Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-9090-8
c Springer 2006
AVERIL LAMONT
Policy Analyst, Policy Research Directorate, Environment Canada, 4th Floor, 10 Wellington Street,
Gatineau, QC, Canada
(e-mail: averil.lamont@ec.gc.ca)
Abstract. This paper provides a comparison of ecosystem management (EM) to the traditional regula-
tory management approach and outlines the characteristics of EM from a policy perspective, defining
the conditions under which this management tool can be successfully implemented. Ecosystem man-
agement is a collaborative and integrative tool focused on balancing societal needs, economic growth,
and environmental protection to ensure the long-term ecological integrity of a particular ecosystem.
The characteristics of this particular tool include: (1) its holistic approach to environmental problems;
(2) its integration of values (economic, social, and environmental) through a collaborative, multi-
partner, decision making structure; (3) its reliance on science to guide decisions and set boundaries;
and (4) its ability to learn from the implementation of decisions (adaptive management). Examples
are draw from Environment Canada’s various regional ecosystem initiatives.
1. Introduction
While maintaining ecological integrity is the central goal of EM, it is the na-
ture in which this goal is carried out that makes EM a particularly effective
management approach. What makes EM different from other management tools
is the manner in which it combines the attributes of various other approaches
including:
EM, due to the dynamic nature of ecosystems, also includes a social compo-
nent. For example, if the best science indicates that an ecosystem can be stable and
healthy in more than one state, but ultimately results in a different combination
of species and services within that ecosystem, who will decide which system is
preferential? To reflect these types of decision trade-offs, the governance struc-
ture of EM is collaborative in nature, rather than bureaucratic as in the traditional
approach.
This collaborative component of EM often involves consensus-seeking, face-to-
face negotiations of management practices; promoting transparency and ensuring
societal values are incorporated into the decision marking process. Stakeholders,
including representatives from all levels of government, non-governmental orga-
nizations, industry, labour, first nations, and other interested groups are invited
to review existing scientific information regarding the ecosystem of concern, and
with the assistance of government officials, develop management objectives and
practices for the ecosystem.
The decision making process at the heart of EM is usually conducted through
a framework of integrative planning. Integrative planning provides a forum for
balancing top-down government laws and policies with the bottom-up reality of
local conditions (Brown, 1996). This forum is supported by a step-by-step planning
process, which includes:
It is this circular process and integrative forum that is different from traditional
top-down, linear decision making. Ecological management allows for the consid-
eration of multiple values and provides a venue for arriving at decisions based upon
those multiple values.
Follow-up or review of the impacts of management decisions are also impor-
tant within the EM framework. Inclusion of the principles of adaptive management,
which involves the structuring of policy or management actions as testable hypothe-
sis, within the EM framework, creates a better learning environment for stakeholders
as well as allows for greater adaptability when change inevitably occurs within the
ecosystem. See Table I for a comparison of characteristics between the traditional
and EM approaches.
POLICY CHARACTERIZATION 9
TABLE I
Characteristics of Traditional and EM Approaches
Ecosystem Benefits of
Characteristic Traditional approach approach ecosystem approach
Central decision makers are focused on assessing the impacts and risks of individual
policies and programs, while proponents of EM tend to think in terms of building
10 A. LAMONT
• Impact – are there identifiable achievements that can be attributed to the program;
• Relevancy – do the goals/proposed achievements of the program cover key en-
vironmental problems;
• Effectiveness – to what degree do the program’s achievements relate to its in-
tended goals; and
• Efficiency – program outcomes are achieved at lower costs (Verdung, 1998).
When dealing with complex environmental problems the following criteria are
also commonly considered:
While EM’s collaborative approach increases both its legitimacy and transparency, it
is its strong scientific foundation that lends this approach both impact and relevancy
POLICY CHARACTERIZATION 13
study examines the relationship between climate variation and wildlife behaviour
and will contribute to helping northerners adapt to the impacts of climate change,
one of the goals of the Northern Ecosystem Initiative (pers com Carey Ogilvie).
One of the key challenges to any group attempting to gather data is the over-
whelming amounts of data available and the data gaps that often exist around
complex and highly unpredictable environmental systems; managers often find
themselves inundated by data which has little apparent meaning and may obscure
the path to a correct decision (Sokolik and Schaeffer, 1986). Stakeholders, in formu-
lating their decisions will often have to spend a significant amount of time working
through this data, only to discover that additional scientific research is needed in
order to arrive at the appropriate decision. In this type of situation a decision may
be put off until additional data is available or the precautionary approach may be
followed and an interim decision is made to protect the ecological integrity of
the ecosystem, regardless of the uncertainties. This precautionary decision is then
reviewed when additional data is available.
In EM, monitoring the environment does not end once a decision has been made,
but is an on-going process, ensuring that ecological integrity is sustained and that
actions are producing their intended effects (IUCN, 2000). Most successful EM
regimes include the concept of adaptive management, where different policies are
implemented as experiments that probe the responses of ecosystems as people’s
behaviour within the ecosystem changes (Walters and Holling, 1990). Implemen-
tation of these policies is monitored for two purposes, to enhance understanding
with regards to anticipated and unforeseen impacts within the ecosystem and to
design better policies for future implementation and experimentation. This view-
ing of policy options as testable hypotheses allows practitioners to learn from their
past experience and is particularly valuable where knowledge is limited, risks are
considerable, and uncertainties are high (UNCBD, 2003). Adopting an adaptive
management approach, not only allows decision makers to test different policy
options, it also allows for managers to monitor for changes in the environment
and adapt their policies when changes do occur. It is through this aspect that EM
maintains its flexibility and sustainability.
Once stakeholders have been selected and the available information about the
ecosystem has been collected, the decision making or integrated planning compo-
nent of EM is initiated. This planning component, which involves the delineation of
boundaries, the definition of goals and objectives, and the selection of policy options
for evaluation, provides a construct in which scientific information/knowledge is
combined with societal values to produce management decisions that address the
POLICY CHARACTERIZATION 15
relevant environmental problems within the ecosystem. This open exchange of val-
ues and knowledge allows for government staff, academics, local communities of
interest, and researchers to work together more effectively, increasing party buy-in
to decisions and reducing the chance of further confrontation.
Boundaries in EM are often delineated based on naturally occurring demar-
cations, such as watersheds, mountain ranges, lakes, or flood plains which often
influence the soil type, water availability, and the distribution of organisms (IUCN,
2000). A well-delineated ecosystem has strong interactions among its components
and weak interactions across its boundaries (UNCBD, 2003). By using geograph-
ical features to establish boundaries, problems can be framed in ecological terms,
thereby reducing outside influences and can motivate different government juris-
dictions to work together to address problems.
Bringing different government jurisdictions together to assist stakeholders in
determining how best to assist stakeholders in managing a particular ecosystem
may be difficult if governments do not share the same interests. Appeals to the
shared challenges of transparency and accountability that occur at all levels of
government can sometimes assist in this process in addition to recognizing that all
parties have an equal seat at the negotiating table.
Closely tied to the delineation of boundaries is the defining of goals and ob-
jectives. Specific objectives are established by the participating stakeholders, re-
flecting the values of the community and its desire to protect the functionality of
the ecosystem and unique characteristics (MEA, 2003). However, within an EM
framework, the overall goal remains the same, to maintain the ecological integrity
of the ecosystem (UNCBD, 2003).
While asking stakeholders to define specific ecosystem objectives ensures that
the project is relevant to the local community, the wide variety of interests being
considered in an EM approach can result in vague and unwieldy goals. To over-come
this, a successful EM approach usually requires specific objectives be measurable,
providing indicators by which to judge performance.
For the Georgia Basin Action Plan, which covers Puget Sounds, The Straight of
Juan de Fuca, the Straight of Georgia and the various lands and smaller tributaries
that border this region, specific objectives include achieving clean air and clean
water and conserving and protecting habitat and species (Environment Canada
2003a). Measurable indicators have been developed to mark progress towards these
objectives including: ambient air measurements for both ground-level ozone and
particulate matter (major components of smog); dioxin and furans emissions to
water from Georgia Basin pulp mills; Nitrogen concentrations in groundwater; and
population trends for various endangered specifies.
One of the most difficult components of any management approach is the selection
and implementation of policy options, as it is this stage that determines whether or
16 A. LAMONT
not a program will be effective in achieving results and efficient in being the lowest
cost option by which these results can be achieved (Verdung, 1988).
Traditional management approaches tend to favour the use of regulations to
control the behaviour of firms and individuals (Barrett and Barrett, 1997). Today,
there are many more policy options being considered including: market based in-
centives (e.g. taxes, subsidies, trading schemes, etc.), which attempt to internalize
market externalities and remove perverse incentives; voluntary agreements (e.g.
industry standards or participation programs), which promote industry leadership;
and information or education campaigns to build knowledge (Maged, 2003). Effec-
tive programs often include a variety of these options targeted at different groups.
This enhances transparency and openness in the decision making process ensuring
efficiency and effectiveness considerations have been taken into account.
In EM, proposed policy options are brought forward by stakeholders, with en-
vironmental and socio-economic impact assessments conducted by technical staff.
While final selection of policies or suites of policies are made by the stakeholders,
final approval of the entire package often occurs at the political level (Brown, 1996).
While a wide variety of policy instruments are available for implementation,
central government officials have not granted decision-making authority regarding
taxation and regulation to an un-elected groups of community stakeholders. This
is in part due to current government legislation and accountability and legitimacy
concerns. As a result, the only tools available to stakeholders to implement their ob-
jectives include community based monitoring, stewardship, information campaigns,
voluntary agreements, enhanced enforcement of existing regulations, and political
action. Without the availability of regulatory or market-based tools, environmental
improvements tend to be focused along the margins and the fundamental drivers of
reduced ecological integrity remain unaddressed. Often the ultimate outcome, of
implementing this approach without the use of stronger policy instruments, is no
measurable improvement in ecological integrity.
In order to move beyond this situation and provide access to a wider range
of tools, concerns regarding the accountability and legitimacy of stakeholders to
develop and implement taxation and regulatory policy instruments need to be ad-
dressed. Stakeholders, while representing a community of interest and supported
by a group of like-minded individuals to whom they are accountable, are not elected
by nor directly accountable to the public at large. They are, at best, indirectly ac-
countable to government decision makers via funding and approval processes for
the plans they develop.
Adopting an EM approach requires central decision makers to trust in the over-
sight and accountability frameworks that they put in place, and rely on their control
through final decision-making authority, allowing stakeholders to balance the values
of their communities and select effective and sustainable options. Once key over-
sight and accountability frameworks are in place, central bureaucrats must place
their trust in these frameworks and in the various stakeholders to balance values
and select effective policy options. One option for addressing this concern is by
POLICY CHARACTERIZATION 17
5. Conclusions
References
Agee, J. K. and Johnson, D. R.: 1988, EM for Parks and Wilderness, University of Washington Press,
Seattle Washington.
Barrett, N. E. and Barrett, J. P.: 1997, ‘Reserve Design and New Conservation Theory’, in: S. T.
Pickett, R. S. Ostfeld, M. Shack and G. E. Likens (eds), The Ecological Basis for Conservation,
Chapman and Hall, New York.
Brody, S. D.: 2003, ‘Implementing the principles of EM through local land use planning’, Population
Environ. 24, 511–540.
Brown, D. W.: 1996, Strategic Land Use Planning Source Book for the Commission on Resources
and the Environment, Government of British Columbia, Victoria B.C.
Environment Canada: 2003a, Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative – A Five Year Perspective, Govern-
ment of Canada, Ottawa. Available at www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/ GeorgiaBasin/ (accessed November 25,
2004).
Environment Canada: 2003b, Northern Ecosystem Initiative, Government of Canada, Ottawa. Avail-
able at www.mb.ec.gc.ca/nature/ecosystems/nei-ien. (accessed Nov. 25, 2004)
Grumbine, R. E.: 1994, ‘What is EM?’ Conserv. Biol. 8, 27–38.
Holling, C. S.: 1978, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, John Wiley, London.
Lafferty, W and Meadowcroft, J.: 1996, ‘Democracy and the Environment: Congruence and Con-
flict – Preliminary Reflections’, in W. Lafferty and J. Meadowcroft (eds), Democracy and the
Environment: Problems and Prospects, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham England, pp. 1–17.
Maged, F.: 2003, ‘Voluntary approaches in environmental policy’, Horizons 4, 13–17.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA): 2003, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework
for Assessment, Island Press, Washington D.C, USA.
Norton, B.: 1992, ‘A New Paradigm for Environmental Management’, in M. L. Bemelmans-Videc,
R. Rist and E. Verdung (eds), Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their
Evaluation, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp. 21–58.
18 A. LAMONT
United Nation Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD): 2003, Ecosystem Approach: Further
Elaboration, Guidelines for Implementation and Relationship with Sustainable Forest Manage-
ment, Report of the Expert Meeting on the Ecosystem Approach, UNEP, Montreal Canada.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP),
World Bank (WB), and World Resources Institute (WRI): 2003, A Guide to World Resources
2002–2004 – Decisions for the Earth – Balance, Voice, and Power, World Resources Institute,
Washington D.C.
Walters, C. J. and Holling, C. S.: 1990, ‘Large scale management experiments and learning by doing’,
Ecology 71, 2060–2068.
Walters, C. J.: 1986, Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources, McMillan, New York, New
York, USA.
World Conservation Union (IUCN): 2003, EM: Lessons from Around the World – A Guide for De-
velopment and Conservation Practitioners, J.-Y. Pirot, P.-J. Meynell and D. Elder (eds), IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.