Skip to main content

30 by 30 Must Mean Better Conservation, Not Just More Lines on a Map

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

Protected-area targets can help nature. They can also hide weak governance unless quality and consent are counted alongside coverage.

The global goal to conserve 30 percent of land, inland waters, and seas by 2030 is often shortened to “30 by 30.” It was adopted in the KMGBF during COP 15 just a few weeks ago. It is a useful rallying point, but the shorthand can mislead.

A large protected area on paper is not automatically a safe habitat, a well-supported community, or a successful conservation effort.

Documented protection and conservation cover only about 17.6 percent of land and inland waters and 8.4 percent of marine and coastal areas. Just as important, it found major gaps in information about whether areas are effectively managed, fairly governed and respectful of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

This should change the public conversation. We need maps, but we also need to ask who chose the boundary, who governs it, who benefits from it and what happens to people whose homes and livelihoods are already there. Indigenous and traditional territories, when recognized with consent, make an enormous contribution to area-based conservation. The work ahead is not a race to colour more territory green. It is a commitment to repair governance, recognize existing stewardship and invest in the people who make conservation endure.

For readers, 30 by 30 can become a useful prompt rather than a distant slogan. Ask how local conservation areas are governed. Support organizations that strengthen land rights, restoration skills and community decision-making. Look for monitoring that reports on social as well as ecological outcomes. And when an announcement celebrates a new protected area, ask whether the people already caring for the place were involved from the beginning. The path to 2030 should lead to healthier ecosystems and stronger local stewardship, not simply to a more impressive global percentage.

There is no single model for answering those questions. In some places, Indigenous governance or community conserved territories may already be doing much of the work and need legal recognition, secure tenure and direct support. In others, shared governance may be appropriate, provided the partnership has real authority rather than symbolic participation. Elsewhere, protected areas need honest reforms to address past harms. What should be avoided is the assumption that new targets justify a fast, top-down land rush. Conservation works at the pace of trust, and trust cannot be declared on a map.

That distinction matters because a boundary can conceal as much as it reveals. A park may be large but placed where land is least contested, while crucial wetlands, migration corridors or spawning grounds remain unprotected. A reserve may be formally designated but lack staff, financing or local legitimacy. It may even create new pressures outside its boundary if nearby communities lose access to land without alternatives. The most revealing questions are therefore practical ones: Is the area ecologically connected? Is it resourced for the long term? Are local people able to participate in decisions and raise concerns? Are women, youth and customary institutions included, rather than represented only in a consultation list?

Biodiversity,

From Glasgow to Kunming: Why Environmental Promises Need Local Accountability

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

By the end of 2021, climate, biodiversity and restoration had become one connected agenda. The challenge was no longer only ambition. It was who would define, finance and monitor implementation.

By late 2021, a pattern had become hard to ignore. Climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation and pollution were not separate environmental files to be managed by separate institutions. They were overlapping pressures with shared causes and shared consequences. UNEP’s Making Peace With Nature report described this as a triple planetary crisis and argued that the three emergencies must be addressed together. The language was significant because it challenged the habit of treating a forest as a climate issue in one room, a biodiversity issue in another and a livelihood issue somewhere else.

International meetings reflected that convergence. The Glasgow Climate Pact, adopted at COP26, aimed to make the 2020s a decade of climate action and support with the objective of keeping the 1.5 degree goal in reach. In October, the first part of the UN Biodiversity Conference in Kunming adopted the Kunming Declaration and built political momentum for an ambitious post-2020 biodiversity framework.

The risk with global attention is that it can become a substitute for implementation. A declaration may set direction, but it does not automatically secure a community’s water source, prevent a harmful project, protect customary tenure or fund local restoration. The practical test begins afterward. Are commitments translated into policies that communities can understand? Do funds reach organizations doing work on the ground? Are the people most affected able to shape plans before decisions are finalized? Is there public information about results, and a way to raise concerns when projects cause harm?

Data is part of this accountability, but it must be handled with care. National inventories, satellite monitoring and global indicators are valuable tools. They can show broad trends, reveal gaps and help compare progress. Yet the information most useful to a community may be very specific: a seasonal stream, a grazing route, a seed exchange, a sacred site, a place where flooding has worsened. Some of that information is sensitive. Indigenous data governance reminds us that better access to data should not mean automatic access to all data. Communities should have authority over how information about their territories and knowledge is collected, shared and used.

Finance is equally important. Environmental commitments often depend on those with the least resources proving that they are ready for support, while large institutions have greater capacity to write proposals and manage complex reporting. A more equitable approach funds local coordination, translation, learning, equipment, maintenance and the time people need to participate. It supports community organizations directly where possible and asks intermediaries to be accountable for how benefits are shared. It also recognizes that adaptation and conservation cannot be sustained if people are denied secure livelihoods, land rights and a meaningful voice in public decisions.

The most valuable legacy of 2018 through 2021 may be this widening of the frame. Environmental protection is not only about setting aside places or counting carbon. It is about the quality of the relationship between people, institutions and the living systems that make life possible. Amaterra’s role can be to keep that relationship visible. Connect global commitments to local questions. Support community-led monitoring and mapping. Resist fortress conservation. Treat Indigenous and local knowledge as living expertise, with consent and authority. And measure success not only by what is announced, but by whether ecosystems recover and communities gain the power and resources to care for them over time.

The next chapter of earthcare depends on this local accountability. It will be written in watersheds, farms, rangelands, forests, coasts and urban neighbourhoods, as well as in conference rooms. The work calls for people who can connect scales without losing sight of place. That is the opportunity for Amaterra: to turn international updates into practical questions, support the organizations closest to the work and insist that conservation be measured by both ecological recovery and the strength of the communities entrusted with its care.

This is why the 2021 convergence should be remembered as a governance moment as much as an environmental one. It exposed the gap between setting goals and building the institutions that can deliver them. Strong commitments need safeguards, accessible finance, transparent monitoring and democratic participation. They also need the humility to recognize that a community may define a problem differently from a national plan or global model. Making space for that difference is not an obstacle to action. It is how broad commitments become legitimate in the places where they are implemented.

Biodiversity

The Decade of Restoration Starts With a Promise Not to Repeat Old Harms

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

In 2021, the United Nations launched a decade of ecosystem restoration. Its success depends on a simple principle: restoration must be ecologically sound, locally governed and fair.

World Environment Day 2021 marked the launch of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, led by UNEP and FAO. The initiative set out a global call to prevent, halt and reverse ecosystem degradation during the decade to 2030. Its timing was significant. Climate disruption, biodiversity loss and pollution were increasingly recognized as interconnected crises, while the pandemic had highlighted the cost of treating environmental health as separate from human well-being. Restoration offered a hopeful public language: damaged ecosystems can recover, and people can take part in that recovery.

Hope, however, is not a substitute for care. Restoration can be misunderstood as a simple planting exercise or as a way to compensate for continuing destruction elsewhere. Neither approach is enough. An ecosystem is more than the visible plants placed in it. It includes soils, water, fungi, insects, wildlife, ecological processes and the people whose practices have shaped the landscape over time. A restoration project that ignores those relationships may produce an impressive photograph while failing to improve biodiversity, resilience or local well-being.

The first question should therefore be: restore what, and to what purpose? In some places, the priority is to protect an intact ecosystem before it is degraded. In others, it is to remove a pressure, reconnect a river, restore native vegetation, reduce erosion or support the return of a species. In agricultural landscapes, it may mean rebuilding soil health, diversifying crops, improving water retention and strengthening farmers’ capacity to adapt. In drylands, it may mean protecting mobility, managing grazing collectively and restoring water sources. The methods differ because the social and ecological conditions differ.

The second question is: who governs the work? Many places targeted for restoration are inhabited, used or culturally significant to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Projects can create risk when they are planned without free, prior and informed consent, when land rights are insecure, or when new carbon and biodiversity incentives encourage outside actors to claim control. A rights-based approach does not delay restoration. It makes it more likely to last. Communities need decision-making power, fair benefits, access to grievance mechanisms and the ability to shape monitoring. Local knowledge should be welcomed through genuine collaboration, not collected as a decorative contribution after key choices have been made.

The third question is: how will we know whether recovery is real? Counting seedlings is easy. Measuring functioning ecosystems and equitable governance is harder, but far more valuable. Monitoring should include ecological indicators chosen for the place, such as water flow, soil cover, habitat connectivity or species return. It should also include community-defined indicators: access to resources, time burdens, local employment, cultural values, safety and confidence in decision-making. GIS and remote sensing can help track change, but they should be used alongside field observation and under clear rules about data ownership, access and privacy.

The UN Decade was a powerful invitation because it connected restoration to livelihoods, climate and biodiversity. Amaterra can carry that invitation forward with a practical standard. Support restoration that protects existing ecosystems, respects land and resource rights, uses locally appropriate species and methods, funds long-term maintenance, and reports honestly on outcomes. Celebrate small projects, but do not ask them to compensate for policies that continue to degrade land and water. The restoration we need is not a campaign of quick fixes. It is a long commitment to repair relationships: between people and place, between evidence and decision-making, and between the benefits of nature and the responsibilities of care.

The launch year asked the world to become a generation of restoration. That phrase can mean more than a campaign slogan. It can mean learning to recognize when a landscape needs protection rather than intervention, when a community needs direct support rather than outside control, and when a project must change course. It can mean treating ecological recovery as a shared civic responsibility. Restoration succeeds when it increases the capacity of both ecosystems and communities to withstand change without sacrificing dignity, rights or future options.

The financing question cannot be avoided. Restoration takes patient investment, while many projects are funded for only a year or two. Communities may be expected to maintain sites without resources after external partners leave. A credible restoration commitment pays for the less visible foundations: local coordinators, training, follow-up visits, native seed supply, maintenance, monitoring and adaptive management. It supports the people doing the work, not only the materials installed or the hectares announced. And it remains accountable when outcomes fall short of expectations.

Biodiversity

Conservation Cannot Be Built by Exclusion

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

A rights-based approach is not a concession to nature protection. It is one of the conditions for doing it well.

For too long, “fortress conservation” has imagined that nature is protected when people are kept out: fences, guards, evictions and rules made far from the places they govern. The human cost has fallen most heavily on Indigenous Peoples, pastoralists and rural families whose knowledge and care have shaped many of the landscapes now described as wilderness.

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment has been direct: exclusionary conservation can violate rights and can fail nature itself. Conservation that displaces or criminalizes people damages trust, ignores local observation and often removes the very stewards whose practices sustained biodiversity.

There is a different path. Begin with land and resource rights, free, prior and informed consent, fair participation in governance and an honest process for remedy when harm has occurred. Fund community institutions, not only outside enforcement. Make room for customary harvest, grazing and seasonal movement where these practices sustain ecosystems. And measure success through both biodiversity outcomes and the security, dignity and decision-making power of the people who live with the work. Protecting nature and protecting rights are not competing goals; they are mutually reinforcing responsibilities.

This approach also asks conservation organizations to be accountable for their own conduct. Are safeguards accessible to people in the places where projects operate? Can someone report harm without risking retaliation? Does funding reach community institutions directly? Are rangers and partner agencies trained in human rights? Is there an independent way to investigate serious complaints? These questions should be normal parts of conservation planning. Nature does not need a model built on dispossession. It needs relationships of care that can survive political change, economic pressure and the long work of restoration.

Rights-based conservation is sometimes dismissed as slow or complicated. It can indeed require patience: listening before designing a project, resolving tenure questions, sharing authority, working through conflict and returning to decisions when circumstances change. Yet exclusion is not simple either. It often creates enforcement costs, resentment, hidden land-use pressure and a cycle of disputes that consumes years. A project that begins with respect for rights may be more demanding at the outset, but it has a better chance of becoming legitimate, durable and locally defended.

The language we use matters here. Calling an inhabited landscape “empty” erases the relationships that have kept it alive: controlled burning, seasonal harvest, grazing rotation, seed saving, fishing practices, sacred responsibilities and informal rules of care. None of these practices is automatically benign, and communities themselves are not uniform. But treating local people as a threat by default guarantees that conservation begins with a false story. It also makes collaboration harder when ecological conditions change and adaptive knowledge is most needed.

Biodiversity, ,

A Year of Interdependence: Forests, Health and the Case for One Health

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

The pandemic year made the links between ecosystems, animals and human health impossible to ignore. It also revealed why environmental action must protect rights and livelihoods, not create new exclusions.

The environmental story of 2020 cannot be separated from the COVID-19 pandemic. A public-health emergency reshaped daily life around the world and brought a new urgency to questions about the relationship between people, animals and ecosystems. That relationship must be discussed with care. It is neither accurate nor ethical to reduce a complex pandemic to a simplistic story about wildlife or particular communities. The stronger lesson is systemic: human health, animal health and environmental health are deeply connected, and policies that treat them separately leave preventable risks unaddressed.

In July 2020, UNEP and the International Livestock Research Institute released Preventing the Next Pandemic, a report on zoonotic diseases and how to reduce the risk of future outbreaks. It argued for a One Health approach that brings public health, veterinary expertise and environmental knowledge together. The report identified environmental degradation, land-use change, wildlife exploitation, unsustainable agricultural practices and climate change among the pressures that can increase the risk of disease emergence. It called for prevention, surveillance, better governance and cross-sector cooperation rather than a response focused only on crisis management.

The State of the World’s Forests focused on forests, biodiversity and people. Its message was equally relevant: forests are not simply carbon stores or scenic backdrops. They are diverse living systems that support food, livelihoods, water cycles and the well-being of communities. The report emphasized that conservation and sustainable use must work together, and that effective governance requires respect for the rights and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It also warned that agricultural expansion and forest degradation continued to put forest biodiversity at risk.

Taken together, these reports point toward a more complete understanding of prevention. Healthy ecosystems can reduce risk, but “protecting nature” cannot mean evicting people from their lands or criminalizing livelihoods. Exclusionary conservation can damage trust, displace pressure elsewhere and undermine the very local institutions needed for monitoring and care. A One Health approach should therefore be rights-based. It should support safe and sustainable food systems, secure land tenure, locally appropriate animal health services, fair access to information and community participation in decisions that affect territory and livelihoods.

The pandemic also revealed the value of local resilience. When supply chains were interrupted, many communities relied more heavily on local food, mutual aid, seed saving, water systems and informal networks of care. These systems should not be romanticized; they often operate under severe pressure and unequal conditions. But they show why resilience cannot be delivered only through centralized infrastructure. It is also built through relationships, knowledge and the capacity of communities to organize. Environmental programs that strengthen local institutions are therefore contributing not only to conservation but also to health, dignity and preparedness.

For Amaterra, 2020 is a year to remember as an invitation to connect issues that are too often separated. A watershed project is also a health project when it protects water quality. A community seed bank is also a resilience project when it supports food security under climate stress. A mapping initiative is also a governance project when it helps residents participate in decisions about land and services. The question is not whether nature serves people or whether people should be kept away from nature. The question is how to sustain a relationship in which ecosystems, communities and public institutions can all remain healthy. One Health is most meaningful when it is lived as shared responsibility, not merely adopted as a policy phrase.

The lesson from 2020 is not that the natural world is dangerous and should be controlled. It is that environmental disruption carries human consequences, and that prevention is more humane and less costly than crisis response. Protecting ecosystems, improving livelihoods and strengthening public health can reinforce one another when policies are designed with people rather than imposed on them. The task is to build systems that can notice risk early, respond fairly and sustain the conditions for healthy lives across species and generations.

One Health also points toward a better relationship with expertise. Health workers, veterinarians, ecologists, farmers and community leaders do not always use the same language or work through the same institutions. Bringing them together takes time, translation and mutual respect. It is not enough to invite local representatives into a meeting once decisions are already made. Partnerships should begin with shared questions and support local capacity to observe, report and respond. Community knowledge can help identify changing conditions; public institutions can provide services, safeguards and resources that communities should not be expected to supply alone.

Biodiversity, , ,

Amaterra’s Work Continues: Discussing Sustainability and the Environment

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

Amaterra has recently attended the Sixteenth International Conference on Current Issues of Sustainable Development. The conference, titled “Generations for generations – priorities of sustainable development yesterday, today and tomorrow” in Opole, Poland focused on the need for a new perspective regarding sustainability and sustainable development from a generational approach.

Amaterra was drawn to the conference due to its focus on generational responsibility for the protection, and maintenance of the environment. The premise of the conference aligned with Amaterra’s mission, in that the environment was positioned as the basis for the subsistence of humanity, but more importantly as the foundation of natural capital from which all other socio-economic processes originate. Protection of that foundation, and initiatives through sustainable development to ensure its health, maintenance and enhancement are key to our future.

The stated primary goals of the conference were to discuss and analyze:

  • – the responsibility of young, medium and old generations in building capabilities for sustainable development,
  • – improving common, international dialogue for creating sustainable development patterns,
  • – institutional and governmental framework for sustainable development,
  • – challenges in developing sustainable consumption and production,
  • – challenges for sustainable development in different sectors, e.g. transport, energy, waste management etc.
  • – and the role of technology in building sustainability.

Sixteenth International Sustainability Conference

On the 25th and 26th of April, 2016, Amaterra’s Executive Director presented on the topic of “Sustainable development and community mobilization – through failure to success.” The presentation was designed to discuss the role of sustainable development, and specifically to address the necessity of a different view and approach to current and future development capabilities, primarily those of more contextual and comprehensive approaches to sustainable development. Approaching development not as sustained growth, but as a holistically sustainable closed system, which would allow for higher quality of life, while maintaining the health of the ecosystem and environment. The presentations were well received, and Amaterra’s perspective on sustainability encouraged deeper conversation and linkages and an invitation to collaborate with new partners and academics.

The presentation and resulting short paper were published in the Central and Eastern European Journal of Management and Economics Vol. 4, No. 1, 41-61, March 2016.

Direct Involvement, Education, , , , , , , , , , ,

WMG’s Sabino Creek Restoration Campaign

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment
In 2015 Amaterra provided $1000 for seed funding to support Watershed Management Group’s Sabino Creek Restoration Campaign launch.

Photo from the Watershed Management Group's website at https://watershedmg.org/rivers

Photo from the Watershed Management Group’s website at https://watershedmg.org/rivers

The campaign’s goal is to restore habitat and surface flow to Sabino Creek, located downstream of Sabino Canyon, the most visited natural area in Tucson.  Sabino Creek is located in a shallow groundwater area, where groundwater is 50 feet or less and still supports riparian habitat.  This and other shallow groundwater areas are declining as groundwater pumping increases from area residents and as development encroaches.    The campaign is a long-term, multi-faceted program including an educational/advocacy program with local residents; on-the-ground restoration efforts in private and public spaces; and policy actions to protect and enhance shallow groundwater areas.

Some of the things to be accomplished in the next two years:
  • Facilitate a stakeholder group to develop a restoration plan for Sabino Creek.
  • Lead watershed restoration workshops in public spaces in the Sabino Creek watershed, such as schools, ranches, or trailheads. Lead hands-on watershed restoration workshops with private residences in the Sabino Creek watershed, focusing on rainwater and greywater harvesting, green infrastructure, and small-scale restoration practices such as one-rock check dams.
  • Partner with four schools to teach our Shallow Groundwater Youth Advocacy Program, including two schools located within Sabino Creek watershed.  In 2014 this program was piloted with Western Institute for Leadership Development, a Tucson charter high school.
  • Run a public marketing campaign to raise awareness and inspire action to restore Sabino Creek. Publish the “Get Wet Guide: Sabino Creek,” an interactive guide highlighting recreation opportunities, cultural destinations, wildlife, and ways to protect/restore shallow groundwater areas. Create a series of 3 “Get Wet Videos” about the importance of shallow groundwater areas and a specific call to action for Sabino Creek.


For more information about Watershed Management Group, please visit their website at www.watershedmg.org

Funded Projects, Grants, North America, , , , , , ,

2014 Amaterra $1000 grant to assist NSS in the following two projects

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

SEED CLIPPER CLEANER
We (NSF) are purchasing a seed cleaner and screens to make our seed processing more efficient and to provide higher quality seed for our seed distribution programs. The new seed cleaner costs $5,800 and is partially funded for $3,500 by a USDA SARE grant that NS/S received to work on heirloom wheats in Arizona. The seed cleaner uses different types and sizes of screens for cleaning a variety of crops. At the Conservation Farm, we grow and clean a lot of crop diversity, therefore we will also be purchasing a set of 13 screens for the seed cleaner that cost $60 each ($780). This seed cleaner is a small-scale, 2-screen type that is an appropriate model for small-scale farms. It will be available to our farming community to use, including Borderlands Restoration who work on native plant seed conservation for land restoration. It is an example of appropriate technology that is transferable to other small farms and it could be run on solar power.

OVERHEAD SPRINKLER SYSTEM
We are in the process of improving our water and energy conservation on the Farm by switching from flood irrigation to overhead sprinkler irrigation. The Farm has always pumped water up to an irrigation pond using a lot of electrical energy in order to flood irrigate. The pond is now in a endangered species restoration project with Fish and Wildlife that requires a continuous level of water to be maintained in the pond. For this reason, and for reducing the Conservation Farm’s water and energy use, we have decided not to use the pond to flood irrigate. We are looking to fund the equipment for an aluminum sprinkler irrigation system that will include mainlines, moveable hand-line sprinklers, and valves. This system will replace the gated PVC pipes that we have been using to flood irrigate. The aluminum pipes and metal sprinklers will be more durable and eliminate PVC from our farm landscape. PVC is a material that breaks down under UV in 3 to 7 years and it is not recyclable when it wears out.

Thank you Director Nancy Wall for arranging this grant.

Central and Latin America, Funded Projects, Grants, North America, , , , , , , ,

Gerdemann Botanical Preserve and Garden – 2012 – 2013

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

2012-13 Scenes along the Gerdemann Botanical Preserve and Garden public nature path built with the assistance of Amaterra

gerdelogosmall

The trail starts here!

Located in Yachats, Oregon, the preserve’s mission and  activities parallel the mission statement of Amaterra and make it a worthy recipient of one of our $1000 micro-grants. Gerdemann Botanical Preserve and Garden is the life’s work of plant pathologist, Dr. James Gerdemann, who collected plant specimens and seeds from his world travels and labored to adapt them to the unique climate of the central Oregon coast.  The 3.5 acre protective conservation easement contains numerous plant species, many of which he created, while emphasizing rhododendron  (700 plants), magnolia and cacti.

The conservators/owners, Jerry and Kathleen Sand, manage the site. They facilitate educational programs and research and apprenticeship opportunities with the state universities. Also, they foster  public access via tours and  children’s programs.

GBP Public Footpath2

Moms and Tots on the Public Footpath, entering the wetland boardwalk sedge section midst native hemlock and spruce trees.

Detailed information and many excellent photos can be accessed at  their web-site, gerdemanngarden.org.

Amaterra’s grant was used to promote public access to the site and enhance the educational experience of visitors.   A system of durable identification signage was purchased and installed on a public trail at an estimated cost of $300.  The remaining $700 funded a raised-access segment of the trail through a micro-wetlands section created by a spring and creek.  Both activities enhance public use and the educational impact of this unique site.

Bridge over Mitchell Ck2
Looking across the bridge

A small bridge over Mitchell Creek with steps leading to Rhododendron ‘David’ and old English hybrid.

morefootpath
Flower Arches

Large Rhododendron ‘Wisp’ arch over the Public Footpath, in full bloom March-April.

This grant was arranged by
Amaterra Director, Joe Swaffar

Funded Projects, Grants, North America, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Tumamoc Hill Desert Laboratory 1992 – 1994

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

Tumamoc Hill Desert Laboratory 1992 – 1994

     saguarostumamocThe Desert Laboratory was founded in 1903 by the Carnegie Institution to further arid lands research. Scientists early on established permanent vegetation research plots on Tumamoc Hill, an 869-acre preserve now surrounded by Tucson city development. Some of these same plots continue to be studied making the Desert Laboratory one of the longest environmental reasearch projects in history. Today the photographs and collections of the laboratory form the basis of understanding of how our present environment is part of a long continuum of desert change.

Amaterra provided mailing list soft-ware, helped create a newsletter, and participated in fund raisers to raise public awareness and support for the Desert Laboratory.

OUR THANKS TO AMATERRA

“This newsletter would not be possible without the enthusiastic support, energy and skills of Amaterra, a non-profit organization in service to the Earth.

Amaterra sponsors caretaking projects throughout the Southwest: at Sand Canyon Pueblo in Colorado for over a period of eight years, they cataloged plants and animals, collected meteorological data, and built a field research support facility for Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. At the Nature Conservancy’s Canelo Hills Preserve near Sonoita, Arizona, they restored some of the preserve’s nineteenth century buildings and provided round the clock caretaking for two and a half years.

Amaterra has now chosen Tumamoc Hill and the Desert Lab as a place worthy of protection, preservation and sponsorship. Our deep thanks especially go to Roger Irwin, president, board member Otis Bronson and Advisory Committee Member Nancy Wall. Otis Bronson, in particular, is contributing his skills as layout editor for Tumamoc. Amaterra donated the Filemaker Program which has facilitated our communication and record keeping beyond measure! Finally, Amaterra contributes significant financial support for the publication of our newsletter. Muchas gracias,” Martha Ames Burgess, Editor (October, 1993)

Find out more about Tumamoc today at: http://tumamoc.arizona.edu/

fragamlog

Direct Involvement, Funded Projects, Grants, , , , , , , , , , ,