THE ROLE OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE TRANSITION TO RURAL SUSTAINABILITY pptx

THE
ROLE
OF
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
IN THE
TRANSITION
TO
RURAL SUSTAINABILITY
NATO Science Series
A
series presenting
the
results
of
scientific
meetings supported under
the
NATO Science
Programme.
The
series
is
published
by IOS
Press
and
Kluwer Academic Publishers
in
conjunction with
the

NATO Scientific
Affairs
Division.
Sub-Series
I.
Life
and
Behavioural Sciences
IOS
Press
II.
Mathematics, Physics
and
Chemistry Kluwer Academic Publishers
III. Computer
and
Systems Sciences
IOS
Press
IV.
Earth
and
Environmental Sciences Kluwer Academic Publishers
V.
Science
and
Technology Policy
IOS
Press
The

NATO Science Series continues
the
series
of
books published formerly
as the
NATO
ASI
Series.
The
NATO
Science
Programme
offers
support
for
collaboration
in
civil
science
between
scientists
of
countries
of the
Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.
The
types
of
scientific meeting generally

supported
are
"Advanced
Study
Institutes"
and
"Advanced Research Workshops",
although
other
types
of
meeting
are
supported
from
time
to
time.
The
NATO
Science
Series
collects
together
the
results
of
these
meetings.
The

meetings
are
co-organized
by
scientists
from
NATO countries
and
scientists
from
NATO's Partner countries
-
countries
of the CIS and
Central
and
Eastern Europe.
Advanced
Study Institutes
are
high-level tutorial courses
offering
in-depth study
of
latest
advances
in a field.
Advanced Research Workshops
are
expert meetings aimed

at
critical
assessment
of a field, and
identification
of
directions
for
future
action.
As
a
consequence
of the
restructuring
of the
NATO Science Programme
in
1999,
the
NATO
Science Series
has
been re-organized
and
there
are
currently
five
sub-series

as
noted above. Please
consult
the
following
web
sites
for
information
on
previous volumes published
in the
series,
as
well
as
details
of
earlier sub-series:
/>

/>Series
V:
Science
and
Technology Policy
-
Vol.
41
ISSN 1387-6708

The
Role
of
Biodiversity
Conservation
in the
Transition
to
Rural Sustainability
Edited
by
Stephen
S.
Light
Conservation
Science
and
Policy Consultant
/OS
Press
Amsterdam
•
Berlin
•
Oxford
•
Tokyo
•
Washington,
DC

Published
in
cooperation with NATO
Scientific
Affairs
Division
Proceedings
of the
NATO Advanced Research Workshop
on
The
Role
of
Biodiversity Conservation
in the
Transition
to
Rural
Sustainability
5-9
November 2002
Krakow, Poland
©
2004,
IOS
Press
All
rights reserved.
No
part

of
this book
may be
reproduced, stored
in a
retrieval
system,
or
transmitted,
in
any
form
or by any
means, without prior written permission
from the
publisher.
ISBN
1
58603
395 6
Library
of
Congress Control Number:
2003116196
Publisher
IOS
Press
Nieuwe Hemweg
6B
1013BG

Amsterdam
Netherlands
fax:+31
206203419
e-mail:
Distributor
in the UK and
Ireland
IOS
Press/Lavis
Marketing
73
Lime Walk
Headington
Oxford
OX3 7AD
England
fax:+44
1865
75
0079
Distributor
in the USA and
Canada
IOS
Press,
Inc.
5795-G
Burke Centre Parkway
Burke,

VA
22015
USA
fax:
+1 703 323
3668
e-mail:

LEGAL
NOTICE
The
publisher
is not
responsible
for the use
which might
be
made
of the
following information.
PRINTED
IN THE
NETHERLANDS
I
would like
to
thank
Kristen
Blann
and

Marin
Byrne,
staff
from
the
Institute
for
Agriculture
and
Trade
Policy,
for
their indispensable help
in finalizing
this work. Thank
you
also
to
Ricki
McMillan,
Rafal
Serafin
and
Barbara Kazior
for
maintaining
the financial
accounting
and
administration that accompanied

the
funding
of
this project.
The
NATO
Science Program,
the
Trust
for
Mutual Understanding
and the
Polish
Environmental
Partnership underwrote expenses related
to
convening
the
Advanced Research Workshop
in
Krakow
and the
production
of the
book. Bridget
O'Meara,
a
doctoral intern, helped write
the
Epilogue.

The
Polish Environmental Protection Foundation, especially Barbara Kazior
and
Rafal
Serafin, organized
the
logistics
and the
travel arrangements
for the
Krakow
workshop,
from
coordinating
flight
schedules
to the ARW
program.
Zbigniew
Bochniarz
Director
of the
Center
for
Nations
in
Transition, Hubert
H.
Humphrey Institute
of

Public
Affairs,
University
of
Minnesota
deserves
special thanks
for his
support
and
encouragement.
Much
credit
goes
to
Rafal
Serafin
for
hosting
the
NATO ARW, especially while
I
was
incapacitated. Special thanks
to the
surgical team
at the
Surgeon's Hospital
in
Krakow

who
saved
my
life.
I was
truly
blessed.
Many
more thanks
go to the
large team
of
international authors
—
researchers
who
for
the
most part were working together
for the first
time.
The
workshop participants
and
authors worked cohesively
and
inspired
a
network that continues
to

function.
Fikret
Berkes,
Tim
Webb,
K.
Michael Bessey, Niels
Roling
were among those
who
helped fashion
our
thinking
in the
early stages
of the
project. Special thanks
to the
steering
committee
of
Rafal
Serafin, Zbigniew Bochniarz,
Tim
O'Riordon,
and Jan
Sendzimir.
Our
NATO advisors, Ragnild Solhberg
and

Evan Vlachos, provided considerable direction
and
encouragement.
Special thanks
for all the
editorial support
from
Anne Marie
de
Rover, Jolijn
van
Eunen
and
Carry Koolbergen,
of IOS
Press
and
Susan Williamson,
of the
NATO Science
Programme.
Steve Light
St.
Paul, Minnesota
USA
August
2003
Acknowledgements
The
Search

for a
Mutual
and
Interdependent Relationship
between Humans
and
Nature
"Dominion should
be
self-perpetuating
not
self-destructive.
In
short
"The reaction
of
land
to
occupancy determines
the
nature
and
duration
of
civilization
We
inherit
the
earth,
but

within
the
limits
of the
social
and the
plants succession
we
also rebuild
the
earth
-
without
plan, without knowledge
of its
properties,
and
with
out
understanding
of
the
increasingly rough-hewn
and
powerful
tools which science
has
placed
at our
disposal."

—
Aldo
Leopold
(in
Meine, Curt 1988. Aldo Leopold.
Madison: University
of
Wisconsin
Press,
pp
302.)
Preface
Dr.
Ragnhild Sohlberg
Vice
President, Corporate Center, Norsk
Hydro
ASA, Oslo, Norway
Member
of
the
Science Technology Policy
and
Organization
(STPO)
Advisory Panel,
NATO
Science Program
Scientific
Secretary,

The
European Research Advisory Board
(EURAB)l
As a
member
of the
Advisory Panel
of
NATO's
Science Program,
"Science
and
Technology
Policy
and
Organization
(STPO),"
the
major
sponsor
of
this ARW,
and due to
my
professional
and
personal interest
in the
topic,
I had the

pleasure
of
participating
in the
Advanced
Research Workshop (ARW)
in
Krakow
5-9
November
2002.
The
NATO
Science Program attempts
to
have Panel representation
at all
major events.
My
interest
in and
understanding
of the
importance
of
biodiversity conservation
are
very
much
the

result
of six
years
(1995
-
2001)
as a
member
and
Chair
of the
Governing
Board
of the
International Crops Research Institute
for the
Semi-Arid
Tropics
(ICRISAT).
During
these years
I
frequently
visited
and
travelled extensively through India
and
Sub-
Sahara
Africa

and
learnt
to
appreciate
the
importance
of
conservation
of
genetic resources
and of
rural sustainability.
Since
I am
also actively involved with
the EU
Commission, Directorate General
for
Research (RTD),
I
found
it
particularly interesting that this
ARW
addressed challenges
for
the
Central
and
Eastern European countries (CEE)

as the EU
enlargement
becomes
a
reality,
and
attempted
to
identify
possible ways
to
deal
with
these challenges,
as
well
as
opportunities that
the CEE
experience
offers
for
redesigning biodiversity research,
management
and
policies
in
Western Europe
and
North America.

The
NATO Science
Program
2
was
founded
in
1958 with
the
establishment
of the
NATO
Science Committee, following
the
recommendations
of a
Committee
on
Non-
Military
Cooperation
in
NATO.
The
report
of
that Committee
of
"Three
Wise Men" (the

Foreign
Ministers
from
Canada, Italy
and
Norway)
asserted
that progress
in the
fields
of
science
and
technology
can be
decisive
in
determining
the
security
of
nations
and
their
position
in
world
affairs.
The
Science Committee immediately recognized that

the
training
of
young
scientists
and
engineers
was of
paramount
importance,
and
introduced
a
group
of
support
mechanisms that
in
essence remain today.
Since
the
early
1990s
the
NATO Science Program
has
served
a
wider scientific
community,

as
also scientists
from
the 27
Partner countries
of the
Euro-Atlantic
Partnership
Council
(EAPC)
3
have become eligible
for
support. 1999
was a
landmark year,
in
that, with
the
exception
of a
small number
of
Fellowships,
the
Science Program
was
transformed
so
that

support
is now
devoted
to
collaboration between Partner-country
and
NATO-country
scientists
or to
contributing towards research support
in
Partner countries.
The
Research
Infrastructure
Sub-program
on
Science
and
Technology Policy
and
Organization (STOP),
supports
Advanced Training Courses (ATC)
in
science policy, graduate scholarships
and
EURAB
is a
high level

expert
group
providing strategic advice
to the EU
Commisioner
for RTD
(ref:
http//europa.eu.int/comm/research/eurab/index_en.html.)
2
See:
/>3
In
1958
NATO
had 15
member
countries.
By
1999
NATO
had 19
member
countries plus
the 27
Partner
countries.
internships,
as
well
as

Advanced Research Workshops (ARW)
or
Forums
on
science policy
issues,
with
an
emphasis
on
identifying
the
needs
of
Partner
countries.
In
the
application
to the
NATO Science Program
for
support
for
this ARW,
it
said:
"Science
management
in

Central
and
Eastern Europe (CEE)
is not
well linked
to
policy
and
planning
for
sustainable development [and that]
new
approaches
for
linking science,
policy
and
management
are
needed
."
The
Workshop succeeded
in an
initial
identification
of
approaches, theories
and
methods that will

be
beneficial
to CEE in
this
regard
and
provided valuable lessons
to the
representatives
from
North America
and
Western Europe.
Two
things should
be
kept
in
mind, however:
1.
The
background paper
and the
many case studies presented
in the
Workshop indicate
that
the
Western European nations
and the US

have
not
been
all
that successful when
it
comes
to
biodiversity
and
rural sustainability.
2.
What
may be
successful
at one
time
or in one
place,
may be a
failure
or
inappropriate
at
another time
or in
another place. This
is
true even when
it

comes
to
identifying
and
implementing
policies
and
practices that
aim to
achieve long term goals like
biodiversity conservation
and
rural sustainability.
The
degree
to
which policies
and
practices
are
successful
or not
depends
on the
specific context
or
local, national
or
regional framework conditions
at a

given time.
Therefore, while
we can and
should learn
and get
ideas
from
the
successful
or
even
the
unsuccessful
practices
of
others, even
the
most successful practices cannot
be
adopted
outright
but
must
be
adapted
to the
local circumstances.
Finally,
I
would like

to
thank
the
dedicated people
who
took
the
initiative
for
this
Workshop
and
organized
it. In
particular
I
would like
to
thank
the
Co-Directors, Professor
Rafal
Serafin
and Dr.
Stephen
S.
Light,
the
staff,
and the

active
and
enthusiastic presenters,
facilitators
and
participants
-
each
and
everyone contributed
to the
success
of the
Workshop
and
will help ensure that this will
not
become
an
isolated "happening".
Contents
Acknowledgements
v
Preface
vii
Ragnhild
Sohlberg
The
Role
of

Biodiversity Conservation
in
Rural
Sustainability:
An
Introduction
1
Steve
Light,
Rafal
Serafin,
Timothy
O
'Riordan,
Zbigniew
Bochniarz,
Jan
Sendzimir
and
Kristen
Blann
Section
1. The
Importance
of
Dealing with Biodiversity
in New
Ways
A
New

Agricultural Policy
for the
United States
29
Dennis Keeney
and
Loni
Kemp
Integration
of
Biodiversity
in the
Common Agricultural Policy Reform: Implications
for
Research
48
Xavier
Poux
Section
2.
What
are the
Theoretical
Contributions
to the
Conservation
of
Biodiversity
on
Rural

Landscapes
Institutional Innovation
and
Adaptive Management: Learning
from
Bolivia's
Decentralization Experiment
63
Krister Andersson
and
Marco
A.
Janssen
Building
Institutional Capacity
for
Biodiversity
and
Rural Sustainability
79
Zbigniew
Bochniarz
and
Richard
S.
Bolan
Promoting Sustainable Development
at a
Regional Level
as an

Economic Driver
95
Keith Buchanan
Toward Rural Sustainability
in
British Columbia:
The
Role
of
Biodiversity Conservation
and
Other Factors
101
J.C.
Day, Thomas
I.
Gunton,
Tanis
M.
Frame, Karin
H.
Albert
andK.S.
Calbick
State
of
Biodiversity
in
Some Rural Areas
of the

Ukraine
and
Abilities
of its
Improvement
114
Natalija
Kovalchuk
Sustainable Rural Development:
the
Role
of
Community Involvement
and
Local
Partnerships
125
Malcolm
J.
Moseley
The
Hickling
Experience
136
Tim
O'Riordan
The
Social-Psychological Dimension
of
Biodiversity Conservation

147
Susanne
Stoll-Kleemann
Is
There Anything
to
Learn
from
the
Experience
in the
Maine Lobster Fishery?
160
James
A.
Wilson
Section
3. How is
Biodiversity
Being
Integrated
in
Practice
into
Rural Sustainability
Efforts?
Alternatives
to
Crisis:
an

Adaptive Management Model
for the Red
River Basin
of the
U.S.
and
Canada
173
Kristen
Blann,
Tim
Webb,
Dennis Keeney
and
Steve Light
The
Rhoen Region:
A
Model
for
Sustainable Development
at the
Former Border between
East
and
West Germany
199
Wolfgang
Fremuth
The

Role
of
Rural Communities
in
Biodiversity Conservation
and the
Transition
to
Sustainability: Practical Experiences
from
the
Pacific Northwest United States
212
J.
Martin Goebel, Caitlin
Fox and
Krystyna
U.
Wolniakowski
Some
Thoughts
on
Rural Sustainability
in
Canada
— and
Elsewhere
232
Gordon
Nelson

An
Interdisciplinary Approach
for
Integrating Landscape Management
in the
Common
Agricultural
Policy: Application
to the
Municipality
of
Mertola,
Southern Alentejo,
Portugal
254
Rosdrio
Oliveira
and
Teresa
Pinto-Correia
The
Tisza River Basin: Slow Change Leads
to
Sudden Crisis
261
Jan
Sendzimir,
Peter Balogh, Anna
Vdri
and

Tamds
Lantos
Conservation
and
Restoration
of the
Danube River
Floodplains
as a
Basis
for
Rural
Sustainable Development
291
Philip
Weller
Belarusian
Polesye
— A
Regional Model
for
Transition
to
Sustainable Development
302
Valentin
Yatsukhno,
Elena
Davydik
and

Maxim
Vergeichik
Section
4.
Where
Do We Go
Next?
Summary
of
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
315
Steve
Light
and
Kristen Blann
An
Epilogue: Reflections
on
Peasantry, Power
and
Security
326
Steve Light, Bridget O'Meara
and
Kristen
Blann
Appendix
A: ARW

Participants
338
Author Index
342
The
Role
of
Biodiversity Conservation
in the
Transition
to
Rural
Sustainability
S.
Light (Ed.)
IOS
Press, 2004
The
Role
of
Biodiversity
Conservation
in
Rural Sustainability:
An
Introduction
Steve
LIGHT
1
,

Rafal
SERAFIN
2
,
Timothy
O'RIORDAN
3
,
Zbigniew
BOCHNIARZ
4
,
Jan
SENDZIMIR
5
,
and
Kristen
BLANN
6
1:6
Institute
for
Agriculture
and
Trade
Policy,
USA
2
Polish Environmental Partnership Foundation, Poland

3
School
of
Environmental Sciences,
University
of
East Anglia,
UK
4
Center
for
Nations
in
Transition,
University
of
Minnesota,
USA
5
Institute
for
Agriculture
and
Trade
Policy
and
Institute
for
Applied Systems Analysis,
USA

1.
Goals
and
Purpose
"Man
has
always lost
his
way,
but now he is in
jeopardy
of
losing
his
address."
GK
Chesterton
Despite well-documented economic recovery
in
North America
and
Europe over
the
past
half
century,
insufficient
progress
has
been made

in
ensuring biodiversity resources
are
protected
and the
future
of
rural
Sustainability
(simultaneously achieving social, economic
and
environmental objectives)
is
secure. Financial capital, enterprise
and
government
policy
have
failed
to
address rural development;
in
fact
many
of
current policies tend
to
perpetuate
if not
exacerbate

the
problems. Ideology
and
orthodoxy must
be put to the
test,
science, policy,
and
management must
be
sufficiently
linked
to
examine projected benefits
with
outcomes
and
assure that development enhances, rather than undermines, rural
biodiversity
and
Sustainability.
As 10
Central
and
East European
accession
countries
(ACs)
join
the

European
Union
(EU)
in
2004',
there
is an
urgent need
to
identify
appropriate institutional
and
policy
measures
to
prevent
further
losses
in
biodiversity
-
degradation
of
natural capital that
is
vital
for
securing Sustainability
of not
just rural

areas,
but of the
economies
of
Europe
and
North America.
The 10 ACs
(Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta,
Poland, Slovak Republic
and
Slovenia) represent much richer
and
diversified natural
capital
that that
of the EU.
This capital could enhance environmentally sensitive
development
not
just
in the
ACs,
but
also across Europe
as a
whole.
The
difference

between
AC
and EU in
natural capital
is
symbolized
by a
comparison
of the
size
of the
white stork
population
in
Poland
and
Germany, which
is
roughly 10:1
(40,000
vs.
4,000).
The two
countries
are
comparable
in
terms
of
territory, which

is
similar
(312,000
sq km vs.
357,000
sq km) and
other
geographical
and
natural features.
Will
the EU
enlargement process engender
a
path
of
economic development
and
ecological degradation similar
to the
disappointing performance
of
former East Germany
since
reintegration?
Are
there alternative responses that could prevent negative patterns
of
development being repeated
in the

accession countries
(ACs)?
Is it
possible that these
Bulgaria
and
Romania
hope
to
join
the
European Union
by
2007.
2 S.
Light
et
al.
/Introduction
former
war
torn
and
repressed republics
of
Central
and
Eastern Europe could
in
their

transition
to
democracy
offer
an
alternative model
for
rural development
not
just
in
Europe
but
elsewhere, worldwide? What lessons
can be
drawn
from
emerging theory
and
practice
in
collaboration, adaptive management, institutional analysis,
and
sustainability
appraisal
regarding improved integration
of
scientific research,
policy,
and

management
in
pursuit
of
these goals?
These
are the
vital questions
for
financial
institutions, policy making,
practitioner,
and
academic communities
not
only concerned with
the
ACs,
but
also
for
those
concerned with protecting global biodiversity through making development programming
take
full
account
of
sustainability priorities.
New
efforts

from
the
ground
up
must
be
mounted
to
redesign
policy
and
organization arrangements
for
biodiversity conservation; provisions that
do not
attempt
to
lock
up
boutiques
of
biodiversity
by
creating massive
NGOs,
or
government agencies
but
by
fostering social

and
individual enterprise
in
rural working landscapes
of
North America
and
Europe.
In
this context,
the
NATO Advanced Research Workshop (ARW)
in
Krakow
served
to
review promising opportunities
for
promoting
and
integrating
scientific
research
and
monitoring with such
efforts.
More specifically:
•
THEORY
AND

METHODS.
The ARW
reviewed recent developments
in
theory,
methods
and
techniques
of
collaborative adaptive management, institutional analysis
and
sustainability appraisal
and
their possible application
to
linking
or
integrating
research, policy
and
management related
to the
linkages between biodiversity
conservation
and
rural
development
in the
transition
to

rural
sustainability.
•
CASE STUDIES. Assembling well-documented
and
long-standing case studies
from
the
ACs,
EU,
NATO
and
NATO-partner countries
in
Europe
and
North America
described specific biodiversity management situations, where
a
systematic attempt
has
been made
to
research,
policy
and
organizational arrangements
as
they contributed
to

rural
sustainability.
In
analyzing
the
individual
case
studies,
special
interest
was
paid
to
in
understanding
the
contribution
of
biodiversity conservation
to
rural development
and
vice-versa,
and
learning
from
the
experiences
—
both successes

and
failures
- of
other approaches
in
order
to
generate proposals
for how and by
whom
to
accelerate
the
transition
to
rural sustainability.
Over
30
papers were prepared
for
NATO
ARW
covering
four
themes:
1.
Recent developments
in
theory
and

practice
of
integrating science, policy,
leadership
and
institutional arrangements management
for
biodiversity
conservation,
and the
role
of
conservation
in the
transition
to
rural sustainability;
2.
The
challenges
for
biodiversity conservation
in
rural
areas
in
Europe
and
North
America

as EU
enlargement comes
to be a
reality;
3.
Comparing
and
contrasting
case
study
applications
in
biodiversity
conservation
from
NATO
and
NATO partner countries;
and
4.
Identifying
new
opportunities
for
integrated approaches
to
rural sustainability
and
biodiversity conservation within
in

rural
areas
in the
context
of an
enlarged
European Union
and
reform
of the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
and the
forthcoming
trade round negotiations under
the
World Trade Organization
(WTO).
This chapter provided
the
integrating framework within which
to
discuss
the
ideas,
tools
and
infrastructure
of the
papers presented
by

those participating
in the
NATO
ARW in
Krakow, Poland. Ideas gained
in
planning
and
preparing
for the
Workshop
as
well
as
those
drawn
from
experience with Adaptive Management, Institutional Analysis
and
Sustainability
Appraisal
are
presented.
Unprecedented
EU
enlargement will reconfigure
the
politics
of not
just

the
European continent,
but
also transatlantic
and
north-south relationships. Just what
the
implications
of
this geopolitical reconfiguration will
be for
agriculture, biodiversity
and
5.
Light
et
al.
/
Introduction
3
rural
areas
is
unclear,
but one
thing
is
certain:
'business-as-usual'
will

be
insufficient
to
assure real progress towards
sustainability
in
both Europe
and
North America. What then
should
be
done
to
move beyond
'business-as-usual'
and
replace
failed ideology
and
unsustainable institutional arrangements
and
policies with those that will enhance
the
twin
goals
of
biodiversity conservation
and
rural development?
Can the

nations representing
most
of the
world's
largest economies
rise
to the
occasion
and
move beyond
the
current
patchwork
of
policy prescriptions
to
develop
new
ideas
and a
more coherent
framework
for
reconciling
objectives
and
resolving these issues?
European Union (EU) enlargement
offers
a

historic
and
last
best
opportunity
for
linking
biodiversity conservation
to
rural development
as a
basis
for
setting
a new
agenda
for
research, policy
and
action
in the
North.
Such
an
agenda will
be
aimed
at
achieving real
progress

on
sustainability.
The
intent
in
organizing
the
NATO
ARW was to
bring
together
a
range
of
disciplinary perspectives with
a
wide array
of
experiences
in
research, policy
and
institutional
management
to
formulate recommendations
for
research
and
practice rural

sustainability.
2.
Biodiversity Under Threat
North
America
and
Europe
are
continuing
to
experience significant declines
in
biodiversity
and
natural capital. Increasing
pressures
from
agriculture
and
forestry
and
other land-use
changes
now
threaten half
of
vertebrate species
[1,2].
Available habitat
is

shrinking below
levels needed
to
sustain certain species.
In
the EU,
more than two-thirds
of
existing
habitat
types
are
considered endangered,
and a
high proportion
of
species
are at
risk
of
extinction. Sixty-four endemic plants have
already
disappeared
and 38
percent
of
bird species
are at
high
risk

[3].
Threats
to
European
biodiversity derive
from
the
intensification
and
industrialization
of
agriculture; continued
fragmentation
of
habitats;
the
extension
of the
urban peripheries
of big
cities
until
they
form
metropoles;
and the
expansion
of
tourist facilities
in

mountain regions
or on
coastlines. Some
200
habitat types listed
of
Community Importance
are
threatened
by
agricultural intensification. Twenty-six such habitats
are
also
threatened
by
loss
or
neglect
of
agricultural practices that once maintained their conservation stakes.
The
problem
of
wildlife
habitat
is
especially acute
in
Western Europe, where
the

ongoing development
of
roads,
high-speed
railway lines,
and
other infrastructure
is a
major threat
[4].
European
settlement
is
expected
to
increase
by 5.9
percent
by
2010, along with transport arteries.
In
Central
and
Eastern Europe
the
picture
of
biodiversity conservation
is
quite

different.
CEE
contains
a
diversity
of
viable natural environments that support higher forest
cover than
in the
European Union countries. Forested land varies
from
50% of
total area
in
Slovenia
to
about
30% in
Poland
and
Romania (Hungary
is an
exception with about
20% of
forested land), providing extensive wildlife habitat
for
large mammals,
such
as
brown bear

and
wolf, European bison,
and
elk. Under communist rule, much
of the
development
pressure
was
focused
in and
around industrial-urban regions, while
the
lack
of
rural
infrastructure
such
as
rail
and
motor transit fragmented
less
landscape
and
habitat.
That
is not to say
that
CEE has
been immune

to
adverse ecological impacts.
Following
World
War II the
forced
collectivization
of
farms destroyed
the
natural social
fabric
of
family
farming,
and
degraded
social
and
human capital accumulated over
centuries associated with that
way of
farming, some dating back
to the
1200s when
Cistercian monks brought agricultural
and
horticultural innovations
to
CEE.

During
the
1960s
and
1970s
political
and
ideological
pressure
to
develop potent
industrial farming
introduced
intensive
use of
pesticides, herbicides,
and
nutrients that
resulted
in
environmental degradation. Large-scale state-run agricultural development,
4 S.
Light
et
al.
/
Introduction
particularly
in
Eastern Europe, drained hundreds

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

and
habitat
have
improved
in the
past
decade.
3.
Rural Sustainability
A key
sustainability
challenge
to
existing
and
future
EU
member states lies
in
establishing
benchmarks
and
baseline criteria
for
biodiversity
and
rural stability
and
vitality needed
to

evaluate outcomes under
the
enlarged
EU. CAP
reforms
are
needed, even more far-
reaching than
the
"green"
payment plan
agreed
to, and
should
be
oriented primarily
to
promoting rural vitality (economic, social
and
environmental), rural sustainability,
and
ensuring livelihoods
to be
compatible with
the
maintenance
of
biodiversity
and
ecological

services,
processes,
and
functions, e.g. natural capital
in the
form
of
soil,
water,
biodiversity,
and
ecosystem health. Biophysical constraints help structure
efficient
economic
activities that might otherwise erode
the
life-support systems
and
functions
of
natural systems upon which current
and
future
generations will depend.
Respecting biophysical constraints does
not
mean avoiding
all
possible negative
environmental

effects.
Emerging understanding
of the
diverse resource management
systems humans have developed
in
local context increasingly demonstrates that human
economic activity
and
ecological health need
not
always
be
seen
as a
zero
sum
tradeoff.
Many
communities
and
cultures throughout human history have developed systems that
are
rooted
in
living with
and
profiting
from
understanding ecological dynamics

[5].
Rural
sustainability builds local social capacity that encourages communities
and
citizens
to
explore
a
range
of
healthy
and
viable livelihood
possibilities.
Citizens need
opportunities
to
develop skills
and
personal confidence
to
develop market-based livelihoods
and
evolve workable partnerships that more
efficiently
use
resources
and
waste. Renewable
energy systems, local

food
production, woodlot management, recycling
and
eco-tourism
all
fit
into these categories,
as do
energy conservation
for
subsistence households, redesigning
public buildings
for
energy
efficiency,
and
creating
opportunities
for
linking crafts
and
artwork
to
biodiversity conservation. Sustainable rural communities
offer
fresh
approaches
for
science
to

develop technologies that work with
and
profit
from
ecosystem-based
services.
4.
The
Changing Transatlantic Context
EU
enlargement
offers
a
historic opportunity
for
linking biodiversity conservation
to
rural
sustainable
development
as a
basis
for
setting
a new
agenda
for
research,
policy
and

practical action aimed
at
moving beyond
the
ideology
of
"market fundamentalism"
to
achieve
real
progress
on
poverty
alleviation
and job
generation.
EU
enlargement
will
reconfigure
the
politics
of not
just
the
European continent,
but
also transatlantic
and
north-

south relationships. Just what will
be the
impacts
and
implications
on
biodiversity, rural
development, forestry
and
agriculture
of
this
new
geopolitical reconfiguration
is
unclear.
One
thing
is
certain, however, rural development programs based
on
subsidies
for
agricultural
production
of the
kind delivered through
the
existing
CAP in the

European
Union
and the
Farm Bill
in the USA
will
be
insufficient
to
assure
real progress towards
safeguarding
biodiversity
and
rural stability
and
security.
S.
Light
et
al.
/Introduction
5
The
current
farm
support system
in the EU is
both costly
and

ineffective, soaking
up
annually approximately
1.3%
of the GNP of all
OECD
countries
or
approximately twice
Poland's GNP. According
to the
OECD [6],
the
current system based
on
agricultural
subsidies
distorts
market signals
and so
production
and
trade
create
surpluses, high
food
prices, environmental damage
and
harm
to

third world farmers. Total support
to
agriculture
amounted
to US$
311
billion, while support
to
agricultural producers accounted
for 31% of
total
farm
receipts
in the
OECD area
in
2001.
The EU was
responsible
for US$ 93
billion
and
the
U.S.
for US$ 49
billion.
Following
a
half-century
of

centrally planned economies with Soviet oversight
and
direction
from
government ministries, science management
in
Central
and
East Europe
(CEE)
is a
fundamentally crude industrial agriculture model based
on
U.S. production
approaches. Science
has
been slow
to
respond despite participation
of all the
leading
CEE
countries
in the
European Research Area
and the
European Union's
5
th
Research

Framework Programme.
EU
research
focused
explicitly
on
environment
and
resource
management
has
made little progress
in
bringing
CEE
research
in
line with
the
European
public
policy agendas. Thus opportunity
has
lagged
in
improving environmental
and
resource
management
in

anticipation
of EU
enlargement
and the
growing influence
of
global
markets arising
from
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations.
By the end of
2003
EU
enlargement membership negotiations
for the ten ACs
will
be
complete.
An
official
report
of the
European Commission released
on
October 9
th
, 2002
adjudged
the
accession countries

to be
ready
for EU
membership
in
2004. This historic
event
is
taking place
as the EU is
seeking
to
reform
its CAP by
2006
and
relate this
to
policy commitments
to
implementing sustainable development across
the
Enlarged Europe.
Preparations
are
also under
way for
another round
of
trade liberalization under

the
WTO.
The
three ongoing processes
of EU
Enlargement,
CAP
reform
and WTO
trade
liberalization
are
interrelated with
one
another, generating
new
opportunities, synergies
and
also
new
threats
to
biodiversity
and
sustainability
of
rural development.
In
this context,
the

future
of
agriculture
and
rural economies
has
become
a key
issue
in the
reconfiguration
of
economic
and
political interrelationships between CEE, West Europe
and
North America,
and
thus
in
accelerating
or
slowing
the
globalization movement
or
improving sustainability
of
rural areas.
4.1

European
Union
In
the
European Union, rural areas account
for 80% of the
geographical area
and
approximately
25% of the
population. Agriculture accounts
for
over
40% of the
total land
area with
the EU and
forestry
accounts
for a
further
36%. Despite representing only 2.3%
of
EU
gross
domestic product
and
5.3%
of
employment, agriculture dominates land

use and
the
appearance
of the
countryside. Since
its
establishment
in
1962,
the
EU's Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP)
has
promoted intensification, specialization
and
concentration
of
agricultural production. Despite noble goals
and
objectives,
CAP has
performed unevenly,
resulting
in
disproportionate
economic, social,
and
environmental outcomes.
It has
contributed

to
inequalities
in
income distribution
and the
provisioning
of
social services.
Negative environmental impacts
of
agricultural intensification
on
biodiversity have
stemmed
from
increased
use of
pesticides
and
fertilizers, physical alteration
of
aquatic
systems, degradation
of
soil
and
water resources,
the
persistence
of

some chemicals
in the
environment
and
their accumulation
in
wildlife
tissues, introduction
of
exotics,
and the
transformation
of
species
rich to
species poor agroecosystems.
In
addition,
the
introduction
of
genetically engineered crops
and the
loss
of
cultural landscapes have generated social
conflict
while exposing people
and
nature

to new
risks.
6 S.
Light
et
al.
/Introduction
The CAP was
initially conceived
as a set of
rules
and
mechanisms
to
regulate
the
production, trade
and
processing
of
agricultural products
in the EU. The
concept
of
'multifunctionality'
of
agriculture
was
introduced
in

proposed
reforms
of the CAP
(Agenda
2000)
to try to
capture
the
range
of
services provided
by
agriculture: producing
food,
providing
fibers
and
energy
sources,
preserving biodiversity
and
landscape resources,
providing
food
security, intercepting precipitation
and
mediating water quality,
and
contributing
to the

economic vitality
of
rural
areas.
The
central plank
of
proposed
reforms
is
an
overall reduction
of the CAP in the EU
budget, coupled with
a
move
to
reducing
emphasis
on
direct payments
to
agricultural producers (the so-called Pillar
1 of the
CAP)
in
favor
of
financial
support

for
rural infrastructure
and
development (the so-called Pillar
2 of
the
CAP), including provisions
for
integration
of
more environmental
and
structural
considerations.
Among
the
EU's
policies,
the CAP is
important
if for no
other
reason
that
it
accounts
for
almost
50% of EU
budget,

but
also because
of the
vast number
of
people
and
geographical territory
affected,
and not
least,
its
political importance
in
that
it
represents
the
clearest example
of
sovereignty transferred
from
national
to EU
level.
As CAP
reforms
are
debated,
the CEE

accession countries
are
negotiating
how
they
can
implement
the CAP to
improve their agricultural systems
and
revitalize rural areas. "The scope
of
rural
development must
be
extended
to
meet
new
needs
and
opportunities, particularly
in the
fields
of
employment
and
sustainable development"
[7].
In

a
recent
mid
term review
of the
CAP,
the
European Commission
[8]
concluded
that
new
measures should target intervention
as a
safety
net for
needy farms, improved
environmental quality, biodiversity, animal welfare,
food
quality
and
food
safety; cross-
compliance performance indicators, rather than
to
food
production alone; stabilization
of
agricultural income;
and

rural
sustainability
more generally.
At
the
heart
of
proposed
CAP
reforms
is a
necessary investment
to
significantly
improve rural technical
infrastructure
linking communities with delivery
of
basic social
services.
These
services, particularly
roads,
telecommunication, sanitation, education,
and
health
care
are
vital
to

improved human capital,
and to
expanding
access
to
business
opportunities
and
establishing linkage
with
local
and
regional markets. Without such
investment,
rural communities will
not be
able
to
develop
new
jobs,
compete successfully
in
their markets, reduce unemployment (currently ranking
15-30%
of the
working
age
population),
and

reduce chronic
suffering
from
poverty
and
social pathology (such
as
alcoholism). From this
perspective,
the
proposed
CAP
reform toward moving
funds
from
the
Pillar
1 to the
Pillar
2
(support
for
sustainable rural development) will
be a
welcome
investment
in
building rural sustainability
in the AC. It
would prevent

the
development
of
unsustainable dependence
on
direct subsidies
to
commodity production
in AC.
Unfortunately,
accession negotiations
are not
well linked
to the
EU's declared
sustainable development objectives
as
expressed
in the 6
th
EU
Environmental Action
Programme
2001-2010
[9].
Similarly, accession negotiations
are not
linked
to
efforts

by the
European Commission
to
reorient rural development
programs
"to
meet
new
needs
and
opportunities, particularly
in the
fields
of
employment
and
sustainable development"
[7].
This
is
because negotiations
are
concerned primarily with
the
transposition
of
existing
EU
law
(the

acquis
communautaire)
into
the
legal systems
of the
accession countries.
In
relation
to the
CAP,
the
focus
is on the
here
and now and not on how the CAP may
look
in
the
future
after
implementation
of the
proposed reforms. This approach taken
by EU
might
lead
to
establishing
a

costly infrastructure
for the
traditional
CAP
that might disappear
after
2006.
This will mean
not
only
a
waste
of
effort
and
resources
for
both
EU and
ACs,
but
also
a
missed opportunity
for
both
to
test
out new
measures proposed

in the mid
term
review
of
the
CAP
[8].
S.
Light
el
al.
/Introduction
1
Rural
areas
in the ten
accession countries (including eight
CEE
countries plus Malta
and
Cyprus) show considerable variation
in
land use, rural population
and
agricultural
production. Taken together, agricultural land makes
up
55.9%
(EU:
40%), with

a
much
higher
rural population (40%
in
AGIO
as
compared
to 5% in
EU15)
and
higher proportion
employed
in
agriculture (22.5%
in
AGIO
as
compared
to 5% in
EU15).
The
highest
proportion
of
agricultural employment
is in
Poland (26.7%), Romania (37.3%), Bulgaria
(24.3%)
and

Lithuania (24%)
and the
lowest
in
Slovakia
(5.8%),
Czech Republic (5%)
and
Slovenia (6%). Agricultural production
as a
percentage
of GDP is
also higher
in the
accession countries (6.8%
in
AGIO
as
compared
to EU
1.7%).
The AC 10
will
also bring
the
richness
of
their forested land
and
inland waters

to
contribute
to
natural capital
and
biodiversity
of the
expanded
EU.
Considerable areas
of
traditionally
farmed
land still survive, especially
in
Romania
and
Poland.
For
example,
in
Poland's Wielkopolska Region, there
is
evidence
of a
long
tradition
of
landscape
management going

back
to the
1820s,
which
has
helped
to
reduce
soil
erosion
and
nutrient emissions
to
watercourses while
at the
same time enriching
the
biodiversity
of the
area.
The
land
is
treated
as
having multiple uses, providing employment
for
rural people
and
contributing

to the
national economy.
How
such systems will
be
affected
by
European Union membership
and
further
liberalization
of
world trade
is
unclear.
In
terms
of the
international context,
it is
worth noting that
the
expanded
EU
will
have
even
a
greater
role

in
agricultural
trade
than
it has
today
as the
world's
largest
importer
of
agricultural products,
and the
second largest exporter.
But
despite calls
from
many
developing countries
to set
agriculture
and
food
supply
on a
truly sustainable path
at
the
World Summit
on

Sustainable Development (WSSD) held
in
Johannesburg
in
September, 2002, essentially
no
progress
was
made
on
accelerating
the
phase-out
of
European
and
U.S. agricultural production
subsidies.
4.2
North America
In
the
United States
and
Canada,
the
multifunctional
character
of
agriculture

and its
relationship
to
communities
and
nature have been
all but
lost. Since WWII U.S. agriculture
has
been sacrificed
to
industrial development. Labor
and
capital were moved
to the
cities
to
support
the
industrial development
of the
post-war economy.
Today,
the
U.S. economy
is
still
the
strongest
in the

world,
but its
agriculture
has
never been
so
vulnerable.
In
2001, over
$38
billion (U.S.)
in
emergency payments were
distributed
to the
farm
sector.
For
decades,
the
farm
sector
has
been racked with
low
prices,
increasing costs
of
inputs
and

operations,
and
mounting debt that makes
it too
expensive
for new
farmers
to
enter
farming
and
increasingly
difficult
for
current
farmers
to
turn
a
real profit.
Environmentally,
agriculture
has
been
a
major
source
of
resource degradation
throughout North America. Farm inputs

(pesticides,
herbicides,
and
fertilizer) pollute
surface
and
groundwater sources, creating increasingly threatened freshwater ecosystems.
Modern
farms
have eliminated fencerows, drained wetlands,
and
straightened streams
to
maximize productive acreage, eliminating wildlife habitat. Farm systems have grown
increasingly
large, less diversified,
and
more intensive with
the
years. Production
of
chickens, hogs
and
milking herds have moved
to
factory
scale production with
farmers
under contract
to

operate production systems that
are
dictated
by
industry.
Air and
water
pollution
from
such
operations
are an
increasing
cause
of
concern.
Coastal
euthrophication
and
hypoxia,
caused largely
by
nitrogen
and
phosphorus runoff
from
industrial agriculture,
have
contributed
to the

ecological collapse
of the
Chesapeake
Bay and now
threaten
the
8 S.
Light
et
at.
/Introduction
$26B
fish
and
shellfish industry
at the
mouth
of the
Mississippi River.
The Red
River
Valley
of the
North, once
the
largest staging area
for
waterfowl
in
North America

and a
thriving
center
of
grain production,
has
lost
99% of its
wetlands,
is
battling persistent crop
disease problems with increasing inputs,
and
continues
to
lose
farms.
While
a
century
ago
almost everyone lived
on a
farm,
today less than
two
percent
of
the
U.S. population

farms
for a
living. Rural communities, indeed whole regions
of the
Great Plains,
are
losing population
and
productivity, while cities
are
sprawling across
millions
of
acres
of the
productive agricultural lands
and
remaining natural habitats. These
trends, combined
with
growing political
and
economic power
of
agribusiness, have resulted
in
more concentrated land ownership
and
eroded
the

influence
of
independent producers
and
rural citizens,
who
have
the
most intimate knowledge
of
natural
and
agroecosystems,
in
determining federal rural
and
agricultural policy.
Despite
the
abovementioned problems,
the
U.S. remains
a
major
player
in the
world
market
and
will continue

in the
short-term
to
rely
on the
intensive
"industrial"
model
of
agriculture. Organic
farming
is
increasing rapidly (20-30% annually)
but
still
accounts
for
less than
two
percent
of the
market
in
most areas
and
less than
one
percent
of
farmed

acreage.
The
2002 U.S. Farm
Bill
was one of the
largest
in
history,
and
despite including
an
unprecedented amount
of
conservation spending
and
initiatives,
the
bulk
of
spending
is
still
primarily oriented towards commodity production price supports. Consequently, U.S.
agricultural exports
will
continue
to
have
a
major

impact
on the
competitiveness
of
both
the
EU and the
ACs. Furthermore,
the
U.S.
has a
strong hand
in
guiding
and
setting agendas
of
the
WTO.
For
this reason,
the
U.S. will remain
a
major
factor
affecting
sustainability
of
rural

areas
under
an
enlarged
EU. In
turn,
EU
enlargement will
transform
transatlantic
economic relations
and so
affect
also
the
prospects
for
moving towards rural sustainability
in
North America.
4.3 The
Johannesburg Summit
The
World Summit
on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) held
in
Johannesburg, South
Africa
in

September
2002
affirmed
that
biodiversity
has a
role
to
play
not
only
in
economic
wealth creation,
but
also
in
widening economic opportunity
and
participation, investing
in
human
capital, enhancing social cohesion, promoting environmental sustainability
and
security, especially
in
rural
areas.
The
argument that addressing biodiversity more directly

in the
rural community revitalization agenda promotes positive multiplier
effects
for
economy, security
and
environment
was first
made
a
decade
ago at the
Earth Summit
in Rio
de
Janeiro
and is now
common currency.
In
short, biodiversity conservation
has
become
as
much
a
question
of
economics
and
governance,

as of
biology
and
ecosystem science,
as
debates over
the
need
to
maintain
life
support
functions
and the
transition
to
sustainability
have gained currency
[10].
Yet
reports
presented
to the
Johannesburg Summit drew attention
to the
fact
that
for
biodiversity conservation,
the

decade since
Rio can be
characterized
by a
chronic
inability
to
stem species loss. Moreover,
insufficient
progress
has
been made
to
take
full
advantage
of
resources
and
advances
in
understanding
of
ecological systems,
as
well
as the
systems
of
rules, customs

and
institutions that govern human social
and
economic organization
and
interactions
with
the
environment.
The
Johannesburg summit
failed
to
establish
a
clear target
for the
return
of
degraded biodiversity.
But it did
acknowledge
the
importance
of
incorporating
sustainable development into social communal well being, sensitivity
to
indigenous
and

local knowledge, accountable
forms
of
public-private partnerships
and an
ecosystem
based approach
to
biodiversity management. This latter feature enables
a
more
S.
Light
et
al.
/
Introduction
adventurous approach
to
biodiversity evaluation along
the
lines advocated
by
Balmford
etal[\\}.
5.
Recent Developments
in
Systems Theory
and

Methods
Continued
declines
in
biodiversity
in the
face
of
enormous scientific, institutional
and
economic
resources
allocated
to
conservation
in the
countries
of
West Europe
and
North
America suggest that current approaches have serious limitations
[12-14].
Conventional
approaches
to
biodiversity conservation based
on
national parks
and

protected areas
are
increasingly recognized
as
limited
in
their capability
of
delivering nature conservation
in
the
context
of
changes occurring across
the
landscape.
Despite
growing political
and
public support
for
biodiversity
conservation,
efforts
to
manage biodiversity have only partly benefited
from
the
considerable scientific advances
in

understanding
ecosystem behavior. Many
now
argue that improving management
effectiveness
will require linking these advances
to
better understanding
of
institutional
arrangements
and
their dynamics,
as
well
as to
more
flexible,
inclusive
and
participatory
approaches
to
management that
can be
sustained
over
the
long term.
Approaches

to
assessing
and
managing biodiversity that explicitly address
the
interactions between ecological
function,
human activities
and
institutions have
not
been
granted adequate attention among policy makers
and
practitioners even
as
economic
pressures
on
natural resources have grown
and in
turn given rise
to
security concerns
[15].
Despite
the
increasing
lip
service paid

to the
need
to
integrate
economic, social,
and
environmental
objectives,
a
thin track record
of
success suggests that most initiatives
and
policies
are
failing
to do so in
practice.
In
Central European countries, where biodiversity resources
are
still comparatively
high
and
institutional
and
economic reforms
are
under way,
it is not

clear
how to
organize
research
and
management arrangements
so as to
preserve
biodiversity
resources
while
adopting market economics
and
international trading systems
[16].
The
need
to
improve biodiversity conservation
has
stimulated
an
interest
in
understanding
the
behavior
of
ecological, economic
and

social systems
in
terms
of the
linkages between them, specifically
in
relation
to the
structure
and
dynamics
of
institutions,
and
processes
by
which scientific
and
experiential knowledge
of
ecological
function
can be
combined
to
deal with complex environmental management situations
[17].
Insights gained
in
studying resource crises have helped build

new
theories
of
systems organization
and
dynamics (catastrophe, chaos, complexity, resilience) that
seek
to
describe
the
limits
of our
capacity
to
understand complex adaptive systems
of
nature
and
society
[18-20].
A key
theoretical
and
practical challenge remains
our
inadequate means
to
understand
and
manage interactions between ecological

function,
human activities
and
institutions. Critical components
of
this challenge include
failures
to
understand
interactions within
and
between scales (global
to
local), human capacity
to
influence
these
interactions, multiple stable domains,
and the
inevitability
of
always having
to
operate with
limited information
and
high uncertainty
as to the
future
[20-22].

What
lessons
can be
drawn
from
Western experience with linking biodiversity
conservation
to
rural development
so as to
design more
effective
research
and
management
arrangements
not
just
for
Central Europe,
but for an
enlarged
EU?
What opportunities does
Central European experience
offer
for
redesigning biodiversity
and
rural

sustainability
research
and
management arrangements
in
Western Europe
and
North America?
10
S.
Light
et
al.
/
Introduction
5.1 The
Failures
of
Conventional Approaches:
The
Search
for
Explanations
Decades
of
experience have demonstrated convincingly that short-term optimization
of
single objectives leads inevitably
to
fixes

that backfire, eventually creating more problems
than
it
solves.
One
explanation
put
forward
for the
failure
of
conventional resource
management approaches
has
been
the
centralized direction
from
state ministries
and
scientific
bureaucracies. Narrow production targets (timber, crop production, maximum
sustained yield) have
rigorously
pursued
by
controlling
or
magnifying ecological
variability, while preserving

the
political
and
economic
status
quo for the
beneficiaries
of
such
management policies come
to
dominate decision-making.
In the
process,
ecosystems
have been driven
further
into less productive (and potentially irreversibly degraded)
states,
and
biological
and
cultural diversity continue
to
erode
and
decline, lowering their capacity
to act as
buffers
to

system collapse
or as
reservoirs that stimulate
system
renewal
[23].
The
failure
to
integrate ecological
and
social objectives into economic solutions
has
come increasingly under question. Ecological restoration
will
not be
possible
or
sustainable
unless
social
and
economic opportunities
are
fostered
in
conjunction
with biodiversity
goals.
Unfortunately, policy continues

to
compartmentalize issues.
If
multiple objectives
are
addressed,
their treatment
is
considered
as
mitigation,
or
compensation, rather than
as
equivalent.
Why has it
proven
so
difficult
to
integrate social, economic,
and
biodiversity
objectives?
The
prevailing development paradigm shared
by
western
scientific
and

social
communities
is
rooted
in a set of
powerful
and
interwoven doctrines:
•
Reductionism. Simple, cause
and
effect
relationships govern reality
and are
more
or
less
independent
in
their operation
•
Empiricism.
Science could reveal universal truths
and
solutions
•
Positivism. Nature
is
infinitely
malleable.

These doctrines have,
in
turn, shaped institutions
and
worldviews that have
powerful
self-protective force. Resource management
has
remained preoccupied
with
stability
and
control. Institutional cultures
and
scientific
practices have their historical roots
in
engineering. Organizational structures
and
government bureaucracies have relied
on
top-
down, command
and
control,
and
compartmentalized approaches
to
management that
are

not
very sensitive
to
feedback
and
often
unable
to
recognize dynamics. Science
has
tended
to
promulgate technological
fixes
as
solutions
to
social ills. Prevailing economic theory
and
policy have assumed
full
and
symmetric knowledge, rational
utility
maximizing
behavior, absence
of
externalities,
and
other conditions that rarely apply

in the
real world.
Clearly,
the
world around
us has
grown more complex, interdependent
and
interconnected than
the
current
set of
ideas, tools,
and
infrastructure
are
capable
of
handling. Problems
of
species extinction, exotic species,
and
climate change
are at the
same time local
and
half
a
world away; they cannot
be

solved
in
isolation
of one
another.
When
performance declines
in
existing concepts, values, techniques,
and
practices,
confusion
arises.
What
was
orderly
and
stable
and
predictable becomes with disorder,
commotion,
and
uncertainty
as new
ways
of
functioning
and
thinking
are

mixed
with
what
used
to
work
in the
past.
As in a
large
flood
or
massive
forest
fire,
much changes
- but
eventually
a river
regains
its
channel,
the
forest
plants
new
seeds,
and
some sense
of

order
and
direction
to
life
emerges.
This does
not
occur without
pain
of
giving
up the old and
embracing
the
new. This
is how
society
and
nature have
flexed
and
responded
in the
past
-
new
order
is
created

from
the
accumulated knowledge
from
useful
variations
on the
past.
As
a
result:
S.
Light
et
al.
/
Introduction
11
•
Large stable government bureaucracies that have long advocated "one size
fits
all
solutions"
are
discovering they lack
the
flexibility
needed
to
develop tailored solutions

that
are
locally appropriate
and
responsive
to
rapid change.
•
Traditional economic
analyses
used
to
judge
the
efficiency
of
resource
allocation
decisions
are
struggling
to
find
criteria
for
judging
the
efficacy
of
projects that include

social
and
ecological benefits
as
well; relatively young environmental economics
and
even
less established ecological economics
are not yet
fully
recognized
and
accepted
by
the
political, academic,
and
corporate establishments.
•
Management that
has
relied
on
economies
of
scale
to
advance
efficiency
and

productivity
are
finding
that there
are
other considerations that impose limits
to
efficiencies
of
scale
-
diversity
and
complexity
costs
should
not be
denied
its
place.
•
Science that
was
well suited
to
tracking
and
analyzing
the
severity

of
specific indicators
(e.g. water quality)
is
incapable
of
sorting through
the
competing explanations
for why
corrective
actions
are not
providing
the
results predicted.
•
Citizens that
often
turned
to
government
to
solve problems
are now
realizing they need
to
take their
future
in

their
own
hands.
The
major
lessons emerging
from
across
scientific
and
social science disciplines
thus relate
to the
primacy
of
uncertainty, interdependence,
and
complexity. There
are no
experts.
No one is in
complete control, authority must move beyond authoritative answers
to
find
workable solutions. Everyone must assume responsibility
for the
whole. What
has
been politically, economically
and

socially
"impossible"
may
become
practicable.
There
are no
established procedures.
Uncertainty
and
surprise
are
inevitable when studying
or
managing systems that
constantly change
and
co-evolve
in
non-linear ways, especially when such dynamism
makes
facts
uncertain
and
values
in
dispute
[24].
Human intervention, whether
at the

macro-scales
of
climate change
or the
meso-scales
of
managing
ecosystems,
often
compounds that uncertainty. This
is
especially
so
where resource collapse results
from
short-sighted management goals that sacrifice deeper probes
of
system behavior
for
quick
gains
in
efficiency
and
profit
[18].
Clearly,
in
conditions
of

limited information
and
high
uncertainty, management interventions
as
well
as
ecosystems
and
society must
be
studied
and
managed
in
parallel;
we
must learn even
as we
manage
our
interventions
and
responses
to
environmental changes
[25,26].
In
this regard,
O'Riordan

[27]
has
stressed
the
scope
for
ecosystem
advocacy
on the
basis that biodiversity
and its
link
to
ecosystem
properties
have
cultural, intellectual, aesthetic
and
spiritual values that
are
important
to
society.
Making real progress towards
sustainability
requires adaptive work, involving
changes
in
values, beliefs
or

behavior, learning
to
reconcile
conflicts
in
values
and
understanding. Navigating
the
transition
to
sustainability means coping with persistent
periods
of
disequilibria.
It
will
be
tempting
to
return
to the
current
repertoire
tools
for
problem solving,
but
people will increasingly turn
to

learning
new
ways. Asking
the
right
questions
may be far
more productive than sorting though conventional solutions.
5.2
Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management
is an
approach that
applies
scientific method
to
complex
biodiversity conservation situations with
the
objective
of
designing robust policies
for
dealing
with
uncertainty
and
surprise inherent
in
such contexts. Developed

and
applied
since
the
1970s,
adaptive assessment employs systems analytic concepts
and
tools such
as
modeling exercises
to
assist professional
and lay
stakeholders working together through
facilitated
workshops
to
develop
shared understandings
as a
basis
for
guiding management
interventions
in
complex environmental management situations. Applications
of
analysis,
12
S.

Light
etal./
Introduction
policy
and
practice
are
linked
and
broadened
to
more
effectively
engage extant uncertainty.
Adaptive Management develops
a
range
of
policy prescriptions that address
not one
single
solution
but a
diversity
of
responses that
can
emerge
as
nature

and
society co-evolve
[28].
Second, adaptive management treats policy implementation
as
propositions
or
experiments
subject
to
periodic
evaluation
and
policy
reformation.
Adaptive Management
is
rooted
in
systems ecology
[19,29-31]
and was
developed
in
the
1970s
at the
University
of
British Columbia, Canada

and
International Institute
for
Applied Systems Analysis
in
Austria.
It has
been subsequently applied
in a
wide range
of
environmental
management situations
in
every continent ranging
from
local (village)
to
large (regional fisheries, forestry) scales. Early applications
of
adaptive management were
designed
as an
alternative
to the
static, one-shot environmental impact assessment process
that evolved
in
U.S.
after

passage
of the
National Environmental Policy
Act in
1969.
Adaptive Management strove
to
improve
the
prevailing rational management paradigm
by
allowing managers, scientists
and
policy makers, making management-relevant science
more
responsive
to
policy concerns.
Adaptive
Management
has
provided
a
process-driven alternative
to the
scripted
public
meetings
and
sterile, voluminous appendices

of
scientific data that were attached
to
resource policy options. Science
and
policy were more
flexibly
integrated,
but
responsibility, while broader than before, remained largely
with
scientists
and
management
professionals.
The
wider public
and
stakeholders have generally been involved
in
only
a
limited
way - as
sources
of
information
and
knowledge
or as a

factor
to be
considered
in
designing management interventions. This
has
changed somewhat over time,
and the
circle
of
responsibility
has
broadened
as the
experience
and
knowledge
of
local stakeholders
has
come
to be
recognized
as an
essential ingredient
in
understanding
the
dynamics
of

complex
environmental management situations,
as in the
case
of
managing
the
Florida Everglades,
Pacific
Salmon fisheries,
forestry
in
Eastern Canada [19],
and river
basins
in the
Mississippi, Colorado
and
Kissimmee
[31].
Although Adaptive Management
has
been widely embraced
as a
concept, many
large-scale adaptive management
efforts
have experienced only limited success.
Considerable agreement
has

emerged that
the
obstacles
to
successful implementation
of
Adaptive
Management have been primarily institutional. This problem
has
been
acknowledged
and
debated since
the
inception
of
Adaptive Management. Although
the
literature
on
Adaptive Management has, overall, remained relatively weak
in the
area
of
managing institutional change, learning,
and
designing architecture
for
adaptive processes,
a

recent article documents
the
evolution
of
practice
and
redesign
of
institutions
to
accommodate adaptive management
[32].
5.3
Institutional Assessment
Efforts
to
conserve biodiversity largely
in
terms
of
biological inventory, assessment
and
monitoring
are
likely
to do
little more than document
the
disappearance
of

species
and the
destruction
of
habitats
in
more detail.
The
need
is to
understand
the
history
of
human
effects
on the
distribution
of
species, habitats
and
ecosystems. Moreover,
if
conservation
efforts
are to
succeed
in
maintaining
and

restoring biological diversity
and
productivity
in
threatened areas, assessment
and
monitoring must address
the
different
ways
in
which
people value, use, manage
and
affect
biodiversity
of an
area
[33].
This broader perspective
on
biodiversity conservation
has led to
efforts
to
understand
the
dynamics
of
management

and
institutions
is
complex environmental management situations
and a
recognition that
conservation
efforts
must elicit
the
long-term support
and
participation
of
those using
biodiversity
[34-37].
S.
Light
et
al.
/
Introduction
13
A
range
of
approaches
to
assessing

institutional
and
management arrangements
have
been developed
and
applied with
the aim of
providing
a
comprehensive
or
holistic
image
of
biophysical
and
cultural settings
in
complex
biodiversity
conservation situations.
Institutional
Analysis
and
Development (IAD)
was
developed
to
more rigorously link

the
study
of the
social
space
of
human interaction (action arena) with changes
in the
environment
[38-40].
More specifically,
IAD has
been designed
to
provide
a
research
framework
to
study "how rules, physical
and
material conditions,
and
community attributes
shape action arenas
and
incentives
faced
by
individuals"

[33].
Application
of IAD has
spurred
analysis
and
development
of
diverse
social
theories
as
well
as
served
as a
language
to
link empirical analysis (laboratory
and
field)
with
formal
models
of
resource
appropriation
by
humans
[41].

Such applications have markedly revised views
of the
potential
of
local resource-users
to
conserve biodiversity
in the
absence
of
external
monitoring
and
control
by
government authorities
[42].
Thus,
IAD has
already introduced
a
new
degree
of rigor in
social-ecological studies
by
demonstrating that "Tragedy
of the
Commons" type declines
in

biodiversity
are not
inevitable given
sufficient
understanding
of
how
local users
can
monitor
and
manage their
own
resources.
Other
approaches, such
as the ABC
approach developed
at the
University
of
Waterloo, seek
to
provide
not
only
a
basis
for
understanding human

and
environment
interactions
and for
monitoring
and
assessing outcomes
as a
proposed undertaking
proceeds,
but
also
a
basis
for
managing
or
avoiding altogether many land-use controversies
and
resource conflicts. Here
the
emphasis
is to
engage systematically with
the
broader
context
of
local experience
found

in all
those most directly involved
in an
environmental
management
situation. This means thinking about interconnections between factors
recognized
as
important
or
relevant
by all
stakeholders
in a
particular place
or
situation.
The
goal
is to
sustain collaboration with those with
a
stake
in the
situation
to
build
a
picture
that

goes
beyond
the
tangible
to
address
the
intangibles that
often
matter
to
people most
-
to
the
ideas, beliefs
and
ways
of
life
that people value
and use to
understand
and
adjust
to
change
in
their surroundings
and

circumstances.
The ABC has
been applied
in
many parks
and
protected area situations
in
Canada, including
the
Yukon, Grand River watershed,
Great Lakes, with some
efforts
to
apply
the
approach also
in
Poland, especially
in
management
of the
Hel
Peninsula
on the
Baltic
Sea
coast
[36,43].
Approaches which emphasize

the
institutional
or
human dimensions
of
biodiversity
conservation
are
sometimes referred
to as
"civics"
approaches
as
they probe
for
solutions
made durable
by
broad
and
long-lasting cooperation that arises when stakeholders
recognize their participation
in
formulating,
implementing
and
monitoring
of
ideas
and

possible policies.
The
motivation
is to
prepare citizens
for
involvement
in the
decision-
making
process
to
employ science
as an
equal contributor
of
insight
and
experience
of
local
people.
The
civics approach involves
a
wide range
of
people
and
groups

in
understanding
and
taking responsibility
for
their impact
on the
dynamic interaction between ecosystems,
human
activities
and
institutions.
The
emphasis
on
institutions
is
important because,
all too
often,
institutional arrangements
are
treated largely
as
remote
and
independent concerns
of
different
professional

or
disciplinary interests, such
as
biology, political sciences
or
sociology. Sometimes, they
left
for
no-one because they
fall
between disciplinary
fields
or
areas
of
perceived responsibility
[35,44-47].
5.4
Sustainability
Appraisal
Sustainability
and
sustainable development
are
used
often
synonymously,
but
they refer
to

quite
different
things. Sustainable development
is an
idea,
a
process,
and a
hypothesis,
not a
readily quantifiable capacity;
it
describes
the
journey
we
believe
we
must take
to
arrive
at
14
S.
Light
et
al.
/
Introduction
the

destination, which
is
sustainability.
Sustainability
aims
at
human livelihood systems
that
are
viable socially, economically
efficient,
and
that
do not
erode
the
life-support
capacity
of
ecological systems.
It is
worthy
to
underline that
the
ecological life-support
systems
are not
established
by

human
desires,
but by
biophysical
processes
that provide
ecological services essential
for
life-support.
The
process
is
driven
by
political, social
and
economic forces,
as
well
as by
ecological forces.
Recognition that ongoing
and
proposed policies, programs
and
institutions need
to
be
assessed
and

redesigned
to
ensure progress towards sustainability
has
prompted
the
emergence
of
Sustainability Appraisal
[48,49].
This
is a
process
of
connecting
and
revealing
the
implications
of the
various institutions
and
policies
in
terms
of
progress
towards sustainability rather than
a
method

for
analyzing
and
deciding.
It is an
unfolding
examination
of a new
form
of
shared governance
-
sustainability governance, which focuses
on who is
gaining
and
losing
from
all
specific measures associated with
any
proposal,
how
their behavior
is
being adapted
to
accord with
the
entitlements

of
nature,
and
what measures
of
liability compensation
or
cross-subsidization,
or
corporate social responsibility should
be
put
into
effect
to
ensure that
the mix of
interested stakeholders
is at
least better
off as a
result
[49].
Sustainability appraisal techniques seek
to
identify
operational criteria
and
indicators, which
can be

linked
to
incentives
and
monitoring
systems.
The
European
Environmental Agency
is
seeking
to
move
in
this direction
by
linking monitoring
and
reporting systems directly
to
assessing progress
of EU
countries
and the EU as a
whole
in
meeting
EU
sustainability objectives.
In the UK, a

Commission
on
Sustainable
Development
has
been
set up by the
national government
to
assess
and
monitor
the
sustainability implications
of
government policies.
Sustainability appraisal involves
the
integration
of
ecological, social,
and
economic
and
governance indicators
and
processes into
a
single conceptual framework. Take
as an

example
a
landscape stewardship scheme. Suppose that
its aim is to
enhance rural
sustainability
be
enable farmers
to
work
collaboratively
across their boundaries
to the
totality
of the
landscape. Such
a
scheme would involve
the
following
aspects
for a
sustainability appraisal:
i.
The
maintenance
of
soil health
by
erosion controls, contour management, crop

rotations
for
fixing
nitrogen
and
stabilizing soil organic
fractions,
water
management
in
both surface
runoff
and
leaching,
and the
assurance
of
soil
via
nutrient management
as a
whole,
ii.
Enhancing biodiversity through
buffering
all
steams
against nutrient rich
runoff,
providing

fields and
hedge margins
for
insect
and
plant diversity, maintaining wild
plant reservoirs, establishing linear pathways
for
beetles
and
insects,
and
ecosystem
edges
for
birds.
All
this
can be
done through linked
farm
management practices
across
ecosystems,
iii.
Creating
a
fund
for
supporting maintenance labor

via a
pesticide fertilizer levy
on a
carbon levy. Carbon sequestration could
be
linked
to
soil stabilization
and
woodcuts.
Establishing charcoal
and
other woodland
services
for
small woodlands
to
create
rural employment localizing
food
production
via
chains
of
economic
linkages
to
shops, farmer's markets
and
restaurants,

iv.
Establishing
biomass
for
renewable
fuel,
and
flood
absorption
sewers
for
soaking
up
floods.
Sustainability appraisal seeks
to
create robust ecosystems
by
generating social trust
in
schemes
and
thus outputs,
and
doing
so to
create
meaningful
livelihoods especially
for

the
locally disadvantaged.
If all of
this
is
undertaken
via
inclusive forms
of
citizen
participation, then
the
offerings
of
governance also become part
of the
appraisal.
In
this