25/9/95 Dear Netters: The following are two messages from ir. Erwin J. Al (Netherlands) regarding a question David South posted on 1/9/1995. ...how much land should be reserved for non-human species and how much land should be utilized by humans? ====================== 4/9/95 How much is enough? As a contribution to the discussion I'd like to offer you a case in which on a small scale the problems of space for nature are actual. In the Netherlands, a small and wet country of about 3 mln. ha and 15 mln. inhabitants, the question of how much nature is enough is quit opportune. We stil have approximately 0.3 mln ha of forestland, from which about 1% is still botanically representive for natural forests. Next to the forests we have approximately 0.1 mln ha of natural sites (heather, dunes, bogs) and 0.5 mln ha of wetlands. There is still an increasing presure on these last natural areas to use it for other purposes than nature. Therefor policy has made a nature valuation program in which the kind of nature that the Netherlands feel responsible for is described and valuated in terms of biodiversity and abiotic parameters. This described nature is partly based on references in other countries or on historical references and partly on actual locations in the Netherlands. Nature has been put into target types, that we think we can reach within 25 years of time. Nature Target Types contain a description of a site in terms of soiltype, hydrology and geo-morphology and adds information about the possible nature in terms of plant-communities, rare and endangered plant and animal species and characteristic natural processes (watersupply, nutrient circulations, patch dynamics due to floodings and storms, etc.). The target types have been stratified into four major groups: 1. near-natural target types (large natural areas with for instance wild populations of ungulates and with a long term aim of "non-management"); 2. supported-natural target types (areas of at least 500 ha in which for instance forest landscapes with high natural values are being left to spontanous natural processes and in which certain valuable open vegetation areas can be maintained by using ungulates as management tools); 3. semi-natural target types (areas in which cultural history has put an important stress on the development of the nature values in a sence, that endangered or rare wild species would extinct if the management would stop); 4. target types with several functions (areas where cultural impact is (co-) dominant and where management next to nature also can focus to other functions like recreation, wood production and agricultural demands (e.g. hydrological management). The Netherlands have a history of a dominating human presence of more than 2000 years. During this period of time many characteristics of nature have changed due to the human presence: a landscape of swamps, peat bogs and forests has changed into a landscape with mainly graslands, croplands and cities. Many ecological important species like large carnivores and some large ungulates have disappeared since the Middle Ages and we can assume that each square inch of the Netherlands has been ploughed at least once. In the Netherlands people have shown how they would have created earth: many beautiful cities, a high developed agricultural system, much industrial activity on a technical high level, technical solutions for all production problems and nature at an "acceptible", not too disturbing, recreational level. We accept what we have lost in the past but agree that some space for nature must be left because we enjoy it. And we wonder, why we still loose quality in our nature reserves and other protected areas, why our ecosystems still tend to less biodiversity. But we certainly will find a technical solution for these problems... The fact is, that wondering what is the minimal acceptible space for nature is a non-discussion. Even if you choose the most sensitive plant or animal specie and calculate what is the least quantity and the least quality this specie needs to have a survival probability of 98% this specie can extinct from nature for some unpredicted reason. Than an other specie will take its place and new criteria will be formulated. I think we should not wonder how much is enough for nature, but how much is enough for men. We have to draw a line to limit our own behaviour and not to limit nature in any sence. And I think this line has to be drawn with respect to our children and the next generations and with respect to the wonder of life itself. And I think this line has not to be drawn by some government only. This line should be a personal responsibility of each inhabitant of the planet earth, a responsibility at which he can be spoken to at any time, at any place. ir. Erwin J. Al p.o. box 494 6700 AL Wageningen The Netherlands. ============================ "From D. South" 6/9/95 Dear Erwin: In my opinion, the question "how much is enough?" is the same if we are asking about either man or nature. Therefore, what is your answer to how much is enough for man in the Netherlands? Is 95% of the land enough for a population of 21 million? ============================== 12/9/95 Dear David, Thank you for your reply on my contribute to the discussion. You insist on an answer on the question "How much is enough?" and I will try to formulate one after all. I do not think the question "How much is enough?" can be answered in percentages of available room for nature (or man) only. It is the level of environmental impact of man that also has to be considered and that makes it very difficult to draw a concrete and universal applicable line to what is enough. For instance, if you have a highly developed agricultural system, based on circulation of nutrients, biological control, recycable tools etc. and that is arranged according to principals of environmental ecology, this system could cover a much larger part of the environment without negative consequences for nature than a agricultural system that is based on the lowest costs for the highest production, regardless the environmetal consequenses. How much larger? This depends on the type of environment that is considered, on how sensitive the present or desired flora and fauna responds to the agricultural systems. In a country like the Netherlands you do not need to be concerned about the room that is needed e.g. for wolve populations, since we killed our last wolve 150 years ago and the nearest population is 1000 km east of our border. This has reduced the claim of nature considerably. Now we think that a few (fenced) areas of up to 30000 ha are enough to remain or develop natural areas in which wild populations of red deer (our largest wild living animal) and wild boar can exist. For the flora and fauna that need specific environmental qualities we also develop an Ecological Main Structure through our country: a network of natural areas that either function as home range, or as stepping stones or as migrationzones for both flora (dispersion) and fauna. The aim is to connect many of the important and representative natural areas we still have in order to maximize the effectivity of these areas. Together with a policy that is focused on high reduction of pollution from agriculture, industries and households we think within 25 years we can maintain our nature on approximately 25% of our landarea (including 13% forests). This is not a universal value though: if for instance we would have choosen for reintroduction of the wolve in our nature we probably would have needed 35% or more of our land for nature, just to offer enough area for a minimum population to survive. What is realy important though, is the concern of the people. If they do not accept the offer they have to make for nature (no new houses in nature areas, much more costs for working up wastes, higher prices for food, etc.) we will not have enough room for our nature even if we offer over 50% of our land. If you can read Dutch, it is interesting to know that recently there has been many publications about this subject for the Netherlands as a result of intensive co-operation between Dutch nature management organisations, research institutes and the Dutch Government. In these publications all known facts about our nature have been translated into a planning system (see my previous letter) with figures about areas and aims in terms of target species and natural processes. These publications are now being used for regional plannings, which are being made by management organisations, research institutes and provincial governments. All reports have been published by our Department of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries as "Ecosysteemvisie", the publications come together in "Drieluik Natuurdoeltypen", which consists of an overview of the nature target types, a ministrial note about how we will deal with natural ecosystems in the next years and a ministrial note about environmental policy towards nature. If you want to know more about these publications or if you want to order one or more of them, the best thing to do is to fax your wishes to the director of the National Reference Centre of Wageningen, the Netherlands, fax +31-317-427561 (before October 10: +31-8370-27561). ir. Erwin J. Al p/o box 494 6700 AL Wageningen The Netherlands. David South School of Forestry Auburn University, AL 36849-5418 USA dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu 334-844-1022 334-844-1084 (FAX) http://www.forestry.auburn.edu/coops/sfnmc/sfnmc.html ========================================================================= "Here was my chance. Biltmore could be made to prove what America did not yet understand, that trees could be cut and the forest preserved at one and the same time." Gifford Pinchot Consulting Forester Biltmore Estate 1892-1895 =========================================================================
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0