This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Sonoran Desert Ecosystem
Partnership: Putting
Practice to Commitment
S.E. Cornelius 1 and Carlos Yruretagoyena 2
Abstract.-The Sonoran Desert Ecosystem Partnership is firmly
established through formal commitments at state and federal
levels in Mexico and the U.S. Technical staffs of border protected
areas and representatives of the region's civil society endorse the
concept. Conservation scientists recognize the global significance
of the Sonoran Desert and endorse the validity of planning at the
ecoregional scale. The conservation community in the Sonoran
Desert is ahead of similar efforts elsewhere and is poised to take
full advantage of the opportunity. Setting a policy framework for
the Partnership, which includes a common conservation vision,
integrated implementation strategies, mutually supporting
relationships among partners, and mechanisms for monitoring
and evaluation, requires communication. The geographic scope,
stakeholder groups, involvement of other interested parties,
funding arrangements, limits and extent of authority, and other
operational parameters of the Partnership are in development.
INTRODUCTION
In October 1997, the International Sonoran Desert Alliance (ISDA), the
Sonoran Institute (SI), and the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum drafted a
justification for a cross-sector, transborder coordinating body and proposed a set of principles of operation. As a follow up action, a task force
was formed to move the proposed Sonoran Desert Ecosystem Partnership
(SDEP) beyond the conceptual stage to an operational level. ISDA and SI
offered to facilitate the work of this group, which was composed of land
and resource managers from the region, and tribal representatives. A
working assumption was that a forum to discuss and resolve large-scale
conservation problems shared by residents and protected area managers
of the border region was utilitarian. It was also assumed that the characteristics of this forum needed additional definition. For example, a com1
2
30
Director, Borderlands Program, Sonoran Institute, Tucson, Arizona
Director of Board, International Sonoran Desert Alliance, Ajo, Arizona/San Luis, Sonora
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
mon understanding of what the geographic scope of interest would be;
who the core stakeholder groups are; what form of representation they
would have; how other interested parties would be involved; how often
the forum would meet; what the extent of its mandate would be; and how
its deliberations and actions would be financed were needed. An overarching question was whether the proposed SDEP duplicated or complicated other coordination efforts ongoing or planned in the borderlands of
the Sonoran Desert.
A questionnaire was prepared and sent to 10 federal, state, and tribal
government representatives with direct or indirect responsibility for ·
natural and cultural resource management in the borderlands. Responses
were collated, returned for review and comment, and discussed at a meeting in April1998 at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. This paper
reflects the collective response of the task force to three cardinal aspects in
the design of a SDEP: does it have utility?; how would it operate?; and,
finally, what are the next steps?
RESULTS
Would a SDEP be useful?
The task force reviewed other coordination efforts in the Sonoran Desert
borderlands to determine niche availability and need for a SDEP.
It was concluded that a local forum to address conservation opportunities and needs shared by public land managers and residents of the
Sonoran Desert borderlands would be useful. This was based on six observations.
Right-Sized
Geographic scope of the SDEP would be broad enough to encourage
ecosystem scale conservation thinking but small enough to be administratively manageable and responsive to local priorities. Other coordination
efforts are border-wide and managed at the national or broad regional
level with a diffused local impact or relevance (Border XXI; BECC); they
do not fully address the international context (Southwest Strategy); or they
focus on geographic or stakeholder subsets in the borderlands (BMG
Range Partners Working Group; SEMARNAP Biosphere Reserve Advisory
Committee). The Department of Interior /SEMARNAP Letter of Intent
(LOI) was identified as an important government mechanism to establish,
coordinate, and implement specific joint actions between sister reserves
along the border. As such, the LOI pilot projects would complement the
SDEP' s broader function of promoting collaboration among managers,
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
31
residents, and NGOs to resolve threats or capture opportunities that are
common to the entire target area.
Decentralized approach
SDEP would strive for decentralization of public land management
responsibility and authority to the local level, in this case, to reserve managers and directors. Involvement and support from regional and national
staff would be help to ensure the success of SDEP.
Participatory focus
SDEP would encourage partnerships between civil society, including
residents and non-governmental organizations, and land managers.
Conservation and development linkage
SDEP would promote locally identified social and economic development actions that support conservation objectives.
Leverage support
SDEP would be effective at gaining support from public and private
sectors if the need or opportunity '~Tere communicated by a collective
rather than solitary voice.
Regional responsiveness
A SDEP would respond to Sonoran Desert borderlands conservation
issues that cannot easily be addressed by other coordination efforts. Examples include:
• Transportation policies that fragment landscapes and habitats
• Overdraft of ground water and diversion of surface water
• Spread of exotic species across the landscape
• Under-managed visitation and use of public lands and resources
• Cost effective technical training
• Coordinated management of, and joint access to, natural resource
data
• Common protocols for monitoring ecosystem health in the borderlands
What does an operational framework for SDEP consider?
The task force clarified their responses to the questionnaire, confirming
agreements on certain characteristics of an operational framework, and
identifying other areas that warrant more discussion.
32
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
Purpose of the Partnership
Through regular dialog of stakeholder groups, the SDEP would seek
environmentally sound, economically viable, and culturally sensitive
solutions to problems threatening the social fabric and ecological integrity
and diversity of the Sonoran Desert. The SDEP may become engaged in
three general areas. In order of priority, they are:
Building Capacity, including environmental education (building awareness); resource use (building local sustainable economies); training (building technical know-how); joint funding efforts (building financial wherewith-all), research (building data bases).
Management actions, including habitat, species, visitation, and cultural
preservation.
Policy, including law enforcement.
Geographic Scope
The SDEP would focus on the Lower Colorado River and Arizona
Uplands subdivisions of the Sonoran Desert including all xeric, riparian
and coastal marine habitats within an oval roughly 400 km east to west
and 300 km north to south centered at the point the Pinacate, Organ Pipe
Cactus and Cabeza Prieta protected areas meet. It would initially focus on
the five contiguous units straddling the Arizona-Sonora border including
the Alto Golfo y Delta del Rio Colorado, Pinacate y Gran Desierto del
Altar, and Organ Pipe Cactus biosphere reserves; Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge; and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the
Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range. Though separated from these lands,
the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge would be included because of its
reference in the LOI and evolving partnership with the Alto Golfo Biosphere Reserve. The Tohono O'odham Nation and other tribes, ejidos,
settlements, and communities located within the circle would be encouraged to participate. The SDEP scope may expand to non-contiguous protected areas and neighboring private lands in the Sonoran Desert borderlands as need and opportunity warrant. It was noted that expanding the
geographic scope, however, decreases the number of issues of common
concern, and thus the utility of the SDEP. The SDEP would unlikely become involved in complex, on-going management policy issues such as
Colorado River water allocation or the BMG Range renewal process.
Approach
The SDEP will be participatory and inclusive in its deliberations, decisions, and actions; it would follow an adaptive process based on biological
and cultural information, and institutional and community priorities; it
would incorporate regional and national interests in locally-driven conservation and social development initiatives. Initially, it would likely pro-
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
33
mote dialog and exchange of perspectives, with the possibility of evolving
to a more active advisory and project implementation role. It would not
have a direct policy-making function.
Membership
The SDEP would be formed by organizations, agencies, and communities with an expressed interest in the region and something to offer to its
conservation and sustained development. It may be useful to allow a one
or two-year open enrollment period during which the SDEP mission and
the responsibilities of the stakeholders are better defined. Subsequently,
qualifying requirements for participation would be established based on
ratification of the SDEP objectives and a local presence. If the SDEP remains a discussion and dialog forum, a general membership structure
would suffice. If it evolves into a decision-making body with many participating entities, it may be useful to draw a governing council from the
recognized stakeholders. Each delegate would have authority to speak
and take positions for the stakeholder group they represent, and a responsibility to report back to their constituents or employer on deliberations.
All delegates would have equal voice in deliberations and decisions, with
positions or decisions reached by consensus. In as much as possible,
council delegates would be local staff or officials and have sufficient
authority to adequately represent their constituency. Further assessment of
legal and structural options to ensure that the SDEP abides by the US
Federal Advisory Committee Act and any similar open meetings legislation in Mexico is needed.
Stakeholder Groups
Protected areas within the geographic scope of the partnership, including lands managed by FWS, NPS, and SEMARNAP /INE, would be permanently represented by the unit's senior manager. Wildlife, land and
environmental management agencies, and military departments with
resource management responsibilities would be permanently represented
by local officials. These may include BLM, AGFD, ASLD, ADWR,
IMADES, USAF, and USMC. Town and ejido governments would be
permanently represented by senior elected or appointed officials. Native
peoples within the geographic scope of the partnership would be permanently represented by official delegates from tribal councils. Mexican and
US non-governmental and community-based organizations active in
conservation, education, or sustainable resource development activities in
the region would be represented, either individually or as a group. Other
possible council delegates might include binational agencies such as the
IBWC/CILA, universities, and research institutes. The total number of
council members should not exceed 20.
34
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
Limitations of Authority
The SDEP would have no authority over protected areas nor implementation of their management or operational plans. Each participating protected area would continue to be managed according to current enabling
legislation and pertinent state and federal laws. Nor would the SDEP have
authority over regional land use planning agencies, ejido, or local governments. No new restrictions or mandates could be imposed through the
actions of the SDEP on current resource use practices on public, military or
private lands.
Financing
Expenses related to meetings of the SDEP general membership would
be borne by the participating stakeholders. Common costs of a governing
council and general administration of the SDEP would be supported
through start-up grants during the initial years from third party donors
and through voluntary contributions by participating government agencies. Projects carried out under the auspices of the SDEP would normally
be financed and implemented by the promoting agency or organization.
Agreement to participate in the SDEP would not obligate an agency or
organization to provide funds for projects of the SDEP nor operation of a
governing council.
Formation
The SDEP would be grounded on the Letter of Intent signed by US and
Mexico federal agencies and operate informally at its inception. Agencies,
communities, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholder
groups might formally join the SDEP at any time upon submission of an
official declaration of support to the operating principles developed during the start-up period. Should a governing council be established from
the SDEP, it would be initially formed through self-selection by those
representatives of agencies, tribes, and organizations with expressed
interest in the concept. Membership in the Council would be reviewed
periodically.
What are the next steps in consolidation of the SDEP?
Discussions on the design of an operational framework for a SDEP have
thus far involved land and resource managers. An outreach program to
communities in the region is now essential to ensure a broad understanding of the concept, of its potential to resolve shared threats to the natural
and economic foundation to the border region, and of the responsibilities
associated with participation in the SDEP. Further discussion is needed to
determine the qualifications of non-governmental organizations and
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
35
conlmunity-based groups to participate as stakeholders; how communities
can most effectively participate, what financial options are available; and
whether an administrative and fiscal agency role is needed.
CONCLUSION
There is a long record of collaboration on broadly defined as well as
specific aspects of conservation in the Sonoran Desert (Laird et al. 1998).
Cooperation has occurred at different geographic scales, time periods, and
levels of formality. Some efforts resulted in official agreements contributing to long-term working relationships between agencies, across borders,
and among a broad array of non-governmental stakeholders. Others are
smaller in scale, more restricted in time and involve fewer players. The
latter experiences, though less formal, are no less important. They have
happened because a problem was shared by neighboring managers who
had vested interests in its resolution. These experiences serve to encourage
cooperation on tasks that are more complex and possibly more significant
to the sustained conservation of the Sonoran Desert.
The Sonoran Desert Ecosystem Partnership has been firmly established
through state and federal commitments. Technical staffs of the protected
areas and representatives of the region's civil society are practicing the
concept through modest actions. Conservation scientists have recognized
the global significance of the Sonoran Desert and endorse the validity of
planning at the ecoregional scale. Such a broad base of support for
transborder, inter-agency, and cross-sector collaboration in ecosystem
management is remarkable and uncommon. The conservation community
in the Sonoran Desert is ahead of similar efforts elsewhere but has yet to
take full advantage of this opportunity. Essential to this process is the
participation of community neighbors of the protected areas. They have
more to gain or lose than other stakeholders, as their home is the Sonoran
Desert. Few policy decisions and management actions have a neutral
impact on their lives. Sustainable communities are needed in the Sonoran
Desert, ones with a high quality of life, broad-based economic vitality and
a healthy human environment. Successful resource conservation depends
on it.
Acknowledgments
We recognize the pioneering work of Howard Ness, National Park
Service, Luther Propst, Sonoran Institute, Gary P. Nabhan, Arizona-Sonora
Desert Museum, Maria Elena Barajas, formally of Normatividad Ecol6gica
of the State of Sonora, and others in developing the original partnership
36
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
concept. We thank Celia Pigueron, Secretaria Medio Ambiente, Recursos
Naturales y Pesca and Susan Lieberman, Department of the Interior for
providing the opportunity to draft a design for collaboration in the
Sonoran Desert. We are particularly indebted to the managers task force,
including Curt Gunn and Mike Taylor-BLM, Juan Carlos Barrera and
Carlos Castillo-SEMARNAP, Mitch Ellis and Don Tiller-FWS, Bill
Wellman-NPS, Kenneth Williams-Tohono O'odham Nation, and Daniel
Garcia-USAF, for their time, interest, and energy in providing input to the
draft operational framework.
LITERATURE CITED
Laird, W., J. Murrieta-Saldivar, and J. Shepard. 1998. Cooperation across
Borders: A brief history of biosphere reserves in the Sonoran Desert. J.
Southwest 39(3-4):307-314.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Steve Cornelius is Director of the Borderlands Program of the Sonoran
Institute. He has bachelor's and master's degrees in wildlife science and
has worked on research projects, and in education, training, and conservation planning for 28 years, much of that time in Latin America.
Carlos Yruretagoyena is Environmental Manager for San Francisco
Paper Factory in Mexicali, and past President of the International Sonoran
Desert Alliance. He is an oceanographer by training and has worked
extensively in coastal resource management, desert fishes research, and
environmental education.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
37