No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Abstract
American law, with its emphasis on boundary lines and property rights, does not reflect an advanced understanding of ecology. Nonetheless, on the federal public domain, the concept of ecosystem management has now been endorsed by all of the federal land-management agencies. Despite few explicit references to ecosystems or biodiversity, laws like the: Endangered Species Act of 1973, National Forest Management Act of 1976, and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 can and are being interpreted to support recent ecosystem-management initiatives. It is less clear that ecosystem-management principles can be readily transferred to private property. This shortcoming means that the law has not fully absorbed the lessons of ecology. I examine how the law promotes and hinders the movement toward an ecological management and ownership regime. I also suggest that recent ecosystem-management initiatives should provide useful lessons about how ecological principles can be further incorporated into the law.
... Switzerland and Slovenia). However, support for the integration model greatly depends on legislative backgrounds – especially in private forests (Keiter 1998 ). Different jurisdictions concerning property rights are evident among countries . ...
There are two main approaches to nature conservation in forest management. In the segregation approach, nature conservation is one of the management objectives which is limited to protected forest areas, while the integration approach considers the economic, social, and ecological components of sustainable forest management at the same time and place. Nature-based (close-to-nature) silviculture and forest planning that conserve natural stand dynamics, respect the local site conditions, monitor forest ecosystems and their conservation status, and harmonise suitable measures addressed to management objectives and nature conservation standards are crucial for integrating nature conservation into forest management. The social, economic, and bio-geographical conditions of forests vary greatly; therefore, concepts of integrating nature conservation into forest management cannot be uniform. On a global scale, the segregation model is generally accepted as the most suitable approach, but the integration model could be a possible alternative in many cases.
Spanish
En la gestión forestal existen dos enfoques principales para la protección de la naturaleza. En el modelo de la segregación, la protección de la naturaleza es uno de los objetivos de gestión que se limita a áreas forestales protegidas, mientras el modelo integrativo toma en cuenta los componentes económicos, sociales y ecológicos de la gestión forestal sostenible en el momento y el lugar en cuestión. Una silvicultura basada en la naturaleza y una planificación de bosque que conserven la dinámica natural de las masas forestales, que respeten las condiciones específicas del lugar, que monitoreen los ecosistemas forestales y su estado de conservación, y que establezcan medidas idóneas para asegurar una armonización entre los objetivos de gestión y los estándares de protección de la naturaleza son fundamentales para la integración de la protección de la naturaleza en la gestión forestal. Las condiciones sociales, económicas y biogeográficas de los bosques varían mucho, y por lo tanto los conceptos que tienen que ver con la integración de la protección de la naturaleza en la gestión forestal tampoco pueden ser uniformes. A escala mundial, el modelo de la segregación se acepta de forma general como el enfoque más apropiado, pero el modelo de integración podría servir de alternativa en muchos casos.
French
Il existe deux approches principales pour la conservation de la nature dans la gestion forestière. Dans l'approche de ségrégation, la conservation de la nature est l'un des objectifs de la gestion limitée aux zones forestières protégées; alors que l'approche d'intégration considère les composés économiques, sociaux et écologiques de la gestion forestière durable au même moment, dans le même espace. La sylviculture basée sur la nature et le planning forestier conservant la dynamique naturelle des peuplements, respectant les conditions des sites locaux, surveillant les écosystèmes forestiers et leur statut de conservation, et harmonisant des mesures appropriées pour faire avancer les objectifs de gestion et les standards de conservation de la nature, sont cruciaux pour intégrer la conservation de la nature dans la gestion forestière. Les conditions sociales, économiques et bio-géographiques des forêts varient énormément et les concepts d'intégration de la conservation de la nature dans la gestion forestière ne peuvent par conséquent pas être uniformes. Le modèle de ségrégation est généralement accepté comme étant la meilleure approche, mais le modèle d'intégration pourrait cependant être une alternative possible dans de nombreux cas.
In preparation for this symposium piece, Professor Rodgers asked a number of his colleagues active in the field of environmental law to identify what they considered to be the most creative moments in the history of environmental law. He gave no specific instructions with his request other than providing a definition of what he considered to be a creative moment: "A legal initiative that advances environmental law with a new level of analysis, new structure, or new institutional bridge." This article is a compilation of the numerous responses the author received. The responses formulate a detailed and informative description of many aspects of the history and development of environmental law, To organize the piece, Professor Rodgers separates the creative moments into nine categories. He then concludes the article with a list of the ten most creative moments in the history of environmental law.
This Article posits that there is currently a disjunction between the dis-ciplines of environmental law and environmental science that will operate to thwart an effective species conservation policy scheme. It argues that an ef-fective conservation paradigm must acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in science and foster an interdisciplinary, wholly informed approach that can be implemented in a ºexible manner. The recommendation is based first on a thorough examination of the fundamental nature of science and the public misperception of its omniscience. The author further discusses the role of science in the statutory scheme of the Endangered Species Act, particularly its best available science mandate. The Article recommends instead a more dynamic and complete analytic framework, and concludes with a review of the 2001 Klamath Basin controversy and how that event illustrates both the pitfalls of adhering to conceptions of "sound science" and the need for a new approach to species conservation policy and the role of science therein.
The ecosystem services (ES) framework reveals ecosystems’ benefits to society and presents a fundamental natural resource management approach. In the last several decades, it has gained increasing attention from the research community, and it recently reached the political agenda. However, does the concept have the capacity to cause institutional change in environmental policy? To answer this question, we developed certain criteria for an “ideal” ES-driven policy. Based on these criteria, we analyzed the main water and biodiversity acts, current policy developments, and future trends within the US and the EU. Our analysis shows that most acts cannot be explicitly characterized as ES-driven policies, but parts of the concept are already included. The ES framework, increasingly a driver in several policy fields, can be assumed to be a major future influence for shaping existing environmental policies in the coming decades. We discussed the results based on its strengths for existing environmental policy conceptually, e.g., cross-sector cooperation and ES win-win and trade-off considerations, and its weaknesses operationally, such as measurability and governance changes.
The American national park system consists of more than 390 units scattered over 49 states and spread across 82 million acres. Although legally referred to as a system, our national parks are actually a diverse collection of natural, recreational, historical, cultural, archeological, and other sites that have been melded together under the aegis of the National Park Service without any overarching vision or much forethought. Since its origin over 130 years ago, the national park idea has steadily evolved, reflecting changes in our society and economy. Traditionally, the national park has been viewed as a wilderness, tourist destination, playground, laboratory, wildlife reserve, and an economic engine for nearby communities. But with advances in scientific knowledge and our maturing sense of social justice, national parks can also be conceived as the vital core of larger ecosystems, as essential biodiversity reserves, and as important civic educational entities. Given this evolution, how might we expand and strengthen the national park system to meet tomorrow’s challenges? Several options merit consideration: expanding individual parks to embrace entire ecosystems, creating new national restoration areas, promoting park-focused ecosystem management arrangements, and developing new urban-based parks to address the needs of an increasingly diverse populace. It may be necessary, however, to revisit the “national significance” standard that has long guided expansion of the national park system. The ultimate goal must be to address and meet the needs of the future generations to whom our national parks are dedicated.
The concept of ‘working with natural processes’ has wide currency in coastal zone management. It is one of eight principles for integrated coastal zone management listed in a recent EU Recommendation. From a geomorphological perspective, the concept, however, has a range of imparted meanings that range from (1) direct human intervention in coastal processes using ‘hard engineering’ structures that causes alteration of wave patterns, through (2) a variety of ‘soft engineering’ approaches to (3) non-intervention and proactively taking steps to enable the coastline to fluctuate freely in response to natural processes. These different views take variable temporal perspectives and only the long-term approach is likely to be sustainable and in sympathy with the meaning implied in the EU Recommendation. A number of case studies from Ireland are presented through which we show that several factors (administrative, legislative, societal and political) impede adoption of the principle in practical coastal management. Major changes in perception of ‘coastal protection’ coupled with changes in attitudes to property will be required if this principle is to become an integral part of coastal protection strategies.
Today’s agriculture has to face the new challenge that derives from a new evolutionary era of civilisation that has been called “Anthropocene”. Human dominion on Earth with exploitation of natural resources and environmental pollution is not socially acceptable anymore, since it leads to self-destruction in a confined “spaceship” like the planet Earth. A different cultural attitude to guide human behaviour is required in order to set up the base of a sustainable development for man and the whole biosphere. Agriculture scientists can play a role in providing a step towards agriculture sustainability. However, agriculture scientists need to be able to educate both themselves and the civic society with a new systems paradigm that focuses more on relations than on single components of agriculture reality, as a disciplinary approach usually does. Transdisciplinarity in agriculture theory and practice is required in order to face the new challenge of sustainability. Agroecology is a transdisciplinary area of enquiry that has both a scientific and a philosophical base for promoting sustainability in agriculture.
An adaptive management approach is necessary but not sufficient to address the long-term challenges of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Adaptive management, in turn, has its own particular challenges, of which we focus on two: science input, and stakeholder engagement. In order to frame our discussion and subsequent recommendations, we place the current management difficulties into their historical context, with special emphasis on the 1990 Vision document, which attempted a broad synthesis of management goals for the ecosystem. After examining these two key challenges in the context of the GYE, we make several recommendations that would allow for more effective ecosystem management in the long term. First, we recommend adoption of the GYE as a site for long-term science research and monitoring with an emphasis on integrative research, long-term federal funding, and public dissemination of data. Second, we conclude that a clearer prioritization of legislative mandates would allow for more flexible ecosystem management in the GYE, a region where conflicting mandates have historically led to litigation antithetical to effective ecosystem management. Finally, we recommend a renewed attempt at an updated Vision for the Future that engages stakeholders (including local landholders) substantively from the outset.
Currently popular concepts such as sustainable development and sustainability seek the integration of environment and development
planning. However, there is little evidence that this integration is occurring in either mainstream development planning or
environmental planning. This is a function of the history, philosophies, and evolved roles of both. A brief review of the
experience and results of mainstream planning, environmental planning, and ecosystem science suggests there is much in past
scientific and professional practice that is relevant to the goal of integrated planning for environment and development,
but still such commonly recommended reforms as systems and multidisciplinary approaches, institutional integration, and participatory,
goal-oriented processes are rarely achieved. “Ecosystem approaches,” as developed and applied in ecology, human ecology, environmental
planning, anthropology, psychology, and other disciplines, may provide a more transdisciplinary route to successful integration
of environment and development. Experience with ecosystem approaches is reviewed, their advantages and disadvantages are discussed,
and they are compared to traditional urban and regional planning, environmental planning, and ecosystem science approaches.
Ultimately a synthesis of desirable characteristics for a framework to integrate environment and development planning is presented
as a guide for future work and a criterion for evaluating existing programs.
The evolving concept of ecosystem management is the focus of much current debate. To clarify discussion and provide a framework for implementation, I trace the historical development of ecosystem management, provide a working definition, and summarize dominant themes taken from an extensive literature review. The general goal of maintaining ecological integrity is discussed along with five specific goals: maintaining viable populations, ecosystem representation, maintaining ecological process (ie., natural disturbance regimes), protecting evolutionary potential of species and ecosystems, and accommodating human use in light of the above. Short-term policy implications of ecosystem management for several groups of key actors (scientists, policymakers, managers, citizens) are discussed. Long-term (> 100 years) policy implications are also reviewed including reframing environmental values, fostering cooperation, and evaluating success. Ecosystem management is not just about science nor is it simply an extension of traditional resource management; it offers a fundamental reframing of bow humans may work with nature.