Aripo Savannas Environmentally Sensitive Area...

Aripo Savannas Environmentally

Sensitive Area (ESA)

A F R A M E WO R K F O R P A R T I C I P A T O R Y M A N AG E M E N T

ESA MANAGEMENT PLAN This Management Plan defines the management objectives, zones, management arrangements, administrative processes, capacity building needed and financial and implementation priorities for management of the Aripo Savannas ESA.

July 2008

ESA Management Plan – Aripo Savannas Environmentally Sensitive Area

Prepared by the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)

Citation: Environmental Management Authority. Aripo Savannas Environmentally Sensitive Area Management Plan/ Prepared by the Caribbean Natural Resource Institute for the Environmental Management Authority. Port of Spain, Trinidad: EMA, 2008.

Aripo Savannas Environmentally Sensitive Area Management Plan

Prepared for the Environmental Management Authority, Trinidad and Tobago by the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)

July 2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CANARI would like to thank Dr. Michelle Mycoo who authored this plan, members of the ASSMC for their guidance, land use planning specialists who participated in the Land Use Working Group, and all of the stakeholders who inputted into the development of this plan through their participation in the numerous workshops and meetings held during the process. Dr. Mycoo was supported by Leandra Sebastien and Stephen Boodhram. Nicole Leotaud in CANARI coordinated the process. Photos were taken by Nicole Leotaud, Michelle Mycoo, Leandra Sebastien, and Sharon Laurent. CANARI is grateful to the Town and Country Planning Division for providing GIS shape files used in the development of maps. Bheshem Ramlal of the Department of Engineering of the University of the West Indies, St Augustine provided GIS support and advice. Internal review was done by Nicole Leotaud, Alex McCaffery and Hema Seeramsingh. Thanks also to Sundew Tour-guiding Services for permission to use their maps. The CANARI team involved in developing the plans and facilitating the planning process comprised of Alicia Aquing, Celeste Chariandy, Jean Patricia Elie, Nicole Leotaud, Alex McCaffery, Sarah McIntosh, Dr. Michelle Mycoo, Dr. Howard Nelson and Allan Smith. Cover Photo: Palm marsh island in Savanna 1. Nicole Leotaud


Prepared by the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1- INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................9

1.1 THE ARIPO SAVANNAS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA ......................................................................9

1.2 MANAGEMENT PLANNING.................................................................................................................................. 10

1.3 THE PLANNING AREA ............................................................................................................................................ 10

1.4 PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS................................................................................ 11

1.6 PURPOSE OF THE ASESA MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................. 13

SECTION 2 - ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ASESA ..........................................................................15

2.1 NATIONAL CONTRIBUTION ................................................................................................................................. 15

2.2 SIGNIFICANCE......................................................................................................................................................... 15

2.3 FLORA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19

2.4 FAUNA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................... 20

2.6 VALUE AS A PROTECTED AREA............................................................................................................................. 22 2.6.1 TYPES OF VALUES ................................................................................................................................................ 22 2.6.2 DIRECT USE VALUES ............................................................................................................................................. 23 2.6.3 INDIRECT USE VALUES ......................................................................................................................................... 24 2.6.4 NON- USE VALUES ............................................................................................................................................. 25

SECTION 3 – THREATS TO THE ASESA ....................................................................................................26

3.1 SQUATTING (RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL) ........................................................................................... 28

3.3 MINING (QUARRYING).......................................................................................................................................... 32

3.4 LOGGING................................................................................................................................................................. 33

3.5 HUNTING AND HARVESTING OF NON-TIMBER FOREST RESOURCES........................................................ 33

3.6 PROPOSED BUILT DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE CONVERSION............................................................... 34 3.6.1 HIGHWAY - DESCRIPTION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 34 3.6.2 NEW TOWN OF WALLERFIELD - DESCRIPTION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS.......................................................... 34 3.6.3 LAND TENURESHIP ISSUES ................................................................................................................................... 35

3.7 RECREATION............................................................................................................................................................. 35

3.8 EXTRACTION OF MATERIAL FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH................................................................................ 36

SECTION 4 – OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF MANAGEMENT ...................................................................37

4.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGAL NOTICE.................................................................................................................. 37

4.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE SUB-PLANS ........................................................................................................................ 37 4.2.1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.2 RECREATION PLAN .............................................................................................................................................. 38 4.2.3 INTERPRETIVE PLAN.............................................................................................................................................. 38

4.3 MANAGEMENT GOALS FOR THE ASESA.......................................................................................................... 39

SECTION 5 – MANAGEMENT ZONES......................................................................................................40

5.1 LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................................ 40

5.2 BUFFER ZONE........................................................................................................................................................... 40

5.3 ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS .................................................................................................................................. 41

5.4 ZONING WITHIN THE ASESA .............................................................................................................................. 41 5.4.1 EDUCATIONAL ZONE........................................................................................................................................... 41 5.4.2 SCIENTIFIC ZONE................................................................................................................................................. 42

SECTION 6 - MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................45



6.1 PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT......................................................................................................................... 45

6.2 KEY STAKEHOLDERS WITH LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGEMENT................................................ 46 6.2.1 FORESTRY DIVISION............................................................................................................................................ 46 6.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (EMA)......................................................................................... 47

6.3 STRUCTURES, MECHANISMS AND CAPACITY FOR PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT............................ 47 6.3.1 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................................... 47 6.3.2 CAPACITY FOR PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................................... 48 6.3.2 A COORDINATING BODY – THE ARIPO SAVANNAS STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (ASSMC) ....... 49 6.3.3 NATIONAL COMMITTEES...................................................................................................................................... 50 6.3.4 KEY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES .............................................................................................................................. 51 6.3.5 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................................................. 51 6.3.6 VOLUNTEERS ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 6.3.7 PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................................. 52 6.3.8 ADOPT-A-TRAIL OR ADOPT-A-ZONE AGREEMENTS........................................................................................... 54

6.4 PERMITS..................................................................................................................................................................... 54 6.4.1 SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES PERMIT.............................................................................................................................. 54 6.4.2 EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES PERMIT ....................................................................................................................... 55

6.5 STAFF REQUIREMENTS AND TRAINING............................................................................................................. 55 6.5.1 MANAGER ........................................................................................................................................................... 55 6.5.2 WARDENS ........................................................................................................................................................... 56 6.5.3 LAW ENFORCEMENT STAFF .................................................................................................................................. 56 6.5.4 EDUCATION OFFICER .......................................................................................................................................... 57 6.5.5 COMMUNITY LIAISON OFFICER .......................................................................................................................... 57 6.5.6 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ............................................................................................................................... 57 6.5.7 CARETAKERS ........................................................................................................................................................ 57 6.5.8 SECURITY GUARDS .............................................................................................................................................. 57 6.5.9 VOLUNTEERS ....................................................................................................................................................... 58

SECTION 7 – FUNDING...........................................................................................................................59

7.1 CAPITAL COSTS....................................................................................................................................................... 59 7.1.1 VISITOR CENTRE .................................................................................................................................................. 59 7.1.2 ESA AMENITIES ................................................................................................................................................... 60

7.2 RECURRENT COSTS ................................................................................................................................................ 60

7.3 SOURCES OF INCOME AND OTHER RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 61 7.3.1 BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS.................................................................................................................................. 61 7.3.2 USER FEES ............................................................................................................................................................ 61 7.3.3 GRANTS............................................................................................................................................................... 61 7.3.4 GREEN FUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 62 7.3.5 DONATIONS........................................................................................................................................................ 62 7.3.6 VOLUNTEER PROGRAMME ................................................................................................................................... 62 7.3.7 MEMBERSHIP ....................................................................................................................................................... 62 7.3.8 CONCESSIONS.................................................................................................................................................... 62 7.3.9 THEMED ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 62 7.3.10 RENTAL OF SPACE............................................................................................................................................. 63 7.3.11 LICENSED MERCHANDISE .................................................................................................................................. 63

SECTION 8 – MONITORING AND EVALUATION.....................................................................................64

8.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES............................................................................................. 64

8.2 MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN .......................................................................................................... 64

8.3 TARGETS AND INDICATORS ................................................................................................................................. 65

8.4 BASELINE DATA ....................................................................................................................................................... 80 8.4.1 HABITAT CHANGE ................................................................................................................................................ 80 8.4.2 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................. 80 8.4.3 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE.................................................................................................................................... 80

8.5 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR M&E ........................................................................................................................ 80

8.6 MONITORING ACTIVITIES..................................................................................................................................... 81



8.6.1 HUMAN RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................ 81 8.6.2 TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................................. 81 8.6.3 OTHER ................................................................................................................................................................. 82

SECTION 9 - BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................83

APPENDIX A: OBJECTIVES OF DESIGNATION OF THE ARIPO SAVANNAS AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA.....................................................................................................................................85

APPENDIX B: BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION OF THE ARIPO SAVANNAS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA .....................................................................................................................................................87

APPENDIX C - TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ARIPO SAVANNAS ESA...............................................................................................................................................................89

APPENDIX D - DRAFT STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS FOR THE ASESA.....................................................................91

APPENDIX E – GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................116



LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES

Figures Figure 1: Savanna bordered by palm marsh forest featuring majestic moriche palms..............................18 Figure 2: Marsh forest along the Black River.......................................................................................................18 Figure 3: Faunal species composition of the ASESA (Source: Schwab, 1988)...............................................19 Figure 4: One of the bunkers located in Savanna 1 in the ASESA..................................................................21 Figure 5: Components of Total Economic Value (Adapted from the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature [1998]) ..........................................................................................................23 Figure 6: One of the ponds used for recreation in the ASESA.........................................................................24 Figure 7: Pogonia rosea, one of the rare orchids found in the ASESA............................................................25 Figure 8: An agricultural field falling within the ESA, with marsh forest in the background......................29 Figure 9: Fires within the ASESA usually originate near the boundaries........................................................30 Figure 10: Moriche palms and other native species are slowly recolonising degraded quarried areas in

which there is now an abundance of invasive species.....................................................................32 Figure 11: One of the ponds, historically used for swimming which will be off-limits in the future..........35 Figure 12: There are numerous recreational opportunities in the ASESA ......................................................38 Figure 13: Mechanisms need to be put in place to facilitate continued stakeholder participation in

planning and management of the ASESA..........................................................................................39 Figure 14: Quarry ponds in the area proposed for intensive use provide a scenic view for recreation41

Maps Map 1: Location and Boundary of the Aripo Savannas ESA............................................................................12 Map 2: Land uses and vegetation types in and around the ASESA ...............................................................17 Map 3: Areas of quarrying and squatting in ASESA .........................................................................................27 Map 4: Aripo Savannas ESA zoning plan.............................................................................................................31 Map 5: Education Zone.............................................................................................................................................43 Map 6: Satellite image of the intensive use area within the Education Zone ...............................................44

Tables Table 1: Targets and indicators for the RMP*.....................................................................................................66 Table 2: Proposed targets and indicators for the RP*.......................................................................................71 Table 3: Proposed targets and indicators for the IP*........................................................................................74 Table 4: Proposed targets and indicators for the ESAMP* ..............................................................................77 Table 5: Stakeholders - Biodiversity resources (for conservation, management, scientific research,

extraction of timber and non-timber resources) ...............................................................................92 Table 6: Stakeholders – Cultural Resources and Community Development ..................................................97 Table 7: Stakeholders – Biodiversity and Cultural Resources (for Education) ........................................... 100 Table 8: Stakeholders – Biodiversity and Cultural Resources (for Tourism and Recreation)................... 103 Table 9: Stakeholders - Land Resources ............................................................................................................ 109 Table 10: Stakeholders - Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 114 Table 11: Stakeholders - Mineral Resources..................................................................................................... 115



ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ASESA Aripo Savannas Environmentally Sensitive Area

ASSMC Aripo Savannas Stakeholder Management Committee

CANARI Caribbean Natural Resources Institute

CBO Community based organisation

CECs Certificate of Environmental Clearance

CFCA Caribbean Forest Conservation Association

COPE Council of Presidents of the Environment

ECIAF Eastern Caribbean Institute of Agriculture and Forestry

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMA Environmental Management Authority

ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area

ESAMP ESA Management Plan

FRIM Forest Resources Inventory and Management Unit

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

GORTT Government of Trinidad and Tobago

HDC Housing Development Corporation

HGWs Honorary Game Wardens

IP Interpretive Plan

LSA Land Settlement Agency

NEDCO National Enterprise Development Company

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NRWRP National Reforestation and Watershed Rehabilitation Programme

OAS Organisation of American States

RP Recreation Plan

RMP Resource Management Plan

RSHDC Regional Human and Development Council

SHARE Social Help and Rehabilitative Efforts Programme

T&T Trinidad and Tobago

T&TEC Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission

TDC Tourism Development Corporation



TTAV Trinidad and Tobago Archaeology Volunteers

TTHTI Trinidad and Tobago Hospitality and Tourism Institute

TSTT Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago

UDeCOTT Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago

UWI University of the West Indies

WASA Water and Sewerage Authority



SECTION 1- INTRODUCTION

This section identifies the management area, outlines the overall context and purpose of management planning, describes the participatory process that was used in management planning, and provides the vision and overall management goal for the Aripo Savannas Environmentally Sensitive Area (ASESA) identified by stakeholders.

1.1 THE ARIPO SAVANNAS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA

The Aripo Savannas are one of only two remaining natural savanna ecosystems found in Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) and was designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) in June 2007 under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Rules, 2001. The ASESA includes a mosaic of marsh forest, palm marsh and savanna ecosystems.

The Objectives of Designation as an ESA (see Appendix A) focus on:

1. Conservation of the natural resources and protection of the environment including:

a. maintenance of the significance of the area in the national, regional and international context;

b. protection, preservation, management and rehabilitation of an area that is fragile, threatened and degraded;

c. protection of a significant assemblage of threatened species of plant and animal life.

2. Logistic support such as environmental education, and information sharing including:

a. facilitation of relevant scientific research and environmental monitoring to improve understanding of the interactions between biotic and abiotic components of the environment, the processes involved and the attributes and potential of the area’s resources;

b. dissemination of information particularly to local communities and stakeholders;

c. development of a database of information relevant to the ASESA and maintaining public access to the information;

d. development of low impact ecotourism opportunities particularly birdwatching;

e. management of visitor use for inspirational, educational, and recreational purposes at a level which will maintain the area in a natural or near natural state;



f. recognition of the needs of local communities in so far as it does not adversely affect the objectives of the Management Plan;

g. provision of opportunities for research and studies related to its natural history.

The Aripo Savannas was designated as a Prohibited Area under the Forest (Prohibited Areas) Order (1953) (Legal Notice No. 113 of 10 June 1987) under the Forests Act (Ch 66:01) and falls within the Long Stretch Forest Reserve, which was declared in a proclamation dated 11 January 1934 under the Forest Ordinance Chapter 141 of 1916.

Management authority lies with the Forestry Division and, the daily on-the-ground management is done by the National Parks Section of this Division. An Aripo Savannas Stakeholder Management Committee (ASSMC) has been designed as a multi-stakeholder advisory body under the ESA Rules (2001).

1.2 MANAGEMENT PLANNING

The Environmental Management Authority (EMA) contracted the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) to guide and manage a participatory process for the development of updated management plans for the Aripo Savannas, specifically involving the ASSMC, management personnel of the Forestry Division and other critical stakeholders who were be identified during the process.

1.3 THE PLANNING AREA

The exact limits of the ASESA, as described in the ESA Notice, are detailed in Appendix B. These boundaries currently define the area of focus for management planning (as shown in Map 1 and in all other maps in the plans). While the terms of reference for the preparation of the management plans predated the actual designation of the ASESA and involved a slightly larger area; post-designation, the boundaries of the ASESA were taken into account to ensure accuracy in the planning process. The general boundaries of the ASESA can be summarised as follows:

• on the north by the Valencia River, excluding a 12 hectare parcel of land in Kangalee

• on the east by the Eastern Main Road;

• on the south by a disused railway line;

• on the west by survey control points along the Aripo River.

With this area as the focus, the planning exercise took into account a larger ecosystem approach, recognising that the boundary is not a physical barrier separating the ESA from the surrounding landscape and influences.



1.4 PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS

The management planning process facilitated equitable participation of stakeholders in developing the management plans including through:

• the use of the ASSMC as a Steering Committee;

• the conduct of a strategic visioning workshop;

• the development of specialist Working Groups engaged through field trips, focus group meetings, interviews and workshops;

• the conduct of a strategic planning workshop;

• the conduct of workshops to review the draft plans;

• the use of individual meetings and focus groups with key stakeholders;

• the facilitation of wider stakeholder consultation.



Map 1: Location and Boundary of the Aripo Savannas ESA



1.5 VISION AND OVERALL GOAL OF MANAGEMENT

Stakeholders identified a vision for the ASESA in that, it is:

• a former well-kept secret that has become a national treasure, valued locally, nationally and internationally for its unique natural and cultural heritage;

• used for scientific research, education and recreation and tourism for the enjoyment and scientific and educational enrichment of the local, national and international community;

• producing direct and indirect economic, social and environmental benefits for the local and national community;

• managed with the involvement of key stakeholders.

In order to achieve this vision, the overall management goal for the ASESA is:

• to equitably and effectively involve stakeholders in management of the ASESA to preserve the unique ecosystems and protect its biodiversity, historical and cultural values, while promoting research, education and the development of sustainable livelihoods, particularly for local people, to the extent that this can be done without compromising the integrity of the ASESA.

1.6 PURPOSE OF THE ASESA MANAGEMENT PLAN

The purpose of the ASESA Management Plan (ESAMP) is to provide long-term direction for resource stewardship and ultimately management of the ASESA. The timeframe of the ESAMP is 10 to 15 years. The Terms of Reference for the ESAMP are given in Appendix 2.

1.7 METHOD FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE ASESA MANAGEMENT PLAN

The ESAMP for the ASESA was designed using the philosophy of participatory management planning, which promotes a consultative process that engages the whole spectrum of stakeholders.

Essentially, the aim of the planning process was to interpret and synthesise policies, strategies, plans, legal requirements and stakeholder feedback into an operational, as well as implementable management plan.

The methodology used in the preparation of the ESAMP was based on consultation with, and participation of a broad range of stakeholders, such as government agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including community-based organisations (CBOs) and private sector individuals (See Stakeholder Analysis in Appendix D). This was conducted through a series of focus group meetings, workshops, field trips and meetings with individuals held between September 2006 and February 2008.

Data was also drawn from a literature review prepared as part of the management planning process (EMA, 2007), review of available documents, site visits and the use of data capture tools such as aerial photographs and satellite imagery.



Development of the ESAMP also drew upon the three management plans also prepared as part of the management planning process: the Resource Management Plan (RMP), the Recreation Management Plan (RP) and the Interpretive Plan (IP).



SECTION 2 - ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ASESA

The ecological and economic values of the ASESA and threats to its survival are discussed in this section.

2.1 NATIONAL CONTRIBUTION The importance of the Aripo Savannas for biodiversity conservation in Trinidad and Tobago has long been recognised in official policy. Almost three decades ago, the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (GORTT) and the Organisation of American States (OAS) identified that the Aripo Savannas was an area that deserved national protection within a system of protected areas of Trinidad and Tobago. A Management and Development Plan for the Aripo Savannas was subsequently prepared by the Forestry Division in 1982 under a Forestry Division and the OAS project, which focused on the establishment of a system of national parks and protected areas. In this plan it was proposed for designation as a Scientific Reserve to protect the unique ecosystems and to allow access for scientific and educational purposes.

Although enabling legislation to put this plan and protected area designation into effect was not passed but the area is being managed by the National Parks Section, Forestry Division with these management objectives in mind.

Wide public recognition of the conservation importance of the Aripo Savannas was also reflected in its selection as a priority site to be declared as an ESA under the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Rules (2001) under the Environmental Management Act (2000). It was finally declared in June 2007.

The ASESA therefore makes a significant contribution to the conservation of biodiversity in Trinidad and Tobago and can also be an important example of a co-managed protected area when participatory management arrangements are more fully developed and implemented.

2.2 SIGNIFICANCE

The ASESA is a complex mosaic of tropical savanna, palm marsh and marsh forest in a comparatively small area of 1,788 hectares, (see Map 2 and Figures 1 and 2).

Empirical evidence derived from many years of scientific research conducted in the Aripo Savannas confirms that it is an ecosystem of unique biological diversity. Additionally, it is the largest surviving natural savanna in the country and a habitat for many rare species (with at least two endemic plant species).

The ASESA serves as a place for scientific research, maintenance of environmental services, education and recreation. The ASESA, and particularly the savanna ecosystem, has the distinction of being the most intensively studied areas in the neotropics (Oatham, 2002). It has historically played an important role in stimulating local and international research in biological and ecological studies and is therefore of national and international value.

This ecosystem complex is significant in the following reasons:



• the marsh forest and savanna ecosystems are found nowhere else in Trinidad and Tobago and they represent the edge of the range for a number of mainly South American species such as the moriche palm;

• these species given that these ecosystems represent the edge of the range for several South American species, species such as the moriche palm are also found no where else in the Caribbean archipelago;

• their genetic variability is therefore valuable to the overall conservation of the plant species (and the animals that rely on them for food and shelter) especially in the face of possible global climate change.

A more detailed discussion of the flora and fauna of the ASESA is provided under the following sub-sections as well as in the RMP.



Map 2: Land uses and vegetation types in and around the ASESA



Figure 1: Savanna bordered by palm marsh forest featuring majestic moriche palms

Figure 2: Marsh forest along the Black River



2.3 FLORA

The ASESA is a habitat for endemic species of flora.

• Of 457 plant species identified so far, 38 species (Baksh-Comeau and Quesnel, 2004) are restricted to the ASESA with 16 to 20 that are rare or threatened and two endemic species of plants, namely herbs and grasses.

• Some of the most outstanding stands of moriche palms (Mauritia setigera) in the country are found in the ASESA.

2.4 FAUNA

The ASESA is also rich in fauna as confirmed by research conducted almost twenty years ago by Schwab (1988) and Michalski (1988):

• Schwab (1988) compiled a list which consisted of 78 insect species;

• Michalski (1988) found 15 species of butterflies and 46 species of dragonflies and damselflies;

• Schwab (1988) found eight amphibians, 26 reptiles, 132 birds and 25 mammals;

• seven species of freshwater fish and all four terrestrial turtles known in Trinidad have been reported in the Aripo Savannas.

In addition, the restricted nature of the ecosystems in the ASESA makes it one of the few habitats where species such as the moriche oriole and the red-bellied macaw are found.

Figure 3: Faunal species composition of the ASESA (Source: Schwab, 1988)



2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The literature review prepared as part of the management planning process (EMA, 2007) describes the evidence for indigenous use of the resources of the Aripo Savannas and historical use and the information presented below was extracted from that report.

The names ‘Aripo’ and ‘Savanna’ are of indigenous origin and date back to the pre-Columbian period according to Thompson, (1959). The term ‘Savanna’ is of Taino origin and was used throughout the Caribbean and Venezuela to describe large grasslands. No artefacts of this period have been found.

A survey of the Archaeological Site Inventory, (Archaeological Centre, UWI, n.d.) for Trinidad indicates that there is no archaeological data on the proposed ASESA. Despite the observation that the naming of the savannas indicates indigenous knowledge of the area in the Archaeological Period, there has been no archaeological assessment or investigation of the Aripo Savannas, but it is unlikely that any significant sites will be found as the Aripo Savannas did not have the resource capacity in the archaeological period to support settlement sites.

Indigenous peoples may not have settled in the Aripo Savannas but there is the strong possibility that they may have used the area in the archaeological and early historical period as a source of food or other materials. These would have included the fruit and leaves of the moriche palm (Mauritia setigera), (Henderson et al., 1995; Newsom, 1976) and other resources, including small game, particularly the small brocket deer, Mazama americana trinitatis, which was a major indigenous food source in the archaeological and historical period, (Boomert, 2000; Newsom, 1976).

Birds, as a source of feathers would have included the red-bellied macaw, Ara manilata, the feathers of which would have been highly prized by indigenous peoples. Henderson et al., (1995) note that the moriche palm, which grows so profusely both in the proposed ASESA and the Nariva Swamp, was and continues to be a source of food and shelter for the Indigenous Peoples of South America and there is historical evidence for indigenous familiarity with and use of the Nariva Swamp, (Newsom, 1976; Buissink, 1938).

De Civrieux, (1970), an ethnographer working among the Warao of the Orinoco Delta, noted that they value these palms very highly and use them as a source of food, shelter and weaving materials as well as the source of an ash, which is said to give superhuman strength. The palm fruit is edible with a high Vitamin C content. It can be eaten raw and is also used to make a fermented drink. Oil, high in Vitamin A, is extracted from the pulp and is sometimes used to treat burns. The seed is also rich in edible oil. The probability of indigenous use of these resources of the Aripo Savannas would have increased in the historical period with the establishment of the Indigenous villages in Arena and Heights of Arima.

Boomert’s (2000) discussion of archaeological pottery complexes highlights another possible indigenous link to the Aripo Savanas. The Cedenoid-Saladoid pottery complex1 is characterized by a distinctive temper known as caraipé temper. Caraipé is the ash of the siliceous bark of various tree species belonging to the Chrysobalanaceae family, notably the Caraipé tree (Licania apetala). The bark is burned, resulting in the removal of most organic components and afterwards pounded. Although not a very well known species, the caraipé tree formerly occurred in savanna habitats in Trinidad’s northern basin; (Boomert, 1983; pers.comm. Peter Harris ). As a result, in the archaeological literature, Caraipé temper is

1 Pottery complex c. 14th – 17th century and associated with late pre-Columbian settlement as well as the Mission period (17th cent.)in the post-Contact era



often associated with a pattern of resource acquisition from the savannas of the Northern Basin, which may have included the Aripo Savannas.

The Aripo Savannas were used as a military air base for the Americas, strategically linking North America and South America during World War II. The Long Stretch Forest Reserve was leased to the United States of America in 1940 and it was here that Fort Read, a military air base, was constructed and housed 130,000 military personnel of the United States Army Air Corps. It was the staging area for the protection of the Vichy French pro-German Martinique. It subsequently became the major terminus for shuttling troops in the Pacific. Military bunkers are still present in the proposed ASESA although a survey of their structural integrity would need to be conducted.

Figure 4: One of the bunkers located in Savanna 1 in the ASESA



2.6 VALUE AS A PROTECTED AREA

2.6.1 Types of values

The ASESA is of significant ecological value to Trinidad and Tobago, but it is also of economic value. The total economic value of the ASESA is broadly classified as use values and non-use values, and as shown in Figure 5, use values are further classified as direct use value, indirect use values and option values. Non-use values are also separated into two classifications: bequest value and existence value.

The Task Force on Economic Benefits of Protected Areas of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (1998) defines these terms as follows:

• The direct values of a protected area are values derived from the direct use of the protected area for activities such as recreation, tourism, natural resource harvesting, hunting, gene pool services, education and research.

• The indirect use values of a protected area are values derived from the indirect uses of the protected area and are largely comprised of the protected area’s ecological functions such as watershed protection, breeding habitat for migratory species, climatic stabilisation and carbon sequestration.

• The option values of a protected area are values derived from the option of using the protected area sometime in the future. These future uses may be either direct or indirect and may include the future value of information derived from the protected area.

• Non-use values are values, which humans hold for a protected area, which are in no way linked to the use of the protected area. Two common examples of non-use values are bequest values and existence values.

o Bequest values relate to the benefit of knowing that others benefit or will benefit from the protected area.

o Existence values reflect the benefit of knowing that the protected area exists even though one is unlikely to visit it or use it in any other way.



Figure 5: Components of Total Economic Value (Adapted from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature [1998])

2.6.2 Direct use values

The direct use values of the Aripo Savannas are outlined below.

Extractive uses: it should be noted the extractive activities (as identified below) ceased to be permitted once the Aripo Savannas were declared as a Prohibited Area in 1987 and these restrictions were reinforced with its declaration as an ESA in 2007. Historical direct extractive use was as follows:

• Extraction of timber and other wood products: in the early part of the last century timber harvested from this area was used as firewood, wood for charcoal burning, handicraft and rods. Although there has been a declining use of timber as fuel wood, sodden stakes for agriculture are still harvested and sold to farmers. Additionally, the extraction of forest products such as wooden stakes, lianas, timite (Manicaria plukenetii) and carat (Sabal mauritiiformis) leaves was permitted by the Forestry Division, which issued a Conservator’s licence for restricted amounts of such products to be extracted.

• Quarrying: the ASESA was a source of aggregate material for the construction industry and several quarrying companies were issued with permits for mining sand and gravel.

• Hunting, fishing and harvesting of non-timber forest products: the Aripo Savannas has been traditionally used for hunting, fishing and collection of plant material such as orchids, tree bark (bois bande, Parinari campestis) and palm products.



Non-extractive uses: direct non-extractive uses of the Aripo Savannas are as follows:

• Education and Research: Since the early part of the twentieth century, the Aripo Savannas has been the subject of scientific research. Nature study groups, educational institutions such as schools and the University of the West Indies (UWI) and individual scientists have entered this area for educational purposes.

• Recreation and Ecotourism: The Aripo Savannas has been used for recreation and ecotourism. It has been traditionally used for hiking, birdwatching, orchid and exotic plant observation.

Figure 6: One of the ponds used for recreation in the ASESA

2.6.3 Indirect Use Values

The indirect use values of the Aripo Savannas are linked to the ecosystem services being provided. Fore example, the area is providing benefits to society through assisting with flood control, contributing aesthetic beauty to the areas, and also some value as a carbon sink.



2.6.4 Non- Use Values

The non-use values of the Aripo Savannas include bequest values such as use and non-use values for legacy and existence values, examples of which are biodiversity, cultural, and heritage values to name a few.

The nature conservation value of the Aripo Savannas is based on its rich biodiversity, its uniqueness as the largest surviving natural savanna in the country and a habitat for endemic species of flora and rare orchids.

The cultural and heritage value of the Aripo Savannas originates from use by indigenous peoples and as a military base during World War II as discussed in section 2.5.

Figure 7: Pogonia rosea, one of the rare orchids found in the ASESA



SECTION 3 – THREATS TO THE ASESA

Available documentation and stakeholder input drawn from the consultative and participatory process revealed that the ASESA has been subjected to repeated threats, despite its biological diversity and status as the largest remaining natural savannas in Trinidad and Tobago.

The EMA (2006) succinctly captures how alarming are the threats taking place in and adjacent to the ASESA in the following statement:

“The concern is the isolation of the Aripo Savannas, which is an ecosystem of unique biological diversity and the country’s largest remaining natural savanna that will become ‘an island in a sea of human development’.”

The long history of disturbances and threats to the Aripo Savannas date back to the 1930s; at that time, selected timber harvesting was allowed and this had a significant negative impact on the species composition of the area. By the 1940s, World War II had broken out and 1,660 hectares of the savannas were leased for occupation as a base by the Armed Forces of the United States of America. It was not until the 1950s that these lands were returned to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. Significant changes to the vegetation, land surface, ecology and hydrology were caused by the construction of drainage channels, roads and facilities. Throughout the 1960s and up to the current period the ASESA has been under continuous pressure from activities within its boundaries and surrounding areas.

Selected on-going threats summarised by EMA, (2006) are consistent with the findings of the strategic workshops, working group meetings and other consultations as part of the management planning process. The main historical, current and potential threats are:

• squatting (residential and agricultural);

• fires;

• mining (quarrying);

• logging;

• hunting and harvesting on non-timber forest resources;

• proposed built development and land use conversion;

• recreation;

• extraction of material for scientific research.

Underlying these is the limited capacity to effectively manage the area driven by:

• inadequate funding to support monitoring and management;

• insufficient human resources.



Details of each of these threats are provided below. The extent of quarrying and squatting is show in Map 3, which also indicates roads in the surrounding communities. The location of the proposed highway can be see in Map 2, which also illustrates the ecological impact of existing physical development on the vegetation in and around the ASESA.

Map 3: Areas of quarrying and squatting in ASESA



3.1 SQUATTING (RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL)

Squatting is of primary concern to the Forestry Division and many other stakeholders involved in managing the ASESA. The expanding population in urban centres neighbouring the ASESA, such as Sangre Grande, Guaico and Valencia, has been allowed to develop land for settlement purposes. However, this has also led to illegal settlement by hundreds of persons on environmentally sensitive state lands, including the Aripo Savannas that was left unprotected from this illicit invasion. There is extensive documentation and evidence of residential and agricultural squatting and this is considered the most pressing management issue requiring urgent attention. While squatting, though illegal, can be tolerated on some lands, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago has expressed a clear policy that in the ASESA there should be zero tolerance towards this form of land invasion. This policy is widely supported by many stakeholders. Some of the squatters themselves have expressed their willingness to move, although others feel a close tie to the home or fields that they have developed over the years. Many are worried about their future.

The ASSMC meeting of April 2006 confirmed that squatting continued unabated in the northern (Kangalee), south-west (Cumuto) and south-eastern (Damarie Hill) areas of the ESA, especially within the boundaries. These pressure points are triangular in shape and therefore converge on the ASESA from all sides. Map 3 illustrates the main areas of squatting and some units located along the Eastern Main Road, although many other units on this eastern boundary exist but have not been mapped.

Several reasons can be advanced for the past proliferation of squatting in and around the ASESA:

• poverty and landlessness has led to illegal land capture;

• perceptions that the ASESA is state lands and therefore no enforcement action will be taken against illegal land occupants;

• perception that the lands are wastelands since they have not been converted into any other land use and so these lands are useless and not needed; and

• State failure to curtail land grabbing even in ESAs.

Impact

Squatting is a threat to the ASESA as associated practices of land clearance and deliberate burning of vegetation, using the traditional technique of slash and burn, have caused irreparable damage to the existing ecosystems, habitats and species. Native vegetation and wildlife habitat have been destroyed to cultivate short-term vegetable crops.



Figure 8: An agricultural field falling within the ESA, with marsh forest in the background

Management Approach

The Kangalee area in the north was excised from the ASESA at the time of its designation, although this falls within the original Prohibited Area. Thus, most of this well-established squatting community is no longer located within the ESA, with the exception of two agricultural fields. The Land Settlement Agency (LSA) is the authority responsible for residential squatting on State Lands, and it has stated that it will not tolerate squatting. It will be collaborating with the ASSMC and the Forestry Division to give priority to this issue. Squatters within the boundaries of the ESA have been told that they will have to move. The LSA plans to offer appropriate compensation and the option of relocation to Picton Street in Sangre Grande. Agricultural squatting, including the two remaining plots in the Kangalee area that fall within the ESA, is the responsibility of the Land Administration Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, which to date has not been active in this area.

3.2 FIRES

The RMP notes that fires are the most significant threat to the ecosystems of the ASESA. Fires have been a common occurrence in the Aripo Savannas. Large fires were common in the years 1987 and 1997 and were associated with the El Niño phenomenon. These fires triggered significant changes in the physiognomy of the remaining forest in the Aripo Savannas. Figure 10 shows burnt vegetation caused by fires that have occurred in squatting areas located with the ASESA.

Impact

Fires have affected species composition and population size of plants and terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates. In addition, the loss of large trees, understory vegetation



and leaf litter radically alters the microclimate and therefore reduces the ability of forest communities to recover from this disturbance.

Management Approach

The RMP notes that historic attempts at fire prevention and management have been largely ineffective.

Figure 9: Fires within the ASESA usually originate near the boundaries



Map 4: Aripo Savannas ESA zoning plan



3.3 MINING (QUARRYING)

According to the RMP, quarrying is among the most destructive anthropogenic disturbances at the ASESA. Quarrying has had an extremely significant impact on the Aripo Savannas and has left extensive visible scars on the landscape. The ASESA consists of alluvial terraces, which are composed of layers of sands, gravels, and clays that have been mined extensively for aggregate used by the local construction industry (EMA, 2005). Of greatest concern is the irreparable damage done by quarrying to the original geology and ecology of the ASESA. A chronological history of facts shows that the ASESA had been under relentless pressure from quarrying for almost thirty years (1979 to 2007):

• in 1979, K.P. Quarry commenced quarrying activities on 16 hectares of land within the Aripo Savannas based on a one-year lease to use these lands.

• seventeen years later, in 1996, mounting public pressure led to a decision by the State to terminate the lease agreement and K.P. Quarry folded-up its operations. However, during the period 1979 to 1996 approximately 61 hectares of land were stripped of vegetation to conduct quarrying and wash plant activities were conducted within the Aripo Savannas, which led to the irreversible damage to its original ecology.

• aerial photographs of 1969, 1994 and 2007 show that natural vegetation has been totally destroyed in areas where quarrying has been conducted and subsequent regeneration has been described as poor. Data on the damage show that two to five percent of marsh forest and palm swamp within the Aripo Savannas have been disturbed by quarrying.

• in more recent times of growing concern is the continued quarrying of sand and gravel along the banks of the Aripo River (EMA, 2006), which forms the western boundary of the ASESA.

• at the time this research was conducted over the period 2006 to 2007 quarrying activity had stopped. However, the damage to existing vegetation and habitat had already occurred and the areas remain highly degraded.

Maps 2 and 3 illustrate the areas that have been subject to quarrying. Impact

Impacts include the destruction of vegetation and associated wildlife habitats and the destruction of the ferrous hardpan present in the sub-surface of the ASESA. The hardpan is the geo-morphological structure allowing the unique water regime, which allows the ecosystem to persist.

Figure 10: Moriche palms and other native species are slowly recolonising degraded quarried areas in which there is now an abundance of invasive species



Although there is some natural recolonisation by savanna and palm marsh species in quarried areas, the disturbance to the soil is of such significance that restoration of the area to any semblance of its previous natural state will be extremely challenging. Management Approach

Some efforts for revegetation of degraded areas in the ASESA are being made in the north under the National Reforestation and Watershed Rehabilitation Programme (NRWRP) but the RMP notes that inappropriate species are being used and this may be ecologically ineffective and in some cases negative.

3.4 LOGGING

From as early as the 1930s commercially valuable timber was removed by uncontrolled harvesting. In 1934, this area was declared the Long Stretch Forest Reserve and a year later, a management plan to restrict timber harvesting was prepared.

Impacts

Impacts include the following:

• the virtual elimination of former canopy of dominant species such as galba (Calophyllum lucidum);

• changes in pre-1940s tree species which were in relative abundance within the marsh forest of the ASESA;

• the loss of keystone plant food resources for native animals within the ASESA.

Management Approach

The current management approach to prevent illegal timber harvesting is monitoring via patrols being carried out by the Forestry Division.

3.5 HUNTING AND HARVESTING OF NON-TIMBER FOREST RESOURCES

The RMP notes that the illegal clearance of land for squatting and unrestricted quarrying has made the area more accessible and therefore has been accompanied by harvesting of wildlife and other forms of non-timber forest products (e.g. bois bande, Parinari campestris).

Impacts

Illegal hunting and the harvesting of non-timber forest resources place significant pressure on the small, and increasingly isolated populations and is likely to result in their complete extirpation; specifically, the historically unregulated collection of rare plants such as ground-dwelling orchids can pose a significant threat to the protection of these plant species, many of which are locally rare.



Management Approach

Patrols are conducted by the Forestry Division in an attempt to prevent illegal hunting and other extraction in the ASESA, but these are not fully effective, and much of the hunting takes place outside of the working hours of the Forestry Division officers.

3.6 PROPOSED BUILT DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE CONVERSION

Major threats to the ASESA are the proposed highway and housing scheme that are adjacent to this area (see Map 2). Consultations with a Working Group on Land Use and Infrastructure provided preliminary information on the proposals, which are discussed in the following sub-sections.

3.6.1 Highway - Description and Potential Impacts

The alignment and overall design of the proposed highway need to be carefully considered and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should be undertaken to determine the potential impact on the ASESA. The specific proposals of the highway have been obtained through a meeting with the design consultants on the 20th March 2007.

The proposed highway design has a right of way of 150m away from the southern boundary of the ASESA. The proposed centre line of the highway will be 200 metres south of the ASESA. Part of the design proposal includes the construction of bunds (elevated mounds) on the southern boundary of the ASESA to separate the ASESA from the highway and to function as a buffer zone. A utility corridor is proposed and a buffer totalling 100m.

The proposal is that the highway run-off will be drained southward away from the ASESA so that the storm water regime of the ASESA will not be affected. A ditch is proposed and this may run under the highway.

The construction of the highway may result in ecological isolation of the ESA from the forest areas to the south, which are the only remaining significant forests still connected to the ESA (see Map 2). This is discussed further in the RMP.

3.6.2 New Town of Wallerfield - Description and Potential Impacts

There is a proposed plan for the new town of Wallerfield, which is situated north of the highway, and the settlement of Cumuto. The plan is a phased mixed development of possibly 1,000 housing units, a military base and mixed commercial use. The town centre will provide services. The estimated timeframe for development is one to three years and it is expected to cater for a population of 30,000 to 50,000. The proposed new town would be almost double the size of the population of Arima and this may have an impact on the ASESA since it involves urban sprawl without support infrastructure. An EIA will be needed to address these proposals.

These proposals remain conceptual and there is no definitive land use plan that will guide the development of the area. Accordingly, it is premature to determine the exact land use zoning and construction activity. There are, however, potential impacts that could be identified even at a cursory level and include the following:



• development alongside the Aripo River will require intensive management of a buffer zone to mitigate against development impacts to the watercourse;

• with the proposed land uses changes (residential, commercial), it is possible that existing land values and the cost of housing real estate may increase. Rising land values may be a trigger for illegal land encroachment into the ASESA by poorer households;

• threats of forest fires started by improperly managed fires used in bush clearing or in recreational activities (such open fire cooking) adjacent to the ASESA.

3.6.3 Land Tenureship Issues

Land ownership patterns on the western boundary of the ASESA are skewed toward private ownership. Moreover, some of these lands fall within the proposed buffer zone and the use of these lands for farming and housing poses a threat to the ASESA. There is currently no land use plan or policy statement that will provide guidance to land development in this transition area and this opens the way for further threats to the survival of the ASESA. The option of compulsory land acquisition and compensation to private owners is often costly and protracted, and is best pursued as a last resort. Agreements on resource stewardship and incentives such as the transfer of development rights to other parcels owned by the landowner are worthy of consideration. Conservation easements may also be a feasible legal device, but legislation would need to be enacted to empower the state to acquire conservation easements for environmental management purposes. These measures are important for the implementation of the buffer one concept on lands surrounding the ASESA as discussed in the RMP.

3.7 RECREATION

Recreational use of the ASESA is described fully in the RP. This includes use by locals, including the surrounding communities, for fishing and bathing in the quarry ponds. In terms of foreign users, the most popular use is for birdwatching, which tends to be restricted to the edge of the ASESA. Income for management is not generated by this activity because visitors do not enter the ASESA.

Figure 11: One of the ponds, historically used for swimming which will be off-limits in the future

The approximate number of visitors participating in guided interpretative tours ranges from 80 in 1998 to 467 in 2003, illustrating increasing trend (Forestry Division, 2003). These activities are regarded as low-impact use. It is anticipated that visitor numbers



would substantially increase with the development of a Visitor Centre and associated recreational facilities and opportunities as proposed in the RP. Careful management of recreation to ensure that it does not exceed the carrying capacity of the site is essential.

Impacts

Although this is a low-impact use, there is potential for negative impacts on the ecosystem due to trampling and disturbance of wildlife. Recreational fishing is illegal as no extractive use of the ESA is permitted. Recreational swimming in the ponds is dangerous and there have been incidents of drowning.

Management Approach

Visitors are required to acquire a permit to gain entry to the ASESA and so the Forestry Division has some ability to manage visitation.

Sundew Tour-guiding Services and other tour guides that provide interpretative tours on the unique flora and fauna of the ASESA monitor visitor activities and promote good practices that do not damage the site.

3.8 EXTRACTION OF MATERIAL FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The RMP has highlighted that although there has been low intensity collection of plant material for scientific research in the past, such activity could easily lead to the extirpation of species within the ASESA. The IP also notes the potential danger of over collection of material for scientific research if this is unregulated.

Impact

Over collection of material may result in changes to population size and ultimately to species and genetic diversity. This is of special concern for rare plants and species with small populations that are already vulnerable to other threats.

Management Approach

The Wildlife Section of the Forestry Division requires that foreign researchers apply for permits for the export of plant or animal material. A system needs to be developed to allow for the monitoring and control of species removal from the ASESA as noted in the IP.



SECTION 4 – OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF MANAGEMENT

The ASESA is an ecosystem of unique biodiversity and the largest surviving natural savanna in the country. However, it has been subjected to serious degradation for over almost three quarters of a century, starting from the 1930s and lasting up to 2007. There strong justification for the importance of management of this site to protect the unique biological, cultural and historical resources found there. However, to undertake effective management a very clear set of objectives must be established.

The management objectives are derived from essentially two sources - the objectives stated in the three management sub-plans (the RMP, the RP and the IP) and the Legal Notice No. 152 of 2007 regarding the rationale for the designation of the ASESA. The objectives stated in the three plans were derived from a participatory process based on meetings and strategic workshops held with a wide-cross section of stakeholders. The objectives of management noted in the following sub-section are therefore consistent with other plans and stakeholder perspectives, and comply with those articulated by the Legal Notice No. 152 of 2007.

The following section provides a summary of these objectives.

4.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGAL NOTICE

Management objectives provided in the Legal Notice No. 152 of 2007 regarding the ASESA (See Appendix A for details) focus on three areas:

• protection of the existing or prospective habitat of any environmentally sensitive species that are found in the ASESA;

• protection of the natural resources and the environment of the ASESA;

• promotion of environmental education and information.

4.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE SUB-PLANS

4.2.1 Resource Management Plan

The specific RMP objectives for the ASESA are:

1. to maintain the species richness and diversity of the 10 savannas within the ASESA;

2. to prevent fire events from disturbing the forest and savanna communities of the ASESA;

3. to facilitate the recovery and restoration of the marsh forest matrix of the ASESA complex;

4. to prevent further squatting encroachment on the remaining forest and savannas;

5. to provide guidance for management of infrastructural facilities and amenities for facilitation of education and recreation at the ASESA;

6. to prevent any extraction of living and non-living resources within the ASESA;



7. to promote research to inform management of the ASESA.

4.2.2 Recreation Plan

The objectives of the RP are:

1. to provide multiple types of low impact, non-intrusive, non-extractive recreational opportunities for visitors to the ASESA, including opportunities for research and studies related to scientific value and natural history;

2. to manage recreational activities to facilitate multiple recreational uses and maintenance of the area in a natural or near natural state and the ecological integrity of the ASESA;

3. to provide recreation-based livelihood options for the surrounding communities.

Figure 12: There are numerous recreational opportunities in the ASESA

4.2.3 Interpretive Plan

The objectives of the IP have been identified as:

1. to enhance stakeholder awareness of the natural and cultural resources and values of the ASESA;

2. to build stakeholder awareness of and support for management of the ASESA as a unique national resource;

3. to increase stakeholder awareness of and support for management and use of the ASESA within and for furtherance of the management vision and objectives;

4. to provide opportunities for stakeholder and user feedback for furtherance of the management vision and objectives.



4.3 MANAGEMENT GOALS FOR THE ASESA

To capture the objectives noted in the sub-plans, and consistent with the objectives of designation noted in the Legal Notice, stakeholders drafted overall management goals for the ASESA as being:

1. to preserve the unique ecosystems and cultural and natural features of the ASESA;

2. to promote education and awareness through better outreach, communication, interpretation and advocacy;

3. to encourage and conduct research that could inform management of the ASESA;

4. to encourage participation and involvement of stakeholders in management of the ASESA;

5. to develop sustainable livelihoods, particularly for local people, to the extent that this can be done without compromising the integrity of the ASESA.

The achievement of these goals and the objectives noted in the sub-plans and the Legal Notice No. 152 of 2007 requires several approaches and policy decisions including: participatory management; effective resource allocation that will require financing mechanisms and administrative systems; and the zoning of the ASESA to restrict access to fragile habitats and ecosystems, to allow disturbed areas to recuperate and to permit limited entry to some zones for educational and research purposes. All of these approaches and policy proposals are discussed in the sections that follow.

Figure 13: Mechanisms need to be put in place to facilitate continued stakeholder participation in planning and management of the ASESA



SECTION 5 – MANAGEMENT ZONES

Zoning is a strategy for combining human use with biodiversity protection, by allowing the setting of varying management objectives and grading intensity of uses in zones within a single protected area; in the areas around a protected area; or as a strategic framework for the planning of a group of protected areas, (Dudley et al., 2004). Map 4 shows the proposed zoning in the ASESA, which has been designed to maintain the integrity of essential characteristics of the ecosystem and ecological processes that occur in the ASESA, while protecting communities and private landowners from land alienation and the loss of property rights in the use of their lands. Conservation easements and the transfer of development rights have been recommended to overcome land tenure constraints.

This section discusses the various zones proposed for the ASESA.

5.1 LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT

The overall landscape approach is essential for management of the ASESA as it is an extremely small and almost ecologically isolated protected area. This approach looks beyond the boundaries of the ESA to consider the impacts of the ASESA on surrounding lands and vice versa. It considers on a much larger scale how biodiversity as well as socio-economic and physical development objectives can be harmonised for use of the land within and surrounding the ASESA.

Biodiversity conservation is the main purpose of the ASESA. Here the landscape approach is used to attempt to link this protected area with other lands nearby that can help support biodiversity conservation. Two main ways to achieve this are proposed - the designation of a buffer zone surrounding the ASESA and the designation of corridors that would facilitate ecological connection of the ASESA to nearby forests.

The development of a local land use plan by Town and Country Planning Division will be essential to support and facilitate this landscape approach and this is especially urgent given the proposed highway and housing developments in the area.

5.2 BUFFER ZONE

The buffer zone is a natural or semi-natural habitat surrounding the core of a reserve. Its purpose is to reduce the external influences acting on the reserve and its natural features, particularly unplanned human impacts. The ESAMP draws on the RMP to guide its designation and demarcation of a buffer zone, shown in Map 4. Ideally, a buffer should have been zoned within the ASESA, but given its small size, the RMP notes this is not a viable option. Instead, the proposed buffer zone would extend 500 metres outwards from the boundaries of the ASESA and will have a landscape plan developed through collaboration with all adjacent landowners such as the state (e TecK, Forestry Division) and private landowners. It must be emphasised that this proposed buffer zone does not have any legal designation currently but would encourage good neighbour practices on the surrounding lands.



Preliminary discussions with the Forestry Division during the management planning process revealed their willingness to convert the land that is currently a non-native forest plantation to the south to use native species, which would contribute significantly to biodiversity conservation in the landscape. Similarly, preliminary discussions with land use planners contracted by e TecK during the management planning process focused on how e TecK could implement environmentally friendly landscaping and building design in the area designated as a buffer zone within their site.

5.3 ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS

The inclusion of corridors of land to facilitate ecological connection with adjacent forests, such as those remaining to the north and east, has been recommended in the RMP to facilitate landscape management, and to ensure that the ASESA continues to perform an integral role in the functioning of the wider ecosystem. Map 2 illustrates the areas of forest and other ecosystem surrounding the ASESA that can be utilised to contribute towards this. Finding ways to connect to forests to the east and south will be very challenging given the existing and proposed roads between these and the ASESA.

5.4 ZONING WITHIN THE ASESA

With such a significant area of the ASESA already disturbed by fires, logging, hunting and quarrying (see Maps 2 and 3) most of the site requires some form of recuperation from these disturbances. Extensive recuperation zones would be required for most of this protected area. Unlike earlier plans, which recommend a recuperation zone, the RMP finds such a designation irrational at this point. Only two zones are proposed by the RMP; an Educational Zone and a Scientific Zone. This approach will simplify the management and administrative systems needed to manage access and prepare plans for these zones.

5.4.1 Educational Zone

The Educational Zone is designed to promote visitors’ access to ASESA for educational and recreational purposes. This will be divided into the intensive use area (which will include the Visitor Centre and associated facilities and interpretive features) and a low-impact area (which will feature a looped trail to allow visitors to explore the various natural ecosystems in the ASESA). This is shown in Map 5 and is more fully described in the RP.

Figure 14: Quarry ponds in the area proposed for intensive use provide a scenic view for recreation



Activities in the low-impact area will be facilitated by the development of a trail system (boardwalked as needed) through the marsh forest, palm marsh, and into Savanna 1 and back to the artificial ponds in the intensive use area.

The intensive use area includes a Visitors Centre. The site identified to accommodate such facilities has sufficient land and is strategically located at the entrance off the Cumuto Main Road, which is a good checkpoint for entry to the ASESA. The Visitor Centre is described in the RP and will have office and educational facilities, washroom facilities, kiosks for vending and a car park. A tower will also be located in the intensive use area (see two alternate locations proposed in Map 5) for recreational viewing as well as monitoring of fire and other activities as described in the RP and RMP.

To ensure minimal impact on the natural ecosystems, the intensive use area with all infrastructural development is located within the abandoned KP Quarry site, which remains heavily degraded as shown in the satellite imagery in Map 6.

5.4.2 Scientific zone

The remaining area of the ASESA will be designated as a Scientific Zone for strictly research and ecosystem restoration purposes. This zone will facilitate relevant scientific research and environmental monitoring within the ASESA. There will be minimal maintenance of trails required for patrols, monitoring and access to research sites.



Map 5: Education Zone



Map 6: Satellite image of the intensive use area within the Education Zone



SECTION 6 - MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Administration of the ASESA requires both institutional and financial capacity. In addressing the institutional capacity, first, it is recommended that the overall administrative responsibility remain with the Forestry Division, which ultimately has legal jurisdiction over the designated area. The EMA has responsibility for undertaking the tasks identified in the Legal Notice that designates the ASESA, including the enforcement of existing laws. The role and responsibilities of the Forestry Division and the EMA are elaborated in Section 6.2.

A governance system, which promotes decentralisation and devolution to other stakeholders and builds on positive synergies and existing capacity is recommended. The system promoted here focuses on the process of community participation and broad stakeholder participation. It also takes into account human resource scarcity and the need to rationalise these resources for effective management.

6.1 PARTICIPATORY MANAGEME

Aripo Savannas Environmentally Sensitive Area...

Documents

Transcript of Aripo Savannas Environmentally Sensitive Area...