Environmental Policy and Biodiversity

R. Edward Grumbine

• Publisher: Island Press
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9781559632836
  9781559632829
• eBook ISBN:
  9781610912679
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

Scientists and policymakers must work together if solutions to the biodiversity crisis are to be found. Yet all too often, scientific data are unknown or incomprehensible to policymakers, and political realities are not fully appreciated by scientists.

Environmental Policy and Biodiversity addresses that problem by presenting both an overview of important concepts in the field of conservation biology and an examination of the strengths and limitations of the policymaking process. Topics covered include:

• the ethical and scientific bases of conservation biology
• the effectiveness of existing environmental policy in protecting biodiversity
• case studies from California, the Great Lakes region, southern Appalachia, and the Florida panhandle
• an examination of overall environmental policy goals and processes

Featuring provocative and clearly argued essays from a range of disciplines, Environmental Policy and Biodiversity provides resource professionals with valuable insight into conservation issues, and can serve as a useful tool in both graduate and undergraduate courses in conservation biology and environmental policy.

PART I

Conservation Biology: Theories and Principles for Policy and Management

Remedial measures directed toward the return to a so-called equilibrium consist chiefly in allowing nature to take its course.

—Victor Shelford

While the nature-as-process ecosystem model may be gaining ascendancy today, the concept is not new. The equilibrium or “balance of nature” paradigm in ecology was called into question at the community level decades ago by Henry Gleason (1926). More recently, through successional studies (Drury and Nisbet 1973) and disturbance ecology and patch dynamics theory (Pickett and White 1979), the idea that a “flux of nature” metaphor is more descriptive of life than “balance of nature” has become the reigning wisdom in ecology (Botkin 1990, Worster 1990). The practical upshot for managers and policymakers is summarized by ecologists S.T.A. Pickett, V. T. Parker, and Peggy Fiedler (1992, p. 84): “[for effective conservation] . . . much more needs to be known about [ecological] processes and context . . . it is the processes that have generated or that maintain the species, community, ecosystem, or landscape, and . . . conservation of isolated target species or other ecological entities is not likely to be successful.”

The main policymaking problem, of course, lies in the fact that (1) decisionmakers and managers have not yet absorbed recent developments in ecological theory and conservation biology even as scientific understanding is still evolving, and (2) the current system of nature reserves is inadequate to protect species, ecosystems, and ecological processes because it was established for different purposes in a different time. The five selections in this section are meant to provide policy-makers, managers, and concerned citizens with an introduction to important conservation biology concepts that are essential to protecting biodiversity into the future.

A few visionary ecologists in the 1930s and 1940s advocated many specific elements of today’s emerging perspective on ecosystem-based management. The contributions of Aldo Leopold (1949) in science and philosophy are well known. Less well known is the 1933 report of the Ecological Society of America’s Committee for the Study of Plant and Animal Communities, which is reprinted here as chapter 1. The committee’s report, written by Victor Shelford, one of ecology’s seminal theorists, is a masterpiece of foresight. Its recommendations include protection of species and ecosystems (“neither need be sacrificed”), expansion of reserve boundaries to match species habitat needs, representation of ecosystem types, management for ecological fluctuations (i.e., natural disturbances), and a core/buffer approach to conservation planning. Shelford also realized that interagency cooperation would be required for success. Reading the report more than sixty years after it was published, one can only dream of what condition the U.S. landscape might be in today if the policymakers of the time had embraced this bold vision.

Shelford’s conclusions are validated in Michael Soulé’s “What Is Conservation Biology?” (chapter 2). Soulé presents both scientific and ethical bases for a “crisis discipline.” As a science, conservation biology challenges traditional resource management by proposing that biodiversity cannot be protected if humans focus only on species that are of economic concern, places that are aesthetically pleasing, or short-term planning periods of ten to twenty years. And Soulé does not shy away from provocative ethical territory. Unlike many who would avoid linking science with values, he clearly outlines a normative basis for conservation biology that bears close study.

In chapter 3, Soulé and population biologist Daniel Simberloff lay out the theoretical and empirical basis for the practical application of conservation biology to nature reserve design (see also chapter 11). Though originally published in 1986, little of the material has become dated. However, recent biodiversity protection goals and guidelines have built upon Soulé and Simberloff’s work. Grumbine (1992, 1994) and Noss and Cooperrider (1994), for instance, list five major goals of conservation planning:

1. Maintain viable populations of all native species in situ.
2. Represent, within protected areas, all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation.
3. Maintain evolutionary and ecological processes (i.e., disturbance regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, etc.).
4. Manage over periods of time long enough to maintain the evolutionary potential of species and ecosystems.
5. Accommodate human use and occupancy within the above constraints.

The first four of these goals are derived from current scientific knowledge that aims to reduce (and eventually eliminate) the biodiversity crisis. The fifth goal acknowledges the vital (if problematic) role that people have to play in all aspects of management and policy.

Ecologists Dennis Murphy and Barry Noon (1991, p. 776) have also offered five generally accepted principles of reserve design focusing on species and populations:

1. Species that are well distributed across their historical geographic ranges tend to be relatively less prone to extinction; 2. Population persistence increases with population size and habitat patch size; 3. Habitat patches that are less internally fragmented tend to support species for longer periods than patches that are fragmented; 4. Habitat patches that are sufficiently close together to allow dispersal tend to promote population persistence; and 5. Habitat patches that are connected by habitat corridors, or that are set in a landscape similar to the habitat patches, will allow target species to disperse freely among patches and will tend to support a species for longer periods than habitats not so situated.

Yet as scientists discover more about biodiversity, the above goals and guidelines may prove insufficient. As William Baker (chapter 4) makes explicit, the least understood aspect of conservation is the landscape, or regional, level of diversity. Scientists have hardly begun to construct theories or collect data on the ecological processes across landscapes that contribute to the perpetuation of genetic variation, metapopulation structure, and the biophysical patterns and evolving patch dynamics of ecosystems. If the relationship between natural disturbances (fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.) and the adaptive response of organisms, populations, and landscape patches is “tight,” then biologists, managers, and policymakers must consider the study of disturbances as equal to population viability analyses and corridor design in the planning process. Using theory and empirical data, Baker offers a telling account of how unsophisticated our knowledge of landscape-scale ecosystem processes is. He also provides practical guidelines for biodiversity planning using what little is known about natural disturbances.

Michael Soulé’s provocative reading of the present state and future direction of conservation biology is presented in an interview (chapter 5) that concludes Part I.

References

Botkin, D. 1990. Discordant Harmonies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Drury, W H., and I. C. Nisbet. 1973. Succession. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 54: 331-368.

Gleason, H. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of Torrey Botanical Club 53: 7–26.

Grumbine, R. E. 1992. Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1): 27-38.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

Murphy, D. D., and B. D. Noon. 1991. Coping with uncertainty in wildlife biology. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(4): 773-782.

Noss, R. F., and A. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press.

Pickett, S.T. A., and P. White, eds. 1979. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. New York: Academic Press.

Pickett, S.T. A., V.T. Parker, and P. Fiedler. 1992. The new paradigm in ecology: Implications for conservation biology above the species level. Pages 65-88 in Conservation Biology, edited by P. Fiedler and S. Jain. New York: Chapman and Hall.

Worster, D. 1990. The ecology of chaos and harmony. Environmental History Review 14: 1-18.

1.

The Preservation of Natural Biotic Communities

Victor E. Shelford

A. Introduction

There appears to be a definite desire on the part of the people of all countries to preserve at least some of the original vegetation and wild animals. The national parks as well as other parks and reservations of Europe, Africa, the United States and Canada are well known examples. However, types of vegetation other than forest have usually not been preserved except incidentally as inclusions within the forested area or in connection with some historical and ethnological remains. The larger wild animals of all civilized countries have been greatly reduced in numbers, some because they are a hindrance to agriculture, others because of their value as food and clothing. Still others have been slaughtered for no good reason. Many people think that the national parks of Canada and the United States, some state and provincial parks, and some national forests have escaped this elimination of large animals. They believe that such areas are examples of primeval nature with the animal life essentially complete. The national parks of both countries doubtless represent the least disturbed series of areas which we have on the continent. Some states and provincial parks and one or two of the national forests in each country may be equally undisturbed at present, but probably less well safeguarded or on a less permanent basis. Yet, many have been surprised to learn of the large amount of modification which has gone on in times past within these park areas, both before and in some cases perhaps after they were set aside.

The whole trend of research and education is toward specialization on particular objects or particular organisms. These are stressed while the assemblage to which they belong is ignored or forgotten, together with the fact that they are to be regarded as integral parts of the system of nature. Outside of modern ecology and geography there has been little or no tendency towards the development of specialists on the entire life of natural areas. Perhaps one reason why nature study has been unsuccessful is because too often it is not the study of nature but of single natural objects or groups of objects which constitute a small part of any natural aggregation. Often this has resulted in the development of emotions relative to the plants or animals singled out for this study, followed by sentimental desires to protect them.

From “A Nature Sanctuary Plan,” Ecology, 1933, 13(2).

Biologists are beginning to realize that it is dangerous to tamper with nature by introducing plants and animals, or by destroying predatory animals or by pampering herbivores. Much of the so-called “control” of noxious insects, of predatory animals, and of plant diseases is based upon the idea that nature can be “improved.” This is, of course, the dominant idea of all agricultural, silvicultural and game cultural practice. The fact remains, however, that wolves and other predators, and herbivores in numbers have lived together for thousands of years without disaster and that in some of our national parks, they have lived together with far better maintenance of natural conditions than in areas where control has prevailed.

In general, from a philosophical and practical viewpoint, the unmodified assemblage of organisms is commonly more valuable than the isolated rare species. However, because the significance of the unmodified assemblage is popularly ignored, the whole is commonly sacrificed in the supposed interest of the rare species. Due to the local habitat relations of the rare species, neither need be sacrificed in any large natural area, hence the importance of large sanctuaries.

The principal activity of field ecologists might be stated to be the gathering of data for the interpretation of nature. To the ecologists, it is the entire series of plants and animals which live together in any community which is of primary interest.

The Ecological Society of America has always been interested in the preservation of natural areas with all their native animals. A committee composed of its members published a book entitled The Naturalist Guide (‘25) listing a very large number of such areas and so is in a position to know the extent and present condition of such areas. Only a very few were reported in a pristine condition so far as animals were concerned. The society has recently held a number of conferences with park and forest officials and after careful consideration, prepared the follo...

Table of contents

• ABOUT ISLAND PRESS
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• PART I - Conservation Biology: Theories and Principles for Policy and Management
• PART II - Toward a “Common Law” of Ecosystem Management
• PART III - Applying Conservation Biology in the Real World: Case Studies
• PART IV - Conservation Science, Politics, and Policymaking
• AN ECOLOGICAL DENOUEMENT
• CONTRIBUTORS
• INDEX
• Island Press Board of Directors