Many jurisdictions in North America use a “mitigation sequence” to protect wetlands: First, avoid impacts; second, minimize unavoidable impacts; and third, compensate for irreducible impacts through the use of wetland restoration, enhancement, creation, or protection. Despite the continued reliance on this sequence in wetland decision-making, there is broad agreement among scholars, scientists, policymakers, regulators, and the regulated community that the first and most important step in the mitigation sequence, avoidance, is ignored more often than it is implemented. This paper draws on literature published between 1989 and 2010, as well as 33 semi-structured, key-informant interviews carried out in 2009 and 2010 with actors intimately involved with wetland policy in Alberta, Canada, to address key reasons why “avoidance” as a policy directive is seldom effective. Five key factors emerged from the literature, and were supported by interview data, as being central to the failure of decision-makers to prioritize wetland avoidance and minimization above compensation in the mitigation sequence: (1) a lack of agreement on what constitutes avoidance; (2) current approaches to land-use planning do not identify high-priority wetlands in advance of development; (3) wetlands are economically undervalued; (4) there is a “techno-arrogance” associated with wetland creation and restoration that results in increased wetland loss, and; (5) compensation requirements are inadequately enforced. Largely untested but proactive ways to re-institute avoidance as a workable option in wetland management include: watershed-based planning; comprehensive economic and social valuation of wetlands; and long-term citizen-based monitoring schemes.

Summary: Wetlands in India supply crucial human and animal needs such as drinking water, protein production, fodder, water purification, wildlife habitat, and flood storage. Increased appreciation of uses and threats is essential to protect wetlands where justified. Three quarters of India's population is rural, it places great demands on India's wetlands and losses continue to occur. This paper is based on extensive discussions with natural resource managers, government employees, farmers, academicians, and resource users at dozens of sites in India, as well as an extensive literature search. Twelve important kinds of wetland loss are identified and mechanisms believed to be causing them discussed: (1) agricultural conversion, (2) direct deforestation, (3) hydrologie alteration, (4) inundation, (5) defoliation, (6) altered upper watersheds, (7) accumulative water demands, (8) water quality degradation, (9) wetland consolidation, (10) global climate change, (11) ground-water depletion, (12) exotic species and biodiversity. Wetland understanding, management, and Public awareness in India must continue growing if wetland resources are to remain functional.

High rates of coastal land loss in Louisiana have prompted efforts to maintain or restore coastal wetland habitats, and structural management of marsh hydrology is one of a number of approaches that has been adopted. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of hydrologic management measures on marsh-surface sediment deposition in the Mississippi deltaic plain. Four impoundments, ranging in size from 50 ha to 177 ha and similarly sized control sites were included in the study. At each site, marsh-surface sediment traps were collected approximately biweekly for 3.5 yr to measure changes in sediment deposition. There was no significant difference in sediment deposition between any of the impoundment and control sites during the premanagement period. The results show no significant difference in marsh-surface sediment deposition between management year 1992–1993 and management year 1994–1995, but management year 1993–1994 had significantly lower sediment deposition than either the first or the last year of the study. Management year 1992–1993 showed the highest sediment deposition when it was assessed across all basins, areas, and sites, and this high rate of deposition is accounted for by the impact of Hurricane Andrew. For all management years there were significant differences between impoundment and control sites, with control sites showing higher rates of marsh surface sediment deposition than impoundments. No clear pattern was identified concerning the influence of various types of hydrologic management on rates of sediment deposition. This reduction in sediment deposition indicated that the areas under management in this study are receiving insufficient inorganic sediment deposition to keep pace with sea-level rise.