Introduction
Ecosystem management. It's a phrase that clearly
means different things to different people. When it became prominent
on the public policy stage about four years ago, it was really startling
to hear groups who had entirely different perspectives, different objectives,
all support ecosystem management. Agencies as diverse as the United
States Forest Service and the Defense Department and the Natural Resource
Conservation Service and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
all adopted ecosystem management as a guiding principal for resource
management. Environmental groups and commodity interests spoke in favor
of ecosystem management at congressional hearings. The unanimity of
support from groups that had not agreed on anything for the past two
decades, made a number of observers wonder just what was meant by ecosystem
management. Some said that when environmentalists heard the term ecosystem
management, they heard 'ecosystem' and, when development and commodity
interests heard the term they heard 'management.'
Clearly, there are many questions that
need to be answered as we move towards defining and implementing a ecosystem
approach to resource management. But I believe there are the beginnings
of a consensus about the broad brush outlines of the concept of ecosystem-based
management. An approach that many would agree is an important paradigm
shift in the way that we view and manage land and water scapes. At a
simple level, an ecosystem approach implies a change in focus from single
species to assemblies of species and the biotic landscape and landscape
ecosystems in which they interact. It involves moving from arbitrary
political and administrative boundaries toward management that considers
ecological boundaries, and it suggests a shift in management from single
or multiple uses to decision-making that considers multiple values in
natural and environmental resources. But we can go beyond this level
of conceptualization.
By way of introduction to today's events,
I am going to talk briefly about five components of ecosystem management.
They are that ecosystem management acknowledges the complexity
of natural and social systems and considers the effects of spatial,
temporal, and perceptual scale. That ecosystem
management proceeds through collaborative decision
making processes that acknowledge the legitimacy of diverse human
values. It is driven by goals defined locally and
by national policy statements and recognizes the inherent uncertainty
in what we know and proceeds through a process of adaptive
management.
Complexity
First, ecosystem management involves
an enhanced appreciation for the complexity of natural and social systems
and how these systems can and should be managed. We now know that the
downed tree that Gifford Pinchot would have viewed as a wasted resource
and that was vilified in 1970s forestry as a fire and disease hazard
provides important and necessary contributions to the forest; by contributing
to the nutrient cycling, by affecting hydrologic flows, and by providing
habitat important to many organisms. We now understand that natural
and social systems are dynamic; that they exhibit change within bounds
over time and that that understanding must be incorporated into management
strategies.
For example, the role of fire as a disturbance
in forest systems has undergone a sea change in perspective. We now
understand the historic importance of fire in the creation of a diverse
forest matrix; in the propagation of many fire dependent species and
in diminishing the frequency of catastrophic events. This means adjusting
our perspective on forces and processes such as fire and using them
as management tools. Indeed, Smoky might have been wrong. We also know
that economies are dynamic yet they need to be developed in ways that
foster productive change while minimizing catastrophic change. The boom
and bust economies of the small towns in the Pacific Northwest--linked
to a single mill, dependent on a shrinking raw material supply, as was
the case in this small Oregon town [slide], now a ghost town--have serious
affects on people's lives when those mills go bust. Similarly, public
agencies that fail to innovate and change over time, that fail to exhibit
a sense of dynamism, become part of the problem and are subject to catastrophic
political events. As I would argue has been the case with the U.S. Forest
Service and the trauma it is going through as an organization in the
Pacific Northwest.
Now one key to resilience to catastrophic
events in all these realms comes from creating and protecting diversity
and maintaining important processes, both ecological and social, that
promote and guide an on-going process of small scale change. And that
clearly means protecting biological diversity and important ecological
and evolutionary processes. It means fostering the development of diversified
economic systems. It means building organizations that seek new ideas
and are willing to experiment with alternative management strategies.
And it means drawing on the diverse capabilities and perspectives inherent
in a truly diverse pluralistic society. It also means using a systems
perspective in considering ecosystem management problems and strategies
so that we understand, for example, that there is an important connection
between the ways that we fund schools in Oregon and international timber
markets. And the connection between them affects the ecological integrity
of Pacific Northwest forests.
Scale
Ecosystem management also requires a
heightened attention to issues of spatial and temporal scale and the
boundaries that exist between units of land and people. Ecosystem management
requires an explicit attempt to examine the perspectives provided through
different spatial scales. For example, our understanding of the ecology
of this forest in California and the social pressures on it changes
dramatically when we move outward and view it as an element of the Golden
Gate Park surrounded by three quarters of a million people in San Francisco.
Clearly, an attention to spatial scale requires an expanded consideration
of cumulative and off-site impacts. It doesn't take rocket science to
understand that extensive clear cutting on steep terrain can lead to
erosion that causes impacts on rivers far away. As in the case in these
scenes [slides] from the Pacific Northwest, where forestry operations
have had a significant impact on fisheries, bringing two economies into
direct conflict. Managers need to find ways around the stultifying perspectives
that administrative and political boundaries present while recognizing
the legitimate concerns of land owners.
This is a satellite image of the western
border of Yellowstone National Park--the place we are going to hear
a lot about shortly--where you can clearly see the boundary between
national park and national forest lands [slide]. This pattern of land
use makes no sense ecologically or economically. Indeed, one of the
nice things about the image is that the red area represents land burned
in the 1980 fires and it truly demonstrates that ecological processes
do not respect administrative boundaries. Ecosystem management's concern
with scale extends to time as well. It means being concerned with the
long term in ways we honestly have not been in the past few decades.
For example, economists told us in the mid-1970s that the old growth
forests of the Pacific Northwest would be logged out in 15 to 20 years
and that there would be a gap in timber supply before second growth
stands would be ready for harvest. They forecasted a dire situation
for timber mills and dependent communities. We knew that then but were
totally unable to moderate our consumption of those forests to avoid
the likely catastrophe; one that was too conveniently blamed on the
spotted owl. At minimum, ecosystem management requires a careful look
at the long term implication of policy and management direction.
More fundamentally, ecosystem management
implies a heightened concern for intergenerational equity, assuring
that our children and their children inherit a productive and healthy
landscape and a set of options. I will also quote from Aldo Leopold.
Leopold noted that keeping every cog and wheel is the first precaution
of intelligent tinkering and we need to maintain these parts for the
tinkerers of the future, and the health of the landscape on which they
too will depend.
Now, I have added one more dimension
to the issue of scale. One that usually isn't described by the ecologists
talking about scale issues. That is the element of individual and group
perceptions. Just as there are spatial boundaries, so are there social
demarcations that influence our understanding and our values. The various
hats we wear, the groups we belong to, influence our attitudes and perspectives,
and the fragmentations between groups tend to exacerbate the differences
between us and generate barriers to understanding and problem solving--barriers
between disciplines and their knowledge, barriers between interests
and their perspectives. Some of those perspective are very different,
including people who truly believe in the black helicopters of the new
world order. And that a global biodiversity treaty is the first step
towards the government land grab leading to genocide, as this road side
sign in Maine implied [slide]. It's clear that ecosystem management
is threatening to many people--both land owners and government employees
alike--and these fears and these perceptions must be dealt with through
processes of shared learning that build relationships and respect without
co-opting the real need to change past behavior.
Collaborative
Decision-Making
Ecosystem management is fundamentally
a process of decision making in which a deep understanding of the complexity
and dynamism of systems can develop and be used to craft management
direction. But it is also one that acknowledges a diversity of human
values in the processes and products of natural systems. We can be cavalier
here in the comfort of academe and talk about the restoration of systems
to presettlement conditions, but we need to keep in mind that six billion
people live in the landscape that is far from presettlement conditions,
and real lives do depend on natural resources.
These are a few scenes from the main
street of Forks, Washington during the spotted owl controversy [slides].
A roughly 15 foot high cross marked the burial site of the hopes and
dreams of their children. Spotted owl are roosting on the cross bar.
This is a set of posters in a vacant store front in the downtown of
Forks from school kids. This one bemoans the new land barons, the spotted
owl. In many ways these people and their families were some of the worst
casualties of the old growth wars and their focus on the spotted owl
as the culprit is understandable. But it's misplaced. The problem was
the character of the decision making process and, clearly, the decisions
that came out made by federal and state agencies and numerous private
land owners. Ecosystem management requires the use of decision making
processes that are inclusive and that develop a robust understanding
of the ecological and social processes influencing a landscape. Such
processes are collaborative in that they call for the involvement of
multiple stake holders in defining and implementing desired direction.
And they explicitly span the fragmented boundaries of space and human
interest.
In a recent study of more than 100 ecosystem
management sites nationwide, carried out by a group of graduate students
and myself, the use of a collaborative process was ranked the topmost
reason for success at those sites. These include some of the poster
child groups, such as the Applegate Partnership in Southern Oregon and
the Malapai Borderlands Group in Southwestern New Mexico. But they also
include places like the Big Darby Creek Partnership in Central Ohio
and the San Pedro River ecosystem management effort in Southeastern
Arizona and Northern Mexico. The San Pedro is a collaborative effort
between the Bureau of Land Management, the Nature Conservancy, local
government, and private land owners that seeks to protect, really, a
magnificent, riparian corridor that is prized for its wealth in biodiversity,
including roughly 400 bird species. An effort, by the way, that is coordinated
by an SNRE alumnus.
Goals
While ecosystem management is a process,
it is not only a process. It seeks diverse but specific ends. Some come
under the label of ecosystem health or ecological integrity. Much work
is needed to figure out what these terms mean. But they clearly include
ecosystem specific objectives such as increasing the amount of submerged
aquatic vegetation, which was chosen as a primary indicator of success
in the Chesapeake Bay program. National statements of policy as codified
in laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Forest Management
Act. Laws that could be expanded to include the maintenance of native
ecosystem types across their national range of variation or other appropriate
policy objectives.
There is an ongoing debate about the
extent to which ecosystem management should focus on building sustainable
economies as well as restoring ecological integrity. My own view on
this is that the distinction is largely an academic one. In the real
world, ecological integrity will only be maintained if political processes
concur. That will only happen if the needs of people are considered.
Ecosystem management must be about creating ecologically healthy places
and sustainable economies.
Uncertainty
and Adaptive Management
Finally, in my walk through these five
components, ecosystem management acknowledges what we don't know to
a much greater extent than has been the case in past management approaches.
It is sobering to me that a famous ecologist was quoted in the 1970s
saying that old growth was a biological desert, yet we now know of thousands
of old growth dependent species of plants and animals. Similarly, environmental
groups' push for the use of nuclear power in the 1950s because they
viewed it as a clean, alternative to fossil fuels; and DDT was once
viewed as a modern miracle with its discoverer Paul Mueller awarded
the Nobel prize for medicine in 1948. The one thing we know is that
our knowledge will change. That means we need to invest in research
and ongoing baseline data collection. It also means that we need to
practice adaptive management; an approach in which management is accompanied
by monitoring and evaluation so the direction can be changed as we learn
whether it's successful of not. It means being willing to reverse past
direction if it seems warranted. Going so far as removing dams that
have destroyed native fisheries as is being done on rivers in the Olympic
peninsula of Washington.
Fundamentally, as Dan suggested at the
start, we need to act with humility, understanding the limits to our
knowledge and the likelihood of unintended affects. And it means that
we need to learn from experience and build a shared understanding of
the potential and problems of ecosystem approaches to research management.
Fortunately, people on the ground are not waiting for conceptual clarity;
for the academics and policy makers to end their debates. They don't
have the luxury of doing so. In our study of the current experience
with ecosystem management in the United states, we identified more than
600 sites nationwide that are trying various aspects of an ecosystem
approach. Many of these efforts are reporting success in both small
and large ways. We need to celebrate these successes and learn from
the failures that will, inevitably, occur.
Conclusion
So, ecosystem management recognizes
the complexity of natural and social systems, and considers the effects
of spatial, temporal and perceptual scale. It works through collaborative
processes that acknowledge the legitimacy of multiple values to find
and pursue specific goals, yet recognizes the uncertainty inherent in
any management decision. There's no doubt that this changing paradigm
in the way we manage land and water scapes requires more of all of us--researchers,
policy makers, practitioners, and citizens. Some are likely to compare
these prescriptions to those of multiple use and feel like their heads
are going to burst. In response, I would suggest that we are at the
dawning of an amazing set of possibilities. That the number of tools
and strategies available, that the creative potential in designing an
ecosystem management effort is huge. And for those involved it is exciting
and empowering. Is this a sunset or a sunrise? Like all transitions,
it is clearly both. The ebbing of one set of ideas and the dawning of
another. There is much to be learned. Many, many questions to be answered
as we move forward. Today's speakers and the year's activities continue
a journey that has been underway in Michigan for some time and, with
the resources provided, through the Campaign for Michigan, it is a journey
that can expand in many important directions.
Please Note: If using
material from these presentations, please cite appropriately.
We suggest the following format:
Yaffee, Steven. Introduction to Ecosystem Management.
Presentation given at Symposium "Ecosystem Management: For a world we
can live in." September 25, 1997. University of Michigan, School of
Natural Resources and Environment. Ann Arbor, MI.
