REVIEW Expectation that systems will change Can we distinguish between natural responses and those that are artificially introduced Resource usage should be logical and should, in self-interest, be organized to maximize benefits (question is whose benefit?) Demand and technology drive the system

WHY WORRY? THE WORTH OF PRESERVING SYSTEMS If systems are to be exploited and since they change by themselves why bother with worrying about their preservation –Recent argument re: introduction of new species – preservation?

1Aesthetical value –considerations of beauty –“naturalness” –the value of something untouched

2The ethical propriety of heritage preservation that we do not have the right to threaten other species Note the first two reasons are not based on self-interest. The argument is one of idealism

3Opportunity to create models of how ecosystems should operate –protection allows for years of analysis of a system that is only fluctuating naturally –various sciences (hydrology, biology, geomorphology, etc) can be brought into the analysis

4Opportunity to set benchmarks –What is a protected ‘natural’ system like. Natural system as a lab –What are the parameters of the system

5Opportunity to enhance surrounding ecosystems –Because systems interact one protected system may have beneficial impacts on the surrounding systems for example, if the source water area is protected then the streamflow areas will benefit

6Potential utility of protecting the gene pool Natural systems tend to have more variety than human systems (tendency in human systems to use more specialized plants and animals) –The potential for change and the artificial genetic manipulation of new strains of plants is dependent on the width of the genetic base that we have –response to change and pressure is easier and the preservation of genes that we are not aware of is of benefit in the long run

7Practical value of health protection for our species –Threatened systems could produce life limiting factors that will have an impact on us –The costs of defending against this will be higher than the cost of prevention of the crisis –In extreme cases the survival of the species could be in question

The purpose then to understanding and protecting ecosystems seems to be linked to their eventual use (however that use is defined) So part of the goal is to look at the Carrying Capacity of ecosystems

CARRYING CAPACITY Part of the problem of working with systems is the associated difficulty of assessing carrying capacity there are different carrying capacities –natural (fluctuations but a sense of the standing crop and the balance within trophic levels) –human (not just how many humans can be supported but the concept of how many at what level of existence and enjoyment

ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS 1SUSTAINED YIELD –The maximum that can be removed from stores (the standing crop) without depleting the stores –The assumption is this case is that the resource is capable of regenerating itself –In the case of forests the growth of the system should balance the wood lost by harvesting, fire, disease and pests Any problems?

FORESTRY MANAGEMENT The Provincial and Territorial governments are responsible for 71% of Canadian forests The Federal Government controls 23% Private landowners 6% Provincial Governments usually manage the forests through agreements with private companies –detailed plans of cutting location, the process of cutting, replanting plans

AAC ANNUAL ALLOWABLE CUT Calculate the amount of land protected from harvesting –parks, protected habitat Quantity and quality of species accessibility of stands growth rates

If a forest is considered capital, the amount it grows each year could be regarded as interest. In principle, the AAC determines this volume, and loggers log only the interest in order to maintain the forest capital.

In most provinces, the economic impetus to maintain a high level of fiber flow remains the driver of the AAC process. This is clear in the terminology of AAC determinations, wherein environmental considerations are identified as ‘constraints,’ Strengthening regulations to protect riparian or wildlife corridors or increase forest retention in most cases lowers the AAC of a forest management unit by reducing the volume of trees available for logging.) One province has even put limits on the amount of managed forest that can be set aside for the maintenance of environmental values (British Columbia).

How is the AAC determined? As mentioned above, AAC calculations take into account a number of different factors these factors are embedded within an overall vision that prioritizes values for forest management. actual mathematical AAC calculations are based primarily upon the following inputs: –the volume of potential timber in a forest –the age and area of the trees and the growth rate of the forest. –How much of the forested land base is actually harvestable (called the net operable land area, (things such as steep slopes or rugged terrain which are often not viable for commercial harvesting) –relevant provincial guidelines (i.e., guidelines for protecting streams or wildlife habitat)

The limitations of current economic models Current AAC models do not adequately take into account the enormous cost to the environment of traditional forestry practices (clear cutting) financial (stream restoration and species recovery programs) non-monetary (loss of habitat, ecological services and biological biodiversity.) They do not account for the impact that forestry practices have had upon First Nations communities, –traditional way of life has been negatively impacted by impaired hunting and fishing capacities within logged crown forests. Traditional AAC calculations also do not factor in the myriad of subsidies awarded to the logging industry by the government, –low stumpage fees, non-recognition and infringement of aboriginal title and waivers for environmental protection

So major questions associated with the estimation of the carrying capacities of ecosystems –example was not that of a ‘hidden’ resource –greater complications with resources such as fish

2ASSIMULATIVE CAPACITY –The maximum amount of wastes which can be discharged into a system without depleting the resource base without disruption of the ability to sustain the resource 3POLLUTION –The amount of a contaminant (or substance) that is released into the environment in excess of the assimulative capacity stress sufficient to cause ecological disruption