Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability (Science and Technology Policy)

THE ROLE OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE TRANSITION TO RURAL SUSTAINABILITY NATO Science Series A series presenti...

Author: Stephen S. Light | Poland) NATO Advanced Research Workshop on the Role of Biodiversity Conservation i

11 downloads 985 Views 23MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

THE ROLE OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE TRANSITION TO RURAL SUSTAINABILITY

NATO Science Series A series presenting the results of scientific meetings supported under the NATO Science Programme. The series is published by IOS Press and Kluwer Academic Publishers in conjunction with the NATO Scientific Affairs Division. Sub-Series I. II. III. IV. V.

Life and Behavioural Sciences Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry Computer and Systems Sciences Earth and Environmental Sciences Science and Technology Policy

IOS Press Kluwer Academic Publishers IOS Press Kluwer Academic Publishers IOS Press

The NATO Science Series continues the series of books published formerly as the NATO ASI Series. The NATO Science Programme offers support for collaboration in civil science between scientists of countries of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. The types of scientific meeting generally supported are "Advanced Study Institutes" and "Advanced Research Workshops", although other types of meeting are supported from time to time. The NATO Science Series collects together the results of these meetings. The meetings are co-organized by scientists from NATO countries and scientists from NATO's Partner countries - countries of the CIS and Central and Eastern Europe. Advanced Study Institutes are high-level tutorial courses offering in-depth study of latest advances in a field. Advanced Research Workshops are expert meetings aimed at critical assessment of a field, and identification of directions for future action. As a consequence of the restructuring of the NATO Science Programme in 1999, the NATO Science Series has been re-organized and there are currently five sub-series as noted above. Please consult the following web sites for information on previous volumes published in the series, as well as details of earlier sub-series: http://www.nato.int/science http://www.wkap.nl http://www.iospress.nl http://www.wtv-books.de/nato_pco.htm

Series V: Science and Technology Policy - Vol. 41

ISSN 1387-6708

The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability

Edited by Stephen S. Light Conservation Science and Policy Consultant

/OS Press Amsterdam • Berlin • Oxford • Tokyo • Washington, DC Published in cooperation with NATO Scientific Affairs Division

Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability 5-9 November 2002 Krakow, Poland

© 2004, IOS Press All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission from the publisher. ISBN 1 58603 395 6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2003116196

Publisher IOS Press Nieuwe Hemweg 6B 1013BG Amsterdam Netherlands fax:+31 206203419 e-mail: [email protected]

Distributor in the UK and Ireland IOS Press/Lavis Marketing 73 Lime Walk Headington Oxford OX3 7AD England fax:+44 1865 75 0079

Distributor in the USA and Canada IOS Press, Inc. 5795-G Burke Centre Parkway Burke, VA 22015 USA fax: +1 703 323 3668 e-mail: [email protected]

LEGAL NOTICE The publisher is not responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Kristen Blann and Marin Byrne, staff from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, for their indispensable help in finalizing this work. Thank you also to Ricki McMillan, Rafal Serafin and Barbara Kazior for maintaining the financial accounting and administration that accompanied the funding of this project. The NATO Science Program, the Trust for Mutual Understanding and the Polish Environmental Partnership underwrote expenses related to convening the Advanced Research Workshop in Krakow and the production of the book. Bridget O'Meara, a doctoral intern, helped write the Epilogue. The Polish Environmental Protection Foundation, especially Barbara Kazior and Rafal Serafin, organized the logistics and the travel arrangements for the Krakow workshop, from coordinating flight schedules to the ARW program. Zbigniew Bochniarz Director of the Center for Nations in Transition, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota deserves special thanks for his support and encouragement. Much credit goes to Rafal Serafin for hosting the NATO ARW, especially while I was incapacitated. Special thanks to the surgical team at the Surgeon's Hospital in Krakow who saved my life. I was truly blessed. Many more thanks go to the large team of international authors — researchers who for the most part were working together for the first time. The workshop participants and authors worked cohesively and inspired a network that continues to function. Fikret Berkes, Tim Webb, K. Michael Bessey, Niels Roling were among those who helped fashion our thinking in the early stages of the project. Special thanks to the steering committee of Rafal Serafin, Zbigniew Bochniarz, Tim O'Riordon, and Jan Sendzimir. Our NATO advisors, Ragnild Solhberg and Evan Vlachos, provided considerable direction and encouragement. Special thanks for all the editorial support from Anne Marie de Rover, Jolijn van Eunen and Carry Koolbergen, of IOS Press and Susan Williamson, of the NATO Science Programme. Steve Light St. Paul, Minnesota USA August 2003

The Search for a Mutual and Interdependent Relationship between Humans and Nature "Dominion should be self-perpetuating not self-destructive. In short "The reaction of land to occupancy determines the nature and duration of civilization.... We inherit the earth, but within the limits of the social and the plants succession we also rebuild the earth - without plan, without knowledge of its properties, and with out understanding of the increasingly rough-hewn and powerful tools which science has placed at our disposal." — Aldo Leopold (in Meine, Curt 1988. Aldo Leopold. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp 302.)

Preface Dr. Ragnhild Sohlberg Vice President, Corporate Center, Norsk Hydro ASA, Oslo, Norway Member of the Science Technology Policy and Organization (STPO) Advisory Panel, NATO Science Program Scientific Secretary, The European Research Advisory Board (EURAB)l As a member of the Advisory Panel of NATO's Science Program, "Science and Technology Policy and Organization (STPO)," the major sponsor of this ARW, and due to my professional and personal interest in the topic, I had the pleasure of participating in the Advanced Research Workshop (ARW) in Krakow 5-9 November 2002. The NATO Science Program attempts to have Panel representation at all major events. My interest in and understanding of the importance of biodiversity conservation are very much the result of six years (1995 - 2001) as a member and Chair of the Governing Board of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). During these years I frequently visited and travelled extensively through India and SubSahara Africa and learnt to appreciate the importance of conservation of genetic resources and of rural sustainability. Since I am also actively involved with the EU Commission, Directorate General for Research (RTD), I found it particularly interesting that this ARW addressed challenges for the Central and Eastern European countries (CEE) as the EU enlargement becomes a reality, and attempted to identify possible ways to deal with these challenges, as well as opportunities that the CEE experience offers for redesigning biodiversity research, management and policies in Western Europe and North America. The NATO Science Program2 was founded in 1958 with the establishment of the NATO Science Committee, following the recommendations of a Committee on NonMilitary Cooperation in NATO. The report of that Committee of "Three Wise Men" (the Foreign Ministers from Canada, Italy and Norway) asserted that progress in the fields of science and technology can be decisive in determining the security of nations and their position in world affairs. The Science Committee immediately recognized that the training of young scientists and engineers was of paramount importance, and introduced a group of support mechanisms that in essence remain today. Since the early 1990s the NATO Science Program has served a wider scientific community, as also scientists from the 27 Partner countries of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC)3 have become eligible for support. 1999 was a landmark year, in that, with the exception of a small number of Fellowships, the Science Program was transformed so that support is now devoted to collaboration between Partner-country and NATO-country scientists or to contributing towards research support in Partner countries. The Research Infrastructure Sub-program on Science and Technology Policy and Organization (STOP), supports Advanced Training Courses (ATC) in science policy, graduate scholarships and EURAB is a high level expert group providing strategic advice to the EU Commisioner for RTD (ref: http//europa.eu.int/comm/research/eurab/index_en.html.) 2 See: http://www.nato.int/science/e/overview.htm 3 In 1958 NATO had 15 member countries. By 1999 NATO had 19 member countries plus the 27 Partner countries.

internships, as well as Advanced Research Workshops (ARW) or Forums on science policy issues, with an emphasis on identifying the needs of Partner countries. In the application to the NATO Science Program for support for this ARW, it said: "Science management in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is not well linked to policy and planning for sustainable development [and that] new approaches for linking science, policy and management are needed... ." The Workshop succeeded in an initial identification of approaches, theories and methods that will be beneficial to CEE in this regard and provided valuable lessons to the representatives from North America and Western Europe. Two things should be kept in mind, however: 1. The background paper and the many case studies presented in the Workshop indicate that the Western European nations and the US have not been all that successful when it comes to biodiversity and rural sustainability. 2. What may be successful at one time or in one place, may be a failure or inappropriate at another time or in another place. This is true even when it comes to identifying and implementing policies and practices that aim to achieve long term goals like biodiversity conservation and rural sustainability. The degree to which policies and practices are successful or not depends on the specific context or local, national or regional framework conditions at a given time. Therefore, while we can and should learn and get ideas from the successful or even the unsuccessful practices of others, even the most successful practices cannot be adopted outright but must be adapted to the local circumstances. Finally, I would like to thank the dedicated people who took the initiative for this Workshop and organized it. In particular I would like to thank the Co-Directors, Professor Rafal Serafin and Dr. Stephen S. Light, the staff, and the active and enthusiastic presenters, facilitators and participants - each and everyone contributed to the success of the Workshop and will help ensure that this will not become an isolated "happening".

Contents Acknowledgements Preface Ragnhild Sohlberg The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in Rural Sustainability: An Introduction Steve Light, Rafal Serafin, Timothy O 'Riordan, Zbigniew Bochniarz, Jan Sendzimir and Kristen Blann

v vii

1

Section 1. The Importance of Dealing with Biodiversity in New Ways A New Agricultural Policy for the United States Dennis Keeney and Loni Kemp

29

Integration of Biodiversity in the Common Agricultural Policy Reform: Implications for Research 48 Xavier Poux Section 2. What are the Theoretical Contributions to the Conservation of Biodiversity on Rural Landscapes Institutional Innovation and Adaptive Management: Learning from Bolivia's Decentralization Experiment Krister Andersson and Marco A. Janssen

63

Building Institutional Capacity for Biodiversity and Rural Sustainability Zbigniew Bochniarz and Richard S. Bolan

79

Promoting Sustainable Development at a Regional Level as an Economic Driver Keith Buchanan

95

Toward Rural Sustainability in British Columbia: The Role of Biodiversity Conservation and Other Factors 101 J.C. Day, Thomas I. Gunton, Tanis M. Frame, Karin H. Albert andK.S. Calbick State of Biodiversity in Some Rural Areas of the Ukraine and Abilities of its Improvement Natalija Kovalchuk

114

Sustainable Rural Development: the Role of Community Involvement and Local Partnerships Malcolm J. Moseley

125

The Hickling Experience Tim O'Riordan

136

The Social-Psychological Dimension of Biodiversity Conservation Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

147

Is There Anything to Learn from the Experience in the Maine Lobster Fishery? James A. Wilson

160

Section 3. How is Biodiversity Being Integrated in Practice into Rural Sustainability Efforts? Alternatives to Crisis: an Adaptive Management Model for the Red River Basin of the U.S. and Canada 173 Kristen Blann, Tim Webb, Dennis Keeney and Steve Light The Rhoen Region: A Model for Sustainable Development at the Former Border between East and West Germany 199 Wolfgang Fremuth The Role of Rural Communities in Biodiversity Conservation and the Transition to Sustainability: Practical Experiences from the Pacific Northwest United States J. Martin Goebel, Caitlin Fox and Krystyna U. Wolniakowski Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada — and Elsewhere Gordon Nelson

212

232

An Interdisciplinary Approach for Integrating Landscape Management in the Common Agricultural Policy: Application to the Municipality of Mertola, Southern Alentejo, Portugal 254 Rosdrio Oliveira and Teresa Pinto-Correia The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis Jan Sendzimir, Peter Balogh, Anna Vdri and Tamds Lantos Conservation and Restoration of the Danube River Floodplains as a Basis for Rural Sustainable Development Philip Weller Belarusian Polesye — A Regional Model for Transition to Sustainable Development Valentin Yatsukhno, Elena Davydik and Maxim Vergeichik

261

291

302

Section 4. Where Do We Go Next? Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations Steve Light and Kristen Blann

315

An Epilogue: Reflections on Peasantry, Power and Security Steve Light, Bridget O'Meara and Kristen Blann

326

Appendix A: ARW Participants Author Index

338 342

The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability S. Light (Ed.) IOS Press, 2004

The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in Rural Sustainability: An Introduction Steve LIGHT1, Rafal SERAFIN2, Timothy O'RIORDAN3, Zbigniew BOCHNIARZ4, Jan SENDZIMIR5, and Kristen BLANN6 1:6 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA 2 Polish Environmental Partnership Foundation, Poland 3 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK 4 Center for Nations in Transition, University of Minnesota, USA 5 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, USA 1. Goals and Purpose "Man has always lost his way, but now he is in jeopardy of losing his address." GK Chesterton Despite well-documented economic recovery in North America and Europe over the past half century, insufficient progress has been made in ensuring biodiversity resources are protected and the future of rural Sustainability (simultaneously achieving social, economic and environmental objectives) is secure. Financial capital, enterprise and government policy have failed to address rural development; in fact many of current policies tend to perpetuate if not exacerbate the problems. Ideology and orthodoxy must be put to the test, science, policy, and management must be sufficiently linked to examine projected benefits with outcomes and assure that development enhances, rather than undermines, rural biodiversity and Sustainability. As 10 Central and East European accession countries (ACs) join the European Union (EU) in 2004', there is an urgent need to identify appropriate institutional and policy measures to prevent further losses in biodiversity - degradation of natural capital that is vital for securing Sustainability of not just rural areas, but of the economies of Europe and North America. The 10 ACs (Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia) represent much richer and diversified natural capital that that of the EU. This capital could enhance environmentally sensitive development not just in the ACs, but also across Europe as a whole. The difference between AC and EU in natural capital is symbolized by a comparison of the size of the white stork population in Poland and Germany, which is roughly 10:1 (40,000 vs. 4,000). The two countries are comparable in terms of territory, which is similar (312,000 sq km vs. 357,000 sq km) and other geographical and natural features. Will the EU enlargement process engender a path of economic development and ecological degradation similar to the disappointing performance of former East Germany since reintegration? Are there alternative responses that could prevent negative patterns of development being repeated in the accession countries (ACs)? Is it possible that these Bulgaria and Romania hope to join the European Union by 2007.

2

S. Light et al. /Introduction

former war torn and repressed republics of Central and Eastern Europe could in their transition to democracy offer an alternative model for rural development not just in Europe but elsewhere, worldwide? What lessons can be drawn from emerging theory and practice in collaboration, adaptive management, institutional analysis, and sustainability appraisal regarding improved integration of scientific research, policy, and management in pursuit of these goals? These are the vital questions for financial institutions, policy making, practitioner, and academic communities not only concerned with the ACs, but also for those concerned with protecting global biodiversity through making development programming take full account of sustainability priorities. New efforts from the ground up must be mounted to redesign policy and organization arrangements for biodiversity conservation; provisions that do not attempt to lock up boutiques of biodiversity by creating massive NGOs, or government agencies but by fostering social and individual enterprise in rural working landscapes of North America and Europe. In this context, the NATO Advanced Research Workshop (ARW) in Krakow served to review promising opportunities for promoting and integrating scientific research and monitoring with such efforts. More specifically: • THEORY AND METHODS. The ARW reviewed recent developments in theory, methods and techniques of collaborative adaptive management, institutional analysis and sustainability appraisal and their possible application to linking or integrating research, policy and management related to the linkages between biodiversity conservation and rural development in the transition to rural sustainability. • CASE STUDIES. Assembling well-documented and long-standing case studies from the ACs, EU, NATO and NATO-partner countries in Europe and North America described specific biodiversity management situations, where a systematic attempt has been made to research, policy and organizational arrangements as they contributed to rural sustainability. In analyzing the individual case studies, special interest was paid to in understanding the contribution of biodiversity conservation to rural development and vice-versa, and learning from the experiences — both successes and failures - of other approaches in order to generate proposals for how and by whom to accelerate the transition to rural sustainability. Over 30 papers were prepared for NATO ARW covering four themes: 1. Recent developments in theory and practice of integrating science, policy, leadership and institutional arrangements management for biodiversity conservation, and the role of conservation in the transition to rural sustainability; 2. The challenges for biodiversity conservation in rural areas in Europe and North America as EU enlargement comes to be a reality; 3. Comparing and contrasting case study applications in biodiversity conservation from NATO and NATO partner countries; and 4. Identifying new opportunities for integrated approaches to rural sustainability and biodiversity conservation within in rural areas in the context of an enlarged European Union and reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the forthcoming trade round negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO). This chapter provided the integrating framework within which to discuss the ideas, tools and infrastructure of the papers presented by those participating in the NATO ARW in Krakow, Poland. Ideas gained in planning and preparing for the Workshop as well as those drawn from experience with Adaptive Management, Institutional Analysis and Sustainability Appraisal are presented. Unprecedented EU enlargement will reconfigure the politics of not just the European continent, but also transatlantic and north-south relationships. Just what the implications of this geopolitical reconfiguration will be for agriculture, biodiversity and

5. Light et al. / Introduction

3

rural areas is unclear, but one thing is certain: 'business-as-usual' will be insufficient to assure real progress towards sustainability in both Europe and North America. What then should be done to move beyond 'business-as-usual' and replace failed ideology and unsustainable institutional arrangements and policies with those that will enhance the twin goals of biodiversity conservation and rural development? Can the nations representing most of the world's largest economies rise to the occasion and move beyond the current patchwork of policy prescriptions to develop new ideas and a more coherent framework for reconciling objectives and resolving these issues? European Union (EU) enlargement offers a historic and last best opportunity for linking biodiversity conservation to rural development as a basis for setting a new agenda for research, policy and action in the North. Such an agenda will be aimed at achieving real progress on sustainability. The intent in organizing the NATO ARW was to bring together a range of disciplinary perspectives with a wide array of experiences in research, policy and institutional management to formulate recommendations for research and practice rural sustainability. 2. Biodiversity Under Threat North America and Europe are continuing to experience significant declines in biodiversity and natural capital. Increasing pressures from agriculture and forestry and other land-use changes now threaten half of vertebrate species [1,2]. Available habitat is shrinking below levels needed to sustain certain species. In the EU, more than two-thirds of existing habitat types are considered endangered, and a high proportion of species are at risk of extinction. Sixty-four endemic plants have already disappeared and 38 percent of bird species are at high risk [3]. Threats to European biodiversity derive from the intensification and industrialization of agriculture; continued fragmentation of habitats; the extension of the urban peripheries of big cities until they form metropoles; and the expansion of tourist facilities in mountain regions or on coastlines. Some 200 habitat types listed of Community Importance are threatened by agricultural intensification. Twenty-six such habitats are also threatened by loss or neglect of agricultural practices that once maintained their conservation stakes. The problem of wildlife habitat is especially acute in Western Europe, where the ongoing development of roads, high-speed railway lines, and other infrastructure is a major threat [4]. European settlement is expected to increase by 5.9 percent by 2010, along with transport arteries. In Central and Eastern Europe the picture of biodiversity conservation is quite different. CEE contains a diversity of viable natural environments that support higher forest cover than in the European Union countries. Forested land varies from 50% of total area in Slovenia to about 30% in Poland and Romania (Hungary is an exception with about 20% of forested land), providing extensive wildlife habitat for large mammals, such as brown bear and wolf, European bison, and elk. Under communist rule, much of the development pressure was focused in and around industrial-urban regions, while the lack of rural infrastructure such as rail and motor transit fragmented less landscape and habitat. That is not to say that CEE has been immune to adverse ecological impacts. Following World War II the forced collectivization of farms destroyed the natural social fabric of family farming, and degraded social and human capital accumulated over centuries associated with that way of farming, some dating back to the 1200s when Cistercian monks brought agricultural and horticultural innovations to CEE. During the 1960s and 1970s political and ideological pressure to develop potent industrial farming introduced intensive use of pesticides, herbicides, and nutrients that resulted in environmental degradation. Large-scale state-run agricultural development,

4

S. Light et al. / Introduction

particularly in Eastern Europe, drained hundreds of thousands of hectares of wetlands for production. Fortunately for wildlife, since the beginning of the transition in June 1989 these unsustainable policies have stopped. Due to loss of Soviet subsidies, farm inputs (fertilizers and biocides) have declined dramatically. While overall production has declined, water quality and habitat have improved in the past decade.

3. Rural Sustainability A key sustainability challenge to existing and future EU member states lies in establishing benchmarks and baseline criteria for biodiversity and rural stability and vitality needed to evaluate outcomes under the enlarged EU. CAP reforms are needed, even more farreaching than the "green" payment plan agreed to, and should be oriented primarily to promoting rural vitality (economic, social and environmental), rural sustainability, and ensuring livelihoods to be compatible with the maintenance of biodiversity and ecological services, processes, and functions, e.g. natural capital in the form of soil, water, biodiversity, and ecosystem health. Biophysical constraints help structure efficient economic activities that might otherwise erode the life-support systems and functions of natural systems upon which current and future generations will depend. Respecting biophysical constraints does not mean avoiding all possible negative environmental effects. Emerging understanding of the diverse resource management systems humans have developed in local context increasingly demonstrates that human economic activity and ecological health need not always be seen as a zero sum tradeoff. Many communities and cultures throughout human history have developed systems that are rooted in living with and profiting from understanding ecological dynamics [5]. Rural sustainability builds local social capacity that encourages communities and citizens to explore a range of healthy and viable livelihood possibilities. Citizens need opportunities to develop skills and personal confidence to develop market-based livelihoods and evolve workable partnerships that more efficiently use resources and waste. Renewable energy systems, local food production, woodlot management, recycling and eco-tourism all fit into these categories, as do energy conservation for subsistence households, redesigning public buildings for energy efficiency, and creating opportunities for linking crafts and artwork to biodiversity conservation. Sustainable rural communities offer fresh approaches for science to develop technologies that work with and profit from ecosystem-based services.

4. The Changing Transatlantic Context EU enlargement offers a historic opportunity for linking biodiversity conservation to rural sustainable development as a basis for setting a new agenda for research, policy and practical action aimed at moving beyond the ideology of "market fundamentalism" to achieve real progress on poverty alleviation and job generation. EU enlargement will reconfigure the politics of not just the European continent, but also transatlantic and northsouth relationships. Just what will be the impacts and implications on biodiversity, rural development, forestry and agriculture of this new geopolitical reconfiguration is unclear. One thing is certain, however, rural development programs based on subsidies for agricultural production of the kind delivered through the existing CAP in the European Union and the Farm Bill in the USA will be insufficient to assure real progress towards safeguarding biodiversity and rural stability and security.


5

The current farm support system in the EU is both costly and ineffective, soaking up annually approximately 1.3% of the GNP of all OECD countries or approximately twice Poland's GNP. According to the OECD [6], the current system based on agricultural subsidies distorts market signals and so production and trade create surpluses, high food prices, environmental damage and harm to third world farmers. Total support to agriculture amounted to US$ 311 billion, while support to agricultural producers accounted for 31% of total farm receipts in the OECD area in 2001. The EU was responsible for US$ 93 billion and the U.S. for US$ 49 billion. Following a half-century of centrally planned economies with Soviet oversight and direction from government ministries, science management in Central and East Europe (CEE) is a fundamentally crude industrial agriculture model based on U.S. production approaches. Science has been slow to respond despite participation of all the leading CEE countries in the European Research Area and the European Union's 5th Research Framework Programme. EU research focused explicitly on environment and resource management has made little progress in bringing CEE research in line with the European public policy agendas. Thus opportunity has lagged in improving environmental and resource management in anticipation of EU enlargement and the growing influence of global markets arising from World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. By the end of 2003 EU enlargement membership negotiations for the ten ACs will be complete. An official report of the European Commission released on October 9th, 2002 adjudged the accession countries to be ready for EU membership in 2004. This historic event is taking place as the EU is seeking to reform its CAP by 2006 and relate this to policy commitments to implementing sustainable development across the Enlarged Europe. Preparations are also under way for another round of trade liberalization under the WTO. The three ongoing processes of EU Enlargement, CAP reform and WTO trade liberalization are interrelated with one another, generating new opportunities, synergies and also new threats to biodiversity and sustainability of rural development. In this context, the future of agriculture and rural economies has become a key issue in the reconfiguration of economic and political interrelationships between CEE, West Europe and North America, and thus in accelerating or slowing the globalization movement or improving sustainability of rural areas. 4.1 European Union In the European Union, rural areas account for 80% of the geographical area and approximately 25% of the population. Agriculture accounts for over 40% of the total land area with the EU and forestry accounts for a further 36%. Despite representing only 2.3% of EU gross domestic product and 5.3% of employment, agriculture dominates land use and the appearance of the countryside. Since its establishment in 1962, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has promoted intensification, specialization and concentration of agricultural production. Despite noble goals and objectives, CAP has performed unevenly, resulting in disproportionate economic, social, and environmental outcomes. It has contributed to inequalities in income distribution and the provisioning of social services. Negative environmental impacts of agricultural intensification on biodiversity have stemmed from increased use of pesticides and fertilizers, physical alteration of aquatic systems, degradation of soil and water resources, the persistence of some chemicals in the environment and their accumulation in wildlife tissues, introduction of exotics, and the transformation of species rich to species poor agroecosystems. In addition, the introduction of genetically engineered crops and the loss of cultural landscapes have generated social conflict while exposing people and nature to new risks.

6


The CAP was initially conceived as a set of rules and mechanisms to regulate the production, trade and processing of agricultural products in the EU. The concept of 'multifunctionality' of agriculture was introduced in proposed reforms of the CAP (Agenda 2000) to try to capture the range of services provided by agriculture: producing food, providing fibers and energy sources, preserving biodiversity and landscape resources, providing food security, intercepting precipitation and mediating water quality, and contributing to the economic vitality of rural areas. The central plank of proposed reforms is an overall reduction of the CAP in the EU budget, coupled with a move to reducing emphasis on direct payments to agricultural producers (the so-called Pillar 1 of the CAP) in favor of financial support for rural infrastructure and development (the so-called Pillar 2 of the CAP), including provisions for integration of more environmental and structural considerations. Among the EU's policies, the CAP is important if for no other reason that it accounts for almost 50% of EU budget, but also because of the vast number of people and geographical territory affected, and not least, its political importance in that it represents the clearest example of sovereignty transferred from national to EU level. As CAP reforms are debated, the CEE accession countries are negotiating how they can implement the CAP to improve their agricultural systems and revitalize rural areas. "The scope of rural development must be extended to meet new needs and opportunities, particularly in the fields of employment and sustainable development" [7]. In a recent mid term review of the CAP, the European Commission [8] concluded that new measures should target intervention as a safety net for needy farms, improved environmental quality, biodiversity, animal welfare, food quality and food safety; crosscompliance performance indicators, rather than to food production alone; stabilization of agricultural income; and rural sustainability more generally. At the heart of proposed CAP reforms is a necessary investment to significantly improve rural technical infrastructure linking communities with delivery of basic social services. These services, particularly roads, telecommunication, sanitation, education, and health care are vital to improved human capital, and to expanding access to business opportunities and establishing linkage with local and regional markets. Without such investment, rural communities will not be able to develop new jobs, compete successfully in their markets, reduce unemployment (currently ranking 15-30% of the working age population), and reduce chronic suffering from poverty and social pathology (such as alcoholism). From this perspective, the proposed CAP reform toward moving funds from the Pillar 1 to the Pillar 2 (support for sustainable rural development) will be a welcome investment in building rural sustainability in the AC. It would prevent the development of unsustainable dependence on direct subsidies to commodity production in AC. Unfortunately, accession negotiations are not well linked to the EU's declared sustainable development objectives as expressed in the 6th EU Environmental Action Programme 2001-2010 [9]. Similarly, accession negotiations are not linked to efforts by the European Commission to reorient rural development programs "to meet new needs and opportunities, particularly in the fields of employment and sustainable development" [7]. This is because negotiations are concerned primarily with the transposition of existing EU law (the acquis communautaire) into the legal systems of the accession countries. In relation to the CAP, the focus is on the here and now and not on how the CAP may look in the future after implementation of the proposed reforms. This approach taken by EU might lead to establishing a costly infrastructure for the traditional CAP that might disappear after 2006. This will mean not only a waste of effort and resources for both EU and ACs, but also a missed opportunity for both to test out new measures proposed in the mid term review of the CAP [8].

S. Light el al. /Introduction

1

Rural areas in the ten accession countries (including eight CEE countries plus Malta and Cyprus) show considerable variation in land use, rural population and agricultural production. Taken together, agricultural land makes up 55.9% (EU: 40%), with a much higher rural population (40% in AGIO as compared to 5% in EU15) and higher proportion employed in agriculture (22.5% in AGIO as compared to 5% in EU15). The highest proportion of agricultural employment is in Poland (26.7%), Romania (37.3%), Bulgaria (24.3%) and Lithuania (24%) and the lowest in Slovakia (5.8%), Czech Republic (5%) and Slovenia (6%). Agricultural production as a percentage of GDP is also higher in the accession countries (6.8% in AGIO as compared to EU 1.7%). The AC 10 will also bring the richness of their forested land and inland waters to contribute to natural capital and biodiversity of the expanded EU. Considerable areas of traditionally farmed land still survive, especially in Romania and Poland. For example, in Poland's Wielkopolska Region, there is evidence of a long tradition of landscape management going back to the 1820s, which has helped to reduce soil erosion and nutrient emissions to watercourses while at the same time enriching the biodiversity of the area. The land is treated as having multiple uses, providing employment for rural people and contributing to the national economy. How such systems will be affected by European Union membership and further liberalization of world trade is unclear. In terms of the international context, it is worth noting that the expanded EU will have even a greater role in agricultural trade than it has today as the world's largest importer of agricultural products, and the second largest exporter. But despite calls from many developing countries to set agriculture and food supply on a truly sustainable path at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg in September, 2002, essentially no progress was made on accelerating the phase-out of European and U.S. agricultural production subsidies. 4.2 North America In the United States and Canada, the multifunctional character of agriculture and its relationship to communities and nature have been all but lost. Since WWII U.S. agriculture has been sacrificed to industrial development. Labor and capital were moved to the cities to support the industrial development of the post-war economy. Today, the U.S. economy is still the strongest in the world, but its agriculture has never been so vulnerable. In 2001, over $38 billion (U.S.) in emergency payments were distributed to the farm sector. For decades, the farm sector has been racked with low prices, increasing costs of inputs and operations, and mounting debt that makes it too expensive for new farmers to enter farming and increasingly difficult for current farmers to turn a real profit. Environmentally, agriculture has been a major source of resource degradation throughout North America. Farm inputs (pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer) pollute surface and groundwater sources, creating increasingly threatened freshwater ecosystems. Modern farms have eliminated fencerows, drained wetlands, and straightened streams to maximize productive acreage, eliminating wildlife habitat. Farm systems have grown increasingly large, less diversified, and more intensive with the years. Production of chickens, hogs and milking herds have moved to factory scale production with farmers under contract to operate production systems that are dictated by industry. Air and water pollution from such operations are an increasing cause of concern. Coastal euthrophication and hypoxia, caused largely by nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from industrial agriculture, have contributed to the ecological collapse of the Chesapeake Bay and now threaten the

8

S. Light et at. /Introduction

$26B fish and shellfish industry at the mouth of the Mississippi River. The Red River Valley of the North, once the largest staging area for waterfowl in North America and a thriving center of grain production, has lost 99% of its wetlands, is battling persistent crop disease problems with increasing inputs, and continues to lose farms. While a century ago almost everyone lived on a farm, today less than two percent of the U.S. population farms for a living. Rural communities, indeed whole regions of the Great Plains, are losing population and productivity, while cities are sprawling across millions of acres of the productive agricultural lands and remaining natural habitats. These trends, combined with growing political and economic power of agribusiness, have resulted in more concentrated land ownership and eroded the influence of independent producers and rural citizens, who have the most intimate knowledge of natural and agroecosystems, in determining federal rural and agricultural policy. Despite the abovementioned problems, the U.S. remains a major player in the world market and will continue in the short-term to rely on the intensive "industrial" model of agriculture. Organic farming is increasing rapidly (20-30% annually) but still accounts for less than two percent of the market in most areas and less than one percent of farmed acreage. The 2002 U.S. Farm Bill was one of the largest in history, and despite including an unprecedented amount of conservation spending and initiatives, the bulk of spending is still primarily oriented towards commodity production price supports. Consequently, U.S. agricultural exports will continue to have a major impact on the competitiveness of both the EU and the ACs. Furthermore, the U.S. has a strong hand in guiding and setting agendas of the WTO. For this reason, the U.S. will remain a major factor affecting sustainability of rural areas under an enlarged EU. In turn, EU enlargement will transform transatlantic economic relations and so affect also the prospects for moving towards rural sustainability in North America. 4.3 The Johannesburg Summit The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002 affirmed that biodiversity has a role to play not only in economic wealth creation, but also in widening economic opportunity and participation, investing in human capital, enhancing social cohesion, promoting environmental sustainability and security, especially in rural areas. The argument that addressing biodiversity more directly in the rural community revitalization agenda promotes positive multiplier effects for economy, security and environment was first made a decade ago at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and is now common currency. In short, biodiversity conservation has become as much a question of economics and governance, as of biology and ecosystem science, as debates over the need to maintain life support functions and the transition to sustainability have gained currency [10]. Yet reports presented to the Johannesburg Summit drew attention to the fact that for biodiversity conservation, the decade since Rio can be characterized by a chronic inability to stem species loss. Moreover, insufficient progress has been made to take full advantage of resources and advances in understanding of ecological systems, as well as the systems of rules, customs and institutions that govern human social and economic organization and interactions with the environment. The Johannesburg summit failed to establish a clear target for the return of degraded biodiversity. But it did acknowledge the importance of incorporating sustainable development into social communal well being, sensitivity to indigenous and local knowledge, accountable forms of public-private partnerships and an ecosystem based approach to biodiversity management. This latter feature enables a more


adventurous approach to biodiversity evaluation along the lines advocated by Balmford etal[\\}. 5. Recent Developments in Systems Theory and Methods Continued declines in biodiversity in the face of enormous scientific, institutional and economic resources allocated to conservation in the countries of West Europe and North America suggest that current approaches have serious limitations [12-14]. Conventional approaches to biodiversity conservation based on national parks and protected areas are increasingly recognized as limited in their capability of delivering nature conservation in the context of changes occurring across the landscape. Despite growing political and public support for biodiversity conservation, efforts to manage biodiversity have only partly benefited from the considerable scientific advances in understanding ecosystem behavior. Many now argue that improving management effectiveness will require linking these advances to better understanding of institutional arrangements and their dynamics, as well as to more flexible, inclusive and participatory approaches to management that can be sustained over the long term. Approaches to assessing and managing biodiversity that explicitly address the interactions between ecological function, human activities and institutions have not been granted adequate attention among policy makers and practitioners even as economic pressures on natural resources have grown and in turn given rise to security concerns [15]. Despite the increasing lip service paid to the need to integrate economic, social, and environmental objectives, a thin track record of success suggests that most initiatives and policies are failing to do so in practice. In Central European countries, where biodiversity resources are still comparatively high and institutional and economic reforms are under way, it is not clear how to organize research and management arrangements so as to preserve biodiversity resources while adopting market economics and international trading systems [16]. The need to improve biodiversity conservation has stimulated an interest in understanding the behavior of ecological, economic and social systems in terms of the linkages between them, specifically in relation to the structure and dynamics of institutions, and processes by which scientific and experiential knowledge of ecological function can be combined to deal with complex environmental management situations [17]. Insights gained in studying resource crises have helped build new theories of systems organization and dynamics (catastrophe, chaos, complexity, resilience) that seek to describe the limits of our capacity to understand complex adaptive systems of nature and society [18-20]. A key theoretical and practical challenge remains our inadequate means to understand and manage interactions between ecological function, human activities and institutions. Critical components of this challenge include failures to understand interactions within and between scales (global to local), human capacity to influence these interactions, multiple stable domains, and the inevitability of always having to operate with limited information and high uncertainty as to the future [20-22]. What lessons can be drawn from Western experience with linking biodiversity conservation to rural development so as to design more effective research and management arrangements not just for Central Europe, but for an enlarged EU? What opportunities does Central European experience offer for redesigning biodiversity and rural sustainability research and management arrangements in Western Europe and North America?

10


5.1 The Failures of Conventional Approaches: The Search for Explanations Decades of experience have demonstrated convincingly that short-term optimization of single objectives leads inevitably to fixes that backfire, eventually creating more problems than it solves. One explanation put forward for the failure of conventional resource management approaches has been the centralized direction from state ministries and scientific bureaucracies. Narrow production targets (timber, crop production, maximum sustained yield) have rigorously pursued by controlling or magnifying ecological variability, while preserving the political and economic status quo for the beneficiaries of such management policies come to dominate decision-making. In the process, ecosystems have been driven further into less productive (and potentially irreversibly degraded) states, and biological and cultural diversity continue to erode and decline, lowering their capacity to act as buffers to system collapse or as reservoirs that stimulate system renewal [23]. The failure to integrate ecological and social objectives into economic solutions has come increasingly under question. Ecological restoration will not be possible or sustainable unless social and economic opportunities are fostered in conjunction with biodiversity goals. Unfortunately, policy continues to compartmentalize issues. If multiple objectives are addressed, their treatment is considered as mitigation, or compensation, rather than as equivalent. Why has it proven so difficult to integrate social, economic, and biodiversity objectives? The prevailing development paradigm shared by western scientific and social communities is rooted in a set of powerful and interwoven doctrines: • Reductionism. Simple, cause and effect relationships govern reality and are more or less independent in their operation • Empiricism. Science could reveal universal truths and solutions • Positivism. Nature is infinitely malleable. These doctrines have, in turn, shaped institutions and worldviews that have powerful self-protective force. Resource management has remained preoccupied with stability and control. Institutional cultures and scientific practices have their historical roots in engineering. Organizational structures and government bureaucracies have relied on topdown, command and control, and compartmentalized approaches to management that are not very sensitive to feedback and often unable to recognize dynamics. Science has tended to promulgate technological fixes as solutions to social ills. Prevailing economic theory and policy have assumed full and symmetric knowledge, rational utility maximizing behavior, absence of externalities, and other conditions that rarely apply in the real world. Clearly, the world around us has grown more complex, interdependent and interconnected than the current set of ideas, tools, and infrastructure are capable of handling. Problems of species extinction, exotic species, and climate change are at the same time local and half a world away; they cannot be solved in isolation of one another. When performance declines in existing concepts, values, techniques, and practices, confusion arises. What was orderly and stable and predictable becomes with disorder, commotion, and uncertainty as new ways of functioning and thinking are mixed with what used to work in the past. As in a large flood or massive forest fire, much changes - but eventually a river regains its channel, the forest plants new seeds, and some sense of order and direction to life emerges. This does not occur without pain of giving up the old and embracing the new. This is how society and nature have flexed and responded in the past new order is created from the accumulated knowledge from useful variations on the past. As a result:


11

•

Large stable government bureaucracies that have long advocated "one size fits all solutions" are discovering they lack the flexibility needed to develop tailored solutions that are locally appropriate and responsive to rapid change. • Traditional economic analyses used to judge the efficiency of resource allocation decisions are struggling to find criteria for judging the efficacy of projects that include social and ecological benefits as well; relatively young environmental economics and even less established ecological economics are not yet fully recognized and accepted by the political, academic, and corporate establishments. • Management that has relied on economies of scale to advance efficiency and productivity are finding that there are other considerations that impose limits to efficiencies of scale - diversity and complexity costs should not be denied its place. • Science that was well suited to tracking and analyzing the severity of specific indicators (e.g. water quality) is incapable of sorting through the competing explanations for why corrective actions are not providing the results predicted. • Citizens that often turned to government to solve problems are now realizing they need to take their future in their own hands. The major lessons emerging from across scientific and social science disciplines thus relate to the primacy of uncertainty, interdependence, and complexity. There are no experts. No one is in complete control, authority must move beyond authoritative answers to find workable solutions. Everyone must assume responsibility for the whole. What has been politically, economically and socially "impossible" may become practicable. There are no established procedures. Uncertainty and surprise are inevitable when studying or managing systems that constantly change and co-evolve in non-linear ways, especially when such dynamism makes facts uncertain and values in dispute [24]. Human intervention, whether at the macro-scales of climate change or the meso-scales of managing ecosystems, often compounds that uncertainty. This is especially so where resource collapse results from short-sighted management goals that sacrifice deeper probes of system behavior for quick gains in efficiency and profit [18]. Clearly, in conditions of limited information and high uncertainty, management interventions as well as ecosystems and society must be studied and managed in parallel; we must learn even as we manage our interventions and responses to environmental changes [25,26]. In this regard, O'Riordan [27] has stressed the scope for ecosystem advocacy on the basis that biodiversity and its link to ecosystem properties have cultural, intellectual, aesthetic and spiritual values that are important to society. Making real progress towards sustainability requires adaptive work, involving changes in values, beliefs or behavior, learning to reconcile conflicts in values and understanding. Navigating the transition to sustainability means coping with persistent periods of disequilibria. It will be tempting to return to the current repertoire tools for problem solving, but people will increasingly turn to learning new ways. Asking the right questions may be far more productive than sorting though conventional solutions.

5.2 Adaptive Management Adaptive Management is an approach that applies scientific method to complex biodiversity conservation situations with the objective of designing robust policies for dealing with uncertainty and surprise inherent in such contexts. Developed and applied since the 1970s, adaptive assessment employs systems analytic concepts and tools such as modeling exercises to assist professional and lay stakeholders working together through facilitated workshops to develop shared understandings as a basis for guiding management interventions in complex environmental management situations. Applications of analysis,

12

S. Light etal./ Introduction

policy and practice are linked and broadened to more effectively engage extant uncertainty. Adaptive Management develops a range of policy prescriptions that address not one single solution but a diversity of responses that can emerge as nature and society co-evolve [28]. Second, adaptive management treats policy implementation as propositions or experiments subject to periodic evaluation and policy reformation. Adaptive Management is rooted in systems ecology [19,29-31] and was developed in the 1970s at the University of British Columbia, Canada and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria. It has been subsequently applied in a wide range of environmental management situations in every continent ranging from local (village) to large (regional fisheries, forestry) scales. Early applications of adaptive management were designed as an alternative to the static, one-shot environmental impact assessment process that evolved in U.S. after passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. Adaptive Management strove to improve the prevailing rational management paradigm by allowing managers, scientists and policy makers, making management-relevant science more responsive to policy concerns. Adaptive Management has provided a process-driven alternative to the scripted public meetings and sterile, voluminous appendices of scientific data that were attached to resource policy options. Science and policy were more flexibly integrated, but responsibility, while broader than before, remained largely with scientists and management professionals. The wider public and stakeholders have generally been involved in only a limited way - as sources of information and knowledge or as a factor to be considered in designing management interventions. This has changed somewhat over time, and the circle of responsibility has broadened as the experience and knowledge of local stakeholders has come to be recognized as an essential ingredient in understanding the dynamics of complex environmental management situations, as in the case of managing the Florida Everglades, Pacific Salmon fisheries, forestry in Eastern Canada [19], and river basins in the Mississippi, Colorado and Kissimmee [31]. Although Adaptive Management has been widely embraced as a concept, many large-scale adaptive management efforts have experienced only limited success. Considerable agreement has emerged that the obstacles to successful implementation of Adaptive Management have been primarily institutional. This problem has been acknowledged and debated since the inception of Adaptive Management. Although the literature on Adaptive Management has, overall, remained relatively weak in the area of managing institutional change, learning, and designing architecture for adaptive processes, a recent article documents the evolution of practice and redesign of institutions to accommodate adaptive management [32]. 5.3 Institutional Assessment Efforts to conserve biodiversity largely in terms of biological inventory, assessment and monitoring are likely to do little more than document the disappearance of species and the destruction of habitats in more detail. The need is to understand the history of human effects on the distribution of species, habitats and ecosystems. Moreover, if conservation efforts are to succeed in maintaining and restoring biological diversity and productivity in threatened areas, assessment and monitoring must address the different ways in which people value, use, manage and affect biodiversity of an area [33]. This broader perspective on biodiversity conservation has led to efforts to understand the dynamics of management and institutions is complex environmental management situations and a recognition that conservation efforts must elicit the long-term support and participation of those using biodiversity [34-37].


13

A range of approaches to assessing institutional and management arrangements have been developed and applied with the aim of providing a comprehensive or holistic image of biophysical and cultural settings in complex biodiversity conservation situations. Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) was developed to more rigorously link the study of the social space of human interaction (action arena) with changes in the environment [38-40]. More specifically, IAD has been designed to provide a research framework to study "how rules, physical and material conditions, and community attributes shape action arenas and incentives faced by individuals" [33]. Application of IAD has spurred analysis and development of diverse social theories as well as served as a language to link empirical analysis (laboratory and field) with formal models of resource appropriation by humans [41]. Such applications have markedly revised views of the potential of local resource-users to conserve biodiversity in the absence of external monitoring and control by government authorities [42]. Thus, IAD has already introduced a new degree of rigor in social-ecological studies by demonstrating that "Tragedy of the Commons" type declines in biodiversity are not inevitable given sufficient understanding of how local users can monitor and manage their own resources. Other approaches, such as the ABC approach developed at the University of Waterloo, seek to provide not only a basis for understanding human and environment interactions and for monitoring and assessing outcomes as a proposed undertaking proceeds, but also a basis for managing or avoiding altogether many land-use controversies and resource conflicts. Here the emphasis is to engage systematically with the broader context of local experience found in all those most directly involved in an environmental management situation. This means thinking about interconnections between factors recognized as important or relevant by all stakeholders in a particular place or situation. The goal is to sustain collaboration with those with a stake in the situation to build a picture that goes beyond the tangible to address the intangibles that often matter to people most to the ideas, beliefs and ways of life that people value and use to understand and adjust to change in their surroundings and circumstances. The ABC has been applied in many parks and protected area situations in Canada, including the Yukon, Grand River watershed, Great Lakes, with some efforts to apply the approach also in Poland, especially in management of the Hel Peninsula on the Baltic Sea coast [36,43]. Approaches which emphasize the institutional or human dimensions of biodiversity conservation are sometimes referred to as "civics" approaches as they probe for solutions made durable by broad and long-lasting cooperation that arises when stakeholders recognize their participation in formulating, implementing and monitoring of ideas and possible policies. The motivation is to prepare citizens for involvement in the decisionmaking process to employ science as an equal contributor of insight and experience of local people. The civics approach involves a wide range of people and groups in understanding and taking responsibility for their impact on the dynamic interaction between ecosystems, human activities and institutions. The emphasis on institutions is important because, all too often, institutional arrangements are treated largely as remote and independent concerns of different professional or disciplinary interests, such as biology, political sciences or sociology. Sometimes, they left for no-one because they fall between disciplinary fields or areas of perceived responsibility [35,44-47].

5.4 Sustainability Appraisal Sustainability and sustainable development are used often synonymously, but they refer to quite different things. Sustainable development is an idea, a process, and a hypothesis, not a readily quantifiable capacity; it describes the journey we believe we must take to arrive at

14


the destination, which is sustainability. Sustainability aims at human livelihood systems that are viable socially, economically efficient, and that do not erode the life-support capacity of ecological systems. It is worthy to underline that the ecological life-support systems are not established by human desires, but by biophysical processes that provide ecological services essential for life-support. The process is driven by political, social and economic forces, as well as by ecological forces. Recognition that ongoing and proposed policies, programs and institutions need to be assessed and redesigned to ensure progress towards sustainability has prompted the emergence of Sustainability Appraisal [48,49]. This is a process of connecting and revealing the implications of the various institutions and policies in terms of progress towards sustainability rather than a method for analyzing and deciding. It is an unfolding examination of a new form of shared governance - sustainability governance, which focuses on who is gaining and losing from all specific measures associated with any proposal, how their behavior is being adapted to accord with the entitlements of nature, and what measures of liability compensation or cross-subsidization, or corporate social responsibility should be put into effect to ensure that the mix of interested stakeholders is at least better off as a result [49]. Sustainability appraisal techniques seek to identify operational criteria and indicators, which can be linked to incentives and monitoring systems. The European Environmental Agency is seeking to move in this direction by linking monitoring and reporting systems directly to assessing progress of EU countries and the EU as a whole in meeting EU sustainability objectives. In the UK, a Commission on Sustainable Development has been set up by the national government to assess and monitor the sustainability implications of government policies. Sustainability appraisal involves the integration of ecological, social, and economic and governance indicators and processes into a single conceptual framework. Take as an example a landscape stewardship scheme. Suppose that its aim is to enhance rural sustainability be enable farmers to work collaboratively across their boundaries to the totality of the landscape. Such a scheme would involve the following aspects for a sustainability appraisal: i. The maintenance of soil health by erosion controls, contour management, crop rotations for fixing nitrogen and stabilizing soil organic fractions, water management in both surface runoff and leaching, and the assurance of soil via nutrient management as a whole, ii. Enhancing biodiversity through buffering all steams against nutrient rich runoff, providing fields and hedge margins for insect and plant diversity, maintaining wild plant reservoirs, establishing linear pathways for beetles and insects, and ecosystem edges for birds. All this can be done through linked farm management practices across ecosystems, iii. Creating a fund for supporting maintenance labor via a pesticide fertilizer levy on a carbon levy. Carbon sequestration could be linked to soil stabilization and woodcuts. Establishing charcoal and other woodland services for small woodlands to create rural employment localizing food production via chains of economic linkages to shops, farmer's markets and restaurants, iv. Establishing biomass for renewable fuel, and flood absorption sewers for soaking up floods.

Sustainability appraisal seeks to create robust ecosystems by generating social trust in schemes and thus outputs, and doing so to create meaningful livelihoods especially for the locally disadvantaged. If all of this is undertaken via inclusive forms of citizen participation, then the offerings of governance also become part of the appraisal. In this


15

way the functions of auditing performance indicators and validating citizen approval also became intrinsic parts of sustainability appraisal. It follows from all this that sustainability appraisal will best be guaranteed by some form of sustainability obligation to be placed in law or on codes of practice for all organs of government, including rural communities. Such an obligation would set a statutory framework for the future of rural sustainability. It would provide a legal basis for appraisal, participation and auditing.

6. The Challenge of Rural Sustainability Science, policy, leadership and institutional arrangements are all components of a societal problem solving process, ostensibly. They are governed by a vision of reality or worldview that becomes the basis for how society organizes itself to define problems, what constitutes a problem, how it will be addressed, and who is empowered to make decisions (Figure 1). These worldviews represent a complex of ways of knowing—"the way the world works" shared by scientifically and socially privileged elites, and "ways of doing business"—used by those empowered to legitimize ideas, tools and networks for solving problems. Different values screen reality for different information, and put the information together into different pictures.

Figure 1. World views.

The post-war period in North American and both East and West Europe involved heavy investment in government agencies that were 'top-down' command and control organizations. They provided strong, stable, predictable behavior that could be controlled at centers of political and economic power.

16


Centralized decision-making can be very effective in a stable and predictable institutional environment. However, when signals from the environment begin to influence the periphery of the system faster than the central decision-making can respond, then things

Figure 2. Systems view of decision making

start to get interesting. Figure 2 shows one center and four locations on the periphery. If the rules of hierarchy are in play, the units at the periphery have to wait until the center tells them what to do. But if the peripheral units and not the center are receiving all the information, and standard operation procedures do not work. The center becomes overloaded with demands, and the peripheries become frustrated with the incapacity to respond to the signals they are receiving. Now reverse the situation. Instead of rules of hierarchy, the peripheries are in empowered to make decisions and the center role is to provide support, and general guidance. Decision-making is decentralized. As the task environment changes, becomes more complex, more uncertain, then decisions at the periphery provide opportunities for responding quickly and learning rapidly. In addition, the number of peripheral units multiplies the experiments possible, and increases the potential to learn from each other. The center is in a position to collect all the learnings, summarize them and offer use lessons learned to offer assistance. Transitioning toward sustainability means decentralizing decision making to deal with the accelerating speed, scale and complexity of the institutional environment. It means breaking up the decisional logjams and putting decisions "where they belong." Problems are solved at levels they define themselves, by increasing the number of decision forums, and getting the right signals by matching sense making with feedback. Under the conventional model of decision-making, lobbyists and citizen stakeholders stand largely outside the three branches of government (i.e., executive, legislative and judicial). Lobbyists, backed by money and power, use both to influence

Figure 3. Collaborative model


17

government policymaking. Stakeholders have access to agencies and legislators but without the resources that lobbyists, agency staff and legislators have. The problem with the conventional model of government decision-making is that the process is slow, largely impenetrable from citizens, and distanced from the seat of power both figuratively and literally. Social learning is limited to those privileged by the process. Power is positioned to maximize its access and achieve a privileged status. An alternative collaborative model of problem solving and decision-making actually places stakeholders at the center of individual policymaking processes (Figure 3). Collaborative processes have evolved rapidly in the United States. Environmental legislation in the 1960s and 70s provided numerous points of entry of citizens into the government decision-making process as pertaining to environment and natural resources. The collaborative process invites all parties to a particular problem to help design bound and establish rules for guiding the process and decision-making process. The process is designed to mirror the best of deliberative democratic principles. The goal is to take pressure off overloaded government procedures and to create forums for communication,

Figure 4. Modes of collaboration

fact-finding, decision-making and implementation at scales at which citizens feel empowered, and government policies are carried out with strong local support. Social learning is accelerated through collaboration. The people most directly affected by the problem or sets of issues are enveloped in a process that encourages the development of mutual respect and relationships among people of varied backgrounds and interests. The policy process is reversed. Instead of dictating solutions, actions and outcomes from the grassroots inform and guide policymaking. Platforms for science and democracy are established where the spectrum of primary parties work hand in hand with those charged with assessing and implementing solutions. Government institutions and NGOs become a resource for and facilitator of action in many locations under differing conditions, rather than the primary drivers of action. Instead of having a dichotomy between policymaking and implementation, they are coupled so that reality testing of many ideas provides feedback. Patterns of behavior are revealed, and eventually models of how humans and nature interact are more fully understood and policy reforms are based on a shared understanding of what works and what actions will lead to most beneficial results for both nature and society. As problems become increasingly complex and seemingly intractable, collaborative approaches to problem solving provide highly democratic ways of working though the differences that separate people to learn new ways of working together (Figure 4).

18


Making progress toward sustainability will demand a more collaborative mode of operating that shifts accountability to the primary parties involved. The speed, scale and complexity of economic, social and political changes requires a social learning response based on emergent, self-organized adaptation, learning how to anticipate and cope constructively with rapid change at multiple scales. Part of making the quantum shift toward sustainability is recognizing and putting at risk conventional ways of thinking and acting. Social learning is a "fundamentally messy, contingent, and ambiguous intermingling of knowledge, power, interests, and change in the workings of the world" [50]. 7. Working Landscapes - Integrating Biodiversity and Rural Sustainability The motivation to reform the CAP is "to ensure that agriculture can be maintained over the long term at the heart of a living countryside. This means that the policy is targeted not just at agricultural producers, but also of the wider rural population, consumers and society as a whole". The recognition that agriculture is the irreplaceable engine of rural development, that agriculture shapes the natural environment and landscapes and that trade must not take place in such a way as to destroy the multiple functions of agriculture has been affirmed by the EU in its representations to the WTO Committee on Agriculture. Clearly, the EU, Central Europe, and North America are ripe for alternatives to existing agricultural policy. The EU is clearly seeking to move away from the industrial agriculture model in favour of a sustainable agriculture model. What does this mean in reality? The table below (Table 1) seeks to set out some of the characteristic features of these two models.

Type of Economy

Table 1. Characteristics of Industrial and Industrial Agriculture Market based focused on national and international markets

Type of Operation Equipment

Management company, corporate structure State-of-art external technology

Size of Operation Inputs (biocides and nutrients)

Large (generally 500 ha or more)

Ecological impacts

Government Intervention

Social impacts

High level of industrial inputs (biocides and nutrients in large quantities) Major source of surface water pollution, groundwater contamination, elimination of habitat including hedges, and buffer strips Subsidies and incentives for agricultural production

Depopulate rural communities, which leads to degradation of social infrastructure, closure of schools, collapse of housing market

Sustainable Agriculture Sustainable Agriculture Economically and ecologically efficient, oriented mostly on local and regional markets, socially responsible, ecologically friendly Independent, family, or community Appropriate technology mix according to environment; fueled by renewable energy Appropriate to the environment, farming system, and labor requirements Few or no industrial inputs, natural inputs, ecological and integrated pest management Low impact, diversity of production including grains, fruits, vegetables, herbs, and maintenance of woodlots provide food and shelter for wildlife Government support for production of non-market goods, and services (ecological and social); elimination of unsustainable input and production subsidies Service local markets, provides stability to rural communities, economic diversification, maintain cultural and landscape values, regional identity, and traditions

S. Light el al. / Introduction

19

Sustainable agriculture is not a purely theoretical construct. It is already being developed on the ground as a working alternative. Experiments are being tried at small scales with the objective of creating and restoring the multifunctional role of agriculture its potential contribution to integrated sustainability of biodiversity, landscapes and rural livelihood. There are working landscapes movements in Europe, United States, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere, where options to conventional industrial agriculture are emerging. For example, grassroots working landscape initiatives in the United States are currently seeking to develop farming systems that produce safe and healthy food and nonfood products in response to market demands, contribute to rural communities, enhance biodiversity, promote balanced rural land use, animal welfare and local food markets, and may even contribute to other sectors of the economy, such as tourism. Methods range from expansion of organic agriculture, development of third crops and cover crops, freerange animal husbandry focused on integrating land, human, and animal health; on-farm renewable energy production (biomass, wind, solar, and animal agriculture); direct marketing by farmers to consumers and restaurateurs; development of niche markets and value-added initiatives; incentives for arming for nature/wildlife habitat; agro and ecotourism; creation of regional markets through greenways, identity marketing, and foodsheds; woodlot management and certification; production of non-timber forest products (e.g., mushrooms); and flood control and water supply through wetland restoration, land use, and watershed management. The list of specific initiatives is long and varied. Each is characterized by a focus on re-diversifying the farm and increasing profitability, not necessarily productivity. They offer a suite of possibilities for maintaining and restoring working landscapes based on an integration of biodiversity with rural development and a reconnection of farming with the rural economy. 8. Conclusions The key research challenge for integrating biodiversity conservation into rural sustainability programming as being linked to redesigning 'top-down' systems of governance to collaborative and participative forms governance. This redesign will require a shift of emphasis from reductionist to holistic and integrative forms of scientific enquiry, which are essential to ensuring that farming is treated not just as food production, but as a provider of environmental services, land management and a part of the rural economy. Formulating a research agenda for rural sustainability brings us to a focus on participatory social learning. Policy, science and institutional arrangements must all be approached in new ways. Instead of accepting policy dogma as gospel, policies are actually questions masquerading as answers. Therefore, patterns of collective action need to remain open to learning how to discover, accept and reflect on transient solutions that will inevitably be found in need of repair or replacement. Ways must be invented to address issues at spatial and temporal scales at which the problems of nature and humans define themselves. Just how to achieve this is a challenge in both NATO and NATO-partner countries. Science for sustainability differs qualitatively from conventional science. It acknowledges and embraces uncertainty, both in the environment and in human understanding. It requires the creation and enhancement both of ecological resilience and social trust. The former enables the functions of replenishment to operate based on precaution, adaptive management and natural learning. Valuing traditional, local and indigenous knowledge is a vital part of this process. Social trust relies on comforting and

20


supportive social relations, widespread acceptance of custom and rules, and mutual reciprocity in all aspects of social and economic relationships. Sustainability science strives for synthesis, encouraging more holistic analysis of problems to uncover key interrelationships and causal chains. Leadership must strive to re-couple nature and society in ways that are mutually beneficial. Not only must conservation strategies address human economic needs, but institutions, economic and resource management systems are needed that are able to provide adequate human livelihoods without degrading ecological systems—their structure, function, services, diversity, and resilience. Successful conservation requires the integrated development of "working landscapes" in which human land uses and livelihoods are compatible with the maintenance of biodiversity and ecological services, processes, and functions. The human-modified landscape must be viewed as a critical conservation link. Calling for a more integrated approach to delivering biodiversity conservation as part of the move to rural sustainability will require addressing a range of issues or research challenges not discussed in this paper but which will need also to be considered to varying degrees. Some of these issues are briefly outlined below. Many of them are linked to the broader context of globalization. Participants contributing to the NATO ARW raised a number of other issues: 1. Feeding the world. The growth of the world's population coupled with the diminishing capability of arable land to produce food due to soil erosion and pollution will continue to constitute a challenge. How will future generations get fed? 2. Urban-rural linkages. The countries of North America and Europe are highly urbanized and so it is impossible to deal with rural sustainability without dealing with urban-based consumers. As urban areas sprawl into rural areas, the distinction between rural and urban is increasingly blurred. Indeed rural and urban economies are becoming so intertwined that it is misleading to think and act just in terms of rural economies. 3. Technology. Technological development has transformed farming and rural areas and continues to do so. Whereas developments in ecological science are important to understand the implications of technologically-driven change on life-support capabilities of rural areas, so also are developments in genetic science, telecommunications, materials science, remote sensing, transportation and so on. Rural areas stand both to gain and lose from these and other technological developments. 4. Decentralization. Decentralization of institutions and decision-making will not in of itself necessarily lead to rural sustainability. There is a danger of increasing parochialism and xenophobia. There are paradoxes and conflicts and thereby trade-offs at all scales - global, national, regional and local. A blanket embrace of decentralized decision-making may well be more counter-productive than seeking frameworks that do not isolate or disenfranchise rural communities. 5. Poverty. Alleviating poverty must be a focus for any rural sustainability program, which must be careful not to treat subsistence farming as a recipe for "keeping people in poverty." A redefinition of the role and place of subsistence farming in a globalized economy is needed, especially in the context of rural-to-urban migrations. 6. Agriculture-Biodiversity Conflicts. Agriculture and biodiversity conservation are not completely harmonious and it is not only the industrial farmer with fertilizers and pesticides that threatens biodiversity. There needs to be recognition that farming itselfeven subsistence or organic farming - fragments habitat. Clearing for farming in the Amazon rain forest is less for the industrial farmer that it is for the local peasant subsistence farmer. The act of such clearing, however, threatens biodiversity. The fact that such transgressions in North America happened back in the 19th century does not diminish the fact that biodiversity was destroyed.


11

7. Climate change. Changes in the global environment, such as climate change or depletion of the ozone layer, will affect the linkages between biodiversity and agriculture. Responses, such as the Kyoto Protocol, Montreal Protocol and the Convention on Biodiversity Conservation, will also shape the context for rural sustainability at local levels. 8. Security. The reform of farm subsidy regimes in Europe and North America will transform not just transatlantic economic relationships, but also economic and securityrelated relationships with the countries of the South. EU enlargement offers an opportunity for rethinking not just the research agenda for integrating biodiversity conservation into rural sustainability for both NATO and NATOpartner countries, but also the way research activities need to be organized. In this regard, there appear to be at least three needs: 1. The need for more effective approaches to biodiversity conservation and rural sustainability. The implicit assumption of the EU and the U.S. dictating to the ACs the terms and conditions of entry to economic and security structures is that institutional, planning and policy arrangements, including the organization of scientific research, are 'right' and that those of the ACs are 'wrong'. This allows western policy-makers to export western models of biodiversity conservation and rural development (among other things) to the ACs as a condition for their support. The difficulty with this is not only that western approaches have not been as effective as those in the ACs in the postwar period, but it is the western countries which are the most unsustainable in terms of resource consumption. It is thus worth finding ways of taking seriously experience from the ACs and using this to inform changes in western approaches to biodiversity conservation and rural sustainability. How this new approach to organizing scientific research is to be organized will remain an important challenge. 2. The need to reduce the 'ecological footprint' of an expanded NATO and EU. Emphasis of EU enlargement is on money flows rather than on material flows and structural changes in economy and society that must take place not just among the ACs, but across the whole of Europe and also in North America. Growing interdependence of the economies and societies of the ACs with those of the EU and North America must be marked by a mutual interest in finding ways of maintaining and restoring biodiversity as part of the designing and deciding upon new economic and security structures. The western countries must find ways of reducing their 'ecological footprint', which will require a major restructuring of their production and consumption patterns. This means restraint in resource use and the exercise of power by the NATO countries and at the same time extending market economies and security structures to the ACs and other NATO-partner countries in ways, which will reduce the overall NATO 'ecological footprint'. This will be crucial for redefining the economic and security relationships between the North (enlarged NATO) and the South. 3. The need to recognize the livelihood rights of local communities. Protection of biodiversity and natural habitats are a matter of human rights and an integral part of poverty alleviation. Such rights need to be embodied in national and international law and taken into account in research and development programming. As clean water, fertile soils, forests secure livelihoods and health of the poor, local communities must be granted rights of access and control, if they are to play an active role in the movement towards rural sustainability. In this context, food security, farmer security, biodiversity conservation and rural communities are all interlinked and interdependent. Sustainability cannot be restricted to a circle of experts, but must be based on open and full engagement with local communities.

22


References [1],[2] Tucker, G.M. & M.F. Heath (eds) (1994). Birds in Europe: their conservation status. BirdLife International, BirdLife Conservation Series No. 3, Cambridge. [3] WWF (2000) Living Planet Report 2000. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International. [4] GEO (2000) Citation is this web site : http://www.grida.no/geo2000/ [5] Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (1998,) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. [6] OECD (2002a) Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation 2002 (E-book PDF Format). Paris: OECD (www.oecd.int) OECD (2002b) Agricultural Policies in Transition Economies 2002._Paris: OECD. [7] European Commission (2000). Enlargement Strategy Paper. Report on progress toward accession by each of the candidate countries. www.Europa.eu.int/comm [8] European Parliament (2002,) The extension to Poland of Common Agricultural Policy Instruments and Aids: the main issues of the negotiations for accession, their socio-economic and financial implications. Working Document EN-08-2002. Brussels: Directorate General of Committees and Delegations. [9] European Commission (2001b) Environment 2010: our future, our choice: the sixth environmental action programme. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [10] Wells, M. et al. (2001) Review of the Medium-Sized GEF Program: Report presented to GEF Council. December 15, 2001, Washington, D.C., GEF. [11] Balmford et al (2002) Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature . Andrew Balmford, Aaron Bruner, Philip Cooper, Robert Costanza, Stephen Farber, Rhys E. Green, Martin Jenkins, Paul Jefferiss, Valma Jessamy, Joah Madden, Kat Munro, Norman Myers, Shahid Naeem, Jouni Paavola, Matthew Rayment, Sergio Rosendo, Joan Roughgarden, Kate Trumper, and R. Kerry Turner Science 297: 950-953. [12] Wood, A., P. Stedman-Edwards and Johanna Mang (eds) (2000) The root causes of biodiversity loss., London: WWF/Earthscan. [13] European Environment Agency (1999) Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century. Copenhagen, DK: European Environment Agency. [14] European Environment Agency (2001) Environmental signals 2001. Copenhagen, DK: European Environment Agency. [15] European Environmental Agency (1998) http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/arl998/annuall998.pdf, http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/mawpl999-2003/index.html. The annual report and multi-year programme. [16] Klarer, Jurg and Bedrich Moldan (eds.) (1997), The Environmental Challenge for Central European Economies in Transition. New York: John Wiley and Sons. [17] Wilson, E.G. (1988) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. [18] Clark, W. C. and R. E. Munn (eds) (1986) Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. UK: Cambridge University Press. [19] Gundersion, L. H., Holling, C. S. and S. S. Light (eds.) (1995) Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press. [20] Kay, J. J., Regier, J. A., Boyle, M., Francis, G. (1999) An ecosystem approach for sustainability: Addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures 31: 721-742. [21] Barthlott, W. and W. Winiger (eds.) (1988) Biodiversity: a challenge for development research and policy. Ijmuiden, Netherlands: Springer. [22] Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, C., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, CC., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B. Dickson, N.M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Griibler, A., Huntley, B., Jager, J., Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore HI, B., O'Riordan, T., Svdin, U. (2001) Sustainability Science. Science Vol. 292 No. 5517: 641-642. [23] Ludwig, D. R. Hilborn and C. Walters. (1993). Uncertainty and resource exploitation: lessons from history. Science 260 (5104): 17-36. [24] Ravetz, J. (1999) What is post-normal science? Futures 31 647-653. [25] NAS (1999) Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward Sustainability^ Board on Sustainable Development, National Research Council, Washington, DC. [26] O.Riordan, T. (2003). Governing for Sustainable Scotland. MS in press. [27] O'Riordan, T. and Stoll-Kleemann, S. (eds.) (2002) Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [28] Sendzimir, J., Light, S. and Szymanowska, K. (1998) "Adaptively understanding and managing for floods". Environments Vol. 27, No. 1: 115-136.


23

[29] Rolling, C. S. (eds) (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: John Wiley. [30] Walters, C. J. (1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillan. [31] Light, S. (2001) Adaptive ecosystem management and assessment: the path of last resort? In A Guidebook for Integrated Ecological Assessments M.E. Jensen and P.S. Bourgeron (eds.)- Springer Verlag, New York. [32] Jacobs et. al. (2002) Managing river resources: Lessons from Glen Canyon Dam. Jacobs, Jeffrey W Wescoat, James L Jr. Publication: Environment [33] Ostrom, E. (1998) "The institutional analysis and development approach". In Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management E.T. Loehman, D.M. Kilgour, eds. E. Elgar, Northampton, Massachussets. [34] Serafm, R. (1993) "Biodiversity: an opportunity for Great Lakes coastal management." In: Managing the Great Lakes shoreline: experiences and opportunities,_R.L. Lawrence and J.G. Nelson (eds.) Occ. Paper No. 21, University of Waterloo, Canada. [35] Serafm, R. (1998) "Institutions, communications and civic decision making in environmental management and planning: learning from the experience of the Niagara escarpment in Canada and the Jura Upland in Poland". In: Coping With the World Around Us: Changing Apporaches to Land Use, Resources and Environment. R.D. Needham (ed.)University of Waterloo, Dept of Geography Series No. 50, Waterloo, Canada. [36] Nelson, J.G. and Serafin, R. (1993) "Improving monitoring and assessment for environmental decision making". In Public Issues: a Geographical Perspective. J. Audrey and J.G. Nelson (eds.) Geography and Public Issues Series No. 2, University of Waterloo, Canada. [37] Mitchell, B. (1998) The implications of human, ecological, adaptive/interactive and civics approaches for understanding landscape and management processes. IN Coping With the World Around Us: Changing Apporaches to Land Use, Resources and Environment. R.D. Needham (ed.) University of Waterloo, Dept of Geography Series No. 50, Waterloo, Canada. [38] Hurwicz, L. (1973) The design mechanisms for resource allocation. American Economic Review Vol. 63, No. 2: 1-30. [39] Hurwicz, L. (1994) Economic design, adjustment processes, mechanisms, and institutions. Design Vol. 63, No. 2: 1-30. [40] Rurtan, V.W. (1998) "Designing institutions for sustainability". In Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management E.T. Loehman, D.M. Kilgour, eds. E. Elgar, Northampton, Massachussets. [41] Ostrom, E., Lam, W.F., and M. Lee (1994b) The performance of self-governing irrigation systems in Nepal. Human Systems Management. Vol. 14: 87-108. [42] Ostrom, E., Gardner.R., and J. Walker (1994a) Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. [43] Nelson, J.G. and R. Serafin, eds. 1997 National Parks and Protected Areas: Keystones to Conservation and Sustainable Development. NATO Elsevier ASI Series, Rotterdam. [44] Gadgil, M. (1992) "Conserving biodiversity as if people mattered: a case study from India." Ambio Vol. 21, No. 3:266-270. [45] Maser, C. R. Beaton and K. M. Smith (1998) Setting the stage for sustainable community development. Ijmuiden, Netherlands: Springer-CRC Press. [46] Mazmanian, Daniel and Michael Kraft (1999). Towards Sustainable Communities. Transition and Transformation in Environmental Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [47] Light S. S. (1983/ Anatomy of Surprise: A study of resource management institutions to droughts of record. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Volumes I & II. [48] O'Riordan, T. and Voisey, H. (eds.) (1998) The Transition to Sustainability: the politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. Earthscan, London. [49] O'Riordan, T. ed. (2001) Science for Environmental Management. Pearson Education, Harlow, Esse. [50] Parsons and Clark (1995) Ch 10: ,,Sustainable Developmetn as Social Learning" in Gundersion, L. H., Moiling, C. S. and S. S. Light (eds.) (1995) Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

Additional Resources Ambler, M. (2000) "Does EU enlargement really matter?" European Business Forum 3:25-34. Anderson, Magnus (1999). Change and Continuity in Poland's Environmental Policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

24


Baldock, D, J. Dwyer, P. Lowe, J-E. Peterson and N. Ward (2001) The nature of rural development: towards a sustainable integrated rural policy for Europe - a 10 nation scoping study for WWF and the GB Countyside Agencies. Bell, Ruth (2000). Building Trust: Laying a Foundation for Environmental Regulation in the Former Soviet Block. Environment 42(2): 20-32. Bluffstone, Randall and Bruce A. Larson (eds.) (1997), Controlling Pollution in Transition Economies: Theories and Methods. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Bochniarz, Zbigniew and Richard S. Bolan (1998). "Sustainable Institutional Design in Poland: Putting Environmental Protection on Self-Financing Basis." In Clark and Cole (eds.), Environmental Protection in Transition: Economic, Legal and Socio-Political Perspectives on Poland. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate. Bochniarz, Zbigniew, et al. (1994). Designing Institutions for Sustainable Development in Bulgaria: Challenges and Opportunities, Minneapolis-Sofia; Bochniarz, Zbigniew, et al. (1994). Designing Institutions for Sustainable Development in Hungary: Agenda for the Future, Minneapolis-Budapest; Bochniarz, Zbigniew, et al. (1992). Institutional Challenge for Sustainable Development in Czechoslovakia, Minneapolis-Prague; Bochniarz, Zbigniew & Richard S. Bolan, (2000). "Institutional Design for Financing Sustainable Development" in Leary, Michael et al. (eds.) Envisioning Cities and Regions, Minneapolis, UMN; Bolan, Richard S. & Zbigniew Bochniarz (1994). Poland's Path to Sustainable Development 1989-1993, Minneapolis; Bolan, R. (1991) Planning and institutional design. Planning Theory. Vol. 5-6: 7-34. Brown, Halina, David Angel and Patrick Derr (2000). Effective Environmental Regulation: Learning from Poland's Experience. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers. Clark, John and Daniel Cole (eds.) (1998). Environmental Protection in Transition. Aldershot: Ashgate. Collins, W. W. and C. O. Qualset (eds) (1998) Biodiversity in agroecosystems. Ijmuiden, Netherlands: Springer. CRC Press. Curry, D. (chairman) (2002) Farming and Food. Report of the UK Policy Commission of Farming and Food. (available http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/farming). DeWitt, J. and Marian Mlay (1999). "Community-Based Environmental Protection: Encouraging Civic Environmentalism." In Sexton, Marcus, Easter, and Burkhardt (eds.), Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses, and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 331-352. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002) Achieving a better quality of life - review of progress towards sustainable development. UK Government annual report 2001. London: DEFRA. European Communities (200 L1 Environment 2010: our future, our choice - the sixth environmental action programme. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, (see also http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment). European Commission (200la) Towards agri-environmental indicators: integrating statistical and administrative data with land cover information. Theme 5: Golub, J. (ed.) (1998). New Instruments in Environmental Policy in the European Union. Routledge. Golley, F. B. And J. Bellot (eds) (1999) Rural planning from an environmental systems perspective. Ijmuiden, Netherlands: Springer. Heinrich Boll Foundation (2001) The Jo'burg Memo. Fairness in a Fragile World: Memorandum for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Berlin: Heinrich Boll Foundation, (available at www.joburgmemo.org). Heywood, V. H. and R. T. Watson (1995) Global Biodiversity Assessment. Published by UNEP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoff, M. D. (ed) (1998) Sustainable community development: studies in economic, environmental and cultural revitalization. Ijmuiden, Netherlands: Springer - CRC Press Jensen, M. E. and P. S. Bourgeron (eds) (2001) A guidebook for integrated environmental assessments. Ijmuiden, Netherlands: Springer. Kato, M. (ed.) (2000) The biology of biodiversity. Ijmuiden, Netherlands: Springer. Kristensen, P. and N. Denisov (2002) Implications of EEA/EU enlargement for state-of-the-environment reporting in the EU and EEA Member States. Technical Report No. 82. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Lauber, Bruce T. and Barbara A. Knuth (1998). "Refining our Vision of Citizen Participation: Lessons from a Moose Reintroduction Proposal. " Society arid Natural Resources 11(4): 411-424. Lipschutz, Ronnie D. and Judith Mayer (1996). Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance: the Politics of Nature from Planet to Planet. Albany: State University of New York Press. McNeely, J. And S. J. Scherr (2001) Common Ground, Common Future: how ecoagriculture can help feed the world and save wild biodiversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.


25

Morris, J., A. Bailey, R. K. Turner and I. J. Bateman (eds.) (2000) Rural planning and management Managing the Environment for Sustainable Development Series. Abingdon, UK: Edward Elgar. Murdock, Barbara S. and Ken Sexton (1999). "Community-Based Environmental Partnerships." In Sexton, Marcus, Easter, and Burkhardt (eds.), Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses, and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 331-352. Nelson, J. G. and R. Serafin. 1992. Assessing Biodiversity: a human ecological approach. Ambio 21(3): 212218 O'Riordan, T. Ed. (2001) Globalism, localism and identity: fresh perspectives on the sustainability transition in Europe. Earthscan, London. Perrings, C., Maler, K.G., Folke, C., Rolling, C.S., Jansson, B.O. (eds.) (1995) Biodiversity Loss: Economic and Ecological Issues. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Pezzoli, K. (1997) Sustainable development: a transdisciplinary overview of the literature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40(5), 507-575. Ruttan, V.W., and Haymi, Y. (1984) "Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation". Journal of Development Studies. Vol. 20, No, 4: 203-23. Schulze, E. D. and H. A. Mooney (eds) (1993,) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Ijmuiden, Netherlands: Springer. Sexton, Marcus, Easter, and Burkhardt (eds.), Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses, and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 331-352. Stein, B., Kutner, L.S., and Adams, J.S. (2000) Precious Heritage: the Status of Biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York. Tenhunen, J. D., Lenz, R. and R. Hantschel (eds.) (2001) Ecosystem approaches to landscape management in Central Europe. Ijmuiden, Netherlands: Springer. Wondolleck, Julia and Steven Yaffee (2000). Making Collaboration Work. Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resources Management. Washington, DC.: Island Press. Wilson, E.G. (1992) The Diversity of Life. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets. Yosie, Terry F. and Timothy D. Herbst (1998). Using Stakeholder Processes in Environmental Decisionmaking: An Evaluation of Lessons Learned, Key Issues, and Future Challenges. Washington, DC: American Industrial Health Council.

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION 1 THE IMPORTANCE OF DEALING WITH BIODIVERSITY IN NEW WAYS The goal of those involved in this manuscript is not to further balkanize the rural landscape by finding additional ways to partition, fragment habitat but to foster working landscapes - that work ecologically and economically. There is not enough land or money to save biodiversity by locking it up in preserves. As one looks beyond the era of state sponsored agriculture, Central Europe has evolved in such a way that symbiotic relationships of rural livelihoods and nature are a distinctive, but not the dominate, pattern of landscape management. Agriculture and forestry are irreplaceable as the engine of rural development. Agriculture sculpts the environment, and agricultural trade cannot take place in such a way as to destroy the multiple functions it performs. The following two papers give US and EU perspectives on the future of Farm Bill and the Common Agricultural Policy. The fear is that if agriculture policy is not substantially reformed, successful local experiments in rural sustainability will diminish and dissolve amid the crosscurrents and counter forces that are deaf to and uncomprehending of what is truly nascent and emergent in relationships between nature and society.



A New Agricultural Policy for the United States 1

Dennis KEENEY1 and Loni KEMP2 Senior Fellow, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2 Senior Policy Analyst, The Minnesota Project

Abstract. Because of its unique geography, weather, history and policies, the United States has an agriculture that has been dominated by production of commodity crops for use in animal, industrial and export enterprises. Over time agricultural policies evolved to support an industrialized commodity based agriculture, with the result that farmers left the land and agriculture moved to an industrial structure. This restructured agriculture was aided and abetted by many factors. Technology rapidly changed the way land was farmed, leading to less need for labor but also leading to lower returns to farmers because of increased costs and lower prices from the resulting greater production. Farm policies consistently rewarded production over conservation. Continued expansion of row crop agriculture resulted in less land in resource conserving crops, loss of biodiversity, increased water pollution, soil erosion and other environmental damages including major pollution flows to the Gulf of Mexico. While an agriculture that harms its own resource base would appear to be unsustainable, it continued to be promoted by policies that provided major returns to input suppliers and land values but not to the farmer. Global trade issues have emerged to keep prices low. The 2002 farm bill could mark the beginning of a major change in direction for U. S. agricultural policy. While it continued to support crops through commodity subsidies, many conservation and environmental provisions were included that will, if funded, lower pollution, enhance the landscape, and support small farmers. The new Conservation Security Program promises to financially reward farms for the environmental benefits they provide, and if successful could become the model for a national green payment program. There is hope that it is not too late to turn agriculture into a green, sustainable industry.

Introduction Attempts to discuss the complex web of farm policies devised by the United States Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture typically start at the most recent legislation. This approach misses the background that has been built into current policies. For we are all greatly affected by our history, even farm policies. And since there is little new "under the sun," it is important to look at the past. This paper moves from the past to the present in order to give hope and direction to the future.

29

30

D. Keeney and L. Kemp /A New Agricultural Policy for the United States

How Did We Get This Way? The land of the Corn Belt in the central region of the United States is one of the most productive on earth. It was formed during the last great glaciation, about ten thousand years ago. The till from the action of the glaciers produced loess, soil moved around the landscape by wind. The native vegetation under which soils were formed modified the soils. The most productive were the soils formed under native prairie vegetation. This young landscape is slowly maturing to a more eroded land surface with more mature drainage patterns. However, over much of the landscape natural drainage remains limited and the soils must be modified by drainage systems that remove excess water from the rooting zone in order for crop production to take place. The United States Corn Belt has greatly influenced past U. S. farm policy. The productivity of this region, coupled with the policies of settlement by farmers as opposed to land serfs, gave rise to a farming system of independent family oriented farms, relatively self sufficient in their own right. But technology soon began to be a driving factor in the way farms were managed and the way that people interacted with their land. As technology progressed, there was a gradual development of farming input, processing and marketing sectors, and thus commercial farming began to resemble other commercial economic sectors. In other words, agriculture became more industrial in its form, function and outlook. Aided and abetted by policies at the national and international level, the transformation of agriculture which has been underway for about fifty years has markedly affected the biodiversity of the landscape. This paper briefly examines the way U. S. agriculture policy evolved to its present state and alternative ways it may go from here. The road is clouded with backroom deals, as well as twists and turns from outside events that can only be termed as chaotic and unpredictable. However, farm size, corporate control of the agriculture sector and federal subsidies have steadily increased, while rewards to individual farmers, farm numbers, and rural communities have decreased,. Is this good or bad? We think it is not a sustainable road for agriculture to follow. And, we do not think it is an inevitable road. Alternative choices are open if society so chooses.

American Agriculture History: A Brief Look Back "The farther backward you look the farther forward you are likely to see." Winston Churchill We will begin by looking at the history of U. S. agriculture, summarized from several overview references [1-4]. The first European occupation of the eastern coast region was the beginning of intensive use of the land for agriculture. The New England Puritans envisaged agriculture as the culture where godly families and communities could be created and maintained, but they also had a pragmatic outlook. Independence from England brought a new awareness of a national agrarian identity. This was embodied in Thomas Jefferson's agrarian philosophy that Americans had the requisite virtue to make republicanism a success because most new Americans were farmers. Jefferson concluded

D. Keeney and L Kemp /A New Agricultural Policy for the United States

that "those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, a chosen people whose breasts he has made a peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. " Jeffersonian agrarianism remains to this day an important component of our national rural identity and is embedded in farm politics and policies. The U. S. moved out of the colonial period with the advent of the Revolutionary War. The new nation had undeveloped land and natural resources, but needed income from agricultural exports. The first U. S. agricultural policy was to exploit the abundant land and natural resources to produce tobacco and lumber for export. Agriculture continually moved west as the land was over-exploited and soils became depleted. As a result, a need arose for ways to farm the productive forest and grasslands of the Midwest. The U. S. Congress developed policies such as the Homestead Act to increase settlement of the lands in the middle of the country by giving land away. Technology began to come into play with the invention of the steel moldboard plow, allowing draft animals to increase their value and productivity to the farmer, and hastening the conversion of prairie land to crop land. Railroads, another technological breakthrough that helped open up lands to movement of people and products, were established in the 1830's. By the end of the Civil War in the 1860's, government policy had moved even more strongly to enhance the agriculture economy. The Civil war had destroyed the slave labor system of southern agriculture, further strengthening the change from local subsistence farming to commercial agriculture. Commercial crops expanded, both for export overseas and for use in agriculture economies outside of the main production areas. This required a more complex economy, one more dependent on banking, capital, manufacturing of farm inputs and mechanization. Over time the loss of small farms became apparent. But intensity of production in the farm sector was stagnant. With the end of the era of westward expansion, scientific methods became recognized as the way to increase production. A new scientific based agriculture was spurred by the formation of the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the unique Morrill Land Grant College Act in 1862. The latter provided land in each state to fund schools that would offer courses in agriculture and the mechanical arts. This was the forerunner of the great U. S. system of colleges of agriculture. The information developed by these colleges was transferred to farmers through the extension systems established by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. As a result of these forward thinking policies, scientific agriculture became a function funded by the public, in contrast to the private funded agriculture research in England and Germany. New pressure was put on farmers to follow the recommended industrialized path developed through research. This caused tensions between farmers and government experts that have not been resolved to this day (see [5-6]). Public universities are often seen as promoting corporate priorities instead of an unbiased forum for debate on what research is in the public interest. The technology treadmill, where many quickly adopt innovations, quickly eliminated any advantage to adopters and instead increased input costs. The technology treadmill continues to this day [7]. By the late 1800's, many farmers were active players in commercial agriculture, producing for sale off the farm as opposed to producing only for on-farm consumption. Some farmers joined willingly and some were forced into the market. Farmers lost

31

32

D. Keeney and L Kemp/A New Agricultural Policy for the United States

control of market prices at that time and have never regained control. Commodity prices, while variable, have continually trended downward. While farmers protested low prices by formation of organizations, they never were able to organize effectively enough to influence markets. There was plenty of blame to go around, but mostly the large-scale forces of industrial marketing and the development of technologies by the USDA and the land colleges took the blame. More recently the global nature of all trade, especially agricultural commodities, has aggravated the low prices farmers receive for their efforts. Technology continued its march with the development of petroleum powered traction machines (tractors) that gave enhanced mobility to farm operations and enabled farmers to expand their energies to more land and more enterprises. Other key developments included hybrid corn (maize) largely adopted by 1950, and chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Soybean became an important second crop in rotation with corn by the 1980's, crowding out perennial legume crops and forages [8,9]. The land of the prairie and savannah became the land of the row crops with declining environmental and social attributes becoming noticeable. And throughout this time, government policies continued to support this conversion through commodity subsidies, development of new technologies, and dissemination of information on production practices. The animal agriculture sector responded to the increased supply of grains by converting from small land based operations to confined systems, shifting to larger and larger operations in order to consolidate market power and efficiency of purchased inputs. Corporate agriculture moved into the animal scene by supplying inputs and animal genetics, providing capital through the use of grower contracts, and more recently controlling processing and marketing of products. This model is fully operational for poultry and increasingly for swine. The vertical and horizontal concentration of the animal industry is ongoing worldwide [10,11]. As U. S. farmers are confronted with low prices, they respond by reducing overhead and labor, and by ensuring markets for their production. This has resulted in ever increasing size of farm operations, leaving the remaining operators with little time for "luxuries" such as biodiversity, environment and rural development. Agriculture policy has always been touted to save the family farm by putting more money in the farmer's wallet [12]. But agriculture economics has never been straightforward. Farm income has fluctuated widely from a high in the 1910-1914 era to disastrous lows in the depression of the 1930's. A major reason for low farm prices has been overproduction interspersed by regional droughts, recessions and depressions. Each time of agriculture price depression, more farms were lost. These farmers did not return during the time of higher prices, the movement away from family farms seemingly a one way street. A public outcry periodically arose to save those farms left, but policies almost never succeeded in adding farms to the landscape. Government policies to influence environmental and natural resource conservation practices of farmers have been increasing since the 1930's. The prolonged drought of that decade and the accompanying "dust bowl" brought on legislation to form the Soil Conservation Service and to begin programs for soil erosion control and removal of highly erodible lands from production. While government involvement in environmental issues varied, financial and technical support was only a small fraction of the level of funding for commodity subsidy programs. Starting in the mid-1940's, programs designed to save the family farm had the


unintended consequence of lavishing the greatest benefits on the largest producers. These programs were designed to diminish risks confronting commercial producers by limiting production to keep prices supported, but resulted in encouragement to produce crops that were already in oversupply, thus keeping prices low. They discouraged diversification and rewarded monoculture and over application of inputs, causing environmental harm. And they encouraged the technology treadmill, farm consolidation and rural depopulation experienced to this day. The publicly sponsored research in the land grant college complex and the USDA, and the dominance of agribusiness corporations in U.S. agriculture accelerated the expansion in farm size and lessened of the number of family farms [6]. • The next major economic downturn occurred in the 1980's when many farms failed because of over expansion during the boom days of the 1970's. This time the media took up the cause and many stories appeared in the television news, press and movies on the plight of farmers and the environmental consequences of large-scale fanning. The government went back to policies to support prices rather than control production, again encouraging overproduction. The shift to industrial agriculture continued. Many environmental issues surfaced, including off site effects of soil erosion, large-scale animal confinements, pesticides, water quality deterioration by pesticides, sediments and nutrients, food safety, and biodiversity. "Feed the World" became a rallying cry for industrial agriculture, and the success of the green revolution was highly touted as the vision of a new agriculture for food-short developing nations. The 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, designed to use market forces to influence farmers' production decisions, was attempted and failed. Farming continued in a low-income mode, with commodity prices continuing to fall world wide because of excess production and distorted trade policies. Environmental quality issues continued, and social and economic problems of farm and rural communities reached crisis proportions. Still, the government attempted programs to save the family farm while supporting and enhancing the production capability of agriculture, which resulted in more overproduction [13]. As we will discuss later, the latest U. S. agricultural policy as expressed in the 2002 farm legislation (including the Conservation Security Program) offers hope of beginning the movement away from the commodity traps and technology treadmills of the past with stronger emphasis on environmental concerns, organic and alternative agriculture, and energy production.. However, farm income policy interventions continue to concentrate on supporting a few commodities, namely corn, wheat, rice and cotton. Advanced technologies have made the U.S. farmer the most technically proficient in the world. But these technologies can readily be exported. Consistently, the technical advantages of the U.S. farmer are compromised by rapid worldwide adoption of western world know-how. As productivity increases world wide, commodity prices continue to fall. It is, as is often termed, a race to the bottom by those who farm the land. The future direction of U. S. agriculture is complicated by the continued increase in world trade, the export of technologies to emerging export producers such as Brazil and China, and the declining power of farmers in political decisions. Further subsidies of agriculture in the U.S. and Europe distort commodity prices worldwide and often greatly inhibit agriculture in developing nations.

33

D. Keeney and L Kemp / A New Agricultural Policy for the United States

34

"We end, I think, at what might be called the standard paradox of the twentieth century; our tools are better than we are, and grow faster than we do. They suffice to crack the atom, to command the tides. But they do not suffice for the oldest task in history; to live on a piece of land without spoiling it." Aldo Leopold [14] Structural Changes in U. S. Agriculture The trend over time in the economics and structure of agriculture has predictably resulted in fewer farmers and larger farms. In Iowa, a state still undergoing large structural change, the number of farms has declined 60% in 50 years while the number of very large farms continues to increase (Table 1.) In the decade of the 90's the number of U.S. hog farms dropped 70% and the number of dairy farms dropped 37% [41]. The number of U.S. farms fell from 7 million to 2.16 million since the 1930's, resulting in only 170,000 farms accounting for 68% of production today [42]. These farms produce most of the commodities. Gardner [7] states, "In 1996 farms with more than $250,000 in sales (less than 10% of all farms) accounted for more than 85% of farm income." All indications are that this trend to larger size farms will continue if agriculture becomes even more industrialized. Table 1. Farm numbers and farm size in Iowa over time* Farms > 1000 acres

Year

Total farms

Farms 50-500 acres

1900

228,622

192,341

340

1930

214,928

185,092

134

1950

203,159

173,802

254

1969

140,354

1 14,254

1,012

1987

105,180

66,627

3,724

1997

90,972

55,443

5,887

*U. S. Census of Agriculture Development of farm policy brings into question the definition of a farm and the purposes of farm policy. Officially the definition of a farm is one that has over $ 1,000 gross income, which includes many small "hobby" (or lifestyle) farms [7, 15]. At the other extreme, only ten percent of farmers take two thirds of government payments. If agriculture subsidies are not stopping the attrition of the family farm, then why subsidize commodities for large farms? Why not change priorities and put the money into environmental and rural development projects? Why not pass policies that challenge


agricultural market concentration and protect fair and open food markets? The answer lies not in common sense approaches but in the lobbying power of corporate agriculture. The situation might be improving based on the 2002 farm policy legislation, but as usual the devil is in the details, and rules and funding are still being worked out. The corporate control of agriculture exists with nearly all products and a few corporations control not only processing and marketing, but also increasingly production [10, 11, 16, 17]. Table 2 presents some concentration data for the U. S. Any commodity where four or fewer industries exert over 60% control has the makings of a price cartel. Farmers have no market price control, and consumers, over time, will pay higher prices as competition diminishes. Subsidies that go into commodities do not stay with the farmer but are moved to higher land and input costs. This is a major driver behind the desire for the corporate lobby to push for continued commodity programs as opposed to putting public money into environmental goods and services. Table 2. Concentration of Agriculture Markets in 2002* Beef packers - 81%

Flour milling - 61%

Pork packers - 59%

Corn exports - 81%

Pork production - 59%

Soy exports - 65%

Broiler production - 46%

Soy crushing - 80%

Turkey production 45%

Ethanol production - 49%

Food retailing - 60%

Grain handling - 60%

* Values are the percentage of the market by the top 4 firms in each industry. Data from Hendrickson and Heffernan[l 1] There are other examples of concentration in agriculture among the input suppliers in particular [10, 16]. The seed industry is increasingly in the hands of a few companies capable of carrying out the biotechnology that has largely taken over today's markets [17]. And seed prices have risen accordingly. Only two major farm equipment manufacturers exist today in the United States. Increasingly, fertilizer and pesticide suppliers are concentrated to a few large firms. Contract farming, where a corporation hires a farmer to produce a certain product for a set price, is on the increase [10]. The concentration of industries in agriculture has a disrupting effect on competition in the agricultural sector [10]. It is increasingly difficult for the farmer to operate independently because input costs are established, produce returns depend on prearranged contracts rather than open markets, and there is little opportunity for competitive bidding. The farmer in essence takes the lowest price because they have no clout. The farmers share of the food dollar, in the form of price for his product, dropped 36% from 1984-1998, adjusted for inflation [42]. Only one of every five consumer

35

36


dollars finds its way to the farmer [42]. While collective action would seem to be called for, producers have not been willing to trade independence for collective action. Harl [10] states, "The time may be near when that (collective action) will be the only practical alternative to vulnerability and serfdom." Is the increasing corporate agriculture structure sustainable? Indeed one cannot see how this structure can hold over the next century because it is so heavily dependent on fossil fuels, taxpayer subsidies, and environmental externalities [18, 19]. Future students of agriculture may well wonder how we ever made such a mess of things. One thing about the current situation is certain, conservation on the land is more difficult because of the costs involved to the industry [9]. It is simply more economically efficient to farm large tracts of land with large equipment, while habitat for wildlife, diverse plants and water quality improvements get in the way [20]. If conservation amenities are to be paid for in government programs, then the question of whether large farms once again will get the bulk of the money must be addressed. While it may appear to be good for the environment, it gets in the way of the family farm and in the long run fuels consolidation trends that are negative to environmental goals. There are no easy solutions, especially if U.S. policy continues to rely on volunteer approaches to environmental and conservation practices as opposed to regulatory approaches that would force externality costs on the producer. Environmental Costs Accelerating The environmental costs of industrialized, fossil fuel dependent agriculture are significant [8,9]. The current pattern of large-scale row crop and animal agriculture is contributing to surface water pollution, groundwater pollution, hypoxia zones, increased flooding, depletion of groundwater, air pollution, excessive odors, climate change, loss of wildlife habitat, degradation of natural ecosystems, loss of pollinators, loss of soil quality, and soil erosion. The leading concern is water quality, because the primary cause of surface water pollution in the U.S. is agriculture, which contributes to 70% of impaired rivers, 49% of impaired lakes and 27% of impaired estuaries [21]. Nutrients and pesticides are endemic in drinking waters, and often nitrate is above public health limits [22]. Lakes and streams are overly fertile, leading to low water quality and loss of biodiversity. Concentrated animal feeding operations dominate the poultry and swine industries, leading to nutrient overload problems in regions where these industries dominate [23,24]. Trends are generally not improving, though some environmental indices may have stabilized at their current problematic levels. Nitrogen fertilizer use has been approximately level over the past fifteen years in the upper Mississippi River basin [25]. Total manure production is level, but concentration into feedlots has led to manure spills. Over three million fish were killed in 250 manure spills in five states bordering the upper Mississippi River from 1995-1998 [26]. In general, the nitrate level of streams draining agricultural watersheds continues to increase [27]. Soil erosion has not declined since 1995, leveling off at 1.9 billion tons per year, mostly generated in the Midwest [28]. Soil erosion, a cost in productivity in the long run, also is a major short term cost as soils clog ditches, fill lakes and reservoirs, and fill the


skies on dry windy days. These soils carry pollutants such as phosphorus, metals and pesticides. Meanwhile, average rates of pesticide use per acre are increasing, and U.S. pesticide sales have increased steadily, topping $7 billion in 1995 [29]. The massive National Water Quality Assessment Program found two or more pesticides in almost every water and fish sample collected from streams, and in about half of all wells sampled [30]. Excessive use of antibiotics in animal feeding operations has led to greater antibiotic resistance in pathogens, creating a looming public health issue. Emissions of noxious gases from animal waste operations have affected the health and well being of those directly in the wind-shed of the operations [24]. The environmental challenges of the current system of agriculture are often interrelated. Impacts may jump from one category to another. For example, evaporation of agricultural pesticides, nitrogen and methane into the air results in deposition of those same substances in rainfall, leading to another avenue of surface water pollution, as well as contributing to climate change [31, 32]. Excessive soil erosion leads to sedimentation of streams with resultant water quality and aquatic biota problems, and the sedimentation of stream bottoms, reservoirs, and lakes results in flooding which then causes more erosion. It is fruitless to target individual environmental "symptoms" when the entire system is "diseased". A key "canary in the mine" indicator is hypoxia (very low levels of dissolved oxygen in waters that lead to declines in higher life forms such as fishes and shrimps) This is often referred to as a "dead zone" although some life forms continue to exist. Dead zones in ocean estuaries are caused by the loss of oxygen due to nutrient input, which stimulates excessive algal growth. This algae subsequently decomposes, using more dissolved oxygen than can be replenished. In the Gulf of Mexico, pollution flowing down the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers from the farm belt in the Midwest has caused an annual zone of hypoxia the size of New Jersey, up to 8000 square miles and increasing [33, 34]. Hypoxia has been associated directly with nitrate nitrogen loss from the increase in row crop farming, fertilizer use and artificial tile drainage in the Mississippi River basin farm belt [27]. A government supported assessment indicated that the hypoxic zone could be reduced in volume if the output of nitrogen could be lessened by 30% [33]. This promises to be a difficult target to achieve [34]. Meanwhile, far upstream where corn and soybean dominate in the Midwest, farmers who apply nitrogen and manure to fertilize their crops have a difficult time connecting with the problems in the Gulf that are affected by their actions. They have gotten used to applying "insurance" levels of nutrients to their crops, knowing that some will be lost due to spring snow melt, denitrification, ammonia volatilization , and spring rains. Another problem is figuring how much nitrogen to use. After years of science, agronomists still do not agree, and recommendations are in flux because of changes in crop patterns, increases in crop yields, and changes in climate [25, 27]. It is an inexact science with much room for error. Because crop prices are low while fertilizer has been relatively cheap, it made economic sense to use an excess to ensure economical yields. Farmers do not realize that their runoff, when combined with smaller amounts from cities and industry, is causing an environmental disaster far down at the end of the Mississippi River. But fertilizer use itself is only part of the problem [25,27, 34].

37

38


Dramatic changes in the landscape of farming have unwittingly contributed to hypoxia in the Gulf. The increased nitrate loading to the Gulf of the past 25 years has been accompanied by a reduction in acreage of hay, pasture, and small grains which would have kept more land in resource conserving cover vegetation [9]. An increase in planting of soybeans in rotation with corn means that row-cropped land leaves soil exposed to more runoff potential. More drain tile is installed every year - 20,000 miles in Minnesota alone in 2000. This hastens the amount of water draining from the soil and increases the amount of nitrate that moves into streams and rivers. Although livestock numbers have remained steady, the change to concentrated feedlots increases the concentration of manure in small areas, reducing nutrient recovery by crops, and simultaneously driving the demand for more corn-soybean animal feeds, rather than using more environmentally benign hay and pasture to feed livestock. The inefficient system loops back on itself. In the case of hypoxia, it is not the nitrogen use per se; it is the entire system of corn-soybean farming with its attendant drainage, annual tillage, loss of cover, and decline in soil quality. Dr. Gyles Randall, a University of Minnesota scientist who has spent his career studying these issues in the field, concludes, "The intensive corn-soybean rotation is not sustainable" [44]. There is no doubt that better management of nitrogen fertilizer by farmers and conservation tillage practices could help reduce runoff without reducing yields or profits, but even full implementation of such best management practices may not be sufficient to significantly reduce the Dead Zone. Broader landscape changes are needed to significantly reduce nutrient losses [25]. Loss of biodiversity is huge and costly [35,36] but not easily documented beyond the mammals and large plants of the pre-settlement days [35] Because U. S. soils and landscapes are rugged, forgiving and productive, these losses, which many fear will haunt us for centuries to come, are hard to recognize and appreciate on a daily basis. Biodiversity losses are virtually ignored in farm policies, especially with the current private property rights politics that dominate national U. S. leadership. While the public strongly supports water quality, as shown by many polls, the current approaches to control water pollution from agriculture are modest, and rendered ineffective by poor enforcement, insufficient funding and lack of long-term commitment. Alleviation of these problems is unlikely to come from environmental regulations, and will come only from policies supporting incentives and structural changes in the cropping and animal feeding operations in intensive agriculture areas such as the Midwest farm belt.

Best Management Practices Not the Solution The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency defines Best Management Practice (BMP) as "A practice or combination of practices that are determined to be the most effective and practicable (including technological, economic and institutional considerations) means of controlling point and nonpoint pollutants at levels compatible with economic and environmental quality goals" [37]. BMP's are often proposed as the best way to reduce non point source pollution. However, many question if this concept can adequately address multiple interacting sources of agricultural impacts, including nutrients.


The complexity and interrelatedness of agriculture's environmental problems leads to rejection as ultimately ineffective the policy choices that try to isolate and address one problem at a time. Multiple government initiatives each focused on one problem, such as on pesticides, on erosion, on nutrients, on wildlife - are doomed to fail, for three reasons. First, they will not create environmental health even if they do achieve a reduction in a single pollutant because only a few "symptoms" can be ameliorated by adoption of BMP's alone. Second, there will never be enough political will or financial resources to launch the number of discrete programs needed. Finally, the BMP approach will fail because farmers are unable to respond to conflicting BMPs and regulations for multiple problems within the context of their current farming system -they will ignore it, fight regulations, and society does not have the political will to force them. The farmer can only effectively address major environmental impacts when solutions are integrated into their specific farming system. Some form of whole farm planning is needed to bring multiple solutions into reality on the farm [38].

Toward a New U. S. Farm Policy Before the 1996 farm bill, all farm bills used various schemes to pay farmers a higher price for a few selected commodities in return for reducing production by not planting some acres of the farm. This was done to increase prices by control of production. The 1996 Farm bill tried to end that policy approach. Instead, fixed payments were supposedly on a six-year transition schedule toward the elimination of government support, to let the "free market" set prices unimpeded by government policy. But falling prices and declining government payments would have sentenced too many farmers to bankruptcy, so Congress intervened and made sure the money continued to flow ~ $28 billion in 2000, accounting for half of all money made by farmers. In eight states including four in the com belt - governmental aid made up 100% of net farm income [39]. A policy vacuum resulted, transferring taxpayer dollars to farmers but requiring very little in return. The attempt to get government out of agriculture was a complete failure, but it was a good deal for absentee landowners, input suppliers and manufacturers and global grain traders. And these were the very groups who strongly lobbied for the 1996 farm bill. If a farm were only valued by society as a unit of commodity production, then Congress would have let the 1996 farm bill run its course along with the free market and lost another generation of farmers. However, the reason Americans care about farmers and rural communities goes further than the mere production of cheap food. A farm is the economic flywheel for rural communities. It can produce beautiful landscapes and environmental protection. For many, it is core to the very ideal of democracy. The myriad functions of the working landscape have value to society, functions for which many are willing to pay, either through taxes or through food prices. A recent national poll by a consortium of land grant universities documented this broad support for agriculture's multiple benefits. A clear majority of consumers (71%) would be willing to pay more for food grown locally, rather than far away. Even more (81%) would be willing to pay more for food grown on farms using good environmental practices. A similar majority (76%) believe that government policies should focus on

39

40


helping small farms, and family owned and operated farms. In contrast, only 25 % say that corporate, non-family farms should get government help. Even when it affects food prices, the majority (59 %) feel that family farms should be supported, and more than half (53 %) say they are willing to pay more for food that is "grown on small farms rather than large farms [40]. This vision of the 'multi-functional' benefits of agriculture opens the door to a new rationale for government support - to reward good stewards of natural resources who conserve biodiversity and safe-guard the sustainability of production for the future [38].

The Conservation Security Program The 2002 farm bill was resolved by a remarkable compromise among conflicting visions. It seemed unthinkable that Congress or taxpayers would support continuation of the fixed payments, emergency payments, and commodity price subsidies as a perpetual entitlement to commodity crop growers, with no policies to alter the prospect of an endless bailout. Nevertheless, Congress did just that, passing the largest commodity title ever, including a continuation of both fixed payments and commodity price subsidies, while raising the maximum amount any single farmer could receive. However, at the same time, the farm bill embraced a new direction, nearly doubling conservation spending and creating a revolutionary new holistic conservation initiative called the Conservation Security Program. In a manner not all that unusual for democratic compromise, the two competing visions were both moved forward simultaneously. Crop subsidy spending will total $125 billion over the next ten years, including new funding of $47 billion, while conservation spending will total $39 billion, including $17 billion in new dollars, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. Stewardship incentives, sometimes called green payments, are an alternative farm policy intended to create profitable farms that protect the environment by rewarding the conservation benefits achieved by farmers. In the future, stewardship incentives could become the alternative to some or all of the current system of commodity based payments. For now the Conservation Security Program is an additional option for farmers who voluntarily choose to enroll. The new program was championed by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who became Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee at the time the farm bill was negotiated, and was shaped by numerous sustainable agriculture and farm groups. At the time of this writing, rules are being written and the first signup is expected in late 2003. The vision for the Conservation Security Program (CSP) is to reward farmers who voluntarily implement effective conservation on their working lands, thus integrating production of economic products and environmental benefits on the land. The goal is to improve a robust range of environmental concerns, including surface water quality, groundwater protection, air quality, fish and wildlife habitat, energy conservation, soil quality, biodiversity, and genetic preservation. Farmers will receive annual payments as they provide public benefits to the nation's natural resources and environment.


Participants will solve critical resource problems while receiving graduated rewards for increasing efforts. The CSP envisions a farming systems approach and will eventually move toward a performance and outcome-based reward structure. Both current and new conservation practices and systems will receive incentives - thus recognizing the good stewards of today while encouraging others to join their ranks. Note that farmers who have long maintained good conservation practices will not be left out, and those who have done little will not be disproportionately rewarded for fixing their problems. In previous programs funds were largely targeted to remediation of poor practices, annoying those who did it on their own. The highest rewards in the CSP encourage sustainable land, energy, and resource use over the long term, including diversified resource-conserving crop rotation systems, managed rotational grazing systems, conservation buffers and other multiple benefit conservation measures. In contrast to conservation programs that retire farmland from production for conservation purposes, the CSP is designed for working farms and ranches, and is intended to simultaneously support conservation and economic production on the land. All regions of the country and all types of agriculture can participate on a fair and equitable basis, including livestock, fruit, vegetable and organic farms. No longer will commodity producers have the advantage. Payments per farm will be capped at a modest amount annually so that large farms will not benefit disproportionately, but support will be ongoing for the life of the individual five to ten year conservation plan and contract, and contracts may be renewed. The CSP is the first conservation program designed as an open-enrollment entitlement program, in the same category as commodity subsidies. With an open enrollment program the demand for the program drives actual funding levels rather than being subject to the whims of the appropriations process that could leave some otherwise eligible farms without benefits. All is not perfect, however. Congress subsequently placed a ten year funding cap on the program. If this cap is not removed the goal of automatically enrolling all fanners with approved conservation plans, without competitive bidding or waiting lists, would be jeopardized. Substantial funding will be necessary to implement the program. Beyond funding for payments to farmers, adequate resources will be required for outreach and education to farmers; additional agency staff and training; and on-farm planning assistance by conservation professionals, third party consultants, non-profits, and experienced farmers. Already demands on the nation's finances to support military commitments, and the decline in revenues from the poor economy and tax cuts, are threatening the funding levels for the CSP along with a host of other government programs. The CSP will base each contract on a conservation security plan in which the farmer documents a combination of practices designed to resolve one or more of the natural resource concerns identified specifically for that site. On-farm and watershed level monitoring and tracking of environmental improvements will be an important part of the program. On-farm research and demonstration of new or not widely adopted systems and practices will be encouraged. In sum, the CSP will be the most innovative and exciting program in the federal agricultural conservation toolbox, and could become a critical new component of U.S. farm policy for years to come. A second and equal goal of the CSP is to improve income

41

42


for farmers. While part of the benefits reimburse farmers for conservation costs, other parts financially reward farmers for participating and reaching high levels of sustainability. The CSP will begin life in 2003 as a revolutionary conservation program for working lands that financially rewards farms for the numerous environmental benefits they provide. If it proves popular and successful at reducing agriculture's environmental impacts, then it could become the model that will be expanded into a national green payment program that will displace some significant portion of the failing commodity subsidy policies of the U.S. CSP could well be the beginning of a transformation in US policy. How CSP Works The Conservation Security Program is structured around three tiers, from which farmers may choose a level of involvement based on their own stewardship goals. Tier I: Annual payments up to $20,000 for resolving to a nondegradation level at least one of the identified natural resources of concern on a selected part of the farm. Tier II: Payments up to $35,000 annually for resolving to a nondegradation level at least one identified resource of concern on the entire farm. Tier III: Up to $45,000 annually for resolving to nondegradation level all of the identified resource concerns on the entire farm. The one practice excluded is manure storage, partly because such facilities are usually required by feedlot regulations, and partly to prevent subsidizing further concentration of livestock into confinement operations. Manure management and land application are eligible practices for all Each locally approved conservation security contract will result in annual payments combining three payment components, but not to exceed the cap for the selected Tier. A base payment consists of a per acre payment for each acre covered by the conservation plan, based on a graduated percentage of the average rental rate. $5000 is the maximum base payment for Tier 1, $10,500 for Tier 2, and $13,500 for Tier 3. A cost-share payment covers up to 75% of the costs of installing new practices or maintaining existing practices. Beginning farmer costs are covered up to 90%. An enhanced payment will be a bonus to reward exceptional conservation plans that exceed requirements, address additional resource concerns, conduct research and demonstrations, are part of a larger watershed project, or include monitoring and assessment. The law specifies that diversified resource-conserving crop rotation systems, managed rotational grazing systems, conservation buffers and other high payoff, multiple benefit conservation measures will receive enhanced payments.

Leverage Points for Future Change Fiscal resources: An expanded green payments program such as CSP should not be viewed as competing for scarce conservation dollars. It must be viewed as an alternative way of distributing some portion of the commodity subsidies. The money would still flow to support farmers, but Americans would be getting something in return: a cleaner environment. Public concerns about farm subsidies are increasing, with media attention focusing on payments accruing to large corporate and absentee owners. Favorable Trade Rules: The Conservation Security Program is likely to gain momentum because it is a farm policy that fits the future. U.S. trade commitments at the

D. Keeney and L. Kemp /A New Agricultural Policy for the United State

World Trade Organization obligate farm policy to move toward subsidies that do not distort trade under WTO rules. Export subsidies and production limiting programs are subject to severe limitations. The CSP seems to fit into the "green box" of allowable farm subsidies directed to legitimate environmental concerns or other forms of domestic support that do not influence trade. Water Quality: Federal and state agencies are moving forward to address pollution from nonpoint sources, including the leading source which is agriculture. Impaired watersheds may undertake a process of allocating responsibility for pollution reduction to various sources. Agriculture is sure to be a major source in many watersheds, and watershed plans to reduce those pollution loads will have to be developed. The CSP provides an avenue for significant money to flow to farmers to help reduce their pollution without the need for onerous regulations and the resultant political backlash. Geographic Fairness and Public Support: The likely distribution of payments under the CSP will differ from current patterns of farm payments. Some areas that have not benefited from commodity programs might do better under the CSP. A base of support for stewardship incentives comes from urban and suburban voters who care about farmers, but care a lot more about the environment. Farmers wishing to transition to organic, or carry out their organic certification plan could use the CSP as a major means of support, thereby building the support of the organic industry and organic consumers.

A New Vision for Diversification of the Agriculture Landscape: One focus of a pervasive new policy of conservation payments should be diversification of agriculture land use. Longer crop rotations, including resource-conserving crops and more pasture acreage, are the key to significantly reducing pollution flows and other environmental ills. Cover crops, rotational grazing, perennial pastures, energy crops, and improved soil biological life are also part of the new landscape picture. To be specific, corn and soybean and other monocultures must be interspersed with resource conserving crops in four to six year cycles, and livestock must graze more pastures and be fed more forages. The biggest barriers to diversification in agriculture are mainly economic, and driven by past policy decisions, but they are not inherent in geography. For example, Minnesota produced 34 different commodities in 1920, but now focuses on only a handful, and Iowa has even less diversity of cropping. A recent listing of Minnesota grown opportunities included 174 crops and 42 types of livestock that are feasible [41]. In highly populous Illinois, the "green industry," producing ornamental landscape and indoor plants, surpassed com and soybean production in economic importance in 1999, with $2.9 billion in sales compared to $2.6 for corn and $2.1 for soybeans, on a fraction of the acreage [43]. It is widely recognized that U.S. farm policy, namely the subsidies for a handful of commodity crops, is the primary force driving over-specialization.

43

44

D. Keeney and L Kemp / A New Agricultural Policy for the United States

Qualities of a Diverse Cropping System No one can presume to name the ideal crops to take the place of corn-soybean dependence, because it will vary by farm, by farmer, and by markets. The elusive "third crop" espoused by some is a poorly named goal, because it only extends the current lack of diversity. Many crops should be included in rotations. While there is not one answer for all farms, it is worthwhile to explore the attributes of a sustainable system. Over the landscape, on average, there must be a much longer period of soil vegetative cover during the year, including earlier growth in the spring, faster growth in early summer, and soil coverage through fall and winter. This will reduce erosion and weed germination. More nutrients must be fixed by legumes and applied in organic mixes such as manure and compost, in order for it to be held more tightly in the organic matter of the soil. Three to six year crop rotation sequences will disrupt pest, disease, and weed cycles, thereby diminishing the need for pesticides. Crop rotation also has a beneficial effect on soil fertility as different rooting structures extract nutrients at varying depths. The quality of the soil will be improved with cover crops, forages and perennials to increase organic matter and maximize soil biotic life. Perennial plants must be established on the most vulnerable hills, riparian buffers, and erosive soils to protect the soil from rainfall and runoff. Nature should be encouraged to take over some parts of every farm, in the form of wetlands, stream buffers, woodlots, wildlife corridors, and other habitat in order for wildlife and natural ecosystems to flourish. The qualities of a sustainable system as described above can be met in two ways: either with diversified crop rotations, or with perennial systems such as grazing or agroforestry. Diversification is the key that unlocks the possibilities beyond monoculture row crops, and it can be met in dozens of cropping systems. A rotation can add resource conserving cover crops, spring growing perennials, legumes, spring annuals, winter annuals, cover crops, and other options. Bringing livestock back into many operations is another key to new crop opportunities, so livestock can again become the consumers of pastures, forages, and a significantly wider array of feed grains, such as oats, barley, and buckwheat.

Current Barriers to Diversification Some of these diversified options are not new. They have been extensively used in years past and still are by many sustainable and organic farmers. Indeed, some regions including the hillier areas of the Midwest are still dominated by diversity and smaller, integrated livestock farms, though the numbers are declining. Suitable growing conditions are not a significant barrier. Minor barriers exist in finding suitable seed strains, appropriate equipment, and technical experience, but these are relatively easy to remedy. Indeed, innovative farmers are increasingly adopting newer practices such as fall cover cropping, no-till and perennial energy crops. The primary barriers to diversification are interrelated: lack of ready markets for anything besides corn and soybeans; low prices for alternative crops; and a government policy that subsidizes only a few commodities. These three facets drive corn-soybean dominance in the region. A belief that agricultural exports should be the means to balance our trade deficit as well as the solution to oversupply is probably a primary underlying reason for such policies with their unintended landscape consequences.


New green payment policies such as the Conservation Security Program offer the incentive to diversify the landscape precisely for the environmental benefits that are produced by diversification. Other reforms are still badly needed for commodity programs that now offer opposite incentives to maximize row crop production. Summary Because of its unique geography, weather, history and policies, the United States has an agriculture that has been dominated by production of commodity crops for use in animal, industrial and export enterprises. Over time agricultural policies evolved to support an industrialized commodity based agriculture, with the result that farmers left the land and agriculture moved to an industrial structure. This restructured agriculture was aided and abetted by many factors. Technology rapidly changed the way land was farmed, leading to less need for labor but also leading to lower returns to farmers because of increased costs and lower prices from the resulting greater production. Farm policies consistently rewarded production over conservation. Continued expansion of row crop agriculture resulted in less land in resource conserving crops, loss of biodiversity, increased water pollution, soil erosion and other environmental damages including major pollution flows to the Gulf of Mexico. While an agriculture that harms its own resource base would appear to be unsustainable, it continued to be promoted by policies that provided major returns to input suppliers and land values but not to the farmer. Global trade issues have emerged to keep prices low. The 2002 farm bill could mark the beginning of a major change in direction for U. S. agricultural policy. While it continued to support crops through commodity subsidies, many conservation and environmental provisions were included that will, if funded, lower pollution, enhance the landscape, and support small farmers. The new Conservation Security Program promises to financially reward farms for the environmental benefits they provide, and if successful could become the model for a national green payment program. There is hope that it is not too late to turn agriculture into a green, sustainable industry. References [1] Edwards, E. E. 1940. American agriculture - The first 300 years. Pp. 171-276. 1940 Yearbook. Farmers in a Changing World. United States Department of Agriculture. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. [2] Kifer, R. S., B. H. Hurt, and A. A. Thornbrough. 1940. Pp. 509-532. 1940 Yearbook Farmers in a Changing World. United States Department of Agriculture. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. [3] Diamond, J. 1999. Guns, Germs and Steel. The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton and Co. New York. [4]Hoag, D. L. 1999. Agricultural Crisis in America. ABC-CLIO, Inc. Santa Barbara, CA. [5] Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America, Culture & Agriculture. Sierra Club Books. San Francisco. [6] Berry, W. 2002. For the Love of the Land. Sierra Magazine. May-June 2002. [7] Gardner, B. L. 2002. American Agriculture in the Twentieth Century. How it Flourished and What it Cost. Harvard Univ. Press. Cambridge MA. 400 pp.

45

46


[8] Jackson, D, 2002. Agriculture as ecological sacrifice. Pp 13-26. In: The Farm as Natural Habitat. Jackson, D and Jackson, L. eds. Island Press. Washington, D. C. [9] Jackson, D. L. and L. L. Jackson. 2002. The Farm as Natural Habitat. Island Press. Washington, D. C. [10] Harl, N. E. 2002. Agriculture in the Twenty-First Century. White paper available at www.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/harl/Papers.htm [11] Hendrickson, M and W. HefFeman. 2002. Concentration of Agricultural Markets. February, 2002. Dept. of Rural Sociology, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65221. [12] Browne, W. P, J. R. Skees, L. E,. Swanson, P. B. Thompson, and L. JH. Unnevehr. 1992. Sacred Cows and Hot Potatoes. Agrarian Myths in Agricultural Policy. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. [13] Danbom, D. B. 1991. Romantic agrarianism in twentieth-century America. Agricultural History 65:1-12. [14] Leopold, A. 1949. The Sand County Almanac. U Wisconsin Press. [15] Levins, R. A. 2001. Why don't we have sustainable agriculture now? Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of Innovative Farmers of Ohio, Wooster, Jan. 2001. [16] Vorley, W. and D. R. Keeney. 1998. Bugs in the System. Earthscan Press, London [17] Harl, N. E. 2002b. Biotechnology: Global Economic Issues. Symposium on Biotechnology Commercialization and Acceptance. Amer. Assoc. Cereal Chemists Annual meeting, Montreal Quebec, CN. Oct 15,2002. [18] Lockeretz, W. Ed. 1997. Visions of American Agriculture ISU Press. Ames, IA [19] Roling, N. G. and M. E. A. Wagemakers. 1998. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [20] Jackson, L. 2002. Restoring prairie processes in farmlands. Pp 137-154. In: The Farm as Natural Habitat. Jackson, D and Jackson, L. eds. Island Press. Washington, D. C. [21] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory. 1998 Report to Congress. [22] Townsend, A., R. W. Howarth, F. A. Bazzaz, M. S. Booth, C. C. Cleveland, S. K. Collinge, A. P. Dobson, P. R. Epstein, E. A. Holland, D. R. Keeney, M. A. Mallin, C. A. Rogers, P. Wayne and A. H. Wolfe. 2003. Human health effects of a changing global nitrogen cycle. Frontiers Ecological Environment 1:240-246. [23] Ribaudo, M. 0., Gollehon, N. R. Gollehon and J. Agapoff. 2003. Land application of manure by animalfeeding operations: Is more land needed?. J Soil Water Consv. 58: 30-38 [24] Jackson, L. L., D. R. Keeney and E.M. Gilbert. 2000. Swine manure management plans in northcentral Iowa: Nutrient loading and policy implications. J. Soil Water Consv. 55:205-212 [25] Keeney, D. R. and M. M. Muller. 2000. Nitrogen and the Upper Mississippi River. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy paper. Minneapolis, MN. [26] Frey, M., R. Hopper and A. Fredregill,. 2000. Spills and kills: Manure pollution and America's livestock feedlots. Clean Water Network. Izaak Walton League of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council. [27] Keeney, D. R. 2002. Reducing nonpoint nitrogen to acceptable levels with emphasis on the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Estuaries 25:862-868. [28] U. S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2000. National Resources Inventory: Background and Highlights. [29] Benbrook, C. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. Consumers Union. [30] U. S. Geological Survey. 1999. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides. [31] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1992. Preparing U. S. Agriculture for Global Climate Change. CAST, Ames, Iowa. Task Force Report 11. June, 1992. [32 ]Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science: 277:494-499. [33] Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources. 2000. Integrated assessment ofhypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. National Science and Technology Council. [34] Scavia, D., N. N. Rabalias, R. E. Turner, D. Justic, and W. W. Wiseman, Jr. 2003. Predicting the response of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia to variations in Mississippi River nitrogen load. Limnol. Oceanogr. 48:951-956. [35] Tuxill, J. 1998. Losing strands in the web of life: Vertebrate declines and the conservation of biological diversity. World Watch paper 141. World Watch Institute, Danvers, MA.


[36] Ehrlich, R. R. and A, H, Ehrlich. 1992. The value of biodiversity. Ambio2\: 219-226. [37] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002. National management measures to control nonpoint source pollution from agriculture, www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/ [38] Boody, G. 2002. Agriculture as a public good. P. 261-275. In The Farm as Natural Habitat. Jackson, D and Jackson, L. eds. Island Press. Washington, D. C. [39] Egan, T. 2000. Ever-larger US dole keeping farms afloat. New York Times. December 24, 2000. [40] Winberly, R. C. et al. 2003. Food from our changing world: The globalization of food and how Americans feel about it. North Carolina State University, Feb. 26, 2003. http://sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/global-food/foodglobal.html. [41] Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Univ. of Minnesota. 2000. Minnesota grown opportunities. [42] Johnson, Paul D. Big Agriculture vs. Sustainable Production. Denver Post. June 15, 2003. [43] Progressive Farmer. Move Over Illinois Com and Soybeans, Here Come Petunias. January 22,2001. [44] Randall, Gyles. Intensive Corn-soybean Agriculture Not Sustainable, U of M Scientist Says. University of Minnesota Extension News. August 28, 2001. http://www.extension.umn.edu/extensionnews/2001/IntensiveComSoybeanAgriculture.html

47


Integration of Biodiversity in the Common Agricultural Policy Reform: Implications for Research Xavier POUX Agro-economist, consultant at AScA and fellow researcher at RGTE CIRED-ENGREF. AScA, 8 rue Legouve 75010 Paris France [email protected]' Abstract. As the integration of biodiversity in the Common Agricultural Policy reform is identified as a priority in the European policy agenda, many research studies are not properly used in this goal. In order to further integration, this paper offers an appropriate conceptual framing of the research studies considering questions of the relationships between CAP and biodiversity. The point is illustrated here by an analysis showing how the CAP affects biodiversity within other factors. It is assumed that the core-issue of the CAP for biodiversity is its relative influence on the decline of diverse mixed crops-livestock systems, based on the use of permanent semi-natural habitats (grasslands, hedges and pastures), and their replacement by specialised systems based on the use of cereals. The analysis concludes that an adapted regulation on agricultural markets is necessary to address biodiversity issues, instead of the liberalisation approach currently proposed. This statement leads to a need for further interdisciplinary and diversified research, which would enrich the understanding and the vision of decision-making stakeholders involved in the CAP reform process.

Introduction: the Common Agricultural Policy and the development of European agriculture In the 1950s and the early 1960s, when the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was under discussion, the European agriculture had to face several issues. The most significant undoubtedly was to feed the Western European citizens, in the context of post WWII and the beginning "Cold War." Most of European agricultural systems were still on the traditional pattern of small farms, highly diversified throughout regions, using a small amount of inputs and machinery. If these models were consistent with a rich regional biodiversity — which clearly was not at stake at this period — they were not productive enough regarding the domestic demand. The early design of the CAP, between 1962 and 1965, has to be understood in this particular context. Europe was a net importer and the structure of its agriculture led to higher commodity prices. Thus, the United States was the main supplier of food commodities for Europe, with lower prices. The modernisation of agriculture was a priority for the European states, which can be easily understood, but also for the historic American Ally, for geo-strategic reasons (Western Europe was to face the pressure of the bordering Soviet block). It was accepted that this modernisation required a certain protectionism on 1

I do thank Dikran Zakeossian (AScA) and Steve Light (IATP) for their help and suggestions on this paper. I would also quote Laurent Mermet (ENGREF) who contributed to the ideas expressed in this text.

X. Poux / Integration of Biodiversity in the Common Agricultural Policy Reform

49

commodity prices, otherwise the European farmers would not be able to compete on the World market (i.e. the U.S. American farmers) and get the new and expensive machines and inputs at the same time. This strategy was all the more accepted as the U.S. were also selling their Ford tractors to the European farmers and perceived an opportunity to make the European agriculture go the same way as the American did a few decades ago. The CAP then relied on the (still central) concept of Common Market Organisations (CMOs) built for the main productions: mainly cereals and some oil seeds, dairy products and beef. These CMOs stated that the agricultural prices inside the European market would be higher, compared to the "outside" (World) prices. A system of tariff barriers was set that implied a tax on every ton of imported wheat, to make it reach the European level. This tax was paid by the importers, who could bear it because of the high domestic prices. Reciprocally, in case of export outside the EC, a "restitution payment" would allow the more expensive European wheat to reach the World market price. In the meantime, the principle of "Community preference" stated, and still states nowadays, that each Member States (MS) of the European Community had to buy agricultural products with priority given to the other MS. It must be reminded that this market approach was completed by a structural approach, giving some aids for the modernisation (i.e. equipment) of farms. As long as the EC has been a net importer, the tax system meant a positive input for the European Community budget. But at the turn of the 1970s, the CAP reached its objectives: Europe was self sufficient for its main agricultural products (cereals, milk and meat), with the notable exception of imported protein (mainly soya beans) that was under the 1962 Blair House Agreement. It then turned to be a competitor on the World market in order to limit the amount of surpluses in the European domestic market, but with still internal higher prices. The CMOs of the CAP then became a budgetary weight. Despite the obvious limits of going on with the same system (pointed by the agricultural European Commissioner S.Mansholt in the 1970s), the main beneficiaries of the system, i.e. the farmers and growing agro-industries were the main opponents to any reform. Contradictory effects of the CAP were in the policy debate: maintaining high prices were to protect the small farms but, at the same time maintaining such high prices would lead to surpluses and entail the phasing-out of these small farms (because they had to compete the large farms that, relatively, benefited the more of high agricultural prices). This contradiction was not, and still is not, solved, except for the milk sector, in which CMO a quota system had been introduced in 1984. This system led to "freeze" the competition between farmers and regions. For other productions, such as cereals and oil crops (named as the "arable sector") and beef, the increase in productivity went on and led to a re-structuring of the farms on the most labour-productive areas. It took nearly 20 years to propose a reform of the CAP, despite some development in the agricultural "structural" policy that tended to address some environmental issues through direct payments to farmers. This reform occurred in 1992, proposed by Commissioner McSharry under the constraints caused by surpluses and increasing budgetary costs. Its aim was to introduce a de-coupling in the CMOs: the supported high prices for the main crops and beef were to decrease with a direct acreage aid that broadly was to compensate the economic loss on historic references. This reform led to a higher competitiveness of cereals in the domestic market (compared to imported Corn Gluten Feed for example) but did not change the structure and nature of the beneficiaries. The most productive farms continued to benefit the most from the policy, mainly because of the historical references. At the same time, the 1992 reform introduced the agri-environmental scheme as a "flag-policy" of the CAP. The 1999 reform, named "Agenda 2000," kept on the same line as the McSharry reform. It continued and stressed the de-coupling in CMOs on historical basis (these CMOs

50


being gathered in the so-called 1st pillar of the CAP, representing nearly 90% of the budget). In addition, the existing structural policies, relying on aids for the environment, modernisation and adaptation of farming systems, were gathered in the 2nd pillar. The general philosophy of the Agenda 2000 is to go further on what was initiated in 1992 by partially compensating the alignment of EU prices on the World market with direct payments which are to take place between 2000 and 2006. The arable (mostly cereal) sector is the first concerned by this scheme, financially speaking. It must be noted that this reform emphasises the rupture with the historic CAP of 1962-1992 but, at the same time, it can be analysed as maintaining the overall structure of the existing CMOs and beneficiaries. After all, the same cereal farms in the same regions (the most productive ones in a word) were and are the ones receiving more supports before and after the two reforms. The Agenda 2000 foresaw a so-called "mid-term review," which functioned to assess the impacts of the reformed CAP and identify possible adaptation. This review is currently under a strong policy debate between the European Commission and some Member States. What is basically at stake is the nature and level of public supports towards agriculture, with some actors arguing for a more liberalised agricultural policy and others for an adapted CAP. 1. Biodiversity, decision making and science in the CAP reform In this broad context of agricultural intensification and policy debate, scientists played a major role in the introduction of biodiversity in the European policy agenda. For the last 30 years, they have studied the functioning of ecosystems and identified the major sources of degradation. The Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 (the "Rio" Convention) can be considered as the policy makers collectively taking into account of the issues raised by the research community. Following the Rio Convention, the European Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has taken up the challenge of biodiversity conservation at European scale. In the European context, the Plan logically identifies agriculture as a key issue to be addressed for Nature conservation. Agriculture is both a main source of genuine "biodiversity production" (in extensive and traditional farming systems for instance [1]) and, at the same time, a major threat for habitats and species. Logically, the BAP proposes directions for reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in a perspective of a better integration of biodiversity [2,3]. There is broad scientific consensus regarding the global negative pressure of agricultural development on environment in general and biodiversity in particular. Despite success stories in specific sites and some progresses in the successive CAP reforms (1992, 1999), European observers and scientists are still internationally pessimistic on the current trends affecting CAP, agriculture and biodiversity [4]. The present mid-term review under negotiation can not be considered as sufficient to meet the needs of Nature conservation, as the second pillar remains the second in budget one for instance [5], This general statement leads to the question addressed in this paper: why biodiversity integration in the CAP reform can not be judged as satisfactory, given that biodiversity is clearly identified as a major stake by scientists and European citizens? Where are the gaps in the scientific inquiry? How can scientific conclusions to improve the effectiveness of decision-making at the policy level? A few years ago, the research service of the French Ministry of Environment asked an environmental management researcher (L.Mermet) and me to address a similar question [6]. Thus, a survey was conducted into how "agri-biodiversity" (meaning here the


51

biodiversity produced by agriculture, being of high or poor value) is currently taken into account by researchers. Two main pitfalls in which inquiry currently gets bogged down at the first stages of research were identified. The first pitfall refers to the framing of research. Very briefly, studies dealing with CAP and biodiversity currently rely on the following chain (fig. 1):

Figure 1. CAP and biodiversity: what conceptual framing? (1)

This framing appears very logical, as (i) the effective management of habitats and species relies on the agricultural practices at the scale of farming systems (ii) the CAP influences the dynamic of farming systems by the economical signals given to farmers. I will develop further the idea that, if this framing is employed, that it is not sufficient and can lead to counter-productive policy analysis from biodiversity perspective. I will also argue that biodiversity is an issue that requires a more specific approach than a global environmental assessment of the CAP currently being conducted by economists, for instance. The second pitfall is what Mermet and I called the "complexity vertigo" [7]. Both ecological and socio-economic dynamics are truly complex in questions pertaining to agribiodiversity. But this statement currently leads to unstructured debates (sometimes intentionally so) instead of enlightening the policy action. We observed how a small uncertainty in the relationship between fine-tuning agricultural practices to accommodate a bird population had the same weight as the major impact of replacing permanent grassland with irrigated maize. We will come back to this need of hierarchy in the debate and the way scientific researches can help in the final section of this paper. To make this discussion clearly understood, my normative point of view needs to be made explicit at this stage. As the market organisations ("first pillar" of the CAP) were — and are — a major driving force influencing the relationship between agriculture and biodiversity, we assume that it will still be the case in the future. This implies that the second pillar alone (that relies on a fundamentally bottom-up approach) cannot be sufficient to meet the objective of biodiversity conservation if the market forces contradict the first pillar (in a top-down approach). This also implies that if biodiversity issues are to be integrated at the scale of European markets, the final state of habitats and wildlife depends ultimately on agricultural practices implemented by individual farmers. We simply assume that the prevailing socio-economic context not only matters but drives local decisions. It seems risky to count only on positive bottom-up, local, initiatives when the top-down forces are not favourable [8]. The famous "think global, act local" can be completed with "think local, act global."

52


2. How could research help? 2.1 A lot of resources, but a need for transversal approaches In the French research quoted above [6], Mermet and I found in the scientific literature a first level of answer to "how could research help improve biodiversity in agricultureal systems?" One dominant trend amongst French researchers is that scientific knowledge about agriculture and biodiversity is still at infancy and that "no public action can be built on the ground of existing knowledge" [9]. This vision is commonly shared outside the research community by persons of goodwill and has to be seriously considered. This contention gives rise to two considerations. The first one simply is ignorance and/or personal values averse to Nature conservation. Even if the argument originated outside the scientific discussion, it might be held inside the scientific community and discourage a more ambitious integration of biodiversity into public action. The second situation is opposite: when a researcher knows quite a lot about agriculture and biodiversity but frequently considers that the existing knowledge is a waste of time to share (precisely because he knows it!) and prefers to communicate on what he does not know yet. Contrary of this first vision, it was found that considerable research resources do exist. Figure 2 proposes a structure of scientific domains that address the understanding of the relationship between CAP and biodiversity. The current analyses of Figure 1 can be enriched by defining four main issues: CAP, socio-economic drivers (sensu lato), agricultural systems, and ecosystems. In the box "agricultural systems," one should consider fanning systems as individual enterprises, but also agrarian systems (i.e. regional agricultural systems ruled by social and technical factors [10]) and agricultural markets. CAP: 1st pillar - Common market or assignation 2nd pillar - Structural and Environmental measures

Other forces (out of agriculture) - technological development - global economy - social demand

Relations suited from environmental perspective Agricultural systems - farming systems markets - agricultural research - agricultural sectors (markets)

Relations inside socio-economic domain

Environmental Issues - water - landscapes ^ - biodiversity - soils

Relations suited from agricultural perspective Relations between agriculture and environment

Figure 2. A conceptual structure of scientific domains addressing the relationship between CAP and biodiversity


53

Our judgement on the scientific resources (in France and in Europe) centers on two key points: Firstly, many resources can be mobilised to enlighten the several components of the system (set forth in Figure 2). Many regional studies describe the relationship between agricultural systems and biodiversity. The economic factors influencing the evolution of farming systems are also addressed at several scales, from the farm to the world market. The relationship between general socio-economic factors and CAP in the dynamic of agricultural systems is also well studied. To sum it up, if some progress can be envisaged in the analysis of such a system, one can not say that "nothing is known" [6,11]. Secondly, better scientific integration is needed, especially transversal approaches considering agriculture, environment and socio-economic factors. This integration may at least go three ways: the first one is "horizontal," considering a global approach of the relationship between the several components of the considered systems. The second one is "vertical," considering the components of the system through their functional relationship at different scales (local, regional, national or international). The third one is dynamic, considering the co-evolution of the components and their temporal patterns. Four issues will now successively be addressed in order to illustrate the previous thoughts: • European biodiversity in a technico-economic perspective. • The role of the CAP in the dynamic of agriculture and biodiversity. • A global assessment of the CAP. • A dynamic approach of policy regulation. Such issues are clearly interrelated, and represent complementary points of discussion on the same conceptual framework. 2.2 European biodiversity in a technico-economic perspective: mixed cropping livestock systems versus "cerealisation " of the livestock system For centuries, the European agriculture has been producing artificial habitats of high natural interest. From the 18th century to the last 1950s, the "production" of agribiodiversity was closely linked to the functioning of fanning systems. The great diversity of agricultural systems at this period paradoxically relied on the regional variation of one core technical pattern, i.e. the association of mixed farming and livestock. Existing constraints related to containment of nutrient cycling at the farm scale and the control of weeds and pests led to the integration of permanent elements in the farming systems [10]. For instance, the diversity and functions of such elements were incredibly high: hedges, wetlands, permanent or semi-permanent grasslands, pastures, stonewalls and terraces, isolated trees and plantations all contributed to the structure of biodiversity at the farm scale. The exploitation of the local agro-ecosystems was based on the appropriate use of domestic varieties and breeds, as herbivorous livestock (mainly bovine and ovine) was of major importance in order to exploit the diverse semi-natural habitats. There is no need here to go further in the description of these farming systems in which biodiversity is a key element, as a rich literature does exist on this topic at European scale [12]. We have to remember that, no "natural" (climaxic) biodiversity has existed in Europe for centuries; the agri-biodiversity was and is a major issue for nature conservation 2. One can just consider the importance of conserving these very sophisticated systems where they still exist on 2

The situation is different in "new" countries — e.g. USA and Canada for instance —, where agricultural areas and natural areas are much more distinct. Thus, the environmental strategies can not simply be transferred from one country to the other.

54


economically and socially sustainable bases. In the case of candidate countries to EU, rich with agricultural biodiversity, this statement is of special significance for policy considerations [13]. Since the 1950s, Western European Countries of the EU have experienced an unprecedented technical revolution, with the increasing use of tractors, pesticides, fertilizers and genetically improved breeds and seeds. The combination of all these factors at the same time entailed major changes in the agricultural systems that existed prior to WWII [14]. It is now frequently noted that the main processes in the biodiversity erosion are, on one hand the decline and abandonment of traditional extensive farming systems and, on the other hand, the intensification of specialised farming systems. At a global scale, between regions, a dissociation of crops and livestock, previously linked together in the same farm has had a serious deleterious impact on biodiversity in farming systems [4]. But such dynamics are not separate ones; they are the two sides of a unique dynamic. From a holistic perspective, the great majority of biodiversity dynamic in Western Europe can be explained by the combination of the three following factors: (1) The competition on crops between farms and areas with huge differences in productivity (this explains for example the decline of cereals in Mediterranean hills and mountains). (2) The replacement of semi-natural (permanent) habitats used for animals in the traditional systems with cultivated crops, including intensive grasslands. But the use of grains in the animals' food undoubtedly is the core element to stress here. The "cerealisation" of the livestock sector considered as a whole appears as the main technical fact leading to the erosion of biodiversity. The extensive grassland in hilly regions had to compete with the irrigated maize fields in the most favourable areas. A main concern is then the fact that the semi-natural habitats are no longer useful, and then may go in two undesirable directions: intensification or abandonment. (3) The competition between several livestock production systems — beef, milk, sheep, pig and poultry — that we will detail below. In sum, the recent history of European biodiversity is the one of major changes in the production of livestock, affecting extensive farming systems with permanent agricultural features (grasslands, hedges, ponds, etc.) and regions. From a biodiversity conservation perspective, what is at stake is not only the promotion of "well managed" agricultural systems (which are in the mind of many agricultural economists whose main question is an efficient-use of inputs), but the existence of semi-natural permanent habitats in a wider landscape matrix. The best-managed maize field cannot compete with current permanent grassland for nature conservation. This central issue raises the specificity of biodiversity management (that requires spatial and regional management) in comparison to water pollution control (that may rely on efficient-use of inputs). The core role of the livestock sector can be illustrated by key data: 75% of the Usable Agricultural Area of the EU is, directly or indirectly, for animal food [15]. Two thirds of cereals is used for cattle, and the recent trends show an increase in the incorporation of cereals in animal food (from 140 M tons in 1992 to 170 M tons in 1998/1999), as permanent grasslands are declining. This cerealisation leads to several level of competition among livestock systems3: • Competition between extensive and intensive systems inside beef and dairy sectors, in which grasslands compete forage maize and grains, complemented with generally imported protein. This competition can be observed from the farm level to the entire The sheep sector should be analysed apart.


55

European agri-food system. Competition between the beef and the dairy sectors, which is generally more intensively managed and consumes more cereals and concentrates4. • Competition between the bovine sectors and the pig and poultry sectors, as there exists a possible substitution by the final consumers for economic reasons. Physical factors (soil quality, climate, relief) and human factors (farm structures, professional organisation, know-how) explain several requisites of competition among regions and farmers [10]. Over a period of decades, one can note a trend on a spatial differentiation of specialised areas with one or several relative advantages (according to Ricardo's theory) and decline of marginal areas [12]. •

2.3 The role of the CAP in the dynamic of agriculture and biodiversity As quoted above, the global assessment of the CAP on biodiversity generally is harsh. But there commonly exist confusion between the dynamic of agriculture in general and the specific role that CAP plays in this dynamic. For instance, it has frequently been noted that, at least before 1992, the arable payments favoured intensification. An implicit assumption being that without the payments, intensification would not have occurred, or at least evolved in a different way. When considering the set of factors influencing the intensification, one can assume that it would have taken place any way. The combination of technological progress and the food demand in the Western context (i.e. industrialised food process, look for the lowest prices in a competitive market, etc.) alone can explain the major part of intensification. The counter-proposition, being how would European agriculture developed without the CAP, is clearly not an easy question. As P.Lowe and D.Baldock noted: The environmental damage sustained under the CAP in recent decades will not necessarily be reversed by cutting farm prices in the future. Continuing technological advances, socio-cultural changes in the farming community, the development of rural infrastructure and new farming styles all make a return to 'traditional' landscapes or habitat features or low input farming unlikely. Reducing output prices may lead to less intensive agriculture but this may not be of the kind which is required for environmental reasons and it may not occur in the right spatial location [16]. In this analysis of the relation between the CAP and agricultural development, one must also take into account the several levies of the CAP and their interaction [14,17]. For example, most studies stress on the impact of direct payments on farming systems. The question of the economical response to de-coupling on intensification is frequently addressed. But one can also assume that, for instance, the Common Market and the European Community preference are an incentive to a greater specialisation and intensification in the inter-regional competition evoked above. The tariff barriers, rules for opening or protecting markets are also drivers for agricultural systems. It is not meant here that CAP is not influencing agriculture. The CAP induced incitement for producing cereals exceeding the European and the World demands (the grain market has been stable for decades) is one major effect. The "insurance" played by 4

The more intensive management of dairy systems is logical but not necessary. In the French context, it has been shown that a maximum production of 6000 kg of milk per year per cow could be reached with only grass if appropriate breeds and techniques are used [Pes, 2002].

56


the announced payments (de-coupled or not) favoured long term investments in farms and agri-food sectors, accompanying a certain "productivism." All these statements open new perspectives for researches as the question of the 'impact model' of the CAP on the relationship between agriculture and the environment. This question is obviously crucial at the time of the mid-term review. The ex-ante evaluation of alternative scenarios of the CAP (such as the ongoing de-coupling, liberalisation and cutting down of payments.) requires deeper analysis and, undoubtedly, a wider framing in the way the CAP influences the agricultural development. The lack of indepth analysis of scenarios precludes the further testing of propositions such as Potter's contention that "the continuation of de-coupling will be good for the environment," as Potter showed in his analysis of the "double dividend" [18].

2.4 A global assessment of the CAP: stakes for environmental integration The previous discussion leads to another point, which is to assess the CAP as a whole policy, and not as a combination of distinct schemes, each one with its own purpose. The quantitative survey of the French researches on agriculture and biodiversity showed that the majority of works addressed agri-environmental measures [19]. This framing is legitimate if one considers that the Agri-environmental Measures are the central scheme proposed in the CAP to treat the biodiversity objectives. The question of the possible role of "green" payments in the CAP is an emerging issue in researches (for example [20,21]). But this framing of the situation is much less accurate when the present budgetary weight of such agri-environmental measures is compared to the arable schemes. There are many reasons that explain this distortion between the weight of the policies and the one of researches, at least in the French context5 [7], and the range of measures that need to be seriously evaluated from the biodiversity point of view covers the entire CAP. This evaluation is being addressed for example by Brouwer and Lowe [5], in which the main Common Market Organisations are environmentally evaluated. Such works are to be continued, but the evaluation of the overall impact of the CAP considering the interactions between the CMOs are to be addressed. A possible contradiction between several environmental objectives can be noted in the present dominant de-coupling strategy: • On one hand, the de-coupling may have positive environmental impact on the intensity of agricultural practices (though this point remains controversial [18]), especially in the arable sector. The assumption being that lower prices may lead to lesser use of fertilisers and pesticides. • On the other hand, a lower price for cereals entails an accurate competition on livestock sector, as was observed in the McSharry reform of 1992. According to the above analysis, this point is of major influence on extensive livestock sector, and thus for biodiversity. The risk of giving up the extensive livestock sector (i.e. based on the use of permanent semi-natural grasslands) for a — likely — better arable (cereal) sector is a core stake in the present orientation of the CAP [18]. The possible shift between the use of grass and the use of cereals complemented with proteins (generally imported) has to be analysed at regional, national, European and international scales. The impact of such balance between agricultural sectors (dairy, livestock, cropping) on biodiversity has to centrally be taken into account. 5

This bias (biodiversity = AEM] also exist in the European Commission context, as for example the Common Market Organisation are to be evaluated regarding their core objective.


57

In summary, the balance of pros and cons of high/low prices for cereals and, as a direct consequence the control of the over-production, have to be discussed regarding their environmental effects. 2.5 A dynamic approach of policy regulation: maintaining and accompanying agridiversity As the 'production' of biodiversity is and was integrated in the functioning of farming systems in the past, it will be in the future. As already suggested, one has not to consider a static state of agri-biodiversity, but the way the agricultural development entails - or not the existence and maintaining of semi-natural habitats in agricultural landscapes. Because the driving forces that influence the agricultural development are numerous and themselves dynamic —technology, social demand, economical organisation, international markets... — it seems unrealistic to adopt a strict conservative approach of less productive agricultural systems of high nature conservation without changing the context. For instance, as long as the wheat yield continues to increase of O.lT/ha/year, there will be ongoing competition between production regions and, thus, interregional restructuring affecting biodiversity in the end. In this viewpoint, achieving agri-biodiversity becomes a question of regulation of the dynamic between several farming systems and geographic regions. The present policy situation, by supporting specialised cropping systems, with tendency towards monoculture, is favourable for simplified systems with low biodiversity value. Such systems are, at the same time, well integrated in the agri-food chain and supported by taxpayers. Extensive farming systems are in an unfavorable position and their ability to be competitive (on prices for example) is more difficult as they are less supported [21]. Two issues need to be addressed by research works in this dynamic: the first one is clearly a re-allocation of public aids towards extensive systems, as frequently demanded now by some policy observers. The second one is the analysis of the terms of competition between sectors (grain/livestock) and farming systems (intensive/extensive), in a market and in an inter-regional perspective. The example of milk quotas enlightens this idea. Despite the fixing of quotas, an on-going decrease of milk price takes place since 1984 that leads to a certain concentration of production, disadvantaging extensive systems. The main cause for that probably is the fact that technical progress is still going on and is concentrated in some specific farming systems and regions, without effective counterforces 6. What is at stake at end for biodiversity is then preserving a diversity of farming systems adapted to the great diversity of regional contexts [22]. The CAP presently considerably reduces this diversity (of both systems and regions) by concentrating supports on a minority of specialised farming systems. The payment schemes are influenced by the political and institutional arrangements that, at every level of policy making, tend to capture the majority of farm aids for the best informed and powerful agents [23]. In this economical and socio-political 'game', the maintenance and even the arising of new, diverse, farming systems is difficult. Therefore, the re-opening of the future dynamics possibly favourable to biodiversity relies a strategic analysis of any future policy reforms: • It is useless to pretend to maintain agricultural systems of high value for biodiversity if the systems that compete with them are still dominant. The question is not only "what 6

In France, a real implementation of the Nitrate Directive might have influenced the location of farming systems at inter-regional scale. The externalities of over-concentration of livestock units in the very intensive region of Bretagne are not taken into account.

58

•

•

•


to add to the present CAP?" but "what to remove from it?" (and especially higher payments for systems destroying biodiversity) in order to reduce an unfair competition [24]. As argued, this question has to be treated in a regulated market approach as (i) markets are main drivers for biodiversity (ii) a true liberalisation of the CAP may have negative impacts on biodiversity. A diversification of possible economical strategies is to be promoted. This implies a diversification of the instruments to be mobilised, such as regulatory, voluntary and incentive regulations. A re-opening of actors concerned by the evolution of agriculture in the decisionmaking is necessary. Consumers, agri-food actors, taxpayers may also negotiate their respective interests in the present agricultural development. A policy reform is a lively and risky process. The present CAP has been reaching its initial objectives of self-sufficiency for nearly 30 years and it has to be reformed for this precise reason. A conservative approach is much safer politically speaking but may lead to dead end and contradictions. As Potter quoted, "policy learning is an established part of the policymaking process and an essential component of an evolutionary (as against a revolutionary) model of policy change" [18].

3. Conclusion: what implications for research? The adequacy of the framing in the analysis of agricultural systems and environmental relationships (see fig. 2) may enlighten the understanding both of the processes in route and of the real stakes to be addressed. Our objective here is more to open the relevant questions than to propose a definitive answer to them. In addition, we let apart important issues such as the WTO, the sociological dimensions of the questions, etc. Nevertheless, this analysis is proposed at the intersection of agro-ecology, economy and policy analysis in order to show how this kind of approach, based on scientific corpus, can contribute to a policy strategy at the European scale. Going deeper in the understanding of such global dynamics implies a closer co-operation between ecological, agricultural and socio-economic sciences. The agricultural-environmental framing offered in this paper has implications in the way the problematics are defined. We suggested, for instance, that taking into account biodiversity as a spatialised, regionalised issue may change the way economists handle the question. Intensification is not, in this perspective, the only question to be addressed as to land-uses, the ecological patterns and the combination of productions must be considered for example. Reciprocally, economists may identify issues that are not familiar for conservationists though of major influence, such as the competition between sectors. A mix of disciplines is necessary in order to set the appropriate objectives for policy reforms and the means to achieve them. Our experience in the French context suggests that this mix is not only a scientific question, but also a socio-political one. For years, environmentalists and socio-economic scientists (to say it briefly) have been working in different places, publishing in different journals. Not the less, they were supported and funded by different public institutions (agriculture and environment) that, especially in the French context, were not independent from professional (farmers union, agri-food industries) influences. The introduction of agri-environmental schemes in 1992 launched a major change in this state and, for ten years, pluri-disciplinary approaches have been implemented at regional levels [19]. Further institutional arrangements (special funds) intend to enforce this dynamic in research. This evolution in multidisciplinary approaches has to include national and international problematics, in France and in other countries. Still, macro-economists and


59

policy analysts do not meet the questions raised by environmentalists and vice versa. As noted in the introduction of this paper, the question of biodiversity is an international one but the current scale for thinking is local. Therefore, from a bottom-up perspective, biodiversity might also be a driving force for regulating the agricultural markets. A relevant question would be, for example, how the integration of biodiversity in the CAP could change the terms of negotiation in WTO (by reducing the exports) instead of considering WTO as a constraint going against biodiversity goals. There is a room for policy analysis from this perspective. This type of change is all the more important, since the scientific community greatly influence the policy community by saying what is scientifically defensible and what is not. But this question has also to be considered from the policy community perspective as well because policy influences the researches "simply" by deciding what is funded. I observed in the French context how this reciprocity might lead to a conservative state [6], because the dominant conservative actors do not have the will to fund researches re-opening the range of possibilities. Researchers may also anticipate this possibility and in response appeal to the demand of public payers. This irrefutable judgement opens on two last conclusive remarks. The first there is a need for more pro-active and future oriented research towards the integration of biodiversity in the CAP. Many works perfectly describes what happened in the past "the Jeremiah's of the past." But one can also firm up his work in a future study context, re-opening the policy options and their conditions of occurrence. Proposing and discussing scenarios is the role of research, as is the role of policymakers and stakeholders to decide. This is a way to take into account the dynamic dimension of the biodiversity issue as we tried to shortly describe. The last conclusive remarks deal with the institutional management of research. The above survey showed that considerable research work in the areas of agriculture and biodiversity exists and is going forward. Research teams with institutional mix are currently conducting such works: but also by independent experts (the role of the Institute for Environmental European Policy might be reminded here for instance) and members of various ministries. The existence of forums where policy issues are debated from various points is necessary. A wider funding of such experience that is generally out of the standard of research funding based on academic excellence could be of great utility in order to reach a "critical mass" at European scale. In this last perspective, we may say that there exists a geography of research. In the European context, UK, Germany and the Netherlands are undoubtedly the leaders in agri-environment policy analysis. Speaking from the French viewpoint, such works are insufficiently known and debated in the scientific community and, all the more, in the policy one. It is a pity from the scientific point of view, but it is also a pity from the policy reform viewpoint, considering the political influence of France in the CAP debate. I do not mean here that a scientific "imperialism" is the right way to go, as every member state has its own approach of agriculture and biodiversity. I mean that a wider network approach in the framing of research may contribute to a better integration of biodiversity in the CAP as a whole.

References [1] IEEP (1994) The nature of farming, WWF, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 66 p. [2] CE (2002) Plan d'action en faveur de la biodiversite biologique (Biodiversity Action Plan BAP) http://biodiversity-chm.eea.eu.int/convention/cbd_ec/strategy/BAP_html [3] IEEP (2001) From planning to action : presenting the Biodiversity Action Plan for the European Community, Brussels, 22 Mai 2001.

60


[4] EEA (2002) Agriculture and biodiversity in Europe, "High-Level Pan-European Conference on Agriculture and Biodiversity: towards integrating biological and landscape diversity for sustainable agriculture in Europe," Unesco; Paris, France, 5-7 June 2002; Working paper, MATE, France. [5] Lowe P. and Brouwer F. (2000) Agenda 2000: A wasted opportunity? In Brouwer F. and Lowe P. (Eds) CAP regimes and the European Countryside: Prospects for Integration between Agricultural, Regional and Environmental Policies. Wallingford, CABI Publishing, pp. 321-334. [6] Mermet L., Poux X. (1999) Les recherches francaises a I'interface agriculture et biodiversite. Rapport au MATE. ENGREF, Paris. [7] Mermet L., Poux X. (2000) Recherches et actions publiques a I'interface agriculture et biodiversite : comment deplacer le front du debat ? CE INRA, octobre 2000, pp 43-56. [8] Shortel J.S., Abler D.G, Ribaudo M. (2001) Agriculture and water quality: the issues In Environmental policies for agricultural pollution control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon UK. [9] Sebillotte, M. (1996). Les mondes de {'agriculture, une recherche pour demain. Sciences en questions. Paris, INRA Editions. [10] Mazoyer, M. and L. Roudart. (1997). Histoire des agricultures du monde : du neolithique a la crise contemporaine. Paris, Seuil. [11] Delache X. (2001) Multifonctionnalite de I'agriculture: cadre d'analyse et articulation avec les instruments d'integration agriculture-environnement. "High-Level Pan-European Conference on Agriculture and Biodiversity: towards integrating biological and landscape diversity for sustainable agriculture in Europe," Unesco; Paris, France, 5-7 June 2002; Working paper, MATE, France. [12] European Commission (1999) Agriculture, environment, rural development : facts and figure. A challenge for agriculture. Report DGVI, DG XI and Eurostat. [13] Brouwer F., Baldock D., la Chapelle C. (Coord.) (2001) Agriculture and Nature Conservation in the Candidate Countries: perspectives in interaction. LEI, The Hague. 59 p. [14] Poux, X. (1999): Influence de la PAC sur les risques de pollution agricole- bilan et perspectives. " CAP Reform and the Protection of Water, Soil and Air," London, DETR-Environment Agency, IEEP, 22 February 1999. [15] European Commission (1998) Agriculture in the European Union - statistical and economic information. EC- DG VI Agriculture. [16] Lowe P. and Baldock D. (2000) Integration of Environmental Objectives into Agricultural Policy Making In Brouwer F. and Lowe P. (Eds) CAP regimes and the European Countryside: Prospects for Integration between Agricultural, Regional and Environmental Policies. Wallingford, CABI Publishing, pp. 31-52. [17] Poux X. (2001) Entreprendre 1'evaluation environnementale de la PAC. Responsabilite en environnement, juillet 2001. pp 72-85. [18] Potter C. (1999) Agricultural liberalisation and the 'double dividend' In Redclift M.R., Lekakis J.N. and Zanias G.P. (Eds) Agriculture and World Trade Liberalisation. Wallingford CABI Publishing, pp. 88-103. [19] Billaud (Ed) (2002) L'experience agri-environnementale Francaise, MATE, la Documentation francaise, Paris. [20] Buckwell A. (1997) Towards a Common Agricultural and Rural Policy for Europe, European Economy. Reports and Studies N°5, Brussels, Belgium. [21] Mahe L.-P and Ortalo Magne F. (2001) Politique agricole: un modele Europeen. Paris, Presses de Sciences Po. [22] CEAS Centre for European Agricultural Studies & European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism (1997) Possible options for the better integration of environmental concerns into the various systems of support for animal products, rapport a la DG XI. [23] Fouilleux E (1996) La cogestion a la francaise a I'epreuve de I'Europe, I'exemple de la PAC. CERAT IEP Grenoble, 99 p. [24] Winters L. (1987) The political economy of the agricultural policy of industrial countries. European Review of Agricultural Economics 14(3), pp. 285-304.

SECTION 2 WHAT ARE THE THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY ON RURAL LANDSCAPES? Ideas lead change. If you want to influence the future, you have to have ideas about the future; and the only thing harder than creating new ideas is getting rid of the ones that don't work any longer. Global change is generating volatilities, irregularities, discontinuities that are proliferating rather than diminishing. The reverberations are being felt on every rural landscape. The growing state of rural instability is eliciting policy responses that seek to avoid or deny or confuse the situation by attempting to stretch conventional solutions to novel circumstances that require fundamentally new responses. This section of the book attempts to move beyond the political pabulum of past and the stark reality on the other that "we don't know where we are and what will work for sure," to explore theory, tools and infrastructure in practice for this unprecedented and unavoidable era; offering integrated, systemic, and authentic responses that address needs for sustainability - acknowledging that ecologically sustainable solutions must also be mutually beneficial for the economy and community as well.



63

Institutional Innovation and Adaptive Management: Learning from Bolivia's Decentralization Experiment Krister ANDERSSON2 and Marco A. JANSSEN1 'Center for the Study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change (CIPEC) 2 Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to present and illustrate the usefulness of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework for identifying the institutional conditions that are conducive for adaptive management. Drawing from the literature on adaptive management, the authors use the framework to formulate a series of testable hypotheses about what institutional factors seem to influence the likelihood for successful governance outcomes in a decentralized context. We test the hypotheses using recent empirical data from 50 municipal governments in Bolivia. The results of these tests suggest that local governance actors are seldom successful on their own, and that the more information that is exchanged between actors at different governance levels, i.e. national, regional, municipal, and community, the higher the likelihood that forest users will rank municipal forest services as satisfactory. In municipalities where governance actors have created a governance system with a high level of information exchange, there is also significantly less uncontrolled resource degradation. These findings reaffirm one of the fundamental principles of adaptive management: that the capacity of individuals to learn about the effects of past and current activities is instrumental to becoming effective natural resource stewards.

Introduction The governing of common natural resources is increasingly affected by multiple stakeholders using different types of ecosystem services. The complexity of natural resource management has been increased since stakeholders from multiple levels of scale become part of the debate on resource management. There has also been an increasing insight in the non-linear complex dynamics of ecosystems at different levels of scale [1]. Top-down management of natural resources focused on optimal control and a uniform approach aimed at engineering of the natural environment is generally not the proper management strategy for the longer term [2]. There is a need to harness complexity of the social-ecological systems. If we lack knowledge and control to engineer natural resources, we need to find new ways to manage common natural resources. Institutional innovation with regard to environmental management is required, and therefore we have to experiment with new types of institutional arrangements. Lee [3] argued: "policies are experiments; learn from them" [author's emphasis], and this is precisely the topic of our paper. We will discuss how one may benefit from policy experiments to learn how we might better fit institutions and ecological dynamics. This is known as adaptive management [4,5]. In most applications of adaptive management the focus is on learning the dynamics

64

K. Andersson and MA. Janssen / Institutional Innovation and Adaptive Management

of ecosystems. The experiments are new ways of resource management to understand the relation between human activities and ecological dynamics. In this paper we focus on experiments on institutional arrangements related to natural resource management. Even if we know the essential dynamics of the ecosystem, we still lack sufficient insight as to how we could create incentives such that societies manage their common resources in a sustainable way. We are especially interested in institutional arrangements that foster resilience and adaptive capacity of the system. Resilience is the ability of a system to cope with disturbances without changing the configuration of the system in a fundamental way. Adaptive capacity is the ability of actors in a system to create novel solutions for their challenges. Although both concepts overlap, one important difference is that actors with adaptive capacity can on purpose reduce the resilience of a system to get out of a gridlock situation into a more desired configuration of the system. The challenge for governance is to provide the conditions that actors built up adaptive capacity to maintain the resilience of desired configurations of the system. From analyzing case studies and different types of natural systems, a number of system characteristics emerge as being crucial conditions for actors to govern their common resources in a sustainable way. From an institutional perspective, Ostrom [6] identifies a number of factors important for sustainable use of common resources such as the similarity of the appropriators, the active role of local appropriators, and the use of gradual sanctions. Although the system conditions creating adaptive capacity might be clear from a theoretical perspective, clear approaches as to how to carry this out in different contexts is lacking. In this paper we discuss a possible approach that may provide the right conditions: decentralization. The expectation is that decentralization, which in a way split a system up into modules, provides the conditions that local governance can adapt to the local circumstances. By loose interactions between the decentralized regions, the regions may learn from experience and experiments of others and implement that in their own way in their own region. A large number of countries have decentralized some aspects of how they manage their natural resources, with mixed results [7-10]. However, systematic monitoring of the consequences of decentralization, both at the national and subnational levels, has become one of the lacunas in the decentralization process. In line with adaptive management such decentralization policies might be seen as experiments, and hypotheses formulated at the beginning of the institutional reform need to be carefully monitored and tested empirically as the policy results emerge. Decentralization might be especially suitable for adaptive management since its implementation is essentially a series of parallel experiments in a wide variety of different regions and institutional configurations. As such, a decentralized context is an excellent field laboratory well suited for learning about natural resource policy. To fully benefit from this learning so that actors can move towards a better fit between their institutional arrangements and ecosystem dynamics, the learning needs to take place across at least two dimensions: (i) vertically, between higher and lower levels of governmental authorities; and (ii) horizontally, between actors that function at the same level of authority (i.e., municipal governments, citizens, NGOs, etc.). While there are many theoretical advantages associated with decentralized natural resource governance, there are also a number of potential pitfalls with a decentralized system. A prominent problem is that some stakeholders benefit from not disseminating information and thus blocking the learning by others. Valuable information may be perceived as a threat to some actors who will try to conceal information and will not pass the desk of some officers or politicians. It is sometimes not in their interest to provide society with the full information of the consequences of institutional reforms. Another potential problem is that governmental bureaucrats lack incentives to experiment, especially

K. Andersson and M.A. Janssen / Institutional Innovation and Adaptive Management

65

when they are held responsible for failures. Therefore, new incentive structures are needed that reward careful experiments. Finally, a crucial element of benefiting from a decentralization experiment is the social learning between different regions. In this paper we will use the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to analyze an actual policy experiment: the decentralization reform in Bolivia's forestry sector, which was initiated in the mid-1990s. On the basis of our institutional analysis, we discuss some of the potential advantages as well as risks associated with decentralized natural resource management in general. We use the IAD framework to formulate a series of hypotheses and identify critical variables to be used in empirical testing. We test the hypotheses and find that effective decentralized governance of natural resources is associated with the local conditions for horizontal information exchange and learning by local governance actors. We end with a discussion of the importance of both horizontal and vertical learning from the decentralization experiments, especially at the national level (through creative use of monitoring and evaluation programs) and at the international level (through comparative analysis).

1. Decentralization: What is it, what is it good for, and what is it not good for? Decentralization is understood as the "the assignment of fiscal political and administrative responsibilities to lower levels of government [11]." In this study, decentralization refers to government functions only and, therefore, does not include privatization. Because of the particular emphasis that the Bolivian reformers assign to the role of municipal governments, the main focus of this study is on the municipal mandate in the forestry sector. The literature on both decentralization and natural resource management speak of many potential advantages of a decentralized regime for the governance of natural resources. Among the most frequently cited advantages are more accountable government [12-14]; incorporation of local knowledge into government problem solving [15,16]; more civil participation in governance activities [17]; more responsive government administration [18,19]; better match of public services to local needs [18]; facilitating self governance [20-22]; and faster and better learning about ecosystem characteristics [2]. Less common in the decentralization literature concerning natural resource management are the potential pitfalls that decentralization represents. Yet, in countries where the central government has failed in delivering efficient and effective public goods and services to its citizens, one can expect that some of the same reasons that led to central government failure may also threaten the successful performance of local governments. The problems of producing collective goods and services, whether they take place on aggregate, national levels or disaggregated subnational levels, are faced with several difficult social dilemmas. A social dilemma is a situation in which a group of actors try to act in their common interest to produce a collective good, but their pursuit of self-interest detracts from their commitments to the common goal and, thus, the cooperative effort is threatened. Whether a national or subnational governance system, both need to find ways to motivate officials and other governance actors to function in the public's interest and constrain their temptations to use their position of power and privilege to further their personal selfinterest. Unless the governance system is able to devise the institutions that can counteract such unproductive disincentives, successful governance is not likely to occur, neither at the national nor the subnational level. From a theoretical perspective, then, we have reasons to be wary of the claimed advantages of decentralization. The risk of counterproductive outcomes seems particularly high when we have a highly segregated political tradition in which a small political elite has

66


been able to protect its privileged status in society [23,24]. The relative power of such groups is likely to increase through decentralization, as it would give them more unrestrained freedom to pursue their interest. This in turn could lead to less equity, more conflicts, and deteriorating collective goods for others than the privileged class. For forestdependent rural communities, decentralization may bring important opportunities to get more public services to help them solve common problems, but the delivery of this promise depends on the performance of the local institutions in place. The institutional analysis in this paper aims to identify the factors that explain whether these institutions are likely to develop in any given situation. On balance, there seems to be both potential advantages and potential disadvantages associated with the decentralization of governance responsibilities in natural resource management. A decentralization process that yields successful outcomes is far from an automatic process. Decentralization reform should be seen as an experiment from which we should seek to learn about what particular factors are conducive for successful decentralized governance of natural resources in different contexts. This paper looks specifically at the importance for local governance actors to engage in local-level learning about natural resource management. This has been a theme developed in the literature of adaptive management, but relatively little empirical research has addressed this issue. The Bolivian decentralization experiment in its forestry sector provides an exceptionally wellsuited natural experiment for this purpose. 2. Why Bolivia? Several factors make Bolivia a most appropriate country for the study of decentralization reforms. First, while many other countries in Latin America have introduced decentralization reforms in the natural resource management sectors, no other country has carried this process as far as Bolivia [8]. The country's 1994 Popular Participation Law devolved a broad range of responsibilities, functions, and political decisions over education, health, urban infrastructure, and natural resource management. The central government also transferred approximately 20 percent of the national government budget to carry out the municipal government decisions. The 1996 Forestry Law gave municipal governments direct control over 25 percent of centrally collected royalties from commercial logging concessions within each municipal territory. In return, the decentralized regime asks municipal governments to perform a series of public service functions in the forestry sector. Second, Bolivia's rich natural resource base is undergoing rapid changes. This means that one can expect to find large variances in the patterns of land-use change in the different municipal territories. The fast pace of land-cover change is especially evident in the country's tropical lowlands. Third, Bolivia has gained an international reputation as a decentralization success story [25]. Since this study is particularly interested in understanding learning processes, and why some municipal governments do better than others, it is important that at least some success stories at the municipal level can be identified. Finally, there is a growing number of national and international scholars who study the results of the decentralization reforms in Bolivia, and an important body of empirical literature is beginning to emerge (see, for example, [7,23,26-39]).

3. The Bolivian Decentralization Reforms Through the decentralization reforms in the mid 1990s, municipal governments became a


67

tour deforce in Bolivian politics. Most of the current municipal governments did not even exist before 1994, and the ones that did played mostly a symbolic role in the local political arena. In pre-reform Bolivia, municipal governments were essentially small, voluntary urban organizations without any significant political power, financial resources, or a clearly defined jurisdiction. Many of them had very few formal obligations to the central government and the citizens. That all changed with the reforms in 1994, when the central government began to transfer political decision-making competence and financial resources to municipal governments. Starting in 1994, President Sanchez de Lozada's government introduced a series of decentralization reforms that would radically change the country's political structure. The Law of Popular Participation (1994), the Law of Decentralized Administration (1995), and the Law of Municipalities (1999) define the extent and content of the municipal government's mandate. In the decentralized regime, 314 municipal governments have been given the formal political competence and financial instruments to carry out a mix of centrally and locally defined priorities and political programs. In 1994, just after the Law of Popular Participation was passed, many municipal governments' annual operating budgets increased by as much as a thousand percent, and more than a few went from a zero budget to tens of thousands of dollars in available resources, practically overnight. For instance, the 41 rural municipalities in the Department of Cochabamba increased their annual budgets by an average of 1,310 percent from 1993 to 1994, and by 259 percent from 1994 to 1998 [40]. In addition to the intragovernmental financial transfers, each municipality may levy taxes on motor vehicles, all urban property, and large rural properties (50 ha and larger), although the contribution of the municipalitylevied taxes has been minimal for most rural administrations. However, municipal governments may not levy their own taxes on operations in the forestry sector, and they are not allowed to ask for user fees when providing public services in the sector1. The 1996 Forestry Law lays out the broad mandate of the municipal governments in the forestry sector. These are discussed in more detail in the section that follows.

4. Decentralization of Forestry Sector Governance According to Bolivia's decentralized forestry regime, the main duties of municipal governments are related to the monitoring and enforcement of formal rules prescribed by the Forestry Law. Municipal governments are responsible for identifying and demarcating public forested lands in the municipal territory, which should be used exclusively for local communities. The Forestry Law also asks municipal governments to provide technical assistance to local forest users to develop forest management plans and to help local users acquire formal forest property rights [41]. As long as municipalities comply with the overall formal mandate, they are free to adopt their own strategies for how to meet the exigencies of forest users in their jurisdictions, as long as these strategies do not conflict with the formal forestry regime. The formal municipal mandate, which defines what specific services municipal governments are to provide in the forestry sector, is summarized in Table 1. The 1996 Forestry Law indicates that municipalities that receive forestry royalties must, within six months of the receipt of these funds, create, staff, and equip a Municipal Forestry Unit [41]. However, out of the 109 municipal governments that receive some forestry royalties, only about half provide some level of services and less than ten percent completely satisfy the requirements of the formal mandate [27, citing 42]. The observation 1 Note, however, that some municipalities have been known to break this rule and have chosen to both tax and fine users as they see fit.

68

K. Andersson and M.A. Janssen/ Institutional Innovation and Adaptive Management

Ministry of Sustainable Development Demarcation of municipal approves or rejects the application reserves to be assigned as and, if approved, asks municipal community concessions for government to assist the user group in local user groups in up to 25% of the territory's forested developing a management plan. land. Municipal government. Inspect and control all forestry activities within the territorial jurisdiction. SF decides how to react to the Report violations of the forestry law and any other reported violation and what sanction to impose, if any. governmental regulations. ' ' • > _ ; ^ ? Technical advice to local user Municipal government decides what input to give but SF approves or groups and indigenous territories for management rejects management plans. plans. Municipal government. Set up a municipal database with forest resources in the municipal government. Training for user groups Municipal government. Municipal government. Facilitate and promote commercial undertakings and private sector participation in forestry. Source: Authors' elaboration based on the 1996 Forestry Law and the 1994 Popular Participation Law.

begs the question whether municipal government officials in Bolivia are at all willing to shoulder their responsibility to get involved in the governance of forest resources? And even if they are willing, are they able to manage the forestry sector issues in the best interest of the collectivity of forest users within their territory? These are two issues of central importance for the success of the decentralized regime and will be analyzed with the help of the IAD framework. 5. Institutional Analysis of Decentralized Governance The governance of natural resources involves many actors with complex relationships between them. The behavior of these actors is affected by a multitude of factors and conditions. Any effort of trying to identify some of the most essential determinants of successful governance of natural resources needs to be structured in a way so that testable hypotheses can be formulated. The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, developed by colleagues at Indiana University, provides guidance and structure to such efforts. Below, we use the questions suggested by the IAD framework to frame our empirical inquiry concerning uncovering the drivers of decentralized forest governance outcomes in Bolivia2.

5.7 What is the action arena? The very first step in an institutional analysis is to establish the boundaries of the analysis: identify the action arena. To identify the factors that influence the variation in local 2

For a more in-depth presentation of the IAD framework, see [43-47].

K. Andersson andM.A. Janssen/Institutional Innovation and Adaptive Management

69

government success in a country's forestry sector, the action arena should be defined as the forestry sector, or even the forestry sector in a particular part of the country or level of governance, depending on how specific the researcher wants the analysis to be. 5.2 Who are the actors? Once the general arena is defined, the main actors are identified. In this case, the governance outcome in Bolivia's forestry sector depends on the behavior of several different crucial actors, including private landholders, rural community groups, forest user groups, NGOs, externally funded project representatives, municipal governments, central government agents, private forestry firms, among others. In what action situations do actors participate? The different groups of actors interact to produce the collective goods and services that make up forest governance. Central government representatives may, for example, decide to devolve responsibilities to municipal governments as they are believed to be able to perform these responsibilities more efficiently. The action situation refers to the specific type of interaction these actors engage in to arrive at such a decision. Another example of an action situation is the possible conflict situations that may arise between different forest user groups with unclear boundaries, or forest property rights. The behavior of each of the actors in these action situations can be explained in terms of a set of contextual factors, which the IAD framework breaks up into three main categories: (1) physical conditions, (2) community attributes, and (3) rules-in-use.

Figure 1. The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. Source: [44]

5.3 Physical Context: What is the Nature of the Good? Perhaps the most important issue in institutional analysis is to define the nature of the good that is involved in the action situation. At a most fundamental level, the general characteristics of the country's forest resources frequently resemble a loosely regulated common-pool resource (CPR) (high subtractability, low excludability) and such a characterization defines the physical conditions of the action arena's context. Prior theoretical knowledge of CPRs suggests that human institutions are needed in order to prevent a "tragedy of the commons-outcome" - a situation in which individual forest users

70


are unable to refrain from the temptation to pursue their narrowly defined, short-term, selfinterest, which in the end results in the destruction of the resource. Collective action institutions are needed to stymie this short-term self-interest. The governance of forest resources, therefore, aims at providing the institutions necessary to ensure the constraining of the individual, short-term incentive to overharvest. The traditional way of providing these institutions has been for central government to introduce command and control rules, or privatization of the forests. However, both of these traditional policy remedies have proven to be unsuccessful, especially in developing countries, in regulating access and enforcing exclusion rights to forests [48]. Yet, the provision of the required human institutions, or set of agreed-upon rules, to solve the CPR dilemma is far from a straightforward process. The establishment of human institutions is subject to its own set of social dilemmas. Participants in this process also face an incentive not to contribute to the sometimes costly set of activities required to agree on the new rules, modes of enforcement, sanctions, etc. Ostrom [6] notes that in self-organized efforts to solve CPR dilemmas, actors face a threetiered social dilemma. First, actors interested in solving the social dilemma need to be motivated to contribute to the solution of the dilemma: they need to cooperate with a suggested solution or the dilemma will not get solved. Secondly, if motivated, the actors need to acquire the necessary information and agree on a rule modification. Finally, even if the actors have gotten this far they need to be able to enforce the modified rule effectively, or the effort will not have worked to modify the group's behavior [6].

5.4 Community Attributes: How do actors associate in forestry? The physical conditions of the context sets the stage for the community attributes. Under the community attributes heading we examine how actors within and between clusters of actors relate to each other. We consider the historical background, culture, religion, values, beliefs, socioeconomic needs, and other social characteristics of the groups defined as the main actors. If groups of actors engage they share a history of repeated interactions with mutually beneficial outcomes, chances are that trust has developed in their relationship, which in all likelihood will facilitate the solution of the social dilemma.

5.5 What are the rules-in-use? The rules-in-use refer to the norms and rules that are actually respected by the actors participating in an action situation. These are the most important independent variables in an institutional analysis, because these rules ultimately determine the behavior of actors, and thus generate the incentives that each actor faces in an action situation. The focus on the rules-in-use requires the institutional analyst to rely on first-hand field observations, rather than secondary data about formal rules. It is what is actually acted upon that counts when documenting rules-in-use, not just what is written (the rules-in-form). The most important question that the analyst should ask is whether the observed rules-in-use are likely to be sufficient to solve the three-tiered social dilemma that is associated with successful forest governance. Whatever the answer to that question is, the multiple interactions in the different action situations in the action arena create patterns of interaction which, over time, result in predictable outcomes. By studying these patterns of interactions, one can identify the institutional incentives of the different actors in a given action situation. Because of the explicit design of the framework, these incentives can be traced back to specific contextual factors that seem to generate the observed incentives. The


11

outcome may be evaluated with different criteria of interest, such as rural sustainability, equity, efficiency, and/or effectiveness. The process is reiterative, as whatever outcome results, it will affect the contextual variables as well as the action arena in future interactions between actors. The opportunity of actors to learn from experience of others depends on the social connectivity among the relevant actors. From organization learning, we know that information diffuses by three broad processes [49]: (1) diffusion from a single source like governmental agencies and professional organizations; (2) individual interactions such as consultants and movement of actors; and (3) a normative process through experts and through trade and popular publications. 5.6 Mapping the Information Flows The IAD framework-guided analysis explicitly relates the information available to different groups of actors and asks the researcher to characterize the flow of information between actors in the action arena. We try to answer two main questions in this part of the analysis: Who has access to what information? And, to what extent is the flow of information transparent to others? Here we consider three different dimensions of information flow: 1. Downward flow - e.g., a central government agent or national expert informs local government representatives or citizens about decisions or new knowledge. Without a constant downward flow of information, local people will not be able to learn about formal government rules that may (or may not) protect their rights to natural resource management, or available government programs that they can benefit from. Citizens also need a transparent downward flow of information to learn about government officials' performance in order to hold such officials accountable [7,13,50]. When there is a transparent downward flow of information, citizens are in a better position to engage in upward learning, that is, learning about what is going on at a higher level of the governance hierarchy. 2. Upward flow - e.g., government officials learn about local conditions, problems, and needs. With an effective upward flow of information, conceivably through recurrent meetings between government officials and local people, government officials at both local and national levels will be in a position to differentiate policy interventions according to important local variations [21,51-53]. Government officials can improve the upward flow of information about local conditions by inviting stakeholders to participate in policy decision making [54-58]. When there is a transparent upward flow of information, government actors are in a better position to engage in downward learning, that is, government officials can learn about the local realities. 3. Horizontal flow - e.g., a group of local farmers travel to a neighboring village to learn about how they were able to access technical assistance from a governmental agency. Farmer-to-farmer extension activities represent another example of horizontal learning. Within a local cluster, information barriers are often less constraining, making information sharing within each cluster relatively easy. This internal homogeneity in information makes the possibility to derive information from outside the cluster even more important, as such contacts might generate new ideas and new learning experiences [59]. The links with the outside may be strong and formal in character, but sometimes weak, informal links can be just as important. Granovetter [60] recognized the strength of such "weak links" after identifying their pivotal importance in a case study on job search. Within the perspective of decentralization this means that municipalities should benefit from

72


experience in other municipalities by exchanging information on successes and failures in forestry governance. Such exchange might be facilitated by information sources of the government or meetings of representatives of the municipalities. The institutional analysis leads us to conclude that if successful municipal governance of forests is to emerge from the Bolivian experiment, the actors at the municipal level need to organize themselves as to share essential information about resource management activities and results. We formulate a hypothesis as to what factors determine whether municipal actors in Bolivia are likely to organize themselves in this manner. Then we test each of the hypotheses empirically using field data from 50 randomly selected municipalities in Bolivia. Hypothesis 1: Learning and agreeing on rules The stronger the municipal-level institutions for information sharing between local actors, the higher the perceived quality of municipal forestry services. Hypothesis 2: Monitoring and enforcement of agreed-upon rules The more developed the local institutions for monitoring and enforcement are, the better the conditions of the municipality's forests, ceteris paribus. 6. Empirical Methods To test these hypotheses, we draw on extensive fieldwork in the Bolivian Lowlands, which was carried out in 2000-2001. Fieldwork consisted primarily of in-depth interviews with forestry sector actors in a representative sample of 50 municipalities in the Bolivian Lowlands (which holds two-thirds of the country's forest resources). Interviews were structured to record the different actors' perceptions about the relationship with each other and with other actors, such as central government agencies, forest user groups, NGOs, and private-sector actors operating within the forestry sector. In each of the 50 municipalities, three different actors were interviewed: (1) the mayor who held office between 1996 and 19993, (2) the municipal forestry officer, and (3) the president of the municipal oversight committee, a group consisting of representatives from the rural communities of the municipal territory. The relationships between the institutional variables and the different outcome variables were then examined using mostly quantitative analytical methods, such as non-linear regression analysis and non-parametric statistics techniques. 7. Results Why are some decentralized modules more successful than others in the services they provide? This paper suggests that the local modules' adaptive capacity is a critical factor as the local actors must be able to learn what to do and how to do it effectively. The hypothesis is that the conditions for three different types of learning at the local level determine how effective the municipal governance system is. This hypothesis is tested by carrying out a logit regression analysis in which variables measuring the conditions for the following types of learning are included: 1. Downward learning - The conditions for government officials engaging in 3

The survey used in the interview with the mayor is almost identical to the survey developed by Gibson and Lehoucq (forthcoming) for their research in Guatemala.

K, Andersson and M.A. Janssen / Institutional Innovation and Adaptive Management

73

downward learning about local conditions are associated with the transparency of the upward flow of information. This index was created with variables that measure the frequency of field visits by municipal forestry staff, the amount of time that municipal officers spend in the field every month, the turnover rate of municipal staff, and the municipal forestry unit's access to transportation. This aspect of learning is essential for institutional innovation since the government agent may stimulate other groups to learn as he or she communicates what other local groups are doing and how they have organized themselves. This is an example of how downward learning may lead to upward learning. 2. Upward learning - The conditions for upward learning users learning about government programs, formal rules, and government officials' performance relate to the transparency of the downward flow of information. The upward learning index is composed of variables measuring the frequency of meetings between forest user groups and municipal and central government agency officials concerning forestry issues. The idea here is that the more frequent contacts there are between these actors the more information is exchanged. Such hierarchically vertical information exchange seems essential for making accountability mechanisms work locally [24,61]. 3. Horizontal learning - The conditions for horizontal learning correspond to the predisposition of local actors to learn about each other's activities. This index incorporates variable measures of the frequency of contacts between different municipal governments, and between the municipal forestry unit and other actors that undertake forestry related activities in the municipal territory, such as NGOs, international development projects, as well as central government agencies and municipal governments. Such horizontal learning among municipal-level actors seems essential for coordination and institutional innovation, especially when it comes to addressing management issues that overlap the boundaries of several municipalities. These variables are five steps ordinal variables that are regressed on the user groups' perceived quality of services in each of the 33 municipalities that provided forestryrelated services in 1999. Results in Figure 2 suggest that all three variables are significantly and positively affecting the probability of users perceiving governance success. Also, the modules that had constructed institutions to deal with these problems did relatively well in terms of user satisfaction. However, this result says little about the effects of the collective goods on the condition of the forests. Maybe, users wanted less forest and that is why they were satisfied with the municipality's performance. To rule out this possibility, a second empirical test was carried out in which the user satisfaction variable was replaced with a proxy measure for local forest conditions: an index of uncontrolled deforestation4. Is it possible to discern the ecological footprint of local governance performance? Andersson [7] set out to do so in a recent study from the Department of Santa Cruz in Bolivia. The author found that when measuring forest conditions in terms of absolute deforestation rates for each municipality (1993-2000), no significant relationship was found between the level of institutional development and deforestation. However, a significant relationship did emerge when crude deforestation rates were replaced by a measure of uncontrolled deforestation rates. This measure was calculated by subtracting the area of government authorized deforestation (in accordance with the official land use plan) from the total deforested area for the time period. The rejection of crude deforestation rates as a 4

For a more thorough analysis of the influence of these aspects of learning on the probability of successful municipal governance of forest resources, see Andersson [7].

74


Figure 2. Logit Regression Results on Learning

measure of forest condition is based on the notion that not all deforestation is necessarily unsustainable. Even though rural sustainability is not just about trees, and while it does include criteria for ecological protection, such criteria have to be put in relation to the social fairness and economic feasibility dimensions of rural sustainability. The results of the regression analysis show that there is a significant and negative relationship between the institutional conditions for effective learning and uncontrolled deforestation rates. Municipalities with stronger institutions for dealing with the collective dilemmas associated with forest governance have, on average, a 12 percent lower uncontrolled deforestation rate than those municipalities with weak or missing institutions for learning.

8. Discussion of Results The institutional analysis suggests that the success of decentralized governance rests on the institutional incentives for exploration and learning. The incentives may be seen as an underlying structure that influences the predisposition of actors to engage in learning. This is not to say that other factors, such as personality and monetary resources, would not also influence the likelihood of successful governance outcomes. In fact, among the 50 cases included in this analysis, there were at least three municipalities in which the local conditions for learning were far from optimal but where the municipal government had achieved considerable success. The success was at least in part attributable to the personal leadership of the mayor and other key actors. On the other hand, there were even more examples of municipalities in which the professional municipal staff and even the mayor were personally motivated to take action in the forestry sector, but where the local conditions were not supportive of taking such action, stilling the municipal actors' intentions to address forestry sector issues. The most common institutional hurdle to successful municipal governance of forest resources was the extremely high turnover rates of both mayors and municipal professional staff. During 2000, the latter had an average professional life expectancy of just 11.5 months [7]. Under such circumstances, not even the most committed and charismatic local leader will be likely to generate much successful results. The conditions for three different aspects of learning explain why some


75

municipalities are more successful than others. Note that this measure of success is derived from the perception of local community organizations and does not necessarily coincidence with the goals of the national government. With regard to enforcement, we can conclude that municipalities with stronger institutions dealing with collective action problems have less uncontrolled deforestation. The notion of uncontrolled deforestation is important since deforestation itself is not a good indicator of the effect of institutions. Thus the ecological footprint of institutional performance is only detectable if a context-sensitive measure of sustainability is employed. The analysis illustrates the usefulness of considering a wide variety of cases, rather than just including successful cases, in the analysis. This gives a more robust character to findings and the underlying causal mechanisms. It is important to include both failures and successes in one analysis instead of only gathering impacts of successfully implemented decentralization programs. The factors that seem associated with successful municipal forest governance could constitute the basic building blocks of a national monitoring program, designed to learn about the causes and effects of the decentralized governance experiments.

9. Conclusions What can we say about the implications of decentralization and the design of future decentralization experiments? The level of governance (the size of the provision and production units) should be defined by the boundaries of the particular problem that one wishes to address. When the scale of the environmental problem, like river catchment areas, goes beyond the boundaries of the municipal territory or whatever administrative unit, that local unit will have difficulties solving that problem unilaterally. The success of solving some problems of natural resource governance rests on the capacity of the system to coprovide and co-produce between different complementary levels of governance - local, regional, and national. For optimal results in a polycentric system, each level of governance produces what they provide and produce best. For instance, in many contexts such as property rights security and regulatory stability, control and coercive enforcement can often not be delivered effectively by local entities alone but require active backup by a credible threat and endorsement from the central powers of government. For accountability to work, checks and balances between different levels of government seem crucial. Incorporating local knowledge and aggregating local user preferences into policies and public services seem most appropriately and efficiently done at the local levels of governance. We expect that the success of decentralization processes depends on the design of incentives to experiment and learn. Obviously, local successes depend on the abilities of the local actors, but the institutional arrangements provide the opportunities or barriers of entrepreneurs to bloom. Furthermore, policy changes are experiments and may benefit from it by more systematic monitoring and analysis. Institutions at national and international levels need to be developed that can stimulate learning between municipalities and between nations in order to improve our understanding of what are the conditions for successful decentralization processes. Due to the transitions in socioeconomic development in contemporary Eastern Europe, institutional arrangements have changed significantly. As other chapters in this book illustrate, there has been a high amount of experimentation of new ways of governance. A new phase in the transition of institutional development will be the expected inclusion of various Eastern European countries within the European Union. This might provide important new opportunities for deriving knowledge and exchanging experience in developing institutions for environmental conservation. However, we also anticipate a

76


potential threads; namely, the central control of the European Union might reduce the opportunity to experiment with new ways of governance. But as we have stressed in this paper, decentralization processes can be successful for environmental conservation if we take into account the notion that it is essential that experimentation is possible and that regions can learn from each other's experiments. Finally, the IAD framework has proven to be a powerful analytical tool, especially when studying how local contextual variations influence natural resource governance outcomes. For the study of adaptive management, the IAD framework may be favorably used for a variety of tasks such as (1) diagnosing the local context in new sites and using this information to select the sites where the conditions are adequate for participatory action research; (2) identifying conditions conducive to good natural resource governance; and (3) structuring our efforts to monitor and learn about the impact of past and current policy interventions on rural sustainability. References [I] Gunderson, L.H. and C.S. Holling (eds.) 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington DC: Island Press. [2] Ostrom, E. and M.A. Janssen 2002. Beliefs, Multi-level governance, and development, 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August 29September 1,2002. [3] Lee, K. 1993. Compass and the Gyroscope, Washington, D.C: Island Press. [4] Holling, C.S. (Ed.) 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York, NY: John Wiley. [5] Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources, Macmilland, New York. [6] Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, NY. [7] Andersson, K. 2002. Can Decentralization Save Bolivia's Forests? An Institutional Analysis of Municipal Governance of Forest Resources. Ph. D. Diss. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. [8] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1999. State of the World's Forests 1999. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [9] Burki, S. J., Perry, G. E., and W.R. Dillinger. 1999. Beyond the Center: Decentralizing the State. Washington, DC: The World Bank. [10] Silva, E., Kaimovitz, D., Bojanic, A., Ekoko, F., Manurung, T. and I. Pavez. 2002. Making the law of the jungle: the reform of forestry in Bolivia, Cameroon, Costa Rica and Indonesia. Global Environmental Politics, 2(3), 63-97. [II] Litvack, J., J. Ahmad and R. Bird. 1998. Rethinking Decentralization in Developing Countries. The World Bank Sector Study Series, Paper No. 21491. Washington, DC: The World Bank. [12] Cohen, J. M. and S. B. Peterson. 1999. Administrative Decentralization: Strategies for Developing Countries. Kumarian Press, Inc. [13] Ribot, J. C. 1999. Decentralization, participation and accountability in Sahelian forestry: legal instruments of political-administrative control. Africa, 69(1). [14] Johnson, N., S. Rasmussen, L. Rocha, S. Smith and M. Kantor. 1998. Symbiotic Intelligence: Selforganizing knowledge on distributed networks driven by human interactions. In C. Adami, R. K. Belew, H. Kitano and C. E. Taylor (Eds.). Artificial Life VI,. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. [15] Ostrom, E, L. Schroeder, and S. Wynne. 1993. Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [16] Hayek, F. 1948. Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [17] de Tocqueville, A. [1835] 1945. Democracy in America. New York, NY: Vintage. [18] Light, S., R. Serafm, K. Blann, T. O'Riordan, Z. Bochniarz, and J. Sendzimir. 2002. The role of biodiversity conservation in rural sustainability: using adaptive management, institutional analysis and sustainability appraisal to understand experience from North America and Europe. Background paper to NATO advanced research workshop in Krakow, Poland. November 5-9, 2002. Brussels, Belgium: NATO. [19] Johnson, N. 2000. "Diversity in Decentralized Systems: Enabling Self-Organizing Solutions." Presented at the Decentralization II Conference, UCLA, November 19-20, 1999. [20] O'Riordan, T. (Ed). 2001. Globalism, localism and identity: fresh perspectives on the sustainability

K. Andersson and M.A. Janssen /Institutional Innovation and Adaptive Management

77

transition in Europe. London, UK: Earthscan. [21] Oakerson, R. J. 1999. Governing Local Public Economies (Creating the Civil Metropolis). Oakland, CA: ICS Press. [22] Gibson, C., and F. Lehoucq, forthcoming. The local politics of decentralized environmental policy. Journal of Environment and Development, January 2003. [23] Kaimovitz, D., P. Pacheco, J. Johnson, I. Pavez, C. Vallejos, and R. Velez, 1999. Local Governments and Forests in the Bolivian Lowlands. Rural Development Forestry Network, Paper 24B. London, UK: GDI. [24] Ribot, J. C. 2002. Democratic decentralization of natural resources, institutionalizing popular participation. Conference proceedings from World Resources Institute-organized conference on decentralization and environment, Bellagio, Italy, February 2002. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. [25] United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 1998. Capacity 21 Program 1998 Annual Report. New York: United Nations Development Program. [26] Pacheco, P. 2000. Avances y Desafios en la Descentralizacion de la Gestion de los Recursos Forestales en Bolivia. Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia: Center for International Forestry Research and Proyecto de Manejo Forestal Sostenible. [27] Pacheco, P. 2001. The Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Reduction: The Case of Bolivia. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [28] Pacheco, P. 2002. Gobiernos municipales y participacion local en la gestion forestal Boliviana. In Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Municipal forest management in Latin America. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [29] Andersson, K. 2001. An Institutional Assessment of Two Cornerstones of Bolivia's Decentralized Forestry Regime: Municipal Governments and Indigenous Territories. Rome, Italy: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [30] Kaimowtiz D., C. Vallejos, P. Pacheco and R. Lopez. 1998. Municipal Governments and Forest Management in Lowland Bolivia. Journal of Environment and Development 7(1) 45-59. [31] Kaimowitz, D., Flores, G., Johnson, J., Pacheco, P., Pavez, L, Roper, J., Vallejos, C., and R. Velez.. 2000. Local government and biodiversity conservation: a case from the Bolivian Lowlands. In CIFOR and IAD (Eds), A Case Study for Shifting The Power: Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program. [32] Urioste, M., and D. Pacheco (Eds). 2001. Las Tierras Bajas de Bolivia a Fines del Siglo XX. La Paz, Bolivia: Programa de Investigation Estrategica en Bolivia. [33] Contreras H, A. and T.M Vargas. 2001. Dimensiones Sociales, Ambientales y Economicas de las Reformas en la Politico Forestal de Bolivia. Santa Cruz, Bolivia: Proyecto de Manejo Forestal Sostenible and the Center for International Forestry Research. [34] Hemaiz, I., and D. Pacheco, 2001. La Ley INRA en el Espejo de la Historia: Dos Siglos de Reforma Agraria en Bolivia. La Paz, Bolivia: Fundacion Tierra. [35] Rowland, A. 2001. Population as a determinant of local 'outcomes under decentralization. World Development, 29(8), 1373-1389. [36] Fauget, J. P. 2000. "Does Decentralization Increase Government responsiveness to Local Needs? Decentralization and Public Investment in Bolivia." Center for Economic Performance Discussion Paper No 999. London: London School of Economics. [37] O'Neil, K. 1999. Decentralization in the Andes: Power to the people or party politics! Ph.D. Diss. in political economy, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. [38] Thevoz, L. 1999. Decentralization in Bolivia: A Model under Construction. Community Studies in Planning and Land Use Management Working Paper. Paris, France: Communaute d'Etudes pour 1'Amenagement du Territoire. [39] Pacheco, P., and D. Kaimovitz, (eds), 1998. Municipios y Gestion Forestal en el Tropico Boliviano. La Paz, Bolivia: Centre de Estudios para el Desarrollo Laboral y Agrario, Taller de Iniciativas en Estudios Rurales y Reforma Agraria, and the Center for International Forestry Research. [40] Government of Bolivia. 2000. Proyecto Redfainder. La Paz, Bolivia: Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y de Planificacion. [41] Government of Bolivia, 1996. Ley Forestal, 1700. La Paz, Bolivia: Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y de Planificacion. [42] Superintendencia Forestal 2000. Informs Anual 1999. La Paz, Bolivia: Sistemas de Regulation de los Recursos Naturales Renovables. [43] Kiser, L.L., and E. Ostrom 1982 The Three Worlds of Action: A Metatheoretical Synthesis of Institutional Approaches. In Strategies of Political Inquiry, ed. E. Ostrom, 179-222. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [44] Ostrom, E., R. Gardner, and J. Walker 1994 Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

78


[45] Ostrom, E. 1998. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action. American Political Science Review 92(1) (March): 1-22. [46] Ostrom, E. 1999. Coping with tragedies of the commons, Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 493-535. [47] Ostrom, E., C. Gibson, S. Shivakumar, S., and K. Andersson. 2002. Aid, Incentives and Sustainable Development: An Institutional Analysis of International Development Cooperation. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). [48] Gibson, C., M. McKean, and E. Ostrom (Eds) 2000. People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and the Governance of Forests. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [49] Levitt, B. and J.G. March 1988. Organizational Learning, Annual Review in Sociology, 14: 319-340. [50] Putnam, R.D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. [51] Korten, David C., 1980. 'Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach', Public Administration Review, vol. 40 no. 5 (480-511). [52] Pretty, J.N. and R. Chambers. 1992. Turning the new leaf: New professionalism, institutions and policies for agriculture. London: IIED/IDS (Overview Paper for the Beyond Farmer First Conference). [53] Ostrom, V., R. Bish, and E. Ostrom. 1988. Local Government in the United States. San Francisco: ICS Press. [54] Ascher, W. and R. Healy, 1990. Natural Resource Policymaking in Developing Countries, Durham N.C.: Duke University Press. [55] Blair, H., 2000. 'Participation and Accountability in Periphery: Democratic Local Governance in the Periphery', World Development, vol. 28 no. 1 (21-39). [56] Varughese, G. 1999. Villagers, Bureaucrats and Forests in Nepal: Designing Governance Systems for a Complex resource. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. [57] Klooster, D., 2000. 'Institutional Choice, Community, and Struggle: A Case Study of Forest CoManagement in Mexico', World Development, vol. 28 no. 1 (1-20). [58] Osmani, S.R. 2001. Participatory Governance. In. A. Grinspun (Ed.). 2001. Choices for the Poor, pp 121-143. New York, NY: UNDP. [59] Chambers, R. A. Pacey and L. Thrupp. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications. [60] Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, 786: 1360-1380. [61] Andersson, forthcoming. What Motivates Municipal Governments? Uncovering the Institutional Incentives of Municipal Governance of Forest Resources in Bolivia. Journal of Environment and Development, January 2003.


79

Building Institutional Capacity for Biodiversity and Rural Sustainability Zbigniew BOCHNIARZ1 and Richard S. BOLANZ 'Director, Center for Nations in Transition, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 2 Professor Emeritus, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA "Biodiversity is one of the most important manifestations of nature. It constitutes the diachronic quintessence of the dynamic balance of various forms of life and ecosystems which finds expression in the biodiversity of genes, species and ecosystems on our planet. Biodiversity is thus the essential precondition for the stability and harmonious functioning of ecosystems. It also constitutes an important source of economic wealth, which makes a significant contribution both to economic development and to human progress in many sectors. It has a direct bearing on the quality of life of European citizens because it affects their daily environment and leisure activities and also forms part of their natural heritage1."

Introduction In every region of the planet Earth, the human species interacts with other life forms. Perched at the top of the food chain, humans have only recently begun to realize the vital importance of the nature of this interaction. In some instances human behavior supports the survival and reproduction of other species, in others human activity threatens other species. Some activities, such as agriculture, simultaneously do both. Unfortunately the overall balance to date has been more threatening than supportive—in both the developed industrialized countries of the world and in those countries less developed. In the last thirty years, there has been growing recognition of the threats to species diversity together with a growing appreciation of the importance of reducing these threats. Thus, biodiversity is achieving increasing recognition as an important policy issue, particularly in the pursuit of Sustainability. Human threats to biodiversity in many respects have their roots in the competition for the use of the principal resource shared by humans and other species - land. Humans have a unique view of land and its role in human affairs. Other species see land as the platform for breeding, for foraging for food, for dying - but there are only biological limits - no fences, no borders, no barriers except natural ones (rivers, mountain ranges, etc.) - for 1 European Union (1998). Report on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a European Community biodiversity strategy (COM(98)0042 - C4-0140/98 and SEC(98)0348 - C4-0155/98), Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/sector/environment/env_theme/biodiversity/ec_policy/txt04.pdf)

80

Z. Bochniarz and R.S. Bolan /Building Institutional Capacity for Biodiversity

non-human species land is a commons. The only limits are the natural biological niche and range of each species. Humans, on the other hand, with no real limits on range, treat land as a commodity - as property. As property, boundaries are marked off through fences, walls, survey markers, etc. These markings come to symbolize land ownership. An arbitrarily marked "slice of the earth," so to speak, is viewed as a domain where there can be exclusive rights that are given to a single human individual or human organization. These "slices of the earth" can be bought and sold or left to heirs or successors. Thus, the human practice of land ownership can be used to exclude non-owning humans and to exclude other species. In effect, in human affairs there has been developed a land regime. This land regime and the various practices and policies that support it, we would contend, are at the root of the problem of biodiversity. The land regime is the prime example of an institutional framework having consequences both positive and negative, intended and unintended, for biodiversity. Humans have found the means to exclude other species not only by direct means but also indirect means. As highest on the food chain - we have managed to drive some species to extinction by our consumption and overexploitation. We have endangered others by killing through our sense of fear that they pose threats to us (such as wolves). These are direct means. A less direct means is the destruction of habitat in order to use land for agriculture, industry, commerce, and residences. Even more indirect is the fragmentation of habitat through disturbance - traversing roads through forest areas, for example. Thus, the manner in which humans deal with land is an example of institutional design. Today the design problem is one of finding the means for significantly changing human behavior with respect to (1) consumption patterns and (2) the use of land. Our paper will be focused on the second - the use of land. In particular we focuses on western style land regimes and their implications for Central and Eastern Europe

1. Different Aspects of Human Land Use We argue that the root of the threat to biodiversity stems from the human use of land. Biodiversity is imperiled in four distinct ways. First, human land use destroys or fragments habitat. In constructing the artifacts of modern civilization, we have seen the reduction of natural forest habitat to isolated, unconnected patches. We have seen the vegetative cover of riparian stream and wetland habitats disappear. A conservative estimate is that over 50% of all wetlands worldwide have been destroyed or degraded in the modern age [1]. This habitat damage is clearly seen in the urban development process. However, it can be seen as a more extensive problem in agriculture. Forests have been cleared, streams and rivers have been channeled and wetlands filled in for cropland worldwide. Second, human land use changes the flow of nutrient sources that are essential for species survival. These include disturbance of the natural flows and exchanges of solar radiation, water, carbon, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen. Intervention in the hydrological cycle is perhaps one of the more evident problems. For example, impervious surfaces created by roads, parking lots and buildings significantly impede the normal infiltration of rainfall into soil and groundwater aquifers. The construction of dams, canals, levees, channels and the like distort the natural surface flow of water and create adverse impacts on habitat. Third, human activity gives rise to the pollution of land. These include various pathogens, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and sedimentary erosion. While point source pollution has become somewhat well understood the pollution of air, soil and water from


81

non-point sources are not well regulated or managed. This problem is not restricted to urban areas and poses serious problems for industrial agriculture, where mechanization of farming and use of industrial chemicals for fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides continues to confound environmental policy and sustainability. Fourth, human land use treats natural resources (such as timber, fresh water, wind and hydropower) as income generating commodities that has led to the overexploitation and depletion of natural resources necessary for sustainable biodiversity. We now have many examples where we have bought, sold and consumed a resource as though it were in infinite supply. The loss of forests, the depletion of fisheries, the erosion of fertile soils, the continued depletion of oil reserves all provide historic examples of how the search for immediate profits has taken priority over sustainable stewardship. 2. Behavior Change Issues It is important to examine the motives for the general disregard of biodiversity concerns. Historically, there has been a lack of understanding of the importance of preserving biodiversity. Only be in last 50 years that we have begun to gain the understanding of biological systems necessary to inform decision-making. Contemporary advances in theory began with the work of Odum [2] (ecosystems as open systems of flows of energy, matter, and organisms); Paine [3] (predation theory and keystone species) and MacArthur and Wilson [4] (island biogeography). These have been significantly advanced by recent work in disturbance regimes and in the insights of complexity theory [5]. Today the importance of biodiversity and the need to protect it has become an integral part of environmental policy. Yet the threats continue. Conservation biologists can only record small successes, as modern and postmodern consumer lifestyles of the developed countries continue to grow as well as expanding to CEE countries and to less developed countries. There are a number of behavioral characteristics of contemporary life making the preservation of biodiversity difficult and challenging. With respect to land use, there is a deep human need for one's own plot of land. This is in spite of the fact that economic opportunities are by and large concentrated in cities. In the United States, the notion is that the suburb provides the possibility of having both one's own estate of land while also working in the higher wage occupations of the city. In many outlying urban areas, these plots of land can get fairly significant - as much as one or two hectares or more for each household. Today in the United States, urban land consumption is actually growing significantly faster than population growth yielding significant declines in settlement densities. Between 1992 and 1997, more than eleven million acres of land were developed in the United States (about 4.5 million hectares)2. Hence the increasing debate about urban sprawl in many regions of the U. S. - especially in western and southern regions. These trends in land use pose significant new threats to biodiversity. It could be argued that this is not the case in Europe. Yet the evidence suggests otherwise. The Green Heart of Holland is under great stress for new homebuilding. Evidence of urban sprawl exists in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

2

Based on tables available at USDA's NRI web site. ("Annual Rate of Development, 1992-1997," "Acres of 1992 Prime Farmland Converted to Developed Land in 1997," "Acres of Cropland Converted to Developed Land, 1992-1997," "Acres of 1992 Pastureland Converted to Developed Land in 1997," "Acres of Rangeland Converted to Developed Land, 1992-1997," "Acres of Forest Land Converted to Developed Land, 19921997," and "Acres of Other Rural Land Converted to Developed Land, 1992-1997"). http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/index/nri97maps.html.

82

Z Bochniarz and R.S. Bolan /Building Institutional Capacity for Biodiversity

Living at very low densities is made feasible by another basic human motivation: the desire for owning an automobile with all of the lifestyle freedom and flexibility that provides. In most of the developed countries, including Europe and the United States, the number of automobiles is also growing faster than the number of people. Indeed, many CEE countries are stable in population, yet the number of automobiles is exploding. Poland, for instance increased the automobile fleet from about nine million in 1990 to 14.7 million in 2001 (163%), however, in the personal cars, the fleet has doubled - from 5.2 million to 10.5 million cars during just making Polish auto market the "hottest" in the whole Europe at the end of 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s3. The automobile is the means for people with urban jobs to live further and further away. For some, this can mean moving deep into rural regions. The consequences of this can be devastating for biodiversity. The direct pollution of the air and the pollution of soil and water from petroleum wastes carried in runoff pose severe threats to many species. As well, the consequences of sprawl create congestion and the demand for new roads - the construction of which contributes to the further fragmentation of forest and stream habitats and further increases in storm runoff. Suburban living also creates demand for retail and other commercial services closer to home in the suburbs. Retail firms have found that suburbanites do not support oldfashioned small retailers in traditional town centers. Merchant providers have found, instead, greater profits in what is called in the U.S. the "big box" retail outlet. In Europe, these are the "hyper-markets." They provide one-stop shopping to a wide suburban geography; they aid and abet the transition to a consumer society. However, they are primarily accessible by automobile, thereby increasing the vehicle miles traveled and the resultant congestion and pollution. Overall, the trends in behavior of contemporary consumer-oriented lifestyles in Europe, North America and the newly developed countries of the Pacific Rim seem to put the cause of biodiversity at ever increasing risk. Some very fundamental human motivations and their consequent patterns of land use make biodiversity and rural sustainable development an extremely challenging policy problem. To deflect this trend will require considerable effort at fundamental behavioral change. 3. Traditional Institutional Responses There have been various institutional responses addressing threats to biodiversity, including responses at the international, national and local levels. At the international level, there have been numerous treaties and signed conventions aimed at protecting individual species as well as species diversity in general. These date back to the migratory bird treaty between the United States and Canada in 19164. Before World War II there were two international conventions: one on the preservation of fauna and flora (1933) and one on nature protection and wildlife preservation (1940). After World War II came the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (1946) and the International Plant Protection Convention (1951). These were followed by the Ramsar Convention intended to protect wetlands of international importance (1971) and the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) in 1973. The Bonn 3

Ochrona Srodowiska (Environment) 2002, GUS Warsaw 2002, p.226. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755). The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the U.S. and Great Britain (for Canada) for the protection of migratory birds. Later amendments implemented treaties between the U.S. and Mexico, the U.S. and Japan, and the U.S. and the Soviet Union. For more information visit: http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/migtrea.html. 4


83

Convention on migratory species was adopted in that city in 1983. Originating in the United Nation's 1972 Stockholm Conference and finally adopted at the Rio de Janeiro conference in 1992 is the present International Convention on Biodiversity [I]5. Clearly, there has been international concern for biodiversity. However, this has been mostly an abstract concern these agreements are largely statements of good intentions The design of institutions involves not only rules and incentives for behavior but also specification of the means of monitoring and enforcement and arrangements for dispute resolution. These international agreements possess suggested changes in patterns of behavior but, acknowledging the sovereignty of individual nations, they lack the other necessary elements of effective institutions. Thus, international conventions primarily provide abstract general guides. Some signatories take the guides more seriously than others and have further developed full-fledged institutional arrangements to follow them6. The foundation elements of biodiversity - land use, water use, and energy use - are not sufficiently addressed in international agreements. Consequently, in spite of apparent international accord on the importance of biodiversity, the threats continue to mount. International accord is an important step but must be followed up. Some success at the national level can be seen in the Endangered Species Act of the United States, adopted in 1973. The Act addresses endangered species at the global as well as local level and prohibits the killing or harming of any listed species. It further prohibits federal government agencies from engaging in activities that threaten any listed species or adversely affects their habitat. This has further been interpreted that any public or private activity using federal financial assistance is included under the Act. The Act requires the development of a recovery plan for each listed species and the plan may include designation of critical habitats, restoration of habitat and development of breeding programs. Presently more than 1200 species have been listed as endangered and an added 85 are proposed for listing7. In the nearly 30 years since passage of the Act only a few have been removed from the list. While this act has shown some teeth in stopping activities that would endanger species (preventing a dam proposed by the TV A, stopping logging operations in the Pacific Northwest), it has difficulties in that it has limited jurisdiction over state and local governments (some states have developed their own lists of endangered species). In the US, land use decisions are primarily a function of local government. These governments, in pursuing economic or other development, seldom take biodiversity into account8. In addition, some federal policies - such as agriculture and energy policies work against the goals of the Endangered Species Act. There is a similar tradition in Europe in protecting endangered species and special 5 The Convention's ultimate authority is the Conference of the Parties (COP), consisting of all governments (and regional economic integration organizations) that have ratified the treaty. This governing body reviews progress under the Convention, identifies new priorities, and sets work plans for members. The COP can also make amendments to the Convention, create expert advisory bodies, review progress reports by member nations, and collaborate with other international organizations and agreements. Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Belarus, and Ukraine have all ratified the treaty. 6 Including the establishment of international biosphere reserves developed along international boundaries including the Babia Gora and Polesie regions. 7 The breakdown for species threatened or endangered is as follows: 735 U.S. species of plants are listed, 496 U.S. species of animals are listed, 11 U.S. species of plants are currently proposed for listing., 74 U.S. species of animals are currently proposed for listing. The following listed species have designated critical habitat: 120 species have designated critical habitat; eight species have proposed critical habitat designations. 291 habitat conservation plans have been approved. 940 species have approved recovery plans. 266 species have recovery plans under development. Data from General Statistics for Endangered Species (Data Current as of May 31, 2000), website http://endangered.fws.gov/genstats.html 8 There are exceptions. In a number of states new legislation has been enacted aiming at policies of "smart growth." A few local governments have also adopted policies aimed at greater environmental protection. But the great majority of local governments have yet to truly address the problem of biodiversity.

84

Z. Bochniarz and R.S. Bolan / Building Institutional Capacity for Biodiversity

areas of unique richness of biodiversity, beauty of landscape or historical monuments. National parks, bio-reserve areas, natural and historical monuments were established as specially protected areas. It is worth mentioning that in 1932 the first bilateral national park was in Europe and the second in the world was established by Poland and Czechoslovakia. Until 2000, the eight Central and East European countries (CEEC) set up protected areas that protected from 5.5% (Slovenia) to over 21% (Slovakia) of their territories (average about 10%)9 In 1992 the European Council passed a Habitat Directive to protect natural habitats and wild fauna and flora species in the EU. This Directive imposed on member countries the obligation to establish a European Ecological Network with specified particular species and list types of natural habitats that should be protected (92/43/EEC). These protected areas along with specially protected areas of the European Council so called Bird Directives of 1979 compose together a NATURA 2000. This relatively new concept of biodiversity protection is now expanding over all CEEC waiting for accession as a part of legal harmonization process. Many governments have developed related practices. For example, developing Environmental Impact Assessments (ElAs) for individual projects and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) for broader planning provides opportunities to judge proposed new developments in the light of their impact on biodiversity. These make transparent the ways in which new activities may affect not only the basic resources of water and nutrients, and can also examine indirect effects and cumulative effects. Properly done, the SEA and EIA processes can be a means for preventing new threats to biodiversity. The process clearly does not influence the full range of ongoing behavior threatening species. Non-governmental organizations have been active in concern for biodiversity. The World Wildlife Fund, in conjunction with many national governments, has biodiversity projects operating throughout the world. In Europe and the accession countries, countless NGOs have organized since 1989 in the interests of sustainable development and environmental protection. These organizations do not have the power to establish institutional frameworks. They are, however, vital in helping to educate both politicians and civil society on the importance of the issues and the necessary behavior changes contained in the pursuit of sustainable development. They are also of key importance in prodding governments to create effective institutional and legal foundations for addressing threats to biodiversity. Often NGOs are well ahead of governments in identifying crucial environmental issues. Increasingly, the attention of these groups is turning toward the issue of sustainable rural development. Overall, however, we would argue that traditional responses to the threats to biodiversity have yet to get to the root causes of the underlying behavior. As a result, most policies have been ineffective and the threats continue to grow. Thus, there is need to develop new approaches and to think in terms of developing new institutional arrangements that directly address these roots causes. 4. The Need To Respond With New Institutional Design For Biodiversity As noted, institutional design for biodiversity at any level - local, regional or national thus far has failed to diminish the threat. This arises because of many formidable problems. At present, incentives to encourage biodiversity conservation are quite weak in the face of other incentives pertaining to land use. In many respects, the problem of biodiversity is that (World Bank Development Indicators, 200 \).


85

cited by Hardin in his "Tragedy of the Commons." Species diversity is very much a public commons - a common property. Migratory birds, waterfowl, fish life, crustaceans, flora and fauna, insects - the vast majority of the millions of known species are owned by no one. Thus, for humans, there is no immediately obvious cost to neglect them, to pollute or destroy their habitat, to overexploit them, or to destroy them. There are few substantial incentives to encourage counter behavior. Most of the many laws now existing in different nations seek to regulate in some fashion. The complexity of ecosystems, however, renders effective regulation a daunting task. The focus of regulation necessarily has to be relatively narrow in scope. In the U.S., for example, the ESA lists more than 1200 endangered species with the requirement that each must have a recovery plan for a law to be enforced over a spatial extent of more than 9 million square kilometers. This is at best a most formidable and expensive assignment. Monitoring and enforcement are clearly difficult and costly while many violations can easily go undetected. In many countries, administration of such regulation must also face a host of counter policies (such as policies and institutions that encourage sprawl development or encourage polluting behavior) as well permitting widely practiced adverse lifestyle behaviors. Consequently, the challenge is to develop institutional arrangements that can overcome the present obstacles. One route is to develop a system of incentives as opposed to prohibitions. 5. Some Basic Institutional Principles The design of institutions for biodiversity can be seen as analogous to a problem in game theory: Can a "game" [an institution] be devised with rules providing an appropriate mix of cooperation and competition, by which people acting in their own interests, behave in such a manner as to enhance or minimize damage to biodiversity and plan for the conservation or sustainable use of the earth's resources? (after Hurwicz, 1987) From earlier work, we have developed a group of basic principles for designing institutions [6]. First and foremost institutional development must meet the basic perceived needs of the people they serve. Institutions are socially developed - they are not some metaphysical entity imposed by natural law. Thus, they can be designed, formed and reformed. They have their roots in social interaction. They emerge from agreements regarding norms, values, customs and even such trivial practices as greetings. Language is a primordial institution where the sounds we utter or the marks we make on paper are the result of long-standing agreements as to their meaning. Institutions become legitimized through contracts, laws, policies and organizations. Organizations themselves are not institutions but, rather, manifestations of institutions. A government land-planning agency is thus one part of a broader institution that makes up a land regime. Institutions provide multi-layered sets of rules, including rules for making rules [7]. They are patterns of social activity that give shape to collective and individual experience. They are the foundation of human possibilities and opportunities. They offer both incentives and prohibitions. They both enable and constrain behavior. Some of the key design principles include the following. Institutions have been shown to be most successful when the rewards or incentives overshadow the penalties of

86


nonconformance (in psychological terms, positive reinforcement should outweigh negative reinforcement). Institutional arrangements are most satisfying for most people when incentives are aligned with values. Institutional arrangements are most efficient when social benefits (broadly defined) exceed social costs. They are most successful where behavior and transgressions from norms are easily monitored (one does not need to rely on a large police force). Institutions are most effective when they follow the "subsidiarity principle" that is where opportunities for decision-making rest as much as possible with the most local level of collectivity. This is included in current EU policy and means that decisions are to be taken as close to the citizen as possible. Institutions are malleable and dynamic. Thus, they can be changed. Reform of institutions is possible when the reform measures can be seen to meet needs that are not currently being met and that proposed changes conform to the skills and social resources available. Institutional reform, moreover, requires collective effort, usually over a considerable period of time. Essentially, the test of any new institutional arrangement is that it is both efficient and satisfying (effective). Tests of satisfaction would evoke the legitimacy of the reform as seen by evidence of: 1. Loyalty - where authority and power distribution is perceived as legitimate (logical) and enabling; and where needs are understood and fulfilled; 2. Spirit and energy - where there is a sense effort will be appropriately rewarded in both material payoffs and in psycho-social rewards such as fulfillment, 'self-actualization,' status, power, and security; 3. Perceived fairness and justice in conflict resolution - where there is acceptance and implementation of the results of impartial independent adjudication of disputes; and 4. Mutual help in contingent circumstances. Specific institutional problems that have to be addressed in the design of institutions for preservation of biodiversity and sustainable rural development include the problems of: 1) Realigning incentive and reward systems - many present institutions and the behaviors they encourage work counter to protecting biodiversity and promoting sustainable use. As noted, this is especially apparent in land regimes and in the failure to find satisfactory means of protecting common resources. 2) Stimulating the learning of needed changes in attitudes and behavior - there needs be continual effort at education. Such education needs not only to make people aware of the important work of ecological science but also to increase awareness of how their own individual behavior is part of the threat to biodiversity. In short, effort is required to thoroughly socialize individuals not only on an intellectual level but also on the level of dayto-day behavior. 3) Legitimating new institutional regimes through not only the creation of new incentives but also in terms of means for justifiable resolution of competing claims. 4) Designing effective sanctions, and designing efficient means of monitoring behavior and enforcing prohibitions. 5) Developing a framework of cost accounting whereby full social costs are included as part of the benefit-cost calculus, including externalities and full value of the services of natural resources. 6. New Institutions Securing Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Sustainability

Z. Bochniarz and R.S. Bolan / Building Institutional Capacity for Biodiversity

87

The failure of traditional institutional responses to biodiversity conservation and rural sustainability has its roots in compartmentalization of approaches usually to a single issue, unresolved conflicts of interests between both areas represented as a rule by different institutions, and prevailing short-term optimization in designing process. This is turn has its roots in a lack of integration of ecological and social objectives into economic solutions. As the authors of the background for the NATO ARW stated [8], the overall reason for this critical deficiency results from the powerful and interwoven doctrines - reductionism, empiricism and positivism. These doctrines strongly influence designing institutions and generating worldviews as a powerful self-protective force. In order to change the existing situation, there is a need, first of all, to link sustainability sciences with adaptive management of biodiversity. The roots of adaptive management are coming from ecology. It major goal is to improve the decision-making process by involving major stakeholders, particularly those representing science into the policy design and evaluation process. Despite of initial successes of the adaptive management as an integrating concept, its further dissemination as policy design tool was limited due to insufficient attention to institutional issues. This deficiency has much deeper roots beyond the concept. It comes from a weak link between natural and social sciences in addressing biodiversity issues. This is critical because even the best biodiversity inventory and assessment - even the most alarming scientific report - will not produce any action if is not complemented by an appropriate institutional assessment. This is the area that requires a constant and close cooperation between natural and social sciences because all institutions are social inventions intertwined with conflicting economic interests, positive and negative incentives, institutional effectiveness and efficiency, and finally with stakeholders dynamics. Contributions from economics, sociology, social psychology and management are needed to address those issues. Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD), involving more and more applications of game theory are current examples of more rigorous methodologies applied in institutional assessment and simulation of new institutional arrangements [7,911]. There is also a need to build links among local, regional, national and global communities. The traditional adaptive management did not focus on national or global level. Today, we see more and more examples indicating that even the best participatory institutional design cannot produce expected results if it does not include national and global concerns and policies. For example national tax or monetary policies can destroy any attempts to create sustainable institutional arrangements at the grass-roots level to save important species or habitats. Lack of consideration of climate change issues can adversely affect expected impact of new policies and institutions designed at national or regional level. Finally, securing biodiversity conservation and sustainability of rural development requires systematic monitoring and periodical sustainability appraisal by an independent, interdisciplinary and professional body. This is a critical issues because sustainability affects not only human wealth, economic efficiency of development processes, social justice but is fundamental to the ecological life support of the all species inhabiting certain area.

7. Operationalizing Sustainability Criteria for Local and Regional Communities and the Nations For years the issue of operationalizing sustainability criteria is a subject of hot

88


debate among representatives of many disciplines. There are many elegant and intellectually inspiring concepts that are not implemented in practice because they cannot be made operational. This is one of the problems with developing practical criteria for sustainable development. Most of the writing on sustainable development or sustainability of an economic-environmental system focuses on maximizing or optimizing human wealth, such as income per capita, [12,13]. This is a demand side approach, which is very difficult to apply because of cultural and/or religious value differentials and never ending discussion on the appropriate level of a discount rate to assess present value and reconcile multigenerational interests. The under-represented interests of future generations are another example of the deficiency of such an approach [14]. Here, we propose, instead of focusing on human wealth, to focus on the conditions that are influencing and/or producing the wealth (supply side approach). We economists linked these conditions with TOTAL CAPITAL (TK). We found good arguments presented, first in a classical today work by Hartwick [15], and later further elaborated by Pearce & Warford [16] to focus on this side of economic processes. In opposition to wealth maximizing they used a concept of TK composed by three types of capital: man-made or physical (Km), human (Kh) & natural (Kn) capital [16]. Unfortunately, for the sake of clarity of their focus on the natural capital, Pearce and Warford incorporated human capital into man-made (Km). We do not share this approach and we keep the human capital separately. In addition to these three forms of capital we suggest to add another form social capital (Ks). Based on that distinction, we suggest the following formula of non-declining total capital as a basic criterion for sustainable development at any level of social system from the global to a local community. Sustainability of further development and protection of interests of future generation depends on maintaining non-declining stock of the total capital (TK): TK = Km + Kn + Kh + Ks = non-declining The proposed formula for the sustainability criterion can not only secure a sustainable wealth of each generation but also harmonize intergenerational interests. This comes from the basic assumption that each generation leaves to the next one the total stock of capital (TK) at least at the same level as they inherited. Each generation can expand the stock, of course, change it composition but should not allow to decline. This way, each generation will be supplied by their predecessor in a capacity (TK) to generate sustainable wealth for each generation. This relatively new economic formula of sustainability has a long tradition in many rural societies worldwide, where as a matter of honor for a farmer was to leave to his successor the farm in better shape as it was inherited. Simplicity of this formula makes it attractive to apply and avoid well-known problems ether with generational conflict of interests or finding an appropriate discount rate. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with implementation of the proposed formula - valuation of natural and social capital, and limits of substitution among different forms of TK. The second problem is linked with technological progress and continuing growth of human population and their consumption needs that force ongoing substitution among different forms of capital, particularly between man-made and natural ones. This is the case with both parts of the physical capital - fixed (e.g. machinery, buildings, roads -Knif) and circulating capital (e.g. fuels, materials, fertilizers - Kmc). A main feature of societal development over last 10,000 years has been a constant substitution of man-made capital for natural capital. Man started maximizing harvesting not through expending the cultivated land but applying better tools and fertilizers. Development of human capital -


89

both knowledge and skills contributed further to this substitution. So, the wealth was produced by increasing value of Km and Kh in the aggregate of TK. As a result, the relative value of natural capital has been declining. This is particularly evident in a comparison between developed and developing countries - the latter depend to a larger extent on their natural capital than the former. There are, however, certain limits to this substitution. First, there are certain parts of natural capital that cannot be substitute by manmade capital. This is a unique natural capital (Knu) that cannot be substitute and/or cannot reproduce itself after passing a certain threshold of exploitation (clear cutting of rain- or ancient forests, extinction of certain species, destruction of protective ecosystems or declining their biodiversity) comparing with the rest of the (Knr) that can be easily reproduced (commercial forests, fish stock in farms, fuels) In economic literature, this phenomenon is called hard sustainability, which excludes in principle any substitutions versus weak sustainability, which permits it [14]. Second, with the growth of wealth, the demand for the unique natural capital (Knu) is growing as an important part of securing amenities necessary for reproduction of labor force and life-support system. Third, with the significant improvements in environmental awareness, particularly among western societies about the real threats to sustainability of natural systems and/or particular species, there is a growing demand to secure the environment for the next generations and for uninterrupted provision of environmental services [17]. As a result of those processes, the relative value of this part of natural capital (Knu) starts growing and leads to the appearance of an important alternative - biodiversity conservation versus traditional economic growth [18,19]. Modern environmental economics tries to evaluate the growing importance of natural capital in contributing to more sustainable policy decision-making processes. Current research conducted by the University of Minnesota [20] and by Warsaw University [21] clearly indicates the growing interests in protecting the environment and conservation of biodiversity in CEEC since the beginning of their transition. For instance, the CEEC spend now between three-five times more on the protection of their environment than before transition. Given the growing importance of the unique natural capital in developed countries, the exceptionally rich biodiversity in CEEC should be treated as an important natural asset significantly contributing to improvement of the sustainability of further development of the EU. This notion of the CEE contribution to the EU should help to improve understanding and appreciation within the EU15 about the value of their investment in the enlargement. At the same time, enhanced appreciation will take place among CEE politicians and society, about the real value of their contribution to the common Europe. Taking into account their natural capital, CEE countries have an opportunity to become Europe's largest and most important producer of organic food. As well, these countries can be significant providers of environmental, agro- and eco-tourism services within next 10-15 years securing a decent life for its rural population The CEEC contain some of the best ecological areas remaining on the European continent represented by richer biodiversity than in EU. Unfortunately leaders on both sides of the CEE-EU boarder do not see this as an important issue in the integration process. This raises the issue of human capital (Kh). Unfortunately, there is a visible lack of leadership in articulating a vision for prospering rural communities based on their unique richness of natural capital, particularly as represented by biodiversity. Twelve years of transition clearly indicate that the CEE political elites were not able to elaborate and implement any restructuring program that would change the path of systematic decline of the rural economy. Rural areas were not regarded as a priority area for economic development beyond agriculture. The predominant patterns of economic development based on service economy observed in CEEC in the 1990s did not find their niche in rural areas yet. The rich biodiversity of the rural areas is

90

Z Bochniarz and R.S. Bolan / Building Institutional Capacity for Biodiversity

still waiting to be monetized. As a result, most of the dynamic young farmers are leaving the areas for urban life. Human capital, as other forms of capital, requires continuing re-investment due to depreciation and obsolescence of knowledge and skills caused by rapid technological progress and globalization processes. Continuing education, particularly an executive education, is one response to these challenges and prevention against declining value. Human capital also implies a population in good health. So, for that reason preventive and medical expenses should be also treated as investment in human capital. This is particularly an urgent need to improve the access to health services and their quality in rural areas and this way to avoid its decline. So far, we have presented that part of the human capital that can be renewed and upgraded in keeping with current demands of the market. For that reason, we can call it a renewable human capital (Khr) as opposed to that human capital that is unique (Khu) such as for example: high level of IQ, unprecedented entrepreneurial instinct, charismatic leadership, etc. This type of human capital is also in high demand in rural areas and needs to be given special attention by policy makers and business leaders. In addition to the two above mentioned forms of human capital that is embodied in a person, there is a human capital embodied in educational and research institutions (Kh;), particularly in universities, business schools, research centers and extension services (rural knowledge clusters [22]). The establishment of such institutions and gaining a high reputation takes usually many years and for that reason should be treated as rather not renewable within one generation. This is a critical factor for sustainable rural development. There is no smooth development without social capital because this form of capital links all other forms together. For many decades this form of capital was either neglected or misunderstood in the CEE region. Social capital can be defined as repetitive social practices represented by established (institutionalized) norms and rules. Similar view was expressed by three Polish economists in their polemic with the 2000 Nobel price winner a year ago [23]: Social capital encompasses the civil norms, which allow trust, and this in turn is important for all forms of inter-temporal trade. Such capital is vital to a functioning market economy. Without it, social interaction would be reduced to a minimum of tentative and distrustful commodity sales. Since the bulk of the social capital is associated with institutions - formal or informal - very often it is called an institutional capital. Social capital, however, is more than institutions. It includes them with an attitude expressed by the social legitimization and trust, identification and loyalty, respect and attachment. Summing up the analysis of the social capital (Ks), it is worth mentioning that there are two types of the social capital from the point of view of a transformation ~ an inherited social capital (Ksi) and a new social capital (Ksn) needed to make smooth transition, for instance to access the EU securing the same time sustainability of rural areas. All CEE countries invested a lot in developing the new social capital necessary to meet the acquis communautaire, however there is no guarantee that the rural sustainability will be secured. Introduction of the proposed system will require further research in valuation some of the elements of the TK that are either public goods or were not subject of a market valuation before. With the progress in economics, particularly in environmental economics, and its application in the practice, there are good chances that within next few years those problems will be overcome. During the transition period to the supply-side sustainability

Z. Bochniarz. and R.S. Bolan / Building Institutional Capacity for Biodiversity

91

criteria, we suggest to expand further the already applied formula by the World Bank in its statistics - genuine savings since 1999. This originally proposed by David Pearce sustainability indicator includes depreciation of several elements of the TK: GDS = GDP - C - Kmf D + EdI - EngD - MinD - ForD - CDD We suggest adding the following elements to this formula that are already available in current statistics and which are directly linked to the concept of the TK: GDS = GDP - C - Kmf D + EdI + Heal - EngD - MinD - ForD - CDD - SDD = max Where: GDS genuine domestic savings GDP gross domestic product C annual consumption Knif D capital fixed depreciation Ed education expenditure (investment in human capital) Hea health care expenditure (investment in human capital) EngD energy resource depletion (depreciation of natural capital) MinD mineral resource depletion (depreciation of natural capital) ForD forest depletion (depreciation of natural capital) CDD damage to the environment due to carbon dioxide emission (depreciation of natural capital) SDD damage to the environment due to sulfur dioxide emission (depreciation of natural capital) This formula could be applied, practically at any level of governance if the statistical data is available. 8. Practical Steps to Implement an Institutional Reform There is a need for leadership to initiate an institutional reform - a leadership that will understand the problem - and will take the risk of failure to lead through the institutional change process. In the case of biodiversity conservation, an initial leadership might come from many different social groups. It might be coming from academic or local communities, NGO or business organization, local, regional or national politicians. The important first step is to form a small group (5-12 persons) to articulate the problem and major stakeholders at each of the political decision-making levels The identification of the stakeholders - all those interested in the problem or affected by it - is a critical step. This will affect not only the design of reform but also will be important to continuing the idea in the implementation process [24]. In biodiversity conservation, the list of potential stakeholders might include the following individuals and organizations [8]: • Farmers, Foresters and Civic leaders • Scientists • Government representatives & elected officials • NGOs including women organizations • Representatives of business communities • Potential donors and/or investors.

92


The next step after identification of the stakeholders is empowering them with appropriate information. This is the area of conducting and disseminating results of participatory, action-oriented research (what information do they need that would be helpful). The language of the research results should allow all stakeholders to understand the problem and to see their stake and role in finding the solution. The most critical step is to reach an initial agreement to act together. Securing a partnership in the participatory process of problem formulation and search for solutions - alternative policy and institutional proposal is the key to the success. Also exploring options with key constituencies is important. This is particularly important due to different political or economic power status of participating stakeholders. There is a tendency to come to solution without exploring in depth the problem. Serious research and a series of public discussions within different forums should prevent the process from prematurely choosing a solution that might later fail to resolve the problem. In the case of conflicts of interests among stakeholders, there is a need to have an independent expert group that could facilitate reconciliation. The most motivating factor is an ambitious vision embodied in a local action plan that includes policy and institutional reforms and economic activities that will serve for biodiversity conservation and sustainable rural development. Such plan should have clearly designed stages to meet the main goal - resolve the problem - meeting at each stage concrete objectives. The success in meeting such objectives is a very mobilizing factor. The action plan should also identify appropriate political arena to institutionalize the proposed solution - local, regional or national government. The most important element of such action plan is to secure appropriate resources to secure meeting objectives and signed in responsibilities to each of the stakeholders in implementing the plan. Another important element is to keep informing stakeholders about the progress in designing and implementing the plan. For this reason a monitoring and evaluation schemes should be included to such action plans. 9. Outstanding Challenges for Institutional Reforms. EU enlargement presents an unprecedented challenge of how to design institutional reform that will secure the rich biodiversity offered by eight CEE countries to the EU community. This is a serious challenge since the delay of CAP reforms until 2006 (and, as a practical matter, until 2013) will encourage development of industrial farming in CEE leading to the destruction of this unique natural capital offered by the CEE region. This tendency will prevent utilization of the great potential for development of organic food production in the CEE region and other unexplored capital - like non-timber forest products. It will also cause huge unemployment and poverty in catering to the needs of the industrial farming in rural areas in CEE. To avoid environmental, economic and social disaster, there is a need to mobilize all interested stakeholders in EU and CEE to work together on an institutional and policy reform that will be secure rich biodiversity and sustainability in rural areas in the enlarged Europe. This institutional and policy reform is also urgently needed to facilitate the current Doha Round negotiations within WTO. This is also a critical issue to complete unfinished business with biodiversity conservation and rural sustainability initiated at the Johannesburg Summit. The challenge for institutional design is to find the way that will link sustainability science embodied in adaptive management of biodiversity with the needs of rural communities that will lead to meeting both objectives - effective biodiversity conservation


93

and sustainable rural development. The design should balance knowledge of natural and social sciences with the endogenous knowledge and tradition. The design should seek an effective resolution of local issues with those that are regional, national and global. The challenge is also to find the common language between the scientists and local people. This is a problem of translating scientific information about the health of the local ecosystems to local people that will encourage local communities to act in order to meet their needs without jeopardizing the balance of their environmental systems they depend on. This challenge also includes translation of regional, national and global information to local communities in order to respond to needs that extend beyond their communities. The concept of rural knowledge clusters (RKC) could serve these purposes being a translator of scientific information to an action language for local communities and vice versa. RKC should also serve as a facilitator for actions needed in order to respond to challenges and threats originated beyond local communities at regional, national or global levels.

References [I] E.O. Wilson (2000). Conserving Earth's Biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press. [2] H. T. Odum (1956). "Efficiencies, Size of Organisms and Community Structure," Ecology, 37: 592-597. [3] R.T. Paine (1966). "Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity," American Naturalist, 100: 65-75. [4] R.H. MacArthur and E.O. Wilson (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [5] H. Ronald Pulliam and Bart R. Johnson (2002). "Ecology's New Paradigm: What Does it Offer Designers and Planners," in Ecology and Design: Frameworks for Learning, ed. by B.R. Johnson and K. Hill. Washington, DC: Island Press. [6] Richard Bolan and Zbigniew Bochniarz (1994). Poland's Path to Sustainable Development 1989 to 1993. Minneapolis, MM: Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. [7] Elinor Ostrum (1998). "The Institutional Analysis and Development Approach," in Loehman, Edna Tusk et all, Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton MA, USA [8] Light, Stephen et. al. (2002), "Working Landscapes " Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability, Krakow: NATO ARW/EPCE CD Rom [9] Leonid Hurwicz (1973). "The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation," American Economic Review, 63: 1_30. [10] Leonid Hurwicz (1998). "Issues in the Design of Mechanisms and Institutions," in Loehman, Edna Tusk et all, Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton MA, USA. [II] Vernon Ruttan (1998). "Designing Institutions for Sustainability,: in Loehman, Edna Tusk et all, Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton MA, USA [12] Pezzey, John (1992), "Sustainability: An Interdisciplinary Guide" Environmental Values 1 [13] G. Edward Schuh and Sandra Archibald (1996). "A framework for the integration of environmental and sustainable development issues into agricultural planning and policy analysis in developing countries," in A. Steven Berth (ed.), Integration of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Issues, Winrock International. [14] Tietenberg, Tom (200 \) Environmental Economics and Policy, Boston, Addison Wesley. [15] Hartwick, J. M. (1977) "Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources" American Economic Review Vol. 67: 972-974. [16] David W. Pearce & Jeremy J. Warford (1993). World Without End: Economics, Environment and Sustainable Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford. [17] OECD (2000). Environmental Indicators. [18] Pearce, David and R. Kerry Turner (1991), Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press. [19] Doering, Christopher (2002) "World Plants Near Extinction, Science-Renter, Washington DC (web message of October 31, 2002, 2:21 PM ET). [20] Archibald and Bochniarz (2002). "Sustainability of Economies in Transition in Visegrad Countries: A Comparative Perspective" in Viktor Trebricky (ed.) Implementing Agenda 21 in Visegrad Countries, IEP Prague.

94


[21] Zylicz, Tomasz (1998), "Preserving Natural Capita: Financial Aspects" in Poskrobko, Bazyli (ed.) Sterowanie Ekorozwojem: Teoretyczne Aspekty Ekorozwoju, Vol. 1, Politechnika Bialostocka Press, Bialystok, Poland (pp. 64-78). [22] Munich, Lee W. (2002), "Rural Knowledge Clusters' Contribution to Sustainable Rural Development" Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability, Krakow: NATO ARW/EPCE CD Rom [23] Dabrowski, Marek, Stanislaw Gomulka and Jacek Rostowski (2001), " Whence Reform? A Critique of the Stiglitz Perspective" Journal of Policy Reform, 4 (4): 291-325. [24] Bryson, John and Barbara Crosby (1992) Leadership for the Common Good: Tacking Public Problems in a Shared-Power World, San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.

Additional References Yujiro Hayami and Vernon Ruttan (1985). Agricultural Development: An International Perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.


95

Promoting Sustainable Development at a Regional Level as an Economic Driver Keith BUCHANAN Regional Director, The Countryside Agency, England

Abstract. The English regions are gaining more power and control within the United Kingdom. Sustainable development has broadly been accepted as the way forward and is increasingly visible in the stated aspirations and organisational structures within the regions. Projects involving environmentally led regeneration have been successful as one form of sustainable development but, overall, sustainable development is not a main driver of regional economies. A key requirement is to incorporate sustainable development appraisal routinely into decision making systems throughout organisations. Were this in place, alongside appropriate rewards and penalties, sustainable development could be a significant influence on, if not a driver of, development.

1. Objectives My objectives are to: briefly describe the process of regionalism in England; consider how that process is dealing with sustainability; describe the sorts of actions which are being delivered in regions as a response to seeking sustainable development; and consider conclusions and future needs for research and practice.

2. Background The Countryside Agency is a statutory body working to conserve and enhance England's countryside, spread social and economic opportunity for those who live there, and help everyone, wherever they live and whatever their background, to enjoy the countryside. We work by influencing those whose decisions affect the countryside through our expertise, our research and by spreading good practice and implementing specific work programmes reflecting priorities set by the Government and the Agency Board. We are a sustainable development organisation for the countryside.

3. Regionalism Regionalism in England is not as far advanced as in other parts of the UK. All of rural England is covered by various tiers of local government, but overlain on this at a regional level are three principal structures: • regional assemblies - these comprise representatives of local authorities (the majority) plus sectoral representatives (e.g. an environmental representative); • government offices for the regions - containing representatives of an increasingly wide range of government departments; and

96

K. Buchanan / Promoting Sustainable Development at a Regional Level

•

regional development agencies, charged with improving the economies of their regions. The current government is intending to allow regions to gain more control over their own affairs through, for example, paving the way for elected regional assemblies which would consequently gain control over their regional development agencies [1]. At present, the assemblies can only scrutinise and influence the regional development agencies. Similarly, the government have clearly signaled that they intend the regional government offices to increasingly represent the particular regional circumstances to central government in discussions over allocation of government resources, etc. So, the direction of travel for this government is to give the regions more autonomy.

4. Regions and sustainability If we look at the regional perceptions of sustainable development and rural areas, some important realisations are emerging. Understanding rural economies is an important first step to influencing them. In that regard, the Countryside Agency [2] is helping regions to learn that: • rural economies are very diverse, with the four key employing groups being public administration, education and health; distribution; manufacturing; and banking and financial services; • the role of in-migrants is vital (they account for two thirds of new rural businesses); • self-employment is a key characteristic; • household income is critical, not just the income of the principal wage earner; and • the influence of the land is important because although the contribution of farming to the rural economy is low (2% of England's employment), it underpins many rural businesses and provides many non-traded goods and services such as clean water and biodiversity. Consequently, regions are generally: • pursuing objectives for rural economies in tandem with urban economies in the light of the interdependencies and shared importance of many sectors, rather than treating them separately; • recognising that different approaches to providing support and services are often needed in rural areas due to the dispersed nature of activity; • recognising that environmental assets are a key economic asset for the region, often making the region distinctive. They are key assets through providing: direct employment in environmental industries; the basis for businesses using the environment; an attractor for footloose industries, particularly those seeking a high quality environment; and • accepting that sustainable development is the way forward.

5. Actions - making sustainable development happen The real test of whether sustainable development is a key driver for regional rural economies is action. To look at this, let us consider the following aspects: 1. responsibilities 2. structures 3. plans 4. investing in information

K. Buchanan / Promoting Sustainable Development at a Regional Level 5. 6.

97

environmentally-led regeneration embedding sustainable development in decision making

5.1 Responsibilities Sustainable development, being a stated objective of the government, has been inserted into the key responsibilities of regional organisations such as the regional development agencies. Government requires them to "contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom, where it is relevant to their area to do so." [3] So, increasingly, regional organisations have a responsibility for sustainable development. However, for regional development agencies, economic performance is still the driver, with sustainable development being an influence on this process.

5.2 Structures Following on from responsibilities, sustainable development is reflected in structures. The regional development agency for the North East for example, has an officer leading on sustainability whose job it is to champion it within the organisation. The Regional Assembly in the North East has a sustainability officer to co-ordinate this work within the Assembly. Again, the approach is for this post to act as an internal champion. The degree of influence is unpredictable and it can be an uphill struggle with such individuals being relatively unconnected to the rest of the organisation.

5.3 Plans As a requirement of government, each region has in place an overarching sustainable development framework, setting social, economic and environmental goals. The frameworks are championed by boards, with broad membership. These documents are meant to influence all other regional strategies, whatever their more detailed objectives. The framework for the North East [4], for example, has 16 objectives, with objective 8 being "to protect and enhance the region's biodiversity." This objective carries four indicators, with associated targets (Table 1). Indicator 1 Target:

Indicator 2 Target:

Table 1. Indicators and associated targets of Objective 8. Population of wild birds. Halt the declining trend in the regional wild bird population index by 2005 and thereafter see the return of the wild bird population to favourable conservation status. (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) Condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). (English Nature - EN) 95% of all SSSIs to be in a favourable condition by 2010. (EN)

Indicator 3 Target:

Condition of key habitats. (EN) Maintain all regional priority habitats (defined in the North East Biodiversity audit) currently in favourable condition.

Indicator 4 Target:

Number of species with action plans. (EN) To be identified.

(EN)

98

K. Buchanan / Promoting Sustainable Development at a Regional Level

5.4 Investing in information A number of regions have carried out studies to try and quantify the contribution of the environment to economic activity, to provide evidence to justify further investment in the environment as an economic driver. The study for the North East 'valuing our environment [5]' demonstrated that one in 18 jobs in the North East was environment linked and that there was considerable potential for growth in this sector. An important part of the strategy for using such information was to have the chairman of the regional development agency launching the report, thus mainstreaming its findings. Monitoring is also an increasing trend. The Countryside Agency, for example, publishes regional 'State of the Countryside [6] reports, covering 20 indicators (Table 2). Table 2. Indicators covered by the 'State of the Countryside' reports. 1 1 . Access to affordable housing 1 . Change in countryside character 12. Rural crime 2. Biodiversity - crime levels - wild bird populations - fear of crime - area of semi natural ancient woodland - extent and management of SSSIs - Biodiversity Action Plans - progress against targets - sustainable management of woodland 13. ICT in rural areas 3. State of natural resources - rivers of good or fair quality - soil quality - air quality 14. Rural mobility 4. Traffic effects 15. Market town prosperity 5. Geographical availability of services 16. Business health 6. Community vibrancy 17. Employment characteristics 7. Income levels and distribution 18. Sustainable land management 8. Education and training 19. How people use the countryside 9. Access to child care 20. Public concern for the countryside 10. Health and special needs

This will allow trends to be assessed over time, a key element of judging sustainability.

5.5 Environmentally led regeneration Yes, there is some action on the ground! Large scale environmentally led regeneration schemes are increasingly being seen as a way of raising the profile of sustainable development and reinforcing the fact that it can make a difference Some examples from the North East with which the Countryside Agency has been involved are: • The Tees Forest - a project to improve the environment of 35 square kilometres around the conurbations in the Tees Valley in north east England. The long term aim is to increase tree cover to about 30%, create networks of non-motorised leisure routes for walking/cycling, create country parks for recreation, promote environmentally friendly farming and be an attractive location for business and housing development. After 10 years this project has, for example, generated almost 1,000 hectares of new tree planting, organised 10,000 events for local communities and generated £12m of inward investment.

K. Buchanan /Promoting Sustainable Development at a Regional Level

99

•

Turning The Tide - a project to restore the previously attractive coast of County Durham which had been despoiled by 100 years of dumping of colliery waste. Again, a wide partnership pooled resources resulting in the removal of 1.3 million tonnes of waste off the beaches, installing or improving 18 km of footpath and setting aside 225 ha of land for wildlife by bringing it out of crop production and reinstating the limestone grassland, which had been reduced to remnants. • Hadrian's Wall Path - a project to create a footpath alongside Hadrian's Wall, the Roman defensive structure which runs across northern England for 81 miles from coast to coast and which is a World Heritage Site. This path, which, with linking path systems, interpretation, etc. is a £5m investment, will create 100 new jobs in the countryside and pave the way for much more new investment in visitor facilities, accommodation provision, improved public transport, etc. All these projects are of a significant scale, give sustainable development a high profile and will make a real difference to the people of the North East.

5.6 Embedding sustainable development in decision making A critical part of making sustainable development happen is to incorporate it into the day to day decision making of organisations. In the end, sustainable development does depend on the cumulative impact of these myriad small decisions. For this to happen, it has got to be a straightforward process, integrated into other decision making machinery. It has got to be demystified. There is some progress in this regard. For example, in the delivery of the EU Objective 2 programme in the North East, there is a mandatory environmental sustainability appraisal [7] for every project application. One of the questions is as follows: "Will your project result in planting of appropriate native species of trees/plants or the creation of new wildlife habitats? Yes/No If Yes please detail the extent and type of planting or habitat creation. If No please explain why it is not feasible to include appropriate planting and confirm why your project will have a detrimental impact on existing habitats and wildlife. Note: Provide a description and extent of the habitat created including species of plants to be used." If the environmental impacts are negative, the applicant is required to give details of mitigating measures. This information is then scored and fed into the decision whether to grant aid the project or not. However, many decision making systems do not have such a systematic approach to assessing environmental impact so environmental appraisal is far from universal. 6. Conclusions and future needs If we stand back and look at what all this activity adds up to in a region, what do we conclude? I conclude that:

100

K. Buchanan /Promoting Sustainable Development at a Regional Level

•

sustainable development has been largely accepted at the conceptual level as the way forward; • on the face of it, the appropriate responsibilities and structures are in place to deliver it; • a critical gap is in incorporating sustainable development into everyday decision making throughout the region - this is the most pressing challenge for the concept; • the real costs of pursuing non-sustainable development are not yet borne by developers (an international issue); • some aspects of sustainable development - environmentally led regeneration schemes are making good progress and being widely accepted as important; • the ultimate driver for economic development by entrepreneurs is profit, but sustainable development could become a major influence, and could become the principal way in which development happens, if we have the right regulatory and support structures; and • so, my overall conclusion is that while sustainable development is not yet a major economic driver in English regions, it is becoming an increasing influence. To promote it further we need to research or put in place: • a clearer tangible vision of what a sustainable development future looks like; • better quantified links between a good environment and economic activity; • simple appraisal methodologies which can be incorporated into other, existing, appraisal systems; • appropriate rewards for sustainable development, and penalties for development which is not sustainable; and • in relation to biodiversity, the need to take a broad view of the environment many tourism businesses are built on having an environment rich in biodiversity but also rich in historical or archaeological heritage within attractive landscapes - the public often do not make fine distinctions between these attributes).

References [1] Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions. UK Government, 14/5/02. www.regions.odpm.gov.uk. [2] Rural Economies - Stepping Stones to Healthier Futures. Unpublished research paper by the Countryside Agency, England, 09/02. www.countryside.gov.uk [3] Box 2.1 in Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions. UK Government, 14/5/02. www.regions.odpm.gov.uk [4] Sustaine: Quality of Life in the North East. Towards a Regional Framework. North East Assembly et al, 01/02. www.sustaine.com [5] Valuing our Environment. Summary of a study completed June 2001 on behalf of the environment sector organisations of the North East. National Trust et al, 01. www.nationaltrust.org.uk [6] The State of the Countryside 2001: The North East. Countryside Agency, 01. www.countryside.gov.uk [7] Environmental sustainability check list. North East of England Objective 2 Programme 2000-2006, 05/02. www.go-ne.gov.uk

The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability 5. Light (Ed.) IOS Press, 2004

101

Toward Rural Sustainability in British Columbia: The Role of Biodiversity Conservation and Other Factors J.C. DAY, Thomas I. GUNTON, Tanis M. FRAME, Karin H. ALBERT, and K.S. CALBICK School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6

1. Characterizing the Management Problem Following a century of intensive development of the resource base and impairment of the environment, British Columbia (B.C.) began to realize during the 1980s that new management practices were needed if social, economic, and environmental Sustainability were to be achieved in rural areas. As Canada's third largest province occupying 95 million hectares, coniferous forest covers 85 percent of the land base and is used for multiple purposes, but largely for the forestry, mining, and oil and gas industries. This constitutes the major provincial economic sector. Bitter conflict over the use of rural areas by a variety of groups questioned forestry, mining, agricultural, water, and parks management, and other practices. There was a succession of public protests throughout the province: in parks, in forests, and on the lawn of the legislature. Even though 93% of the province is Crown land, owned by the people, a variety of rural irritants related to clear-cutting, overcutting, and the detrimental effect of logging and other resource management sectors on values such as biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, scenic landscapes, and the Sustainability of timber supplies. This led to a decade of commissions, round tables, consultations, and public negotiations that collectively identified the need for the development of a provincial Sustainability strategy for rural areas of Crown land, and a vision to direct it. This paper reviews the experience in British Columbia where a major initiative was undertaken to move toward ecological, social, and economic Sustainability in the rural areas of the province. It begins with a brief review of some of the major institutional changes that were introduced, the adoption of shared decision making as the basis of conflict resolution, the history of implementation measures throughout the province, and the specific initiatives adopted to introduce biodiversity conservation within this milieu of rapid institutional change. The paper concludes with general lessons from the first decade of experimentation in the transition to sustainable management and suggested best practices for developing rural land use plans and their implementation.

102

J.C. Day et al. / Toward Rural Sustainability in British Columbia

2. Methodological Approach 2.1 Institutions In an effort to make this transition, The Commission on Resources and Environmental Act [1] (CORE Act) was adopted by British Columbia in 1992. It empowered the development of an overall provincial strategy, regional and strategic land use plans, increased public participation and aboriginal involvement, improved government coordination, and dispute resolution processes. A new agency, the Commission on Resources and Environment, was created to spearhead the initiative and to coordinate the activities of all other provincial ministries. Designation of land use agreements under the Forest Practices Code [2], as higher level plans, means that all activities by provincial agencies must be consistent with CORE plans. The foundation for the transition to rural sustainability was completed in 1995 with the publication of the four-volume Provincial Land Use Strategy series [3-6] and the approval by government of strategic land use plans for the most contentious regions in the province: Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin, West Kootenay-Boundary, and East Kootenay [7-10] (fig. 1)[11]. The CORE Act visualized two related mandates. CORE'S first task, completed in 1995, was to catalyze rural sustainability by means of a number of related initiatives. These included: the development of a provincial strategy, land use plans, and local planning processes that that aim to balance social, economic, and environmental interests; the coordination of programs within and between governments; and introducing a high level of public participation to make the transition successful [1]. The commission's second mandate was to provide ongoing sustainability oversight through its responsibility to advise government in an independent and public manner on land use and related resource and environmental issues, and on the need for related legislation, policies, and practices [1]. This mandate was supported by full public inquiry powers to hold hearings and compel testimony [1]. This continuing role to serve as an ombudsperson was a key component of the sustainability strategy. The cancellation of CORE in 1996 left a critical gap; subsequently an overarching monitor to observe and integrate the complex and interconnected aspects of sustainability initiatives throughout rural areas of the province [11]. In January of 1994, the government established the Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO) as a central agency to implement the province's vision for strategic land use planning and to oversee, coordinate, and evaluate all interministry strategic land-use planning initiatives. LUCO and regional interagency management committees, made up of senior representatives from provincial ministries with land and resource use related mandates, coordinated the work of the LRMP tables. In June of 2001, following a provincial election, the new provincial government created the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM) with a mandate to ". . . to provide corporate leadership to the development of sustainable policies, plans and supporting information systems for land use planning and policy" (B.C. Office of the Premier 2001). LUCO became a part of this new ministry. A variety of interrelated programs were adopted in an effort to move toward a more sustainable rural society. These included an initiative to prepare rural communities for the 21st century by providing $2 billion for forest and industrial renewal, and worker education, all financed from fees levied on resource-based companies. CORE developed a Land Use Charter [12] designed to protect and restore the quality and integrity of the environment while promoting a sound and prosperous economy. It aimed to achieve these goals by maintaining the life-support capacity of air, water, land, and ecosystems; conservation of biological diversity in genes, species, and ecosystems; preventing adverse environmental impacts; accounting for environmental and social costs in land, resource use, and economic

J.C. Day etal. /TowardRural Sustainability In British Columbia

103

Figure 1. CORE and LRMP shared decision-making tables in British Columbia

decisions; and protecting the environment for human uses and enjoyment, and respect for the intrinsic value of nature. 2.2 Shared Decision Making These ambitious land use goals to reform rural land uses were largely based on the resolution of planning disputes through shared decision making (SDM). The principal distinction between SDM and more conventional participatory methods is that SDM is based on a higher level of collaboration and involvement of stakeholders. Such agreements

104

J. C. Day et al. / Toward Rural Sustainability in British Columbia

are more likely to resolve conflict among competing stakeholders than other planning processes because they identify solutions that meet mutual interests of all parties. They are also considered easier to implement, and more durable, because they are less likely to generate opposition. At the same time, there are a variety of limitations to SDM related ideological or value differences between stakeholders, institutional reluctance, lack of trust, power imbalances among stakeholders, and many others [11,13-22]. So there are both strengths as well as danger inherent in SDM decision processes. Although negotiation tables varied from 12 to over 70 members, 20 to 30 members typically represented interested stakeholders and relevant government agencies throughout the province. The effect of this process was to transfer power from the provincial Ministry of Forests to interest groups by engaging all relevant stakeholders in face-to-face round table negotiations. These took more or less four years to achieve and they largely resulted in consensus, or near consensus, agreements. Government specialists took part in discussions as experts who brought information to the tables, often in the form of GIS overlay maps or technical assessments of scenario development options such as multiple account analyses. However, it was exclusively the nongovernmental stakeholders who agreed on the land use plan recommendations that were submitted to government for approval. 2.3 CORE andLRMP Tables Initially, the four most contentious regions of the province were the focus of CORE tables (fig. 1). While none of these tables could completely agree on an acceptable plan, the government was able to synthesize agreements in each case that the stakeholders would accept, even though not all aspects of the plans were their first choice. An offshoot of the CORE tables was a system of more detailed subregional processes called land and resource management planning (LRMP). Similar to CORE tables, this is a "consensus-building process . . . [which] establishes direction for land use and specifies broad resource management objectives and strategies" [23] on Crown land for up to ten years, although the scale is much smaller at 15,000 to 25,000 km2. The tables developed land use plans for protected areas and other conservation uses, agriculture, grazing, settlements, and forestry. An effort was made to teach participants bargaining techniques to minimize conflict, aided by impartial facilitators in a nonadversarial setting that attempted to avoid public demonstrations and the use of lawyers. The outcome of the process is remarkable. As of October 2002, full consensus was achieved in 12 of the 15 completed LRMPs, consensus minus one (97.5% stakeholder agreement) was achieved in two, and in one process consensus was reached on the majority of plan elements and options were provided to government on nonconsensus items. The achievement of consensus was remarkable, given the high level of conflict that existed prior to the process. The provincial Cabinet has accepted all of these agreements; six more are in progress. Collectively, the 4 CORE tables and 15 LRMPs account for 73% of the province; this will reach 85% when the 6 outstanding plans are completed (fig. 1). 3. Biodiversity Conservation, Adaptive Management, Institutional Capacity The British Columbia approach to sustainable development grew directly out of the best available scientific thinking and institutional analysis of the time. The Canadian Environmental Advisory Council established an agenda for the country in 1988:

J. C. Day et at. / Toward Rural Sustainability in British Columbia

105

The Brundtland Commission challenged all nations to protect their diversity of species and ecosystems, calling this a prerequisite to sustainable development. Thus, to truly achieve sustainable development, Canada must identify and protect a complete range of representative and unique natural areas, wilderness landscapes and wildlife habitats. Defining, establishing and managing a comprehensive network of protected areas will require the active participation of many groups and individuals, in addition to the work of all of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments. At the time of the council's observation, approximately six percent of the provincial land base was protected by various jurisdictions. As one of the world's most ecologically rich and diverse jurisdictions, the province was able to respond positively by creating its Protected Area Strategy [23] (PAS). It charted a vision for moving toward the Brundtland recommendation of protection for 12% of the land base. The aim was to do so by the turn of the millennium and ultimately it exceeded that goal by reaching 13% (fig. 2). The target included land, fresh water, and marine areas that are set aside to protect natural, cultural heritage, and recreational values. The protected areas are inalienable; the land and resources may not be sold. Industrial extraction or development are prohibited including logging, mining, hydroelectric dams as well as oil and gas [23]. Table 1. Main Components of the Protected Areas Strategy Vision, goals, principles, & criteria definitions Identify the nature and intent of protected areas Identify approved study areas Identify areas of interest Comprehensive criteria used to recommend study areas Cabinet approves study areas CORE and LRMP tables decide which areas Land use recommendations will be recommended for protected areas status CORE ensures that uniform principles are followed Made by Cabinet Land use designations Protected area management plans Guided by a package of integrated legislation and management priorities

3.1 Main Components of the Strategy A five-step process was used to implement the PAS (table 1). The goals, principles, and criteria are the principal planning tools. PAS has two goals. The first is to protect viable, representative examples of natural diversity throughout the province, representative of the major terrestrial, marine, and fresh water ecosystems, the characteristic habitats, hydrology and landforms, and the characteristic backcountry recreational and cultural heritage values of each ecosection in the province. The province is divided into 110 natural regions, or ecosections, distinctive in landform, hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife; 10 are marine. The second goal is to protect the special natural, cultural heritage, and recreational features of the province. These include rare and endangered species and critical habitats, outstanding or unique botanical, zoological, geological, and paleontological values, outstanding or fragile cultural heritage characteristics, and outstanding outdoor recreational features such as trails. The intent is to protect such values not only in protected areas, but also throughout the province, even though commercial or industrial activities are

106

J.C. Day et al /Toward Rural Sustainability in British Columbia

Growth of BC Protected Areas

January 2001

Figure 2. Protected areas in British Columbia: 1991 and 2001

emphasized in some areas. The emphasis is intended to be on conservation, cultural heritage protection, or recreation.

3.2 Identifying and Evaluating Study Areas In a two-year process beginning in 1990, parks and wilderness study areas were identified for consideration under the protected areas strategy by interagency regional protected areas teams who identified gaps in the existing protected areas system. Subsequently, over 100 public meetings were held throughout the province to give publics and stakeholders an opportunity to discuss the goals of PAS, potential protected areas, and to suggest changes to the original list. Cabinet approved study areas as well those areas subsequently designated for protection. The CORE and LRMP tables undertook consideration of the initial list of potential study areas that represented 18 percent of the provincial land base. Based on their own preferences, as well as suggestions submitted to them by regional protected area teams, stakeholders attempted to reach consensus within each region in order to recommend

7. C. Day et al. / Toward Rural Sustainability in British Columbia

107

Figure 3. The Protected Areas Strategy as a component of B.C. land use planning

protected areas to Cabinet to fill existing gaps in the system. Government employees were not involved in making the final recommendations. A number of criteria were used to identify and evaluate areas for possible protection within each ecosection of the province. To achieve the first goal, protecting representative examples, these included representativeness, degree of naturalness, viability, diversity, vulnerability, opportunity for public use and appreciation, and opportunity for scientific research. Criteria for the second goal included protecting special features, rarity, scarcity, and uniqueness; diversity; vulnerability; opportunity for public use, appreciation, and scientific research; and cultural heritage significance.

3.3 First Nations' Participation Land treaties were never signed with roughly 65 aboriginal groups in British Columbia. However, the government undertook to respect treaty rights in the Protected Areas Strategy by consulting with First Nations where Crown activities or proposed activities could affect the exercise of these rights and interests [23]. In only a few planning tables did First Nations enter into negotiations with other stakeholders. Most viewed themselves as another level of government and were unwilling to negotiate before land claims were resolved. Their interests appear to have been excluded in most of the land use agreements. The significance of this constraint has not yet been researched.

108


3.4 Adaptive Management The entire land use planning process was designed to be adaptive. The CORE legislation requires that a stakeholder monitoring committee must be created to ensure that all of the goals and objectives identified in approved plans are, in fact, implemented. Implementation reviews are intended to be undertaken at five-year intervals. 4. Lessons from the British Columbia Experience When the decision was taken early in the 1990s to preserve 12 percent of the province to protect biodiversity, a variety of complementary measures were present or adopted to enable this commitment to be implemented. • A champion is necessary to drive the process and sell it politically and to civil society. Conceptualizing, reorganizing the system of governance, planning, and implementation are demanding tasks that will challenge the resolve of even the most committed of politicians. The complexity of the tasks absorbs a great deal of the capacity of government and stakeholders over at least a decade. • Management for sustainability is a complex political, institutional, and educational process, in which science plays a small, but critical, role. It is essential to devote considerable attention to the education of politicians, stakeholder groups, and the public in general about the scientific underpinnings of sustainable management for environmental, social and economic systems. • Science was critical in the B.C. process to identify the background information used to identify the 110 ecosections in the province based on ecological, social, and economic criteria. Initially, 18 percent of the land base was designated as areas of interest by regional panels of civil servants; this information was given to planning tables to assist them in reaching their recommendations for Cabinet approval. Science was also critical in generating a folio of maps describing the capability of land units to support a variety of resource and environmental uses. • Institutional coordination and capacity-building innovations are key elements in the transition to sustainability. This was achieved in British Columbia through the creation of a new independent agency, the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) and subsequently the Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO). These agencies were responsible for ensuring consistency and neutrality in both regional planning processes under their acts, and other forms of land use planning. Designation of land use agreements under the Forest Practices Code as higher level plans, means that all forest and range resource management activities by provincial agencies must be consistent with the CORE plans or LRMPs [23]. This critical change permitted the province to redirect its management goals, and to coordinate provincial effort, toward attaining environmental, social, and economic sustainability in a manner that had never been possible previously. • Opportunities are critical to permit civic-based processes to mediate and resolve complex land use issues and trade-offs. To do so, shared decision making was adopted as the crucible within which public education, discussion, and debate among stakeholders and agency representatives could be focused in an effort to reach consensus agreement. Over the first decade, this resulted in regional and subregional consensus and near-consensus plans on 73% of provincial land. There is a high probability of increasing this total to 85% in the near future. • Compensation for displaced workers as a result of land use changes is critical to reaching such agreements. Sometimes known as a "no losers policy", those laid off in

J.C. Day et al. / Toward Rural Sustainability in British Columbia

109

forestry industry were guaranteed alternative employment and training under agreements negotiated between unions, forestry workers, and the province. Between $430-450 million annually was spent by Forest Renewal B.C., between 1995-2001, in an effort to aid those displaced. Additional benefits of SDM processes may become critical tools in the longer-term pursuit of sustainability. Such processes are capable of integrating social, economic, and environmental principles and goals. They also can increase the capacity of participants, and produce a system that can adapt more creatively to change. This capacity is increased through the development of shared intellectual and social capital, new innovations, creative solutions, and dynamic learning and change. Thus, SDM processes can help to promote stability through increased understanding and respect, and an ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The British Columbia experience demonstrates that, while neither a panacea nor easy to use, in certain circumstances SDM processes are a feasible and valuable tool for the resolution of conflicts and for sustainable public land and resource use planning. However, the full range of their applicability remains to be explored.

5. Best Practices to Achieve Effective SDM Processes Based on detailed a survey of participants in the first 17 LRMP processes completed in the province, respondents were asked to rate the importance of key factors determining the success of an SDM process. The results (table 2) show that there is no single factor that determines the success of such a process; SDM is a complex system that requires achievement of a broad range of criteria to be successful. Careful planning of each of these factors is crucial to realizing desired outcomes.

Table 2. Best Practices to Achieve Effective Shared Decision-Making Agreements Incentives to participate and reach agreement Inclusive representation of all relevant interests Effective representation of all relevant interests Voluntary participation Commitment of all participants to the process Commitment to implementation and monitoring of the agreement Clearly defined consequence or alternative outcome if consensus not reached Urgent and significant issues Principled negotiation including mutual respect and trust Consensus requirement Participants have a clear understanding of their own and others' interests Accountability of representatives to their constituencies Accountability and openness of process to the public High-quality information and analytical tools for decision making Process ultimately designed by participants but with use of a clear framework Clearly defined purpose and objectives Clear rules of procedure Participants having equal opportunity and resources Effective process management (including chair/coordinator/support staff) Use of an independent, impartial, facilitator Clear timetable, including a deadline for reaching agreement Process design that is flexible and adaptive

110


6. Best practices for successful land use plan implementation Two types of surveys were used in an effort to determine the most effective and efficient methods to implement land use plans. The first (A) is an analysis of the implementation monitoring process of the first completed LRMP in British Columbia. The second (B), based on program evaluation theory, is an analysis of implementation practices used by five institutions created to manage complex ecological systems. A) The Kamloops LRMP was the first land use plan completed, in 1995, and implemented in British Columbia beginning in 1999. Initial analysis of this experience reveals a variety of factors that decision makers, implementing officials, and table participants should consider when implementing land use plans (table 3). The five categories of variables are ranked in order of importance from highest to lowest. Within each category, variables are also ranked from most to least important based on the perceptions and attitudes of 24 monitoring table members. The relative importance of each factor is rated on a five-point scale from +2 (very important) to -2 (very unimportant). Survey responses and respondents' own comments leave no doubt that implementation of a land use plan is a complex undertaking that requires the resolution of a broad range of issues. These range from developing useful indicators, dealing with scientific uncertainty, to building respect and trust between individuals from widely divergent backgrounds. Implementation success depends on a multitude of different factors. B). Theoretically, implementation efforts can be conceptualized within the domain Table 3. Best Practices for Successful Land Use Plan Implementation Structuring the implementation process 1. Clear and consistent objectives 2. Monitoring frameworks with appropriate indicators to track change in each objective 3. High level of cooperation and information sharing between implementing agencies 4. Implementing officials skilled in working collaboratively with stakeholders 5. Clear delineation of agency responsibilities 6. Integration of land use plan objectives within individual agency work plans 7. Adequate financial and staff resource commitments 8. Clear understanding of causal relationship between implementation strategies and desired outcomes Attainment of process goals 1. An effective collaborative planning process 2.Power differences between stakeholders are equalized through the process Stakeholder participation 1. Implementation monitoring committee with public reporting requirements 2. Participation of stakeholders in monitoring 3. Participation of stakeholders in land use plan development through a collaborative planning process 4. Participation of implementing officials in plan preparation Political and socioeconomic conditions 1. Strong commitment of implementing officials 2. Strong provincial government support 3. Strong stakeholder support 4. Strong local government agencies support 5. Natural science data available 6. No conflicting government policies 7. Socioeconomic data available 8. Strong public support 9. Favorable socioeconomic conditions Complexity of the problems addressed 5. Sufficient information available to make appropriate implementation decisions

J.C. Day et al. /Toward Rural Sustainability in British Columbia

of program theory [24-28]. An initial list of implementation practices was compiled by reviewing documents from several agencies and subsequently applying program theory. These agencies are: • The Bay Conservation and Development Commission for the San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay areas in California • The Fraser Basin Council for the Fraser River basin in British Columbia • The Land Conservation and Development Commission for the Oregon State • The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team for the Puget Sound drainage basin in Washington State • U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service for national forests and rangelands in the United States. An initial list of implementation practices was synthesized from an analysis of the practices of these organizations. A check-rank-evaluate questionnaire, modeled after one developed by Hegadoren [29], was administered to senior agency personnel, such as executive and policy directors, to ascertain the most effective implementation practices used for successfully achieving various land use policy objectives. From these data, a comprehensive depiction of the various agencies' structures, as well as their strengths and problems, coalesced. Issues critical to the effectiveness of implementation practices emerged, thereby allowing a preliminary determination of the most critical implementation practices (table 4). These practices exhibit a balance between legislated institutional and social aspects of sustainability. Such a balance suggests governments should develop and initiate a robust institutional framework to ensure this social-capital-building process is not derailed during implementation. Environmental-related issues were not ranked among the most critical implementation factors. Table 4. Prelimir

• List of Most Critical Implementation Practices HHHUHHlwHHilifflKAjiiS

Legislated Mandate Administrative Rules (Regulations and Permits)

Empowering statute contains clear description of authority Legislation and responsibilities Prescribed code of conduct designed to control or govern Legislation behavior

Written material that leads stakeholders through a desired or required process; following the guidelines should result in substantive adherence to applicable statutes and regulations Active engagement of all interested and affected Cooperative/Collaborati stakeholders providing them with open and ve Planning Process meaningful input into the planning process and outcome Enough monies allocated to fulfill either a formal or Adequate Funding informal mandate Process that involve more than one jurisdiction and that Multijurisdictional transgress political boundaries such as county, Cooperation regional district, state, province, or country borders Empowering statute contains a framework for bringing to Enforcement Penalties bear enforcement of compliance and penalties for noncompliance Agencies offering nonbinding directions and Public Advisory Bodies recommendations staffed by public representatives Agencies offering nonbinding directions and Technical Advisory recommendations staffed by scientific or technical Bodies professionals representatives Development of Guidelines

Legislation

Social

Economic Social Legislation Social Social

1

112


7. Summary The British Columbia experience with implementing rural sustainability demonstrates that this is a complex, multidimensional process. In British Columbia, it requires the integration of science into a collaborative process that engages all relevant stakeholders in principled negotiation to develop plans that achieve the public interest. Indeed, we observed that environmental sustainability is fundamentally a question of reconciling diverse values and interests that expert-driven processes, based on science, can neither adequately identify, nor reflect. Although we believe that science is a necessary input into the management process, it must ultimately be subservient to the values of stakeholders if the process is to be successful in moving toward a more sustainable society. In effect, science is merely one critical component in a complex, rapidly evolving decision system. Therein lies a fundamental challenge for scientists who wish to see their developing understanding of complex ecological, social, and economic systems implemented adaptively, tested, and improved as a mechanism to promote sustainable management. References [I] British Columbia. 1992. Commission on Resources and Environment Act. S.B.C. ch. 34. [2] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1994. British Columbia Forest Practices Code: Standards. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. [3] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1994. British Columbia's Forest Renewal Plan. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. [4] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1994. Provincial Land Use Strategy: A Sustainability Act for B.C. Vol. 1 & 2. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. [5] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1995. Provincial Land Use Strategy: Public Participation. Vol. 3. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. [6] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1995a. Provincial Land Use Strategy: Dispute Resolution. Vol. 4. Victoria, B.C. [7] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1994b. Vancouver Island Land Use Plan. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. [8] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1994c. Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. [9] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1994d. West KootenayBoundary Land Use Plan. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. [10] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1994e. East Kootenay Land Use Plan. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. [II] Owen, Stephen. 1998. Land Use Planning in the Nineties: CORE Lessons. Environments 25(2 and 3): 1426. [12] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1992. Report on a Land Use Charter for British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. [13] Bacow, Lawrence S. and Michael Wheeler. 1984. Environmental Dispute Resolution. New York: Plenum Press. [14] Carr, Deborah S., Steven W. Selin, and Michael A. Schuett. 1998. Managing Public Forests: Understanding the Role of Collaborative Planning. Environmental Management 22(5): 767-776. [15] Duffy, Dorli M., Mark Roseland, and Thomas I. Gunton. 1996. A Preliminary Assessment of Shared Decision-Making in Land Use and Natural Resource Planning. Environments 23(2): 1-16. [16] Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 2d ed. New York: Penguin Books. [17] Gunton, Thomas I., and S. Flynn. 1992. Resolving Environmental Conflicts: The Role of Mediation and Negotiation. Environments 21(3): 12-16. [18] Harter, Philip J. 1997. Fear of Commitment: An Affliction of Adolescents. Duke Law Journal 46: 13891428. [19] Innes, J.E., and David E. Booher. 1999. A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4): 412-423. [20] Susskind, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.


113

[21] Susskind, Lawrence, Mieke van der Wansem, and Armand Ciccarelli. 2000. Mediating Land Use Disputes: Pros and Cons. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. [22] Wondolleck, Julia M., and Steven L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovations in Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. [23] British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1993. A Protected Areas Strategy for British Columbia: The Protected Areas Component of B.C. 's land Use Strategy. http://srmrpdwww.env.gov.bc.ca/pas_bak/pasforbc/home.htm Site visited 24710/02. [24] Rossi, Peter H., Howard E. Freeman, and Mark W. Lipsey. 1999. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. [25] Scheirer, Mary Ann. 1994. Designing and Using Process Evaluation, pp. 40-68. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, ed. J. S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, Kathryn E. Newcomer. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publishers. [26] Chen, Huey-Tsyh. 1990. Theory-Driven Evaluations. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. [27] Scheirer, Mary Ann. (1987). Program Theory and Implementation Theory: Implications for Evaluators. New Directions of Program Evaluation 33 (Spring): 59-76. [28] Wholey, J.S. 1987. Evaluability Assessment: Developing Program Theory. New Directions in Program Evaluation 33 (Spring): 77-92. [29] Hegadoren, Douglas Brent. 1979. Socioeconomic Mine-closure Problems: An Evaluation of the Marmoraton Mining Company Closure. Master of arts thesis. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo, Department of Geography.

Additional Resources British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1995b. Report to the Legislative Assembly 1994-95: British Columbia's Strategy for Sustainability. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. 1988. A Protected Areas Vision for Canada. Ottawa. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Toronto, Ont.: Oxford University Press.

114


State of Biodiversity in Some Rural Areas of the Ukraine and Abilities of its Improvement Natalija KOVALCHUK Carpathian Ecological Club "Ruthenia " Dovzhenko 4/6, Uzhgorod, 88000, Transcarpathia, the Ukraine

Abstract. To improve the conservation of biodiversity in rural areas the very complicated collaboration of scientists, officials, NGO members, and rural inhabitants is necessary. Two examples of such approaches maintained in different conditions are discussed in this paper. During field studies the significance of water basins in biodiversity conservation of agricultural landscapes was noted. Analysis of environmental data in agricultural landscape showed the necessity of urgent revision of the established practice and negative attitudes of farming fish breeders on the near-water animals and from rural inhabitants on the wetlands ecosystems as a whole. In particular, the majority of ponds were inhabited by valuable species in environmental or esthetic sense. Among them are plants and animals which deserve protection in accordance with existing national legislation. Ponds, lakes and other reservoirs often represent the "environmental islands" or reserves of biodiversity in habitat-poor agricultural landscapes. Optimally, such islands of habitat should be integrated into nature-conservation network that stretches across the agriculturally dominated landscape.

Introduction The area of the Ukraine is 603.700 km2. Its population is about 49 million. The nation's network of rivers is well developed, consisting of more than 4,000 rivers with length over 10 kilometers, 160 rivers over 100 kilometers, about 850 water reservoirs and 24,000 ponds. In 1990, a profound change in the structure of the national economy of the Ukraine resulted in a cascade of negative changes in both industrial and agricultural productivity. Intentional conservatism and frustration of the population, inflation, blunders of privatization, collapse of old laws and delay in the adoption of new legislation, rashness in mechanisms of structural change and conscious resistance of the former local leaders to the new circumstances, abolition of subsidies and destruction of credit mechanisms were the main reasons, which resulted in worsening the situation in the Ukrainian economy. The country that was mainly a net agricultural producer was transformed at that time into a net agricultural consumer. But rural economics are very unstable and the situation changed essentially every year. In particular, because of high harvest of wheat in 2002, the Ukraine became an exporter.

N. Kovalchuk / State of Biodiversity in Some Rural Areas of the Ukraine

115

1. Ecological aspects of agriculture and biodiversity The situation with agricultural production in the Ukraine had become even more complicated due to essential ecological problems. Human impact on natural resources has increased incredibly up to today from the beginning of 20th century. Sometimes it exceeds the limit of stability of natural ecosystems. According to available data [5], ponds and wetlands of natural origin have one of the highest ecological stability coefficients — 0.79 and they are able to increase the total ecological stability of agricultural land. For comparison, forests have the coefficient 1.00; pastures, 0.68; fruit gardens, bushes, 0.43; land ploughed in autumn for spring sowing, 0.14. During the last years, the average ecological stability coefficient for Ukraine has been between 0.34-0.37, witnessing its ecological instability [5]. In the Ukraine, ploughed lands cover 55% of the whole territory (the largest area in Europe); agricultural ploughed land represent 79.1% of all agricultural lands of the Ukraine. Large areas of ploughed lands made agricultural landscapes exclusively vulnerable to any agricultural work. Over-saturation of lands by different chemical compounds - pesticides, heavy metals, radionuclids, and mineral oil - and eutrophication of water ecosystems increased the speed of degradation. It is necessary to note that during the last years the total quantity of fertilizers and organic manure used on agricultural lands has decreased. This is caused not by new policy in farming but by hard situation in the rural economy in general. According to the "National Report on State of Environment in the Ukraine in 2000," in 1990 on average 141 kg of chemical fertilizers were used per 1 hectare; in 2000 it was only 13 kg [10]. The situation had changed during last four to five years. Earlier, when government provided a subsidy for production of fertilizers and they were cheap for collective farms, nobody was interested in using them economically. So, over a long period of time on agricultural lands the reservoirs, small rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and other receiving bodies of water collection accumulated all the chemical compounds that were consciously applied to the land (in accordance with old technical norms). These compounds produced objectionable changes in water ecosystems, such as: algae blooms, over-growth of aquatic vegetation, increase of salinity, accumulation of dangerous substances and sharp decrease of biodiversity. Sudden and dramatic social and economical changes in the Ukraine during last ten years have had an extremely detrimental effect on biodiversity. The majority of the population suffered considerable loss of income which resulted in essentially increasing the utilization of natural resources. At the same time possibilities of control over the situation by the regional Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources were minimized due to lack of staff and resources. Particularly, apart of economic forces, there are such direct factors that also negatively influence biodiversity in rural water basins and wetlands as: high technology offish-breeding which includes fertilizing and intensive guard of territory; landsurface pollution of water; drainage; pasturing of cattle; uncontrolled recreation; mass poaching and illegal hunting and fishing (involving use of traps, nets, explosives, electricity). Clearly, reformation of the national economy and modernization of methods of environmental preservation will both be needed to decrease the uncontrolled exploitation of nature. But the "interests" of wild nature, its rights for life, were always sacrificed by the interests of agriculture. Scanty crops promoted steady extension of ploughed lands. Now, agriculture in the Ukraine has just one possible solution of the current situation — to turn urgently toward ecology. Farm production has to function in accordance with regional climate conditions, and take into account specific character of lifecycles of valuable species of wild native animals and plants. It means revising the existing system of agricultural management and embracing technologies that restore the land's productivity, and increasing economic benefit from producing ecologically clean goods. All these actions

116


will promote conservation and even restoration of ecological stability and diversity of agricultural landscapes. The situation in the Ukraine with respect to the environment undoubtedly needs the applying of agricultural sustainability principles. Transition to sustainable rural development is impossible without maximum accounting for the local ecological factors and national traditions. And improving biodiversity is top-ranked in terms of success in the field of agriculture.

2. Problems and results of practical works Results of two works related to the problems of improving biodiversity in the rural water ecosystems are presented below. One work is connected with rural fish-breeding and the search for ecological ways to improve both breeding technology and biodiversity. The other work is applied to practical restoration of wetlands and enlightening works in rural areas.

2.1.

Rural fish-breeding in the Ukraine and biodiversity

A group of scientists and associates - Dr. M. Grynzhevsky (group leader), Y. Dubrovsky Institute of Fisheries of the Ukrainian Academy of Agrarian Science, Kyiv; Dr. N. Kovalchuk - EcoClub "Ruthenia" (NGO) Uzhgorod; and V. Melnichuk - National Ecological Centre of Ukraine (NGO), Kyiv, who had worked on fish-breeding in rural reservoirs, investigated the situation and potential of this area of agricultural research. Owing to their long-term scientific effort, this group of researchers were quite familiar with the frequent conflicts between agricultural industry and the environment. The name of the project was: "Ecological and Socio-Economical Basis of Development of Fish-Farming in Ukraine," [2,3] and was supported by the Research Program of the Open Society Foundation. The duration of the project was two years — end of 1999 to end of 2001. The main goal of the research project was to expand on the ecological oriented recommendations regarding optimal rural fish-breeding methods. More specifically, the study examined the ecological features and fish-breeding technology in various rural fish ponds purposely to elaborate on the method determining the potential natural fish production in ponds by using water transparency and to develop guidance of pasture fishbreeding, which would promote the maintenance of biodiversity in rural water basins. The project research covered a variety of farmer fish-breeding households and reservoirs. There were 15 households studied in detail in Zakarpats'ka (1), L'vivska (4),

Figure 1. Scheme of typical river's regulated run-off for the purpose offish-breeding (Kyivs'ka Province)


117

Figure 2. Some species that are typical for rural ponds.

Kyivs'ka (3) (Figure 1), Cherkass'ka (4), Sums'ka (2) provinces and in the Crimea (1). An interview schedule was designed and conducted of each household. It was found that from a biological aspect, there was no essential difference among agricultural reservoirs of the Ukraine. They were inhabited mainly by internal zone species (Figure 2). However, they have essential, significant ecological differences from the stand point of hydro-chemical conditions. The study found that a more balanced use of biological and water resources that takes into account environmental features of the region and that is consistent with nature conservation rules will promote gradual reservoir cleansing from objectionable compounds and superfluous production (over-growing of reservoirs by plants, blooming of water, and silting). It is necessary to consider the existing agricultural reservoirs; firstly, as a source of getting valuable, additional fish production; secondly, as a very important factor of strengthening and support of agricultural landscape stability and diversity. Reservoir availability, their state and character of their use, their abilities to produce, features of

118

' N. Kovalchuk / State of Biodiversity in Some Rural Areas of the Ukraine

agricultural landscapes and the level of structural integrity of a household in them, the sectors of possible agricultural production and abilities to produce of each household — all these factors should be taken into consideration in the process of creating ecologically oriented models of agricultural management. In connection with this it became necessary to develop practical guidance, which would promote the wide inculcation of fish breeding without additional fertilizing (due to natural forage base). Just adding more fertilizer results in a considerable decrease of biodiversity in waters and leads to the extreme simplification of the ecosystem's structures. Ecologically oriented pasture fish breeding or fish breeding with fattening only in the second part of season is the direction recommended to households just starting to farm fish. It is desirable to farmers to have other production produced on their farms - fodder grain, unconditioned production, screening, waste, grass - which can be used as additional food for fish in the ponds. This can give relatively cheap fish production of good quality. As all the farmers interviewed in the research noted, one of the negative factors of fishbreeding development was exactly a lack of their own cheap fodder. A method that can forecast potential fish production (using natural feed in pond), based on the index of water clarity (transparency), was elucidated and offered to farmers. The method is relatively easy to use and, above all, does not promote the organic impurity of waters [6, 7]. The principal results are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Total production of phytoplankton and natural fish production in rural fishing ponds of forest-steppe region in Ukraine (Middle depth 1.2 m) Water transparency at the end of May (cm) 80 5 40 115 150 190 225 Middle season transparency (cm) 30 70 130 150 50 90 110 Middle season integral production of phytoplankton O*/(m'day) 5.54 4.48 3.60 | 3.26 2.98 5.01 4.00 Total production of phytoplankton for 160 days (tons/hectare) 5.57 6.16 4.98 4.44 4.00 | 3.62 | 3.31 Potential natural fish production (kg/hectare for a season) 245 305 275 220 200 | 180 165 Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 60 40 75 | 70 55 50 45 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 720 | 650 585 520 470 425 425

At the time of the investigations one additional function of waters was confirmed. The existence of ponds within agricultural land means that there are many water-dependent ecological niches that promote the increase and conservation of biodiversity (Figure 3). The conservation ability of waters in agricultural lands is obtained not only by its relatively high rate of biodiversity, but also by uniqueness of flora and fauna, by the presence of ecologically important and rare species. During the examination of thirty ponds in central region of the Ukraine many species of animals were found that should be protected (as they are included into the Red Data Book of the Ukraine [11] or in the Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and Natural Habitats [1]). Among them: dragonflies - Aeschna viridis', amphibia - Bomb ma bombina, Pelobatesfuscus, Bufo viridis, Hyla arborea, Rana arvalis, reptiles - Emys orbicularis, Locerta agilis; birds — Podiceps nigricollis, Botaurus stellaris, Ixobrychus ninutus, Nycticoras nycticorax, Egretta alba, E. garzetta, Ardea purpurea, Ciconia alba, C. nigra, Circus aeruginosus, Crex crex, Porzana porzana, Rallus aquations, Tringa glareila, T. hypoleucos, T. ochropus, Chlidonias hybrida, Ch. leucopterus, Ch. niger, Lams minutus, Alcedo atthis, Merops apiaster, Upupa epops, Piparia riparia, Motacilla alba, M. flava, M. citreola, Lanius


119

Figure 3. This rural fish pond in L'vivska Province provides habitat for many water birds and Mustela erminea

collurio, Troglodytes troglodytes, Luscinia luscinia, L. svecica, Saxicola rubetra, S. torquata, Sylvia bonn, S. communis, Panurus biarmicus, Pants major, P coeruleus, Embeniza citninella, E. schoeniclus, Cannabina cannabina, Carduelis carduelis, Spinus spinus, Chlonis chlonis, Oniolus oniolus; mammals — Mustela erminea [4]. Thus it was necessary to disseminate not only the relevant educational resources on pond household management, but also materials about nature conservation among agricultural fish breeders. Special attention must be paid to working on the issues that will help establish positive attitudes among the public and farmers regarding animals (among them there are many species of birds) in agricultural waters on the whole, and especially to their presence close to fish ponds. Seventy percent of the households interviewed approved or were quite tolerant of animals near ponds, 10% of households were indifferent, and 20% were negatively disposed. Facts regarding negative attitude of several householders specifically to near-water birds were inventoried too. Some fanners maintained that their households incur significant losses of breeding fish because of birds, and they registered high indications of fish losses. In response, the research network delivered numerous talks, and special addresses designed to draw attention to the necessity of improving biodiversity conservation in rural waters. This outreach effort included meetings with Ministry of Ecology and Natural resources and the Association of farmers and preparation of two publications on problem of necessity of biodiversity conservation [4, 8]. Researchers were confronted with several difficulties: • The search for relevant objects of the research was complicated by the fact that there was not any state registration or official statistics of fish-breeding farmers in Ukraine yet. The majority of the households studied were in the process of reforming. As a rule, farmers in Ukraine are afraid of sharing information about their households.

120


•

The long distance from some households to public transportation routes creates difficulties with visiting ponds on limited budgets. • Some farmers and fish breeders, especially not very experienced ones, do not trust innovations and that creates certain barriers in cooperation. It is necessary to note that farmers usually have the very little ecological knowledge and therefore do not understand the role of biodiversity. The main conclusion is that special attention should be paid to: (a) matching of earlier published manuals on rural fish-breeding with the principles of sustainability; (b) educational and instructive work on the issues of the establishing positive attitudes in the public and farmers; toward the presence of animals in rural waters; and especially to their presence close to fish-breeding ponds; and (c) actively working with mass media to educate the public. These last three premises turned out to be actual in works on improving of biodiversity of wetlands in rural areas. 2.2. Revitalization of wetlands in rural areas ofZakarpats'ka province — also the way to improve biodiversity Wetlands suffered from government campaigns of agricultural improvement. Reclamation of bogs advances the present global climate change. In drought and rainless periods peat easily takes fire and burns with deadly smoke that devastates living beings over huge areas. During the hot summer of 2002, such big cities in the Ukraine as L'viv and Rivne felt the effects of bog burning. In general the whole area of bogs in Zakarpats'ka province (Transcarpathia) is small. The largest wetland, Chorny Mochar, located in lands between the Tisza and Latoritsa rivers, was mostly eliminated. This produced significant changes of landscapes, decreasing biodiversity and increasing the danger of catastrophic floods.

Figure 4. Rare species of plants from Carpathian peat-bogs.

Both plain and highland bogs in the province had been influenced by loss of biodiversity. Nobody took into consideration at that time the necessity of bogs in water


121

balance and redistribution. Peat-lands retain large amounts of water during snow thawing and at times of intensive rain and promote the gradual return of water to the landscape thus protecting the environment and preventing the manifestation of hazardous floods. Wetlands also provide suitable living conditions for variety of plants and animals. Bogs appreciably improve the water quality. Thus bogs function as incredible natural bio-filters that purify water. A lot of unique highland peat-bogs were damaged by reclamation. Even real pearls of Carpathian's nature - peat-bogs Gluhania, Chorne Bagno, and Andromeda - were not able to avoid this fate. The situation became especially disturbing last years when rural residential populations began to use bogs for mowing and pasturage, to drain them illegally. But bogs are still "breathing" and in need of urgent help. The main problem of their vitality lies in the necessity of raising the water-level to restore the natural landscapes and preserve biodiversity from disappearing. It could be achieved through elimination of drainage canals or creating a system of check dams. NGO "Ruthenia" had realized such work on peat-bogs in 2002 jointly with scientists from Uzhgorod National University and officials from Regional Department of Ministry of Ecology and Natural resources in the arrangement of a project entitled "Landscape restoration and biodiversity preservation of the peat-bogs in Transcarpathia." Financial assistance for this project was provided to NGO "Ruthenia" by REC-Kyiv from funds of European Commission. Dr. A. Myhal, Prof. A. Kovalchuk, Dr. O. Mateleshko, E. Andryk, and Dr. N. Kovalchuk were principal investigators of the project. The main goal of the project was to promote the preservation of biodiversity of the highland's peat-bogs (Figure 4). The objectives were: to study the modern ecological situation on the bogs and state of biodiversity; to liquidate the drainage system with the help of check dams for raising the ground inner water-level; to carry out elucidative work with inhabitants and local authorities; and to start up a campaign in mass-media promoting the importance of wetlands in landscape and biological diversity, as in sustainability of the region. Works were fulfilled on three peat-bogs. Two of them - Gluhania and Andromeda - are situated

Figure 5. Peat bog Gluhania in Zakarpats'ka Province - Hydrological and Botanical Reserve of State Importance

directly near villages (Figure 5, 6). Peat-bog Gluhania is located in the outskirts of Negrovetc village in Mizhgir'ja region. Its is a hydrological and botanical reserve of state importance that was founded in 1980.

122

N. Kovalchuk/State of Biodiversity in Some Rural Areas of the Ukraine

Figure 6. Peat bog Andromeda in Zakarpats'ka Province - Botanical Monument of Local Importance

Now it is included into National Nature Park "Synevyrx." The peat-bog covers about 23 hectares. Not only melioration caused damage of the bog but cattle grazing too. This reserve is a true adornment of the Carpathians—by the quantity of rare plants it is one of the most attractive bogs in highlands. These species are: Scheuchzeria palustris, Lycopodiella inundata, Oxycoccus microcarpus, Menyanthes trifoliata, Calla palustris, Drosera rotundifolia. The bog's location inside the village is unfavorable though Gluhania's future essentially depends on understanding by local inhabitants the necessity of preservation of this fragile part of wild nature. Peat-bog Andromeda is located in the center of the Chorna Tysa village in Rakhiv region. It is a botanical monument of local importance created in 1990. The bog's area is 8.9 hectares. Now vegetable fields and pastures encircle the bog. Here is a sparse fir and spruce vegetation with different shrubs and other suppressed trees. Besides Oxycoccus microcarpus, Drosera rotundzfolia, Empetrum nigrum one could see here rosemary Ledum palustre, which is exclusively rare in the Ukrainian Carpathians. The chance to preserve and conserve this bog for further generations still exists. This little plot of land is a true treasure of a surrounding landscape and local inhabitants should be proud of it. Check dams, constructed on the main canals of peat-bogs, will promote the renewal of the water balance. Many problems are being solved in an intimate contact and with the help of officials from Department of Ecology and Natural Resources in Transcarpathia. But not of less importance becomes to set a new solicitous attitude to bogs among the rural population. To this end, "Ruthenia" gave much attention to the elucidative work with inhabitants, local authorities. The information about the project works was covered in press, radio and television programs. In particular, the videotape about the Andromeda, shot by "Ruthenia," was broadcast on television for the broad masses. For more lucidity for inhabitants an illustrated leaflet was developed [9]. So, the main practical results of the project were: check dams on the bogs and raising the ground water-level; operational experience both practical in the field and in collaboration with government and local officials; information about the project works in press, radio and television programs; and achievement of the more lucidity for inhabitants through publication of illustrated leaflet both in Ukrainian and English. Researchers were confronted with such difficulties as:


123

•

the very complicated procedure of preparation of different supporting documents especially agreements from land-owners; • lack in legislation in aspects of selling and buying the conservation territories; difficulty in excluding the important territories from landowners; • step by step trying of rural inhabitants to cut some areas from peat-bogs; barely provided control over the conserved peat-bogs; • ignorance of local population in the necessity of biodiversity and landscape preservation; weakness of regional ecological inspectors services. The drawn conclusion is that special attention should be paid to: educational and enlightening work to provide positive influence on public attitude to the wetlands conservation; and working actively in this regard with local inhabitants directly and with mass media. Researchers had to fulfil volumetric works in a term of nine months according to terms of their contract. It is necessary to carry out monitoring of bogs but today there is no financing for this.

Summary Close familiarization with the state of interrelations between people and nature in rural areas in Ukraine allowed the researchers to make a conclusion about two determinative factors that adversely affected biodiversity. These are negative tendencies in economics and related human elements. In a period of up to ten years from 1990, the majority of population had lost their savings. On the other hand some persons suddenly became the owners of vast sums of money, enterprises and realty. Taking into consideration this fact and the high jobless rate, it is very hard to persuade the rural population to preserve nature. Implementation of principles of sustainable development will promote gradually to improve the situation. This will also contribute to development of real civil society with feedback relations between the public and authorities. During the last years the key role in this way belongs to NGOs. Experience reveals that NGOs are more mobile and effective working in collaboration with the population, science and officials. But NGOs are greatly dependent on grants. So they try to take part in all available grant programs. In cases with projects of short-term periods (less than a year) NGOs often have to change the subject and are not able to build on past achievements. It is desirable to specially support by funds those new NGO projects that are necessary continuations of already well realized programs. Informational support by colleagues from other countries for Ukrainian NGOs is of great importance.

References [1] Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979): Kyiv, 1998: 76 (in Ukrainian). [2] Grynzhevsky M., Dubrovsky Y, Kovalchuk N., Melnichuk V. 2000. Ecological and SocioEconomical Basis of Development of Fish-Farming in Ukraine. RSS 848/1999. Interim Report: 27. [3] Grynzhevsky M., Dubrovsky Y, Kovalchuk N., Melnichuk V. 2001. Ecological and SocioEconomical Basis of Development of Fish-Farming in Ukraine. RSS 848/1999 2001. Final Report: 31. [4] Dubrovsky Y, Kovalchuk N. 2001. Problems of Preservation of the Bog- Waterside Faunistic Complexes on the Lands of Rural Fish-Breeding. Structure and Functional Role of Animal Population in Natural and Transformed Ecosystems. Thesis of the 1 International Scientific Conference 17-20 IX 2001: Dnipropetrovsk: DNU: 136-137 (in Ukrainian). [5] Korenyuk I. 1998. Ecological stabilization of the Ukraine territory. "Economy of Agrarian-Industrial Complex," 6: 46-51 (in Ukrainian).

124


[6] Kovalchuk N., Dubrovsky Y., Melnichuk V. 2000. Ability and Prospect of Fish-Breeding in Small Unconditioned Ponds. "Scientific Bulletin of Uzhgorod National University." Ser. Biology, 7:146147 (in Ukrainian). [7] Kovalchuk N., Kovalchuk A., Dubrovsky Y. 2001. About of Possibility to Determinate and Forecast Nature Fish Production in Small Ponds by the Water Transparency. "Fish Industry" Kyiv, 59-60: 116-121 (in Ukrainian). [8] Kovalchuk N., Dubrovsky Y., Melnichuk V. 2001. Ecological Basis in the Fish-Farming. Suppl. Typescript in the Final Report RSS 848/1999 2001: Kyiv: 32 (in Ukrainian). [9] Kovalchuk N., Kovalchuk A., Myhal A. 2002. Pearls of Carpathians Wilderness. Highland Peatbogs of Transcarpathia. EcoClub "Ruthenia": Uzhgorod. [10] National Report on State of Environment in the Ukraine in 2000. Kyiv, 2001:184 (in Ukrainian). [11] Red Data Book of Ukraine. Animal Kingdom. Kyiv, 1994: 464 (in Ukrainian).


125

Sustainable Rural Development: the Role of Community Involvement and Local Partnerships Malcolm J MOSELEY Professor of Rural Community Development Countryside and Community Research Unit University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ, UK mmoseley@glos. ac. uk Abstract. Integrated sustainable rural development requires the conservation and enhancement of 'human and social capital' as well as 'environmental capital.' Community involvement at the local level and developing local partnerships of relevant actors and agencies are both important, and the challenges of each are discussed. A key issue is whether 'local partnerships,' as compared with individual agencies acting alone, genuinely add value to the local development process. Crossnational research, appraising experience in six European Union member states concludes 'yes, if...'. The E.U.'s LEADER programme has been a major attempt to promote locally focused rural development based on the principles of partnership and community involvement.

Introduction This paper aims to set biodiversity conservation in the wider context of integrated, sustainable rural development as, too often, 'biodiversity' has been seen simply as a constraint upon development rather than an intrinsic element of it. More particularly the paper stresses that while 'sustainable development' involves 'conserving inherited capital,' that capital comprises not just ''environmental capital' (the main focus of the seminar) but also: • human capital which comprises the ability of individual people to do productive work, whether paid or unpaid, and therefore includes their physical and mental health, their strength and stamina, their knowledge, skills, motivation and attitudes • social capital which relates not to individual people but to the social structures, institutions and shared values which enable individuals to maintain and develop their human capital and to be productive. It therefore embraces firms, trade unions, families, communities, informal friendship networks, voluntary organisations, legal and political systems, educational institutions etc. • manufactured capital which comprises material goods such as tools, machines, buildings and infrastructure all of which contribute to the production process without becoming embodied in its output. Here we are concerned with human and social capital - for two reasons. First, that capital needs to be conserved and if possible increased. Second, it is itself a resource that can and should be used in biodiversity conservation programmes. Next, a definition of 'rural development' may be useful. The author's preferred

126

M.J. Moseley /Sustainable Rural Development

definition is a "a sustained and sustainable process of economic, social cultural and environmental change designed to enhance the long-term well-being of the whole community." [1] Note the twelve underlined words: • sustained... not short-lived • sustainable.... respecting our inherited 'capital' • process... a continuing and interrelated set of actions • economic...relating to the production, distribution and exchange of goods and services • social... relating to human relationships • cultural.. .relating to 'ways of life,' sources of identity, customs etc • environmental.. .relating to our physical and biotic surroundings • designed...deliberately induced not naturally evolving • long-term.. .relating to decades not years • well-being.. .not just material prosperity • whole... inclusive of all ages, both genders, all social groups • community.. .here meaning people living or working in the relevant area 1. Community involvement in rural development The increasing involvement of local people in rural development, as defined above, has been a striking feature of the past few years, whether in relation to the formulation of strategies for action or in the actual delivery of programmes on the ground. Thus the British government's 'Rural White Paper' policy statement [2] stressed that "we want to see...people living in rural areas being fully involved in developing their community, safeguarding its valued features and shaping the decisions that affect them." Four anticipated benefits of community involvement underlie that statement. 1. Better decision making. The first argument has two strands. Local people, if carefully consulted or otherwise involved, are a source of valuable ideas, information and wisdom that it would be foolish to ignore, the resultant programme being better targeted and more cost-effective for having culled local knowledge and opinion. In addition, seeking at an early stage to reconcile conflicting views may reduce the burden of adversarial decision-making. In this connection there is often an 'educative element' to consultation, that of encouraging local people to appreciate a bigger picture including the needs of other groups and of neighbouring areas. 2. More durable action. To the extent that any proposed policy or action is built upon a genuine local consensus - rather than the mere collation of disparate views - then it is more likely to be durable and to escape being scuppered by local antagonism or indifference. Indeed, if the action has local origins and 'ownership' if it has emerged from the involvement exercise - then it is more likely to be pursued with vigour and sustained commitment by local people even, perhaps, when the initial financial resources have run out. 3. The promotion of self-help. Clearly it is attractive to the state if community involvement leads to some of the burden of programme delivery passing to local volunteers. And experience shows that local people are frequently more ready to give of their time, labour, expertise and money if this is in a good, locally focused and locally determined cause. Not only is there a cost saving, but, it is argued, more imaginative and innovative action may be forthcoming if the uniformity of a stateled approach is relaxed.

M.J. Moseley / Sustainable Rural Development

4.

127

Community development, empowerment and capacity building. Involving people as partners in decision making and / or in programme delivery is also likely to increase and improve the 'human resource' - a process commonly known as 'capacity building.' The argument is that involvement has both an educative or training function with individuals gaining new skills and awareness, and a development function with local networks and institutions being spawned or strengthened and whole communities gaining the confidence and energy to launch new ventures at a later date, perhaps unrelated to the one in hand.

But what exactly is meant by the term 'community involvement"? Generally it is used to denote some of the 'middle range' of activities in the spectrum or 'ladder' [3] of activities often evoked to denote a range of possible relationships between the state and the local community. In the 'ladder' below, the strongest empowerment of local communities comes at the top: 1. citizen control 2. delegation 3. partnership 4. participation 5. consultation 6. education 7. information 8. manipulation 'Community involvement,' in the present context of this paper, is construed to embrace levels 3,4 and 5, namely partnership, participation and consultation. What has happened in recent years in Britain and much of Western Europe is that the point of interface between the local community and the local state - meaning in general terms the local authorities and the various local and regional agencies - has tended to 'move up the ladder' set out above. This has happened not just because the state has grown more and more keen to reap the four benefits listed earlier, but because the 'community' has grown in sophistication and become less prepared to 'leave everything to the government.' That said, several key issues arise which need to be considered by any agency keen to involve local communities in a development programme. The first issue is why the involvement? Which of the four possible benefits listed earlier is the 'involver' hoping to achieve - better decision-making, more durable action, the promotion of self help or the development of the community? Going on from that, who to involve? Is 'the constituency' just the people who live in the area in question? Or should it include those who work or have businesses there, as well as tourists and visitors? Does it comprise adults but not children, and all of the people or just those likely to make use of a particular facility such as a health centre, public transport service or youth programme? Is it a consultation of pre-existing groups or of the population at large? How the local community is involved is also important. The purpose of the exercise needs to be explained and reactions sought at the outset. In seeking increased involvement there is a need to work through existing groups and institutions - to respect the roles and positions of local leaders - rather than to jump in unannounced. Moreover, there is a wide range of consultation and participation tools to choose from, and a clear temptation to get 'hooked' on a particular familiar one. For example, public meetings and the use of the media may be useful as a project is being launched, community appraisals and round table workshops may be appropriate in the middle stages of the project as popular opinion is being canvassed and ideas generated, and 'action

128


planning' may come into its own when a 'wish list' has to be translated into a viable plan. In addition, there is the need to remember that involvement is a process, not a oneoff 'quick fix' or, as may often be the case in the United States, simply a public hearing. Early disappointments need to be countered by a determination to build up a culture of participation in which people feel confident that they will be taken seriously in both fashioning and helping to deliver projects and programmes. In short, consultation is not just a matter of finding out what people want; it should be part of an ongoing process of mutual learning, partnership and the development of self-reliance.

2. Local development partnerships A recent research report on rural regeneration partnerships in rural Wales observed that "partnerships have emerged over the course of the past 15 years as an increasingly commonplace fixture on the landscape of urban and rural regeneration in Britain... Partnership working was developed in the 1980s by the British government as a means of loosening local government's hold over urban economic development and by the European Union as a mechanism for redirecting its Structural Funds from large-scale state-led projects to small-scale bottom-up initiatives (but) the 'partnership principle' has now become established as a preferential mode of management across a diverse raft of policy arenas." [4] This rise to prominence of partnerships as the preferred machinery for promoting local rural development is one expression of a fundamental shift in the way that local areas are governed and serviced, a shift away from the notion of government, with the state and the elected local authorities centre-stage, to one of governance which acknowledges the inter-related roles played in local areas by a host of actors including the state and the local authorities but also embracing private businesses, voluntary organisations and community groups, and also supra-national institutions such as the European Union. A definition of 'governance' may therefore be helpful, such as that in Goodwin's review [5] of the governance of rural areas: "governance refers to the development of governing styles in which boundaries between and within public and private sectors become blurred." Or, linking this blurring of agency boundaries to the rise of partnership working, "governance is about governmental and non-governmental organisations working together in non-hierarchical and flexible alliances." [6] Below we look briefly at this proliferation of local partnerships in rural Europe especially those explicitly concerned with area-based rural development - and particularly at their alleged ability 'to add value' to the development process in ways that similarly resourced individual agencies would find difficult or impossible. There is by now a considerable literature on this phenomenon. (See for example [711]). But here we will draw particularly on the cross-national 'PRIDE' research project, which the author directed between 1999 and 2001 - the acronym 'PRIDE' standing for 'Partnerships for Rural Integrated Development in Europe.' That study spanned six E.U. countries (Finland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK) and researched 330 local rural development partnerships, 24 of them in considerable detail [12]. Fig 1 maps these 24 local partnerships. The international literature review that formed a launch pad for the PRIDE research project highlighted several widely expressed concerns about the growing involvement of partnerships in local development and the delivery of services to rural people: • Many local partnerships are essentially a 'tactical response' to the need to secure funding from outside sources such as the European Union and national governments. In consequence they may not be truly grounded in the local


129

Figure 1. The PRIDE research project: the 24 case study local development partnerships

community and its needs and may not survive the expiry of the particular funding stream. • Local partnerships are often dominated by the public sector, especially the local authorities and local and regional agencies of central government. Genuine local community involvement is frequently weak, with community and private sector representatives often unclear about their roles. • When there is a genuine delegation of responsibility, questions of accountability arise, with unelected private and voluntary sector partners substantially involved in what are really political decisions about resource allocation. • Local partnerships may widen rather than narrow social and economic disparities if those which are successful tend to be rewarded with further funding and vice versa. Focusing now on the UK component of the PRIDE research, a survey of 54 local partnerships all respecting the working definition set out earlier confirmed this variety. That sample comprised 13 LEADER groups (see below), eight English Rural Development Programmes, eight boards or committees of National Parks or 'Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty,' and seven Market Town Regeneration partnerships plus a number of 'Local Agenda 21' initiatives, various agriculture or land management programmes, 'Rural

130


Challenge' partnerships and others which were hard to classify. From that survey it emerged that: • The most common reasons for their formation were to access funding, to pool expertise or other resources so as to address common problems, and to provide a vehicle for community involvement. There were very few genuinely 'bottom-up' partnerships in the sense that the real thrust had come 'from below' rather than from existing powerful players. • Their members were drawn mainly from public agencies, local government, the voluntary sector and local community groups - the private sector tending to be poorly represented. • As for the partnerships' objectives, most respondents in the survey made some reference to 'integrated' and/or 'sustainable' development, though in practice one or more of the following tended to prevail - economic regeneration, community involvement, the promotion of tourism / recreation, and environmental conservation • The amount of genuine community involvement that the partnerships practised varied. Some went no further than involving a small number of community organisations on their boards and others construed 'community involvement' as merely ensuring that many recipients of project funding were in some guise 'the local community.' But others did employ more formal mechanisms of consultation and involvement such as village questionnaire surveys and 'planning for real' exercises which use 3D models of a town or village to elicit community suggestions for local improvements. • Finally, asked about their outputs, most partnerships made rather more of their 'soft outputs' such as 'mobilising the community,' 'raising awareness and understanding' and 'raising the area's profile' than they did of 'hard outputs' such as 'business start-ups,' 'jobs created' or 'wetlands restored.' Those local partnerships, very much the majority, which did report some measure of tangible success on the ground, tended to attribute it to one or more of the following factors. First was the availability of funding and associated success in 'levering' in further local funding. Then, in no particular order, came the active support of the local authorities and the funding partners; the active support of the local community as a source of local knowledge, energy and labour; a good co-operative atmosphere with real collaboration between the partners; and the availability of high quality staff and/or individual board members prepared to run with certain issues or areas of work. Asked about the main constraints that inhibited their work, the lack of those success factors, where applicable, clearly had its effect. But the most frequently mentioned constraint was 'excessive bureaucracy' and an associated lack of real devolution of authority to the partnership. But do partnerships, per se, really 'add value' to the local development process? This is the key question; if the answer is 'no' then individual agencies such as the local authorities may as well be given the duties and the resources assigned to partnerships and allowed to enjoy all the advantages of going it alone. In fact the answer is 'typically yes.' At the end of the whole PRIDE research project, and pulling together the evidence from 24 extended case studies in the six countries, a simple model emerged to summarise the genuine 'partnership' contribution to the delivery of projects and programmes on the ground (see Figure 2, below). In essence local partnerships contribute two crucial intrinsic characteristics (row A) to local development, which individual state agencies acting alone simply cannot provide; they are the 'bringing together' of a variety of actors and 'quasi-independence' from state control and procedures. These two characteristics underlie a number of 'potential


\ 31

capabilities' (row B), which, properly exploited, can and do really add value to the development process. But the absolutely central point is that these capabilities cannot be taken for granted; they do not just 'happen' as soon as a partnership is created. They need to be 'unlocked' by systematic attention being paid to four key elements (row C), which relate to the partnership's individual partners and to its resources, organisation and processes. The research showed that doggedly working at those four elements (row C) so as to unlock those capabilities (row B) produced a rich harvest in terms (row D) of sustainable, endogenous, innovative development on the ground. The metaphor that seemed most apt was that of turning the 'keys' (C) to open the 'doors' (B) to allow real partnershipbased development impulses (D) to flow into the area in question. 3. Europe's LEADER Programme We conclude with a case study of local partnership working - the European Union's LEADER Programme ('Liaisons Entre Actions de Developpement de I 'Economie Rurale'). That programme was born of Brussels' growing realisation [13] that in the 1990s it should more fully respect the diversity of rural Europe, complement narrow agricultural policies with others more comprehensively 'rural' in their scope, and give local actors and agencies more responsibility for devising and managing them than the national agencies with which the Commission had normally worked hitherto. The 'LEADER Programme' was launched initially for three years (1992-1994). Then, having proved its worth, it was rolled forward with some relatively minor changes but on a larger scale as 'LEADER II' (1995-2001) and again as 'LEADER Plus' (20022006). LEADER I involved 217 local areas within Europe's designated disadvantaged regions receiving funding to devise and implement local development programmes and in LEADER II this increased to some 900 areas, ranging from Italy's 185, via the UK's 66 to Luxembourg's two. Many of these LEADER II areas were carried forward from LEADER I with the result that, by 2001, about 200 local rural areas, spread across the 15 member states, had had some nine or 10 years' experience of practising local rural development and so some interim assessment is possible. (The growing literature on this subject includes a special issue ofSociologia Ruralis [14].) But first it should be noted that these local development programmes have not been lavishly funded. The European Union's LEADER II allocation of little more than £1 billion (about 1.5 billion American dollars or euros) spread across about 900 areas and over six years was only about two per cent of all its 'Structural Funds' expenditure to support industries in difficulty and economic development in its priority geographical areas (most of that money going directly into agricultural support). Thus for LEADER II there was an average yearly allocation to the 900 'local action groups' of only some £200,000 (300,000 dollars / euros) though it was a requirement that this funding be matched by roughly equivalent money from national and local sources. Thus the hope was that local development would be triggered through a judicious programme of backing well-chosen small projects and by the innovative process of local action to which we will now turn. There have been five key elements of 'the LEADER approach' to local rural development: 1. The 'area-based approach' - or the 'territorialisation of development initiatives'- was substantially new to rural Europe when LEADER was launched in 1992, except in France, Britain and Ireland where the national governments had initiated such an approach in the 1980s. Its rationale in the LEADER programme reflected a number of key objectives, notably the championing of Europe's diversity, a determination to

132


Intrinsic Characteristics of 'Local Partnerships'

'Bringing Together'

and

Quasi-lndependence

... producing these potential capabilities

Co-ordination of diverse actors Joint working Pooling resources Involving local people and groups Achieving synergy Integrating 'top down' and 'bottom up' interests

Freedom to experiment and innovate Flexible/informal operations Ability to attract funds from a variety of sources Neutral institutional space Ability to adapt to changing circumstances 'User friendly' access

.which may be 'unlocked' by turning these 'keys'

I relating to: Partners (their diversity, skills, local knowledge, shared vision, lead partners etc.) Resources (external funding, local resources, voluntary work, etc.) Organisations (their complexity, delegation, management/staff competence, etc.) Processes (local decision-making, strategic planning, networking etc.)

so as to deliver such key outcomes as:

Integrated and sustainable local development Social inclusion Community involvement and development Innovation etc.

Figure 2. How local partnerships add value to the development process (Cherrett's model, reported in [12]).


133

mobilise local people and organisations, and the need to address inter-related problems in a way impossible at the national or even regional levels. The European Commission specified that the LEADER areas should have some real local identity rather than simply respect established administrative boundaries, and should not normally have more than 100,000 inhabitants. A few LEADER areas respected 'ecological boundaries,' focusing on certain valleys, forests or wetlands for example, though this was not typical. In the case of the 20 English LEADER II areas, their average geographical extent was some 1,000 sq. km, their average population 52,000, and nearly all crossed local authority boundaries. 2. The 'bottom-up approach' has involved placing a high premium on the active participation of people living within the selected areas. This has meant in part the formation of ad hoc 'local action groups' to manage the programmes (see below), in part a requirement that local people be consulted and involved in shaping the development programme for the area, and in part an expectation that most of the project proposals vying for support would come 'up' from people, businesses and organisations at the very local level rather than 'down' from central or local government. 3. The 'local partnership approach' has involved the creation or consolidation of 'local action groups' to devise and manage the local LEADER programmes, drawing up 'local action plans' to bed their work in local needs and resources and determining how the limited funds available should be disbursed between competing project applicants. In Britain these local action groups have generally been widely drawn from local businesses, the local authorities and voluntary and community organisations and have been serviced by a salaried 'project co-ordinator' and one or more field staff. 4. An emphasis on innovation. 'Innovation' is a word that recurs frequently in the official LEADER literature. Thus the European Commission has insisted on an innovative management approach at local level (see the previous paragraph) and also on innovative projects getting the bulk of the project funding. For example some LEADER groups sought explicitly to respond to both ecologically damaging business practice and negative environmental protectionism with such projects as ecotourism to reduce reliance on intensive aquaculture and combined biomass / solar heating systems at village level. (For these and other examples see [15,16].) But while substantial innovation has undoubtedly occurred - other examples including a host of locally novel ways of adding value to local agricultural produce or of exploiting an area's cultural heritage - it is also clear that 'more of the same' has been equally apparent. 5. An emphasis on integration. The final hallmark of the 'LEADER approach' has been a wish that the local programmes be not just multi-sectoral, relating for example to vocational training, rural tourism and the promotion and marketing of the local area, but genuinely integrated. An example of the latter would be training courses provided for farmers who are keen to diversify, linked to grants to help create on-farm holiday accommodation and linked also to the marketing of the area as a destination for rural tourism. Hard data on this is hard to come by but the author's impression is that, though some striking successes have occurred, such integration has generally proved to be elusive or else overlooked by local action groups anxious to treat on their merits individual applications for project funding. In conclusion, and as befits a programme designed to champion local diversity, the character and success of LEADER has varied considerably across the 15 member states of the European Union. Whether and how far LEADER has genuinely spurred integrated, sustainable local development - rather than merely supported a worthwhile collection of small one-off projects - is a hard question to answer. The answer is probably 'to some extent and to an extent that varies greatly from place to place.' Indeed, writing in 2002 it is probably too soon to say with real certainty just how influential LEADER has been. Local

134

MJ. Moseley/Sustainable Rural Development

rural development is a long and often nebulous process. More generally, we may conclude that rural development of a truly sustainable nature seems to require an approach which: • explicitly champions local diversity through programmes that focus on small and meaningful geographical areas, • considers economic, social, cultural and environmental issues in the round, • embodies the partnership principle with disparate actors and agencies pooling their ideas and being forced to take collective responsibility, • is built upon genuine community involvement and empowerment, and • encourages experimentation and innovation and, as a corollary, a readiness to exchange good practice and to learn from mistakes. Returning to 'Arnstein's ladder' set out above, the lesson of LEADER and similar programmes is that a judicious and imaginative mix of genuine 'delegation, partnership and participation' does more for sustainability than one of mere 'information, education and consultation.' The prize, of course, is the elusive 'virtuous spiral' in which visible 'sustainability successes' breed stronger local ownership. And vice versa.

References [I] Moseley M J (2003a) Rural Development; Principles and Practice, Sage London. [2] Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2000) Our Countryside; the Future (the 2000 'Rural White Paper') Cm 4909 HMSO. [3] Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation in the USA Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35: 216-24. [4] Edwards W, Goodwin M, Pemberton S and Woods M (2000) Partnership Working in Rural Regeneration. Bristol, the Policy Press and Joseph Rowntree Foundation. [5] Goodwin M (1998) The Governance of Rural Areas; Some Research Issues and Agendas. Journal of Rural Studies 14(1): 5-12. [6] Murdoch J & Abram S (1998) Defining the Limits of Community Governance. Journal of Rural Studies 14(1): 41-50. [7] Hambleton R, Essex S, Mills L, Razzaque K ( 1995) The Collaborative Council; a Study of Inter-Agency Working in Practice. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, London. [8] OECD (1996) Ireland; Local Partnerships and Social Innovation Paris, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development. [9] Slee W and Snowden P (1997) Effective Partnership Working Good Practice in Rural Development No 1, Edinburgh, Scottish National Rural Partnership, Scottish Office. [10] LEADER Observatory (1997a) LEADER Magazine Special Issue (no 13) on the Cork Conference (Brussels, LEADER Observatory, AEIDL). [II] LEADER Observatory (1997b) Organising Local Partnership, (Brussels, LEADER Observatory, AEIDL). [12] Moseley M J (2003b) Local Partnerships for Rural Development; the European Experience. CABI, Wallingford (Note; this book is an edited version of the final report of the PRIDE research project see the text). [13] Commission of the European Communities (1988) The Future of Rural Society COM (88) 371 Final, Brussels, Commission of the European Communities. [14] Sociologia Ruralis (2000) Special Issue on 'LEADER' 40 (2). [15] LEADER Observatory (1997c) LEADER II; Innovative Actions of Rural Development - a Directory (Brussels, LEADER Observatory, AEIDL). [16] Moseley M J (2000) Innovation and Rural Development; Some Lessons from Britain and Western Europe, Planning Practice and Research 15, 1-2: 195-215. Additional Resources Cherrett T and Moseley M J (2001) Rural Development Partnerships; Guidelines for Good Practice in the UK. Cheltenham, Countryside and Community Research Unit, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education.


135

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1997) Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration (2nd edition), London, DETR. Keane M (1998) Rural and Local Development in Ireland; Exploring the Theory - Practice Interface. Regional Studies 31: 173-7. LEADER Observatory, (1999) Assessing the Value Added of the LEADER approach. (Brussels, LEADER Observatory, AEIDL). LEADER Observatory (2001) LEADER Magazine Special Issue (no 25) on the European Rural Model, (Brussels, LEADER Observatory, AEIDL). Moseley M J and Cherrett (1993) Involving People in Local Development, (Brussels, LEADER Observatory, AEIDL). National Economic and Social Council (1994) New Approaches to Rural Development Dublin, NESC. Rural Forum and the Scottish Office (1997) Community Involvement in Rural Development Initiatives Good Practice in Rural Development no 2, Scottish Office Central Research Unit, Edinburgh. Selman P (1996) Local Sustainability; Managing and Planning Ecologically Sound Places London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

136

The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability S. Light (Ed.*) IOS Press, 2004

The Hickling Experience Tim O'RIORDAN School of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ t. oriordan@uea. ac. uk Abstract. Hickling Broad is a shallow lake in the wetlands of eastern England commonly known as the Norfolk Broads. Its conservation history tells us how to manage habitats for human livelihoods as well as biodiversity through an inclusionary democratic process. Hickling is also selected as a symbol of the changing treatment and interpretation of the European Union Habitats Directive. That Directive places a strong legal safeguard on the integrity of biodiversity in selected sites. Such is the interpretation of this safeguard for species and habitats described as of European importance, that economic activity and social pleasure may be curtailed in order to maintain the diversity and ecosystem functioning of designated sites. Nowadays, the E.U. is recognising that biodiversity and sustainable rural development should go hand in hand. The E.U. Commission is by no means in harmony between its socio-economic regeneration policies and its ecological sustaining policies. There is still much to do, and this is why the Hickling experience is offered. The conclusions of this particular case study are as follows: 1. Biodiversity and more embedded sustainability are not yet implanted in European experience. The policy connections between biodiversity and sustainability are still frayed. 2. The Common Agricultural Policy presently acts as a barrier to both agricultural and more deeply seated rural sustainability. It does so by channelling money into too few hands, by stimulating excessive productivity via price support, by protecting certain agricultural products from poor country suppliers, and by inhibiting the crucial link between sustainable agriculture, human livelihoods and more general social well-being. 3. There is a need for a Pillar 3 in the Common Agricultural Policy. This could supplement the price support arrangements of Pillar 1, and the farm based rural economic development strategy for Pillar 2, with a more comprehensive sustainable rural communities outlook for Pillar 3. The introduction of Pillar 3 would help to direct the savings on reducing Pillar 1 subsidy payments towards whole landscape ecosystem management while incorporating new livelihood from rural communities. 4. Where biodiversity becomes a basis for economic gain, education and ecotourism, local people take an interest in the restoration and integrity of maintaining ecosystem functioning. Thus, conflicts between biodiversity protection and socioeconomic advantage disappear and a richer rural sustainability paradigm prevails. 5. These observations suggest that a mixing of biodiversity and structural repositioning should be made possible in the amalgamation of logical, social and economic regeneration programmes. This is the basis of the Pillar 3 argument. 6. Science can act as a sustainability stimulant if applied with a mixture of inclusive stakeholder dialogue and the sensitive application of the precautionary principle. 7. Hickling is a modest example of a learning experience that is beginning to evolve throughout Europe in a variety of imaginative, yet localised, ways. There should be some sort of learning and exchanging forum to promote the experience of successful and less successful initiatives of this kind.

T. O 'Riordan / The Hickling Experience

137

1. Setting for the case study 1.1 Establishing the project The reasons underlying the Hickling experience lay in the unexpected proliferation of a rare water plant, Chara intermedia, and a lesser, but still important species Holly leafed Niad. What triggered the dilemma was the UK interpretation of the E.U. Habitats Directive. As mentioned in the text below, this interpretation offers considerable legal safeguards to Natura 2000 designated sites. This protection is offered on the basis of the precautionary principle in this case, the limitation of customary navigation on a lake normally accommodating both wildlife conservation and boating. In the European mind, the precautionary principle applies when a possible threat to a sustainability outcome is identified, but cannot be conclusively proven. In the case of the E.U. Habitats Directive, any change proposed for a biodiverse zone has to show that it will not reduce the overall integrity of the conservation status of the site. If that cannot be shown to be reasonably likely, then the principle requires that caution must be applied, experimentation and monitoring should be built into future management, and that adaptive learning is incorporated into all future schemes for the site. This principle is given great airing by O'Riordan et al. [1], notably in the comparison of European and U.S. based approaches. For the purposes of this chapter, however, it is worth bearing in mind that precaution has legal meaning for adaptive management, and that science procedures have to take the principle into account. The crux of the issue initially was the superiority of the biodiversity mandate over the income and considerable public enjoyment experienced by the recreational boating community. The growth of C. intermedia inhibited all boating by clogging propellers and by dragging yacht centreboards and keels. In essence, all recreational sailing was curtailed for the summer of 1999. In essence, the requirement to protect biodiversity initially created a huge and agonising loss of social enjoyment and local economic gain. This is not a tenable position to hold. It is not just the loss of pleasure and monetary income. It is also the negativity of the triumph of biodiversity on the local livelihoods that forced a reappraisal of both the policy and the scope for incorporating a joint strategy for creative biodiversity and enhanced local well-being. 1.2 Organising consensus The process of reaching that objective was not easy. The first year saw a war of attrition between the conservation lobbies, who had both ownership of the lake and the law on their side, and the navigation interests who believed they occupied a moral right to sail based on a century of tradition. The only way forward was to establish twin forum. One was a science forum of active researchers, and the other was a "Hickling Parliament" of stakeholders who were inclusive of all interests in the locality. The science forum created the strategy for clean water and biodiversity. The key to this is the inclusion of saltwater and the raising of the levels of fresh water in the surrounding agricultural lands. The evolution of the UK agrienvironment policy allows more money to be found for management agreements for surrounding landowners. Now they can reclaim high water table grazing marsh and ensure a more pure water supply for the Broad. This was done in liaison with five interests, namely the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Environment Agency (responsible for managing water quality), English Nature (responsible for biodiversity), Norfolk Wildlife Trust (the owners of the lake) and the Broads Authority

138


(a national park with a remit for conservation, navigation and socio-economic welfare). 1.3 Involving citizens Local citizens became involved via a series of Hickling Gatherings. These were a series of four open meetings held in the locality. They were informal, friendly, welcoming, and confidence building. These Gatherings were immensely important in establishing a collective understanding of boating, wildlife, commerce and the law, all in relation to a possible management plan. This process led in turn to a "Hickling Parliament" properly known as the Upper Thurne Working Group. The body has created a vision for the catchment as a whole absorbed the scientific case, and begun a series of facilitated meetings favouring the establishment of a management plan for the whole catchment. 1.4 Outcomes The basic details of that plan are still in preparation. The aim is to increase the diversity of aquatic regulation so that the choking densities of Chora intermedia are reduced and possibly confined to non navigable areas. Other species of stonewort, notably Chora asperens will be encouraged. This is lower growing and less dense, though it is not yet know how far it will accommodate boating. In addition, fishing will be improved as the greater variety of species adds to the likelihood of fish refuges. This in turn may lead to a proliferation of mature juveniles, and the possibility of more successful fishing effort. The preparation of the management plan has generated the following positive outcomes: 1. There is a coupling of science and inclusive public involvement around the theme of biodiversity and sustaining human livelihoods. The science forum was led by academics and practitioners, all of whom shared a common purpose of seeking better understanding of the land-water-chemicals interaction. Salt, nutrients, toxics and sediment are all possible hazards to biodiversity, boating and fishing. So there was a shared interest in the preparation of ecological models aimed at predicting the outcome of management changes: water levels, water quality and sediment limitation. Because the science was promoted by groupings of academics and practitioners, so it had great management influence. 2. The cultural value of boating, wildlife conservation and fishing are appreciated more and more by all parties involved, irrespective of their interest base. This is a sort of spiritual revelation borne of conflict and reconciliation. 3. Scientists are very uncertain about the prospects of full recovery of the altered catchment. The essence lies in the monitoring and the experimentation of new land use measures and an altered approach to agriculture and biodiversity. It may take a decade before the Hickling Broad begins to stabilise. Indeed it may never do so. In the face of precautionary science, careful experimentation is vital. Precautionary science in this context is essentially adaptive experimentation, support by and interpreted by key stakeholders. 4. The UK policy of strict protection as precaution for Natura 2000 sites is in the process of being revised. The outcome of this review remains in discussion. It is likely to include a wider interpretation of conservation gain, and a lower emphasis on protection of sites that cannot be safeguarded without excessive management manipulation. There is scope in the regulations for English Nature to vary the characteristics of their "appropriate assessment." This is a formal requirement to evaluate the scope for


139

recreating lost biodiversity in habitats that may be subject to alteration. This flexibility of approach recognises both the scope for participatory biodiversity, and the need to be more inclusive of legitimate and potentially supportive socio-economic activities when devising a wider basis for biodiversity.

7.5 Lessons learnt The Hickling experience shows that creative confidence building can lead the way to a managed consensus. There is the possibility that the dominant choking plant may reappear, without other biodiverse safeguards. So the test will be the outcome of that renewed crisis. It is likely, in such circumstances, that more of the plants would be cut so that more boating in selected areas could be accommodated. This would be subject to strict monitoring and the guarantees of surrounding land use change and improved water quality. In addition, the conservation interests will work with the local community interests to promote Hickling as an eco-tourism centre. This may promote more visits, more spending, and more educational trips for the catchment as a whole. So far, all of this is speculation. The building blocks of co-operative biodiversity are in place. What is not yet in place are the mechanisms for converting this to sustainable local societies and economies. This is the so-called "Pillar 3" policy hole which needs to be filled if fully complementary policies are to be created and to fulfil their projected ambitions.

1.6 The emergence and persistence of the E. U. Habitats Directive In the 1970s, there was much pressure from European citizens and interest groups over the loss of wild birds due to shooting, pollution, drainage and inappropriate development. The migratory bird population is particularly symbolic of E.U. integration and co-responsibility by member states to play their part in maintaining habitats on flight paths. The result was the acceptance of the Birds Directive (70/409/EEC) in 1979. For many members states, this Directive merely reinforced existing national bird protection acts. But among the French, Spanish and Italians, the potential threat to their cherished cultural practice of shooting wild birds, especially song birds, lead to much opposition and initial noncompliance. The Birds Directive established sites known as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) as the basis for safeguard. But over the course of the first ten years, there was much foot dragging by member states in the face of the powerful agricultural and developmental lobbies. The designation of SPAs were long delayed and the sites were initially very ineffectively safeguarded. In the UK, for example, by 1992, only 48 SPAs had been designated, even though a larger number of internationally recognised Ramsar (wetland) sites had been proclaimed. According to the most recently available figures from the European Commission [2], by the start of 2001, the UK had increased the number of designated sites to just over 200 SPAs. This equates to about 8,000 km2 and accounts for about 3.5 percent of the national UK territory. It represents a modest contribution to the overall E.U. site designation total of 2,920 SPAs (as at 31 January 2001) covering over 200,000 km2. The failure on the part of many E.U. member states either adequately to transpose E.U. biodiversity Directives or to implement fully or speedily enough has led to several crucial European court cases (see Fairbrass and Jordan 2001). European Court of Justice rulings in relation to the Birds Directive have defined some critical aspects of protected

140


sites in the E.U., and set the scene for the much broader, subsequent Habitats Directive. These court rulings have clarified the intention of the E.U. to establish a sort of natural entitlement for the Natura 2000 sites. Here is a summary of the principal criteria for safeguards: i. Economic considerations associated with development of a proposed site must not be used as an argument against designation so long as the scientific case for the integrity of the conservation states of the site is sufficiently robust. This means that a potentially significant development scheme can be thwarted by designation. ii. Where that scientific case cannot conclusively be proved, but where there is sufficient evidence that any proposed activity or development might prove a threat to the integrity of the conservation status of a site, then the precautionary principle must be applied and the development or activity amended, curtailed or prohibited in accord with the principle. This means that a biodiversity safety first policy is required, with any management scheme for a site being legally forced to place biodiversity first. These two legal provisions are reinforced in the Habitats Directive of 1992. In one sense this appeared to be a response by the E.U. to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. But in practice, the Directive was being promoted throughout the 1980s as part of the Environment Action Plans for the E.U. It was essentially the result of particular lobbying by wildlife groups nationally and Europe-wide together with their technical advice as to what species, and particularly, habitats, provide the best protection for the range of wildlife regarded as vital for European biodiversity. The Habitats Directive established a second category of site, the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) to complement the SPA. Together these two designations make up Site of Community Importance (SCI), or Natura 2000, the platform for wildlife protection in the E.U. In principle, all SCIs are supposed to be formally designated by 2004. At the time of writing, only about half of the proposed sites will be gazeteered. WWF Europe (2000: 35) suggests that about 35 percent more "shadow" sites should be designated if the aim of ensuring biodiversity is to be met. Many of these sites are located in areas where economic activity and local social values are incompatible with the objectives of the Directive. To bring them into the biodiversity fold will require much money and highly skilled participatory processes. These are not yet seriously being considered, let alone being prepared for. Added to the SPA legal framework, summarised above, were two additional safeguards that now apply to all of Natura 2000 sites: iii. Plans and projects can only be pursued on a site when there is an imperative case of overriding national interest, and no feasible alternative exists for the proposed change. This places a straight jacket on almost all development proposals, though in practice, this seemingly tough provision is often overridden by political imperatives, iv. In such circumstances compensatory measures must be secured by providing the equivalent conservation status adjacent to the existing site, or elsewhere, according to agreed scientific advice, in order to maintain 'favourable conservation status.' So far, the scientific and participatory procedures for ensuring this are still to be assembled. The crucial test of "favourable conservation status" remains ambiguous. Essentially it means that the particular integrity, representativeness and interconnected functioning of ecosystems must remain intact, or be re-created, following any disturbance. In practice, however, such science depends on long periods of careful monitoring which lies well beyond the budget and staff power of competent conservation authorities and voluntary organisations. For the E.U. Directives to be fully effective, considerably more resources will need to be put into "local conservation well-being" and scientific audits by coalitions of bodies, including the private sector, and a variety of local interests. Beyond SCIs, the Directive obliges member states to improve the ecological


141

coherence of the Natura 2000 network by ensuring that land management practices and planning procedures in linked areas, or corridors, or buffer zones, are compatible with the conservation management schemes which must be established for each site. This process has led to the formation of biodiversity action plans (B APs) in a number of member states. These BAPs have proved to be very controversial in the UK for being too mechanistically dependent on science, insufficiently sensitive to cultural values and local customs, exclusive and formalistic in their preparation, and unable to cope with climate change, fragmentation and the continued erosion of species that remains the dominant biodiversity crisis (see Smart et al. 2001). One crucial issue with BAPs, it seems, is that they fit into bureaucratic performance indicators and cover emblematic species (such as bittern and otter), so are susceptible to business sponsorship at the possible expense of the overall biodiversity value. Furthermore, they may beguile planners, developers and farmers into assuming that protection of biodiversity in managed sites is all there is that needs to be done. Yet for biodiversity to progress, it must be regarded and promoted as a cultural and social value, locked into wealth securing activities and in tune with changing environmental circumstances and social outlooks. This is the vision that is still missing in Europe. The reasons for this disruption of a common vision lie in the resistance of landowners (notably farmers, foresters and hunters) to any new Natura 2000 designation. And the somewhat high-handed treatment of local stakeholders by the designating conservation and wildlife agencies often antagonise any limited consultation process. This history, and its associates social meanings, is examined by Stoll-Kleeman [3].

1.7 The Hickling Experience Hickling Broad is the remnant of a human-created lake reaching back to the mid-14th century. Its 130 ha of open water is a key element in an area of internationally recognised wetland known as the Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes (see Table 1). Hickling is but one of four shallow lakes in the area, linked by a network of rivers and wetlands. The open water habitat of the four broads (lakes) contain species of community importance such as Holly-leafed naiad, and five species of stonewort (Chora spp), notably C. intermedia, C. connvivens, and C. asperens. A large number of resident and migratory birds occupy the site, all of which are of regional, national or international significance. The fen marshes include orchids, butterflies, dragonflies and many birds including pink footed geese, and 20,000 plus waterfowl (great crested grebe, cormorant, white footed geese, teal, pochard, tufted duck and coot). The area is managed and owned by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, the National Trust, and the Broads Authority. The first two are voluntary charities, the third a special statutory body with a remit to promote wildlife, enhance tourism and local livelihoods, and maintain navigation. Hickling Broad is also used for commercial holiday boating, for wind surfing and for dinghy and open-hulled yacht-racing. Its culture of sailing is long established and deeply cherished. The local economy depends to a large extent on recreation (fishing, boating and sailing) and day visitor spending in the nature reserves. Since the 1950s Hickling Broad in particular has suffered from nutrient enrichment. This has primarily been caused by many thousands of roosting gulls, though local agricultural drainage and intensification has also been a contributory factor. Eutrophication has lowered plant density and encouraged algal growth and sedimentation. The broad is getting shallower, so sailing with deep keeled boats is becoming confined to a specially dredged channel. In 1994 the Authority began a cutting programme of removal of two common plant species (not protected by the Directive) milfoil and pondweed. This took

142


place over zones where sailing could continue, but the plants were also protected by buoys. This cutting programme was maintained at 60 cm height to protect the Chara and Naiad. The ecological science of the Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes is by no means well understood. The area experiences salt intrusion, but it is not clear where and when such pulses emanate. The Broad is tidal and sea level rise plus lower water tables in dry summers could be influential. It is possible that if the whole upper catchment was 'rewetted' by removing the drainage, that underlying salt water could be displaced into the broad. This degree of scientific uncertainty makes participatory management planning very awkward, yet exceedingly necessary, as a variety of "knowledges" have to get involved. The "knowledges" here encompass the experience of farmers, fishing interests and local residents who observed and integrate on the basis of their livelihood needs. They are "vernacular scientists" who can connect by observation and experience, but who do not measure, use models, or deploy chemistry, biology or economics. Other "knowledges" involve the policy strategists of the various agencies involved in managing the site. They have their own rules and guidelines. Sometimes these are at variance with the views of vernacular scientists. The third body is the academic-research based science. Increasingly this group is acting as an intellectual bridge between these various structures of knowing and integrating. Salt affects plant growth, as does bird grazing, and may increase outbreaks of Prymnesium, a blue-green alga that is toxic to freshwater fish. The surrounding farmlands are for the most part drained, and the drainage contains nutrients and sediment. Again it is not known how these flows and fluxes affect the ecology of the broad. Ecologists are very unsure of precisely what might happen when the ecological clock is reversed. This level of ignorance breaches the precautionary principle, rendering the sensitive implementation of the Habitats Directive quite problematic. Scientific ignorance is especially disadvantageous for inclusive and consensus-based participatory processes notably where ecological integrity is sought as the primary objective for future management. Following the points raised in the previous chapter, without the "order" of scientific prognoses, or at least agreed principles of precaution, it is extremely difficult to share power through common understanding. It is this communicative uncertainty that is proving so troubling to the Hickling process. In early 1998 Hickling Broad became clear for the first time in several decades. Chara intermedia grew to 100 cm. Because this is a plant of European importance, cutting of the milfoil and pond weed was suspended. The plant became so dense as to impede boating in all but the dredged channel. The commercial and leisure boating interests were outraged that this plant could not be removed. The competent authority, English Nature, backed by the Wildlife Trust and the National Trust, refused the Broads Authority permission to continue cutting. In August 1998 English Nature permitted an experimental programme of trial cutting of C.intermedia. This is a European protected species, so the experiments were designed to test the precautionary principle. To help set the ecological judgements, the Broads Authority established a scientific assessment team in 1999. This was designed to advise for the precautionary procedures suggested by the Directive and set in statute by the UK Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994. The team could not initially agree on a cutting programme, not could it advise on what experimental schemes would be best. This delayed proceedings, reduced the navigation options for the summer of 1999 and introduced a further difficulty, namely the possible effects of cutting on populations of overwintering birds. Eventually a very modest programme of cutting was initiated with full monitoring, and little navigation. Of interest here are four key issues for participatory biodiversity: 1. There was no serious attempt to bring the various parties together at an early stage. So


143

attitudes and stereotypes of the kind examined by Stoll-Kleemann [3] in Germany formed to reinforce prejudices, develop misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and increase a sense of bonded groupings of hostility and bias. There was no whiff of common understanding, and no trust in social networks, other than those of dispute and deceit. 2. There was no accredited management body with the competence or the capacity to mediate or to generate a management plan. There was no legal mechanism for such a plan, and so experience of participatory procedures of the kind outlined in the previous chapter to put the plan into affect. 3. Personalities got in the way of trust building and confidence. Within both the conservation and navigation camps there was no sense of unity or self belief, no leadership, no mutual respect, and no serious attempt to reach consensus, even within self interested networks. The economically important fishing interests lay in between and were effectively marginalised by the warring factions. 4. The scientific assessment panel could not agree on the depth of experimental cutting that should be tried out. In essence, the role of scientific authority, that helps to shape a participatory biodiversity process, was crucially missing. The fact that the assessment panel scrambled eventually to a set of recommendations, with limited evidence, but with experience on its side, illustrates the power of scientific appraisal, no matter how imperfect, as a guide to participatory processes. To provide a dialogue for the parties, the Broads Authority established a Hickling Liaison Group. Originally this was meant to be inclusive of all interests. But such was the bad feelings that the conservation interests failed to attend meetings. In effect, this added to the sense of frustration and prejudice which had grown rife. Eventually the Broads Authority, English Nature and the Wildlife Trust commissioned an interactive, trust building analysis of all participants to the Hickling process. This effort took one year, involved intensive discussions, face to face, built confidence amongst the groups, and enabled all participants to understand both the legal framework of the Directive, the crucial role of scientific assessment, and the cultures of sailing, navigation and angling on the Broad. The result was a freshly fashioned Upper Thurne Working Group, fully inclusive of 32 stakeholder interests. This acts as "Hickling Parliament" for all preparations for the management planning for the whole region. It is likely that this concept will set the guideline for those participatory biodiversity in the Broads generally and possibly elsewhere. Table 1. Internationally important features with the Upper Thume Broads and Marshes (Ramsar). Amalgamated interests associated with the open water and marginal swamp habitats include: • • •

•

The open water communities. Rare species; Holly-leafed naiad and the stoneworts Nitellopsis obtusa, Chara intermedia and Chara connivens. Outstanding numbers of wintering waterfowl 3-4000, including notable populations widgeon, gadwall, mallard (1250), teal (1250), shoveler (max. 700). Other notable populations include; mute swan and pochard. Marginal swamp provides breeding habitat for water rail, gadwall, garganey and particularly significant numbers of pochard. Marginal fen habitats with mixed fen vegetation. Scarce species; cowbane, marsh sow thistle, milk parsley and greater water parsnip. Rare breeding species; marsh harrier, bittern, bearded reedling, Cetti's warbler and Savi's warbler. Notable for wintering hen harrier. Rare or uncommon insect species including Swallowtail, Fenn's wainscot and reed leopard.

144


Broads cSAC features Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes Hickling Broad and its margins Comment on Hickling Broad and its margins Fen with saw-sedge Much often around the Broad of European interest. Alder woodland Nutrient rich water bodies with pondweed Naturally nutrient rich lakes with Chara/pondweed/milfoil/yellow water lily community. Hickling Broad represents 43% of Broads cSAC feature Quaking mires Spring fed fens Fen orchid Desmoulin's snail Records from marginal fen habitats Broadland SPA features Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes Hickling Broad and its margins Comment of Hickling Broad and its margins •

Bittern 1912 re-established at Hickling, 1950's 15 boomers, 1980's 3 boomers, 1991 none recorded. 1999 2 boomers one nest. Bewick's swan During the 1980's peak counts of 20-200 recorded, up to a third Broads pop. Whooper swan Past decades average peak counts of about 20, this represents about a fifth of the Broads pop. Marsh harrier Hen harrier Ruff Wigeon 1980's 200-700 roosted on the Broad, 1990's reduced numbers. Broads population about 10,000. Gadwall Up to 300 but 100 average. Represents between a half and a quarter of the Broads population. Shoveler 1970's counts of 700 and 800. More recently fairly constant at about 100 birds. Broads mean population 675.

Additional proposed cSAC features Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes Hickling Broad and its margins • • •

Nutrient poor water bodies with Chara Hickling Broad represents 76% of Broads cSAC feature Purple moor grass meadows Otter

2. Lessons from Hickling The emergence of a rare plant, to the point where its presence curtailed recreational boating, sailing, windsurfing and angling, indicates that there is still an ambiguity between biodiversity strategy and rural sustainability more generally. Part of the reason for this state of affairs is that the lobbies around biodiversity are strong. This is because legality is on their side. Rural sustainability has no legal mandate, no recognised vehicles of implementation by appropriately funded executive organisations, and no monitoring device to show how a policy ideal is failing to be delivered. Consequently, biodiversity has its advocates, and rural sustainability has yet to get off the starting blocks. The Upper Thurne "parliament" has met to discuss its strategy. This is an inclusive


145

arrangement, which will mean the following: i. Widen the basis of agri-environmental payments to restore the surrounding grazing marsh to high level water table grazing marsh and fen. This will lower the nutrient loading for the catchment as a whole, and encourage the spread and survival of Chara asperens. ii. Isolating the prospect of saltwater incursion for the rising North sea by the construction of a diversionary salt-removing ditch paid for by the local internal drainage board. This will keep saltwater at bay, and lessen the chances of any future prynmesium outbreak. It will also ensure better sweetwater quality for the entire Upper Thurne catchment. iii. Modest management of plant stocking, experimental removal of nutrient rich muds in shallow parts of the lakes, and an intensive monitoring of bird flying habits. All this should lead to a wider variety of plants and fish, and hence a greater propensity to biodiversity. iv. The emergence of local economic enterprise around angling, educational visits to the broad and its surroundings, the use of read materials for baskets and wickerwork products, and the emergence of local food markets arising from the grazing livestock. All this is modest and relatively unadventurous. But it is the outcome of a carefully discussed management plan, it does create constructive co-operation between agencies and private companies involved with water management, biodiversity, economic regeneration and social uplift (notably in local enterprise and education). This is where a more carefully designed Pillar 3 for the Common Agricultural Policy could direct funds into rural regeneration, social support and biodiversity enhancement. All this could be filtered through a participatory democracy based on catchment social forums, as indicated by the E.U. Water Framework Directive. Pillar 3 is therefore not only an agricultural mechanism; it is also a rural sustainability device through which agriculture biodiversity and rural socio-economic transformation can be created as an integrated package, through an inclusionary mechanism of local democracy at work. In this way, everyone shares the outcome, and can enjoy in the emergence of sustainable wellbeing for ecosystems and peoples. The Hickling experience emphasises the importance of a "community of souls" people from all walks of life in local communities, recreation pastimes and management agencies who share a common commitment to biodiversity and human livelihoods. It is this common vision that establishes friendships, creates trust and enables agreements to be made by negotiation and understanding. The "Hickling Parliament" is a genuine community of debate, analysis, prediction and trial. It shapes, shares and strategises. If biodiversity for sustainability is to thrive, such a forum should be in place everywhere it is needed. Such forums take many years to function effectively. The pace of research analysis and action is slow, but secure if well done.

3. Research recommendations The modest case study suggests the following research opportunities: 1. Examination of different approaches for generating trust and common understanding amongst stakeholders, notably straddling biodiversity and liveability. 2. Fresh approaches to introducing sustainability appraisal as a supplement to ecological economics and community wellbeing. The concept of sustainability appraisal needs careful analysis and interpretation with a variety of experience. It should be aimed at ensuring ecosystem resilience, social wellbeing and economic livelihoods through participatory governance and adaptive management.

146


3. The scope for widening the case studies of adaptive management and institutional redesign via a series of biodiversity sustainability case studies should be from a greater push. There is huge opportunity to create imaginative outcomes for creating programmes, by interpreting the principles of precaution, stakeholder negotiation, sustainability appraisal and adaptive governance. This is the ultimate lesson of this symposium.

References [1] O'Riordan, T., Cameron, J. and Jordan, A. (eds.) 2001. Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Cameron and May. [2] European Commission, Natura Barometer, 2001. [3] Stoll-Kleemann, S. 2001. Reconciling opposition to protected areas management in Europe: the German experience. Environment 43(5), 32-43.

Additional References European Commission of the European Communities, 200la. A Sustainable Europe for a Better World. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. European Commission of the European Communities, 200 Ib, European Governance, COM(2001)428, Brussels, http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/


147

The Social-Psychological Dimension of Biodiversity Conservation Dr. Susanne STOLL-KLEEMANN Free University of Berlin, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Malteserstr. 74-100, D-12249 Berlin, Germany [email protected] Abstract. This paper references and interprets previous research on the perspectives of residents, landowners and managers of protected areas in Germany to explain why conflicts around biodiversity management can arise. The research relied on grounded theory approaches, sensitive interactive interviews, and the gradual application of social-psychological theories of social identity and reactance. The evidence is strong that there are powerful emotional and cultural drivers that divide biodiversity managers and local land-users and residents into two camps, which are maintained by stereotyping and group bonding. Based on these findings, constructive ways are then proposed to reconcile these differing perceptions.

1. Problems of biodiversity conservation in Germany These days, rather than being a point of agreement, biodiversity conservation is riddled with conflict; in Germany - from where the case study material is taken from - as well as in other areas world-wide [1-3]. McNeely [1] indicates that the most important general problems biodiversity conservation faces is "weak national constituency, conflicts with local people, conflicts with other government agencies, insufficient management, and insecure and insufficient funding." Most of these dilemmas can be found in Germany (for a detailed description see [4]), as this quote about the German experience concerning the status of national biodiversity planning shows: There were several obstacles or challenges in the strategy process, including the lack of adequate personnel, potential problems concerning the willingness of the local government (Lander) to carry out nature conservation efforts, and insufficient financial resources [5]. Opposition to biodiversity conservation in Germany comes primarily from local social and political interests intent on safeguarding what they regard as their traditions and their liberties. Opposition is aimed both at the processes of designation, and also of subsequent proposals for conservation management of land and natural resources. Opposition is expressed by local and regional authorities in particular by some mayors and by politicians, sometimes representing parties opposing the local or regional government, but sometimes even representing the governing party. Conflict is also evident amongst forest administrators, farmers and via active citizens' groups. The latter are mostly organized in local, regional or national citizen initiatives, e.g. in the 'Federal Association of Persons Concerned by National Parks V'Bundesverband der Nationalparkbetroffenen', a union of about 40 different regional associations. Opposition to biodiversity conservation is also

148

S. Stall-Kleemann / The Social-Psychological Dimension of Biodiversity Conservation

manifested in other ways, from public demonstrations, to boycotts of public meetings seeking the establishment of such areas. Persistent protest against biodiversity conservation can also take on violent forms: in some protected areas signboards were stolen or destroyed, barriers were pulled away, and where prohibitions laid down in individual regulations for protected zones were deliberately disregarded (for more detailed overviews see [6,7]. We shall see that this opposition is not, in itself, a function of misplaced and misapplied management based on a weak mandate. It is actually coherent in its own right. Even if management measures were to be strengthened, the reasons for the opposition need to be understood before it can be constructively incorporated in future management practice. This is the purpose of the model introduced below. 2. Linking case study material to social-psychological theories Evidence gained by a research project conducted between 1996 and 1999 [6] indicates that deeply rooted social-psychological processes are at work in shaping attitudes, outlooks and behaviour towards biodiversity management in Germany. Even when appropriate incentive schemes are on offer, there is still resistance, and, at times, increased resentment against the nature conservation mission. Clearly it is vital to understand why this view is so entrenched and so widely held. This is the purpose of the model that follows. 3. Interpreting a model of conflicts in biodiversity conservation from a social psychological perspective The model discussed in Figure 1 combines key social psychological variables, which interact with each other to influence and to result in conflicts around biodiversity conservation. What follows describes the single variables and how they interact. The major drivers that lead to conflicts to biodiversity conservation are group processes encouraging social identity together with communication and perception barriers, which mutually cause and reinforce each other. Emotional and cultural drivers also influence these core factors of the model. The interactions between the model components can broadly be described as follows. Emotional drivers such as the impression of facing restrictions on day-to-day decisions due to nature conservation regulations, and cultural drivers, such as the challenge to traditional values and habits, influence the perception and communication of those involved in and affected by the biodiversity conservation. All this raises the perception and communication barriers, and causes the behaviour of local land users and residents to be shaped in such a manner as to distort outlooks towards biodiversity managers. There are also similar interactions between both of these drivers (cultural and emotional) on the removal of freedom, for example, reinforcing a feeling of victimisation and a sense that traditional outlooks and practices are not respected. Indeed it is this reinforcement of emotion that strengthens a sense of group identity, further aggravates stereotyping, and increases a sense of aggrieved solidarity (For a theoretical underpinning please see below: e.g., Theory of Psychological Reactance, Social Identity Theory or [4,6]). The interaction between the model components "communication and perception barriers" on the one hand, and "group processes encouraging social identity" on the other is particularly strong and reinforcing. The differing social perceptions of involved actors, shaped by the particular value systems ("cultural drivers") of the groups they belong to leads to differences in particular actor perspectives. This process operates in such a manner

S. Stall- Kleemann / The Social-Psychological Dimension of Biodiversity Conservation

149

Figure 1. A model of opposition to protected area designation and management from a social psychological perspective. This is a conceptual model to illustrate the relationships between different factors that shape local opposition to protected areas in Germany. The critical variables lie in strong emotional attachments to established ways of living, together with equally strong solidarities over the handling of land using, plus unity in opposition to maintain social identity and personal esteem [4]. Source: adapted from [4].

as to inhibit any scope for supportive ways of communication and interaction between the involved groups. These problems in communication and perception, which are very much group related, cause further negative emotional experiences for both agency staff and managers on the one hand, and local interest groups on the other. Interaction can also operate between cultural drivers and group processes encouraging social identity. This is because traditional values and accustomed ways of life are - especially in rural areas primarily shared within and strongly influenced by the particular social group to which an individual belongs [4]. 4. Emotional drivers There are many emotional drivers that lead to negative perceptions and experiences regarding biodiversity conservation. Conservation officials also experience emotional underpinning to their management behaviour, which inflame local opposition. One example is the fear of losing too much of the core conservation mission when confronted with the demand to include local interests earlier in the designation process than is the case at the moment [8]. 4.1. Perceptions of biodiversity conservation as authoritarian and threatening The following quotes show to what extent proposed conservation regulations are perceived as restricting personal rights:

150


Already the smallest restriction of habits causes aggression; the(se) people here are stubborn (Interviewee 32, resident about other citizens in a protected area). I am sure that for many people here this is simply too much. They just see another law, another regulation. There are so many regulations already, people are lost among them. They only understand this protected area as another prohibition (...) that could restrict their personal freedom. It does not actually have to be a restriction. The fact that it could be one is already enough (Interviewee 5, employee working in the administration of a protected area). In this context, Brehm's Theory of Psychological Reactance provides a useful explanation for this phenomenon [4,6,9]. This states that reactance arises when personal rights to decide and act are threatened, reduced, or eliminated - for example via regulations, prohibitions and controls [10]. This is restricted to behaviours that the person itself- that means of its subjective perspective - perceives as threatened. In protected areas, for example, people feel restricted in many different ways such as their individual preferences (e.g. in their leisure activities, like camping or fishing), their ways of using land (agriculture, forestry, or hunting), and their freedom to pursue professional activities without co-ordinating with conservationists (examples see below). Such a situation provokes reactance and arouses efforts to regain lost rights, e.g. in form of the opposition described above [4,6,9]. Brehm defines the following conditions for the emergence and strengthening of reactance: 1. Expectation of free behaviour, that means a person believes that he/she is able to decide deliberately between given alternatives 2. Strength of threat 3. Importance of the threatened free behaviours 4. Implications a threat may have for further freedoms of choice. The following quotes make clear that misguided expectations amongst citizens in the New Lander (Federal States of the former East Germany) towards emerging democracy have led to many disappointments. These grievances become transferred into opposition to biodiversity conservation measures. People here believe that, following reunification with its new democratic system, they will have total freedom. (...) Now there are continuing limitations. This suggests that their expectations were wrong (Interviewee 1, head of the rangers of a protected area). The people think they now have a jester's licence following reunification. This is a misinterpreted liberty (Interviewee 28, resident). Here two strands of reactance combine. On the one hand, freedom is very important to most residents in protected areas of the former GDR, because of their historical repression (until 1989). So they are extremely sensitive towards further restrictions. On the other hand there is an assumption that restrictions would be removed in the brave new world. Furthermore, in some existing nature conservation areas nobody bothered about nature conservation regulations in the past, because nature and biodiversity conservation was not a major political issue for the communists. Therefore, some believe that they now have

5. Stoll-Kleeniann / The Social-Psychological Dimension of Biodiversity Conservation

151

even greater scope for free choice.

4.2. Lack of inclusive and meaningful participation in biodiversity management In Germany, a widespread lack of participation during the process of planning and implementing of biodiversity conservation measures is an important factor that fuels opposition. This can be seen in close connection to the Theory of Psychological Reactance, because, if decisions are made without the involvement of affected citizens, reactance can occur [4,6,7]. In nature conservation policy, as laid down in German law, the formal procedures for consulting citizens contain obvious weaknesses. Some stakeholders are allowed to make a petition in a written form. But there is no continuous dialogue, no "real" communication between the involved citizens, in which different interests and points of view may be understood and accommodated, developed and resolved, in face to face discussions [11]. The biggest weakness is that the point where participation is invited is far too late. The acceptance of biodiversity conservation measures is also dependent on whether the decision-making procedure is perceived to be fair or unfair [4,6,7]. Findings from the psychological social dilemma research1 confirm this evidence in the field of water conservation. These findings suggest that people are more willing to support authorities when these authorities use fair decision-making procedures [12].

5. Cultural drivers: challenging traditional values Pitt & Zube [13] note that those responsible for biodiversity conservation face two main difficulties regarding environmental value conflicts. Firstly the scope of values that must be considered has expanded significantly in recent times; and secondly the personal and even the professional value orientations of conservation managers "are now more likely to conflict of those individuals and groups using the environment." In Germany, the two main antagonistic groups involved in these conflicts have very different values systems: The people here in and around the protected area feel disturbed through it and they love their common way of life. They just don't want to change this usual way of life (Interviewee 25, resident about other residents). Conservationists often insufficiently take into account the extent to which for example the designation of a protected area interferes with customary behaviours of the local population, and especially, how far that apparent imposition affects their values. Modifications of familiar landscapes and different ways of land use strengthen the dislike of protected areas [4,6]. If, for instance, the "wilderness concept" means that cultivated forests are allowed to evolve into near-nature (virgin) forests without human interference, the local population, which has long been used to exploit and cultivate its forests, perceives such areas left to themselves as "untidy" and contradicting their traditional landscape values (ibid). Similarly, part of the resistance to compensatory payments lies in a socially shared viewpoint amongst rural land users that being paid for apparently doing nothing, namely by maintaining the existing mix of habitats and species, is regarded as morally wrong and contrary to a responsible work ethic. Furthermore, land that seems to be 1

In social dilemma situations, each individual always receives a higher payoff for defecting than for cooperating, but all are better off if all co-operate than if all defect [14].

152

5. Stall-Kleemann / The Social-Psychological Dimension of Biodiversity Conservation

"neglected" in favour of wildlife survival can be regarded as a sign of lazy and disinterested farming [4]. Resistance to proposed changes in land-use practices long held dear can be very strong. Farmers and foresters are not sympathetic to conservation law and practice that seek the status quo in nature. They appreciate traditional ways and regard them as a sign of responsible management and a manifestation of best practice through shared management norms. The very rare success stories in this respect like in the German Rhoen Region (a biosphere reserve; please see contribution in this book) or in the Uckermark Lakes Nature Park (Northeast Germany) regarding their promising regional sustainable development agendas are mainly due to the leadership qualities of their empathetic managers. This leadership has helped to reduce scepticism and suspicion regarding the purpose of nature conservation [2].

6. Group processes encouraging social identity Group membership itself is an important explanation for the conflicts in the German protected areas [4,6,7]. The next interview passage illustrates that internal bonding processes within social groups may account for a powerful rejection of protected areas. Such conforming attitudes are frequently found in the group of farmers with their oftennegative attitude towards nature conservation: There are many farmers who greatly profit from the nature park but who nevertheless support us too little in public. Because this would entail conflicts with the majority of their profession, I think. In a personal conversation, however, they say: 'it's fine what you do, I am glad about the possibilities I have in connection with you.' This is not just empty talk, many farmers really have understood that. But they haven't got the courage to utter it in the farmers' union or to members of the parliament (Interviewee 1, head of the rangers in a protected area). An explanation for expressing more negative attitudes toward biodiversity conservation in social conversations may lay in group-expectations of roles [4,7]. Social psychologists have long looked at the effects and consequences of how people treat members of their own group compared with members of other groups to which they do not belong or identify with. The Social Identity Theory [15,16] provides an explanation "how group membership per se affects a person's attitude and behaviour" [17]. The basic assumption of Social Identity Theory2 is that social categorisation results in social discrimination because people make social comparisons between in-groups and outgroups. An example in how far the distinction between "in-group" and "out-group" suffices to provoke the rejection of the out-group - here: the conservationists - without any competition for resources existing among the groups [4,7]. This is reflected in the following interview passage, referring to the relationship between (official) forestry and nature conservation. The quote shows that - apart from management issues (for instance balancing ecological against economic criteria in forestry) - emotional aspects like competing professional attributes are highly influential in distinguishing the two groups: Forest offices are absolutely antagonistic to us. If you talk to :

The four main concepts of Social Identity Theory are: social categorisation, social identity, social comparison and psychological group distinctiveness [15].

S. Stall- Kleemann / The Social-Psychological Dimension of Biodiversity Conservation

153

forest officers, they say: 'We don't need those conservationists, they are practically superfluous here in the nature park. Nature conservation in the forest is what we have been doing for a long time.' They ignore that our work is by no means restricted to nature conservation in the forests but applies to open landscapes, and lakes as well. They are true opponents, seeing US as competitors (Interviewee 1, head of the rangers of a protected area). Foresters dislike the charge that conservationists are impugning their competence. Furthermore, they jealously wish to protect their established professional freedoms, which they regard as being threatened [4,7]. Social Identity Theory further states that people make social comparisons because they need to provide themselves with a positive identity [15,16,18]. Positive social identity is important for a person because it enhances self-esteem and self-worth. Comparisons made between in-groups and out-groups in relation to status, value and perceived worth lead to social competition. This reflects the desire people have to put the groups they identify with in such a light as to believe their group to be "better" than the out-group [17,18]. Membership in a group, on the one hand, relates to external criteria (e.g. being a conservationist or farmer or forester). Identification with this group, on the other hand, depends on internal criteria, among them cognitive aspects (like the awareness of being a group member), evaluative aspects (like the social prestige of group membership), and emotional aspects (like positive or negative feelings associated with group membership). Turner [18] suggests in this context in order "to understand how social groups are formed" one should also focus on variables such as "common fate" or "shared threat" [18]. These obviously play a role in the example outlined here. One lesson that can be learned from social dilemma research in this context is that people in such situations "attend more to the groups' payoffs than to their own, either automatically or to behave "appropriately." But whereas social identity elicits co-operative behaviour in dilemmas, it is generally only for the benefit of an "in-group." Dilemmas between groups (requiring self-sacrificial behaviour within) are often the most extreme. Consequently the framing and manipulation of group identity is critical to co-operation rate" [14]. When people act as individuals who are interacting with other individuals, they are far more cooperative than when they form groups that interact with other groups [14]. There is extensive evidence that "favouring the in-group over the out-group is extremely common in intergroup relations" [18, see also 15,19]. The out-group is attributed with negative values and exaggerated stereotypes (see below "communication and perception barriers"), while the in-group is perceived to have positive characteristics and values [17]. Even a manager of the same protected area confirms that this quote is very typical and the view presented here is widely held: Sometimes you are even reproached to be ignorant of the world. Conservationists are said to have a biased orientation. They are said to care only for the protection of species and not for any human business. So they are seen as little realistic or pragmatic, too much idealistic or Utopian (Interviewee 7, head of an administration of a protected area). That brings us to the point to emphasise that it has also been discovered that there is a strong sense of conservationist identity that is felt individually as well as collectively. One

154

S. Stoll-Kleemann / The Social-Psychological Dimension of Biodiversity Conservation

senior official admitted that his staff tends to become "emotional" and "moralistic" about the importance of their mission to the point where they cannot communicate with the public or landowners without getting into dispute. Part of the reason for their dedication is a deep belief that "the public" does not understand the importance of protecting wildlife and habitats since the modern culture is too isolated from the wild, and too indoctrinated with materialistic comforts [8]. An additional reason for the reinforcement of social identity amongst conservation officials is the fear that their power base will be eroded if their approach is publicly challenged. The same nature conservation director explained: All specialists (especially biologists) fear a loss of power. Where affected interests are allowed to challenge their actions they fear that their precious professional knowledge is compromised. And if lay people, "who know nothing", are allowed to make the final decisions, then the basis of all their knowledge is invalidated. This is bad for morale. In this context Pitt & Zube [13] provide a useful perspective. They think that the particular professional background of biodiversity conservation managers (in Germany they are usually educated and trained in biology) equip them with a specialist perspective; for example, a wildlife biologist would be biased by basic concern for animal habitat. They further state that professional elitism tends to cause managers to view themselves as uniquely qualified to resolve problems related to the management of natural environments" [13]. A general problem of the particular ecology based training of nature conservationists is that "it often ignores defining a natural environment as a setting for human behaviour" [13].

7. Perception and communication barriers It has been outlined above that stereotypes of out-groups are one important consequence of social identity processes. All members of the out-group "nature conservationists" are attributed with possessing those stereotypical characteristics and the individual's unique personal characteristics are ignored [17]. Stereotypes are usually highly simplified images. Stereotypes referring to "outgroups " are often of a derogatory nature and based on, or leading to, clearly visible differences between groups (e.g. in terms of physical appearance) (Zebrowitz, 1996 in [20]). From this description of stereotypes it can be seen that they are similar to prejudicial attitudes that people hold about social groups. A person holding a stereotype will show a tendency to note and recall subsequent information about the social group that fits the stereotype [17]. The following interview passage illustrates these facts: They always say: 'it is you greens who have done that', for instance, when they find a barrier on some forest path. And when I ask: 'What greens?' they don't care. They just call everybody 'green', even when it's the forest law which is responsible for that barrier (Interviewee 5, employee working in the administration of a protected area). Actual conflicts in biodiversity management have to be understood in the context of these An out-group is "a group to which a person does not belong, or thinks he or she does not belong" [21].


155

stereotyped relationships between conservation and other social and economic interests. They are extremely difficult to modify when - as is the case in many German protected areas - social tensions and conflicts have arisen among groups [20]. Recent research has acknowledged that stereotypes have both cognitive and emotional undercurrents that inflame judgements about social groups. Situations, which include strong, negative emotions (such as anger or anxiety), have been found to increase a person's use of and reliance on stereotypical thinking [17,22]. Here the link between these different model components becomes particularly obvious. Stereotypes negatively affect communication among opposite groups. Sometimes conservationists face disapproval even before they have any direct contact with residents, as the following quote shows: On the other hand, you simply have to admit that the population has a basically negative opinion of the notion of 'nature conservation'. They immediately assume a negative attitude and keep their distance as soon as they hear about it (Interviewee 2, employee working in the administration of a protected area). Perceptions of conservation by land-users, and judgements of land-use practices by conservationists are almost equal in their strength, misrepresentation and opposition. Bonaiuto et al. [23] emphasise an interesting correlation between social identity and "biases in the perception and evaluation of environmental features." "In order to strive for a positive social identity, people might deny negative characteristics of their own local or national environment, especially if those were initially attributed by a powerful and disliked out-group institution" [23]. Their study suggests that environmental perceptions and evaluations in this case do not seem to be affected by traditional socio-demographic variables or by environmental concerns but that "the relevant matching dimensions of the inhabitants' social identities become key factors" [23]. In the protected areas local people also tend to overcome any dissonance4 they may feel about not being custodians of nature (as challenged by conservationists) by justifying their traditional practices as being beneficial for wildlife. Furthermore, because they do not share the conservationists' views of wildlife protection, they cannot see how their continued actions may damage wildlife survival in the future. It is difficult to change these attitudes because information concerning these matters is absorbed and processed in a very one-sided manner. For example, the residents of protected areas select sources of information about protected areas from which they can expect (e.g. because the title of a journal article seems to promise that) that their (pre)attitudes, values and (pre)knowledge will be confirmed. As is shown above, the attitudes, values and emotions of residents in protected areas are very often biased against biodiversity conservation. Therefore, they seek information that reinforces this bias, while challenging the credibility of any information that contradicts their attitudes. Because values and emotions act as powerful criteria for the selection and processing of information [24-26], so they have a negative influence on the acceptance of biodiversity conservation. Such processes have to be taken into account when searching for adequate strategies to deal with the opposition that biodiversity conservation measures face (for a detailed description see [6]).

4

To avoid an "overkill" of theory in this article it has been decided not to explain the theory of cognitive dissonance by Festinger 1957 although that would have made sense in this particular context. An application of Festinger's theory concerning conflicts in biodiversity management can be found in [6].

156


8. Conclusions and Possible Ways Forward Social psychologists suggest three main ways in which attempts have been made to reduce prejudice and discrimination, as explained through social identity theory. These are through (1) setting super-ordinate goals; (2) redrawing the category boundaries; and (3) establishing contact. To create agreement amongst conflicting groups in the pursuit of super-ordinate goals may be awkward in Germany because it is difficult to find super-ordinate goals which have "genuine appeal" to both, nature conservationists and local people [17; see also 27]. Similar problems arise for the third approach, namely the contact hypothesis [28], which suggests that contact between members of different groups lessens intergroup prejudice and hostility. This is because some of the necessary conditions for the success of this strategy are very difficult to meet in German protected areas. Such conditions require that the groups in contact are "roughly equal in social and economic status" or that "contact between social groups should be seen as inevitable and supported by society" [17]. One possible condition, that "contact between groups should be informal and facilitate individuals getting to know one another" does seem to be feasible (see below). The second approach - keeping in mind that social categorisation is sufficient to cause discrimination to an out-group - assumes "that if members of two groups could redefine themselves as belonging to a single super-ordinate category then the erstwhile 'out-groupers' would be re-categorized as fellow members of the new larger ingroup and a more favourable attitude towards them should ensue" [27]. Gaertner et al. [29] state that a core factor, which brings people to regard themselves as part of a larger group, is when they work together co-operatively. Another possibility in this context is "to break existing social categories into smaller sub-units, perhaps too small that each individual seems him or herself as unique. Emphasising individual uniqueness should result in social groupings becoming less important or salient for the individual" [17]. How can we use these findings to devise more sensitive biodiversity management processes? When implementing biodiversity conservation measures, it is important to consider that membership of a certain group may create resistance to biodiversity conservation. It may be useless to expect some forms of co-operation in biodiversity conservation from members of certain groups - when this would transcend the groupdefined scope for action. Furthermore, it follows that the opinion a person holds in public or as a representative of a group, have necessarily to be compared to opinions expressed in private conversations within the group [7]. A helpful strategy may therefore be to develop common interests and to build up informal contacts between conservationists and those affected by biodiversity conservation measures, to remove the communication barriers outlined in this paper. This may be done by establishing some kind of biodiversity-centred user forum to receive reports on ecological research and ecological safeguards, and to be part of the mechanism for shaping management agreements. One example that already exists is landscape preservation associations. These join together conservationists, farmers, and communities for the purpose of caring for a certain natural habitat or communal area. Co-operation through these associations may lead to contacts among different groups, which would make it easier to take the interests and needs of persons concerned into account and to harmonise them with nature conservation measures [7]. Such an approach might also help to address the feelings of restricted personal and professional freedoms, as well as the lack of meaningful participation. Recommendations one can make that build upon the findings described in the section "emotional and cultural drivers" (including theory of psychological reactance) are that the implementation of biodiversity conservation measures should not be managed by decreeing them from the top (see, for example, [1,11,30-32]). Instead increased involvement of those directly concerned


157

and affected through sensitive participatory procedures may reveal alternative courses of action (as for example in landscape preservation associations or through mediation [11,32]; consensus conferences; citizens" jury/panel; citizen/public advisory committee; focus groups). More egalitarian and network-based communication among all parties may well increase acceptance of biodiversity conservation. Public participation also helps include local particularities, such as different social values and particular cultural norms (see above), into decision-making, and hence avoid potential (negative) consequences of management, of which professional conservationists have not initially been aware (see, for example, [1-3,7,11,13,30-32]). This research indicates that social-psychological approaches can help enormously to clarify the motivations underlying the management of biodiversity conservation. It particularly reveals how various social interests shape prejudices, bond in alliances, and create the scope either for conflict or conciliation. The signs are good. The European Union is anxious to match regional development funds to biodiversity-based income support (see [4,8]). The major agencies in Europe are taking seriously various forms of participation throughout the management process. We may indeed be entering a new era of co-operative conservation in which social psychological research and analysis should play an invaluable facilitative role. In how far can this research help us to support the transition to greater rural sustainability? Certainly it is important to consider possible cultural differences, e.g. in the Eastern European countries. Some of the hurdles we will have to overcome, based on diverse cultural and social backgrounds that exist in Europe are the apparent inabilities of individuals and their organizational cultures to communicate faithfully and meaningfully to each other. Even today, many biodiversity management cultures have evolved from a history of top-down relationships toward local people. Some of the bridges we can build which also came up in the ARW workshop in some case studies are to undertake serious efforts to understand the motivations of local interests, to respect them, and to enable them to recognize real job opportunities arising from biodiversity conservation. The lesson we learn is that organizations need to have sophisticated intelligence as to how their employees are perceived in any participatory framework. Another lesson we can learn is that the conduct of local sustainability livelihood schemes should rest on community empowerment, on social education, and on training for enterprise and community sharing [2]. References [1] McNeely, J. A. (1995). Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press. [2] Stoll-Kleemann, S., O'Riordan, T. (2002a). From participation to partnership in biodiversity protection: experience from Germany and South Africa. Society and Natural Resources, 15 (2) 157-173. [3] Stoll-Kleemann, S.; O'Riordan, T. (2002b). Enhancing Biodiversity and Humanity. O'Riordan, T., StollKleemann, S. (eds.). Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities. Protecting Beyond the Protected. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 295-310. [4] Stoll-Kleemann, S. (200Ic). Barriers to Nature Conservation in Germany: A model explaining opposition to protected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (4), 369-385. [5] Miller, K. R. & Lanou, S. M. (1995). National Biodiversity Planning: Guidelines Based on Early Experiences Around the World. Washington, D.C., Nairobi, Gland, Switzerland: World Resources Institute/United Nations Environment Programme/The World Conservation Union. [6] Stoll, S. (1999). Akzeptanzprobleme bei der Ausweisung von Groflschutzgebieten. Ursachenanalyse und Ansdtze zu Handlungsstrategien. Berlin: Lang. [7] Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001a). Opposition to the Designation of Protected Areas in Germany, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44, 111-130. [8] Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001b). Reconciling Opposition to Protected Areas Management in Europe: The German experience. Environment 43 (5), 32-44.

158


[9] Schenk, A. (2000). Relevante Faktoren der Akzeptanz von Natur- und Landschaftsschutzmassnahmen. St. Gallen: Publikation der Ostschweizerischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, Heft 5. [10] Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press. [11] Fietkau, H.-J. & Weidner, H. (1998). Umweltverhandeln. Berlin: Edition Sigma. [12] Tyler, T. R. & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective Restraint in Social Dilemmas: Procedural Justice and Social Identification Effects on Support for Authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482-497. [13] Pitt, D. & Zube, E. (1991). Management of Natural Environments. In D. Stokols & I. Altaian, Eds., Handbook of Environmental Psychology Volume II, Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company, pp 1009-1042. [14] Dawes, R.M. & Messick, D. M. (2000). Social Dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 11116. [15] Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between Social Groups. London: Academic Press. [16] Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel, Eds., The Social Psychology of Intergroup relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, pp 3347. [17] Pennington, D. C., Gillen, K. & Hill, P. (1999). Social psychology. London: Arnold. [18] Turner, H. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel, Ed., Social identity and intergroup relations, Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press and Edition de la Maison des Sciences de THornine, pp 15-40. [19] Doise, W. (1978). Groups and individuals: Explanations in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [20] Hogg, M. A. & Vaughan, G. M. (1998). Social Psychology. Prentice Hall Europe: Harlow. [21]Hewstone, M., Stroebe W. & Stephenson, G.M., (1996) Eds., Introduction to Social Psychology, Oxford: Blackwell [22] Mackie, D. M. & Hamilton, D. L., Eds., (1993). Affect, cognition and stereotyping: interactive processes in group perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [23] Bonaiuto, M., Breakwell, G. M. & Cano, I. (1996). Identity Processes and Environmental Threat: the Effects of Nationalism and Local Identity upon Perception of Beach Pollution. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 6, 157-175. [24] Lantermann, E. D. & Doring-Seipel, E. (1990). Umwelt und Werte. In L. Kruse, C. F. Graumann & E. D. Lantermann, Eds., Okologische Psychologie. Ein Handbuch in Schltisselbegriffen, Miinchen: Psychologie Verlags-Union, pp 632-639. [25] Lantermann, E. D., Doring-Seipel, E. & Schima, P. (1992). Werte, Gefuhle und Unbestimmtheit: Kognitiv-emotionale Wechselwirkungen im Umgang mit einem okologischen System. In K. Pawlik & K. H. Stapf, Eds., Umwelt und Verhalten: Perspektiven und Ergebnisse okopsychologischer Forschung, Bern: Huber, pp 129-144. [26] Ernst, A. M., Bayen, U. J. & Spada, H. (1992). Informationssuche und -verarbeitung zur Entscheidungsfindung bei einem okologischen Problem. In K. Pawlik & K. H. Stapf, Eds., Umwelt und Verhalten: Perspektiven und Ergebnisse okopsychologischer Forschung, Bern: Huber, pp 107127. [27] Brown, R. (1996). Intergroup Relations. In M. Hewstone, W. Stroebe & G. M. Stephenson, Eds., Introduction to Social Psychology, Oxford: Blackwell, pp 530-562. [28] Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. [29] Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Dovidio, J. F., Murell, A. J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperation reduce inter-group bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692-704. [30] Wells, M. & Brandon, K. (1992/ People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. [31] Pretty, J. N. & Pimbert, M. P. (1995). Beyond conservation ideology and the wilderness myth. Natural Resources Forum, 19, 5-14. [32] Zillessen, H. (1998). Mediation - Kooperatives Konfliktmanagement in der Umweltpolitik. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Additional Resources Gardner, G. T. & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Stern, P. C. & Oskamp, S. (1991). Managing scarce environmental resources. In D. Stokols & I. Altaian, Eds., Handbook of Environmental Psychology Volume II, Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company, pp 1043-1088. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

S. Stoll-Kleeinann / The Social-Psychological Dimension of Biodiversity Conservation

159

Tajfel, H., Ed., (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press and Edition de la Maison des Sciences de FHomme. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Van Vugt, M., van Lange, P. A. M., Meertens, R. M. & Joireman, J. A. (1996). How a Structural Solution to a Real-World Social Dilemma Failed: A Field Experiment on the First Carpool Lane in Europe. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 364-374.

160


Is there anything to learn from the experience in the Maine lobster fishery ? James A. Wilson School of Marine Sciences University of Maine, USA Abstract. The Maine Lobster fishery may seem a strange place to draw lessons for rural sustainability in central Europe. But this fishery, like so many others, shares a history of centralized control and the people who work in the fishery share the fear of losing their independence to new, external and large-scale forces. In fisheries, the original reasons for centralization were based upon a scientific perception of large-scale ecological phenomena that were thought to determine sustainability (e.g., the spawning biomass of a species over what were assumed to be very large stock1 ranges). Also, following classic scientific determinism, fisheries science assumed it would be possible to manipulate natural populations at that large scale in a way that could optimize human use of these resources . In short, centralized management (i.e., large scale management) was justified on the grounds that that was the scale appropriate to the fish stocks themselves. The world's experience with centralized management of fisheries has been very mixed. Canadian management of the huge Grand Banks cod stocks has driven those populations to near extinction. Throughout the North Atlantic fish stocks are at all time lows. But at the same time there are instances - Alaska, for example - where central management appears to be working. In New England, my home, the experience with centralized management has been disastrous. All the important centrally managed fisheries are at or close to all time lows. Scientists who have been the principal advisors to the management process assure the public that their science is the best there is and that if managers had simply had the 'political will' to follow their (the scientists') advice the fisheries of New England would be healthy and sustained3. The fact that these scientists' models have not been validated against real world data has not caused these scientists to become in the least skeptical. But the performance of these models is the source of skepticism among fishermen. This skepticism has been a major contributing reason for decentralization, especially in the lobster fishery.

1 Fisheries science conceives of species, such as cod that might the entire North Atlantic, and stocks - such as the Grand Banks stock of cod - generally independent, but still very large scale sub-populations. 2

1 could turn this interpretation on its head and argue that the scientists working for the Federal government and international agencies were asked to construct a theory that would allow management at a scale that corresponded with the scale of authority of their employers. They did their best to build one that was responsive to that imperative. 3

Rosenberg, A.A., M.J. Fogarty, M.P. Sissenwine, J.R. Beddington, and J.G. Shepherd. 1993. Achieving Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources. Science. 262:828-829.

J.A. Wilson /Anything to Learn from the Experience in the Maine Lobster Fishery?

161

Introduction The lobster fishery in New England employs about 15,000 licensed fishermen and between 2 to 3 times that number in the supply of services and sale and distribution of the product of the fishery. The fishery began in the 1830s and 40s, reached peak landings around the 1890s, dropped to very low levels in the 1920s and 30s and was moderately strong and remarkably stable from the 1940s to the 1980s. In the late 80s and 90s the population and landings started to rise and today are about three times their level in the early 1980s4. Until the 1970s management was strictly a matter for the individual states. In the middle part of that decade, however, the Federal government began management of fisheries, including the lobster fishery, in. the Extended Economic Zone^ Federal scientists worried about the imminent collapse of the fishery and sought to extend uniform and strengthened regulations over the range of the stock (i.e., the whole of New England). The science/management agenda of the Federal fisheries process gave birth to two political movements for decentralization. One occurred at an intermediate, regional, scale and is currently in its early stages of implementation. The other occurred at a fairly local level in the State of Maine and has evolved somewhat faster. This paper is about the experience we have had with decentralization, principally drawing from the Maine experience, and its contribution to the solution of overfishing. The first part of the paper provides a short history; in the subsequent sections I try to outline what we've learned about the social and biological conditions that make local governance of environmental matters desirable and, especially, what we've learned about the practical institutional circumstances that make it feasible. In case it is not clear, the criteria by which I judge desirability and feasibility hinges on the extent to which these institutions facilitate the solution of communal dilemmas - in this case, collective agreements about restraining rules that prevent overfishing. Very briefly outlined, the paper that follows gives a short history of the decentralization process with an emphasis on the problems encountered and lessons learned; it then attempts to align this experience with the literature on decentralized governance of environmental resources. Finally, the paper addresses the role of markets and small-scale use of environmental resources. Industrial markets appear to be a large threat to small-scale producers in Central Europe. Alternative market structures, similar to those found in many fisheries, can reduce this threat. 1.

A short history of decentralization in the lobster fishery

Maine is the dominant state in the New England lobster fishery, landing 50 -60% of the lobsters and employing a similar percentage of the fishermen. As in New England as a whole, there is a wide variation in the ecology and the social/economic conditions within its borders. The reasons for decentralization of the lobster fishery trace back to the pronounced differences in ecological and economic-social conditions within the state. These differences generated

4 Acheson, J.M. and R.S. Steneck. 1997. Bust and boom in the Maine lobster industry: perspectives of fishers and biologists. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 826-847. 5

In the US, ocean jurisdiction is split between the coastal states and the Federal government. Individual states have jurisdiction from the shore to three miles. The Federal government has jurisdiction from 3 to 200 miles.

162


different desired policies all of which centered around a typical commons dilemma - the advisability of limiting the number of fishermen and the number of traps each could use. In the western, more urbanized parts of the state fishermen used large numbers of traps - some fished over 2000 - and new fishermen entered the fishery every year. A high percentage of fishermen in the west agreed with the idea of limiting both traps and fishermen. In the eastern, predominantly rural part of the state fishermen tended to fish around 400 traps; there were few new entrants and a strong consensus against limiting the numbers of fishermen or traps. These contending perspectives fought to a stalemate in every session of the legislature for nearly 25 years. It simply was not possible to devise a reasonable one-size-fitsall policy in a democratic setting at a state-wide scale. At the same time, the Federal scientific/management agenda was gaining force and threatened to displace state authority with even larger scale one-size-fits-all policies. These two factors combined to accelerate the move to decentralize. There are a number of forums within the industry in which issues such as this are discussed; especially important is an annual three-day forum that began operations in 1975. This and other regularly occurring forums were critical occasions for trust and network building among people who otherwise might never have talked with one another. The public dialog that came out of these forums greatly facilitated the eventual public agreement on the need to decentralize. Discussion about decentralization began as early as 1983 and reached its peak in the winter of 19945. In 1995 the state legislature passed a bill authorizing the decentralization of the fishery. The legislation simply asked the Commissioner of Marine Resources (the administrative head of the state agency that regulates the fisheries) to create local zones with elected councils. The councils were given authority to conduct referenda with regard to three regulated measures that were felt to have local impacts only. A two-thirds majority was required for acceptance of any particular referendum. Local decision authority was limited to changes in (a) the number of traps fished, (b) the way those traps were fished and (c) the times they were fished. Three years later the legislature added (d) the ability to limit the number of fishermen. Favorable referendum results on these matters were to be forwarded to the Commissioner and implemented under the normal administrative procedures of the state. Legally the system created by the legislature is merely an advisory process, but politically, especially given the referenda procedures, it would be very difficult for a Commissioner to overrule a local decision so the practical results run much deeper. Beyond this more or less rough outline the legislature gave little guidance, depending as it usually does on the discretion of the Commissioner. The Commissioner appointed a committee (which I chaired) with the charge of constructing the rules under which this system would work. It was clear from the outset that there might be problems with local elections, conflicts between adjacent zones, boundary disputes and a whole host of other problems. Additionally, it was also fairly clear that the collective interest of the zones might not be identical with the Commissioner's perception of the State's interest. In everyday governance, these kinds of problems are addressed through mechanisms that provide for recall, oversight, appeal and so on, mechanisms that create appropriate restraints on the use of power, transparency and balance between neighbors and higher authorities. None of these mechanisms were built into the system. The committee deliberately chose to create only a bare bones system. Agreement on this approach satisfied at least two different strategies: one that hoped the system could operate without the usual mechanisms of governance and another that hoped the appropriate mechanisms might quickly evolve and be adapted to the circumstances of the system as it came to be implemented.


163

Almost immediately upon implementation, we learned that both these strategies were probably wrong. Within a month or two the system was faced with several crises of various magnitudes. For example, one of the western zone councils had proposed a referendum limiting the maximum number of traps per boat through a process of annual reductions from 1200 to 1000 and, finally in the third year, to 800 traps. The referendum received a 92% approval. Encouraged by this very strong support the council decided upon a second referendum that would replace the first. This called for a simple first year reduction to an 800 maximum. The second referendum, held about a month later, received a 77% approval. But the 'big'fishermen6- those most affected by the limit - cried foul. They had gone along with the first referendum because it gave them a chance to adapt their operations and minimize their losses over a three-year period. An immediate drop to 800, however, would have been very costly. In the by-laws adopted by the local council the 'big' fishermen found a provision that said the council could hold a referendum on any given issue only once a year. They argued the two referendums were the same issue - trap limitations - and that the council had violated its own rules. The council disagreed and at that point the 'big' fishermen had no place to turn. There was no appeals process, no court, no mediator. So they hired a lawyer and tried to get the commissioner and even the governor to overturn the second referendum. That is when the crisis arose; the members of that local council and the members of the OTHER local councils made it very clear that if the commissioner overturned the second referendum they were all going to quit. They had been given, they believed, the independence to make certain decisions locally and had expended a great deal of effort to do so. Consequently, they let it be known that if the State were to overrule decisions they were clearly authorized to make whenever the State, for whatever reason, disagreed with them, then they would not participate in the system. A variety of other problems associated with boundaries between the local zones, the alleged attempt by one or two zones to set rules that disadvantaged their neighbors, and common interests at the state and federal level also forced the issue with regard to the development of governance mechanisms. This message was heard clearly by the State's politicians and bureaucrats. They publicly reaffirmed their support for the decentralization process and began the steps necessary to give it a firm institutional foundation. Appeals and mediation processes were put in place through administrative procedures; a council of councils was created for the discussion of problems common to all the local councils and a number of other steps were taken to 'fill-in' the governance mechanisms. These are not complete and a series of issues having to do with state and local authority have yet to be worked out. The entrance of new fishermen, for example, although controlled by five of the seven councils, is carried out through fairly clumsy procedures - waiting lists and lotteries, for example. Nevertheless, what is interesting is that the state appears to be creating a new democratic governance system - one that parallels the usual constitutional process - but is doing so entirely within an administrative framework under the power given to the commissioner to delegate authority. Whether this system will evolve into one with a stronger, more independent legal foundation remains to be seen.

6

By 'big' I don't mean to imply large companies. These 'big' fishermen were owner-operators usually with two employees.

164

2.


The role of science

Science plays a role in this governance process in two important ways. First, the advent of local governance has brought about a dramatic change in fishermen's attitude towards science. Before local governance the scientific perspective that drove the Federal science/management agenda bore no resemblance to fishermen's experience with the resource. For nearly twenty years Federal models of the fishery have indicated extreme overfishing and the scientists regularly predict imminent collapse. During that time the population of lobsters appears to have tripled and the catch has more than doubled. This very strong disconnect between scientific models and reality never seemed to bother the Federal scientists. Consequently, the models used by Federal scientists and the scientists themselves had little credibility among fishermen. Science as practiced by the Federal government was viewed as nothing more than political dogma. The shift in some management responsibility to local governance units has caused an interesting shift in fishermen's perspective. They now seek out scientists - but generally not the same Federal scientists - for information about the fishery and actively contribute to cooperative research projects. But this is done at a scientific scale that is much more local than the management models used by the Federal government. In short, the adversarial role of science, which dominated life in the top-down world, has diminished noticeably with decentralization. But that has only been possible with a change in the scale of the scientific enterprise. Closely related to these scale/credibility problems are the uncertainties of ecological science. If one reads US federal legislation7 relating to the management of fisheries one finds a naive belief that science and economics together can predict the outcome of our activities in ecological systems and that by doing so can relieve the democratic decision process of some very difficult problems. That is, good scientific predictions, if they were possible, would clearly illustrate the collective benefits (or costs) of alternative courses of action, and would make it possible for us to rationally weigh the trade-offs associated with different actions. But this kind of scientific predictability/certainty has not been possible, and we are left, consequently, with a difficult social question: if we can't predict the outcome of our interventions in natural systems how do we know what kinds of collective restraint are rational ? It is the inability of science to provide unambiguous answers in social and ecological systems that, I believe more than anything else, is driving the need to decentralize and democratize environmental management.8 If science could predict in these environments then it might be possible to conceive of governance systems dominated by experts. But the world has seen many unfortunate failed experiments. Part of the problem may be the almost complete lack of institutional structure to support the necessary contestable nature of science (i.e., there is little independent science, no arms length peer review, great difficulty replicating

7

For example, Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1977 - the original legislation governing the management of fisheries in the 3 to 200 mile zone - illustrates this faith. Almost any other fisheries or environmental legislation could have been chosen to make the point. 8

Wilson, James. 2002. Scientific Uncertainty, Complex Systems and the Design of Common Pool Institutions, in the Drama of the Commons. Eds. Paul Stern, Elinor Ostrom, Thomas Dietz, and Nives Dolsak. National Research Council, Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Climate Change.


165

and validating results, etc.) But, there is a growing body of scientific work, called usually "complex adaptive systems theory", that strongly suggests we should not expect predictability in social and ecological systems9. In other words, if this is correct, science will not rescue us; we have to face up to the difficult problem of learning about complex, multi-scale ecologies and the equally difficult problem of learning about the collective social circumstances that will lead to a stewardship ethic. Our experience in Maine is a tentative step in that direction.

3.

What we believed we've learned in Maine?

The system being developed in the Maine lobster fishery, even though its legal basis is in administrative advisory procedures, is a fairly formal democratic approach to decentralization. What I mean by that is that it relies upon well-defined rights and responsibilities and a series of formal mechanisms - appeals for conflict resolution, etc. These formal mechanisms are meant to substitute for trust and informal processes if necessary. The system is expected to work normally in an atmosphere of reasonable trust but, when and if that atmosphere breaks down, mechanisms are in place to resolve conflicts and keep the system working. The practical circumstances that make it necessary to operate at the local scale are both biological and social-economic. If I could proceed from here under the assumption that we are dealing with difficult to predict and surprising systems, then several characteristics of the biological system make local governance essential: 1. Ecological events must occur at a variety of scales, with larger scales reflecting principally the cumulative, or emergent, effects of smaller scale activities. This does not imply that these larger scale events are predictable or that they are subject to manipulation but simply that they might be expected to generate familiar, recognizable patterns. 2. Ecological connections across the system (i.e., among local and between local and larger scales) should be relatively 'slack'. This condition means that most, but certainly not all, of the relevant feedback about human interventions are likely to be acquired locally where impacts occur. Viewed from a slightly different perspective this means that biological events are often isolated in many dimensions and, consequently, it is possible to make decisions and take actions at a local level without jeopardizing the entire system. This is an important consideration in an environment in which it is important to learn and experiment. 3. The local outcome of human interventions should be strongly influenced by the physical and biological circumstances of the local environment. This means that local outcomes are a function of local particularities - geology, history, etc. - and require local knowledge, as well as general scientific knowledge, to be dealt with effectively. Understanding local particularities is important otherwise the applications of theories and models that assume homogeneity can be disastrous.

' Simon Levin, 1999. fragile Dominion. Cambridge: Perseus Books. Murray Gell-Mann. 1994. The Quark and the Jaguar. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Lance Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light. 1995. Barriers & Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

166


4. On the other hand, any human intervention in a complex ecosystem, even if its impacts are principally local, is likely to have effects (flows) that extend outside the locality. These non-local flows (which are almost always the justification for centralization) require coordinating mechanisms between localities and different scales. These coordinating mechanisms do not need to and generally shouldn't be centralized. Absent local governance the effect of local events are often misunderstood and ignored. Local governance creates an effective 'voice' that identifies these aspects of the natural system (usually by identifying the 'bad' things that their neighbors are doing). These effects are the source of conflicts between adjacent areas and between localities and larger scale interests, but it is the attachment of the interests of different local groups to the impacts generated by these natural flows that creates the strong incentives necessary for the collective identification and resolution of the problems On the social side a number of factors appeared to be important for the success of the zones. Ostrom10 is especially worth reading in this regard. 5. Ecological flows across localities and scales require a rule making structure that roughly matches the spatial structure of the ecosystem - basically, a vertical and horizontal network structure that is able to coordinate activities and resolve disputes at different ecological scales. This means simply arrangements like local councils joined by a representative council of councils. 6. For many years before the formation of the zones, there had been in existence, several different forums in which public issues affecting the industry were discussed and debated. These forums were not designed to facilitate decentralization, per se, but they had that effect. They brought people together; they created trust (or at least reduced paranoia); they were a place where various hypotheses about problems in the fishery could be examined and rejected or accepted in a public dialog. This created 'buy-in' and the willingness to take the steps towards decentralization. Even though it is not likely that these predecentralization forums will fit nicely within the organization of the new, decentralized institutional structure, it is important that they continue after decentralization because they generally embody the circumstances that facilitate further institutional evolution. 7. "Good fences make good neighbors". Establishing well-defined boundaries is extremely important. If new local rules are to be devised it is necessary to know where and to whom they apply. 8. Absolutely essential to the resolution of communal dilemmas at the local level are new formal forums (e.g., councils) for the discussion of rule changes etc. It is very important also to have affiliated social gatherings, clubs, etc. at the local level (a couple of dances and "pot-luck" diners every year helps). This tends to reduce free

10 Elinor Ostrom, 1990. Governing the Commons: the evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.


167

riders and also has the effect of generating assurances about the intentions of other people in the group. 9. The local decision making process must be dominated by a collective of individuals that holds a long-term interest in the resource. 10. A clear definition of delegated authority and the conditions under which that authority can be exercised is very necessary. 11. Recognition and support of local governance by higher authorities. Finally, an important consideration that I have not discussed with regard to the lobster fishery, simply because favorable conditions existed prior to and after local governance, and that is the effect of associated markets. The lobster market and distribution system tends to be characterized by a reasonable number of moderately sized companies none of which controls a significant part of total sales. None of these companies are integrated backwards into the harvesting section and as a result their role in the lobster governance process was by and large neutral. A different distribution system could have led to very different results. If the market for lobsters were, for example, dominated by large vertically integrated companies, such as might be found in the typical industrial approach to agriculture, there would be little point in local governance. The firms would simply impose their own internal governance mechanism. In central Europe accession to the EU would appear to carry a very large threat of just this kind of development, that is, dominance of the agricultural market by large industrial scale vertically integrated companies. This kind of outcome is not inevitable; it can be strongly influenced by public policy without the use of subsidies or other distortions of the market. 4.

Agricultural and fisheries markets

Over the course of the Krakow conference it became clear that there was a well-founded worry about the potential impact of western European/American industrial style agriculture and agricultural markets. On the basis of my experience with food industry contracting/distribution systems for fish and agricultural products in North America these fears are, indeed, wellfounded. What I found disconcerting was the general sense that these kinds of market systems were inevitable. It is true that the economic logic behind these production and market systems is very strong, but alternative market structures exist and with the advent of better communications and transportation may be becoming more and more viable. These alternatives are more compatible with small-scale farming and its variable but high quality products. If alternative market systems (as I describe below) are not pursued as a matter of public policy, the only likely result for Central Europe is the typical large-scale industrial approach to agriculture. The adverse political, social and bio-diversity results of an industrial agricultural system seem well worth an investigation into alternative market structures. The argument for the success of the industrial agricultural system is an efficiency argument. Efficiency in production is achieved through scale economies and efficiency in distribution is achieved through a dense system of contracts that come close to creating a vertically integrated farm to market system. Further, both production and market efficiencies are made possible and reinforced through standardization of plant and animal varieties. This allows greater control over growing conditions, permits greater scale and, most important, makes it possible to trade large volumes of product without engaging in costly and time

168


consuming judgments of product quality, inventory losses, etc. Of course, the only way to do this is with products that generally are of not the best quality - 'cardboard' tomatoes vs. beefsteak tomatoes. Product quality is the Achille's heel of the industrial system. It is able to deliver predictable quality, but it cannot deliver consistently high quality nor can it allocate quality according to market differences - a tomato has to be a standard tomato. To differentiate among tomatoes of varying quality requires time consuming, expensive, skilled quality judgments in the market. The other Achille's heel, or maybe it is better thought of as a weak assumption of the system, is that competitive, mass markets are what are required in a modern food economy. There are some very interesting developments that point to an increasingly strong market for very high quality produce - both agricultural and fisheries. Almost every major city in the U.S. - at least in the North and West (I am not that familiar with the South) - has seen the development of active farmers markets. I recently heard that people with 4 and 5 acre 'farms' in the Seattle area are able to make a part-time income of $40-$50,000! Lots of niche markets for specialty beef and other high end products have sprung up - all catering to consumers willing to pay extra for better quality. Perishables markets tend to be handling a much wider variety of product with the additions coming mostly on the high end. These are very interesting developments but their growth and viability is generally limited by an inability to extend the geographic breadth and depth of the market. The reason is that there is only a rudimentary system for wholesaling of these kinds of products - in the language of institutional economics, the transactions costs of consolidating product and selling in this way tend to be very high and limiting. As a result, the organic food market, which at one time tended to be characterized by small, local niche marketing approaches, is now seeing significant growth structured along the lines of conventional, vertically integrated, industrial agricultural markets. Food can be mass marketed in different ways, however. The fresh fish market and distribution systems in the Northeastern U.S. and (at least) northwestern Europe are interesting examples of market structures that are an alternative to the industrial contracting model. The first sale in these markets usually takes place in a public auction in which the product is available for viewing. Typically the fish brought in by a single boat are divided up into small lots (10 - 500kg) defined by species, size and perceived quality. Buyers tend to be small and medium sized processors and sometimes wholesalers and arbitrageurs. Each buyer tends to have a representative at several auctions. After the auctions, sales in the US extend to local wholesalers, supermarkets and fish stores and directly to restaurants in all the major cities. These ties tend to be relational contracts that are long-lived but not exclusive. For example, a Chicago wholesaler may buy from several processors. Orders may be negotiated over the phone and confirmed with a fax or email. Usually there is no contract as such and product quality stipulations, in any event, are almost impossible to enforce. Consequently, the importance of the relational contracting system is that it leads to an understanding between the processor and the wholesaler when it comes to language about, say, product quality. That understanding is the source of extraordinary efficiencies. In its absence it would be almost impossible to trade and consequently, there are very strong incentives for its maintenance. Those incentives become the guarantor of the terms, especially quality and timing, of every current transaction. I am pretty sure that a very similar wholesaling system operates throughout Western Europe. It is not a perfect system by any means and would be well served by regular auditing. Nevertheless, what is interesting about this system is that it is able to deal with a highly perishable product, up to a hundred species and continuously variable quality. It manages to sort and allocate product by type and the quality demands of various kinds of customers


169

(wholesalers and retailers) and it does it in a very timely way. It delivers a product to the market that tends to be priced at least 25-50% higher than frozen fish but it also pays fishermen nearly double the amount that goes to industrial fishers. It is a system that persists in the face of the industrial fisheries and, in fact, most of the big industrial players in Canada, Iceland and Alaska, try their best to 'cream' their own supplies and send them into the high quality fresh fish market. Most important, from the perspective of small-scale central European agriculture, it is a system that provides an effective interface between small-scale producers and large-scale markets. It removes the incentives for backward integration into the farming operation. By doing so, it removes the threat to the current system of small farms; it avoids the large-scale population and political shifts that would occur with industrial agriculture and, of course, it prevents the destruction of a good part of current rural habitat. The point is that these fresh fish markets can deal with highly variable product quality and are a transactionally efficient way to do business. They are able to do this by combining a public auction (that consolidates product and reduces search costs for first buyers and at the same time creates incentives for producers to meet certain minimum quality standards) with a system of agents and long term relational contracting in subsequent stages of the market. I'd be very surprised if any firm in the early stages of this market employed more than 150 people and, at least in New England, all the boats that supply the system tend to be family owned with one or two employees and, by the standards of the industrial fishery, very small scale. A system like this could be developed for Central European agriculture and, if it were developed, it would make the transition to European integration much more acceptable socially and biologically than would be the case with an industrial agricultural system. Furthermore, I don't think it is the kind of system that would be fought by existing wholesalers. Instead the demand for high quality produce generated by the growing wealth of Europe would tend to create competitive pressures that would cause wholesalers to actively support and expand such a system. I suspect, in fact, that the west European wholesaling system still retains a lot of the residue of the old central (farmers) markets that used to be so important in the large cities. The system I'm suggesting is much like that system but relies upon modern communications and transportation to extend the geographical scope and depth of the market. It allows local producers access to national and international markets. It can send, say, Brussels sprouts or a nicely smoked ham directly from Krakow to a Paris restaurant instead of from the central market in Paris - in effect it moves the distribution function closer to the place of production. It uses public auctions connected by electronics to consolidate and regularize product derived from a large number of small-scale producers. Initially this is expensive and only possible for high end products. But long-term improvements in communication and in the wealth of Europe are strong trends working in favor of a broad application of this approach. Unfortunately, there are no incentives for the spontaneous (i.e., private) development of these kinds of markets. The immediate value of product consolidation and reduction of transactions costs cannot be captured by the entity that creates such exchanges. Neither can the broader benefits of retention of small scale farming (biodiversity, stable population, etc.) ever be captured by a private entity. Consequently, there is a need for public action. That action is principally the facilitation of an alternative market structure and, importantly, that action cannot take place without thorough research into the current structure of food markets, their transactional weaknesses and their potential opportunities.


SECTION 3 HOW IS BIODIVERSITY BEING INTEGRATED IN PRACTICE INTO RURAL SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS? Creating working landscapes that actually provide livelihoods, conserve biodiversity and enable communities to knit together the social fabric of cultures is not rocket science, but it requires every bit as much ingenuity and creativity. Unfortunately, society's priorities are for not focused on sustainability or quality of life; our ingenuity is going elsewhere. But as the implications of climate change become more pronounced, attention to sustainability will change. As human understanding continues to shift toward looking at nature as renewable capital and a way to fundamentally reduce the costs of non-renewable energy exploitation and its collateral damage on society, policy will increasingly turn to what questions seem to be useful for conserving rural landscapes and what approaches might avail themselves to experimentation. The chapters that follow are about experimentation, social enterprise, and holistic approaches to resolving rural problems. These chapters embark on a learning curve however shallow the slope and full of valleys; the process of discovery has begun.


The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability 5. Light (Ed.) 1OS Press, 2004

173

Alternatives to Crisis: an Adaptive Management Model for the Red River Basin of the U.S. and Canada Kristen BLANN1, Tim WEBB2, Dennis KEENEY3, and Steve LIGHT4 ''3'4Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Minneapolis, Minnesota U.S.A. 2 Lookfar Solutions Inc. Tqfino, British Columbia, Canada

Introduction Regional ecosystems dominated by resource-based extractive economies (agriculture, forestry, and fisheries) are in crisis worldwide. These ecosystems face painful transitions imposed by the convergence of processes operating at local and global scales [1]. As the scale and extent of human alteration of global ecosystems has grown, the speed and scale at which humans have been forced to adapt to changes we set in motion accelerates. Solutions often generate new and more complex challenges requiring even more ingenuous technologies and institutional arrangements. Humans and natural systems are increasingly inter-linked by such processes as globalization of international trade, industrialization of commodity markets, climate change and land transformation. The Red River Valley (RRV) of the North, an area of intensive and industrialized agriculture that has long been one of the most fertile farming regions in the world, is a system in painful transition. Crop disease, abnormally wet climate patterns, and low commodity prices have combined with slower moving long-term regional declines to generate perhaps the most severe economic, social, and ecological crisis the region has experienced. Despite the growing understanding of the interrelatedness of human and natural systems, there are few integrated theoretical frameworks and even fewer models exploring the complexities of linkages between ecosystems and human institutions [2]. Models that can bridge this theory to experience in specific, testable ways are lacking. The "Alternatives to Crisis" project, administered through the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (I ATP), seeks to build understanding of recurring agricultural and rural economic crisis in the Red River Basin of the U.S. and Canada through an interdisciplinary stakeholder workshop and modeling process that focuses on linkages among social, environmental, and economic systems. The goal of the project is to help identify sustainable and resilient policy alternatives for the region, while building understanding of dynamics of and linkages between social, economic, and ecological systems. Through a series of workshops, we are exploring conceptual models of how crop disease, cropping systems, agricultural policy, land use, climate change, and hydrology interact to affect farm income and regional sustainability indicators. These conceptual models have been developed into a suite of computer dynamic simulation models that will be integrated into a single model and used to explore possible outcomes and desired futures resulting from different policy, economic, and land use scenarios. The model, while not designed to be precise or predictive, is instead a tool and teaching aid for stakeholders and

174

K. Blann et al. /Alternatives to Crisis: An Adaptive Management Model

decision-makers to explore patterns, outcomes, and possibilities generated by alternative policies and assumptions over many years. In developing the model, the project also hopes to complement existing research efforts in specific areas, and help to identify research priorities for managing agriculture, land use, and water in this basin and in other agricultural ecosystems in crisis.

1. Goals and Objectives The goals of this project are to explore the complexities of social-ecological linkages in the Red River Basin by involving in the analysis both experts and stakeholders in a modified adaptive environmental assessment (AEA) process, and to develop a simple dynamics systems model based on the interaction of a limited number of state and driving variables [3,4]. The objectives of the model are to integrate the dynamics of weather, commodity prices, and disease as well as human decision making, to generate understanding of the process by which multiple factors combine to generate the recent severe economic and ecological crisis in the Red River ecosystem, to examine indicators of linked system resilience, and to generate discussion among stakeholders in the Red River about other outcomes that might have been possible under alternative decision-making scenarios. What were the structuring variables that have combined to generate the current crisis? What is the current configuration of ecological, social, and economic capital in the region? Can the fundamental dynamics of the model be extrapolated to other ecosystems?

2. Background The Red River Basin (RRB), excluding the Assiniboine River, is a 45,000 mi2 river basin stretching from the headwaters of the Red River at Lake Traverse on the South DakotaMinnesota border north along the Minnesota-North Dakota border to the confluence of the river at Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba. In the center of the RRB lies the Red River Valley, known to residents as "the Valley." This extremely flat 40 to 60 mile wide tableland on either side of the Red River was formed by Glacial Lake Agassiz. The Red River Valley was at one time perhaps the premier staging area for North American migratory waterfowl and cranes [5], and was part of the vast interconnected tallgrass prairie ecosystem that stretched from Texas to Manitoba [6]. Prior to settlement, agricultural development and drainage activities, much of the Red River Valley consisted of permanent or temporary wetland areas [7]. A 19th century European traveler described a "waterlogged world alive with the incessant chirping and croaking of frogs" [8]. Vast herds of bison and antelope roamed the wet prairie, along with grizzly bears, mink, otter, and other wildlife. Bison grazing and ant activity caused important fauna modifications of the vegetation and soils respectively [9]. A number of native Americans and First Nations peoples occupied the region, with territories shifting over time, responding to climatic and seasonal cycles and following the bison and other game. They used fire to hunt and manage game and habitats. In the late 19th century, with the development of the railroads, European-American immigrants began to settle in large numbers, and control of resource management shifted to the settlers. The natives were driven out. The bison, prairie chicken, waterfowl and other wildlife were largely eliminated initially by overhunting, and later by habitat modification. Since then, substantial portions of land throughout the basin have been rapidly modified by agricultural drainage systems to permit crop production and to protect infrastructure [7]. Drainage for agriculture has also been extensive outside of the Valley proper (the principal exception

K. Blann et al, /Alternatives to Crisis: An Adaptive Management Model

175

being 800,000 acres that lie within the reservation boundaries of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians) and many formerly unconnected basins have been connected through open ditches and drainage systems. Of the two to five percent of the remaining original tallgrass prairie parkland and prairie wetland ecosystems that remain, most occur on the more marginal soils of the beach ridges, till plain, and sand dunes surrounding the glacial lakebed. Many of these remnant patches of pre-settlement vegetation were acquired during economically depressed periods by government or private organizations and are now managed as parklands, wildlife management areas, scientific and natural areas, or private preserves [6]. Climatic and atmospheric changes, nutrient enrichment, drainage, development, and non-native invasive plants pose continuing threats to remaining natural communities [6,10]. With settlement in the late 19th century, the Red River Valley region quickly became one of the most intensive and productive agricultural regions in the world. Although manmade agricultural drainage systems and flood control projects were required throughout the region to make fanning viable, the valley's black loamy soil is among the richest farmland in the world. Once a leader in spring wheat, barley and sugar beet production, the region now faces financial and ecological crises that threaten the survival of traditional farming communities as the basis for the regional economy. The Red River region has experienced regular cycles of climatic, economic and ecological crisis from the early days of settlement. National economic and regional ecological events have repeatedly combined in previous periods to generate a regular boom and bust cycle for the region [11]. Since 1881 a prolonged farm crisis has been publicly recognized at least five times in the region. Most of these were national in scope, yet many were compounded by localized events. Each time, individuals and institutions have responded with a range of prescriptions, such as new cropping systems and approaches to rural development, but over time, the RRV has become an increasingly brittle system. Crop disease, farm debt, volatile commodity prices, shifting weather patterns, record flooding, loss of wildlife habitat and a failed farm policy have combined to create unprecedented crisis for the people and rural communities of Minnesota and North Dakota. The most recent farm crisis began drawing public attention in 1993, when a fungal disease called Fusarium Head Blight, or scab, began devastating spring wheat and barley crops throughout the region on an unprecedented scale. Small grain growers throughout the US and Canada lost an estimated $4.2 billion in income between 1993 and 1998, principally due to scab [12]. Estimates of combined primary and seconday losses from 1998-2000 total more than $1.4 billion for Minnesota and North Dakota alone. The disease is associated with wet soils, and has a complex mode of attack that has been difficult to breed against for resistance or to control chemically. The widespread outbreak of scab was facilitated by a decadal climatic pattern of wet spring and early summer weather. Low commodity prices over the past decades and other factors have reduced the range of profitable crop options available to farmers, so that in many counties as much as 50% of fields may be planted to small grains in any given growing season. Measures to control soil erosion further exacerbated the problem by providing organic matter to harbor the fungus over winter for next year's crop. The combination of factors leading to the persistence of scab from year-to-year represents a new stability regime. Wet climate conditions not only exacerbate the impacts of the scab outbreak, but increase the vulnerability of grain crops in particular to other crop diseases including wheat leaf rust, root rot, and tan spot. Potatoes and sugar beets—the main non-grain crops in the Red River Valley - are also vulnerable to disease. While sugar beets have the least vulnerability to crop disease, overproduction of sugar beets combined with reductions in commodity programs provide less insulation for US sugar providers from volatile international commodity prices for sugar [11]. The ecological stresses have come on top of a general

176


socio-economic decline of the region stemming from the continued loss of farms and related enterprises that have not survived realignment of agricultural markets, low commodity prices, and evolution of new technologies. Climate change appears to be altering rainfall patterns and increasing flood frequencies in the region. Precipitation during the 1990s was significantly higher overall than average and in intensity and was the wettest period on record. The abnormal climate cycle has also generated regular climate-related "disasters", increasing the pressures on farms to survive. Severe floods have wiped out crops, threatened urban communities, and damaged infrastructure. The historic flood of 1997 came at the peak of the scab epidemic, and was estimated to have caused over $5 billion in flood damage expenditures, property and agriculture losses [13]. Changes in federal farm policy, global surpluses in crop production, and the weakening of the international economy have combined to generate increasing volatility in net farm income, with commodity prices falling to record low levels in several of the last years. Long-term changes in farm structure, cropping systems diversity, buying consolidation, and declining public research investment in small grains research have also contributed to the underlying economic fragility and ecological instability [14]. Local and state-wide press labeled this the worst farm crisis ever in the region [15]. Efforts to act on these problems at the regional scale have been hindered by a variety of factors [16]. The scales of socio-political decision-making are often poorly matched to the scales governing ecological dynamics. Political pressure frequently forces decision-makers to demonstrate decisive action and to respond quickly with short-term solutions that ignore or do little to address the long-term underlying causes of problems. Legislators at the federal and state levels have drawn up a range of policy band-aids, including insurance reforms, disaster assistance and funding for scab research. Sub-basin flood control efforts have been steady over the years, including local wetland restoration, integrated flood control projects, construction and maintenance of dikes and drainage systems. Drainage modifications made in one part of the basin often merely displace a flooding problem to another part of the basin. Flood damages have risen in tandem with expenditures on flood control, although this also tracks population growth and expansion of infrastructure in the floodplain [17]. In resilience terms, human and natural capital have increasingly been tied up in control systems for managing water and commodity crop monocultures—small grains, sugar beets, and potatoes. In the Red River Basin, the structuring variables where management has exhibited increasing control and sought to reduce variability include water levels and flood peaks, plant disease, and climate (drought/flood cycles). Large scale monocropping, drainage, agricultural and floodplain development has rendered the system more vulnerable to the kind of catastrophic floods and disease outbreaks experienced in the 1990s. In cropping systems, short term success in optimizing production of a limited number of commodity crops leads to long-term unintended consequences and emergent surprise (e.g. disease epidemics, loss of crop insurance, international price collapses, yield declines). Recommended rotation cycles include a one to two year break between grain crops; however, there are few options for alternative crops. Collapse into a new stability regime—in which large-scale scab epidemics persist from year to year, farms are unable to produce profits, and federal disaster payments are regularly required—may have been precipitated by the interaction of internal, fast dynamics of wheat scab with slow variables such as changing climatic patterns, tillage, cropping, and drainage practices, and commodity prices that imposed major external physical and economic disturbances and increased the vulnerability of crops to scab. Federal investments in agricultural support payments, crisis payments, and disaster assistance have served to help the region cope with recurring natural disasters and


177

economic crises, to invest in institutional change and human capital, and to sustain the existing agricultural and rural economic systems. This aid has been critical to the survival of many families and for reconstruction of rural communities, as well as in preparing for change. However, regular infusions of external aid may mask the signals and indicators of local or regional economic performance declines, reducing incentives for adaptive response, or of becoming a driver endogenous to the system generating behaviors and consequences not intended by the payments. Ultimately, large amounts of external aid increase the potential that unsustainable systems will be maintained beyond a critical threshold so that the potential for sudden and unexpected larger-scale collapse continues to mount. Studies that fail to address underlying issues of economic and ecological fragility will not preclude future crises once a specific short-term shock, such as a climate-related disaster, has abated. Human individuals and groups often respond to crises adaptively by reorganizing institutions and management [18-21]. In response to periodic flooding and water-related agricultural crises over the past decades, a variety of groups have formed to address specific problems and initiate planning at sub-basin, major watershed, and basin-wide scales. The 1997 flood further galvanized the interest of citizens and institutions in the Red River Basin. Numerous university researchers, local media, and local, state, and federal agencies compiled comprehensive information on the flood—its origin, causes, and future. A number of organizations have reorganized in an effort to take more integrative, sciencebased, multidisciplinary, and/or participatory approaches to land and water issues in the basin. Agricultural and business entities are forming to initiate and support local initiatives to diversify the food system, connect local producers to consumers, direct market, and do value-added processing of agricultural commodities. The percentage of farmers adopting organic methods and experimenting with specialty crops or contract farming is increasing. 3. Social-Ecological System Dynamics and Resilience Theory The problem of understanding the dynamics of human interactions with ecosystems is one that has been tackled by many traditional academic disciplines, from common property resource management to ecological anthropology. In recent decades there have been significant theoretical advances in understanding complex dynamics in natural systems [22,23] as well as in the linkages between social and ecological systems [24]. These include growing understanding of the patterns by which ecological systems are renewed both by regular patterns of disturbance and occasional dramatic change [18]; and growing understanding of the ways in which societies, ecosystems, institutions and organizations also proceed through dynamic processes [25]. The view of complex ecological and social systems as being self-organized at multiple scales, exhibiting multiple stable states, and capable of internal renewal through dramatic change is a theoretical development of the last three decades. Many systems exhibit dynamic equilibrium governed by a key set of organizing structures and processes, and display an evolved capacity for self-organization and renewal in the face of both internally generated or externally induced disturbance or change. The adaptive cycle heuristic described by Holling [18] captures the dynamics of exploitation, conservation, reorganization and renewal and has been applied to ecological systems, social systems, and institutions. Resilience is the term that describes the ability of systems to absorb perturbations without switching to a different set of organizing structures and processes, and includes the ability of the system to reorganize following disturbance-driven change [26-28]. The concept of a "panarchy" of adaptive cycles posits oscillations between periods

178


of exploitation, crisis, learning, and renewal occurring simultaneously at several spatial and temporal scales [23]. A plethora of examples of managed ecosystems—including agriculture, forest, fish and range management—have been described in which loss of resilience was followed by a shift into an irreversible state or a very slowly recovering state [18]. In each of these cases, the original goal of management was to stabilize production of ecological goods and services, usually a single production target. This objective was pursued by attempting to eliminate or constrain the natural variability of critical structuring variables or disturbances, such as insect pests, forest fires, fish populations, flood pulses, or grazing pressure. The result was that the ecosystems evolved to become more spatially uniform, less functionally diverse and more sensitive to disturbances that had previously been absorbed. Short-term success in stabilizing production caused a shift in the stability "landscape", and led to reduced resilience to a given frequency or magnitude of disturbance (i.e, the resistance of the system to a given level of disturbance.). In practice, a general definition of resilience, i.e., ecosystems that are resilient in the face of any and all disturbances for all purposes (production, species diversity, aesthetic value and so on) is not achievable. The concept of resilience needs to be considered in relation to the purposes of the analysis [29]. As discussed by Carpenter et al. [30], one must define resilience of what to what? Both the "state" or system configuration (the "of what") and the disturbance or stressor (the "to what") must be explicitly defined or described. An agroecosystem that meets the criteria for resilience of agricultural production and farm income is not automatically also resilient from the point of view of conservation of native species [31]. Indigenous natural resource management systems that have remained resilient to ecological and social disturbance for hundreds of years may erode and collapse when penetrated by the global market economy. From a human point of view, not all configurations or stable states are created equal; humans have a stake in maintaining the resilience of those system configurations that are more desirable or that consistently generate higher flows of valued ecological products and services. Systems exhibiting high levels of natural and social capital may produce higher yields of valued resources than those of lesser, although potentially resilient, systems. For example, all else being equal, an intensively managed forest ecosystem with stands of mixed ages and species and some old-growth is likely to provide a greater diversity and value of economic, social, and ecological opportunities to a region than a rapidly and extensively harvested forest that has been replaced by even-aged timber dominated by early successional pioneer species such as aspen. This is especially true if the wealth generated by the initial overexploitation was not reinvested in, or "leaked" from, the region. Resilience is not necessarily desirable. System configurations that decrease social welfare, such as repressive political leadership or salinization of agricultural soils, can be highly resistant to change [28]. Social systems may be resistant, yet not resilient (i.e., they do not allow for self-organization and learning). Some undesired ecological configurations (e.g. desertification) may be both resistant and resilient, at least over defined time scales. Identification of essential processes therefore depends on the purpose of the analysis and is explicitly normative [31].

4. Resilience Theory and the Red River Basin For purposes of this project, definitions of resilience in a normative sense pertain to: a) the resilience of farm economic performance to annual and long-term fluctuation in commodity prices and agricultural markets, b) the resilience of cropping systems to crop disease and climate patterns,

K. Blann et at. /Alternatives to Crisis: An Adaptive Management Model

179

c) the resilience of rural and urban communities and the landscape to slow variables driving change in the agricultural economy, d) the resilience of natural ecosystems and their associated flora and fauna to humaninduced disturbance, climate change, flooding, and e) the resilience of the economic, social, and natural systems to environmental disasters, economic cycles, novelty or surprise, large-scale shocks, and long-term change. Of what (system configuration) Generally profitable farm economic performance

Table 1. Resilience.... "to what" (Disturbance) Agricultural markets; price volatility

Cropping systems /agricultural production

crop disease, climate events

Rural and urban communities and the landscape

Change in agricultural markets, price volatility, shifts in agricultural sector, consolidation

Regional economy

Extreme climate/weather events, agricultural trade and price shocks, changing agricultural economy

Natural ecosystems and their associated flora and fauna

Human-induced and natural disturbance, climate change, and flooding

Alternative undesirable configuration? A syndrome of net loss of family farms, rural population decline, and declining health of farm families and rural communities Persistent disease and production losses; unsustainable levels of fungicide/pesticide use Population decline; persistent unemployment, lack of educational and health care opportunities, social dysfunction; lost agricultural knowledge Persistent unemployment, lack of educational and health care opportunities; social dysfunction such as violence; alcohol and drug addiction; lack of health care access; school performance Loss of species or ecosystems; Continuing declines in wildlife populations and natural habitat extent

For any one measure listed above, there may a number of system configurations that confer resilience over specific time scales on that measure. While the measures listed above are clearly linked—e.g. resilience of cropping systems to disease is linked to farm economic performance—a resilient configuration for one measure does not necessarily imply a resilient configuration for another. In seeking to understand the dynamics of coupled human and natural systems, key questions relate to how the social system drives changes in biophysical environment, and how these changes affect and generate feedbacks to the social system. The goal of the analysis is to explore overall system configurations that are resilient both for a given indicator from the list in Table 4 above, and compatible with resilient configurations for other valued indicators. Resilience "to what" may be impossible to anticipate or forecast in cases of true "surprise". Walker et al. [28] give a number of reasons why forecasting behavior of complex social-ecological systems (SES) is for practical purposes impossible, and suggest that the focus instead be on maintaining the capacity of the system to cope with whatever the future brings, without the system changing in undesirable ways. They suggest instead a focus on minimizing vulnerability, developing indicators of resilience and developing adaptive capacity to cope with inevitable surprise and shocks. Adaptive capacity is the ability to respond creatively to novel challenges through learning, flexible behavior, and

180


experimentation. Can the Red River Basin become generally resilient to a range of disturbances and surprises? The type of analysis suggests a framework for an approach to analyzing resilience based on the following questions [28]: • What are the important, controlling variables that act as drivers of the key ecosystem goods and services people want? The crucial driving variables tend to have slower dynamics than the ecosystem goods and services they control, and the two types will be referred to as "slow" and "fast" variables [32]. • Which factors are controllable (e.g., cropping systems) and which are not (e.g., weather)? What are the uncertainties that can be neither controlled nor quantified? • How do the current arrangements of institutions and capital influence formal and informal decision making?

5. Project and Model Summary In the first phase of the project, we conducted a number of meetings and workshops with a diverse, representative group of partners. We developed a core project advisory team to initiate data and resource collection, inventory and project implementation, and conducted two scoping workshops in the U.S. and Canada. Substantive discussions focused on how to go about a basinwide analysis of the system including scope, feasibility, and scale; a range of hypotheses about the nature of linkages; data gaps and uncertainties; roles and responsibilities; and a wide range of potential futures for the landscape. The scoping workshops were designed to define model scope with stakeholders and experts and to determine how to handle the different system components and relationships that could form part of the analysis. Participants included farmers, extension educators, water managers, political leaders, agency staff and policy experts, and a range of disciplinary scientists. Conceptual models were developed in workshops depicting how loss of farm income, crop disease, cropping systems, policy, climate change, and flooding may interact to affect regional indicators. The conceptual model that emerged out of the workshops and analysis of the Red River Basin (RRB) system is depicted in Figure 2. The conceptual model has been developed and refined through several workshops, and consists of a number of independently linked submodels.

6. Model Output and Analysis Results Modelling the dynamics of a linked system requires the identification of indicators that are perceived by stakeholders to be relevant and meaningful reporting measures that convey critical information about the system's performance. In the process of developing the model, we have collected and analyzed extensive amounts of basinwide economic, social, and environmental data, much of which is summarized at the level of county or rural municipality and can be disaggregated spatially for use and comparison in model scenarios. Initial data analysis is designed to provide a picture of basinwide trends in indicators. In addition, we take advantage of an initiative in progress in Manitoba to establish and report on sustainability indicators for the province, encompassing environmental, economic, and human health and social well-being dimensions. Draft indicators have been developed under the auspices of the Manitoba Round Table for Sustainable Development by a 40member Sustainability Indicators Working Group, with representation from all provincial government departments, the City of Winnipeg, Environment Canada and a number of nongovernment organizations in the province. In the U.S., many of these and related


181

Figure 1. Conceptual model of social-ecological linkages in the Red River Basin.

indicators are routinely collected and reported in federal and state economic and agricultural statistics.

6.1

Trends in Agriculture and Farm Economic Performance.

Throughout this century, the number of farms has steadily declined and the size of farms has steadily increased (Figure 2). In 1997, the 35,000 farms in the US portion of the Red River Basin sold $3.7 billion in agricultural products in 1997. They spent $3.1 billion raising this food. However, this

182

K. Blann el al. /Alternatives to Crisis: An Adaptive Management Model

Numb a* of Farms and Size of Farms in North Dakota, 1880 to 1992

Figure 2. Number of farms and size of farms, North Dakota, 1880-1997. Source: Andy Swenson, North Dakota Farm Business Management Agency.

apparent net gain masks great volatility among different farm types. From 1969-1999, total farm income in the basin has remained fairly steady, while total non-farm income has risen dramatically. Per capita non-farm incomes have risen sharply. Total farm income, farm proprietor's income1, and net farm income has on average declined in real terms. All measures of farm income are notably volatile (Figure 3, 4).

Yearly Period Annual Ave Price

19751979 19961999 % Change 1999/ 2000

Table 2. Key Indicators of the U.S. Farm and Food Sector. Consumer Food Prices Versus Farm Prices: a 25 Year Comparison Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Wheat Rice All Milk Live Live Com Soybea Cattle $/gallon $/bushel $/bushel n cents/lb. Hogs cents/lb. cents/lb. $/bushel

$0.88

49.2

45.0

$3.10

$2.30

$6.11

8.7

Consum er Price Index All Food 82/84= 100 67.8

$1.25

64.5

44.4

$3.26

$2.23

$5.78

8.6

159.1

42%

31%

-1%

5%

-3%

-5%

-1%

235%

$1.10

69.0

38.5

$2.50

$1.80

$4.70

5.8

165.1

Farms have been plagued with low commodity prices throughout the 1990s. Analysis by the Nebraska Farmers Union shows that inflation adjusted crop prices have remained steady, livestock and milk prices have declined up to 40%, even as the consumer price index for food items has risen more than 200% since the 1970s. In 1999, government payments accounted for three-fifths of farmers' net cash income in the Northern Great Plains, and the ratio of government payments to the region's crop cash receipts reached almost 50 percent [33]. This was even more dramatic for the Red River Basin specifically (Figure 4). Not only were government payments a significant portion of net income during the 90s, but they often were greater than farms' realized net 1 Farm proprietors' income is calculated as follows: a) estimates of "realized net income" of all farms are computed as the gross receipts of all farms less the production expenses of all farms, b) modified by the inventory change adjustment so that only the income from current production is measured (for "total net income"), and c) less income of corporate farms.


183

Figure 3. Average farm and non-farm proprietor's income, U.S. counties of the Red River Basin.

Figure 4. Realized net income and government payments, U.S. counties of the Red River Basin.

income. Government payments do not appear to be keeping pace with increased production costs and prices, and the amplitude of the volatility appears now to be greater than that of the government safety net. Government payments spiked significantly during the late 1980s with the 1985 farm bill, declined through 1996, and spiked again following the 1996 farm bill (Figure 5). For many years, the ratio of government payments to crop cash receipts was unchanged, and government payments as a share of net cash income remained constant. In the late 1990s, regional farmland prices rose even though commodity prices were falling drastically—pushing down crop cash receipts [33]. This resulted in demand for a sudden and substantial rise in government payments to Northern Great Plains producers 1998-99. In 1998, prices fell below government commodity loan rates, and eligible producers also received emergency market loss assistance payments authorized by Congress. Expenditures for fertilizer and agricultural chemicals (total and per acre) have increased at a greater rate than increases in labor or direct expenses for seed and feed (Figure 6), which has been a response to the increased disease problems. Fuel costs have not increased substantially. The fastest growing category is "other production expenses," which includes depreciation, interest, rent, taxes, and the repair and operation of machinery.

184


Table 3. Select indicators derived from National Agricultural Statistics Service agricultural census data for 39 U.S. counties in the Red River Basin. 1987 1992 1997 Acres in farmland (millions) 19.36 18.53 18.73 Cropland (million acres) 16.72 16.14 16.12 Harvested cropland (million acres) 12.1 13.3 13.6 % acreage in wheat 44% 50% 44% % of acreage in wheat, corn, barley, or soybeans 65% 66% 61% % Cropland in conservation reserve program (CRP) 2.2% 6.3% 8.5% CCC loans ($/acre) 20.3 9.6 8.1 Govt payments ($/acre) 24.8 13.2 11.9 10.4 Chemicals ($/acre) 7.76 14.4 Fertilizer ($/acre) 11.5 14.0 16.7 Interest ($/acre) 10.8 11.0 11.8 Fungicide, %acres applied 38% 42% 50% Insecticide, %acres applied 85% 69% 77% Production expense: market value of agricultural products sold 84.5% 78.5% 83.9% % Operators 55 or older 20% 20% 21% % Farms with net gains 59% 68% 50% Interest/Assets 1.94% 1.74% 1.61% $1,200,000 $1,000,000

—A—Government payments Subtotal, Farming Subsidies —*—Subtotal, Conservation Programs

$800,000 o o

$600,000

—•—Subtotal, Disaster Payments —«—Total USDAPayments

5-

$400,000 $200,000 $0

Figure 5. USDA agricultural support payments for the U.S. counties of the Red River Basin. Sources: Environmental Working Group, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The proportion of farms with net losses increased during the 1990s (Table 3, Figure 8). Data from the FINBIN database for northwestern Minnesota report a debt-to-asset ratio during the 1990s that ranged from 40-60%. Deterioration of financial performance has increased the exit rate of both Valley and NonValley farmers. In surveys, a relatively high percentage of farmers reported they were uncertain about who would own and manage their farms in the future [34]. At the same time, there are significant barriers to entry of new farmers, including the high capital cost-land and machinery—as well as specialized knowledge and skills required in modern farming operations. Farmers have adapted to low commodity prices and financial pressures in numerous ways [34]. Strategies to cope with economic shocks and financial stress include reducing farm operating expenses, reducing family living expenses, off-farm employment, reducing purchases of or leasing production assets, purchasing crop insurance, and refinancing or restructuring farm debt. Although many workshop participants stated that farm financial

K. Blann el al. /Alternatives to Crisis: An Adaptive Management Model

185

Figure 6. Production expenses, U.S. counties of the Red River Basin. Source: BEA 1997.

Figure 7. Revenues and Expenses, U.S. counties of the Red River Basin. BEA

Figure 8. Debt-to-asset ratio for North Dakota farms. Source: Andy Swenson, North Dakota Farm Business Management Association.

performance is often a combination of luck and the quality of the farmland one's grandparents homesteaded, economic studies have found that many variables related to profitability are under the control of management [35]. Over a six year study period, farm financial performance was fairly consistent, with farms reporting returns in the top quartile in any given year consistently performing well, while low-profit farms also consistently

186


performed in the lower quartile. Operating expense ratio, depreciation expense per acre, total crop acres and owned land were the most important variables predicting return on assets (ROA), followed by government return per acre, interest expense ratio, and yield. Expense variables were more important than production related variables, implying that ROA is more sensitive to changes in expenses than to changes in production. Farms with high ROA had lower operating expense per unit of gross return, higher crop returns per acre, and lower interest expense. They were larger, but owned less of the land they farmed.

6.2

Cropping System Vulnerability

Volatility of net returns is very high from year to year for a number of crops. Workshop participants reported that the combination of farm policy and low commodity prices has narrowed the range of crops that are profitable and increased the pressure to shorten rotations, for example, two and three year sugarbeet rotations rather than four, increased acreage of soybeans and canola, and increased trend in soybeans-soybeans rotation. In 2001, soybeans were the only crop that consistently showed a net positive return. Because soybean as a crop is relatively new to the Valley, as soybean varieties that are profitable in the short growing season of the Red River Basin, disease problems have thus far been minimal. Farmers are "getting away with" continuous cropping for now, but plant pathologists and extension experts recognize that a white mold epidemic is inevitable. Data and surveys indicate that overall farms in the 1990s have responded to the disease problem by diversifying slightly [34]. A number of fanners have also attempted to change the mix of crops in order to improve farm performance and sustainability. A majority of the farmers in the Valley reported that they changed their cropping mix after the 1996 Farm Bill because it gave them the flexibility to plant more crops [34]. Barley acreage has continuously declined through the 1990s, replaced by soybeans, canola, sugarbeets and dry beans (in decreasing order of preference). Farmers cite as reasons for diversifying the desire for higher profit, increased use of contract farming, and more reliable market prices in the new crops. About half of Valley farmers indicated that profitability was their main objective, while about 23% indicated that the reason was to increase their crop rotation. Although increasing diversity on a region-wide basis benefits all farmers, its often difficult for an individual farmer to see an immediate pay-back, especially as operating loans are evaluated by banks and government loan on the basis of annual cash flow rather than long-term average returns. In addition to changes in the crop mix and crop rotation, farmers also increased their use of fungicides from less than 20% in 1994 to about 58% in

Figure 9. Percent change in a) fungicide use and c) large farms, 1992-1997.


187

1998 (Figure 8b, [34]). During the scab outbreak of the early 1990s, many farmers were borrowing up to $50 an acre just for chemicals, and often the chemicals didn't save the crop. Many have since begun experimenting with raising crops without chemicals [12]. This, however, requires rebuilding soil fertility through a complex rotation system using cover crops, green manures and summer fallow, and can require an expensive transition.

6.3

CRP

The conservation reserve program is a land retirement program designed to pay farmers to retire marginal and credible land, to benefit natural resources and counter incentives to produce commodities on marginal land. Around 15% of agricultural acreage in the RRV is in CRP (Table 3). In many counties, participation is close to the maximum allowable 25% of all agricultural acreage. Counties set limits on CRP acreage because it is taxed at a different rate than land in production, with resulting implications for county and local tax revenues. Some concerns have also been raised about farmers having an incentive to bring prairie remnants, natural communities, and marginal lands into production for a few years just in order to qualify for setaside payments under CRP. Farmers and agricultural extension workers reported a significant decline in livestock in the region, with resulting declines in forage crops which are subject to less erosion and nutrient losses than row crops. Lifestyle, time constraints, larger farms, and consolidation of animal production into industrial-scale confined animal feeding operations (CAFO's) have driven this shift. Measures to-control soil erosion, the majority of which occurs due to wind in the flat lakebed of the Red River Valley, have declined because conservation tillage exacerbates the risk of disease and delayed planting by retaining more moisture in the residue and providing longer incubation and larger amount of disease agents and fusarium inoculum.

Figure 10. County population change 1969-1999.

188

6.4


Economic and Social Data

Population in the basin has risen fairly moderately since 1969, while farm and farm proprietor's employment has declined steadily. Population growth in the basin has been under five percent, but this masks more dramatic differences in population distribution among counties, rural and urban areas (Figure 10). The total number of farm proprietors has gradually declined. Total government "transfer" payments, including income maintenance and social security, have steadily risen, even as basin population has remained fairly steady or declined. Retirement benefits and social security have accounted for the bulk of this increase, as the average age of the population has increased. Income maintenance (food stamps, family assistance) has increased, while unemployment benefit payments have more or less tracked population trends. Economic declines in rural areas typically reinforce social decline, as young people choose to migrate in search of alternative economic and social opportunity. The .declining number and increasing size of farms has implications for rural population densities and the viability of rural communities. Young people increasingly relocate to urban areas in search of non-farm employment. The imbalance of exit and entry rates in farming mean that the average age of farmer/operators is increasing. In combination, these changes have led to declining rural school enrollment, school and hospital closures in rural areas [36]. Social indicators may include everything from to trends in average age of farmers, declining school enrollment, unemployment, job growth, family violence. Many of these figures are routinely collected by federal and county agencies. Natural disasters and economic stress take a psychological toll on families and communities. Figures on flood damages and social impacts were collected and inventoried by task forces of the Red River Basin Board after the 1997 floods. Numerous reports documented increased family violence, suicides, divorce, and demand for mental health services following the 1997 flood.

Figure 11. Social spending, US counties of the Red River Basin

K. Blann et ai /Alternatives to Crisis: An Adaptive Management Model

189

Figure 12. Social spending relative to population, US counties of the Red River Basin.

6.5

Hydrology Model Preliminary Results

Considerable debate continues in the Basin about the effects of wetlands, land use, flood control projects, and drainage on flood peaks. The 1826 flood is often cited as evidence that widespread early spring flooding is periodically inevitable, given the topography and issues of snowmelt, regardless of what is happening with vegetation. Numerous modelling exercises in watershed basins following the 1997 flood concluded that wetlands could not have drastically reduced the flood extent of the 1997. However, these conclusions have not been uniformly embraced, as a) studies were not subjected to extensive external peer review, b) underlying model assumptions may be subject to debate, and c) models have not been designed to focus on the impact of later summer flooding, which does the bulk of damage to crops. Some have proposed that the impacts of increasing tile drainage, particularly on the beach ridges and farmed areas outside the Valley, be evaluated in terms both of production/profitability and impact on spring flooding. A working hypothesis suggests that increased tile drainage could—contrary to conventional wisdom that tile drainage increases hydrograph peaks by moving water more rapidly out of fields and into stream channels— alleviate the risk of catastrophic spring floods by moving water off the land and out of the system in late summer and fall, increasing the soil reservoir capacity to absorb spring snowmelt. However, those who favor wetland and riparian restoration, natural storage, and land use approaches to flooding problems raise concerns about the impacts of this increased drainage on summer hydrographs, drought risk tolerance, and aquatic ecosystems. They also cite anecdotal evidence to bolster skepticism that increased drainage would be effective in moderating spring flood peaks. During the 1997 floods, runoff per square mile spiked abruptly in April in the south branch of the Buffalo River watershed, which has less than two percent of wetlands remaining, while rising only slightly in the Otter Tail watershed, which still has 25% of wetlands remaining (Figure 13). Preliminary model runs suggest that for higher leaf area indices, flood peaks are indeed lower and spread over a larger amount of time (Figure 14).


190

1997 FLOOD HYDROGHAPHS

Figure 13. Flood hydrographs for adjacent watersheds during the 1997 flood. Flows at Grand Forks - Preliminary Model Runs (19/4/2002) 25000 T

Figure 14. Model output comparing showing five year moving average of forecasted flows under three vegetation scenarios to measured flows at Grand Forks, ND for the period of record.


6.6

191

Cropping Systems Model Results

The cropping systems/land use model is designed to explore a number of questions relating cropping systems to runoff volumes, farm financial performance, disease risk/incidence, agricultural policy, and commodity prices. 1. How do crop specific policy interventions influence the number of crops planted (and therefore the resilience of the system)? 2. How resilient are more (or less) diverse cropping systems to fluctuations in prices/costs? 3. How economically viable are alternate crop mixes (continuous cover crops) across the basin? Are there implications for employment? 4. What are the implications of shifting to a system predominantly consisting of family farms? The response behavior of cropping systems to prices and government price supports is clearly complex. The stability of prices/costs/yields is more important than whether they are high or low. If prices are stable, or government fully compensates against risk, there may be reduced incentive for cropping systems diversity, resulting in less diverse landscapes, greater disease risk, and greater vulnerability to market surprise. In the current model, as prices go down and/or costs go up, many crops simply become uneconomic and fanners have to move to those crops with minimum input costs like hay and alfalfa. This leads to less diversity. A very variable system is likely to promote a wider crop system diversity as a buffer against risk. If government payments do not adequately buffer against risk, prices are variable and somewhat difficult to forecast precisely, disease is a possibility, and there is an incentive for farmers to incorporate greater diversity into the mix in order to hedge their bets. During the next phase of modelling we will explore which strategies are more likely to be sustainable in the face of variability from different sources. With the addition of the crop yield responses to weather and crop disease in the next phase of model development, we will be able to expand these questions to include, for example: 1. How resilient are cropping systems, varying from diverse to simple, to fluctuations in weather and related disease outbreaks? 2. How resilient are systems consisting of different proportions of specific farm types to fluctuations in weather and related disease outbreaks? 3. What are the effects of price supports and other policy instruments on the relative viability of different cropping systems and farm types?

7. Discussion Farm policy has evolved to address specific problems at different phases in history. This process has also played out slightly differently north and south of the US-Canada border. In the US, each farm bill typically addresses incrementally problems in the system, and in so doing acquires support from a new interest group. This ensures broad support for the Farm Bill among different constituencies. However, farmers, economists, scientists, and agricultural analysts increasingly share a systems dynamics perspective on agriculture in the U.S. and globally [37-39]. Depressed commodity prices and recurring farm crises leading to the continued demise of independent farmers are symptomatic of a systems failure in agriculture, requiring not just short-term income support measures but long-term solutions that address root causes [38]. Analysts have used the terms "treadmill" and "early adopter principle" to describe

192


Figure 15. Positive feedback loops around federal government subsidy payments that drive demand for maintenance and increase of subsidies.

the impact that improved production technology has on farm profitability. Farmers who adopt new improved technology early find reduced cost of production per unit, or improved production to cost ratio. Initially farm output and profit increases, but as more farmers adopt the new technology, production gains often result in a supply increase, triggering a decrease in the sale price of the product that cancels out gains the technology used to provide the farmer. This has not always been considered a "problem" because it was viewed as increasing the efficiency of agricultural production, freeing up surplus labor and human capital to supply other sectors of the economy. A number of secondar effects of this pattern are now surfacing. Much of the public and many analysts believe there is value in keeping at least some minimum proportion of the populace "on the land," and many believe the "family farm" population has dropped below that minimum. Farmers who retain practices that are not profitable or efficient but that provide non production public benefits (wetlands, native vegetation, wind rows, grass strips) have found their farms unprofitable as prices have fallen [40]. The decrease in number of farms while total harvested cropland remains steady concentrates farmland ownership among fewer and fewer owners. Initial experimentation with the model and analysis of regional data and indicators suggest that current policy drives feedback loops that generate perverse consequences and constrain the effectiveness of policy and income support programs. Figure 15 shows two of the feedback loops that result in pressure for government support payments and subsidies to be maintained or expanded. The increased (or artificially maintained) land costs and increased requirements for pesticides and other chemicals result in a self fulfilling need for the payments in order for farms to remain viable. In effect, costs expand to meet the total income from both crop sales and government payments. When farm incomes dropped during the 1970s and 80s, experts advised farmers to expand, specialize, diversify, add-value, grow less wheat, grow high value crops, embrace new technology, and use marketing tools [41]. Today, farms are much larger, and farmers are using advanced technologies such as computers and global positioning systems, genetically-engineered seeds and high-tech seeding and harvesting. They are also trying alternatives such as growing chickpeas and lentils, raising wild boars and fainting goats, doing value-added production and processing, organic growing, and direct marketing, techniques which have indeed boosted profits for many innovative farmers. Yet crises


193

continue to recur. In 1999, the U.S. spent approximately $17 billion to protect its farmers, compared to $61 billion in the E.U. [41]. In Canada, federal and provincial governments have attempted to eliminate agricultural subsidies. Yet overall net farm incomes are the lowest they have been since the 1930s. Current agricultural policy income support programs for farmers appear to be inflating the agricultural sector without in the long run fully addressing issue of buffering farm income. The farm income problem is not one of insufficient profits in agriculture. Farmers' share of the food dollar has consistently declined over the past 30 years; the farm-to-retail price spread, which represents the difference between the amount farmers receive for the goods they produce and the retail price consumers pay for food in foodstores, had been increasing every year for the past 30 years [42]. The global agricultural market benefits from cheap labor and raw materials while increasingly externalizing the risks and costs of production. The benefits of technology and increased production have thus been absorbed by input suppliers, food processors, and landlords, while the costs have been borne by ecosystems and communities as a whole. Government payments designed to buffer farm incomes are failing, having become endogenous drivers of the system. Federal subsidies ostensibly designed to protect independent family farmers do not in the long run effectively boost net income for farmers, but instead translate into higher land and input costs [37]. Subsidies distort the market by encouraging overproduction that contributes to depressed global commodity prices. By externalizing the environmental and social costs of industrial monoculture production and by reaping the benefits of lower market cost of production, agribusiness is indirectly subsidized and gradually acquires more market and political power and influence. As the market power of agribusiness has grown, enormous consolidation has taken place in the global food supply system. Corporate agribusiness manufactures and markets over 95% of the food in the U.S [43,44]. Although the majority of citizens support federal programs to protect independent family farmers and are interested in food safety issues and biotechnology, a declining proportion of Americans have direct experience with or a deep understanding of farming, food production, and farm policy. This negative system configuration exhibits unequal influence of farmers relative to other interests in the food system, low wages and dangerous working conditions for workers, and, given increased consolidation in ownership of the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of food, potentially declining real choice for consumers in the marketplace. A related feedback loop, or vicious cycle, is described for agricultural research. Land grant universities are publicly-funded research and educational institutions aimed at research, teaching and public service for communities across states, the nation and around the world. Increasingly, universities are being supported and maintained by the public, while research projects are increasingly initiated and funded by private interests. These private interests thus directly or indirectly influence the questions asked, the research agenda, and may occasionally seek to influence results and interpretation. At the same time, there is an increasing trend towards protecting—through patents and intellectual property rights—research methods and results conducted at public universities. This effectively removes from the public domain techniques and discoveries that have been partially financed with public expenditures. As the public perceives declining marginal public benefit returns on public investment, there may be declining public willingness to invest in agricultural research. The loss of diversity on the farm and in the food system is a multidimensional concern. Diversity is frequently a major source of resilience in any system. Diversification in agricultural production systems and markets potentially provides security during times of weather, insect, and disease problems. Low prices for one crop may be offset by higher prices for another in diversified systems. Biodiversity in agroecosystems also has

194


demonstrated benefits for wildlife, the environment, and adjacent natural systems [45]. Access to competitive markets on the input and selling sides of farming is key to both the economic viability of independent farms and maintaining a decentralized food production system. Despite greater crop diversity in the Red River Valley, the vulnerability of the agricultural system may be becoming evident because it is a) overly constrained water management b) already more constrained than other agricultural regions due to being in a marginal climate for crop production, and c) between a rock and a hard place in an increasingly competitive global food market dominated by large and powerful private corporations. 8. Summary The complexity of social-ecological systems has been a barrier to achieve widespread consensus on responses to regional problems in the Red River Basin such as flooding, water management, and agricultural crisis. Many proposed solutions are met with active resistance by one or another stakeholder groups. Deeply rooted paradigms and approaches ensure that proposed solutions often meet with opposition and generate high levels of conflict. Assessments have long called for greater integration of data, science, discussion frameworks, and models to address this complex of issues. The Alternatives to Crisis project seeks to develop a simple integrated systems model developed through a participatory stakeholder process. The modeling approach explicitly recognizes uncertainties inherent in modeling complex systems and the future; thus the focus is not on prediction but to explore "what if?" scenarios to gain understanding of the system. By developing a system model in cooperation with a high leverage group of stakeholders, experts, and decision-makers within the region via a series of Adaptive Environmental Assessment (AEA) workshops, we hope to facilitate understanding among diverse citizens, policymakers, and scientists within the region. The model will also be of theoretical significance. In creating a model designed to explore how a stable but brittle socialecological system collapsed through a series of subtle multiple and reinforcing discontinuities that occurred simultaneously, and to test the response dynamics of the system under a range of decision-making and reorganization scenarios, the model contributes to theoretical understanding of resilience dynamics in coupled social-ecological systems. The insights derived both from the model and during the process of model development may be extrapolated to agro-ecosystems in other regions facing similar challenges that have not yet experienced large-scale collapse, or those struggling with crafting agricultural policies for rural sustainability worldwide.

References [1] Walker, B., and W. Steffen. 1997. An overview of the implications of global change for natural and managed terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation Ecology [Online] 1(2): 2. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol l/iss2/art2. [2] Getz, W.M., Fortmann, L., dimming, D., du Toit, J., Hilty, J., Matin, R., Murphree, M., Owen-Smith, N., Starfield, A., and Westphal, M. 1999. Sustaining Natural and Human Capital: Villagers and Scientists. Science 283: 1955-1856. [3] Moiling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. [4] Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. [5] Johnson, R. Personal communication, Red River Basin Institute board meeting, 2001. [6] Chapman, K. A., A. Fischer, M. K. Ziegenhagen. 1998. Valley of Grass: Tallgrass Prairie and Parkland of the Red River Region. St. Cloud: North Star Press with the Nature Conservancy. [7] Red River Basin Board. 2000a. Drainage. Inventory Team Report. September 2000.


195

[8] Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Working Group. 2001. A user's guide to natural resource efforts in the Red River Basin. [9] Albert, D.A. 1994. Regional Lanscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A Working Map and Classification. USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station. General Technical Report NC-178. [10] Tilman, D. and J.A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367: 363-365. [11] Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture. 2001. Red River Valley: a Region of Crisis or Opportunity? Working Draft. [12] DeVore, D. 1998. Biodiversity and agriculture: a house divided. The Land Stewardship Letter 16(5): 1-7. [13] Red River Basin Board. 2000b. Flood Damage Reduction. Inventory Team Report. September 2000. [14] Mercer, K. and J. Wainwright. 2000. (Dis)use of agricultural diversity in Minnesota, USA.' Pp 76-80 in C. Almekinders and W. de Boef (eds.) Encouraging Diversity: the conservation and development of plant genetic resources. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, Ltd. [15] Dufault, T. 1998. Scab, Oversupply Major Causes. Prairie Grains. April-May. [16] Miller, C. 2002. After the Deluge: integrated watershed management in the Red River Valley, pp. 221234 in Jackson, D.L. and L.L. Jackson, eds., The Farm as Natural Habitat: Reconnecting Food Systems with Ecosystems. Washington: Island Press. [17] Aadland, Luther. Unpublished data. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. [18] Holling, C.S. 1986. The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. W.C. Clark and R.E. Munn, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 10: 292-317. [19] Kingdon, J. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. [20] Light, S.S. and J.W. Dineen. 1994. Water Control in the Everglades: A Historical Perspective. In The Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration, ed. S. Davis and J. Ogden. Delray Beach: St. Lucie Press. [21] Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington D.C.: Island Press. [22] Holling, C.S. 1992. Cross-Scale Morphology, Geometry, and Dynamics of Ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 62(4): 447-502. [23] Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and S. S. Light, eds. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press. [24] Berkes, F. and C. Folke, eds. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [25] Westley, F. 1995. Governing Design: The Management of Social Systems and Ecosystems Management. In Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions, pp. 391-428. New York: Columbia University Press. [26] Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review ofEcol. and Syst. 4:123. [27] Peterson, G. D., C. R. Allen, and C. S. Holling. 1998. Diversity, ecological function, and scale: resilience within and across scales. Ecosystems. 1(1): 6-18. [28] Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G. Cumming, M. Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G. D. Peterson, and R. Pritchard. 2002. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/issl/artl4 [29] Tongway, D. and J. Ludwig 1997. The conservation of water and nutrients within landscapes. Pp. 13-22 in Landscape ecology, function, and management: principles from Australia's Rangelands, J. Ludwig, D. Tongway, D. Freudenberger, J. Nobel, and K. Hodgkinson (editors). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia. [30] Carpenter, S., W. Brock, and P. Hanson. 1999. Ecological and social dynamics in simple models of ecosystem management. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 4. [Online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art4. [31] Walker, B. and N. Abel. 2002. Resilient rangelands: adaptation in complex systems. Pp 293-314 in Panarchy, Gunderson, L. and C.S. Holling (editors). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. [32] Carpenter and Turner. 2000. [33] Vogel, S. J. and K. Hanson. 2001. Falling Prices and National Farm Policy: the Northern Great Plains. Agricultural Outlook. Economic Research Service, USDA. [34] Pederson, G, W. Lazarus, and L. Nagarajan. 2000. Farm Sustainability and Survival in Minnesota's Red River Valley: Lessons from the Adaptive Strategies of Farmers. University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics. Staff Paper POO-5. [35] Taylor, Richard D., Won W. Koo, Andrew L. Swenson. 2002. Profit Consistency and Management Characteristics For Successful North Dakota Farms, 1995-2000. Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report No. 472 February 2002.

196


[36] Lipson, D.J., E. Vieth, and N. Naierman. 1998. Fargo, N.D. West Central Minnesota. Site Visit Report. Community Snapshots Project. Washington, D.C.: Alpha Center. [37] Barnard, C, Gerald Whittaker, David Westenbarger and Mary Ahern. 1997. Measuring the impact of direct government payments on the value of Midwest cropland. Center for Agriculture in the Environment. Working Paper Series. URL: http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae/wp/wp97-8.html [38] IATP 2000. [39] Levins, Richard. 2001. An essay on farm income. Department of Applied Economics, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota. Staff Paper P01-1. [40] Cochrane, W. 1993. The Development of American Agriculture. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press. [4 l]Nebraka Farmers Union. 2000. [42] USDA 1998 [43] Brilliant, L., Edgar Cahn, Duane Elgin, Hazel Henderson, David Korten, Bernard Lietaer, Amory Lovins, Russell Means, Richard Perl, John Robbins, Elisabet Sahtouris, Michael Shuman and Judy Wicks. THE PATH TO LIVING ECONOMIES: A Collaborative Working Document of the Social Ventures Network. URL: http://www.svn.org/initiatives/livingeconomies.pdf. [44] Lehman, K. and Al Krebs. 1996. Control of the World's Food Supply. In The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Towards the Local. Edited by Jerry Mander, and Edward Goldsmith. (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996), 123. [45] Pimentel, D., U. Stachow, D.A. Takacs, H.W. Brubaker, A.R. Dumas, J.J. Meaney, J.A.S. O'Neil, D. E. Onsi, and D. B. Corzilius. 1998. Conserving biological diversity in agricultural/forestry systems. Bioscience 42 (5): 354-362.

Additional Resources Behnke and Abel. Blandford, D. and R. N. Boisvert. 2002. Multifunctional agriculture and domestic/international policy choice. Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 3(1): 106-118. Chavas, J. 1999. On the economic rationality of market participants: the case of expectations in the U.S. pork market. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 24 (I): 19-37. Cochrane, W. 2000. A Food and Agriculture Policy for the 21st Century. Minneapolis: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Domer, D. 1997. The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Easterling, David R. and Thomas R. Karl. Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the Midwestern United States. National Assessment Synthesis Team Document CHAPTER 6 1. Gebremedhin, B. and G. Schwab. 1998. The economic importance of crop rotation systems: evidence from the literature. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Staff paper No 98-13. Gunderson, L.H. 1999. Antidotes to spurious certitude? Conservation Ecology 3(1): 7. [Online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/issl/art7. Hilborn, R. and Stearns. 1982. Acta Bioeoretica 31:145-164. Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. On command-and-control, and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328-337. Holling, C.S., ed. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. London: Wiley and Sons. International Joint Commission. 2000. The Next Flood: Getting Prepared (Full Report)._Red River Basin Task Force. Final Report of the Task Force. April 2000. Janssen, M. A. and S. R. Carpenter. 1999. Managing the Resilience of Lakes: A multi-agent modeling approach. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 15. [Online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/artl5. Jeger, M. J. 2001. Biotic interactions and plant-pathogen associations. Ch 1 in Jeger, M.J. and N. Spence. Biotic interactions in plant-pathogen associations. Joyce, D.O., G.A. Seielstad, R. Harriss, J. Lackett. Potential Consequences of Climate Variability andChangefor the Great Plains. National Assessment Synthesis Team Document CHAPTER 6 1. King, A. 1995. Avoiding ecological surprise: lessons from long-standing communities. Academy of Management Review 20(4): 961-985. Knight, R.L. and G.K. Meffe. 1997. Ecosystem management: agency liberation from command and control. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3): 676-678. Krenz, G. and J. Leitch. 1993. A River Runs North: Managing an International River. Red River Water Resources Council. Ledet, W. J. 1997. The Manufacturing Game: Engaging the Entire Organization in Improving Reliability. [Online] URL: http://www.manufacturinggame.com/docs/winston_l .doc


197

Light, S. 2001. Adaptive Environmental Assessment of the Upper Mississippi River. In Jensen, Mark E.; Bourgeron, Patrick S., eds. A guidebook for integrated ecological assessments. ISBN 0-387-985832. New York: Springer-Verlag. Low, B., R. Costanza, E. Ostrom, J. Wilson, and C. P. Simon. 1999. Human-ecosystem interactions: a dynamic integrated model. Ecological Economics 31: 227-242. Ludwig, D. R. Hilbom and C. Walters. 1993. Uncertainty and Resource Exploitation: Lessons from History. Science 260 (5104): 17-36. McCann, K. S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405: 228-233. McMullen, M., R. Jones, and D. Gallenburg. 1997. Scab of wheat and barley: a re-emerging disease of devastating impact. Plant Disease (81): 1340-1347. Meter, K. and J. Resales. 2001. Finding food in farm country: the economics of food and farming in southeast Minnesota. Minneapolis: Community Design Center and Hiawatha Pantry Project. Michael, D.N. 1995. Barriers and bridges to learning in a turbulent human ecology'. In L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, et al., eds. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1996-2001. Red River Prairie. Ecosystem-based management: Ecological Classification System. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ebm/ecs/ecs_a.html Morrison, Ian N. II. Kraft, Daryl F. 1994. Sustainability of Canada's Agri-Food System —A Prairie Perspective. International Institute for Sustainable Development (USD). National Research Council. 1999. Downstream. Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado Ecosystem. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Nganje, W., D.D. Johnson, W. W. Wilson, F. L. Leistritz, D.A. Bangsund, and N.M. Tiapo. 2002. Economic Impacts of Fusarium Head Blight in Wheat and Barley: 1998-2000. Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report No. 464. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics. Ogaard, D. 2002. Presentation at the 2002 DNR Ecological Services Roundtable. Peel, M. D. 1998. Crop Rotations for Increased Productivity. NDSU Extension Service EB-48. Peterson, Willis. 1997. Are large farms more efficient? Department of Applied Economics, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota. Staff Paper P97-2. Pielke, Jr., R.A., M.W. Downton, and J.Z. Barnard Miller, 2002: Flood Damage in the United States, 19262000: A Reanalysis of National Weather Service Estimates. Boulder, CO: UCAR. Pimbert, M.P., V. Bainbridge, S. Foerster, K. Pasteur, G. Pratt, and I.Y. Arroyo. 2000. Transforming bureaucracies: institutionalizing participation and people centered processes in natural resource management. An annotated bibliography. International Institute for Environment and Development. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods. URL: http://www.iied.org/agri. Red River Basin Board. 2000c. Hydrology. Inventory Team Report. September 2000. Red River Basin Board. 2000d. Institutions. Inventory Team Report. September 2000. Rice, P., E. Sawin, and D. Meadows. 2000. The Corn System Project: Defining an Economically and Ecologically Sustainable Commodity Corn System. Sustainability Institute: Hartland Four Corners, VT. Rust Environment & Infrastructure. March 1999. Red River Basin Virtual Database: Data Assessment Report (USA). Scheffer, M., F. Westley, W.A. Brock, and M. Holmgren. Dynamic Interaction of Societies and Ecosystems -Linking theories from ecology, economy and sociology. Pp 194-240 in Gunderson, L. and C.S. Holling, Eds. Panarchy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization, London: Century Business. Taff, S. J. 1998. AgLand: The Game. Simulating Real-Life Decisions and Consequences. University of Minnesota Extension Service. Regents of the University of Minnesota. http://www.extension.umn.edu/AgLand/. Tregonning K. & Roberts A. (1979). Complex systems which evolve towards homeostasis, Nature, 281: 563564. VanNijnatten, D.L. 1999. Participation and environmental policy in Canada and the United States: trends over time. Policy Studies Journal 27 (2): 267-87. Walters, Carl, Josh Korman, Lawrence E. Stevens, and Barry Gold. 2000. Ecosystem Modeling for Evaluation of Adaptive Management Policies in the Grand Canyon. Conservation Ecology 4(2): 1 [online] URL: hhttp://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol4/iss2/artl/index.html Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., and Renn, O. 1995. Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15:443-463. Windels, C. 2000. Economic and social impacts of Fusarium Head Blight: Changing farms and rural communities of the Northern Great Plains. Phytopathology 90 (1): 17-21.

198


Wondolleck, J.M. and S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington D.C.: Island Press. World Resources Institute. 2001. Market-Based Incentives for Water Quality Improvements. http://www.wri.org/econ/hypoxia.html


199

The Rhoen Region: A Model for Sustainable Development at the Former Border Between East and West Germany Wolfgang FREMUTH Frankfurt Zoological Society, Alfred-Brehm-Platz 16, 60316 Frankfurt

Abstract. The Rhoen area can be considered as a model for the success of regional development concepts linked with biodiversity efforts in a marginalised area. For 45 years the Rhoen was divided by the iron curtain with all negative effects on the local economy, but also on the local biodiversity. In 1991 - after the German reunification - a 184,000 ha large Biosphere Reserve was established according to the Man and Biosphere Programme of UNESCO [1] covering parts of three states of Germany: Hessia, Thuringia and Bavaria. Within the boundaries of the Biosphere Reserve sustainable development concepts have been applied comprising the sectors of agriculture, forestry, tourism and small- and medium-scale enterprises. The combination of innovative concepts based on the ecological and economic values of the region have remarkably improved the socio-economic conditions of the entire region. The conservation provided by the Biosphere reserve should have improved the conservation status of the species inhabiting the region. Trends are already positive, but monitoring must continue for the future to determine long-term viability. For monitoring of the positive or negative impact of the achieved development on fauna elements a special system of guiding species has been developed.

Introduction The present article cannot give a detailed examination of all aspects of biodiversity conservation and rural sustainability in the Rhoen region, but it seeks to describe by some examples positive trends in the socio-economic sector as well as in the biodiversity sector. The article opens a small window to the numerous activities stimulated in the region by the creation of a Biosphere Reserve.

1. Context by ecological, economic, social and political factors 1.1. History, geography, and geology The Rhoen area is located in the heart of the now unified Germany (Figure 1). Until 1990 the region was divided by the iron curtain into a western part belonging to Hessia and Bavaria and an eastern part belonging to the state of Thuringia. The Rhoen is a semi-mountainous area with its highest peak - the Wasserkuppe in Hessia - reaching an altitude of about 950 m a.s.l. In ancient times the Rhoen area, like most of the semi-mountainous areas in Europe,

200

W. Fremuth / The Rhoen Region: A Model for Sustainable Development

was covered with forests. Beech trees primarily composed the broad-leaved forests.

Figure 1. Geographical location of the Rhone area in Germany

Therefore, the area was called 'Buchonia,' probably derived from the German name of the beech tree (Buche). In the medieval period the beech forests were converted into agricultural land, primarily into pastures and meadows. The inhabiting people earned their living by livestock breeding (sheep and cattle) and to a smaller extend by fruit processing. Due to the vanishing woods the landscape allowed long distance views over the country, which are characteristics of the area until today [2-4] (Figure 2). Several rivers

Figure 2. The landscape of long distance views characterises the entire Rhoen area

Picture: W. Fremuth

drain the Rhoen area. The biggest are the Ulster and the Fulda River flowing to the West, the Sinn and the Saale River to the South, and the Werra to the North. Still some natural habitats like bogs and mires exist as remnants of the former beech tree forests providing a special value for the biodiversity of the region and serving as tourism targets as well.


201

The clearance of most of the forested parts of the Rhoen region made the hilltops sensitive to winds. To shelter the livestock on the meadows, hedges have been used, providing a unique and enduring feature of the man made 'cultural landscapes.' The Rhoen Mountains are partly of volcanic origin and composed of Basalt rocks. The north-eastern part in Thuringia is composed of limestone. At present the Rhoen is administratively organised in six districts with about 100 communities and approximately 150,000 inhabitants. Three German states share the Rhoen area, which gives the region the character of a trilateral bordering area.

1.2. Ecology and biodiversity At present 41 per cent of the Rhoen area is again stocked with forests [4]. A smaller part is covered by settlements, but the main parcel has been agricultural area for centuries. Due to the long constant anthropogenic influence, a special community of species has evolved and is characteristic for the region. In 1991 the Biosphere Reserve was established and is composed of 2.1% strictly protected area (4,199 ha), 36.6% of buffer or management zone (67,483 ha) and 61.3% of development Zone (113,257 ha). The strict protected areas comprise natural sites like bogs, mires and forests, rivers and their flood plains. The matt-grass meadows on top of the unforested hills covering basalt rocks and basic soil are unique to Germany. On the oligotrophic and poor soil rare plants are growing like arnica (Arnica Montana), thyme (Thymus spec) dyer's green weed (Genista tinctoria) and even different species of orchids. The semi-mountainous meadows are inhabited by rare species like the black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix), corn crake (Crex crex), quail (Coturnix coturnix), meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis) and partridge (Perdix perdix). Due to hedges and pastures whinchat (Saxicola rubetra), stonechat (Saxicola torquata), wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe), red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio), and great grey shrike (Lanius excubitor) are also still common in the region. The Rhoen can also be considered as an important resting place for cranes (Grus grus). Lapwings (Vanellus vanellus), normally preferring wide open areas, can also be often observed in the Rhoen area and are even breeding there, as well as snipes (Gallinago gallinago) [5,6]. In the northern part of the region the characteristic nutrient poor meadows on limestone shape the landscape. The southern part of the Rhoen, the so-called 'Lange Rhon' hosts numerous rare birds like black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix) that inhabits the remaining bogs (Schwarzes Moor, 55 ha, and GroBes Moor, 9 ha, have been strictly protected since 1982 [5]. The. black grouse experienced a tremendous loss in numbers in the eighties of last century. In 1977 101 males displayed their special dances at their dancing places to attract the hens, whereas in 1982 only 22 have been left over to display. Meanwhile, the population is increasing again to about 25 to 30 males and seems to be stable [5], thanks to the intensive efforts for conservation, but most probably due to the positive impact by the establishment of the Biosphere Reserve with its buffer zones around the sensitive sites of the Grouse. 2. Strategy to balance ecology/society/economy The stabilisation of the black grouse population in the Rhoen region over the past decade demonstrates the advantages of a clever combination of strict protection zones together with buffer and development areas in pursuit of rural sustainability. This is the main principle of a Biosphere reserve: to balance the needs of biodiversity with the needs of

202


human beings for the sound use of natural resources. The initial implementation of the Biosphere Reserve in 1991 brought strong resistance by the local mayors and local farmers having the fear that they would lose their possibilities of producing agricultural goods because of potential restrictions. The term 'Reserve' created uncertainty and anxiety among local people when it was first proposed. Even some mayors forced their planning authorities and experts to exclude their settlements from the boundaries of the reserve. However, the ten-year history of the Biosphere Rhoen shows that primarily the inhabitants of the species Homo sapiens have benefited most from the establishment of the reserve. The positive population trends of the black grouse, black stork or the beavers are showing that biodiversity may have mid- to long-term success as well. And even those mayors demanding to be excluded from the reserve at the beginning are now willing to become involved. Moreover, demands emerged and plans have been elaborated by mayors outside the reserve in Hessia to enlarge the Biosphere reserve, since they want to become included in the entire process of development occurring inside the boundaries.

2.1 The Biosphere reserve At present, the Biosphere reserve covers the most important parts of the Rhoen, especially the bogs and mires forming the core zone as strictly protected areas. Remnants of the typical and original beech forest are also part of the core zones. In total the taboo zones are only 2.1% of the entire expanse of the Biosphere Reserve. Approximately one third of the reserve is considered as a buffer zone. Whereas the main part (61.5%) is the development zone where only few restrictions direct development towards sustainability.

2.2 Socio-economic development The demarcation of the reserve's boundaries provided the preconditions to attract grants, subsidies, but also investments, to the entire region. The European Union's Life program to preserve the most sensible sites provided about 4 million Euro. The LEADER program of the Union, giving financial support to disadvantaged regions, provided money for the important socio-economic development, but preferably to the cities and villages inside the boundaries of the reserve. From 1991 to 1998 18 Million Euro were channelled to the communities within the boundaries of the reserve. People stimulated and combined with excellent ideas worked hard for better communities. With the support of the public and private sector, success was simply a matter of time.

2.2.1 The Rhoen sheep The Rhoen sheep (Figure 3) stood at the forefront of the entire success story. Even before the Biosphere reserve was created and before the reunification of Germany, Gerhard Kneitz and other German nature conservationists have recognised how important the sheep were for the entire landscape and its future. In the late 1980s only a few of the robust blackheaded sheep survived in West Germany, primarily in Thuringia. Also a small remanent of sheep still survived in Thuringia-East Germany. Conservationists of the German Association for Nature and Environment (BUND) bought the remaining animals in West Germany and formed a small herd. After the opening of the border rams and female sheep could be exchanged between the herds in Thuringia, Bavaria and Hessia. Due to these

W. Fremuth / The Rhoen Region; A Model for Sustainable Development

203

efforts, the herds increased and served to control the vegetation on abandoned meadows and pastures. It turned out that the grazing of pastures not only benefited biodiversity, but also the farmers keeping the Rhoen sheep. At present a total of 2000 sheep are grazing on the pastures of the Rhoen again. Economically, the Rhoen sheep were intitally not very profitable, since the price for wool was, and still is, low. In addition, the meat of the Rhoen sheep was not very competitive with other sheep races, but it has a distinctive taste. Butchers of the region started to invent new products like Rhoen-sheep sausages, which became a real marketing coup. Some restaurants in the Rhoen area have rediscoverd the Rhoen sheep as a source for very delicious recipes for unique meals. From this time on visitors could experience the region by the special taste provided by the regional food produced in the region for the region. The Rhoen sheep provided the first regional product, which can be considered as a speciality of the entire region and have primarily contributed to the socio-economic development.

Figure 3. The Rhoen sheep, a robust black-headed wool and meat sheep. Picture: W. Fremuth

2.2.2 The Rhoen trout Another example of meeting both the economical and ecological needs of the region is the trout (Salmo trutta fario), which was originally common in the rivers and creeks of the Rhoen (Figure 4). The trout are indigenous to cold, clean and oxygen-rich rivers and riverlets. Therefore, the existence of a viable trout population would be an excellent indicator for the ecological favourable conditions of riverine ecosystems. In the long term, returning trout to the region could provide another element to enrich the local cuisine. But much effort will be required to re-establish populations of the trout, which could serve as a natural resource for economic use. For a mid term perspective, trout could and will be raised in fish-hatcheries and grown in fishponds. A program for revitalisation of the rivers in the Rhoen area has been launched recently.

2.2.3 The apple initiative Fruit production has an old tradition in the Rhoen area. The orchards were planted in the vicinity of the settlements to provide the inhabitants with fruits and vitamins for the wintertime. The dominant fruit was apples but also pears and plums were cultivated.

204


An apple initative (Figure 5) was founded in the Rhoen to recover and conserve the old sorts of apples and their genetic values, their special tastes and flavours. Different fruit products have been 'invented' or rediscovered to generate many varieties of products to attract potential customers. Orchards are also important habitats for a number of species like woodpeckers, dormice, owls, bats etc. The traditional and sustainable use of the orchards is providing habitats for fauna and flora but also a certain income to the local people.

,

Figure 4. The trout is an indicator for clean and oxygen rich rivers and an enrichment of the local cuisine as well.

S*

•% V. «*«« *«Wl

a-

*»**sftfiu*-'v f&V».

Figure 5. The apple initiative conserves the traditional orchards and market the products to provide income for the local gastronomy.

Figures 6 and 7. Oxen have been rediscovered as a source for the local meat-market, but also as managers of the pastures of the area, as well as an enrichment of the local cuisine and the economy. Pictures: W.Fremuth


205

2.2.4 Rhoen ox Oxen (Figures 6 and 7) are, like the Rhoen sheep, considered as "managers" of meadows and pastures and by their grazing help to maintain the special character of the Rhoen landscape and the specialised biodiversity on meadows and pastures. At the same time they are providing an additional special product of the region. Therefore they can be also considered as a win-win element in the entire development process.

2.2.5 The Rhoen beechwood The beech wood of the Rhoen area was considered as low quality wood, since it had and still has a reddish core. Now craftsmen of the region are producing beechwood furniture of a specific regional style and promoting the reddish beech wood as a specialty of the region. It is hoped that the special style created in the region for the region will provide a demand by people inside and outside of the reserve. In turn the beech forests will have greater economic value and other species adapted to the broad-leaved tree forests of beech wood will benefit as well.

2.2.5 Tourism Tourism is an important pillar for the development of the entire region. The Biosphere reserve became a way of promoting and advertising the region to a wider spectrum of visitors. Individual villages or towns are rarely known beyond the region; however, the entire region is known in Germany as a tourism destination. From the Biosphere reserve's inception a consistently high number of visitors have visited the region Table 1. Number of arrivals and stay overnight by tourists in the Rhoen region1

Year

Arrival of guests

Stay overnight

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

1.027.038 983.285 934.657 937.446 918.972 895.274 867.895 916.477 961.516 1.014.896

5.385.548 5.368.972 5.420.797 5.109.934 5.066.322 4.617.912 3.918.603 4.251.027* 4.465.549 * 4.679.357 *

*incl. the data of Thuringia

Table 1 shows the number of visitors to the Rhoen region distinguished between day-trip visitors and guests who stayed overnight. The number of over-night-stays in the Western part of the Rhoen was very likely reduced due to the fact that the Eastern part offered cheaper accommodation, the tourists in Germany found other destinations interesting as well (e.g. Mallorca) and generally the tourism sector lost customers. Nevertheless tourism in the Rhoen region appears to have stabilized on a high level. This positive effect of a protected area on the constant flow of tourists to the region can be observed in other areas like the National Park Bavarian Forest [7]. Tourism plays the central role in the economy of the region. If each day trip tourist data provided by the tourism office Oberbach, Bavarian Rhoen 2002

206


spends approximately 10 Euro and each guest spending for the night in the region about 25 Euro, then the annual turn over of tourism in the region was about 127 million Euro in the year 2000. The beneficiaries of this income are exclusively local people and businessmen. Meanwhile an impressive assortment of visitor opportunities is provided on a professional level (Figure 8). The three German states and the involved districts have after

Figure 8. Tourism is the main pillar of sustainable development of the region. The tourism potential of the entire area, defined by the boundaries of the biosphere reserve, is well presented for the customers and creates a excellent source of income to the local people.

ten years of independent operation formed now a joint tourism promotion institution which works trans-boundary in all three parts of the reserve.

2.2. 7 The Image Campaign As a means of attracting both visitors and investors to the region an image campaign was created. A common logo (Figure 9) was designed for use by all institutions and enterprises in the entire region.

Lebensraum Rh6n Figure Figur e9.9.The Th e regional regiona l logo. o lgo .

2.2.8 Traditional buildings in the region The most important economic value of the region is the natural beauty of the area provided by the landscape but the tiny country settlements. Efforts have been undertaken to preserve remaining traditional buildings. Guidelines are set forth that partly included urban plans of the region to restrict new buildings in their shape to amend and retain the actual shape of


207

existing settlements. In Fladungen, a museum for traditional buildings and the traditional way of life are already established, serving visitors with a deep insight into the lives of people inhabiting the region for many centuries. The museum seeks also to conserve traditional methods of land use, in ways that benefit specific flora and fauna of old villages, which are in danger of becoming extinct due to changes in urban settlements.

2.2.9 Direct marketing of agriculture-products The direct marketing of agricultural provides an important tool for the direct improvement of the income situation of local farmers. Long before the mad cows disease shook consumer confidence, marketing initiatives were undertaken creating a common agricultural production system that led consumers to the fanners offering their goods directly on local markets or on their farms. In the broader framework of marketing initiatives by the supportive institutions of the biosphere reserve the direct marketing of agricultural products plays a prominent role.

Figure 10. The regional concept is very well demonstrated by the distances of individual parts of meals in the local gastronomy. The longer the distance between origin and consumption of individual products is, the higher is the negative ecological impact. The ecological advantage of the regional production and consumption is obvious. The Rhoen region has created the slogan: " From the region for the region."

Figure 11. A guiding species protection strategy, based on the 'guiding species concept' is elaborated to measure and monitor the sustainability of the development.

2.2.10 The regional advantage Based on the recognition of the economic and ecological advantages native to the Rhoen region the regional reserve concept was born. The Rhoen stands as an example of the strong link between the regional approach and the benefits for the local economy, the environment and even for consumers. Figure 10 shows the difference of a meal produced by regional products compared with a meal produced by products form other countries. The given

208


distance in km, which the individual product had to travel to appear on the German tables, is impressive and it can be easily understood what are the advantages for the economy and the ecology to follow a regional concept in production and consumption.

2.3 Biodiversity aspects In spite of the fact that a Biosphere reserve is also designed to consider the need of the inhabiting fauna and flora it was not always a common goal for all actors in the region. Therefore the Society for Ornithology and Nature Conservation of Hessia (HGON) together with the Frankfurt Zoological Society has elaborated guidance for species conservation in the region; the so-called concept of "guiding species" (Figure 11) which is restricted at present to fauna elements only. There is still an need for more research to develop a system of plants species which could be included in such a guiding species concept. Guiding species can be considered as a tool to direct management activities in certain biotopes or ecosystem towards the improvement of their living conditions [8-13]. They represent a group of species that are characteristic for certain conditions and habitats. Guiding species are according to Altmoos [8] all species selected by nature conservation strategies on scientific criteria, which should have a high priority for conservation and protection. The concept comprises aut-ecological procedures according to which the species will be selected and potential conservation measures are oriented on the needs (habitatneeds, processes in their habitats etc.) of the selected species. By this, the dynamic and complex landscape can be described and considered and even the species can serve as an indicator for the appropriate management of the entire landscape, measurable and assessable. The guiding species concept provides criteria for the selection of fauna elements which are representative for specific conditions of habitats. A species to be considered as a guiding species should fulfil the following criteria: • indigenous to the region • easy to detect and observe • high likeliness for survival • complex demands on their habitat • attractive When an animal fulfils these criteria, a ranking will be carried out, based on the number of fulfilled criteria the endangerment of the species and potential positive side effects on other organisms in the habitats. For the Rhoen region 109 animal species have been found as suitable as guiding species, but only 72 have been filtered by the ranking method and are finally eligible [14]. Table 2 shows a selection of species for riverine ecosystems of the Rhoen. The application of the guiding species concept allows analysing the own management by its effect on the species. Furthermore potential threats can be monitored like the number of visitors to a region and potential negative impacts can be stopped immediately as they have an effect on the species. Table 2. Examples for a Guiding Species Concept for the riverine ecosystems in the Rhoen area [15]. Group Guiding Species Presence of the species in the rivers in Remarks the Rhoen region Ulster Streu Brend Guiding species for Sources and their surroundings Bythinella Molluscs Endemic to the region compressa therefore a high national and international responsibility

W. Fremuth/The Rhoen Region: A Model for Sustainable Development

209

Guiding species for Riverine Ecosystems upstream and mid-stream parts Birds Alcedo atthis Foraging in the floodplains of Ciconia ciconia the riverine systems High importance for the Ulster Cinclus cinclus river Praeglacial fauna-element Mammals Sorex alpinus Fish Cottus gobio dominant dominant Salmo trutta fario Salamandra Amphibia salamandra Insects Calopteryx splendens Calopteryx virgo Cordulegaster bidentata Cordulegaster boltonii Osmylus fulvicephalus Guiding species for Riverine Ecosystems mid-stream and down-stream parts Birds Tringa hypoleucos Fish Probably already extinct Alburnoides bipunctatus Barbus barbus .ampetra ampetra dominant Noemacheilus barbatulus dominant Phoxinus phoxinus Thymallus thymallus

Meanwhile, some flora elements have been identified as guiding species, especially for the riverine ecosystems and the adjacent floodplains, pastures and meadows. Still it has to be tested if the flora-elements are well chosen and can serve as character-species respectively as indicators for a sustainable development. Unfortunately, the economic changes are always faster (to the better or to the worse) than ecological changes. Therefore, it still can be questioned if the discussed system is sensitive enough to detect all impacts right in time. 3. Conclusion The establishment of a Biosphere reserve provided the best precondition for sustainable development inside a well defined and described area by the boundaries of the reserve. In fact the reserve encouraged people to think about development patterns which could be considered as sustainable. The reserve and the general idea of sustainability gave an important guidance to the entire region. Excellent ideas paired with the strong willingness of active people in the Rhoen region brought to a certain extend success to the economic and social sectors. However, the long-term success for the fauna and flora native to the region still has to be proven. Therefore, a system of guiding species for the management, assessment, monitoring and evaluation of specific encroachments and management activities has been established. First indications provide evidence that the Biosphere reserve has been beneficial for certain species. The population of black grouse is stabilized, black storks are increasing in numbers, and beavers are coming back to the Rhoen region (Figure 13). Eighteen beavers

W. Fremuth/The Rhoen Region: A Model for Sustainable Development

210

Figure 13. Beavers are returning to the Sinn-River in the Rhoen-Mountains. Beavers are excellent managers of riverine ecosystems. Picture: W. Fremuth

have been released in the Spessart region, an area adjacent to the Rhoen. At that time there were no beaver living in the entire Rhoen area. The beavers found the Rhoen area so pleasant that they reconquered the Rhoen rivers and their population was estimated in 2002 of more than 240 individuals within the boundaries of the Biosphere reserve. Open, still, is the question of if these positive trends are only temporarily or hopefully persistent on longterm. The guiding species concept - as shown in Table 2 for riverine ecosystems - seems to be an appropriate tool for the assessment of these developments trends of biodiversity in the region. Similar sets of fauna elements have been compiled for terrestrial ecosystems such as forests, meadows and pastures. Still missing are appropriate compilations of flora elements which could also serve as monitoring instruments. At present still it remains unclear to which extend population trends in species can linked with different development patterns. There is an immediate need for research to look for these direct or indirect relations. Important in the entire process is the factor time. Species and their populations are usually reacting delayed on measurements, especially, if the threats are not mono-causal but poly-causal (which is the normal case). Therefore, all activities need to have a long-term approach with a time scale of at least five to ten years or better beyond. Also, the monitoring programmes should be established in parallel with the management activities and a steady feedback system has to be organised in order to adapt the management to the positive or negative achievements. A long-term approach is, for the monitoring, unavoidable. References [1] Mothes-Wagner, U. (2001) ,,Biospharenreservat Rhon - Schutz durch Nutzung?", In: ,,10 Jahre Biospharenreservat Rhon Artenschutz durch Nutzung?" Proceedings of Symposium 9.3.2001 Ehrenberg Wustensachsen, Hessische Gesellschaft fur Ornithologie und Naturschutz (HGON) & Zoologische Gesellschaft Frankfurt (ZGF), Echzell,Frankfurt [2] Sauer, E. et al (2000), ,,Eine Zukunft fur die Landwirtschaft in der Rhon" Infobroschure Hessische Verwaltungsstell Biospharenreservat Rhon, 2000 [3] Grebe, R. (1995), ,,Biospharenreservat Rhon. Rahmenkonzept fur Schutz, Pflege und Entwicklung Hessische Gesellschaft fur Ornithologie und Naturschutz (HGON), (2000) ,,Avifauna von Hessen",


211

Band 4, Echzell [4] Bertha, U.M. (2001), ,,Die Besonderheiten der Flora und Vegetation der Rhon unter besonderer Berucksichtigung von FFH-Lebensraumen"; in Jahrbuch Naturschutz in Hessen 2001, Zierenberg [5] Lohmann, M.; Haarmann, K. (1989) ,,Vogelparadiese" Bd 2, Parey Verlag, Hamburg, Berlin [6] Schmidt, M.R. (2001), ,,10 Jahre Biosparenreservat Rhon"; in Jahrbuch Naturschutz in Hessen 2001, Zierenberg, p7ff [7] Fremuth, W. (2000), Messages to stakeholders in the field of nature conservation"; Natura 2000 Public awareness project, Bulgaria, Sofia [8] Altmoos, M. (1997), ,,Ziele und Handlungsrahmen fur zoologischen Artenschutz" Echzell, Verlag der HGON - Hessische Gesellschaft fur Omithologie und Naturschutz [9] Altmoos, M. (1998), ,,M6glichkeiten und Grenzen des Einsatzes regionalisierter Zielarten - dargestellt am Modellbeispiel des Biospharenreservates Rhon", Laufener Seminarbeitrage 8/98: 127-156 [10] Altmoos, M. (1999a), ,,Netzwerke von Vorrangflachen. Ein methodischer Rahmen zur Planung und Optimierung von Gebietssystemen fur den Naturschutz" - Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 31: 357-367 [11] Altmoos, M. (1999b), "Der Schwarzstorch im Biospharenreservat Rhon: Beispiel fur die Umsetzung von Artenschutz in Regionen und ihren Wirtschaftswaldern"; Vogel und Umwelt, Zeitschrift fur Vogelkunde und Naturschutz in Hessen 10, 131-149 [12] Altmoos, M. (2001), ,,Umweltbildung und Offentlichkeitsarbeit fur den Artenschutz: Konzeptioneller Rahmen, Praxisbeispiele und Aufgaben fur die Zukunft - Natur und Artenschutz I (Biologsiches Insitut in Metelen) in Druck [13] Kolb, K. H. (2001), „ Wie haben die naturliche Landschaftsentwicklung und/oder gezieltes Habitatmanagement die Populationen wichtiger Leitarten im NSG ,,Lange Rhon", Biospharenreservat Rhon, bayerischer Teil, beeinflusst? In: ,,10 Jahre Biospharenreservat Rhon Artenschutz durch Nutzung?" Proceedings of Symposium 9.3.2001 Ehrenberg Wustensachsen, Hessische Gesellschaft fur Omithologie und Naturschutz (HGON) & Zoologische Gesellschaft Frankfurt (ZGF), Echzell, Frankfurt [14] HeB, H. (2002) ,,Zoologisches Artenschutzkonzept Rhon", Infobroschure, Hessische verwaltungsstell Biopsharenreservat Rhon, Groenhoff-Haus [15] Jedicke (2002). Jedicke, E. (2002) ,,Projektvorschlag zur Renaturierung von drei FlieBgewassern in der Rhon" Unveroffentlicht

212


The Role of Rural Communities in Biodiversity Conservation and the Transition to Sustainability: Practical Experiences from the Pacific Northwest United States J. Martin GOEBEL1, Caitlin FOX2, and Krystyna U. WOLNIAKOWSKI3 'President, Sustainable Northwest, [email protected] 2 Community Programs Officer, Sustainable Northwest, [email protected] 3 Director, Pacific Northwest Region, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, [email protected] Abstract. This paper provides an overview of biodiversity conservation and rural community sustainable development in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. After a short context-setting section, several community-based and sector case studies representative of the forest, agriculture and fishing communities are presented. Relevant lessons are drawn from each case. The authors hope the experiences and insights from these cases will be helpful to leaders concerned with impacts to and possible measures to promote biodiversity conservation and rural Sustainability. The most important lesson, of all that are presented in this paper, is that rural Sustainability will only be realized if local stakeholders communicate and coordinate with each other and that there is a recognition that healthy rural ecosystems will economically benefit communities if they use the resources wisely to assure longterm opportunities.

1. Rural conservation in the Pacific Northwest: the context 1.1 Biodiversity The Pacific Northwest, a large region spanning five Western U.S. states, western Canada and Alaska, is home to several biomes and an impressive array of ecosystems, natural communities and species, many of which are unique and pristine. Globally the region is probably best known for its towering old growth forests, especially its giant Sequoia and redwood groves, and for its abundant Douglas fir stands. Vast herds of buffalo (American bison) and caribou, once seemingly endless stocks of beaver and salmon, and the charismatic grizzly bear, timber wolf, moose, bald eagle and many species of great whales, continue to be the subject of tall tales and films depicting the region's grandeur. Indeed, some of the rainiest and biologically richest localities on the planet, including the warm tropical rainforests, are rivaled by many areas along the Pacific Northwest coastline. Only recently have we found that the Cascade Range mountains-tocoast forest belt that stretch from north of San Francisco, California to Alaska is the longest stretch and largest block of temperate rainforest on Earth [1]. Less well known to the world are the region's vast high desert steppe, grassland and

J.M. Goebel et al. / The Role of Rural Communities in Biodiversity Conservation

213

pine, pine-oak and true fir forest ecosystems. For example, few know that Hells Canyon, the continent's deepest, cut by the meandering Snake River, collects moisture and feeds vital nutrients from deep in the region's interior to the coast via the Columbia River, the second largest waterway in the North America. Fewer still know that the Klamath Basin and the adjoining Klamath-Siskiyou biological province are home to the world's largest flocks of migrating birds and the among the planet's most unique assemblages of plant species [2]. Today much of this impressive diversity and uniqueness of the Pacific Northwest ecosystems stands threatened by intensive agriculture, forest harvest, and urban development that is consuming land at a rapid pace. Though a few species are making a comeback after implementation of recovery plans, like the bald eagle, many species are continuing to decline. Coastal and in-land aquatic species such as salmon, sturgeon, burbot (a freshwater cod), bull trout and various sucker fish are officially listed as threatened or already on the brink of extinction. Avian species, like the spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and goshawk are also proposed for or already on threatened species lists. Even Oregon's once prolific state bird, the western meadowlark, is facing trouble due to rapid development that has reduced its viable habitat [3]. The viable habitats for grizzly bears, lynx and other predators have been reduced to disconnected blocks surrounded by developed land. The reintroduction of wolves and buffalo, and other large mammals, has been both enthusiastically embraced by a growing environmentally sensitive public, but also met with serious resistance by those whose lives (and livestock) are directly affected [4,5]. The decline of native species diversity due to habitat degradation has been caused by many factors. They include: natural fire exclusion and high-grade, single-species management of forests; natural habitat elimination and fragmentation (especially around once isolated, picturesque Western valleys and small towns); inconsistent delivery of water quality and quantity at critical times due to irrigation practices; cumulative impacts of draining and channelization of rivers and riparian areas; and, the growing proliferation of introduced species, especially non-native weeds, in western range and agricultural landscapes that out-compete native species that were in balance with the habitat. Most of these impacts are made evident today because of improved understanding of ecological dynamics and changing societal values and development paradigms. They are also unintended consequences of multiple perceptions of nature, competing policies and action by managers, decision makers, environmentalists and other user groups [6], Finally, they stem from the unresolved debate about how biological resources and ecological processes should be valued and maintained, while still using the landscape for production - by and through local communities in concert with government, or by government for the use and appreciation of the public.

1.2 Man, nature, and environmentalism The man-nature relationship in this region did not start with the European settler. It has existed for thousands of years, "Since the beginning of time," the Native Americans assert. From the Bering Straight southward to Northern California and east to the Rocky Mountains dozens of Indian Tribes and bands survived - many thrived - in close synchronicity with weather and wildlife, mostly as hunter-gatherers. Their rites, rituals, and regimes depended on understanding the uses, patterns and cycles of nature. Today their ancestors are attempting to introduce indigenous understanding to modern management of resources and ecosystems. For example, the Indians' concept of a whole community (i.e., man as part of nature) and a cyclical seven-generation horizon is beginning to resonate with those who call for long-term, ecosystem level, and adaptive

214

J.M. Goebel et al. /The Role of Rural Communities in Biodiversity Conservation

management approaches. They (and a cadre of scientists and managers) are also trying to re-introduce traditional indigenous use of nature's tools, such as fire, to replenish desirable resources and landscape conditions. But Native Americans' (referred to as "First Nations" in Canada) re-emergence as a voice and force in the conservation and management of biological diversity and natural resources is new and still relatively limited. They have been ignored for nearly two hundred years by European immigrant settlers who were enticed by vast stretches of land and abundant resources - and encouraged by alien policies (to Native Americans) of private property and land conversion. Recent Native American influence also comes on the heels of almost three decades of hard fought, acrimonious debates over point-source pollution by industry and the preservation of the last undeveloped (mostly public) lands by a well organized, largely national (and regional) environmental movement. Indeed the early success of those efforts has led many to label the Pacific Northwest region a kind of "ecotopia." Yet even those progressive initiatives have had little regard for local indigenous interests or for the needs of the newer, now-rooted communities of recent immigrant ancestry. The ecologically devastating legacy of the large-scale industrial model of development continues to pervade the commodity mineral, energy, agriculture and forest industries. Many well-intended policies and land conservation initiatives prospered in the early years of the environmental movement. These were possible to a degree because, once the Native Americans had been reduced to a vestige of their original numbers, there was little competition for "space" in the West and Northwest. Most interest groups could, with relatively little sacrifice to others, get their way. For instance, in the 1960s and 1970s, when the Wilderness areas establishment movement began most of the land proposed was public (not private), isolated, and economically marginal; thus, the timber industry was only marginally affected. It became customary to not have to negotiate or compromise very much, especially not with a community of place or even with a community of interest. Today, most grassroots and national organizations and publicity campaigns continue to fight to save a species or a resource, a tract of land, or to change a specific practice. Most laws focus on, and most institutions have grown accustomed to, mitigating for impacts on one (or a small) set of resources without looking at a whole ecological or social/cultural system, as a direct response to the pressure from a specific interest (or affinity) group, and without necessarily the systemic analysis of the unintended intergenerational, cross-border, or downstream consequences. A prime example is that of the initiative to save old growth forests and spotted owls. The use of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), among the strongest laws in the U.S., did indeed lead to dramatic declines in the harvest of most remaining tracts of old growth trees. By most counts this is a victory because so little was left of this forest type. But it must also be said that the impacts on spotted owls is still very inconclusive. The campaign generated extreme polarization (i.e. a jobs/local control vs. environment preservation dichotomy). A "win-the-battle" mentality has now become institutionalized, and a "win-lose" extremist mentality pervades public policy and interest group campaigns [7]. In fact, we maintain that the struggle over resources has, of late, bred an "industry of conflict," dominated by excessively intransigent groups (for profit and non-profit) on either end of the political spectrum. These battles have also created marginalization. In a span of just 10 years, since the economic integration with Mexico and Canada and rapidly globalizing markets, much of the forest industry has contracted or consolidated. In Oregon alone over 150 sawmills have closed in the last decade. For all intents and purposes, industry has abandoned its dependence on public lands in favor of private forestlands looking for raw material supply in other states and foreign countries where environmental regulations are perceived to be


215

more forgiving, but may be even more ecologically devastating. Ignoring the value and importance of indigenous Native American knowledge of the land and ecosystem health, viewing large tracts of land as infinite sources for exploitation, and aggressively pursuing policies of large scale industrial and resource development as the cornerstone of economic vitality without regard to the impact on the long term viability of the ecosystems or the communities that live within those areas, has led to serious problems that could be irreversible if not addressed immediately with sustainable development policies.

1.3 Rural communities and economies The Pacific Northwest has experienced economic upheaval in the last 20 years due to its dependence on a resource-based economy that promoted single industry income for rural communities, especially those in forest areas that have been the most severely affected. The rapid departure of the timber industry has precipitated the departure of many critical building blocks - assets - that define community: fathers or mothers seeking jobs outside, young working families following fathers and mothers, school teachers and government workers being dismissed, and federal and state funding program cutbacks. In their place poverty has increased, as have divorce and abuse rates. Social safety net indicators, like the number of free and reduced school lunches to poor children, have risen. Small businesses have disappeared and lending institutions have moved on. These businesses supported local social service groups, youth programs churches and health centers. The stresses that rural elected (and volunteer) leaders now face - keeping schools open, roads and basic health and public safety services maintained (among the few remaining attractive assets to outsiders) - are keeping the most talented leaders away from service. Communities are losing much of their human (intellectual), social and financial capital (community infrastructure). Agriculture and fishing communities have also experienced similar changes. The devastating combination of growing resource competition (e.g. especially over water) and ecological health decline, excessive application of commodity-efficiency production models that foster over-exploitation rather than stewardship, consolidation of processing and of supply and distribution channels rather than diversification, and increasingly disempowering regulatory (or buy out) policies rather than incentive based approaches, are all leading to the same fate as with forest communities. Paradoxically, at the same time the West is rapidly "filling," literally and virtually. Urban America, now the predominant constituency, has discovered many of the region's small towns and hinterlands. They recreate and retire there. And, more than ever, they want to own property, live and work there, at least seasonally, as footloose, e-connected professionals. Even those who don't visit often have a prevailing wish: preserve these rural natural landscapes unchanged. They support strong environmental regulation with little or no scientific or practical knowledge of the ecosystems or the traditions and practices that have helped to make the landscapes and communities (with their attendant challenges), what they are today. Rural residents are, increasingly, working for absentee owners and new immigrants, as service workers and managers.

1.4 Rural sustainability - collaborative conservation There are increasing pressures on everyone, including rural communities, to stem and reverse downward slide of biological resources. The continued listing of threatened

216


species, the cumulative ecological impacts of massive public works projects, the lack of management of forests and rangelands to restore their structural and functional health, and the growing imperative to stem global climate change, are outstripping the ability of many competing federal and state agencies (whose budgets are declining) to get the job done. Yet, as mentioned above, the single-industry town model has left many rural communities depleted, vulnerable and dependent. These challenges, coupled with growing awareness that ecosystems, watersheds, and natural communities must be understood in situ, and that their restoration and conservation must involve adaptive and local solutions, have led rural communities to ponder their future role in the landscape [8]. Even with all the debilitating changes - and because of them - some rural communities have been moved to change. At first a handful, now dozens have begun to stem the tide of human capital and natural capital loss [9]. People with years of working knowledge of the forest resource have decided not to abandon, even to return to, their rural community. By the same token, communities surrounded by federal public lands are recognizing the legitimate (if difficult to accept) urban/suburban majority's "public interest" and influence in preservation and conservation. For the few most progressive, returning to days of old is no longer an option. Therefore they are attempting to implement the principles of sustainable or conservation-based development as suggested in Agenda 21. The challenge has been to adapt to new social, economic, ecological and political circumstances, devising new tools for new times; to embrace restoration and conservation as opportunities to restore economies and resource dependent communities in uncommon ways, and for which there are no recipes. This requires work on shared - collaborative visions and strategies with local, regional and national agencies and environmental and industry groups [10]. The following sections describe a few place-based and sector-driven grassroots examples where rural communities and entrepreneurs have risen to the challenge of change. We attempt to outline lessons that have been learned, and that may be useful to the dialogue on expanded European Union integration. 2. Community-based conservation: Lessons from the field 2.1 Community-based conservation 2.1.1 Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon 2.1.1.1 Ecological significance and historical background The Klamath Basin is a critical area for biological diversity in North America. Its rivers and wetlands are used by more than 80% of migratory birds traveling the Pacific flyway. They are also home to several threatened and endangered fish species, including the endemic Short-nosed and Lost-river suckers and Coho salmon. Historically, the Klamath River supported a robust coastal fishery and canning economy and was a critical subsistence fishery for the five Native American tribes inhabiting the basin. Salmon and suckers were at the heart of the tribes' tradition, identity and survival. Prior to the basin's transition to an agricultural economy and the dam building that enabled that change, the Klamath River had the 3rd largest salmon run (Coho and Chinook combined) in the United States. After World War I and World War II, the federal government encouraged development of the Klamath Basin through massive federally subsidized irrigation projects


217

and hydropower development designed to improve or reclaim idle, "unproductive" land. Although dams and increased water availability had positive effects on the agricultural economy of the basin, it has decimated the coastal fishing economy and tribal fisheries. In the years since, competing desires for over-subscribed natural resources (especially water) have caused increased divisiveness and polarization within and among the communities of place and communities of interest, especially environmental groups [11]. Government policymakers lacked the knowledge and understanding of the ecological and hydrological character of the basin and promoted uses of the land and water the could only be productive in the short-term. When the competing uses as well as a drought exacerbated the conflict of uses, the Klamath Basin turned into a war between farmers who were entitled to the scarce water through their water rights, and environmentalists who believed the wildlife resources should be considered first. As the U.S. citizenry's preferences have changed to favor environmental values, the Klamath Basin has been caught in a very difficult conundrum - too many interest groups with differing perspectives and agendas: six federal agencies and several state agencies (on both sides of the Oregon-California border and with contravening mandates), five Native American tribes, several competing water user (e.g. irrigation) districts, and dozens of business groups, universities and research organizations, and environmental groups. Today a "politics of immobility" prevails where the Basin's issues are either artfully avoided (by establishing another working group or commissioning another "science-based" report) or used politically to criticize a position or advance a specific cause. If this conflict-ridden status quo continues it is likely that the federal and state courts will decide the issues [12]. Currently, there are a few collaborative, processes emerging on how to maintain a viable rural economy while also advancing the needs of native fish and wildlife. The "Upper Klamath Basin Working" was chartered in 1996 by the U.S. Congress to develop a restorative course of action that allows for mutually beneficial gains for stakeholders. It has spawned short-term solutions, catalyzed several restoration projects, and the creation of a local Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation, which is still in its formative stage. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetlands Reserve Program and the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Conservation Reserve Program are both active working with individual landowners. Most recently a group of several local landowners, tribal members, agencies, and non-profits was formed to demonstrate the viability of restoring ecological conditions on working ranches in the critically important Sprague River subbasin tributary, through local collaboration, outreach and education. 2.1.1.2 Lesson for rural sustainable development •

Restoration of the environment and economic revitalization requires first restoration of social capital.

Given the current climate, basin-wide ecological restoration (or any important change) must begin with small achievable projects that involve as many local stakeholders as possible. A "go slow to go fast" approach is needed. Even if clear outcomes and ways to achieve them can be envisioned, without the slow work of all-party, trust-building engagement, it is too easy for one or few opponents to stymie progress. Transparency, inclusivity and cooperation, and communication are critical. •

The functional connections within a whole watershed (or ecosystem) can no longer be ignored if most fish and wildlife habitat and human needs are to be met over the long term.

218


Restoring natural functioning conditions of the Klamath Basin's streams, riparian areas and wetlands may be the best way to increase over-subscribed water quantity and improve much needed water quality because a healthy instream water flow and adjacent wetland will create water storage that can then be used for irrigation as needed. Given competing claims and uses of existing water, legal adjudication, even if successful, will likely lead to unsatisfactory results, especially with looming global climate change and droughts. Therefore, all strategies to increase water retention and steady release need to be considered. The measures required to achieve this (e.g. riparian revegetation, wetland restoration, etc.) should improve water quality conditions and habitat for most native fish and wildlife species, as well as supply more water for out of stream uses at a sustainable level. •

An adaptive and supported economic transition plan must be fashioned that includes a new process for using water rights as needed for both instream and out of stream uses.

Difficult decisions will have to be made in the next 10-20 years; not all irrigation dependent farmers will be able to continue doing what they do today. But many (perhaps even most) can become valued participants in the change process and the benefits of change. Governments, citizen groups and non-profits, universities, tribes, and businesses must find creative ways to help agricultural producers to apply more sustainable (i.e. less waterdependent, more habitat enhancing) practices, add value to their crops locally, and market them to consumers who will reward them for their commitment. 2.7.2 WillapaBay, Washington 2.1.2.1 Ecological significance and historical background Willapa Bay, in southwestern Washington, is one of the largest and cleanest estuaries in the continental United States. One of every six oysters consumed in the country grow on Willapa's tide flats. It is also home to Chum, Coho, and Chinook salmon, Dungeness crab, and several species of clams. Nowhere in the Northwest do conifers grow faster than in the dense temperate rainforests that surround the bay. The presence of cranberry bogs, cattle ranches, and dairy farms all attest to the land's fertility and productivity. Despite the bay's remaining integrity, human activity has significantly altered its historic wealth of native oysters, salmon and ancient forests. Today, native oyster populations have declined and current harvests are seeded from Japanese oysters. Natural salmon runs have diminished and are now supplemented with hatchery fish. Old growth forests are gone and timber is harvested from second and third growth tree farms. These changes have taken a toll on the Willapa Bay economy and community. Beginning in 1993, Willapa residents came together to create the Willapa Alliance that worked, in partnership with Ecotrust (a regional non-profit), to initiate a dialogue among diverse community interests to sustain Willapa Bay's unique environment and create a diverse and vibrant economy for local residents. The Willapa Alliance was one of the region's first collaborative conservation efforts in the Pacific Northwest. Likewise, one of its initial sponsors, Ecotrust, was one of the region's first non-profits dedicated to "conservation-based development." Much was achieved in the early years, including a community-watershed indicators report, a community based GIS system, several sub-watershed assessment and salmon habitat


219

recovery projects, and the enhancing an invasive plants (spartina) control program for the Bay. But initial momentum was truncated by many factors including: lack of experience by local participants in non-profit management, lack of long term funding, and lack of inclusion of all interest groups (i.e. there was a sense among some that this was strictly an environmental initiative). Fueled by efforts to garner financial support and media attention, the effort became vulnerable to unreasonable expectations by many local people and by outside supporters and collaborators. Sadly, the Willapa Alliance does not exist anymore. It should be noted that Ecotrust has since adapted its strategy in the area. They have moved from a watershed-based, community-centered focus to an entrepreneur-centered one. To do this they catalyzed the establishment of two lending and business support institutions. Shorebank Enterprises is a revolving loan fund that provides technical assistance to environmentally and socially responsible entrepreneurs, and Shorebank Pacific is a federally chartered bank that provides conventional loans to businesses that meet sustainability criteria.

2.1.2.2 Lesson for rural sustainable development •

Outsiders (non-profits or government agencies alike) must be aware of local sensitivities and culture, and avoid imposing their own agenda.

It is important that as many stakeholders as possible have a hand in crafting the specific goals and objectives as early in the process as possible. Vague language without specific interim targets can be easily misinterpreted leaving the initiative vulnerable to criticism. Too much money or media attention too early in a community-based process can be counter-productive. Outside money and personalities should not drive an agenda. •

Building the essential relationships and the professional capacities of a communitybased organization are essential to long-term viability and local support.

Local leadership and expanding local involvement is critical. Outside groups should adapt to and support a local group's evolving abilities to take on priorities for themselves, thereby creating independence and local empowerment. Local communities need to develop tangible examples of what is possible, i.e. they should demonstrate and disseminate actual project accomplishments and generate real income for community members and local businesses where possible. This may take years to develop, but is the only way there can be true change at the local level.

2.1.3 Trinity County, California 2.1.3.1 Ecological significance and historical background Trinity County is located in the Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion, which harbors one of the four richest temperate conifer forests on earth [2]. Klamath-Siskiyou forests are home to 30 species of temperate conifers, nine species of salmon and trout, and more than 200 species of birds including the regionally renowned spotted owl. World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature calls these forests "globally outstanding" and "requiring immediate protection of remaining habitat and extensive restoration."

220


Until the late 1980s, the economy of Trinity County, and specifically the town of Hayfork, was sustained by the timber industry. Then in 1992 the federal government, under pressure from national and regional environmental groups established the Northwest Forest Plan (also known as The President's Plan or the Spotted Owl Plan), covering most of the forests along the Cascade and Coast ranges of Washington, Oregon and California. Among other measures, it severely curtailed logging and invoked new harvesting rules. It established strict reserves in remaining old growth areas as well as designating Matrix Areas (a mix of Adaptive Management Areas, Late Successional Managed Reserves, Riparian Reserves, etc.). The NW Forest Plan also specified dozens of species of concern and required that extensive surveys and management plans be written for them. As a result, in a few years logging in that forest zone had plummeted by at least 90%. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management found themselves contending with rules and processes with which they were not familiar. In effect they found themselves in the midst of a major paradigm shift. As logging steadily declined in the early 1990s, residents like Lynn Jungwirth searched for new ways to restore their economy and community. By the time the last sawmill closed in 1996, 40 percent of the Hayfork payroll had disappeared. Jungwirth started the Watershed Research and Training Center to retain and retrain forest workers in forest restoration and ecosystem management, and provide survey, monitoring and assessment capabilities of the area's environmental, economic and community health. The Watershed Center has since been successful not only in creating new forest [restoration] jobs, but also jobs in wood products manufacturing. It has been a model for other forest dependent communities in transition, and has become an important contributor to national forest policy. 2.1.3.2 Lesson for rural sustainable development •

Women can make great change agents and leaders because they use a facilitative approach to problem-solving.

Lynn Jungwirth was not threatening to men who held power in Hayfork and Trinity County. She was able to quietly connect with women and families in the community to stir ideas of change and create community buy-in. Patient, persistent, and nurturing leadership can work more effectively in situations where there is little trust and hope. Many women find themselves in similar leadership positions in community based conservation initiatives throughout the western U.S. •

Local rural non-profits organizations can help overcome the "one-size-fits-all" norms federal and state agencies and industry.

Too often government rules are overly prescriptive, i.e., applied without the consideration of local ecological, social, or economic conditions. For example, the U.S. Forest Service's contracting officers regularly interpret contracting authorities in a very strict, inflexible ways. Thus, local small contractors often cannot successfully bid on projects because the projects are too big or specialized. A local non-profit can serve as an honest broker/facilitator between government agencies and contractors to design contracts in packages that are more accessible to local businesses because they have more flexibility and an opportunity to "risk" in order to try new methods. They can also help find monies and implement training that helps the contractors learn the new skills required for the ecological restoration jobs being offered. Similarly, the Watershed Center has refused to


221

follow established procedures when these are clearly not working. They have innovated by using local knowledge and skilled technicians in arenas such as forest harvesting equipment, value-added product development, and species surveys and monitoring. •

Initiatives that address both economy and environment simultaneously will garner broad support and increase prospects for long-term success.

Different agencies, groups and specialists normally treat ecological and economic challenges separately. Often the obvious and subtle connections between the two are missed. When they can be dealt with together competition and conflict can be avoided. Many community initiatives ate finding that [on the ground] all-party monitoring of projects - especially when measurements include social, ecological and economic criteria and indicators - is a good way to get specialists and single purpose organizations to use local knowledge, appreciate the "big picture," and establish connections between resources and sectors. Unintended consequences can be more easily avoided, and if they do occur, they can be more effectively handled. •

Networking, willingness to share, and adaptability with outside groups can be extremely helpful technically, financially and politically.

Local rural groups need each other, but they also need to establish partnerships with regional and national affinity groups. The Watershed Center has willingly shared equipment and know-how with other emerging community and regional groups. Its own resourcefulness has resulted in: funding from national philanthropies like the Ford Foundation, cooperative research and development on utilization of small-diameter and under-utilized tree species from the Wisconsin-based Forest Products Laboratory, marketing support from Sustainable Northwest and the Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities Partnership (see next section), and access to the national-level dialogue on many subjects from forest certification to national forest policy through the Pinchot Institute, American Forests, and many universities. A regional resource center, like the Watershed Center, that could provide clearinghouse, outreach and technical assistance opportunities may be needed to increase local capacity.

2.1.4 Wallowa County, Oregon 2.1.4.1 Ecological significance and historical background The physical landscape of Wallowa County is extremely diverse, alpine meadows, subalpine and dry coniferous forests, native grasslands, and low elevation riparian communities. It is home to the famously deep Hells Canyon and to the Zumwalt Prairie, the latter one of the last natural grasslands in North America, and home to an unusual abundance and diversity of birds of prey, including the densest population of soaring hawks (buteos) found anywhere in the lower forty-eight states [13]. The surrounding forest uplands are famous for abundant elk, and also provide home to black bear, mountain lion, mule deer, and bighorn sheep. Its rivers and riparian areas support significant numbers Neotropical migratory birds as well as bull trout, steelhead and Chinook salmon. Historically, the Nez Perce Tribe hunted and gathered extensively here, catching abundant Sockeye and Coho salmon in the Wallowa, Imnaha, and Snake rivers. Today, both species are imperiled due to the cumulative impacts of downstream dam construction, over-fishing, and habitat alteration and loss.

222

J.M. Goebel et al. f The Role of Rural Communities in Biodiversity Conservation

Wallowa County's resource dependent economy, primarily supported by timber, grazing and farming, has hit hard times over the last decade. Since 1989, with declining timber markets and mounting environmental pressures, the county has seen dramatic declines in timber harvest and the closure of its last operating timber mills. Throughout the 1990s unemployment has averaged 8-10%, is consistently higher than other rural Oregon communities and nearly twice the statewide unemployment average [13]. By 1994, polarization between natural resources users and environmentalists led to lawsuits and even an effigy-hanging incident (of two prominent environmentalists) that captured media national attention. Amidst the turmoil a small group of dedicated community members struck a partnership with the Nez Perce Tribe to develop a Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan. This local grassroots effort led to the first-in-state codification of land use rules that foster salmon habitat protection. In 1995 the county developed a second collaborative initiative with Sustainable Northwest designed to foster forest conservation and management (on private and public lands) and environmentally compatible economic development. Several local forest landowners were already widely recognized as exemplary in their innovative practices. Ultimately, this collaborative effort led to the establishment of the local nonprofit Wallowa Resources. With both local and outside talent and leadership Wallowa Resources has accomplished much in a few years. It has acted as a catalyst and broker between local forest worker/contractors and the U.S. Forest Service. Experiments with "stewardship contracting," arrangements to restore forest health conditions through thinning, road maintenance, stream enhancement and culvert replacement, etc., have shown a new way to use local workforce to manage forests. Wallowa Resources has also taken big risks. Recently it established a subsidiary for-profit company, Community Solutions, Inc., to make private investments in resource enterprises designed to create jobs. They are currently attempting to re-open the sawmill in the town of Joseph, Oregon. Finally, Wallowa Resources has catalyzed or spun-off at least two organizations. Stacy Green, a local business consultant hired by Wallowa Resources to provide small companies with basic business skills and tools, has now incorporated her own company and serves many rural entrepreneurs in Eastern Oregon. And, Oregon East Through West, a non-profit ruralurban youth stewardship camp, generates 6-10 seasonal jobs and has operated successfully for four years. 2.1.4.2 Lesson for rural sustainable development •

Local communities are better served if they embrace and cooperate with Native American tribes that hold resource rights in their area.

Most tribes in the U.S. are recognized as sovereign nations. They have access to fish and wildlife in the lands that they ceded to the United States government by treaty in the mid1800s. Effectively, this means that their rights supersede those of settlers; therefore, the habitat requirements necessary for native fish and wildlife (e.g. water for fish) are preeminent. Today, tribal status allows them to establish gaming (gambling) enterprises. Poor for many decades many tribes are now in better economic shape than surrounding non-Indian communities. Their special legal status and new wealth and commitment to natural resources make them potentially good partners with local communities. Although the past methods of resource management have ignored the role and value of Tribal involvement, they now have great opportunities to influence land management practices and biodiversity protection on and near their lands.


•

223

Community based non-profits, can share the initial risks inherent in innovative private sector enterprises.

Because of their public-good mandate, flexible partnership capacity, and access to nontraditional resources (i.e. philanthropic and government funds), local non-profit NGOs can invest in for-profit businesses. Thus, they can perform a much-needed function - sharing the risk in enterprises that traditional lending institutions and venture capitalists would normally not consider. If successful they can also create a non-traditional income stream for themselves. It should be mentioned that this option requires skills that non-profits often do not have, e.g. business planning, marketing and sales, finance, etc. Donors to nonprofits may also restrict use of their funds for private ventures. Training for non-profits in business development would be beneficial to find ways to assist those NGOs that are prepared for entrepreneurial activities to engage the community in resource-based economic development. •

As local non-profits succeed and learn they must network with each other to expand and multiply ground-tested experimentation.

The rural, community-based, collaborative conservation and sustainable development movement is still very new in the U.S.. As more communities move forward they have found it important to purposefully network with each other on a variety of topics. Experienced communities can help new community initiatives to avoid costly pitfalls. Speaking with one voice with policy-makers has become essential, especially when governmental funding programs are threatened or when an agency or elected leader agrees to submit a new law or create a funding mechanism that will help expand a tested approach. Working collectively to educate and partner with national environmental groups on community-based solutions has also begun to be an important item for joint work.

2.1.5 Yellowstone-to-Yukon Conservation Initiative, Northern Rockies (US and Canada) 2.1.5.1 Ecological significance and historical background The U.S. and Canadian Northern Rockies offer one of the last remaining opportunities on Earth to restore and maintain a fully functioning mountain ecosystem with virtually all of its components. This means physically connected, genetically viable populations of native predators, large numbers of herbivores, and healthy watersheds including rivers and riparian zones that support the region's diversity and abundance of fishes, birds and invertebrates. However, supporters of the Yellowstone-to-Yukon (Y2Y) vision, initiated in 1993, also believe that healthy ecological communities and healthy human communities go hand in hand. The Y2Y vision will not be achieved without creating diverse economies, that sustainably use surrounding natural resources, in Northern Rockies communities. Along with the opportunity to pursue positive outcomes for the Northern Rockies come many challenges. Today, more than ever, ranchers and other private landowners feel pressure to sell their properties. Droves of newcomers have brought pressure to subdivide for second home development. Landscapes are further fragmented by resource extraction including extensive oil and gas leasing on the front-range and unsustainable softwood timber harvests (especially in British Columbia, Canada). The booms and busts of resource-based economies have left many communities searching for something more sustainable. Y2Y has worked to build the capacity of communities in the Northern Rockies to deal with these challenges by providing skills and resources to community-based

224


organizations, and by organizing ecologically defined "sub-regional working groups" to bring together broad interests to address regional challenges. The Yellowstone-to-Yukon vision has gained broad support across the region. Today, Y2Y has more than 300 network members including non-profit organizations, community groups, scientists and other interested individuals. Because the network is so large, and because it is spread across such a vast region, the Y2Y organization has not been able to provide the kind of dedicated support to individual communities that may be required for long-lasting change. 2.1.5.2 Lessons for rural sustainable development •

A shared vision is a critical first step, but the projects implementing that vision must also be locally relevant and take into consideration cultural and political boundaries.

In the case with Y2Y, they have learned that the design and implementation of specific projects will look quite different in various part of the region and must be locally driven. Because Y2Y divides the region into ecologically distinct sub-regions that do not necessarily match up with cultural or political boundaries, members of these "sub-regional working groups" often do not share a common identity or sense of place. This has presented the challenge of creating projects that are relevant and appropriate to a larger scale 'community of place.' While all members support the Y2Y vision, self-defined placebased communities may be better equipped to define their own strategies and actions for implementation than these ecologically defined communities. •

With a large, eco-regional conservation strategy there is going to be tension between working intensively with a few demonstration projects and trying to provide limited support to a many initiatives.

This inherent trade-off between dedicated work in a few places and a more diffuse strategy across the landscape has been an ongoing struggle for Y2Y. With its 11 full-time staff members, Y2Y has tried to offer a wide variety of services to its more than 300 network members. They have found that providing short-term and sporadic support to specific communities has yielded only limited additional benefits. More in depth strategies in some places might leave other members completely unaided. A system of criteria for prioritizing efforts seems important for large-scale initiatives such as this. 2.2 Sector conservation 2.2.1 Forests and forestry In the last few years the U.S. forest conservation community and wood products industry have made some significant strides in advancing the cause of "certified" (sustainable) forestry and markets by advocating for the application of two competing systems, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). However, certified forestry does not yet cover public land management (a large segment of forest land in the Western region), nor does it effectively reach rural communities and producers who work in a small private landowner context. The costs are also prohibitive for many. While large industrial forest and wood products companies consolidate and expand, rural landowners and producers are largely disenfranchised from these and many other innovations and


225

opportunities [14]. Of recent concern are the newest immigrant communities (primarily from Latin America and Asia), many of which make their livelihoods gathering special (non-timber) forest products, e.g., medicinal herbs, mushrooms, florals, etc. Relatively little is known about how they are organized, how much they gather and its value in the marketplace, or about the specific or cumulative impacts of their actions. In 1999 a small cooperative of rural wood products producers and non-profits began to emerge calling itself the Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities Partnership (HFHC). It is dedicated to (1) management of "whole forest" health conditions on both public and private lands, (2) cooperative production and marketing of "by-products" of forest health restoration and ecosystem management, (3) viable, diverse "moderately-sized" forest products businesses in rural communities, (4) policy and administrative reforms informed by small-scale, ground-based experimentation and active all-party monitoring. Today, HFHC has 50 members, half of which are producers and half community based and regional non-profits and businesses. It has grown quickly and learned several lessons along the way. The most important are: • a cooperative is strongest if its members share a vision, values and set of commitments • it is possible to challenge government, industry and academic know-how and rules on product utilization, pricing, scale and technology for forest operations • focus on a few product lines to be successful • densify membership inside geographic areas where members can more easily cooperate and compete, and provide services and support to the businesses in those clusters • we believe consumers will prefer win-win messages and brands (i.e., rural community vitality and forest ecological health) • seek to partner with urban retailers that share HFHC values and can communicate consumers' preferences to producers and rural land stewards • find ways to reduce the initial cost for certification.

2.2.2 Rangeland and ranching Ranchers are the region's newest environmentalist targets. But in reality they have long been an isolated group because they have been increasingly out of touch with health- and environmentally-conscious consumers. They are dependent on monopolistic processing and market channels, chronically operating under heavy debt and extremely thin profit margins, and normally defensive about their industry and practices. In the late 1980s a new cooperative of ranchers was formed in Oregon. Called Oregon Country Beef (OCB) it began with a handful of families dedicated preserving the family ranch, improving their rangeland's environmental health, and serving the customer directly [15,16]. Today OCB is made up of more than 40 member ranches (with several hundred thousand acres under management) most of which have become much more economically viable because of their adherence to environmental, social and economic principles, and to customer satisfaction. By direct marketing their product to healthconscious grocery stores and restaurants, OCB has successfully reduced the dramatic price fluctuations that commodity beef producers have been forced to tolerate for decades. Among the most important lessons learned by OCB are: • a cooperative is strongest if its members share a common vision, values and commitments • a few dedicated people can change an industry

226


• • • •

• • •

market your story, not just your product establish direct relationships with consumers and clients - and listen to them change and adapt constantly; bucking the establishment "system" is possible a third party certifier is necessary, especially when competitors begin appear; however, certification standards must be developed by both the certifying group and the ranchers; adoption must be beneficial to all make decisions by consensus, involve all family members, especially women seek assistance from uncommon places and organizations recognize that obstacles still exist—it is still a difficult balance to promise a unique product for the public market and then have enough steady supply to meet that demand without compromising quality or principles of operation.

2.2.3 Agriculture Oregon was the first state in the U.S. to adopt organic production standards in agriculture [15]. Its leadership led several other states to do the same. In October 2002 the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued national organic standards and labeling rules. But organic production, while important, has not necessarily promoted more holistic "sustainable" practices. For example, organic standards have not consistently advocated for the restoration of riparian and wetland habitat, critical for biodiversity conservation. Nor have they advocated for producers in local markets or for economic justice and equity for farm workers. In order to fill those needs several grassroots organizations have emerged. For example, Initially incubated by a university but now independent The Food Alliance was established in the early 1990s to serve regionally located farms in their transition from conventional agriculture to sustainable systems. TFA's collaborative approach and its "Food Alliance-Approved" label and marketing program is a feature that has significantly attracted many producers to join. At this writing TFA works with the over 200 fruit and vegetable growers and processors, wheat producers, ranchers (including OCB above), dairies, and a number of grocery market chains. Its success has catalyzed the national expansion of the TFA organization and label, beginning in the U.S. Midwest, the heart of American agriculture. Many other innovative organizations and labeling schemes are now available to promote local sustainable food production and consumption. A few examples in the Pacific Northwest include: • The Chef's Collaborative is perhaps the best known [17]. It is a partnership of several well-known urban-based chefs/restaurant owners committed to environmental values and principles, re-establishing consumers connections to local native and seasonal products, and educating youth about food, nutrition and responsible consumption. • Salmon Safe is now an independent organization and label, an outgrowth of a grassroots non-profit called the Pacific Rivers Council, dedicated to restoring anadromous fish-bearing streams and their native fauna [18]. Initially Salmon Safe has had acceptance with vineyards and wineries. • The Predator Friendly Wool label was established by the Corporation for the Northern Rockies [Sustainable Communities] to distinguish the product of sheep farmers that respected the re-introduction of wolves and other predators in Western United States ecosystems. • One national grocery store chain, Whole Foods Markets, and several local chains, e.g., Natures Fresh Northwest and New Seasons Markets, and countless food co-ops

JM. Goebel et al. / The Role of Rural Communities in Biodiversity Conservation

221

and several consumer supported agriculture (CSA) programs, seek to harness consumer concerns for physically, socially and environmentally healthy alternatives to industrial agriculture. The most important lessons learned from these labels and organizations include: • Commodity production systems are the road to the bottom for small producers, communities and economies. • Building strategic alliances between producers, food manufacturers, and retailers that help to access new markets is a good way to de-commodify. • Local and regional consumer education is vital. Many consumers are willing to pay more for food that is grown in accordance with their values. (For example, "Beyond Organic" is Salmon Safe's newest label for food that is organic and salmon habitat friendly.) • In relationships with rural producers, outside organizations must build credibility with local leaders and bring tangible economic value to the community. • Focusing energy on a specific sector, or even sub-sector, can help reach the "tipping point" (when most in the "community" support an action or idea) more quickly. 2.2.4 Pacific salmon As suggested earlier in this paper wild Pacific salmon are a spiritual icon, a keystone ecological species, and have been critical to the economy since humans began inhabiting these lands. Several salmon species once returfted after three to four years in the ocean to most rivers by the millions each season. They swam hundreds of miles to their spawning grounds in headwater streams. Few other animals or plants have played a greater role in the settlement and prosperity of North America's west coast. Salmon-dependent coastal Native American tribes were once the most prosperous in the region. A well-known Yup'ik Tribe (Alaska) quote summarizes their value, "The salmon is the sea's silver messenger, never forget who gives you life. " And, commercial and recreational fishing for salmon sustained coastal economies and cultures for decades. However, even in the early 1940s, salmon populations began to decline as warning signs appeared. For example, Willis H. Rich declared, "If the courage is lacking now to take the steps necessary to sensible conservation, we shall have the losses and the hardships eventually anyway; with the difference that, if action is delayed, depletion will have progressed further and rehabilitation made just so much more difficult [19]." But his word went unheeded. Unfortunately, most wild Atlantic salmon populations in the eastern United States have been extirpated. The few that survive are on the brink of extinction. Wild Pacific Northwest salmon have been lost from nearly half of their original range and their survival is at risk in another third of their range. Poor juvenile wild salmon recruitment and adult salmon survival (to spawning age) has become a major problem due to: • over-fishing in the ocean and fluctuating ocean conditions • construction of multiple hydroelectric dams and irrigation canals and impoundments • destruction of in-stream habitat from channelized rivers, over-harvested of forests, and poor streamside management on agricultural lands • genetic deterioration of wild stocks through supplementation [i.e. hatchery production] • over-appropriation of scarce water that leaves many streams dry during the critical fall migration season. Commercial fishing for salmon has just about ended in many communities on the west coast, while farmers and ranchers located near salmon bearing streams are also facing

228


hardships as they try to comply with Endangered Species Act and use their land productively with scarcer water resources. In Alaska, for the first time in July 2002, salmon runs were closed for fishing due to dangerously low numbers returning to spawn in the Kenai, one of the state's most productive rivers. The conflict over salmon - leaving water in stream for passage, the use of that same water to sustain agricultural uses, and Native Americans unable to fish for their subsistence - has created one of the most bitter environmental battles in the west. In order to rescue the last remaining wild salmon populations in the west, grassroots organizations and tribes have been involved in creating the Pacific Salmon Recovery Program, funded by the U.S. Congress, state and local government, and many private donors. To have any chance of success, the program needed to include partnerships and projects at the community level that involved university researchers, state and federal agencies, local watershed councils that represent a diversity of stakeholders, tribes, local conservation groups, and private landowners. Since no single solution will save the salmon, multiple strategies, and unprecedented inter-agency coordination, and incentives, are needed [20]. Projects include land acquisitions to protect those pristine stream habitats and watersheds that still exist, restoration of headwater streams for spawning, re-connecting old meanders and flooding unproductive agricultural lands to create wetlands for rearing habitat, improving fish passage with fish ladders, and working with private landowners to encourage stewardship and conservation on farms and ranches along salmon-bearing streams. In addition, new initiatives by conservation groups to buy and/or lease "water rights" in critical rivers and streams from private landowners that are no longer irrigating their lands or willing to use less water, will eventually lead to restoring flows in "overappropriated" streams. Although major dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers will most likely remain because of the Pacific Northwest's (and especially California's) dependence on imported water and hydroelectric power, several smaller dams that have blocked fish passage are scheduled for removal while alternative energy and water delivery systems are being developed. The Savage Dam (Rogue River, OR) and the Marmot Dam (Sandy River, OR) will be removed as soon as funds are available, opening up many miles of upstream habitat for wild salmon. Government actions, technical solutions and strict regulations and laws alone will not work. Without the assistance of hundreds of local non-governmental organizations and watershed councils that seek common solutions at the landscape level, the recovery of salmon populations will not be possible regardless of how many millions of dollars are invested. In Washington State alone, over $60 million a year is invested in salmon recovery efforts, representing more than 500 projects across the state. More than forty Watershed Councils lead the way by involving scientists to design habitat restoration projects, local volunteers partner with landowners to implement habitat improvements and create "conservation easements." And, politicians are engaged to provide the political will and funding for implementation. The most effective, long-term restoration programs involve a grass-roots approach that successfully involves landowners that have become stewards of the resource through education and understanding (as opposed to those that consider conservation only as a top-down legal requirement to comply with laws such as the Endangered Species Act). Because society is placing much higher value on preserving unique salmon species from extinction (rivaling the need of short-term economics), the most important lessons learned in Pacific salmon recovery efforts are: • There is a key role for local NGOs that can work effectively and cooperatively with private farmers and ranchers (and government agencies, scientists and industry) to help develop new restoration and stewardship processes and tools and monitor and


229

measure impacts and key indicators. Without values-based approaches and incentives-driven policies that encourage extinction prevention, conservation and restoration, and sustainable development, no amount of funds for restoration will be effective. Emphasis must be placed on financial incentives (vs. traditional regulatory disincentives) that encourage landowners to set-aside critical streamside habitat through conservation easements, engage in lease/sell water rights arrangements, and implement other land and water conservation practices. These tools will do much to help landowners and managers to switch from resource-intensive practices to more restorative and sustainable management methods. State, federal and local policies need to be coordinated at all levels to assure that management actions, incentive programs and research questions, measurements and results are timely, useful and do not work at cross-purposes. In order to realize sustainability goals for rural communities, and address issues at the economic and ecosystem levels, an organization/foundation that works with universities as well as practitioners and communities and supports cooperative efforts, and communicates lessons learned is needed to marry research with practical on-the-ground experiences. Sustainable Northwest and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation propose to work with other partners to realize these goals and share lessons learned with new, willing communities. 3. Conclusions Efforts to promote biodiversity conservation and rural sustainability are new in the United States. The Pacific Northwest has pioneered many environmental, and very recently, sustainable development policies and actions. Indeed, the region has been a center for environmental activism and innovation. But rural communities have not been considered a partner in conservation. Recently rural areas have been disproportionately affected by events, such as North American economic integration and globalization of markets, and the shifts in urban values. This is beginning to change. Privately held working landscapes are critical to achieving ecosystem-level health. Moreover, rural leaders and related conservation interest groups are becoming more proactive and collaborative. There are now many initiatives in this region (and many more throughout North America) from which the entire country and other parts of the world may learn, both because of a limited number of early achievements and the on-going lessons being learned. This paper suggests there are many ways rural communities and producers can be creatively and constructively involved in biodiversity conservation. Many cross-cutting lessons are being learned, through both large regional initiatives and small local and sector-based efforts, in the process of conserving and restoring forests, rangelands, and fisheries. Urban and rural constituents must work together in uncommon, trusting, long-term, and learning partnerships in order to accomplish desired triple-bottom line (ecological, social, and economic) outcomes. Many barriers must be overcome between scientists, managers, environmentalists, rural leaders and landowners. For example, they must work together on (especially systemic-level) research questions, data gathering and testing of solutions, because social capital (human capacity, relationships and knowledge sharing) is the key underpinning of change. This is particularly true in the current climate of economic recession and paradigm shift (from doctrinaire economic development and environmentalism to sustainable development). In this context adaptive management and all-party monitoring are especially important tools. Finally, policy makers and leaders must refrain from top-down, one-size-fits-all remedies. They must help

230

JM. Goebel et al. / The Role of Rural Communities in Biodiversity Conservation

facilitate on-the-ground experimentation and flexibility within a shared vision and values framework. Meeting these challenges is, in many ways, contrary to multi-country economic and social integration. References [I] Schoonmaker, Peter, Von Hagen, Bettina, and Wolf, Edward, eds. (1997) The Rain Forests of Home: Profile of a North American Bioregion. Produced by Ecotrust and Interrain Pacific. Island Press, Washington, D.C. [2] Ricketts, Taylor H., Eric Dinerstein, David M. Olson, Colby Loucks et al. (1999). Terrestrial Ecosystems of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. [3] Hannum, Kristen. "Oregon Venture Highlights Biodiversity." Defenders of Wildlife: Special Report, Spring 1998. [4] ABC News (2002) "Wolves vs. Ranchers." In In Search for America_(a program of ABC Television, with host Peter Jennings), September. [5] Foster, David (2002) "Wanted Dead or Alive: Hunters Clash with Conservationists Over What to do About Wolves," Alaska, 69 (9): 28-35. [6] Cronin, William, ed. (1995) Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. W.W. Norton, Inc., New York. [7] Freedman, Lisa (2002) Successes and Lessons Learned in the Pacific Northwest. Speech prepared for the National Leadership Team, U.S. Forest Service, March 19, Welches, Oregon. [8] Jungwirth, Lynn (2002) Personal communication. October 11. [9] Liz Claibome Art Ortenberg Foundation (2001) Case Studies. In Collaborative Resource Management in the Interior West, A Workshop Held at Red Lodge, Montana, October 18-22. [10] Cestero, Barb (1999) Beyond the Hundredth Meeting: A Field Guide to Collaborative Conservation of the West's Public Lands. Sonoran Institute, Bozeman, MT. [II] Chasan, Daniel Jack (2001) "Water Wars in the Klamath Basin." Open Spaces: Views From the Northwest. Vol. 4, Number 2: 26-33. [12] Milstein, Michael (2002) "Klamath Findings Fail to Get Into Print." In The OregonianJtiovembeT 2. [13] Gunter, Tara Rae. "Wallowa Resources: Beyond Green and Brown." In Collaborative Resource Management of the Interior West. A Workshop held at Red Lodge, Montana, October 2001. [14] Gray, Gerry, Enzer, Maia J., and Kusel, Jonathan, eds.(2001) Understanding Community-Based Forest and Ecosystem Management. Food Products Press. [15] Sustainable Northwest (1997) "Oregon Country Beef." In Founders of a New Northwest. [16] Rolnick, Jody (2001). "A Passion for Raising Beef the 'GrazewelF way." In Business Viewpoint. 41:4, July/August. [17] Sustainable Northwest (2002) "Chefs Collaborative," In Founders of a New Northwest. [18] Imhoff, Daniel (1999) "Wild Farms: Seeking a Watershed Approach to Agriculture." In Orion Afield. Spring: 34-36. [19] Rich, Willis H. (1940) The Future of the Columbia River Salmon Fisheries, 1940. [20] Vickerman, Sara. (1997). Stewardship Incentives: Conservation Strategies for Oregon's Working Landscape. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC. Additional References Brown, Vaughn and Jackson, Gregory (1999) "Stitching the Pieces Together: Sustainable Community Case Studies from the Pacific Northwest." A project of the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Cornelius, Jim et al. (2000) Agriculture and the Oregon Economy. Oregon State University Extension Service, SR 1014, March. Durning, Alan Thein. (1999) Green-Collar Jobs: Working in the New Northwest. Northwest Environment Watch, Seattle. Incentives for Conservation: An Oregon Biodiversity Partnership Report (1999) Defenders of Wildlife, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Johnson, Kirk. (1997) "Toward a Sustainable Region: Evolving Strategies for Reconciling Community and the Environment." Northwest Policy Center, Seattle, WA. Milstein, Michael (2002) "Tapping the Trinity River" In The Oregonian October 27. Sample, V. Alaric and Dennis C. Le Master. (1992). Assessing the Employment Impacts of Proposed Measures to Protect the Northern Spotted Ow\. American Forestry Association, Washington, DC.


231

"Sustainable Agriculture, Continuing to Grow." A proceeding of the "Farming and Ranching for Profit, Stewardship and Community" conference, March 7-9 2000. Sustainable Northwest, Portland, OR. Suzuki, David and Dressel, Holly (2002) Good News for a Change: Hope for a Troubled Planet. Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited, Toronto, Canada. Ward, Phil. (2000). "Direct Marketing Handbook." Oregon Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR.

232


Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada - and Elsewhere Gordon NELSON Distinguished Professor Emeritus Current Chair of the Heritage Resources Centre University of Waterloo Abstract. The interactive, adaptive, civic approach to decision-making is reviewed in terms of its development, mainly in Canada since the 1960s. The review traces various approaches to planning and decision-making and their challenges and effects in the context of changing economic, social and environmental circumstances in Canada and other countries in the last 35 years. The years prior to the 1980s generally were dominated by government, particularly the federal government. Decisions typically were made through goals-driven rational planning which tended to be exclusive in nature. After the 1980s, for financial and other reasons, the government role declined and non-government organizations became more prominent in planning and decision-making. Activities tended to be more broadly inclusive and participatory in nature. Examples include adaptive management, interactive and adaptive planning and shared decision-making (SDM). These emerging approaches also tended to operate consciously at a number of scales, ranging from the local to the international, at least in part because of what has been called globalization. This paper ends by focusing on some salient characteristics of the interactive and adaptive or civic approach and some means of building capacity to implement it more effectively, for example through forums, civic research groups and landscape guides.

1. The Meaning of Rural Sustainability The concept of rural Sustainability is a complex one. We can think of the urban and the rural where the latter includes the cultivated and the wild. Yet it is obviously difficult to decide where one begins and the other ends. Urban, rural and the wild merge into one another. Distinctions among them are often made arbitrarily for accounting, legal or related reasons. Sustainability is an even more elusive concept. What is it that we are trying to sustain in a rural or other area? Is it family or other social conditions rather than corporate ones? Is it a way of life? Is it a mix of agricultural, lumbering, mining, recreational, residential and associated land use patterns? I suggest that the terms "rural" and "Sustainability"—and the larger concept of rural Sustainability—are used for the most part not to define more precisely what the nature of the rural landscape should be, but what it should not be. The use of rural Sustainability and other related concepts seems mainly to be a way of reacting to unwanted changes in the economic, social and environmental conditions in areas outside of cities or urban areas. Many rural landscapes are undergoing pressure to move to an industrial and corporate model. The push is toward lowering costs through greater specialization and efficiency in production so as to be able to compete in a wider continental or global "open market." These pressures, among other things, lead to: a focus on a narrower range of crops or livestock; greater use of increasingly specific fertilizers and other advanced high yield

G. Nelson/ Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada - and Elsewhere

233

technology; lower labour requirements; farm amalgamation; decline of small villages and towns; draining of wetlands; loss of natural areas and the ecological services that they provide, and traditional ways of life. The term "rural sustainability" seems to be a way of conceptualizing a model or vision intended to avoid these frequently deleterious impacts on affected people and environment.

2. Some General Considerations in Planning My own contribution to this discussion of rural sustainability as a better way forward will not offer specific solutions or "magic bullets" leading to a more specific alternative vision. Rather my focus will be on ways of planning, managing and making decisions that should assist in avoiding the more extreme changes that seem to be of concern to those interested in rural sustainability. My observations arise for the most part from Canada, although reference will be made to the United States and other countries. My hope is that these observations will be useful to other countries such as Poland at a time when they may be about to enter the European Union and so encounter the development of an industrial or corporate approach to rural areas in a very direct way. In making my observations I would initially like to set out some general considerations. The first is that my observations are coloured by my background as a university professor of geography and planning. As a result, I tend to have a broad or inclusive view rather than a specialized or exclusive one. In this respect, I often describe myself as a human ecologist with an interest in policy and planning. This research interest has been expressed over the last four decades in numerous situations involving the evolution and development of land use and environmental policy and practice. These include experiences in university administration, as well as with government and nongovernment organizations. The result of all these experiences is that I have certain understandings or perspectives that influence my observations here. The first is that although initiative or leadership may vary with the situation, an array of both government and non-government organizations, including universities, are generally involved directly or indirectly in any significant policy or planning situation. The second is that for a variety of economic, social, environmental and institutional or political reasons, the roles of government and nongovernment organizations change with circumstances and with time. An individual organization or set of related organizations may plan toward preferred goals and objectives. However, seldom do these plans proceed in a straight line. The plans are influenced and modified by the responses of other organizations. Furthermore, once a decision is made, many organizations and individuals cannot be expected to fall in line but rather to search for alternative ways of meeting their own values, interests and goals. In other words, planning and decision making tend to be adaptive and frequently do not proceed in accordance with initial plans. Another important point in this regard is the occurrence of unforeseen circumstances or "surprises" which can have profound effects on planning, goals, objectives, policies, procedures and directions. Yet another general consideration is that government and non-governmental organizations involve a range of perceptions of a field of interest and these frequently overlap. Boundaries between research disciplines and corporate and civic sectors of interest generally cannot be precisely drawn. A related point is that specialized or focused disciplines, or sectors of interest, and the agencies and organizations that house them, often are viewed as sharing similar backgrounds, attitudes and values. Yet these organizations often contain considerable variation in interest and position, depending on the topic, issue or challenge at hand. It

234

G. Nelson /Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada — and Elsewhere

follows from this that the names we apply to disciplines, sectors or other foci of interest to us, may give the appearance of, but frequently are not, precise and universally understood. The approximations of meaning inherent in much of our language and terminology lead to the expectation that our terms and meanings will frequently or even generally have to be discussed, evaluated and negotiated with others who do not share our understandings. Such general considerations in planning have been noted by knowledgeable and experienced persons since at least the 1960s. Observations on these considerations often have been made in the context of evaluations of the results of a rational goal-driven approach by corporate agencies or organizations in and outside of government. These critiques or evaluations have frequently resulted in the advocacy of alternative planning approaches, theories or models [1]. These include, for example, incremental planning (which proceeds on a short term opportunistic basis), mixed scanning (which involves longer term goals), and transactive planning (which basically advocates negotiation and trade-offs among organizations and individuals in arriving at achievable goals, objectives, policies and procedures in the mutual interest) [1-2]. Other relevant approaches and theories include adaptive management. This builds on computer-based modelling and iterative consultation with affected parties to anticipate the effects of certain alternative policies and procedures, avoid surprises, and select a desirable course forward [3-4]. More recent variants include shared decision-making, which involves bringing the varied organizations or groups involved in a field of interest together to negotiate trade-offs and plan the way forward with the assistance rather than the direction of government [5]. Another approach, which will be discussed more fully later, is interactive and adaptive or civic planning. This builds, for example, on transactive planning, by identifying rather precisely the processes that are used by individuals and organizations in making decisions and advocating that these processes form the basic framework for interaction and adaptation among the diverse interests involved in a planning situation. An interactive and adaptive approach is an inherent part of civic planning. It involves bringing diverse groups together to negotiate and learn their way forward [6-8]. What I want to do now is present some observations on the experiences that led to my current focus on the civics approach to planning and decision-making. The civics approach arose gradually from experiences with policy and practice over a forty year period. In describing these experiences, I shall proceed in a chronological fashion, moving through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Although this decadal approach is not always precise, it does provide a good working framework for this paper. Ultimately, the paper has to do with the changing roles and relationships among governments and private organizations and individuals. 3. The 1960s In Canada in the 1960s, the federal government was the dominant player. In many ways this was a result of WWII, when, in the interests of victory, the government assumed sweeping economic and political powers and worked increasingly with the private corporations which were the mainstay of the war machine. Industrial growth reached high levels during the war and continued to expand in the 1950s and 1960s, supplying major markets in Europe, which were still recovering from the conflict. Populations in Canada grew rapidly naturally and through migration. Incomes rose, as did housing, jobs, interest in leisure time, and consumerism. The side effects of the growth were numerous and included growing concern for working and social conditions, education and the environment. Concerns about the effects

G. Nelson / Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada — and Elsewhere

235

of growth upon the environment were salient, notably pollution of streams and lakes. In rural areas increasing use of phosphates and other fertilizers was seen as contributing strongly to eutrophication, for example, of Lake Erie, which at one point, was portrayed as "dead." Expansion of agriculture, lumbering, mining and other activities caused concern and conflicts. National parks were planned to meet leisure and recreational needs. These plans came into conflict with logging and other operations as well as with the growing strength of the wilderness movement. This movement worked to protect large areas not only from logging and other exploitive activities, but also from road construction and other technology intended to facilitate recreation and tourism in relatively undisturbed areas in the parks. People increasingly saw themselves as being affected by government and corporate decisions without any opportunity for input. Interest grew in the way decisions were made and in greater public participation in them. In the case of planning for national parks and other protected areas, as well as for environmental issues generally, the results included more relevant research by universities and an increase in the number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) evaluating projects, making alternative proposals and lobbying for what they saw as better decisions by government. Examples of such organizations in Canada included the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Pollution Probe, and the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. These organizations often included academics and other professionals who undertook analyses, held outreach and educational meetings, and participated in representations to government with other citizens. At this time, I was involved with a leading NGO, the National and Provincial Parks Association, later the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). This and other environmental groups were able to persuade the government to produce park master plans, as they were then called, for public comment, hold public meetings on them, and consider the responses in decisions. Such NGO activity led to the cancellation of extensive road proposals and the large Lake Louise downhill ski initiative developed by Imperial Oil for Banff National Park. Such losses were not received well by some government planners. After the cancellation of the Lake Louise proposal, the national park agency pulled away from public hearings on a national scale and focused on planning in consultation with local people in more limited settings. In retrospect, salient changes in the 1960s were toward the use of more research and information as well as public participation in planning and decision-making, which was still seen as largely the responsibility of governments.

4. The 1970s In the 1970s some major events occurred which led to significant changes in the way planning and decision-making proceeded, and eventually to changes in the role of government, especially at the federal level. One major event was the so-called "oil shock" of the early 1970s, when Middle Eastern and other oil producers raised the price of crude oil from about $4.00 a barrel to $10.00 and higher. This increase reverberated throughout the economy, raising prices generally. This in turn, led to inflationary pressures and to the setting of high interest rates intended to curtail these pressures. This situation was an unanticipated one, a 'surprise'. It led to expansion in the search for and development of oil in Canada and the U.S., particularly Arctic oil, which had been too expensive prior to the increases in oil prices. One major result was the development of the Prudhoe Bay petroleum deposits on the Alaskan north slope and the construction of the Alaska Highway Pipeline to facilitate transport of oil by tanker to the west coast of the U.S. Intensive efforts were made to find oil in northern Canada, notably the Mackenzie Delta area in the west Arctic. What was found was not as attractive as the Prudhoe deposits,

236


but nevertheless led to vigorous planning for pipeline routes to carry the oil south into Canada and the U.S. [9]. Seismic and other exploratory work led to concern about disturbance of the northern environment, for example the exposure and melting of permafrost and interference with caribou and other wildlife. The federal government began to issue exploratory permits and leases for oil without adequately considering environmental consequences or the effects on native people, especially the Inuit or Eskimo, who had never made a formal treaty for their land with Canada. At this time other departments of the federal government began to push for more national parks and other protected areas in the north in order to conserve the natural environment and wildlife. This response, as well as the proposals for oil exploration, led to conflict with the native people who did not want land alienated from hunting and other longstanding traditional activities essential to their way of life. Nor were the native people interested in developments over which they had little control and offered few if any benefits to them. These and other changes led to some significant responses by the federal government, notably the introduction of northern land use regulations to control exploration for oil and its effects on land and people. These government responses were only partially satisfactory and led to more and more pressure for greater public participation in planning from the outset of a proposal, from the setting of goals and objectives through to the decision. The changes also led to growing concern about the quality and quantity of information used to plan and make decisions. More and more pressure was put on governments and corporations by NGOs and others to base their plans on use of environmental and socio-cultural—as well as engineering and economic—information. All these changes and pressures in turn led to the creation of new laws, policies and regulations requiring the use of environmental information in planning. The changes and pressures also led to the creation of public commissions, such as the (Thomas) Berger Commission [1011], an arms length initiative set up by the federal government to assess the effects of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline on the native people of the area. This Commission eventually recommended a ten year moratorium to give the native people time to prepare more fully for the development and effects of any pipeline. The Berger Commission was a landmark in the history of planning and decisionmaking in Canada. A profound change that the Commission introduced was to hear and assess systematically both scientific or technical and local knowledge in preparing its report. Formal quasi-legal meetings were held with the scientific and technical people and informal village meetings with the native people. Public meetings were also held in southern Canada. Substantial effort was made to create widespread understanding of the issues and their implementation from the standpoint of the Commission through the press and other means. Another outstanding feature of the Commission's work was that it produced a very comprehensive environmental and socio-cultural assessment of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline proposal and its effects [10]. This detailed assessment by and large withstood critical scrutiny, with the result that the ensuing public debate was more about values and visions rather than the information used for the recommendations. The report was accepted by the government of Canada. The Berger Commission established a clear role and general procedures for public assessments of planning proposals. The Commission contributed to the growing pressure for the wider use of environmental and other public assessments in planning and decisionmaking in Canada. Such assessments were seen as involving the range of ecological, social, economic and technical knowledge needed for planning and decision-making. However, for a variety of reasons, including the specialized and sectoral organization of academic

G. Nelson / Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada - and Elsewhere

237

disciplines and government departments respectively, the assessment process generally proceeded along more focused rather than general or comprehensive lines. Various kinds of assessments were introduced which improved the information field but were difficult to integrate in making broad-based decisions. Examples of such assessments are environmental (EIA), social (SIA), technology (TA) and risk assessments (RA). The EIA process became the dominant one. It was initially a federal administrative requirement in Canada and did not become a legal one like its predecessor in the United States until the 1980s. Another response to oil and gas and related initiatives, especially in Northern Canada, was for First Nations and Metis peoples to press their claims for land and other rights. The result was the creation of the federally led "land claims" process, which involved comprehensive studies of traditional land use and other activities in various parts of Canada [12]. The studies were to be used as evidence in land claims negotiations primarily with the federal government. Such studies and situations arose for example, in the 1970s in the Boreal or Taiga lands of Quebec and Manitoba, as part of land claims negotiations with native people. As a result of such negotiations, native people did reach agreements with governments and the NGOs on national parks and protected areas in some parts of the country. In these agreements the motivations for management of national parks changed from the prohibition of hunting and other strict protection measures associated with the wilderness concept long held in Southern Canada, to a management regime that provided for traditional hunting and other comparable harvesting activities by native people, with appropriate conservation safeguards. In the new«northern national parks much more control was also placed on tourism, a major activity in such parks in the south. Management was also conducted on a shared or co-management basis between First Nations and the federal government, rather than by the government alone. Shared or co-management arrangements were also extended to other traditionally led activities such as game management, notably of caribou herds. Amid all this discussion of land claims and other general implications of northern petroleum development, the focus switched to the west Arctic and proposals to construct a pipeline for Alaska gas through the south Yukon to western Canada and the U.S. The South Yukon route was studied intensively from the economic, social, environmental and engineering standpoints. Detailed environmental assessments were undertaken with extensive consultation and numerous public meetings. Much of this was due to the efforts of the Alaskan Highway Pipeline Panel. This panel was led by a Winnipeg engineer, Carson Templeton, and mainly financed by the Foothills Pipeline Company which had an interest in establishing a body of independent information which could be used by government decision-makers in Canada and the U.S. Eventually a route was chosen and widely accepted on environmental grounds. However, the pipeline was never built due to high costs. At the end of the 1970s interest rates rose towards the twenty percent level in Canada and the U.S. Also the Alaska Highway Pipeline built earlier to transport oil from Purdhoe Bay, northern Alaska, had costs that far exceeded initial estimates, causing further worries about the possible costs of a Yukon gas line. A major result of the various oil and gas proposals of the 1970s was rising concern about the dominant role of big corporations and the federal government. Numerous miscalculations, errors and omissions were made. Associated with this was growing worry about the adequacy of information for decision-making, especially scientific information that was usually structured along disciplinary and specialized lines and was difficult to integrate into a holistic, social, environmental and political picture of the effects and requirements of the proposals. Government departments, corporations and universities responded slowly to the

238

C. Nelson/Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada - and Elsewhere

integration challenge. Native and other local people also challenged the adequacy and dominance of the scientific and technical information of a biological and a socio-economic kind. They said that they frequently knew more about the likely effects of development proposals on environments and society than the scientists who had not lived long in their homelands and did not know the land like the people. This, and the recognition of their indigenous ways of knowing by Thomas Berger and others, as well as rising concern among anthropologists, ecologists, geographers and other researchers with more holistic interests, led to increasing questions about the nature and validity of the information field. These kinds of challenges in turn led to increased questioning of the rational approach to planning in which goals and objectives are set out at the outset by an organizing interest group, agency or corporation. These goals and objectives ideally were to be robust enough to drive information collection, analysis, assessment and decisionmaking throughout the development of a proposal. Planning theory and procedures began to change as a result of doubts about this rational approach, with many of the changes having been heralded in the 1960s because of similar uncertainties about commercial and other developments in urban regions. Adaptive management, with its orientation to wide consultation and iterative monitoring, analysis and adaptation of unfolding proposals or alternatives, became more popular [4]. Rational planning also began to give way to the other alternatives that arose in the 1960s and 1970s, including mixed scanning and transactive planning. These theories like adaptive management, recognize uncertainties and surprises and the likelihood of unforeseen changes in the decision-field. Another approach that tended to attract increasing support in the 1970s was that of "learning from the experience of others." Gilbert White and other geographers and resource analysts pushed this idea strongly in their research on flood and other hazard experiences in North America, and other parts of the world [13]. U.S. and Canadian researchers and planners made strong efforts to learn from the development of North Sea petroleum by Norway and the U.K. in the 1970's. The Scottish and especially the Shetland Islands experience, which I assessed at the time for the Canadian government, was especially relevant in illustrating how local governments could work with other governments, corporations and NGOs to control the range of oil development and its environmental effects as well as produce substantial economic and social benefits for local people [14]. Of particular interest was the development of a sophisticated water quality/pollution monitoring system under the control of the local government along with a locally operated spill or damage response organization. This Shetland experience set an international example of the importance of an effective monitoring system as a basis for continuous reporting and response. The local council complemented the water quality and pollution monitoring with a social and economic monitoring system developed and reported upon regularly by municipal planners. This was for use by the public and decision-makers in maintaining the petroleum development system that they wanted.

5. The 1980s By the 1980s the economic situation in Canada and many other countries was bleak, with high inflation, interest rates, and slower development overall, including sectors outside oil and gas. The dominant role of government, especially the federal government, in planning and policy, owed much to a large bureaucracy and to budgets, which were increasingly costly and difficult to maintain. This was also a time when the dominant government role in regulating development was increasingly in question. Complaints from business and commercial organizations, as well as some provincial governments, about the costs and perceived inefficiencies of regulation on development


239

were so great as to cause the federal government to agree to an assessment of their effects in the late 1970s. These assessments were undertaken for various sectors and concerns such as forestry, fisheries and chemical industries. One involved the Nanticoke Industrial Complex, a new iron and steel facility, a coal-burning power plant and a petroleum refinery, as well as anticipated related industrial developments. The Nanticoke Complex was built in a rural farming or "greenfield" area in Southern Ontario [15]. The assessment by a team at the University of Waterloo concluded that the project planning and regulation had been reasonably effective and efficient in protecting forests, wildlife, water quality and other aspects of the environment, without incurring undue costs to the corporations or governments involved. Concern was expressed however, about risks to air quality in the environs of the large coal-burning power plant. It was noted that the stacks were not fitted with "best available technology" like that used in similar plants in the U.S. Recommendations were made for careful monitoring, assessment and reporting of the emissions from this plant. Monitoring was carried out for some years. However, analysis, assessment and reporting of the results were weak. The plant is now recognized as a major source of air pollution in the Great Lakes area. In our assessment of the regulations applying to the Nanticoke Complex we were required to focus on the environmental effects in the natural sense and not on the sociocultural effects of the development. These were considerable, including provincial pressure for amalgamations and other changes in local government with the intent of making the planning and implementation of the Nanticoke project more efficient and effective. The provincial government also forecasted major increases in local employment and population because of the project and purchased large blocks of land for new town developments. The results of this rational planning were not well foreseen by the province, which got some surprises. First, the local people did not accept the political changes and in recent years some have been rescinded. The employment and population projections also turned out to be inaccurate. The purchased land and new towns were not needed. Similar costly situations arose in other western countries such as the U.K. and U.S. Government revenues needed for salary and other expenses were falling. More and more income was devoted to paying interest on rising debt. Labour was also discontented, as wages were not seen as high enough to cover rising costs of inflation. Business was also unhappy not only because of regulations and other government controls, but also because wages and costs of operations had been rising for years. The stage was set for radical change and it appeared in the form of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of England. She began to cut budgets, "face down" the unions, and introduce what has been called "free market theory" to governments and society generally in the U.K. These ideas were picked up by Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and in Canada by Brian Mulroney, who was Prime Minister for much of the 1980s. In Canada major cuts were made in fields of previous interest to the federal government. A series of tax reductions was begun in Canada as elsewhere, to stimulate more investment and growth in the economy. The cuts and associated programs and staff reductions fell heavily on social and environmental programs. The National Parks and Canadian Wildlife agencies suffered substantial reductions. Environmental assessment was overhauled, put on a legal basis, and linked more closely to provincial policies and practices in the interests of efficiency and jurisdictional responsibilities. Later in the Mulroney years, when concern about environmental issues rose to its highest peak in Canadian history, the federal government introduced the Green Plan which put considerable funding back into environmental programs, although often on a short rather than a longer term basis. Agricultural support programs were cut substantially and favourable wheat and other transport arrangements, such as the Crows Nest Rate through the Rockies, were eliminated to the chagrin of the farmers of the prairies. Transfer payments from the federal

240


government were also cut, with considerable effect on provincial funding for education and health services. Some provinces, often in rural areas, subsequently closed hospitals. Overall, the role of the federal government in public affairs was reduced substantially in many fields of public interest in both urban and rural areas. At this time however, federal grants and other incentives were provided for research and innovation in fields that appeared to hold promise for economic development and trade, including biotechnology, chemical and other fields relevant to agriculture. The result over the ensuing decades was to reinforce the tendency to larger farms, more hybrid crops, powerful fertilizers, and other technology associated with industrial agriculture. These changes led to fewer farms, lower rural populations, economic and social stress in villages, towns and the countryside, and a shift from relatively diverse family farming to highly specialized corporate agriculture. The shift to corporate industrial agriculture is still very much underway and involves rising controversy and conflict, for example in Ontario, where large pig farms housing many thousands of animals, are a focus of concern. These farms add massive amounts of manure and other substances to rural environments already under growing stress from nitrate and other wastes from the increasingly intense agriculture characteristic of much of the Ontario and the Canadian countryside. These changes have also created much concern about the loss of cultural traditions and heritage. In the late 1980s, concern about loss of heritage led to attempts by a team at the University of Waterloo to work with others in bringing those interested in the heritage or traditional lifestyles of the countryside as well as urban areas into closer working relations with persons and agencies with a strong interest and expertise in environmental assessment [6]. These attempts were ultimately not very successful, although perhaps for this and other reasons, assessments were, for a few years, increasingly socio-economic as well as environmental. The front end of the process was opened up through pre-assessment consultation and scoping about significant issues among government agencies, business and the wider citizenry. Electronic mail and web sites came into growing use. Some very fundamental changes came about as a result of the large-scale cuts in the federal government's role in numerous fields of public endeavor beginning in the 1980's. One of these was a shift to greater private volunteerism in many aspects of public affairs. This shift was encouraged by government as a way to compensate for its reduced role. It is also a shift that is in line with free market thinking and a neo-liberal philosophy where the focus is on the individual and the community to take greater responsibility for their own welfare and that of their neighbours, relying less on the support and budgets of governments. Many non-government organizations (for example, nature and environmental conservation organizations) saw the budget cuts and the calls for volunteerism, and "partnerships" as opportunities to advance their agendas. The Nature Conservancy has for example, been highly effective during the 1980s and 1990s in raising funds from business and the citizenry to purchase properties with high biodiversity or other natural values. These properties are often in highly exploited areas such as the rural lands of Ontario, the Maritimes, and the Prairies. These conservation purchases are often turned over on a partnership basis to provincial park or other government agencies for management. Other non-government agencies which have contributed substantially to protecting nature in the rural and wider land use matrix include Ducks Unlimited and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Ducks Unlimited has broadened its interests beyond protection of waterfowl and waterfowl habitat for hunting to conservation of marsh and wetland systems for a variety of species as well as for other uses. Ducks Unlimited and allied organizations have, through the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), used easements, purchase and resale, and other private stewardship programs in many parts of

C. Nelson / Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada - and Elsewhere

241

Canada, U.S. and Mexico [16]. WWF Canada, along with other NGOs such as the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Canadian Nature Federation, as well as provincial organizations such as the Federation of Ontario Field Naturalists and the Alberta Wilderness Society, have led in lobbying and working with government on new parks and conservation initiatives, lest the decline of the government role fall too far behind needs and obligations. Two examples can be used to show the scale and significance of these efforts. WWF Canada was the originator and the leader of the Endangered Spaces Campaign, which pressured and worked with the federal and provincial governments to reach a target of 12% of their lands in national parks and other protected areas by the year 2000. This approximately ten-year program did not achieve its overall targets. It was however, highly successful in securing substantial increases in protected parks and reserves all across Canada. The second example concerns the often large wildland corridors, bioregions or ecoregions that have been promoted across Canada principally by NGOs such as CPAWS. A notable illustration is the Yukon to Yellowstone or Y2Y initiative [17-18]. This stretches for thousands of miles along the Rocky Mountain spine in both Canada and the U.S. The initiative is not yet 10 years old, but has been associated with a number of new protected areas along the corridor, including a large scale multi-faceted protected area in the Northern Rockies of British Columbia which has involved innovative partnerships and co-operation among governments, lumbering and mining companies and local people. The Endangered Species Program led by WWF Canada was linked to the concept of sustainable development initiated internationally by WWF International, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in 1980. The concept was further promulgated globally by the World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED) and the U.N. in 1987. The central dictum was that development and environment were opposite sides of the same coin so that development should proceed so as to not curtail environmental and other opportunities for future generations. The meaning of the concept on the ground has been debated ever since. It has caused considerable anxiety among numerous conservation organizations which see it as a possible name for somewhat modified "business as usual." The sustainable development concept has, however, provided a platform for conservation and development interests to work out some of their differences in a way that no other concept has been able to do for decades. The sustainable development idea and the Brundtland report have had significant effects in nature conservation. For example, the 12% target set by WWF Canada and allied organizations for the Endangered Species Program was one derived from the Brundtland Commission. The sustainable development idea has also had its effects on farm organizations in both government and the private sector. In both these sectors the response to the sustainable development idea has become intertwined with other responses to environmental issues. Independent farm organizations and provincial agencies in Ontario have co-operated in developing an environmental farm plan program. Thousands of farmers have completed these plans. However, the extent of actual implementation of the measures in the plans is in doubt, as the effects are not systematically monitored, at least for public use. Numerous farmers have also not entered the farm plan program because it is voluntary. Experience with farm plans in areas such as Iowa in the U.S. suggest that numerous farmers will attempt to "free ride" and that legislation, regulation, monitoring and inspection may be necessary to implement such a program effectively and equitably. Beyond fanning per se, the sustainable development idea has provided the basis for more effective articulation and acceptance of a broader view of land use and the varying role of protected areas in it. In my own work, the concept has assisted in the development

242


of a framework called the Land Use Spectrum [19]. The spectrum portrays broad categories of conservation planning and management. It relates these in a general way to broad types of land use as well as various types of applicable laws, policies, agencies and institutional arrangements. The key thing about the Land Use Spectrum and the underlying idea of sustainable development is that nature conservation and the associated a*ray of parks and protected areas have a role not only in remote wildland areas but also in offering a range of ecological and socio-economic services in agricultural and urban areas. This kind of thinking is a radical departure from pre-Brundtland thought at least in Canada, where nature conservation was seen mainly in terms of protecting large areas for a diverse array of plants, animals and ecosystems in places distant from cities. People were seen as concentrating more and more in cities which would be the economic engines of the future. People from the cities would visit the distant national parks and other protected areas when on vacation from their year-round urban employment. In the 1980s and especially following Brundtland, it was apparent that this earlier model did not fit the natural, recreational, educational, cultural and other needs of changing societies. First Nations and other perceptions were not in line with the model. Long vacations often were not available to urban folk because of the struggle for income, this being contrary to the high leisure and income future foreseen when the model was developed in the 1960s. The pre-Brundtland model also did not reflect an accurate vision of the impact of growing cities on forests, wetlands and ecosystems generally. The model did not foresee the need that would arise for protected areas to conserve water quality as well as guard against deteriorating air quality and climate change. The search for technical "silver bullets" to solve or massively reduce these challenges is underway now, but there is no doubt this must be accompanied by protection of natural areas to conserve and sustain water, air and other ecological processes and services. These areas are also needed to give people locked in cities some understanding of—and access to—nature for recreational, tourism, educational and other purposes. Changes in ecological and social perspectives of national parks and other protected areas have been paralleled by highly significant changes in the scientific and scholarly underpinnings of nature conservation [20-23]. Perhaps the most fundamental of these changes is the rise of ecosystem theory and practice. The concept of ecosystem as an interacting network or community of plants, animals, soils, water and climate has been with us since the late 19th century and was reasonably well known in the scientific community by the 1960s. However, ecosystem thinking did not have much impact on public policy and practice until the 1980's. At that time a series of advances in this thought brought it much more strongly to the attention of decision-makers and the wider public. Among the advances were those in biogeography. Notable here is the finding that the number of bird and other species in a wildland is a function of its area. The tendency is for smaller more fragmented areas to lose species over time unless replenished from the outside. Connectivity among natural areas is therefore seen as vital to the conservation of wildlife populations. These advances in biogeography were reinforced and elaborated upon by the development of landscape ecology with its notions of different patterns of linked natural areas and corridors and their role in conserving wildlife. Landscape ecology, in turn, was complemented by the development of the concept of biodiversity as a measure of natural value and as a goal for scientists, planners and people. The foregoing advances were all in line with the development of biological conservation or conservation biology. This integrative field included attempts to establish minimum necessary wildlife habitat for conservation of large carnivores such as the wolf, the cougar and the grizzly bear. Proponents of advances in biogeography, landscape ecology, biodiversity and conservation biology began to apply their work to public policy on a large scale, for

G. Nelson /Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada - and Elsewhere

243

example through what came to be known as the Wildlands Project and allied initiatives, which began largely in the U.S. [18]. The aim was to advance arrangements for the protection and restoration in any region of up to 40% of the land in the wild areas seen as necessary to maintain complete ecosystems, including wolves and large upper level carnivores. This thinking spread to Canada and Mexico and large bioregional or ecoregional planning exercises are now underway including the Y2Y, the Sky Islands across the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico, the Appalachians region and the Northern Forest in northwestern U.S. and Canada. Another significant field in which theoretical advances have been made is in ecological economics [24-25]. The concept of ecological economics attempts to address numerous concerns about the theory and practice of economics since WWII. Briefly, economics is seen as having focused too narrowly on development programs and projects and not enough on externalities such as the environmental and social effects of change. Economic measures of progress also include an array of expenditures that are perceived by critics as remedial rather than developmental, for example cleaning up oil spills. Traditional economics also does not tend to value the ecological services provided by wetlands or other ecosystems, for example in maintaining water quality or flood control. Ecological economics has developed in response to these failures. It is an attempt to broaden from the historic tendency to place economic value primarily on minerals, trees or other "natural" resources, to placing value on entire ecosystems and the climatic, hydrological or other services they offer to humans and other life. Ecological economics is also associated with the recent rise of common property theory with its demonstration that social and institutional safeguards can and have been used to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons advanced by Hardin [26]. The third major change of the 1980s that is of interest here is in planning theory and practice. Earlier I touched on the tendency to move from predominantly rational and corporate driven planning to more inclusive participatory planning. The adaptive management approach of Holling and associates falls into this category [4]. In the 1980s moves were made to go beyond participatory planning into what has been called shared decision-making or civic planning [5]. The best-known experience of protected areas and shared decision-making (SDM) has been in British Columbia, notably in the context of regional planning on a province-wide basis. The shared decision-making approach in B.C. has been undertaken at two scales. There have been regional plans for relatively large areas such as Vancouver Island and local management plans for smaller districts and municipalities. These efforts involve assembling a wide range of participants from different government sectors and civic areas of interest to work cooperatively on negotiations and trade-offs among often-competing land uses. In most areas the groups have been able to work through to consensus. In only a few cases did the B.C. government apparently have to decide about disagreements. These shared decision-making (SDM) approaches cover large areas including forests, ranches, mines and towns. They are comprehensive plans which attempt to integrate the rural and the urban by bringing everyone to the table and by assigning them with responsibility to do the job. The civics model is in many ways similar to SDM. Both will be referred to again after a brief summary of changes in the 1990s and early 2000s. 6. The 1990s and Early 2000s About 1990, the Mulroney conservative government was replaced by a Liberal government led by Jean Chretien. Many of the policies developed by the conservatives in the 1980s were continued however, including cuts in federal government expenditures. New

244


governments were also elected in provinces such as Ontario and Alberta. These governments introduced budget cuts that were as profound as those made earlier by the federal government. These provincial cuts also tended to fall for the most part, on environmental and social programs, with cuts also being made in support for schools and elementary and secondary education. Responsibility for a number of programs was downloaded to the municipal governments, often without sufficient resources to carry them out effectively, efficiently and equitably. The Canada - U.S. and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) agreements negotiated by the federal government in the 1980s have led to many changes, for example in agriculture. Some of the effects can be judged as having been positive. The wine industry of Ontario has been transformed by responding to more open markets through improvements in technology and in marketing in the U.S. and Europe. In other cases relatively few changes have occurred, for example milk producers in Ontario continue to operate with market boards, quotas and some controls on prices. Similar arrangements apply to poultry. Great pressure has been put on Canada to open these markets to U.S. competition but no major changes have been made to date. Things are mixed on the prairies. Growers of Canadian durum wheat seem to have gained increased markets in the U.S. at least partly as a result of the agreements. However, with the recent large increases in farm subsidies by the Bush administration, and the high levels of support available for European Union farmers, Canadian producers are now frequently at considerable disadvantage. Production has also been adversely affected by droughts and heavy rains in recent years. These weather hazards are often seen as being at least partly a result of global warming and climate change. In British Columbia, the vagaries and inconsistencies associated with NAFTA are evident in the lumber industry where the U.S. has imposed substantial duties on Canadian exports. This has been done in spite of many protests from Canada as well as from U.S. consumers. This is a very complex situation which involves among other things, allegations of dumping "cheap lumber." It also involves national differences about U.S. auctioning timber on the open market as opposed to Canadian logging agreements with industry for timber blocks controlled and licensed by provincial governments. Public understanding of the lumber issue does not seem to be high in either Canada or the U.S. Press and media discussions tend to take a nationalistic rather more than a careful view. Moreover, there is little doubt that in Canada at least, civic capacity to understand and get involved in issues from an environmental perspective has been continually reduced by decisions to cut budgets and also change the guidelines for school programs. The high schools have suffered from appreciable reduction in environmental programs as well as in civics education generally. The result is that people in urban and rural areas are less aware of environmental and broad social concerns and so less capable or inclined to participate actively in civic planning and decision-making. This leads to the few important observations that I wish to make about the recent surprising spate of financial scandals and corporate failures that have befallen the U.S. and to a lesser and still uncertain extent, Canada. The Enron and other corporate frauds and associated failures have led to a considerable loss of faith in the free market approach as manifest, for example, in the sharp downturn in the stock market, especially in the U.S. Doubt is growing about the role of the free market in public affairs generally. Calls have been made for renewed recognition of the regulatory function of government in financial as well as in water quality and other aspects of environment. In Ontario for example, e-coli outbreaks arising from pollution of a well by manure leakage from a nearby farm caused a number of deaths and led to a public review known as the Walkerton Inquiry. The ensuing report laid considerable responsibility on the provincial government for failing to ensure accurate, timely and effective monitoring and reporting on water quality. Circumstances

G. Nelson/Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada - and Elsewhere

245

similar to those in the Walkerton case also may apply elsewhere in the province. Considerable blame for the Walkerton disaster was also laid on municipal staff and decision-makers for failures at that level. Numerous recommendations were made by the review body, but relatively little seems to have been done so far to change the situation. The province is, however, in the process of reviewing and passing a new nutrient management act for Ontario's farmers. Some increases in funds have also been made available for improved monitoring and inspection and environmental planning.

7. Summary and Conclusions A number of implications for planning policy and practice can be drawn from the foregoing discussion about environmental, resource and land use history in Canada. 1. Situations involving policy and practice in environmental, resource and land use affairs generally are pluralist in nature. They directly and indirectly involve numerous organizations, groups and individuals in government and outside it. 2. Historically, planning in such circumstances has focused on a particular project or field of interest and typically has been undertaken by a central organization or group of organizations using a rationale or corporate approach. This goals-driven approach has been modified in recent years to include wider scoping and consultation with other groups and the citizenry in preliminary and ensuing stages of a proposal or project. 3. Rational and corporate plans generally encounter opposition from affected parties. The opposition may harden and become more protracted as additional parties become concerned about the issue. Deadlines and other procedures can be used to limit opposition. Ultimately, decisions often are not accepted by opposing groups which do not see the decisions as the answer or the end, but rather as something to be modified or overturned in the future, in terms of their own values and interests. In recent years, wideranging marketing or communication procedures, as well as conflict resolution and mitigation processes, have been used increasingly to facilitate rational and corporate planning. 4. Scientific, scholarly and technical information tends to be used by rational planners in analyzing the field or project of interest and making their case to decisionmakers. Pressure is high to have this kind of information accepted as the rule by all concerned groups and individuals. In the last twenty years or so however, groups with different values, interests and experience, such as Canada's First Nations, have stressed the advantages of and the case for greater use of their own local or indigenous knowledge. The door has opened gradually to other ways of knowing. 5. Since the late 1960s, affected parties have pressed for the use of environmental and other assessments as a key process in making decisions about a plan or proposal. Affected parties have been especially interested in assessment as a means of furthering public understanding of and engagement in environmental, resources and land-use planning and decision-making. A fundamental aim has been to make planning and decision-making more inclusive. 6. Interest in assessment has been supplemented by calls by scientists, scholars and affected parties for greater use of monitoring in recording the actual changes and effects proceeding from a plan or decision. Theoretically, such monitoring would reveal whether the effects and changes are in accord with the predictions, which are normally an inherent part of rational planning, or whether adaptations are needed in a project. Monitoring has been accepted and successfully used in a number of proposals and projects, but its use and effectiveness is challenged, among other things, by its long-term nature, its costs, and the question of who should be responsible for it. Other challenges include heightened interest

246

G. Nelson / Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainahility in Canada - and Elsewhere

among politicians and senior managers in what is monitored and how it is reported. There is also some tendency to collect data but not to analyze and report on the results. 7. Over the years, various alternative planning approaches have been put forward to deal with the deficiencies of the rational model. These alternatives include incremental planning, mixed scanning, transactive planning, and adaptive management. An additional approach that has not yet been mentioned in this text as yet is advocacy planning. This is undertaken on behalf of challenged or disadvantaged groups, which do not have the capacity to deal with the information or procedural requirements of the rational approach. One question about advocacy planning, which frequently is quite effective, has to do with its professional nature and whether its use builds capacity in challenged groups to develop more effective plans and proposals themselves. 8. The public planning and decision-making arena has become a very contentious place, particularly since the decline of the formerly very strong federal government role, and the rise of a free market approach in the 1980s. The new planning and decision-making arena is characterized by numerous proposals and interactions among numerous actors and affected parties. These proposals and interactions are not brought into the public domain through regulatory or other guidelines to the same extent as formerly. Efficiency has become the key criterion in planning and decision-making, with effectiveness second and equity a distant third. Efficient achievement of goals seems to have become much more important than the effects of the processes used to achieve them. 9. Increasing use and manipulation of social and institutional systems in a free market context has been associated with growing dominance of a relatively small number of well-resourced big players amid a profusion of smaller, less well supported ones. During much of the 1990s while economies were growing and considerable capital was available though stock market and other earnings, the small players could gain access to grants as well as technical and other resources from foundations and other organizations. These small players could then act with some significance in the public arena. With the steep decline in growth, the fall of the stock market, and other changes in recent years, it is increasingly questionable how well the small players will fare in the future. The courts offer some hope in this regard in both Canada and the U.S. But the legal route can be expensive. And participants face the prospect of having to pay substantial court costs, if the decision goes the wrong way. Looked at in a broader perspective, we seem to have moved from a situation in which governments were the big players and bore many of the system costs, through one in which private organizations were the big players and the market bore the costs, to the current one in which the market can no longer do this job. And the decline of government makes it very difficult for senior governments to take up much of the task once again. 10. One significant development of the past decade or so that offers some promise is the tendency toward partnerships, public and private stewardship, and other forms of collaboration among governments and non-government organizations. These partnerships, and this co-operation, seem to have been more successful on the natural heritage or environmental side than they have on the social or land-use side. In the urban context, a tendency seems to be rising to form more partnerships or linkages with surrounding rural areas in the context of regional planning. Such moves to a renewal or strengthening of regional planning make a lot of sense in terms of the experiences of the day as well as in terms of recent developments in ecosystem-based planning and related science and scholarship. Moreover, such linkages and partnerships seem to offer considerable benefits at the international or global level, where they are emerging in response to the globalization process driven by private business corporations and governments. An example is civic pressure on the World Trade Organization (WTO). What does the future hold?


247

1. A mix of planning and decision-making procedures will continue to be used in the public arena largely because they suit the circumstances as well as the values and interests of the various actors in the field at any time. In this context, however, planning can best be thought of as a tool kit - a set of concepts and procedures that can be called upon according to the circumstances in our various attempts to cope with the evolving future. In the latter regard, self organization and other systems theory, which it has not been possible to explore in much detail in this paper, may play a significant role [27, 8]. 2. The rational and corporate approach will continue to be used in specialized and corporate circumstances for the near to mid term, although hopefully in the more tempered way that has arisen in recent decades. Corporate cultures can also make use of the adaptive management approach with its substantial technical requirements and its stated goal of dealing with surprises. 3. A major part of the public or civic arena cannot be left to these models however, and must be open to civic planning and/or shared decision-making. This would seem to be especially the case where many values and interests are at play in the field at hand. It would also seem to be particularly true in what might be called essential civic services such as environment, education, health, and security. This observation also applies to crosscutting processes such as land use planning. It might be argued that these fields resemble common property and would benefit from use of a broad array of market and institutional measures by the many organizations, groups, and individuals involved in related planning and decision-making.

8. Moving Towards Civic Planning and Research In my case, the civic planning approach arose in large part from the work of the University of Waterloo Heritage Resources Centre (HRC). The HRC was established in 1986 to promote research, educational and outreach activities relating to heritage defined in the broad sense. Heritage thus refers to the things that we value from the past and includes both natural and cultural heritage as well as associated languages, customs, institutional and other arrangements. A central aim of the Heritage Resources Centre has been to serve as a meeting ground for the various academic disciplines and research interests relevant to heritage at Waterloo and other universities. The Centre has also facilitated work undertaken collaboratively among university, government, and private organizations and individuals in the wider civic arena. Over the years, the Centre has worked with a complex array of local, provincial, national and international organizations, groups and individuals in a variety of economic, social, institutional and environmental situations. This work has necessitated learning to deal with different sets of values and interests in a crossdisciplinary and cross-sectoral manner. Much of the HRC activity was conducted in the context of meetings, workshops and conferences and involved synthesis and interpretation of existing information as much as original research. Workshops were often used along with resulting publications, to provide information to various parties for both professional and civic development purposes. This work soon led to the formation of liaisons and co-operative arrangements on an ongoing basis. These arrangements included for example, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Parks Canada and Ontario Parks, less formal collaboration with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and regular meetings or Forums with a number of organizations or groups interested in ongoing collaboration in a field of particular concern to them. An outstanding example of such a regular collaborative arrangement is the Parks

248


Research Forum of Ontario (PRFO). This involves a number of government and nongovernment organizations and universities in annual meetings, state of the art workshops, research networking and other activities relating to parks and other types of protected areas in the province of Ontario. Research is the common interest or hinge that holds the Forum together. Overall, the Forum has been effective over approximately six years in bringing people in the various concerned organizations together and in offering a platform for encouraging research by all parties to improve understanding, policy and practice about protected areas and the wider fields of environmental, resource and land use planning and decision-making. The proceedings of PRFO's Annual Meetings are published regularly and reflect the diverse array of protected area research in Ontario [28-31]. In addition to working at the local and the provincial levels, the HRC has been involved in research and planning activities at the international or global level. This international work is conducted on a less regular basis than other activities, but has involved significant efforts with the Polish Environmental Partnership and WWF in Central Europe, and the Broads Authority in the U.K. The work has also included Java and Bali in Indonesia and Pakistan. These various efforts led to the development of what was first called interactive and adaptive, but is now called civic research and planning [7,23]. What, briefly, are the main characteristics of this approach? 1. Upon emergence of an interesting issue, proposal, plan or project, bring together all parties known to have strong knowledge of the field of concern at an early stage. Begin working with them to understand the field of interest more fully including the concepts, procedures, organizations, or actors, and other arrangements relating to it, recognizing the need to add new as yet unknown parties as the project unfolds. 2. Interact as much as possible with the concerned parties, identifying and working more closely with those with more salient interest, as the project proceeds. Keep the process as transparent and flexible as possible. 3. Communicate, listen, learn and adapt as much as possible to accommodate relevant values, interests and goals, without losing the integrity of the underlying idea or project. 4. Work toward a high level of respect among the most concerned organizations or actors and towards a sharing of the research effort among willing participants. Begin to identify more precisely the principal research and information needs and ways of addressing these, along with likely sources of funding and other resources. 5. Work to make the research and planning process more effective and inclusive by building the work around the seven key processes in the civic planning model (Figure 1). These briefly are: • Understanding: this would include the various ways of knowing used by the principal participants. • Communication: many kinds, many types, many audiences and political participants. • Assessment: recognizing and promoting the need for ongoing reviews and judgements based on clear criteria and attention to a wide range of stakeholders. • Planning: recognizing the potential planning approaches or tools applicable to the main participants; linking and enhancing the efforts of the various parties; identifying guiding principles and general directions, as well as desired products and milestones, including checkpoints for review; obtaining resources and means of building capacity among concerned organizations, groups, and individuals as well as for the initiative as a whole. • Implementation: securing the financial, technical and other means to


249

produce results, and apply them in a decision-making context. Build as much as possible on existing institutional arrangements. Monitoring: establish means of recording the processes or procedures and their effects, including the unforeseen or unanticipated; report regularly on these in terms and ways understandable to all main participants, other concerned groups and the wider citizenry. Adaptation: build in learning; establish a culture that expects to adapt and has the general capacity to do so; encourage use of planning or other appropriate methods or tools to do this, for example adaptive management or shared decision-making; and remain sensitive to the needs and capacities of the main participants and other affected parties.

Figure 1. A Civics View of Planning and Decision-Making [6].

The civics model involves continuous interaction and adaptation among the seven key processes. They all proceed more or less simultaneously, as in real life, where the planner, or the citizen, is making ongoing choices and decisions in situations involving many fields of concern and possible choices and directions. In these respects, the civics planning model bears little resemblance to the rational and corporate planning approach with its goals-driven agenda, its exclusive rather than inclusive nature, and its tight control over the planning and decision-making process. The rational model also promotes a step-by-step process rather than the ongoing, interactive and adaptive one characteristic of civic research and planning. A key element of the civics approach is that it provides for continuous collaboration, adaptation and choice among participants rather than aiming for a single alternative or ultimate solution. In this respect, the civics approach bears some resemblance to adaptive management, which has as a central ingredient the identification of a number of likely alternatives, pursuing these simultaneously in experimental fashion, and gradually selecting the most effective. However, the adaptive management process still involves a relatively high level of control at the centre, which often seems to consist mainly of

250

G. Nelson /Some Thoughts on Rural Sitstainability in Canada - and Elsewhere

Figure 2. Civic interaction and adaptation among interest groups at local to global scales.

scientists, scholars and government officials. The civics planning approach is more open-ended and leans toward political as much or more than managerial decisions. The vision is one of a number of interacting approaches addressing various inter-related facets of a broad field of interest and doing so along somewhat different paths reflecting different values, interests and directions. The main activity nodes constitute a network that interacts and adapts constantly through the seven processes in the civics model. Here it is important to keep in mind the key matter of scale. In dealing with a policy, program, or project, a group may focus its attention and work at a particular scale such as


251

the local, provincial, national or international. The group will work to understand the dynamics at that scale, including the main interest groups, their values, interests, goals and procedures. In such contexts however, it is most important to understand the dynamics and linkages between or among the scales. What happens at the local level often relates to what happens at a higher level. The actor groups at any level not only have to understand intergroup interactions at that level but also the linkages with other influential actor groups and institutions at other levels. Dealing effectively and equitably with issues involves moving up and down the scales. The axiom is not just "Think Globally and Act Locally" but "Think Locally and Act Globally." Figure 2 is an attempt to convey this thinking in a schematic way. Mutual learning is a central concern. A fundamental goal is to address all groups' values, interests and directions more effectively and equitably, respecting others as participants in the broad civic domain. As a basic principle, parties should not be damaged in ill-considered or unnecessary ways by other organizations, groups and individuals working in the civic domain. A strong sense of ethics underlies the civics approach. A fundamental need in the furtherance of the civic approach is the enhancement of civic capacity. Many organizations, groups and individuals lack the capacity - the attitudes and the means or tools - to work with the civic approach. Like many in the rational Post World War II world, they are part of a fragmented and specialized system. Ideally each part makes its special contribution to the whole and meets its other needs by relying on others with different special interests and skills. This ideal has frequently not been met. Over the years, many organizations, groups and individuals have been excluded or left behind by the rational model and its most recent expression, the free market, because they have not acquired the special skills or attributes valued and required by the rational model.

9. The Civic Research Group Aside from supportive forums like those noted previously, two especially promising means of building civic capacity that we are working on in the Heritage Resources Centre are the establishment of a Civic Research Group in a location away from the university and the creation of Heritage Landscape Guides. The Civic Research Group focuses on enhancing and sharing information in the civic domain as opposed to constantly receiving and working with information from specialized groups. The Civic Research Group has been at work for about three years. It has focused on convening civic dialogues and discussions rather than lectures or addresses by especially knowledgeable people and also on open working sessions rather than more specialized workshops. An example is the Urban Environmental Management meetings and the proceedings in the journal Environments [32]. These proceedings outline many details relating to attempts to use the civic approach to bring various university departments, government and non-government organizations, groups and individuals together to address urban environmental planning management and decisionmaking. 10. Heritage Landscape Guides Heritage Landscape Guides focus on using the many faceted concept of landscape - with its geological, biological, and cultural or human characteristics - as a basis for bringing organizations, groups and individuals together to prepare a Guide for areas of concern. In the process, the Guide builds linkages among participants with an array of values and goals, as well as greater understanding and co-operation in the shared civic domain. In the past

252

G. Nelson /Some Thoughts on Rural Sustainability in Canada — and Elsewhere

year, we have prepared two Guides. One is for a rural area of several hundred square kilometres known as the Ridgetown-Rondeau region in southwestern Ontario and another is for the Grand River Watershed, the 7000 km2 basin in which I have my home [33]. An earlier guide was prepared for the historic or old town area in the large city of Toronto. Currently, we are preparing a Guide for an approximately 200 km stretch of corridor along the Upper St. Lawrence River between Kingston and Cornwall, near the Ontario - Quebec and U.S. borders. Local capacities to work on a Heritage Landscape Guides have been different in each of these cases. They required different approaches by the facilitators in completing the Guide. What the longer term effects of the Guides will be remains to be determined, but evidence from sales and other expressions of interest make for reasonably high expectations. More information on these Guides and related matters can be obtained from http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/research/hrc or http://www.hrc.fes.uwaterloo.ca. The civics approach does of course face serious challenges. These include: funding and resources; continuity of participation; time and staff demands arising from ongoing monitoring and assessment; the publication and dissemination of information by various means in accessible, understandable ways; and the question of responsibility, accountability and overall guidance of the process. In closing, let me say that many of the ideas about civic planning presented here have been discussed from various perspectives by authors with different backgrounds and interests than my own. These include Karl Popper [34-35], Ernest Gellner [36], and John Ralston Saul [37]. Daniel Kemmis [38] has recently considered numerous similar ideas in his short book on Community and the Politics of Place. In this context, the search by myself and colleagues is primarily for ways of building civic understanding and engagement on the ground.

References [I] Hudson, B.M. 1979. Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions. American Planning Association Journal 35: 387-398. [2] Friedmann, J. and C. Weaver. 1977. Territory and Function: The Evolution of Regional Planning Doctrine. Berkeley: University of California Press. [3] Moiling, C.S. (ed). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: John Wiley. [4] Gunderson, L.H. , L.S. Holling and S.S. Light. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press. [5] Cardinal!, D. and J.C. Day. 1998. Embracing Value and Uncertainty in Environmental Management and Planning: A Heuristic Model. Environments 25(2/3): 110-125. [6] Nelson, J.G. and R. Serafin. 1994. Improving Monitoring and Assessment for Environmental DecisionMaking. In J. Audrey and J.G. Nelson (eds.) Public Issues: A Geographical Perspective. Waterloo, ON: Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, 391-412. [7] Nelson, J.G. and R. Serafin. 1996. Environmental and Resource Planning and Decision-Making in Canada: A Human Ecological and a Civics Approach. In R. Vogelsan (ed.) Canada In Transition: Results of Environmental and Human Geographical Research. Bochum: Universitats verlag. Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1-25. [8] Dempster, B. 2002. Exploring the Human Dimensions of Ecological Integrity: Applying a Systems-Based Identification Heuristic. In S. Bondrup-Nielsen and N.W.P. Munro (eds.) Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 14-19 May, 2000. Canada: SAMPAA, 823-835. [9] Nelson, J.G., Roger Needham and Linda Norton (eds.). 1988. Arctic Heritage: Proceedings of a Symposium, August 24-28, 1988, Banff, Alberta. Ottawa: Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies. [10] Berger, Mr. Justice T. 1977. Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Department of Supply and Services. Ottawa. [II] Berger, T. R. 1985. Village Journey. Hill and Wang: New York.


253

[12] Nelson, J.G. 1975. Arctic Renewable Resources, Summary and Recommendations. Vol. I. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. Ottawa. [13] White, G.F.(ed-). 1977. Environmental Effects of Complex River Development. Boulder: Westview Press. [14] Nelson, J.G. and S. Jessen. 1981. Scottish and Alaskan Offshore Oil and Gas and the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. Ottawa. [15] Nelson, J.G., J.C. Day and S. Jessen. 1980. Environmental Regulations of the Nanticoke Industrial Complex. Economic Council of Canada, Working Paper Series. No. 7. [16] Cox, K. W. 1999. Wings Across the Border. Environments 27(3): 45-53. [17] Locke, H. 1997. The Role of Banff National Park as a Protected Area in the Yellowstone to Yukon Mountain Corridor of Western North America. In J.G. Nelson and R. Serafin (eds.) National Parks and Protected Areas: Keystones to Conservation and Sustainable Development. Berlin; New York; London: Springer, 117-124. [18] Gatewood, S. 1999. The Wildlands Project: The Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and the Sky Islands Wildlands Network. Environments 27(3): 45-53. [19] Nelson, J.G. 1987. National Parks, National Conservation Strategies and Sustainable Development. Geoforum 18(3): 291-218. [20] Sportza, L. 1999. Regional Approaches to Planning for Protected Areas and Conservation. Environments 27(3): 1-14. [21] Nelson, J.G. and R. Serafin (eds.). 1997. National Parks and Protected Areas: Keystones to Conservation and Sustainable Development. Berlin; New York; London: Springer. [22] Nelson, J.G. 2000. National Parks and Tourism in North America. In R. Butler and S. Boyd (eds.) National Parks and Tourism. Toronto: John Wiley, 302-332. [23] Nelson, J.G. and L. Sportza. 2000. Evolving Protected Area Thought and Practice. The George Wright Forum. 17(2): 59-69. [24] Costanza, R. 1996. Ecological Economics: Reintegrating the Study of Humans and Nature. Ecological Applications 4: 978-996. [25] Berkes, F. (ed.). 1989. Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable Development. London: Belhaven Press. [26] Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243-48. [27] Moody, R. and S. Bondrup-Nielsen. 2002. Self-Organization and Environmental Management: The Potential for Parks Canada. In S. Bondrup-Nielsen and N.W.P. Munro (eds.) Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 14-19 May, 2000. Canada: S AMPAA, 463-473. [28] Nelson, J.G., K. Van Osch, T.J. Beechey, W.R. Stephenson and J. Marsh (eds.). 1998. Parks and Protected Areas Research in Ontario, 1998: Proceedings of the Parks Research Forum of Ontario (PRFO) 1998 Annual Meeting, February 5-6, 1998, Peterborough, Ontario. Parks Research Forum of Ontario, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. [29] Pollock-Ellwand, N., K. Van Osch, J.G. Nelson, T. Beechey, W. Stephenson and J. Marsh, (eds). 2000. Parks and Protected Areas Research in Ontario, 1999: Proceedings of the Parks Research Forum of Ontario (PRFO) Annual General Meeting, April 22-23, 1999, Guelph, Ontario. Parks Research Forum of Ontario, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. [30] Porter, J., J.G. Nelson, D. Bazely, T. Beechey, J. Marsh, T. Nudds, and W. Stephenson (eds). 2002. Ecological Integrity and Protected Areas, 2001: Proceedings of the Parks Research Forum of Ontario (PRFO) Annual General Meeting, May 9-10, 2001, North York, Ontario. Parks Research Forum of Ontario, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. [31] Bondrup-Nielsen, S. and N.W.P. Munro (eds.). 2002. Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 14-19 May 2000. Canada: SAMPAA. [32] Dempster, B. and J.G. Nelson (eds.) 2001. Urban Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making. Environments 29(1): 155pp. [33] Nelson, J.G., J. Porter, C. Farassaglou, S. Gardiner, C. Guthrie, C. Beck, and C. Lemieux. 2003. The Grand River Watershed: A Heritage Landscape Guide. Heritage Landscape Guide Series #2. Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. [34] Popper, K. 1963. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. [35] Popper, K. 1999. All life is problem solving. London; New York: Routledge. [36] Gellner, E. 1994. Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals. New York: Allen Lane/Penguin Press. [37] Saul, J.R. 1995. The Unconscious Civilization. Concord, ON: House of Anansi Press. [38] Kemmis, D. 1990. Community and the Politics of Place. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

254

The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainabilitv S. Light (Ed.) /OS Press, 2004

An Interdisciplinary Approach for Integrating Landscape Management in the Common Agricultural Policy: Application to the Municipality of Mertola, Southern Alentejo, Portugal Rosario OLIVEIRA and Teresa PINTO-CORREIA Department of Landscape and Biophysical Planning University ofEvora 7000 Evora-Portugal [email protected] [email protected] Abstract. This paper seeks to present the methodological approach of a case-study at a local scale, in the south of Portugal, where the European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has significant impacts in terms of environment, socioeconomic and landscape aspects. The municipality of Mertola is located in the south-eastern part of the Alentejo Region, in a marginal area in relation to socio-economic parameters and agricultural production. As in the region as a whole, the dominant land use system is the Montado in a diversified pattern, which has in the last decades been subject, to successive significant changes, raising questions as to future landscape quality, identity and the required management. As in other European rural areas, the transformations in agriculture and the productive function resulted in changes in the landscape, which have impacts also on other functions such as conservation, environment balance, recreation, life support and preservation of cultural identity. These other functions attract each day more attention as a possible set of alternatives uses in marginal areas of Europe, such as Mertola. This actual context requires thus a landscape management based on integrated policies for the rural world, following the new perspectives of the CAP but also based on a deep knowledge of local landscape dynamics and requirements for preservation of identity. This project intends to evaluate and understand: (a) the changes that have occurred in the municipality in the last decades; and (b) how they have affected landscape pattern and also people's perception and connections to this landscape identity. The intent is to build up proposals for a more integrated and locally adapted formulation of CAP objectives and instruments. This paper will present the changes in landscape pattern and character registered in the study area for the last decades, the interdisciplinary methodology adopted, as well as the results of the first phase of the project.

1. General concepts The landscape is today seen in Europe as the fundamental basis for rural areas management, through the integration of cultural and natural aspects and the combination of different perspectives. Many recent documents stress this idea [1-3] and the European Landscape

R. Oliveira and T. Pinto-Correla /Integrating Landscape Management in the CAP

255

Convention [4], recently approved, confirms it in political terms. The landscape is considered the fundamental basis for territorial management in Europe, through the integration of natural, economic, social and cultural aspects, leading to adequate support for policy integration. This Convention, signed by the European countries in October 2000, defines the general principles by which national policies on landscape and international cooperation in the matter must be guided. The landscape is actually even more important as concept if we consider it as a factor of local identity in the context of the growing of globalisation and a mirror of societal values. It is through the landscape that different actors understand and establish, more or less consciously, a relation with the territory and with the identity it represents. Frequently the options taken into account by various actors are done without a sense of ownership or stewardship. The political instruments, such as CAP, do not consider such factors or the immediate impacts and long-term consequences of policy on the landscape. In peripheral rural areas, as traditional functions of landscapes, namely production, are getting less important, other functions are assuming increased importance, such as conservation, environmental balance, recreation, life support and cultural identity. The agricultural transformations, in general, result in landscape changes that may impact other functions as well as the environment, social relations and the economy. The future management of European landscapes should then be done through integrated policies for the rural world. Within the strategy defined within the new CAP, policy should be based on a deep knowledge of identity questions, with special attention to the process of social production of space and the ways different users (farmers, residents, tourists, ecologists, researchers, etc) perceive the landscape changes.

2. The Mertola Region - brief characterization Mertola is a peripheral rural area in terms of its geographical situation, demography and economic dynamics in Portugal (Figure 1). The population density is less than seven inhabitants per Km2. During the first half of the century, agriculture here was based on cereal production and, in last decade, this activity has decreased significantly in the local

Figure 1. Study area location in Europe

economy (INE, 1991 and INE, 2001). As consequence, some agricultural areas were abandoned and some others were changed to forest use. Mertola is one of the areas where the landscape changes based on CAP afforestation measures (Regulation CEE 2080/92) are most expressive in Portugal - 20% of the municipality is forested) (DGF, 2000) (Figures 2 and 3).

256

R. Oliveira and T. Pinto-Correla / Integrating Landscape Management in the CAP

Figure 2. Average of pine tree plantation in Portugal in the context of CAP measures.

Figure3. Average of oalm-oak tree plantation in Portugal in the context of CAP measures.

The municipality of Mertola includes about two-thirds of the Guadiana Valley Natural Park (45,000 Km2), where a significant diversity of ecosystems is located as (Figure 4): • Mediterranean xerophytic maquis, with a rich and complex structure, including isolated patches of wild olive (Olea silvestris) woodland on the steeper slopes. • Montado, as an extensive agricultural landscape typical of the Iberian Peninsula consisting of low-density holm-oak (Quercus rotundifolid) or cork-oak (Quercus suber) woodlands. • Riverine Mediterranean vegetation, with the predominance of oleander (Nerium oleander), poplar (Populus alba) and pomegranate (Punica granatum), along the Guadiana and its tributaries. • Mediterranean garrigue and steppe, with the predominance of the rock-rose (Cistus ladanifer) at different stages of degradation. The area hosts 13 species included in the Annex II of the Habitats Directive (42/93/EEC) and 25 species of the Bird Directive (79/409 EEC). From a traditional dominant agro-silvo-pastoral land use system (existing in this region for more than five centuries) there have been changes in the sense of intensification, during the first half of 20th century - Wheat Campaigns) followed by extensification and abandonment, and recently by forestation of large areas in monospecific plantations. This biodiversity is dependent on the traditional pattern and any simplification of the landscape, as consequent the afforestation process could threaten this natural richness (Figure 5). On a larger scale, the Guadiana Valley Natural Park, inserted on a natural corridor, is very important for various priority species in the southern Iberian Peninsula, where CAP application is one of the main reasons for biodiversity loss. Forestation of non-indigenous species, like eucalyptus and pine trees, has resulted in landscape simplification, which adversely impacts the Iberian Lynx and the Imperial Eagle, as well as the Black stork, the Black vulture, and others. The degradation or abandonment of agrosilvopastural systems,

R. Olivcira and T. Pinto-Correla / Integrating Landscape Management in the CAP

257

like the "montado" in Portugal or "dehesas" in Spain, is other of the main reason for the biodiversity loss and the desertification of these territories [5].

Figure 4. Traditional land uses in Mertola Municipality. Open areas previously used for cereal cultivation, montado in different densities and shrub lands as a result of the agriculture abandonment.

Figure 5. New land uses in Mertola Municipality. New forestry plantations (pine trees and oalm-oak trees).

3. Objectives of the research Based on Mertola's municipality this study endeavours to: • Understand the relationship between land-use transformation and the consequent changes of landscape pattern due to CAP application. • Understand how those landscape changes influence the construction of local identity. • Evaluate how could CAP have better contributed to an integrated management of the rural landscape.

4. Methodological approach During the 1990s, researchers sought a progressive approach to understanding local identity as a reflex between local and global dynamics, including those motivated by macropolicies, and as a central issue in the modern governance forms [6,7]. The changes in the agricultural landscape have in the last decade been analysed by different authors, with backgrounds in both natural and social sciences [8-10], The relationship of these changes to the stake-holder's representations and to the role of landscape in the local identity is now recognised as important [1]. But studying the acceptance of future policies for rural life and how well various rural policies are integrated is still rather recent and innovative [11]. For this project, several phases of work will be combined (Figure 6), aiming at a comprehensive understanding of landscape changes, their causes and their impacts on different types of people connected with it.

258

R. Oliveira and T. Pinto-Correla /Integrating Landscape Management in the CAP

Figure 6. Methodological Approach

4.1 Phase 1 - Characterization of the landscape changes in the municipality ofMertola The landscape changes will be characterised through land-use analyses at two different levels: • Analysis of the historical evolution of land use, until 1985, when Portugal came to the European Union, based on bibliography, archives, historical and archaeological documents. • Analysis of land-use changes over the last 40 years, supported mainly by the interpretation of satellite image and the land use cartography available for this period. Some other data will be collected to identify areas subject to CAP subsidies between 1986 and 2001 (cereal, grazing, forest, setaside, etc.).

4.2 Phase 2 - Perception of the landscape changes Three case-study areas representative of the main landscape changes in the municipality were selected for a more detailed approach. Two of them are within the Natural Park and one is outside of this protected area. In each of these case-study areas, interviews will be conducted with members of socio-professional groups directly related to the major land uses identified, regarding different uses of the landscape in order to understand how they

R. Oliveira and T. Pinto-Co ire la /Integrating Landscape Management in the CAP

259

perceive landscape changes, to what extent they can identify the cause for the change, and how they describe their favourite landscape and their vision for the future. Other interviews will be conducted with representatives of local, regional and national entities that have related competencies in the decision-making process connected with CAP implementation in the study area, in order to understand the sensibility and the priorities associated with landscape changes. Landscape preference studies based on prospective scenarios (2020) are to be created through digital image manipulation. The scenarios modelled represent alternatives that have different affects on agricultural production, forestry, soil and water conservation, biodiversity and public perception of the rural landscape in Mertola. The scenarios describe landscapes as they might look in 2020, based on policy goals that could be adapted early in the 21st century. The different scenarios are then the subject of interviews with different stakeholders, representing various groups in order to test the hypothesis of perception acceptability.

4.3 Phase 3 - Definition of preliminary proposals Based on the results of all the interviews, visions for future landscape multifunctionality in the municipality of Mertola will be defined. The study seeks to understand symbolic representations and transformations of local identity in order to contribute to the creation of new landscape management instruments for a more integrated and sustainable rural policy that is based on analysis of the different impacts of CAP in the study area. The existence of a protected area inside the study area aims to define specific measures and strategies. A participatory approach will be used as a way to involve different stakeholders in the definition and discussion of the proposals.

References [I] Pedroli B. (ed), 2000. Landscape our home. Essays on the Culture of the European Landscape as a Task Indigo Eds. Stuttgart. [2] Washer D., 2000. The Face of Europe. Policy Perspectives for European Landscapes. _Council of Europe and ECNC. Tilburg. [3] Washer D. and Jongman R., 2000. European landscapes. Classifications, assessment and conservation. Technical Report, E.E.A., Copenhagen. [4] Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention. T-Land (2000)6. Strasbourg. [5] WWF and other NGO's, 2001. Landscape for People and Nature - A Greenbelt in Southern Portugal, Final Report. [6] Appadurai A., 1996. Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalization, Minneapolis and London. The U. Minnesota Press. [7] Mormont M., 1990. Who is rural ? or how to be rural: Towards a sociology of the ruraL In: Marsden T., Lowe P., Whatmore S. (Eds.), Rural restructuring. Global processes and their responses. London. [8] Deffontaines J.P., Thenail C. and Baudry J., 1995. Agricultural systems and landscape patterns: how can we build a relationship? Landscape and Urban Planning, 31:3-10. [9] Luginbuhl Y. 1991. Le Paysage Rural. La couleur de I'agricole, la saveur de I'agricole, mais que reste-til de I'agricole ? Etudes Rurales, 121-124 :27-24. [10] Vos W., 1998. Europe's Old Agricultural Landscape: old and new perspectives. In Pinto-CorreiaT. and Abreu M. (Eds.) Challenges for Mediterranean Landscape Ecology. Proceedings of the 1st National Landscape Ecology Workshop, Montemor-o-Novo. [II] Nassauer J. and Corry R., 2000. Cultural acceptability: Farmer perceptions of future landscapes scenarios. http://WAVw.snre.umich.edu/facultv-research/nassauer/

260

R. Oliveira and T. Pinto-Correla / Integrating Landscape Management in the CAP

Additional Resources Janin C., 1995. Peut-onfaire I'economie dupaysagepour gerer le territoire ? L 'agriculture dans lepaysage. Une autre maniere de faire du developpement local. Dossier de la Revue de Geographic Alpine, 15:11-30. Casimiro P., 2002. Uso do Solo, Teledeteccdo e Estrutura da Paisagem - Concelho de Mertola, Disserta9ao de Doutoramento, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.


261

The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis Jan SENDZIMIR1, Peter BALOGH2, Anna VARI3, and Tamas LANTOS4 1 Senior Fellow, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Minneapolis, Minnesota U.S.A. and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Laxenburg, Austria 2 Director, Floodplain Reforestation Program Village Government ofNagykoru, Hungary Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology, Budapest, Hungary 4 Ormansag Alaptivany Foundation of the Ormansag Region, Dravafok, Hungary Abstract. The sustainability crisis in the Tisza River Basin (TRB) has developed slowly and incrementally over the past 130 years since implementation of the original Vasarhelyi plan. The high visibility of floods caused most resources to be funneled into a massive flood defense system that repeatedly failed to match the rising intensity and frequencies of floods. The Hungarian public view, blinded by flood and toxic spill catastrophes, missed the slow and subtle changes to natural, social and human capital precipitated by the reshaping of the TRB landscape and its agriculture. While conversion of the TRB from a polyculture to a monoculture produced a great deal of financial capital for an aristocratic minority, the gradual drain of alternatives forms of capital left the region less and less resilient in the face of ecological (floods), economic (globalization) and political (war) shocks. Domination by central authorities over the past 50 years reduced local civic capacity to levels of passivity that make most communities incapable of innovating to find sustainability solutions, and this trend is reinforced by on-going paternalistic attitudes in the Hungarian national government. Efforts to achieve sustainability should aid stakeholders at local, regional and national levels to see how the situation developed and experiment with policies to rebuild the region's heritage. Understanding requires new ideas on value (alternative forms of capital) and change (resilience theory) to be tested in local and regional experiments that identify how to improve these ideas as well as practices to implement them. Efforts to link understanding with innovative practices require citizen-science dialogues, such as Adaptive Management, to allow cooperation between stakeholders and actors in all phases of research, management monitoring, and formulation of policy.

1. Paradox - Poverty emerges from wealth The Tisza flows from the Trans-Carpathian region of the Ukraine, and, fed by numerous tributaries from Romania and Slovakia, cuts across the Great Hungarian Plain (Alfold), the largest sedimentary basin in Europe [1,2]. While its length and breadth are not imposing in size (Figure 1), the vast differential between them and the four nation area (more than 150,000 square kilometers in parts of Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary) it drains give the Tisza some of the most dramatic flow fluctuations in Europe [3]. Loosely hemmed in by the bowl shape of the Alfold, these fluctuations spread as sharp crests of flood waves

262

J. Sendzimir et al. /The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

over vast areas of floodplain, suspended there for considerable periods by thick, impervious underlying sediments of the Tisza River Basin (TRB). Over centuries, people have developed tools and practices adapted to take advantage of these pulsing patterns of flood and drought across the Tisza landscape mosaic. From the oak, beech and spruce-fir forests in the Carpathians to the river floodplain forests, ponds and meadows along the Tisza, diverse cultures harnessed the energy of floods to sustain a thriving regional economy, famous for the substantial volume of fish exported and completely self-sufficient in food production. However, the fabric binding people with nature along the Tisza has been shredded by repeated military, political and economic shocks of continental and global proportions. While some regions appear resilient to such shocks, citizens within the TRB now wonder how one of the richest regions of Hungary in the early 19th century has become impoverished and chronically plagued with crises of flooding and economy. Faith in government and management continues to ebb With the on-

Figure 1. The Tisza river basin with tributaries in catchments in the Carpathian mountain range across portions of five different national territories (Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia, Federation of Serbia and Montenegro, and Hungary).

J. Sendzimir et al. / The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

263

going decline of regional economies and ecologies despite repeated government interventions to mitigate flood risk and alleviate poverty. The dilemma of the TRB raises many questions about our understanding of how such landscapes function, what are the real bases of wealth, how were they lost and how might we regain them? This paper focuses primarily on the Hungarian reaches of the Tisza to describe the on-going impacts of those shocks as well as ways to understand how Nature and Society can change in slow and quiet ways that are difficult to notice yet profoundly increase our vulnerability to disturbances. It concludes by considering how to link ideas with local practice in community partnership initiatives to re-establish the sustainability of the TRB.

2. Apparent crises Since the mid-nineteenth century the decline of the TRB appears to move with two rhythms. Sudden shocks of flooding and pollution seem to punctuate the slow march of depressed economy and ecology. The catastrophic damage created by these shocks make them readily apparent and easy to communicate to anyone in society, but they also present a subtle danger. They rob our attention and blind us to the quiet crises that slowly drain the landscape and society of the capacity to resist and rebuild after crises. The power of instant global communication can easily reinforce the modern trends of the Information Age that mold our attention to the latest events. Public media further reinforce this by ignoring most information older than a few days as "old" and therefore, non-news [4], eroding the patient and thorough discipline of seeing a story through all its phases to the end, where often the counter-intuitive causes start to become apparent. As shall be shown, the answer lies not in ignoring the noise and chatter of crises but to sustain our attention to encompass the sources, drivers, and feedbacks that interact in the short and the long term to create a context out of which such crises become inevitable.

2.1 Water quality and toxic spills 2.1.1 Cyanide In January 2000 the Tisza River briefly attained global renown with one of the most dramatic toxic releases ever recorded. In the region of Baia Mare in northwestern Romania, the AURUL Australian-Romanian joint venture company had used a cyanide heap leaching method to extract gold and silver from tailings, or waste piles, which were discarded by previous mining operations. AURUL boosted the leaching operation's efficiency by storing the aqueous solvent solution in an earthen-walled impoundment and then recycling it through the tailings mounds. Extreme rain events weakened the earthen dam causing it to break on the 30th of January, 2000, releasing 100,000 cubic meters of water with very high cyanide and heavy metal concentrations that passed through the Szamos/Somes river [5,6] to the Tisza River. Transit of the toxic plume through Hungary to the Danube took a total of 12 days. With time and distance the downstream tributaries diluted the initial high pollutant concentrations. In the case of cyanide, the maximum values (20-30 mg/1) measured in the river Szamos were 300 times higher than the limit value of the "heavily polluted water" category (category V), 100 times higher (10-15 mg/1 ) in the upper section of the river Tisza, and 20-30 times higher in the lower section of the river Tisza. The challenge of diluting these toxins was aggravated by the meteorological situation in Hungary at the time

264

J. Sendzimir et al. /The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

- ice on the rivers and low water levels. Ecological impacts were compounded by sharp increases in heavy metal levels that paralleled spikes in cyanide concentration in the Tisza River. Copper concentrations exceeded the "heavily polluted" threshold 40-160 times; the zinc concentration was double this standard and the lead concentration 5-9 times greater

m.

The region and the world were stunned to learn that for a brief period all life, even such hardy forms as bacteria and fungi, was probably extinguished in the main channel of the Tisza. Fortunately, cyanide biodegrades relatively quickly, so the most extreme toxic effects did not last long. While the longer term effects and the persistence of cyanide and the by-products produced using the heap-leaching method are not well known [8,9], it was concluded that the 110 tons of cyanide behaved "like a conservative material" in that it remained in its original form and did not accumulate in the sediments. On the other hand, by some estimates [10] the ecosystem will require at least 12 years to recover from the damages. The secondary effects of the cyanide spill were dramatic, including: near extinction (300 - 400 animals killed [11]) of a population of river otters recently reintroduced to the basin, extensive reports of deaths of fish-eating birds immediately after the spill, and massive fish death totaling 1241 tons, valued at 840 million Hungarian Forints (approximately 3.2 million Euro) [7]. The wake of this catastrophe left images of local people tending to mounds of dead animals, despondent as they recognized the regular rhythm of crises that kept the region from building its image or its future. This depressed atmosphere made the unexpectedly fast and sizable rebound of local fauna (especially fishes) all the more surprising [12,13]. It appears that the spills occurred at relatively low water levels, confining the effects to the main channel of the river and sparing the species and individuals living in the backwaters of the floodplain. Another possibility is that a subsequent flood in March, 2000 flushed much remaining toxic residue out. This flood also greatly expanded fish spawning possibilities by flooding distant areas of the floodplain and re-establishing hydrological links between certain lakes and the Tisza river for the first time in generations [14]. Therefore, it was a relatively short migration for these species to re-colonize the river channel when conditions ameliorated sufficiently.

2.7.2 Heavy metals Chronic pulses of heavy metals, spilled illegally from mining operations in Romania, also plague the TRB. Some residents noted wryly that the hidden blessing in the cyanide spill was that it shocked the international community to take note of the more frequent episodes of plumes of copper, zinc, chrome, nickel, lead, cadmium and mercury washing down the river and settling in the sediments. However, whereas cyanide's effects fade fairly rapidly with time as it degrades, heavy metals persist over centuries until burial takes them out of the zone of biological activity. Through bioaccumulation heavy metal concentrations can increase to dangerous levels in animals at the top of the food chain (fish, for example) to the point where they damage human health if eaten. Heavy metals are associated with a variety of human cancers as well as mental retardation [15]. On average over its entire length, Tisza sediment concentrations of lead (Pb)and copper (Cu) currently exceed those in the Rhine River. The problem is most severe upstream of Tisza lake (Kiskore reservoir), which acts as metal trap, and overall the most hazardous elements (cadmium(Cd) and lead(Pb)) constitute a long-term threat that should be monitored [16]. The threat from bioaccumulation of heavy metals in higher organisms depends on what standards one accepts. Measurements of muscle tissue in pike (Esox lucius L.), does not surpass U.S. EPA Hungarian health standards for commercial fish, but those standards should be upgraded to

/. Sendzimir et al. / The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

265

[17] guidelines for non-commercial fishing in natural aquatic areas [16]. While the ominous reputation of heavy metals, combined with dramatic events like dam collapses and toxic spills, can easily generate brief frenzies of media attention, to what extent do heavy metals really threaten human health or the resilience of ecosystems in the TRB? Heavy metal concentrations in the water and sediments of the river floodplain are higher than average but still are only one quarter of what the World Health Organization deems dangerous (see Health criteria and other supporting information, in [18]) [19]. Furthermore, chronic leaching of heavy metals from mineral rich mountain strata contributes far more to these ambient concentrations than do the spills [20]). But the situation should be watched closely, since sediment concentrations rise sharply near the surface, reflecting a recent history of increasing spills [16]. For the moment heavy metals appear to damage the TRB's economic and social capital far more than its natural capital, because toxic spills have devastated the region's reputation as a tourist haven of healthy natural values. Some local residents harbor more enmity for the environmentalists that fought to get these problems recognized and addressed than for the perpetrators of the spills, because they see no successful remediation but do feel the loss of income from unmarketable fish and a declining tourist industry. 2.1.3 Organic pollution In contrast to the sudden emergencies provoked by toxic spills, water quality in certain reaches of the Tisza has declined under the mounting burden of point (untreated sewage) and non-point (agriculture) organic pollution. Some local leaders may feel that this situation is not changing so quickly and does not constitute as high a priority as the decline in fishing conditions or life quality on the Tisza [3], but it hinders tourism development by reinforcing the image of a degraded region with waning power to attract visitors. What parent allows their child to swim in water where cyanide, heavy metals or sewage might linger? For most local decision makers the need to protect local water resources has become paramount such that the main environmental problems they identify are threats to water reserves: domestic and industrial sewage and solid waste [3]. Tisza water quality briefly improved during the economic recession following the fall of the Iron Curtain, but recently deterioration has been observed probably because pollution controls are inadequate to cope with rebounding economic development from both in and outside Hungary [21]. Ninetyfive percent of COD (chemical oxygen demand) loading comes through tributaries (Maros, Tisza, Szamos and Bodrog), leading to a "tolerable" classification slightly below "good" [21]. However, the link to economic rebound, especially in neighboring countries that remain outside the E.U. jurisdiction and control, suggests conditions will decline before they improve, and the means to improve them may rest entirely on neighboring countries' attempts to build goodwill with the E.U. prior to admission. 2.2 Flooding Hungary is no stranger to flooding. In Europe it ranks second to the Netherlands in exposure to flooding. Floods threaten more than two-thirds of Hungary's arable land and a third of its railways [22]. Within Hungary the Tisza may be second to the Danube in size, but a major flood could inundate up to 17 percent of Hungary's territory were the Tisza not "protected" with a dike defense system [23]. In addition to the renowned riverine floods, drastic high water also occurs due to flash floods in hilly areas and welling up of groundwater in low-lying areas, particularly the adjacent floodplain [24]. However, swift and devastating riverine floods are the dominant water impact in the Tisza region. Within

266


24 to 48 hours of major rain events in the surrounding arc of the Carpathian Mountains, the Tisza can surge up to 12 meters above normal levels as rising tributaries swell its volume 100 fold. The fact that such volumes (4000 cubic meters a second) approach half that of the far larger Danube river at flood stage gives some continental measure of the significance of these events. The Tisza may be moderate in dimension, but the forces moving through it are considerable. 2.2.1 History of flooding and its impacts The TRB has known large floods for more than a millennium of recorded history and undoubtedly over the eons of geological time since the rise of the Carpathian range. Such extreme floods are currently estimated to occur on average every 10-12 years in the Tisza River Basin [5], but the last century has seen rising trends in all facets of flooding: flood crest or peak height, flood volume, and flooding frequency. Floods have increased in peak height by an average of 0.35 to 0.73 centimeters per year in the past fifty years [25]. Since the average minimal flow has declined (Figure 2), the difference between flood and drought extremes is increasing. The interval between extreme floods has declined sharply from once every 18 years (1877 - 1933) to once every three to four years (1934 - 1964) to almost every other year over the last decade. An engineering race to raise the dikes started after each flood, as each subsequent flood exceeded the previous one in height [25].

Figure 2. Long term trends in water levels (maximum, average, and minimums) as measured on the Tisza river at the city of Szolnok, Hungary (from Braun, Mihaly

Catastrophes beg explanation, and the popular tendency to assign blame, or even invoke a conspiracy, increases with the scale of the impact. Tisza floods have raised the specters of several "villains." Most accounts of flooding on the Tisza, whether in the Hungarian popular press or in scientific literature, link it with loss of forest in the Carpathians, especially in the Ukraine. Indeed, clear-cutting in ever-larger tracts (Figure 3) is estimated to have reduced forest cover by up to 60 percent on the mountain slopes and 20 percent of the floodplain of the trans-Carpathian region [23,27]. In contrast to urban development with concrete, the bare slopes and grass left by clear cuts may appear "natural" but have almost no absorptive capacity compared to a forest. The deep root


267

structure of trees creates a capacity to absorb rainwater of more than 100 liters per square meter [28], and with their loss there is little to slow the millions of liters converging on the Tisza. It is somewhat ironic that while Ukrainian reputation has suffered on this account, some claim [29] that illegal exports to Hungary by the Hungarian minority in Ukraine contributes to the demand that drives excessive logging. However, this assertion is sharply contested by scientists with personal contacts on the Ukraine/Hungary border [30]. Local stakeholders placed responsibility for TRB flood damage squarely on the shoulders of outsiders, particularly the national authorities. Opinion surveys among Hungarian stakeholders along the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the Tisza found the top five reasons as: the improper maintenance of the levees (73%), the clearing of large forest areas in the catchment area (63%), the insufficient height and strength of the levees (57%), neighboring countries (42%), and global climate changes (42%) [22,31,32]. As Vari [33] concludes: "The lowest importance was attributed to the responsibility of the local people. Only 10% and 8% of the respondents share the opinion that too many people had moved to flood-risk areas and that the people living in the area were not taking sufficient measures to prevent losses, respectively." It is only in the past few years that opinions have began to shift and acknowledge that people are individually responsible for where they live and work, and that zoning restrictions should prevent construction in high risk flood zones. However, this nascent sentiment reflects a minority opinion in the TRB. Most still hold the government accountable to protect them from floods in any case [22] Another villain reared its head in recent floods: extreme rain events. Some rare,

Figure 3. Clear cut deforestation in Bila Tisza Valley, Ukraine (Chornogora peak, September 1998). (Photos courtesy of Dr. J. Hamar, The Tisza Klub, Szolnok, Hungary)

268


super-rainstorms can drop the equivalent of one year's rain over a weekend over portions of the Carpathians. This problem may increase with global climate change [34]. For example, satellite images now suggest links between such spectacular rain events and large-scale oceanic processes that move warm bodies of water from the tropics to the west coast of Europe. Over a period of years, massive "islands" of warmer, denser water migrate from the equator and release enormous bursts of moisture to the atmosphere as the water shallows off the west coast of France. The arrival of such warm water bodies, ranging roughly in sizes from counties to provinces (hundreds to thousands of square kilometers), has been correlated with subsequent rain mega-events a few days later in Central Europe [35]. These rain events could increase in frequency and intensity should such macro-scale oceanic circulation processes be linked to and amplified by climate change.

2.2.2 Flood losses Practically in step with mounting flood statistics, regional development has also climbed since the mid-nineteenth century, and the clash between these two rising trends has created ever larger losses. The infrastructure of towns and row crop farms burgeoned and spread into the flood danger zone, the TRB floodplain, reassured by the apparent security of a dike and canal flood defense system. The security promised by hydro engineering might hold for a decade or two, but ever-larger floods breached these defenses, devastating homes, roads and crop fields. Damage to built capital and commerce from one major flood event could reach as high as approximately 25 percent of the GDP or riverine basin or seven to nine percent of national GDP [36]. The most vulnerable groups, such as low revenue farmers, are often hit hardest, depleting their scarce reserves and pushing them to the brink of bankruptcy [22]. The inadequacy of a century of improving and reinforcing the dike defense system became painfully apparent when the 2001 flood broke through the dikes along the Upper Tisza near Vasarosnameny, completely destroying 1000 homes, damaging 2000 others and forcing the evacuation of 17,000 people [22]. The force of major floods perennially rises to surpass expensive efforts to engineer, reinforce and defend the dike system. Without a very quick, competent and heroic capability to react to floods in crisis, the failures of hydro-engineering would be even more apparent [22]. 2.3 Declines in society Contrary to neoclassical economic assumptions that infinite possibilities exist to substitute between different resources, the people of the TRB did not trade natural for financial, social or human capital. Ecosystem services seem to decline in parallel with eroding social indices. The "best and brightest" people leave the region all the faster as the destitute gather in towns, their desperation all the more evident in the accelerating decay of their homes and the town's infrastructure. While the TRB dike defense system is a prodigious engineering feat that boosted the pride and prestige of national government and its support echelons of professional scientists and engineers, it offered only temporary relief from flood-related anxiety. Dikes could be extended and raised; canals could be widened and deepened, but these only momentarily stemmed floods as well as the deepening sense that the region was spiraling downward into inescapable depression.


269

2.3.1 Economy and employment While environmental problems linger in the public mind, economic concerns certainly dominate discussion of regional problems. A poll of local decision makers (mayors) in the TRB revealed their order of priorities as: job creation, improving life quality, regional development (flood protection, tourism promotion), property security, flood area agriculture, bio-culture and sustainable forest management [3]. Conventional economic indicators portray the TRB as a depressed region hobbled by outdated structural organization that has left far too many people employed in jobs that have elsewhere been replaced, often through mechanization. Certain groups within the region, such as the Roma population, persist at chronic levels of unemployment so high (24 percent) that hope for regional advancement remains dim [22]. Furthermore, thirty-five percent of the population still has full or part time employment in agriculture (primarily in apple and plum production) in the Upper Tisza basin. The ten-fold difference between this region and E.U. zones characterized by "modern" agricultural regimes, such as the Netherlands where less than three percent of the work force is in agriculture, indicate to professionals in Budapest and Brussels a very inefficient industry that will be radically revised following accession to the E.U. Pessimism about the future of agriculture is shared regionally and locally in the TRB. Few enter the field to pick up the skills of their elders, since agriculture on the floodplain (inside or outside the dikes) is no longer deemed profitable [37]. The local sense of foreboding has reached the point where even seeds donated for free by the government will not be planted, because chronic high water levels and poor financial returns make any effort seem wasted [25]. A minor eddy of young Hungarians works against this ebbing human tide in small and sporadic attempts to start life on a farm, but they struggle in the absence of markets (niches for organic or regional food) or sufficient subsidies to pull them through transition into a stable and sustainable career [38]. Many people in the TRB have developed a diversity of skills (carpentry, machine repair, diverse services) to gain multiple sources of income, since agricultural income is usually insufficient as a sole source of support. Policy makers in government and industry view such general, all-purpose skills less as adaptive than as signs of an inefficient, substandard skill base that cannot compete with "modern" high technology agriculture, manufacture or service. With accession to the E.U. this view and its resultant policies will probably accelerate the shifting of people to other sectors such as Industry and Service, which presently employ 25 and 40 percent of the population, respectively [25]. Tourism is a perennial candidate to rescue rural economies, and overall income from tourism has risen by 33 percent (3000 to 4000 billion Forints) in Hungary between 1998 and 2002 and funding available for tourist development is expected to leap by more than three fold in the near future [39], The rich natural and cultural heritage of the TRB constitutes a solid potential for tourist development. As Linerooth-Bayer and Vari [33] point out: "The area has a large and undeveloped potential for recreation, tourism, as well as nature conservation. There are pristine, almost untouched areas surrounding the meandering Tisza River, and its floodplain is sprinkled with old villages, traditional farms and historic buildings." (p.4) However, the extent to which the TRB can use its natural and cultural heritage to exploit tourism remains in question when perennial crises of economic depression, flooding and toxic spills spoil the regional image. Modernization policies might also result in increased out-migration to major urban

270


centers in Hungary and elsewhere in the E.U. But out-migration may prove useless even for the minority of TRB residents with sufficient resources to leave if unemployment in urban centers and in the E.U. continues to rise. This problem is compounded by the particularly high hurdle Hungarians face in acquiring foreign languages, almost all of which share virtually no roots with their mother tongue, making it very hard to leave Hungary. In Poland rural migration to cities has slowed over the past few years as urban unemployment has risen to match rural jobless rates. Without expansion of the tourist industry, already retarded by a tarnished regional image, "modernization" may only offer TRB residents a declining base of "high skill quality" jobs.

2.3.2 Regional infrastructure The poor or declining trends of the regional economic engine are evident in the decay and lack of infrastructure in the built environment (buildings and transport network) and the environmental maintenance capacity (water and sewage treatment) of the TRB. Residents have poor access to education, jobs or markets because of bad road conditions and reduced availability of individual or public transport. Only twenty-two percent of the population has rail access, and car ownership is only two thirds the national average of 218 cars per thousand inhabitants [25]. In absolute terms, housing exceeds the demand for shelter in the Tisza region, because the population emigrates at a faster rate than buildings decay. However, the quality of housing stock continues to decline as economic opportunities for remaining wage earners decline and as income earners vacate their homes and are replaced by the unemployed and by people too poor to keep homes in good repair. Aside from occasional toxic spills of heavy metals, organic pollution constantly threatens both surface and groundwater quality because of a lack of sewage treatment facilities in the TRB. This threat is easily recognizable to the public, to local authorities, who accord it top priority [3], as well as to E.U. regulators and engineering consultants. Sewage treatment plants are likely to consume a significant fraction of reconstruction funds for E.U. accession countries, because they are visible symbols of political accomplishment and yet are easy to administer, with large amounts of money funneled through a few agencies. However, the relatively easy path of allocating large sums for big engineering projects may ignore the opportunity costs of denying funding to other important needs, such as education and environmental restoration. Ecological engineering solutions, such as constructed wetlands, may offer cheaper options for sewage treatment that allow more spending on a wider variety of sustainability needs.

2.3.3 Regional knowledge base - education Declining economic possibilities can provoke a vicious downward spiral of other forms of capital, such as human, social or cultural capital. The drain of money can be closely followed by depletion of human skills and education, the cohesion and civic capacity of communities and of the forms of art that reinforce our sense of identity. As rural settlements lose the critical mass of income and families needed to maintain educational infrastructure, the number and quality of schools declines as students as well as teachers move to areas of higher economic opportunity. Qualities of life and education erode as children must travel longer and longer distances to get to schools with fewer opportunities and fewer links to their local community. The drain of talented people from the region can accelerate out of a desire for economic and educational opportunities. The major cities of Budapest or the E.U. could be the inevitable new homes for people who find little use for

J, Sendzimir et al. / The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

271

the lessons available in the field (agriculture) or in the businesses and schools of the TRB. Those with too few resources to move face the dwindling prospects of fewer chances to learn or earn in an area where their friends and descendents no longer live. 2.3.4 Governance One key sustainability challenge is to integrate how we work together across different sectors and disciplines. However, institutions for governance in the TRB currently seem structurally trapped into hierarchies separated into different levels with overlapping capacities and authorities. Decision making is fragmented not only by national boundaries between five states (Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary and the Federation of Serbia and Montenegro) but also into a variety of agencies within Hungarian ministries that compete over such issues as: flood protection, land management, water quality regulation, protection of wildlife and environment, tourism and public health [3]. This fragmentation is mirrored at local levels where mayors create their own programs to deal with water quality and quantity, sewage treatment and environmental protection [3]. Redundancy of function can increase the chances that at least one institution at some level will address any particular problem. However, it may be just as likely that opportunities are lost because of negligence when all assume that someone else takes care of the problem or because the problem will not be solved unless forces act in harmony across the different levels of governance. So far fragmented channels of governance and funding have limited the scale of innovations or experiments in policy to a few "showcase projects" [3] along the Tisza. It remains to be seen whether E.U. accession will simply add one more layer to the governance hierarchy or will provide a framework to integrate governance actions to provide holistic visions and solutions. 3. Slow loss of resilience For centuries in the TRB human society and ecosystems proved resilient to catastrophes by rebuilding and sustaining their ways of life after each crisis. Floods, droughts, and even wars might push every species and every community to their limits, but the people and the landscape rode out these waves and emerged essentially as the same or a very similar socioecological system. Certainly that capacity for resilience has been severely tested by the rising intensity and frequency of crises, floods and toxic spills, over the past century. But the intense interest that crises attract can obscure the quiet and slow ways in which a system can lose its resilience. The patient search for such subtle causes of vulnerability can be swamped by our tendency to blame catastrophes on 'malign' external causes, a role that floods or toxic spills can fill all too easily. Without belittling the crises we know, we should seek to untangle all the relations, internal and external, that might erode the resilience of communities in the Tisza landscape. As shall become apparent, when considering crises and the slow transformation of a landscape, the answers as to what came first or what is external, can be surprising. 3.1 Changing the face of the Tisza River Basin A wealth of sources may contribute to the health or integrity of any community or landscape, and many contribute at different times and places. So a cogent and comprehensive picture of the resilience of a socio-ecological system must move beyond

272


present appearances and develop a sense of history. What are the trends and changes in forces that the system rides into the present? Communities work when their current skills and functions engage the region's heritage as well as external processes and resources. The TRB has weathered floods, droughts and invading armies for millennia, but the changes of the past two centuries surpassed everything since the glaciers receded to the mountains. And the products of these sweeping changes are part of the heritage that people work with to make their living along the Tisza.

3.1.1 Poly culture - an ancient heritage People today would scarcely recognize the TRB landscape and culture before the Industrial Revolution. Far from its current depressed aspect, the economy of the TRB was thriving, self-sufficient and rich enough to export fruits, vegetables, timber and fish [40]. However, our modern sense of diversity, tuned to the three or four varieties of any domestic fruit a supermarket might offer, would be amazed to find the hundreds of varieties of fruit and nuts traditionally grown in the TRB. Local varieties of apple (402) and pear (470) have been officially registered, but the unregistered varieties run well past a thousand for each [41]. The same holds for walnut trees, whose timber amply provided local needs for fine quality lumber for furniture. Such extreme variety in agricultural produce is neither an extravagant gesture nor some slavish adherence to tradition. This ancient tradition has flourished for centuries in the TRB [42-45]. It represents a strategic response by which people have adapted to the variability in Nature in every region of the globe since the Neolithic era [46]. Plants and people must contend with severe fluctuations in water within the TRB, from sudden and intense flooding lasting for weeks over hundreds of square kilometers to droughts that may last for years over the entire basin. These sudden flows and slow ebbs produced a huge variety of flooding durations over the different elevations on the floodplain (Figure 4). A diversity of capabilities has been the traditional answer to the uncertainty inherent in such wide swings from wet to dry, with all the variety of changing opportunities and challenges in between. Whereas hillside farmers in Peru might plant 150 varieties of potato in small (30 hectare) farms in the Andes [47,48], and farmers in Bangladesh have developed thousands of rice varieties to deal with the vagaries of flooding and dispersion of the Bhramaputra and Ganges rivers in their delta [49], fanners along the Tisza developed fruits that were each adapted to a different duration and intensity of flooding and drought. They also developed a local corn variety so well adapted to a short growing season, that one could plant it after the annual spring floods and still harvest a mature plant by autumn. In comparison to the pesticides and fertilizers required by the relatively few global varieties that consumers from the UK to Austria recognize, these local TRB varieties have proven far more robust against insect pests and diseases, and did not require as much pruning or intensive care [50]. However, they are rapidly being replaced by continental and global varieties. For example, Hungarian consumption of local varieties of cherries has declined from eighty percent to less than thirty percent due to the domination of the Hungarian market by the germersdorfer sweet cherry, a variety sold across the E.U. [41]. Ingenuity and innovation have also helped farmers adapt to uncertainty along the Tisza. Fishermen overturned their boats and used the hulls as hog sheds when the entire floodplain dried out in a multi-year drought in the 1840s [50]. Farmers also used fruit trees as trestles to support grape vines as semi-wild "Jungle Orchards" that produced adequately with very low maintenance. Residents of the TRB complemented the variety of plants and fish with a diversity of skills that sustained them with food, fiber and shelter.

J. Sendzimir et at. /The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

273

Figure 4. Simplified illustration of the Tisza river main channel with lateral connecting channels (fok) to floodplain depressions of different depths producing a diversity of different flooding depths and durations. (Illustration courtesy of Dr. J. Hamar, Tisza Klub, Szolnok, Hungary)

3.7.2 Economic decision to export By the nineteenth century the promise and power of the ideas of the Enlightenment began to shake and reconfigure commerce and society in Europe. As Davies [51] notes: "There is a dynamism about nineteenth-century Europe that far exceeds anything previously known. Europe vibrated with power as never before: with technical power, economic power, cultural power, intercontinental power." A rising tide of energy, raw materials and people converged on growing urban agglomerations that became regional manufacturing centers for new products and economic opportunity, which in turn drew yet more people and resources from the countryside. Nations grew following the new, "modern" industrial model, swelling every index of growth, including urban populations and the demand for food. This demand was seen as a new opportunity by the major landholders on the TRB. The Hapsburg nobility, including the Emperor, as well as Hungarian aristocrats and nobility to some extent, began to convert the agricultural land of the floodplain from a diverse polyculture of fruits, nuts and maize to larger fields with monocultures of wheat [3]. There was far more profit in providing a durable grain for the main staple of urban populations, bread, than in handling the enormous variety of perishable fruits, which were far more

274


daunting items to store and ship. Within a few decades Hungary would become the first wheat exporting nation in Europe, earning large profits in the short run but at a far higher price in the long run than originally imagined. Agricultural transformation immediately raised two challenges. First, no variety of wheat known then could withstand flooding or even high groundwater levels for any length of time, so the Tisza had to be tamed to keep its surges off the floodplain. Second, the twisting meanders of the Tisza across the Great Plain had to be straightened to shorten shipping distances and make export profitable. Changing the shape and content of the fields lead to the Herculean task of reshaping the entire floodplain and the river channel itself. Such radical surgery on the landscape was an affront to tradition and sparked great controversy (see [52]), but eventually the Vasarhelyi Plan was pushed through in 1870 and the wood and coal-fired power of the 19th century began to sculpt the Tisza River valley with the clean and smooth lines of an engineer's rule. 3.7.3 Hydro engineering To grow, protect and export wheat the Tisza floodplain was modified for flood defense, and the river was straightened and deepened. Wheat export became possible when the Tisza's flow was concentrated in a single, deeper channel that cut a smoothed arc through the maze of twists and turns of a braided river's floodplain (Figure 5). Overall the Tisza's length was shortened by more than 400 km [53]. In addition, the original Vasarhelyi Plan began a

Figure 5. Artists rendering of the Tisza river and floodplain before (A) and after (B) straightening of the main channel, removal of lateral sluices (fok) that lead to both permanent and ephemeral lakes, and addition of dikes under the original Vasarhelyi Plan. (Illustration courtesy of WWF-Hungary, modified from Siposs and Kis, (2002).

J. Sendzimir et at. / The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

275

process that over a century eventually protected 97 percent of the basin at risk from flooding with over 4500 km of primary and secondary dikes along the Tisza and its tributaries. This also consisted of embankments around some 840 smaller settlements and circular levees around 48 cities and large villages [50], In addition some 40,000 km of canals were added to decrease the groundwater levels and hasten drainage of wheat fields [54,3]- Simply mentioning that a major Tisza flood could inundate 17 percent of Hungary [23] made the threat so palpable that it locked most funding into dike defense. Water authorities are driven by enormous political pressure in the event of any loss of life or injury following dike failure in a flood [22]. However, the prodigious engineering of the dike defense system failed repeatedly under the mounting pressure of floods with higher crests and volumes. More and larger floods created a race to raise and reinforce the dikes higher than the next major flood, but the history of dike failures shows how re-engineering the defense system never could catch up. For example, before the 2001 flood, of the 627 km of dikes along the Upper Tisza River in Hungary, 260 km of that length did not meet the government standard, which is 1 meter higher than the maximum flood height of record [25]. This dike system failed in the 2001 flood, and the total destruction of 1000 homes in an election year provoked a massive show of government support that built new homes and re-engineered the dikes yet again. The 2001 flood demonstrated the futility of fighting floods through accelerated dike construction programs, last tried after the November 1998 flood [31]. The Hungarian government decided to explore a wider range of flood mitigation measures, and proposed a plan, the "New Vasarhelyi Plan," [55] (and see www.vizugy.hu) that expands the capacity of the TRB to absorb flood volumes by finally going outside the dikes to create some 14 large artificial reservoirs in the floodplains of Hungary and the Ukraine as well as changing land-use practices in the floodplain and increasing the river bed's flow capacity (Figure 6). This revision abandons the 19th century view of the TRB floodplain as a vulnerable wheat field. It recognizes a wider view of a floodplain's functionality to include storage capacity of flood volumes. However, in current drafts this plan expresses this so narrowly as engineering water storage that it fails to appreciate the potential to gain full use of water flow and storage dynamics on the floodplain. This would put the entire basin to work as a diverse landscape mosaic producing protein (fish) as well as varieties of fruit and grain

Figure 6. Hydro-engineering actions proposed for the New Vasarhelyi Plan as shown on a cross section of the Tisza river: movement of dikes laterally from river (1), raising dike height(2), removal of accumulated sediment from unprotected floodplain (3), river channel bottom (5), sluice bottoms (6), elimination of secondary dikes, lowering of river banks (4), relocation of business and habitations from higher areas within unprotected floodplain, removal of plantations from unprotected floodplain to increase flow speed and hasten drainage. (Illustration courtesy of Dr Jozsef Varadi and Dr Peter Bakonvi VITUKI Consult)

276


while providing resilience to both flood and drought. Furthermore, it eliminates some preserved habitats as well as private land and raises significant questions about who should manage and maintain these reservoirs. Local stakeholders are hard pressed to build their own economies and have neither the time nor the funding to competently do such management [37]. In summary, over the 130 years since the original Vasarhelyi Plan the conversion of energy to product was "modernized" in the TRB. The needs of mono-culture farming dictated the re-engineering of fields and then the banks and channel of the river itself. Modernization reduced the variety of products into one product, wheat, which in turn mandated the concentration of the Tisza to a single channel behind dikes. The increasing availability of science and fossil fuel made this possible, and the consequences have since forced us to increasingly rely on them for rescue. 3.2 Slow change below the horizon of understanding Crises may punctuate our lives with drama, but such extreme departures from the norm make it easy to recognize danger, marshal all our resources and bring them to bear. However, heroic stances on the ramparts of the dikes might be the source of a deeper tragedy. The romance and good intentions of such rescues distract us from seeing and learning from the quiet almost imperceptible messages that point to original causes of these crises. To say that these signals were too subtle for our point of view offers only a weak excuse for our failure to contend with the changing demands of evolution in nature and society. To meet these dynamic challenges, science and practice must work together to continuously revise how we see and understand. This higher responsibility requires that we recognize the variety of actors and processes that have subtly changed in the TRB, from the basin's shape to the composition of its communities to the ways people see themselves. 3.2.1 Morphometry - the shape of the floodplain After accounting for the mounting potential for deforestation and climate change to accelerate the rising trend in flood heights, one must still turn and address one of the original causes: the concentration of runoff and river flow into the narrow zone between the dikes. The dike defense system lowered the floodplain area by more than an order of magnitude, from 38,500 km2 to 1800 km2 [25]. The dike system escaped serious scrutiny for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, since wheat production defense was the official paradigm for the central authorities, no other approaches (especially ones utilizing the entire floodplain to absorb floods) were imaginable. For more than a century dikes have been "citizens above suspicion."1 Second, since the building of dikes and deepening of the channel occurred in stages over a century, the system changed in slow increments that were far less conspicuous than the drama created by each flood. Amidst the misery of ruined lives, all effort focused on rebuilding homes and farms and reinforcing the only tool at hand, the dikes, to try to get ahead of the next catastrophe. As with the proverbial cliche "When you are a hammer all problems look like nails," dikes appeared to be the only hammer in easy reach, and increased reliance on dikes made every new crisis a larger "nail" that only larger hammers (dikes) could handle. Meanwhile, dikes had been lengthened and raised in steps over a time span longer than several human lifetimes, shifting the entire basin landscape over thousands of square kilometers. The shape of the TRB changed over 1 The Italian director, Elio Petri, explored the ways people, even police detectives, can be blinded by official methods and paradigms in the 1970 film "Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion."

y. Sendzimir et al. / The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

211

an area and a time span much larger than what could be handled by political dialogue or any single human imagination. Third, this process was even less conspicuous because the river deepened itself without further human intervention. Concentrating the river into one channel increased the speed of flow, cutting deeper into the main bed and lowering the channel and the hydrological connectivity to the surrounding floodplain.

3.2.2. Ecological processes - their rhythms and distribution While Central Europe may appear to be a moist, temperate region, areas like the Central Plain of Hungary and that of Poland actually swing between extremes of drought and flood. The danger of flooding lasts a few weeks each year; the rest of the time people, flora and fauna must contend with a chronic rain deficiency (300 mm in the Hungarian part of the TRB) that often intensifies to a drought. Our traditions of science and engineering have worked to reduce and dampen extreme variability in Nature [56,57], so such wet-dry swings appear to the modern mind as threats to be subdued. But natural and human communities thrived by working with such rhythms before the Industrial Revolution. The functioning of ecosystems and society depended on river flow from the mountains to make up for this rain deficiency. Without fossil fuels and engineering power, floods were "God's way" of distributing and storing water across the entire floodplain, creating moist and productive conditions lasting for months into each annual dry period. This spreading and receding water pattern boosted productivity in a variety of ways. In wetlands, nitrogen cycles are accelerated by variation between the anaerobic/aerobic states that alternating wet/dry periods produce, and this pulsing nutrient engine in the sediments pumped nitrogen up the food chain to fish and, ultimately, to humans. The entire landscape begins to work when a flood connects a river channel with its floodplain, beginning when spreading floodwater enhances nutrient cycles in the backwaters and culminating in the convergence of fish and waterfowl back to the river channel to migrate up and down the system. The pulsing productivity of the floodplain in turn links the TRB to other ecosystems in other regions and continents as migrating waterfowl are attracted by rich wet oases within the relatively dry surrounding plain. Such productivity also linked people in the TRB with the rest of Hungary as their abundant export of fish made them regionally famous as well as relatively wealthy. Modernization through engineering reduced this diversity of links operating at different speeds to the single rhythm of wheat monoculture. Power was concentrated into one form, wheat export, greatly increasing profits of landholders at the expense of those that used to profit from diversity.

3.2.3 Biological diversity - variety of species Agricultural modernization released several forces that reduced biodiversity in terms of number of species (and varieties within species), populations and their component numbers of individuals within the floodplain. First, conversion to monoculture (either wheat or pine plantations) reduced the amount of available area for indigenous species. Second, confining the river flow within the dikes reduced or eliminated the flood pulses onto the floodplain to which indigenous species had adapted over millions of years. Third, increasing the variability of water levels between the dikes allowed invasive species to displace indigenous species. Narrowing of the river basin cross section by dike placement created much higher than 'normal' water level fluctuations which suppressed endemics and gave entry to exotics such as American bulrush and Rodinia sp., the Black Locust tree which tolerates hydrological extremes [37].

278


Confinement between the dikes reduced the capacity for species to move and recolonize areas where local populations became extinct. Increasing the amount of arable land and plantations of non-indigenous trees accelerated the loss of ecological corridors, fragmenting and disconnecting the landscape for the movement of species. Biodiversity declined further at the level of ecosystem diversity in the landscape when "modernization" and/or economic necessity caused farmers to abandon traditional practices of grazing and haymaking that maintained rare grasslands, thereby hastening the transition to shrubland and forests [37]. The TRB still exhibits a higher diversity of species and landscapes than most of Western Europe and other highly developed regions [58], but the development that has occurred has already lowered that diversity significantly.

3.2.4 Civic capacity Over the last 20 years, larger and more intense floods have become an inescapable fact, provoking a regional sense of foreboding that coincides with the sense of helplessness instilled by four decades of total domination by central authorities during the socialist era of 1946 - 1989. During that time the national government told rural people what to do, except for the rare occasions where political rallies made a pretense of public participation (sensu [22,59,60]). Rural people were never asked their opinion, and certainly never developed their community skills of addressing issues through observation, debate and decisionmaking. When two world wars and a socialist state hierarchy severed them from their traditions of self-reliance, local communities and regional governments could not derive the skills or knowledge that come from "learaing-by-doing," and so could do little to contend with declining regional sustainability. Local leaders and citizens had only their fledgling capabilities, already hindered by a negative regional self-image, just as the forces of nature and economy started to seem implacable in the 1990s. The first attempts to achieve local self-sufficiency continue to be stifled by the paternalist and elitist attitudes of national authorities, thereby reinforcing public passivity. For example, a survey [3] found that half of the local governments and NGOs insist they can accomplish nothing, especially those from poor villages. The remainder felt that only programs joining villages with larger towns might achieve some success. Similar sentiments of reliance on the national government are shared by wider circles of TRB residents [22,31,32], showing the ingrained challenge to building grassroots capacity for democratic decision-making. Much of the aura of democratization following the fall of the Iron Curtain has evaporated in the face of moves to centralize money and political power in the national government. Contrary to initial talk of devolving power to regions, ninety percent of taxes must now flow through the capital to be redirected from ministries at the top, making them the final arbiter of where and how resources are used. The interest and desire to participate in national debate has waned in the TRB as the spectacle in the Parliament seems more and more like a struggle for political domination driven by self-interest. In this light, the pretense of national debate on how to direct development and resources covers a realpolitik where decisions are taken purely on the merits of gaining or denying political power. The bitter polarization between political extremes appears increasingly disconnected from regional or local reality as the drive for political power becomes the prime motive. Where would any regional stakeholder gain entry or standing in such a trampling herd of elephants? In general, regional authorities (such as park administrations) have yet to develop the capacity or trust needed to fill the governance void that stands between central government and local stakeholders in the TRB. While some park authorities have developed good working relations with local citizens, other regional administrations seem

J. Sendzimir el al. / The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

279

driven by a missionary zeal that any heritage for which they are responsible will be destroyed if it is not strictly protected. The regrettable result is local outrage at the inflexible ways that administrators of parks or cultural sites prevent any modifications to homes or land that might constitute infringements on preservation zones. The need to develop civic capacity for governance is evident at local, regional and national levels across Central Europe. This is true within each administrative level as well as across all levels. The missed opportunities to learn from local successes and failures point to the need to better support local achievement as well as to integrate governance functions across levels. In the TRB from one village to the next one may find dramatic successes (profitable export of local produce and crafts) lying adjacent to areas barren of success or hope. Some local areas may be in transition, struggling at the edge of success but sliding back. Higher levels of governance must direct resources that reinforce such local successes and spread their influence to support the region as a whole. If local initiatives do not realize success at the right rate they will not achieve self-sufficiency. For example, regional governance that is more capable and alert would have recognized the initial achievements of an NGO such as Cotkeny, in the Borsodi Mezoseg area of the TRB and sustained its operation through a transition period to self-sufficiency. Despite its recognized zeal and good ideas, failure of that NGO to realize success at an acceptable rate caused it to lose credibility locally. Started by local entrepreneurs, mayors and teachers, Cotkeny worked to establish a local vision of community and even achieved a SAPART) program on the sustainable use of resources to create jobs for the young. But it was ignored by both the Socialist and Fidesz national regimes, and the local stakeholders behind Cotkeny now are in the process of dissolving it and exploring new forms of organizing to pull people and resources together and collaborate on local innovations for sustainability [38].

3.2.5 Cultural diversity and integrity Our culture summarizes so many of the ways that we recognize ourselves in how we act and how we see the world, that it may seem impractically broad and vague as a means to develop sustainability. However, when elements of culture can be harnessed to forge agreement across a community very practical results can be achieved. NGOs working for sustainable agriculture noted that in the last decade in Germany those regions with intact cultural identities proved more resilient to pressures to industrialize and intensify agricultural practices [61]. On the other hand, recognizing and agreeing on our cultural roots and tools can be a serious challenge. Mirek Janik, a local organizer in the White Carpathians (Bile Karpaty in Czech) mountain border region between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, noted that it took three year's work of education and festivals to overcome the foremost modem challenge to cultural integrity: helping people to remember who they are in terms of their links to their region. Similar trends are more and more evident in the TRB. For example, many young people do not strongly identify with the region, as is evident in local schools where little knowledge or interest is displayed regarding their art, history, or local environment. The sense of functional relations that bind people in their common work and outlook is fraying as economics and migration changes who lives in the community and how they work together. This occurs as traditional agriculture and crafts disappear with the death or emigration of skilled community members as well as when newcomers bring their urban or foreign wealth to buy up village cottages and establish holiday havens. The respect accorded these traditional skills wanes just as villagers and other rural folk begin to feel like second-class servants in a resort [38]. In an ironic way such development may cause TRB villages to lose the distinctive character that may allow them to compete on national and

280


international tourist markets [62]. Simultaneous weaknesses in civic capacity, cultural identity and economy create a vacuum of vision and activity that is vulnerable to extreme political philosophies that can exploit and aggravate festering ethnic tensions. Since 1990 the desperate search for simple answers that brook no compromise has often ended in brutal ethnic violence, from the former republics of the Soviet Union to the Balkans to modern Ireland, Germany and France. Ethnic tensions simmered for decades under the lid of socialist authoritarian rule after political boundaries, redrawn after both world wars, stranded certain ethnic groups as minorities [3]. Ethnic tensions may decline if E.U. accession allows ethnic groups to see themselves as citizens of equal standing within a wider Europe, not as "minorities" victimized by the political vendettas of smaller nation states. However, the accession process will take years to realize, even in such concrete terms as international agreements and economic integration, but especially as a means to change how people see themselves in a dynamic social and political context. The potential for conflict will remain high during this time of political, economic and social transition. For more than a century the heritage of the TRB has been quietly changing below the threshold of public attention. Headlines occasionally trumpeted disaster notices to the point where mention of the word "Tisza" immediately conjures associations with floods, heavy metals, and cyanide. But beneath these headlines the real TRB heritage, the genuine sources of ecological, economic and cultural wealth, eroded along with the interactions that linked and sustained them. When this constellation of interactions had shifted and declined sufficiently, the impacts of disasters could pierce below the flesh and reach the region's bones. Then the energy of floods is no longer a pulse on which the region's heritage thrives but a scourge that depletes that heritage even further. Without the skeleton of such heritage there is little foundation on which to build economic muscle. This lack can be one explanation why the bloom has vanished from the first flush of post-socialist economic development. As the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development [63] noted, transition in some CEE countries has been marred by setbacks in the areas of poverty levels and living standards. So the deeper challenge of sustainability is to see beyond flood crisis or even economic atrophy to rebuild the heritage from which all wealth, as well as resilience to shocks, was derived. 4. Synthesis - concepts and practices to pull the threads together The challenges of achieving sustainability in the TRB require more than better understanding or innovative actions; they demand the integration of knowledge, research and actions such that they reinforce one another in their evolution. Unless well integrated with the search for new knowledge and experience, actions alone can stifle the search for new perspectives, especially if they merely provide the false comfort of the appearance of decisive interventions. The history of the TRB reflects how deeper crises were provoked by over-emphasis on flood defense actions at the expense of developing new insight into the root causes of flooding and regional decline. Below we review some of the concepts and initiatives that can form the basis for new practices supported by a broader perspective of the fast- and slow-changing elements of the TRB heritage. 4.1 Ideas to simplify the complex Few people are comfortable with new ideas; their novelty puts them outside our experience, our language and our perspective. But theories and concepts can provide very practical ways to allow us to speak about very complex things. Well-conceived theory can simplify


281

the complex without using confusing levels of abstraction. Developing elegantly simple explanations is a vital first step to address sustainability challenges, because we need these concepts to discuss, test our ideas, and work better together based on a common understanding. Crises such as the decline of the TRB have provoked a multitude of new theories across a range of disciplines over the past half- century. Two theories in particular are useful to understand some of the sources of uncertainty and vulnerability whose misunderstanding amplified the decline of sustainability in the TRB. These theories contribute to our understanding of standing value of products and services in the TRB as well as how things interact and change over time. 4.1.1 Value - different forms of capital Ecological economics emerged in part as an attempt to assess the value of services not well quantified or tracked by the market. One founding notion was that degradation of such "natural" services drove the decline in the environment and, ultimately, society and could be reduced if people came to recognize the true contribution or value of such services to their welfare [64-66]. This goes beyond the neoclassical idea that all benefits derive from the human economy, within which the environment is simply a "factor of production" [65]. In the ecological economic paradigm the human economy resides within the biosphere and is supported not only by importing resources but also by a range of ecological services or functions that supply, among many other things, nutrients, energy, regulation of functions, diversity, space, and aesthetics [65]. However, ecological economics also examines a range of undervalued services commonly seen as residing exclusively within the human realm. These include knowledge, skills, capacity to debate and decide, capacity to recall history and experience [66]. Ecological economics offers one overarching paradigm to view the products of all the kinds of services that influence sustainability as different forms of capital. Table 1 provides a list of the different kinds of capital along with brief descriptions. Table 1. Diverse forms of capital that provide materials and services which create wealth and support resilience and sustainability in socio-ecological systems. Form of Capital Descriptions and Examples Financial Money, Stocks, Bonds Manufactured Built environment Stocks of housing, infrastructure for storage and transport of people, energy and materials Production Materials in various states of processing (raw extracted resources to fully resources manufactured items) Biodiversity, Ecosystem size, degree of connection and diversity in a Natural landscape, Purity and accessibility of resources (water, soil), biogeochemical cycles Human Individual capacities to compete, contribute and maintain one's physical and mental integrity: Knowledge, Skills, Formal Education, Mobility, Communication Social Social cohesion, norms and networks that enable collective action (1), Civic or democratic capacity to mutually study, debate, and decide so as to autonomously achieve sustainability Cultural Heritage of human history enshrined in language, tools and instruments, crafts, oral traditions, music, literature, art, buildings, landscape patterns Source: http://www.worldbank.org/povertv/scapital/

At first glance, enumerating different forms of capital might seem to increase rather than decrease the complexity of socio-ecological systems like the TRB. However, the paradigm provided by ecological economics allows us to compare in unprecedented ways

282


products and services that were formerly relegated to different disciplines, putting the separate means of both society and nature within one framework. In this way it opens the door to a range of inquiry to explore the relative contributions to sustainability of different forms of capital. It is just such a framework that might have alerted us earlier to patterns of waning capital that lead to the onset of declining resilience and sustainability in the TRB. Even if such different forms of capital and their interactions prove very difficult to quantify, this paradigm identifies these difficulties and the importance of these questions. Answers may prove elusive when hidden in difficult questions, but they are impossible if we pursue easy and trivial questions that are not comprehensive or aimed in the right direction. Such is the criticism that ecological economics offers toward our obsession with such indices as GDP; it is relatively easy to quantify, but has told us very little about our quality of life or the declining integrity and resilience of areas like the TRB. 4.1.2 Dynamics - resilience theory Ecological succession was the dominant view of the way that ecosystems change for more most of the 20th century [67]. Ecosystems start from relatively simple states, such as bare rock or sand, and grow to complex, mature states like forests. However, not all ecosystems behaved in such an orderly way, and the gathering experience of shocking surprises (sudden ecosystem reversals, collapses, and leaps to become totally different kinds of systems) spurred the development of resilience theory [68-70]. Resilience theory portrays ecosystems change as a cycle that starts with succession and slowly builds to a mature climax before swiftly moving through destruction and then rebuilding. Destruction and change are not anomalies driven by "evil" exogenous forces, but are built into a system's structure and function as natural ways to re-generate diversity and the capacity to adapt to change [71]. Resilience results from a balancing of the forces of stability (production, biogeochemical cycles) and novelty (destruction and reconstruction) [72]. Three main characteristics of resilience are [73]: 1. Amount of change that a system can undergo and still maintain the same controls on function and structure 2. Ability to self organize 3. Capacity for learning, innovation, adaptation Two aspects of resilience theory immediately apply to sustainability in the TRB. First, resilience theory has identified the slow and quiet change of macro-scale variables as one of the precursors to system decline and collapse. The TRB's vulnerability to floods has sharply increased after a century of crisis-driven engineering steps that changed the shape of river and floodplain in the basin landscape. In similar ways, other ecosystems have become increasingly vulnerable to collapse with gradual build up over years or decades of: nutrients in sediments (temperate freshwater lakes), tree foliage volume (boreal forest), area of sea-grass beds of the same age (sub-tropical estuarine bays), and ratio of shrubs to grasses (Australian rangelands) [72], Just as with other aspects of fundamental dynamics as described by Resilience theory, the pattern of slow build-up to sudden collapse is not universal, but is evident in every continent. Resilience theory does not explain all ecosystem behavior, but raises unique and useful questions that apply in every biome. Resilience theory offers a framework that spans more than the behavior of different ecosystems; it also spans different systems, both natural and social [74]. In the TRB the parallel declines in natural, human, social, and cultural capital beg the question of what interactions link them in these mutual trends. The lessons gained in studying systems as large as the TRB require considerable resources of time, money and organization, so any theory that allows comparison of ideas, practices and knowledge in similar large scale


283

systems around the world will speed lessons on sustainability in parallel. On the other hand, lack of common theories or ideas slows our rate of learning from similar sustainability projects elsewhere.

4.1.3 The rule of hand While most people commonly apply one view or explanation ("rule of thumb") to decipher any particular situation, complex systems change following several rules at the same time. Gunderson and others [75] suggested the phrase "rule of hand" to suggest these small but crucial sets of key rules that define the basic dynamics of a complex system. A vast regional landscape with a long and intricate history like the TRB would require a sustained dialogue within a diverse group of stakeholders to rigorously identify the Rule of Hand that defines how the Tisza has changed. Without presumption we offer the following rules simply to summarize the lessons gained in this study and create a starting point for such a dialogue: 1. Modifications of the landscape (land cover and shape of the floodplain) interact with increasing climate variability to create larger and more destructive floods. 2. Decreasing the variety of agricultural crops to monocultures of wheat and pine plantations reduces biodiversity, the diversity of the human skill base, and increases the vulnerability of crops to floods and pests and of people to macroscale (E.U. and global) economic transition 3. Concentration of political power at the national level that concentrates economic power in a few enterprises (mining, monoculture agriculture) decreases local civic capacity and increases vulnerability to catastrophic floods and toxic spills. These rules identify complex patterns rarely discussed at the policy level in Hungary, but they point to a reality that is even more complex because the rules themselves are interrelated by interactions and feedbacks. For example, crop diversity is found both in rules two and three, and flooding in rules one and three. Furthermore, different variables in these rules operate at different scales. Climate change is global; E.U. transition is continental, and local civic capacity varies from town to town in the TRB. Putting the TRB on a sustainable footing obviously involves reducing the vulnerability to flooding and economic shocks by re-establishing diversity of natural, human and social capital. But rules, policies or regulations, even if inspired by these novel insights, may do no more than reinforce the existing civic passivity if imposed from outside. They might also be actively resisted as foreign ideas. What is needed is for scientists, policy makers and business people to work with local actors and stakeholders in processes that explore these rules, the interactions between various kinds of capital and the scales at which they operate. Sustainability in all its ecological, economic, social and political dimensions must be achieved by broad-based coalitions that integrate science, policy and local practice to determine the actual "Rules of Hand." We describe some approaches to these citizenscience initiatives below. 4.2 Local practice to develop civic capacity New concepts offer different ways to see the challenges of sustainability, but their full practicality is realized when application becomes cheap and effective because people can easily understand and use them. However, even if ideas are generated locally, they rarely if ever work from the very start; they must be repeatedly tested and revised on site before we discover the concepts and practices that genuinely promote sustainability in any location.

284

J. Sendzimir et at. / The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

To create an atmosphere to test such ideas and develop sustainability practices requires broad partnerships that bridge the divisions between different sectors of society and allow them to work together, often for the first time. The working of such partnerships increases the capacity of a community to understand and solve its sustainability challenges by developing new practices and new ideas. The Environmental Partnership for Central Europe (EPCE) has promoted such local partnerships as ways to increase civic capacity, promote regional identity, and develop sustainability solutions that emerge from local experience and practice. Okotars Alapitvany, the Hungarian member of EPCE, has organized and supported a variety of projects in three of the nations within the TRB (Table 2). EPCE seeks projects that: • emphasize holistic approaches to problem solving that unite different sectors • strengthen awareness and support of environmental issues and organizations • promote collaboration between NGOs and other sectors • seek innovative solutions to sustainability challenges Table 2. NGO supported projects in the TRB in partnership with EPCE Nation / Organization Project Goals RO / Transylvanian Mapping and analyzing pollution sources in Tisza River Association "Carpatia", Satu basin Mare RO / Foundation Edelweiss, Encourage and support civil activities in one of the most polluted industrial area of the TRB , the Copsa Mica Sibiu region RO / Ecotur, Sibiu Set up a monitoring system on Tamava and Ampoi rivers and organize public debates on environmental - mainly water related - issues RO / ASSOC, Satu Mare Examine and publish health effects of river pollution (cyanide) and inform public media RO / Ecological Club Achieve water quality improvement in Somesul Mic, Crisul Repede and Crisul Negru rivers by monitoring, Transylvania, Cluj public information and supporting partnerships Monitor technologies and environmental effects of the RO / Albamont Club, Alba lulia Gold Company "Rosia Montana" in valley Rosiei HU/ Foundation for NagykOru Re-establishment of traditional river management in the TRB floodplain HU/ Paneuropean Jurists' Collect the claims of individuals, non-governmental Union organizations and small businesses, processes them and put them in the state suitable for expert team asserting the damages from cyanide pollution HU/ Youth Nature Induce legal suits for pollution damages involving tourist Conservationists from enterprises that operate within the TRB floodplain Hajdub6sz5rmeny HU/ E-mission Association, Case study of the cyanide and heavy metal contamination and their consequences, preparation of a Nyiregyhaza development program in a small region with demonstrative purposes, civil organization-development program in Upper Tisza region Collect information on the state of their environment, YU/ Tisa Klub, Kanjiza initiate environmental activities in the region and give correct information to the public, and opinion research to get information how people think about their environment, and whether they are ready to work for improvement of its state. Meetings on environmental issues are also planned where people get the opportunity to discuss the hot topics of their close environment Active fieldwork and laboratory research to prove that YU/ Serbian Mycological mushrooms can be bio-indicators of heavy metals Society, Belgrade

J. Sendzimir et al, / The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

YU/ Center for Ecology and Sustainable Management, Belgrade

285

Raise public awareness, promote information exchange and create databases, collecting and publishing best as well as unsuccessful practices and projects related to protection of the rivers

The EPCE campaign within the TRB supports local capacity in a variety of political, social and ecological contexts at the same time that it establishes a bridge of communication up and down the Tisza that could prove the basis of dialogues at larger scales, perhaps even at the basin level. While small in scale, each modest local effort at education, fact-finding, or monitoring establishes a crucial bridgehead often missed by research efforts by outsiders from universities and the government. That bridgehead is the legitimacy gained through activities done by and for local people. Many residents of the TRB are tired and frustrated by the repeated pattern of crisis-study-crisis-study that never produces meaningful understanding or change within their community. Residents feel they have given interviews and information without any compensating results. So academics gain what they need to advance their careers, but never concretely influence regional decline of sustainability. In some cases, such projects can provide the first tangible sign that things can change when the dialogue does not end with the departure of researchers but is sustained by the local people who collected the information themselves.

4.2.1 Pilot project -floodplain restoration atNagykoru Many projects (Table 2) begin with surveys and monitoring to unite people around useful information and a better understanding of sustainability challenges, but some even are beginning to experiment with new practices in ecology and agriculture. For example, the floodplain restoration project in Nagykorii is small-scale test of what methods work to reestablish hydrological connectivity between the floodplain and the river-bed and what concrete effects are realized by such methods [76]. Local people can begin to explore how to recreate a diverse and sustainable agriculture on the floodplain once it is reconnected with the river. The Great Hungarian Plain (Aljold) is actually not so flat, but consists of a series of depressions that can store water at levels from which water can be usefully diverted about 60 percent of the year [77]. Rather than a nostalgic revisiting of traditional farming methods, the project aims eventually to provide the framework to explore what methods do or do not work as the Tisza river makes a transition to a different hydrological regime. In this way local people can collaborate with scientists in testing three ideas related to floodplain restoration: 1. flood water excess equals the amount of water missing from the floodplain to sustain its agricultural and fish nursery functions, 2. the land removed from monocultural cultivation in compliance with E.U. accession is the area needed for flood protection, 3. the measures needed to diversify land use for flood protection are the same measures needed to economically restore the area with a viable fishery and flood-resistant agriculture [77].

4.3 Adaptive management Theory and practice really begin to create new visions and innovations for sustainability solutions when they are functionally integrated in ways that are accessible to all levels of society. How can we establish a functioning "social basis for resolving problems and conflicts" [3] and thereby go beyond narrow reliance only on technical or on policy tools to provide solutions? Rules, policies or solutions imposed from outside often reinforce the very passivity that stifled innovation and renewal of other forms of human and social

286


capital in the first place. The EPCE projects described above represent adept efforts to work with local stakeholders at a pace and scope warranted by their needs and understanding. The question remains as to how much can learning and innovation be augmented when citizen-science dialogues expand beyond one level of administration, be it local or regional or national, to embrace multiple levels. The pilot project at Nagykoru tests our understanding and practices related to various kinds of capital related to sustainability: natural (diversity of species and agricultural varieties), human (knowledge and skills), social (E.U. accession and local civic capacity), and cultural (language and knowledge of traditions). This is a bold and ambitious program, but how can such tests be integrated with parallel experiments on alternative ideas about how to achieve sustainability? Stakeholders all along the Tisza currently express three broad ideas about how to reduce flood vulnerability [22,31,32]. The first idea, "state protectionism" represents the centuries-old notion that the state is responsible to alleviate all flood risk and compensate for all damages. The second idea, "individual responsibility," has emerged and grows stronger with the transition to capitalism and democracy. This idea is that each person should assume responsibility for flood risk and carry insurance. The third idea, "sustainable development," suggests that river naturalization will simultaneously alleviate risks from flood and economic depression. Public debate is richer than these three "pure" caricatures, since most TRB stakeholders express views that mix these three positions. As Linnerooth-Bayer and Vari [22] note: "Almost all agreed that levees in certain areas are essential, and at the same time that individual initiative for reducing flood risks should be encouraged even with economic incentives. There was also unanimity that a transfer of the [risk] burden to an already vulnerable population cannot be justified by arguments of efficiency. While these views were sometimes personally contradictory in the sense of espousing incompatible goals, they were at other times surprisingly clumsy. That is, they combined elements of the three policy paths that are, indeed, combinable." The search for "clumsy" solutions that practically integrate all three elements requires a dialogue between stakeholders at multiple levels (national, regional and local) that initiates and is informed by research probes into these questions. Adaptive Management (AM) provides such a framework based on three decades of experiments in sustainability crises similar to that of the TRB [57,75]. Since neither ecosystems nor society are static, the "Rules of Hand" will change over time, perhaps unexpectedly. The AM approach aids the search for what these rules are and how they change by using long-term monitoring to link experiments and policy interventions with the formulation of the Rules, and the hypotheses behind the research and policy. As the dialogue team of stakeholders returns iteratively to revisit Rules that generated the policies and research, they can reexamine the assumptions and theories underlying the Rules, and learning can occur at a deeper level, that of the paradigms we use to organize our experience and set priorities. The "individual responsibility" paradigm is currently rising, albeit slowly, in the TRB, but a public policy requiring mandatory insurance might be premature or might encounter a reversal of public opinion as the reality of E.U. integration emerges. The search for sustainability in the TRB can flex with such shifts in opinion or in the environment if we use processes that allow all key stakeholders, no matter what their training or view, to share in all the steps of research, management, monitoring and formulation of policy and theory.


287

5. Conclusions The sustainability crisis in the TRB results from failure to recognize how the key elements of the region's heritage contributed individually and interacted to maintain the resilience of the basin's ecosystems and communities. Efforts to generate rapid profit funded the simplification of that heritage, the landscape and other forms of capital, which continued to erode until the region was vulnerable to any disturbance. While it is impossible to exactly recreate them, the heritage and the traditions of the past can inform our attempts to understand how the system changes and to experiment with innovative ideas and practices to establish sustainable ecosystems and communities in a new context of global economy and climate in transition. To realize the full practicality of such ideas and experiments, scientists, policy-makers and citizen-stakeholders must learn to collaborate in new ways to break the long-standing dependence on central authority such that local and regional stakeholders can discover and promote the functional links between ecosystems and society that creates a working landscape.

Acknowledgements The original motivation for this paper was to use the Tisza River as a case study for new insights into the dynamics of sustainability for the conference "The Role Of Biodiversity Conservation In The Transition To Rural Sustainability: Using Adaptive Management, Institutional Analysis And Sustainability Appraisal To Understand Experience From North America And Europe, With Special Reference To Central And East Europe" held in Krakow, Poland on 05-07 November 2002. A number of people greatly helped its preparation with their insight and advice. For their friendly help we gratefully thank: Professor Dr. CSlin Baciu,, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; Dr. Peter Bakonyi, VITUKI Consult; Dr. Mihaly Braun, University of Debrecen; Petur Farkas, Regional Environmental Center, Budapest; Dr. Josef Hamar, The Tisza Klub, Szolnok, Hungary; Zsoltan Kovacs; Dr. Gyorgy Pataki, St. Istvan University, Godolo, Hungary; Dr. Bohdan Prots, UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle; Dr. Rafal Serafin, Director, Environmental Partnership for the Environment-Poland; Reka Soos, Greenpartners, Budapest: Dr. Gabor Szilagyi, Kiskunsagi National Park Directorate.

References [1] Juhasz, A. (1987): Evmilliok emlekei. Magyarorszag fb'ldtortenete es asvanyi kincsei. (History of the last million years. Mineralogy and geological history of Hungary. Gondolat Kiado Budapest, 1-532. [2] Siimegi, P (1999). Reconstruction of flora, soil and landscape evolution, and human impact on the Bereg Plain from late-glacial up to the present, based on palaeoecological analysis. IN. The Upper Tisa Valley Preparatory proposal for Ramsar site designation and an ecological background. J. H. a. A. Sarkany-Kiss (eds.). Szolnok, Hungary., Tisza Klub for Environment and Nature. [3] Kovacs, Z.C. (2003). Sustainability along the Tisza River. M.B.A. thesis, Oxford Brookes University, Budapest, pp.88 [4] Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. Random House Business Books. London. [5] Wu, F. (2000). "The Tisza River crises: integrating stakeholder views for policy decisions." YSSP Working Paper, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, pp: 29. [6] Souren, A. (2000). "Weeping rivers: cyanide spills in Romania," Geochemical News, 104,14-17 [7] Prommer, M, Skwarek, K. (2001) Report on the Economic and Social Impacts of the Cyanide Spill and Heavy Metal Pollution on River Tisza. Budapest: Center for Environmental Studies. [8] Flynn, C.M., Haslem, S.M., (1995). "Cyanide chemistry - precious metals processing and waste treatment" Information Circular 9429, U.S. Bureau of Mines. [9] Vituki, Pic. (2000). "Summary of cyanide contamination on the Tisza River." Web address: HTTP://WWW.KTM.HU/CIAN/frameciana.htm

288


[10] Hocker, P. (2000). "Cyanide Spring." Web address: http://www.zpok.hu/~jfeiler/ [11] Paul Yoxen, International Otter Survival Fund Broadford, Isle of Skye, Scotland IV49 9AQ UK Tel: +44 (1471) 822 487 Fax: +44 (1471) 822 975 E-Mail: [email protected] Web Page: www.otter.org [12] WWF (2002). "Ecological effects of mining spills in the Tisza river system in 2000", World Wide Fund for Nature - Danube Carpathian Office, Vienna. [14] Greedy, David (2000) "After disasters, life returns to the Tisza" Christian Science Monitor. 19 September 2000. Boston [15] Odum, H.T., Wojcik, W., Pritchard, L. (2000). Heavy Metals in the Environment. London, Lewis Publishers. [16] Fleit, E., Lakatos, G. (2003). "Accumulative heavy metal patterns in the sediment and biotic compartments of the Tisza watershed." Toxicology Letters 140-141: 323-332. [17] US-EPA (1997). "Mercury Study Report to Congress", Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/112nmerc/mercury.html [18] WHO (1996) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd ed. Vol. 2 pp. 940-949 Geneva, World Health Organization. [19] Braun, M., Toth, A., Alapi, K., Devai, Gy., Lakatos, Gy. Posta, J., Szaloki, I. (2000): Environmental history of oxbow ponds: a sediment geochemical study of Maroth-zugi-Holt-Tisza, NE-Hungary. In Galle, L. & Kormoczi L. (eds): Ecology of River Valleys. Tiscia monograph series, Tisza Klub, Szeged, pp.133-138) [20] Dr. Calin Baciu, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Personal Communication [21] Jolankai, G. (2002). "On the results so far of the Tisza River Project: Real-life scale integrated catchment models for supporting water- and environmental management decisions". Proc. Natural Attenuation of Metals Along the Tisza River-Floodplain- Wetlands Continuum, Budapest, OTKA-MTA-NSF. web access: http://www.tiszariver.corn/index.php?s=:public&k=2 [22] Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Van, A. (2003). "Floods and loss sharing: A clumsy solution from Hungary." in review [23] Ministry of Transportation and Water Management (KVM) (2001). The Development of the New Vasarhelyi Plan. Background material for the press. http://www.vizugv.hu/vasarhelvi/sajtokozepkozep.htm (In Hungarian) [24] Pecher, L, Stoiko, S. and Kichura, U. (1999). Conception for the Regeneration of the Upper Forest Boundary and for the Optimization of Hydrological Regime in the Ukrainian Carpathians, 1997, In J. Hamar and A. Sarkany-Kiss (eds) The Upper Tisa Valley: Preparatory Proposal for Ramsar Site Designation and an Ecological Background. Szeged: Tisza Klub, pp. 207-213. [25] Horvath, G., Kisgyorgy, S., Sendzimir, J., Vari, A. (2001). "Flood Risk Management Policy in the Upper Tisza Basin: A System Analytical Approach" Case Study Report, HAS A, Laxenburg, Austria, pp: 39. [26] Fetivizig (2000). "Report on Flood Protection in Szabolcs-Szatmar-Bereg County", Upper Tisza Water Management Authority, Nyiregyhaza. [27] Stoyko, S. M. (2002). The causes of catastrophic floods in the transcarpathian region and the system of ecological prophylactic measures for their prevention. Ecological Aspects of the Tisa Basin. A. Sarkany-Kiss and J. Hamar, eds. Szolnok, Hungary. Liga Pro Europa - Tisza Klub. Volume 6: 1728. [28] Roland Pechlaner, Institute for Zoologie und Limnologie, Universitaet Innsbruck, Austria, Personal Communication. [29] Dr. Bohdan Prots, UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle, Personal Communication [30] Zsoltan Kovacs, Personal Communication [31] Vari, A. (2002). "Public involvement in flood risk management in Hungary." Journal of Risk Research 5(3): 211-214 [32] Vari, A., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Ferencz, Z., 2003 "Stakeholder Views on Flood Risk Management in Hungary's Upper Tisza Basin". Risk Analysis,. in press (also at http://www.iiasa.ac.at). [33] Vari, A. (1999): Flood control development in Hungary: willingness-to pay study. Institute of Sociology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences: Budapest. [34] Rayner, S. (1994). "A conceptual map of human values for climate change decision making". Proc. Workshop on Equity and Social Considerations, Nairobi, Kenya. [35] MacDonald, G. J. (1999). "Climate and catastrophic weather events" Interim IR.-00-034, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp: 11. [36] Halcrow, Water (1999). "Flood Control Development in Hungary: Feasibility Study. Final Report." Halcrow Group Ltd., London, U.K. [37] Gabor Szilagyi, Kiskunsagi Nemzeti Park Igazgatosag (Kiskunsagi National Park Directorate), Personal Communication. [38] Dr. Gyorgy Pataki, St. Istvan University, Godolo, Hungary.

J. Sendzimir el al. / The Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads to Sudden Crisis

289

[39] Judit Bokody, Prime Minister's Office, Budapest, Personal Communication. [40] Dr. Veres Nandor, Mayor, village of NagykQrii, Personal Communication. [41] Dr. Dezso Surany, Biokultura, Hungarian Organic Producers Association, Personal Communication. [42] Andrasfalvy, B. (1973). "A Sarkoz osi arteri gazdalkodasa", Viztigyi Torteneti Fiizetek, Budapest, pp: 52-53 [43] Molnar, G. (2003). "Arteri gazdalkodas Magyarorszagon". Proc. Szovetseg II 2. (2003) pp. 6. [44] Paget, J. (1850). Hungary and Transylvania with remarks on their condition, social, political, and economical. New York, Arno Press. [45] Toth, J. (2002). A tiszai cidnszennyezes: Rendszerszemleletii elemzes. Szeged. [46] McNeely, J. A., Scherr, S.J. (2003). Ecoagriculture: Strategies to feed the world and save wild biodiversity. London, Island Press. [47] Scurrah, M., Canto, R., Zuniga, N. (2003). Self-sufficiency and sustainability of the native potato cultivation in the community of Quilcas, in the Mantaro Valley, in the central Andes of Peru, Grupo Yanapai. Web access date: 28 April 2003.. http://www.unu.edu/env/plec/cbd/abstracts/Scurrah.doc [48] Roach, J. (2002) Saving the potato in its Andean birthplace. National Geographic News. 28 April 2003. web access: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0610_020610_potato.html [49] Nishat Ainun, IUCN, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Personal Communication. [50] Siposs, V., Kis, F. (2002). "Living with the river: LIFE-Nature project in the Tisza floodplain." WWF Hungary, Budapest, pp: 24 [51] Davies, N. (1996). Europe: A History. New York, Harper Perennial. [52] Vay, A. B. (2002). Eszrevetelek a Tisza es mellekfolyoinak szabalyozasarol. Tisza-parti jegyzetek, Vege nines Tisza-szabalyozas. G. Janos. Budapest, http://www.zema.org.yu/zek/konyvek/48/b9.html. [53] Botari I. and Karolyi, Zs. (1971): A Tisza szabalyozasa 2. Resz. (1846-1879) - The regulation of River Tisza: Phase 2. (1846-1879). [54] Szlavik, L. (2000) "The Development policy of flood control in Hungary." Date of Access: April 2003. http://www.fzki.uniag.sk/EMRI.2000/Abstracts/Szlavik.html [55] Varadi, J (2001). "How to Proceed After Floods and Before New Floods? Development of the Vasarhelyi Plan," Hungarian: Ministry of Transportation and Water Management, Budapest (in Hungarian) [56] Holling, C.S. (1987). "Simplifying the complex: The paradigms of ecological function and structure." European Journal of Operational Research. 30: 139-146. [57] Sendzimir, J., Light, S., Szymanowska, K. (1999). "Adaptive Understanding and Management for Floods." Environments 27(1): 115-136. [58] Beckmann, A. (2002). "Enlargement enriches the E.U." Proc. Green Week Conference, Brussels, European Commission. Digital version http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/greenweek/presentationsummaries/summarvsession39.pdf [59] Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler, and Peter Wiedemann (1995). "A Need for Discourse on Citizen Participation: Objectives and Structure of the Book", in Ortwin Renn, Thomas Webler, and Peter Wiedemann (1995), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Dordrecht, Kluwer. [60] Renn, Ortwin and Thomas Webler (1995), "A Brief primer on Participation. Philosophy and Practice" in Ortwin Renn, Thomas Webler, and Peter Wiedemann (1995), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Dordrecht, Kluwer. [61] Lutz Ribbe, Director, EuroNatur, Bonn, Germany, Personal Communication. [62] McCool, S.F., Watson, A.E., (1995). "Linking tourism, the environment, and sustainability" Gen. Tech. Report INT-GTR-323, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Ogden, Utah. [63] EBRD (2002). "Agriculture and Rural Transition" Transition Report. Access Number: ISBN 1 898802 211, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, London. [64] Daly, H.E., Cobb, Jr. J.B. (1989). For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Boston, Beacon Press. [65] Prugh, T. (1995). Natural Capital and Human Economic Survival. Solomons, Maryland, International Society for Ecological Economics. [66] Costanza, R., Cumberland, J., Daly, H., Goodland, R., Norgaard, R. (1997). An Introduction to Ecological Economics. Boca Raton, Florida, St. Lucie Press. [67] Odum, E.P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Company. [68] Holling, C.S. 1973 "Resilience and stability of ecosystems". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Vol. 4:1-23. [69] Holling, C.S. 1986 "Resilience of Ecosystems: local surprise and global change." IN W.C. Clark and R.E. Munn, eds. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, pp.292-317. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [70] Gunderson, L.H., Pritchard, L., Ed. (2002). Resilience and the Behavior of Large-Scale Ecosystems. Washington, D.C., Island Press.

290


[71] Rolling, C.S., D.W. Schindler, B. Walker and J. Roughgarden 1994 "Biodiversity in the functioning of ecosystems: An ecological primer and synthesis." IN C. Perrings, C.S. Holling, B.O. Jansson, and K..G. Maler, eds. Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. [72] Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature. Washington, D.C., Island Press. [73] Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G. S. Gumming, M. Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G. D. Peterson, and R. Pritchard. 2002. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss 1 /art 14 [74] Birkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., Ed. (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press. [75] Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., and Light, S.S., Ed. (1995). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York, Columbia University Press. [76] Kovacs, Z.C. (2000). "Revitalisation project of the ancient flood-plain agriculture of the Tisza River", Local government of NagykSru, Budapest, pp: 13. Additional Resources Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Walker, B. (2002). "Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations." Ambio 31(5): 437-440. Green, C.H. (1999). "Flood control development in Hungary: Insurance options." Gundacker, C. (2000). "Comparison of heavy metal bioaccumulation in freshwater mollusks of urban river habitats in Vienna." Environmental Pollution 110(1): 61-71. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Hamar, J. "The River Tisza", The Tisza Klub, Szolnok. Hamar, J., Sarkany-Kiss, A. (Ed.) (1999). The Upper Tisza Valley: Preparatory proposal for Ramsar site designation and an ecological background. Tiscia Monograph Series. Szeged, Hungary, Tisza Klub & Liga Pro Europa. Haraszthy, L. (2002). "Conservation of unique natural values in Hungary", WWF Bulletin No. 6, Budapest, pp: 4. Otter News; http://www.otter.org/news/news 13.html River Otter Alliance News - Spring 2000; http://www.ottemet.com/ROA/springOO.htrn Vari, A. & Kisgyorgy, S. (1998): Public participation in developing water quality legislation and regulation in Hungary. Water Policy (I): 223-238.


291

Conservation and Restoration of the Danube River Floodplains as a Basis for Rural Sustainable Development Philip WELLER Independent Consultant based in Vienna Austria and former Director of the Danube Carpathian Programme Office of WWF International

Abstract. The following paper examines the efforts of conservation and restoration of floodplain habitat along the Danube River as a conservation goal and the associated activities to link this with local community development. The challenge for countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is to manage the "transition" that will come through the joining of the European Union in a way to ensure that the natural values that exist or can be restored in the region are protected and used effectively and sustainably as part of future development. The Danube River Basin is a place where significant efforts unparalleled on a world scale are underway to protect and restore natural riverine ecosystems - ecosystems that have historically suffered significantly and are now present in only a small percentage of their former extent. Projects throughout the basin have been attempting to protect and restore lost floodplain habitat and at the same time provide a basis for local economic development. The lessons from these efforts will be highlighted in this paper as will the link between these efforts and the changes that the E.U. Accession process will bring to the region.

Introduction The following paper examines the efforts of conservation and restoration of floodplain habitat along the Danube River as a conservation goal and the associated activities to link this with local community development. The question of biodiversity conservation (in the Danube Region of Central and Eastern Europe) is not so much one of addressing the transition to rural sustainability. It is the necessity to have efforts parallel to achieving ecosystem conservation that focus on protection and restoration of the rural sustainability that has existed in this region for many years. The challenge for countries of CEE is to manage the "transition" that will come through the joining of the European Union in a way to ensure that the natural values that exist or can be restored in the region are protected and used effectively and sustainably as part of future development. The Danube is a remarkable river1. It is an international river like no other in that binds together a multitude of different cultures and peoples as well as a diversity of ecosystems including the Black Forest, and the rugged mountains tops of the Alps and Carpathians, the wide open plains on the Puszta and the extensive reed beds of the Danube Delta. Eighty million people call the Danube Basin "home." The river, its tributaries, and its floodplains have greatly influenced human history, culture and development. In turn human culture and development have often also greatly affected the Danube River and surrounding landscape. Some of the text for this section modified from [1].

292

P. Welter / Conservation and Restoration of the Danube River Floodplains

As a natural link between countries of the former Soviet Union and the European Union, the Danube river basin is now center stage in the events connected with developments related to an expanded European Union. The river itself provides a basis through which discussions about environmental protection and natural resource management can be held between European member states and aspiring candidates. Of particular importance for this is the forums of the Danube River Protection Convention which brings together the riparian countries. Six of the Danube countries are candidates for membership in the European Union and all of these are struggling with achieving harmonization of legislation and transformation of economic systems in a way that does not undermine the "natural capital" that continues to exist in the region. The Danube River Basin is also a place where significant efforts unparalleled on a world scale are underway to protect and restore natural riverine ecosystems - ecosystems that have historically suffered significantly and are now present in only a small-percentage of their former extent. Projects throughout the basin have been attempting to protect and restore lost floodplain habitat and at the same time provide a basis for local economic development. The lessons from these efforts will be highlighted in this paper as will the link between these efforts and the changes that the E.U. Accession process will bring to the region.

1. The Historical Loss of Danube Floodplains Up to the middle of the last century the Danube River was dynamic, free flowing with an extensive network of side arms and backwaters. The winding, weaving network of rivers and streams that made up the Danube ecosystem can be compared with the veins and arteries of a human body. The floodplains of rivers can be compared with the kidneys of a human body because they cleanse and purify the river waters as they spill out over the land. Unfortunately, however, human development in the Danube Basin over the past two

Figure 1. Symbolized view of floodplains in the Danube River Basin

P. Weller/ Conservation and Restoration of the Danube River Floodplains

Figure 2. Ecological Potential of floodplains in the Danube River Basin

Figure 3. Restoration Potential of former floodplains in the Danube River Basin

293

294


centuries has seriously damaged the ecosystem's arterial system and its connecting floodplains. Channelization and straightening of the river for transport and flood protection constricted and shortened the river; dams for energy blocked its flow; and land-use alterations (draining of wetlands, forest clearing) and pollution have all combined to reduce the naturalness and hence the vitality and life giving ability of the Danube and other rivers. A recent study (see Figures 1 - 3 ) completed by WWF for the Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme of UNDP found that over 80% of the original floodplain area in the Danube has been lost since the turn of the last century. In hard numbers, of the 41,605 km2 of floodplain evaluated along the main channel and five major tributaries only 7,845 km2 remained. The consequences of this for conservation and sustainable development are significant [2].

2. The Ecological and Social Consequences of Floodplain Loss The loss of these areas of floodplains has greatly reduced the biodiversity in specific locations and throughout the region. Breeding places for fish, such as the five species of sturgeon which formerly lived in the Danube, have been destroyed and now only remnants populations of these magnificent fish remain. Similarly, the majestic Black Poplar a tree of the floodplain with it numerous branches and thick trunk, have all but disappeared from the region. The loss of floodplains is not only important because of the loss of this biodiversity, which one might argue is only the concern of a few nature lovers. Much of this lost biodiversity was the basis for sustaining communities along the river and in the Black Sea who relied upon these natural resources for their income and well-being. In the village of Tutrakan, for example, on the Danube in Bulgaria less than fifty years ago over five hundred fisherman made a living from fishing. Today this has been reduced to less than 100. In addition, floodplains serve important functions in nature - such as purification of water, flood storage, groundwater recharge. The loss of floodplains has not only meant the loss of biodiversity but the loss of these functions - functions which have enormous consequences for the Danube as well as the Black Sea. In other words, these losses are both local and regional in their character. The consequences of this loss are also both ecological and economic. A 1994 study placed an average economic value on the Danube Floodplains at 383 € per hectare per year. For all 1.7 million hectares of the Danube Floodplain from Germany to the Ukraine the annual value amounted to over 650 million € [3].

3. Efforts to Restore Floodplains Fortunately, in response to the loss of floodplains there has been an increasing recognition in recent years of the value of this habitat and the need and the possibility to restore these areas to their former condition and to use this as the basis for new development strategies. Along the Danube, a series of projects have begun which have as their goal the reestablishment of the natural floodplain habitat. Among these are projects in Austria, Hungary/Croatia, Bulgaria, and the Danube Delta of Romania and Ukraine.2

2

For a detailed review of these issues see [4].

P. Weller / Conservation and Restoration of the Danube River Floodplains

295

3.1 Donau-Auen National Park & Regelsbrunner Au A struggle by WWF and others lasting over a decade led to the opening of the Donau-Auen National Park on the Austrian Danube in October 1996. The establishment of national park status was an important achievement but it was only one part of an overall strategy to restore and conserve the natural floodplain of the Danube. Floodplains should not be static and unchanging. By their nature they should change with each high and low water. New pools and side arms are constantly formed and disappear. Unfortunately the floodplain in the park was being slowly starved of the life giving water it needed - it was slowly growing over and constricting further in a narrow channel [5]. Beginning in 1996, however, a bold experiment was begun involving a partnership between WWF, the newly formed National Park administration, the agency responsible for water management (including transport) and University scientists. The project involved restoring the connection of one of the main sidearms to the river and brought water and flood dynamic back into approximately 2000 ha of floodplain. The scale of the project at the Donau-National Park, Regelsbrunner Au, and its success make it unique to river management projects in all of Europe and perhaps the world. It has become a model project demonstrating the value of ecologically sustainable river management.

3.2 Trans-border Nature Protection: Gemenc Beda and Kopacki Rit Further east along the Danube on the Hungarian border various other partners have been active in a sister project which has led to the creation and opening of the 50,000 hectare Danube Drava National Park, a twin to the Donau-Auen National Park. The park is split into two floodplain areas: an area along the lower Drava on the border of Croatia and the Gemenc-Beda-Karapancsa. The Danube near Gemenc, Hungary, is an impressive 500-1000 metres wide. A vast network of side arms and old arms connect with the river, forming the largest floodplain forest on the Danube at 24,000 hectares. Here the biggest colony of Black Stork in Europe makes its home as does the rare and magnificent White-tailed Eagle. But as in the Austrian Danube National Park the dynamic of water flowing into the backwaters had been steadily decreased and the rich biodiversity is slowly being lost. Now that the area has been declared part of a National Park, procedures to rehabilitate the original river dynamics have begun. A component of the rehabilitation has been the reintroduction of the original water engineers - beavers. In addition it should be pointed out that the protection and restoration of the Danube/Drava National Park has brought people of different countries together in a manner that is demonstrating that natural boundaries do not necessarily respect human political boundaries. Cooperation has begun between the National Park in Hungary and the newly formed Kopacki Rit Nature Park in Croatia with the aim of helping create transnational nature conservation. Interest also exists to create a Trinational nature conservation programme, involving the neighbouring natural areas of Yugoslavia as a monument to peace in the region.

3.3 The Bulgarian Islands andPersina andKalimok Wetlands Further downstream, the Bulgarian Islands and Kalimok Wetland Restoration projects are being carried out by the Bulgarian State Forest Authorities and the Ministry of

296

P. We Her / Conservation and Restoration of the Danube River Floodplains

Environment. All along the Danube the natural forests have been converted through the introduction of foreign varieties of trees to the floodplain forests. Numerous examples of forest farming with rows and rows of hybrid poplars planted and harvested after 30 years can be seen along the river. These fields of trees are ecologically impoverished ecosystems and resemble more an Iowa cornfield than a floodplain forest. On the Bulgarian Islands, the State forestry agency has begun an experiment to reconvert these plantation forests back to natural forest. Forests are renewable resources but they must be managed and harvested in a way that does not destroy the life giving potential. The project there has begun the re-conversion of these forests and is demonstrating that forestry, which supports and sustains natural values can be profitable and productive for nature and humans [6]. This project is running together with a wetland restoration project of a scale and significance unparalleled in the region. What was once one of the most productive floodplain habitats for fish is being reconverted back to floodplain in a project between the Ministry of Environment and local authorities. The project is funded by the World Bank and GEF to a tune of $13 million and will provide a basis for demonstrating how wetland restoration can be coupled with community development [7],

3.4 The Danube Delta At the outlet of the Danube to the Black Sea, the Danube Delta of Romania and Ukraine contains a rich array of biodiversity. As a major bird breeding and migration stop over point 320 bird species have been observed in the wetland area. The largest populations of globally endangered Dalmation Pelican and Pygmy Cormorant take refuge here. Fish species including Sturgeon, Mullet and Black Sea Herring rely on the wetlands for spawning and feeding. The Delta, based upon a recent assessment of the worlds Biodiversity by scientists from WWF, ranks as one of the worlds 200 most important areas of biodiversity. Fortunately the fantastic value of this region has been recognized by people of the region and in both Ukraine and Romania has been designated as a bilateral Biosphere Reserve. Unfortunately, however, the Delta doesn't just need protection it needs restoration. Tens of thousands of hectares of the Delta had been foolishly converted by the former communist governments from wetland to what was intended to be agricultural land. The plans of the former governments to produce massive quantities of rice and other food here were, however, largely unsuccessful. They were unsuccessful because natural processes (ecosystem dynamics) were ignored and what was intended to help local people destroyed the basis of livelihood for local fishermen and villagers. Without places to spawn the numbers offish drastically declined. In both Ukraine and Romania, efforts are underway to restore these failed experiments. Throughout the lower Danube the restoration work has been formalized in an agreement between the governments of the lower four Danube countries.

3.5 Lower Danube Green Corridor Of significance, the Ministries of Environment together with the other responsible agencies including Ministries of Agriculture signed an agreement3: 3

June 5, 2000, Bucharest, Agreement to Create the Lower Danube Green Corridor.

P. We Her / Conservation and Restoration of the Danube River Floodplains

297

1. To create a Lower Danube Green Corridor that will expand the co-operation, coordination and consultation between Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania and Ukraine in the field of Danube River floodplain and wetland protection and restoration. 2. They have established the Lower Danube Green Corridor composed of a minimum commitment of existing protected areas, a minimum commitment of proposed new protected areas, and areas proposed to be restored to natural floodplain. They did so as the preamble to the Agreement stated, "recognizing the importance of a healthy floodplain and wetlands for the maintenance of water quality and environmental health in the Danube River and Black Sea and as a basis for creating economic development opportunities for local populations (fish harvesting, tourism etc)."

4. Linking Conservation, Restoration and Community Development Protecting and restoring nature has to be done with local people and can form the basis of local re-development strategies which bring both economic and ecological health to the region. Recognition of this fact has led to the establishment of a number of projects of varying scales from conservation organizations and development institutions, which have attempted to link the conservation and ecological restoration initiatives with community development.

4.1 Case Study Danube Delta - Rossetti/Letea [8] In the villages of Rossetti and Letea in the heart of the Danube Delta of Romania a local inspired initiative has begun to "establish a successful model for ecotourism (built upon maintaining and enjoying the traditional rural lifestyle) in the Danube Delta of Romania including the development and monitoring of a tax system that will allow additional projects and investments to be undertaken." One of the essential components of the project (which was modestly supported by the Austrian Foreign Ministry and WWF) was to develop a model for Association members to repay funds borrowed from a development fund established by the project for house improvement. Although it is unusual in Romania, a working model of recording of tourism • for example listing of overnight stays - was developed and formed the basis for the tax system. The members agreed to repay the fund an amount of $2 per person per night of accommodation in Rossetti. This system is now the first of its kind in Romania and provides a financial base for the further development of the Association. In addition to supporting a local example of village ecotourism, efforts have been made to develop a draft ecotourism strategy for the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority. The following principles for ecotourism were suggested: • Ecotourism considers and maintains the rural structure of the villages. • Ecotourism protects against wholesale business and determination by others. • Ecotourism means a small-structured tourism of overnight-stays. Tourists that are interested in the nature of the Biosphere Reserve and its beauty take into account that travel to get there takes some time. Rosetti - including its four communities - fulfils these demands as it belongs to one of the most beautiful places in the Danube Delta and it can only be reached by boat. • Ecotourism conveys nature, a people's culture, and the way of life in that region. Besides offering a natural program, true hospitality, simple and tidy accommodation, and typical catering, it provides an authentic experience and quality.

298

P. Weller / Conservation and Restoration of the Danube River Floodplains

In the first two years of operation the tourism activities have brought additional income (some one hundred fifty person nights) to the villages and helped engender a belief that in the long term such tourism coupled with their traditional activities of farming and fishing will provide further economic benefit to individuals and the community. To date, however, a number of logistical problems have plagued the project and prevented full success. However, all partners emphasize that Rosetti has the potential to be a model project for ecotourism in the whole Danube Delta. Whether this model can be successful and then transferred to other regions in the Delta depends on many factors. Proving that small-scale tourism can provide economic advantages without reducing nature protection, and in parallel nature protection initiatives that are able to help local people develop a way to survive in their small villages are necessary and will expand the application of such efforts. It appears essential, however, that such local efforts are linked to regional development strategies and the provision of the necessary infrastructure i.e. transport to and from the villages.

4.2 The Kalimok and Bulgaria Islands Project Following a development period lasting almost ten years, efforts begun by the Bulgarian NGO Green Balkans and supported by WWF and the European Union PHARE Programme have been realized for what appears to be the largest integrated community development/wetland restoration project along the Bulgarian Danube River. A detailed and fully funded project involving restoration of floodplain habitat and ensuring local community development has been put together. The Government of Bulgaria has committed itself to carry out a $13.28 million project with the support of the World Bank and the E.U. for the conservation and restoration of important wetland habitat along the Bulgarian portion of the Danube River. According to the World Bank, "The project will assist the Government of Bulgaria to: (i) restore critical priority wetlands in the Danube River basin and make use of the wetlands in riparian zones as nutrient traps; and (ii) promoted protected areas management and the sustainable use of natural resources, through management planning, monitoring of water quality and ecosystem health, public awareness/participation programs and environmental education." In the initial phase of this component, 2,340 ha of former marshes will be restored in two already identified sites, Belene Island within Persina Nature Park and Kalimok/Brushlen Marshes within Kalimok/Brushlen Protected Site, to demonstrate the use of wetlands as nutrient sinks. Additional sites expect to be identified and restored later during project implementation. In addition to the restoration works, a total of $7.04 million of the total budget will be used to "support the next steps towards the sustainable resource management and protection within the two protected sites, Persina Nature Park (22,000 ha) and Kalimok/Brushlen Protected Site (6,000 ha).... Both the wetlands restoration and protected areas management regimes will integrate needs of the local communities with the biodiversity objectives of the two protected areas."

4.3 Other Examples Similar projects aimed at linking community development and conservation and wetland restoration are being undertaken in other locations also.

P. We Her/Conservation and Restoration of the Danube River Floodplaim

299

The Government of Romania has begun in October 2001 a $10.8 million project aimed at reducing the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous pollution to the Danube River and Black Sea through adoption of environmentally friendly agricultural practices [9]. The project originally conceived as a project focused on agricultural practices, was modified in the course of preparation to include a significant component related to wetland restoration. The project objective lists three objectives, one of which is "promote the adoption of environmentally sustainable land use and management in the Boianu-Sticleanu Polder, and ecological restoration of the neighboring Calarasi-Raul Polder to act as a filter and reduce nutrient discharges to the Danube." In an area formerly the scene of war during the Yugoslavian conflict, efforts of the former mayor of Bilje have been focused on supporting local community development based on tourism and other ecologically appropriate activities in the region of Kopacki Rit, Croatia. The area is linked to the Danube Drava National Park in Hungary and protected areas in Yugoslavia where ecotourism and sustainable forestry and fishing are being promoted as central elements of development at the same time as conservation and restoration efforts are underway. Through these small scale efforts it is hoped that larger investments in the region will be made that are in keeping with conservation and ecologically sustainable development.

5. The Need for Overall Strategies for Development Throughout the Danube River basin there have in recent years been concerted efforts to restore and protect floodplain habitat. These efforts have been necessary to address the historical loss that has occurred in this habitat type. These efforts have important ecological consequences on both a local and regional scale. These efforts, however, have been somewhat ad hoc although they have gained prominence and significance inside official circles. They have recently become more formalized and strengthened in their coherence through a major project of the Global Environment Facility4. The Danube Regional Project approved for the region in December 2001 has as a cornerstone of the efforts to improve environmental conditions in the Danube River and Black Sea - wetland restoration. As a result the efforts towards conservation and restoration of wetlands have become more systematic and structured. The conservation and restoration of wetlands has been driven foremost by ecologic concerns. The link between these conservation and restoration efforts and rural sustainability has, however, been recognized by many of the institutions and actors involved. Many of the projects have been sold to governments and local communities on the basis of benefit for local communities and as a means to improve local livelihoods. Often this promise of sustainable rural development and improved economic conditions through conservation and restoration appears more difficult to demonstrate and realize than would be desirable. This is in part because some of the benefits in an ecologic sense are not to be seen in an economic sense in the location where the conservation initiative has been undertaken. Much of the wetland restoration activities in the Danube, for example, are being done to ensure ecologic improvement in the Black Sea hundreds or thousands of kilometers away. Of importance as well is that often development ideas and hopes on a local level cannot be realized because of inadequate access to capital for development, lack of access to markets, or poor transportation connections. Only through economic policies and strategies that target regional development focused on the sustainable use of natural 4

For further information see the website for the project http://www.icpdr.org/undp-drp/

300


resources will it be possible to have a coherent and successful integration of development and conservation. At present coordination and structure for supporting these efforts does not exist. There have, however, been encouraging signs that some development efforts will move in the direction of linking conservation and rural sustainability. The World Bank has, for example, committed $70 million to a partnership fund which supports projects in the Danube and Black Sea that reduce nutrients and are linked to local development and investment. Many communities, for example, are building hopes on ecological tourism in areas that are both difficult to access and are not linked to overall regional strategies. Similarly, efforts to promote utilization of restored floodplain habitat for ecological agriculture are doomed in areas where markets for the products do not exist or are difficult to reach. Many of the successful efforts that have been undertaken have been more ad hoc than systematic and if in the future these efforts will become more widespread, they have to be linked to overall agricultural development strategies. One of the important aspects of the situation that has become evident is that local development initiatives, which are not linked with regional or larger scale strategies, will likely fail or at least be hindered in their success.

6. E.U. Accession - Opportunity and Threat to Conservation The E.U. Accession process offers hope and threat to the efforts to conserve nature in Central and Eastern Europe and in particular the efforts to achieve conservation and restoration of floodplain habitat along the Danube. The main focuses of the European Union Accession process are on expanding and creating uniform markets and production systems. Locally unique and innovative efforts to create sustainable development are not at the forefront of thoughts related to E.U. Accession. These examples, however, offer models for other communities and inspiration and encouragement to local communities struggling with the transition under the new conditions. All that offered by E.U. membership, however, is not necessarily negative for wetlands and floodplains. The new Water Framework Directive of the E.U. is a groundbreaking piece of legislation advocating River Basin Management (including protection and restoration of wetlands). This legislation offers hope that wetland habitat can be more systematically protected and restored. It is legislation that recognizes ecosystems and attempts to build policies and actions based upon system thinking. Such efforts must be linked to local development initiatives that secure economic benefit for local people through expanded resource utilization or other forms of activity which benefit from these efforts i.e. tourism. It is clear, however, that, the expansion of the European Union offers also the threat that conservation and restoration efforts could be set back in the interests of European transportation networks. Numerous plans have been developed to expand the water transportation on the Danube or through new waterway linkages, which would undermine the efforts at conservation and restoration underway. A recently released study by WWF, for example, examining the threat to nature from plans to expand shipping along the Danube, pointed out the potential conflicts that exist. A coalition of Environmental NGOs reinforced this message in a recent position paper on the Trans European Network presented to the Commission [10]. They have advocated "pre-accession instruments are used to fund preparatory studies and technical assistance, which for example could fund the technical work required to develop ecologically compatible navigation on the Danube." There is no doubt that conservation and restoration of wetland/floodplain habitat remains a necessary ecological challenge despite important successes that have been


301

achieved. These successes will be incomplete if conservationists are not able to demonstrate and show local people how they can profit from and benefit from these conservation initiatives. Unfortunately, however, many of the benefits of floodplain conservation and restoration are enjoyed far away from the location where the floodplain exists (i.e. nutrient reduction or fish production for migratory fish). These links need to be shown and understood. Unfortunately the differing scales of cost and benefit are difficult to quantify and promote. There is an important role for academic institutions and organizations to play in trying to analyse and understand these links. There is both a need to examine the ecological benefits of wetland restoration as well as to have research organizations examine the economic and social benefits that exist. Retrospective examination of existing restoration projects or research accompanying new projects (such as the World Bank projects in Bulgaria and Romania) would be desirable. To do so will help ensure that policies and programmes are put in place to positively reinforce them in achieving rural sustainability.

References [1] Philip Weller, "The Danube: A Highway Across Europe or a Green Lifeline," (in) Neal Ascherson and Sarah Hobson (eds), Danube River of Life, Religion, Science and the Environment, 2001. [2] Danube Pollution Reduction Programme (UNDP/GEF), Evaluation of Wetlands and Floodplain Areas in the Danube River Basin, Final Report, May 1999. Prepared by WWF Danube Carpathian Programme and WWF Auen-Institute (Germany). [3] M. Gren. Economic Evaluation of Danube Floodplains, A WWF International Discussion Paper, Rastatt/Gland. 1995. [4] David Turnock, "Cross-boder conservation in East Central Europe: The Danube-Carpathian complex and the contribution of the World Wide Fund for Nature", GeoJournal 55: 655-681, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2001. [5] WSD, Donau Auen National Park, and WWF, Donau, A Restoration. Undated publication. [6] Strategy for the Protection and Restoration of Floodplain Forests on the Bulgarian Danube Islands, Ministry of Environment and Water, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests and WWF. 2001. [7] Bulgaria, Wetlands Restoration and Pollution Reduction Project. World Bank Appraisal Document. February 26, 2002. [8] "Donau Delta Okotourismus" Project for the Republik Osterreich Bundeskanzleramt, Abteilung IV/12 OstZusammenArbeit (OZA), Prepared by WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme OfficeVienna, Austria 2000-09-20. [9] The World Bank, Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Global Environment Facility Trust Fund Grant in the Amount of SDR 4.0 Million (US$5.15 Million Equivalent) to the Government of Romania for Agricultural Pollution Control Project, Report No: 23169-RO, October 24, 2001. [10] Extension of the Trans-European Transport Networks (TENS-T) to CEE: Working with Nature or Against it?, Position Paper, T+E, WWF, Birdlife, CEE BankWatch, Friends of the Earth Europe.

302


Belarusian Polesye - a Regional Model for Transition to Sustainable Development Valentin YATSUKHNO1, Elena DAVYDIK2, and Maxim VERGEICHIK3 ''2 Belarusian State University, Landscape Ecology Lab. F. Scoryna av. 4, 220050 Minsk, Belarus [email protected], [email protected] United Nations Development Program Kirov str., 17,220050 Minsk, Belarus maxim, [email protected] Abstract. Natural ecosystems of Belarusian Polesye are characterized by high biological and landscape diversity of European importance. Contemporary land use of anthropogenicaly transformed habitats and landscapes must be based on the principles of ecologization of economic activity and sustainable development of the region.

Introduction Polesye lowland is situated on the territory of Belarus, Ukraine and Poland with a total area of 13,2 million ha. It is a unique natural region with rich biological and landscape diversity. There are large forest and bog complexes preserved in natural conditions and vast floodplains, which have not merely regional but European ecological importance. Rural landscapes of Polesye represent an outstanding combination of ecological, economic, historical and cultural values. Traditionally close connection of rural inhabitants to natural environment of the region reveals itself both in the transformation of economic activity and in the historically formed values (traditional ways of living, peculiarities of labor, ethnic differences, selfawareness of people). This way, conservation of biological and landscape diversity in Polesye contributes to the preservation of historical and cultural heritage—to the sustainable development of the region's material and spiritual culture. 1. Natural basis of biological and landscape diversity 1.1 Natural ecosystems of Polesye lowland Belarusian Polesye occupies the northern part of the Polesye lowland with an area of 6.1 million ha, which is almost 32.0 % of the territory of the Republic of Belarus (Fig. 1). The core of the region is the Prypyat' river basin, the landscape of which is characterized by exclusive diversity and spatial heterogeneity. There are 35 regional kinds of landscapes with various genetic features of relief, soil composition, moisturizing conditions, and vegetation cover. Wetland ecosystems, which occupy more than 44 % of Belarusian Polesye, have both regional and European importance. Their main part is situated in the

V, Yatsukhno et al. / Belarusian Polesye - a Regional Model

303

Figure 1. Belarusian Polesye

floodplains of the Prypyat' river and its tributaries. The total area of the Prypyat' river floodplain within the Belarusian Polesye is more then 320 million ha. The floodplain in some of the upper parts is as wide as 20 to 25 km, while the central part and the river mouth is near about three to eight km wide [1]. Belarusian Polesye is the largest region in Central and Eastern Europe, where natural wetland ecosystems are spread with total area over 680 million ha. Complexity and special character of geological and paleogeographical development, uniqueness of geomorphological, hydrological, climatic and edaphic conditions, in combination with zonal and geographical location of the region, favored formation here of a regionally unique plant cover.

1.2 Particualitaries of Polessian flora Flora of Belarusian Polesye include a number of rare species. Over 1,400 species of higher vascular plants are found in the region, representing 96 % of the whole flora assemblage of the country. More then 60 rare species are included into the Red Data Book of Belarus [2]. The regional isolation of Polesye flora can be traced by its chorological peculiarities: about 15 % of species are geographically formed, i. e. grow at natural boundaries of continuous or insular range. This includes specific regional and zonal species. So, the area of Polesye is a peculiar Polesye chorological disjunction in the natural habitats of many species of different geographical components of flora. Historical causality of natural conditions in Polesye predetermined the regional

304

V. Yatsukhno et al. / Belarusian Polesye — a Regional Model

peculiarities of its flora and vegetation development. The present plant cover in Belarusian Polesye, amounting to 69.3 % of its total area, consists of forest (42.1 %), meadow and mire (23.3 %) vegetation types. Forest vegetation includes the following groups of formations: coniferous (61.1 %), broad-leaved (7.9%), small-leaved (12.4%) and Larch native forests on bogs (18.6%). The most important forest formations among them are: Pine (58.7%), Birch (15.3%), Black Alder (13.5 %), Oak (7.2 %), Spruce (2.4 %) and Aspen (1.2 %) forests with their own geobotanical structure and regional features. They are primarily forest formations of West European type among which broad-leaved (Oak, Hornbeam, Ash) and broadleaved/coniferous forests are noticeable. Geo-botanical zonality in Polesye manifests itself not only in substitution of EastEuropean forests of south-taiga type by West-European forests but in the change in phytocoenosis structure of the latter. This appears as a change in woody and low-layered vegetation. A complete edapho-phytocoenotic series of pine-oak phytocenosis, absent in more northern regions of the country, is characteristic of Polesye. Reduction in the amount of spruce forests and their ecosystem diversity in Polesye is also accompanied by saturation of their phytocoemosis by West-European immoral components. Here monodominant phytocoenoses occur to an insignificant extent and primarily biodominant spruce-oak, spruce-alder and other phytocoenoses with immoral component of broad-leaved forests prevail. Extensive areas are occupied by Black Alder forests typical for fen mires. The distinctive feature of meadow vegetation in Belarusian Polesye is wide development and prevalence of lowland meadows as opposed to dry ones. Closeness to the forest-steppe zone and peculiar climatic conditions in Polesye defined the development of a particular syntaxonomic category of steppe meadow vegetation in floodplains of large rivers. These meadows are characterized by the existence of phytocoenosis with a great number of meadow-steppe species (Agrostis vinealis, Festuca trachyphylla, Koeleria delavignei, Phleum phleoides). 1.3 Mires Peculiarities of the relief, specific bedrock developments and hydrographic net functioning defined broad development of fen and transition mires in Polesye. Raised bogs occur rarely and do not grow there and Sphagnum mosses have a different species ratio than in the northern raised bogs. Sphagnum fuscum concedes its phytocenotic role to Sph. magellanicum, Sph. rubellum, Sph. cuspidatum and Sph. apiculatum. Such raised bogs are attributed to a particular Polesye type with a distinctive vegetation complex. Mires in Polesye, though being slightly different from their analogues in the floristic structure in the rest of the country, also display a specific character. They are represented by large wide tracts and are occupied mainly by reed, large sedge, Hypnum-sedge, and grass-sedge communities. Belarusian Polesye, as a whole, has its own floristic characteristics: zonal distribution, regional specific character, and typical and regionally attributed species. These features were taken into account when performing floristic zonation of Belarus and the area became known as Polesye region. The boundaries of the floristic Polesye largely coincide with the borders of the hydrological Polesye [3]. Presence of huge wetland areas defined international importance of the region for fauna diversity. All Belarusian amphibians and reptiles, about 80 % of Belarusian birds, and 55 % of mammals are found on this territory. About 100 species of animals are included into the Red Data Book of Belarus as unique and requiring protection.

V. Yatsukhno et al. / Belarusian Polesye - a Regional Model

305

2. Social-economic potential and cultural heritage 2.1 Polesye region's place in national economy Belarusian Polesye takes an essential role in social and economic development of Belarus as a large region of economical activity. All assured resources of potassium ores (2.8 billion t), oil, and construction stone as well as a dominated part of brown coal, turf, construction and silicon sands and other kinds of raw materials are concentrated here. Nearly 30 % of the population of the country live in the region. Five cities out of 14 of a population of over 100,000 are situated here. These are Gomel (475.5 thous.), Brest (286.4 thous.), Pinsk (129.9 thous.), Mozyr' (109.8 thous.), Soligorsk (100.9 thous.). They are large diversified industrial centers. Other medium and small towns are specialized on extraction of domestic natural resources and their processing, especially agricultural production (meat, milk and fruit processing industry). The share of Belarusian Polesye in the total amount of output industrial products of the country is over 25 %. The importance of the region in the economy of Belarus is increased due to its strategically significant nature resources potential, high industrial and demographic potential, as well as favorable geographical situation and relatively developed transport infrastructure of the region. So there are all necessary prerequisites for increasing of its transition role for the trade between countries both Western, Central Europe and Russia and other CIS countries. The railway and highway Warszawa - Brest - Pinsk Kalinkovichi - Gomel, "Druzhba" oil pipeline, naval river system Western Bug - DnieperBug channel - Prypyat' - Dnieper all have a transeuropean importance and pass through the territory of Belarusian Polesye. All these transport communications have large railway junctions (Brest, Luninets, Kainkovichi, Gomel') which have a good accessibility to the Baltic and Black Sea ports.

2.2 Agricultural utilization of Polesye region Belarussian Polesye is a large agricultural and forestry region. More then half of gross output of agriculture of the Republic of Belarus is produced here, including 40 % of grain, near 50 % of potato and vegetables, almost 75 % of sugar-beet, 45 % of milk and meat production. Agrarian development of Belarusian Polesye will continue to dominate in the future because of the still large availability of significant agricultural lands. Polesye covers about 24 % of total country land resources. Availability of land, the warmest climate in Belarus, and the remaining rural population can ensure leadership of this region in the agricultural sector of national economy [4].

2.3 Historical and cultural heritage Belarusian Polesye is a region with valuable historical and cultural heritage. Many churches, chapels, fortress-houses and county-seats are unique and rare. A large number of old buildings were destroyed, and many of architectural monuments are in desperate condition. The historical monuments in rural areas are cause for special concern. The monuments of material and spiritual culture are being lost increasingly; old customs, traditions and folklore forgotten. Loss of these valuables leads to irreversible changes in the living environment and spiritual damage. The future of many cities and rural areas depends on the development of tourism.

306


Today no more than 10 % of historical monuments are seen by tourists. Many of them have yet to be rebuilt and their adjacent territories must be improved. 3. Anthropogenic transformation of habitats and lands 3.1 Change of forest ecosystems Wide prevalence of wetlands and large floods historically defined low population numbers and density, as well as uneven distribution. Only during the past 80-100 years the human impact on natural ecosystems of this region has increased. The first decades of 20th century were characterized by the gradual rise of human impact on forest ecosystems, manifested by timber felling and hunting. As a result, Brown Bear Ursus arctos, Beaver Castor fiber and Lunx Lunx lunx as well as hunting ungulates such as Red Deer Cervus elaphus, Elk Alces alces, Wild Boar Sus scrofa became almost extinct. However, the change in Polesye ecosystems at that time was reversible, and the numbers of Beaver and ungulate species were successfully restored by 1950-60s. 3.2 Consequences of drainage of wetlands During the second half of 20th century, especially during 1966-90, more than 2.6 million ha of wetlands were drained in Polesye. Later repair of old drainage systems was carried out on more than 500,000 ha and 1.1 million ha were converted to agricultural use through amelioration projects undertaken in the past decades. Large-scale drainage activities led to an ecological catastrophe for plant and animal communities in this region. Fatal changes in different types of wetlands were observed in huge areas of Polesye (Table 1). Around 20 % of the Pripyat catchment area was drained and most of the small rivers were canalized. Table 1. Wetland area changes during 1959-2002 Habitat types Small forest lakes, km2 Low productive lakes, km2 High productive lakes, km2

1960 La/res 23

1117

162 Artificial waterbodies 24 Fish-farm ponds, km2 65 Water reservoirs, km2 Channels, km2 5000 Rivers 2 3700 Highly waterlogged floodplains, km 3000 Moderately waterlogged floodplains, km2 12000 Riverbeds, km2 77270 Small rivers, km2 Mires 10765 Open fen mires, km2 Wet mineral lands 26800 Wetlands with mineral soils

2002

% of change

23 1117 204

0 0 +21

192 416 32157

+800 +640 +85

688 2715

-82 -10

12000 62160

0 -20

3800

-65

12750

-52

Dam construction along the Pripyat disturbed natural development of floodplain ecosystems depending on annual spring floods. The flow discharge in the Pripyat channel has increased as a result of canalization of small rivers. Thus many floodplain areas have become exceedingly inundated and wet because of large water supply. This caused

V. Yatsukhno et al. / Belarusian Polesye — a Regional Model

307

degradation and destruction of forest vegetation in some places. Natural ecosystems were destroyed by the fatal consequences of drainage on significant parts of this unique region. One of the main reasons for the catastrophic impact of drainage in Belarus was the disregard of scientific demands for conservation of undisturbed natural ecosystems maintaining biodiversity among vast tracts of ameliorated areas. In total it caused a significant decrease in the number of different animal species, especially waterfowl, and led to their redistribution. The main characteristic features of Polesye are predominant sandy loam soils and also high occurrence of mires and peat soils. Low-yield peat soils with thin peat layer (less than 1 m) spread by sands and sandy loams are widespread. As a result of the Program of Land Reclamation about 1.8 million ha have been drained. Main areas of drained peat soils (about 700 thousand ha) are concentrated in this region. At first such collective farms had some advantages, since drained arable lands ensured bigger crops in comparison with low productive mineral soils. However, it shortly became evident that drained lands were ecologically unstable. Now the state of drained peat soils and the areas with predominance of such soils causes particular anxiety. It was estimated that the total loss of organic matter in 1986-2000 was 43 million tons. As a result of the loss of organic matter, the peat layer on the drained lands will decrease by 20-40 cm and drastic changes in vegetation structure can be expected. Specifically, over 220,000 ha of peat-clay soils will be transformed to organic-mineral soils. Organic-mineral soils formed earlier will become closer to sandy, sandy-loam and podzol soils [4]. Hence, in the near future, agriculture in some administrative regions of Polesye will turn out new soil conditions, under which continued effective economic activities would require additional funding, changes in specialization and other measures. Land degradation in Polesye has recently been exacerbated by negative climate changes, including more frequent and powerful droughts and other extreme natural phenomena (early frosts, disruption in the hydrological regime, organic matter, peat mineralization, etc.). Only for the last 50-year period the amount of droughts in the region increased 2.5 times. Especially critical is the situation on more than 40 % wetlands that were drained during 1960-1990. 3.3 Chernobyl nuclear accident in Polesye region The Chernobyl nuclear accident influenced and is still largely influencing the agriculture of Polesye. More than 1.8 million ha of agricultural lands are polluted by Cs-137 with density over 1 Ci/km2. 265,400 ha of fields were excluded from agricultural use. Direct annual loss for plant-growing only is estimated at about 70 million $ U.S. The cost of buildings and equipment remaining in abandoned Chernobyl accident zone is several times higher [5]. During the implementation of the Program on Dealing with the Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident the main attention was directed to radionuclide polluted areas with human population. Agricultural activities were maintained on 1.36 million ha contaminated by radioactive cesium and almost 0.5 million ha contaminated by Sr-90. The production of agricultural products with safe level of radionuclide content is the main aim of the contaminated area development. In this respect, a new agricultural system is being formed, based on extensive knowledge of radionuclide migration in soil and the accumulation in different plants, as well as further migration through the food chain to humans. This system includes regulation of the soil water regime, use of appropriate crops, fertilizers and means for plant protection.

308

V. Yatsukhno et al. / Belaruslan Polesye - a Regional Model

4. Utilization and preservation of the reclaimed agricultural landscapes 4.1 Principles of sustainable land use In connection with wide scale land-reclamation and agricultural development of the worked out peat deposits many bog landscapes became anthropogenicly disturbed. Attempts at their return back into agriculture were made. There are many examples of unsuccessful leveling of such new agricultural landscapes because of the overestimated coefficient 0.9 and more of the ground utilization. There are no conditions for conservation of biological diversity; degraded peat soils and chemicals introduced to improve agriculture are also main pollutants of ground and surface waters. Reclaimed agricultural landscapes with such high coefficients of ground utilization are ecologically nonresistant and degrade quickly. The conception of formation and utilization of reclaimed agricultural landscapes consists of the targeted regulation of factors of life of cultivated plants along with the provision of not only high biological efficiency of the reclaimed terrains but also ecological stability of ingredients of agricultural landscapes during agricultural utilization. This can be achieved observing the following five principles of construction, formation and utilization of reclaimed agricultural landscapes. The principle of maximal territorially differentiated distribution of reclamation systems and grounds, based on utilization of the existing natural diversification and structure of wetland landscapes, obligates land-users to apply scientifically proved territorial distribution of arable and meadow lands, forest areas and forest belts, water basins, ponds, buffer, soil-saving and water-security zones, coordinated with the characteristics of the natural constitution of landscapes and reclamation systems [6]. The interrelations between reclaimed and not reclaimed lands, the areas under various agricultural crops, and also distribution of various reclamation constructions - large canals, reservoirs and water receivers - should be optimized in the agricultural landscapes (Table 2) [7]. Table 2. Present and proposed optimal land use proportion of agricultural landscapes of Belarusian Polesye

Land use Forests and shrubs Arable lands Meadows Mires

Present proportion, 7 48 37 8

Optimal proportion, % 10 31 45 14

% changes +3 -17 +8 +6

The principle of natural anthropogenic compatibility obligates land-users to place anthropogenic ingredients of landscapes (canals, reservoirs, fields, roads etc.) so that they were harmoniously entered in a natural habitat, and conformed to the dwelling places. It is necessary to take into account, preserve and sustain their microzonal distribution during the designing, formation and agricultural utilization of the reclaimed agricultural landscapes. Maintenance of diversification of elements of landscapes is an obligatory and necessary condition for conservation of biodiversity. In the reclaimed agricultural landscapes the processes of self-purification and self-regeneration of natural habitats should be organized by means of creation of transitive zones from agricultural grounds to natural biocenoses forests, bushes, bogs, river valleys etc. The increase in the number of species and hence in the level of biodiversity is observed in such zones following variety of ecological conditions. The principle of preventive measures in the formation and utilization of agricultural landscapes is based on the priority of the measures preventing negative consequences over

V. Yatsukhno et at. / Belarusian Polesye — a Regional Model

309

the melioration measures. It is necessary for the reclamation systems to render the nature protection effect, preventing dropping of the ground-water table in the adjacent terrains, precluding contamination of waters through drainage systems, conserving biodiversity by means of inclusion of small landscape forms into the reclamation systems: environmental niches, hibernated pits, rifts, artificial niduses for muskrats, otters etc. The integral part of the principle of preventive measures covers measures directed on the maintenance of a high level of fertility of the reclaimed soils and conservation of their organogenic stratum. It can be achieved both by the immediate impact of the reclamation systems on the air regime of soils, and correct system of crop rotations, optimization of the areas structure under crops, doses of fertilizers, efficient application of technologies. The principle of management and control of state and functioning of the reclaimed wetland landscapes should be realized in the following three directions [8]: • control and maintenance of the optimal water regime for agricultural crops; observance of optimal terms and technologies of cultural operations; • observance of ecologic restriction of plant growing and animal industries: achieving maximum crops should be limited by the optimal combination of ecological ingredients of agricultural technologies. Any harmful influence on the agrocenosises should not be acceptable, as though it leads to the augmentation of productivity of lands, it also results in the ecological imbalance. Therefore, it is necessary to control and regulate an interrelation between the energy put in crop and obtained with it; • in order to prevent negative processes and maintain ecological equilibrium in a visual environment it is necessary to carry out regular monitoring of condition of natural ingredients of agricultural landscapes: the quality of surface and ground waters, ecological cleanliness of soils, state of wood and bush plantations both within the reclamation systems, and on the adjacent areas.

4.2 Environment and sustainable rural development Successful development of the region should be accompanied by reforms of agriculture, creation of multistructural character of economy, and the breakup of the monopoly of large state agricultural enterprises. Such economic forms as joint stock companies, cooperative farms, individual farms, share companies, associations, agrofirms, holdings etc. should be developed. A crucial problem of agrarian transformation is land relations reform, formation of a new land use structure based on private ownership principles, land market creation, land rental system, land hypothecation, hypothecation credit, etc. There should be a more rational approach to decision making on land use for the agricultural purposes. With more integrated thinking, it may be expected that approximately 30 % of the now agricultural lands are going to be excluded from agriculture for their low productivity, far distance from large settlements, and high economic expenses for ameliorative system management. That is why it is important to discuss their subsequent use, a perspective of assigning such lands to a different land use category, expansion of protected area network, etc. [9]. The most realistic way for sustainable development of Belarusian Polesye is ecologization and intensification of economic activity on the basis of nature protection technologies, complex nature resource use, and introduction of new forms and methods of economy organization and management. In Belarusian Polesye the reforms could go hand in hand with landscape restoration, protected nature territories extension and ecological network creation. This task solution is dependent in many respects on outside investments, in the form of long-term loans, or joint international environmental projects. The problem of ecological and socio-economic rehabilitation of territories

310

V. Yatsukhno el al. / Belurusian Polesye - a Regional Model

contaminated by radionuclides as a result of catastrophe on the Chernobyl power plant is high on the agenda for the development of Belarusian Polesye. About 70 % of overall radioactive contamination is found in the Polesie region, and 88 % of the population resides here (1.4 million ha).

4.3 Nature heritage conservation A promising way to resolve the problems of biological and landscape diversity conservation in Belarussian Polesye together with rational use of natural complexes is establishment of nature protected areas. Natural protected areas of Polesye amount to 484,500 ha, which is over 11 % of the region's area. Prypyatski national park (82.2 thous. ha), Polesski radiation-and-ecological reserve (215.5 thous. ha), 28 national zakazniks including seven landscape, one hydrological and 20 biological zakazniks. Middle-Pripyat (90.4 thous. ha), Olmany mires (94.2 thous. ha), Zvanets (10.4 thous. ha) are the largest zakazniks of the region (Table 3). Table 3: Nature Protected Areas of Belarusian Polesye region Natural protected area Prypyatsky National Park Polessky radio-ecological Reserve Landscape Zakazniks Mozyrskye Ovragi Prostyr Olmany mires Strelsky Mid-Pripyat Vydritsa Smychok Biological Zakazniks Baranovichsky Vetkovsky Zhitkovichsky Radostovsky Shabrinsky Babinets Borsky Buckchansky Yelovsky Falichsky Moh Chirkovichsky Buda-Koshelevsky Selyava Lukovo Tyrvovichi Zvanets Luninsky Buslovka Sporovsky Dnepro-Sozhsky Hydrological Zakazniks Vygonoshchanskoye Total area

Land area, ha 82254 215500

1141 3440 94219 12161 90447 17560 2635

29019 5900 15000 8657 3300 850 2805

4915 963

1700 463 13575 260 1523 1391 10460 9283 7936 19384 14556 43000 2497 or 11.7 % of Polesye region

Polesian protected areas have to become an important element of the European ecological network. A uniform network will be a continuous and inter-connected system,


311

linking similar territories of neighboring countries (Poland, Ukraine, Russia). Belarusian Polesye is region where problems of nature use and creation of ecologically sustainable environment have to be combined and have to be resolved in an integrated way. Exclusion of ineffectively used lands from crop rotation is extremely important to restore traditional kinds of nature use. These were once widely developed in Belarusian Polesye before the total collectivization and wide-scaled drainage. This issue should be tackled alongside with development of agrarian and ecological tourism, folk crafts, hunting, fishery, apiculture etc.

Conclusion According to the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Republic of Belarus agricultural development of Polesye region must based on the following [10]: • Limitation of the expansion of arable lands at the expense of natural territories. • Development of effective measures for conserving the biological diversity by way of optimum formation of a mosaic structure of agricultural lands in the course of land reform and organization of farms. • Introduction of ecologically safe systems, technologies and means of application of fertilizers in different landscapes and regions of the country. • Development of the principles and justification of ecologically compatible agricultural activities in water catchment areas, water reservoirs and specially protected wetlands. • Introduction of ecologically safe technologies of waste disposal from cattle-breeding farms. • Introduction of measures reducing eutrophication of water reservoirs and their pollution as a result of economic activities. • Optimization of the structure of hayfields and arable pastures for preserving natural grass (turf) varieties. • Expansion of the program of soil protection and management measures for the erosionprone lands (types of soils). • Development and implementation of a set of measures for increasing the ecological safety of agricultural machinery and implements and work requiring mechanization so as to protect wildlife. • Introduction of a rational balance between agricultural, forest and hunting activities for the conservation and sustainable use of hunting game and other groups and species of wild animals. It is very important to stimulate international cooperation for the region: establishment of Euroregions, free-trade zones, tekhnoparks, and joint stock companies. It is necessary to have good coordination on the government level to ensure integration of economic and environmental programs and investments. This body could consider the issues of rent prices, land purchase, procurement of infrastructure. A Polesye Regional Development Agency could serve that purpose, dealing both with economic and environmental issues and responsible for elaboration and implementation of a Complex program of sustainable development of the Belarusian Polesye, as well as for preparation and presentation of investment projects, planning and overseeing of the process of transformation of the regional economy, physical planning, interregional and international cooperation.

312

V. Yatsukhno el al. / Belarusian Polesye - a Regional Model

References [1] Martsinkevich G.I., Klitsunova N.K., Haranicheva G.F., Yakushko O.F., Loginova L.V. (1989). Landscapes of Byelorussia (in Russian). Vysheishaya shkola, Minsk. [2] Parfenov V.I. (1983). Flora composition in Belarus: current state and tendencies of development (in Russian). Nauka i tekhnika. Minsk [3] Kozulin A. (2002). Treasures of Belarusian Nature: areas of International Significance for Conservation of Biological Diversity (in Russian and English). Minsk. [4] Meerovski A.S. (2000). Recent state and perspectives of agriculture in Belarusian Polesye. In.: The ecology and conservation offloodplains and lowland mires in the Polesye region (in Russian and English), Minsk. [5] (2001). BELARUS 2015. Summary of National Plan of Spatial Development (in Russian). Minsk. [6] Yatsukhno V.M. (1995). Formation of agrolandscapes and environment protection (in Russian). Institute of Geology, Minsk. [7] Romanova T.A. Yatsukhno V.M. (2001). "Optimal proportion of grounds as a key to sustainable utilization and conservation of agrolandscapes of Polesye'. In.: Belarusian Polesye. Belarusian Polesye Foundation (in Russian), Pinsk, 38-42. [8] National Academy of Science of Belarus (2001). The Conception of optimization of protection and utilization of Belarusian Polesye natural resources (in English). Minsk. [9] Yatsukhno V.M., Romanova T.A., Davydik E.E. (1998). Landscape diversity of Belarusian Polesye: modern state and conservation (in Russian). Natural Resources, Ne 2, Minsk, 136-140. [10] (1998). National Strategy and action plan for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Republic of Belarus (in English). Minsk.

SECTION 4 WHERE DO WE GO NEXT? The subsequent narrative is drawn from the Advanced Research Workshop sessions, notes, papers, and a subsequent online poll of participants in January of 2003. What is surprising is the solidarity of spirit that emerged for this work, given the rich diversity of contributions. This book is not the end of a mountain trek; it barely establishes some of the'essentials that will be needed for the next leg of the journey. The ultimate summit is well beyond our vision and comprehension at this point. What we face is not a challenge of technology, or power; sustainability and the conservation of biodiversity are a test of moral fortitude, the human spirit and basic sense of justice and equity.


The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability 5. Light (Ed.) IOS Press, 2004

315

Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations Steve LIGHT and Kristen BLANN Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Minneapolis, Minnesota U.S.A. Introduction Following half a century of centralized control and command from government ministries, science and management in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) remain highly fragmented and only nominally linked to policy and planning relative to sustainable development. Biodiversity resources in CEE remain relatively abundant compared to Western Europe, but apprehension is rising as rural economies are asked to take steps to integrate into European and global markets. As the creative destruction of totalitarian institutions proceeds to provide support for democracy and market-base economy, new configurations of science, policy, leadership and institutions are urgently required to improve the effectiveness of both biodiversity conservation and rural development as the interrelationships between CEE, the European Union and North America are restructured with the European Union expansion. The fundamental problem in Central Europe is not lack of will for reform but dearth of 'know how' to transition to sustainability. In fact, Europe and North America are ill prepared to provide assistance in this regard. There is fundamental lack of recognition of how natural, social and economic capital management needs to be reinvented from the bottom up if sustainability is ever to be a reality. The urban mantra of "recycle, reuse, reduce" will not achieve the desired environmental results on rural working landscapes. "Repair" and "Renewal" of rural landscapes needs to be added to the illiteration. This book documents a fraction of the plethora of successful local, watershed and landscape level efforts to protect biodiversity through a formidable uphill struggle by rural grassroots. Too often, the lessons learned and implications of these efforts languish in isolation, as each community goes through its own learning curve, and does not have the opportunity to share experiences, avoid mistakes of the past that provide invaluable lessons learned to develop fuller, richer understanding of what is needed. In this context, the goal of the 2002 Krakow ARW was to assess opportunities for using theory, methods and techniques of Adaptive Management, Institutional Analysis and Sustainability Appraisal to integrate scientific research and monitoring with policy and management arrangements for biodiversity conservation and the transition to rural sustainability. The ARW brought together experienced researchers (See Appendix A for list of participants) and practitioners to review advances in theory and practice based on their experience with specific biodiversity management situations from NATO and NATO partner countries. More specifically, the ARW addressed four themes designed to examine in what ways sustainability tools and methods can be used to reconcile improvements in biodiversity conservation and rural development: 1. Case Analysis. What lessons can be learned from comparing and contrasting case study applications in biodiversity conservation from NATO and NATO partner countries, and how do these cases inform understanding?

316

S. Light and K. Blann / Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

2. Challenges. What are the most vexing challenges for making biodiversity conservation in rural areas in Europe and North America as EU enlargement a reality? 3. Opportunities. What nascent or relatively unexplored opportunities are there for improving biodiversity conservation in rural areas in the context of an enlarged European Union? 4. Linkages. Given the recent advances in sustainability-related ideas, tools and infrastructure, how can linkages among science, policy and local governance for biodiversity conservation be strengthened and their role in the transition to rural sustainability enhanced?

1. Conclusions Analysis of the workshop themes during five days of deliberation among 45 research participants from 17 NATO and partner countries from Central and East Europe and Canada and USA concluded the following: The conservation of biodiversity is essential to maintaining the vitality, security and stability of 180 million rural residents in an enlarged European Union. The implications for NATO enlargement are substantial. Current rural land and water use patterns in the countries of the European Union and those seeking membership are not sustainable. Conventional development trends and patterns geared to urban contexts present significant threats both to rural communities and to biodiversity resources as a basis for rural livelihood support and regional economic revitalization. A transition to rural sustainability requires sustainability know-how to ensure rural livelihoods combine social and ecological well-being with reliable income. 1.1 What lessons can be learned from comparing and contrasting case study applications in biodiversity conservation from NATO and NATO partner countries, and how do these cases inform understanding? In pursuing European policy change, the importance of the rich cultural heritage, complexity and diversity of rural livelihoods and culture of Central and Eastern Europe must not be given the short shrift politically. Although conditions vary from area to area, patterns of behavior that maintain literacy, human health, rich customs, religion and ways of governance, and management systems that maintain local populations of wild game and migratory birds, are not just a "quaint" but expendable legacy. Nor should they be assumed invulnerable to rapid and convulsive change in the name of "progress." Despite atrocities and holocausts beyond imagining over the past 300 years—including the decapitation of leadership, deprivations of every strip and color, and totalitarianism in its most virulent forms—the rural inhabitants of Central and Eastern Europe have exhibited remarkable resilience, persisting in their traditions and relationship to the land. A highly context-relevant transition to rural sustainability is required; one that is locally driven by "local" concerns, needs, and priorities. New opportunities (e.g., ecological agriculture, sustainable forestry, subsistence, recreational and commercial fisheries, non-timber forest products, renewable energy production, value-added enterprise) are needed for using biodiversity conservation as a basis for sustainable development and buffering communities the transition to multi-functional landscape enterprise and resilient rural livelihood. Such a model for a transition to sustainability favors private and social enterprise with government and non-government partnerships, especially in the NATO


317

partner countries, and is pertinent to European Union countries as well as the whole expanse of the NATO security umbrella. Workshop participants shared examples of how people are improving their lives and local economies by promoting more sustainable approaches to the use, valuation, and management of biodiversity and cultural resources. These include • Grassroots development initiatives from Belarus, Czech, Canadian, German, Hungarian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Turkish and Slovak, Ukrainian, UK and U.S. rural areas; • Working landscape approaches that recognize the multifunctional nature of land uses, e.g. experiences with mobilizing fanners in biodiversity conservation in the Catskills as a way of securing high quality water resources for New York City; seeking to understand systems linkages between flood control, wetland and biodiversity conservation, and crop disease alleviation in the Red River Valley (U.S./Canada) in order to transform policy to promote ecological and economic recovery; • Integrating rural sustainability into regional or national development strategies by engaging key stakeholders in dialogue, experiment, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, e.g. Hickling Broad in UK, Sustainable Development Roundtables in British Columbia (Canada), Countryside Agency in UK, Rural Parliament initiative in Slovakia; and • Partnerships for rural development emphasizing building up human and social capital and empowering local capacity, such as the EU LEADER program.

2. Discussion: Challenges, Opportunities, and Linkages The interdependence, mutuality, connectivity and indivisibility of ecology, economy, and society interrelationships requires deep and continuing attention. Current approaches are handicapped by a legacy of reductionist thinking and serve as obstacles to synthesis and robust analysis needed to support sustainable development. The tendency to overspecialize, oversimplify problems and prescribe simplistic or inadequate solutions, e.g. the penchant for quick, technological fixes or economic development policies, leads to solutions that frequently overwhelm local systems and erode or consume social and natural capital at slower scales. As a result, policies and technologies often perpetuate vicious cycles of unintended consequences,'generating secondary problems that are as large or larger than the problems they were intended to address. 2.1 The E.U. Common Agricultural Policy The ARW workshop participants realized that rural sustainability is threatened by extension to accession countries of EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) due to the dominant emphasis on direct subsidies for agricultural production rather than financial support for rural infrastructure and development and payments for providing ecological services. Despite recent reform measures, CAP subsidizes large-scale industrial farming, which drives unsustainable development patterns in rural areas. The industrial farming model leads to negative environmental impacts, especially biodiversity, soil and water quality, and social impacts, inequalities in income, education and the provisioning of social services much like under the soviet collectivized method of agricultural production. The CAP in its current form thwarts opportunities for the development of multi-functional agriculture in the candidate countries.

318

S. Light and K. Blann /Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

2.2 Frameworks "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything but his reason." G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (1908) Successes in biodiversity conservation and sustainable rural development have been limited. The assumptions upon which existing models of rural development are based must be reviewed, reworked and renewed - in light of new understandings and goals. Sharing of new conceptual and methodological frameworks is paramount. Researchers must take a lead in documenting, developing and testing sustainabilitybased know-how and in so doing be willing to reflect on their role as scientists as well as the sidebars and blinders imposed by structure of past decision-making institutions. Scientists used to disciplinary strictures must be willing to have their own heuristics challenged by learning about inter-linkages among biodiversity and rural sustainability from other angles, perspectives, and experiences. Simple cost/benefit analysis as a basis for investment must be discarded in favor of methodologies that more adequately address the complexity and multi-dimensionality of rural landscapes. Social as well as biophysical and financial tools are needed. Development strategies must be locally motivated to ensure they are appropriate and tailored to the diverse and idiosyncratic nature of rural landscapes and cultures, not opportunities for corporate welfare.

2.3 Distributive Justice The fate of the countryside is interlocked in the willingness of urban communities to partner with and support the countryside. Societies have a history of difficulty in addressing structural injustice when those who have benefited from the status quo are required to sacrifice. The myth of "progress" which relegates the rural landscape to that of a stepchild or unfortunate legacy must be dashed against the rocks of rural reality. Sustainability in general, and rural stability, security and safety in particular, requires that special attention be paid to how financial and economic allocation decision and benefits are dispersed. Urban interests are able to accumulate and mobilize capital and to organize activities at scales for corporate advantage that overwhelms the adaptive capacity of rural communities. 2.4 Science-Policy Link "If science cannot lead us to wisdom as well as power, it is surely no science at all." Aldo Leopold Too often, academic research becomes an irrelevant sideshow to important and urgent policy challenges, addressing questions too narrowly focused to be of use to local communities and too easily ignored by political decision-makers who are besieged by powerful self-interests. Multiple lines of inquiry and modes of analysis are needed to help policy makers to understand not only what is known, but also what is uncertain and unknown: acknowledging uncertainty allows the negotiation and acceptance of shared risk. Researchers have a responsibility to help shape policy debate with the


319

European Accession Countries as it pertains to biodiversity and sustainability, not with advocacy science, but with science that gives policy makers and citizens' opportunities to shape their own future based on state-of-the-art understanding and appropriate level of analytic and evaluative rigor. Scientists must help develop the knowledge base to provide voice to the voiceless - biodiversity conservation and its implications to the livelihoods of rural residents.

2.5 Multiple Levels of Readiness and Engagement Biophysical and human systems are self-organized across scales from microscopic to global. Whether in reference to economies of scale, ripple effects, diffusion of innovation, cascades of change, or butterfly effects, most disciplines are actively working on ways to understand cross-scale dynamics, hierarchy or panarchy through their theoretical and methodological tools. In the case of science for sustainability, researchers must evaluate the extent to which they can effectively address large interlocking institutional, ecological, and social dynamics through interdisciplinary and participatory approaches that facilitate citizen, scientist, and policy maker engagement. In the United States, the layering of policy mandates and regulations over decades and distributed among a plethora of agencies has led to deadlock or inertia. The nations of Central and Eastern Europe have the unique opportunity to learn from the mistakes in the West and build more robust and responsive institutions. Now that cross-scale dynamics are becoming understood, the challenge for sustainability science is to harness this understanding for improving policy performance.

2.6 Vexing Problems "One is not far from true awareness when one begins to understand one's ignorance." John Cassian (-390AD) Embracing uncertainty and admitting error in is not a strength of human nature. Pride and arrogance tend to get in the way. For 30-50 years, there has been much talk among international policy and research circles about conservation and sustainable development, poverty elimination, environmental degradation, and biodiversity loss, yet these core problems continue to worsen. Why? Some of the most prodigious forces structuring our lives are the hardest to see and effectively comprehend. Modern life arrives in fragments that people are unable or unwilling to piece together. Key drivers that operate over large spatial extents and time horizons are largely taken for granted, such as overarching economic and technological forces and individual market incentives that operate beyond scales at which humans are accustomed to perceive and interpret feedback. Society now has the capacity to model the driving forces and successfully link them in tangible ways that citizens can comprehend. However, most of this capacity is used in the military or business sectors and has not been tailored to needs of linking communities and biophysical regions to bring understanding and the exploration of collective opportunities. Assessments are poorly designed, synthesis capability is underused and scenario techniques are not adequately employed. Transdisciplinary teams of researchers, policy-makers, and local leadership must overcome the barriers of "well this is the way we have always done it" and "the budgets are too tight to try something new" to generate synthetic understanding, to identify the threats and the major drivers to biodiversity

320


conservation and rural sustainability and to develop solutions using more holistic, systems approaches. 2.7 Market and Structural Reforms Buffering rural areas through the transition while larger scale systems such as CAP reform are addressed: How can communities use their biodiversity resources sustainably to survive the transition and realignment of markets? How can large corporate power not dominate governmental agenda for rural landscapes? What sources of income can they have other than liquidating natural and social capital and exporting it? What can communities do to survive/buffer themselves? Are there any stories of local places that have survived market integration well? Will a few sources of income buffer community capital? How do local people think, communicate, plan and decide? Work is needed on incentivizing production of environmental benefits through marketing initiatives, organic marketing, ecoand agri-tourism, multilateral agreements and payment mechanisms, etc. 2.8 Meta Learning Traditional ways of learning are not yielding the needed comprehension required to address the speed, scale and complexity of change that society currently faces. Traditional disciplinary ways of organizing and disseminating new knowledge provide too much heat and too little light. Researchers in sustainability are increasingly becoming embedded in the systems they study, finding less, not more time, to write and attend professional gatherings. The benefit of being "immersed" in a particular setting over a prolonged period of time, surrounded by a diverse group of participants, is substantial, but given traditional rewards structures in academia, it comes at a cost. More efficient ways to provide opportunities for shared collective learning that will guide future direction of action and research are needed. Researchers need to take responsibility for advocating methodological improvements and acknowledge their own contribution for the problems that arise from deficiencies of science. Not only are faster ways of organizing and presenting and making information accessible required, but greater attention to the steering of collective inquiry are necessary as well. In the past, researchers relied on the slow process of publishing papers, making presentations at conferences, and professional societies to help determine the way the slow accretion of new knowledge is and should be moving. This is no longer adequate. Although the World Wide Web and the Internet present new opportunities and are helping to expedite the dissemination of vetted knowledge, the problem is pervasive and pressing. There is deep craft being developed by practitioners and scientists as reflected in this book but on the whole it is not finding its way into networks that support and advance the craft of sustainability science fast enough. Although big government and corporations largely set policy prescriptions, research directions, and resources for sustainability, both government and corporations pay more attention to global or generalizable large-scale phenomenon that consolidate rather than distribute benefits widely across the rural landscape. More emphasis needs to be placed on the principle of networked subsidiarity: small-scale, bottom up solutions that empower local people and better distribute benefits, such as micro-credit collectives and effective institutions for common property resource management, nested within decentralized network structures for communication and learning across nested scales. Researchers working with government and corporations need to facilitate smallscale interventions and then evaluate them. Joint planning processes are important ways of

5. Light and K. Blann / Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

321

changing outmoded paradigms. The process of learning and capacity building that occurs at the local level through is a critical component of sustainability and needs to be replicated.

2.9 Synthesis Like all living organisms, humans interact with their environment, obtain resources, and solve problems by constructing cognitive models and heuristics of "how the world works" and use those models as the basis for organizing their behaviors. Though these models are always necessarily incomplete, the test of their usefulness is whether they guide appropriate and adaptive behavior. The process of testing these ways of understanding the world against reality for coherence and correspondence is the basis for adaptive learning. To determine the future direction of research, policy action, social change, and the development of shared understanding, helping people find ways to put the pieces of their existence together that yields more holistic, longer-term, and robust understanding is at a premium. All policy action is ideology at work; it is a working hypothesis being tested. Unless more resources are allocated to synthesis, reflection, self-examination, monitoring, assessment, surfacing and questioning of assumptions, the needed understanding will lack the feedback needed to sharpen our thinking and design more adaptive institutions and systems.

3. Recommendations To support the transition to rural sustainability, major reforms of CAP, EU structural funds, international NGOs, private sector and national budgets must be enacted. Transatlantic research, learning and exchange of information and experience can contribute to designing strategies and action plans for delivering rural sustainability by: • Reforming the CAP to be more effective at smaller scales of production, especially at the peasant community level; • Directing EU structural and other development funds to building rural communityrelevant institutions, expertise, knowledge and skills at local, regional, national and international levels of intervention; • Implementing collaborative approaches that develop and document how local communities can interact with policy makers, planners, scientists, non-governmental organizations and other groups to develop better understanding and more effective practices; • Encouraging political and opinion leaders to make the transition to rural sustainability a central part of public policy; • Providing the all important monitoring and feedback mechanisms based on performance measures that seek a triple bottom line and • Identifying institutional barriers to sustainability and developing new types of incentives for encouraging collaborative action to overcome them.

4. Research Networks In an age of rapid global change, the development of networks that bridge continents, cultures, and contexts is imperative. The Science Directorate of the European Union has embarked on a novel approach to organizing research. In the areas of research involving issues pertaining to sustainability (e.g., climate change, biodiversity conservation) they

322


have decided that instead of government attempting to structure the future direction of research alone, they have invited teams of interdisciplinary researchers to submit proposals that would actually fund the networking functions of research work. For decades scientists who engaged in interdisciplinary work had very little inducement. Foundations, government programs and universities themselves were notorious for not supporting the coordination and administration functions associated with interdisciplinary work. Such tasks were invariably left to junior faculty who were in greatest need of juried publications, not additional administrative work to help others participate in work with them. Despite the pervasiveness of global trade drivers and economic linkages, transcontinental and trans-cultural studies are few and far between. Since much of the research in sustainability is inductive not deductive, integrative not reductionist, and transdisciplinary not disciplinary, scientists are faced with cobbling together understanding and hypotheses from limited but data rich examples and case histories. A premium exists for facilitating cross-country comparative case analysis and exchange of information, facts, experience; creating alternative forums for biodiversity discussions. Although information technologies offer many benefits, there is no substitute for periodic face-to-face exchanges. Deliberative interaction, direct observation, and relationship are critical for deep learning, insight and understanding. Networks can perform a multitude of functions that worthy of note: • Consolidating, comparing, and integrating theories on rural sustainability ideas & tools for capacity building and institutional reform • Identifying funding opportunities for local action • Developing data banks of names and addresses, papers, and calendars of events • Synthesizing cutting edge ideas and techniques • Disseminating of new research approaches • Facilitating identification, exchange, and spread of good techniques and practices; maybe preparing a handbook • Communicating outside the congregation (preaching beyond the "converted" to "nonbelievers"), bringing tools to ARW local communities • Identifying collaborative research opportunities The workshop participants stressed that priority for collaborative research initiatives to support biodiversity in accession countries. Participants also endorsed studies to evaluate what is being done on the ground, rather than focus on perfecting abstract conceptual frameworks. Theory and practice are iterative: theory emerges from being vetted and tested on the ground, and principles must constantly be re-derived and evolved by individuals through their own practice of leaming-by-doing, and reflection-in-action. 4.1 Biodiversity Traditionally, biodiversity research has been determined by the natural sciences. This research has to be broadened to the role to include social sciences, because it is social phenomena (how people think, act, organize themselves, relate to nature, and use resources) that are the root cause of biodiversity problems. Departure from traditional research paradigm into more collaborative, action-oriented paradigm is vital. Buying up 1-2% of the planet's land and water courses will not solve Biodiversity conservation problems. Private ownership and public private partnerships are essential. The researcher needs to be viewed not from the traditional research view, where thorough retrospective analysis of the symptoms (or the "forensic science"—20/20 reconstruction of why the patient died) is obtained, but fail to develop understanding or tools to address the question of what is at the root cause of these problems, e.g. partial solutions that generate unintended consequences,

5. Light and K. Blann / Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

323

the absence of and/or dysfunction of proactive institutions. Sustainability research needs to focus on how markets and policies act to structure, alter, and/or distort incentives for individual decision makers as well as community institutions. Despite the fact that the market is the dominant institution and incentive driver, examples abound of alternatives and lessons from long-term institutions for management of common pool resources abound. Biodiversity and cultural diversity are far more closely related than commonly conceived. There is far too much to be discovered in nature and human relationship to be left to principal stipulation of "experts." In many parts of the world, human societies have co-evolved sustainable and resilient resource management systems that rely on the direct, day-to-day experience of people in relation to the land, who are able to observe complexity, take advantage of local diversity and locally adapted local varieties or crops and species. Such "ecosystem peoples" live in connection with and direct observation of ecological dynamics and processes upon which they rely. Their skills and knowledge represent "other ways of knowing" to conventional scientific analysis, and they represent a significant knowledge resource for developing sustainable rural livelihoods and working landscapes. Including local knowledge in planning and management for rural sustainability enhances effectiveness by building local capacity and understanding, fostering cross-scale knowledge exchanges, and facilitating platforms for social learning. The transition to sustainability will require robust social platforms and deliberative democracy for negotiating values, issues of distributive and intergenerational justice, and social learning, and cannot be assigned to experts who plumb numbers into black boxes to figure out optimal utility functions. As William Burch of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies has observed, "Resource managers have a tendency to try to convert conflicts over values into technical questions. Resource allocation decisions are often matters of political struggle rather than technical facts. Resource managers, when confronted with social value decisions, will seek to convert them into technical decisions." 4.2 Democracy Government, corporations, and large private organizations tend to concentrate power more than they distribute it and horde learning. Much of what passes, as "public involvement" unfortunately is something that is done to people, not with them as a meaningful player. "Participatory" processes have been largely a process of consultation, in which decisionmaking agencies a posteriori "inform" the public of the decision, "invite" comment, and then promptly "ignore" the input as it typically comes too late in the process to alter the decision. Full deliberative participatory processes must be viewed as a substantive benefit and a critical component of sustainable development and biodiversity conservation. 4.3 Action-Oriented Research. In his 2002 work, Niels Roling uses the metaphor of a lotus plant to illustrate how interdisciplinary scientific inquiry must learn to fruit and flower at the same time. The world has become so complex, the stakes of eco-challenge so formidable, that researchers must become more clever in organizing collective inquiry. The case examples in this volume speak to the need for organized and rigorous reflection in action. Scientific inquiry in natural and social systems can no longer claim to be objective or policy neutral. While the boundaries between inquiry and action should not be ignored, increasingly researchers are encouraged to acknowledge the moral implications of research, surface their own biases and understand the influence they are having on the object of study and research results,

324


and to accept their own responsibility as citizens and members of society with a role in the future. New methods of assessing the validity and reliability of results must be developed and employed. As complexity grows so do the chances of finding competing explanations for the same phenomenon. More not less reliance on multiple modes of inquiry, ways of knowing, and lines of evidence are needed to help sort through vexing problems of sustainability. Instead of focusing primarily on errors of "treatment," research inquiry must focus as well on whether the right questions are being addressed, or whether methodologies in use are appropriate to the nature of the problem. In the high stakes game to which civilization has evolved, consideration of whether the right questions are being asked is far more important than persisting in outmoded treatments derived from hypotheses and assumptions that go unchallenged. 5. Elements of an Action-Research Plan •

•

• • •

Research processes can influence policy and management. Identify and develop strategies to influence policy through action research. The question that is emerging now is how science can inform "know-how," in terms of how to mobilize, organize and effectively engage social enterprise and build capacity. How to better link local scale action, evaluative research, and adaptive management to top-down policy making process (combine adaptive management with working landscapes framework, citizen science). Develop value-based research rooted in empowering science in service of action to promote rural sustainability. Develop the conceptual research framework that can guide/accommodate the research agenda, monitor biodiversity. Research is needed to better define performance measures and criteria for stability and disturbance of ecosystems. There is a critical need to involve the key stakeholders (or "problem owners") in research.

It is critical to develop heuristics capable of integrating and articulating rural people's intuitive understanding and knowledge regarding the value of social and natural capital that is at odds with much of the conventional wisdom in science, economics, common property management on how to do "development." Research needs to be able to place this knowledge within the integrative frameworks (ecological economics, adaptive management, sustainability assessment) so as to create institutional designs that are more robust and holistic. A discussion of what is an enabling policy environment that would under gird the transition to rural sustainability: what kind of policy is really needed; how do we integrate local and regional initiatives in an overall policy and financial structure, e.g. the New York City watershed approach? How to accomplish (a) short-term buffering / protecting socialnatural capital at the place-based local/bottom-up level while (b) pursuing long-term major reform from the top down? 6. Summary The biodiversity and rural sustainability challenge is one that is faced throughout the world. Biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods are linked and influence environmental, economic, and national security. Grassroots action must play a principal not ancillary role in


325

solutions, because no program, development program, or financial strategy can substitute for a stewardship ethic, effective knowledge and relationship to ecosystems of people on the land. Change must be driven from the bottom-up, but there are also limits to bottom-up action in context of larger institutions and global economy. There are limits to what communities and places can do to buffer themselves against the onslaught of globalization. Local sustainability practices and partnerships must therefore be supported through public policy. Incentives must be structured so as to reinforce the good intentions of motivated rural people to retain, develop, and apply sustainable practices. Top down policy, though well meaning, is often perverse and poses real risks to sustainability because the frameworks and assumptions they are based on are flawed and oversimplified, and because over-subsidized rural systems lose local capacity to adapt, innovate, and renew themselves. ARW participants suggested there is a need for more rigorous comparative study of methodologies—similarities, differences, and common themes, unique points—geared towards practical applications. Isolated case studies alone are not sufficient - cases are needed to spur more inductive thinking to cobble together theoretical frameworks that facilitate more effective inquiry and action. Working landscapes and ecological economics (full cost accounting/valuing natural-social-capital) both provide holistic frameworks for analysis, while adaptive management and institutional analysis provide tools for implementation. Policy evaluation must be treated and viewed as an iterative learning process. More examples are needed of how local success and experience in conserving biodiversity can translate into learning about what works and what does not. The notion "working landscapes" generated enthusiasm as people began to how bottom-up with top-down institutions could be mashed, reorganizing the "silos" of vertical, disciplinary expertise into auxiliary support systems for holistic, integrative decisionmaking rooted in place. Working landscapes is a metaphor for integrated social, ecological, and economic systems, how sustainable livelihoods, economic use of agriculture and forest lands and other natural resources, and provisioning of ecological services can be integrated on the landscape at scales from local to global. Ecological economics was also endorsed as a framework for thinking about and evaluating the value and resilience of rural livelihoods and biodiversity. Better ways of assessing the true value of biodiversity will ultimately be more powerful than simply evaluating the negative social and ecological impacts of different types of human economic activity. There is a huge gap between scientific research and the most critical sustainability needs and priorities, especially at the local level. Providing opportunities for local people to work with researchers from different fields of inquiry and different sectors of the economy will help achieve a more "level playing field." The valuation of local knowledge is difficult. Ways of articulating and amplifying rural voices are essential to more equitable and enduring results on the rural landscape; this can propel growth of urban and NGO understanding of sustainability in the rural context. Given what has been learned from the experience of Western Europe and the relatively better biodiversity position in CEE countries, there is opportunity to make Central Europe and Ukraine a model for working landscapes and better stewardship of biodiversity resources. The failures in "developed" countries (Western Europe and the U.S.) to effectively integrate biodiversity into agricultural policy are instructive. The ARW discussions were most fruitful and signal a movement of like-minded people that see the huge benefits of protecting CEE and learning from the shortcomings and failures of conventional U.S. and European practices and policies

326


An Epilogue Reflections on Peasantry, Power and Security Steve LIGHT, Bridget O'MEARA, and Kristen BLANK Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Minneapolis, Minnesota U.S.A. Sometimes ideas, like men can become dictators like the self imposed doctrine of ruthless utilitarianism. The saving grace of democracy is that we fastened this yoke to our own necks, and we can cast it off when we want to without severing the neck. Utilitarianism was useful tool but has been taken to extreme... When standard economics begins to limit options, and ceases to promote individual expression, then both conservation and individuality suffer, and it becomes time to re-examine means and ends. Aldo Leopold [1] 1. International driving forces and the voiceless The stories shared in this book speak to deep-seated reforms needed in national and international policy for rural peoples and their natural environments, particularly in fledgling democracies born of the collapse of totalitarian regimes of the Soviet era. The social equity, resource conservation, and market reforms now proceeding in Central and Eastern Europe could not have been possible without strong multilateral defense capability like NATO. War torn Europe and the rise of the Soviet threat after WWII required massive military and agricultural responses from the United States to thwart the threat of totalitarian regimes. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, tensions generated by globalization, religious fundamentalism, terrorism, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction pose new threats that have divided traditional allies. Unfortunately, long-standing relationships to corporate military and agricultural interests, viewed as so essential to security during the Cold War, may actually be retarding change necessary to meet the new global realities - the fate of those being left behind by Cold War and now global change. The institutional relationships and structures developed during the Cold War may actually be inhibiting a reassessment of policy for security and safety and rural economic vitality; limiting the NATO nations' combined capability to strengthen rural community capacity to function more democratically and more economically efficiently. In the coming years, giving "voice" to local communities working at the grassroots in Europe and North America is imperative if rural sustainability is to become an actuality in national and international debates, which shape international policies and financial flows. There is growing evidence born out by the case studies in this volume that globalization is triggering the collapse of traditional rural societies, threatening to cultural identity, values and traditional livelihoods. People in small towns all over North America and Europe are

S. Light et al. /An Epilogue: Reflections on Peasantry, Power and Security

327

witnessing large national or international corporations and international agri-business displacing small family and traditional farmers and drying up rural community retailers. One has to ask - "to what end, clearly not for sustainability purposes. The speed, scale and complexity of global change simply overwhelm traditional rural institutions and norms. Many rural communities are totally unprepared, unable to adapt and respond to the new challenges. Continued globalisation in its current incarnation—driven by global institutions and corporations that are largely unaccountable, untransparent, and unresponsive to local needs and concerns—will not only thwart rural development, but threatens to exacerbate rural poverty, insecurity and instability by pushing more people off the land and into cities that are ill-prepared to accommodate them. The peasantry of Central and Eastern Europe is a good case in point. Poland alone has three million independent peasant farmers who face significant changes through EU integration, CAP and WTO agricultural policies. Unfortunately, the complex roles and functions of peasant subsistence livelihoods in rural society and agroecosystems are not well understood, and are often dismissed as just out of step with "progress" and economic modernization. Although conditions vary from area to area, these peasant farmers are literate, enjoy good health, and meet their needs through livelihoods that maintain local populations of wild game and migratory birds. Their rich cultural customs, religion and ways of governance are not just an "unfortunate legacy." Despite atrocities and holocausts beyond imagination over the centuries including the decapitation of leadership and deprivations of every strip and color, the peasant traditions of Central and Eastern Europe remained a bastion of independence, stability and security, surviving intact through a series of ideologies, regimes, and political forms. Globalization poses perhaps a more ominous and fundamental threat. Today, peasant farmers face trade liberalization that to date has resulted in seemingly (rhetorically) well-intended efforts that in reality continually backfire. Developed nations in North America and Europe as well as the IMF and World Bank consistently recommend agriculture projects and infrastructure development that are poorly conceived, not transparent, and not designed and financially agreed to locally. The result is predictable not just mismatch of intervention and local or regional needs, but degradation of rural livelihoods, communities and landscapes. The influence of international commercial and financial interests under the guise of free trade under the World Trade Organization, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms and European Union expansion of 10 new members are not well attuned to rural communities. Social and environmental issues often seen as very important locally are typically not well addressed at the regional to continental level. But caring for the environment may be one of the best ways to make sure that local populations closely tied to rural areas become directly involved in deciding upon their future and that issues of promoting democracy, fair trade, and social justice are adequately addressed. Being locally accountable is not "an uncalled-for intrusion into the market" it is fostering democracy and participatory governance [2]. Central Europe has vital stories of transition to market based economy, opportunities for new models to evolve, and lessons to be learned regarding rural sustainability, but the social infrastructure is not in place where the NGOs in co-operation with local governments can provide the valuable reflection and much-needed feedback on performance to national, and international leaders and organizations. Science and adaptive assessment methodologies have a special role here because, unlike ideology, science—at least in theory—acknowledges uncertainty and the possibility that prevailing hypotheses will be falsified. The application of the scientific method provides structured ways of monitoring and evaluating feedback to make progress more transparent to everyone, so that the need for mid-course changes is recognized and potential changes identified as rapidly as

328


possible. All too often, government programs operate without such accountability or mechanisms for performance assessment and adaptive reform, designed out of a mishmash of ideology, simplistic conviction, and special interests of elites [2]. NATO has an essential role to play in helping to strengthen and expand the fledgling democratic advances in Europe's eastern periphery. The United States has an important multilateral role to play. America has the opportunity to (1) expand NATO umbrella, which provides a valuable measure of security for young democracies and (2) support EU enlargement involving the A-10 countries of Central Europe. Unfortunately, America has wavered on how strong a EU it is willing to welcome following the fall of the Soviet Union. Recent U.S. preemptive actions in Iraq have forced A-10 nations to decide between France German and Russian opposition to the war with Iraq on the one hand and on the other support of U.S. dominated military superiority and its leadership in NATO and the war in Iraq. Such actions undermine the multilateral integrity of NATO and raise fundamental questions about U.S. objectives as the sole military super power in the world. While American leadership in security is indispensable, so are a united Europe and the development of democratic pluralism that invites Ukraine and other newly independent states to move toward Central Europe toward greater democracy and market-based reforms. Security means more than military might, NATO, EU and America must share responsibility for the consequences of population explosion, poverty driven migration, rural destabilization, radicalising urbanization, ethnic and religious hostility, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Right now such transatlantic dialogue is absent. Yet, the growing schism between the "haves" and the "have-nots" continues to undermine peace and stability through out the world, and ultimately the collective security of NATO countries. Rural poverty is known to generate international disaffection, restlessness, frustration that is intensified by expanding global media and rapid global communications. Ruptures in traditional rural authority and resentment based on global inequities threatens to foster extremist mobilization and the rising phenomenon of global migration that can lead to trans-continental spread of ethnic and social conflicts. 2. Valuing diversity in natural and social capital The dynamics of global change have deep roots in western civilization. The origins of our challenge are embedded in our cognitive tools, institutions, worldviews, and paradigms, culturally evolved over 100s of years. The transition to sustainability will require surfacing the assumptions that underpin "how we think the world works," examine their efficacy to create options for the future and the decision to change our view "what kind of garden we want to grow." This section examines current cultural value orientations and how they might be recast to support more sustainable thinking and behavior. The world faces change that threatens both the survival of hundreds of thousands of wildlife species and the capacity of the residents of rural landscapes to adapt to and survive environmental upheaval. Currently, the institutions and agreements that govern economic activity and relationships over-emphasize efficiency and instrumentality, technological development, large-scale bureaucratic organization and market fundamentalism. This has led to the concentration of capital in hands of the few, the erosion of cultural as well as biological capital, the atomization of individuals and a global economy increasingly dominated by transnational corporations. In developing nations, globalization has had especially adverse effects on the poor and on the environment [2]. North America and Europe without doubt exert the largest force shaping global change. Comprised of six of the eight largest economies of the world, the combined


329

economic power of these two continents represents most of the world's GNP. The policies, programs and practices of the United States (where California alone is the fifth largest economy in the world), in particular, has a substantial impact on rural communities, economies and ecosystems outside of as well as within national borders. In addition to tremendous economic power, North America and Europe share two powerful traditions: a common defense strategy (NATO) and a shared cultural heritage, which has shaped and sustained much of the world's military, financial and economic policy. The NATO defense pact, an outgrowth of WWII, has sought to rebuild war-torn European economies and to protect them from the threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The cultural ties between Europe and North America, however, go back centuries—to the Age of the Enlightenment. Indeed, the nations of North America were founded as colonies of Europe; their subsequent independence and development were rooted in the ideals of the European Enlightenment. In order to address the pathologies inherent in global change, the shared system of cultural belief, the Culture of the Enlightenment, needs to be identified and explored, to more fully understand how it has shaped our world, to critique its shortfalls and recover its transformative potential. The Enlightenment, after all, although it has evolved differently in response to different conditions in the United States and Europe, is our common intellectual heritage and its legacies endure. The term "culture" needs clarification for our purposes here, as it is used widely and often indiscriminately. Edgar Schein [3] argues that cultural paradigms, in all human groups and societies, form around five basic assumptions (Table DTable 1. Basic Underlying Assumptions Around Which Cultural Paradigms Form Humanity's Relationship to Nature. At the organizational level, do the key members view the relationship of the organization [society] to its environment as one of dominance, submission, harmonizing, finding appropriate niche, or what? The Nature of Truth and Reality. The linguistic and behavioral rules that define what is real and what is not, what is a "fact," how truth is ultimately to be determined, and whether truth is "revealed" or "discovered"; basic concepts of time and space The Nature of Human Nature. What does it mean to be "human" and what attributes are considered intrinsic or ultimate? Is human nature good, evil or neutral? Are human beings perfectible or not? The Nature of Human Activity. What is the "right" thing for human beings to do, on the basis of assumptions about reality, the environment, and human nature: to be active, passive, self-developmental, fatalistic, or what? What is work and what is play? The Nature of Human Relationships. What is considered to be the "right" way for people to relate to each other, to distribute power and love? Is life cooperative or competitive; individualistic, group collaborative, or communal; based on traditional lineal authority, law, charisma, or what?

Culture then may be understood as a set of mutually reinforcing relations, identities, values, attitudes, beliefs and practices that, at a given time, explain humanity (or a segment of humanity) and the nature of its existence to the members of a particular society. While all human cultures develop around these a small set of basic assumptions, there are many possible value orientations for each dimension and thus a wide range of diversity in human

330


cultures. The specific resultant cultural paradigm that gains prominence in a society is both shaped by and shapes specific conditions. Since its emergence in late 17th and early 18th century Europe, The Culture of the Enlightenment has traveled, crossed boundaries and evolved. It has synthesized, displaced, co-opted and engendered other cultural belief systems. In that time it has vastly altered ecological and social realities as well as interpretations of them. Yet it still wields considerable influence over how dominant "Western" societies view the world and formulate their intentions. Moreover, its basic assumptions remain. They are the tenets that brought Western Civilization out of the Dark Ages and into the Age of Enlightenment: historical antecedents of modern science, industrial development, democratic government, public education, market capitalism and religious freedom. The Culture of the Enlightenment has had a pronounced effect on Europe and North America and hence has shaped and become the foundation for the economics of global reach and change. This shared set of values is a source of stability as well as change— representing our deepest embedded understandings, time tested, not easily uprooted or overturned. Yet these value orientations are cultural, not universal. They have been and continue to be struggled over and/or met with resistance within North America and Europe and around the world. Moreover, other possible orientations and thus cultural belief systems persist. The so-called "culture wars" between Western and Islamic civilizations is a dramatic and prominent case in point. 2.1 What conditions gave rise to The Culture of the Enlightenment? The late 17th and early 18th century was a time of enormous upheaval and global transformation as European empires struggled for military and economic supremacy. It was an era driven by the exploitation of commodities in other parts of the world, slave-labor production in mines as well as on cattle ranches and plantations, and the expansion of global trade. Militarism combined with commodity production in the colonies for the purpose of accumulating capital, which in turn funded further military exploits worldwide, Table 2. Specific Basic Assumptions of the Culture of the Enlightenment (adapted from [3]). Humanity's Relationship to Nature. The human mind is separate from and superior to observable nature (including the body), which, like a machine, is comprised of essential parts that perform specific functions. Humans dominate the environment by discovering and making use of natural laws. The Nature of Reality and Truth. Reality exists outside the mind and is discovered through the scientific method: observation, hypothetical reasoning, experimentation and sensory verification; however, because of the subjective nature of knowing, truth is always in doubt. Space is empty, containing discrete objects. Time is linear. The Nature of Human Nature. The human mind is a tabula rasa (empty slate), endowed with reason, which separates human beings from the rest of creation. Individuals are formed by subjective experience; thus human nature is neither inherently good nor bad, but has potential for perfection. The Nature of Human Activity. On the basis of the above assumptions, humans should actively apply reason in order to liberate themselves finally from uncertainty and gain control over their existence. The Nature of Human Relationships. The individual is the basic component of all human relationships (including government, markets, religion, etc); individuals must create as well as abide by the rules and laws they live by to ensure collective order and social progress.

5. Light et al. /An Epilogue: Reflections on Peasantry, Power and Security

331

sets this era apart from previous ages of empire and marks the onset of globalization. Meanwhile, in Europe, the enormous wealth generated by all this economic activity precipitated a shift away from feudalism, with its rigid class structure based on landed wealth and inheritance, which was long justified by religion and the "Divine Right" of noble birth. Fortunes could now be made not just inherited. There was new opportunity in commodity agricultural production, manufacture for export, investment and mercantile capitalism. Social upheaval accompanied rapid economic growth and changes in land use. Thousands of displaced peasants from the countryside filled the streets of European cities; many would end up on ships headed for the Americas. As the value orientations around which medieval European cultures had been formed began to lose tenure, new ideas about human nature emerged. These ideas, articulated in the works of men like Rene Descartes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and others, became the foundation for The Culture of the Enlightenment (see Table 2). Reason was central to this emergent cultural paradigm, displacing Faith as the fundamental orientation of all five basic assumptions. From the scientific method to the social contract to public education, reason transformed medieval assumptions about how people should relate to one another and to the world. New ideals of equality, justice and democracy were rooted in the notion that each and every human being (pauper or king) possessed the capacity for reason. In a time of tremendous uncertainty, the Culture of the Enlightenment held out great optimism for humanity. It assumed that individuals were capable of limitless improvement, that people could control their environment as well as their fate, that human progress and social order were compatible with divine order, and that all these could be achieved by rational means. Systematic doubt, empirical and sensory verification, the abstraction of human knowledge and the view that the world functioned as a machine characterized this cultural belief system, but also obscured its foundations in history and culture. The Culture of the Enlightenment not only undermined established hierarchies, recognizing the capacity to reason and thus inherent value of the individual, but also provided a rationale for reasserting hierarchies, along not entirely new lines. Diverse cultures and ecosystems at imperial peripheries, which belied a unified notion of "humanity" or "human progress," were forced into conceptual alignment with relations of power as linear time was mapped onto geographical space. Differences in culture were now seen as temporal differences. Humanity was thought to have passed through "stages" of development—from "barbarism" to "civilization." The idea that indigenous and peasant cultures were contemporaries, with equally valid cultural belief systems, was not entertained because the Culture of the Enlightenment saw itself as "universal." Thus, progress and modernization justified cultural and ecological violence against Africans, Native Americans, Asians, Aborigines and rural Europeans. Social Darwinism rationalized disparities of wealth and power, which were understood as natural and inevitable rather than as contingent upon specific economic, political and social arrangements, values and practices. Reductive scientific knowledge, which was valued over all other forms of knowledge, minimized the importance of larger dynamic systems, complex local relationships, and unpredictable outcomes as well as spiritual dimensions of humanity existence. As the Enlightenment called inherited values into question, it also ushered in a new cultural belief system, which would reshape the world. 2.2 How has the Culture of the Enlightenment shaped our world? The contradictions and ambiguities of the Culture of the Enlightenment have been an integral part of the development of nation-states on both sides of the Atlantic.

332


Revolutionaries and reformers proclaimed the equal rights of all human beings, but inherited a world (and a market economy) that relied on and reproduced social inequalities of class, race, gender, sexuality, nationality, and region. The realities of entrenched injustice prompted debates and sometimes armed conflicts over whose rights would be protected and, by implication, over who qualified as "human." Even as leaders in former colonies embraced the rhetoric of the Enlightenment to make their case for independence from European empires, they failed to extend those ideals to all people in their national policies. For more than two hundred years, abolitionist movements, farmer and populist rebellions, labor movements, civil rights and nationalists movements, and organized efforts for women's equality have challenged the status quo in Europe and North America and around the world by invoking the ideals of the Enlightenment. The search for order gave rise to totalitarian forms in social, economic and political arenas. All of this has been understood (often in retrospect) as progress—the social progress that inevitably accompanies the advance of industrialism, urbanism, technology, scientific rationalism, market efficiency and civic organization. Yet strengths can become weaknesses when they become ends in themselves and no longer serve the public interest. During the first decades of the 20th century, The Culture of Enlightenment was institutionalized in the United States. After the First World War, it became the foundation of a new internationalism. A belief that the creation and enforcement of rules for regulating human activity would preserve civil order and ensure national progress was at the heart of the Progressive Movement. Law would replace might. Experts would address problems. Areas as diverse as science, philosophy, business, education, journalism, law, medicine, social work and agriculture were "bureaucratized." Knowledge that had once been the domain of ordinary citizens—law, teaching, health and medicine, the production of food, fiber and shelter—was now restricted to a new class of professionals. Specialization created opportunities for an emerging middle class but also gave rise to new hierarchies and created new dependencies. As human activity was regulated so were the spaces people occupied. The city was compartmentalized according to function. Outside the city a national park system was designed to preserve and protect the wilderness from civilization. Scientific rationalism, mechanization and an emphasis on yields dominated production methods on the farms as well as in the factories. Domestic reforms inspired international efforts, namely the League of Nations, which would present the United States as the model of order and progress to the world. NATO and the United Nations, with its founding Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were borne out of conflict. They are also products of the Culture of the Enlightenment: the former committed to the logic of collective security, rationality and order, the latter to the ideal of global democracy and global justice. Along with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, these institutions constitute a bureaucratic system of political governance and economic development on an international scale. During the Cold War, they were the stalwarts against Communism, which, ironically, was also an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. Today, more than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the triumph of market capitalism may be imminent, but human rights, democracy, social justice and security remain elusive. Internationalism and diplomacy have proven decidedly not the tools of preference in face in powerful states (and increasingly multinational corporations) pursuing their own interests. The belief in a singular path of "human progress," which for so long has guided Europe and North America as well as the Soviet Union, now seems dubious, as its social and ecological costs become apparent.


333

2.3 What has the Culture of the Enlightenment "left behind"? The world has entered into a profound period of global change. The conditions that prevailed at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment—an abundance of resources and seemingly limitless possibility—have been altered almost beyond recognition. While those how support market fundamentalism focus narrowly on financial indicators, other indicators reveal a decline in social and ecological well-being. Disturbing evidence of global warming, species extinction, degraded air and water quality, soil erosion and resource depletion as well as ongoing social inequity have prompted many to reflect on the assumptions Western civilization has inherited. In recent decades, two scientific trends have emerged to address new conditions: biotechnology and ecology. Biotechnology continues in the reductive and mechanistic tradition of the Enlightenment that is most valued by market capitalism (its preoccupation with genetics obscures social, economic and political contingencies and it results in profitable products and/or practices). Ecology, however, recovers for modern science an Enlightenment notion that has long circulated among people at the margins: human beings both shape the world and are shaped by their experiences in the world, which means that reality is relational—not fundamental—and may be transformed. Contributors to this collection of essays are among those who take an ecological approach. They not only recognize complexity and diversity of relationships between rural communities and their environments, but also, in the process, call the "universality" of the Culture of the Enlightenment into question. 3. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together As the case studies reveal, industrial agriculture and resource extraction, which emphasize high productivity and rely on outside expertise, subsidized infrastructure, expensive machinery, fossil fuels and other chemical inputs, benefit large corporations at the expense of small farmers, workers, rural communities and the environment. By contrast, in peripheral regions that progress seems to have passed by and the market has overlooked, where peasant and indigenous societies thrive so does biodiversity, soil, water and air quality, and overall environmental health. In Central Europe, South America and elsewhere, isolated rural communities that were spared the homogenizing tendencies of the Enlightenment have maintained diverse practices suited to the peculiarities of their environment. But in recent decades traditional practices and value systems worldwide are increasingly threatened by "modernization," which prescribes a universal (industrial) model for all localities. Cultural and biological features that coevolved in situ are seen as obstacles to development. This imposed rationality has unintended and often devastating consequences—which are then assessed by experts who often recommend another technological fix. The result can be a destructive cycle, a feedback loop, which erodes cultural and biological options. In the Tisza River Basin, for example, where periodic flooding had once been the pulse of this region's rich cultural and ecological life, local communities now struggle for social and economic survival while policy makers strive for greater control over the river in the interests of industrial agriculture. The studies, however, not only document the adverse impact of industrialized models on rural communities and ecosystems; they also discuss both the usefulness and the limitations of expertise. In diverse localities, from the Pacific Northwest to the Hickling Lake area, scientific and policy experts have tended to address ecological issues in isolation and as discrete from local economies, resulting in fragmented approaches to systemic problems as well as intractable conflict: economy versus environment. More recently,

334


sustainable initiatives in these regions utilize local as well as outside talent and leadership to create economic opportunity while preserving biodiversity. On both sides of the Atlantic, there is increasing acknowledgement that such local initiatives benefit greatly from institutional and policy support. In the Red River Basin of North America, a crisis-ridden and complex region, where proposed solutions are often meet with active resistance by one or more stakeholders, the Alternatives to Crisis Program is developing an integrated model through participatory processes in order to achieve consensus. In the European Union, successful local-partnership programs, such as LEADER and PRIDE, emphasize building up human and social capital as well as environmental capital, even as they facilitate a move from paternalistic government toward community governance. Meanwhile, debates around large-scale policy reform (CAP and Farm Bill) reflect concerns about the negative impact of industrialization, question piecemeal efforts to address environmental problems and urge the incorporation of changes currently emerging at local and regional levels. The shift in policy and practice, which is represented over and over in the diverse contributions to this collection, is predicated not only on ecological insights but also the awareness that cultural difference is not, in fact, a temporal difference. The researchers here, rather than degrading or romanticizing local communities as relics of a by-gone era, recognize that these are contemporary societies, whose mutually reinforcing relations, identities, values, attitudes, beliefs and practices—or cultures—are inextricably linked to the places where they live and work. It is the interaction between culture and environment that sustains both. The case studies remind us that, within Schein's schema, many cultural belief systems are possible, and suggest that Western civilization, even as heirs of the Table 3. Basic Underlying Assumptions of Emergent (Meta)Cultural Paradigm (adapted from [3]). Humanity's Relationship to Nature. Humans are part of nature. Cultures and ecosystems are dynamic, interdependent and mutually constituted. Five hundred years of globalization (colonialism, imperialism and transnational capitalism/communism) means that human-nature relations are always simultaneously local and global. The Nature of Reality and Truth. Reality is neither entirely objective nor entirely subjective but is a matter of perspective. Understanding Truth" requires recognition of how inherited culture (identities, assumptions, values, beliefs, practices and relations of power) and experience informs perspectives of societies as well as individuals within society. There are many ways of knowing—traditional, spiritual, intuitive, experiential, scientific, pragmatic, etc. Time and space both shape and are shaped by values of a society. The Nature of Human Nature. Human nature, like all of nature, is creative and destructive. Human societies are influenced and sustained but not bound by (inherited, emergent, unforeseen) biological and ecological as well as conceptual and cultural limits. Diversity (not perfectibility) is essential for innovation and adaptation. The Nature of Human Activity. On the basis of above assumptions, humans within and among different societies, should reflect on and act out of a sense of reciprocity, engage in inter/intra-cultural dialogue, nurture sustainable social and ecological relationships, and build adaptive institutions that preserve both integrity and diversity. The Nature of Human Relationships. The complex web of interdependences that sustains human life globally necessitates collaborative and transparent relationships at every level of organization. Those impacted most directly by human activity (government, markets, religion, recreation, artistic production) in a locality should benefit the most as well as participate its planning, implementation, monitoring, assessment and adaptation.


335

Enlightenment, might adapt our own values or adopt different values if those have been have inherited do not serve social and ecological needs. Moreover, they suggest the emergence of a (meta) cultural paradigm that acknowledges and values cultural difference without giving way to postmodern relativism (see Table 3). Because we are in the midst of a paradigm shift, these orientations do not yet resonate as basic assumptions across cultures—and for those raised to believe in the primacy of the individual and the inevitability of progress, the emphasis on interdependence and adaptation may seem idealistic or even misguided. 4. Concluding comments Improving the quality of life is essential to maintaining the security and stability of 180 million rural residents in an enlarged European Union and has also implications for NATO enlargement. Such a goal requires engaging in a significantly more substantive, pluralistic, deliberative, and fundamental reassessment and critique of the urban, western "progress" paradigm that currently has a juggernaut on international policy-making. Uniform, one-size fits all economic development prescriptions pose significant risks to maintaining biodiversity and cultural diversity as a basis for life support and economic revitalization. A transition to rural sustainability is required. This must take place not just in European Union countries, but across the whole NATO security area. Success depends on identifying and making use of new opportunities for using biodiversity conservation as a basis for the transition to multi-functional agriculture, especially in the NATO partner countries. This book has documented many encouraging examples of the ideas, tools and infrastructure at work to help make rural sustainability a reality. There are encouraging examples of how people can improve their lives without jeopardizing the resilience of their communities, environments, and rural ecosystems. However, rural sustainability is currently threatened by extension to accession countries of a partially reformed EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with its emphasis on direct subsidies for agricultural production (Pillar 1) rather than financial support for rural infrastructure and development (Pillar 2). Resources must be mobilized from a reformed CAP, EU structural funds, private sector and national budgets to support the transition to rural sustainability. Contributions to designing strategies and action plan for delivering rural sustainability and biodiversity have been discussed at length in the chapter on findings, conclusions and recommendations. The papers, case studies, and ideas presented in this book challenge some of the most pervasive assumptions, institutional foundations, and fundamental underpinnings of the current manifestation of the Enlightenment based "progress" paradigm that are driving potentially uncontrollable and irreversible global change. Security, stability, and diversity are essential for both democracies and ecological communities to persist and thrive. Monocultures—whether of thought, policy, or resources—are inherently unstable; in a dynamic environment, they become increasingly vulnerable to collapse and instability. The particular incarnation of "market fundamentalism" that currently drives development, investment, and fiscal policy in global institutions is an example of a paradigm that needs to be challenged and subjected to thorough cross-examination. Do markets without boundaries contribute to or undermine democracy and biodiversity? Under what conditions does market liberalization contribute to instability and biodiversity decline? The transition to sustainability requires such fundamental reconsiderations. The ideas and stories presented in this book challenge us in our respective communities and global society to reflect on what our relationships with nature and other humans need to be in a full, increasingly congested world. There are lessons to be learned,

336


that need to be learned rapidly, from the rural, traditional cultures that have yet to be fully transformed by globalization, where democracy and collective expressions and the quest to realize our human potential are steeped in tradition and local custom, but which are threatened by universal, untailored solutions. The quest for sustainability has brought us face-to-face with the recognition that there is not just one reality, one worldview, one path, or one objective to be optimized. Rural working landscapes perform multiple functions through a diversity of natural and social relationships. The integrity of these relationships speaks volumes about security, safety, democracy and prosperity. Furthermore, these lessons are relevant and applicable to all of modernity, both to market-dominated urban systems struggling, declining rural economies of many developed and underdeveloped countries. A very strong case has been made that the ecological, economic, and community problems facing the farmers of the Ukraine are not that far removed from those in the Upper Midwest of the United States. One of the ironies of period of profound constructive change is that just as people think walls should go up, the status quo should be guarded at all costs, existing boundaries should be protected, walls actually come tumbling down as new sources of energy and capital are harnessed. Many world leaders understand this as a financial principle, but fail to realize that social and ecological forms of capital are the basis of all real wealth; they are rich sources of energy to be tapped. Traditionally, biodiversity research was driven by the natural sciences. This research has to be broadened to the role to include social sciences, because it is social phenomena (how people think, act, organize themselves, relate to Nature, use resources) that are the root cause of biodiversity problems. Sustainability assessment, adaptive management, institutional analysis, and other emerging interdisciplinary or participatory methods and frameworks, such as ecological economics, explored in this book are among the tools and strategies for advancing sustainability science. They raise fundamentally deeper questions about the way knowledge is organized and basic values are conceptualized in Western thought and civilization. But by themselves they are not enough. Researchers must depart from traditional research paradigm into more interdisciplinary, collaborative, and action-oriented paradigms. The role and identify of scientific research must depart from analysis of symptoms (or "forensic science", i.e. a flawless retrospective analysis of why the patient died), that, despite exhaustive detail about fascinating minutiae, any understanding comes too late to address the underlying drivers of growing institutional, market, or social dysfunction. Although conventional wisdom holds that the market is the dominant institution, a research and policy challenge is to explore thoroughly how incentives are structured, locally to globally, in the complex mix of preexisting traditional, market, and evolving social institutions, and to surface the significant role and potential of alternative institutions and incentive structures. For example, how do subsidies alter or distort decision-making for individual decision-makers and community leaders? Adaptive Management is a strategy and a tool for combining the universalized expertise of scientists, academics and policy makers—heirs of the Culture of the Enlightenment—with the situated knowledge of diverse local communities, whose values and knowledge have co-evolved with the landscapes they inhabit—a return to common sense. Adaptive Management is predicated on the insight that, because of irreducible uncertainty and complexity of relationships in ecosystems and society, outcomes cannot always be anticipated and conservation measures that address problems in isolation often create new ones. It assumes that local land-users are an integral part of any ecosystem and therefore should be participants in the creation, implementation, monitoring and modification of management programs. It recognizes that in order to address environmental issues more holistically and adapt to unintended consequences, options must be available.


337

Cultural diversity is as crucial as biological diversity. For this reason, as several articles argue here, Adaptive Management is a promising approach to implementing and adapting policies that seek to promote sustainable agriculture, economic development and biological conservation, globally as well as in the United States and the European Union. At the onset of this new millennium, Western civilization can no longer afford to hold fast to beliefs in the superiority and inevitability of scientific rationalism, instrumentality and efficiency, technological advancement and market fundamentalism. The time has come to trade in our arrogance toward nature and toward rural cultures for a more humble acknowledgment of our fundamental interdependence. The notion of one path of "human progress" must be replaced with a newfound sense of solidarity that preserves diversity and with it, perhaps, our own survival. In conclusion, the path to biodiversity conservation and rural sustainability goes through the heart of our human nature; it is there that the final battles for sustainability will be waged. What is needed is the courage to think, to sift and measure and weight; wrestle and to enter the darkness, disillusionment and doubt about our own nature, in search of new ways of working together that create not restrict options for the future. References [1] Meine, Curt 1988. Aldo Leopold. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp 302. [2] Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2000 Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton Press. 288pp. [3] Schein, Edgar H. 1985 Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco Jossey-Bass Publishers. 358pp

338

Appendix A ARW Participants Krister ANDERSSON Indiana University 408 North Indiana Avenue Bloomington, IN 47408-3799 USA Albert APPLETON Regional Plan Association 4 Irving Place 7th Floor New York NY 10003 USA Peter BALOGH Local Government of Nagykoru Dept. of Physical Geography ELTE, Budapest Majus 1. u. 1. H-5065 Nagykoru Hungary Guy Antony BEAUFOY Institute de Desarrollo Rural Sostenible IDRISI Finca Cebrea E-10430 Cuacos de Yuste Spain Roza BIDERMAN Polish Environmental Partnership Foundation ul. Bracka 6/6 31-005 Krakow Poland Kristen BLANN Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2105 1st Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA

Zbigniew BOCHNIARZ Center for Nations in Transition University of Minnesota 301 19th AvenueS. Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA Richard S. BOLAN Urban and Regional Planning Humphrey Institute University of Minnesota, 301 19th AvenueS., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA Floor BROUWER Natural Resources Management Agricultural Economics Research Institute Burgemeester Patijnlaan 19 P.O. box 29703 2502 LS The Hague The Netherlands Keith BUCHANAN Countryside Agency Cross House Westgate Road Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 4XX United Kingdom Przemyslaw CZAJKOWSKI GEF/Small Grants Programme UNDP PO BOX 1 02-514 Warszawa 12 Poland

339

Chad DAY Professor Emeritus School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby,B.C.V5AlS6 Canada Szczepan FIGIEL International Center for Business and Public Management University of Warmia-Mazury in Olsztyn Prawochenskiego 19 10-720 Olsztyn Poland Wolfgang FREMUTH Frankfurt Zoological Society Alfred-Brehm-Platz 16, D-60316 Frankfurt/Main, Germany Martin GOEBEL Sustainable Northwest 620 SW Main Street Suite 112 Portland, OR 97205 USA Andrzej KASSENBERG Institute for Sustainable Development Lowicka 31 02-502 Warsaw Poland Barbara KAZIOR Polish Environmental Partnership Foundation ul. Bracka 6/6 31-005 Krakow Poland Dennis KEENEY Iowa State University 3402 Eisenhower Ave., Ames, IA 50010 USA

Mykola KHARYTONOV Ecology Department State Agrarian University Voroshilov st.25 Dnepropetrovsk 49027 Ukraine Marzenna KIERUS The North Podlasie Bird Protection Society Ciepla 17 15-471 Biafystok Poland Vlasta KOERNEROVA Rural Parliament of Slovakia A-Projekt P.O. Box 60 033-01 Liptovsky Hradok Slovakia Nataliya KOVALCHUK Carpathian Ecological Club "Ruthenia" P.O. Box 11 Uzhgorod, Transcarpathia 88018 Ukraine Andrzej KOWALSKI Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics (IAFE) ul. Swie.tokrzyska 20 00-950 Warszawa 1 Skr. pocztowa 984 Poland Tamas LANTOS Ormansag Alaptivany Arany J.4. H-7967 Dravafok Hungary Stephen LIGHT Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2105 1st Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404, USA

340

Marleen MAARLEVELD Service for Land & Water Management Postbus 20021 3502 LA Utrecht The Netherlands

PrzemysJaw OLDAKOWSKI Bieszczady Tourist Information Centre Rynek 38-600 Lesko Poland

Radim MACHU Tradition for the White Carpathians Association, Hostetin 4 687 71 Bojkovice The Czech Republic

Timothy O'RIORDAN School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ England, UK

Malcolm MOSELEY Countryside and Community Research Unit University of Gloucestershire Swindon Road Cheltenham, Glos GL50 4AZ England, UK

Uygar OZESMI Department of Environmental Engineering Erciyes University Cevre Bilimleri Anabilim Dali 38039 Kayseri Turkey

Krzysztof MUL ARCZYK Foundation for the development of Polish Agriculture Ul. Mokotowska 14 00-542 Warszawa Poland

Xavier POUX Applications des Sciences de 1'Action AScA 8 rue Legouve 75010 Paris France

Lee W. MUNNICH State and Local Policy Program Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota 157 Humphrey Center 301-19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA

Jan SENDZIMIR International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg Austria

Gordon NELSON Heritage Resources Centre University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G5 Canada Rosario OLIVEIRA Dept. Planeamento Biofiscio Universided de Evora 7000 Evora Portugal

Rafal SERAFIN Polish Environmental Partnership Foundation ul. Bracka 6/6 31-005 Krakow Poland Mahendra SHAH International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg Austria

341

Ragnhild SOHLBERG Member of the Advisory Panel, NATO Science Program, STOP Corporate Center Norsk Hydro ASA 0240 Oslo Norway Susanne STOLL-KLEEMANN Free University of Berlin Dept of Political and Social Sciences Malteserstr. 74-100 D-12249 Berlin Germany Stanislaw STRZYZEWSKI B ieszczady Online. com Bieszczady Internet Portal Rynek 2/14 38-600 Lesko Poland Anna VARI Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology 1014 Budapest Uri u. 49. Hungary Maxim VERGEICHIK United Nations Office in Belarus 17 Kirov Str. (6th floor) BY-220000 Minsk Belarus Phillip WELLER Danube Carpathian Programme WWF International Ottokringer Strasse A-1160 Vienna Austria

James WILSON The University of Maine LibbyHall214 Orono, Maine 04469 USA Zbigniew WITKOWSKI Institute for Nature Conservation Polish Academy of Science Mickiewicza 33 31-120 Krakow Poland Krystyna U. WOLNIAKOWSKI National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Pacific Northwest Region 806 SW Broadway Suite 750 Portland, Oregon 97205 USA Bozena WOJCIK Institute for Sustainable Development Lowicka 31 02-502 Warsaw Poland Valentin YATSUKHNO Belarussian State University, Landscape Ecology Lab. Av. F. Scoryna, 4 220050 Minsk Belarus Juriy ZINKO Ivan Franko State University Universitets'ka St., 1 L'viv 79000 Ukraine

342

Author Index Albert, Karin H. Andersson, Krister Baloch, Peter Blann, Kristen Bochniarz, Zbigniew Bolan, Richard S. Buchanan, Keith Calbick, K.S. Davydik, Elena Day, J.C. Fox, Caitlin Frame, Tanis M. Fremuth, Wolfgang Goebel, J. Martin Gunton, Thomas I. Janssen, Marco A. Keeney, Dennis Kemp, Loni Kovalchuk, Natalija Lantos, Tamas

101 63 261 1,173,315,326 1,79 79 95 101 302 101 212 101 199 212 101 63 29,173 29 114 261

Light, Steve 1,173,315,326 Moseley, Malcolm J. 125 Nelson, Gordon 232 Oliveira, Rosario 254 O'Meara, Bridget 326 O'Riordan, Timothy 1,136 Pinto-Correia, Teresa 254 Poux, Xavier 48 Sendzimir, Jan 1,261 Serafin, Rafal 1 Sohlberg, Ragnhild vii Stoll-Kleemann, Susanne 147 Vari, Anna 261 Vergeichik, Maxim 302 Webb, Tim 173 Weller, Philip 291 Wilson, Jim 160 Wolniakowski, Krystyna U. 212 Yatsukhno, Valentin 302

Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability (Science and Technology Policy)

Biodiversity and Conservation in Europe (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Vertebrate Conservation and Biodiversity (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Plant Conservation and Biodiversity (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Human Exploitation and Biodiversity Conservation (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Decentralization and biodiversity conservation

Sturgeon Biodiversity and Conservation

Agroecological Economics: Sustainability and Biodiversity

Biodiversity and Conservation (Routledge Introductions to Environment)

Biodiversity and Conservation (Routledge Introductions to Environment)

Arthropod Diversity and Conservation (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity

Foundations of Environmental Sustainability: The Coevolution of Science and Policy

Foundations of Environmental Sustainability: The Coevolution of Science and Policy

Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes

Microorganisms in Plant Conservation and Biodiversity

Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes

Urban Biodiversity and Design (Conservation Science and Practice)

Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities

The Cultural Context of Biodiversity Conservation

Conservation and sustainability in historic cities

A Practitioner's Guide to Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation

People, Plants, and Patents: The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity, Conservation, Trade, and Rural Society

Learning Technology in Transition

Russian views of the transition in the rural sector: structures, policy outcomes, and adaptive responses

World in Transition: Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere

Modernisation of Science Policy and Management Approaches in Central and South East Europe (NATO Science Series: Science and Technology Policy, Vol. 48) ... Science Se Science & Technology Policy)

Role of Mathematics in Science

Governing Rural Development: Discourses And Practices of Self-help in Australian Rural Policy (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning) (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning)

System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy

Enviroment, Biodiversity, and Conservation in the Middle East

Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability (Science and Technology Policy)

Biodiversity and Conservation in Europe (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Vertebrate Conservation and Biodiversity (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Plant Conservation and Biodiversity (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Human Exploitation and Biodiversity Conservation (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Decentralization and biodiversity conservation

Sturgeon Biodiversity and Conservation

Agroecological Economics: Sustainability and Biodiversity

Biodiversity and Conservation (Routledge Introductions to Environment)

Biodiversity and Conservation (Routledge Introductions to Environment)

Arthropod Diversity and Conservation (Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation)

Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity

Foundations of Environmental Sustainability: The Coevolution of Science and Policy

Foundations of Environmental Sustainability: The Coevolution of Science and Policy

Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes

Microorganisms in Plant Conservation and Biodiversity

Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes

Urban Biodiversity and Design (Conservation Science and Practice)

Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities

The Cultural Context of Biodiversity Conservation

Conservation and sustainability in historic cities

A Practitioner's Guide to Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation

People, Plants, and Patents: The Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity, Conservation, Trade, and Rural Society

Learning Technology in Transition

Russian views of the transition in the rural sector: structures, policy outcomes, and adaptive responses

World in Transition: Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere

Modernisation of Science Policy and Management Approaches in Central and South East Europe (NATO Science Series: Science and Technology Policy, Vol. 48) ... Science Se Science & Technology Policy)

Role of Mathematics in Science

Governing Rural Development: Discourses And Practices of Self-help in Australian Rural Policy (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning) (Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning)

System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy

Enviroment, Biodiversity, and Conservation in the Middle East

Recommend Documents