8152 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1586 Leopold (1939) suggested that economic biology, with its focus on providing a competitive advantage to "useful" species, needed to be replaced by an ecological approach that conceived of the biota as a single system, the land organism, "so complex, so conditioned by interwoven cooperations and competitions, that no man can say where utility begins or ends." The purpose of conservation was to perpetuate the health of this system. Health was simply "the capacity of the land for self-renewal" and conservation "our effort to understand and preserve this capacity" (Leopold 1949). Leopold based his view of conservation on two com- plementary principles: first, that humanity is best served by preserving the natural life support systems of the planet; sec- ond, that indigenous ecological systems have intrinsic value that must be respected. He built an ecological ratio- nale for his views that avoided the largely untenable sen- timentalism of the Romantics and the strictly anthropo- centric utilitarianism of the advocates of wise use. His ideas found eloquent advocates in Canada (e.g., Clarke 1963; Coventry 1963). The evolutionary-ecological land ethic of Leopold is grounded in an intimate appreciation of the interconnected structures and functions of ecosystems and their vulnera- bility to unguarded tinkering. Since Leopold's time, the land ethic has evolved into the concept of the ecosystem approach (Christie et al. 1986), which aims to balance eco- logical, economic, and social objectives and recognizes that human uses must be reconciled with intrinsic and nec- essary ecosystemic functions and structures. Miller (1986), Regier and Bronson (1992), and others have further attempted to recognize and codify the range of thinking exemplified by the preservationist and utilitarian attitudes. Miller (1986) describes the divergent viewpoints that are generally represented in environmental disputes as technocratic (=utilitarian) and humanistic (=preservationist). These are ideological perspectives that cannot be resolved by scientific validation and rational debate. Both the preservationist and utilitarian approaches to conservation have weaknesses. Both represent anthro- pocentric views of ecosystems. The former focuses on meeting the aesthetic and spiritual needs of humans while the latter focuses on meeting their material needs. Extreme preservationist attitudes promote intrinsic valuation of resources and view wild ecosystems as temporally static, rather than naturally dynamic. Extreme utilitarian attitudes promote monetary valuation of resources and view ecosys- tems as collections of organisms that can be arranged and rearranged at will. Science cannot be used to determine how resources should be valued in either case; however, sci- ence can provide objective validation of those assump- tions about the real world that underlie any particular val- uation procedure. Current ecological science presents a view of ecosystems (e.g., Pimm 1991: systems of inter- acting biological populations, characterized by temporal variation in abundance and species composition that are constrained by past and present environmental conditions and competitive-predatory linkages) that is quite incom- patible with either of the ideological positions outlined above. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 52, 1995 In the modern parlance of resource management, the terms sustainable development, sustainable use, and Con- servation are often used interchangeably in ways that are strongly influenced by the wise-use ethic of Pinchot. The original definition of sustainable development, "development that meets the needs of the present without compromis- ing the ability of future generations to meet their Own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Devel- opment 1987), is really wise use with a longer time hori- zon. A recent redefinition ("improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems" World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Wide Fund for Nature 1991) moves a bit towards Leopold's position by explicitly recognizing the existence of ecological limits on use. Sus- tainable use ("use of an organism, ecosystem or other renewable resource at a rate within its capacity for renewal" World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Wide Fund for Nature 1991) focuses directly on use, but recognizes that limits on use should be based on resource renewal rates rather than existing inventory levels. Several recent definitions of conservation also have a strong utilitarian focus. In 1980, the World Conservation Strategy of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1980) defined conser- vation as "the management of human use [our italics] of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable ben- efit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations." In 1991, conservation was defined as "the management of human use [our italics] of organisms or ecosystems to ensure such use is sustainable. Besides sustainable use, conservation includes protection, maintenance, rehabilita- tion, restoration, and enhancement of populations and ecosystems'; (World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Wide Fund for Nature 1991 ). The principal focus of all these definitions is resource use. There are many reasons for rejecting use, or wise use as the main focus for a new definition of conservation: (i) It emphasizes the economic aspects of biology and thus it fosters over-valuation of those natural entities that are of direct use to man; (ii) It ignores intrinsic values by dis- counting the complex interrelations between "useful" and "nonuseful" organisms that characterize ecosystem function; as Leopold (1949) noted, "One basic weakness in a con- servation system based wholly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no eco- nomic value" but they are "(as far as we know) essential to its healthy functioning"; (iii) Wise use is often seen as synonymous with multipurpose use or multiple use that "usually involves an interminable succession of piecemeal additions of new more intensive uses through time and a stepwise ecological shift away from the initial wild state" (Francis et al. 1979); and (iv) It signifies continued reliance on an anthropocentric philosophy which holds that "only people possess intrinsic value, while nature possesses merely instrumental value" (Callicott 1991).