Showing posts with label ecological restoration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ecological restoration. Show all posts

Monday, June 23, 2008

Living River on a Beautiful Day


The Brahminy Kite flies in slowly and settles on a branch overlooking the river. Tiny birds such as Wrens and Flycatchers hop chirpily through the undergrowth. Ravens caw overhead. It's just another beautiful day on the river. As Bono sings in the evocative U2 song Beautiful Day.

It's a beautiful day
Sky falls, you feel like
It's a beautiful day
Don't let it get away

See the world in green and blue
See China right in front of you
See the canyons broken by cloud
See the tuna fleets clearing the sea out
See the Bedouin fires at night
See the oil fields at first light
And see the bird with a leaf in her mouth
After the flood all the colors came out

Here, in Bono's song, incidentally performed at the Live 8 megaconcert, beauty meets concern and care for global devastation. And, in a plea for action, it calls for peace and social and environmental justice.

U2 use their music to raise political issues. They use their celebrity status and moving lyrics to call for an end to poverty, to stop overfishing, to halt rapid overdevelopment and to bring peace to the world in the song's image of the peace dove. Hope springs eternal - after the biblical flood, the world was born new again, colours burst forth and it was, and is, beautiful.

Beauty, poetry and any mention of the spiritual seem to be anathema to river management and are are largely missing from the more clinical discussions on natural resource approaches. Passion for place is absent. Feelings of love or attachment are buried as if projects to protect, save or restore a beautiful place like the river domain have little to do with these emotions. Individuals and groups involved in NRM community consultations are referred to as 'stakeholders' who are encouraged to bring arguments about the merits or otherwise of the stakes they hold. Emotions may flare but feelings of love, joy and passion rarely hold sway with decision makers.

Places may get protected not because people love them and express their feelings of love openly but perhaps because we/they realise that to be heard and taken seriously, we/they need to voice our concerns in NRM speak - resources, impacts, allocations, assessments, scientific research findings and management measures. But what needs to be managed - is it human or nature?

But some of these narrowly framed NRM practices are being countered in an unsual way - using art and music to raise community awareness about environmental and social concerns in more creative and innovative ways. In many places across the globe, creativity has become a cornerstone for community action and involvement.

One powerful example of creative ecology is what's known as River Dialogues. In different localities around the US, communities are taking part in discussions about their river systems. The aim is to find a balance between the needs of residents and the needs of the river. For example, in Spokane, the River Dialogues project sourced and involved local residents 'passionate' about the river. They told stories about their relationship with the river and along the way created relationship and community capital.

One of the local residents, Mary Kunkel, started a small activist group called River Sisters, made of up of women who cared passionately about their region and were worried about the river. The river area was destined to become a 'condo' development but their concerted effort and committed action led to the creation of an open access river park instead.

This now very well-used and loved park began with passion and sharing stories about what the river meant to them.

Another Spokane group Friends of the Falls also encouraged locals to think about, and connect with the river. Says Steve Faust, the group's Executive Director:

'My relationship with the river was like a lot of people in this town. They sort of know it's there, but they don't really pay much attention to it. One of things we try to do as an organization is to change the way that people relate to this river. To really get them to engage with it in a positive way, with the expectation that if they engage with it, we will, as a city, have a higher degree of concern about what we do with the river.' (Spokesman Review, 2006).

Telling and re-telling stories of place is one way to keep the history and presence of a place alive and in people's hearts. It can also help raise awareness about how to improve and/or restore water quality and riverbank eco-aesthetics by sharing experiences of involvement in rivercare and recreation as well as knowledge of the river's ecology. Emerging out of this process of sharing stories, suggests Linda Burnham (2001), founder and director of the Community Arts Network, come innovative ways of managing and improving the water environment.

Another River Dialogues project, this time in Pennsylvania, set out to engage local residents in 'issues of water quality, riverbank diversity, stream restoration, and river advocacy'. Using a multi-disciplinary team of artists and scientists known as 3 Rivers, 2nd Nature, the project assessed water quality and the state of urban riverbanks and questioned the 'blue and green infrastructure of a recovering landscape' by asking the following questions:

'1. Can artists working as cultural agents affect the public policies and private economic programs, which mark and define urban places and ecosystems?
2. Given the issues of scale, the power of private interests and the state both invested in the development/growth model, can the artist develop a public realm advocacy that expands the creative act beyond the authorship of the artist?
3. Finally, can (and should) artists create verifiable social change?'

Blending ecology with art, the research team arranged river tours and gathered residents, artists and ecologists together to tell stories and brainstorm ideas in groups referred to as charrettes. Through these active and engaged focus groups the research team devised a set of Living River Principles.

Living River Principles is a set of guidelines for caring for local waterways and also designed as a 'challenge' to communities, governments and residents about the urgent need to ensure healthy water quality for rivers and streams, and to do something about it, especially at the local level.

The Living River principles state:
'1. Each community should monitor and care for water quality in rivers and streams
2. Upstream community water problems should not impact downstream communities
3. Water problems should be solved at the source, addressing cause, not effect
4. Public rights to waterways and wetlands should not be compromised by private interests
5. Wetlands and streams should be treated as economic and ecological assets
6. Wetlands and streams should not be lost, and should be restored where possible
7. Public access to and from the water, and along the water's edge, should be restored
8. Riverbanks should be preserved or restored to their natural form wherever possible
9. Pre-industrial connections between water and communities should be restored
10. Redevelopment should accommodate public access to water and riverbanks
11. Redevelopment should restore community, culture, ecology and economy.'

These principles are part of a wider program to encourage action towards protecting riverine ecosystems at all levels. They are based on the presumption that water needs to be a common access resource. But in many regions, water is also a privatized resource, and thus the cost of what is a basic right can become, and has become, way too expensive for individuals who simply can't afford it.

The rationale of the Living Principles states that:'All citizens should be able to have a direct relationship to water; All rivers and streams should meet the water quality standard for swimming; and Rivers and streams should support an increasing diversity of plant and wildlife.' These recommendations are not dissimilar to the water quality reports from SE Queensland, and more widely, rivers throughout Australia.

But in a field of rapid development and lack of action on Living River Principles, coupled with the severe drought, creating healthy river systems and restoring environmental damage seems a long way off...but still possible. It requires passion, certainly, and commitment, and perhaps a shift in resource management practices to hold consultations as conversations where stories can be shared and in the process, both the environment and the local community can be regenerated.

Reference
Burnham LF, 2001, Telling and Listening in Public: Factors for Success, Reading Room, Community Arts Network, http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2001/02/telling_and_lis_2.php
Spokeman Review, 2006, Spokane River Dialogues, http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=129449

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Attachment in the Catchment


I start with a quote from the River Restoration website of the CRC for Catchment Hydrology 1999 - 2006.

'Despite the considerable government and private resources invested in the rehabilitation of damaged environments, little is known about the success of such projects. This CRC for Catchment Hydrology project was been developed in collaboration with the CRC for Freshwater Ecology (CRCFE) and the Moreton Bay and Catchments Healthy Waterways Partnership.'

It's such a positive move to look at how the aquatic ecosystem is affected by environmental damage and what changes occur after river restoration. But what is missing from this report is the human element - whether damage to the ecosystem is related to human impact, whether the communty was involved in restoring the river, and what has been the outcome of river restoration in terms of social and spiritual capital, community engagement in the riverspace, and the community health and wellbeing effects of this engagement.

For instance, a study on the restoration on the Skerne River in rural Britain has shown that the outcome for the human community has been greater public engagement and concern. Not only is there more human-river connection, water quality has improved and wildlife, which was once absent, 'now abounds with swans, fish, dragonfly and the rare water vole all recorded and with waders now seen feeding in the shallow backwaters and pools'.

Would such a positive effect occur in the SE Queensland region if there was more attention to river quality and river care, especially in the rapidly expanding urban areas? Here, however, increasing development in housing density and urban spread (read sprawl) goes hand in hand with ecological disturbance. And more. It takes a willingness and an awareness of the impact of environmental damage to implement sustainable urban development, to replace the damaged shrubs and trees, to create food and housing for bats, birds and possums and provide health and wellbeing outcomes for the human community as well.

So what are the issue at stake here? A report on river systems in South East Queensland has incorporated the human element in river management strategies. The South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Strategy 2007-2012 Phase 4 Consultation Draft, Logan-Albert Catchments Action Plan (2007) lists a number of barriers to effective rivercare and water management. The barriers are logistical, economic, educational and environmental (outlined below).

But one barrier is missing and that is urgency. In its recommendation about the need for Protection and Conservation , the report states: 'By 2026 all SEQ waterways and wetlands, vegetated areas that contribute to waterways healthy, and drinking water catchments are protected and conserved.' (p.93). 2026? Why not 2007? The implication for what's going on in riverways now, and for the next 20 years, is worrying.

What are the other barriers? The report declares that major problems include: limited opportuntiies to raise awareness, build capacity, develop skilled project management personnel, as well as 'no clearly identified lead agency to coordinate strategic management of catchment issues'. Why ever not?

Accompanying this lack of overriding coordination of river catchments, the report documents a lack of funding 'for the catchment management community to implement the large-scale projects ... needed to reduce impacts on downstream waterways'. Leadership. Funding. Skilled personnel. What else is at issue?

The report presents a litany of concerns: 'a loss of aquatic habitat, riparian vegetation and declining water quality [which] can result in further problems such as the proliferation of exotic pest species [such as carp], as well as a 'lack of understanding of Aboriginal culture' which may lead to a 'loss of valuable cultural heritage sites and local knowledge of environmental management practices'. Could there be any more concerns raised? The list of problems was beginning to seem insurmoutable.

Just one more. A lack of education and awareness about local ecology and scientific research was also seen as hampering effective management. This was noted to be related to the lack of central coordination and leadership. This lack of awareness was deemed to affect the potential for the community to volunteer in the river and catchment care project. The problem was cited as being 'extensive'.

Now when I witness the destruction along the river corridor and the unthinking destruction of habitat, I know there are people out there trying to create a different more sustainable outcome but they are doing it without the necessary support. It seems that the river and river systems sit in the hearts of the scientists, natural resource managers and volunteers who, like me, may not want to wait for another 20 years for local river ecologies to be protected and conserved.

References
South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, 2007, South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Strategy 2007-2012, Phase 4 Consultation Draft, http://www.healthywaterways.org/FileLibrary/loganalbert.pdf