 |
|
Stratospheric ozone depletion, toxic contamination of bird and marine mammal populations, global climate change, the El Nino effect: In the second half of this century we are witnessing a succession of ecological phenomena that are having serious social and economic repercussions. The causes of most of these phenomena, whether natural or human, usually originate far from the impacts. It may be relatively simple to deal with human-caused problems at source if the cause and effect are direct; however, it is usually much more difficult when cause and effect are indirect and widely separated in space and time—a characteristic that typifies a growing number of phenomena.
Canadians are asking serious questions: "How are we going to deal with these problems?" "How do they affect me or my children?" "Why have we not been more effective in detecting and dealing with ecological problems up to now?" There are no simple answers, and no single department or agency has the mandate or capability to research the answers.
The information derived from ecological research and monitoring that may be expected to provide answers has been gathered by many different federal, provincial, university, and non-governmental agencies (NGOs). These agencies usually do not communicate well with one another (except along disciplinary lines); they often lack a broad, systems understanding; and they frequently duplicate efforts. Furthermore, because scientists do not usually consider both social and economic disciplines in answering ecological questions (let alone in conducting ecosystem research), they have largely ignored the role of humans as an integral part of ecosystems or have treated the human component quite independently from other components.
There is no nation-wide strategy for ecological research and monitoring, and credit is rarely given for incorporating information outside an agency's disciplinary or management responsibility. These problems make it almost impossible to compile a picture, or "profile," of any major ecosystem in Canada on the basis of interacting environmental factors, and particularly a profile that includes humans. Parts of particular ecosystems, often in minute scale, are well known, and a great deal of time and energy has been spent on global concerns, but meaningful generalization about large-scale ecosystems in Canada has rarely, if ever, been attempted. Also, little is known about how the human and non-human organisms in such ecosystems respond to environmental stresses, and problems often are not taken seriously until they have become critical—the atlantic northern cod crisis, for example. The complexity of interacting factors is only just starting to be generally recognized. Given these complexities, it is imperative for the general public to understand
These complexities were recognized in the consultations that led to the 1990 federal "Green Plan" and, as a result, it directed that an ecosystem perspective—using a sustainable development context—be applied to reports on the state of Canada's environment. To achieve this perspective, the ecological framework developed by the Canadian Committee on Ecological Land Classification (the outcome of many years of co-operative work among various federal and provincial jurisdictions) was adopted to replace the largely sectoral approach to environmental reporting.
The implementation of an ecosystem perspective to stateof-the-environment reporting requires many changes reaching far beyond the mandate of any single government department or agency. Nevertheless, changes are being implemented. Statistics Canada, for example, is using the ecological framework to impute values to natural resource flows and environmental protection in its new Environmental Account, an adjunct to the System of National Accounts, and for analyzing and integrating economic and environmental information. Other federal departments as well as provincial and territorial governments are adopting the same ecological framework.
The "Green Plan" directed that Canada "establish a longterm state of the environment monitoring and assessment capability to study resources at risk, ecosystem response and the impact of major disruptions to ecosystems." That was the starting point for Canada's long-term ecosystem monitoring and research initiative.
The general outlines of the initiative were drawn up following comprehensive, Canada-wide consultations among managers and scientific professionals from government, universities, industry, NGOs, and the general public in 19911992 and a national workshop in 1992.
In November 1992, the implementation plan for a Canadian long-term ecosystem monitoring and research network (CEMRN) comprising linked ecological science centres (ESCs) was approved by senior managers in Environment Canada and other key federal departments and endorsed by representatives of provincial environment ministries. The purpose of the network and the individual ESCs is to provide Canadians with a clearer understanding of Canadian ecosystems—how they function, how and why they are changing, the implications of the changes, and what can be done about them.
From the start, it was recognized that jurisdictional boundaries would not provide a satisfactory framework within which to establish ESCs: the framework would have to be ecological. Canada is divided into fifteen terrestrial ecozones, eight of which are found in northern Canada (marine ecozones still are being delineated). Hierarchies of nested ecological elements make up the fifteen ecozones and allow questions of scale to be dealt with at the appropriate level within each ecozone. The ecozone map is being used to identify suitable monitoring and research sites and the gaps that need to be filled.
The importance of using this approach is illustrated by an analysis of selected active federal monitoring networks in northern Canada. The monitoring sites are distributed very unevenly and they diminish in number and variety toward central Northwest Territories and the High Arctic. There are few sites in the central Southern Arctic and Taiga Shield ecozones—the region known as the Slave Geological Province (an area the size of New Brunswick and Newfoundland combined). Although there is intense mining exploration and development activity under way in that region, insufficient information exists on which to base environmental assessment proposals or resource management plans. Ecological research is negligible because, until recently, nobody was interested in the region's ecosystems or their components. There are no long-term ecological field sites in this region comparable to that at Kluane Lake in Yukon.
This then is the rationale for ESCs and their focus on long-term monitoring and associated research to understand large-scale ecosystems—ecosystems that include humans and their activities as integral components. ESCs will
The knowledge gained will provide a more ecologically sensitive basis for economic and social decision-making than has existed in the past and will provide better strategic direction for achieving sustainable development.
Ecosystems and environmental variables do not respect jurisdictional boundaries. Finding solutions to specific ecological problems requires an understanding of the specific ecosystem concerned and a detailed knowledge of what has been happening in that ecosystem over time. Therefore, studies in energy flow, nutrient and material cycling, biodiversity, and population dynamics are essential for research and monitoring.
 |
The specific concerns of ESCs can be summarized as
Each ESC will have one or more "anchor site." An anchor site is secure, is representative of its ecozone, and has appropriate logistical support to service long-term ecological monitoring and research. It may be a cluster of sites with a variety of research or monitoring mandates. Besides being linked in the CEMRN, ESCs will be linked to similar international programmes. In this context, in September 1993 Canada was appointed to the international steering committee on longterm ecological research (ILTER) established at the U.S. international summit on long-term ecological research. Linkages already are being made with circumpolar programmes such as AMAP, CAFF, and ITEX.
Most ESCs are not new physical structures, although this may be a requirement in parts of the North. They are new in their approach, crossing both jurisdictional and disciplinary boundaries to carry out their programmes. They are being built on existing strengths and on new or enhanced partnerships (federal, provincial, university, NGO, industry, etc.) involving social, economic, biological, and physical disciplines. They are opportunistic and flexible. Management and direction is locally determined within a national framework. Many scientists, resource managers, and concerned individuals from a range of educational, health, and industrial backgrounds are among the driving forces behind this approach. They realize that no one group has either the resources or the mandate to cover all components of the ecosystem. A growing number of scientists and resource managers are convinced that economies of scale and more comprehensive understanding can be achieved by joining forces.
Despite the decentralized nature of the ESCs, there is an overall plan for national guidance of CEMRN to ensure common standards and encourage co-operation and communication within the network. The national system is not yet fully in place, but guidance is being provided by an interim steering committee made up of assistant deputy ministers from six co-operating federal departments with mandates to manage natural resources. The establishment of ESCs is now moving steadily forward.
Developments began in the Atlantic Maritime ecozone, where the major outlines of the first ESC were determined by a workshop in Halifax in March 1993. It was agreed that Kejimkujik National Park should be the pilot anchor site for the Atlantic Maritime ESC and that other sites would be added. The model provided by the Atlantic Maritime ESC (now with three anchor sites) is being adapted by ESC workshops in other ecozones. No two ESCs are following exactly the same path.
 |
| Monitoring beneath the ice. |
In October 1993, the first workshop in the Arctic was convened in Iqaluit to develop a framework and plan of action for the High Arctic and Arctic Cordillera ESC. A second workshop to consider the establishment of an ESC in the Southern Arctic and Taiga Shield ecozones is scheduled for autumn 1994. Workshops in other parts of the Arctic and sub-Arctic will follow.
Steps also were taken in 1993/94 to establish an ESC in the Pacific Maritime, Boreal Shield, and Mixed Woods Plains ecozones.
It is now a year since the first ESC workshop. Enthusiasm for the initiative has been growing steadily, and more and more people are beginning to understand the potential of the network. The ecological framework and the CEMRN with its ESCs can be powerful tools for scientists and managers seeking answers to the ecological questions of Canadians. Integrative tools of this nature are essential for questions related to the North, given its vast distances, limited human resources, distinctive and vulnerable ecosystems, and the enormous potential of its mineral resources. Knowledge synthesized from various disciplines and co-operative partnerships will be useful to all those responsible for development in the North. Together, all involved could set a course that will be environmentally sensitive as well as economically and socially sustainable, a goal all countries are working toward as a result of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development.
Patricia Roberts-Pichette is Director, Ecosystems Monitoring and Analysis, State of the Environment Reporting, Department of the Environment.
