Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
3.1.1 Adapting to endemic uncertainty
Consideration of how negative impacts on ecosystems can be prevented
and of law
'
culty: there is
a high degree of uncertainty over how they react to human intervention
and concerning the properties that a legal system for ecological protec-
tion would aim to protect.
1
This manifests itself in several respects: we
are unable to predict what consequences our activities will have, whether
individually or cumulatively, on systemic properties of importance for
ecosystem functionality;
2
we do not know the causal pathways by which
anthropogenic stresses combine to erode resilience or cause shifts in
states;
3
we have poor knowledge of what properties are important for the
maintenance of resilience apart from an appreciation that diversity is
important for this;
4
we cannot know what elements of ecosystems will
become important for their functionality as they, and relations between
species comprising them and the environments they inhabit, change;
5
and,
sroleinthisendeavourmeetsanimmediatedif
cient for ecosys-
tems to withstand the impacts of events that may confront them in the
future.
6
Application of the precautionary principle as it is currently conceived
would suggest that decision-making on matters that may present threats
of harm to ecosystems should be delayed or activities halted at least until
suf
nally, we cannot know whether resilience is suf
cient knowledge of their behaviour is available to make informed
choices over whether the risks concerned are acceptable.
7
However, the
reality is that the complexity and unpredictability of ecosystems, when
coupled with our poor understanding of them, will prevent us from
1
See my discussion of the complexity and unpredictability of ecosystems, of the nature of
resilience, and of the difculties that these present for controlling activities at Chapter 2,
Sections 2.2
and
2.3
. See also the detailed discussion of scientic uncertainty concerning
ecological behaviour in R. A. Young, Uncertainty and the Environment: Implications for
Decision-Making and Environmental Policy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing,
2001), pp. 1
59.
2
Chapter 2,
Section 2.2
; Young,
-
10, 46
-
'
Uncertainty and the Environment
'
,p.1,7;Walkerand
Salt,
'
Resilience Thinking
'
, pp. 34
-
6.
3
Chapter 2,
Section 2.2
; Young,
'
Uncertainty and the Environment
'
,p.48;Schefferetal.,
'
Catastrophic Shifts
'
, 595
-
6; Biggs et al.,
'
Turning Back
'
,826
-
830.
4
Chapter 2,
Section 2.3
; Young,
'
Uncertainty and the Environment
'
, pp. 9, 52
-
3; Walker and
Salt,
'
Resilience Practice
'
,pp.89
-
94, 197; Rockström et al.,
'
A Safe Operating Space
'
,473
-
4.
5
Chapter 2,
Section 2.3
; Young,
'
Uncertainty and the Environment
'
,pp.9
-
10; Myers,
9.
6
Chapter 2,
Section 2.3
; Young,
'
Biodiversity
'
,74
-
'
Uncertainty and the Environment
'
,pp.53
-
6; Scheffer
et al.,
'
Catastrophic Shifts
'
, 596; Walker and Salt,
'
Resilience Practice
'
, pp. 92
-
3.
7
See the discussion of the precautionary principle at Chapter 3,
Section 3.2
.
