Ecology and Sustainability of Southern Temperate Ecosystems

This book explores the extent to which conservation and development goals in Australia's southern temperate forests can be reconciled. It examines the impacts of wood harvesting, roads, exotic species and other disturbance factors on forest species, communities, habitats and ecosystems.

• Language: English
• Publisher: CSIRO PUBLISHING
• Release date: Jan 1, 1994
• ISBN: 9780643105683

Book preview

CHAPTER ONE

Sustainability:

Questions for Ecosystem Management

S. R. Dovers and T. W. Norton

Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Institute of Advanced Studies

The Australian National University, Canberra

INTRODUCTION

The challenge of managing ecosystems is now typically framed within the idea of ‘sustainable development’. This is the term used in the mainstream debate, and is different from the concept of ‘sustainability’, which we take here to have both deeper roots and a broader meaning. This book is concerned with the sustainable management of southern temperate ecosystems. In this chapter we explore the question of whether the idea of sustainable development is a useful construct for ecosystem management.

We survey some features of the current approach to sustainable development with this question in mind, and then construct an alternative, general approach to sustainability that is more cognisant of ecological imperatives. The principles that underlie the approach are translated into a more operational framework for ecosystem management, in the form of a series of questions to assess sustainable management. These questions are then briefly discussed. A fuller discussion, including examples from Australian resource and environmental management, can be found in Dovers and Norton (in press).

SUSTAINABILITY AID SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Sustainability as now construed has deep historical roots in classical economics, energy analysis, and renewable resource management (i.e. sustainable yield in forestry and fisheries); for historical surveys of the topic, see Caldwell (1984), Martinez-Alier (1987), Christensen (1989), and Dovers (1990). Sustainability has evolved as an integrating concept, following recognition of the increasing importance of the range of environment and development issues, and the increasingly apparent interconnectedness between these issues. The term sustainable development was aired widely by the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980), but it was the United Nation’s World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (or the ‘Brundtland Commission’) that placed the notion firmly on international scientific and political agendas. Although the subject of a large, growing and inconclusive literature, sustainable development is generally defined in accordance with the Commission’s definition, reflecting the basic moral principles of inter- and intragenerational equity (WCED 1987: 43):

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The main messages and contribution of the WCED can be summarised as:

creation of a single agenda within which a broad range of environment and human development issues can be addressed;

the moral principle of fairness to future generations (intergenerational equity);

a strong emphasis on poverty and the human development needs of poor societies (intragenerational equity);

recognition of the important role of management, institutional and technical systems in shaping the human-environment relationship; and

recognition of connections between local, regional and global processes and problems in environment and development.

The breadth of issues covered by the WCED, and subsequent discussions, is very wide — population and human resources; food security; species and ecosystems; energy and resource use; waste production; urbanisation; and peace and security. Whatever the shortcomings of the WCED document, Our common future, the creation of this agenda is an important and enduring achievement that needs to be defended. The most remarkable achievement of the WCED was to carry forward and integrate the concerns of its predecessors (the Brandt and Palme Commissions dealing with development and global security issues) with its own environment–development agenda (Independent Commission on International Development Issues 1980; Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues 1982). This integration works against any efforts to separate the environment, or indeed poverty, from the fundamental issues of production and consumption and the direction of society. The work of the WCED has been given international application through the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which produced the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, and conventions on biological diversity and climate change (United Nations 1992).

Many people have problems with the present notion of sustainable development. First, there are those who despair of such a broad agenda; it is certainly politically, socially, economically and intellectually difficult. Second, there are those who consider that it is not a strong enough statement, being rooted too firmly in the status quo (e.g. Lohmann 1990).

Third, and this is the point taken up in this paper, there are obvious problems with the ‘definitional approach’ common at present. It is an exhortation of moral principle, and not an operational definition. As Redclift (1987) put it, sustainable development is ‘… more than a pious hope, but rather less than a rigorous analytical schema’.

These supposed shortcomings can be explored in the Australian context through a critique of policy formulation initiatives that have followed the WCED report and the 1992 UNCED conference, chiefly via the Australian Government’s ecologically sustainable development (ESD) process. While we believe the underlying principles hold true for the global sustainable development debate, the particulars of any other country are another matter. The Australian ESD process and its outcomes are reported in the ESD working group reports (ESDWG 1991) and summarised in the resulting national ESD strategy (Australia. The Commonwealth 1992a) and the related compendium of recommendations (Australia. The Commonwealth 1992b). Critiques of the ESD process and outcomes can be found in Diesendorf (1992), Dovers (1992), Dovers and Norton (1994).

In general, the recommendations arising from the ESD process represent improvements in resource and environmental management within the major areas of recent and current concern defined by the process’ delineation of sectors and cross-sectoral issues. Thus, the ESD process has been a significant move forward. This assumes that the recommendations will be initiated and acted upon. The strength and rate of change is likely to vary across issues and sectors.

The ESD strategy and the process that produced it were not really about sustainability as this term will be defined here, but rather about a collection of relatively non-disruptive changes at the margins of major resource sectors and environmental issues (Dovers 1992; Dovers et al. 1992). Reasons for this opinion can be summarised as:

the ESD process approached the issue of deep-seated and structural inconsistencies between human and natural systems within current, narrowly-defined time horizons and institutional arrangements that are based on previous experience. To many people, these are a major part of the problem;

the process favoured a sectoral or production (supply) orientation over a consumption (demand) orientation, which resulted in a lack of questioning of current patterns of production, and a concentration on historically defined or current, politically topical issues and sectors;

many key issues and assumptions were not addressed in the process, including: (i) the necessity for continued growth in material and economic throughput, which is even stated as a prerequisite for environmental quality; (ii) the sovereignty of individual choice as a means to social good; (iii) the optimisation of resource use in the present; (iv) the sustainability implications of what is known as ‘free trade’; and (v) non-market or informal production and consumption activities;

the linkages between human health and well-being and the environment were not explored rigorously in the context of the challenge of achieving human development with reduced disturbance of the environment (this being the central problem of sustainability for developed countries);

there was little communication of the relative significance of the various issues that constitute the sustainability debate, and little recognition of possible absolute ecological boundaries to human consumption;

the problems of decision making in the face of irremovable ignorance and uncertainty were not well explored; and

clearly stated, long-term social and ecological goals that can be evaluated were not discussed, leaving the sustainability debate lacking the broadest parameters required to give it direction.

These criticisms should not be taken as a wholesale rejection of the value of the ESD process, which was important in itself and will be more so if its recommendations are implemented. But the question arises: is there a degree of delusion about the present construction of the notion of sustainable development? If we are concerned with the sustainability of ecosystems so as to provide for long-term human development, and are willing to at least entertain the possible existence of biophysical limits to human use of natural systems, then the approach taken to sustainability should explicitly have an ecological starting point. This is not particularly the case with the approach typified by the Australian ESD initiative.

TOWARD AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

An integrative, systems-based approach to sustainability can be developed from the general sustainability literature, and in particular from the disciplines of ecology and risk theory and the notion of ‘resilience’ in these fields. Our ecological framework for sustainability hinges on appropriate definitions of ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ (from Dovers and Handmer 1992, and following Holling 1986; Conway 1987):

Sustainability is the ability of a natural human or mixed system to withstand or adapt to endogenous or exogenous change that is perceived threatening over an indefinite time scale.

Sustainable development is therefore a pathway of deliberate endogenous change (improvement) that maintains or enhances this attribute of the system, while answering the needs of the present population.

Given long time horizons, these definitions are restatements of the moral principles of inter- and intragenerational equity. The words ‘withstand or adapt’ in the definition of sustainability are important, as system resilience may be reactive, equalling the defence of existing structures and processes in the face of change, or proactive, equalling the flexibility to embark upon pathways of adaptive change. Resilience in modern, industrial societies is more often reactive, strengthening the system against pressures for change (Dovers and Handmer 1992). If these pressures continue to build — as is likely with resource and environmental problems — then resistance to adaptation is not sustainable.

In the context of an ecosystem, sustainability would thus entail a state where exploitation was undertaken in an ecologically conservative fashion; within apparently safe limits flowing from an integrative assessment of current and potential threats. Criteria for judging this status would need to be developed, particularly for identification of the desirable properties of the system, which may have to be balanced. A possible conceptual basis for this are the properties of agro-ecosystems proposed by Conway (1987: 99-103) and which are applicable to other systems, summarised here as:

productivity, or system output;

stability, or constancy of production of output

sustainability, or maintenance of output following disturbance;

equitability, or evenness of distribution of output.

Conway’s ‘sustainability’ equates to what is characterised as ‘resilience’ above and by others, such as Holling (1986). ‘Sustainability’ as we define it includes all four properties, and is a more distant and difficult goal, whereas ‘sustainable development’ is a variable process of moving somewhat closer to that goal. ‘Sustainable development’ is clearly what the present mainstream debate is about. Reform in ecosystem management is usually judged at the margin; improving practice, and making things somewhat better than they otherwise might have been. The distinction in the definition recognises that simply doing things better than before may not be enough to achieve the goals of sustainability.

To make this ‘definitional approach’ more operational in the sense of being applicable in particular contexts, principles are required to support the approach. These principles explain the reasoning behind the above definitions, especially with respect to the criticisms of the mainstream approach. The principles are summarised in the following:

Achieving sustainability is a challenge defined at the intersection of complex, dynamic and heterogenous human and natural systems; it is here that issues of environment and development (threats to sustainability) arise. Approaches must therefore accept that sustainability is a complex systems problem and that single-issue or sectoral approaches will not suffice.

The temporal scales for policy and management that are appropriate to the sustainability debate, while variable across issues, species and ecosystems, must be typically much longer than those current in our policy and management systems. Planning stretching further than the next few years is rare in political and economic decision making, while weeks or months appear the more common horizons. In contrast, natural systems operate over time scales ranging from days through to millenia. Extending this principle, there is also a need to take a longer term view of history, so as to avoid the trap of assuming that the future can be no more than an extension of the recent past (for perspectives on the contribution of historical views to environmental management, see Dovers 1994).

Account must be taken of both production (supply) and consumption (demand) ends of the human-natural system interaction. Both formal (market, tangible) and informal (non-market, intangible) forms of interaction need to be considered.

There must be a clear distinction between process and product; between means and ends. The true end is the provision of the health and well-being needs of the human population within the constraints imposed by the health and well-being needs of the biosphere (Boyden 1987; Boyden et al. 1990). This applies in two important ways. One is that societies spend much of their time defending those political, institutional and economic arrangements that are the means, rather than concentrating upon the real ends. Coombs (1982) put it well, saying that the economic (and political or institutional) system is ‘the product of human ingenuity, effort and capacity to organise and can therefore properly be questioned, criticised and, if a better alternative exists, rejected’. That means have become ends in the recent era of ‘economic rationalism’ has been commented on (e.g. Pusey 1992). The second point is that a confusion between policy and practice is evident at present, with reform too often being seen in terms of review processes, policy statements, strategies and referral to committees, rather than as actual positive change in the environment or in our use of it. Even when policy strategies are developed, their pursuance to implementation is rarely vigorous.

Information-richness and sensitivity are the societal attributes required for the necessary constant measuring and monitoring of human and natural systems and their interactions. This applies to the ownership, dissemination and democratisation of information as well as its collection and use by specialist and elite groups. This would represent a profound change from the current situation, where consistent resource and environmental monitoring is patchy, and the idea of monitoring the performance and impact of policies is more often than not a taboo subject (see 4 above).

Perfect information will never be available; therefore decisions will need to be made, policies formulated and actions undertaken in the face of at least some ignorance and uncertainty. So, rather than solely adopting a faith in the eventual resolving power of science, or a pretence that all uncertainty can be reduced and the residual risks quantified in a reliable fashion, we must also develop a better ability to manage change in the face of ignorance and uncertainty, something that our culture is not particularly good at (see Smithson 1989; Wynne 1992; Dovers and Handmer 1993).

More emphasis is required on system-wide factors and processes, to provide indicators and policy instruments that apply through the broader pattern of production and consumption and not only to discrete parts of it.

These principles highlight the need for long-term social and ecological goals against which proposals for policy and action can be judged. There is an increasing need for such goals to be more rigorously defined, as existing ones are typically vague enough that there is (a) no scope for tight definitions, let alone any monitoring of achievement; and (b) a clouding of the inconsistencies between potentially mutually exclusive goals. The goals enunciated by the National Population Council (1991) and Australia. The Commonwealth (1992a) are relevant examples (for discussion, see Dovers et al. 1992). Without a clearer discussion of long-term social and ecological goals — what kind of environment we want and what kind of society is consistent with this — the sustainability debate and more specific debates within it lack the broadest parameters required to make them productive.

ASSESSING THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF ECOSYSTEMS

The task now is to translate the approach described above and the principles that underlie it into a more operational form that can be applied by those concerned with the management of a particular ecosystem or part thereof. To do this, the principles are reframed as a set of questions to be considered in assessing sustainable use. These questions are set out in Table 1.

TABLE 1: Questions to help assess the sustainable use of ecosystems

---

1 Ecosystem status and threats

a. What is the current status of and long term prognosis for the ecosystem with respect to human use: that is, is it being used sustainably as defined here?

b. What are the significant threats to ecosystem sustainability at present, and what threats are likely in the future?

c. If any, what are the accepted, testable societal goals for status of the ecosystem in the long term? (That is, goals whose achievement can be monitored.)

d. If the ecosystem is being exploited unsustainably, what changes in use and management are evident that may help achieve these goals (sustainable development as defined here)?

2 Factors in current policy and management

a. What are the operative time scales for (i) the ecosystem itself or key components thereof, and (ii) the interacting human systems of policy, exploitation, management and monitoring. Do these differ markedly, and if so what problems arise?

b. What are the key interdependencies between the ecosystem in question and other natural and human systems, and what are the policy and management implications of these linkages?

c. What is the nature of the market (formal) and non-market (informal) values of the ecosystem, and what are the social and cultural aspects of patterns of management and use, as opposed to material and economic aspects? Are the two sets balanced appropriately in management?

d. With respect to knowledge:

Does adequate information exist for ecosystem management for sustainability of both the human and natural systems in question?

What are the key indicators that can be used for monitoring progress towards sustainability?

What are the major areas of ignorance and uncertainty in both the human and natural systems, and how do policy formulation and decision making processes take account of these?

3 Future priorities

a. How far from the long term goal of sustainability is the present situation?

b. Are the current policy and management arrangements adequate; that is, is the pattern of sustainable development likely to lead to ecosystem sustainability at some future time?

c. If not, what major changes to research, monitoring, policy, management and use are required to achieve ecosystem sustainability?

---

The questions in Table 1 are, in essence, obvious enough: where is it that we are trying to get to; are we there yet; if not, why not; and what do we have to do to get there? However, in the current sustainable development debate these sorts of questions are rarely made explicit or asked consistently, let alone answered and action taken and maintained in the light of the answers.

Note, however, that in reframing our approach to sustainability to the level of ecosystem management, the broader implications of sustainability are lost. These include international disparities in human development and the international aspects of responding to issues such as biodiversity conservation or climate change. The questions are, however, designed to be applied within one political boundary. Thus, the scale of concern has been narrowed to that of a specific policy or management agency. Broader scale implications are beyond the scope of this chapter, and, along with intra-polity concerns of equity (the implications of question 2c from Table 1), would be subject to other research and policy mechanisms.

A brief discussion of each set of questions in Table 1, and of related research and policy issues, is warranted. Questions under (1) provide the background for later, more specific questions. Essentially, they test the existing status of the ecosystem, the appropriateness of existing policy responses, and our state of knowledge and understanding of this. With respect to biodiversity, the most problematic issue concerns the sustainable management of Australia’s native ecosystems. While the biological information base is exceedingly inadequate, it is apparent that the historical