Stewardship Support Project Main Page Stewardship Progression Evaluation Evaluation Report Stewardship Progression ProjectCowichan Community Land Trust SocietyFOLLOW-UP EVALUATION OF 11 YEARS OF LANDHOLDER CONTACT IN THE COWICHAN REGIONBy Ann Archibald, François Cormier, and John ScullStewardship Progression ProjectPage 2Cowichan Community Land Trust SocietyMay 1, 2005Stewardship Progression ProjectPage 3TABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Background: Landholder contact in the Cowichan region…………………………………………………. 9 Evaluating landholder contact programs ………………………………………………………………………… 12 METHOD…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 Telephone Survey…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Participants……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 Site visits………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Land………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Recall of Landowner Contact …………………………………………………………………………………………. 15 Stewardship activities …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 Wildlife habitat………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17 Number taking action …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18 Water quality and conservation………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 Energy conservation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Solid waste management ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20 Memberships in conservation organizations ……………………………………………………………………. 21 Effects of the landholder contact program ………………………………………………………………………. 21 Conservation campaigns ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 Plans for the future …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 Other activities ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24 CVRD gorse identification hotline………………………………………………………………………………… 24 One-tonne challenge …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 Charitable giving ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 Evaluation of CCLT and the landholder contact program……………………………………………….. 25 Activities in support of land stewardship……………………………………………………………………….. 25 Global evaluation of the landholder contact programs …………………………………………………….. 26 DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Changing land ethics………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Landholder contact programs ………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 Limitations to the survey ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 Site Visits……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29 RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30 For CCLT and other organizations doing landholder contact programs ………………………….. 30 For funding and policy bodies concerned with environmental stewardship ……………………… 30 REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31Cowichan Community Land Trust SocietyMay 1, 2005Stewardship Progression ProjectPage 4APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33 Appendix 1. Appendix 2. Appendix 3. Appendix 4. Stewardship Pledge ……………………………………………………………………………………. 35 Letters to land stewards……………………………………………………………………………… 37 Telephone Interview Protocol …………………………………………………………………….. 39 Verbatim responses to open questions…………………………………………………………. 43Cowichan Community Land Trust SocietyMay 1, 2005Stewardship Progression ProjectPage 5ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Cowichan Community Land Trust Society gratefully acknowledges the contributions of its primary funders who include the following: Habitat Conservation Trust Fund Cowichan Valley Regional District Kaatza Foundation In addition to these funders, we would like to acknowledge the many stewards who provided information and insight throughout this project as well as project staff: Francois Cormier and Ann Archibald. And finally, a special thank you to John Scull who volunteered countless hours to this project, from its inception to its successful conclusion.Cowichan Community Land Trust SocietyMay 1, 2005Stewardship Progression ProjectPage 6Cowichan Community Land Trust SocietyMay 1, 2005Stewardship Progression ProjectPage 7EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Landholder contact programs have been favoured by many organizations as a tool for encouraging land stewardship. The Cowichan region has experienced various landholder contact programs over a period of 11 years. This long history provided a unique opportunity for an assessment of the long-term consequences of landholder contact programs. In the spring of 2005 a telephone survey was conducted with 89 participants from previous landholder contact programs. Following the interviews, site visits were made to 8 properties. In general, the results of the survey were extremely positive with respect to changing the attitudes, knowledge, and activities of landholders, both with respect to the specific focus of the landholder contact and with respect to wider environmental issues. Landholders were motivated to care for the natural environment and eager for information about how to do it. They appreciated the knowledge gained through the landholder contact program. They responded with a wide range of changes in land use practices and other environmentally-relevant behaviours. Specifically; • • • • • changes in attitudes about land stewardship, including a greater understanding of the importance of passive conservation (leaving things alone). increased knowledge and understanding of land stewardship issues. a wide range of changes in environmental management practices, especially those related to wildlife habitat. changes in a number of different areas of environmental stewardship, with the average landholder reporting 8 different changes. Land stewards were much more likely than the general population to join environmental and conservation organizations or contribute to land acquisition campaigns.The major weakness identified for all the programs resulted from the short-term nature of project funding from grants. Staff changes and a lack of consistent follow-up were seen as major weaknesses in the landholder contact programs. A more consistent dialogue with the sponsoring organization and with other land stewards might enhance the effectiveness of landholder contact. Landholder contact was shown to be very effective compared to some other approaches to environmental protection. To maximize effectiveness, landholder contact programs should be planned and funded on an ongoing basis or, at least, for several years at a time.Cowichan Community Land Trust SocietyMay 1, 2005Stewardship Progression ProjectPage 8Cowichan Community Land Trust SocietyMay 1, 2005Stewardship Progression ProjectPage 9INTRODUCTION An important piece of the environmental puzzle is the stewardship of private land for wildlife habitat protection and the amelioration of negative downstream environmental consequences. The traditional method for encouraging stewardship has been the use of government regulation and penalties. Municipal land use bylaws, provincial water and fisheries laws, and federal wildlife and fisheries laws have been used to prevent or punish inappropriate land use practices. To be effective, these strategies require a substantial commitment to enforcement and they seldom encourage positive stewardship actions such as restoration. They often tend to be reactive rather than preventative. A second approach to land stewardship has been for government or land trusts to purchase land and take responsibility for stewardship. This option is expensive at the outset and involves a perpetual commitment to good stewardship. More recently, there has been increasing use of conservation covenants (or easements) to enforce land stewardship (Hillyer & Atkins, 2005). Both governments and private land trusts have used this legal tool to protect environmental values in perpetuity. As with regulation, covenants and easements require the holder to make a substantial commitment to monitoring and enforcement. An advantage of covenants over regulation is they can be designed for the unique features of each piece of land rather than having the “one size fits all” quality of regulation. Covenants are usually less costly than land acquisition and, within the limits imposed by the covenant, the land may continue to have an economic, personal, or social use. A fourth approach to land stewardship has been through environmental education. Governments and
