Science, Power, and System Dynamics: the Political … · 980 Conservation Biology, Pages 980–989 Volume 15, No. 4, August 2001 Science, Power, and System Dynamics: the Political

980

Conservation Biology, Pages 980–989Volume 15, No. 4, August 2001

Science, Power, and System Dynamics: the Political Economy of Conservation Biology

SAMANTHA J. SONG* AND R. MICHAEL M’GONIGLE†

*Alberta Research Council, Forest Resources Group, P.O. Bag 4000, Vegreville, Alberta T9C 1T4, Canada, email [email protected] or [email protected]†Eco-Research Chair of Environmental Law and Policy, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 2400, Victoria,British Columbia V8W 3H7, Canada

Abstract:

Frustration with the lack of action on conservation issues by governments has sparked debatearound the policy role of conservation biologists. We analyzed the political economy of conservation biology,that is, of the dynamics of the political and economic structures within which conservation biology operates,and we suggest more productive means for conservation biologists to achieve conservation goals. Within themodern state, conservation goals are marginalized because the growth needs of industrial capital have thehighest priority. Environmental advocacy within this system largely addresses only proximate concerns andhas limited success. Science is a product of modern society, but scientists now need to foster novel institu-tional arrangements in which humans can function within the limits of natural systems. This entails a largerrecognition of the inherent contradictions residing within current institutions that themselves depend on un-sustainably high resource flows. As one critical counterbalance to these institutions, we discuss community-based management and research as primary institutions through which sustainable use of natural resourcesmight be achieved.

Ciencia, Poder y Dinámica de Sistemas: la Economía Política de la Biología de la Conservación

Resumen:

La frustración debida a la carencia de acción en asuntos de conservación por los gobiernos hainiciado un debate sobre el papel político de los biólogos conservacionistas. Analizamos la economía políticade la biología de la conservación, es decir, de las dinámicas de las estructuras políticas y económicas dentrode las cuales la biología de la conservación opera y sugerimos vías más productivas para que los biólogos dela conservación alcancen metas de conservación. Dentro de un estado moderno, las metas de conservaciónson marginadas debido a que las necesidades de crecimiento del capital industrial tienen la prioridad másalta. Los promotores ambientales dentro de este sistema se han enfocado principalmente en inquietudes in-mediatos y tienen un éxito limitado. La ciencia es un producto de la sociedad moderna, pero los científicosahora necesitan fomentar arreglos institucionales nuevos mediante los cuales los humanos puedan funcio-nar dentro de los límites de los sistemas naturales. Esto implica un reconocimiento mayor de las contradic-ciones inherentes asentadas dentro de las instituciones actuales, que a su uez dependen de flujos elevados einsostenibles de recursos. Como un contrapeso crítico de estas instituciones, discutimos el manejo basado encomunidades y la investigación como las instituciones principales a través de las cuales se puede alcanzar el

uso sostenible de los recursos naturales.

Paper submitted April 3, 2000; revised manuscript accepted October 4, 2000.

Conservation BiologyVolume 15, No. 4, August 2001

Song & M’Gonigle Political Economy of Conservation Biology

981

Any measurement must take into account the positionof the observer. There is no such thing as measurementabsolute, there is only measurement relative. Relative towhat is an important part of the question.

Jeanette Winterson (1997)

Introduction

In recent years, scientists concerned with the applica-tion of ecological principles (or the lack thereof) in pub-lic policy have increasingly called on the profession to de-velop a better understanding of political institutions anddecision making (Christensen et al. 1996; Meffe 1998

b

;Soulé 1999). This call for a more proactive approach hasbeen especially prominent in

Conservation Biology

(Meffe1998

a

, 1998

b

). This situation reflects the perception thatbiodiversity is continuing to decline worldwide and, thatdespite broad public knowledge and concern about thistrend, government action remains drastically inadequate.

Overcoming the inertia of inaction is difficult. Twobroad problems exist. First, conservation biologists seekto achieve a stronger role in policy creation but lack train-ing in how political and economic institutions actuallywork. Natural scientists must therefore learn how to in-tegrate their work with the complex insights of thesocial sciences and, we suggest, particularly with the po-litical economy of conservation biology, that is, with asystemic analysis of the dynamics of the political andeconomic structures within which conservation biologyoperates. As in natural systems, the institutions of sociallife demonstrate system characteristics and a range of“system dynamics” that shape outcomes. This is particu-larly so of the political and economic institutions that setthe social context for conservation biology.

Second, while the integration of conservation sciencesinto a sophisticated interdisciplinary perspective yieldsthe potential for innovative reforms, many of these re-forms will be unsettling to mainstream policy practitio-ners. Because much biodiversity loss is caused by politicaland economic forces, the degree of acceptability of aconservation policy is often inversely related to its effec-tiveness. Solutions require policies that address not onlyproximate but also ultimate causes. Inevitably, one en-counters resistant institutions in which the barrier toconservation is not a need for “better information” butdisaffected interests (Clark 1993; Ludwig et al. 1993).

We link the science of political economy with that ofconservation biology. In doing so, we hope to demon-strate that, for biologists to enter the policy realm, athorough understanding of the dynamics of contempo-rary economic and political institutions and their rela-tionship to conservation is essential. Just as the disci-pline of conservation biology represents a paradigmaticdevelopment within the field of biology, so too a parallelparadigmatic challenge is occurring within the estab-lished social science of political economy. Characterized

by the rise of an “ecological political economy” (M’Goni-gle 1999; Gale & M’Gonigle 2000), it analyzes how eco-nomic and political institutions relate to ecosystem lim-its. Understanding this field is essential to the task set bythe editor of

Conservation Biology

to “help transformthe knowledge we generate into sound public policy”(Meffe 1998

a

).

The State of Science

Striving for truth has long been the scientist’s stock intrade and a source of authority for science in public pol-icy. Scientists must provide an “

objective

contributionvia the scientific method” (Meffe 1998

a

; emphasis added)to facilitate sound political decision making and rationaladministration. Decision makers look to scientific infor-mation to build policy consensus (Shackley & Wynne1996). This intersection of the scientific (logical, empiri-cal) method with government action is a fundamentalcharacteristic of modern society. Historically, science at-tained its dominant position over other forms of knowl-edge (religious, traditional) precisely because of this use-fulness, which is often directly economic in nature. Thisexplains, for example, the chronological link betweenmathematics, astronomy, and the compass in the historyof overseas exploration and economic colonialism. To-day, economic utility frequently remains the overridingcriterion against which the value of knowledge is assessed.

Situating the scientific endeavor within economic andpolitical imperatives is unsettling. Above all, it necessar-ily relativizes the work of scientists by qualifying scien-tific facts as context-dependent. One need not questionwhether or not science produces “facts” because the is-sue may simply be which facts are of concern and whichfacts are not. Take, for example, the accumulation of vastquantities of knowledge about habitat fragmentation.Scientific literature has burgeoned with studies of the ef-fects of fragmentation on wildlife, particularly songbirds(e.g., Whitcomb et al. 1981; Lovejoy et al. 1986; Robin-son et al. 1995; Song & Hannon 1999). However inter-esting the linkages might be, this scientific knowledge isproduced because it is useful in response to the disrup-tive nature of industrial growth. We know more aboutwildlife habitat (and the ozone layer and cetacean repro-duction) today than at any time in history, but we do solargely in response to the destruction of the subjects ofstudy by industrial activity.

Historically, science has provided the language andtechniques for the physical management of the worldwithin which our political and economic systems areembedded. With the emerging awareness of the declinein resources needed to sustain the industrialized world,society often turns to science for information to resolvethe conundrum. Scientific disciplines have changed to

982

Political Economy of Conservation Biology Song & M’Gonigle


reflect this awareness: ecology and conservation biologythemselves emerged in the context of older, more re-ductionist analytical and management approaches thatare increasingly inadequate. But conservation biologistsare frustrated by this newness because practitioners ofolder paradigms are often skeptical of its procedures andclaims, let alone its values. Conservation advocates alsoconfront the momentum of established institutions—from forestry agencies to the treasury branch—that havecontributed to the very problems to which the new sci-ences are responding.

In reality, science is not pure; context counts. Thisrecognition is critical to good science and is the mostuseful of the “postmodern” insights—the relationshipbetween power and knowledge (Foucault 1980). Thisinsight is as informative of the evolution of scientificknowledge as was Kuhn’s earlier insight as to the deter-minative importance of paradigms for “normal” scien-tific activity (Kuhn 1962). In other words, values are soinherently part of the scientific process that failing to ex-plore the manner in which they interact produces a sci-ence that serves unacknowledged masters. Ignoring thisreality leads to bad science. As Barry and Oelschlaeger(1996:907) put it, “Any science that hitches its wagon topositivism [truth through neutral observation] rests onthe claim that scientific knowledge is value-free and thusdisguises (at the risk of forgetting) its normative [value-driven] commitments. . . . All knowledge claims reflecthuman interests and choices; there is no comprehensi-ble argument that scientists know what is out there in-dependent of human agency and intentions.” Thus, thesocial and natural sciences inevitably intermingle. Themodern state operates to advance economic productionand growth, a process that is often inimical to sustain-ability. Frustration is systemic because policy decisionsare not merely a product of the “right” or “best” infor-mation ( Jasanoff 1998). The policy-making process isnot a rational process (Meffe 1998

b

); many systemicforces are at work. Particularly at issue is the problem ofeconomic growth.

The Science of the State

The field of political economy addresses two core ele-ments and the relationship between them: politics,which involves but is not exclusive to governments, andthe production of economic wealth. There are, for ex-ample, “system dynamics” built into a competitive, profit-seeking, market-based structure of (private) economicproduction and exchange. These dynamics affect andare affected by global biodiversity. Similarly, public insti-tutions of government depend on this productive eco-nomic structure, a dependency that affects the regula-

tory and management roles of these institutions in thepursuit of the larger social interest.

Since the eighteenth century, liberal economic theo-rists (beginning with Adam Smith) have demonstratedhow the increasing division of labor (for example, mani-fested through the factory system or through specializa-tion via international trade) has led to large increases inthe production of wealth. They then show how thiswealth is “efficiently allocated” through the market mech-anism of exchange between buyer and seller. Since thenineteenth century, critical theorists (beginning with so-cialists and Marxists) have analyzed how this processleads to the concentration of wealth in the hands of peo-ple who own the capital behind the production. In thetwentieth century, these insights have been combinedto reveal how capitalist production can create the pri-vate wealth while the state can intervene to create socialwelfare. Both wealth and welfare, however, require un-ending growth in levels of consumption and investment.

Building on these traditions, theorists of ecological po-litical economy have, since the 1970s, gone beyond tradi-tional concerns of production and efficiency to addressthe basic contradiction of this expansionist economy.Fueled by the flow of natural resources, the continuinggrowth in the scale of production is not sustainable. Al-though these “ecological” flows are critical to produc-tion, they have largely been taken for granted (Martínez-Alier 1987). The associated environmental costs are leftout of the market calculation; in the economist’s jargon,they are “externalized” onto other people, other places,and future generations (Georgescu-Roegen 1971; Cos-tanza & Daly 1992; Fischer-Kowalski & Haberl 1997). Inaddition, these costs have a spatial character to them,with urban centers of commercial power separated fromrural peripheries of resource extraction, and the wealthof northern industries sustained by raw material fromsouthern nations (Soya 1989; M’Gonigle 1999).

Just as the enormous wealth of businesses and con-sumers inadequately takes account of the limits of naturalsystems, so too do management systems. Holling (1995:6)notes in his review of 23 instances of renewable resourcecollapse: “. . .the very success of management seemed toset the condition for collapse. In each the goal was tocontrol a target variable in order to achieve social objec-tives, typically maintaining or expanding employmentand economic activity.” The unstated but unshakeablepremise of management is to ensure the continuance ofthe economic growth that constitutes the lifeblood ofprivate economic players. For industries that extract andutilize natural resources, such as forests, fish, mineralsand petrochemicals, scaling back their activities to fitwithin the limits set by conservation biology entails lossesin short-term competitiveness and profitability. Regula-tions that internalize environmental costs are seen toreduce economic productivity, driving consumers and



983

shareholders to other businesses. Nevertheless, govern-ments are expected to regulate economic activities sothat ecosystems and biodiversity are not compromisedin the long term. Governments have a fundamental co-nundrum: they must constrain environmentally the veryactivities that, through another set of economic regula-tions, they must also encourage to grow.

The implications of this contradiction are profound forconservation interests. In a system where historic pat-terns of production and growth hold sway, the needs ofecosystems are secondary. In this situation, under whatconditions can a government ever be a disinterested reg-ulator acting on the best information available to it? Whatis the potential for biologists to advocate meaningful pol-icy changes without addressing the economic and politi-cal dependence on continuing supplies of natural re-sources? What sort of strategic research, advice, or actionmight be called upon to reduce this dependence?

These questions parallel contemporary debates in thesocial sciences as to the limits of state action. Suggesting aneed to decentralize the state as the focus of political ac-tivity, recent literature argues that the activities of “civilsociety” can function to counterbalance private-publicimperatives from outside the restrictions of centralizedbureaucratic and corporate institutions. (This, for exam-ple, was the subtext of the now-famous “Battle of Seat-tle.”) Natural scientists assume that policy work and advo-cacy focuses on the state (Meffe 1998

a

, 1998

b

; MatthewsAmos 1999). In contrast, a fully ecological science—thatis, one that truly integrates the systemic understandingsof both the natural and social science—might lead biolo-gists into a very different civic realm. Scientists workingwith environmental groups to advance the Yellowstone-to-Yukon (Y2Y) Conservation Initiative is one example ofsuch action. Is this politicizing science? Or, if “truth” isthe goal and power relations affect its pursuit, could theprerequisite for “good” science, ironically, be its democ-ratization (Sclove 1995; Meffe 1999)?

Today, of course, scientists tend to eschew anything thatmight be characterized as the politicization of science. But,politicization has occurred in any event. This process isoften subtle—depending on context. For example, eco-nomic growth has led to the increasing centralization ofpower in big institutions, from larger corporations to mega-cities. This has shaped the scientific endeavor. Most obvi-ously, profound sociological effects accompany the re-moval of human institutions from a natural environment(Bennett 1976), where the ecological effects of individual-ism are not easily perceived. Intellectually, centralizationalso tends to shape ideas around the organizational ideol-ogy of the emergent hierarchical institutions. Substantively,priority is given to producing knowledge to support aninstitution’s self-maintenance—from better resource ex-traction to faster transportation to more probing geneticmanipulation. Procedurally, scientific research is often con-

centrated in large organizations that can provide the divi-sion of labor (i.e., specialization) that allows for high pro-ductivity. Despite their formal independence, academicinstitutions must produce a type and level of output thatgenerates continuing research dollars, with some (use-ful) questions more likely to be funded than others andsome (critical) questions to be positively discouraged.

This centralization of knowledge does not facilitatepublic participation in science. Jasanoff (1998:66) notesthat information can become “black-boxed,” throughthe “consolidation of scientific theories and claims, aswell as technological networks, into entities that resistbeing seen through or pulled apart.” This occurs when“facts” are supported by “sufficiently strong coalitions ofactors, institutions, norms, practices and artifacts” ( Jas-anoff 1998:67). In such cases, the tools a scientist wouldconsider critical to judge the validity of scientific infor-mation may not be available to the public. “What beginsas someone’s choice ends up perceived as fact by some-one else” (Cozzens & Woodhouse 1995:539). Many prac-titioners argue that the weight of scientific claims is anegotiated product (Yearly 1996; Latour 1999). If so, theprogress of science under these conditions becomes eas-ily skewed to organized interests of production over moreamorphous demands for systemic sustainability.

Many prescriptions that have become the standard fareof conservation biology must be reassessed in this light.For example, Clark (1993:360) attributes “the disappoint-ing performance, in varying degrees, in the conservationof biodiversity” to “preventable (corrigible) errors in theformulation and implementation stages of the policy pro-cess.” This prescription focuses on proximate causes, thepolicy process, rather than on the ultimate cause of theorientation toward production embedded in almost ev-ery resource agency’s organizational ideology. Similarly,Holling’s well-established paradigm of “adaptive manage-ment” must be revisited. Holling (1995:14) notes that“The essential point is that evolving systems require poli-cies and actions that not only satisfy social objectives butalso achieve continually modified understanding of theevolving conditions and provide flexibility for adaptingto surprises.” But what if the “surprise” to which we must“adapt” is itself largely the product of a continuous pro-cess of government-facilitated economic expansionismat or beyond ecosystem limits? In such a case, adaptivemanagement and its supportive scientific understandingswill always be playing catch-up to an economic dynamicthat is inherently more oriented to disruption than it isto management. Public responsibility becomes equatedwith attempting to manage surprise, not to forestall it.Acknowledging the problem of institutional inaction isnot sufficient. Without a larger understanding of, andcommitment to, institutional change at a basic sociocul-tural level, natural scientists may unintentionally facili-tate the erosion they seek to end.

984



Uncertainty as Systemic Anomaly

For centuries, no insuperable physical (or spatial) bound-aries have constrained the growth imperative. In thiscontext, the efficacy of scientific knowledge was de-monstrable and the discoveries of science helped fuel“progress.” With a relatively small human population, acomparatively low level of development, and an abun-dance of space, the hidden costs associated with unlim-ited growth could be avoided. The exponential growthrates of the past half century have changed all that: eco-system limits have been increasingly encountered. But aknowledge system predicated on an inexhaustible re-source base is not well equipped to deal with the multi-ple effects of our encounter with ecosystem boundaries.

Looking at science from this perspective is informa-tive. For example, the highly touted advent of geneticmanipulation can be understood as a historically drivenattempt to break past ecological boundaries by discover-ing, colonizing, and exploiting a whole new level of“space” for economic growth. More generally, the con-temporary concern for risk and uncertainty presents afundamental contextual change for science. Ours is in-creasingly seen as the “risk society,” where technologi-cal advance has made lives more comfortable, easier,and less susceptible to certain types of chance perturba-tions (Giddens 1990; Beck 1992). At the same time, it of-ten creates different types of even greater risks in theprocess. Thus, the development of genetically modifiedorganisms is driven by concerns about the reliability ofindustrial food production, but it employs technologythat could have unimagined effects on ecosystems. His-torically, the development of fossil fuels and nuclearpower to drive industrial growth created forms of riskthat are only now appreciated. So too did the develop-ment of refrigeration with chlorofluorocarbons. Thewhole process of development is directly relevant toconservation biology.

Although risk is increasingly prevalent, everyone pre-fers certainty—especially industrialists and regulators—and, historically, it has been the job of science to provideit. That job is becoming increasingly difficult. From un-covering the biological effects of DDT to modeling thepredictions of carbon dioxide–induced climate change, toworking out a “sustained yield” for heavily exploited fishstocks, huge uncertainties are inherent in the dynamicchanges of a growing, complex world. But science doesnot always produce information that points to a clearcourse of action; within the institutions of policy forma-tion, this uncertainty is problematic. As Yearly (1996)notes, information gaps and uncertainty are used to delaylegislation or practical responses to environmental prob-lems. Because of the adversarial nature of the policyarena, uncertainty renders scientific information suspectand undermines the authority of science itself: “[S]cien-tific views appear like ‘mere’ opinion” ( Yearly 1996:185).

Conservation biologists are aware of problems of un-certainty and scientific management, and they recognizelimitations of a reductionist approach to understandingcomplex systems (Walters 1986; Schrader-Frechette &McCoy 1993; Holling 1995). The ecological literature isrife with caveats about the many missing pieces of theecological puzzle. Results are limited because they applyto populations, communities, or landscapes fixed in spaceand time. Difficulties exist in obtaining data, in the varia-tion in data-collection techniques, and in proper analyti-cal interpretation, all of which fuel debate over results.

In response, many ecological studies, including thoseassessing the effect of development and/or exploitation,take a more holistic approach, with an appreciation forspatial and temporal scales and natural variation in bio-logical patterns and processes. Useful insights have beengenerated: ecosystems are recognized as dynamic and het-erogeneous rather than stable and homogeneous, andmanagement has shifted from a single-species to an eco-system approach. But many answers will remain beyondthe reach of science: “Research frequently demonstratesthat ecosystems possess greater complexities and areharder to define and predict than previously thought”(Santillo et al. 1998). More scientific information can ac-tually increase uncertainty and may not necessarily leadto better management or prevent habitat destruction(Walters 1986).

Much “surprise” is a product of the pace and scale ofcompetitive economic growth, and many managementdecisions are made after the fact, existing at the marginsof economic incursion into natural ecosystems. To makebusinesses wait for certain answers to questions of eco-system resilience is to cripple competitive economicgrowth. This is precisely why scientists must manage foruncertainty and adopt an adaptive approach (Holling1978; Walters 1986). Even though this reactive stancehas been embraced (e.g., Gorte 1993), the difficultymoves to the next level—implementation (Halbert 1993;McLain & Lee 1996; Grumbine 1997; Walters 1997). Frus-tration results because adaptive management is reallyabout how ecosystems can be managed for disruptionafter the fact than it is about how human activity mightbe altered for “stability” before the fact.

This situation parallels the divergence between “riskassessment” and “risk reduction.” Risk assessment seeksto evaluate the consequences of proposed develop-ments; it is managerial and involves highly technical,quantitative analyses. Such assessments are usually un-dertaken after the fact—that is, after the toxic waste hasbeen generated or the plans laid to clearcut the forest. Incontrast, risk reduction does not focus on assessing andmanaging an assumed industrial activity but on redesign-ing the industrial process to reduce the generation of un-certainty, including restructuring the activity itself. Thisgoal is transformative, and it too involves a high degreeof technical sophistication (especially in industrial de-



985

sign). Assessing the potential effects of new toxic dis-charges involves fundamentally different forms of exper-tise than does designing “best practices” for risk-reducing,closed-loop processes. The distinction is between tra-ditional management by “permissive regulation” versusinnovation-based management by “preventative design”(M’Gonigle et al

.

1994). Most important, however, riskreduction necessarily requires a critical reevaluation ofindustrial development, business growth, and regulation.

This dilemma is encapsulated in the controversy sur-rounding the “precautionary principle.” The principlestates that where an activity might cause significantlong-term harm to human health or the environment, ab-sence of scientific proof of that harm should not forestallpreventative action (Raffensperger & Tickner 1999). Pre-caution has a scientific basis (notably, in the enhancedconcern for Type II over Type I errors), but it also re-flects the practical limits of management in an economi-cally competitive world. For example, with hundreds ofnew genetically modified organisms or synthetic chemi-cals every year, individual assessment is not possible. Aprecautionary response would be to avoid creating sur-prises by shifting to selective production technologies(e.g., ecoforestry), by closing the production loop (e.g.,recycling rather than disposal), or by embracing more“natural” techniques (e.g., biodynamic rather than indus-trial agriculture).

Intellectually, this is not dull stuff, but points to a hostof exciting technical and economic initiatives such asnonpolluting techniques of “clean production” and sus-tainable urban initiatives such as “smart growth” (UrbanLand Institute 1998), organic agriculture, and selectivefisheries. However rational these technical shifts mightbe from a policy viewpoint, their acceptability is se-verely constrained because the economics of these newapproaches is so profoundly different. The principle de-mands a proactive approach to the uncertain natural andsocial effects of undifferentiated economic growth. Thiswas dramatically demonstrated in the negotiations todraft an international protocol under the Convention onBiological Diversity on trade in genetically modified or-ganisms. The precautionary principle became one of themost fundamental conflicts of the meeting, pitting thoseconcerned with (potential) genetic pollution from thedissemination of genetically modified organisms againstthe (certain) export interests of the major industrial pro-ducers of those same products (Pollack 2000).

For science, the stakes in the uncertainty debate arehigh. The precautionary principle implies that “the ines-capable presence of pervasive uncertainty in the scien-tific enterprise is an ‘anomaly’ not just for one disciplineor paradigm, but for the scientific project as a whole”(M’Gonigle 1999:131). In this light, many now call for anew “precautionary science” (Barrett & Raffensperger1999). When science loses its claim to authority as

the

vehicle to truth, the whole ground changes, but in an

emancipatory way. The world is far larger than humanknowledge will ever be; certainty is a futile quest; re-spect and reverence for what we cannot know is as em-powering as the pursuit of what we can know. And, bestof all, there are practical outlets for this new knowledge.

The Science of Alternatives

Many scholars and policy advocates are exploring thepotential of “alternative” economic and political institu-tions. Given the diverse contexts in which human expe-rience is situated, to many, the route to “good science”is to break free of the stranglehold that centralized insti-tutions have long had on our concepts of what is trueand what is possible.

The starting point for a science of alternatives isthrough a more democratic approach to knowledge itself.This insight is evident in the debates on “post-normal” sci-ence, a term derived from the Kuhnian distinction be-tween a scientific “paradigm” and the “normal science”that occurs within a paradigm. Today, the day-to-daywork of the public policy practitioner is more often char-acterized by conflicts between paradigms than by the ac-ceptance of a single paradigm (Funtowicz & Ravetz1993). As with the case of genetically modified organisms,decisionmakers confront choices not just between datasets but also between value systems. As a result, in therealm of high uncertainty and high public risk, decisionmakers cannot rely on a single set of scientists workingwithin a single paradigm, but must involve the “extendedpeer community” representing affected interests (Fun-towicz & Ravetz 1993). Although scientists and managershave traditionally had a strong advisory role, innovativeprocesses will necessarily disrupt such relationships byreallocating decision-making power to represent differentviewpoints and types of knowledge systems. In this light,the key to “good science” is a participatory process withopen dialogue and paradigmatic debate.

How institutions might be opened up to broader formsof knowledge brings us back to the role of social move-ments and civil society. Ecologists have recognized thevariability of ecosystems spatially and temporally. In turn,this implies understanding and utilizing those sources ofknowledge and systems of management that have oper-ated successfully at smaller scales over longer times. Ofparticular interest are the insights that might be gainedfrom existing, small-scale, less consumptive, and self-man-aging systems, insights that are often characterized interms of traditional ecological knowledge, local knowl-edge, and community-based natural-resource-managementsystems (Wilson et al. 1994; Ostrom 1995).

Industrial economic growth fragments and homoge-nizes ecosystems. Not seeing the forest for the trees, orfor the timber specifically, translates into management

986



practices that treat ecosystems as mere economic aggre-gates. The recognition of multiple ecosystem values hasled to the development of “ecosystem management”(Grumbine 1994). Again, however, a telling divergence isapparent with this concept. Much writing on ecosystemmanagement focuses on the science but not the politicaland economic processes within which such managementoperates (Grumbine 1994). A fundamental change is rep-resented in the concept of “ecosystem-

based

manage-ment,” whose basic premise is the maintenance of ecolog-ical integrity (Scientific Panel for Sustainable ForestPractices in Clayoquot Sound 1995). This does not meanthat ecological integrity “trumps other (human) goals”(Grumbine 1997). Even more comprehensive, it entailsfitting economic and management processes within themaintenance of the structure, function, and compositionof ecosystems and doing so with full regard to the uncer-tain state of scientific knowledge. Ecosystem manage-ment is rooted in applied ecology, whereas ecosystem-based management is also informed by applied ecologicalpolitical economy. We must, in other words, manage for-estry more and forests less. Only in this way can conserva-tion biology function “to integrate the human species intoan ongoing evolutionary process in ways that not only donot diminish biodiversity but allow for the possibility ofits increase” (Barry & Oelschlaeger 1996:910).

A shift to ecosystem-based management provides a farlarger context for the shaping of public policy than isgenerally recognized by biologists. Many social scientistsargue that this situation necessitates the decentralizationof power from hierarchical centralized institutions to-ward smaller-scale, community-based institutions thatcan work within ecosystem limits (Lynch & Talbott1995; Ostrom 1995; M’Gonigle 1999). The issue of com-munity-based management is a large and complex one,with a huge literature, and we consider it here only as anexemplar of a new paradigm.

Many communities throughout the world have effec-tively managed their natural resources over long tempo-ral scales (Freeman & Carbyn 1988; Ostrom 1990; Berkes1993; Pinkerton & Weinstein 1995). In community-basedmanagement, local users have greater decision-makingpower over how their local resources are managed (Duin-ker et al. 1994). This immediately challenges the auton-omy of the global market system in favor of retainingbenefits locally. Yet, with appropriate community institu-tions and state support, new possibilities appear for con-serving local ecosystems (Ostrom 1995; Agrawal 2000).When decision making is inclusive and representative,decisions regarding resources are more likely to reflectlocal concerns and needs, resource users are more likelyto perceive management plans as fair, and they are morelikely to comply with mutually agreed-upon rules (Pink-erton 1989; Shindler & Cheek 1999). Because they oper-ate on a smaller scale than larger government institutionsand are more closely linked with local environmental

conditions, communities can be flexible and adapt tochange (Folke et al. 1998; Shindler & Cheek 1999). Theconservation goals that policies such as ecosystem man-agement and adaptive management were designed toachieve are more feasible in a less intensive, community-based management scenario.

The focus on smaller-scale management may be less in-tuitive for conservation biologists when landscape-scaleprocesses, and landscape ecology generally, are consid-ered. Ample room for the scientific method, and forlarger-scale management of natural resources, continuesto exist, however. For example, Ostrom (1995) suggestscarefully constructed “nested institutional arrangements”to manage at multiple scales and reflect the same scales atwhich biological processes operate. Many roles still existfor higher-level government to support smaller-scale insti-tutions—for example, as external facilitators and capacitybuilders (Ostrom 1995; Agrawal 2000). Senior govern-ments also take on the role of coordinating research atlarger scales and, of course, ensuring local compliancewith higher-level standards and procedures. This is not amatter of either one level or the other but of a larger stateand institutional transformation in the face of globaliza-tion that marginalizes ecological and community con-cerns in the pursuit of a dwindling pool of resources.

For conservation biologists, communities can diversifyscientific practice. Direct participation by communitieseducates both scientists and community members. Thisway, community members are collaborators rather thanvariables (Chambers 1997). North America lags behindwestern Europe, Asia, and Latin America in exploring thepotential for community-based research institutions thatfacilitate an equitable interaction between academic re-searchers and communities (Scammell & Sclove 1999).Community-driven research makes a priority of questionsthat would often be ignored by conventional research in-stitutions due to lack of funding or publishability.

Ecosystem- and community-based management recog-nizes the benefits of including new forms of knowledge.Although the study of local knowledge, especially of in-digenous peoples, is a well-established field (e.g., Free-man & Carbyn 1988; Inglis 1993; Williams & Baines1993; Turner et al. 2000), Western science has often re-jected its validity (Colorado 1988; Berkes 1993; Agrawal1995; Cruikshank 1998). Local knowledge is not devel-oped by the empirical methods and peer review systemthat science employs and is grounded not in abstracttheory but in direct experience, often accumulated overgenerations. Local knowledge is difficult for scientists toaccess because it is held by people, not books. Amongindigenous peoples, knowledge of resources is often ex-pressed in ways that do not make sense to the literallytrained Western scientist because the “data” are embed-ded within stories of a mythical, supernatural, or spiri-tual nature. Working with local knowledge requires newskills, including diplomacy and negotiation and a willing-



987

ness to engage the “other” in a respectful manner overlong periods of time. Conventional scientific institutionsand training have not provided scientists with the train-ing or support necessary for collaboration with commu-nities. Some scientists may dismiss local knowledge asanecdotal, whereas others suggest that the short-termand fragmented approach of many scientific studies ren-ders them similarly anecdotal (Neis 1992).

Many attempts to work with local knowledge have fo-cused more on documenting the knowledge than on us-ing it to set the course of research (Cruikshank 1998).This is the natural bureaucratic response—to get the lo-cal data out—but it merely commodifies local knowl-edge rather than exploring it as a new direction for re-search and understanding. At stake is the opportunityfor science to develop conservation solutions. Referringto local knowledge held by fishermen over 100 yearsago in Maine, Wilson et al. (1994:298) suggest that “had[we] used our scientific capabilities to extend the eco-system knowledge of fishermen, we might possibly haveacquired a robust and usable body of knowledge.” InArctic ecosystems, local knowledge frequently exceedsthat of scientific knowledge (Gunn et al. 1988; Cruik-shank 1998). In the tragic example of western Atlanticcod (

Gadus morhua

) stocks, local fishermen held infor-mation that pointed to declining stocks and more appro-priate harvesting technologies almost a decade beforescientific models did (Neis 1992).

Although local and traditional knowledge may be in-tellectually difficult and even threatening, it is even moreproblematic because it is frequently encountered withina situation of political resistance. This is a common themeamong scholars who study common-property resources,resource systems that are managed by traditional, com-munal entities. The journal

The Ecologist

(1993) suggeststhat the history of Western economic development, in-cluding today’s economic globalization, is really the his-tory of the privatization of once communal lands—“de-velopment as enclosure”—in which enhanced productionreflects the surplus that can be generated when the con-straint of communal sustainability is eradicated. Privatecosts can then be freely externalized. Bromley (1991:104) notes that “The real tragedy of the commons is theprocess whereby indigenous property rights have beenundermined and delegitimized. This destruction of local-level authority [is] the principal cause of natural degra-dation.”

In the process of colonization, indigenous and localpeoples have been largely excluded from policy makingat all levels of governance. The use of science to rein-force the policies and agendas of the modern state tendsto exclude cultures with different knowledge systemsfrom participating and effectively challenging these ideas( Jasanoff 1998). The accrual of authority to Western sci-ence over other knowledge systems reflects evolvingpower relationships, relationships that will have to be

consciously changed as a condition of attaining sustain-ability (Esteva & Prakash 1998). Science is thus a diverseprocess that generates a diversity of useable knowledge,not a single process toward a particular truth.

Conclusion

Conservation biology is an evolutionary outgrowth ofthe scientific endeavor. Although the scientific methodstill underpins the field, its application has moved from afocus on single-variable analysis, to an attention to sys-temic relationships, to an explicit recognition of the ex-istence of value in what is being studied. And the fieldmust go farther by fully considering the multiple socialand cultural contexts in which all knowledge is gainedand used.

The potential rewards for such a journey are great. Un-doubtedly, a more highly evolved discipline will strengthenthe movement to maintain biodiversity by broadeningthe strategic avenues for research and action. But it willmake its contribution in other, perhaps surprising, ways.One of the primary characteristics of the modern growtheconomy is its lack of self-reflection. In the globalizedworld, there is, we are told, no other way. By acknowl-edging the essential function of science (writ large) inthe service of the growth machine, and by exploring itslimits, a critically reflective conservation biology willhelp open up our institutions to other ways of being andknowing. In the process, it will help foster the develop-ment of new institutional arrangements essential for asustainable world. There is indeed value in diversity.

Acknowledgments

We thank S. Lee, A. Wender, and R. Tittler for commentsand discussion. Research funding was provided by theTri-Council (National Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Coun-cil, Medical Research Council) Eco-Research Secretariat,Ottawa; the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia;the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands andParks; the Notary Foundation of British Columbia; andthe University of Victoria.

Literature Cited

Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and sci-entific knowledge. Development and Change

26:

413–439.Agrawal, A. 2000. “Community” and natural resource conservation.

Pages 35–55 in press in F. Gale and R. M. M’Gonigle, editors. Na-ture, production and power: towards an ecological political econ-omy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.

Barrett, K., and C. Raffensperger. 1999. Precautionary science. Pages106–122 in C. Raffensperger and J. Tickner, editors. Protecting

988



public health and the environment: implementing the precaution-ary principle. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Barry, D., and M. Oelschlaeger. 1996. A science for survival: values andconservation biology. Conservation Biology

10:

905–911.Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage Publica-

tions, London.Bennett, J. W. 1976. The ecological transition: cultural anthropology

and human adaptation. Pergamon Press, New York.Berkes, F. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective.

Pages 1–9 in J. T. Inglis, editor. Traditional ecological knowledge:concepts and cases. International Program on Traditional Ecologi-cal Knowledge and International Development and Research Cen-tre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Bromley, D. W. 1991. Environment and economy: property rights andpublic policy. Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Chambers, R. 1997. Whose reality counts? Putting the last first. Inter-mediate Technology Publications, London.

Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’An-tonio, R. Francis, J. R. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J.Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, and R. G. Woodmansee.1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America committeeon the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Ap-plications

6:

665–691.Clark, T. W. 1993. Creating and using knowledge for species and eco-

system conservation: science, organizations, and policy. Perspec-tives in Biology and Medicine

36:

497–525.Colorado, P. 1988. Bridging native and western science. Convergence

21:

49–68.Costanza, R., and H. E. Daly. 1992. Natural capital and sustainable de-

velopment. Conservation Biology

6:

37–46.Cozzens, S. E., and E. J. Woodhouse. 1995. Science, government and

the politics of knowledge. Pages 533–553 in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Mar-kle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, editors. Handbook of science andtechnology studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Cruikshank, J. 1998. The social life of stories: narrative and knowledgein the Yukon Territory. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Duinker, P. N., P. W. Matakala, F. Chege, and L. Bouthillier. 1994.Community forests in Canada: an overview. The Forestry Chronicle

70:

711–720.Esteva, G., and M. S. Prakash. 1998. Grassroots post-modernism: re-

making the soil of cultures. Zed Books, London.Fischer-Kowalski, M., and H. Haberl. 1997. Tons, joules and money:

modes of production and their sustainability problems. Society andNatural Resources

10:

61–85.Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writ-

ings, 1972–1977. C. Gordon, editor. Harvester Press, Brighton, UK.Folke, C., F. Berkes, and J. Colding. 1998. Ecological practices and so-

cial mechanisms for building resilience and sustainability. Pages414–436 in F. Berkes and C. Folke, editors. Linking social and eco-logical systems. Management practices and social mechanisms forbuilding resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UnitedKingdom.

Freeman, M. M. R., and L. N. Carbyn, editors. 1988. Traditional knowl-edge and renewable resource management in northern regions.Occasional paper 23. Boreal Institute for Northern Studies, Edmon-ton, Alberta, Canada.

Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normalage. Futures

25:

739–756.Gale, F., and R. M. M’Gonigle, editors. 2000. Nature, production and

power: towards an ecological political economy. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, United Kingdom.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. Entropy law and the economic process.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford UniversityPress, Stanford, California.

Gorte, R. W. 1993. The Clinton Administration’s forest plan for the Pa-cific Northwest. Congressional Research Service, report for Congress.

The Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, Wash-ington, D.C. (Also available at http://www.cnie.org/nle/for-3.html[accessed 5 July 1999]).

Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? ConservationBiology

8:

27–38.Grumbine, R. E. 1997. Reflections on “What is ecosystem manage-

ment?” Conservation Biology

11:

41–47.Gunn, A., G. Arlooktoo, and D. Kaomayok. 1988. The contribution of

the ecological knowledge of Inuit to wildlife management in theNorthwest Territories. Pages 22–30 in M. M. R. Freeman and L. N.Carbyn, editors. Traditional knowledge and renewable resourcemanagement in northern regions. Occasional paper 23. Boreal In-stitute for Northern Studies, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Halbert, C. L. 1993. How adaptive is adaptive management? Imple-menting adaptive management in Washington State and British Co-lumbia. Reviews in Fisheries Science

1:

261–283.Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and manage-

ment. Wiley, New York.Holling, C. S. 1995. What barriers? What bridges? Pages 3–34 in L. H.

Gunderson, C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light, editors. Barriers andbridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York.

Inglis, J. T. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts andcases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledgeand International Development and Research Centre, Ottawa, On-tario, Canada.

Jasanoff, S. 1998. Contingent knowledge: implications for implementa-tion and compliance. Pages 63–87 in E. G. Weiss and H. K. Jacob-son, editors. Engaging countries: strengthening compliance withinternational environmental accords. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massa-chusetts.

Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd edition.University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science stud-ies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Lovejoy, T. E., R. O. Bierregaard, Jr., A. B. Rylands, J. R. Malcolm, C. E.Quintela, L. H. Harper, K. S. Brown, Jr., A. H. Powell, G. V. N. Pow-ell, H. O. R. Schubart, and M. B. Hays. 1986. Edge and other effectsof isolation on Amazon forest fragments. Pages 257–285 in M.Soulé, editor. Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sun-derland, Massachusetts, USA.

Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncertainty, resource ex-ploitation and conservation: lessons from history. Science

260:

17, 36.Lynch, O. J., and K. Talbott. 1995. Balancing acts: community-based

forest management and national law in Asia and the Pacific. WorldResources Institute, Washington, D.C.

Matthews Amos, A. 1999. SCB and the policy process. Conservation Bi-ology

13:

225–226.Martínez-Alier, J. 1987. Ecological economics: energy, environment,

and society. Basil Blackwell, New York.McLain, R. J., and R. G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive management: promises

and pitfalls. Environmental Management

20:

437–448.Meffe, G. K. 1998

a

. Conservation biology: into the millennium. Con-servation Biology

12:

1–3.Meffe, G. K. 1998

b

. Conservation scientists and the policy process.Conservation Biology

12:

741–742.Meffe, G. K. 1999. Conservation science and public policy: only the

beginning. Conservation Biology

13:

463–464.M’Gonigle, R. M. 1999. Ecological economics and political ecology: to-

wards a necessary synthesis. Ecological Economics

28:

11–26.M’Gonigle, R. M., T. L. Jamieson, M. K. McAllister, and R. M. Peterman.

1994. Taking uncertainty seriously: from permissive regulation topreventative design in environmental decision making. OsgoodeHall Law Journal

32:

99–169.Neis, B. 1992. Fishers’ ecological knowledge and stock assessment in

Newfoundland. Newfoundland Studies

8:

155–178.Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institu-



989

tions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom.

Ostrom, E. 1995. Designing complexity to govern complexity. Pages33–43 in S. Hanna and M. Munasinghe, editors. Property rights andthe environment. Beijer International Institute for Ecological Eco-nomics and the World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Pinkerton, E. 1989. Co-operative management of local fisheries: newdirection in improved management and community development.University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Pinkerton, E., and M. Weinstein, 1995. Fisheries that work: sustainabil-ity through community-based management. David Suzuki Founda-tion, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Pollack, A. 2000. Talks on biotech food turn on a safety principle. NewYork Times, 28 January.

Raffensperger, C., and J. Tickner, editors. 1999. Protecting publichealth and the environment: implementing the precautionary prin-ciple. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Robinson, S. K., F. R. Thompson III, T. M. Donovan, D. R. Whitehead,and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nestingsuccess of migratory birds. Science

267:

1987–1990.Santillo, D., R. L. Stringer, P. A. Johnston, and J. Tickner. 1998. The

precautionary principle: protecting against failures of scientificmethod and risk assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin

36:

939–950.Scammell, M., and R. Sclove. 1999. Science by everyone: building a

world-wide community research network. Loka Institute, Amherst,Massachusetts. Reprinted with permission from Nature Magazinewebsite, 28 January 1999. Available from http://www.loka.org/pubs/nature012899.htm (accessed 9 September 2000).

Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound.1995. Sustainable ecosystem management in Clayoquot Sound:planning and practices. Report 5. Cortex Consultants, Victoria,British Columbia.

Sclove, R. 1995. Democracy and technology. Guilford Press, New York.Shackley, S., and B. Wynne. 1996. Representing uncertainty in global

climate change science and policy: boundary-ordering devices andauthority. Science, Technology, and Human Values

21:

275–302.Shindler, B., and K. Aldred Cheek. 1999. Integrating citizens in adap-

tive management: a propositional analysis. Conservation Ecology

3(1):

http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art9.

Schrader-Frechette, K. S., and E. D. McCoy. 1993. Method in ecology:strategies for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom.

Song, S. J., and S. J. Hannon. 1999. Predation in heterogeneous forests:a comparison at natural and anthropogenic edges. Écoscience

6:

521–530.Soulé, M. 1999. Washington, here we come. Society for Conservation

Biology Newsletter

6(3):

8.Soya, E. 1989. Post-modern geographies. The re-insertion of space in

critical social theory. Verso, London.

The Ecologist

. 1993. Whose common future? Reclaiming the com-mons. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Turner, N. J., M. B. Ignace, and R. Ignace. 2000. Traditional ecologicalknowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia.Ecological Applications

10:

1275–1287.Urban Land Institute, editor. 1998. Smart growth: economics, commu-

nity, environment. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C.Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources.

Macmillan, New York.Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and

coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology

1(2):

http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1.

Whitcomb, R. G., C. S. Robbins, J. F. Lynch, B. L. Whitcomb, M. K.Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Pages 125–205 in R. L. Burgessand D. M. Sharpe, editors. Forest island dynamics in man-domi-nated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Williams, N. M., and G. Baines, editors. 1993. Traditional ecologicalknowledge: wisdom for sustainable development. Traditional Ecolog-ical Knowledge Workshop, 18–29 April 1988, Centre for Resourceand Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

Wilson, J. A., J. M. Acheson, M. Metcalfe, and P. Kleban. 1994. Chaos,complexity and community management of fisheries. Marine Pol-icy

18:

291–302.Winterson, J. 1997. Gut symmetries. Knopf, Toronto.Yearly, S. 1996. Nature’s advocates: putting science to work in envi-

ronmental organisations. Pages 172–190 in A. Irwin and B. Wynne,editors. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction ofscience and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom.

Documents

Science, Power, and System Dynamics: the Political … · 980 Conservation Biology, Pages 980–989 Volume 15, No. 4, August 2001 Science, Power, and System Dynamics: the Political