Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
to provide a platform for action to retard the deterioration of ecosystem
health. The starting point for the design of such a framework should there-
fore be to ask some fundamental questions about the nature of the problems
to be addressed. These include what their sources are, in what respects these
are responsible for or heighten risks of ecological degradation, and over
what spatial scales action would need to be taken to tackle them. Based on
responses to these questions, the governmental and non-governmental
actors who would be best placed to devise and implement solutions, the
geographical areas over which they would need to exercise authority, and
the extent to which different levels of governance would need to collaborate
over the resolution of problems can be identi
ed.
Analysing ecological problems in this way would provide a
rm basis
for considering how they can be dealt with. However, arguments have
been advanced in the academic debate over how a system of ecological
governance could be developed which do not start from this point. Instead,
they display a lack of con
dence in the ability of modern societies to evolve
in suggesting that the best approach would be to begin again and design
arrangements for governance that would, ab initio, usher in a new and
harmonious relationship between humanity and the natural world. In
particular, it has been argued that: units of governance should be con-
structed around ecological boundaries and concerned primarily with
maintaining the functionality of ecosystems falling within them; and
ecological problems would more likely be resolved if decision-making
authority were handed down, in part or fully, to lower levels of govern-
ment than if it were left with the state.
The validity of these arguments is considered in
Section 4.3
,andIagreeto
an extent with their call for the devolution of powers. The existence of
institutions that can bring regional and local perspectives to bear in
decision-making processes, and that provide a conduit through which
public views and knowledge can in
uence their outcomes, is very important
for determining how ecologically desirable changes might be introduced.
However, I conclude that, in other respects, the proposals for governance
they advance are not adequate to address the causes of harm to ecosystems.
This is because they do not engage either with the multifaceted problem of
ecological unsustainability as it presents itself to us now, or create bases for
governing its principal sources which, ultimately, lie embedded in the DNA
of our growth-obsessed society. Additionally, they call for a reduction in the
state
s role in responding to this problem although it is essential that it
should be involved with formulating and then supporting the operation of a
framework based on which an ecological transformation of society might
'
