CONGRESS ON RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES: CRITICAL ISSUES ... · ON RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES: CRITICAL ISSUES AND CONCEPTS ... The delegates to this congress on “Renewable Natural

RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION

CONGRESSON

RENEWABLE NATURALRESOURCES:

CRITICAL ISSUES AND CONCEPTSFOR THE

TWENTY-FIRSTCENTURY

MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS

American Anthropological Association

American Congress on Surveying and Mapping

American Fisheries Society

American Geophysical Union

American Society of Agronomy

American Society of Landscape Architects

American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

American Water Resources Association

Association of American Geographers

Resources for the Future

Society for Range Management

Soil and Water Conservation Society

The Coastal Society

The Ecological Society of America

The Humane Society of the United States

The Nature Conservancy

The Wildlife Society

Congress Hosted By

College of Natural ResourcesColorado State University

With Support From

USDA Forest ServiceUSDA Soil Conservation Service

USDI Bureau of Land ManagementU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USDA Agricultural Research Service, Coopemtive StateResearch Service, and Extension Service

FOREWORD

This report describes a benchmark event in interdiscipli- 6. Develop and implement mechanisms to improve the fairnary cooperation. Concerned over the rapid depletion of our and open participation of all stakeholders in decisionrenewable natural resources, 135 of the nation’s leading sci- making on Esources issues by incorporating techniquesentists and resource professionals gathered at Vail, Colo- for conflict management and resolution.rado, August 19-22, 1992, to forecast critical natural re- 7. Encourage multidisciplinary, coordinated national andsources issues that will face the United States in the international efforts and standardized techniques fortwenty-first century. data collection and analysis.

The delegates to this congress on “Renewable NaturalResources: Critical Issues and Concepts for the Twenty-FirstCentury” were selected by the 17 professionaI, scientific,and educational organizations that constitute the member-ship of tbe Renewable Natural Resources Foundation. Thesynergy created by bringing together a diverse group-re-source managers, policymakers, and physical, biological,and social scientists-resulted in scores of recommenda-tions for innovative policies.

In addition to summarizing discussion that led to many ofthese recommendations, this report describes the gathering’smany innovative aspects, including the organizational struc-ture that was adopted for identifying the issues, producing aninterdisciplinary dialogue, seeking consensus, and elicitingrecommended actions.

Taken together, these ideas constitute a seven-part agendafor action. The delegates called for our nation and its re-sources community to:

1. Develop and adopt a stewardship/sustainability ethic in-corporating a long-term perspective to guide both publicand private resources decisions.

2. Improve mechanisms for valuing and allocating renew-able natuml resources to promote sustainable use.

3. Develop professional incentives for interdisciplinaryresearch and management.

The success of the congress can be attributed in part toWilliam H. Queen, chair of the Congress Program Commit-tee, and the other 18 volunteers who served with him (seeroster on back cover).

“The first shot in a long battle” is the way one participantdescribed the congress in Vail. Some findings and recom-mendations that emerged during the free-ranging discussioncharacteristic of the congress will undoubtedly be controver-sial. The delegates tackled difficult issues such as populationgrowth, private property rights, and political reform, amongothers, and their views are not necessarily those of any orga-nization or agency.

4. Undertake institutional reform and restructuring, par-ticularly within the management agencies andacademia.

5. Expand and improve education on renewable naturalresources issues for both the public and professionals.

Yet no forward progress is made without a first step. Thecongress was that step. The next is up to member organiza-tions of the Renewable Natural Resources Foundation. How-ever, success ultimately will require participation by thepublic and its local, state, and federal representatives.

-Ciare W. HendeeChairman, Board of Directors

Renewable Natural Resources Foundation

RFNFWARI F RFSOlJRCFS IOlJRNAl 3

INTRODUCTION

PETER M. MORRISETTE

As the first step in a concerted effortto identify critical issues facing our na-tion regarding the current and futuremanagement and use of renewablenatural resources, the Renewable Natu-ral Resources Foundation (RNRF) con-vened a national meeting of resourceprofessionals to prioritize the issuesidentified and recommend new policiesto address them. The meeting, entitled“Congress on Renewable Natural Re-sources: Critical Issues and Conceptsfor the Twenty-First Century,” wasconvened at Vail, Colorado, on August19-22,1992.

More than 135 invited delegates at-tended the congress. Among them weresome of the nation’s most prominentnatural resource professionals fromvarious federal and state resource man-agement agencies, academic institu-tions, non-governmental organizations,research institutes and agencies, and theprivate sector. The delegates werenominated by member organizations ofRNRF and represented a broad geo-graphic distribution, as well as a widespectrum of disciplines including all ofthe natural resource fields, the naturalsciences, and the social sciences. Thecongress constituted one of the most di-verse groups yet assembled to addressrenewable resource issues. (A complete

The author of this report, Peter M.Morrisette is a former member of theRNRF boardof directors, has a Ph.D. ingeography and works as an indepen-dent consultant. He has held positionswith Resourcesfor the Future in Wash-ington, D.C., and the National Centerfor Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

list of delegates appears in Appendix Bon page 28.)

The delegates were attracted to thecongress by the opportunity to partici-pate in a unique national forum for iden-tifying and discussing natural resourceissues. The overall purpose was to focusthe debate and deepen understanding ofthese issues among the professional,scientific, educational, resource man-agement, and policymaking communi-ties. The specific objectives included:1) providing a forum for an interdisci-plinary dialogue identifying critical re-newable natural resources issues in sixidentified topical areas 2) determiningthe priority issues within each of the sixareas and major impediments to resolv-ing those issues; 3) seeking a consensus,where possible, on recommended ap-proaches or actions to address the is-sues; and 4) documenting and convey-ing results of the congress to leaders,decision makers, public interest groups,industry, and the public.

Rather than focus on a particular re-source or geographic area, a specificconflict over the use of a resource, orassessment of data, the congress ad-dressed the full spectrum of resourceissues from a national perspective. Thescope was limited to the United States,although global linkages for the issueswere examined. Six broad themes ortopical areas were identified as the fo-cus of discussion and debate. Workinggroups were organized around each ofthese themes, which crosscut the tradi-tional resource sectors and disciplines.The six themes were:

1. Population, Economic Develop-ment, and Geography.

4 RENEWAELE RESOURCES JOURNAL AUTUMN 1992

Population growth and economic de-velopment drive land use. The resultinggeographic patterns affect the distribu-tion, quantity, and quality of renewableresources. The working groups devotedto this theme were charged with exam-ining whether continued growth is com-patible with safeguarding the carryingcapacity of resources and consideringways in which growth can be managedor influenced to mitigate effects on theresource base. Topics to be examinedincluded population trends, urbaniza-tion and settlement patterns, conversionof forest and agricultural land to urbanuses, growth management, and eco-nomic incentives for change.

2. Management Strategies forMaintaining a Healthy Ecosystem.

The importance of healthy ecosys-tems to the quality of our lives is begin-ning to be recognized and valued by thepublic. What is meant by a “healthy”ecosystem and what can be done to pro-mote it? The delegates in these workinggroups were asked to take a holistic lookat ecosystem management, work on adefinition of ecosystem health, and dis-cuss what can be done to maintainhealthy ecosystems. Subjects for dis-cussion under this theme included man-agement of endangered species, thedefinition and maintenance of biodi-versity, the harvest of resources in ahealthy ecosystem, habitat restoration,and the use of scientific information inthe policy process.

3. Strategies for Renewable Re-sources Sustainability.

Concern has shifted from sustainingeconomic growth to sustaining renew-able resource yields. Delegates in these

groups were asked to explore severalquestions: In the various categories ofresources, what are common strategiesfor obtaining sustainability? When aredifferent strategies needed? What mustbe done to assure the availability of aland and water resource base for futuregenerations? Topics for considerationincluded: strategies for achievingsustainability on cropland, rangeland,and timberland; maintenance of fishand wildlife habitat: water manage-ment: and sustainability of resourcesversus economic growth.

building a stewardship ethic for landmanagement.

6. Climate-Induced Environmen-tal Change: What Renewable Re-source Managers and ProfessionalsShould Be Doing.

4. Managing Conflicts in Renew-able Natural Resources Manage-ment.

Delegates in the working groups con-cerned with this theme were asked toconsider: What are the characteristics ofresource conflicts, and how can con-flicts best be resolved? Do economic,social, and political principles exist thatapply to resolving conflicts betweenscientific findings and resource policydecisions? Delegates also were asked toexamine case studies of resource con-flicts and possible approaches to futureconflicts. Examples included: energydevelopment versus wilderness preser-vation in the Arctic National WildlifeRefuge, protection of the spotted owlversus timber harvesting in the North-west, irrigation versus wildlife protec-tion in the California Central Valley,and water for cities versus water for ag-riculture in the arid West.

Global climate change has receivedmuch attention and discussion in recentyears. Delegates in the groups devotedto this final area were charged with ex-amining how global climate changemight affect the management and use ofrenewable natural resources, particu-larly given the uncertainty about pro-jected changes in regional climate andthe fact that such changes are likely tooccur over several decades. Questionsidentified for discussion included: Doessociety have time to adjust to new con-ditions, what should resource managersdo in the face of conflicting and uncer-tain climate-change projections, do ob-vious management strategies exist thatshould be applied, how adaptable areplants and animals, and what should bedone to avoid the divergence of policyfrom scientific findings.

tions for resolving the impediments and

Prior to the congress, RNRF distrib-on ways to implement the actions.

uted two surveys to the invited del-egates to help identify and prioritize theissues. In the first, delegates were askedto list five issues that they would like tosee addressed by each sub-workinggroup. For each issue or problem, theyalso were asked to identify two key im-pediments. Congress program commit-tee chairman William H. Queen com-piled the results of this survey anddeveloped a second questionnaireaimed at prioritizing the issues thusidentified. Delegates were presentedwith a list of issues for each of the sixthemes. The lists ranged in length from15 to 26 issues. The delegates wereasked to rate each issue from 1 to 10based on their opinion as to its impor-tance, with a“l0” given to those that arehighly important and “1” to those thatare least important. The resultingrankings of issues (which appear as Ap-pendix A on page 26 of this report) weredistributed to the delegates at the begin-ning of the congress and provided afoundation for initiating working groupdiscussions.

5. Managing Common-PropertyResources.

Today, issues related to the manage-ment of common-property resourcesam becoming more frequent and morecontentious. Various aspects of humanbehavior and the nation’s economy ei-ther promote or mitigate competitionfor common-property resources. Del-egates in the groups discussing this fifththeme were asked to examine diverseideas such as: the concept of the com-mons, private versus public ownership,regulation of private property, manag-ing common-property resources, and

In order to promote discussion, twosub-working groups were formed to ad-dress each theme. Each sub-workinggroup was assigned a chair, rapporteur,and facilitator. The chair presided overthe meetings and allocated work tasks.The rapporteur compiled detailed notes,prepared a report for distribution aftereach sub-working group session, andauthored a final summary report. Thefacilitators, themselves prominent re-source professionals, were assigned thetask of keeping the discussion focusedon the mission: identifying key issues,impediments, and recommended ac-tions. The chairs, rapporteurs, and fa-cilitators met prior to the congress toreceive instructions and discuss tacticsand approaches. Specific instructionsincluded limiting the number of issuesdiscussed in depth within each sub-working group to five or six, developinga consensus among the delegates on keyimpediments to resolving those issues,and soliciting recommendations on ac-

At the congress, delegates were givena primary sub-working-group assign-ment and two secondary assignments.The primary assignments were based onthe delegates’ major interests and ex-pertise. This approach provided a for-mat in which acknowledged leaders inthe field would be given the first oppor-tunity to address the six themes: afterthat, the discussion was opened to otherinterested resource professionals bymeans of the secondary assignments.Delegates were required to spend theentire first day of working-group dis-cussions in their primary group. On thesecond day, they were asked to meet inthe fust of their two secondary groupsduring the morning and in the secondduring the afternoon. Chairs, rap-porteurs, and facilitators remained withtheir primary assignments throughoutthe two days. On the last day of the con-

AUTUMN 1992 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 5

gress, the entire cadre of delegates metin a plenary session to review the finalreports of the sub-working groups.

Two keynote addresses were deliv-ered at the congress. The first speakerwas F.E. (“Fee”) Busby of the WinrockInternational Institute, who spoke onthe evening of August 19 to open thecongress. Adopting a Will Rogers style,Busby used a local Vail newspaper toillustrate the pervasiveness, diversity,and local roots of environmental prob-lems. The second keynote speaker wasAmbassador Robert J. Ryan, Jr. of theU.S. Department of State, who spoke onthe afternoon of August 22 to close thecongress. Ambassador Ryan, whoserved as a key member of the U.S. del-egation to the United Nations Confer-ence on Environment and Development(UNCED) in Rio de Janeirethe“Earth Summit” held June of 1992-spoke on the environmental implica-tions of the agreements, particularlyAgenda 2 1, that were negotiated duringthe UNCED meetings. Although Am-bassador Ryan took an internationalperspective and F.E. Busby took a localview, both messages were the same: allenvironmental problems are intercon-

netted and thus require an integratedapproach when seeking solutions.

This report presents the findings andconclusions of the delegates who at-tended the congress. Summaries of theissues, impediments, and actions identi-fied by the two sub-groups working ineach of the six theme areas are included,based on the reports by the rapporteurs.During the congress, no effort wasmade at reaching a formal consensusamong all of the delegates on each andevery issue, impediment, and action.Therefore, the issues, impediments, andrk3ions reported here tepmsent the consen-sus arkl findings of individual subworkinggroups. However, through the process ofworking-group rotation describedabove, each delegate was able to con-tribute to the deliberations of three ofthe six working-group themes.

To the extent possible, the summa-ries capture the spirit and content of thediscussions that took place at the con-gress. The uniqueness of the differentgroups led to a diversity of approachesand styles used to report findings andconclusions. In some cases, rapporteursfor the two sub-groups organizedaround a theme chose to produce a final,

joint working-group report. In those in-stances, the merged approach is main-tained in this report. In other cases, indi-vidual final reports were prepared foreach sub-working group. Sometimesthese two M subgrcntp rem ate veryd.ifferenC other times they am similar. Inthose instances where they differed, thefindings of each am teported separately.Whete the subgroups’ fmdings are simi-lar, the two are combined into a singlesummary for this report.

The findings and conclusionsreached at the congress and included inthis report represent the opinions andideas of the delegates assembled at thecongress and not necessarily those ofthe Renewable Natural ResourcesFoundation and its member organiza-tions, the agencies and organizationsthat provided support, or the author.Every effort has been made to report theactivities of the congress in as muchdetail as possible, and to maintain themeaning and content of the originalrapporteurs’ reports. The quality of theindividual reports of the rapporteurswas uniformly excellent, and this finalsummary reprt would not have beenpossible without their contributions.~~

6 RLNEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL AUTUMN 1992

I’OPU~TION, ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT, AND GEOGRAPHY

Population growth and economic de-velopment are placing increasing de-mands on renewable natural resourcesin the United States. According to the1990 census, the nation is growing at anannual rate of 1.0 percent per year. Al-though far below that for most develop-ing countries, this rate of growth is oneof the highest among developed, indus-trial nations. If the present rate contin-ues into the future, the population of theUnited States is expected to double in70 years.

Population growth in the UnitedStates is being driven by two factors:natural increase (births in excess ofdeaths) and immigration. Demogra-phers estimate that roughly 44 percentof the population growth in the UnitedStates during the past two decades canbe traced to immigration since 1970,plus the children born to these recent ar-rivals. How to deal with the pressurnsthat a growing population places on re-newable resources was the focus of thetwo sub-working groups formed aroundthe theme of population, economic de-velopment, and geography.

Furthermore, the professional com-position of the delegates who attendedthe three sessions of the two sub-work-ing groups varied greatly, and thus thecharacter of the issues and correspond-ing actions differed considerably fromsession to session. This latter point wasparticularly true for the second sub-working group, where population stabi-lization proved to be a major topic dur-ing the first two sessions. The rap-porteur for this second group noted thata large number of anthropologists at-tended the third session, and he specu-lated on how the outcome might havebeen different had the members of thethird session been the participants in thefirst instead. Because the approach andcontent of the two sub-groups differedsignificantly and no combined reportwas made, the two groups are coveredseparately here, and a final working-group synthesis for population, eco-nomic development, and geography isprovided to highlight similarities.

Anne Ehrlich, and recently used byHerman Daly and other ecologicaleconomists: EI = P x A x T, where EI =environmental impact, P = population,A = affluence, and T = technology. Dur-ing the working-group sessions, theequation was used to establish a contextfor viewing the interface of populationand environment that was the focus ofthis sub-group’s discussions. The groupthen identified five key issues, assessedimpediments to addressing these issues,and suggested actions for resolving theimpediments and addressing the issues.

SUB-WORKING GROUP A

These two groups had perhaps the The first sub-group established amost wide-ranging theme of the con- common framework for discussing is-gress. This breadth was reflected by the sues related to population and economicset of issues and actions identified by development by reviewing the Rio Dec-the delegates who participated in the laration on sustainability. Noting thatvarious sessions of the two sub-working the declaration is a statement of moralgroups. The issues ranged from how to principle and not an operational defini-control population growth to how to in- tion of sustainability, the group under-crease environmental awareness. The scored the need to develop a manage-focus and content of the two population ment definition of sustainable devel-sub-groups differed significantly, with opment. This sub-group also reviewedthe first taking a look at specific issues, an equation dealing with population andwhile the second group’s approach was environment popularized by biologistsmore general in scope. and population specialists Paul and

The first issue that was identifiedcentered on the need to understandsustainability by developing a consen-sus on what sustainability means in dif-ferent cultural, spatial, and temporalcontexts. Impediments to addressingthis issue include the short-term timehorizon of political and economic deci-sion making, the incompatibility ofgeopolitical boundaries and those forenvironmental and resource systems,local pressures such as the “not in mybackyard” or NIMBY syndrome, andconflicts between key stakeholders.Suggested actions include developmentof policies for compensating those whoare negatively affected by environmen-tal regulations, establishment of a na-tional population policy with the goal ofachieving zero population growth, andexamination of the impact of differenttechnologies on sustainability.

The second issue was the need to un-derstand the nature of conflicts overeconomic and environmental issues andtheir relationship to population growthand economic development. The im-pediments identified by the group con-


cerned limitations or shortcomings incurrent decision-making and manage-ment processes. These include an in-ability to identify and manage cumula-tive impacts, limitations on whatmanagement agencies can do, the bu-reaucratic nature of agencies, limitedunderstanding of issues on the part ofdecision makers, the narrow focus ofprofessional organizations, the lack ofinstitutional rewards for professionalinvolvement in conflict resolution, andharassment of scientists and profession-als for voicing unpopular opinions.

Suggested actions or solutions in-clude promoting broad-scale analysis ofthe root causes of resource problemsand conflicts by developing a nationaldatabase and network, encouraging aninterdisciplinary approach to conflictresolution, integrating negative envi-ronmental consequences into conflictevaluation, promoting informed debatebased upon an understanding of thegoals and needs of conflicting groupsand rooted in improved education onthe issues.

The need for integrated decisionmaking at all levels of government con-cerning problems of development, en-vironment, population, and resourcemanagement was the third issue identi-fied by the group. Impediments to de-veloping an integrated decision-mak-ing approach include the perceptions ofland as simply a commodity, failure tointernalize the environmental costs ofusing a resource, poor judgments aboutthe costs and benefits associated withusing a resource, and increasing polar-ization of environmental issues. Ac-tions recommended by the group are:creating an institutional structure forintegration at all governmental levels,developing incentives for pursuing along-term approach to resource use(e.g., tax relief) and disincentives forpursuing a short-term approach, andencouraging a shift in values toward astewardship ethic and long-term per-spectives.

The fourth issue was tbe need to de-

velop institutional capacity at the na-tional and international levels to ad-dress renewable resource issues. Im-pediments to developing this institu-tional capacity include the lack of anavailable forum for addressing issues,lack of trained individuals, and an inad-equate database. Among the suggestedactions were encouraging federalagency participation in and cooperationwith international agencies, establish-ing a partnership between private envi-ronmental organizations and traditionalresource users, helping other countriesbuild needed resource-management in-stitutions, and m-evaluating the missionstatements of federal agencies for con-sistency and compatibility with the goalof sustainability.

The need to combine ecological andsocial approaches to achieve a sustain-able society was the fifth issue dis-cussed by this sub-group. Impedimentsto this issue ranged from continuedpopulation growth to cultural barriersand a lack of interdisciplinary workamong scientists. Solutions or actionsidentified include developing interdis-ciplinary centers that encourage inte-gration of natural and social sciences,encouraging the exchange of academicand public agency personnel at all lev-els, investigating the possibility of de-veloping “endangered ecosystem” leg-islation to protect resources, andpromoting the professional develop-ment of environmental ethics-perhapsthrough the creation of a new academic

discipline,

SUB-WORKING GROUP B

In pursuing a somewhat more generalapproach, the second sub-group work-ing on the theme of population, eco-nomic development, and geographytook 15 issues identified in the pre-con-gress survey and selected six major is-sues that emerged from the recast list.The six issues were:

1. How can population growth bemanaged?

8 RENEWABLE RFSOURCES 1OURNAL AUTUMN 1992

2. How can population distribution bemanaged?

3. How can resource need/demand bemade environmentally sound inlight of growing populationpressures?

4. How can we determine a regionalpopulation density that will affordan acceptable quality of life, yet notadversely affect environmentalquality?

5. How can agricultural and naturalresources be effectively managed?

6. How can public values be incor-porated in decision making andmanagement of natural resources?

The group focused its discussion ofthese six issues on the general questionof how to maintain resource sustain-ability in the face of increasing environ-mental pressure from population growthand economic development. After iden-tifying the six issues and discussingimpediments (impediments were notformally identified in the group notes),participants of the first session of thissub-group identified recommended ac-tions for each issue. The second andthird sessions refined the list of actions,and the third session prioritized theseactions through the use of a ballot inwhich each participant was allowedthree votes per issue. The three votescould be used on one action or spreadamong two or three. The three actionsreceiving the most votes are listed foreach issue.

l.How can population growth bemanaged?

l Recommend increased investmentin economic and health child-re-lated programs in inner cities.

l Design and implement a nationalaction program to inform the publicof the consequences (social and en-vironmental) of continued popula-tion growth.

l Promote free trade with developingcountries.

2. How can population distributionbe managed?

l Encourage consideration of demo-

graphic shifts in long-term nationalplanning.

l Provide information related to sen-sitive environments.

l Manipulate infrastructure to con-trol population distribution.

3. How can resource need/demandbe made environmentally soundin light of growing populationpressures?

l Determine resource needs of indi-viduals and societies.

l Change economic accounting pro-cesses to include environmental ex-ternalities such as pollution or lossof aesthetic value, factors not cur-rently internal to accounting proce-dures.

l Encourage RNRF to address thequestion of defining a basic stan-dard of living.

4. How can we determine a regionalpopulation density that will af-ford an acceptable quality of life,yet not adversely affect environ-mental quality?

l Encourage RNRF to explore thecreation of an index for different re-gions of the country to measure en-

vironmental quality.l Promote research on the ecosystem

impacts of environmental change.l Fund research on human percep-

tions of environmental quality.5. How can agricultural and natural

resources be effectively man-aged?

l Revamp national policy and plan-ning to include the concept of eco-system functioning and sustainability.

l Encourage an interagency, inter-disciplinary response to resourcemanagement.

l Encourage dialogue among re-source disciplines.

. Include full-cost accounting of re-source use.

6. How can public values be incor-porated in decision making andmanagement of natural re-sources?

l Encourage empowerment at thelowest administrative level that ef-fectively involves all legitimatelyinterested publics.

l Identify common goals of differentpublics.

l Develop a consensus-building pro-

cess at local, regional, and nationallevels.

SYNTHESIS

Despite the differences in approachpursued by the two groups, they reacheda number of similar conclusions aboutneeded actions. These include develop-ing a national population policy, refin-ing the concept of sustainability andmaking it operational at all decision-making and management levels, betterunderstanding human impacts on eco-systems and managing those impacts,revamping existing decision-makingand management processes so that theymore fully capture environmental valuesand incorporate the full economic andenvironmental costs of resource use,improving interagency cooperation andinterdisciplinary research, and educat-ing the public and professionals on envi-ronmental ethics. This is a wide-ranging listof recommendations that underscoresthe fundamentally interconnected natureof renewable resources issues. Many ofthese same recommendations will ap-pear again in other groups’ 1ist.w


MANAGEMENT STWTEGIES FORMAINTAINING A HEALTHYECOSYSTEM

The two sub-groups addressing theproblem of management strategies formaintaining a healthy ecosystem fol-lowed a similar approach to identifyingand discussing key issues, impedi-ments, and recommended actions. Theirreports have been combined, and a sum-mary of their findings is provided be-low. Three key issues and associatedimpediments are identified first, andthen four sets of actions and solutionsthat crosscut these issues are outlined.

The two sub-groups establishedsome common ground by identifyingsome of the components of ecosystemhealth. These include functional at-tributes such as energy and element cy-cling, maintenance of biodiversity andcritical habitats, maintenance of spatialand temporal structure, quality of inputsand outputs such as air and water, andresources used by humans such as rec-reation or timber. The two sub-groupscame to general agreement about theurgent need to define a baseline for eco-system health. It was further deter-mined that the baseline must be definedin the context of management goals andregional ecological and s&rl consider-ations, and it must be relevant to globalas well as local concerns. Lastly, thetwo sub-groups concluded that anystatement regarding ecosystem health isa statement of values.

KEY ISSUES ANDIMPEDIMENTS

Issue 1: Scientific and technologi-cal limitations to understanding eco-logical systems and applying an eco-

system approach to management.Impediments:l Lack of basic tools for analysis

such as techniques for scaling updata from the local to the globallevel, long-term data sets, adequateconceptual models, and suitable re-search methodology.

l Inadequate funding for long-term,integrated ecosystem research.

. Lack of operational definitions andindices of environmental health.

l Lack of interdisciplinary collabora-tion among the natural and socialsciences.

l Paradigm constraints and inertia(lack of adequate conceptual mod-els).

l Lack of professional incentives orrewards for using an ecosystem ap-proach.

l Failure to apply the concept ofsustainability in ecosystem man-agement.

Issue 2: Limitations of existing t-e-source-management approaches foraddressing the concepts involved inecosystem management.

Impediments:

10 RENEWABLE RESOURCES IOURNAL AUTUMN 1992

Tendency of management to be re-active rather than proactive.Lack of regional and nalional coor-dination of management strategies.Selection of management criteriatoo often political (role of specialinterests).Difficulty in learning to deal withproblems of appropriate scaling.Lack of mechanisms to evaluatecumulative impacts on ecosystems.

l Lack of conflict-resolution andconsensus-building skills.

. Inappropriate institutional struc-tures for approaching ecosystemmanagement.

l Inability of present resource-evalu-ation system to accommodate non-market values.

l Lack of understanding of objec-tives and methods required for eco-system restoration.

Issue 3: Social, political, and eco-nomic constraints to maintaininghealthy and sustainable ecosystems.

Impediments:l Lack of stewardship ethic to guide

decision making and management.l Public’s poor understanding of

ecosystems and management prob-lems, plus unrealistic expectationsfor science and management.

l Lack of political leadership for re-solving ecosystem-managementproblems.

. Fragmentation of regulatory andmanagement policy among agen-cies and disciplines.

l Short-term perspective in political

and economic decision making.

SOLUTIONS AND ACTIONS

1. Science and Research Needs.Actions for stimulating more interac-tive and interdisciplinary research,supporting more long-term ecosys-tem research, and providing bettermanagement of science and research:

. Support ecosystem research to ad-dress management issues through a

system of competitive grants, newagency research programs, and im-proved coordination of research.

l Improve incentives and rewards forinterdisciplinary ecosystem re-search by creating a quality pro-gram based on a strategic plan andencouraging cross-discipline teamwork as well as team work withindisciplines. Also provide support todual-career-track professionals.

l Conduct more long-term ecologi-cal research focused on the bio-physical behavior of ecosystemsand the interaction of social andeconomic systems.

l Develop a national initiative on en-vironmental issues to support morescientific research and better inte-grate scientific information into thepolicy process.

l Develop a set of indicators of eco-system health that include socialand economic as well as biologicaland ecological factors.

l Improve communication and col-laboration among researchers,managers, policymakers, and thepublic.

l Improve the availability and reducethe costs of basic data sets. Also es-tablish standards for data acquisi-tion and analysis.

2. Management Issues. Actionsfor stimulating integrative and inter-disciplinary ecosystem management,promoting regional ecosystem man-agement, and focusing managementon maintaining ecosystem health:

l Conduct management as a scien-tific process in which strategies andapproaches are open to constanttesting and revision just as scien-tific hypotheses are. Also designmonitoring programs so as to test

management strategies and provideaccountability.

l Establish effective mechanisms forcommunicating managementneeds to scientists and scientific in-formation to managers.

l Improve outreach programs to in-clude better communication withbusinesses and tbe public, and de-velop ways to explain the ecosys-tem concept in understandableterms.

l Focus on proactive or “up-front”management approaches. Create anenvironmental extension servicewith a focus on resource manage-ment.

l Establish operational goals andmanagement strategies for restora-tion of ecosystem health.

l Establish public/private partner-ship centers within “eco-regions”to foster scientific collaboration,policy development, strategic man-agement planning, and public com-munication.

l Integrate ecology, economics, cul-ture, and politics in regional man-agement and research.

3. Awareness and Education. Ac-tions for improving public awarenessof and education on ecosystem sci-ence and management, and actionsfor improving professional training:

l Expand educational system for pro-fessional managers of natural re-sources, resource users, landown-ers, public officials, and the public(including children) to explain howecosystems work.

l Influence public attitudes aboutecosystems by producing credibleand understandable science and bydeveloping interpretive and publiceducation programs.

l Develop and provide informationon curriculum development andteaching materials.

l Establish educational programs toassure that college graduates areconversant with ecosystems.

l Direct efforts at the mass media as ameans of educating the publicabout ecosystems.

l Develop programs for profession-als to improve their critical-think-ing skills about ecosystems, andteach new tools on ecosystem man-agement.

l Re-emphasize the systems ap-proach (including social and eco-nomic factors) in education andtraining on ecosystem manage-ment.

4, Social and Political. Actions forimproving national environmentalleadership and fostering public val-ues toward the environment:

l Work toward development of anenvironmental or stewardshipethic. Solicit the support of spiritualleaders to collaborate on developing an environmental ethic.

l Work toward a national vision orpolicy on ecosystem managementby developing a consolidated natu-ral resource agency at the cabinetlevel, consolidating legislativecommittees dealing with natural re-sources, and involving all segmentsof the public in an infomted debateon the issues.

l Vertically integrate natural re-source laws and legislation fromthe local through the federal level.

l Develop a trust fund for environ-mental improvements through a re-source users tax.<<


STMTEGIES FOR RENEWBLERF3OURCES SUSTAINABILITY

The two sub-groups working onidentifying strategies for renewable re-sources sustainability grappled withone of the great questions facing societytoday and into the next century: Howcan society manage interacting ecologi-cal and social systems in a way thatmaintains their health and allows soci-ety to develop and meet its needs essen-tially in perpetuity?

Like other groups at the congressconsidering this topic, the two sub-groups focusing specifically on sus-tainability had difficulty defining theconcept. Nevertheless, they believedthat the concept represents a valid andimportant shift of professional and ethi-cal attitudes in natural-resource man-agement and thus compels concertedeffort to develop a definitional perspec-tive. Such a perspective could be used toframe the issue as it develops in the en-vironmental management field over thenext several years.

The two groups identified five per-spectives. First, humanity must usenatural resources to meet social desiresfor healthy economies, sound socialcommunities, and good standards ofliving, recognizing that these desiresdiffer among social groups. Second, theuse of a natural resource must not causeirreversible economic, social, or naturalresource damage. This means maintain-ing the integrity of ecological systemsand their air, soil, water, and biologicalconstituents. Third, the need to accom-modate future use while maintainingoptions for future generations must beacknowledged by incorporating alonger time horizon in resource plan-ning. Fourth, sustainability implies

analysis of interacting economic, so-cial, and ecological processes andworking at multiple geographical andtemporal scales, ranging from the an-nual cycle of a wheat field to the inter-generational cycles of industrial devel-opment or atmospheric change. Fifth,sustainability must be defined in thecontext of specified natural and socialsystems, and environmental resourcesand services to be sustained also mustbe specified. These specifications willchange over time, and thus sus-tainability must be thought of in thecontext of social, technological, andenvironmental change, and therefore itmust be framed in dynamic and adapt-able ways.

ISSUES AND IMPEDIMENTS

The two groups identified dozens ofimpediments to sustainability, but alsohundreds of actions that could help so-ciety move toward a sustainable eco-logical and economic future. The sixmost important issues emerging fromthe two groups are reported below.

First, certain social values and re-ward systems tend to conflict with re-source sustainability. Economic valuesfocused on consumption and politicalrealities often allow only short-termplanning. Yet society wants to provide ahealthy environment, equitable accessto natural resources, and a sound envi-ronment and social community for futuregenerations. Such values could begin toconstitute an ethic of “stewardship” or“sustainability,” but the societal ramili-cations of true global resource sus-tainability in perpetuity have only be-

gun to be recognized in recent years.Second, the existing institutional in-

frastructure (both governmental andnon-governmental) has evolved in waysthat may not be suited to ecosystemsustainability and the services that soci-ety values and needs. For example,some agencies are pressed to pursueshort-term goals, and some resourcesubsidies reward exploitation ratherthan sustainability. Fragmentation ofdisciplines, organizations, and agenciesoften keep professionals from dealingwith problems of “whole systems”(both natural and social).

Third, society lacks mechanisms forsharing responsibility for resourcesustainability, especially across thepublic/private divide, and has notsettled on the appropriate role of gov-ernment and private property owners inresource management. Questions in-volving private land-use decisions tendto polarize viewpoints. Government in-tervention thus becomes necessary forresolution of many sustainability andenvironmental issues, but this createsfurther polarity until progress becomespolitically impossible.

Fourth, research approaches and ourknowledge base still lack integration(especially of natural and social sci-ences) and the ability to deal with com-plex systems that would allow us tomake credible statements and projectionsabout resource system sustainability,the dynamics and limits of ecosystemcapacity, rates of renewability, and inte-grated social and ecological indicatorsof sustainability.

Fifth, understanding and acceptanceof sustainability by both professionals

AUTUMN 1992

and the public is lacking for the mostpart. Mechanisms for educating publicofficials, resource managers, and citi-zens about sustainability are weak.

private, in favor of sustainability.

Sixth, natural-resource sustainabilityis a global issue. We cannot definesustainability in a vacuum or address itby acting as if we are an isolated coun-try. The social and ecological systemsthat we want to sustain operate at allscales: local to global. Local and re-gional actions have global implications,but we lack understanding of the globalconsequences of local land-use deci-sions, and opinions differ greatly on theconsequences of resource actions in dif-ferent cultures.

KEY ACTIONS FOR A SHIFTTOWARD SUSTAINABILITY

1. Adopting new value and rewardsystems for sustainability.

Changes must be made in existinginstitutions, both government and pri-vate, with an aim toward moving re-source decisions away from exploita-tion and toward sustainability. As astart, natural resource sustainabilityshould be articulated as an overarchingnational policy, implemented throughstatutes and other means. Guidancemust be provided to resource agencieson regional ecosystem-managementapproaches and on further involvementof public, grass-roots organizations,and other constituent bases in manage-ment and decision making. Incentivesmust be built into governmental sys-tems at all levels to take integrated ap-proaches to resource sustainability,working up from the local to the re-gional and national levels in renewableresource planning.

should be favored over the use of regu-latory measures.

4. Improving the role of researchand practice.

Society must develop new socialmechanisms that reward sustainabilityrather than the resource exploitationand degradation that is currently drivenby affluence in some parts of the worldand poverty in others. Society shouldconsider, for example, stewardship-based incentives, while recognizingthat reward systems interact with socialvalue systems and must complementthose values to be socially sustainable.The question is whether institutions canbe established that work with social val-ues to develop an “ethic of sus-tainability”?

A national policy for sustainabilitycalls for a mechanism for inter-agencycoordination, such as a national “sus-tainable natural resources council” tofacilitate information exchange andproblem identification. Such a councilmight be linked to the proposaI for anew National Institutes for the Environ-ment. A national policy also must en-coumge active partic@& by state andlccal governments, as well as the partici-pation of non-governmental organiza-tions. One tool that might be devel-oped is a national “sustainability as-sessment act.”

The positive move toward integratedresearch involving both the natural andsocial sciences must be continued andinvigorated. ProfessionaIs need to workharder on interdisciplinary approachesand must better integrate social and bio-logical factors, seek common groundand languages, and link the various timeand space scales of ecosystems, socialsystems, and resource systems. Re-searchers must develop social and eco-logical indicators of sustainability withmeaning across cultures, a5 well as tempo-raland spatial scales. The role of sciencein decisions on resource sustainabilityshould be increased and made morecredible. At the same time, scien&sand professionals must become in-volved in policy debates and help popu-larize the idea of sustainability with thepublic. If not scientists and profession-als, who else will advance the issue?The structure of academic institutionsalso should be examined and perhapschanged so as to encourage this integra-tion of science and policy.

Society must examine whether cur-rent environmental and social policiesengender or thwart the move toward re-source sustainability. In particular, itmust identify and eliminate policy in-teractions that work at cross-purposesto resource sustainability. We shouldalso identify and examine social in&u-tions that favor a short-term rather thanlong-term focus in resource manage-ment (e.g., credit systems, tax struc-tures, and land-transfer mechanisms).

3. Sharing responsibility for sus-tainability.

Research must be made meaningfuland useful to resource practitioners.Mechanisms must be made available toassess and maintain sustainability. Con-cepts and tools such as sustainable land-scapes, c&ble measures of sustainability,allowable change, and means for deal-ing with uncertainty and extreme eventsmust be developed in cooperation withresource managers.

2. Improving the nation’s institu-tional infrastructure, both public and

Mechanisms for sharing responsibil-ity for resource protection and sus-tainability, especially across the publicand private realms, must be developed.Property rights, regulatory versus vol-untary approaches, and economic ver-sus non-monetary incentives must beexamined. Opportunities for equitablesharing of responsibility among publicand private interests need to be as-sessed. Finally, voluntary, market-based, and non-market incentives forachieving resource sustainability

5. Enhancing education aboutsustainability.

Landowners, resource professionals,industry representatives, policymakers,and the public must be educated aboutsustainability. Two target audiencesstand out: firs6 policymakers, to whoma word like sustainability may be con-fusing or even threatening; and second,the public who must be involved in de-cisions about sustaining ecosystems.The question with respect to policy-


makers is how to give sustainability auseful and concrete meaning for mak-ing resource decisions. With respect tothe public, sustuinabilify must becomea meaningful term not only for land-owners, but for schoolchildren as well.

Success stories on sustainabilityfrom a variety of geographical settingsand resource sectors should be docu-mented and disseminated. Establishinglarge-scale demonstration projectsmight be one useful way of accomplish-ing this goal.

Part of the education process shouldbe to assist various social groups in ar-ticulating their values and understand-ing how these values affect the environ-ment and resource sustainability. Aprocess that enables managers toproject and document, in a credibleway, consequences of short- and long-term resource-management decisionsshould be developed. Perhaps this canbe accomplished through the use ofcomputer simulation games. Tools suchas these must be made available to thevarious groups associated with resourcedecisions (e.g., professional managers,policymakers, and the public).

6. Recognizing the global implica-tions of resource actions.

International communication must between society and the ecosystems onbe improved. The environmental impli- which it depends. Specific tasks mightcations of emerging issues such as free include: 1) examining what the call fortmde, the General Agreement on Tariffs sustainability means to natuml-resourcesand Trade (GATT), Agenda 21 of research, teaching, and technologyUNCED, and the tension between de- transfer: 2) developing educational ma-veloped and developing countries terials that articulate the concept of sus-should be explored. The role of intema- tainable natural-resources management,tional business and the implications of including computer simulations thatdomestic policies for sustainability of help project the consequences of alter-ecosystems in other countries must be native resource decisions: and 3) creat-evaluated, and tools must be developed ing demonstration projects and seekingfor assessing the global implications of examples of eco/social system sus-local and regional land-use decisions. tainability, and disseminating the results.

THE CHALLENGE TORESOURCE PROFESSIONS

The challenge to resource profes-sions and RNRF from the twosustainability sub-groups is to movevigorously from this first step (theRNRF Congress) to prepare an agenda(the Vail Agenda)-a “vision state-merit”-for developing and enhancingthe substance and credibility of re-source sustainability as a paradigm forthe future evolution of social and natu-ral systems. The agenda must help in-fuse the concept into the resource pro-fessions and into the daily interaction

Most importantly, the resource pro-fessions and RNRF can facilitate andenergize-starting with this congressand the hundreds of ideas formulated bythe working groups-a national (andeven international) dialogue leading toa new vision for resource managementthat is less focused on production andmore focused on sustainability, and thatcan be translated into a positive re-search, educational, and managementinfrastructure for sustainability. Thisprocess is needed to help determinewhat sustainability means to the re-source professions, and why and how toseek sustainability in the Earth’s inter-acting ecological and social systems.<<

14 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL AUTUMN 1992

MANAGING CONFLICTS INRENEWmLE NATURAL RESOURCESMANAGEMENT

Hardly a major resource decision ismade today that does not involve con-flict. In fact, many important decisionsare delayed for years because of politi-cal and legal tactics that prevent a reso-lution. Indeed, for those who see them-selves coming out on the losing side of adecision, no decision at all may be thepreferred outcome. Furthermore, it in-cteasingly seems to be the case that de-cision makers prefer to avoid makingthe hard decisions rather than endurethe firestorm that will almost certainlyfollow any decision on a controversialissue. The result is decision-makingdeadlock, and in the end it is often theresource that loses because of lack ofmanagement or protection. Finding amore efficient and equitable means ofresolving major resource conflicts, suchas the spotted owl issue in the North-west, is one of the most pressing re-source issues facing society today, andit was the focus of the two sub-groupsorganized around the theme of manag-ing conflicts in renewable natural re-sources management. Because the twosub-groups approached the problemdifferently, separate summaries of theirdiscussions and recommendations arepresented.

SUB-WORKING GROUP A

The first sub-group began by identi-fying both positive and negative aspectsof conflict. On the positive side, con-stant competition for resources and theconflict it engenders stimulates changeand adaptation in society. Conflict is a

natural and potentially healthy by-prod-uct of an open and democratic society.Finally, new knowledge and better de-cisions often emerge from conflict. Onthe negative side, conflict can lead to acessation of discussion, hardening ofpositions and attitudes, and inability oforganizations and institutions to takemeaningful actions on renewable natu-ral resources issues.

The sub-group then identified someof the generic origins of conflict. Forexample, conflict can result from mutu-ally exclusive goals, disputes overmeans to shared goals, resource scar-city, or differences in values. The re-mainder of this sub-group’s discussionfocused on thme general issues and a setof actions that RNRF should take.

Role of the L.ay Public in Conjlict

Public values and ethics are diverse,and different publics have differentgoals and resource utilization needs.Furthermore, resource issues are com-plex and difficult to understand-evenfor trained professionals-and thus thepublic may be confused over facts,overwhelmed by information, or apa-thetic. All of these factors can contrib-ute to conflicts in decision making.

Role of the Resource Professionalin Conjlict

Resource professionals are con-strained by the fact that often too littletime is available for developing goodalternatives or carefully thought-out so-

lutions. Also, politicaI pressures createmuddy, ambiguous situations. The pro-fessional resource manager operating inthat atmosphere may not be able tomake a decision simply by applying the“best available” scientific knowledge.In addition, professional employeeswho deal directly with natural re-sources and the public are often left tocope with conflict without direction orassistance from higher level adminis-trative personnel.

Resource professionals often do nottake the public into their confidenceearly enough in the process. They fre-quently have different values tied tonarrow disciplinary interests, and thisleads to a failure to educate the publicproactively on issues. It may even leadto a disinterest in ‘people issues” alto-gether, despite the fact that such issuesare often at the center of the conflict.Resource professionals who may havesensitivity to “people skills” often donot receive support from traditionallytrained administrators. Furthermore,when resource professionals do engagethe public, they often are tom betweenserving the preferences of various pub-lics and utilizing their professionalknowledge and skill to take the lead informing solutions.

Resource professionals also tend tohave little exposure to knowledge andtools from the social sciences thatmight prove useful in conflict resolu-tion. Often, the training of resource stu-

dents is primarily focused on researchrather than on conflict resolution orpeople management.


Institutional Issues in ConflictManagement

At the root of many resource con-flicts lie unresolved, fundamental soci-etal issues pertaining to individualrights or property rights versus respon-sibility to society (e.g., volunteerismversus regulation as an approach to re-solving problems). Furthermore, cer-tain segments of society (the media, le-gal community, user groups) have avested interest in promoting, or at leastnot reducing, conflict over renewablenatural resources. And in a winner-take-all environment, there are few incen-tives for conflict resolution.

Opportunities to practice alternativedispute-resolution techniques are lim-ited, short of going to court or decidingthe battle on the basis of political clout.Also, few rewards or incentives existfor developing or implementing alter-native dispute-resolution techniques,particularly when such strategies arenot institutionahzed in the legal system.

Substantial legal, institutional, orga-nizational, and personal disincentivesincline resource professiomus (and re-source educators) against operating inthe interdisciplinary manner necessaryfor resolving many conflicts over theuse and management of resources. Re-search funding niches tend to followtraditional lines and discourage inter-disciplinary efforts. Furthermore, theclimate in agencies often is not condu-cive to open discussion of issues andproblems.

Finally, there is a lack of coordina-tion among federal agencies on natural-resource issues. Federal agencies oper-ate like “little empires,” viewingthemselves as having a monopoly onthe issues. The responsiveness of agen-cies is guided by the legislative appro-priation process and the political or eco-nomic power of client groups.

Recommended Actions for RNRF

l Develop a casebook of examples of

16 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOUFWAL AUTUMN 1992

conflict management, both suc-cessful and unsuccessful, for use inuniversity courses and professionaldevelopment.

. In partnership with universities, de-velop a model curriculum in re-source conflict management thatcould be incorporated into degreeprograms and the continuing edu-cation programs of RNRF memberorganizations. As part of this activ-ity, guidelines might be dissemi-nated to resource agency adminis-trators to indicate the kind ofeducational backgrounds job can-didates should have to engage suc-cessfully in conflict management.

l Develop and manage an annualprogram to broker interdisciplinaryexchanges of resource profession-als among public, private, and aca-demic institutions.

roles in resource conflict manage-ment.

l Charter a task force to develop en-vironmentally based accountingprocedures and demonstrate theirapplication in sample cases.

l Develop and distribute fact sheetsthat provide information relevant tospecific contemporary renewablenatural resources issues.

l Sponsor an interagency forum oncommon-property issues thatbrings together experts fromacademia and the agencies.

l Charter a task force to identify therole RNRF might play in environ-mental education.

SUB-WORKING GROUF’ B

l Advocate the establishment of sci-ence advisory panels, including so-cial, natural, and biological scien-tists when appropriate, chargedwith developing statements of sci-entific facts and scientificallysound options for policymakers.

. Develop a position paper on a na-tional program to support interdis-ciplinary researc6 on natural re-sources, including social scienceresearch relevant to conflict man-agement and advocate that program.

l Develop a stewardship ethic, in-cluding a statement in support ofsustainable development, for useby RNRF member organizations,and promote the acceptance of thisstatement by governments, the pri-vate sector, and the public.

l Present an annual award for excel-lence in resource conflict manage-ment.

The second sub-group organizedaround the theme of dealing with con-flicts over the management of renewablenatural resources began its discussionsby reviewing the list of issues derivedfrom the pre-congress surveys. Thegroup concluded that the issues fell intofive broad categories: value of re-sources, resource allocation, conflictmanagement, availability of informa-tion, and legal issues. The group de-cided to focus on the first three and thenformulate recommendations that wouldimprove the resource-valuation pro-cess, improve resource-allocation deci-sions, and reduce conflicts over re-source-management decisions. Thissub-group took a national perspective,and the recommendations identifiedcanbe implemented by a variety of agenciesand organizations, including the Re-newable Natural Resources Foundation.

Resource Valuation

l Support current efforts to develop a A major source of conflict over re-national infrastructure and com- newable natural resources is the lack ofputer network for environmental widely accepted and well-understooddata for use by all agencies. methods of valuing common-property

l Establish a corporate council resources (e.g., resources held by thecharged with the task of developing public, plus private resources such asan action plan on private-sector wetlands in which the public has an in-

terest). Particularly, non-market valuessuch as landscape aesthetics are poorlyunderstood. Furthermore, acceptablemethods do not exist for readily incor-porating social and environmentalcosts into the resource management de-cision-making process. Incorporationof these costs and inclusion of non-mar-ket values will lead to greater use ofmarkets for allocating resources, reduc-tion of subsidies, and lessening of con-troversy over management and alloca-tion decisions.

are achieved, the adequacy of scientificinformation and understanding uponwhich decisions are based, and the esti-mated a perceived environmental dam-ages associated with management de-cisions.

cess, and lack of decision-maker ac-countability to the public.

Conflict Management

With respect to resource valuation,the group ranked two issues as highestin priority out of a set of eight and iden-tified existing impediments. The top is-sue is the need for a better means ofvaluing common-property resourceswhen making decisions. Impedimentsinclude basic differences in values, in-adequate inclusion of public interestsand opinions, lack of objective meansfor determining whose values or inter-ests are correct, and the public’s limitedunderstanding of risk assessment. Thesecond issue is the need to account forall environmental costs at both the mi-cro and macro levels. Major impedi-ments include the lack of accountingtechniques for internalizing environ-mental costs (e.g., air and water pollu-tion or loss of wilderness quality), lackof anational accounting framework thatreflects all environmental costs, the factthat the public would likely resist higherprices for goods, and the fact that it isdifficult to ascemun futule uses and values.

Decision makers responsible for theallocation of resources lack a set of ba-sic criteria that incorporate ethical, eco-nomic, and ecologicaI principles witbwhich to evaluate options. Frequentlythey do not consider future resourceuses, and they make decisions that maypreclude future resource production andmanagement options. The situation iscomplicated by pressure to make re-source decisions based on today’s re-source values and the desire to meet cer-tain resource commodity productiongoals, as opposed to a goal of maintain-ing resource sustainability. The as-sumptions and information upon whichdecisions are based may not be clearlyarticulated. Finally, seldom arepost hocevaluations done to determine the effec-tiveness of the existing decision-mak-ing process. This lack of review maylead to a lack of accountability.

The best way to manage conflictsover renewable resources managementis to avoid them. This can be achievedby assuring that the public and all stake-holders participate in the decision. Al-though some organizations may have avested interest in promoting or main-taining conflicts, efforts placed on earlypublic involvement in decisions, prepa-ration of quality environmental impactstatements, and assuring that all stake-holders participate in th,e decisionshould result in better planning, higherquality decisions, reduced conflict, andless litigation.

For resource’ allocation, the sub-group prioritized two issues from a listof six and identified key impedimentsfor each. The first issue is the problemof making allocations based on today’sresource value rather than the future’s.Impediments include the inability to es-timate the future value of resources,lack of a national vision of the future ofthe private property issue, and limitedpublic incentives to private landownersto preserve future land-use options. Thesecond issue is the fact that decisionmakers often make choices without dueconsideration of ecological principles.Key impediments include lack of con-sensus on whether it is ethical to place aprice on some resources, traditional at-titudes toward ownership of resources,lack of knowledge for making deci-sions, lack of proper training on the partof managers for incorporating ecologi-cal factors into the decision process,lack of a post hoc decision review pro-

Many recent conflicts over renew-able natural resources focus on the pub-lic interest in private property. A lack ofconsensus exists on the future directionof private property rights in the UnitedStates. Some in this sub-group notedthat the time has come to re-evaluateprivate property concepts and the lawsaffecting private property, and to chart anew direction.

Resource Allocation

Once conflict occurs, attempts mustbe made to resolve it before litigationbecomes necessary. Because lawsuitsate so costly, other methods should beutilized to the maximum extent pos-sible. It is not clear that the full range ofconflict resolution activities are cur-rently being used by those involved inresource management. Training in theapplication of conflict resolution tech-niques may be desirable.

Much of the conflict over renewablenatural resources involves decisions onhow to allocate available resources.Conflicts may arise because of differentvalues held by resource users, resourcemanagers, Native Americans, environ-mental groups, industry, and the public.The differences among these groupsmay be increasing. Conflicts also mayarise over the goals of resource manage-ment, the means by which these goals

The key issue highlighted out of thesix identified is the need to make everyeffort to involve the public in decisionsin order to avoid unnecessary conflict.Impediments to doing this include alack of resource managers trained inconflict resolution, political agendasthwarting the process, lack of full stake-holder involvement, refusal on tbe partof some parties to participate, uncer-tainty about the process, and the process


itself discouraging participation.

Actions and Recommendations

Legislationl Review public natural-resource

law, eliminate conflicts present inthe myriad of existing laws, andpropose strategies for responsiblelegislative and executive action.

l Review the impact of federal lawon private property rights and de-vise strategies to facilitate conflictresolution.

l Consider national land-use policyand planning-assistance legislationthat pertains to both public and pri-vate lands, and includes incentivesfor regionaJ land-use and resourceplanning to be coordinated at thefederal level.

Agency Policies and Programsl Establish department-wide nego-

tiation/arbitration panels in bothregulatory and resource-manage-ment agencies.

l Seek aggressive compliance by allfederal departments and agencieswith existing environmental laws,

rules, regulations, and policies.Review and identify gaps in re-source information coverage andscientific understanding needed tomanage natural resources and rec-ommend needed actions.Encourage public involvement inagency decision making.Use modern conflict resolutiontechniques to resolve resource con-flicts before they reach the courts.Encourage RNRF to sponsor a forum to explore mechanisms to re-duce and resolve natural resourcesconflicts.Revise federal cost-benefit guide-lines to incorporate social welfareand environmental costs and ben-efits.Explore the possibility of RNRFconvening a task force for scientificreview of the impact of the Endan-gered Species Act on resource man-agement practices and programs.

Researchl Encourage the establishment of a

national interdisciplinary researchprogram to evaluate and recom-mend means for accounting fully

for the environmental costs of re-source use.Develop improved methods foridentifying and detining the valuesof common resources.Develop and test methodologies inthe social and natural sciences de-signed to estimate the future valueof natural resources.

Educationl Establish training programs for re-

source professionals focused onnew techniques of resource alloca-tion, evaluation, and conflict reso-lution. A compendium of case stud-ies illustrating successes andfailures of selected resource con-flicts should be developed as part ofthis program.

l Establish public outreach programsto explain specific planning pro-cesses in order to encourage par-ticipation in decisions.

l Establish model programs at thesecondary and college levels toeducate the public, including tradi-tional user groups, on the impor-tance of a stewardship ethic.<<

18 RENEWABLE RLSOURCES JOURNAL AUTUMN 1992

MANAGING 2 4RESOURCES

The two sub-working groups tack-ling the issue of how to manage com-mon-property resources began by es-tablishing a definition: Commonresources include both common prop-erty and common interests, both ofwhich have explicit legal definitions.Conceptually, common property andcommon interests can be broken downinto three general subsets: 1) publiclands and commonly held lands that aresubject to management; 2) public inter-est in private propetiy, which can be ex-pressed through incentives and regula-tions to achieve specific goals such asprotecting wetlands or endangered spe-cies; and 3) unowned and unallocatedresources such as air or the climate.

evolution’s fatal flaw-a built-in in-stinct that calls for survival and repro-duction in the present, with no instinc-tual concern for survival of the speciesin the long term.

ALLOCATION OF COMMON-PROPERTY RESOURCES

The second issue the two sub-groupsfocused on concerned the allocation ofcommon-property resources. Thegroups believe that allocation should bebased upon the concept of sustainabilityas defined by the Bruntland Commis-sion in the 1987 report entitled OurCommon Future: “Development thatmeets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future gen-erations to meet tbeirown needs.“In ad-dition, all nations must share in the de-velopment of sustainable approachestowards resource management.

STEWARDSHIP ETHIC

The first issue identified by the twosub-groups is the need to develop astewardship ethic to guide the use ofcommon-property resources. They ex-plain that wise use of common-propertynatural Esources is fundamentally de-pendent upon an ethical framework thatshould be based upon the concepts ofsustainability and intergenemtional re-sponsibility. In his famous essay on aland ethic in the Sand County Almanac,conservationist Aldo Leopold notedthat philosophically an ethic is “a differ-entiation of social from anti-social con-duct,” while in ecological terms an ethicis “a limitation on freedom of action inthe struggle for existence.” The twosub-groups concluded that societyneeds to develop an ethic that compen-sates for the fact that the individualswho make up society have inherited

The two sub-groups further con-cluded that no common understandingcurrently exists regarding: 1) the eco-logical basis for natuml resource man-agement, 2) the responsibility of eachindividual for stewardship of resources,and 3) the requirement that each indi-vidual must be responsible for his or heractions concerning natural resources.Making choices consistent with thisethical framework is dependent upon anadequate understanding of the bio-physicaI implications of resource use.We are, however, still accumulatingscientific knowledge on the biophysicalrequirements necessary to maintaincommon-property resources.

Recommended actions by the twosub-groups include: 1) a call for theRenewable Natural Resources Founda-tion to support and conduct research re-garding the inter-relationship of bio-physical requirements and ethicaldecision making: 2) a mandate to aca-demic, religious, and professional insti-tutions to teach normative values asso-ciated with a natural resources ethic; 3)a suggestion that all institutions, publicand private, adopt and use a stewardshipphilosophy (examples of activities thatmight fall under this rubric include pro-moting mass transit, alternative energy,and community development plan-ning); and 4) a request that the founda-tion continue to sponsor and expanddialogue among natural resource pro-fessionals on these topics.

In particular, the two groups suggestthat a proper allocation process shouldfirst define what is necessary to sustainan ecosystem absent human consider-ations. Allocation for consumptive useshould then be based solely upon thesurplus. Such an approach does not im-ply an absolute answer, and the twogroups recognize that at some pointboth ecological and social factors needto be incorporated, within a scientificframework, into the decision process.They also suggest that, to the extentpossible, existing mechanisms for allo-cation should be used with only thosemodifications that are necessary to en-sure sustainability.

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONS

The two sub-groups next focused onissues related to policy and institutions.They concluded that the currentpolicymaking process and the institu-tions to implement policies are not able

AUTUMN 1992 MNEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 19

to adequately integrate the many, oftenconflicting, public demands on re-sources into a comprehensive andworkable approach. Thus, an effortneeds to be made to link public valuesand participation with planning and de-cision making.

The two groups identified solutionsand actions to address this problem: 1)develop a long-term natural resourcepolicy; 2) revise federal cost-benefitanalysis guidelines to reflect contempo-rary understandings of natural resourceeconomics: 3) work toward revisingNEPA and other decision-making pro-cesses to engage various publics in thedevelopment and selection of alterna-tive policies; 4) develop mechanisms tofacilitate public and private cooperationon common goals and management pro-grams at the landscape level; 5) create,implement, and maintain an on-going,standardized, and comprehensive re-source use database to support decisionmaking; 6) promote greater use of envi-

, ronmental mediation and compensa-tion; and 7) diversify agency workforces to broaden the pool of values inagencies,

INFORMATION ANDEDUCATION

With respect to information and edu-cation, the two sub-groups concludedthat present knowledge may be inad-

equate or insufliciently utilized to supportdecisions that promote sustainability.Resource professionals need to becomemore adept at communicating with thepublic. Further, as the public becomesmore involved with the resource deci-sion-making process, education on re-source sustainability should be im-proved.

The two groups specifically recom-mended that RNRF, related associa-tions, and public agencies develop aprocess whereby technical informationis compiled and synthesized into for-mats that are accessible and informativeso that the public has accurate disclo-sure about current resource manage-ment practices. Positive natural re-source conservation efforts should beidentified and highlighted. Research,management, communication, and edu-cation efforts should be coordinatedwithin and among agencies. Supportshould be encouraged for a new cadre ofscientists/professionals who deal withthe synthesis and integration of infor-mation. Environmental literacy coursesshould be included in undergraduatecollege curricula, and environmentalfield experience should be part of K-l2education. A variety of communicationmedia (not just print) should be utilizedto teach the public. Finally, as a meansof fostering education, conservationleaders across all levels and sectorsshould serve as public role models.

ECONOMICS

The final issue concerned resourceeconomics. The two groups concludedthat current methods of economicanalysis do not adequately account forand allocate all costs and benefits of re-source use and thus fail to provide eco-nomic incentives for sustainable use.Also, current policies often create artifi-cial markets for resources, and nationaleconomic constraints often limit theflexibility to develop solutions.

Recommended actions include a callfor resource professional associationsto review, compile, and synthesize, aswell as support valuation research toimprove our ability to assign economicvalue to non-market resources. RNRFshould review, synthesize, and developaccessible information on full marketprices for the consumptive uses of re-sources (e.g., grazing, timber harvest-ing, etc.). Fee structures for natural re-sources should be designed with in-centives for sustainable use and penal-ties for exploitative use. The moveshould be away from subsidizing pro-duction and toward encouraging envi-ronmental outputs. Subsidies that nolonger sum a social good and thosethat contribute to long-term resourcedamage should be eliminated. Finally,an “index for sustainable economic wel-fare” should replace the GNP as an in-dicator of the country’s economic health.<<


CLIMATE-INDUCEDENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

The two sub-working groups orga-nized around the theme of climate-in-duced environmental change pursued asimilar approach to identifying issues,impediments, and solutions. A com-bined description of the two groups’accomplishments is presented below.To place the issue in context, the twogroups prepared a joint preamble out-lining key issues and concerns. The pre-amble reads:

tions in history, existing culturesand societies have no new territoryto expand into; and 3) the fact that,because of this, the United Nationsrecognizes environmental refu-gees as perhaps the greatest singleglobal problem to be faced in thenew century.

the next two to three decades andbeyond.

ISSUES, IMF’EDIMENTS, ANDSOLUTIONS

Issue 1: Scientific uncertaintyabout and research needs on the envi-ronmental consequences of climatechange.

The working group recognizesthe immense complexity of envi-ronmental changes that will occurat all geographic scales as a resultof both natural and human pro-cesses. Because of this systemcomplexity, there may not be animmediate recognition that humaneconomic and political responsesare caused in part by climate-in-duced environmental change. Wealso recognize that human interac-tions with natural, and with urban,agricultural, and other economiclandscapes produce climatechanges at both human and geo-logic time scales that must be ad-dressed. Simply stated, we believethat the issues, impediments, andsolutions to climate-induced envi-ronmental change must be ad-dressed irrespective of whetherthey are caused by human or natu-ral factors. This conclusion isbased in part on: 1) the collapse ofearlier civilizations in the Mediter-ranean region, Central America,the American Southwest, and else-where due to their ignorance ofprogressive climate change; 2) thefact that, unlike earlier civiliza-

Food security, energy con-sumption, the production of goodsand services, global economiccompetitiveness, quality of life,and sustainable environmentalhealth are only a few of the reasonswhy society in the 21st centurywill need to understand the re-gional and global rates and direc-tions of climate change. To be un-prepared for climate change or tolack the scientific and technicalmeans for modeling and predictingthese changes is to abdicate our re-sponsibility to future”generations.

The scientific lherature de-scribing the fundamental bio-geoc hemical dimensions driving cli-mate change is growing, and acorresponding (but smaller) bodyof knowledge now exists to ad-dress the economic and policy is-sues surrounding these anticipatedchanges. What seems tobe lackingis a societal and governmentalcommitment to link these bodiesof knowledge to influence educa-tion and behavior. All of the is-sues, impediments, and solutionsidentified represent our collectiverecommendations for alerting so-ciety and our government leadersto the climate-induced environ-mental changes that could occur in

Key weaknesses in the existingknowledge base concerning the envi-ronmental impacts of global climatechange include poorly defined errorbounds on the General CirculationModels (GCMs) and other model out-put, the need for better ecosystem re-sponse models and risk assessments,and a lack of attention to ecosystem ad-aptation to global change. Key impedi-ments to resolving these weaknessesinclude: the complexity of the problem,insufficient funding for research or lossof funding, poor coordination of re-search activities, lack of trained re-searchers who can synthesize informa-tion from different fields, lack oflong-term data sets at a regional scale,lack of baseline data sets against whichto measure change, insufficient com-puter capability for modeling efforts,and lackof funding for interdisciplinaryresearch.

Recommended Solutions:l Develop more rational approaches

to allocating research funds and im-prove the existing system for allo-cating funds.

l Establish an executive or congres-sional institute to redirect fundingfor scientific research on globalchange.

AUTUMN 1992 BENEWABLE MSOURCES JOUMAL 2 1

l Develop a single federal agency toguide global change research. Thisagency must have an interdiscipli-nary focus. (Some disagreementover this action occurred in the subgroups. Benefits of decentraliza-tion were noted, as were problemsof credibility for the new agency.)

Issue 2: Lack of coupling of naturaland social sciences research.

Several key impediments to fosteringinterdisciplinary research were identi-fied, including differences in disciplin-ary training, institutional barriers to de-veloping interdisciplinary programs,disciplinary jargon and the lack of acommon language, and a lack of policy-oriented research.

Recommended Solutions:9 Develop interdisciplinary educa-

tion programs (provide training toinstructors).

l Use GIS as a teaching tool to trainstudents in the natural and socialsciences.

l Integrate the natural and social sci-ences during the educational pro-cess.

l Encourage and reward interdisci-plinary team research.

l Encourage RNRF to publish a set ofcase studies showing successful in-tegration of natural and social sci-ence data sets.

Issue 3: Structure of the existingdecision-making process.

Decision making occurs at levels andscales that are not appropriate for re-sponding to global problems or ecosys-tem management. In addition, decisionsat higher levels often do not filter downto local resource managers. Impedi-ments to improving the decision-mak-ing process include entrenched specialinterests who resist change, lack of eco-nomic incentives and too much empha-sis on a negative regulatory approach,resistance or inability of the politicalprocess to address long-term problems,and the fact that political decision-mak-ing boundaries do not match ecosystemboundaries.

Recommended Solutions:l Endorse market-based policies

such as “polluter pays,” trading ofpollution rights, and incentive-based regulation.

l Encourage election reform to ad-dress the entrenchment of specialinterests.

l Work for implementation of thenew global climate convention.

l Encourage the use of proven eco-system-wide management systems(such as exists for the ChesapeakeBay mgion).

l Enhance the use of peer review ofgovernment technical reports to re-duce the politicization of scienceand reduce pork barrel funding.

Issue 4: Information needs andmanagement.

A need exists for a coordinated andintegrated scientific and data manage-ment system for global change re-search. Also needed is improvement inthe quality and quantity of baseline dataon the condition of natural resourcesand improvement in the knowledgebase concerning the rate and magnitudeof global climate change. Finally, inter-agency planning and coordination isneeded for incorporating the impacts ofclimate-induced change into natural-re-source management. Impediments toresolving these problems include: lackof commitment to long-term data col-lection and database development de-spite existing programs such asNASA’s Earth Observing System andData Information System (EOSDIS),poor linkage and quality control inmany existing databases, the large com-puter needs for global scale models,lack of long-term data sets at a globalscale, and the long time periods re-quired for collecting measurements anddeveloping a record.

l Prioritize important data set needs.

Recommended Solutions:l Develop and use common stan-

dards and methods of data collec-tion across agencies and institu-tions.


l Develop a national database forGIS analysis.

l Improve planning focused on hu-man and environmental adaptationto global change.

l Increase national computer net-working capabilities.

l Create a data management systemfor biotic resources that includesnon-economic species and that canbe used to manage and protect im-periled ecosystems.

l Develop and publish environmen-tal indices, perhaps through a newBureau of Environmental Statistics.

l Encourage sharing of informationamong federal, state, and localageucies, as well as the private sector.

Issue 5: Lack of effective and effr-cient science management strategiesto address global change problemsincluding lack of interdisciplinaryapproaches and poor intra-organixa-tional collaboration.

(Delegates employed by federalagencies did not believe this is a prob-

Commitment for dealing with the

lem to the same degree as did delegatesfrom academic institutions.) Impedi-ments to developing more effectivemanagement strategies include con-flicts arising from fragmented or over-lapping programs, lack of a uniform ter-minology, a cumbersome congressionalcommittee structure, and the fact thatthe agencies each have different missions.

Recommended Solutions:l Improve incentive and reward sys-

tems for inter-agency and interdis-ciplinary research.

9 Mandate cooperative efforts.l Provide specitic funds for coopera-

tive research efforts.l Develop a common terminology,

perhaps through an inter-agencycommittee on standards.

l Hold congressional forums to inte-grate issues and focus congres-sional staffers on the need for inter-committee cooperation.

Issue 6: Consequences of increas-ing population.

problem of population growth is lack-ing, and too much emphasis is placed onthe belief that technology will solve thepopulation problem. Impediments tofacing the issue of population growthinclude overdependence on technologi-cal fixes to solve problems of growth,lack of commitment to facing the twinproblems of population growth and ma-terial consumption, and the existinghigh rate of global population growth.

Recommended Solutions:l Identify population control as a na-

tional priority by supporting familyplanning at home and abroad.

l Identify alternative means of main-taining lifestyles and quality of lifethat are not as resource intensive aspresent lifestyles are.

. Base economic growth in develop-ing countries on efficient use of re-sources.

Issue 7: Lack of social commitmentto dealing with the problem of globalclimate change and lack of a nationalpolicy on the problem.

In order for the concept of “think glo-bally, act locally” to be effectivelyimplemented at the national and locallevels, people need to be educated onthe global environmental consequencesof loyal activities (e.g., pollution, ero-sion, etc.). Impediments to developing acommitment to dealing with global

change through local actions includethe inability to motivate society tochange social and political behavior;unwillingness of decision makers totake action in light of present scientificuncertainties; lack of a long-term per-spective in our political system; con-flicting social messageson materialismand environmentalism: poor communi-cation among resource professionals,politicians, and the media; and lack ofinterdisciplinary communication andscholarship.

Recommended Solutions:l Improve education on global

change issues at both the collegeand K-l2 levels. (RNRF shouldsuggest improvements to environ-mental curricula at both the collegeand K- 12 levels.)

l Improve non-conventional ap-proaches to education (e.g., exten-sion service or science centers).

l Identify areas of scientific consen-sus and suggest policy recommen-dations in those areas, and identifyresearch needs for the areas thatlack consensus.

l Encourage the scientific commu-nity to undertake long-term risk as-sessment of global change prob-lems.

l Strengthen the nation’s automo-bile mileage standards and imple-

ment a carbon tax.l Increase research on alternative fu-

els and support increased utiliza-tion of mass transportation.

l Educate the public about globalchange issues and policy alterna-tives. (RNRF could support activi-ties in this area.)

Issue 8: Lack of public under-standing of the environmental andsocial consequences of global climatechange.

Key impediments to improving pub-lic understanding are an inability tocommunicate the complexity and un-certainty of the issues to the public andeducators, the fact that the media doesnot have a sophisticated understandingof global change issues, and the lack ofappropriate curriculum material in ourschools.

Recommended Solutions:. Improve and foster education on

global change issues for the public,policymakers, resource managers,and the scientific community, withthe aim of developing a nationalstrategy on global climate change.

l Focus on K-l2 education by usingmuseum exhibits and demonstrat-ing how to interpret and use data.

l Work on improving and expandinguse of the current knowledge base.<<

AUTUMN 1992 RENEWMLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 23

SYNTHESIS: TOWD AN AGENDAON RENEWBLE NATURALRFSOURCES

This report represents the combinedreflections and ideas of a number of thenation’s leading natural resource pro-fessionals regarding the issues and con-flicts that managers and researchersconcerned with renewable natural re-sources will face in the coming decades.Also included are their thoughts on theimpediments that are likely to stand inthe way of finding solutions and theirrecommendations for actions to over-come the impediments and developworking solutions. Few constraints orlimits were placed on how far the indi-vidual groups could range in addressingthese questions. Thus, some of the find-ings and recommendations will un-doubtedly be controversial. The sub-groups often tackled difficult issuessuch as population growth, privateproperty rights, and political reform.The opinions expressed represent thoseof the individual working groups.

A wealth of ideas and informationwas produced at the congress that, whentaken togetber, represents an agenda foraction on resolving conflicts and im-proving the management of the nation’srenewable natural resources. In particu-lar, seven general sets of recommenda-tions emerge from the congress. Theseseven overarching sets of recommenda-tions, like the original six themes, cross-cut traditional natural resource sectorsand disciplines. Each of the seven is dis-cussed in turn below:

STEWARDSHIP ETHIC

The congress participants agreed in

calling for a stewardship or sustain-ability ethic that would guide both pub-lic and private natural resource decisionmaking. Such an ethic would require afundamental shift in existing values. Inparticular, the current short-term out-look employed in resource and eco-nomic decision making would have tobe replaced by a long-term perspective.In addition, the current system of valu-ing resources would have to be revisedto account fully for non-market values(e.g., aesthetic values). New social andeconomic incentives that reward sus-tainable development of resources willneed to be developed, and decisionmakers and managers (both public andprivate) will need to be accountable fortheir actions. A stewardship ethic willdepend upon the willingness and capac-ity of individuals and institutions to as-sume responsibility for the sustainableuse of natural resources. It will also de-pend upon committed and effective na-tional and international leadership. Fi-nally, shared concepts or definitions ofstewardship and sustainability must bedeveloped that have meaning acrossdifferent temporal and spatial scalesand across cultures, and these conceptsand definitions will need to be trans-lated into specific and workable man-agement actions and procedures.

VALUE OF RESOURCES

Many of the groups identified funda-mental deficiencies in current methodsof valuing and allocating renewablenatural resources. A general belief


emerged that current methods and pro-cedures do not adequately account foror fully and fairly allocate all costs andbenefits associated with the use of mostrenewable natural resources and thus donot provide economic incentives forsustainable use. The delegates ex-pressed general agreement that greateremphasis should be placed on the mar-ket allocation of resources, particularlyin pricing and regulation. All costs asso-ciated with the consumptive use of aresource (e.g., pollution, damage to theenvironment, loss of recreational oraesthetic values) should be fully incor-porated into existing resource-pricingmechanisms. Subsidies that promotedegradation of resources or do not pro-mote sustainable use should be elimi-nated. Finally, mechanisms need to bedeveloped and implemented for accu-rately assessing the non-market valueofrenewable natural resources.

INTERDISCIFXlNARY RESEARCHAND MANAGEMENT

All working groups identified thelack of interdisciplinary research and/ormanagement of natural resources eitheras a critical issue or as an impediment.Both researchers and managers need towork harder at developing interdiscipli-nary approaches that integrate naturaland social factors and seek a commonlanguage and understanding of con-cepts and issues. In particular, thegroups cited a need for increased fund-ing and institutional support for inter-disciplinary research and management.

Specilic recommendations include de-veloping a system of professional re-wards and incentives for interdiscipli-nary research and management, as wellas establishing new regional and na-tional centers for interdisciplinary re-search and management.

INSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Another recommendation commonto the various working groups is theneed for institutional reform and re-structuring, particularly within themanagement agencies, but also withinacademia. The burdens of bureaucracy,lack of communication and coordina-tion among agencies, differing andcompeting mandates, and an overly po-liticized decision-making process werecited as impediments to improved man-agement of renewable natural re-sources. Several groups endorsed theneed for new national policies, such as anational policy on sustainability. Newinstitutional arrangements also weresuggested, such as a national sustain-able natural resources council to coordi-nate decision making or a cabinet-leveldepartment of natural resources thatwould consolidate the existing naturalresource and environmental agenciesand departments. The need for im-proved coordination of national, state,and local policies and activities alsowas cited, as was the need for improvedmechanisms for involving the public indecision making. Within universities,the major suggestion for institutionalreform was for improved interdiscipli-nary research, collaboration, and teach-ing, perhaps by establishing and fund-ing new interdisciplinary centers forresources management and developingnew curriculum programs.

EDUCATION

Almost every set of recommendedactions identified at the congress incor-

porated a call for more and better educa-tion on renewable natural resoutces issuesfor both the public and professionals. Theformation of a stewardship ethic and thedevelopment and adoption of new con-cepts such as sustainability or ecosys-tem management depend fundamen-tally on education. Environmentalethics need to be taught at both the K-12and college levels. Professionals needto update and expand their trainingthrough continuing education progmms.New concepts such as sustainability andecosystem management should be in-corporated into the current resource-management curricula at universities,and new environmental-awarenessteaching materials need to be developedfor the K-l2 level. Non-conventionalmeans of education such as the develop-ment of science or environment centersshould be pursued. Finally, mecha-nisms for informing the public aboutnatural-resource issues and choicesneed to be improved. In particular, theinformation that is available needs to bemade more accessible to the public informats that are easy to understand.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION ANDDECISION MAKING

Improved management of renewablenatural resources will likely hinge onour ability to develop new techniquesfor resolving conflicts over manage-ment decisions. In particular, mecha-nisms need to be sought that will im-prove the fair and open participation ofall stakeholders, including the public, inthe decision-making process. Effortsshould be pursued to reduce the powerand influence of special intemsts, and toseparate management decisions frompolitics. The development of a steward-ship ethic, improved professional andpublic education, market-based pricingand regulation of natural resources, andrestructuring of resource-managementagencies at all levels would likely help

prevent conflicts over resource-man-agement decisions.

DATA COLLECTION

A major need of both managers andresearchers is for more, better, and lessexpensive data of all types. Standard-ized techniques for data collection andanalysis also need to be developed andused across disciplines. Major weak-nesses include a lack of long-termrecords of environmental health andchange as well as social and biologicalindicators of sustainability. Many sug-gestions were offered for coordinatednational and international efforts at datacollection and standardization.

THE NEXT STEP

The RNRF congress is only the firststep in a carefully planned process foridentifying and seeking solutions to thecritical renewable natural resources is-sues that society will face in the comingdecades.

The next step will be the conveningof a summit of the elected and appointedleaders of RNRF’s 17 member organi-zations. The purposes of the summitwill be twofold. First, leaders ofRNRF’s member organizations will de-termine priorities among the many rec-ommended actions. Implementing all orsome of the recommended actions willbe a long-term proposition. Second,RNRF’s members will seek agreementon the nature and manner of their jointactivities in advancing the recommen-dations. Activities could range from thecommissioning of studies and researchto the collective advocacy of publicpolicies. The long-term goal is to im-prove communication of scientific in-formation to policymakers and the pub-lic so as to insure the sustainable use andmanagement of renewable natural re-sources.<<


APPENDIX A SURmY RESULTS

WORKING GROUP IPOPULATION, ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT, AND GEOGRAPHY

RANK

1

2

3

4

5

6

I

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

PROBLEM

Puldic Attitude on Growth vs. Envimnmeut

Iuability to Manage PopulationGrowth/Econcmic Development

Urbanization of Rural Iands

Inadequate Definition of SustainableEconunic Development

Iack of Agreement cn What AmericaShould “Lock Like” Ecologically

Shift of U.S. Population to EcologicallySensitive Coastal Environments

Inadequate Renewable NaturalResources Database

Inability to Integrate Natural and SocialScience Data

Depletion of U.S. Natural Resances to MeetNeeds of Increasing World Population

Impacts of Metropolitan Living/EmpIoyment Patterns on RenewableNaturaI Resources

Inability to Determine Carrying Capacity

Lack of Demand Management fcsRenewable Resources

Lack of Landscape Management

Growth of Recreational Activities in“Wildland” Areas

Population Growth of the U.S.

WORKING GROUP IiMANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FORMAINTAINING A HEALTHY ECOSYSTEM

RANK PROBLEM

1 Public Attitude of “Ecology vs. Economy”

2 Inadequate Knowledge of SystemInterrelationship

3 Lack of Regional, Watershed, etc. Focusin Managemeut Programs and Regulatiau

4

5

6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

11

18

19

20

21

22

23

Failure to Identify Realistic Objectivesfor Maintaining Ecosystem Health

2

Loss of BiodiversityKritical Habitats 3

Lack of a Defiiition of and Indices for aHealthy Ecosystem 4

Inability to Assess Cumulative Impacts5

Fragmentation of Management Programs

Poor Understanding of the Role ofScience In Policy Decision Making

6

IEndangered Species and Cost ofExtinction and Protection

8Exploitation Mentality of Industry/Government/American People

9Lack of Econanic Incentives

Fragmentation of Ecosystem Ownership10

Impacts of Resource Harvesting onEcosystem Health

Lack of Ccmprehensive Fcosystem Studies II

Inability to Allocate Public/PrivateEnvironmental Funds to Most ImponantEcosystem Problems

Lack of Mcmitoring Programs

12

13

Uncertainty Concerning the Value ofRestoration/Mitigation Efforts

Lack of Iocal hrvolvement in EcosystemManagement

14

15

Failure to Think/Manage in Tears ofAgro-Ecosystems

Uncertainty Concerning Who ShouldMake Ecosystem Health Decisions

16

Limited Pool of Properly TrainedPmfessionals fcr Ecosystem Management

Failure to Adequately Use SatelliteData

WORKING GROUP IVMANAGING CONFLICTS IN RENEWABLERESOURCES MANAGEMENT

WORKING GROUP IIISTRATEGIES FOR RENEWABLERESOURCES SUSTAINABILITY

RANK

1


PROMEM

Government Policy That Promotes Shon-Term Production, Not Sustainability

Emphasis on Short-Tear Benefits ofResource Exploitation

Sustainability of Resources vs.Economic Growth

Absence of Widespread Public Support(Understandiig) of Rescume sustainabiity

Absence of Economic Incentives forSustainability Pmctices

Inability to Define Sustainability

Failure to Develop/Enforce No-Net-LossPolicies for Critical Land Types

Government Subsidies to CorporateUsers of Natural Resources

Inability to Allocate Public/PrivateEnvironmental Funds to Most PressingSustainability Problems

Sustainability Policies Difficult tohuplemXlt Because cur system EmFbasizesPersonal Gain

Uncettainty About Who Will Pay for theAdcption of Sustainable Methodologies

Inadequate Knowledge Base

Desire to Remove From Productive UseRather Than Manage for Sustainability

Iack of Regional Cooperation

Lack of Institutions With Goal ofMaintaining Natural Systems to MatchInstitutiars With Goal of ExploitingResources of Natural Systems

Inability to Quantify Some ResourceYields (e.g., Wildlife)

RANK1

PROBL.EM

The “Jobs vs. Enviromnent” Issue

Limited Public Understanding ofResource Management

Lack of Stewardship Ethic

Unrestrained Urban Growth

5

6

I

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Inadequate Knowledge or Improper Useof Ecological Values

Valuation of Commodity vs. Non-Commodity Resources

Political Outcomes Biased by UnequalCompeting Interests

Inadequate Knowledge and/or ImproperUse of Econcnuic/Social Values

Lack of Management “Tools” forConflict Management

Limited Public Undetstanding/AcceFtanceof Multiple-Use Management

Limited Training of Resource AgencyPersonnel in Contlict Resolutiat Tedmiques

Conflicting Demand/ProtectionRequirement Imposed by Congress

Media Hype in Major Resource UseConflicts

Failum to Develop Methods forAvoiding Conflicts

Cultural Differences That Exist AmongMajor Players in Resource Use Conflicts

Limited Use of Mediation and OtherOut-of-Coun Procedures in ConflictResolution

Special Interest Group “Harassment” ofNatural Resources Professionals Involvedin Natural Resources Conflicts

Impact of Endangered Species Act onPrivate Property Rights

lack of Good Case Studies of PastResource Conflict Resolutions

Conflicts Between Indigenous Groupsand Non-Natives

Unrealistic Dependence on Science

Cost of Conflict Resolutions

Limited Opportunities for PublicInvolvement in Managing ResourceUse Conflicts

WORKING GROUP V

23

24 19 Lack of “What If’ ScenariosMANAGING COMMON-PROPERTYRESOURCES

Unwillingness of Policymakers toDistinguish Between Low-Cost andHigh-Cost Options

RANK PROBLEM

1 Water Allocation25 Immigration Policy as a “Commons”

Problem

AUTUMN 1992 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 2 7

2

3

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Private Use of Public Land-The“Giving” Issue

Management of Public Grazing Landsand Coastal Lands

Lack of Stewardship Ethic

Lack of Econanic Incentives

Institutional Obstacles to NewManagement Systems

Who Benefits and Pays in Common-Property Management

Uncenainties Concerning the Role ofScience in Policy Decisions ConcerningEnvironmental Management

Iack of Definition of Cause-EffectRelationship in Resource Declines

Threats to Private Pmpeny Rights Imposedby Common-ProPerty Legislation andRegulations-‘Ihe “Taking” Issue

Difficulty CornParing Commodity andNon-Ccmmcdity Values

Emphasis on Regulation Instead ofOther Methods

Lack of Agency Cooperation and PoorlyDefined Management Objectives

Who Decides

Conflicting Laws/Government Policy

Pervasiveness of “NIMBY” Attitude

Inabiity to A&ate Public/Private Fundsfor the Envircnment for the Most SeriousCommon-Propetty Resources Problems

User Fees

Inadequate Management “ToolsXttategies

Failum of Public Participation Process

Inadequate Definition of Common-Prcperty Resources

Cost of Common-Property ManagementStrategies

Tax Considerations

WORKING GROUP VICLIMATE-INDUCED ENVIRONMENTALCHANGE

RANK

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

PROBLEM

Political System Not Interested in Long-Term Problems

Global as well as National Problem

Lack of Knowledge of EcosystemResponses to Global Climate Changes

Lack of a Multi-Disciplinary Approachto the Problem

Lack of Economic Incentives for TakingLong View

Inabiity to Develq a Natiaial Ccnsensusand Strategy on Global Climate Change

Lack of Guidance on How to FactorGlobal Climate Change InfomiationInto Resource Management Plans

Lack of Public Understanding

Fragmented Approach to Problem

Unwillingness of Policymakers to TakeAction in Light of Scientific Uncertainty

Ignonu~~ Abcnt Potential Wiiers” and‘Losers” Amidst Global Climate Change

Inadequate Funding for Basic Economicand Social Science Studies of GlobalClimate Change Impacts

Uncertainty Concerning Who Pays forAdjustment Strategies

Lack of Credibility for CentralizedPlanning Efforts

Failure to Weigh Investment in ClimateChange Studies With Their Long-TermImFlications Against Mae Immediate Issues(e.g., Resource Depletion, Pollution)

Poor Inter-Agency Collaboration

Uncertainty Concerning Role ofManagers and Professicnals

Use of Global Climate Change Issues toGenerate Research Funding

AI’I’ENDIX B LIST OF DELEGATES

Virginia Dean Abemethy**Professor of Psychiatry (Anthropology)Department of PsychiattyVanderbilt Medical SchoolNashville, Tennessee

F. E. (“Fee”) Busby* Jay H. CravensRegional Director, U.S. Program Forestry Consultant, AssociateWinrock International Institute George Banzhaf & CompanyMorrilton, Arkansas Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Daniel M. Ashe

Committee on Merchant Marine and FisheriesU.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, DC

Vernon B. CardwellProfessor, Department of AgronanyUniversity of MinnesotaSt. Paul, Minnesota

Robert F BarnesExecutive Vice PresidentAmerican Society of AgronomyMadison, Wisconsin

Robett F. CarlineUnit Leader, Pennsylvania CooperativeFish and Wildlife Research UnitUniversity Park, Pennsylvania

Richard C. BartlettPresident, Mary Kay CosmeticsDallas, Texas

Jot D. CarpenterProfessor, Department of Landscape Architecture‘lhe Ohio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio

Nomran A. Berg Roy R. Caniker

Washington Representative Food and Resource Economics Department

Soil and Water Conservation Society University of Florida

Sevema Park, Maryland Gainesville, Florida

Thomas E. BigfordExecutive Director, The Coastal SocietyChief, Habitat and Protective Resources DivisionNOAA/National Marine Fisheries ServiceGloucester, Massachusetts

Richard E. Chenoweth**Professor, Center for Resource Policy Studies andProgramsCollege of Agriculture and Life SciencesUniversity of WisccnsinMadison, Wisconsin

John C. BilhngDepartment of Landscape ArchitectureCollege of AgricultureTexas Tech UniversityLubbock, Texas

Norman L. Christensen**Dean, School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhsm, Notth Carolina

Peter E. Black** Francis P. Conant

Professor of Water and Related Land Resources Professor, Anthropology

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Hunter College, CUNY

Forestry New York, New York

Syracuse, New YorkRobert S. Cook

WilJ H. Blackbum*USDA Agricultural Research ServiceFt. Collins, Colorado

Head, Department of Fishery and Wildlife BiologyCollege of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Terence P. BoyleResearch EcologistNational Park ServiceWater Resources DivisionColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

B. J. Copeland**

Director, University of North Carolina Sea GrantCollege ProgramNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North Carolina

* Working Group Chair ** Rapporteur

Muriel CrespiSenior AnthropologistNational Park ServiceDepartment of the InteriorWashington, DC

Ford A. Cross*Laboratory DirectorNational Marine Fisheries ServiceBeaufort, North Carolina

Margaret A. Davidson**President, ‘lhe Coastal SocietyExecutive DirectorSouth Carolina Sea Grant ConsortiumCharleston, South Carolina

David G. DavisDeputy Director, Office of Wetlands, Watershedsand OceansU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC

Robert D. DayExecutiveDirector,RenewableNaturalResourcesFoundationBethesda, Maryland

Cynthia Deacon-Williams**Fisheries Biologist, Wildlife and FisheriesUSDA Forest SetviceWashington, DC

James K. DetlingProfessor, DePartment of BiologyColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Jane A. DifleyPresident-elect, Society of American ForestersNonhem Regional ManagerAmerican Forest CouncilBennington, Vermont

Robert B. DittonProfessor, Department of Wildlife and FisheriesSciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station;Texas

28 R E N E W A B L E R E S O U R C E S J O U R N A L AUTUMN 1992

Gary B. DonartProfessor, Animal and Range Science DepartmentNew Mexico State UniversityI.as Cmces. New Mexico

Richard L. DuesterhausAssistant ChiefUSDA Soil Conservation ServiceWashington, DC

A.A. DyerDean, College of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

William M. Eichbaum*Vice P&dent, International Envimnmental QualityWorld Wildlife FundWashington, DC

Robert F. EttnerSiskiyou National ForestUSDA Forest SetviceGrants Pass, Oregon

James E. FickeChief Executive OfficerNatural Resources, Inc.Steamboat Springs, Colorado

Shirley Fiske**Program Director, Social Science and MarinePolicyNational Sea Grant ProgramNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministtaticnSilver Spring, Maryland

Kenneth D. FrederickSenior Fellow, Energy and Natural ResourcesDivisionResources for the FutureWashington, DC

G. Fred Gifford Clam W. HendeeProfessor and Chairman, Department of Range, RNRF ChairmanWildlife and Forestry &puty Chief for Administration (Ret.)University of Nevada USDA Forest SetviceRena, Nevada Bethesda, Matyland

Hardin R. Glascock, Jr.Ptesident, Five Firs Ranch, Inc.Cotvallis, Oregon

Harold GoetzHead, Rangeland Science DepartmentCollege of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

James R. GoszExecutive DirectorSustainable Biosphete InitiativeWashington, DC

* Working Group Chnir ** Rapporteur

John S. Gottschalk Roger M. Hoffer

Ditector Professor of Forestry, College of Natural ResourcesUSDI Fish and Wildlife Service (ret.) Colorado State University

Arlington, Virginia Fott Collins, Colorado

John W. Grandy Marjorie M. HollandVice Pmsident, Wildlife and Habitat Protection Director, Public Affairs GfficeTbe Humane Society of the United States ‘lhe Ecological Society of AmericaGaithersburg, Maryland Washingtar, DC

Churchill B. GrimesLeader, Fishery EcologyNational Matine Fisheries ServicePanama City, Florida

Michael M. HorowitzDitector, Institute for Develqnent AnthropologyBinghamton, New York

Louis J. GrossAssociate Professor of Mathematics and EcologyMathematics DepattmentUniversity of TennesseeRnoxville, Tennessee

James E. HubbardColorado State ForesterColorado State Forest ServiceColorado State UniversityFott Collins, Colorado

Ralph E. GrossiPresidentAmerican Famrland TrustWashington, DC

John R. HunterAssociate Professor, Depattment of Range andWildlife ManagementCollege of Agricultural SciencesTexas Tech UniversityLubbock, Texas

Galen F. HanResearch LeaderUSDA Agricultural Research ServiceBeltsville, Matyland

Paul G. IrwinPresidentThe Humane Society of the United StatesWashington, DC

G. Ross HeathDean, College of Ocean aud Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, Washington

Jerome C. IvesU.S. Bureau of Land Management (tet.)Lakewcod, Colorado

Gary H. Heichel*Professor and Head, Department of AgronomyUniversity of IlliioisUtbana, Illinois

A. Ivan JohnsonConsulting EngineerArvada, Colorado

J. Ronald Jones**Legislative AnalystUSDI Geological SurveyDenver Federal CenterIakewood, Colorado

John C. Hendee*Dean, College of Forestry, Wildlife and RangeSciencesUniversity of IdahoMoscow, Idaho

Dennis R. Keeney**President-elect, American Society of AgronomyProfessor of AgronomyDirector, Leopold Center for Sustainable AgricultuteIowa State UniversityAmes, Iowa

Warren M. Hemtipattment of AnthrcpologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulder, Colorado

LesIie A. KerrChief of PlanningU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAnchorage, Alaska

Raymond HemnannLeader, Water Resumes Coopetative Patk StudiesNational Park ServiceColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Lauriston R. King*Deputy Director, Gffice of University ResearchTexas A & M UniversityCollege Station, Texas

AUTUMN 1992 RFNEWABLE R E S O U R C E S J O U R N A L 29

Jay F. KirkpatrickSenior Staff ScientistDeaconess Research InstituteBillings, Montana

Douglas M. KleineExecutive Vice PresidentSoil and Water Conservation SocietyAnkeny, Iowa

Stanley A. Morain*President, American Society forPhotogrammeuy and Remote SensingDirector, Technology Application CenterUniversity of New MexicoAlbuqueque, New Mexico

James P. LassoieChairman, Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthaca, New York

Charles C. MosherPresident-elect, Ametican Water ResourcesAssociationSenior Evahtator, U.S. General Accounting OlficeSeattle, Washington

John Tilman LyleProfessor of Landscape ArchitectureDepartment of Landscape ArchitectureCalifornia State Polytechnic UniversityPomona, California

William MurrayDirector of Ccnservation Programs‘lhe Nature ConservancyBoulder, Colorado

Judy E. NelsonDistrict ManagerU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementLakeview, Oregon

James LyonsStaff AssistantCommittee on AgricultumU. S. House of RepmsentativesWashington, DC

Terty L. NippPresidentAesop EnterprisesWashington, DC

Gary McVicker Maurice 0. Nyquist

Deputy Director, Colorado Office Chief, GIS Division

U.S. Bureau of Land Management National Park Setvice

Lakewood, Colorado Denver, Colorado

Daniel L. MerkelRange ConservationistU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyDenver, Colorado

Duncan T. PattenBusiness Manager, The Ecological Society ofAmericaDitector/F’rofessor,CenterforFnvimnmentalStudiesArizona State UniversityTemlxz, Arixona

Debra L. Mitchell*President-elect, American Society of LandscapeArchitectsJohnson, Johnson and Roy, Inc.Dallas, Texas

Gerald D. PattenDirector, Strategic PlanningNational Park ServiceDenver, Colorado

John E. MitchellResearch Scientist, Rocky Mountain ResearchStationUSDA Forest SetviceFort Collins, Colorado

Michael PenfoldAssistantDirector,LandandRenewableResourcesU.S. Buteau of Land ManagementWashington, DC

David W. Moody*president, American Water Resources AssociationAssistant Chief Hydrologist, Water Assessmentand Data CoordinationUSDI Geological SurveyReston, Virginia

Thomas PetersonEconomist, Office of Policy AnalysisU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC

Kenneth J. MooreResearch Agroncsnist, USDA/ARShpaitment of AgronomyUniversity of NebraskaLincoln, Nebraska

Lawrence R. PettingerNational Mapping DivisionUSDI Geological SurveyReston, Virgina


Donald F. Potts Roger A. SedjoProfessor of Watershed Management Senior Fellow, Energy and Natural ResourcesSchool of Forestry DivisionUniversity of Montana Resources for the Future.Missoula, Montana Washington, DC


Tony PoviIitisPresidentLife NetMontezuma, New Mexico

William H. QueenRNRF Vice-ChaimanDue&or, Institute for Coastal and Marine Res-sEast Carolma UniversityGteenville, Nonh Carolina

Alan RandallProfessor, Department of Agricultural EconomicsOhio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio

Mark A. ReimersDeputy Chief, Programs and LegislationUSDA Forest ServiceWashingtcm, DC

Priscilla ReiningAdjunct Professor, Center for African StudiesUniversity of FloridaGainesville, Florida

William E. Riebsame**Associate Professor, Depattment of GeographyUniversity of ColoradoBoulder, Colorado

Charles B. RumburgExecutive Vice PresidentSociety for Range ManagementDenver, Colorado

Ambassador Robett J. Ryan, Jr.Director, U.N. Conference on Environment andDevelopment Coordination CenterU.S. Depamnent of StateWashington, DC

Hal SalwassetiDirector, New PerspectivesUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

Richard E. SandersonDirector, Office of Federal ActivitiesU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashingtcn, DC

Max SchnepfDirector of public AffairsSoil and Water Conservation SocietyAnkeny, Iowa

William C. SiegelResearch Project Leader, Forest Resources Lawand EconomicsUSDA Forest ServiceNew Orleans, Louisiana

R. David SimpsonFellow, Energy and Natural Resources DivisionResources for the FutureWashingtat, DC

Michael J. SingerProfessor, Depanment LAWRUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, California

Richard E. TothProfessor and Head, Department of LandscaFeArchitecture and Environmental planningCollege of Humanities, Atts and Social ScienceUtah State UniversityLogan, Utah

Harold M. TyusFish and Wildlife BiologistU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Denver Federal CenterDenver, Colorado

Donald L. CrewsAssistant Dean, College of Natural ResourcesColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Maureen DonnellyAssistant Professor, Department of RecreationResources and Landscape ArchitectureColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Richard FrostHeakh and Safety Assistant

John A. VanceDeputy Administrator, Natural Resources andRural DevelopmentUSDA Extension ServiceWashingtcn, DC

Bruce P. Van HaverenResearch ManagerU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementLakewood, Colorado

Frederic H. WagnerAssociate Dean, CoJJege of NaturaJ ResourcesUtah State University

U.S. Environmental Pmtectiat AgencyDenver, Colorado

Glenn HaasDepartment Chair and Professor, Department ofRecreation Resources and LandscapeArchitectureColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Nat Kuykendall, TCEpark Planner/Natural Resmuce SpecialistNational Park ServiceDenver Service CenterDenver, Colorado

David E. Smith**Ass&ate Chainnan, Department ofEnvironmental SciencesUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilJe, Virginia

Frederick R. SteinerProfessor and Chair, Department of PlanningCollege of Ardmectute and Envircnmental DesignArizona State UniversityTempe, Arixona

Roy SteinerAgricultural Sciences DivisionThe Rockefeller FoundationNew York, New York

James G. TeerDirectorWelder Wildlife FoundationSintcn, Texas

Robert L. TltayerProfessor, Landscape Architecture ProgramDepartment of Environmental DesignUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, California

Jack Ward ‘lltomasChief Research Wildlife Biologist, Forestty andRange Sciences LaboratoryUSDA Forest ServiceLa Grande, Oregon

Steven G. ThomeGoddard Professor of Forestry, School of ForestResourcesPenn State UniversityUniversity Park, Pennsylvania

Virginia K. TippieCouncil on Environmental QualityExecutive Office of the PresidentWashington, DC


Logan, UtahMike Manfredo

W. William Weeks Associate Professor, Department of RecreationChief Gperating officer Resources and Landscape Architecture

The Nature Conservancy Colorado State University

Arlington, Virginia Fort Collins. Colorado

Ross S. Whaley*president, College of Envircmmental Science andForestryState University of New YorkSyracuse, New York

Roy RoathExtension Range Specialist, CooperativeExtension ServiceRange Science DepartmentColorado State UniversityFort CoBins. Colorado

Thomas G. WhithamProfessor of Biology, Department of Biological

Sciences

Don Rodriquez

Notthem Arizona University

Flagstaff, Arizona

Instructor, Department of Recreation Resourcesand Landscape ArchitectureColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

FACILITATORS

Cem M. BasmanGrants Coordinator/hIstructor, Department ofRecreation Resources and LandscapeArchitectureColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Delwin E. BensonExtensicnWildlifeSpecialist,CccpetativeExtensionDepattment of Fishery and Wildlife BiologyColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado

Jerry VaskeAssociate Professor, Depattment of RecreationResources and Landscape ArchitectureColorado State UniversityFott Collins, Colorado

Robert WoodmanseeSenior Scientist, Natural Resources EcologyLaboratotyColorado State UniversityFott Collins, Colorado


VOLUME 10 NUMBER 3 AUTUMN 1992

RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNALThe Renewable Resources Journal (ISSN 0738-6532) is published quarterly by the Renewable Natural Resources Foundation,5430 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, Maryland 20814 USA. Telephone: (301) 493-9101 @ RNRF 1992.

Robert D. Day, editor-in-chiefi Norah Deakin Davis, editor.

Congress Program Committe+C/ta&: William H. Queen (The CoastalSociety~ Members: Ronald F. Abler (Association of American Geographer);Robert F Barnes (Americao So&y of Agronomy); John C. Billing (American 8eeiety of Iandscape Anzhitects); Norman A. Berg (Soii and WaterConservation Society); Cynthia hacon-Williams (American Fisheries Society); Hardin R. Glascock Jr. (PubIic Intenzst Membex of the RNRF Boardof Directors); John W. Grandy (The Humane Society of the United States); Galen F. Hart (American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing);Glare W. Hendee (PubIic Interest Membex of the RNRF Beerd of Directors); Harry E Hadgdon (The WiIdIife Societyb Raymond M. Housley (Societyfor Range Management); Anthony Janetos (%e EcologicaI Society of America); Jdtn Lisack Jr. (American Congnzss resurveying and Mqing); DavkIW. Moody (American Water Resoutzes Association); Peter M. Morrisette (Resources for tbe Futum); Priscilla Reining (American Antbmpol~icaIAssociation); Davkl E. Smith me Coastal Society); W. William Weeks (l%e Nature Ccnsewancy); Ex OJJSU Members: Robert D. Day (ReoewableNatuml Re. somces Foundation); Norah D. Davis (Renewable NaturaI Resources Famdation); Lawrence W. Hill (Society of American Foresters).

RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION

The Renewable Natural Resources Foundation (RNRF) was incorporated in 1972 as a nonprofit operating foundation and today has 17member organizations. The foundation was established to advance education in renewable natural resources, promote sound, scientificmanagement of resources, foster cooperation among professional, scientific, and educational organizations, and develop the RenewableNatural Resources Center, an office park complex in Bethesda, Maryland, for member organizations.

RNRF conducts conferences, workshops, congressional forums on resource issues, summits of the leaders of RNRF memberorganizations, and round table meetings on public policy. The foundation publishes the Renewable Resources Journal and makes twoannual awards to recognize outstanding achievements in the renewable resources fields.

RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNALRENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION5430 GROSVENOR LWEBETHESDA MARYLAND 20814 USA

POSTMASTER: Address Correction Requested

Non-ProfitOrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDPerm’t No. 92Bethesda, h4D

Printed on Recycled Paper

Documents

CONGRESS ON RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES: CRITICAL ISSUES ... · ON RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES: CRITICAL ISSUES AND CONCEPTS ... The delegates to this congress on “Renewable Natural