Lobby/campaign/demonstrate to protect marshes or swamps

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

28%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Lobbying or peaceful demonstrations could put pressure on projects that threaten marshes or swamps, preventing them from occurring or minimizing their impact. Specific actions include demonstrating on site, writing letters and social media campaigns.

To be summarized as evidence for this action, studies must involve campaigns targeted at organizations such as businesses or governments. Studies must provide some detail about what the lobbying, campaigning or demonstrating involved in practice. For example, Wetlands International (2014) report that their “advocacy influence” has led to the alteration or abandonment of several projects that could have impacted marshes or swamps (e.g. delay and redesign of the Fomi Dam, Upper Niger River, and consideration of marsh ecosystems in Shell’s oil and gas operations in Iraq). We have not summarized these examples as evidence because there is little detail about the methods used in their advocacy.

To be clear, studies would be summarized as evidence for this action if the lobbying is substantially related to marshes and swamps, even if it involves other wetland habitats (e.g. peatlands), aquatic habitats (e.g. rivers and lakes) or upland habitats (e.g. forests).

Wetlands International (2014) Our Achievements 2011–2013. Available at https://www.wetlands.org/download/5101/. Accessed 9 February 2020.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of lobbying/campaigning/demonstrating to protect marshes or swamps. The study was in Brazil.

VEGETATION COMMUNITY

VEGETATION ABUNDANCE

VEGETATION STRUCTURE

OTHER

Human behaviour (1 study): One study in Brazil reported after lobbying local and national governments, a wetland complex was designated as a sustainable development reserve (rather than being strictly protected) and a sustainable development research institute was created.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A study in 2008 of a wetland complex in northwest Brazil (Sellamuttu et al. 2008) reported that following lobbying of national and local governments in the 1990s, the area was designated as a sustainable development reserve (in 1996) and a new research institute for sustainable development was created (in 1999). The sustainable development reserve designation, which allowed sustainable use of resources by local and indigenous people, was a relaxation of former strict protection. Methods: The Mamirauá wetlands are a complex of seasonally flooded forest, rivers and lakes. In the early 1990s, they were strictly protected but were faced with pressure from commercial loggers and hunters. From 1992, a conservation group lobbied the Brazilian Government to allow sustainable use of the wetlands by local people. This lobbying was backed by biological and socioeconomic studies, and supported by national and international media campaigns. The conservation group leader also personally lobbied the State Governor, with arguments about political benefits of allowing sustainable use.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Sellamuttu S.S., de Silva S., Khoa S.N. & Samarakoon J. (2008) Good practices and lessons learned in integrating ecosystem conservation and poverty reduction objectives. Wetlands International report, International Water Management Institute, Colombo & Wetlands International, Wageningen.

Please cite as:

Taylor N.G., Grillas P., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Marsh and Swamp Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions to Conserve Marsh and Swamp Vegetation. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Produce guidance for marsh or swamp conservation Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Provide education/training programmes about marshes or swamps Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Classify conservation status of individual sites Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link