This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Reporting on the State of Ecosystems:
Experiences with Integrating Monitoring and
SOE Activities in Canada and North America 1
Ed B. Wiken 2
David A. Gauthier3
Abstract-"The forests of Canada or the forests of North
America"-phrases like these sound all too familiar and simple.
However in the world of scientific, social and economic endeavours,
this is proving to be a troublesome assumption. While Mexico,
United States and Canada share fairly open borders, the boundary
lines of these nations and even those of the smaller states and
provinces that comprise them have inadvertently become barriers
to many things beyond immigration and trade. Borders and jurisdictions are often more than physical obstructions. They influence
the words which people use, their perspectives, their values and so
on. When differing nations, provinces and states attempt to merge
into a broader envelope to report on ecosystem conservation and
management, the transition is fraught with difficulties and
misunderstandings.
How could the forest industry and landscapes of Canada,
for example, affect the livelihood of conservationists and
peasants in Mexico? Why would forestry and land use practices in Mexico's mountainous regions affect the numbers of
Monarch butterflies summering in southern Ontario?
It has only been in the last couple of decades that understanding ecology at the national and continental levels has
become so important to Mexico, USA and Canada. The
fundamental reason to look at issues and concerns on an
ecosystem basis is not a case of always truly having foresight. Rather, it is primarily reactionary -a response to the
loss of species and wildlife habitats, spreading pollution
problems, health threats, declining resources and deteriorating ecosystems. These ecological changes in what many
feel to be the continent's core renewable resource stocks
(i.e. whole ecosystems, forests, wildlife) are increasingly
being viewed as factors of national an international security.
What are some of the tools that can be applied to improve
the collection of ecosystem information? What will provide a
different low cost foundation for co-operation and decision
making? In the early 1990's, a collaborative project was
initiated to refine a consistent and broadly based ecological
framework of Canada that would enhance the capability of
Ipaper presented at the North American Science Symposium: Toward a
Unified Framework for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem
Resources, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 1-6,1998.
2Ed B. Wiken is Chairman, Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA)
and a Research Manager in the Canadian Wildlife Service in Ottawa,
Ontario K1H 5Y9 Canada. e-mail: ecologic@istar.ca. Fax: (613) 521-4808.
3David A. Gauthier is Executive Director, Canadian Plains Research
Centre at the University of Regina and the Science Director of the CCEA in
Regina, Saskatchewan S4S OA2 Canada. e-mail: gauthieZ@Cas.uregina.ca
Fax:(306) 585-4699.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
governmental and non-governmental organizations to
monitor, inventory, assess and report on the nature, condition and trends of ecosystems in Canada. The work was
conducted by federal agencies, universities, non-government
groups and institutes in the ten provinces and two territories, and was facilitated by the federal Department of the
Environment. Three core hierarchical levels of ecosystems
where delineated: 20 ecozones (15 terrestrial and 5 marine)
for assessments and reporting at the broadest national or
continental scales; 217 ecoregions that were further subdivided into 1500 ecodistricts. Recently, this ecosystem framework has been complemented by a parallel system produced
through an initiative undertaken by the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation for North America. The U.S.
Geological Survey has extended this further to cover South
America.
Main Points
• The forests are an interactive system enveloping large
parts of the North American continent, member nations
and indeed homes of many people. Forest ecosystems
envelopes all organisms (including people) and their
associated environment. Our success in sustaining the
quality and carrying capacity of these ecosystems or any
of its subset ecosystems will depend on acknowledging
this relationship and acting in a timely, effective and
relevant manner.
• An ecosystem approach recognizes the comprehensive
nature of forests, the earth (i.e. ecosphere) and their
ecosystems, large and small. In contrast, nation states,
sectors and most scientific disciplines divide forests and
other ecosystems in rather arbitrary and inward looking
ways.
• An ability to report in a comprehensive and ecosystem
based manner on forested ecosystems and their component resources at a continental, national and statel
provincial levels is strategic as it offers a mechanism to
thread together the larger ecosystem picture. Without
this ability, the efforts to report on the status, trends and
stressors affecting forested ecosystems remain piecemeal and incomplete. Non-sustainable, intolerable and
ill-planned actions affecting life support systems in
forests and surrounding ecosystems can result.
• For development to be ecologically sustainable, it must
be based on an ecosystem perspective. While local and
smaller ecosystems may be managed on the basis of
country level information, regional and macro ecosystems cannot.
233
• Ecosystem conditions and trends should be regularly
monitored and researched. These activities are the critical data engines behind the development of information
Rationale for Multiple Purpose
Inventorying and Monitoring
Why should Scandinavian countries care about the inventorying and monitoring of North American forested ecosystems? Why are Canadians concerned about looking at
forest sustain ability within its borders (i.e. national/provincial/sectoral reports) as well as with its neighbour the
United States and even with seemingly distant places
like Mexico? Why should citizens from Brazil care about
forest monitoring and inventorying activities in North
America? People around the world, are becoming increasingly aware of:
• the "shrinking" distances concerning potential impacts and the
wealth of forest resources;
• the "expanding" geography ofcause-to-effect relationships with
forest issues; and
• the "lengthening" time periods that must be considered in
sustaining forest resources.
The long-range transport of airborne pollutants from
Northern Africa and Russia to Canada's arctic, the losses
and threats to wildlife habitats and biodiversity throughout
the world, the changes to and causes of the global ozone
layer, the long term persistence of chemicals, and the slow
recovery of exhausted landscapes and seascapes are among
the many examples of general ecosystem degradation. Failure to understand the basic and underlying connections
between human actions and environmental consequences
have and will continue to lead to serious ecological consequences. Often the harm done has been directly self-imposed
by people and, sometimes, it has been inadvertent. A century
ago, few could have imagined that landscapes, oceans and
biological (i.e. timber, wildlife) resources could have reached
points of exhaustion and total depletion. It could hardly be
conceivable that ecosystems and their inherent resources
could be driven to such states!
Ecosystems are the basic life-sustaining systems and
knowing their present state, the trends leading to that state
and the future momentum are critical. State of the Ecosystem (SOE) reports foster such information and is fundamental in the decision-making processes concerning highly
valued-forested ecosystems. Ecosystems are shared products. Each ecosystem has an increasing number of interested parties, stakeholders, resource managers, policy makers, ENGOs, planners and the general public that want to be
involved in decision making (WCED, 1987; IUCN et al. 1991;
UNCED, 1992). SOE work is demanding in its scope and
implications, and needs a substantive and well-structured
base in its supporting inventory and monitoring activities.
Results Defining an Approach _ _
The Canadian approach to reporting evolved from something that was an informative overview of 'bits and pieces'
of the environment in the mid-80's to a case (Government of
234
Canada, 1996) which was much more inclusive, objective,
functional, pertinent, authoritative and ecosystematic. But
what were the other underlying concepts that guided the
SOE and how does this affect inventories and monitoring?
There were at least three key conceptual considerations: the
management concept; the scientific concept; and the sequence and linkage concepts.
Management Concept
Our capacity to manage ecosystems and their resources
have been summarized under five themes and have provided
the management context for reporting (Rowe et al. 1991) as
well as for supportive processes like monitoring and science
(Anderson et al. 1992):
1. Frontier Economics
=exploit the land/sea where
possible and then move on
2. Integrated Resource
=direct efforts to managing commercially used resources
3. Sustainable Use and
ConseIVation
=sustain the use and conseIVation
ofecosystems and their resources
4. Selective Environmentalism
=practice limited environmental
conseIVation/protection
5. Deep Environmentalism
=return to nature's ways and
abandon technology
None of these individual generalizations entirely fit one
time or place in Canada or indeed elsewhere. However, they
are convenient tools for thought. Frontier economics and
deep environmentalism represent extremes and have minor
support in most countries. Most of the federal and provincial
governments and industries in Canada operate within the
auspices of integrated resource management and selective
environmentalism. Increasingly, there is a move towards
sustainable use and conservation, which is still largely in the
form of guiding principles and goals.
Having sustainable resource use and conservation as an
objective encourages a process to think, plan and act in
terms of ecosystems. Figure 1 generalizes the elements in
an eight-step model (Wiken, 1997). The issues concerning
forested ecosystems in particular are robust and some say
complex. The breadth of concerns (box 1) is not surprising
considering the wealth and diversity of forests on this
continent (box 2). Land use, pollution and land conversions
have been among many factors affecting the state of to day's
forests. In some cases, the changes have been dramatic and
negative for timber harvesting through to wildlife habitat
protection; in recent years, some changes have been less
obtrusive and impacting (box 3). The alterations have
raised numerous environmental, economic and social values, and thus reflected numerous perspectives (boxes 4,5 &
6). Actions, policies and strategies have been implemented
to address new expectations (box 7) in forestry but the future
outcome may not necessarily be that clear yet (box 8).
Improved inventories and monitoring networks are vital
backdrops throughout the application of this model.
Scientific Concept
An ecosystem approach sounds simple and perhaps just
vogue. Including people as parts of ecosystem and man
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
c
01
I\:)
(J.)
!"
co
co
co
~
(J)
::rJ
s::
::rJ
co
en
s·
~
CD
ao
"'0
CD
<
o·
(J)
CD
~
CD
»
6'
o
(J)
..
..
What were the original types of
forested ecosystems and resources?
What was the distribution, quality
and carrying capacity?
How do these vary world wide?
Etc.
2. FOREST ECOSYSTEMS
AND RESOURCES
Understanding
social
interests and
views.
What are the desired life styles?
How will plans for the sustainable
use of resources be intetpreted?
How will conservation strategies
and multiple resource use concerns
be considered?
Etc.
6. SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES
Administrative Units
Understanding
the context
problem.
Figure 1.-Generalized eight-step issue analysis model.
How will socio-economic and
environmental perspectives be
merged within an ecosystem
approach?
How will current or pending actions,
strategies and policies help?
Etc.
7. ACTIONS & POLICIES
t
Understanding
available
tools..
What is the potential outcome of
today's actions and policies?
How issues and concerns be
addressed by such initiatives?
Are different outcomes possible and
what needs to be considered?
Etc.
S.FUTURE SCENARIOS
t
Understanding where this is
leading to and how it
resolves the original problem.
Why is there a perceived problem or
opportunity?
How is the concemlissue perceived
by different groups?
Are there local, regional, national
and continental perspectives?
Etc.
1. ISSUES and CONCERNS
..
..
Understanding
economic
views.
Ecological Units
Understanding
the core
assets .
How are economic opportunities
comprised or enhanced?
What are the economic &
environmental linkages?
How are near term and future
economic goals to be weighed?
Etc.
S. ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES
Understanding
environmental
views.
What are the environmental
implications on factors such as
soils, wildlife, water and climate?
Are the impacts restricted in locatio
cumulative, long-term ?
Etc.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL
PERSPECTIVES
Understanding
the nature of
changes.
What have been the most significant
changes in the past few decades?
Where have the changes occurred
and at what pace?
What are the trends and connections~
Are the changes significant?
Etc.
3. RECENT CHANGES
Inventorying and Monitoring North America Forests for Sustainable and Integrated Uses
modified ecosystems in the approach have proven tasking.
This meant trying to capture the social, economic and
cultural aspects, not just human demographics like their
numbers, places of habitation, waste products, etc. The
ecosystem framework became a unifying basis for merging
the results of disparate monitoring networks and inventories. It was an effective tool to draw attention to the
happenings, trends and conditions within ecosystems
first, instead of a partitioned view through more artificially
determined country/state/provincial boundaries. The distinction here was important. When jurisdictional boundaries are used as first order reporting units there is an
indirect sense of blame and fault that emerges before the
fundamental question of 'state or condition' of the
ecosystem(s) is assessed. Once an objective assessment is
made, then it becomes more important to know what jurisdictions have the authority and power to sustain and promote best practices, and to address and rectify others.
For decades, it has been convenient to simply think of
forests as timber factories. Associated forest resourceshabitat, land, water, fish, trees, and animals-were largely
thought of as secondary assets that were managed and used
in isolation. However, it is increasingly apparent that, one
way or another, everything is connected. The use of one
resource always has some immediate or long-term impact on
people and on other resources or ecosystems.
The ecosystem approach involves many things including
ecological carrying capacity, ecological footprint (Rees and
Wackernagel, 1994), ecological integrity and health, ecosystemsustainability, and ecosystem biodiversity. Having once
looked at the ecosystems as something apart from ourselves
(Wiken et al. 1996), to be exploited or overcome, we now see
ourselves much more as an integral part ofit. Our success in
maintaining the quality and productivity offorested ecosystems will depend on acknowledging the human relationships/roles and acting accordingly in a broader ecosystem
context.
Sequence and Linkage Conc.ept
The basic notion of thinking, planning and acting in terms
of ecosystems involves a sequence of activities. The SOE
report represents a certain stage in this process. It is not
independent from other activitief3 but rather a segment of an
interactive loop. SOE only works well ifthere is a foundation
for knowledge through monitoring and inventories, and if
there is a process to sustain or improve that knowledge. The
activities generally include:
• A concept and a strategy
to follow.
• A framework for
organizing knowledge
• A means to build an
understanding.
• An overview of the
conditions/trends
• A way of making choices.
• A means to look ahead.
Ecosystem approach.
Ecological land classification
Ecological monitoring and
inventories
State of ecosystem reporting
Planning, assessments and
research.
Modelling and scenarios
Data, Information, Indictors, State
and Decisions
What is happening? Why is it happening? Why is it
significant? What will likely be the outcome? Jumping
from data to information, indicators to state or decisions to
wisdom are major leaps. The reasons are not because the
concepts and principles are not clear but rather that we are
encumbered by a work doctrine that is filled with the habit
a:nd inertia of history.
Common Failings in Monitoring
Data is the basis of information that eventually leads to
critical stages of decision-making (Figure 2). What data does
Levels of Decision Making
=on plans, choices and actions
=on benchmark measures
INFORMAnON
=on the meaning of data
SYNTHESIS & MODELLING
DATA MANAGEMENT,
INTEGRATION AND ANALYSIS
BASELINE OF KNOWLEDGE
*INYENTORIES
=on the housing of data
=on selection of key data
*MONITORING
Figure 2.-Decision support pyramid.
236
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
exist is typically spread among many specialized agencies
that typically focus on one aspect/sector of the environment
(e.g. wildlife, atmosphere, fresh water, and oceans). By contrast, there is oddly more consolidation of socio-economic
data. When the data are drawn together, the picture is
expectedly incomplete. As well, there are problems with
data standards and quality, the time periods over which the
data have been collected and its currency, and the types of
environmental and socio-economic parameters that were
measured. Finally, the purposes for which the information
was gathered over the years differ greatly and the data
therefore is seldom applicable to today's needs (Wiken, 1995;
Wiken, 1995).
All of these constraints make it difficult to build a broad
and integrated view on ecosystem level issues. Existing data
often has to be appropriately extrapolated geographically to
fill-in gaps, used as proxies for ideal parameters or employed
to infer cause and effect relationships. Existing information
is at its limits of practical use with many of today's goals
and problems. This is why SOE must constantly be viewed
as an iterative process that provides feedback and continuity
within the research, monitoring and modelling communities.
The underlying problem is with the foundation of the
decision-support pyramid (Figure 2). The existing data,
science and information systems were primarily designed
for other purposes. You can only retrofit this situation to a
certain degree until new baseline systems must be considered. What are some of the outstanding contrasts between
the properties of existing data and monitoring networks
versus the types of needs that seem to be inherent to
initiatives like sustainable resources use?
Synopsis of Existing
Baseline
=Few long term data
records
=Limited capabilities to
integrate information
=Ecosystem level science
weak
=Geographically biased
monitoring networks
=Largely intended for
sectoral purposes
=Stronger data on
physical parameters
=Non-standardized and
biased data
Sustainable
Development Needs
=Long term views advocated
=Integrated views sought
=Systems perspective needed
=Country/continent wide
interests
=Comprehensive assessments
needed
=Increasing need for biological
parameters
=Objective & authoritative
assessments
Creating a Systems View
As has been done in the USA and Canada, the Commission
for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) sponsored an initiative to characterize and map North American ecosystems
(Ecosystem Working Group, 1997). The intent was to illustrate the composition and net product of many interacting
components, processes and functions. Supplementary information is required to more fully depict the dynamism
and complexity, both spatially and temporally, of these
ecosystems.
As an example, the Great Plains ecological region has
characteristics easily defined in a geographic sense. They
include the extent of prairie soils, plains, and areas of cereal
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
grain production and natural grassland communities. In
contrast, other characteristics (in a mapping sense) that
have a major influence on prairie ecology may not be readily
seen. For example, although weather and hydrological patterns may be reflected in the types of vegetation and soil
present, they require different and often longer-term techniques to assess and evaluate.
Three levels of ecological generalization (Wiken and
Gauthier, 1996) were delineated in a hierarchical manner
and this is consistent with more in-depth country level
ecosystem classifications of ecozones, ecoprovinces,
ecoregions and ecodistricts (Wiken et al. 1996). The CEC
report focuses on Levels I and II. Firstly, North America has
been delineated into 15 broad Level I Ecological Regions.
This level of the ecological hierarchy provides a context at
global or inter-continental scales. As well, 52 Level II
Ecological Regions have been delineated and are intended
to be nested within the Level I units. For example, the Level
I unit, Tropical Evergreen Forests, covering coastal southern
portions of the United States and Mexico, is comprised of six
Level II units. Level II ecological regions are useful for
national and sub'-continental overviews. As an example,
Level II ecological regions are referred to as 'ecozones' in
Canada, and the national State of the Environment Report
in Canada uses Ecozone units for a major part of its analysis
(Government of Canada, 1996. Level III units (about 200)
for the continent will be delineated and reported on in the
next phase of this initiative; level III is generally equivalent
to the ecoprovince level of ecosystem definition. Level III
regions are nested within Level II regions that, in turn, are
subdivisions of Level 1.
The CEC initiative was intended to provide a foundation for a more unified ecosystem perspective, especially
one that would support the development continental SOE
reports. The framework is an inexpensive way to promote
an ecosystem view, and currently serves as a protocol to
exchange and aggregate data/information. The ecosystem
framework has also been instructive in depicting the ecology
of North America.
Responsibilities for Monitoring __
Who should lead or guide forest inventorying and moni toring activities in North America? The national governments?
National environmental non-government organizations
(Le. ENGOs) or commissions? Industries? Universities? An
'arm's length' and independent North American institution?
The answer is not clear nor should there be a singular
answer for all jurisdictions. Universities feel they are more
scientifically authoritative. ENGOs feel they are more socially objective. National governments feel they can offer the
greatest degree of basic infrastructure support and science.
Moving Between Nations
The problems with the data/informationlindicatorlstate
cycle quickly gets compounded when you move between
countries like the USA and Mexico. National inventories
and monitoring networks are commonly designed differently, use different standards, information architectures,
and serve different purposes and take on different biases.
237
When the data are shared/merged for SOE or indicator
objectives as in the CEC's North American report, the
information typically goes to the lowest common denominator between all the nations; this may be due to the data or the
framework upon which it IS based. In Canada, we progressed
beyond using solely jurisdictional frameworks and migrated towards increasingly using ecosystem boundaries as
a framework. However in the ongoing North American
report, the majority of the data is being reported according
to jurisdictional boundaries, as it is the most common denominator. Jurisdictional units in this case--nations, states,
provinces, territories-vary greatly in size. Canada and the
USA are similar in size but Canada has 12, main jurisdictions whereas the US has roughly 50. This leads to
difficulties in terms of geographical scales that are often
incomparable.
Understanding and solving today's problems will require
a greater degree of ecological knowledge, data, information
and monitoring than ever before. Industries, governments,
and individuals need a more comprehensive approach to
enable them to predict the effects of ongoing activities, to
determine which activities are sustainable and to guide
their actions in the future. The decision process and requirements are simply different than before and we can no longer
rely on going to a warehouse with old parts to construct a
new engine. Sustainable development and ecosystem initiatives have to be powered by different machinery to impart
some real sense of wisdom. We were clearly capable of
dealing with the 'hits and pieces' in Canada (Wiken, 1996) as
were others are around the world (Rosemarin, 1995). Seeing
the larger picture, accounting for wider groups of interests
and looking for a long-term vision were proving to be elusive
capabilities.
Unifying inventories and monitoring networks offers other
forms of convenience such as consolidated, unbiased and
balanced information. However, the impact and use is beyond the data collection function alone. It is a catalyst that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
promotes co-operation and standardization of data;
encourages different and innovative forms of monitoring;
fosters development of better information systems;
cultivates improved ecosystem and integrated resource sciences;
promotes ecosystem approaches;
broadens understanding of positions of other organizations
and groups;
• strengths the capacity for analysis and assessments; and
• supports decision-making in tasking planning and managementfora.
Conclusions ------------------------------Concerns about forests suggest that we need to be guided
by a fairly comprehensive and ecosystem based approach,
not for any abstract set of reasons but for practical and even
selfish ones. Our cultural and socioeconomic systems are
subsets of the ecosystem approach. Inappropriate management offorested ecosystems canjeopardize our inherent
well being and that of the ecosystems of which we are an
integral part.
The underlying principles for monitoring and inventories
must use a holistic. You cannot manage the forest wildlife,
for example, if you do not understand both the ecosystem of
238
which they are a part and the land use activities that affect
them. The interdependencies that exist between the biological (i.e. plants, animals, people) and physical components,
the various cycles and processes, and the connections with
adjacent or distant ecosystems must be understood for
decision making to be effective, timely and relevant. Together, they can provide a realistic basis for renewed attitudes and practices to safeguard the continent's forested
ecosystems.
Literature Cited
Anderson, J., T. Kurvits and E. B. Wiken. 1992. A National Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network: The Concept. In Proceedings of the National Ecological Monitoring and Research
Workshop. SOE Occasional Paper No.1, Environment Canada,
Ottawa, KIA OH3. pp. 3-12.
Ecosystem Working Group. 1997. Ecological Regions of North
America. ISBN 2-922305-20-1. Commission for Environmental
Cooperation, Montreal, Quebec, H2Y IN9 Canada.
Government of Canada. 1996. Sate of the Environment Report.
Ottawa, Ontario KIA OE7.
IUCNIUNEPIWWF (World Conservation Union, United Nations
Environment Programme, World Wide Fund for Nature). 1991.
Caring for the Earth: a strategy for sustainable living. Gland,
Switzerland. 228 pp.
Rees, W. and M. Wackemagel. 1994. Ecological Footprints and
Appropriated Carrying Capacity: Measuring the Natural Capital
Requirements of the Human Economy. In Investing in Natural
Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability
(A_m Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza, eds.)
Island Press, Washington.
Rowe,J. S.,E. WikenandJ. Collinson. 1991. Where we live. Chapter
#1 in the 1991 State of the Environment Report. Ottawa, Ontario
KIAOE7.
Rosemarin, A. 1995. A piecemeal society. Vol. 2, No.1 of the
Stockholm Environmental Institute Bulletin. Stockholm,
Sweden. pp. 4-5.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development).1992. Agenda 21. New York: United Nations Publications.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development).
1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiken, Ed. B. 1995. Environmental/ecological monitoring: strategies for transition (some experience and examples from a Canadian review). In Moscow Seminar Proceedings (pp. 121-131) for
The Development of the Unified State Environmental Monitoring System in the Russian Federation. Pub GA/205024-95/6.
GRID Arendal, Norway.
Wiken, Ed B. 1995. Developing and applying a national ecosystem
concept in Canada. In Proceedings of the North American Workshop on Monitoring for ecological assessment of terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems. pp.39-46. U.S. D.S. Technical Report RMGTR-284. Fort Collins. Colorado 80526.
Wiken, E. 1996. Ecosystems: frameworks for thought. In IUCN
World Conservation 1196. CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland
Wiken, Ed B. and D. Gauthier. 1996. Conservation and ecology in
North America. In proceedings of Caring for Home Place. Canadian Plains Research Center and University Extension Press.
University of Regina. Regina, Saskatchewan.
Wiken, E. B., D. Gauthier, 1. B. Marshall, H. Hirvonen and K
Lawton. 1997. A perspective on Canadian ecosystems: the terrestrial and marine ecozones. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas
Occasional Paper #14. Ottawa, Ontario. KIH 5Y9 Canada
Wiken, E. B. 1997. State ofthe Environment Reporting in Canada
and North America: An Overview of the Concepts and Applications. pp. C13-C18 in proceedings of the First National Workshop
on the State of the Environment Reporting Workshop. SOER
Occasional PaperNo. 1. ISBN: 0-7974-1744-3. Government of the
Republic Zimbabwe. Ministry of Environment and Tourism.
Harare, Zimbabwe.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999