EOV. Or why monitor?

I look down at my scorecard and the Ecological Health Index (EHI) I’ve summed up. „Wow. I’ve scored this chestnut woodland like a corn field.“

The last days, here in the south of France, we have been out in the fields, on terraces, open forests, and shrubland to do the baseline monitoring for EOV.

On all the land where Lennart (@friendly_flock) manages grazing with his sheep and goats. All land that has a long history of (over-)grazing and burning.

All land where Lennart – and people of the national park – want to see if managing livestock properly can actually bring back ecosystem function and health – for the chestnuts – and reduce the need for controlled burning – the shrubland.

„I can see the differences where I had my night parks or where I carried old hay up the hill and put it as litter where there was bare ground.“ Green, annual grasses everywhere what has been bare ground a year before.

Now we want to set up a regular monitoring for it with EOV.

Why do we actually monitor? Why does it make sense to put in these hours?

To set a benchmark from where we are starting from.
To manage in response to ecosystem indicators.
To evaluate alternatives for what works best in the context.
To create an early warning feedback loop if something goes in the wrong direction.
To track our own progress.

And to inform others about the great stuff we are doing. Like the national park.

EOV is a monitoring protocol that supports our management. It looks at the outcome, not the practices. EOV puts the farmer, rancher, or shepherd first and takes the context of the ecoregion into consideration.

And that gives an honest evaluation if our land is regenerating or degenerating. Even if I really wanted these planted chestnuts to be so much better than ‚a cornfield‘. Well, they were not exactly as low in the ecosystem function, but close.

„I can’t wait to see the results from the long term monitoring tomorrow!“

That’s also the beauty of monitoring and EOV.
It shows us how much potential there is.