Discusión

5.1 Introduction

Freshwater conservation and management decisions are characterized by complexity and uncertainty. This is a result of: the dynamism of freshwater ecosystems and the complexity of the human communities that live and depend on the resources provided by these ecosystems; and the difficulties in valuing natural resources and ecological services, accompanied by the involvement of numerous stakeholders in the process.

In Colombia, identification of key conservation areas either for the creation of protected areas or the implementation of conservation strategies is typically based on preferences, convenience and knowledge of the stakeholders. Selection of conservation surrogates, key ecosystems and cultural values, and the identification of threats to the environment are the main criteria used in the decision making processes for the choice of terrestrial key areas in the country (UAESPNN 2008). However, there are few initiatives in Colombia involving freshwater ecosystems or that are based on the assessment of ecological values following methodologies that give numerical quantities to qualitative categories.

Worldwide conservation initiatives, including the identification of key biodiversity areas, have started to be developed based on valuation of ecological characteristics (Cowx and Portocarrero 2011). Up to now the most common evaluation methods are grouped into economic and non-economic assessments. The former assigns a monetary value or price to ecological characteristics or ecosystem services. This gives a value to both the benefits and environmental costs of the assessed variables (Moreno-Jimenez et al. 2001, TEEB 2010). The latter is based on ecological and social knowledge and gives a better and more realistic approximation to the ecological characteristics valued and their importance to the ecosystem and human communities. Both the method performance and effectiveness are questionable because it is considered difficult to give monetary value to ecological or ecosystem performance (e.g. lakes or freshwater bodies as a spiritual enriching service or any other non-market good like environmental quality) and because decisions are made according to the preferences and priorities of decision makers, which sometimes may not be sufficiently representative (Ananda & Herath 2003, TEEB 2010).

Non-economic assessments include the Multi-Criteria Approach (MCA) which has been introduced in several fields for decision making purposes (ecosystemic conservation, infrastructure development, land planning), and has the potential to take into account a full range of social, environmental, technical, economic and financial criteria (TEEB 2010) and it manages the difficulty of their assessment. According to Munda (2004), the MCA also ‘supplies a powerful framework for policy analysis since this type of evaluation process is inter/multi-

100

disciplinary (with respect to the research team), participatory (with respect to the local community and stakeholders) and transparent (since all criteria are presented without any transformations in money, energy or common measurement rod)’, therefore it seems appropriate for the assessment of complex, dynamic and unpredictable areas like the south of the Colombian Amazon.

This chapter aims to identify aquatic areas of high environmental value in a highly dynamic and complex (socially and environmentally) area of the south of the Colombian Amazon to serve as a basis for the formulation of management strategies for the conservation of the local freshwater biodiversity. The process for this identification is based on the ecosystem approach adopted by the Fifth Conference of the Parties of the CBD in 2000 and that nowadays addresses global conservation initiatives. The Ecosystem Approach has 12 principles1 that if undertaken properly could ensure the protection of nature’s goods and local human communities’ livelihoods.

According to TEEB (2010), the Ecosystem Approach examines the functioning of the entire system and considers humans and their knowledge as part of that system. It also develops a wider and more inclusive plan of action by avoiding focus on individual services (e.g. fish) or relying on only one type of knowledge (e.g. fish stock assessment). A multi-criteria approach such as the Ecosystem Approach, enables identification of the key areas and promotes equitable decision making processes in any conservation, land planning and development programme. This chapter aims to identify important areas based on a non-economic evaluation of their components (biodiversity: species and habitats; ecosystem services and threats) using the multi-criteria evaluation methodology (Mendoza & Macoun 1999). The information obtained in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 is used as input for the identification of key conservation sites in the freshwater ecosystems of the Southern Trapezium.

5.2. Methods

The identification of key biodiversity conservation areas was undertaken by prioritizing the ecological values of various components of the ecosystem. This approach included a rapid

1

The twelve principles of the Ecosystem Approach (CBD 2000): 1.The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are matters of societal choices. 2. Management should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level. 3. Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual and potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems. 4. Recognising potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem- management programme should: a. Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity; b. Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; c. Internalise costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible. 5. Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach. 6. Ecosystem approach must be managed within the limits of their functioning. 7. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. 8. Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term. 9. Management must recognise that change is inevitable. 10. The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity. 11. The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practises. 12. The EA should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

101

assessment methodology that identifies areas that are locally important for species, habitats and ecosystem services and at the same time are highly threatened by permanent or increasing anthropological pressures. This method addresses the strategically important issues of vulnerability and their irreplaceable character.

5.2.1. Multi Criteria Approach - MCA

Areas were assessed following a Multi-Criteria Approach, a decision making tool that allows the inclusion of a full range of social, environmental, technical, economic and political criteria in complex and dynamic areas (TEEB 2010). Following this assessment, a multi-criteria matrix (Appendix 3) was used to value a series of variables (species, habitats, ecosystem services and threats) and thus aid identification of key conservation areas. The variables are the product of the biological, environmental and social characterization of the Trapezium (Chapters 3 and 4). The matrix was completed by 15 different stakeholders; these being representatives of the most outstanding organizations (private and public) in the area (Appendix 2). Evaluation of the variables within the matrix was done adapting the methodology proposed in the Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria and Indicators (Mendoza & Macoun 1999). A MCA relies heavily on input from different and diverse local experts and stakeholders that aims to come to a collective decision regarding the importance or not of a series of elements considered as conservation surrogates within freshwater conservation and management purposes. This kind of evaluation is known as a top-down approach, which according to Mendoza & Macoun (1999) can be used both before and after going into the field. It also can be used before going into the field to structure the variables to be assessed in the field and after as a way to make decisions based on data collected, as was conducted in this study.

i. Construction of a Multi-Criteria Matrix

Selection of variables

Three sets of variables were selected for this study.

FINE AND COARSE FILTER TARGETS (FFT AND CFT)

Based on the methodology for the identification of fine and coarse filter targets proposed by WWF, CI and TNC (Abell et al. 2002, CI 2008, TNC 2000), and after a review of the literature on regional and local freshwater species and ecosystems, their ecology, biology, the services and benefits they provide as well as threats, a group of species and habitats were identified and chosen as surrogates of conservation for the identification of key conservation areas (Chapter 3). Based on the literature four more groups were selected to complement the previous list (Species bringing nutritional benefits, species with pharmaceutical benefits, species acting as disease controllers, primary productivity). This new selection was done to assess the indigenous knowledge among stakeholders regarding these less studied targets.

102