Commentary on Gordon Baskerville's Perspective

Gilberto C. Gallopin¹

Gordon Baskerville's initial "conclusion" that the actions of humankind generate major ecological problems because people are improperly or inefficiently informed, sounds reasonable at first glance. However, this position eliminates (without even discussing it) a whole set of alternative, or rather, complementary, causal factors. In my experience, there are two basic clusters of causes that explain environmental degradation across the world, in rich and poor countries alike.

First, vested interests, existing power structures, and the lack of political will prevent societies from facing many of the problems and implementing policies and management strategies that are, in some cases, obviously necessary. Examples abound, from the stimulation of deforestation of the Amazonian forests (Ozorio de Almeida and Campari 1995) through economic subsidies provided by the Brazilian government to absentee landlords in the 1980s (now discontinued), to the official resistance from some industrial countries to acknowledging the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increase energy efficiency. Note that in this latter issue, at least, scientists (including climatologists, oceanographers, physicists, and ecologists) go beyond mere description and do address systems dynamics and causal structures.

The second cluster of causal factors is represented by limitations in our understanding, including the widespread sectoral approach to problem solving and decision making, as well as inadequate, or insufficient, information. This is where most of the arguments developed in Baskerville's Editorial, and my remaining comments, are concentrated.

I agree with the main argument that most ecological studies published in scientific journals are of limited (or no) use to decision makers dealing with real-life resource management problems. Again, the problem seems to me to be somewhat more complex. Consider:

Another point made by Baskerville is that the meaning of ecology as a science "seems tragically lost." This valid reflection points out the need to clearly distinguish between the science of ecology and ecologism as an ideological position. While ecologism is either a philosophy or a legitimate form of social activism based on a set of values toward Nature, it should not be confused with science (although the same person could be both). Everyone who so chooses may be an ecologist in the sense of ecologism, but cannot become an ecologist, in the scientific sense, without years of training. It is unfortunate, indeed,that both meanings are often confused, and they use the same name (in the English language).

In summary, I share Baskerville's concern with the fragmentary and reductionist character of most current scientific literature in ecology, as a problem by itself. However, the development of the science (or art?) of natural resources management should be pursued through an integration of insights, concepts, and experiences from many disciplines around its own goals and procedures, and should be defined at the scales relevant for the real management problems. What is required, rather than waiting for ecological research to change, is to develop and reinforce natural resources management research itself. This research, although informed by ecology, economics, sociology, anthropology, decision theories, social psychology, and others, should develop its own methods and body of knowledge.

Functowicz, S., and J. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the postnormal age. Futures 25(7): 739-755.

Ozorio de Almeida, A.L., and J.S. Campari. 1995. Sustainable settlement in the Brazilian Amazon. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Sancholuz, L.A., M.A. Damascos, G.C. Gallopin, and N.M. Gazia. 1995. Aprovechamiento de ecosistemas y recursos naturales renovables en la America Latina. Un analisis comparativo. Volume II. Pages 122-156 in G.C. Gallopin, editor. El Futuro ecologico de un continente. Una vision prospectiva de la America Latina. United Nations University Press and Fondo de Cultura Economica, Mexico, D.F.

Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a comment, follow this link. To read comments already accepted, follow this link.