From Readers

Your Letters and Comments

Equal Seats at the Table

“Win-Win Illusions” by Jon Christensen in the Winter 2004 issue addresses an important issue—one of concern to members of the conservation community, indigenous people, and individuals and organizations advocating for indigenous rights. As noted in the article, the recent World Parks Congress meeting in Durban discussed some of the issues, but satisfactory solutions still seem to be elusive.

The article essentially discusses the views of white males concerning indigenous-conservation conflicts. It ignores and does not cite the views of indigenous individuals and organizations, even though mention is made of the Izocenos in the Chaco (in Bolivia, not in Paraguay, as stated by Christensen) and of the agreement for joint management of the national park by the indigenous group and the national government. Redford’s statement that “it was an agreement to mutually use each other for independent ends within a coherent package” may be a stopgap pragmatic solution, but as long as the ends are independent the solutions are not likely to be long lasting.

Indigenous people must have an equal seat at the table and be true partners with the conservation community to arrive at meaningful and stable solutions. Unless this happens, the conflicts will not be resolved. The large, internationally operating conservation organizations including Wildlife Conservation Society, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International–that have received millions of dollars for large scale conservation efforts in indigenous territories from governments and private donors–need to better understand how to collaborate and partner with indigenous groups, not only in an atmosphere of mutual respect but also as equals in their relationships. That also means indigenous groups need some funding support to help them enunciate their agendas and needs.

JACK VANDERRYN

Senior Fellow Environment and Development

The Moriah Fund, Washington DC

It’s About Time for Wetlands

It is about time we begin speaking out on the failures of wetland restoration as it relates to mitigation (”Reflections on the Pond,” Winter 2004). For the past 15 years I have been involved in the design and construction of tidal and nontidal wetland mitigation projects throughout the Eastern seaboard and Midwest. I have seen first-hand the “pond” phenomenon that Joy Zedler refers to as “the ecological equivalent of a…cookie-cutter suburb…of the contemporary landscape.”

Recently, I was reviewing plans for a tidal wetland restoration project that completely missed the mark regarding tidal ranges. If the project were to move forward, the result would be an expanse of mudflats with a sea of open water. More commonly, I encounter nontidal wetland mitigation projects that end up as ponds with, maybe, a vegetated fringe around the edge. While Zedler refers to these “wetlands” as the ecological equivalent of a fast-food chain, I refer to them as a salad bowl without any salad. What is wrong here? I have three observations.

First, permit applicants who are required to restore wetlands as mitigation for unavoidable impacts often do so kicking and screaming. They are reluctant at best and completely unwilling at worst to spend the money required to do the job right. Site selection, collection of adequate reference data, and monitoring are some of the elements that typically suffer from this lack of funding.

Second, regulatory agencies often do not enforce performance standards for successfully completing the mitigation requirements. This is typically due to un-derfunding, political pressures, lack of expertise, or lack of interest. In fact, rarely are performance standards even mandated. Once permit applicants and consultants become aware of this lack of attentiveness, design and implementation tend to take the least expensive and easiest route to compliance. For information on a prescribed standard, see the Society for Ecological Restoration International’s primer (available at www.ser.org).

Third, the more you learn about the complexities of wetlands and ecological restoration, the less you realize you know. It takes a truly collaborative effort by individuals trained in a myriad of scientific disciplines and engineering design. I could no sooner carry out a wetland restoration project by myself than could a civil engineer or a soil scientist acting alone. Why do we allow only a licensed civil engineer to design a bridge, yet anyone can design a wetland restoration project? Are wetlands not in fact much more complex and just as important to our overall health and welfare and to the biodiversity of our planet?

KEITH BOWERS

Professional Wetland Scientist

Registered Landscape Architect Biohabitats, Inc., Maryland

Have We Failed the Acid Test?

In 1987, A.D. Bradshaw argued that restoration is the acid test of our ecological understanding, that when we can recreate self-sustaining systems that replicate natural ones, we will have demonstrated that we truly understand how natural systems work (1). As Joy Zedler and Sarah DeWeerdt suggest in “Reflections on the Pond” (Winter 2004), the essence of what makes an ecologically functioning wetland is a complicated matter, and we as wetland scientists and restorationists have clearly not yet mastered the details.

I agree wholeheartedly with Zedler’s argument that we must start thinking about restoration projects not just as engineering feats but also as scientific experiments. In the face of insufficient knowledge, adaptive management is the only prudent course. To improve our outcomes, we should start every project with a series of testable hypotheses and develop monitoring plans to deliver data that can help us improve our understanding—and our practice—over time.

We might also think more pro-actively about where in the landscape wetland restoration is likely to have the greatest impacts. Although we don’t always have a choice of restoration sites, when we do, we should maximize the potential for the functions we want to restore.

Looking at the wetlands in the Lake Champlain Basin using GIS, my colleagues and I found those that best improved water quality shared certain traits: they received runoff from agricultural and suburban lands and they were connected to lower-order streams where water contact time was maximizeded. Because improving water quality is a high priority in this region, this information is immediately useful to help find locations where wetland restoration might provide the greatest benefit. Like Bernthal and his colleagues, we have found that, with GIS, landscape considerations can be factored into restoration planning with a minimal burden.

Combining proactive siting with a rigorous experimental approach offers the greatest potential for improving our outcomes, and that is what restoration is truly about—returning functioning ecosystems to the landscape.

MARY C. WATZIN

Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources

University of Vermont, Burlington

1. Bradshaw, A.D. 1987. Restoration: An acid test for ecology. In W.R. Jordan, M.E. Gilpin, and J.D. Aber, eds. Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K.

Shady Coffee

In response to “Does Shade Coffee Help or Hinder Conservation?” (Winter 2004), I believe the value of shaded coffee plantations to conservation is undisputable. But like everything, there’s a time and a place. In the right conditions, conservation of these areas should be a priority. For example, in tropical America, including the tropical U.S. (e.g., Puerto Rico), shade coffee plantations play an important role in the conservation of native wildlife. By the 1920s, 90 percent of all forest cover in Puerto Rico was shade coffee plantations. Now, these areas provide good habitat in the midst of a heavily altered landscape.

But shade coffee certification programs need to include incentives to pro-tect existing habitats and to restore nat-ive canopy in coffee monocultures. The Partners for Fish & Wildlife program gives an example on how to achieve this. Through this program, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been able to restore hundreds of hectares of shade coffee in Puerto Rico and is looking to expand to other coffee-producing areas in the U.S. Well managed and strategically restored, these plantations serve as ecological corridors between natural reserves and act as refugia for many native, endemic, and migratory species.

LEOPOLD MIRANDA-CASTRO

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arlington, Virginia