List of Changes

17th March, 2005 Dear Dr. Gill. We would like to take the opportunity to thank you and your reviewers for an engaging and thorough evaluation of our paper “Bottom Up and Top Down: Analysis of Participatory Processes for Sustainability Indicator Identification as a Pathway to Community Empowerment and Sustainable Environmental Management” (Manuscript number 857-04). We have gone through the reviewers comments carefully and have made the following changes to the manuscript. In the following pages we have first shown how we have addressed the two reviewers’ main concerns. Then, we have itemized and addressed each of the first reviewer’s minor concerns We hope that these changes meet with your approval and look forward to hearing from you. Yours truly,

Evan Fraser Major concerns. Reviewer one had three major comments. First, (s)he stated, “The authors could more powerfully make their point in the introduction and in the summary by more explicitly contrasting development approaches that had and did not have community involvement in proposing and measuring indicators.” To address this point we have added the following text (note, each of these are highlighted in the attached file): The formalisation of ‘bottom-up’ community involvement in environmental management projects has been driven by past failings of ‘top-down’ approaches. This shift in emphasis still requires careful analysis of diverse case studies where there has been a move to involve communities in proposing and measuring sustainability indicators, to analyse the extra benefits that the integration of top-down and bottom-up approaches achieve. This paper analyses the findings from three, purposefully different, case study settings where there has been a move from top-down initiatives towards greater community involvement as the basis for improving environmental monitoring and management. Page 4 Ongoing harvesting activities in the Sound, planned in a top-down manner by forestry companies and involving extensive clearcutting, were observed over time to be associated with environmental problems. For example, it has been shown that the frequency of landslides is nine times greater on harvested sites than in undisturbed forest areas in the region (Jakob 2000). The failure of the top-down approach to prevent significant erosion and site degradation on clearcut areas spurred experimentation with alternative planning approaches that involved greater community participation. Page 7 This support for bottom-up participatory initiatives is also prevalent throughout the Ministry of Agriculture where seminars have openly discussed the past failings of top- down, rangeland fencing and commercialisation focused policies. Page 12 Traditionally, developing environmental management plans has been the domain of highly trained experts who are hired for the task. It is generally perceived that this approach has led to a number of failures as these managers rarely had the benefit of detailed local knowledge and failed to generate community support for policy changes. As a result, it is generally agreed that environmental managers and policy-makers need tools to bring together local community input along side expert advice to measure the impact of policies and management plans. By reviewing three disparate case studies where this process has been tried, we can learn a number of lessons. Page 23 This reviewer’s second point was that, “the discussion section needs a lead-in paragraph that frames the discussion in terms of the range of issues it will examine.” To address this we have added the following text (highlighted in the attached): A number of key issues emerge directly out of these case studies. First, the participatory methods were good in that they helped generate long and comprehensive lists of indicators. This involved a trade off, and these processes tended to be very complicated and take along time to complete. A second key lesson is that during the process of selecting indicators, communities became more empowered. This was probably the most significant benefit in each case. Finally, it is not clear from these cases the scale at which this kind of process works best. If this is done at too local a scale (perhaps at the community or household level) then there may be too many site-specific indicators, and it would become impossible to compare regions. It is also unclear on the best way to choose a higher level of aggregation. Page 19 Note: we have also added three subheadings within the discussion section (4.1 Comprehensiveness versus usability; 4.2 Community empowerment; 4.3 Scale) to provide some guidance to the reader on the structure of the discussion. The reviewer’s third point is that “Figure 3 is not a “simple flow diagram…It is simplified, but its meaning covers a complex range of factors and interactions which are not at all readily apparent to the reader or explained by the text…If the authors chose to use this it should be explained more thoroughly with an example.” We have decided to keep the figure, and have added the following text to explain it more fully: To identify these disparate stakeholders at an early stage, the authors propose using a simplified flow diagram that shows major environmental pathways through a landscape, (heuristically presented in Figure 3). In the B.C. case study, forest harvesting activities high in the hills surrounding the Sound disrupted terrestrial biomass, and in turn the loss of forest cover led to significant disturbance of the soil systems underlying these sites. These disturbances also impacted the flow of water on watersheds through the site, which disturbed fish populations and led to mutually reinforcing interactions between aquatic and soil systems that destabilized slopes and caused landslides. Harvesting operations, therefore, impacted a larger population than those whose activities took them into the forest; and included any people who utilized local streams and rivers, and even who could simply observe the slopes beneath clearcuts felt the impact of industrial activity. These connections spread the disturbance well beyond the bounds of the clearcut itself. Page 22-23. The second reviewer made two main points. First, her/his main concern was that the methodology was not fully explored and that “…that some of the comparative analysis is guided a bit too much by the particular findings in the 3 disparate case studies.” This point was also raised by the first reviewer’s 4th “endnote” comment. To address this concern we have deleted a number of lines of text on page 6, and added the following passages (which are highlighted in the attached): Although the socio-economic and environmental settings of the three case studies differ greatly, each demonstrates a shift towards integrating participatory ‘bottom-up’ approaches with conventional ‘top-down’ systems that had failed to realise sustainable environmental management in the past. Page 5 The recent move to community participation was common in all three case studies and offers interesting comparability despite each coming from radically different social, economic and environmental contexts. Page 6 Although there are many differences between the case studies, comparison and analysis of such different regions is appropriate because local issues such as poverty (are people too poor to engage in long-term management?), biophysical issues (what are the major environmental issues in a region?) and the structure of the society (do some groups depend on the environment for different resources?) will affect the ways in which local residents engage in the integration of past top-down and participatory approaches. As a result, the three case studies represent a wide range of experiences in how participatory processes structured around identifying and monitoring sustainability indicators may affect environmental management. Page 6 - 7 Reviewer two was also concerned that the style of prose was vague in places. To address this we have edited text throughout the document and have also changed the two sentences (s)he identified in the abstract. The new text (highlighted in the attached now read): The identification and collection of sustainability indicators not only provide valuable databases for making management decisions, but the process of engaging people to select indicators also provides an opportunity for community empowerment that conventional development approaches have failed to provide. Page 2 Multi-stakeholder processes must formal feed into decision-making forums or it will risk being viewed as irrelevant by policy-makers and stakeholders. Page 2 Minor Concerns The first reviewer also made a large number of comments using the “track changes” function in MS WORD. In the following bullet points we have itemized each of these and identified how we have addressed each concern. 1. Page: 4 Needs at least one citation of a major summary (perhaps the book by Morse and--?) a. We have added the requested citations (See: Bell & Morse, 1999; 2003). 2. Page: 4 While you mention this later, it would be good to emphasize at this point another key driver of this centralized approach – the need for top level analysts and policy people to compare performances across regions or between nations, etc. a. We have added the following text (highlighted in attached) that allow regions to be compared (Bell and Morse, 2003). 3. Page: 5 [s3] Unlikely to continue helping a. We have edited this text. 4. Page: 6 [s4] You state that they are similar, but how are they similar across these three cases? a. This comment has been addressed in above responses to reviewers comments. 5. Page: 6 [s5] More to the point, you are raising the issue of power relations and differential rights of access, so social justice and local capacity for management enter here as well. a. We agree with this observation but have taken no action. 6. Page: 7 [s6] Is it not the striking fragmentation of the landscape (especially in the NW USA but also in BC) that has stimulated environmental activism more than the attraction of Old Growth? Clearcutting at large scales is definitely a product of conventional top down planning and can … a. We have clarified the text, which now reads: “Ongoing harvesting activities in the Sound, planned in a top-down manner by forestry companies and involving extensive clearcutting, were observed over time to be associated with environmental problems. For example, it has been shown that the frequency of landslides is nine times greater on harvested sites than in undisturbed forest areas in the region (Jacob 2000). The failure of the top-down approach to prevent significant erosion and degradation on clearcut areas spurred experimentation with alternative planning approaches that involved greater community participation. These failures also attracted the attention of eco- tourists and environmental groups, who have fought to protect the remaining old-growth forests from continued logging.” 7. Page: 8 [s7] balances and contrasts social and ecological factors by informing. a. We have made the changes to the text requested. 8. Page: 8 [s8] By functionally linking goals with objectives with measurable indicators by integrating local participation with contributions of experts and policy makers. a. We have not made this editorial change. 9. Page: 9 [s9] Technical committees – how many of them, how big are they, does each relate to a specific geographic area? a. We discussed adding this extra detail on the process but decided that it would take a considerable amount of extra text to outline the exact series of steps and meetings undertaken and that this detracted from the over-all paper. 10. Page: 9 [s10] What are these bodies? (at least one example would help) a. We have changed the text to read: “…resource planning bodies (such as government departments) and made up of representatives from First Nations…” 11. Page: 9 [s11] How does one average across categories or qualities? Or were the indicators recorded as numbers (0 to 100) which were lumped into categories (poor to excellent) only for communication and assessment but were averaged as numbers? a. Each indicator was scored from 0-100 and these numbers were then averaged. This is explained one sentence earlier in the text. 12. Page: 10 [s12] To what extent did the process increase respect and trust between different groups thereby increasing the chances of stakeholder buy-in and sustained participation? a. This point is addressed in detail in the discussion of the paper. 13. Page: 11 [s13] It also means maintaining sufficient grass biomass to sustain fires that keep shrubs and bushes in check. a. We agree and have amended the text to read: This is especially troubling since the ecological literature suggests that a dryland’s ability to support livestock depends on maintaining a diverse and heterogeneous landscape in terms of fodder resources (Scoones, 1995) and that bush encroachment can only be checked by fire events when a grass cover remains to sustain the spread of fires (Scholes & Walker, 1993). 14. Page: 12 [s14] It would be very interesting to know the space/time dimensions of the process. How long does each phase last as well as the whole process, how many people in each group covering how big an area (i.e. what is a community in Botswana?), who facilitated it and how (ecologists, social scientists, policy people, local government, professional facilitators? a. We have added the following texts: The process was developed over an 18 month timeframe initially in South Kgalagadi sites, however the framework shown in Figure 2 has then been applied in a two week timeframe at the other two study sites with the use of both the lead researcher, but also Government extension service staff who conducted interviews after an initial training session. This ensures widespread community participation (over 50 interviews in each region) in a relatively short timeframe. 15. Page: 14 [s15] This is a very important point that I wish the authors would expand on. It implies not only good vs bad but also that outsider experts focus on what they feel they can measure. It also implies that outsiders focus on… a. We have added the following text: Our research highlights the need for the process of integration of local knowledge, scientific research and policy support to be initiated from the bottom-up (i.e. putting the pastoralist first). This is particularly true as regional scientific views of grass fodder nutritional value (e.g. van Oudsthoorn, 1999) provide only a single value for any single grass species, compared to the more detailed views of pastoralists on the need to retain a suite of grasses in rangelands that can provide benefits at different times in local management decision-making. Our findings also display that setting a project goal of an agreed list of scientifically applicable and policy relevant indicators offers a mechanism to involve researchers and policy-makers in indicator evaluation and thus to achieve the hybrid knowledge conceptualised in academic debates (e.g. Thomas & Twyman, 2004). 16. Page: 15 [s16] Examples? a. We have changed the text, which now reads: The participatory methodological framework developed in this case study (Figure 2) has successfully engaged a wide range of stakeholders (communal and commercial pastoralists, rich and poor, extension workers, researchers and policy-makers) in the identification and evaluation of degradation indicators, resulting in the production of three distinct sub-District level rangeland assessment guides. 17. Page: 19 [s17] The authors might contrast this challenge with the problem of measuring the wrong indicators that were quickly generated in a top-down process. How long does it take to recognize that you are not measuring the right things and then to establish the process to identify and measure the right indicators? a. We agree this is an interesting point, unfortunately our case studies do not allow us to make an conclusions about how long it would take a participatory process to identify wrong indicators and measure the right ones. 18. Page: 20 [s18] It is hard to imagine decisions that are not driven to some extent by such concerns. Do you mean to say that when such concerns dominate how we see, analyze and discuss to the point where we do not include key information or do not integrate information, then we have a environmental façade covering an ignorant process that is controlled by a special interest (political, social, economic)? a. We also agree with this point, though there does not seem to be any need to change the text to reflect this. 19. Page: 20 [s19] One promise of these approaches is that the process of proposing and measuring indicators sustains learning and allows the community to adapt and respond. This sentence implies that the learning process ceases, and all is lost unless they pick up the manuals. It is true that at one point you have to summarize and apply what was learned, but what does that say about such learning processes with indicators? a. To address this point, we have changed the text to read: In Botswana, it remains unclear whether the empowerment generated by the process described in this paper will result in better land management. 20. Page: 20 [s20] Not sure why this conclusion follows from the previous sentence. a. We have clarified this by editing the following text: In British Columbia, the Scientific Panel was the body responsible for developing land use plans. They decided that they needed a large database of social, economic and environmental indicators to make plans and hired a consultant to conduct the wellbeing assessment to obtain these indicators. This meant that community participation, which was organized by the consultant were removed from actual land use decision-making that was still under the control of the Scientific Panel 21. Page: 22 [s21] Does this suggest that it is dangerous to try to operate at only one scale (identify, analyse, act, monitor) and that, in fact, one should develop several viewpoints based at different scales, that the contrasts between such perspectives tell as much as the perspectives themselves? AND Page: 22 [s22] Especially important if migratory species are a key resource a. We have addressed both of these comments by adding the following text. This also addresses one of this reviewer’s primary concerns discussed above. To identify these disparate stakeholders at an early stage, the authors propose using a simplified flow diagram that shows major environmental pathways through a landscape, (heuristically presented in Figure 3). In British Columbia, forest harvesting activities high in the hills surrounding the Sound disrupted terrestrial biomass, and in turn the loss of forest cover led to significant disturbance of the soil systems underlying these sites. These disturbances also impacted the flow of water on watersheds through the site, which disturbed fish populations and led to mutually reinforcing interactions between aquatic and soil systems that destabilized slopes and caused landslides. Harvesting operations, therefore, impacted a larger population than those whose activities took them into the forest; and included any people who utilized local streams and rivers, and even who could simply observe the slopes beneath clearcuts felt the impact of industrial activity. These connections spread the disturbance well beyond the bounds of the clearcut itself. 22. Page: 23 [s23] Again you hint at your title, but do not bring home decisively your effort to bridge Top Down and Bottom Up. a. To reinforce this point, we have added the following text: Traditionally, developing environmental management plans has been the domain of highly trained experts who are hired for the task. It is generally perceived that this approach has led to a number of failures as these managers rarely had the benefit of detailed local knowledge and failed to generate community support for policy changes. As a result, it is generally agreed that environmental managers and policy-makers need tools to bring together local community input along side expert advice to measure the impact of policies and management plans. By reviewing three disparate case studies where this process has been tried, we can learn a number of lessons. 23. Page: 24 [s24] One clear example would powerfully anchor this observation. a. We have added the following text. …have a way of explicitly including environmental concerns that cross human-made borders, for example by basing policy on watershed boundaries or migration corridors. We have identified environmental pathways as one potential way whereby external…