The conservation challenge in sustaining rural environments

Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 215-229, 1996 Copyright t~) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0743-0167/96 $15.00 + 0.00

Pergamon S0743-0167(96)00019-8

The Conservation Challenge in Sustaining Rural Environments John T. Pierce Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

Abstract - - The focus of this paper is on obstacles to conservation and specific conservation initiatives. While policy makers are influenced by the social constructions of rural and while there is unlikely to be common agreement on what is rural, convergences can occur on the most efficacious approaches towards conservation through widening communities of knowledge achieved by greater efforts to evaluate strategies and to share experiences from different localities. The paper begins with a brief conceptualization of the trade-offs involved between commodity and non-commodity uses of rural lands. A more elaborate discussion follows of the dominant factors which undermine conservation of rural environments. In the face of these obstacles the paper examines a wide variety of strategies and actions from OECD countries to provide a better balance between commodity and non-commodity functions. Although governments are expected to continue to play an important leadership, policy setting and regulatory role, it is clear from the examples presented in this paper that many important initiatives are coming from non-governmental organizations and that partnerships between public and private sectors and between private and non-governmental sectors have significant potential to clarify issues, to establish common ground and galvanize constructive action. Copyright (~) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

structions of rurality have an impact upon research questions, the policy processes in the rural environments and ultimately the sustainability of rural environments.

Introduction O u r conception of the role and value of rural environments has undergone a dramatic shift in recent years. This is in response to a n u m b e r of factors: increasing rates of environmental and economic change at the local, regional and global levels; a spread and intensification in the ecumene; and the adoption, within the scientific community, of an ecosystem research paradigm for problem solving. Rural environments are now routinely accorded a t r e m e n d o u s range of functions including production, sink, ecological, amenity and place/space. The importance attached to these attributes by individuals and groups however varies within and between regions. As a n u m b e r of researchers have argued, the concept of rural is a contested one - what are the defining dimensions of rural and how does it differ from urban? (Hoggart, 1990; Shucksmith, 1994; Bowler, 1995). Shucksmith dichotomizes definitions of rurality in terms of space and social representation or symbolic reality. H e argues that the symbolic is taking precedent over the material so that rural areas, particularly in E u r o p e , are becoming m o r e consumptive. These social con-

W h a t gets lost however in m a n y discussions of the semantics, or competing notions of rurality are the m o r e practical problems of reconciling the growing but often divergent demands for goods and services with the need to protect both the natural and h u m a n dimensions which are representative of ecosystems and systems of exchange. Despite the growth in the importance of the consumptive or non-commodity functions attached to rural areas, the legacy of the c o m m o d i t y function is still largely dominant in most regions. H e n c e ecosystems which support agriculture, forestry and fishing are becoming increasingly regulated and their products appropriated for a narrow range of goods and services through a spread of exchange systems and external capitals. Indeed, one could argue that it is the growth and proliferation of these m a n a g e d ecosystems with their dependence on external markets, their exploitation as if they were non-renewable resources, along with contradictory policy responses that in no small way 215

216

John T. Pierce

threaten the sustainability of rural environments and ecosystem health. This balancing act is made difficult by the lack of clear scientific consensus on issues relating to representativeness, scale, diversity of 'natural' ecosystems and the relations of parts to the whole. It is also made difficult by the fact that these ecosystems are modified in many cases by centuries of human use. Separating natural from human induced change is something of a Gordian knot. Hence heritage resources such as landscape and the historical built environments have become defining and critical components of managed ecosystems. For example, according to the World Conservation Union's (IUCN) eight categories of protected areas (as defined in the early nineties), protected landscapes, representing situations where the interaction of people and the environment have produced regions of distinctive cultural, ecological and aesthetic value, comprise approximately one-quarter of all IUCN's protected areas and 12% of all protected areas (Aitchison, 1995). This paper has two interrelated objectives. The first is concerned with uncovering the complex web of forces which threaten the long-term sustainability of rural environments. Included in this section is a general discussion of some of the existing and emerging remedial actions. The second deals with specific examples of the strategies and actions individual countries in developed market economies have pursued to conserve these environments and ultimately, to bring about a better balance between their commodity and non-commodity functions. While there are numerous definitions of sustainability the paper builds on the work of a number of scholars who view it as a col.lective concept in which the integration of ecological, social, political and economic components of rural systems provides the underlying basis for the maintenance of natural processes and the improvement of human welfare over the long term (Bowler, 1995; Brklacich et al., 1990; Pierce, 1992; 1993). Conservation, a necessary but not a sufficient condition for sustainability, is interpreted as a process of maintaining and enhancing a diverse range of functions from both natural and managed ecosystems without increased costs or a decline in productive wealth for future generations. The search for active solutions is motivated by the need, to paraphrase Bowler (1995), to refocus research on sustainability away from purely theoretical/conceptual dimensions, arguably already well researched, to the implementation stage. Therefore the focus in this paper on obstacles to conservation and secondly specific conservation initiatives, com-

ponents of successful sustainable rural systems, provide concrete examples of the efficacy and diversity of approaches within different contexts and contested spaces.

Setting the stage Figure 1 graphically illustrates the range of functions society derives from rural environments and the possible conflicts and trade-offs involved among these functions of the environment (Traill, 1988; Harvey, 1991). The horizontal axis represents a continuum (from left to right) of increasing intensities of use, regulation of the environment and use of the land for commodity functions; whereas the vertical axis represents an income stream (either positive or negative) to a society defined in terms of monetary and extra-market services. If we assume that the figure is representative of an agricultural region (it could also represent one devoted to forestry) it is clear that increasing proportion of lands devoted to the production of food commodities is at the expense of cultural resources and other important ecosystemic functions. The benefits associated with bio-diversity, employment and amenity decline beyond a certain point of production. Paralleling these changes are increased pollution costs manifested in the form of surface and ground water contamination and increased sedimentaiton of water systems. Clearly the exact relationships and trade-offs are unknown and will vary by region. Notwithstanding these issues, the question facing all societies with growing demands for the services of rural environments is the following: what forces are at play which undermine a society's ability to sustain ecosystem functions so as to provide the highest level of welfare and enjoyment, over the long term? And, associated with this question is: what are the most appropriate strategies and actions which can be used to promote the conservation of these functions? Before turning to these questions in detail, we begin with a preview of the dominant forces and the strategies/actions which have been enlisted to protect and/or improve the quality of environmental resources. The dominant forces which impede the conservation of rural environments have been categorized as follows: The people~consumption problem - - increasing demands for goods and services relative to the environment's ability to sustain these demands. The market problem - - the absence of markets for important goods and services and/or the inefficiencies of markets.

Conservation and Sustaining Rural E n v i r o n m e n t s

217

Value/Income

ooOOO..OO--o..oo...o

Low intensity Natural ecosystems

High intensity

Low appropriation Non-commodity High diversity

High appropriation

Managed ecosystems

.o**t***ooooOO o'**°°°°

.............

Value of biomass (net of costs)

......

Rural employment

.......

Wildlife habitiat / Biodiversity

mm.,

Commodity Low diversity

Amenity/Open space Cost of pollution Source: Adapted from Harvey (1991) and Traill (1988)

Figure 1. Trading-off functions in rural environments. P o l i c y p i t f a l l s - - public policy and programs which bias decisions in favour of the production values of rural environments and against non-market values. Property r i g h t s - - misunderstanding of property as an object with immutable entitlements as opposed to property as a social relation with changing rights and obligations.

With respect to strategies and actions, a n u m b e r of international initiatives during the past decade and a half including the World Conservation Strategy ( I U C N , 1980; 1987), The Brundtland R e p o r t (World Commission on E n v i r o n m e n t and Development, 1987) and The U N Conference on Environment and D e v e l o p m e n t ' s Convention on Biological Diversity, held in 1992, have added strength to the legitimacy of and need for concerted action on a n u m b e r of fronts. M o r e o v e r while these strategies are applicable to all forms of land holding (e.g. state, private and c o m m o n ) , they have special relevance for the private sector. As Cutting and Cocklin (1992, p. 56) observed, 'in most of the western world, conservation now and in the future will involve land held predominantly in private ownership'. In the Canadian context, for example, despite the large share of the total land base which is publicly owned, the southern third of the country, with 95% of the population, is overwhelmingly privately controlled. The 'conservation g a m e ' then is becoming increas-

ingly influenced by the ownership question as it is by some simple realities: the need for fiscal restraint; the problem of ongoing m a n a g e m e n t of these lands if removed from the private domain; and the political unsuitability of large scale purchase of these lands (Wildlife Habitat Canada, 1987). Strategies and actions for the conservation of rural environments can be subdivided into five categories and ordered according to their influence over develo p m e n t options (Gilg, 1992; Cutting and Cocklin, 1992). Worth emphasizing, however, is that these divisions are not mutually exclusive. For example, while voluntary approaches are listed separately, there is a strong voluntary c o m p o n e n t to the category ownership/management. Education and persuasion - - attempts by state/local agencies and non-governmental organizations through education and information to influence, on a voluntary basis, stewardship of the land through changes to production strategies, intensities of use, ultimate allocations of land and consumption of products. Economic~trade c o n t r o l s - - the use of cross-compliance provisions, export bans on specific products, tariffs on goods produced in an environmentally harmful way and/ or the development of uniform environmental standards among trading partners to influence production/ consumption decisions. Economic

incentives

--

the use of the tax system,

218

John T. Pierce

outright subsidies, management agreements and tradeable permits to internalize environmental costs. Regulation - - the imposition by the state of controls

over the use and allocation of land/water and other environmental assets through zoning, environmental quality standards, quotas and other means. Ownership~management - - the use of a variety of mechanisms including outright purchase, transfer of development rights, donations, convenants and leases to transfer control some or all of the 'bundle of rights' associated with specific property.

Sources of the problem The p e o p l e ~ c o n s u m p t i o n p r o b l e m

T o survive, humans must consume and therefore transform nature (Sack, 1990). With increasing levels of mass consumption driven by population growth and per capita increases in living standards, that transformation has manifested itself in an increasing appropriation of the products of photosynthesis and in increasing demands on the sink functions of the biosphere (Vitousek et al., 1986). Since the majority of this activity takes place in urban regions in western countries, the problem becomes one of importing carrying capacity from rural regions and exporting environmental degradation nationally and globally. Rees (1992) has referred to this phenomena as a region's ecological footprint. In the case of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia he has estimated that to support the food and fossil fuel demands (land required to absorb per capita carbon dioxide production) resulting from the present standard of living, requires some 20.1 million acres of land, about 20 times as much land as the region occupies. Appropriating this carrying capacity from outside the region and running an 'unaccounted ecological deficit' is sustainable so long as there are regions which are capable of limiting the scale of their activities so that they have excess carrying capacity to export. An analogous situation exists with respect to the trading relations between nations. It is simply not possible for all countries to be net exporters of manufactured goods and net importers of carrying capacity. The problem then is one of scale. As Daly and Goodland (1993, p. 21) have commented, ' . . . the apparent escape from scale constraints via trade by some countries depends on other countries' willingness to adopt the very discipline of limiting scale that the importing countries are seeking to avoid'. Whether trade is between nations or between urban and rural regions the situation is the same. I raise these issues to highlight the inescapable fact

that there is a close and inseparable link between rural and urban ecosystem health as mediated by trade, regionally, nationally and internationally, in commodities/services over the long term. A good deal of the decline in the quality of rural environments is due to the export of so called surplus products to urban regions and the import of waste products. A factor mitigating some of these effects is, arguably, changes in the social structure of rural areas, generally as a result of urban migration to the countryside. In a study of the reconstitutiou of rural spaces in Europe, Marsden (1994, p. 9) noted the following: 'In areas where 'traditional' rural residents still p r e d o m i n a t e . . , a developmental attitude to land still prevails. Where middle class incomes dominate the local social structure, more preservationist attitudes to development are expressed'. Cocklin and Doorman (1994) caution, however, that while studies have found a correlation between on the one hand, conservation attitudes and behavior and, on the other, education, affluence and occupation, their study of conservation estates in New Zealand found that differences in attitudes to conservation could not be explained by landowner characteristics. Regardless of the veracity of these studies, the increasing presence of ex-urbanites and the concomitant shift in some regions from largely productive to consumptive households has the potential to create a variety of resource problems however unintended. Competition for ground water, land resources (i.e. natural capital) and infrastructure can therefore undermine conservation objectives. If the supply of environmental services, both source and sink, cannot be augmented then the only alternative is demand management - - conservation in urban regions becomes a critical component of conservation in rural regions. As in discussions of the environmental implications of free trade, attention therefore needs to be focused on the scale of the demands and on the net balance of supply of and demand for environmental goods and services. To achieve a better balance between urban and rural regions a more explicit accounting of social and environmental cost will have to occur and in turn the use of tariffs, taxes and other instruments to internalize these costs. The m a r k e t p r o b l e m

It has long been recognized that most environmental problems cannot be solved by unregulated markets. While the operation of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' may serve individual interests and improve

Conservation and Sustaining Rural Environments social welfare, the same market forces can act as an 'invisible elbow' - - pushing the environment aside and damaging important environmental functions. Jacobs (1993) coined this term within the context of two important characteristics of m a r k e t - e n v i r o n ment relations. First, 'the environment is determined by the arbitrary interplay of market forces, not by planned decision making' (p. 25). Such economies are environmentally unconstrained in that there are no limits on the use of the environment for source and sink functions. Second, market forces encourage the constant expansion of production either for profit, security or both. It is this factor in relation to the absence of environmental constraints which is at the crux of the environmental problematic. Generally, markets act imperfectly with respect to c o m m o n property resources, public goods and future generations. All three have in common the existence of external or third party effects, where those who experience the problem are not the same as those who create the problems (Jacobs, 1993). The inability to control access to resources (e.g. c o m m o n property in the fisheries or forestry sectors), the absence of markets for environmental goods and services (e.g. public goods such as air and water), lack of information and inefficiencies in markets and excessive discounting of future income streams (e.g. future generations) are important mechanisms underlying these imperfections. T h e r e is a voluminous literature on market imperfections (Daly and Cobb, 1989; Barbier, 1989; Jacobs, 1993). It is unnecessary to review these arguments other than to make a few selected observations as they relate to the problem of the conservation of rural resources. The people/consumption problem is closely interwoven with the market problem particularly in the context of scale of development and international trade. Daly and Cobb (1989) have observed that, over the short term, the optimal allocation of resources can occur with any physical scale of resource use regardless of whether it is sustainable. This is equivalent to the coexistence of a Pareto optimal allocation of resources with almost any distribution of income. It is therefore not possible to equate efficient/optimal allocation of resources with optimal scale of resource use. Trade in commodities of course plays a critical role in affecting a region or country's scale of economic activities. Daly and Goodland (1993, p. 7) note that, 'There is a sharp conflict between international policy of unregulated trade and a national policy of internalization of external environmental costs'. They go on to say that until each country's exported commodities reflect

219

their full environmental and social costs the process of deregulated trade will undermine national policies for internalizing costs. Hence while ecological systems are closed, the market under unregulated trade treats them as open entities which are environmentally unconstrained. An important factor driving the market is the pace and adoption of technological change, or as some would say, the technological treadmill. The pursuit of greater and greater efficiencies, both technical and cost, combined with the increasing mobility of capital are becoming hallmark features of structural change. Frequently markets underestimate the full costs of these changes as represented by declines in employment, rural services and the scale of production activities. Policy responses to structural change have been many and varied which we shall pursue in more detail in the next section. The great imbalance between the commodity and non-commodity functions in many rural environments and the decline in the quality of productive resources are associated with two facts - - conservation rarely pays for itself (at least for agents operating within private markets over the short term) and that future generations do not have a say in society's current allocation of resources. The absence of markets for such things as bio-diversity and wildlife habitat as well as the high discount rates society applies to future benefits from conservation decisions need to be redressed. Regarding this last issue, we are all too aware in cases of soil conservation or reforestation of the high initial costs of these strategies relative to the short-term benefits accruing from increased yields or improved countryside amenity. Furthermore, individuals experiencing future benefits may not be the ones paying for them today. Clearly there is a disjunctive, temporally/ spatially for the individual, and generationally for society. On a more positive note, there is evidence that markets exist and/or are emerging for amenity values particularly in regions in relative close proximity to urban populations. The increased value individuals place on heritage resources and recreational opportunities combined with the possibility of private ownership of these resources indicates that the market is serving to protect the countryside through the commodification of amenity. What's more, the growth in the importance of eco-tourism in regions typcally far removed from major centres of population pushes the commodification of amenity and nature to the international stage. To return to the failings of the market, what are some of the approaches that can be pursued to

220

John T. Pierce

internalize the costs of production and consumption systems in market based economies and assist in bridging the gap between the benefits and costs of conservation in areas where markets do not appear to be working? There are a variety of economic instruments (tax and non-tax) which reflect the need for full cost accounting and result in a narrowing of the gap between private and social costs of production and consumption decisions. Benefit/cost analysis has been reconstituted to incorporate existence, option and bequest values so as to provide a more accurate accounting of the relative merits of competing uses of the land. Direct subsidies may also be useful at encouraging certain forms of behavior, the costs of which are to be borne broadly in an attempt to safeguard some of the rights of future generations. At the macro level, it is vital to incorporate changes to natural capital directly or through satellite accounts into the Systems of National Accounts. Moreover protocols and agreements have created greater uniformity of environmental standards. Some have suggested however that in the wake of the inability and/or unwillingness of G A T T to go beyond the technicalities of trade distortion to include environmental concerns that countries should impose tariffs to protect against environmentally harmful trade practices. At the same time there has to be a recognition of the limitations of instrumentalist/market based corrective action and of our knowledge of the biosphere in favor of regulatory approaches which would include some risk averse strategies such as the development of safe minimum standards of conservation (Bishop, 1978). And lastly, if urban residents are benefiting from these conservation approaches and are relying on the countryside to subsidize their consumption patterns, an argument could be made for treating urban and rural regions as a single fiscal unit. This would facilitate the use of tax dollars, collected largely in urban regions, for use in conservation initiatives and thereby assist in making conservation pay for itself.

Policy pitfalls If the market is unable to allocate efficiently or distribute equitably certain categories of resources, similar problems plague the implementation of public policy in fishing, forestry and agriculture sectors. In the case of agriculture and forestry, postwar policies have biased public and private decisions in favor of biomass production and against the provision of non-market goods and services (Harvey, 1991). This has been done in a variety of ways including utilitarian and single sector planning and assistance in restructuring. Equally, if not more,

far reaching have been commodity support and income stabilization schemes in agriculture which have encouraged intensification of production and the spread of mono cultures. In turn this has precipitated a host of unintended and unanticipated environmental effects which have directly impacted the environment (e.g. soil erosion, declines in biodiversity, drainage of wetlands, contamination of ground water, etc.) and limited the supply of alternative production strategies as well as countryside goods and services (Pierce, 1993). By manipulating or influencing what Batie and Taylor (1989) have termed 'opportunity sets', government policy has increasingly limited the choice available to farmers regarding crop selection, inputs, intensity of production and marketing strategies. In short the opportunity cost of shifting to alternative uses and strategies is more often than not simply too high. As the demand for multi-sector and integrated land use planning has grown and as resource policies have become either increasingly expensive or out of step with society's changing perceptions of the environment (or both), there has been no shortage of proposed solutions. In the case of land use planning there has been an attempt to involve a greater number of stakeholders and balance production with consumption values of the land base. For example in British Columbia, The Commission on Resources and the Environment has completed a complex and controversial process of consultation across the province in order to enlarge protected areas and to strike a better balance between the forest industry's demands on the land and demands for recreation, wilderness preservation and biodiversity. The provincial government has also designed and implemented The Forest Practices Code to mitigate environmental damage from clear cutting and increase the level of reforestation. The same government has allowed for communities to manage local forests in the belief that a greater share of the income from the harvesting of the resource will remain within the community and that the forest will be better managed. In the United States the U.S. Forest Service, which has been mandated since 1960 to pursue multiple use management, appears to be moving away from this mandate towards a model of ecosystem management, perhaps in response to the difficulty of administering the Endangered Species Act in multiple use areas, wherein the condition of the forest ecosystem 'is considered to be a preeminent output' (Sedjo, 1995, p. 10). For example, there are proposals to return the forests of the northern Rockies to conditions which pre-date European settlement. In agriculture there are no shortage of calls and

Conservation and Sustaining Rural Environments proposals for the complete deregulation of the industry and its exposure to international market forces. The recent completion of the Uruguay Round of GATT talks means that countries 'will no longer be able to pursue domestic goals without regard to the consequences for international trade' (Robinson, 1994, p. 1). Subsidized production will decline, tariffs will replace import controls and supply management and overall market access will be improved. In all likelihood these measures will reduce some of the harmful environmental effects of heavily subsidized production and contribute to the extensification of the countryside. They may also magnify a number of the market oriented problems discussed earlier. As Harvey (1991, p. 276) emphasizes, 'changing signals means changing prices and using the market. It does not mean leaving the environment to market forces'. Certainly alternative agricultural (and forestry) practices which tend to internalize more of the costs of producing food and fibre could be even worse off without some sort of countervailing policies. As trade becomes freer in agricultural commodities, the dilemma for policy makers is to design policy which is not trade distorting and which does not place farmers in a position of comparative disadvantage. There have been suggestions for a gradual shift toward a system of decoupled support where income would be supported but only up to a certain level of production (Economic Council of Canada, 1988). There could also be incentives applied to the means (e.g. crop rotations) rather than just the ends of production, which could make agriculture greener. Cross-compliance provisions which allow for financial or in kind support to farmers in return for conservation practices (used for example in the U.S.; Faeth et al., 1991) would have to be an integral component of any new support program. Beyond these measures, payment in kind programs could enhance the size and quality of conservation reserves and, in a limited number of cases, outright purchase of development rights could be pursued.

Property rights A common thread running through all three previous problems is the issue of property and the rights to that property. Bromley (1991) reminds us that property is a benefit stream and that there is no such thing as private or state property resources but rather resources managed under private, state and common property regimes. Where there are no property rights we have an open access regime. Associated with the first three regimes is a set of rights or entitlements and duties. (Under open

221

access there are no rights and duties only privileges.) In this sense property is not an object but rather a 'triadic social relation involving benefit streams, rights holders, and duty bearers' (Bromley, 1991, p. 2). In other words, rights are not absolute but flow from the collective or social contract. In contradistinction to this Kantian view of property is the Lockean view of absolute and natural rights independent of any social contract. Bromley argues that the Lockean view of 'natural rights' is overly restrictive, impeding social change. If you subscribe to this view then, 'current property rights are some immutable and timeless entitlement that can only be contravened with difficulty, and then only if compensation is paid by the state to make the property holder whole' (Bromley, 1991, p. 7). In most western countries and particularly in North America, current property rights reflect a historical legacy in which priority is given to the production values of the land. Any challenge to this notion generally requires compensation. Again Bromley (1991, p. 187) noted, that 'presumed property rights in land become translated, through the political process, into presumptive entitlements in the policy arena'. Hence attempts to reduce production, extensify the countryside or cut back on erosion can only be accomplished with compensation. The same applies in forestry and fisheries with respect to alterations in quotas even though an individual/ corporation may not have bid for or paid for these rights. In Europe, revisions to the Common Agricultural Poicy, particularly declines in support payments to farmers and the inclusion of environmental protection into policy, has shifted priority in many regions to consumptive or non-commodity uses. Having said this however, the fact remains that compensation is expected and provided for in facilitating these shifts. In as much as this is the only politically feasible approach over the short term, it would be expected that, over the long term, governments will have the strength of their convictions and put presumptive entitlements to rest. Given the oversupply of some goods and services in rural environments, such as food and fibre relative to others such as amenity and wildlife habitat, what are some of the alternative approaches to redressing the balance? Bromley believes that, given new tastes, preferences and scarcities with respect to rural environments, there is a pressing need for an alternative property structure that provides for a change in implicit entitlements in the policy arena. Farmers, for example, would no longer have implicit rights to expand production at the expense of water or soil quality, wildlife habitat or countryside amenity. As a corollary to this they would not be eligible for public monies to end these practices.

222

John T. Pierce

Farmers and not society would now pay for the right to produce more food and less CARE (conservation, amenity and rural environment) goods (McInerney, 1986). This alternative approach could be aided and abetted by the decoupling of income from production discussed earlier. As well, as earlier emphasized, the proposal would require a change in land use planning regulations and the introduction of cross compliance controls.

Responses Given the nature of the problems just discussed it is tempting to argue for the need for significant economic, demographic, social and political changes in society before any meaningful progress can be made toward sustainability and protecting the environment (Repetto, 1985; Pierce, 1992). Certainly current approaches have come under attack from a variety of sources. Beavis (as quoted in Hilts, 1994, p. 113) for example is very critical of our historical approaches to resource management/ stewardship of nature in that it 'fits well into the stratified and paternalistic structures of government and bureaucracies'. And there is always the danger that technocratic approaches or an instrumentalist viewpoint will concentrate attention on the parts of the system to the detriment of the whole. On the other hand as Dahrendorf (1995) argues, total or comprehensive solutions offer little hope for creating positive change and, if anything, will aggravate matters. There is considerable scope for progress within existing frameworks. I believe the task ahead is to identify specific actions which have been implemented and used within selected jurisdictions to mitigate some of the harmful effects of some of the previously discussed obstacles and provide a positive and supporting environment for conservation decisions. Table 1 provides examples of conservation 'milestones' aimed specifically at rural environments grouped according to the previously discussed categories. These examples, while representative of the spectrum of responses must nevertheless be regarded as selective and by no means exhaustive of an individual country's/region's efforts currently being used to protect and enhance these environments. Moreover it is necessary to underline the importance of the dominant policy context which, on the one hand, may provide the impetus for specific programs and, on the other hand, may limit their effectiveness. While this larger policy context will not be discussed in detail it needs to be acknowledged that traditionally there has been a very heavy orientation/bias towards agriculture. Hence in the case of the E.C.'s CAP it is difficult if not impossible

to isolate impacts, both positive and negative, on many of the options for conservation because of the pervasiyeness of the program.

Voluntary approaches are some of the oldest means of securing conservation. Arguably however, it is only recently that they have become sophisticated and important options in influencing the use of rural environments. If anything, non-governmental organizations like the Sierra Club, English Nature and U.S. Nature Conservancy have provided leadership and created an agenda in educational and program terms which have raised the public's consciousness for improved stewardship of the land. Unquestionably governmental organizations like the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and British Countryside Commission have been important contributors as well. The differences in relative importance and indeed the need for the NGOs between countries could be due to variations in the importance attached to property rights and, by extension, the perception of the state's right to interfere in the management of private lands. For example, the traditional importance atached to private property rights and the limits placed on government intervention in the economy in the U.S. compared to Britain has fostered the emergence of a larger number of NGOs in the former country. While stewardship agreements are a relatively recent phenomena they are rapidly becoming important vehicles for the dissemination of conservation initiatives particularly in North America. Through such things as land owner contract programs, farmers and rural land owners are in frequent discussion with representatives of NGOs and governments (or partnerships between the two) providing a personal and ongoing service on possibilities for improved conservation of their lands. Once established it is possible that they may lead to more comprehensive agreements involving financial incentives. These agreements need not be limited to private individuals but may extend to corporations which have either direct ownership or control of large tracts of land as in the case of Nova Scotia. Presumably this agreement could serve as a model for the development of conservation initiatives among Canadian crown corporations who have the power to influence large tracts of land such as Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia Hydros.

Economic and trade controls are macro level policy attempts to mitigate the environmental impacts of agricultural, fishing and forestry programs by either tying participation and eligibility to specific standards and/or setting trading limits. The U.S. Farm Bill's cross-compliance provisions are an explicit acknowledgement of the potential distortions

Conservation and Sustaining Rural Environments

223

Table 1. Strategies and actions for conservation of rural environments Category

Examples

Features

Voluntary

National governmental agencies

British Countryside Commission U.S. Soil Conservation Service E.C. Environment Council U.S. Environmental Protection Agency N.Z. Department of Conservation

Mandated by legislation to protect/enhance the environment through educational, financial/tax and/or regulatory means.

National non-governmental agencies

Wildlife Habitat Canada Canadian Soil Conservation Council U.S. Nature Conservancy U.S. Sierra Club U.S. Audubon Society English Nature

Widen public awareness of environmental issues. Advocates for stewardship through public education and specifically funded conservation programs.

Stewardship agreements

Ontario's National Heritage League's Stewardship Program

Farm owners make an ethical/personal commitment to conservation through a verbal or handshake stewardship agreement. 1300 landowners, owning over 40,000 acres of natural areas have entered into voluntary agreements.

Eastern Habitat Joint Venture

Province of Nova Scotia and Scott Maritime Ltd agree to protect and manage wetlands on 1 million acres of Scott's land hold and 200,000 acres of Crown lease.

Pacific Estuary Conservation Program

A co-operative program of seven government and nongovernment organizations to enter into voluntary stewardship agreements to protect and enhance natural areas in British Columbia (B.C.).

Ontario Land Owners Resource Centre

One-stop technical/financial information on all current forestry, agriculture, shoreline, wetland, water quality and land stewardship programs available within a region.

Cross compliance

1985 and 1990 U.S. Farm Bill (Food Security Act)

Act contains sodbuster and swamp buster provisions prohibiting the extension of benefits to farmers who plow under highly erodible lands or drain wetlands for crop production.

Trade controls

N.Z. ban on export of native timber B.C. limits on export of whole logs

Designed to protect indigenous species and foster value added.

'Payment in kind'

E.C. extensification program 1985 and 1990 U.S. Farm Bills' Conservation Reserve

Annual payments to farmers to set-aside land from agricultural production.

Management agreements

E.C. Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Nitrate Sensitive Areas

Payments to promote traditional farming practices and reduce nitrogen applications.

Wildlife Habitat Canada's Preservation of Prairie Potholes and North American Waterfowl Plan

Financial payments in return for leases over potholes and nesting habitat.

B.C.'s Forest Renewal Plan

Expand private woodlot forest production to take pressure off other environmentally sensitive areas.

1992 Britain's Countryside Commission's Action for the Countryside

Extension of Countryside Stewardship program payments to protect certain landscapes. Also includes a Hedgerow Incentive scheme and a 'Rural Action' program to support local communities in caring for the countryside.

Resource centres

Economic~trade controls

E c o n o m i c incentives

Grants/subsidies to promote stewardship

- - Continued overleaf

224

J o h n T. Pierce Table 1 - - Continued

Category

Examples

Features

1981 Britain's Wildlife and Countryside Act

Payment of compensation to those denied a change of use for protection of species.

Ontario's Clean Up Rural Beaches Implementation Program (CURB)

Grants are paid to farmers to implement remedial measures for the improvement of water quality.

PEI Wetland Stewardship Program

Grants to finance fencing to exclude livestock from streams.

Fed./Prov. Forest Resource Development Agreement

Small scale forestry program where landowner receives up to 90% of costs for management/silviculture.

Britain's Woodland Grant and Farm Woodland Premium Schemes

Grants for preservation and development of forested areas.

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Agencies' Permanent Cover Program

One time payment to farmers to convert cropland to permanent grass cover to reduce erosion and improve wildlife habitat.

Canadian Prairie Pothole Project

Multi-optional program of incentives affecting grazing and crop lands for the protection of wetlands/wildlife habitat.

National Soil Conservation Program (Canada)

Financial incentive for reforestation of highly erodible land and stream bank margins.

Matching funds

1990 Farm Bill

Farms for the Future Program - - matching federal funds made available to states who create or maintain farmland preservation programs.

Taxes

Ontario's Conservation Land Tax Reduction Program

Property tax rebate to owners who pursue conservation goals.

B.C. - - Property tax assessment on 'managed' forest use

Provides for a reduction in property taxes if owner manages forest based upon management plan.

U.S. Clean Water Act

Regulates wetland development permits.

Canadian Fisheries Act

Water quality and fish habitat.

B.C. Forest Practices Code

Sets enforceable guidelines for harvesting of timber in terms of size of cuts and proximity to waterbodies/ riparian areas.

U.K. Agriculture Act 1986

Attempts to achieve balance between the economic use of the countryside for food production and conservation of the countryside for enjoyment and wildlife.

N.Z. Resource Management Act 1991

Establishes 'sustainable management' as the first principle underlying resource allocation decisions. Main concern is with effects of activities on the environment as opposed to controlling land use.

U.S. Farmland Protection Policy Act

Part of 1990 U.S. Farm Bill for the protection of farmland.

Directives

E.C. Agriculture Council and Environment Council

Directives issued to reform CAP and tighten environmental standards on such things as straw burning, discharge of effluents and reducing nitrogen inputs.

Zoning/growth management/co-ordination

B.C. and Quebec's Agricultural Land Preservation Programs

Use of exclusive agricultural zoning to restrict development, contain growth and preserve agricultural land.

State directed programs for managing urban growth and protecting open space/ environmentally sensitive areas (Washington State's Growth Management Act).

Numerous U.S. states (California, Washington, New Jersey, Virginia, Oregon and Maryland) are involved in the application of a variety of mechanisms (zoning/ subdivision control) that will save farmland, limit urban sprawl and protect wetlands.

Grants

Regulation

Statutes

-- Continued opposite

Conservation and Sustaining Rural Environments

225

Table 1 - - Continued Category

Protocols

Ownership~management Trusts

Examples

Features

U.K. Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Strict controls on development of agricultural lands.

Ontario's Conservation Authorities

Beginning to become more proactive by offering to coordinate implementation of growth management plans.

Montreal protocol on ozone depletion (1992)

Phasing out the use of CFCs by 1995.

Stockholm protocol on sulphur dioxide (1985)

Phased reduction on levels of SO2.

N.Z. Reserves Act 1977 N.Z. QEII National Trust 1977

Provision for protective covenants over land held privately. By 1992, 570 open space covenants had been established on 57,500 acres of land with an additional 470 applications being processed on another 150,000 acres of land.

U.S. Nature Conservancy, American Farmland Trust, Trust for Public Land

Land preserved through trusts by purchase of development rights, outright purchase/donations, easements or deed restrictions. U.S. Nature Conservancy established 1300 preserves across the U.S. and protected over 6.3 million acres. NGOs may manage land for conservation purposes according to a title held by an organization.

Save the Redwood League

Since 1918 dedicated to preserving California redwoods (160,000 acres).

Turtle Island Earth Stewards

A land trust organization operating on the west coast of Canada and the U.S. where land is managed by tenants according to specific ecological guidelines outlined in an agreement.

Britain's National Trust

Protects over 490,000 acres of land and almost 800 km of coastline.

Netherland's Society for the Preservation of National Monuments

The society owns close to 369,000 acres of natural woodlands in the country.

Purchase/public purchase

U.S. Forest Service's National Grasslands and Bureau of Land Management's Natural Forests and Resource Management Districts

Formerly lands held from the Land Utilization Projects of the 1930s New Deal. Attempts to balance recreation and preservation of endangered plants and animals with traditional resource use/extraction of public lands.

Purchase of development rights

Numerous U.S. states and counties

Local, state or national governments acquire development rights to protect land for agriculture, habitat or open space purposes.

Transfer of development rights

Numerous U.S. states and counties

Low cost equivalent of PDR aimed at transferring development rights to government or NGO groups for the purposes of conservation.

Sources: Bowler et al. (1992), Cloke (1989), Cocklin and Doorman (1994), Cutting and Cocklin (1992), Eagles (1984), Endicott (1993), Hilts (1994), Stewardship '94 (1994), Gilg (1993), Pierce (1993), Wildlife Habitat Canada (1987).

created by agricultural policy and the need to make support conditional on the avoidance of cultivation of environmentally sensitive areas. New Zealand's control of commercial transactions in the export of certain tree species is also an effective instrument for protecting certain areas. Proposed but not in effect, is the use of tariffs on imported goods which have been produced in an environmentally harmful m a n n e r (Daly and G o o d m a n , 1993). This suggestion

is in response to the inevitable problems created by free trade amongst countries with vastly different environmental regulations. E c o n o m i c incentives represent a highly diverse category of instruments unified by a c o m m o n principle or theme which is to provide sufficient economic reward/penalty to alter the behavior of individuals to favor either a change of use or modification in the

226

John T. Pierce

current method of primary production. Where society at large pays for these programs the 'polluter pays' principle is violated. As Jacobs noted (1991, pp. 149-150) 'those effectively forced to pay include many who may not be responsible for the problem at all and others whose contribution to it maybe smaller than their required tax contribution'. Payment in kind, management agreements, subsidies/ grants may be subject to this problem. Current property rights place the onus on the state to compensate individuals to conserve and not to degrade. Having said this, and expanding the range of issues under consideration, many of these programs are not necessarily concerned with internalizing costs but rather with augmenting the supply of certain services (for which markets are weak or nonexistent) for present and future generations and therefore will likely require some type of incentive. The proliferation of these programs particularly in the U.K. and other member states of the E.C. in the form of management agreements, extensification programs and other subsidies underlines their commitment to preserve and enhance the countryside while accommodating major structural change in agriculture. Their future success depends on their ability to sustain this level of financial commitment. In the case of taxation, it can be applied as a punitive measure to discourage certain practices or as relief to encourage other practices. Punitive taxes, following the polluter pays principle, have served as an effective means for internalizing the costs of production and consumption decisions particularly for emissions of waste products into air and water. They have been rarely used in the case of soil erosion or other environmental 'bads' from agricultural production.

Regulatory

approaches have their detractors and supporters. It has often been said that unlike market based or incentive approaches, they do not address the source of the problem and are inefficient and cumbersome. Jacobs (1991) however stresses that the choice of mechanism depends very much on the context and circumstance. Certainly where uniform minimum standards are required, where speed is important and where the creation and reliance on markets would be too complex then there is ample jusitification for these approaches. In Table 1 regulation has been categorized according to the use of statutes enacted (nationally or state/ provincially) land use zoning or police powers, directives and protocols. Historically, legislative approaches have played a pivotal role in conservation of wilderness areas and park space. Table 1 does not deal with these well-documented uses of legislation and their associated institutions but

instead focuses on more recent statutes and directives that have critically influenced the course of conservation of rural environments. Although, with the exception of the U.K. Agricultural Act, none of these statutes deals specifically with conservation of rural environments, at least in an overall sense, they provide important protection and safeguards for a host of environmental services such as landscape amenity and wetlands. Although the use of directives is a frequently used regulatory device in the E.C., there is no direct counterpart for this in North America. The use of zoning or police powers has been widespread and highly effective at protecting agricultural land and open space. The use of these tools in North America is highly complex since states, provinces and municipalities/counties can enact their own legislation. Recently, the Conservation Authorities of Ontario (1993) recommended the need for greater ecosystem planning. In that context it has been suggested that, 'Municipal land use decision making should be subordinate to plans developed on a watershed basis by a conservation authority' (Tomalty 1993, p. 34). If implemented this would have far reaching effects for the protection of natural areas within urban regions in Ontario. Also in connection with urban regions, a major challenge ahead for many farmland preservation programs is to be able to accommodate society's changing perceptions of the value of agricultural lands (from production to consumptive) and therefore to go beyond single sector land use planning. And finally while the use of protocols is in its infancy they are particularly applicable in trans-boundary environmental problems such as in the thinning of the ozone layer (which has implications for human and plant health) and increasing concentrations of SO2. Reductions in the use of CFCs and in sulphur emissions have already occurred in North America in part because of protocols. In the case of the latter, acid rain levels have been reduced and with it the rate of acidification of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in northern parts of the continent.

Ownership~management approaches are a very diverse and increasingly popular and powerful response to the problem of the conservation of rural environments. While they contain an important voluntary component their unity derives from the fact that they are aimed at influencing the bundle of rights associated with the title of the land. In the case of land trusts they represent incorporated societies dedicated to the protection of important bio-physical and cultural sites. Transfer of title or portions of the title which are held in trust through donations and direct purchase is the basic mechanism of control over land by land trust and nature conservancies. Associated with this approach may be rules and

Conservation and Sustaining Rural Environments guidelines for the management of these lands, in some cases by tenants. For example, New Zealand's establishment, through QEII National Trust, of protective covenants in perpetuity over the land without transfer of the title to the Crown is an inexpensive and what would appear to be successful option for the protection of ecosystem/habitat remnants. The willingness to participate in these programs by private land owners is directly linked to financial incentives in the form of permissions to subdivide their lands (Cocklin and Doorman, 1994). From a resource management perspective, the challenge is to determine the ecological viability and representativeness of conservation estates. Moreover, once established, protecting and enhancing species in these estates is critical (Cutting and Cocklin, 1992). In the United States land trusts and nature conservancies are geographically, ecologically and organizationally diverse. While land trusts such as U.S. Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Land are the largest organizationally, managing millions of acres of land, smaller trusts (almost 1100) are becoming increasingly important advocates of conservation capitalizing on growing awareness and concerns about the environment at the community and regional levels. Transfer as opposed to purchase of development rights is also an important tool among government and nature conservation agencies for influencing development options. Public purchase of private lands was a common occurrence in North America during the depression era. These lands are managed in a variety of ways but have the potential to serve conservation goals over relatively large regions.

Summary This broad but brief overview of some of the most commonly used actions to safeguard and improve the conservation of rural environments is representative of the scope and diversity of responses. While there is some indication of the appropriateness of these actions in different settings and with respect to different classes of problems, there is little documented evidence on their frequency of use or their collective impact and effectiveness by region. Nor are we certain of their effectiveness within different resource management regimes (i.e. private, state and common property) although clearly some are superior to others (e.g. outright regulation as opposed to economic instruments in cases of public health). Clearly governments will continue to play an important leadership, policy setting and regulatory role in conservation particularly in terms of offering incentives and in ensuring that resource policies recognize multiple and alternative uses of

227

the land. Having said this, it is clear from these examples that many important initiatives are coming from non-governmental organizations and that partnerships between public and private sectors and between private and non-governmental sectors have significant potential to clarify the issues, to establish common ground and galvanize constructive action. Local agency will become an increasingly important source for change in both the means and ends of production in rural areas. Certainly the growth in and reliance upon land trusts, advisory groups and stewardship agreements attest to this decentralization trend. Despite the lack of markets for a number of important services and functions of rural environments, a rationale if there ever was one for government intervention in conservation, markets are emerging for amenity and heritage resources which will temper at least some of the bias toward biomass production in rural environments. Conclusions

This paper, concerned with questions relating to the role of conservation in contributing to rural sustainability, has done so by carrying the analysis from the general to the particular. In the former we examined obstacles which impeded the conservation of rural environments and in the latter strategies and actions for reconciling the growing demands for the goods and services derived from rural environments with the need to protect these managed ecosystems. Conservation initiatives were seen as a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the long term sustainability of rural environments. While there is an important theoretical and conceptual component to this research, at the same time it has attempted to move the sustainability debate beyond these imperatives to equally important ones relating to public policy and concrete action. Ultimately research progress on improving the conservation of rural environments depends upon three interrelated courses of action: (1) the development of a theoretical base which addresses the underlying systemic sources of the problem; (2) the creation of standards and indicators to permit the diagnosis of the health and viability of these environments; and (3) the exploration of strategies which will facilitate, within and outside the status quo, specific action plans. This paper has explored the first and third courses of action. Considerable work is now underway on promoting the concept of ecosystem health and devising measures and indicators for its evaluation and the evaluation of the changing economic and social status of rural areas (Costanza et al., 1992; OECD, 1994). Advancing sustainability from concept to implemen-

228

John T. Pierce

tation is a process of unifying ends and means. At the same time it is far from being an orderly and comprehensive exercise in which blueprints and grand designs provide the elixir for society. Instead it is an incremental process with an important b o t t o m up c o m p o n e n t in which scientific and social/ political imperatives combine to create an impetus for action. T h a t action out of necessity will reflect a diversity of approaches. Indeed the choice of strategies and their success depends as much on changing perceptions and social constructions of rural as it does on a combination of largely macro driven forces (economic, historical, technological and social) mediated by specific local conditions and agencies. Those changing perceptions are vital to successful conservation initiatives. As Hilts and Reid (1993, p. 120) observe, 'In the long run, the greatest improvem e n t in how we care for the land will come through gradual change in personal conservation ethics'. Despite the variation in contexts and conditions within which the practice of conservation must take place, there are generalizations which apply to most rural areas in developed countries: rural areas are evolving and will continue to evolve socially and ecologically; this process is part and parcel of the complex relations between human/natural ecology and systems of exchange which will vary by region; that for the foreseeable future rural areas will be valued primarily for their biomass potential and b e c o m e even more ' m a n a g e d ' ; that the success in conserving rural environments is inextricably tied to urban form, urban ecology and a mass consumption society (critical factors affecting our perceptions of rural); that local agency will increasingly affect conservation decision making; that property rights or how we define these rights has an e n o r m o u s effect upon society's ability to effect change; and that while there is need for international efforts to tackle the problems of global change, the majority of attention will have to focus on local and regional remediation, a scale where most environmental change is occurring. While policy makers are influenced by the social constructions of rural and while there is unlikely to be c o m m o n a g r e e m e n t on what is rural, convergence can occur on the most efficacious approaches towards conservation through widening communities of knowledge achieved by greater efforts to evaluate strategies and to share experiences from different localities. References Aitchison, J. (1995) Rural sustainability and protected landscapes. In The Sustainability of Rural Systems, pp.

248-262, Bryant, C.R. and Marois, C. (eds). University of Montreal, Montreal. Barbier, E.B. (1989) Economics, Natural Resource Scarcity and Development. Earthscan, London. Batie, S.S. and Taylor, D.B. (1989) Widespread adoption of non conventional agriculture: profitability and impacts. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 4(3 & 4), 128-134. Bishop, R.C. (1978) Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of safe minimum standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, 10-18. Bowler, I. (1992) 'Sustainable agriculture' as an alternative path of farm business development: a west European view. In Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition: Agriculture and the Environment, pp. 237253, Bowler, I., Bryant, C.R. and Nellis, D. (eds). CAB International, Wallingford. Bowler, I. (1995) An agenda for research on sustainable rural systems. In The Sustainability of Rural Systems, pp. 9-20, Bryant, C.R. and Marois, C. (eds). University of Montreal, Montreal. Brklacich, M., Bryant, C.R. and Smit, B. (1990) Review and appraisal of the concept of sustainable food production systems. Environmental Management 15(1), 1-14. Bromley, D. (1991) Environment and Economy, Property Rights and Public Policy. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Cloke, P. (ed.) Rural Land-Use Planning in Developed Nations. Unwin Hyman Ltd, London. Cocklin, C.R. and Doorman, P. (1994) Ecosystem protection and management in New Zealand: a private land perspective. Applied Geography 14, 264-281. Conservation Authorities of Ontario (1993) Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario, Blueprint for Success. CAO, Toronto. Costanza, R., Norton, B. and Benjamin, D. (1992) Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press, Washington, DC. Cutting, M. and Cocklin, C. (1992) Planning for forest conservation in the Auckland Region, New Zealand. Landscape and Urban Planning 23, 55-69. Daly, H.E. and Cobb, J.B. (1989) For The Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Daly, H. and Goodland, R. (1993) An ecologicaleconomic assessment of deregulation of international trade under GATT. A discussion paper for The World Bank Environment Department, Washington, D.C. Dahrendorf, R. (1995) A precarious balance: economic opportunity, civil society, and political liberty. The Responsive Community: Rights and Responsibility 5(3), 13-39. Eagles, P.F. (1984) The Planning and Management of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Longmans, London. Economic Council of Canada (1988) Handling the Risks, a Report on the Prairie Grain Economy. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. Endicott, E. (1993) Land Conservation Through Public/ Private Partnerships. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Faeth, P., Repetto, R., Kroll, K., Qi, D. and Helmers, G. (1991) Paying for the US Farm Bill: US Agricultural Policy and the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Giig, A. (1992) Policy Options for the British Countryside. In Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition, Vol. 1, pp. 206-218, Bowler, I.R., Bryant, C.R. and Nellis, M.D. (eds). CAB International, Wallingford. Gilg, A. (1993) Progress in Rural Planning and Policy, Volume 3. Bellhaven Press, London.

Conservation and Sustaining Rural E n v i r o n m e n t s Hoggart, K. (1990) Let's do away with rural. Journal of Rural Studies 6(3), 245-258. Harvey, D.R. (1991) Agriculture and the Environment: the Way Ahead. In Farming in the Countryside, pp. 275-319, Hanley, N. (ed.). CAB International, Wailingford. Hilts, S. (1994) The natural heritage stewardship program. In Environmental Stewardship: History, Theory and Practice Workshop Proceedings, pp. 109-117, Beavis, M.A. (ed.). Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg. Hilts, S. and Reid, R. (1990) Creative Conservation: A Handbook for Ontario Land Trusts. Federation of Ontario Naturalist, Toronto. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (1980) The World Conservation Strategy. IUCN, Geneva. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (1987) Protected Landscapes: Experience Around the World. IUCN, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. Jacobs, M. (1993) The Green Economy. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Mclnerney, J.P. (1986) Agricultural Policy at the Crossroads. In Countryside Planning Yearbook, Voi. 7, pp. 44-75, Gilg, A. (ed.). Geobooks, London. Marsden, T. (1994) Beyond agriculture? Regulating the new rural spaces. A paper presented at the annual meetings of the Association of American Geographers, San Francisco, CA, April. OECD (1994) Creating Indicators for Shaping Territorial Policy. OECD, Paris. Pierce, J.T. (1992) Progress and the biosphere: the dialectics of sustainable development. Canadian Geographer 36(4), 306-320. Pierce, J.T. (1993) Agriculture, sustainability and the imperatives of policy reform. Geoforum 24(4), 381-396. Rees, W.E. (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4(20), 121-130.

229

Repetto, R. (1985) The Global Possible. Yale University Press, New Haven. Robinson, S. (1994) Commentary: GATI" agreement provides opportunities for developing countries. International Food Policy Research Institute Report 16(1), 1 and 4. Sack, R.D. (1990) The realm of meaning: the inadequacy of human-nature theory and the view of mass consumption. In The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Change, pp. 659671, Turner II, B.L., Clarke, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, S.F. and Meyer, W.B. (eds). Cambridge University Press, New York. Sedjo, R. (1995) Ecosystem management: an uncharted path for public forests. Resources 121, 10 and 18-20. Shucksmith, M. (1994) Conceptualising post-industrial rurality. In Towards Sustainable Rural Communities, pp. 125-132, Bryden, J.M. (ed.). University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Stewardship '94 (1994) Background Paper. The Voluntary Conservation of Nature on Private Land. The Real Estate Foundation, Vancouver, B.C. Tomalty, R. (1993) Urban Form and Sustainable Development: An Ecosystem Approach to Growth Management. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council. Traill, B. (1988) The Rural Environment: What Role for Europe? In Land Use and the European Environment, pp. 78-86, Whitby, M.C. and Ollerenshaw, J. (eds). Bellhaven Press, London. Vitousek, P., Ehrlich, P. and Matson, P. (1986) Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience 36, 368-374. Wildlife Habitat Canada (1987) Wildlife Conservation on Private Lands. Proceedings of the Private Stewardship/ Landowner Contact Workshop, Winnipeg Canada. Reference Paper No. 1. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.