Ancient Forest Research Report No. 5

SUSTAINABILITY AND THE VALUE OF ANCIENT FOREST LANDSCAPES

by K. Bidwell and P. A. Quinby

1994

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Earthwatch and the Helen McCrea Peacock foundation for their financial support of this work.

INTRODUCTION

"When the century began, neither human numbers nor technology had the power to radically alter planetary systems. As the century closes, not only do vastly increased human numbers and their activities have that power, but major, unintended changes are occurring in the atmosphere, in soils, in waters, among plants and animals, and in the relationships among all of these."

-- WCED 1987:343

The Health of the Planet

Aldo Leopold, a founder of the modern conservation movement, feared the onslaught of "progress" into what was left of American wilderness. Leopold feared it both on moral and practical grounds: he valued wilderness in itself, and he understood that "progress" was destroying the very land base it depended upon for survival in the long run (Leopold 1949).

That was fifty years ago. Environmentalists today still present similar moral and pragmatic reasons for preserving wilderness and for conserving resources. In those fifty years, however, there has been an enormous decline in the overall health of the planet. The scale of human exploitation of nature has increased dramatically since the middle of this century. We have caused as much environmental change since 1950 as we did in our entire 300,000 year history leading up to that time; the rate of change has skyrocketed (Clark 1990:6; Edwards 1989:22).

For example, since 1900, the world's population has more than tripled, the international economy has grown twenty-fold, fossil fuel use is 30 times higher, and industrial production is at least 50 times what it was. Eighty percent of that increase has occurred since 1950 (MacNeill 1990:109; IUCN 1991:4). Every minute, roughly 20 hectares (50 acres) of tropical forest are destroyed (Burley 1988:403). According to E.O. Wilson, an ecologist at Harvard University, human-induced extinction rates have reached 4000-6000 species per year. This means a rate 10,000 - 150,000 times that before agriculture was practised. Speciation, the evolution of new species, cannot hope to keep pace with this rate of extinction (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:33). Wilson believes that "the current reduction of diversity seems destined to approach that of the great natural catastrophes at the end of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras -- in other words, the most extreme in the past 65 million years" (Wilson 1988:11-12). As regeneration rates after such previous extinctions have shown, it may take thousands, if not millions, of years for the planet's biodiversity to recover (Myers 1984:15; Norton 1987:97). We are so dependent on biodiversity for survival that Paul Ehrlich, a population biologist at Stanford University, claims we could experience devastation on the scale of a nuclear winter within the next 100 years if nothing is done to curb present trends in destruction (Ehrlich 1988:22, 25).

The effects of our actions now reach beyond local regions to "spill across national frontiers" (WCED 1987:27). Climate change, desertification, ozone depletion, and over-exploitation of the "commons" are but a few of the immediate problems demanding attention world-wide. These major problems are occurring because the rate of environmental change is "outstripping the ability of scientific disciplines and our current capabilities to assess and advise" (WCED 1987:22; Norton 1992:24). Ecological science has expanded considerably in recent decades, but cannot hope to provide the extensive, uncontroversial information that decision-makers want. Economic and political regimes at local, national, and international levels have largely failed to implement environmentally sound policies. In general, three major factors are responsible for environmental degradation including overpopulation, poverty in developing nations and excessive consumption in industrialized nations.

Factors of Environmental Degradation

Overpopulation

"Escaping the human predicament will be enormously difficult since virtually all environmental problems are connected to one another and to overpopulation."

-- Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:241

The exploding human population is arguably the most important factor responsible for current destruction of the environment. Ehrlich and Ehrlich explain that humans command almost 40% of potential terrestrial NPP (net primary production -- the sun's energy converted into plant tissue through photosynthesis). The other 5 million species (a very conservative estimate) must make do with the remaining 60% of NPP. With the human population likely to double within the next century, this projects a claim on 80% of the NPP -- obviously an untenable situation (Ehrlich 1988:23). Reducing the population growth rate therefore appears to be one of the most critical steps towards slowing environmental destruction (WCED 1987:56; MacNeill 1990:114; IUCN 1991:5). To reverse the damage, global population may well have to be reduced (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:241; Ludwig 1993:556).

Poverty in Developing Nations

"The poor have the power to destroy civilization. They might do it simply by continuing to cut down forests and burn coal as they struggle for a decent life."

-- Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:254-5

About 75% of the world's population lives in developing nations. The absolute poverty of millions of people has become a critical factor responsible for environmental degradation. The WCED Our Common Future Report (1987:28) argues that "those who are poor and hungry will often destroy their immediate environment in order to survive". In doing so, they degrade the local resource base. Poor nations have insufficient funds to develop adequate environmental agencies, and local planners tend to ignore environmental impacts and to concentrate instead on short-term economic gain (WCED 1987:70).

Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1991:254) assert that "almost all serious analysts agree that the prospects for a bright future hinge on narrowing the global gap between rich and poor". Third-world debt is directly linked to global ecological balance and therefore to the continuing prosperity of industrialised nations (Brundtland 1990:137). The debt crises faced by many developing nations demand a solution "before those countries can be expected to turn their attention to the pressing agenda of poverty and interlocked economic and ecological decline" (MacNeill 1990:120). Rich nations, because of their financial strength, are responsible for providing as much assistance as possible (Clark 1990:9; Ruckelshaus 1990:129).

Several schemes have been advanced to ease debt while simultaneously promoting conservation. Revenue from taxes on certain "commons", for example, could be used to start up a bank providing loans for conservation purposes; World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects with negative environmental impacts should be revised; and military expenditures could be diverted to environment ministries (MacNeill 1990:121). Debt-for-nature swaps have already been implemented on a limited basis: 5% of Costa Rica's commercial debt has been purchased by conservation groups in the secondary debt market for a reduced price. The value of that debt has then been spent by the Costa Rican government on conservation projects (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:178). Whatever the methods, debt relief will be a critical step towards conservation in developing countries.

Excessive Consumption in Industrialised Nations

"Right now more energy passes through the windows of buildings in the U.S. than flows through the Alaska pipeline."

-- Ruckelshaus 1990:132

Rich countries have often criticised environmentally destructive practises in developing nations while forgetting about their own mismanagement of the environment. Elliot Norse (1990:xix), a senior ecologist for The Wilderness Society points out a relevant example: "in view of the demands for ecological moderation that are constantly made by industrialized countries to their tropical counterparts, it is sobering to realize that here in the United States we are actively engaged in sacrificing the remnants of our own ancient forests for a few years of additional profit".

Industrialised countries, which support only one quarter of the human population, commandeer about 80% of the world's resources (MacNeill 1990:111). Although rich nations tend to be less heavily populated than developing countries, their per capita environmental impact is vastly higher: that of an American, for example, is about 50 times that of the average Bangladeshi (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:8). They explain that a country's total impact is a function of its population, its affluence, and the damage done by its technology. They go on to show that the United States, sparsely populated in comparison to many countries, actually has the biggest environmental impact of any nation in the world (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:9). It is clear that resource management and environmental ethics in industrialised countries require immediate and radical revision.

Aldo Leopold's (1949:ix) prescient words of fifty years ago resound loudly in the nineties: "our bigger-and-better society is now like a hypochondriac, so obsessed with its own economic health as to have lost the capacity to remain healthy". With this report, we examine various existing possibilities for regaining that capacity to remain healthy (1) by addressing the philosophical foundation of sustainability, (2) by examining the problems of practising sustainable living and (3) by considering the value of ancient forests to sustainability as a case study.

THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY

A Brief History

Hundreds of years ago, living harmoniously with nature and avoiding over-exploitation was the normal pattern of human behaviour. Humans understood that they were entirely dependent upon their environment for survival, and they did not yet posses the technology to cause large-scale environmental change. Certain indigenous cultures still follow an ethic of sustainable living.

In the modern world, the idea of sustainability first appears in the guise of "conservation". During the Progressive Era in the United States, Teddy Roosevelt and his head forester Gifford Pinchot both became staunch advocates of natural resource conservation. To Pinchot, conservation involved assuring the long-term survival of resources for the benefit of as many people as possible (O'Riordan 1988:32).

The actual concept of sustainability was first developed and brought to public attention in the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) published in 1980 by the IUCN, UNEP, and WWF (O'Riordan 1988:35; Nelson 1991:252). It bridged the traditional division between conservation and development by asserting that "conservation includes both protection and the rational use of natural resources, and is essential if people are to achieve a life of dignity and if the welfare of present and future generations is to be assured" (IUCN 1991:1). The WCS proposed the development of National Conservation Strategies which would determine "cross-sectoral" solutions to issues of conservation. Development of these strategies has been undertaken in over 50 countries (IUCN 1991:1, 170).

In 1987, The World Commission on Environment and Development, established by the United Nations in 1983, published a Report called Our Common Future. This report was directed to private citizens, businesses, and governments with the purpose of highlighting the links between current economic development, especially of poor nations, and global environmental degradation. The year 1991 saw the publication both of the Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (SBI) by the Ecological Society of America and Caring for the Earth by IUCN, UNEP, and WWF. The SBI recognises the importance of ecology in resource management and orders priorities for ecological research. It "identifies those endeavors that were deemed most urgent in terms of both the advancement of the field and the potential for improving the human condition" (Lubchenco et al. 1991:371-2). Caring for the Earth presents a strategy for sustainable living through the integration of conservation and development.

Philosophical Foundation

Currently there is a major philosophical split in the environmental movement. There are those who believe nature should be respected for its intrinsic value (biocentrists) and there are those who believe that nature should be used soley to benefit human beings (anthropocentrists). The idea of intrinsic value in nature is difficult to prove whereas anthropocentric arguments may be sufficient to establish sustainability as a moral imperative.

Anthropocentrism and Biocentrism

"Lacking an ethic that attaches importance to all surrounding creation, people continue to do the wrong things for the apparent "good of humanity."

-- Rowe 1990:52

The environmental movement, like any other large movement or philosophy, encompasses a wide spectrum of motives and beliefs. Environmentalists aim to protect nature for a variety of reasons ranging from the spiritual to the practical (Norton 1988:201; Eidsvik 1989:40; Hampicke 1994:219) These motives and beliefs generally fall into one of two broad categories: anthropocentrism or biocentrism.

Anthropocentrists believe that "only humans are the locus of intrinsic value, and the value of all other objects derives from their contributions to human values" (Norton 1987:135). In other words, nature is valuable only to the extent that it contributes to human well-being or happiness. This contribution is not, however, limited to material benefits; it is important to note that it extends to a large array of other less tangible benefits such as recreation or aesthetic enjoyment.

Biocentrists attribute intrinsic value to nature, value which is "not dependent on its contributions to the value of another object" (Norton 1987:151-2). This means that every living thing deserves the ethical treatment generally reserved for humanity. Western culture should extend to nature the rights and respect only recently allowed women, non-whites, and other previously "marginal" groups (Nash 1989; Karr 1990:245). Biocentrism can be thought of in neo-Kantian terms as a philosophy that places "environmental objects beyond the reach of cost-benefit analysis". Nature's dignity is beyond price and cannot be replaced by anything equivalent (Page 1992:109).

The profoundly biocentric "Deep Ecology" movement attaches sacred characteristics to all aspects of nature, and even to the vital role of biogeochemical cycles. This idea of nature as something inherently sacred has a long history in many eastern and native religions. It even surfaces in notable figures of western tradition, people such as St. Francis of Assisi or John Muir. Biocentrism has only recently, however, become a popular philosophy in the west.

Aldo Leopold was one of the first modern conservationists to toy with the concept of biocentrism. Much of his writing alludes to the fact that nature has some sort of intangible, intrinsic value, "value in the philosophic sense" (Leopold 1949:223). He explains, for example, that:

we abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.... That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics" (Leopold 1949:viii-ix).

Leopold is admired for developing the concept of a "land ethic", which embraces animals, plants, water and soils in the idea of community. People change from conquerors of the land to citizens of the land. Leopold writes that a land ethic "reflects the existence of an ecological conscience", that it is "an extension of the social conscience from people to the land" (Leopold 1949:209,221). In this scheme, humans only occupy a small portion of the ethical spectrum.

Earth First!ers and other deep ecologists have taken Leopold's land ethic to heart. Their beliefs epitomise the "quasi-religious transformation leading to [an] appreciation of diversity for its own sake" which Ehrlich (1988:22) suggests may be necessary to preserve environmental health. Such an ethic, if widespread, would certainly go a long way towards advancing the cause of conservation. It remains to be seen, however, whether it is theoretically rigorous enough to provide the basis for national conservation strategies.

Biocentrism cannot yet Justify Human Actions

"In the developing world, as well as in our overdeveloped world, we are obligated to present economic, utilitarian arguments to preserve the biological diversity that ultimately benefits us all. Deep ecology makes interesting conversation over the seminar table, but it won't fly on the agricultural frontier of the Third World or in the board rooms of the Inter-American Development Bank."

-- Nations 1988:80

Biocentrism has blossomed out of "a growing sense of unease in industrialised societies about the current man-nature relationship" (Turner 1988:22). Many people espouse the philosophy instinctively, but it remains radical enough and, some argue, theoretically controversial enough, that numerous environmentalists reject it in favour of anthropocentric arguments for safeguarding the environment.

That biocentrism is too unconventional to be accepted as the foundation for national conservation strategies should be fairly obvious. Hampicke (1994) compares it to religious ideas: both are invaluable moral guides for believers, but both should be a matter of personal choice and not a required doctrine.

A theoretically rigourous argument for sustainability is crucial because it must be compelling enough to persuade even the most extreme anti-environmentalists. Bryan Norton (1987:156), professor of philosophy of science and technology at Georgia Institute of Technology, points out that "a long and persuasive tradition affirms that individual human beings are not to be treated purely as means and that they must, in ethical decisions, be considered as ends-in-themselves". In other words, there is little controversy over the assumption that humans have inherent value. Problems arise, however, in extending a similar ethic of intrinsic value to non-human beings.

In justifying the intrinsic worth of non-human creatures, Norton (1987:186) explains, philosophers either argue that consciousness is grounds enough for intrinsic value (thereby eliminating microbes, plants, and the like from the ethical extension), or they argue that there is no difference between human and non-human individuals, that there is no reason to favour humans.

Even if the justifications of intrinsic value for non-human beings were satisfactory, they are not useful because they apply to individuals, regardless of species or location. To this extent, they are no help whatsoever in guiding policies for the protection of endangered species or ecosystems: theories of intrinsic individual value provide no system for ranking the value of a common housefly against that of an endangered spotted owl (Norton 1987). Although a form of "holistic" biocentrism apparently exists which focuses on the biotic community as a whole, rather than on individuals, (Hampicke 1994:220), Norton (1987:182) claims that no-one has yet grounded it in any theory of value. David Ehrenfeld (1988:215), a biology professor at Rutgers University perhaps comes closest when he claims that "as in law, long-established existence confers a powerful right to a continued existence".

All in all, Norton (1987:182) concludes, however provocative biocentrism may be as an ethic, it will remain unsuccessful in shaping environmental policy until it can be "developed, clarified, and justified in a clear and explicit manner". It appears, therefore, that we must look to anthropocentrism to find a convincing argument for conservation. Many environmentalists and philosophers argue that valuing nature for its contributions to human welfare is "sufficient to substantiate conservation as a moral duty" (Hampicke 1994:219). The following discussion will address the issue of our moral obligation to conserve nature.

Anthropocentric Reasoning to Justify Human Actions

"Conservation may or may not be a duty toward nature (a question future philosophers may ponder over), however, it certainly is a duty toward humanity."

-- Hampicke 1994:220

There is no longer any doubt that the future health of this planet has already been seriously jeopordised. Nor is there any doubt that the future of humanity depends entirely upon a healthy environment: "the living things of this Earth are our resources and life-support systems" (Norse 1990:63). Given these facts, it has long been clear to the environmental community that national and regional conservation strategies are imperative. Conservation has not, however, traditionally been a priority for the general public because it appears to run contrary to many private interests. A central challenge facing environmentalists therefore becomes proving that conservation is indeed in the long-run interests of everyone: "the central lesson of realistic policy-making is that most individuals and organizations change when it is in their interest to change..." (Ruckelshaus 1990:128). In other words, justifying conservation by using human demand values will likely have the most widespread acceptance and success.

To clarify the moral imperative for conservation, certain philosophers characterise it as one of the basic obligations of a social contract. They explain that conservation is necessary because every human being -- present and future -- deserves equal freedom to enjoy and to make use of nature. In order to understand this more fully, it will be useful to examine certain ideas about individual liberty and social rights in more detail.

Hampicke cites John Stuart Mill, a leading 19th century social theorist, as one of the classic proponents of individual liberty. Mill believed that only matters of self-protection justified interference in the freedom of action of other individuals. Put differently, to ensure maximum freedom within society and to avoid anarchy, certain limits on individual liberty are necessary (Hampicke 1994:220-221).

In the context of conservation, individual liberty implies a freedom to enjoy and to make use of nature. Twenty years ago, the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment outlined the basic human right to enjoy benefits from nature (WCED 1987:xi). The limits on this freedom are defined by the degree of damage caused by our use of nature; we have no right to cause irreversible damage which will prevent others from enjoying similar benefits. In other words, massive environmental destruction leads to a point where human lifestyles and freedom of action are constrained by limited resources; resources may be over-exploited to the point where the "loss of choice and variety in life" would be the cost of survival (Caldwell 1970). Only very careful management of resources and sophisticated aid programmes will extend the environmental freedom that many of us enjoy to other humans the world over.

John Rawls' theory of justice explains more clearly the fairness of providing equal environmental freedom for every human being. Rawls envisions a thought-experiment in which every person is behind a "veil of ignorance". This veil hides each person's material and social standing. Without knowing what kind of position he or she has in society, each individual must determine the best distribution of wealth. Rawls maintains that from behind the "veil of ignorance", every person will choose a distribution that maximises the situation of the most disadvantaged person (Hampicke 1994:221). If Rawls' theory were applied to environmental freedom, the "veil of ignorance" would dictate stringent world-wide conservation efforts because "harm done to nature is, among other things, harm done to human beings, if they need or appreciate or love nature" (Hampicke 1994:221).

So far, we have understood that both Mill and Rawls provide us with theories of justice which can be applied to conservation. These theories address the rights of people living today. It is morally correct, however, to assume that future generations have equivalent rights whenever we make any decisions that will affect them (Hampicke 1994:221). This concept of intergenerational justice reinforces our moral obligation to conserve nature; we must take on the responsibility for preserving environmental freedom for generations to come.

Thus, every human being has a moral obligation to act in a responsible way towards the environment. Although this may impose certain restrictions on personal freedom, it is just as much of a civil obligation as refraining from stealing or mugging. It is in humanity's long-run interest to avoid environmentally destructive behaviour. Armed with this theoretical justification, it is now necessary to determine a way of implementing industrial policy, forest management, and so on, in a way that causes the least possible environmental damage. Over the last decade or so, the concept of "sustainable" environmental management has received much attention.

The Meaning of Sustainability

Despite the publication of numerous policy documents and the subsequent use of the term "sustainability" or "sustainable development" by NGOs, development organisations, and government agencies, the concept remains extremely controversial. Widely different definitions abound, and "it may only be a matter of time before the metaphor of sustainability becomes so abused as to be meaningless, certainly as a device to straddle the ideological conflicts that pervade contemporary environmentalism" (O'Riordan 1988:29). There are a variety of different perceptions of sustainability, some of which have greater practical value than others. The word "sustainable" has been attached to many other words: sustainable yield, sustainable growth, sustainable use, and sustainable development are all commonly heard. Each of these terms, however, has different meaning and must be clarified.

The concept of sustainable yield was developed in the late 1800s (O'Riordan 1988:32) and was considered a "scientific doctrine for managing single resources in perpetuity" (Salwasser 1990:214). It implies being able to harvest a renewable resource at the same level year after year. The idea of sustainable yield is quite inapplicable to the notions of conservation put forth in the WCS, the SBI, Our Common Future, and Caring for the Earth for two reasons. First, recent ideas about sustainability do not apply to single resources, but include in their scope dynamic interactions between all resources and their various management units. Second, it has been recognised that sustained yield harvesting works very nicely when a given resource exists in excess of demand (Salwasser 1990:214), however, as soon as demand begins to outweigh the reserve, economic pressure has tended to induce over-exploitation and has often caused irreversible damage to the resource.

Sustainable use is related to sustainable yield in that it, too, refers only to single renewable resources. It is a somewhat more useful concept, however, because it means "using them at rates within their capacity for renewal" (IUCN 1991:10; Mangel et al. 1993:573). Despite this, the concept of sustainable use leaves out any reference to pollution control or anything else that affects ecosystem health. For this reason, sustainable use has very limited applications.

The idea of sustainable growth is not applicable to efforts directed at maintaining ecosystem integrity. Sustainable growth seeks to "maintain an 'acceptable' rate of growth in per-capita real incomes without depleting the national capital asset stock or the natural environmental asset stock" (Turner 1988:12). While this certainly sounds appealing, its feasibility has been severely criticised. Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1991:245), for example, explain that "most mainstream economists believe that the scale of economic activity can be increased indefinitely, or at least so far into the future that limits to growth need be of no concern today"(Mangel et al. 1993:574). The reality is that the Earth has a long-term carrying capacity that no amount of technology will be able to extend indefinitely. That carrying capacity places a firm limit on traditional economic growth.

Sustainable development, as defined by the WCED Report (1987:43), is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". This short definition encompasses the idea of basic human "rights" to food, water, and so on, as well as the idea of intergenerational equity. It also implicitly rejects the idea of sustainable growth while moving beyond the idea of mere sustainable use.

Although the term sustainable development is most often associated with developing nations, WCED (1987:40) makes it clear that the word development should be taken in reference to "economic and social change" in every nation and not just in the Third World. Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1991:253) emphasise that "sustainable development of the rich [countries] is equally important, for their behavior most threatens the future of civilization". Sustainable development in industrialised countries might almost be thought of as sustainable "redevelopment" because it will necessitate economic and management paradigm changes (Meyer and Helfman 1993:569).

Despite the potential usefulness of the term sustainable development, different interpretations of what "development" means have resulted in controversy. The term has, for example, been used by proponents of sustainable growth and has also been used in the rather limited context of sustainable use (Mangel et al. 1993:574). The imprecise use of the term has discredited it in the eyes of many people. This is very regrettable, because if properly understood, it offers a challenging new ethic for environmental management. Instead, the term "sustainability" is often viewed as a more benign term ecologically.

Sustainability is a relationship between dynamic human economic systems and larger, dynamic, but normally slower-changing ecological systems, such that human life can continue indefinitely, human individuals can flourish, and human cultures can develop -- but also a relationship in which the effects of human activities remain within bounds so as not to destroy the health and integrity of self-organizing systems that provide the environmental context for these activities (Norton 1992:25).

Here Norton emphasises the correlation between healthy ecosystems and the long-term survival of the human species. We must take on the equivalent of "insurance premiums" for the health of the environment; better to spend some time and money preventing environmental disasters ahead of time than to be confronted with managing them after the fact (Ruckelshaus 1990: 125-6). With our ability to change, and to a certain extent to control, our environment, we have a responsibility to manage it properly (Clark 1990:1). Norton also implies here that traditional economic systems, which have already caused irreparable damage to the environment, must be adapted to ecosystem dynamics. Put differently, conservation and economic development can no longer be considered separately, but must instead be recognised as "essential parts of one indispensable process" (IUCN 1991:8). Human activities can no longer afford to be encased within separate sectors (WCED 1987:4).

Despite the inherent logic of this definition of sustainability, its practical ramifications remain extremely difficult to pin down. With significant regional changes in ecosystems and economic prosperity even within one country, it is impossible to formulate anything but the most general guidelines for sustainability at the international or national level (eg: IUCN 1991:Part I). Some of the general requirements for sustainability are as follows.

A global network of protected areas representative of native ecosystems will help preserve local biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Non-protected areas deserve just as much attention, however, as their health is vital for human survival; it will be important to modify human activities throughout unprotected landscapes (CEAC 1991:25, 62). This modification will necessitate reducing pollution to a level that is unlikely to cause long-term environmental change, phasing out the use of non-renewable resources, and adopting management practises that encourage long-term productivity (Turner 1988). In other words, "ecology, not economics, will be the science that provides the basic organization for the new management paradigm because economics is understood as one type of ecological activity" (Norton 1992:25). This change will certainly demand a shift away from the traditional growth-oriented philosophy of our western culture.

Many people have criticised the idea of sustainability for its excessive idealism and for not being possible in practise (eg: Duffus 1993). If enough people can be persuaded of the immediacy of severe global environmental problems, however, perhaps preventative rather than restorative measures will begin to be implemented. In this context, the doctrine of sustainability is extremely important both as a basis for environmental education and as an ethical and practical goal. It is a "useful target" (Zedler 1993:578) for research, for management, and for economics. It should be used as a "guide to science, investment, and action" (Holling 1993:554). As an ideal it is useful because it "sets a standard for human responsibility" (Lee 1993:563).

SUSTAINABILITY IN PRACTISE

The Concepts of Ecosystem Integrity and Ecosystem Health

"The most common use of ecosystem by ecologists is in a localized sense, referring to a distinct and coherent ecological community of organisms and the physical environment with which they interact."

-- Slocombe 1993:612

Implementation of sustainability demands a definition of ecosystem health: the "practical raison d'etre for a science of land health is... to determine the ecological parameters within which land may be humanly occupied without making it dysfunctional..." (Callicott 1992:48). If an ecologically-based paradigm is to determine resource management practises and economic systems, we must understand what a healthy ecosystem entails.

For decades, ecologists have been struggling to characterise a healthy ecosystem. At the beginning of this century, the vegetation scientist Clements advanced his "organismic" theory of succession. He believed that succession in a given region progressed through a series of fixed stages to a pre-determined climax community (Anderson 1986:270). In other words, a Clementsian view of succession gives rise to a simple vision of ecosystem health: no deviance from the pre-destined course of succession.

This theory has been largely discredited, and even some of Clements' contemporaries -- notably Gleason -- challenged his basic assumptions. Gleason proposed a much more "individualistic" model of community succession which depended on "the properties of the individual plants it contained" (Anderson 1986:270). He believed that interactions between different populations followed no pre-determined pattern but depended instead on the particular conditions (climatic, topographic, seed source etc.) of a given place. Variations on Gleason's basic model remain today the generally accepted understanding of succession.

Unfortunately, a Gleasonian view of succession does not translate easily into a concept of ecosystem health. It does not prescribe one particular path of recovery from disturbance which, it is generally recognised, may occur frequently in many ecosystems. As a result, ecosystems are often in a state of perpetual change. David Ehrenfeld, a professor of biology at Rutgers University, agrees that it is "extremely difficult to determine a normal state for communities whose parameters are often in a condition of flux because of natural disturbance" (Ehrenfeld 1992:140; Rapport 1992:147). We are thus faced with a very complex question. How can we decide what magnitude of change is harmful (unhealthy) and what is not?

Aldo Leopold (1949:224-5) wrote a famous description of factors affecting the health of an ecosystem: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise". This quotation introduces the controversial idea of "stability" as an indicator of ecosystem health. Stability can be thought of as a capacity to return to conditions resembling those prior to disturbance (Costanza 1992:244, 246). We have already determined, however, that because ecosystems are frequently in flux, there are no set "prior-to disturbance" conditions.

Despite this problem with the notion of stability as an indicator of health, the closely related concept of "resilience" is quite useful. Resilience may be defined as the "ability of a system to maintain its structure and patterns of behavior in the face of disturbance" (Holling 1986 from Costanza 1992:246). Maintaining a "pattern of behavior" is not the same as maintaining a fixed state and can therefore be applied to the natural variation in an ecosystem. In other words, an ecosystem may be considered healthy if it is "active and maintains its organization and autonomy over time and is resilient to stress" (Costanza 1992:248). Practical methods of measuring resilience to stress include identifying sensitive or "indicator species" (Rapport 1992:147-8) and "indicator guilds" (e.g. index of biotic integrity) (Karr 1992:233-234) which are among the first organisms to be affected when the ecosystem is under unmanageable stress.

With the aim of achieving sustainability, it is important to understand, as Norton points out, that the concept of health is applicable to ecosystems heavily affected by humans. Cultivated ecosystems can be healthy as long as the "overall system maintains sufficient complexity to protect its self-organizing qualities" (Norton 1992:26). Norton distinguishes this view of health from that of ecosystem integrity:

An ecological system has maintained its integrity -- a stronger concept that includes the conditions of health -- if it retains

1. the total diversity of the system -- the sum total of the species and associations that have held sway historically -- and
2. the systematic organization which maintains that diversity, including, especially, the system's multiple layers of complexity through time

(Norton 1992:26).

There are, however, both scientific and social obstacles to maintaining ecosystem integrity in practise.

Traditional Obstacles To Living Sustainably

"It is easier to put a person on the moon than it is to manage one acre of forest. Putting a person on the moon is a process in black and white; you either hit it or miss it. But managing a forest acre is all gray."

-- Maser 1990:83

Lack of Scientific Information

Ecological systems are extremely complex. Their working is a function of myriad inter-relationships between and within their biotic and abiotic components. This very complexity means that advances in scientific understanding of ecosystem processes have been slow relative to those in other sciences. More specifically, progress is slow because of (1) the amount of time it takes to run experiments -- often a matter of many years, (2) a lack of controls because every ecosystem is unique and many pristine examples have been eliminated, (3) the difficulty of assuring that perturbations occurred randomly over different locations, and (4) the fact that ecosystems change over time, which tends to invalidate old research (Hilborn and Ludwig 1993:550-1). In addition to this, ecosystems vary tremendously, and information about natural systems in one region is likely to be completely inapplicable to those in another. It does not help either that detailed studies of ecosystems only began a few decades ago (Rapport 1992:152-3). Studies of the effects of pollution on ecosystems are affected by all of the same difficulties, as well as by time-lags between emissions and effect. As the SBI states, a lack of adequate funding also places severe restraints on the progress of ecological research (Lubchenco et al. 1991:405).

All of the above setbacks for the ecological sciences translate directly into problems for sustainable management of resources (Slocombe 1993:617). It is very difficult to propose progressive management strategies to policy-makers when very little factual evidence can be presented because environmental legislation is largely based on "scientific consensus" (Ludwig et al. 1993:547). Lacking definitive answers, scientists have tended to be hesitant about basing recommendations on suggestive evidence (Karr 1992:227). Because of this, traditional management practises have prevailed (Mangel et al. 1993:575). A similar situation probably prompted Aldo Leopold (1949:196) to write: "the art of land doctoring is being practised with vigor, but the science of land health is yet to be born". Sadly, little appears to have changed since Leopold's day.

The Power of the Traditional Economic System

Aldo Leopold (1949:203) observed that our "land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations". The traditional capitalist economic ethic has indeed shaped the path of development and dominated the social ethic in industrialised countries. As Leopold points out, this ethic has been largely exploitative, with little concern for "obligations" to the land. The general "mind-set in which economic thinking determines objectives" means that the basic capitalist drive for growth takes precedence over environmental concerns (Gauthier 1991:122). Although resource scarcity and degradation are already serious problems in many places, mainstream economists have not been educated to understand the urgency of shaping policies to an environmental framework and therefore do not properly advise decision makers (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:245-6).

There are several aspects of the market system that contribute significantly to environmental problems. First and foremost, market prices very rarely reflect environmental externalities (damage-related production costs not incorporated into the price of the final procuct) (Ruckelshaus 1990:129; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:244). An example of an environmental externality is the damage done to aquatic ecosystems by clear-cutting; the cost of reversing the resulting habitat degradation and inferior water quality are not accounted for in the price of timber. The market system tends to ignore environmental externalities because the costs are extremely difficult to quantify. It is highly challenging, for example, to pin a dollar value to the benefits of soil micro-organisms (assuming their biological function is even known), or to the spiritual benefits of an old-growth forest. The global "commons" such as the atmosphere and the oceans have suffered tremendously from the disregard for externalities. These have been overexploited and used as dumping grounds because "that which belongs to all is cared for by none" (Lee 1993:561). The commons are not the responsibility of any one nation, and any damage usually appears after a time lag, dispersed over the globe (Ruckelshaus 1990:130).

A second failure of the market system arises from the goal of continued economic growth. Unfortunately, as mentioned above in the discussion of sustainable growth, "ecosystems do not grow", and therefore "growing economies contained within those ecosystems can exceed sustainable levels of biological production" (Gauthier 1991:122). The earth can only support a finite amount of growth.

The capitalist ethic of profit-making is a third negative effect of the market system. The "right" to individual benefit and prosperity has assumed prime importance; it motivates and drives the system. It is therefore not easy convincing people of their moral obligation to make short-term sacrifices for the benefit of others in the long-run (Mooney and Sala 1993:565).

Hampicke (1994:219) warns that the rapid loss of global biodiversity is "commonly attributed to economic forces". He foresees little change in the present situation if these economic forces are not adequately revised.

A Lack of Interdisciplinary Problem-Solving

One of the major reasons for the persistence of environmentally destructive economic models is the lack of communication between ecologists and economists. Jim MacNeill, one of the principal figures behind the Our Common Future report, asserts that "the most important condition for sustainable development is that environment and economics be merged in decision making". He points out that both governments and international organisations continue to deal with economics and ecology through separate agencies despite the fact that these systems "have become totally interlocked in the real world" (MacNeill 1990:111, 118). This inhibits the ability of institutions to deal adequately with these interdependencies (Gauthier 1991:122).

Political and Social Lack of Awareness

A dearth of accurate scientific information and a lack of corresponding economic models are not the only obstacles to implementing policies aimed at sustainability. The unenlightened attitudes of many people who influence, design, and implement policy -- namely politicians and ordinary citizens -- are critical factors as well.

The imperative for sustainability is usually overlooked by public authorities (O'Riordan 1988:39; Hampicke 1994:223). Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1988:22) have written that "those politicians and social scientists who have questioned the extent of extinctions are simply displaying their deep ignorance of ecology". Until such examples of ignorance are no longer the norm, decisions will continue to be made on an economically and politically expedient basis. This politically expedient basis is frequently decided by a vociferous "much injured minority", which "proves to be a more formidable lobbyist than the slightly benefited majority" (Ruckelshaus 1990:130). In other words, powerful industrialists will continue to exert considerable influence over the development of economic policies.

Although more people are slowly becoming aware of the gravity of environmental problems, it is often difficult for them to change their patterns of behaviour that were shaped long ago (Policansky 1993:583). The prevailing lack of awareness (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:245) and the unwillingness to change habits remain a major challenge for environmental advocacy groups and the educational system. The complex interrelationships between the traditional policies and management practises has made solutions to the problems that much more complicated. However, a wide spectrum of possible solutions do exist such as scientific research, a new economic paradigm, increased cooperation between scientists and policy makers, increasing awareness through education, global cooperation, making decisions in the face of uncertainty, improved technology and new approaches to resource management.

Some Possible Solutions

"Human interaction with nature is characterized by a complex blend of social, psychological, economic, historical, and ecological factors, and all of these must be accounted for if we are to succeed. Moreover, the effort must be global; sustainable management practices at the local level will buy little if managed ecosystems are stressed by climate change and pollution."

-- Perry 1988:12

Scientific Research

Despite the extraordinary complexity and the very slow pace of ecological research, it remains a vital part of any effort to live sustainably (Slocombe 1993:617). The scientific community must possess sound ecological information for many reasons. For example, it is necessary in order to be taken seriously by citizens and decision-makers (Karr 1990:249), in order to determine baselines for monitoring purposes (Dearden 1991:144), and in order to develop effective management strategies (Perry 1988:8). Research is needed both in wilderness areas and in cultivated landscapes. Whatever the nature of or the reason for the research, it is absolutely essential "if society is to anticipate and ammeliorate the environmental effects of human activities" (Lubchenco et al. 1991:377). For this to be possible, "the scientific community will need unprecedented support" (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:275; Clark 1990:9; Crosson and Rosenberg 1990:78). This support must be both financial and infrastructural.

The SBI's mandate is to help ecologists order their research priorities "in terms of both the advancement of the field and the potential for improving the human condition" (Lubchenco et al. 1991:372). It identifies some of the "intellectual frontiers" in ecology and determines their importance. Other scientists have made similar lists by asking what kinds of basic information are needed for proper management programmes (Rapport 1992:151; Ricklefs et al. 1984:15).

The problems of complexity and uncertainty in ecological research are being tackled from a variety of angles. Experiments have already been performed to determine "whole-ecosystem" responses to disturbances such as pollution. These experiements are frequently facilitated by new computer and remote sensing technology, as well as by sophisticated analytical techniques (Mooney and Sala 1993:564). The inadequacy of reductionism in ecological science is being overcome by systems approaches that facilitate the study of dynamic structures (Costanza et al. 1993 545-7; Holling 1993:553). Complex systems contain non-linear interations between components, "feedback loops", and discontinuities in time and space, all of which [complicate] large-scale ecological studies (Costanza et al. 1993:545). Systems analysis and modeling can help to assemble the various data into a "coherent picture" (Costanza 1992:252).

Scientific research, then, although it cannot solve the world's environmental problems, can inform decision makers -- those who directly affect human impact on the environment -- about trends in ecosystem health. Ecologists supply the information without which environmental policy-makers would be unable to make informed decisions.

A New Economic Paradigm

Hampicke reminds us that the concept of intergenerational justice demands our utmost effort to minimise human impact on the environment. Future generations have a right to the same opportunities for benefitting from nature that we do today. Loss of biodiversity reduces the number of species that future generations can choose to use. We are therefore morally obliged to live sustainably. We have seen, however, that our present economic ethic is poorly adapted to sustainability because the market system does not take into account environmental externalities. In other words, our economic system must be revised or modified to one that provides incentives appropriate for our moral imperative to live sustainably.

Economic "activities", then, are "acceptable only to the extent that they do not destroy the health -- the capacity for self-organizing activity -- of the ecological system within which the economy operates" (Faber et al. 1992:92). Practically speaking, if economics is to become a "rational, thoughtful management of scarce resources" (Hampicke 1994:219), it absolutely must incorporate environmental values traditionally overlooked. The new system must be accountable for non-commercial (eg: spiritual) values and for unquantifiable future values as well as for the usual commodity values (Meyer and Helfman 1993:569). It must take into account the cost of any environmental degradation (Hampicke 1994:223).

National governments have an important role to play in helping economic systems adapt to sustainability. They must "examine hidden and overt subsidies and reform those that penalize conservation and end-use efficiency". These "subsidy structures" often encourage resource depletion, inefficiency, and pollution (MacNeill 1990:118). Some environmental economists believe that mainstream neo-classical economics itself can supply the necessary changes (eg: Randall 1988). They maintain that benefit-cost analysis (BCA) can account for environmental externalities by incorporating them as "costs". As nice as this sounds in theory, many have pointed out the difficulty of quantifying the value of the aesthetic beauty of old-growth forests or a yet-to-be-discovered tropical insect (eg: Norton 1987; Haneman 1988:197; Ehrenfeld 1988:214; Norse 1990:260). Despite the difficulty, it is still interesting to examine how it might be done.

Hampicke (1994:223) suggests that although it is difficult to pinpoint the exact value of many "ecological assets", it might be possible to "delineate upper and lower bounds for the correct value". One of the most frequently cited methods of doing so is called "willingness-to-pay (WTP) analysis". There are two ways of trying to assess WTP: indirectly and directly. The indirect or "implicit" method assigns value to an unpriced ecological asset by using the price of an associated market product. The "travel cost method" is a frequently cited example: transportation costs incurred on journeys to visit natural areas are taken to be the value that the traveller places on his or her experience there. One such analysis determined that the value placed by tourists on Costa Rican rain forest is one to two magnitudes higher than the purchase price of the land. The housing market may also, for example, be analysed to determine how proximity to the ocean or to forests affects price (Randall 1988:220; Hampicke 1994:224). Hampicke points out, however, a considerable weakness of indirect WTP analysis. It only indicates "user value" and leaves out the valuation of people who hope to enjoy the amenity in the future, and of those who don't enjoy nature, but who still believe in preservation.

The direct method, although problematic in its own right, avoids some of the criticisms of the indirect method. This "contingent valuation method" (CVM) uses survey techniques to ask people directly what they are willing to spend on conservation (Randall 1988:220). Although the exact values derived may not be accurate, the order of magnitude is often useful. One of the major objections to the CVM is that results from separate studies cannot be combined because someone presented with many species to preserve will tend to spread out WTP while someone only asked about one species may concentrate WTP into that one (Hampicke 1994:225).

Although WTP analysis appears to eliminate some concerns about traditional economic valuation of nature, it has many methodological uncertainties. WTP analysis is also unlikely to account for the potential pharmaceutical value of yet-unidentified plants, for the value of old-growth forests as critical carbon "sinks", and so on. Finally, although WTP analysis has the capacity to include valuation of intergenerational justice, it does not provide any incentives to that end.

Traditional neo-classical economics, then, even in a revised form, does not supply an adequate basis for the kind of economic system necessary to achieve sustainability. Thus, an entirely new economic paradigm may be the only solution. The "safe minimum standard" (SMS) approach is one proposed alternative that does incorporate intergenerational justice. The SMS is the "level of preservation that ensures survival". By addressing the problem from an entirely different angle, this approach avoids all of the problems associated with giving ecological assets specific value. SMS is based on the fact that there is "ample evidence that biodiversity is... massively beneficial to humanity". As such, ensuring the SMS for every species is considered a "positive good". The SMS must therefore be maintained unless it can be argued that the opportunity cost involved is unbearable. Those arguing against the SMS are responsible for proof (Randall 1988:221).

Although the revised BCA and the SMS approaches have received considerable attention in theory, it remains to be seen how they can be implemented. William Ruckelshaus (1990:132), a former member of the WCED, believes that government pricing policy (for state-supplied resources) and the instigation of incentive-based systems of pollution control to supplement traditional regulation could "magnify public-sector decisions by tens of thousands of individual and corporate decisions". In other words, government-initiated economic incentives used within the present economic system appear to be the only realistic practical options at the present time.

One such government-led initiative, the "polluter pays principle" (PPP) was formally introduced in 1972 by member countries of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (WCED 1987:221). The main idea of this principle is to internalise environmental externalities caused by pollution: the polluters must pay for the environmental cost of their pollution and will therefore incorporate this fee into the price of the final product. There are two basic market mechanisms for implementing the PPP. The first imposes a tax on every unit of pollution. The second uses "tradable pollution rights", pollution permits sold by a government or an international agency that can be re-sold if a given company succeeds in reducing emissions to a level below their limit. In a common variation of this second method, the pollution permits are issued for free based on production (instead of being sold), which helps abate pollution but does not compensate for environmental destruction. While the PPP has indeed been introduced in certain areas, it has been less widely implemented and has had less practical success than had been anticipated (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:105-6, 139; Pezzey 1992).

We have seen that theoretically and especially practically, environmental economics faces some monumental challenges. Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1991:245) believe, however, that the discipline is at least "moving in the right direction and picking up speed". Although the chance of developing and implementing a system that will satisfy all of the moral demands for living sustainably is extremely remote (at least until major catastrophe strikes), progress is being made towards reducing our rate of destruction.

Increased Cooperation between Scientists and Policy-Makers

Although the specifics of achieving sustainability are in constant dispute, the one general point of agreement seems to be that interdisciplinary collaboration is absolutely crucial. The November 1993 issue of Ecological Applications contains a "forum" of eighteen articles discussing sustainability. The majority stress the critical importance of interdisciplinary solutions to problems of the environment. Elliott Norse (1990:242), a senior ecologist for the Wilderness Society, puts it this way: "any action to lessen [environmental] changes will require unprecedented cooperation among the competing forces that created them". Sustainability, because of its complexity, demands comprehensive solutions.

The Our Common Future report points out that human activities can no longer be compartmentalised into different sectors; the divisions between them have "begun to dissolve" (WCED 1987:4). This means that government agencies and ministries must consider the potential ramifications of their decisions in other sectors. In the context of sustainability, government ministries must now be held accountable for their impact on the environment (MacNeill 1990:118). Even agencies dedicated to foreign policy and international trade must "adopt sustainable development as a central goal" (Ruckelshaus 1990:133). In order to do this, policy-makers must seek access to and make sure they have a solid command of relevant scientific information.

In their turn, both natural and social scientists have a responsibility to speak out (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:271, 279) and to immerse themselves in relevant decision-making processes. Only if they are involved from beginning to end can they "continually inform policy" (Rubenstein 1993:586). Societies need "scientists who are willing to bring their talents and perspectives into the arena of public policy to help shape scientifically sound and socially responsive solutions to major problems" (Salwasser 1990:215). Scientists are not in a position to make the necessary value-judgments themselves, but they must communicate their knowledge to those who do make the decisions (Pitelka and Pitelka 1993:568). They have an obligation to "enter the dialogue, rather than creating closed disciplines insulated by jargon and esoteric mathematics" (Norton 1992:38). Policy is best made in response to the most accurate scientific information available.

Increasing Awareness through Education

We can no longer afford to ignore the fact that we, as humans, are polluting our planet and depleting its resources. People in developing countries suffering from drought and famine face this reality every day, but many of us in richer nations were raised believeing that resources are infinite, or perhaps not thinking about it at all. Our destructive attitudes and behaviour are largely determined by ignorance. We need to educate ourselves, to challenge old paradigms, and to develop a powerful social ethic of conservation. An ethic is crucial because "what people do depends on what they believe" (IUCN 1991:130). Ehrenfeld (1988:215) believes that the "notion of wrongness" of destroying biological diversity "is a powerful argument with great breadth of appeal to all manner of personal philosophies". We need change that will affect every aspect of human life from law to agriculture (IUCN 1991:14).

Both decision-makers and private citizens must educate themselves and adopt an ethic of conservation: "every thinking citizen, every responsible politician and religious leader, has here an indispensable role" (Iltis 1988:105). Decision-makers will need strength and conviction to shape policies based on sustainability (Meyer and Helfman 1993:570). Good policy and leadership educates citizens and can have far-reaching effects on public attitudes and behaviour. Individuals, too, must understand the importance of choosing sustainable lifestyles because "it is local, individual action that keeps water, air and soil uncontaminated" (OFPP 1993:42). Every person can help slow environmental degradation by consciously creating less waste, by recycling and by consuming fewer resources, even if nothing else he or she does is related to the environment.

Education of public leaders and private citizens can be achieved in several ways. Integrating interdisciplinary environmental education into school curricula from the earliest grades onwards would certainly give students a better understanding of and appreciation for nature. A sound education in the sciences is especially important because "a scientifically illiterate public cannot even sensibly exercise broad control over the scientific community it supports, let alone inderstand the scientific aspects of everyday life and society's problems" (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:275). Resource management schools must "revamp" their programmes to include requirements in ecology and conservation (Norse 1990:283). Ecologists, economists, and others working on developing strategies for sustainable living have a responsibility to educate both policy-makers and the general public about environmental concerns (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:271-3, 279). If they don't, the "science-society interface is bound to remain fraught with misunderstanding" (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:275). Finally, documents such as Our Common Future have brought the issue of sustainability to the attention of national governments. In Canada, for example, it inspired the formation of Round Tables on environment and economy. These draw political, business, and NGO leaders into dialogue with one another (Gauthier 1991:126).

Whatever the forum -- whether it be in school, religious meetings, or public lectures -- discussion and learning about the environment will raise consciousness about sustainability. Creating a conservation ethic may be one of the most important steps we can take to ensuring the long-term prosperity of humankind.

Need for Global Cooperation and Initiative

As previously addressed, the effects of pollution and the over-exploitation of commons frequently transcend national boundaries. Local and national initiatives for sustainability will therefore be insufficient to preserve ecological health; regulations are needed to "control the impacts of industrial activity across national boundaries and on the international commons" (WCED 1987:220, 261). Major global collaboration and initiative will be required to solve issues of global change.

Global initiatives have indeed been discussed in the past, although practical implementation has not necessarily followed. A 1976 proposal for a "law of the air", for example, aimed to limit emissions of carbon dioxide through the use of pollution rights (Schneider 1990:34). A similar idea for a "law of the atmosphere" has been discussed recently with the intent of controling emissions of several greenhouse gasses (Graedel and Crutzen 1990:23). The SBI has chosen global change (in atmospheric, soil, and water chemistry) to be one of its three research priorities (Lubchenco et al. 1991:374). Elliott Norse (1990:284) has proposed a Global Change Symposium to discuss the interactions between climatic change and old-growth forests of the Pacific northwest. International institutions established to support global sustainability would be extremely valuable (Ruckelshaus 1990:135; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:281). It is time that some of these ideas be put into practise.

Making Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty

New computer modeling techniques can help scientists understand complex systems. While this may help reduce uncertainty in ecological studies, it certainly does not eliminate it. The "difficulty of converting scientific findings into political action" is therefore largely "a function of the uncertanty of the science" (Ruckelshaus 1990:125). Citizens and policy-makers must accept the fact that they must make decisions without all of the scientific information they would like, often with very little at all.

We should be willing to make decisions that will affect the environment despite uncertainty about the ecological processes in question. In practise, this means that decisions should err on the conservative side and aim for prevention. The case of ozone destruction is a useful example of what can happen when pre-emptive decisions are not made. Calculations made in the early 1970s predicted the destruction of stratospheric ozone by CFCs. Politicians and manufacturers (like DuPont), however, debated for a decade before the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in the mid 1980s finally began to spur the international community into action. Meanwhile, it will have been about 30 years from the discovery of the link between CFCs and ozone depletion and a general phasing out of their procution (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:Ch4). That 30 years of continued production will have contributed enormously to the thinning of the ozone layer.

Examples such as this one highlight our need to "be conservative in actions that could affect the environment, study the effects of such actions carefully, and learn from [our] mistakes quickly" (IUCN 1991:10). Many of the articles in the forum on sustainability in Ecological Applications explained that uncertainty is a simple fact of ecological science, that it is here to stay, and that it must be accepted. Society must invoke the "precautionary principle" and make decisions regardless of the uncertainty: "rather than await certainty, regulators should act in anticipation of any potential environmental harm in order to prevent it" (Costanza 1993:579-80). This will take determination and will not preclude mistakes, but we have no alternative course of action.

Increasingly Sophisticated Technology

Technology has had many positive impacts on the human condition. It has expanded the carrying capacity of the planet by allowing us to practise intensive agriculture and has allowed us to harness a wide array of natural resources to our advantage. Although it has contributed immeasurably to environmental decline itself, it has also helped mitigate the effects of pollution and other environmentally destructive human impacts. Despite all of this, however, humans can no longer afford to rely on technology as a panacea for our environmental woes (Ehrlich 1988:26): "the Earth has its limits; with the best technology imaginable, they are not infinitely expandable" (IUCN 1991:5). As much as we may hate to admit it, we will always rely on nature for things that technology can neither replace nor repair (Ruckelshaus 1990:128).

Having recognised that technology cannot alone save us from our environmental predicament, we can still appreciate the beneficial contributions it can make. Environmental engineers have the potential to be at the "cutting edge of solving the human predicament" (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:275). Increased energy efficiency is very important (WCED 1987:196) and it can be helped enormously by efficiency developments in electrical appliances, buildings, automobiles, and so on. Developing renewable alternatives for non-renewable resources will also be critical: harnessing wind and solar power, using mini-hydroturbines, and gas-producing biomass digestors are among the alternatives (MacNeill 1990:118). Pollution from industrial smokestacks and waste-water can already be partially controlled by "scrubbers" and sewage treatment (WCED 1987:212-3; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:147, 275). The Green Revolution, which led to a doubling of agricultural production in some poor nations, was made possible by genetic engineering for high-yield strains, as well as by synthetic pesticides and fertilizers (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:197). Technology also exists to recycle or burn for energy much of our post-consumer waste (Frosch and Gallopoulos 1990:106). If Canada recycled newspapers to the same extent as the Japanese, for example, 80 million trees could be spared every year (MacNeill 1990:116). These technologies should be transferred to poor nations which have neither the time nor the resources to develop their own (WCED 1987:215).

A New Paradigm for Resource Management

Traditional resource management has focused on maximising the yield of a specific resource without fully considering the complex of ecological factors which contribute to the long-term health of that resource. Management has concentrated on individual species rather than whole ecosystems. The result has often been loss of habitat, reduction of biodiversity, and ultimately, reduced health of the resource ecosystem in question. As difficult as it may be, given the lack of scientific information and the poor communication between economists and ecologists, a new paradigm for resource management is needed. Asking "how various resource management practises influence the long-term health and productivity of ecosystems" will be one of the first critical steps towards a sustainable society (Perry 1988:8). Those resource managers aware of this already must begin implementing changes because there is not enough time to wait until the majority are adequately trained (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:272).

Elliott Norse (1990:259) explains that preservation is an important component of sustainability because "we do not know enough to manage for the incredible complexity that we do not yet understand". In other words, preservation is essential to the maintenance of biodiversity. Preservation is not, however, the only option open to us for preserving species, nor will it be sufficient on its own: "we must accept that most species are going to persist alongside human habitation and agriculture if they are going to persist at all" (McIntyre et al. 1992:606). Habitat destruction caused by human expansion is the number one cause of loss of biodiversity (Ehrlich 1988:21). This means that managed land must supply a diversity of habitat conditions and selection pressures. This will be "a realistic way of minimizing extinctions in the absence of detailed knowledge of individual species" (McIntyre et al. 1992:606). Semi-natural communities in Europe could provide one possible model for maintaining ecologically "healthy" landscapes. These communities can help "preserve biotic diversity and other 'natural values'" (Bratton 1992:181-2). Managing at the correct spatial scale, immitating natural disturbance patterns, and avoiding oversimplified monocultures will help to maintain the semi-natural state of ecosystems (Norse 1990:265-6, 268-9, 282).

In addition to preservation and providing habitat diversity, a critical component of managing for ecosystem health involves establishing "as a central goal the protection of the system's creativity" (Norton 1992:37). It therefore follows that minimal human intervention in favour of natural regulation is best wherever possible (Ricklefs et al 1984:11). Management should "work within the framework of natural patterns and cycles, rather than change them" (Ricklefs et al. 1984:16). This will mean basing strategies on natural rhythms rather than on patterns of human convenience (Caldwell 1970). Integrated pest management (IPM) is a good example of an "ecologically sound" management technique. It minimises the use of pesticides and uses instead pest-resistant plant strains, natural insect predators, and crop rotation to control pest outbreaks (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:213).

The delineation of management units is yet another aspect of resource management that needs radical revision. These units are frequently arbitrary and rarely correspond to natural ecosystem boundaries (Slocombe 1993:616). They should, however, correspond to "whole ecological or landscape units based on integrative biological, physical, and/or socioeconomic assessments" (Slocombe 1993:612). An ecosystem can be thought of as a matrix of inter-related biotic and abiotic systems, so any management initiatives within an ecosystem are "inevitably linked" (Ricklefs et al. 1984:15). Although in practise it would be very difficult to change management boudaries to reflect the needs of an "ecosystem approach", the idea of cooperative management between units contained within an ecosystem has already been used in the past (Slocombe 1993:613-6).

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT FORESTS TO SUSTAINABILITY

"As human population growth increases demand for ecosystem services, we are destroying the ancient forests that provide them.... Trees are renewable, as foresters often remind us, but under most current management systems, many of their products -- rare species, high-quality framing lumber, beautiful scenery, and ecosystem services -- are not."

-- Norse 1990:133.

An ancient forest landscape can be defined as "the combination of ecosystem types that is found within a region dominated primarily by the forest condition that has not been significantly modified by logging, mining and hydroelectric activities. In addition to forest ecosystems, this includes lakes, streams, wetlands and non-forested terrestrial ecosystems". They are valuable for many reasons including primarily the provision of ecosystem services, scientific baselines, biodiversity, recreation and spiritual renewal.

Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are those free services provided by nature which are "essential to the Earth's habitability". Forests, for example, create soils on which civilizations depend and prevent their erosion. They regulate atmospheric composition by providing oxygen and removing carbon dioxide and various pollutants, cleaning the air and moderating the climate. They provide us with clean water and store and release it slowly, thereby minimising both flooding and drought (Norse 1990:132).

It is all too easy to overlook these effects because they often "occur on scales that our senses are not designed to perceive" (Norse 1990:208). On an enormous scale, for example, ancient old-growth forests contribute significantly to the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. On a microscopic scale, a wealth of microorganisms break down dead vegetation and in doing so return essential nutrients to the soil. Not only are these services often difficult to perceive or to understand fully, but "there is usually no real possibility of substituting for them, even in cases where scientists might know how to do so" (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:30). Any damage done to an ecosystem may reduce or impair its ability to provide its original services (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981:100; Ehrlich 1988:24). Because they are unmodified by humans, ancient forests are particularly efficient and adept at providing ecosystem services which include maintaining water supply and quality, maintaining air and soil quality, and sequestering carbon.

Water Supply and Quality

Forests help prevent flooding because the canopy traps snow which then melts progressively over the winter on sunny days. Snow landing on non-forested areas piles up much more deeply that it does on forest floors. This snow then tends to melt suddenly with spring rains, which often leads to floods (Norse 1990:148). Trees also reduce the impact of rain on soils, thereby allowing them to absorb the water gradually and then to pass it into streams, springs and aquifers. Deforestation, therefore, can cause both flooding and ensuing droughts (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:22). Old-growth may be particularly well-suited to breaking the force of rain because of its dense undergrowth. Forests also can remove pollutants from rain water meaning that old-growth watersheds may produce streams containing water with fewer impurities than were present in the original rain (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981:90).

Air Quality

"In ways that are only poorly understood, [plants] remove dust and other pollutants from the atmosphere" (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981:87) primarily by uptake through needles and leaves (Norse 1990:144). Some pollutants may then be used by the vegetation as nutrients for the production of proteins and other chemicals. Ancient forests are especially efficient air filters because of the high density of their needles and leaves (Norse 1990:144).

Soil Quality

Forest cover minimises soil erosion and nutrient leaching because, as mentioned above, the canopy slows the impact of raindrops. In ancient forests, the force of the water is further reduced by abundant shrubs and mosses covering the ground. The complex of plant roots and fungal threads in ancient forests also helps bind the soil and make it more resistant to water erosion (Norse 1990:136) and to landslips or rockfalls (Myers 1984:265).

In general, ancient forests produce particularly rich soils. First, plant roots help break down rocks to furnish the non-living components of soil. Second, humus (once-living matter) is created by decomposers from dead organic matter. Many of these decomposers are "linked to old-growth conditions", as is the presence of large quantities of decaying vegetation (Norse 1990:133-6). As Norse (1990:124-5) explains, "dead trees are the life of the forest". Logging vastly reduces the populations of fungi necessary for recycling forest products into soil nutrients (Norse 1990:124-5). Finally, old-growth forests contain huge numbers of mycorrhizal fungi, one of the many living components of soil, which form mutualistic associations with many plants, providing their roots with essential phosphorous in exchange for photosynthate (Norse 1990:134).

Carbon Sink

At one time, the flows between carbon pools were balanced. The quantity of carbon in the atmosphere was therefore relatively constant because the amount produced by burning wood, fossil fuels, and so on was equal to the amount used by plants in photosynthesis. Today that balance has been upset because carbon is not removed from the atmosphere as quickly as it is being added (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991:26). Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have contributed significantly to the "greenhouse effect". Any climatic change (such as global warming) that occurs as a result of the greenhouse effect may be problematic for many species. The anticipated rapid rate of change will mean that species may be unable to evolve quickly enough to adapt to the new conditions. Many will not be able to migrate northward rapidly enough to reach cooler temperatures. Those that can will have to face changes in day length and different soils and topography (Norse 1990:228).

Norse (1990:138) emphasises how important forests are in the carbon cycle because of the "large amount of carbon they contain relative to other ecosystems" (Norse 1990:138). He believes that old-growth forests are the most effective carbon sinks for two reasons. First, although regenerating forests "accumulate more carbon than old-growth forests annually", the overall carbon stock in managed forests is lower than in old-growth forests. Second, the large number of snags and dead logs under old-growth conditions provides further carbon storage (Norse 1990:140). Norse (1990:141) attributes 20 percent of the current annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide to deforestation.

Source of Scientific Baselines

Aldo Leopold believed that a thorough understanding of natural processes was one of the primary components of a "science of land health". Few ecologists today would disagree with that assessment, and as Leopold (1949:196) explained, "wilderness, then, assumes unexpected importance as a laboratory for the study of land health". Ancient forests offer us just such a "laboratory" for deriving a set of baseline data that can both improve existing forest management techniques through comparison with managed forests and improve our basic understanding of ecology. Norse (1990:157) elaborates on this idea: "as long as we have ancient forests as models, we can learn how to sustain biological diversity and productivity by mimicking their features in managed forests". Without these ancient "living laboratories" (Maser 1990:145), we may never be able to recreate truly healthy forest ecosystems.

Value of Biodiversity Found in Ancient Forests

Ancient forests help maintain both the species and genetic diversity of a region, each of which can contribute much to living sustainably. It is foolish of us to destroy this diversity before we understand its ecological, commercial, and spiritual significance (Iltis 1988:102-3).

Species Diversity

Many have argued for the preservation of ancient forests on the grounds that they contain extremely high biological diversity. Others have countered by arguing that disturbed areas (clearcuts, for example) can actually contain a greater number of species. While both of these arguments are correct, we must remember that the issue of species diversity is not just one of sheer numbers. Norse points out that many of the disturbance-associated species are relatively common and can live in the myriad areas where human disturbances have occurred (Norse 1990:208). Many species associated with ancient forests, however, tend not to survive well outside that environment.

Norse also explains that the high-diversity stage which follows disturbance rarely lasts more than two decades. After that comes a very low-diversity stage which lasts almost ten times as long. In contrast, the "high-diversity [old-growth] forest stage lasts at least several centuries, sometimes a millenium" in the absence of human disturbance (Norse 1990:210). Old-growth therefore clearly fosters the greatest possible diversity because forests managed for timber production spend the majority of their lives in the low-diversity stage.

Species diversity in ancient forests can provide unique benefits for humanity and should therefore be preserved in perpetuity. One of the most frequently cited benefits is the vast number of existing species yet untested for medicinal value. Half of all medications prescribed "have their origins in wild organisms" (WCED 1987:155); about 3.5 to four billion people depend on drugs derived from plants (Farnsworth 1988:91). Considering only a fraction of existing organisms have been tested (Myers 1984:212-13) for potency against cancer, AIDS, and other diseases, it is very important that species not become extinct before they can be thoroughly evaluated.

While the majority of the world's untested species live in tropical rainforests, the medicinal value of organisms found in other forest types must not be overlooked. Norse cites as an example the Pacific yew, whose bark contains taxol, a compound with important anti-cancer properties. The Pacific yew grows only in the ever-diminishing Northwest old-growth temperate rain forest (Norse 1990:110-11).

Global species diversity is also very important for our present and future supplies of food, fibres, oils, chemicals, and so on. Our present choice of staple food crops can, for example, be considered quite random; many "wild" crops have the potential for providing much better food value or for growing in less-than-ideal habitats (Myers 1984:192; Wilson 1988:15; Plotkin 1988:107). Plants also offer underexploited or alternative supplies of fibres, canes, oils, gums, resins, tanins, dyes, and so on (Myers 1984:227; Plotkin 1988:112-14). Some of these items can be commercially cultivated, but many are incapable of growing outside an old-growth forest habitat (Myers 1984:243).

Finally, species diversity in ancient forests can be an effective barrier to pest outbreaks. The diversity of vegetation means that a large percentage of the pests end up on plants where they are unable to eat or reproduce. The same diversity also provides habitat for a wide array of pest predators (Norse 1990:213). In addition to this, plants that have a natural resistance to pests can be used to create biodegradable pesticides (Myers 1984:197). Wild insect species that are natural predators for pests can also be used as an alternative to chemical control (Myers 1984:199).

Genetic Diversity

The genetic diversity preserved in ancient forests can be as important as the species diversity. Loss of genetic variability reduces the ability of species to adapt to changes in their environment (WCED 1987:147). Genetic homogeneity in managed forests also tends to lower the resistance of vegetation to pathogens and pests. For example, genetically dissimilar trees of the same species often display different resistance to diseases and pest outbreaks (Norse 1990:214). Genetic diversity within populations of trees and shrubs may also protect them from herbivores (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981:99). In addition, wild relatives of domesticated species are vital for cross-breeding to "improve crop yield, nutritional quality, durability, responsiveness to different soil and climates, and resistance to pests and diseases" (Plotkin 1988:110). "Genetic resources" from tropical rainforests have rescued commercial crops such as cocoa, banana and coffee (Myers 1984:190). If we continue to destroy ancient forests around the world, we will continue to eliminate the last reservoirs of genetic diversity for many species.

There are also significant financial gains to be made from remaining ancient forests. E.O. Wilson believes that more money can be made from tropical forests by "sustained harvesting of natural forest products" than by cutting forests for wood and agriculture (Wilson 1990:58). WCED (1987:147) asserts that the "genetic variability and germplasm material of species make contributions to agriculture, medicine, and industry worth many billions of dollars per year". For example, given the fact that timber companies will face an end to the supply of old-growth trees, why do they not concentrate their energy on second growth forests immediately? Referring to the Pacific Northwest forest industry, Elliott Norse (1990) states that an immediate moratorium on old-growth logging would have no long-term impact on the economy. Even if it did have a lasting impact, continuing the logging of old-growth would only be putting off the inevitable.

Spiritual and Recreational Values of Ancient Forests

Wild nature has long played an important role in shaping or informing certain philosophies and religious traditions. Today, ancient forests are especially significant in this respect because they represent some of the world's last untouched wilderness areas. As Norse (1990:8) puts it, ancient forests have "a transcendent aesthetic and religious value in the inner landscapes of natives and newcomers alike". They have the capacity to "inspire spiritual renewal" (Maser 1990:144). Their grandeur and beauty affects many people so profoundly that old-growth forests have often been likened to cathedrals (Norse 1990:8, 42).

Preserving our natural environment can also be important for reasons of cultural identity: "the value we attach to them goes to our identity more than to our interests -- to who we are, not just what we want" (Sagoff, 1992:70). E.O. Wilson (1990:49) points out that our environment is as much a part of our national heritage as language and other aspects of culture. It should therefore be treated with as much respect. For these many spiritual and personal reasons, people enjoy hiking or taking nature walks in ancient forests. Norse (1990:261) believes that the demand for recreational experiences in ancient forests could "provide the greatest economic returns from our forests....". In other words, in the long run, the financial gains to be had from preserving ancient forests outweigh those achieved by logging them. There appears to be a significant market demand for recreation in ancient forests that should be recognised.

Preserving ancient forests is in many ways an important step towards achieving sustainability of life on our planet. These forests supply the planet with ecosystem services which would not be provided without them. Ancient forests can furnish us with invaluable information for improving forest management techniques. These forests help to maintain both species and genetic diversity which are vital for medicine, food, and various industries. Finally, ancient forests are highly valued by some as a source of recreation and spiritual renewal.

CONCLUSION

"We humans must change our relationship with nature from one dominated by exploitation and indifference to one of respect and sustainable balance."

-- Perry 1988:8

If we have respect for other life forms and our own progeny, then we have a moral obligation to live sustainably. Sustainability -- preserving ecosystem health while meeting the needs of present and future generations -- could be one of the basic laws of any social contract between humans; it protects our human right to use and to benefit from nature in material as well as non-material ways. The successful development of sustainable societies in industrialised countries will require, among others, continued ecological research, cooperation between natural and social scientists, new economic models and incentives, and better environmental education. The protection of substantial amounts of ancient forested landscapes will ensure that in the future we will have invaluable ecosystem services, new sources of food and other goods, genetic reserves, and unparalleled opportunities for research, education, recreation and spiritual renewal. In doing so, these special landscapes can also contribute significantly to a region's economic prosperity.

In Canada, a typical example of an industrial nation, the recommendations of both the World Conservation Strategy and the Brundtland Commission Report have been "officially adopted" (Dufour 1991:86). The goal of sustainability has been incorporated into Canadian government through a special division of Environment Canada and through national and provincial Round Tables on environment and economy. These Round Tables involve government officials, representatives from different industries, and NGO members in cross-sectoral discussions (Nelson 1991:254-5). Among other things, Canada's Green Plan lists protection of 12 percent of the nation by the year 2000 as a major goal (CEAC 1991:51).

While these government initiatives could afford to be larger and farther-reaching, and while their efficacy remains to be seen, they do indicate that sustainability has been recognised as a significant national and international issue. NGO initiatives like the Endangered Spaces Campaign run by World Wildlife Fund-Canada and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society likewise show how important conservation issues have become to many Canadians. This campaign set the original target to achieve protection for a full 12 percent of Canada's land for ecological representation by the year 2000 by raising both public and political support (Dearden 1991:138-9).

Although nation-wide efforts aimed at conservation are certainly necessary, they will not suffice without similar initiatives on provincial and local levels. In the Canadian province of Ontario, for example, an independent panel has produced a report for the Ministry of Natural Resources which tries to provide an "overall direction" to the province's forest policy (OFPP 1993:2). The panel points out that "forest policy is still focused on attitudes and conditions from decades ago" (OFPP 1993:i) and recognises that it should instead focus on managing for biodiversity and, as far as possible, for natural landscape patterns (OFPP 1993:28, 33). It places highest importance on forest sustainability, stating that this "cannot be compromised", even in situations where it means reducing the supply of wood to timber companies (OFPP 1993:33).

Foresters and other resource managers at all political levels must become experts in the art and science of ecological sustainability if our ecosystems are to remain healthy. Without healthy ecosystems we cannot hope to develop and maintain healthy economies. Achieving sustainability is our moral obligation. It requires that we assume responsibility -- as individuals, as regions, as nations, and as a planet -- for changing our lifestyles. The penalty for failure will be loss of health, freedom, and beauty.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, D.J. 1986. "Ecological Succession". Pp 269-285 in J. Kikkawa and D.J. Anderson, eds., Community Ecology: Pattern and Process. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Melbourne, Australia.

Bratton, S.P. 1992. "Alternative Models of Ecosystem Restoration". Pp 170-189 in R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell, eds. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Brundtland, G.H. 1990. "Epilogue". Pp 137-8 in J. Piel et al., eds. Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, New York.

Burley, F.W. 1988. "The Tropical Forestry Action Plan: Recent Progress and New Initiatives". Pp 403-408 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Caldwell, L.K. 1970. "Ecosystem and Public Land Policy". Natural Resources Journal 10:203- 220.

Callicott, J.B. 1992. "Aldo Leopold's Metaphor". Pp 42-56 in R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell, eds. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

CEAC (Canadian Environmental Advisory Council). 1991. A Protected Areas Vision for Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Cat. No. EN 92-14/1991E.

Clark, W.C. 1990. "Managing Planet Earth". Pp 1-11 in J. Piel et al., eds. Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, New York.

Costanza, R. 1992. "Toward an Operational Definition of Ecosystem Health". Pp 239-256 in R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell, eds. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Costanza, R. 1993. "Developing Ecological Research that is Relevant for Achieving Sustainability". Ecological Applications 3(4):579-581.

Costanza, R., L. Wainger, C. Folke, and K-G. Maler. 1993. "Modeling Complex Ecological Economic Systems". BioScience 43(8):545-555.

Crosson, P.R., and N.J. Rosenberg. 1990. "Strategies for Agriculture". Pp 73-83 in J. Piel et al., eds. Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, New York.

Dearden, P. 1991. "Parks and Protected Areas". Pp 130-152 in B. Mitchell, ed. Resource Management and Development: Addressing Conflict and Uncertainty. Oxford University Press: Toronto, Ontario.

Duffus, D. 1993. "Tsitika to Baram: The Myth of Sustainability". Conservation Biology. 7(2):440-442.

Dufour, J. 1991. "Toward Sustainable Development of Canada's Forests". Pp 85-109 in B. Mitchell, ed. Resource Management and Development: Addressing Conflict and Uncertainty. Oxford University Press: Toronto, Ontario.

Edwards, Y. 1989. "Wilderness Parks: A Concept with Conflicts". Pp 21-29 in M. Hummel, ed. Endangered Spaces: the Future for Canada's Wilderness. Key Porter Books Limited: Toronto, Ontario.

Ehrenfeld, D. 1988. "Why Put Value on Biodiversity?". Pp 212-216 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Ehrenfeld, D. 1992. "Ecosystem Health and Ecological Theories". Pp 135-143 in R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell, eds. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Ehrlich, P.R., and A.H. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: the Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. Random House: New York, New York.

Ehrlich, P.R. 1988. "The Loss of Diversity: Causes and Consequences". Pp 21-27 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Ehrlich, P.R., and A.H. Ehrlich. 1991. Healing the Planet: Strategies for Resolving the Environmental Crisis. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.: Reading, Massachussetts.

Eidsvik, H. 1989. "Canada in a Global Context". Pp 30-47 in M. Hummel, ed. Endangered Spaces: the Future for Canada's Wilderness. Key Porter Books Limited: Toronto, Ontario.

Faber, M., R. Manstetten, and J. Proops. 1992. "Toward an Open Future: Ignorance, Novelty, and Evolution". Pp 72-96 in R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell, eds. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Farnsworth, N.R. 1988. "Screening Plants for New Medicines". Pp 83-97 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Frosch, R.A., and N.E. Gallopoulos. 1990. "Strategies for Manufacturing". Pp 97-108 in J. Piel et al., eds. Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, New York.

Gauthier, D.A. 1991. "The Sustainability of Wildlife". Pp 110-129 in B. Mitchell, ed. Resource Management and Development: Addressing Conflict and Uncertainty. Oxford University Press: Toronto, Ontario.

Graedel, T.E., and P.J. Crutzen. 1990. "The Changing Atmosphere". Pp 13-23 in J. Piel et al., eds. Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, New York.

Hampicke, U. 1994. "Ethics and Economics of Conservation". Biological Conservation 67:219- 231.

Haneman, W.M. 1988. "Economics and the Preservation of Biodiversity". Pp 193-199 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Hilborn, R. and D. Ludwig. 1993. "The Limits of Applied Ecological Research". Ecological Applications 3(4):550-552.

Holling, C.S. 1986. "The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change". In W.C. Clark and R.E. Munn, eds. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. From Costanza 1992.

Holling, C.S. 1993. "Investing in Research for Sustainability". Ecological Applications 3(4):552- 555.

Iltis, H.H. 1988. "Serendipity in the Exploration of Biodiversity: What Good Are Weedy Tomatoes?". Pp 98-105 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

IUCN, UNEP, and WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth: a Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland.

Karr, J.R. 1990. "Biological Integrity and the Goal of Environmental Legislation: Lessons for Conservation Biology". Conservation Biology 4(3):244-250.

Karr, J.R. 1992. "Ecological Integrity: Protecting Earth's Life Support Systems". Pp 223-238 in R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell, eds. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Lee, K.N. 1993. "Greed, Scale Mismatch, and Learning". Ecological Applications 3(4):560-564.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac: and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press: London, England.

Lubchenco, J. et al. 1991. "The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An Ecological Research Agenda". Ecology 72(2):371-412.

Ludwig, D. 1993. "Environmental Sustainability: Magic, Science, and Religion in Natural Resource Management". Ecological Applications 3(4):555-558.

Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. "Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History". Ecological Applications 3(4):547-549.

MacNeill, J. 1990. "Strategies for Sustainable Economic Development". Pp 109-123 in J. Piel et al., eds. Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, New York.

Mangel, M., R.J. Hofman, E.A. Norse and J.R. Twiss, Jr. 1993. "Sustainability and Ecological Research". Ecological Applications 3(4):573-575.

Maser, C. 1990. The Redesigned Forest. Stoddart Publishing Co.: Toronto, Ontario.

McIntyre, S., G.W. Barrett, R.L. Kitching, and H.F. Recher. 1992. "Species Triage -- Seeing Beyond Wounded Rhinos". Conservation Biology 6(4):604-606.

Meyer, J.L., and G.S. Helfman. 1993. "The Ecological Basis of Sustainability". Ecological Applications 3(4):569-571.

Mooney, H.A., and O.E. Sala. 1993. "Science and Sustainable Use". Ecological Applications 3(4):564-566.

Myers, N. 1984. The Primary Source: Tropical Forests and Our Future. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.: New York, New York.

Nash, R. 1989. The Rights of Nature: a History of Environmental Ethics. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, Wisconsin.

Nations, J.D. 1988. "Deep Ecology Meets the Developing World". Pp 79-82 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Nelson, J.G. 1991. "Sustainable Development, Conservation Strategies, and Heritage". Pp 246-267 in B. Mitchell, ed. Resource Management and Development: Addressing Conflict and Uncertainty. Oxford University Press: Toronto, Ontario.

Norse, E.A. 1990. Ancient Forests of the Pacific Northwest. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Norton, B.G. 1987. Why Preserve Natural Variety?. Princeton University Press:Princeton, New Jersey.

Norton, B. 1988. "Commodity, Amenity, and Morality: The Limits of Quantification in Valuing Biodiversity". Pp 200-205 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Norton, B.G. 1992. "A New Paradigm for Environmental Management". Pp 23-41 in R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell, eds. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

OFPP (Ontario Forest Policy Panel). 1993. Diversity: Forests, People, Communities -- A Comprehensive Forest Policy Framework for Ontario. Queen's Printer for Ontario: Toronto, Ontario.

O'Riordan, T. 1988. "The Politics of Sustainability". Pp 29-50 in R.K. Turner, ed. Sustainable Environmental Management: Principles and Practise. Belhaven Press: London, England.

Page, T. 1992. "Environmental Existentialism". Pp 97-123 in R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell, eds. Ecosystem health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Perry, D.A. 1988. "An Overview of Sustainable Forestry". Journal of Pesticide Reform 8(3):8- 12.

Pezzey, J. 1992. "Market Mechanisms of Pollution Control: 'Polluter Pays', Economic and Practical Aspects". Pp 190-242 in R.K. Turner, ed. Sustainable Environmental Management: Principles and Practise. Belhaven Press: London, England.

Pitelka, L.F., and F.A. Pitelka. 1993. "Environmental Decision Making: Multidimensional Dilemmas". Ecological Applications 3:566-568.

Policansky, D. 1993. "Uncertainty, Knowledge, and Resource Management". Ecological Applications 3(4):583:584.

Randall, A. 1988. "What Mainstream Economists Have to Say About the Value of Biodiversity". Pp 217-223 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Rapport, D.J. 1992. "What is Clinical Ecology?". Pp 144-156 in R. Costanza, B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell, eds. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Ricklefs, R.E., Z. Naveh, and R.E. Turner. 1984. "Conservation of Ecological Processes". Commission of Ecology Papers Number 8:6-16. IUCN, Gland Switzerland.

Rowe, J.S. 1990. Home Place: Essays on Ecology. NeWest Publishers Limited: Edmonton, Alberta.

Rubenstein, D.I. 1993. "Science and the Pursuit of a Sustainable World". Ecological Applications 3(4):585-587.

Ruckelshaus, W.D. 1990. "Toward a Sustainable World". Pp 125-135 in J. Piel et al., eds. Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, New York.

Sagoff, M. 1992. Has Nature a Good of its Own? In: Ecosystem Health, Ed. by R. Costanza, B. G. Norton and B.D. Haskell. Island Press, Wash. D.C. pp. 57-71.

Salwasser, H. 1990. "Sustainability as a Conservation Paradigm". Conservation Biology. 4(3):213-216.

Schneider, S.H. 1990. "The Changing Climate". Pp 25-36 in J. Piel et al., eds. Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, New York.

Slocombe, D.S. 1993. "Implementing Ecosystem-based Management". BioScience 43(9):612-622.

Socolow, R.H. 1993. "Achieving Sustainable Development that is Mindful of Human Imperfection". Ecological Applications 3(4):581-583.

Turner, R.K. 1988. "Sustainability, Resource Conservation and Pollution Control: An Overview". Pp 1-25 in R.K. Turner, ed. Sustainable Environmental Management: Principles and Practise. Belhaven Press: London, England.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England.

Wilson, E.O. 1988. "The Current State of Biological Diversity". Pp 3-18 in E.O. Wilson, ed. Biodiversity. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Wilson, E.O. 1990. "Threats to Biodiversity". Pp 49-59 in J. Piel et al., eds. Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, New York.

Zedler, J.B. 1993. "Lessons on Preventing Overexploitation". Ecological Applications 3(4):577- 578.

Ancient Forest Exploration & Researchis a non-profit charitable organization dedicated to the study, protection and scientific application of ancient forested landscapes. Our publications are available online at www.ancientforest.org/publications.html Back to Top of page Back to Publications