CHAPTER 6 . Coastal Environmental Management in Southeast Australia:The Roles of Ecology
121
Unfortunately, not fading are other currently fashionable views not supported by
scientific evidence. These include the sociological fiction that local or indigenous
knowledge is superior to documentable, criticisable knowledge (Agrawal 1995). They
also include ilie ecologically documented demonstrations that there is no balance of
nature (Botkin 1990), that indicator species or even indicative chemical or physical
variables must exist to represent other components of biological systems (Landres
et al. 1988) and iliat conservation of complex assemblages in coastal habitats will be
aided by focussing on single or a few species deemed to be particularly important or
"keystone" in their roles (Mills et al. 1993). One further barrier to our capacity to progress in sustained conservation is the widespread belief that commitment of resources
to "endangered species" will somehow help. This notion comes from terrestrial ecology - where it has already been demonstrated to be a poor way of preventing future
increases in the numbers of species declining until they too, become endangered
(Caughley 1994; Caughley and Gunn 1996). Even if it were a good model of terrestrial
conservation, it would have little relevance to coastal fauna and flora, where the issues
are about habitats and assemblages and where individual species rarely go extinct
(Carlton et al. 1991).
It is a great pity thar an increasing focus on coastal management and conservation
(Ray 1976; Ivanovici 1987) has not been coupled with increased use of what really is
known about these systems, what is not useful from terrestrial systems and what is
useful. The latter includes detailed analyses of how to ensure representativeness and
irreplaceability of components of landscapes (reviewed by Pressey 1992; Pressey et al.
1993), instead of inventing new models for systems of reserves that not just attempt to
re-invent the wheel, but seek to make it square.
6.5
Conclusions: Towards a New Scientific Social Contract
In Australia, we are in a state of transition in environmental management. Society is
gradually changing its focus from "brown" (pollution, degradation of habitats) to "green"
(conservation, sustain ability) issues (Hardoy et al. 1992). The future will undoubtedly
see greater moves tow"rds building new habitats and repairing and maintaining damaged habitats, so that we create sustainable managed environments, supporting maximal diversity.
Such changes seem to have gone hand in hand with increasing distance from the
sorts of science available and needed. There will, however, never be a satisfactory substitute for real knowledge and expertize, even iliough this is an era when apparently
anyone can claim (and be accepted uncritically by the media) to be an ecologist, a
marine biologist or what-have-you. For the future of environmental decision-making
to be better than the past, there need to be major changes in the way environmental
scientists contribute (e.g. Sagoff 1985). Some commentators want radical change in the
nature of knowledge-making institutions (Yearley 1996) and assert that environmentalists must make demands for restructuring iliese institutions a major component of
their political objectives. Such strident activism cannot possibly help until the various
and competing environmental movements demonstrate capacity to comprehend the
nature of and need for substantial and documented knowledge - even if it contradicts
well-meant points of view.
121
Unfortunately, not fading are other currently fashionable views not supported by
scientific evidence. These include the sociological fiction that local or indigenous
knowledge is superior to documentable, criticisable knowledge (Agrawal 1995). They
also include ilie ecologically documented demonstrations that there is no balance of
nature (Botkin 1990), that indicator species or even indicative chemical or physical
variables must exist to represent other components of biological systems (Landres
et al. 1988) and iliat conservation of complex assemblages in coastal habitats will be
aided by focussing on single or a few species deemed to be particularly important or
"keystone" in their roles (Mills et al. 1993). One further barrier to our capacity to progress in sustained conservation is the widespread belief that commitment of resources
to "endangered species" will somehow help. This notion comes from terrestrial ecology - where it has already been demonstrated to be a poor way of preventing future
increases in the numbers of species declining until they too, become endangered
(Caughley 1994; Caughley and Gunn 1996). Even if it were a good model of terrestrial
conservation, it would have little relevance to coastal fauna and flora, where the issues
are about habitats and assemblages and where individual species rarely go extinct
(Carlton et al. 1991).
It is a great pity thar an increasing focus on coastal management and conservation
(Ray 1976; Ivanovici 1987) has not been coupled with increased use of what really is
known about these systems, what is not useful from terrestrial systems and what is
useful. The latter includes detailed analyses of how to ensure representativeness and
irreplaceability of components of landscapes (reviewed by Pressey 1992; Pressey et al.
1993), instead of inventing new models for systems of reserves that not just attempt to
re-invent the wheel, but seek to make it square.
6.5
Conclusions: Towards a New Scientific Social Contract
In Australia, we are in a state of transition in environmental management. Society is
gradually changing its focus from "brown" (pollution, degradation of habitats) to "green"
(conservation, sustain ability) issues (Hardoy et al. 1992). The future will undoubtedly
see greater moves tow"rds building new habitats and repairing and maintaining damaged habitats, so that we create sustainable managed environments, supporting maximal diversity.
Such changes seem to have gone hand in hand with increasing distance from the
sorts of science available and needed. There will, however, never be a satisfactory substitute for real knowledge and expertize, even iliough this is an era when apparently
anyone can claim (and be accepted uncritically by the media) to be an ecologist, a
marine biologist or what-have-you. For the future of environmental decision-making
to be better than the past, there need to be major changes in the way environmental
scientists contribute (e.g. Sagoff 1985). Some commentators want radical change in the
nature of knowledge-making institutions (Yearley 1996) and assert that environmentalists must make demands for restructuring iliese institutions a major component of
their political objectives. Such strident activism cannot possibly help until the various
and competing environmental movements demonstrate capacity to comprehend the
nature of and need for substantial and documented knowledge - even if it contradicts
well-meant points of view.