Science and Policy Partnership for Sustainability


Logo


Draft Case Statement
March 1997


Table of Contents

Foreword

 The Science and Policy Partnership is an experiment answering an evident and urgent need--global sustainability. Global sustainability requires cooperation well beyond what humankind has heretofore achieved. Cooperation must breach national, hemispheric and economic borders. It must embrace a stewardship motivated not by philosophy but by hard science. It must cause us to act differently, not because we are fond of forests or wildlife, but because human survival demands that we so act.

Already, we are confronted with enormous uncertainties created by global-scale environmental disruptions. We are challenged with un-doing past environmental "remedies" -- be they the hydrological re-design of rivers or environmental over-regulation. We are challenged with the need to stabilize social and economic systems that are based on an unsustainable use of natural resources. Upon discovering inherent flaws in many earlier remedies for environmental stresses, we are beset with a gnawing anxiety about what we will learn soon about today's remedies.

On the other hand, new science, new practice, newly tested experience are bringing new hope for the changing of the millennia. Remedies based on a new awareness of the resilience of natural systems to human interaction may very well alleviate the environmental afflictions that now forecast global catastrophe.

The need for global sustainability has stripped us of the luxury of time in these last years of the twentieth century. It has taken away the protection of borders be they economic, geographic or cultural. If there indeed is new hope, we must reach for it now. Furthermore, we must reach for solutions that are global -- progress must be won for us all. More and more global citizens -- scientists, business people, policy makers and academic leaders -- are facing these facts. Some of them have organized the Science and Policy Partnership for Sustainability as their response.

The Science and Policy Partnership for Sustainability is an effort to overcome barriers to cooperation. It is an effort to create dynamic efficiencies among philanthropies', corporations' and governments' current investments in research, implementation and policy design dealing with sustainability. Designed to construct "community wisdom" with cooperative research, policy dialogues, cross-hemisphere collaboration and enhanced, high-quality use of new Internet capacities, the Partnership is an effort to take information and create knowledge. The Partnership is itself a collaboration of top global thinkers from every economic, academic and practical discipline that touches on sustainability issues. These men and women are not "in name only" participants, but are committing significant time to the interrelated projects that make up the Partnership's process. Their intent is to relate urgent policy needs with world-class science. By building cooperation across geographic hemispheres and across intellectual perspectives, the Partnership hopes to cut the time and costs involved in creating a more certain future for humanity within the current ecological context.

Executive Summary

 Ecological change generates great uncertainty for people. This is equally true for decision makers in business and public policy as for intellectual leaders within science and economics. The Science and Policy Partnership for Sustainability is being developed to address this uncertainty. Partnership activities are designed to accelerate communication and collaboration across intellectual disciplines, policy and economic sectors and between hemispheres. Ultimately the Partnership's goal is to help the global community in its efforts to manage for global change--head off, where possible, ecological crises; minimize the negative impacts of environmental disturbances; capitalize on the positive ramifications of new knowledge.

The Partnership recognizes that ecological change calls into question the futures of ecological systems as well as social systems. Economic and corporate behaviors linked to the environment (and which are not, after all?) are at risk when those behaviors are dependent upon distressed ecosystems. As the momentum of awareness of ecological changes increases, people are faced with the need to make decisions without sufficient scientific knowledge--decisions that could impoverish whole ecosystems if done poorly or enhance human welfare if done well. Their key questions have no easy route into the scientific community.

At the same time, while scientists are learning more every day about the resources at risk, and the opportunities for considered action, the route their findings must take before they are translated into policy is extremely slow, cumbersome and expensive. To make matters worse, the growth of both scientific knowledge and policy experience is halting and incremental and often geographically contained--involving only one branch of science or one agency of one government or even one ecosystem at a time.

Consequently, both scientific findings and policy opportunities that could further the common goal of ecological sustainability and human well being are restrained by barriers of perspective, culture, geography and time. The practical result is that experience of what works or could be made to work is all too often lost.

Thus, a group of leaders involved in global sustainability policy, action and research have created the Science and Policy Partnership for Sustainability. The Partnership links leaders in science and policy to the goal of global sustainability. The Partnership interrelates existing centers of learning around the globe, augmented Internet-based communications capacities, globally significant collaborative ecological research with a tightly knit advisory body. The aim is to facilitate the creation of a community of the highest level policy makers and scientists who, through augmented and directed communications efforts maximize scientific findings and policy opportunities that can, in fact, overcome existing barriers of perspective, culture, geography and time.

The Partnership is organizing a set of globally distributed learning nodes that draw upon the resources of existing centers of research, policy and applied science. The network of nodes address the barriers of geography and culture. Each node amplifies the ultimate reach of the Partnership and maximizes the benefits of ongoing investments in research, policy making and capacity-building by nations and international funders. Together, the nodes form a distributed learning network for expanded dialogue, experimentation and feedback related to sustainability--without creating more bureaucracy. The result is a tighter and far more productive link--a new communications capacity unattainable before the Internet--linking what science knows with what policy makers can achieve in terms of regional and global ecological sustainability.

The Partnership views the nodes as the mechanism for drawing together global resources to address issues of sustainability. At the same time, the nodes have the responsibility of reaching into their own regions. They are the link that will turn localized information into global knowledge: that will invent new, culturally appropriate ways of linking policy and science; and that will draw in an ever widening community into the task of global sustainability. Crucial tasks will be to support nodes in the developing world and to urge in-depth investigations in both science and policy that span the experience and the vital interests of both hemispheres.

The Partnership's "window on the world"--the nucleus that will receive, exchange and disseminate ideas--will be the electronic journal, Conservation Ecology. This non-traditional "journal" operates as an interactive, international exchange via the Internet that is designed to bridge the barrier of time. Conservation Ecology will cut the time scientific papers generally take to be published from two years to two months. This is of immense importance to the overall mission of the Partnership--a mission that views our need to develop sustainable solutions to global ecological problems as being extremely time sensitive.

Investments in research and applied experiments will also gain in cost effectiveness and timeliness because both dissemination and ongoing project peer review will be accomplished automatically via the Partnership's Internet linkages. Conservation Ecology's most important role is as the catalyst for the dynamic system of communication that is, in essence, the Science and Policy Partnership for sustainability. The journal will provide a state-of-the-art vehicle for engaging the best international scientific and policy talent in ongoing productive collaboration. This collaboration will ensure the applicability of research to broad geographic, policy and cross-disciplinary interests, and direct it toward specific policy goals. Furthermore, it will do so quickly and, by eliminating many of the traditional costs of journal publication, with low cost. Finally, Conservation Ecology will provide training, technical support and services intended to boost the ability of developing world nodes to fully participate in and benefit from the work of the Partnership.

The Partnership is integrally linked with globally significant science/policy research that mirrors science/policy collaboration toward sustainability The first project, known as the Resilience Network, draws on case studies of forests, rangelands, and land/water systems in both hemispheres and builds a collaboration on the question of these systems' resilience in the face of human interactions. The Resilience Network has a theoretical component that aims to integrate and transform both ecological and economic theory and a "thoughtful practice" component that bridges to the broader Partnership in which many of the same natural scientists, social scientists and economists participate.

The organizing mechanism of the Partnership is the Ecological Policy Council--a small group of leaders from business, science, government and NGO's that will define the parameters of the Partnership's global "collaboration". The Council, breaching the barrier of perspective, will work with policy makers, scholars and scientists around the globe.

The Council's focus will be to stimulate and conduct science/policy dialogues around topics of critical importance to global sustainability -- topics where science has developed advances ignored by policy or where policy has defined issues ignored by science.

The first international dialogue will be on biodiversity and will explore the implications of its role in human welfare, economic efficiency and political stability. The premise of the dialogue is that species are being lost at an alarming rate and this loss of diversity poses serious risks to ecological systems and hence to social--including economic--systems. Policy responses to the loss of diversity must deal with a series of questions: How will that reduction in diversity impact the social systems dependent upon key ecosystem services? How will it impact the resilience of ecosystems in the face of environmental disturbances? How much ecosystem change can regional and global social systems absorb and still sustain themselves? What priorities for action can be set?

The dialogue, like the Partnership's related research, Internet communications and learning nodes will emphasize integrative approaches, interdisciplinary synthesis and practical policy. Participants will be active researchers and policy makers from business, government and NGO's, facing urgent policy formulation demands. They will become part of a global community that the Partnership is creating. The dialogue's answers, like the knowledge being built throughout the Partnership's structure, will address real needs of real communities of a broadened and activated global citizenry.

The Science and Policy Partnership for sustainability is an experiment in cooperation. It addresses the very real, and very critical topic of how we, as scientists and policy makers, address the challenges of global sustainability. The draft case statement describes the partnership's rationale, core elements and leadership. It is intended to spark discussion and collaboration within the small sector of philanthropists, financial leaders, and government funders who are individually already investing considerable time and effort to address the crisis of global sustainability. To date, projects of the Partnership have been endorsed by the Scientific Committee On Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), The Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Ecological Society of America (ESA).

1. Connecting Science and Policy

Why We Need a New Partnership

 Present regional and global issues of environmental change, economic development and human opportunity generate great uncertainty for business leaders, scientists, policy makers and members of the general public. Consider, for example, the uncertain impacts of global climate changes on agricultural capital investments, the unpredictable consequences of loss of biodiversity on the resilience of forest operations, or the indirect effects of wetlands restoration on urban and regional development.

Scientists are learning more in each of these areas every day. But the process through which relevant scientific findings are translated into policy is extremely slow, cumbersome and expensive. At the same time, policy makers are faced with the need to make decisions without sufficient scientific knowledge that could doom whole ecosystems. Exacerbating the gulf between science and policy is the fact that the process of the growth of knowledge in both areas is linear and often geographically contained -- involving only one branch of science or one agency of one government or even one ecosystem at a time. Consequently, both scientific findings and policy opportunities that could further the common goal of ecological sustainability and human well being for the entire global system are all too often lost.

To appreciate the impact of this communications gap, one has only to look at the many fish stocks around the world that have collapsed into commercial extinction in the past 100 years. In many cases, there was solid scientific evidence that harvesting rates were too high or that population fluctuations were too great to sustain the levels of harvesting. This knowledge of the potential impact of incorrect decisions on the future harvest was never translated into policies that ultimately protected the resource.

Why is it so difficult to translate science into policy? What needs to be done to overcome these difficulties? Here are just a few of the reasons and some practical solutions:

If there were a way to link individuals from different sectors of society and in different parts of the world who are focused on a common problem, we could create a "community wisdom" and a concerted impetus to bring about mutually agreed-upon solutions. Current tools for doing this exist -- print publications, workshops, international meetings -- but these require enormous investments of time and money. In our rapidly changing world, we simply do not have this luxury.

The coming of age of the Internet in recent years holds out tremendous promise for creating a sense of community among geographically separated individuals and institutions, and also for bridging specialties, such as ecological science, business and government. The inexpensive, rapid communication made possible by the Internet could become the key to developing and activating community wisdom, both regionally and globally.

However, our use of the Internet has not yet evolved this far. While the Internet has made it easy for anyone with access to a computer, modem and telephone to access vast amounts of information almost instantaneously, it can be difficult to sift through all the Internet noise to identify what is relevant and useful. Some device is needed to focus and add value to useful information and experience. Another difficulty is that much of the information available through the Internet may be unstructured or of dubious reliability. Not all the information on the Internet comes from qualified experts; many experts do not yet have the training to take advantage of this tool for disseminating important information. A procedure is needed to evaluate information and experience and judge its credibility. Finally, even when useful, relevant information finds its way onto the Internet, there is often no organized way to get it to individuals who could make practical use of it. Some systematic way to increase learning via the Internet in developing regions is imperative.

We can develop new ways to harness the potential of the Internet in the service of ecological sustainability -- to connect scientists with policy makers who, in turn, can be connected with ecological resource managers. Through skillfully managed Internet communication, we can create the same mutual trust and respect that heretofore developed only over long periods of face-to-face exchange. We can link together talented individuals with a commonalty of goals who have differing areas of immediate concern and expertise. We can, in sum, create the intimate communications structure -- create the "community wisdom" -- that must be created every time we stewards of the earth take a step forward.

2. Meeting Domestic and International Ecological Policy Goals

The Processes for Cooperation that the Partnership Builds

 The Science and Policy Partnership for Sustainability will develop a collaborating community among natural and social scientists and senior executives in business, government and the non-profit sector. Using the most advanced communications technologies, the Partnership will link and facilitate globally significant research, experimentation and policy implementation. The Partnership's over-arching objective is to expand our capacity to meet the challenge of sustainable development by minimizing the impact of perspective, culture, geography and time. For instance, with the help of the Partnership, an ecologist in the Pantanal of Brazil can share expertise with an economist in the Everglades who is struggling with complex hydrological management. At the same time, the needs of an agricultural policy maker in the Great Plains can be considered in the research methodology of a climatologist in South Africa.

To meet this objective, the Partnership will use a number of mechanisms to create tighter links between science and policy. The Partnership will bring ecological scientists into policy-making circles in such a way that their scientific experience and expertise impacts policy formulation and that policy needs inform their new scientific exploration. Furthermore, the Partnership is being constructed to skillfully manage Internet communication to build mutual trust and respect -- the "community wisdom" that can maximize the practical application and ultimate success of both scientific findings and policy opportunities. And the Partnership has designed a way to do this at a fraction of the cost that has ever been possible before.

Regional Learning Nodes

The Partnership is organizing a set of globally distributed learning nodes that draw upon the resources of existing centers of research, policy and applied science. The network of nodes addresses the barriers of geography and culture. Each node amplifies the ultimate reach of the Partnership and maximizes the benefits of ongoing investments in research, policy making and capacity-building by nations and international funders. Together the nodes form a distributed learning network for expanded dialogue, experimentation and feedback related to sustainability -- without creating more bureaucracy (Figure 1). The result is a tighter and far more productive link -- a new communications capacity unattainable before the Internet -- linking what science knows with what policy makers can achieve in terms of regional and global ecological sustainability.

The Partnership views the nodes as the mechanism for drawing together global resources to address issues of sustainability. At the same time, the nodes have the responsibility of reaching into their own regions. They are the link that will turn localized information into global knowledge, that will invent new, culturally appropriate ways of linking policy and science and that will draw an ever widening community into the task of global sustainability. Crucial tasks will be to support nodes in the developing world and to urge in-depth investigations in both science and policy that span the experience and the vital interests of both hemispheres.

FIGURE 1 Schematic diagram of proposed nodes in the Science and Policy Partnership for Sustainability. The international network will attempt to integrate regional-scale sustainability activities in science and policy through structured dialogues, meetings and electronic interactions.

Four initial nodes in the Partnership are now formally established. They include:

Next in line is CIAT in Colombia whose Land Management Group would take the lead. We are actively exploring options for satellites in South America, Zimbabwe, India and South Africa. Our goal is to develop eight to ten centers among North, Central and South America, Europe, Africa and Asia.

Science/Policy Dialogues

The organizing mechanism of the Partnership is the Ecological Policy Council -- a small group of leaders from business, science, government and NGO's that will define the parameters of the Partnership's global "collaboration." The Council, breaching the barrier of perspective, will work with policy makers, scholars and scientists around the globe. The Council's focus will be to stimulate and conduct science/policy dialogues around topics of critical importance to global sustainability -- topics where science has developed advances ignored by policy or where policy has defined issues ignored by science.

The first international dialogue will be on biodiversity -- and will explore a relatively new rationale for biodiversity -- its role in human welfare, economic efficiency and political stability. The Partnership will draw on the many excellent projects focused on aspects of biodiversity and will seek to engage the business sector, and particularly the extractive industry sector in the dialogue. Policy imperatives must deal with a series of questions: How a reduction in diversity will impact the social systems dependent upon key ecosystems? How will it impact the resilience of ecosystems in the face of environmental disturbances? How much ecosystem change can regional and global social systems absorb and still sustain themselves? If resource depletion creates political and social deterioration, what losses will the industries dependent on resource extraction sustain? Can arguments that support economic diversity within corporations lead those same corporations to help establish policy arguments to sustain biodiversity? What priorities for action can be set? These questions and others will form the basis for a planning session on the dialogue in 1998.

The dialogue, like the Partnership's other processes for cooperation will emphasize integrative approaches, interdisciplinary synthesis and practical policy. Participants will be active researchers and policy makers from business, government and NGO's, facing urgent policy formulation demands. They will become part of a global community that the Partnership is creating. The dialogue's answers, like the knowledge being built throughout the processes, will address real needs of real communities of a broadened and activated global citizenry.

The Electronic Conservation Ecology Journal

The Partnership's "window on the world" -- the nucleus that will receive, exchange and disseminate ideas -- will be the electronic journal, Conservation Ecology. This non- traditional "journal" operates as an interactive, international exchange via the Internet that is designed to bridge the barrier of time. Conservation Ecology will cut the time scientific papers generally take to be published from two years to two months. This is of immense importance to the overall mission of the Partnership -- a mission that views our need to develop sustainable solutions to global ecological problems as being extremely time sensitive.

Investments in research and applied experiments will also gain in cost effectiveness and timeliness because both dissemination and ongoing project peer review will be accomplished automatically via the Partnership's Internet linkages. Conservation Ecology's most important role is as the catalyst for the dynamic system of communication that is, in essence, the Science and Policy Partnership for Sustainability. The journal will provide a state-of-the-art vehicle for engaging the best international scientific and policy talent in ongoing productive collaboration. Conservation Ecology content will be evaluated by a Science Editorial Board of 50 to 80 of the world's foremost scientists. A list of 53 scientists already agreeing to serve is included in Section VI of this case statement. This collaboration will ensure the applicability of research to broad geographic, policy and cross-disciplinary interests, and direct it toward specific policy goals. Furthermore, it will do so quickly and, by eliminating many of the traditional costs of journal publication, with low cost. Finally, Conservation Ecology will provide training, technical support and services intended to boost the ability of developing world nodes to fully participate in and benefit from the work of the Partnership.

Global Research Collaboration

The Partnership is integrally linked with globally significant science/policy research that mirrors the science/policy collaboration for global sustainability. The first project, known as the Resilience Network, draws on case studies of forests, rangelands, and land/water systems in both hemispheres and builds a collaboration on the question of resilience in complex systems comprised of people and nature (Appendix A). The project has a theoretical component that aims to integrate and transform both ecological and economic theory and a "thoughtful practice" component that bridges to the broader Partnership in which many of the same scholars participate.

A key distinction of the Resilience Network's scholars is attention to new theory, new assumptions and new perspectives in order to fill new demands for ecological information. The Network is designed to meet an increasing demand for scientific information that relates to real-time needs of policy makers and primarily to their need for competent predictions on how ecosystems will respond to new policy. This increasing demand by policy makers is rooted in increasing stress levels that socially and economically key ecosystems are evidencing with greater frequency and intensity. The Resilience Network meets these twinned demands by integrating across scientific disciplines, encompassing economic and social scientists, and, very importantly by looking at the behavior of comparable ecosystems across hemispheric boundaries and then across ecosystem "type." In addition, the whole Network is tuned in to "surprises" in how ecosystems respond to stresses from human interaction. The information gained through the Network is designed to be funneled through the Partnership where, through intensive high-level dialogue, field experimentation, and ongoing discourse, it will be turned into practical knowledge. This knowledge, in turn, will be used by policy makers to forestall ecological changes where possible and to gird for global social changes that are rooted in predictable, and unavoidable, ecological changes.

3. The Leadership of the Science and Policy Partnership--
Bridging the Gap Between Science and Policy

The Partnership and the potential it opens are admittedly ambitious. As the following supporting information makes clear, the program is also thoroughly practical. Principally the Partnership makes use of efficiencies derived from cooperation among a preeminent group of international scholars and practitioners.

C. S. Holling

C.S. "Buzz" Holling, Ph.D., provides the dynamic linkages among the elements of the Partnership. He is the intellectual "father" of the underlying concept that the key to sustainability lies in understanding the resilience of economically and socially important ecosystems. He is the founder of the Ecological Policy Council for the Partnership. He is Executive Editor of the electronic journal Conservation Ecology. He is on the steering committee for the Resilience Network research.

Buzz Holling is one of the world's most eminent ecological scholars. His Theory of Surprise has challenged established belief systems about causal effects of ecological, social and economic interactions. Hollings' theories on the evolutionary nature of ecological systems have urged a whole generation of scientists to regard environmental/human interactions with open minds. His influence is felt in the concept of sustainable development where whole systems interacting and evolving over time are the accepted basis for both scientific study, environmental management theory and legal policy.

Dr. Holling, currently occupies the Arthur R. Marshall, Jr., Chair in Ecological Sciences at the University of Florida. In his current position, Holling has launched a comparative study of the structure and dynamics of ecosystems that has potential implications for both science and policy. The key policy question is how these systems might respond to global climate change. The Boreal Forests and the Everglades are providing the initial focus for modelling and analysis. The key scientific question is how these systems are organized across scales from centimeters to hundreds of kilometers in space, and months to millennia in time. Holling is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and has been awarded the Austrian Cross of Honour for Arts and Science.

Rod Sando

Rod Sando brings to the Partnership extraordinary drive to advance ecological approaches to managing natural resources. As a conservationist, university professor, and now second-term commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources (DNR), he has championed creative solutions to the interrelated needs of the state's economy, ecology and communities. As chairman of the Minnesota's Environmental Quality Board in 1991, he convinced state leaders to launch a state-level initiative in sustainable development. In the face of considerable political opposition, the commissioner accepted the challenge of installing ecosystem-based approaches as the center piece of his DNR administration. For these vanguard efforts Mr. Sando received The Nature Conservancy's President's national award for conservation leadership in 1995.

Nicholas Sonntag

Nicholas is an international leader in creating linkages between the environmental and business communities. Currently, Mr. Sonntag is the Executive Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute and is responsible for the overall strategic direction, leadership and management of the SEI's international research and implementation program. SEI is an international research institute that carries out specialized studies in the areas of energy, climate, urban planning water, environmental assessment and planning, and decision support tools for sustainable development. It is committed to making the scientific foundations of sustainable development more available to government, business, and the public.

Mr. Sonntag was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ESSA Technologies Group Ltd. as well as President and CEO of ESSA Software Ltd. Mr. Sonntag was responsible for determining overall strategic direction for a $5 million revenue environmental technology and services company with 50 staff and offices in Vancouver, Toronto, Ha Noi, Viet Nam. ESSA provides services in a broad collection of environmental assessment, management and planning; is developing a series of multimedia computer edutainment products in the environment area with McGraw-Hill as the marketing/distribution partner; and, commercializing unique and promising environmental technologies. He is also on the Board of Pacific GIS, an NGO working to preserve the temperate rainforests of North America; is a member of the Earth Council Institute located in San Jose, Costa Rica; is a Senior Fellow of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in Winnipeg, Canada; and remains on the Executive Board of ESSA Technologies Group Ltd.

The Ecological Policy Council

Scientists know science, but often do not know the realities of the policy world. On the other hand, policy makers know those realities, but often to not connect with the appropriate scientists. The Ecological Policy Council will provide the focus to build those connections.

The Ecological Policy Council will be composed of approximately thirty senior executives and scientists from business, government and the non-profit sector from around the world who can bring all available knowledge and perspectives to the challenge of sustainability. The Partnership is currently seeking individuals with vision, practical experience, an environmental interest and a systems perspective.

The founding members of the Policy Council were chosen to represent the important sectors of Business (Sonntag), Government (Sando), Science (Holling) and NGO (Chant).

Donald A. Chant - Chair, World Wildlife Fund/Canada, former Chair and President, Ontario Waste Management Corporation (Canada)

C.S. Holling - Arthur R. Marshall, Jr. Chair in Ecological Sciences, Department of Zoology, University of Florida (USA)

Rodney W. Sando - Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (USA)

Nicholas Sonntag - Executive Director, Stockholm Environmental Institute (Sweden)

The Partnership is in the process of initiating a second round of invitations to achieve an international balance on the Policy Council. The following have been suggested by present members of the Partnership and are in the process of being contacted. The Partnership is awaiting confirmation of their willingness to participate.

Garry Brewer - Director, ERB Environmental Management Institute, University of Michigan (USA)

David Buzelli - Vice President, Environment Health and Safety, Dow Chemical, Co-Chair, U.S. Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (USA)

Steve Carpenter - Halvorsen Professor, Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin; Chair, National Center of Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (USA)

Partha Dasgupta - Frank Ramsey Professor of Economics, University of Cambridge (UK)

Carl Folke - Professor, Systems Ecology, Stockholm University and Beijer Institute, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (Sweden)

Gilberto Gallopin - Leader, Land Management, Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (Colombia)

Lance Gunderson - Executive Director, Resilience Network; Department of Zoology, University of Florida (USA)

Paul Hawken - Chair, The Natural Step (USA)

Nay Htun - Assistant Director of United Nations Environmental Programme for Southeast Asia (Japan)

Monte Hummel - President, WWF Canada, Toronto (Canada)

Deborah Jensen - Director, Conservation Science, The Nature Conservancy, Washington, D.C. (USA)

Yolanda Kakabadse - President, World Conservation Union (IUCN) (Ecuador)

Brian Kelly - Environmental Affairs, Ontario Hydro (Canada)

Ashok Koshla - CEO, Development Alternatives (India)

Julia Martin Lefevre - Executive Director, Secretariat, International Council of Scientific Unions, (France)

Steve Light - Senior Resource Policy Advisor, Office of Planning, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (USA)

Karl Goran Maler - Director, Beijer International Institute for Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (Sweden)

Ronald Pulliam - Biological Resources Division, Dept. of Interior, Washington, DC (USA)

Jorgan Randers - Deputy Director General, World Wildlife Fund, International (Switzerland)

Maurice Strong - Undersecretary-General, United Nations, Senior Advisor to the President of the World Bank, Chair Earth Council (Canada)

Philip Taylor - Professor, Atlantic Cooperative Wildlife Ecology Research Network, Department of Biology, Acadia University (Canada)

Brian Walker - Chief, Division of Wildlife and Rangelands, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Australia)

Organization

The Partnership is designed as an open network. This structure allows for the generation of novelty, and adaptation as circumstances change. It will add value to existing institutional structures and relationships, by building linkages that bridge gaps of time and space without much additional bureaucracy. Even so, the organization requires some institutional affiliations. Hence, each of the major proposed activities will initially be affiliated with an institution (Figure 2). The Policy Council, associated with the Stockholm Environmental Institute will informally coordinate other activities of the Partnership through the structured dialogues. Conservation Ecology is a journal of the Ecological Society of America. The Resilience Network is a program of the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics and the University of Florida. The regional learning nodes will be coordinated by the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources.

FIGURE 2 Organizational diagram of Science and Policy Partnership, indicating institutional affiliations and responsibilities of functional components.

4. The Science/Policy Dialogue

Bridging the Gap of Perspective

 Ecological Policy Council members will use the mechanism of the dialogues to create formal analyses and in-depth conversations among scientists and executives concerning current issues of conservation and sustainability. The dialogues will be formal, in-depth endeavors. Each will focus on a special topic dealing with sustainability. Each will synthesize and evaluate new knowledge with the goal of clarifying what is known, what is likely, what is unknown and to highlight the policy consequences of each.

Dialogues will begin with a policy review followed by a commissioned paper addressing the scientific and technical issues inherent in the proposed policy issue. The paper will be followed by invited, written responses. These documents will constitute the briefing documents for the Dialogue. The dialogues will include up to 30 invited participants and will be conducted on the Internet. To insure that the dialogues are well focused, they will be coordinated by a host, a moderator/writer and three facilitators. A final document that synthesizes the above will be distributed globally over the Internet via the Conservation Ecology journal. The journal process will then orchestrate a capstone interchange on the Internet open to all interested parties.

The 1998 Science/Policy Dialogue

Beginning in 1998, the Council will initiate a formal dialogue to facilitate a process to clarify the known, uncertain and unknown aspects of biodiversity. The Partnership is well aware that the subject of biodiversity is being explored by countless bodies around the world. Indeed, the rationale for the dialogue will be to help coordinate work of the various bodies and to relate work on biodiversity across disciplines and hemispheres. Importantly, the Partnership's dialogue work will emphasize the stakeholder role of industry in the subject of biodiversity; and in particular, will seek to engage the long term interests of extractive industries operating in the developing worlds.

The Partnership's perspective on biodiversity goes beyond the two predominant rationales behind biodiversity studies: the "pharmaceutical rationale" which values biodiversity for possible future product development; and the "ethical rationale" which values biodiversity from a stewardship point of view (we are mutual passengers on this spaceship).

Both rationales have great difficulties assigning priorities to biodiversity and tend to succumb to reasoning that places equal value (and hence no value) on everything. (If everything is important there is no way to set priorities on what will be saved and what can be lost.) The Partnership believes that there is a third rationale for biodiversity that is rooted in the need for economic and social stability.

The Partnership's rationale that biodiversity is important for its role in maintaining stability within economic and social systems provides an opening for drawing critical industrial interests into policy formulation. Science will need to explore the question of how biodiversity relates to people living in a space. Policy will need to explore the question of how people can sustain social and economic systems that are dependent upon diversity while promoting human development based on the benefits of that diversity. While this rationale for biodiversity policy has not been well-developed, we do know that the depletion of natural resources leads ultimately to social and economic instability. (Conjure images of idle fishing fleets, abandoned company housing surrounding silent quarries, rotting mills on clear-cut mountainsides, starving villages on the edge of soil depleted plains.) We also know that economic gains from depleting resources more often than not overwhelm any argument for conservation and diversity. This is nearly universally true when policy considers such projects in terms of near term economic gains to the exclusion of the long-term/ecosystem dependent needs of existing social and economic systems.

The question to be tackled through the dialogue is how to engage extractive industry in exploring this third rationale for biodiversity -- how to match the economic wisdom that drives diversity within the corporate environment with an economic wisdom that can drive policy to support natural diversity in those cases where ecosystem diversity is critical to social and economic stability. The outcome of the dialogue will be to connect a broadened and practical understanding of the role of biodiversity with policy priorities for monitoring, managing or restoring the resilience of ecosystems that play a vital function within human social and economic systems.

Planning for the dialogue will be initiated early in 1998. An initial meeting will be held in Stockholm and will also function as the annual meeting of the Partnership. The initial meeting will define the question for the dialogue and participants. The dialogue will then proceed for one year. The second meeting in the summer or fall of 1998 will also be held in Stockholm.

Advisory Group for the Dialogues

In addition to the members of the Policy Council and the invitees previously discussed, a growing list of people have committed to participate as advisors to the first dialogue:

Madhav Gadgil - Professor, Centre for Ecologic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.

Ariel Lugo - Director, Institute of Tropical Forestry, USDA Forest Service, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.

Ann Kinzig - Professor, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Simon Levin - George Moffett Professor of Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Frances Westley - Professor, Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Steven Sanderson - Professor and Chair, Political Science, University of Florida, USA.

Bert Boline - Professor, Meterology, University of Stockholm, Sweden.

5. Regional Learning Nodes

Bridging the Gaps of Culture and Geography

 The international network of nodes will act as the cyberspace engines for the Partnership. Learning nodes will form around already existing ecology programs involved in globally pertinent sustainability research. By linking existing and developing knowledge bases to a global network that is focused on the concept of sustainability, the Partnership will amplify past and current investments in sustainability projects of either a scientific or policy nature and in regional capacity-building by nations and international funders. Learning nodes have four objectives:

Each node will attempt to meet these objectives by undertaking four functions:

First, they will initiate and disseminate information about science/policy projects within their region that have global applicability. They will foster science/policy dialogues to help integrate the knowledge gained by such projects. Ongoing activities will be accessible globally through Internet linkages to simple "home pages" at each of the nodes' home institutions. These "home-pages" will extend the reports, research findings and unique data banks globally.

Second, they will build regional capabilities by involving people in those regions in a way that is sensitive to their cultural, educational, historical and linguistic realities. In this role, the nodes will be responsible for taking and adapting research, findings, policy formulations in ways that will be effectively communicative to the peoples in their region. Ultimately, the goal of each node will be to develop and expand a scientifically literate citizenry.

Third, the nodes will provide the technically important function of mirror sites to replicate and distribute the load of electronic traffic for the Partnership. This function is purely mechanical and will allow more efficient distribution of materials generated by all Partnership activities.

Fourth, together they will form an international network of educational centers whose members are committed to opening Internet access and encouraging science/policy dialogues with an increasingly broad number of participants. The nodes will "democratize" the flow and distribution of information in their region by undertaking appropriate activities to ensure that an ever widening audience is apprised of Partnership activities and linked to the global effort to create sustainable solutions to ecological problems.

Leadership of the four nodes which will formally join the Partnership in year one is provided by individuals intricately involved in the entire Partnership program. Appendix B carries more detailed descriptions of the work of each node.

In year two of the project, the Partnership hopes to add nodes in Colombia and India. Gilberto Gallopin of the Land Management Group of Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) in Colombia has already been working on developing its capacities to function as a mirror site for Conservation Ecology. Members of the Partnership are visiting Zimbabwe in April 1997 and will use their time to initiate discussions about a formal linkage in southern Africa. A Brazilian node is being cultivated to become the second site in South America during year three of the project. All told, by the end of the three years, we expect to have a minimum of eight centers among North, Central and South America, Europe, Africa and Asia. The process of developing new nodes is greatly enhanced by the simultaneous process of securing mirror sites for communications purposes of the Partnership.

In creating a network of nodes around the world, the Partnership is seeking to create problem solving capacity not bureaucracies. Node coordination will be overseen by one person with the key responsibility of facilitating the development of communities of scientists, business people, government officials and grassroots NGO's. The coordinator, in particular, will be seeking out opportunities to bring in representatives from the developing world in such a way that the infrastructure for sustainability in the developing world is strengthened. Specific duties of the coordinator include: Link nodes with other functions and activities of network; Facilitate dissemination of information among nodes; Mobilize technical and process support for various nodes; Evaluate, synthesize, and transfer lessons learned within each node among all nodes; Provide financial support to the nodes to enhance collaboration and effectiveness; Develop shared vision and direction for nodes; Attract additional partners and sponsors for existing and proposed nodes; Build synergy with other efforts where opportunities exist; and, Test the feasibility of expanding the function of mirror sites to encompass more of the functions of full nodes.

6. The Electronic Journal Conservation Ecology

Bridging the Gap of Time

 The Science and Policy Partnership will build a multi-layered system of communication to achieve its mission. It's "window on the world" -- the nucleus that will receive, exchange and disseminate ideas -- will be the electronic journal, Conservation Ecology. Conservation Ecology will be an entirely electronic journal to be published on the Internet under the auspices of the Ecological Society of America.

Conservation Ecology will focus on presenting and elucidating the latest findings in basic science as a means of illuminating related application and policy issues. It will bridge the gap of time, so important to the Partnership's work on sustainability, by decreasing the time it takes to publish and circulate the results of scientific and policy projects from two years (for print journals) to two months. In addition, the journal will be published totally electronically, using an innovative package of software developed at the Ottawa node at Carleton University. The Partnership's software allows researchers to focus their efforts on the editorial and review components of the peer-review process that is global. A manuscript may soon be submitted to Conservation Ecology by email from Ghana, handled by an editor in Florida using web-based tools, edited from China via ftp and email access, reviewed in Alberta over the web and in Indonesia via ftp, and read all over the world using all of these routes. The purpose of the journal is to stimulate a deeper understanding of patterns of human, ecological and biological change and their causes over short and long periods and over local, regional and global scales. Topics covered include the ecological bases for: the conservation of ecosystems, landscapes, species populations and genetic diversity; the restoration of ecosystems and habitats; and the management of resources.

Since the causes of change are physical, biological and human, the journal solicits papers that contribute to concepts, methods, management processes and policy that integrate the biological and physical sciences, the natural and social sciences, science and policy, and those that develop analyses across space and time scales. In particular, papers are encouraged that explore the natural and/or human causes that generate, maintain or destroy biological diversity and ecological resilience, and that seek to understand the various roles that diversity and resilience play in nature and human affairs. The journal emphasizes the development of the foundations of knowledge -- theory, method, application, examples and generalizations -- and its relevance in the design of good integrative policy and the conduct of adaptive ecological management.

There is also an educational purpose. The development of the journal and its Internet potentials involves students in the departments and laboratories of those editors located at educational institutions. An international educational program will be established by forming collaborative agreements for "mirror sites" at suitable institutions in North and South America, Eastern and Western Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. The technical objective is to spread the load of electronic traffic and to increase speed of access. But the real potential is as a network of computer educational centers whose members teach the necessary skills and can encourage contributions to and use of the journal contents and its links to other information in a way that is sensitive to the cultural, educational, historical, and linguistic realities of the region. The following people have been approached to serve as a mirror site for the Partnership and Conservation Ecology:

Dora Ann Lange - Canhos, BDT, Brazil

Richard Corlett - Hong Kong University, Hong Kong (accepted)

Carl Folke - Stockholm University, Sweden (accepted)

Gilberto Gallopin - CIAT, Colombia (accepted)

David Green - CSU, Australia (accepted)

John Helly - San Diego Supercomputer Center, U.S.A. (accepted)

Steve Light - Minnesota DNR, U.S.A. (accepted)

Edward Witkowski - Witswaterrand, South Africa

The Partnership is currently seeking additional sites in South Africa (serving the sub-Saharan region); Israel (serving the Middle East); Brazil (serving as a alternative for CIAT); Chile (serving areas of South America which are topographically difficult from Brazil and Colombia); and Australia (serving "down under" countries). Conservation Ecology, hence, has the potential to become a decentralized international information and educational center for environmental science, policy and education.

Conservation Ecology will ultimately have a large Board of up to 80 Subject Editors covering the following 11 topics:

The members of the Board of Editors function both as traditional editors but also act as an "intelligence network" to identify interesting projects and authors, and to design and invite papers and commentaries. It is envisioned that the journal will have four core sections to exploit four opportunities:

Policy Fora: To provide an ongoing stimulus for output of the Science/Policy Dialogues and other dialogues that culminate in science-based policy innovations;
Synthesis and Review: To disseminate and stimulate discussion on major topics in policy and science including results of the Partnership's research component;
Research Reports: To circulate research findings from and to the broad international science and policy community;
News and Views: To stimulate young science writers and provide short articles written for the lay audience that draw attention to scientific and applied advances that would be of interest to policy makers.

Readers and participants in the journal and other elements of the Partnership will be people who take an active interest in science and its application -- in short, people with a strong desire both to understand deeply and to act wisely. As an example, Dr. Stephen Carpenter of the Center for Limnology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has agreed to serve as a subject editor for the journal, is working on a paper for the first issue on Breakdown and Restoration of Resilience in Lake Districts. Dr. Carpenter will explore the effects of various policies on resilience, such as wetland development, removal of riparian (waterside) vegetation, overfishing, the spread of exotic species, the development of new lakes, and agricultural practices. He will then discuss methods of maintaining and restoring resilience to lakes, and the economic benefits of doing so. Though his research has been carried out in the Western Great Lakes of the United States, Dr. Carpenter believes that his findings will apply to most lake districts in industrialized societies.

People Behind the Conservation Ecology Journal

Managing Editor Lee Miller is responsible for managing operations of the Conservation Ecology journal, including peer review and publication functions, financial matters and technological development. After 17 years as Editor-in-Chief of Ecology and Ecological Monographs and Managing Editor of the Ecological Society of America's three journals, he has relinquished all other editorial responsibilities in order to concentrate on Conservation Ecology.

Dr. Miller brings a Cornell University background in ecology, physiology and management to his work for Conservation Ecology. As Editor for the Ecological Society, he developed a computerized database management program to track the progress of manuscripts through peer review and journal production, and used computers to speed all phases of journal production and communication. He expanded and diversified the Board of Editors and developed ethical guidelines for authors, reviewers and editors. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Council of Biology Editors, Dr. Miller created and taught the Short Course for New Editors, established and chaired committees on education and data management, and chaired the Program Committee. He has served on the Publications Committee of the American Institute of Biological Sciences and served as consultant to several journals. Reporting to The Ecological Society of America will be done through the society's Vice-President for Science, Steward T.A. Pickett, a distinguished ecological scientist at the Institute for Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York.

Operational Support

Conservation Ecology receives operational support from the Executive Office and policy guidance from the Governing Board of the Ecological Society of America. Since 1915, the Society has defined its mission as unifying the sciences of ecology, stimulating research in all aspects of the discipline, encouraging communication among ecologists, and promoting the responsible application of ecological data and principles to the solution of environmental problems.

The Ecological Society of America is the nation's leading professional society of ecologists, representing over 7,000 ecological researchers in the United States, Canada, Mexico and 62 other nations. The Society uses reports, journals, research and expert testimony to Congress to promote the responsible application of ecological principles. The Society convenes an annual conference that is attended by over 2,000 scientists, students, and members of the media. This conference along with the exchanges stimulated by the journals forge strong partnerships among scientific disciplines. These partnerships in turn are key to the creation of that "community wisdom" which ultimately directs the course of research, the application of new findings and the spread of knowledge beyond the walls of academia and beyond national borders.

The Ecological Society of America already publishes three well-established and respected journals: Ecology, in its 77th year, publishes essays and articles eight times a year that report and interpret the results of original scientific research in basic and applied ecology. Ecological Monographs is a quarterly journal for longer ecological research articles. Ecological Applications is a quarterly devoted to ecological research and discussion papers with specific relevance to environmental management and policy. Although it has been published only since 1991, its circulation to librarians already equals Ecology and circulation to individuals is already well over half that of Ecology. The publication medium of Conservation Ecology may be new, but the Society's track record is a clear testament to its grasp of what goes into publishing a successful journal.

The Science Editorial Board

To date, 53 of the world's most prestigious ecological scholars have offered their services at no charge to Conservation Ecology. The size and diversity of the Science Editorial Board ensures that the journal is comprehensive in scope, covering the full range of relevant subjects from genetics to economics.

The development of the journal and its Internet potentials will involve students in the departments and laboratories of the institutions with which the Editors are affiliated. Some of these institutions will become official nodes in The Partnership's distributed learning network.

The members of the Editorial Board are listed here.

The Science Editorial Board has currently achieved a balance among areas of expertise, and is in the process of initiating a second round of invitations to achieve an international balance. The following have been suggested as editors by present members of the Partnership. All are being contacted. The Partnership is awaiting confirmation of their willingness to participate.

South America:

Doris Soto - Chile

Pablo Gutman - Panama

Ernesto Medina - Venezuela

Otto Solbrig - Argentina

Rudolfo Dirzo - Mexico

Elvira Cuevas - Venezuala

Asia:

Syed T. S. Hassan - Malaysia

Richard Corlett - Hong Kong

Prof. Xingguo Han - Peoples Republic of China

Africa:

Johan Du Toit - Zimbabwe

Hans R. Herren - Kenya

Fred Bugenyi - Uganda

Thomas Odhiambo - Kenya

Europe and others:

Carlos Herrera - Spain

Francisco Diaz Pineda - Spain

Miguel A. Casado - Spain

Dick Wright - Norway

Marten Scheffer - Netherlands

Imanuel Noy-Meir - Israel

M. Straskraba - Czech Republic

Appendix A: The Resilience Network

 The Resilience Network is a research program designed to test the theoretical concepts and practical experience that form the basis for sustainability. The Network activities will integrate understanding-- among scientists of different disciplines and across a series of study sites around the world. In essence the Network is designed to generate the intellectual "grist" for the mill of the Science and Policy Partnership for Sustainability.

The Resilience Network emerged from a sequence of brainstorming sessions held on a remote island in the Swedish archipelago. These meetings brought together world-renowned economists and natural scientists to explore similarities and differences between their disciplines. The essence of their conversations involved sharing and contrasting perspectives and experiences of change in ecologic and economic systems. The important conclusions from these discussions were that 1) economic growth is not inherently good, nor inherently bad, 2) that economic growth cannot in the long term compensate for declines in environmental quality, and that 3) the growing scale of human activities is encountering the limits of nature to sustain that expansion. It was equally agreed, however that the theories, methods, policies and experience needed to shift from simple economic growth policies to sustainable development ones are inadequate. The Resilience Network was formed to facilitate expansion of relevant understanding, methods and policies.

The Resilience Network is intended to engage some of the best international scholars from a variety of disciplines (ecology, economics, political, institutional, and management sciences). The project is designed as a network; to link researchers and practitioners in order to better synthesize and integrate their work on systems characterized by the interaction between humans and nature. These complex systems of people and nature have many properties, but the property of resilience is critical for long-term sustainability.

Why Study Resilience?

Worldwide, people are struggling to manage natural resource systems. Many are failing, as shown by the numerous resource systems that exist in a constant or recurring state of crisis. In the Florida Everglades, agricultural interests, environmentalists, and urban residents contest with one another for control over clean water. In the USA's Pacific Northwest, various advocates of salmon argue over the appropriate use of the Columbia River with those who prefer cheap hydroelectric power. The nations surrounding the Baltic Sea struggle with issues of governance as the fish populations and water quality of the sea declines. In all of these cases, resource management has taken a pathological form in which the complexity of the issues, institutional inertia and uncertainty lead to a state of institutional gridlock -- when inaction causes ecological issues to be ignored, and existing policies and relationships to be continued. Developing areas are vulnerable to this pathology as well, especially areas subject to international influences such as myopic development aid or economic drivers that lead to crises in the resource base.

Paradoxically, many crises are linked to the success of initial management actions. Managers of natural resource systems are often successful at rapidly achieving a set of narrowly defined goals. This success at controlling a key set of ecological processes (water levels, fisheries stocks, nutrient levels from the above examples) encourages people to build up economic and social dependence. Meanwhile, the ecological processes are changing in subtle and often undetectable ways. This leads to a condition in which ecological change is increasingly undesirable (yet unavoidable) and human systems become more dependent. Ultimately, this management pathology leads to unwanted or undesirable changes in nature--water pollution or eutrophication (nutrient enrichment), collapse of fisheries, or loss of grazable land.

At the heart of complex resource systems that link nature, people and business are the properties of resilience and renewal. Resilience provides these complex systems with the ability to persist in the face of shocks and disturbances. Maintaining a capacity for renewal in a dynamic environment provides a buffer that protects the ecologic system from failures of management action. This buffer allows people to affordably learn and change.

The goal of the Resilience Network is to understand how properties of ecological resilience, economic adaptability, and institutional flexibility interact in complex systems of humans and resources. To guide the initial steps along a path to understanding, we pose the following general questions:

In order to evaluate these questions, a series of activities are proposed for the Resilience Network. Those activities are described below in three clusters; case studies, theory and practice.

Case Studies: Behaviour of Large Scale Ecosystems

The first activity is to examine aspects of resilience in a series of case studies, each focused on the behavior of large scale ecosystems. The case-study examples will allow for a comparison across gradients of ecologic, economic and social complexities; one such example is industrialized areas in the northern hemisphere and developing areas in the south. The case studies fall into three categories of regional systems that have been transformed by human activity-- Forests, Rangelands and Land and Water cases.

Theory: Understanding Resilience

The second activity of the Resilience Network is to conduct the set of research investigations described below in order to deepen theory and explore the policy consequences of resilience. Each emerges from opportunities identified in past projects of the Beijer Institute that now seem ripe for extension and synthesis.

Thoughtful Practice

The final set of activities will be a series of experiments to develop a novel bridge between practitioners, senior executives and scholars of the resilience network. This set of activities provides the bridge to the Science and Policy Partnership. The experiments will focus on integrating three activities:

In summary, Resilience Network has three features that distinguish it:

First, it is an effort to develop deep understanding of the causes of and solutions to the very real global crisis of sustainability. It goes to heart of the pathologies that have appeared or threaten to appear as human development has stressed regional systems of people and nature. Furthermore, it carries its investigation across a spectrum of development activities and ecological regions around the globe.

Second, it does so from a base of comparative study of specific regional systems by natural scientists, economists and social scientists.

Third, it places equal emphasis on theory, example, practice and blends disciplines, theories and practice forming a more robust basis for better understanding, polices and practices.

People Involved with the Resilience Network

Overall guidance and direction of the network are proposed to be carried out by two co-chairmen; Karl-Goran Maler of the Beijer Institute and C.S. Holling of the University of Florida, with Lance Gunderson acting as Executive Director. The structure of the program is a series of teams, with each team focusing on a set of activities. A team leader will be responsible to plan, organize, facilitate and synthesize activities of a specific set of research activities. The team leaders, with some additions, will comprise an Advisory Council that will integrate the activities of the various teams:

Metaphors of Resilience - K.G. Maler, Beijer Institute; Don Ludwig, Univ. of British Columbia

State Changes - Steve Carpenter, Univ. of Wisconsin

Biodiversity - C.S. Holling, Univ. of Florida; Charles Perrings, York University

Sources and Sinks - Ann Kinzig, Princeton University; Frances Westley, McGill

Case Studies - L.H. Gunderson, Univ. of Florida

Forest Cases - John Pastor, Univ. of Minnesota; Ariel Lugo, US Forest Service, Puerto Rico

Rangeland Cases - Brian Walker, CSIRO, Australia

Land/Water Cases - B.O. Jansson, Stockholm Univ., Sweden; Gilberto Gallopin, Colombia

Harmonies/Dissonance - Carl Folke, Stockholm Univ.; Susan Hanna, Oregon State Univ.

Institutional Learning - Firket Berkes, Univ. of Manitoba; Madhav Gadgil, India; Steve Light, Minnesota Dept. of Nat. Res.

Appendix B: Highlights of Ongoing Work in the Partnership's Learning Nodes

Florida Node: Conservation, Development, and Sustainability in Southern Florida

 The University of Florida node will attempt to bridge existing gaps between science and policy around issues of conservation, development and sustainability in southern Florida - - an area of hotly contested water quality and quantity issues between the natural resource base -- the Everglades and Florida Bay -- and a significantly expanding population. The project, a bold attempt to link the strengths of advanced scientific understanding with the practical realities of policy development, resource management and citizen interests, has drawn international attention. The node is proceeding with a set of carefully defined parameters for its activities: it will maintain a strategic-systems level view (that integrates social, economic, ecologic elements); it will test and design adaptive experiments; it will test ways of engaging civic science; it will stay out of the political fray to enable creative and alternative solutions; it will serve as a hub for information and communication for all stakeholders; and finally, it will remain a virtual center, one with little infrastructure to remain flexible and adaptive.

The overall task will be to explore flexible opportunities for resolving resource issues, to devise alternative designs and tests of policy and to create ways to foster social learning. The project will focus on a series of four activities to carry out these objectives:

Mobilizing Understanding. The project will focus on ways to integrate scientific understanding and mobilize that understanding for policy. The process is paced by a series of workshops to identify uncertainties and gaps in understanding, develop alternative explanations or hypotheses around resource issues, and then develop research and management actions that help resolve uncertainty. Computer modelling is used to build interdisciplinary understanding and to clarify competing hypotheses.

Continuing Colloquy. The project will create and sustain a colloquy -- defined by Webster's dictionary as a 'formal conversation' -- a structured dialogue between scientists and policy makers around key resource issues. The continuing dialogue will be an opportunity to share and refine the understanding generated by scientists and practitioners with available options generated in a policy arena. The colloquy will focus on regional issues, such as ecosystem restoration in the Everglades or on rehabilitation options for Florida Bay.

Electronic Publishing. The project will serve as a hub for generating, sharing and receiving technical information for the scientific workshops and colloquy activities from both within the region and from the world-wide connections of the Partnership. The project will also function as a mirror site for Conservation Ecology.

Building Bridges Through Education. Finally, the project will utilize technologic innovations to communicate with audiences other than just the scientific, technical and policy communities. The focus is to develop a scientifically literate citizenry -- people who want to go beyond sound bytes and rhetoric to understand more deeply the dimensions of these complex resource issues. The focus of this activity will be to utilize the Internet by building web pages and fact sheets, and integrating computer technologies to portray animations of ecosystem dynamics and games for testing policies.

Northwest Node: Citizen Science and Institutional Restructuring for Sustainable Resource Management

The Northwest Node encompasses the upper Midwest and Pacific northwest states and provinces of the United States and Canada. The goal is the sustainable management of large-scale forest and rivers systems (e.g., Upper Mississippi River, Boreal forest) for ecological and economic resilience -- resilience being the capacity for self-renewal. The Node explores ways of expanding society's capacity to manage renewable natural resources at the landscape or river basin scale without increasing bureaucracy. The Node will include a number of interrelated and mutually reinforcing components:

Steve Light will head the Node. Light began implementing adaptive strategies for assessing and managing large scale ecosystems beginning with the negotiated introduction of experimental deliveries into Everglades in the 1980s. He also conceived of and nurtured into being the Miami Declaration and the InterAmerican Dialogue on Water Management, a hemispheric partnership (now funded by the Organization of American States and the World Bank) to implement the freshwater provisions of Agenda 21.

The Partnership will draw on Light's experience to serve as initial coordinator for launching the set of regional learning nodes.

Nurturing Region-specific Understanding. In the past, approaches to environmental assessment have provided us "snapshots" when natural systems are really moving targets. Resource decisions have repeatedly fallen into a "fixes that backfire" syndrome. Traditional approaches to planning and management fail to yield the necessary comprehension to avoid regional train wrecks. The Northwest Node will host assessment workshops to probe key uncertainties pertaining to the science and management of large-scale ecosystems. Science-based, interdisciplinary teams will model the major resource dilemmas being faced and search for flexibility for ecological and economic systems to renew themselves.

Regional-Scale Steering Capacity and Experiments. In too many instances throughout the world, large-scale ecosystems have experienced long-term degradation due to fragmented management based on very little ecological understanding. The Node, through resource assessments, will become a repository for shared understanding about the large-scale ecosystems in the region. This understanding will then become the foundation for enhancing regional steering capacity from which experiments in sustainable living can be launched. Unfortunately, humans rarely organize at such large scales -- landscape or river-basin levels. And even when they do, successes that address both economic and ecological sustainability are rare and almost impossible to replicate (e.g., Delaware River Basin Commission, Boreal Forest Of New Brunswick, Kakadu Preserve in Northwestern Australia). The challenge will be to make the understanding, steering capacity and experiments in sustainability, useful tools within a democratic process.

Policy and Science Dialogues. The fate of regional land and water resources are rarely the subject of timely, science-structured policy discussions intended to diagnose complex issues and inform citizens and policy makers of the threats and opportunities to sustainability. Instead, citizens are treated to (a) the pitched battles of special interests providing "sound bites" to the news media; or (b) long, drawn-out studies by the National Research Council that are financed by federal agencies usually relevant and not very timely. The Science and Policy Partnership provides an alternative way of organizing relevant discussions in a timely, but scientifically rigorous manner. The Node will use the Internet to reduce the time needs, and to produce a high quality information product that is cost-effective and easily accessible to citizens and scientists alike.

Citizen Science for Sustainability. We are just beginning to understand the needs for sustainability, but it is clear that citizens must take a lead role. However. challenges of assessing, understanding, and making informed decisions about how ecosystems renew themselves is formidable. New concepts, tools, perspectives, and measures of success are needed, as is language that can articulate how and what we need to know. Systems-thinking, embraced by the private sector and now driving corporate strategy, needs to be introduced into public policy making. Technologies to blueprint and manage complex social, economic and ecological systems needs to be made accessible to citizens. The goal of this activity is to equip citizens with the science they need to make more ecologically sustainable decisions.

Ottawa Node: Manipulation of Internet Technology to Promote Global Sustainability Work

The Ottawa Node of the Partnership is focused on pioneering Internet technology for the purposes of the Partnership. It operates from a base at Carleton University. The first product of the node is the development of interactive software for the Partnership's core communications device. Conservation Ecology, articulated as an on-line peer-reviewed, scientific journal, addresses issues of cost, speed and access to research findings in a rapidly changing and growing discipline by using the dissemination and multi-media potential of the Internet.

This software consists of numerous small programs that have been linked together into a single expert system -- a program that can make decisions based on a given set of conditions without human input at every step. Conservation Ecology will use this software to control the flow of information through the Internet in a way that simulates the flow of a manuscript through the publication processes of a regular print journal. The completed system will greatly enhance the flow of information between the editors, reviewers and authors. The software acts as a decision support system for all those involved in the publication of a peer-reviewed journal. It supports and directs the input from professional researchers in a structured and streamlined fashion while automating the mundane tasks that comprise the bulk of the work in publishing a journal.

Swedish Node: Understanding and Communicating the Economic, Ecologic and Social Dimensions of Sustainability

The Swedish Node will be a joint effort of three groups all working on different aspects of sustainability. These groups include the Stockholm Environmental Institute, the Beijer International Institute for Ecological Economics and the Systems Ecology Group at Stockholm University. Each of these groups will concentrate on understanding the ecologic, social and economic dimensions of environmental issues around the Baltic Sea, and engaging in dialogues to communicate that understanding with other groups. These fall into groupings of integrating ecology and institutions, linking ecologic and economic components of systems, and coordinating the Partnership's science and policy dialogues.

Appendix C

FINANCIAL INFORMATION



EXPENDITURES Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Totals Notes
NODES Numbers in Thousands of Dollars ($US)
Within Node Activity Yr1-MN, FL, Beijer, Yr2 add Colombia, India; Yr3 add Africa, So. Amer. (Ottawa not incl.)
Hardware/Software 15 30 30 75 To fill gaps as needed
Computer Maintenance 12 18 24 54 @3K/node/yr
Travel 6 10 14 30 @2K/node/yr
Web Maven 54 90 126 270 @18K/node/yr (not incl. Ottawa)
Assistance-Incentive 15 25 35 75 @5K
Dialogue/Meeting 12 20 28 60 @4K (each node will convene a regional mtg.
Preliminary Subtotal 114 193 257 564
Linking Nodes
Coordinator 80 80 80 240 80K/yr includes benefits
Deputy Coordinator 15 15 15 45
Travel 10 10 10 30
Administrative 10 10 10 30 includes benefits
Assistant Development 10 10 10 30 fee; expenses subsumed in details
Workshop 15 25 35 75 Node annual meeting
Assessment/Eval Computer Support 20 20 20 60 provided by staff of Ottawa node
Preliminary Subtotal 160 170 180 510
Nodes Subtotal 274 363 437 1074
DIALOGUE
Coordination 40 40 40 120 includes benefits
Admin. Assistance 10 10 10 30 includes benefits
Development 10 10 10 30 fee; expenses subsumed in details
Writers & Hosting 9 21 30 Yr1 incl. 5K commissioned paper, 4K computer support (Ottawa); Yr2 incl. 6K (1K/6 reviewers), 6K hosts; 5K writer, 4K computer support (Ottawa)
Workshops 50 50 20 120 includes yrs 1 & 2 Stockholm w/travel; yr3 evaluation/planning
Dialogue Subtotal 119 131 80 330
COMMUNICATIONS/JOURNAL
Personnel 26 26 30 82 Coordinator and Programmer @$25/yr incl. benefits; $20/yr charged under Nodes; $4K yr1
Editor in Chief stipend 10 11 12 33
Managing Editor stipend 10 11 12 33
Copy Editor 5 5 5 15
Development 10 10 10 30 fee; expenses subsumed in details
CD-ROM Production 1 1 1 3
Advertising 1 1 1 3
Hardware/Software 6 6
Supplies 9 9 9 27 Ed/Chief @$3/yr; Man/Ed @$3/yr; Coord @$3/yr
Travel 18 18 18 54 Ed/Chief @$6/yr; Man/Ed @$8/yr; Coord @$4/yr
Communications Subtotal 90 98 98 286
RESILIENCE NETWORK
Workshops 90 1/mtg/yr - Coordinating Committee
Personnel 215 Exec. dir/sr. staff/admin. assist. at UF.
Materials 15 for network coordination, mailings, copying, etc.
Administration 15.5 5% administration charge
Subtotal 335.5
BEHAVIOR OF LARGE SCALE SYSTEMS
Workshops 285 6 workshops for planning, one for each of three ecological groups and two for integration and synthesis
Personnel 270 scientist, post-doc., 2 grad. students, programmer
Materials/Supplies 20 for workshops/computer hardware and software
Administration 24.5 5% administration charge
Subtotal 599.5
UNDERSTANDING RESILIENCE
Workshops/Research 300 6 workshops - biodiversity, time series, sources and sinks, three on institutions
Personnel 140 2 post-doctoral positions
Materials/Supplies 15 for workshops/computer hardware and software
Administration 23.5 5% administration charge
Subtotal 478.5
THOUGHTFUL PRACTICE
Workshops 60 2 workshops - one to plan, another for a dialog among researchers and practitioners
Personnel 125 node coordinator/partial support for programmers at each node
Materials/Supplies 100 computer hardware/software training for development of two nodes
Administration 17.5 5% administration charge
Subtotal 302.5
SUMMARY
Node Subtotal 274 363 437 1074
Dialogue Subtotal 120 130 80 330
Communications Subtotal 96 92 98 286
Administration 4% 68
PARTNERSHIP SUBTOTAL 1758 totals do not reflect in-kind support from developed countries
Resilience Network 335.5
Behavior of Large Scale Systems 599.5
Understanding Resilience 478.5
Thoughtful Practice 302.5
NETWORK SUBTOTAL 1716
GRAND TOTAL 3474



Appendix D: Vitae of Key Participants
BIOGRAPHY

C.S. Holling

Born: Theresa, New York, U.S.A., December 6, 1930

Citizenship: Canadian (Permanent Resident Status in U.S.)

Education:

B.A., University of Toronto, Honours Biology, 1948-1952
M.Sc., University of Toronto, Zoology, 1954
Ph.D., University of British Columbia, Zoology, 1957

Professional Experience:

Arthur R. Marshall Eminent Scholar Chair in Ecological Sciences, University of Florida, Department of Zoology, 1988-present.

Adjunct Professor, Institute of Animal Resource Ecology and Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, 1989-1992.

Director, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1981-1984.

Consultant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., 1978-1982.

Consultant, Environment Canada, Planning and Finance, Ottawa, 1975-1977.

Project Leader, Ecology and Environment Project, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1973-1975.

Honorary Professor, Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, 1969-1975.

Director, Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1969-1973.

Professor, Institute of Animal Resource Ecology and Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, 1967-1989.

Consultant Ecologist, The Ford Foundation, New York, 1967-1974.

Scientist 4, Forest Research Laboratory, Canada Department of Forestry, Victoria, British Columbia, November, 1965 - May, 1967.

Visiting Professor, Department of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley, May, 1965 - November, 1965.

Visiting Colleague, University of Hawaii and Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Honolulu, Hawaii, November, 1964 - May, 1965.

Research Officer, Forest Insect Laboratory, Canada Department of Forestry, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, 1952-1964.

Honors:

Anne Shepard Memorial Scholarship in Biology, University of Toronto, 1951.

Anne Shepard Memorial Gold Medal in Biology, University of Toronto, 1952.

National Research Council of Canada Scholarship, 1953.

The George Mercer Award "for an outstanding paper in the field of ecology," Ecological Society of America, 1966.

Gold Medal of the Entomological Society of Canada, 1969-70.

Fellow, The Royal Society of Canada, 1970.

Honorary Scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1984.

Austrian Cross of Honour for Sciences and Art, 1985.

Selected Committees And Boards:

Member, NATO Science Committee Special Programme on Ecosciences, 1976- 1980.
Chairman and Member, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Interdisciplinary Grant Selection Committee, 1978-1980.
Chairman, NATO Eco-Science Panel, 1978-1980.
Member of the Board of the International Statistical Ecology Program, 1975-1981.
Chairman, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Advisory Panel of Open Strategic Grants, 1980-1981.
Member, National Advisory Board, Ecosystems Research Center, Cornell University, 1981-1983.
Member, Scientific Council, Austrian Institute for International Affairs, 1981- 1986.
Committee to Review the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. and The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1984-1985.
Member, UNESCO/MAB Scientific Advisory Committee, 1985-1986.
Member, Research Council, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, 1985- 1994.
Member, National Statistics Council of Statistics Canada, 1986-1988.
Member, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Commission of Ecology, 1988-present.
Member, Science Board of the Santa Fe Institute, 1988-present.
Member, SCOPE Committee "Use of Scientific Information Towards Sustainable Development", 1989.
Trustee, Florida Defenders of the Environment, 1989-present.
Member, Board of Directors, Canadian International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1990-1994.
Member, Board of Trustees, The Nature Conservancy, Florida Chapter, 1990- present.
Member, Board of Directors, Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 1991-present.
Member, Committee for Environmental Research, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,1991-1993.
Member, Advisory Council of the Sustainable Development Research Institute at the University of British Columbia, 1992-present.
Member, Scientific Advisory Committee, Sustainable Biosphere Project, SCOPE, 1993-present.
Member, Advisory Council for the Volvo Environment Prize, 1993-present.
Member, Science Steering Committee, NBIOME, 1990-present.
Co-chairman of Resilience of Ecosystems and Economic Development sponsored by the Swedish Academy of Sciences Beijer Institute with funding being developed with the aid of the MacArthur Foundation, 1995-present.
Editor in Chief Conservation Ecology, Ecological Society of America, 1995- present.

Publications:

C.S. Holling is the author and the co-author of nearly 150 papers, articles and books since 1955.

BIOGRAPHY

D.A. Chant, O.C., B.A., M.A., PH.D., LL.D., F.R.S.C., F.E.S.C.

Born: Toronto, Canada, September 30, 1928

Education:

B.A. and M.A. (Honors Zoology), University of British Columbia
Ph.D. in Zoology, University of London, England

Professional Experience:

Chairman, Board of Directors, World Wildlife Fund/Canada, Member International Board under the Chairman of HRH Prince Phillip

Chairman and President, Ontario Waste Management Corporation

Vice-President and Provost, University of Toronto

Chairman, Department of Zoology, University of Toronto

Chairmen, Department of Biological Control, University of California, Riverside

Director, Research Lab, Canada Agriculture, Vineland, Ontario

Honors:

Awarded Commemorative Medal for the 125th Anniversary of Canada Confederation, by the Governor-General of Canada, 1992

Appointed Officer of the Order of Canada, 1988

Awarded honorary LL.D., Trent University, 1983

Elected Fellow of the Entomological Society of Canada, 1975

Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, 1974

Publications:

Author and co-Author of 124 refereed research papers and author of numerous popular articles and reviews. Research interests include ecology and biosystematics of mites of the family phytoseiidae a group of about 2000 species that are predacious on plant mite pests and are useful in programs of biological control. Other professional interests include conservation, toxic wastes and pollution and resource management.

BIOGRAPHY

Rodney W. Sando

Born: May 30, 1941

Education:

University of Minnesota College of Forestry, St. Paul 1973
Ph.D. Candidate
Major: Forestry
Minor: Public Affairs/Humphrey Institute
Collateral Field: Statistics and Management
Information Systems

University of Minnesota College of Forestry, St. Paul 1967 M.S., Forest Management
Related Area: Wildlife Management

University of Minnesota College of Forestry, St. Paul 1965
B.S., Forest Management

Professional Experience: Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Jan. 1991-Present

Administrator, Management Information Systems Bureau
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Mar. 1990-Jan. 1991

Administrator, Real Estate Management Bureau
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Jan. 1981-Mar. 1990

Regional Director, Ruffed Grouse Society July 1979-Dec. 1980
Great Lakes Region

Director, Division of Forestry Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources Jan. 1978-July 1979

Instructor, College of Forestry and the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, St. Paul Sept. 1971-Dec. 1977

Associate Fire Control Scientist-U.S. Forest Service
North Central Forest Experiment Station Nov. 1967-Sept. 1971

Research Officer, Canada Department of Forestry and Rural Development May 1967-Nov. 1967
Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota Sept. 1965-April 1967

Smoke Jumper, U.S. Forest Service Summer of 1965

Forestry Aide, Lake States Forest Experiment Station April 1962-August 1963

Professional Societies and Associations:

Xi Sigma Pi (Forestry Honors Society)
The Society of the Sigma Xi
The American Forestry Association
The Western States Land Commission Association
The Eastern Lands and Resources Council

Honors and Special Recognition:

Recipient of the President's Conservation Achievement Award from The Nature Conservancy Sept 1995

Recipient of the Lloyd Short Distinguished Service Award from The Minnesota Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration May 1994

Recipient of the Sigurd F. Olson Conservation Award from the Izaak Walton League of America 1994

President of the Western States Land Commissioners Association 1988

Author of several; scientific and popular publications

Vice-President of the Eastern Lands and Resources Council 1985-1988

Recipient of the WCCO Good Neighbor Award June 1980

Featured in a segment of ABC's Sports American Sportsman March 1980
series broadcast

Member of the Minnesota Career Executive Service

Profile feature in SPORTS ILLUSTRATED "I've Got News For Dec. 1970
You Smokey" by Robert F. Jones

Listed in WHO'S WHO IN THE MIDWEST

Recipient of the National Association of State Foresters Award for Outstanding Service in the Field of Forestry October 1979

BIOGRAPHY

Nicholas C. Sonntag

Birthdate: October 10, 1947

Citizenship: Canadian and British

Education:

M.Sc. Business Administration, University of British Columbia, 1975. Major: Operations Research (Management Science).
B.A.Sc. Engineering Physics, University of British Columbia, 1970.

Professional Experience:

1996-Present Executive Director, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden.

1993-1996 Chairman and C.E.O., ESSA Technologies Group Ltd. and President/CEO of ESSA Software Ltd. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

1992-1993 Program Director for Communications and Partnerships and Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Canada.

1991-1992 Senior Advisor to Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Mr. Maurice Strong. Senior Advisor and Chief of Staff to Maurice Strong, the Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).

1979-1993 Vice President and Senior Partner, ESSA Environmental and Social Systems Analysts Ltd. Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto, and Ottawa.

1983-1988 Summer Research Scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg, Austria

1978-1979 Research Associate, Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

1976 - 1978 Research Associate, Department of Oceanography, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.

1975-1976 Research Associate of Animal Ecology, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.

1971-1973 Research Associate, TREMF, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.

Expertise

The first 10 years of Mr. Sonntag's career focused on the design and application of systems analysis techniques to environmental management and policy formulation. In the later years, Mr. Sonntag was closely involved with the development and application of new approaches to the formulation of environmental and social policy in Canada, the U.S., S.E. Asia and Europe. For the past 5 years he has broadened his scope to the challenge of realizing sustainable development at all scales from local to global: from within the international framework of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED); as Program Director of a research institute dedicated to the development and practice of sustainable development; and as the head of a successful Canadian corporation committed to demonstrating leadership in the area of environmental management, software, communication, education and technology.

Projects that Mr. Sonntag has worked on have ranged from addressing very specific scientific investigations (e.g., research planning, data analysis) to broader issues of policy and strategic analysis (e.g., risk management, environmental impact assessment, strategic planning project integration, mitigation strategies, cumulative impact assessment).

Mr. Sonntag has extensive experience in the use of workshops, systems analysis, knowledge engineering and original communications productions to establish a cooperative and productive environment involving scientists, managers, policy makers, and the public. The result has been far more effective and well integrated research and monitoring plans, environmental assessments, strategic plans, and communication strategies for the client.

Mr. Sonntag has worked in a diversity of locations in developing countries; Viet Nam, Thailand, Mexico, The Gambia, Senegal, Costa Rica.

Back to TopReturn to the top of this document

left arrowReturn to Conservation Ecology, the journal