winter 2002
Thursday 1-4
1038 Wickson

This course seeks to avoid what seem to be the two principal defects of efforts to address this topic: overly general and programmatic statements of what sustainable  development should be, and excessively pragmatic quick-fix solutions (e.g., farmer participation; reformation of national income accounting; reduction in birth rates; reductions in chemical use in agriculture).  To provide focus, clarity, and empirical content, the course concentrates on a balanced set of case studies of particular resources.  The comparison across different resources permits the analysis of different issues and forms of management.

COURSE GOALS:
Like most other courses on sustainable development, this course seeks to provide an understanding of the importance of sustainable development and to offer a framework to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different forms of resource use.  Unlike many other such courses, this course also seeks to account for the scope of sustainable development at present: to understand both why many things are included in it, and why some things are excluded from it.  To accomplish these ends, the course has a strong comparative framework. 

This course draws on methods and approaches from the graduate group in Ecology and in International Agricultural Development.  There will be a balance of natural science approaches to the resources themselves and social science approaches to the people involved in the use of the resources.

This course uses three different sets of contrasting elements to examine the topic of sustainable development.

• resource types: We study three different resources: fisheries, biodiversity, soils. Some discussion of sustainable development is phrased in terms more broad than single resources. For example, some people examine sustainable cities, sustainable consumption patterns, and sustainable economic growth. Nonetheless, both sustainability and development do address, directly or indirectly, resource use, so we can examine the general issues of sustainable development most productively in the context of particular resources.

• resource dimensions: We examine the use of each of these resources on four dimensions: 1) the temporal and spatial scales of depletion and renewability; 2) the issues of valuation of the resource and its components; 3) the property regimes and forms of ownership of the resource; 4) the social and political systems (from communities to international organizations) that establish rules and structure the debate for the use of the resource. These dimensions all combine, in different degrees and ways, aspects of the resource and aspects of the societies that use it, though the resources themselves are more prominent in the first ones, societies in the later ones.

• approaches: We compare four sorts of approaches to sustainable development: 1) technological innovations; 2) economically-oriented policies and programs; 3) socially-oriented processes and forms of participation; 4) forms of addressing “root causes” of over exploitation of resources.

FORMAT AND COURSE REQUIREMENTS:
The course emphasizes discussion rather than lecture. (One could consider the hypothesis that “sustainable development” is as much a conversation as a set of programs—a conversation that links local farmers and fishermen with scientists, politicians, agency staff, media workers and others, a conversation that takes place in villages, forests, and ministry offices as well as university classrooms.) Students take an active role in participating in the discussion. At the beginning of the quarter, students will form into three “resource groups,” corresponding to the resources examined during the quarter. In order to promote interdisciplinary thinking and work, each group will have as even a balance as possible of students in IAD and Ecology.

The course is divided into three sections. The first section introduces the materials and concepts. The central section of the course is divided into three two-week units, each of which focus on a particular resource. The final section consists of review and synthesis.

1.  participation in discussion (25%)
Students will be expected to be prepared to discuss the assigned readings. Individual students will take some responsibility in leading these discussions. 

2.  preparation of resource kit (20%)
Each resource group will put together a set of materials for their particular resource. These “resource resources” should include four or five books that offer overviews of the particular resource, ten to twelve articles (published within the last 5 years) of studies of management of the resource to promote sustainable development, and six to eight web sites about the resource, with a paragraph or two about each book, article and web site. This set of materials should be sent as an htm file to the instructor so that he can post it to the course web site. The instructor should receive this file two days before the first meeting of the class that discusses the resource (with some flexibility for the first resource group).

3.  preparation of resource paper (20%)
Each resource group will write a 3-5 page paper on the general attributes of their resource and its management for sustainable development. Though the class itself will prepare the outline for this paper, it is likely to include a discussion of the four attributes of resource use, and the four types of approaches, mentioned above. This paper, in htm format, should be e-mailed to the instructor, bsorlove@ucdavis.edu, by 8 March, for posting to the course web page. 

4.  final exam (35%)
There will be a take-home final exam, due by 5 PM on 18 March.
 

CLASS SCHEDULE AND READING ASSIGNMENTS:
note: The numbers for readings correspond to the items in the reading list below. Some of these articles are available on-line, with links from this syllabus. The others are all contained,  in order, contained in the class reader available at Navin’s at Third and University Streets.

1. Introduction

    10 Jan introduction to course. overview

    17 Jan discussion of sustainability and development. nature of resources. issues of ethics, values and prices. Introduction readings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  

                discussion questions

    24 Jan discussion of sustainability and development. issues of property, politics and management. culture and participation. Introduction readings: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

2. Fisheries

    31 Jan attributes of resource and resource use. Fisheries readings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

    07 Feb approaches to sustainable resource use and management. Fisheries readings: 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

3. Biodiversity

    14 Feb attributes of resource and resource use. Biodiversity readings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

    21 Feb approaches to sustainable resource use and management. Biodiversity readings: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,  24, 25, 26, 27

4. Soils

    28 Feb attributes of resource and resource use. Soils readings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

    07 Mar approaches to sustainable resource use and management. Soils readings: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 

5. Synthesis/conclusion

    14 Mar overview and discussion
 

READING LIST:

I. Introduction

1. Goodland, Robert. 1995. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 1-24. [online]
   
2. Peterson, Tarla Rai. 1997. Sharing the earth: the rhetoric of sustainable development. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. pp. 1-33.
   
3. Callicott, J. Baird 1994. Earth's insights: a survey of ecological ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback. Berkeley: University of California Press pp. 1-13.
   
4. Simpson, R. David. 1998. Economic analysis and ecosystems: some concepts and issues. Ecological Applications 8(2): 342-349.
   
5. Kates et al. 2001. Sustainability Science. Science 292: 641-642.
   
6. Masood, Ehsan and Laura Garwin. 1998. Costing the earth: when ecology meets economics. Nature 395: 426-434.
   
7. Shrader-Frechette, Kristin S. 1994. Ecosystem health: a new paradigm for ecological assessment? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 9(12): 456-457.
   
8. Rapport, D.J., Costanza, R. and McMichael, A.J. 1998. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13(10): 397-402.
   
9. Ayensu et al. 1999. International Ecosystem Assessment. Science 286: 685-686.
   
10. Gretchen et al. 1998. Food production, population growth and the environment. Science 281: 1291-1292.
    
11. Lutz, Wolfgang, Sanderson, Warren and Sergei Scherbov. Doubling of world population unlikely. 997. Nature 387: 803-805.
    
12. Broad, Robin. 1994. Poor and the Environment: Friends or Foes? World Development 22(6): 811-822.
    
13. Becker, C. Dustin and Elinor Ostrom. 1995. Human Ecology and Resource Sustainability: The Importance of Institutional Diversity. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 26: 113-133. [online]
    
14. Princen, Thomas. 1994. Environmental NGOs in World Politics: linking the local and the global. London: Routledge. pp 29-47.
    
15. Burger, Joanna and Michael Gochfeld 1998 The tragedy of the commons 30 years later. Environment 40(10): 4-13, 26-27.

II. Fisheries

1. Frank, Kenneth T. and William C. Leggett. 1994. Fisheries Ecology in the Context of Ecological and Evolutionary Theory. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25: 401-422. [online]
   
2. Beddington, John. 1995. The Primary Requirements. Nature 374: 213-214.
   
3. Pauly, D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary Production Required to Sustain Global Fisheries. Nature 374: 255-257.
   
4. Steele, John H. 1998. Regime shifts in marine ecosystems. Ecological Applications 8(1) supplement: S33-S36.
   
5. Williams, Nigel 1998. Overfishing disrupts entire ecosystems. Science 279: 809.
   
6. Pauly, Daniel et al. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science. 279: 860-863.
   
7. Casey, Jill M. and Ransom A. Myers. 1998. Near extinction of a large, widely distributed fish. Science 281: 690-692
   
8. Carlton et al. 1999. Historical Extinction in the Sea. Annual Review of Ecological Systematicss 30: 515-538. [online]
   
9. Watson, Reg and Daniel Pauly. 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414: 534-536.
   
10. Hutchings, Jeffrey. 2000. Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature 406: 882-885.
    
11. Naylor et al. 2000. Effects of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405: 1017-1024.
    
12. Cook, R, A. Sinclair and G. Stefánsson. 1997. Potential collapse of North Sea and cod stocks. Nature 385: 521-522.
    
13. Masood, Ehsan. Fisheries science: all at sea when it comes to politics? 1997. Nature 386: 105-110.
    
14. Weber, Peter. 1994. Net loss: fish, jobs, and the marine environment. Worldwatch Paper 120. Washington, DC: The Worldwatch Institute. pp. 5-52.
    
15. Palumbi, Stephen. 1999. The prodigal fish. Nature 402: 733-735.
    
16. Swearer et al. 1999. Larval retention and recruitment in an island population of a coral-reef fish. Nature 402: 799-804.
    
17. Sharp, Gary D. 1995. It's about time: new beginnings and old good ideas in fisheries science. Fisheries Oceanography 4(4): 324-341.
    
18. Schurman, Rachel A. 1996. Snails, Southern Hake and Sustainability: Neoliberalism and Natural Resource Exports in Chile. World Development 24(11): 1695-1709. [online]
    
19. Martijn Wilder 1995 Quota systems in international wildlife and fisheries regimes. Journal of Environment and Development, 4(2): 55-104.
    
20. Dewees, Christopher. 1998. Effects of individual quota systems on New Zealand and British Columbia fisheries. Ecological Applications 8(1) supplement: S133-S138.
    
21. Baelde, Pascale. 2001. Fishers' description of changes in fishing gear and fishing practices in the Australian South East Trawl Fishery. Marine Freshwater Resources 52: 411-417.
    
22. Hughey, Kenneth, Ross Cullen and Geoffrey Kerr. 1999. Stakeholder groups in fisheries management. Marine Policy 24: 119-127. [online]
    
23. Pinkerton, Evelyn and Martin Weinstein. 1995. Fisheries that Work: Sustainability through Community-based Management. Vancouver: The David Suzuki Foundation. pp. 1-24; 71-98
    
24. Hanna, Susan S. and Courtland L. Smith. 1993 Resolving Allocation Conflicts in Fishery Management. Society and Natural Resources 6: 55-69.
    
25. Allison, Gary W., Lubchenko, Jane and Mark H. Carr. 1998. Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological Applications 8(1) supplement: S79-S92.
    
26. Hall, Stephen J. 1998 Closed areas for fisheries management-the case consolidates. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13(8): 297-298.
    
27. Parrish, Richard. 1999. Marine reserves for fisheries management: why not. CalCOFI Rep 40: 1-10.
    
28. Caddy, J. F. 1999 Fisheries management in the twenty-first century: will new paradigms apply? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 9: 1-43. [online]

III. Biodiversity

1. McNeely, Jeffrey A. 1992 The Biodiversity Crisis: Challenges for Research and Management. In Sandlund, O.T., K. Hindar and A.H.D. Brown, eds. Conservation of Biodiversity for Sustainable Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. pp. 15-26.
   
2. Humphries, Christopher J., Paul H. Williams and Richard I. Vane-Wright. 1995. Measuring Biodiversity Value for Conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 93-111. [online]
   
3. Parmesan, Camille. 1996. Climate and Species' Range. Nature 382: 765-766.
   
4. Erwin, Douglas H. 1998 The end and the beginning: recoveries from mass extinctions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13(9): 344-349.
   
5. Hofman, Robert J. 1995. The changing focus of marine mammal conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 10(11): 462-465.
   
6. Service, Robert. 1997. Biodiversity: Microbiologists Explore Life's Rich, Hidden Kingdoms. Science 275: 1739-1742.
   
7. Pimm et al. 2001. 2001. Can we defy nature's end? Science 293: 2207-2208.
   
8. Bermingham, Eldredge and Christopher Dick. 2001. The Inga- Newcomer or Museum Antiquity? Science 293: 2214-2215.
   
9. Richardson et al. 2001. Rapid Diversificaion of a Species-Rich Genus of Neotropical Rain Forest Trees. Science 293: 2242-2245.
   
10. James, Alexander, Keven Gaston and Andrew Balmford. 1999 Balancing the Earth's accounts. Nature 401: 323-324.
    
11. Godoy et al. 2000. Valuation of consumption and sale of forest goods from a Central American rain forest. Nature 406: 62-63.
    
12. Sala et al. 2000. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1170-1774.
    
13. McNeely, Jeffrey A. 1994. Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to society. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 390-405.
    
14. Orlove, Benjamin S and Stephen Brush 1996. Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 329-352. [online]
    
15. Macilwain, Colin 1998 When rhetoric hits reality in debate on bioprospecting. Nature 392: 535-540.
    
16. Gullison, R, R. Rice and A. Blundell. 2000. 'Marketing' species conservation. Nature 404: 923-924.
    
17. Lawler, Andrew. 2001. Up for the count? Science 294: 769-770.
    
18. Inamdar et al. 1999. Capitalizing on Nature: Protected Area Management. Science 283: 1856-1857.
    
19. Gibson, Clark C. and Stuart A. Marks. 1995. Transforming Rural Hunters into Conservationists: An Assessment of Community-Based Wildlife Management Programs in Africa. World Development 23(6): 941-957. [online]
    
20. Princen, Thomas. 1994. The ivory trade ban: NGOs and international conservation. In Princen, Thomas and Matthias Finger, Environmental NGOs in world politics: linking the local and the global. London: Routledge. pp. 121-159.
    
21. Barrett, Christopher B. and Peter Arcese. 1995. Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? On the Conservation of Large Mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 23(7): 1073-1084. [online]
    
22. Hill, M.A. and A. J. Press. 1994. Kakadu National Park: An Australian Experience in Comanagement. In Western, David and R. Michael Wright, eds. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Covelo, CA: Island Press. pp. 135-157.
    
23. Orlove, Benjamin S. 1991. Mapping reeds and reading maps: the politics of representation in Lake Titicaca. American Ethnologist 18(1): 3-38.
    
24. Conklin, Beth A. and Laura R. Graham. 1995 The Shifting Middle Ground: Amazonian Indians and Eco-Politics. American Anthropologist 97(4): 695-710.
    
25. Moran, Katy, Steven King and Thomas Carlson. 2001. Biodiversity Prospecting: lessons and prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 505-536. [online]
    
26. Craig et al. 2000. Conservation Issues in New Zealand. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 31: 61-78.
    
27. Abbot, Joanne and David Thomas. 2001. Understanding the Links Between Conservation and Development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29: 1115-1136. [online]

IV. Soils

1. Blaikie, Piers and Harold Brookfield. 1987. Land degradation and society. London: Methuen. pp. 1-26.
   
2. Buol, S.W. 1995. Sustainability of Soil Use. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 25-44.
   
3. Torstensson, Lennart, Pell, Mikael and Bo Stenberg. 1998. Need of a strategy for evaluation of arable soil quality. Ambio 27(1): 4-8.
   
4. Pimentel, David et al. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267: 1117-1123.
   
5. Heimsath, Arjun M., et al. 1997. The soil production function and landscape equilibrium. Science 388: 358-361.
   
6. Peizhen, Zhang, Peter Molnar and William Downs. 2001. Increased sedimentation rates and grain sizes 2-4 Myr ago due to the influences of climate change on erosion rates. Nature 410: 891-897.
   
7. Trimble, Stanley and Pierre Crosson. 2000. U.S. Soil Erosion Rates- Myth and Reality. Science 289: 248-250.
   
8. Lal, R. and B.A. Stewart. 1995 Managing Soils for Enhancing and Sustaining Agricultural Production. In Lal, R. and B.A. Stewart, eds. Soil Management: Experimental Basis for Sustainability and Environmental Quality. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Lewis Publishers. pp. 1-9.
   
9. Lindert, Peter. 1996. Soil Degradation and Agricultural Change in Two Developing Countries. University of California, Davis Agricultural History Center Working Paper No. 82.
   
10. Aboud, Abdillahi, Andrew J. Sofranko and Serigne Ndiaye. 1996. The Effects of Gender on Adoption of Conservation Practices by Heads of Farm Households in Kenya. Society and Natural Resources 9: 447-473.
    
11. Mountjoy, Daniel C. 1996. Ethnic Diversity and the Pattern Adoption of Soil Conservation in the Strawberry Hills of Monterey, California. Society and Natural Resources 9: 339-357.
    
12. Critchley, W.R.S., C. Reij and T.J. Willcocks. 1994. Indigenous soil and water conservation: a review of the state of knowledge and prospects for building on traditions. Land Degradation & Rehabilitation 5: 293-314.
    
13. Zimmerer, Karl. 1993. Soil erosion and labor shortages in the Andes with special reference to Bolivia, 1953-91: Implications for "Conservation-with-Development." World Development 21: 1659-1675.
    
14. Sain, Gustavo and Hector Barreto. 1996. The adoption of soil conservation technology in El Salvador: linking productivity and conservation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51(4): 313-321.
    
15. Crowley, Eve and Simon Carter. 2000. Agrarian change and the changing relationships between toil and soil in Maragoli, Western Kenya (1900-1994). Human Ecology 28: 383-414. [online]