Ecosystem management: implementing ecosystem ecology

ecology

CPLA s24(a)(i) not only requires the promotion of ecological sustainability but it explicitly links this with management. This section deals with how ecosystem ecology in all its forms is implemented through what is generally known as ecosystem management (R. A. Carpenter, 1996; Christensen et al., 1996; Szaro, Sexton et al., 1998). Ecosystem management is also known as ecosystem-based management (Slocombe, 1998b) and an ecosystem approach (Szaro, Sexton et al., 1998). Integrated environmental management at least as defined by Margerum (1999) contains some elements of ecosystem management. Christensen et al. (1996, p. 668) define ecosystem management as:

management driven by explicit goals, executed by policies, protocols, and practices, and made adaptable by monitoring and research based on our best understanding of the ecological interactions and processes necessary to sustain ecosystem structure and function.

Some include the development of an underpinning ethical basis (Grumbine, 1994) or ‘land ethic’ where land is synonymous with ecological (Leopold, 1987 (1949)).

The application of the ideas of ecosystem ecology as ecosystem management (Perley, 2003; Szaro, Sexton et al., 1998) in part derives from the US Forest Service 'multiple use' management model. This model was based on management for multiple outputs, timber, grazing, recreation, and watershed protection, for publicly owned ‘wildlands’ (Malone, 2000; Zivnuska, 1961). Growing public protest, based on an increasing awareness of the finite quality of natural ecosystems and their biodiversity, i.e., “the frontier has gone” (Christensen et al., 1996, p. 667), focussed on the destruction of ‘old growth’ forests (Bruson & Gilbert, 2003; Fedkiw, 2007; Koch

& Kennedy, 1991) and spotted owl habitat (Malone, 2000; Szaro, Sexton et al., 1998). As a result the U.S. government replaced the previous commodity-based public land 'multiple use' management model (Malone, 2000) with that of ecosystem management (Christensen et al., 1996). Congruent with the ideas of ecosystem ecology was a land use model that included meeting the economic and material needs of humans as well as sustaining biodiversity and thus ecosystem function and process (R. A. Carpenter, 1996).

Ecosystem management is carried out within institutions, both formal and informal (Cortner et al., 1998). The 'multiple use' model limited the parties to the government agency and the resource user and employed a regulatory and expert driven approach. Fedkiw (2007, p. 213) cites Floyd (2006) that “multiple use remains a trust of faith” in the sense that reliance is placed on some body to balance and manage the competing uses. By contrast, ecosystem management seeks to be inclusive of all stakeholders (Brussard et al., 1998; Christensen et al., 1996; Cortner et al., 1998; Costanza, 1999; Malone, 2000; Szaro, Berc et al., 1998; Szaro, Sexton et al., 1998), representing all land tenures (Cortner et al., 1998), to manage by collaboration (Freemuth & Cawley, 1998; Szaro, Berc et al., 1998) and arrive at consensual decisions (Brussard et al., 1998; Malone, 2000). Inclusiveness, however, is not easy. Ecosystem management is “a very political process” (Cortner et al., 1998, p. 160). Grumbine (1994, p. 32) considers that ecosystem management is “a complex, competitive, conflictual social process about whose values will dominate, it is not about science”. Competition and conflict are recognised as inherent in ecosystem management (Grumbine, 1994; Szaro, Berc et al., 1998) and explicitly provided for (Cortner et al., 1998). Creating social capital (Freemuth & Cawley, 1998) and managing conflict (Brussard et al., 1998; Malone, 2000) are thus critical components of ecosystem management. Social or collective learning is seen as critical within the process of adaptive ecosystem management (Allan & Curtis, 2005; W. J. Allen, 1997; Bosch, Allen, Williams et al., 1996; Bosch, Ross, & Beeton, 2003; Olsson & Folke, 2004) and Kilvington and Allen (2009) argue that it is the required next step forward. Margerum (1999) argues that in some situations, for example where there is ‘entrenched antagonism’, successful implementation of ecosystem management is unlikely. Grumbine (1994) and Knight (1998) add the proviso that inclusiveness demands that all parties are ‘ecologically literate’, inferring that the basis for action is not to be without ecological understanding.

As mentioned above, ecosystem management starts with the setting of goals (Brussard et al., 1998; Christensen et al., 1996; Szaro, Sexton et al., 1998) which are a reflection of values (Theobald et al., 2000). Lackey (1998, p. 25) quotes Regier (1993) who asks, “What kind of garden does society want?” In ecosystem management, goal setting is thus an exercise in aligning divergent values (Lackey, 1998; Slocombe, 1998a) through a process of consensus building. Brussard et al. (1998, p. 15) stipulate that “[t]he people who live, or make a living, within the ecosystem must have a strong voice in goal-setting, but if public land is involved, a broader

constituency must be heard as well”. Freemuth and Cawley (1998, p. 217) think that in the United States there has been a “failure of land managers to adequately understand the ‘publicness’ of public lands”.

As discussed above (see Ch.4, ss4.3.3 and 4.3.3.1), measurement and monitoring are crucial to ecosystem management, be it science alone or a combination of science with traditional ecological knowledge and/or local knowledge. Epistemologically science cannot arrive at findings consensually, it employs a hypothesis testing methodology (Lovelock, 2009). But the findings of science are used as ammunition by competing parties (and by scientists themselves) in contested environmental issues, called ‘duelling sciences’ by Freemuth and Cawley (1998). The reliance on partial measures is socially constructed in the sense that what is measured is susceptible to the expertise, interests and activities of those measuring (Aarts & Nienhuis, 1999; Lélé & Norgaard, 1996). How can these fundamental disparities be bridged? This links back to the idea of building social capital where ecosystem management “is as much a social endeavour as it is a scientific endeavour” (Cortner et al., 1998, p. 160). The group processes of ecosystem management are required to reconcile the competing party values and interests so that it is the group as a whole that engages with the science (M. France, 1991). This is not achieved quickly but requires “a long public discourse” (Freemuth & Cawley, 1998, p. 218). These ideas link to the co-production of scientific knowledge as covered in s2.3.7.

Ecosystem management calls for “substantial organizational change” of administering agencies (Brussard et al., 1998, p. 13; Cortner et al., 1998; Grumbine, 1994). The employment of the adjective ‘democratic’ (Cortner et al., 1998; Costanza, 1999; Malone, 2000) in respect of the process adds the requirement of transparency (Slocombe, 1998b), information sharing (Szaro, Berc et al., 1998), and openness (Cortner et al., 1998) to implementing ecosystem management. Grumbine (1994) points out this necessarily involves changes in power relationships. Institutional barriers, for example “lack of trust, poor communications, power differential between stakeholders, turf protection” (Grumbine, 1994, p. 34), “institutional norms and procedures” and “agency culture” (Cortner et al., 1998, p. 162), are seen as potential stumbling blocks for ecosystem management.

Crucial to the implementation of ecosystem management is leadership and ‘championing’ along with top level commitment (Slocombe, 1998b). Brussard et al. (1998) consider that the lead agency has a critical role to play in publicising information and fostering public education to change entrenched ways of thinking about land management from that of resourcism to that of ecosystem ecology.

The adoption of ecosystem management is in effect a curtailment of extant economic interests and use rights (Malone, 2000). 'Multiple use' and sustained yield and the associated ideas of

ecosystems as commodities and continuous economic growth (Malone, 2000) are rejected. Lackey (1998, p. 29) sees ecosystem management as “a lightening rod for debates over individual vs. societal ‘rights’”. Szaro, Berc et al. (1998) point out that another barrier to collaboration is the fear of private landowners of measurement and publication of information about their land without their permission. They do not offer a basis for this fear.

The implementation and application of ecosystem management does not operate gratis, it requires adequate, secure and long term resourcing (Christensen et al., 1996; Cortner et al., 1998; Margerum, 1999; Ringold et al., 1996; Szaro, Berc et al., 1998; Theobald et al., 2000).

Adaptive management is an integral part of ecosystem management (Christensen et al., 1996; Szaro, Berc et al., 1998; Szaro, Sexton et al., 1998). According to adaptive management any perturbation of ecosystems for human use needs to be done in a way that recognises the limitations of scientific knowledge (Malone, 2000; Szaro, Berc et al., 1998), that mirrors ecological processes, and is accompanied by observation, monitoring and adaptive change (Brussard et al., 1998; R. A. Carpenter, 1996; Carpenter et al., 2001). Cortner et al. (1998) extend adaptive management to an evaluation of whether the ecosystem management legislative and associated policy objectives had been met.