Higharcs Project Title
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Project Acronym: HighARCS Project Title: Highland Aquatic Resources Conservation and Sustainable Development Deliverable 3.2 Title: An introduction to the HighARCS Integrated Action Plans, with a conservation perspective Date: 29th May 2012 Revision: Final Lead beneficiary for the Deliverable: IUCN Dissemination Level: PU 1 Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2. DPSIR category definitions .................................................................................................................... 5 3. Site Integrated Action Plans (IAPs) ....................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Beijiang River, China............................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Phu Yen, Son La, Viet Nam ................................................................................................................ 14 3.3 Dakrong, Quang Tri, Viet Nam .......................................................................................................... 18 3.4 Buxa, West Bengal, India ................................................................................................................... 22 3.5 Nainital, Uttrakhand, India ................................................................................................................ 26 4. References .......................................................................................................................................... 31 2 1. Introduction This report (Deliverable 3.2) is an introduction focused on the conservation aspects, for the Integrated Action Plans (IAPs) produced by the HighARCS project for the 5 sites (see Annexes 1 to 5) for the full IAP documents). In conjunction with this conservation focused report there are two additional reports that provide a similar assessment of the IAPs but with a livelihoods (D4.2) and a policy (D5.3) perspective. There will also be an additional synthesis report (D4.3) that provides an interdisciplinary assessment of the IAPs, by comparing and contrasting the outcomes of the individual disciplinary assessments. In this report each of the project sites IAP will be discussed separately, and will use a Driving Force, Pressures, State, Impacts and Response (DPSIR) framework as defined by Maxim et al. (2009) to present the relevant issues and proposed actions. This methodology has been chosen as the DPSIR framework is regarded as casual framework used to describe the interactions between society and the environment (EEA 2010) in a policy meaningful way (Maxim et al. 2009). It is also widely accepted and commonly used for interdisciplinary indicator development (Svarstad et al. 2008), making it a useful methodological tool to help the identification and development of indicators for the HighARCS project. Due to the huge complexity in natural systems the DPSIR framework adopted (Figure 1) does not make connections between individual issues across the categories (D,P,S,I and R), nor is it a linear relationship between the categories. For example, a single Driving Force may lead to a number of Pressures, State conditions and Impacts, and societies Response can be targeted at one or more these categories. While the strengths of a DPSIR framework as a communication tool are widely accepted, it has been identified as inappropriate analytical tool. To address this, Maxim et al. (2009) have reframed the DPSIR based on the interfaces between the ‘four spheres of sustainability’ (environmental, economic, social, and political) (Table 1), for application in integrative analysis of relationships between policy, society, economy and the environment (in their case specifically biodiversity) (Maxim et al. 2009). By using this model we hope to be able to use the DPSIR tables as more than just a communication tool and also as an analytical tool (in this document but primarily in the synthesis report) to help identify gaps and possible conflicts created through the IAPs (the ‘Responses’). Drivers Pressures Responses State Impact Figure 1. Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Response (DPSIR) framework. 3 Table 1. The interfaces between the ‘four spheres of sustainability’ and the association of the DPSIR categories (Taken from Maxim et al. 2009). See Section 2 for more information on the DPSIR definitions. Four spheres of Social Economic Environmental Political sustainability Social Driving Force Economic Driving Force Driving Force Environmental Impacts Pressures State Political Response Response Response Driving Force There is criticism of the DPSIR framework that when applied to biodiversity, the framework favours a preservationist approach, neglecting non‐conservation positions due to ‘the lack, so far, of efforts to find a satisfactory way of dealing with the multiple attitudes and definitions of issues by stakeholders’ (Svarstad et al. 2008). This is addressed in the HighARCS project through the integrated approach incorporating different disciplines (conservation, livelihoods, policy) in the planning and application of the research, and through engagement with a wide range of stakeholders at each site so that the views and opinions have been reflected in the identification of, and the relationships between, the Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, and Responses. However, as noted above, this report is focusing on the conservation aspects of the IAPs and should not be read in isolation from the Livelihoods and Policy reports or the synthesis report. These reports will allow policy makers at the sites to better understand the environmental problems facing the communities and the environment that they depend upon but also how the HighARCS project is working with stakeholders to address specific issues. The HighARCS project is adopting an integrated methodology as defined by the IUCN Integrated Wetland Assessment Toolkit (Springate‐Baginsky et al. 2009), to undertake the situation analysis and assessment at the sites. However, what the toolkit does not provide is specific methodologies on how to present, critically analyse, monitor and evaluate any actions proposed. Therefore the tools used in this report (DPSIR tables) and those in the forthcoming IAP Monitoring and Evaluation Reports (D6.1, 7.1 & 8.1) will feed directly in to the next version of the IUCN IWA Toolkit. In the following section (section 2) the DPSIR categories and definitions used in this report are stated and discussed. Section 3 summarises, with a conservation perspective, the IAPs from each site separately using the DPSIR framework to provide a clear communication of the actions being proposed and a simple analysis to highlight strengths and potential gaps within each IAP. 4 2. DPSIR category definitions Driving Forces (Defined by the interfaces between the political‐social; political‐economic; political‐ environmental spheres of sustainability, see Table 1). For this report, Driving Forces are ‘changes in the social, economic and institutional systems (and/or their relationships) which are triggering, directly and indirectly Pressures’ (Maxim et al. 2009). As with most DPSIR literature (Maxim et al. 2009), only anthropogenic factors (manifested in political, social and economic factors) are included as Driving Forces. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defined drivers of ecosystem change as ‘any natural or human‐induced factor that directly or indirectly causes a change in an ecosystem’ (MEA 2003) but this seems to encompass both Driving Forces and Pressures (Maxim et al. 2009). Pressures (Defined by economic‐environmental interface, see Table 1). In this report Pressures are defined as ‘consequences of human activities (i.e. release of chemicals, use of resources) which have the potential to cause or contribute to adverse effects (Impacts)’ (Maxim et al. 2009). Note that only pressures that cause negative changes to the environment are included. However, it is difficult to be certain (based on evidence) when a human activity becomes a Pressure (stressor of the environment). In this study, as with many (Maxim et al. 2009), the scientific evidence of a cause effect relationship between anthropogenic factors and changes in the environment is minimal, and therefore the identification of stressors and whether it has a negative impact is largely based on societal opinion and value systems, i.e. on the views of the stakeholders at each site, including the field research teams. State (Defined by environmental sphere, see Table 1). State is defined as ‘the quantity of biological features (within species, between species, and between ecosystems) or physical and chemical features of ecosystems, and/or of environmental functions [i.e. ecosystem services] vulnerable to pressures’ (Maxim et al. 2009). Due to the complexity of natural systems all aspects that are vulnerable to Pressures can not be measured or even identified, and therefore indicators are often chosen to represent certain aspects or characteristics. The term ‘quality’ (along with quantity) is often applied within the definition of State, but Maxim (2009) does not include it as the term suppose a comparative judgement with a given threshold considered sustainable. State has also been used to refer to natural and socio‐economic systems for example levels of employment or income of an industry (Rogers & Greenaway 2005), and the MEA (2005) adopted