Threatened species. Thisknowledge needs to be understood by fishers and local actors. This would strengthen the community-based involvement in advocating for protection of these habitats. Research activities in the coastal
areas by local expert NGOs and universities may play a vital role to reinforce the local knowledge on
reef and seagrass habitats. With better ecological knowledge, local communities can enhance their
participation and position in public consultation sessions when coastal development projects areproposed.
Local community, especially fishers and elders, have rich knowledge on the appropriation of fisheryresources in the Seychelles’ inshore sea on which they rely for food and livelihood. A number of in-89

stitutions in Seychelles are involved in and support sustainable fisheries management; namely the
Seychelles Fishing Authority, the Blue Economy Department and the Ministry of Environment, Energy
and Climate change. GIF’s project proposal indicated declining fish catch due to the failure of theconventional top-down imposition of the fisheries regulations by the state authority. In this backdrop,
and with a view to the implementation of the co-management scheme under the provisions of the2014 Fisheries Act, GIF is expected to make substantial contributions to filling the knowledge, technological and institutional gaps through the collaboration with artisanal fishers and their local institutions. The investigation of the impacts of artisanal fisheries will inform the design of sustainable fishing practices and management plans. This knowledge will in turn contribute to the proposal of pragmatic measures, to be enforced by fishers themselves, which can significantly decrease fishers’ impacts on Threatened species in artisanal catch.

Table 40. The interplay between the value, knowledge and governance within three major ecosystemdomains in the project site.
Ecosystems/species Value (NCP)
Knowledge
Near-shore eco1. Habitat crea- Coral reef and sea grass beds serve
tone (reef flats/sea tion andas an important feeding, reproducgrass beds)
maintenance tion and foraging grounds for fish

Governance: issues and stakeholders
Primarily managed by a number of entities while
coastal developments are overseen by the Planning Authority of the Ministry of Land Use andHabitat. Local expert NGOs and universities use
near-shore ecotone for outdoor learning andresearch.
Inshore sea
1. Habitat crea- Inshore sea is an important habitat The Seychelles Fishing Authority enforces fishingtion andfor all fish species under monitoring regulations, e.g. sites and gears restrictions, unmaintenance and serves as a foraging ground for der the provisions of the Fisheries Act. The newjuvenile sharks
Fisheries Act 2014 provides the mechanisms forGreen humphead 12. Food; 16. Fishers and elders lack specific eco- enabling co-management approaches. In thisline, GIF conducts artisanal catch survey, andparrotfish, Napo- Tourist attrac- logical knowledge on most e.g.
advocates for sustainable fishing practices andleon wrasse, great tioncolor variations of blacksaddled
practices.
hammerheadcoral grouper.
blacksaddled coralgrouper and scalloped hammerhead

90

4Synthesis

This chapter answers to the three questions set out in the research objectives, i.e. ways to recognize
the values of SEPLS; the relevance of traditional knowledge for managing and sustainably using
SEPLS; and the ways to strengthen the governance of SEPLS, by a synthesis of the findings from theten project case studies. The contents presented here derive from a contents analysis of the ten individual project case studies, as well as a meta-analysis of the dataset generated by an online survey ofthe ten projects.
To start with, Figure 43 illustrates the difference of the SEPLS across the ten project sites in terms of
the area of different ecosystem types constituting each SEPLS. Natural or protected forest is the main
constituent of the SEPLS in three projects (FFI, WCS and TERI). SEPLS in five projects (IMPECT, UIS,
AMPA, Dahari and FIDES) are more complex, being composed of a mix of forest and agricultural ecosystems. Three projects (EPCO, FIDES and GIF) deals with seascapes, encompassing mangroves, coral
reefs and inshore sea. Overall, sea, natural forest and farmland are relatively highly represented
among the ten project sites.

Area total(l og e)*# Projects
Project proponent**

7

5

1

4

3

3

2

4

NAF

MAF

GRL

FAL

FRW

COE

SEA

URB

01.IMPECT

666

1,153

285

416

12

02.UIS

2,200

1,000

2,600

16

140

1,000

03.EPCO

704.AMPA

143,92805.FFI

117,598

06.WCS

372,470

07.TERI

10,82308.Dahari
09.FIDES30

18105,876
16,118
2,332

2,074

128

1,002
7,348

150

3,622

10.GIF13,900,000

Figure 43. Area of the nine ecosystem domains represented in each project site
*Natural logarithm scale is applied to the vertical axis of the bar chart to accommodate exponential difference in the areaof each ecosystem domain represented in a set of ten projects.
NAF: natural/protected forest; MAF: managed/resource forest; GRL: grassland/rangeland; FAL: farmland; FRW: freshwater
wetland and waterbodies; COE: coastal ecotone (including mangroves); SEA: inshore sea; and URB: settlement/urban.

4.1 How to get the values of SEPLS recognized among stakeholders?
Drawing from the ten case studies, we identified three key elements that can help various stakeholders better understand multiple values of SEPLS. These are: recognizing SEPLS as vital habitats for
globally threatened species; clarifying multiple goods and services that derive from SEPLS and that
underpin livelihoods and security of local communities; and integrating biodiversity in production
activities. This section describes these four elements with the facts from the ten demonstration projects.

91

SEPLS constitute vital component of global biodiversity through the provision of habitats for several globally threatened species.
Table 41 lists threatened species, as well as the species with notable local value, that were found in
the SEPLS in the ten project sites. Several endangered mammals, birds, reptiles and vascular plants
were found in natural/protected forests and managed/resource forests. Inshore sea provides vital
habitats for threatened fish species. Some species provide high value for local people for food, medicine, tourist attraction and support to their identity, as well as for their functions to disperse plantseeds. These utilitarian and intrinsic values of species constitute biocultural diversity that is unique toeach SEPLS.
SEPLS underpin human livelihood, security and development of local communities through theprovision of numerous ecosystem goods and services, particularly food, learning and inspiration,
freshwater, soil and hazard regulation. Figure 44 presents the relative importance of diverse nature’s contributions to people (NCP) attributing to the seven ecosystem types represented in SEPLS
across the ten projects. Food, among others, was the most important goods deriving mainly fromgrasslands, managed forests, seas and farmlands. Learning and inspiration was ranked the second,
highlighting the importance of intrinsic value of nature for people in SEPLS. More concretely, suchvalue of SEPLS included local knowledge generation, a venue for youth education, as well as providing inspirations for folk songs. The regulating functions of forest and mangrove ecosystems were also
highly recognized, e.g., freshwater flow regulation, soil formation and protection, climate regulationand disaster risk reduction, that collectively contribute to human security in these landscapes andseascapes. Among the seven ecosystem types, the importance of natural or protected forests wasappreciated the highest for its various goods and services, followed by coastal ecotone and managed
forests.
Each SEPLS has a unique configuration of ecosystems and their contributions to people (Figure 45).
This implies the importance of locally optimized management of SEPLS to ensure their sustainability. The configurations, however, can be characterized by the major ecosystem types that constitute
SEPLS. In natural forest-dominated SEPL, such as those in AMPA (Peru), FFI (Myanmar) and WCS(Madagascar) projects, forest contributes to human security through providing food, regulating climate, freshwater flow and soils. Mammals and birds dwelling in forest play vital role to maintain forest ecosystems, including by seed dispersal. They also provide humans with inspiration and learning
opportunities. Agroforests, rotational farms or permanent farms dominate agro-ecological SEPL in
the Dahari (Comoros), UIS (Colombia) and IMPECT (Thailand) project sites. In these SEPLS people
harvest food from both forests and farmlands, and also attribute high value to the functions of natural and managed forests to regulate freshwater flow. In coastal seascapes in the FIDES (Ecuador),
EPCO (Mauritius) and GIF (Seychelles) project sites, local people unanimously placed the highest value on fish and mollusk harvested in mangrove and inshore seas. They also recognize the function ofmangroves to mitigate coastal hazards. In addition, diving, leisure fishing, boat trips and other typesof ecotourism enterprises bring economic opportunities to local communities. Overall, there is noone-size-fits-all measure to manage SEPLS sustainably, considering such a wide variety of configurations of ecosystems and their contributions to people in SEPLS.

92

Table 41. Important species identified by the online survey.
Class
MammalEnglish/ local name
IndriBlack and White VariSilky Sifaka

Scientific nameIndri Indri
Varecia variegata subcincta
Propithecus candidus

Yellow-tailed woolly Oreonax flavicauda
monkeyChinese pangolin
Manis pentadactyla
Livingstone's fruit bat Pteropus Livingstonii
Yo Hhaw (Pangolin)
Manis pentadactyla
Ecuadorian
Cebus aequatorialis
White-fronted Capuchin
White fronted brown Eulemur albifrons
lemurWhite-bellied spider Ateles belzebuthmonkeyEastern Hoolock Gib- Hoolock leuconedysbon
Mangoose lemur
Eeulemur mongoz
Gray-bellied night
Aotus lemurinus
monkeyAndean night monkey Aotus miconax
Spectacled bear
Tremarctos ornatus
Bush dog /perro de
Speothos venaticus
monte
Bird
White-rumped vulGyps bengalensis
ture
Mauritius Fody
Foudia rubra
Perdiz santandereana Odontophorus
strophium
Anjouan scop's owl
Otus capnodes
Saurus crane
Grus antigone
Great Barbet
Psilopogon virens
Blyth's Tragopa
Tragopan blythii
Indian cuckoo
Cuculus Micropterus
ReptileComoro ground gecko Paroedura sanctijohannis
Amphibian Dei bu (Jub Frog)
not identified
Fish
Napoleon wrasse
Cheilinus undulatus
Green humphead
Bolbometopon muparrotfish
ricatum
Great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarranBlacksaddled corPlectropomus laevis
algrouper
Scalloped hammerSphyrna lewini
head
Pipe fish
Microphis dunckeri
Do P' Loo (Root Banot identified
nana Fish)Invertebrate
Papilio aristophantes
Hswai bau dei (Yellow Globonautes macropus
leg Crab)
Vascular
Nogal
Juglans neotropica
plant
QueñualPolylepis multijuga
Teen Hm Doi (White Curcuma zedoaria
Turmeric)

RL* NAF MAF GRL FAL FRW COE SEA URB High value NCP
CR
1
CR
1
CR

1

CR

1

CR
CR
CR
CR

1

EN

1

EN

1

VU

1

EN
VU

1

VU
VU
NT

1
1
1

CR

1

EN
EN

1
1

EN
VU
LC
VU
LC
EN

1
1
1
1

NI
EN
VU

1
1

Seed dispersal;
local identity
1
2
1
2
2

2

Seed dispersal
2 Medicine

2
2

1
2
1
1

Seed dispersal
2

2

2

2

1
2
2

2
2

1
1

2

2

1

2
2

1
2
1
1

1
2
1

2
1
2
2

2 Time keeper
2 State bird
2 Agri. indicator

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

2 Food
2
2

1
1

EN
VU

2
2

1
1

EN

2

1

Tourism

LC
NI

2
1

2

2

1
1

Support identity
2 Food

EN
NI

1

1
2

2

1

2 Food

EN
VU
NI

1
1
1

2
2
2

2

2

2

2 Medicine

112* RL: IUCN Red List category –CR: critically endangered; EN: endangered; VU: vulnerable; NT: near threatened; LC: least
concern; NI: no information. Green cells indicate the ecosystem domain in which each species is found. Grey cells indicate the ecosystem domains represented in the project site but in which the species listed in the left column is notfound.

93

Average importance score*
10
20

0

Regulating

Material

Non-material

30

01. Habitat creation & maintenance
02. Pollination & seed dispersal
03. Air quality reg.
04. Climate reg.
05. Ocean acidification reg.
06. Freshwater flow reg.
07. Water quality reg.
08. Soil protection & formation
09. Hazard reg.
10. Detrimental organisms reg.
11. Energy
12. Food & feed
13. Materials & assitance
14. Medicinal & biochemical
15. Learnig & inspiration
16. Experiences
17. Support identities
18. Maintenance of options
NAF

MAF

GRL

FAL

FRW

COE

SEA

Figure 44. Aggregated scores of the relative value of nature’s contributions to people from different ecosystem domains. Numbers in the NCP-Ecosystem domain matrix indicates the average importance scores of the ecosystem goods and services falling under each NCP category among the project sites in which each ecosystem domain is represented. Thus the numbers are within a range from zero (0) (nonexistent) to five (5) (very important).

94*M

Figure 45. Configurations of the web of interlinkages between ecosystems and people in respective projects

95Biodiversity conservation can be integrated into production activities in SEPLS, as demonstrated by
the projects in four major ways.
One way is to involve local communities in a scientific assessment of threatened species. FFI (Myanmar) and GIF (Seychelles) collaborated with fishers to identify threatened species in their fish catch,and to understand habitats and reproduction behavior of these species. This process built the capacity of fishers to identify threatened species. Moreover, the results provided the basis for the development of rules and regulations for fisheries co-management. TERI (India), WCS (Madagascar), FIDES(Ecuador) and AMPA (Peru) also conducted participatory biodiversity registry and monitoring.
Another way is to promote ecological production building on indigenous, local and scientificknowledge. In Thailand, IMPECT facilitated revitalizing traditional ecological agriculture and cooking
methods and used them to produce and market value-added products. Similarly, in Peru, AMPA revisited traditional wild honey and organic quinoa production, and strengthened their supply chain.
Dahari (Comoros), UIS (Colombia) and FIDES (Ecuador) were also making efforts to encourage farmers to produce high-quality products with reduced ecological impacts.
SEPLS, when degraded, need to be restored to make them fully functional. EPCO collaborated with alocal community to restore mangrove and blackish water system in a Barachois seascape in Mauritius,which once had been abandoned and turned into a waste dumping site. Clean space and water after
the rehabilitation efforts enabled the development of crab aquaculture in Barachois, which was likely
to contribute to local livelihoods and thus encouraging the local community to participate in the rehabilitation activities. WCS (Madagascar) and Dahari (Comoros) also made efforts to restore forests
for their vital services, particularly for water provision.
Alternative economic opportunities can convince local communities to stay in conservation efforts,
especially when such efforts regulate their access to land, sea and their resources in SEPLS. TERI facilitated the development of community-based ecotourism enterprise in Nagaland, India, while they
were reinforcing regulations and their enforcement on hunting, logging and fishing under a newcommunity conservation area (CCA) regime. EPCO developed crab aquaculture in Barachois in Mauritius, as described above. WCS introduced advanced agricultural techniques to increase paddy riceproduction in Madagascar. FIDES revitalized artisanal salt making in the communities adjacent toprotected mangroves in Ecuador.

4.2 How to maintain and use traditional knowledge of SEPLS?
We documented traditional knowledge that the ten projects used to manage SEPLS. In that course,
we identified their declining trend and the factors that underlie the decline. We went further to identify the policies and measures to revitalize and to effectively use indigenous and local knowledge tomanage SEPLS sustainably, drawing on the efforts by the projects and their initial outcomes.
Rich traditional knowledge, encompassing its four nested dimensions, is an integral part of socio-ecological systems in SEPLS (Table 42). As for the first dimension, local people have detailed
knowledge of taxonomy, ecology, harvest and the uses of valuable wild species and crop varieties,
particularly those directly used for food and medicine. They also knew how ecosystems were regulated, e.g., plant seed dispersal by primates, pest rodent control by owls, as well as the biological andphysical signs of freshwater flow and quality, from what they inherited from their elders and fromtheir direct observations. These underlie the second dimension –resource management systems-,
such as sustainable harvest of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), nursery and propagation of usefulflora species, organic agriculture and pest management as well as species-specific fishing methods.
Cases of the third dimension –social institutions- include customary law on forest management andtaboos on land and resource uses in and around sacred forests and water springs. These are embedded in the fourth dimension –world view- collectively held by local communities, such as traditional

96

religious belief in spirits in Madagascar, the Thai Karen’s integrated spirituality, knowledge and practices in rotational farming, as well as the Andean peasant culture and societal, and religious traditions. A holistic body of traditional knowledge encompassing the four nested dimensions enables
local communities to effectively access, utilize and sustainably manage various ecosystem goods andservices derived from SEPLS. However, traditional knowledge on biodiversity was not found or fairly
limited in few areas due to historical socioeconomic hindrances, such as migration, limited resource
access and fragmented social structure deriving from past colonial history.
Traditional knowledge is declining overall due, among others, to changing values and lifestyles,
modern education, lost opportunities for knowledge transmission, rapid population shift from rural to urban areas, land transformation and the limited recognition of traditional knowledge bygovernments (Table 43). Importantly, these factors are inseparably connected to one another andthus require a systematic remedy. For example, better paid jobs in cities motivate rural residents tomove to cities. Higher education requirements for city-type jobs encourage the youth to study hardfor higher education achievement along the nation’s mainstream curriculum. This takes the time thatthey previously had been spending to learn from their elders, and thus reduces the opportunities forthe elders to transmit traditional knowledge to younger generations. Mass land transformation formonocrop plantations is often caused by the ignorance of the government of the rights of indigenous
peoples on lands and resources.
Some policies and measures are available to maintain, evolve and even generate traditional
knowledge that contribute to both production and biodiversity conservation in SEPLS (Table 43).
IMPECT (Thailand), UIS (Colombia), WCS (Madagascar) and Dahari (Comoros) were facilitating reciprocal knowledge exchange among generations and stakeholders to ensure transmission and to
evolve traditional knowledge. They were also making efforts to integrate traditional knowledge andmodern knowledge and technologies for their advanced applications in changing social, economicand ecological contexts. AMPA (Peru), WCS (Madagascar) and IMPECT (Thailand) envisage to revitalize traditional agricultural systems against expanding commercial mono-cropping. Such measures
include integrating traditional and modern knowledge and techniques to create added value to theirproducts. This can enhance the community’s economic self-reliance. As the basis for such measures,
IMPECT (Thailand) produced a map of customary land uses by participatory GIS mapping, and used it
to help local government recognize their customary land uses. In case people do not have traditional
knowledge to manage SEPLS, they can generate locally optimal knowledge and techniques by pilot
testing new practices and brokering best practice knowledge from outside their SEPLS.

97

Table 42. Dimensions and description of traditional knowledge found in different ecosystem domains
Dimension and description of traditional knowledge
EcosystemdomainKnowledge
Management systems
Social institutions
Natural↗Knowledge of forest animals and plants (WCS, → Periodical restrictions (gennas) and ta- ↘Customary law to takeforestboos on killing animals (TERI)
care of forests, taboos in
UIS)↘Sustainable extraction of non-timbersacred forests, use of for↘Identification and use of high value species
ests for youths learning
including medicinal plants (FIDES, IMPECT, UIS); forest products (NTFPs) (WCS)
center (IMPECT);
primate species taxonomy and ecology (WCS);Managed ↘Identification and use of high value species↘Nursery, propagation and use of high(NI)
forestincluding medicinal plants (Dahari, IMPCET),
value tree species such as Nogal, Molinillo
timber trees and hunting prey animals (UIS); role and Panela quemada (UIS); Lunar calendarof Anjouan Scop’s owl in pest rodent control
for farm management, e.g. pruning(Dahari); ecological role of fruit bat and lemur in (FIDES);
seed dispersal and forest regeneration (Dahari)
Grassland (NI)→ Grazing land use and management (UIS) (NI)Freshwater → Predict stream water dynamics (UIS)→ Restriction of fishing or use of poison- ↘Taboo practices in sa↘Clean water indicator animals, e.g. Jub frog and ous roots during fish spawning season
cred water sources (IMyellow leg crab (IMPECT); assessment of physical (TERI)
PECT)and chemical properties of water (UIS);
Mangrove ↘Identification of high value species such as↘Closed season for catches embedded in (NI)black shell and blue crab (FIDES); mangrove’s
mythological beliefs called ‘Vedas’ (FIDES)
function to provide fish spawning and nursing
grounds (GIF, EPCO)
Inshore↘Fish taxonomy, habitat and movements (GIF) → Species-specific fishing methods (GIF) (NI)
Farmland → crop soil and climatic requirements (UIS);↗organic crop (quinoa) production based (NI)
↘Local crop varieties (IMPECT);
on integrated ancestral and modern
knowledge (AMPA);→ Traditional pest management methods
embedded in peasant culture (UIS); Agricultural calendar attuned to nature-sowing of paddy (TERI)↘ Rotational farming (IMPECT)↗Increasing; ↘Declining; → No significant change

98World view
↗Traditional and religious belief intaboo practices on primates (WCS)→Folkloric stories woven around theplants and animals, lycanthropy(TERI)(NI)(NI)→ Myths and legends related to unusual increase of stream flow andflush floods (UIS)
(NI)

(NI)
→Holistic body of interlinked spirituality, knowledge and practices on
rotational farming (IMPECT); Peasantculture and societal and religious
traditions that underlie agriculturaland food practices and environmental perceptions (UIS); propitiation of
the spirit to beg forgiveness for sacrificing living organisms during clearingof forest land for shifting cultivation(TERI)

Table 43. Cause of the loss of traditional knowledge and policies and measures proposed by the project
proponents
Cause of ILK decline
Changing values and lifestyles: People increasingly appreciate modern lifestyles, including
preference for modern medicine to traditional
ones (UIS, WCS).
Modern education: Formal elementary education with national language and with nation-wide standard curriculum reached indigenous communities (IMPECT).
Challenges in knowledge transmission: Transmission of oral and tacit form of knowledge
from elders to the youth became increasingly
difficult partly due to reduced opportunities to
do so (UIS, WCS, Dahari).

Proposed policies and measures
 NI

 Informal community schools to complement mainstream curriculum (IMPECT) Co-produce new knowledge through facilitating reciprocal
knowledge exchange between elders and youths, where youths
learn customary laws and practices, and elders learn modern
technologies (IMPECT) Integrate indigenous tacit knowledge on agroecosystems management into expert knowledge (UIS) Document traditional knowledge and develop its database (WCS) Integrated indigenous and scientific knowledge on the use andhabitat conditions of commonly used tree species (Dahari) Enhance community self-reliance through increasing productivity
by synergizing traditional knowledge and innovative agroforestry
techniques (IMPECT)

Urbanization and rural depopulation: Rural
population is decreasing as more rural youth
seek higher education and better paid jobs incities (IMPECT, UIS).
Land transformation: Native crops and produc-  Boost organic quinoa production and supply chain by revisitingtion systems, such as rotational upland riceancestral knowledge and integrating them with modern techcropping (IMPECT) and quinoa (AMPA), were
nologies (AMPA)
replaced by modern monoculture of export
 Introduce innovative integrated agriculture and production praccrops.
tices, e.g. permaculture and agroforestry (WCS)
Limited recognition of ILK by governments:
 Engage in policy and legal reform to support community-based
The government policies and legislations do not sustainable socio-ecological production systems from local toappropriately recognize, or are sometimes
international levels (IMPECT)
against, ILK or the IPLC’s rights on lands and Community-based GIS mapping of customary land uses (IMPECT)
resources (IMPECT, Dahari)
No ILK: In some areas ILK on biodiversity and Generate knowledge and techniques for ecological aquaculture
ecosystem services have not been accumulated production by pilot testing and brokering best practicedue to historical socioeconomic hindrances
knowledge from outside (EPCO)(EPCO)

4.3 How to improve the governance of SEPLS?
Governance in SEPLS refers to the whole of public and private interactions to solve problems affecting the SEPLS, to create opportunities through the formulation and implementation of innovative
policies and measures. Landscape management is a multi-stakeholder undertaking. In many countries the institutional framework to manage the natural resources in the SEPLS has been designed towork in a sectorial vision (agriculture, forests, mining, conservation, etc.), or in silos, without an integrated landscape management approach. This can generate contradicting policies, plans and investments, as will be discussed subsequently.
This section aggregates the data information compiled regarding the governance systems in the diverse SEPLS of the ten grant projects, experts of which participated in the online survey. It also con-99

ducts comparative analysis to the possible extent considering the distinct geographical, ecologicaland socio-cultural contexts in which the projects have been implemented.
Across the diverse SEPLS a range of different direct and indirect drivers threaten the main ecosystems domains and animal and plant species that are endangered and/or important to the local
communities, but these drivers can be systematically identified and addressed through inclusive
local governance schemes and decision-making processes which raise existing awareness and engagement levels and promote collaborative ecosystem management forms in SEPLS. While a few
positive drivers are also reported, the following section discusses the negative direct and indirectdrivers affecting biodiversity in the different SEPLS, identifying and highlighting commonalities anddifferences between the SEPLS.
Figure 46 shows the direct and indirect drivers affecting the key species and ecosystem domains in
the eight SEPLS of the grant projects. The two main direct drivers affecting the key species of animals
and plants identified for the communities in each of the SEPLS are resource overexploitation (affecting 15 species of a total of 40 species – 5 for each SEPLS) and land use and land cover changes(LULCC, affecting 14). The ecosystems with the highest number of species affected by direct drivers
is natural and/or protected forests and the near shore sea.
The main drivers affecting almost all of the ecosystem domains are land use and land cover changes
and resource overexploitation, followed by pollution:

LULCC have affected almost all ecosystem domains of the eight SEPLS – both crops (e.g. AMPA
and Dahari) and livestock (AMPA) –, deforestation (WCS and AMPA), shifting cultivation (FFI)
and mangrove destruction (FIDES). However, there are also complex cases where the decreaseof one ecosystem domain (such as grasslands) can be due to socio-economic factors (conversion
to cocoa and coffee as more viable options than cattle rearing, or farm abandonment and consequent natural reforestation) or reforestation as part of conservation efforts in a newly declared protected area (UIS). Reforestation has led to an increase in habitat areas for endangered
species in specific cases (UIS). However, a more general trend is habitat loss due to deforestation in other SEPLS (WCS and AMPA).



Resource overexploitation comprises two main types of activities:- Unsustainable wildlife hunting (FFI, WCS, UIS) and overfishing (FFI, FIDES, GIF, EPCO): The
former impacts species in inland forest ecosystems, while the latter affects both freshwaterand marine/coastal ecosystems, including the devastating effects on coral reefs/ sea grassmeadows and sand spits in nearshore waters reported in GIF’s SEPLS.
- Over-harvesting of timber and wood affecting endangered species: Unsustainable timber
harvesting is reported in natural forest ecosystems (Dahari, UIS), while an excessive use ofwood for cooking, ylang ylang distillation and charcoal production also affects resource forests (Dahari). In the case of UIS, the selected logging of high-value timber species has led to alack of seeds for the recovery of endangered tree species. However, there are cases where
the overexploitation of wood from mangroves for energy purposes has significantly decreased as gas and electricity are increasingly important alternatives as in the case of EPCO’s
SEPLS.

A third important driver, less frequent in comparison to the drivers discussed above is pollution
from diverse sources: solid waste dumping (EPCO, FIDES), agrochemicals (FIDES), sewage(FIDES) and garbage from settlements, siltation, gold mining (FFI). It has affected primarily
coastal ecotones (EPCO, FIDES) and the near shore sea ecosystem (GIF).

100

Figure 46. Direct and indirect drivers affecting the key species (red) and ecosystem domains (black), as
identified by the eight demonstration projects in their SEPLS

Although relevant, others less frequent direct drivers are urbanization, climate change, and spreadof invasive species. Urbanization affects mainly coastal ecosystems through tourism and related new
residential infrastructure (FIDES, GIF), and also natural forest ecosystems through the developmentof new settlements or road infrastructure (WCS, FFI). Climate change impacts have been identified
as a driver affecting the coastal and marine SEPLS, e.g. in the form of stronger waves or warmer waters eroding the coastal ecotone, causing coral bleaching and affecting species’ habitat (GIF). It has
also been reported as a factor for an increasing number of landslides in resource forests (Dahari).
Invasive species are reported to have impacts on coastal ecotones and near shore sea but also
freshwater ecosystems and natural forests. The category of other drivers refers to the positive results of conservation and reintroduction efforts, which have led to the expansion of biodiverse ecosystem domains at the expense of grassland for cattle rearing (UIS).
The indirect drivers of changes in biodiversity and ecosystems in the eight SEPLS emphasized by the
online survey were primarily of demographic, economic and socio-cultural nature, or related to policies and governance systems (Figure 46 and Table 44). The growth of human population in seven ofeight SELPS (with the exception of UIS) has increased the pressure of direct drivers such as, pollution
both in landscapes and seascapes (FIDES, EPCO), resource overexploitation (WCS, Dahari), and land
use changes (AMPA). Economic drivers include growth of tourism sector leading to land reclamation& development of coastal areas (EPCO, GIF), cash crop production (e.g. vanilla, cloves, cacao) (WCS,
Dahari), extreme poverty, high unemployment rate, negative incentive policies (for shrimp industry
for export despite of this driving mangroves destruction) and increasing export markets in general(WCS, Dahari, FIDES, GIF).

101

Table 44. Indirect drivers as identified by the eight demonstration projects in their SEPLS
Demo.
Projects

Demographic

Economic

EPCO(Mauritius)

Population increase driving higher demands forfood

Growth of tourism sector leading to land reclamation & development of coastal areas

WCS(Madagascar)

Population growth puttingpressure on forest resources, agricultural land,
protein sources

Dahari(Comoros)High population growthcausing strong pressure
on the natural resources
and the endemic biodiversity
High population increasecausing families forcing
people to develop agriculture and livestock inthe montane forests

Introduced cash crops, e.g. vanilla, cloves, cacao and opening
markets are increasing the demand for agricultural land(cloves, etc.)
Economic situation is critical,
with high unemployment rate.
90% of the population depends
on agriculture. Exports only cash
crops (cloves etc.)
Extreme poverty of the highland
in the absence of productive
lands, driving deforestation andland conversion of montane
forests (agriculture and livestock)
Economic interests prevail atthe expense of conservationinterests: Incentive policies forshrimp industry for export despite the fact that is a maincause of mangroves destruction

AMPA(Peru)FIDES(Ecuador)

Increasing contaminationof the rivers that flow into
the estuarine areas andthe sea due to population
growth lack of priortreatment of wastewaterSocio-cultural

Changes in lifestyle are
increasing the demand forlemur meat and precious
wood
Lack of social cohesion
and the breakdown oftraditional power structures due to poverty

Improved communication (phone network)
increasing
precious
wood extraction & lemur
sports hunting
Improved road infrastructures
increasing
human pressures (woodand river sand extraction)

Policies &systems

governanceIneffective governance focus on permits and patrols; little support for conservation actions
Weak law enforcement &jurisdictional system, resulting in the lack of deterrent for illegal activities(hunting, etc.)
Lack of governance institutions in the villages andabsence of state

Other
drivers

indirect

Poverty fosters forest clearance forrice cultivation andlemur hunting for
subsistence

People see entering thevegetation of montane
forests as a barrier that
does not allow to cultivate
the landGovt. policies encouraged
deforestation to develop
agriculture & cattle raisingleading to degradation of
Peruvian Amazon region

Most young people leaving artisanal fishing activities and losing therefore
their interest in mangrove
conservation

Community based governance system; lacking support to enforce conservation/management; participation low and limited to
information
Creation of the nationalpark and its related policy

Economic & politicalpower of the shrimp
industry
putting
economic interests
first

Limited staff in gov. departments, weak law enforcement and little collaboration between gov. departments and within thelocal communities. Local orindigenous
communities’roles and rights not includedin the rules and regulations

Weak understanding of the rules andregulations regarding to the fisheries,
forestry and wildlife
by the local communities;
limitedawareness
programs

GIF(Seychelles)

Increasedurbanisation
contributing to degradation of coastal habitat innear-shore waters

Increasing export markets andeconomic growth contribute to
greater demand for fish export
hence depletion of fish stocks

Increasing awareness of
the importance of conservation
Increased in standard ofliving; higher demand for
economic and social activities on coastal lowland

FFI(Myanmar)

Population change & immigration

Limited livelihood options, poverty of the local communities,
depending on rapidly declining
natural resources, and conversion of the natural forest to
agricultural lands

Young generations ofremote communities migrating to towns for job
opportunities,
causinglabor shortage in agriculture

UIS(Colombia)

Science & technology

102

Advancement in fisherytechnology contributing
to higher catches; morepressure on threatened
species' populations
Telecommunication andconstruction of new road
networks leading to illegal wood extraction.
Electric fishing due tointroduction of solar
panelsSocio-cultural drivers comprise of unsustainable changes in lifestyle, lack of social cohesion and thebreakdown of traditional power structures, as well as increasing numbers of young people quitting
artisanal fishing activities and losing their interest in conservation. However, cases of increasingawareness of the importance of conservation (UIS) and increasing standard of living (GIF) – although
not necessarily sustainable in the long term – are also reported.
Indirect drivers related to policies & governance systems comprise ineffective management of permits, licenses and patrols (EPCO), lack of institutions (Dahari), weak law enforcement and jurisdictional systems (WCS, AMPA), lack of support of conservation/management (EPCO, FIDES) and low
participation (FIDES). One case demonstrates that the creation of a national park and its related policy can possibly result in positive ecological outcomes, while excluding local communities from any
form of access to the PA (UIS). Science and technology are considerably less frequent, however areimportant in the case of facilitating hunting (WCS) and fisheries (GIF).
SEPLS are not designed to be what they are, but rather have emerged to be what they are as a result of synergies and trade-offs among multiple interests and objectives. Therefore, a complex,
sometimes contradicting, mix of policies and measures rule SEPLS as the result of diverse governance structures and processes in different sectors and at different scales (local, sub-national
and/or national). The existing policies needs to be further streamlined and redesigned or fine-tuned, particularly at the local level, to effectively address the drivers affecting the main ecosystem domains and promote local livelihoods in a comprehensive and consistent manner with theactive engagement of the multiple stakeholders representing diverse interests.
Regulatory instruments constitute the main type of policies or measures to address the direct drivers
in the SEPLS. These are in place targeting all the categories of direct drivers, except for climatechange (Figure 47). These comprise law enforcement measures (WCS, FFI, GIF), including patrollingby state forest guards (Dahari) or by communities (WCS) to prevent resources overexploitation but
also land use changes such as the loss of primary forests (AMPA). They also include regulations tocontrol pollution (FIDES). In fact, in the studied SEPLS, no policy or measure has been reported addressing climate change impacts.
The second most important type of instrument is awareness-raising through information and education targeting all drivers except for climate change. This type of measures includes environmental
education programs (WCS, AMPA, FIDES) and public information on changes in land use plans (GIF).
Market-based instruments and voluntary agreements are also important to specifically address thedrivers of land use changes and resource exploitation in some of the studied SEPLS. The market-based instruments comprise fair trade and bio cash development as incentives for best practices(WCS), the promotion of apiculture (AMPA) and financial incentives for forest conservation (FIDES).
Voluntary agreements include a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme on upstream-downstream water services (UIS) and community-driven natural resource management plans(WCS).

103

Figure 47. Policies and measures addressing each of the drivers, and actors responsible for these policies
and measures.

The main actors in charge of policy-making and programs that affect SEPLS continue to be public orgovernment entities, but other key stakeholders, representing diverse interests at different levels,
including local community organizations and social and environmental NGOs, are increasingly engaged at the landscape/seascape level and beyond, and often responsible for implementing specific instruments that aim to address the negative drivers affecting the SEPLS and their biodiversity.
While protected areas are managed by a single entity, or set of well-defined entities, this is not thecase in many SEPLS. Public and government organizations play a key role in the management of
SEPLS as they are the main actor implementing regulatory instruments. In fact, they were the only
reported actors in this study that implemented regulatory instruments to curb resource overexploitation. Depending on the SEPLS, it was either public/government organizations or NGOs which implemented regulatory instruments addressing the drivers of land cover and land use changes andpollution. NGOs, in turn, were the main actors using information and education-based and market-based instruments (Figure 47), which seek awareness-raising and provision of incentives. To alesser degree, NGOs were also the main actors responsible for voluntary agreements and other typesof measures, including some of the GEF-Satoyama Project grantees. In at least one of the studied
SEPLS it was a formal community organization implementing a voluntary agreement and a regulatory
instrument. The types of actors, forms of interaction and networking vary from site to site, but thisstudy found a common need for collaborative forms of ecosystem management in the SEPLS as
building blocks of participatory and effective governance systems at the landscape or seascape level.
Given these factors, a multi-stakeholder platform is needed to facilitate effective governance.

104With a few exceptions, the main ownership right holders of the different ecosystem domains
found in the eight studied SEPLS coincide with the management right holders, while there are other additional important stakeholder groups involved in the management of most of the ecosystemdomains (Figure 48). The main right-holders in most ecosystem domains (including coastal ecotone,
near shore sea, freshwater and natural and/or protected forest) are governmental or other public
entities. These include the agencies in charge of protected area management but also of public ecosystem domains such as freshwater (FFI, UIS), ecotones (EPCO, GIF, FIDES) or near shore sea (EPCO,
GIF). Jointly, formal and/or informal community organizations are an important right holder group in
the forest ecosystem domains, with informal organizations having the management rights in the
SEPLS of IMPECT’s project (Thailand) and DAHARI’s project (Comoros). The FIDES project (Ecuador)
includes a formal community organization holding both ownership and management rights in the
SEPLS.). Individual community members are the main tenure holders of grassland, land in settlement
areas, farmland and resource forests, particularly in the SEPLS of the Tropical Andes (UIS, FIDES, andpartly AMPA [buffer zone]). NGOs play a leading role in the management of natural protected forests
in only two SEPLS (WCS, AMPA).
Many stakeholder groups are also involved in – or affected by – the management of all ecosystemdomains in the nine SEPLS. In terms of key stakeholder groups, governmental and other public entities and NGOs share a comparable relevance in all ecosystem domains. As a third joint category,formal and/or informal community organizations also play an important role as key stakeholder
groups in terrestrial ecosystem domains (forest ecosystems, grassland, farmland, freshwater ecosystems and settlement areas), with a less clearly stated relevance, particularly of informal organizations, in coastal ecotones and near shore sea. There is some relevance of international organizations
as a stakeholder category, particularly in the management of natural forests, grasslands and coastal
ecotones. The fourth relevant stakeholder group in general is individual community members. Although was not specifically stated as stakeholders in the online questionnaire survey, individual
community members are perceived as key actors in the management of most ecosystems across all
SELPS.

Figure 48. Main ownership and management right holder as well as stakeholder types in each ecosystemdomain, as identified by the eight demonstration projects in their SEPLS
NAF: natural/protected forest; MAF: managed/resource forest; GRL: grassland/rangeland; FAL: farmland; FRW: freshwater
wetland and waterbodies; COE: coastal ecotone (including mangroves); SEA: inshore sea; and URB: settlement/urban.
Note: The quantitative analysis in this diagram takes into account the number of projects in which each ecosystem domain
is present by taking the average, in order to remove the bias caused by the different extent to which each ecosystem domain is present in the nine project sites.

105

While many SEPLS governance schemes involve several right holders and stakeholders including government, NGOs and community organizations, there is a need to strengthen the existing structuresand processes. Many current governance schemes are not fully inclusive, with a weak role of community organizations. Governments at all levels need to actively involve community organizations,transferring management rights so that community organizations can undertake the management
more effectively, and allocating sufficient public resources for these organizations to work efficiently.
It is also important to promote equal representation of both genders and different social (and if applicable ethnic) groups at the community level. All actors responsible for the public or communal
management of ecosystems need to be accountable and transparent to their constituencies. The related decision-making processes benefit from consensus building, agreements and democratic decisions between the different interests within and among the different organizations. It is key to develop and implement policies and programs that contribute to change environmentally harmful practices, and to address the existing problems.

106

5

Conclusion

The review and analysis of the 10 GEF-Satoyama demonstration projects showed that the recognitionof the diversity of ecosystem values (and services) of SEPLS, the existence of robust traditional
knowledge and the functioning of participatory and effective governance schemes is key to the sustainability of SEPLS. Where these three pillars of sustainable ecosystem management mutually reinforce one another, this not only effectively addresses the negative drivers affecting biodiversity (particularly resource overexploitation, land use and land cover changes, climate change and pollution)
but strengthens institutional efforts to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable forms of
production in SEPLS.
The recognition of many terrestrial ecosystem values (and services) by local communities is typicallylinked with extensive traditional knowledge held by communities, not only on their geo-ecologicalfeatures (e.g. lemur ecology in the case of the Makira Forest, Madagascar or landslide prone areas in
the case of Nagaland, India), but also on their management and use (e.g. shifting cultivation in thethree landscapes of the projects in the Indo-Burma target geography), and their role in traditional
beliefs (such as worship of the ancestral spirits of lemur species in the Makira Forest or conservationof sacred groves for performing rituals and ancestral sanctuary in the case of the Karen people).
These values and uses are recognized and often integrated into governance schemes with specificroles in co-management schemes (e.g. joint patrols with rangers such as in the case of Makira Forest
or village councils with decision made by traditional institutions such as tribal chief men in the caseof Nagaland). The creation of community conserved areas (CCAs) are also important and effective
outcomes of local governance schemes that have the strength of building on local level consensus.
However, there are cases where the knowledge held by local communities is not sufficiently recognized and exchanged with government agencies. The lack of recognition of local knowledge is often
reflected by an underrepresentation or even exclusion of local communities in the governancestructures and decision-making processes affecting their SEPLS, particularly in the case of protectedareas. In such cases, creating opportunities for an exchange of knowledge held by communities andscientists or government officials is a first step towards overcoming possible mutual mistrust and institutionalizing platforms for continued dialogue, initially, and future collaboration. Providing venues
for capacity building of community organizations is another possible intervention that can be effective in enhancing the recognition of ecosystem values, complementing local/traditional and scientificknowledge, and creating the basis for co-management governance schemes.
Seascapes, encompassing various ecosystems including coral reef lagoons, sea grass beds, mangroves
and sometimes a hybrid of nature and built structure such as Barachois in Mauritius, constitute a vital component of global biodiversity, and provide multiple benefits to coastal communities. Coastal
communities place primary importance on fisheries resources for livelihoods, and hold rich local or
traditional knowledge of fish reproduction, movements and harvest. They also recognize regulating
functions of coastal ecosystems, such as the contribution of mangrove to regulating coastal hazards.
However, ongoing global changes beyond their control, such as changing climate and depleting resource, increasingly threaten their livelihoods. The projects in Seychelles and Mauritius demonstrated the opportunities to overcome these challenges. One vital step was to integrate scientific and traditional knowledge. In Seychelles, the project investigated threatened species in artisanal fish catchusing scientific methods, and suggested the way to reduce fishing pressure on these species. In Mauritius, the project developed crab aquaculture techniques based on a practice of Barachois aquaculture developed centuries ago. Both projects made a substantial step forward towards incorporatingthese practices as a part of co-management scheme under official fisheries rules and regulations.

107

For policy-makers and land managers, the existence of interlinkages between values, traditional
knowledge and governance means that the development and implementation of polices for SEPLS
need to systematically take into account the values of the different ecosystems that are relevant tothe affected communities, draw from both scientific and traditional knowledge and be inclusive ofand coherent between the different sectors and levels of governance. For this, effective communication and consensus-building between all the stakeholders is key.
A few projects under the GEF-Satoyama Project have also demonstrated that local leaders and resource persons play a crucial role in mobilizing the communities, as they constitute the window ofcommunication to and from the communities, and sustaining the initiatives after the project terms.

108

References
Alcaldía de San Vicente de Chucurí, S. (2017). Información general.
Andrade-C., M. G. (2011). Estado del conocimiento de la biodiversidad en Colombia y sus amenazas.
Consideraciones para fortalecer la interacción ciencia–política. Revista de La Academia Colombiana deCiencias Exactas, Físicas Y Naturales, 35(137), 491–507.
Atkinson, G. (2017). The Barachois Project – A Baseline Study – Native and Endemic Species – Terrestrial Plants.
Mahebourg, Mauritius.
Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred Ecology (2nd ed.). Routledge.
CAS, C. A. R. de S. (2017). Parque Nacional Natural Serranía de Los Yariguíes - Fauna.
Castellanos-Morales, C. A., Marino-Zamudio, L. L., Guerrero-V., L., & Maldonado-Ocampo, J. A. (2011). Pecesdel departamento de Santander, Colombia. La Revista de La Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas,
Físicas Y Naturales, 35(135), 189–212.
Coche, A. G. (1982). Coastal aquaculture : development perspectives in Africa and case studies from otherregions = Aquaculture côtière : perspectives de développement en Afrique et exemples d’autres régions.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/008/ad794b/AD794B00.htm#TOC
DANE, D. A. N. de E. C. (2015). Estimación y proyección de población nacional, departamental y municipal totalpor área 1985-2020.
Deja, E. (2016). Feasibility study: developing community-based mariculture in the Barachois of Residences laChaux, Mahebourg. Final Report. Mahebourg, Mauritius.
Deja, E. (2017). The Barachois Project Household Survey Report. Mahebourg, Mauritius.
Donegan, T., Huertas, B., Arias, J. J., Briceño, E., & Donegan, M. (2005). Colombian EBA Project Report Series 5:
Threatened Species of Serranía de los Yariguíes. October. https://doi.org/ISSN 1811-1246
Donegan, T. M., Avendaño, J. E., Briceño-L., E. R., Luna, J. C., Roa, C., Parra, R., … Huertas, M. (2010). Aves de la
Serranía de los Yariguíes y tierras bajas circundantes, Santander, Colombia. Cotinga, 32, OL 72–89.
Fagoonee, I. (1990). Coastal marine ecosystems of Mauritius. Hydrobiologia, 208(1–2), 55–62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00008443
Hollup, O. (2000). Structural and sociocultural constraints for user-group participation in fisheries managementin Mauritius. Marine Policy, 24(5), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(00)00016-6
IPBES. (2017). Update on the classification of nature’s contributions to people by the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany.
IUCN, I. U. for the C. of N. (2017). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Lopez-Casero, F., Cadman, T., & Maraseni, T. (2016). Quality-of-governance standards for forest management
and emissions reduction. Developing community forestry and REDD+ governance through a multi-stage,
multi-level and multi-stakeholder approach. 2016 Update. Retrieved fromhttps://pub.iges.or.jp/pub/quality-governance-standards-forest-management
Mantilla Blanco, J., Argüello Angulo, A. L., & Méndez Aldana, H. (2000). Caracterización y Tipificacián de los
Productores de Cacao del Departamento de Santander. Bucaramanga.
Montañez Monsalve, X. (2013, December). Con su permiso, don Pedro Hernández. Vanguardia.com.
Olaya, E., Velosa, R., Rodriguez, A., Bueno-Castellanos, J., Holguín, L. (UAESPNN-T. (2010). Zonificación
ambiental del Parque Nacional Natural Serranía de Los Yariguíes.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Retrieved fromhttp://books.google.co.jp/books?hl=ja&lr=&id=4xg6oUobMz4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=governing+the+co
mmons+著者:ostrom&ots=aN5xyMjCVn&sig=Xh-Il0ePbPIkTyuWLOeCsiMLJxw
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., … Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s
contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 7–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Paul, E. C., & Balkema, A. A. (1987). Fisheries development and the food needs of Mauritius. Rotterdam, theNetherlands: CRC Press.
Rawson, G. C. (1988). Future strategies for the fisheries of Mauritius. Food Policy, 13(4), 409–411.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-9192(88)90096-6
Rodríguez-Moreno, R. A. Ortega-Chinchilla, J. E. Ramírez-Pinilla, M. P., & Serrano-Cardozo, V. H. (2014). Anfibios,
Reptiles y Mamíferos del Área de influencia, Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Sogamoso, Guía Ilustrada.
Bucaramanga.

109

Rosado, L. (2006). Lista preliminar de escarabajos coprófagos. In T. Huertas, B. & Donegan (Ed.), Investigación yEvaluación de las Especies Amenazadas de la Serranía de los Yariguíes, Santander, Colombia. (Serranía delos Yariguíes Assessment and Research of Endangered species). Informe Final 2005-2006.
UIS (Universidad Industrial de Santander). (2017). Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production
Landscapes and Seascapes. Assessment Workshop Reporting Form. Bucaramanga.
Yarumo, P. (1991, November). El Compadre Pedro Hernández. El Tiempo.

110