0688-B4
Patrick Nantel, Antoine Moreau, Sylvie Sougavinski and Frédérik Doyon 1
In North America, a number of critiques and new demands from society have incited some forest management agencies to shift their management focus from sustaining yields of competing resource outputs to sustaining ecosystems. Over the past eight years ecosystem-based management has become an important issue in natural resource science and management. Numerous definitions of ecosystem management exist in an abundant literature totaling nearly 350 papers. Natural resource management can be considered ecosystem-based if mechanisms are in place for: (1) ecological and integrated systems management; (2) adaptive scientific management; (3) cooperation and collaboration; and (4) integration of social values into management decisions. Despite some strong criticism and a lack of policy consensus on ecosystem management, people and organizations have attempted ad hoc experiments on the ground, in the United States of America and in Canada. A survey of 15 organizations and corporations practicing ecosystem-based management of forest resources in Canada suggests that the Canadian experience differs markedly from that of the USA in this domain. Respondents indicated that they have been motivated by a quest for long-term economic viability and by an awareness that research points to this approach. Also, 70% of the organizations surveyed are certified for environmentally sound forest management, by standards such as the Forest Stewardship Council. A majority of organizations surveyed have acquired a large amount of precise data on the environments they manage. They also indicated that they assess the impacts of the various management options on a range of resources to predict the possible consequences of various scenarios, and that they monitor the impact of their activities on the quality of habitats and on the status of some wildlife species. They use a diversity of instruments to forecast the various impacts, but also indicated problems with the precision of the tools available, suggesting that these are still relatively undeveloped. Most respondents indicated that they perceive relations among stakeholders, personnel and managers as an asset rather than an obstacle in achieving management objectives. On the other hand, they often identified as problematic the collection of information in sufficient quantity or of adequate quality.
Worldwide, societies have agreed that their development should be ecologically sustainable. Therefore, to succeed forest management approach must meet socially accepted criteria of forest quality and sustainability of uses. Even if careful forest management can possibly be carried on in many areas indefinitely without degrading the ecosystem, society is now demanding more than sustainable yields of natural renewable resources (Haney and Boyce 1997). The public, via the market and various international conventions, not only demands sustained yield of good quality forest products, including non-timber, but also multiple-use: wildlife habitats, water, and recreation value of good quality. It also demands the conservation of biodiversity and the protection of forest productive capacity for future generations. In North America, litigation in courts, civil disobedience, and published critiques against practices of public agencies have attested that past approaches to forest management on public lands is not accepted by all sectors of society.
Ecosystem management, as an approach to the sustainable development of forest resources, has been a subject of debate mostly in the United States. Proponents of ecosystem management have assumed that management approaches likely to succeed (and therefore be sustainable) would focus on preserving or restoring ecosystem services and biodiversity. In a widely cited paper, Grumbine (1994) lists major reasons why scientists, managers, and others have been looking for a new approach for managing natural resources in the United States. Among them, there is a perception that the biodiversity crisis continues to accelerate and that no policy initiatives have as yet been shown to slow down environmental deterioration. Also, conservationists who wish to protect natural resources efficiently have been dissatisfied with approaches that were limited to one or a few obvious species. The risk of basing management practices on a few unreliable indicator taxa has encouraged the movement toward ecosystem management (Goldstein 1999).
In Canada also critiques have demanded that forest management agencies and corporations shift their management focus from sustaining yields of competing resource outputs (ex. logging vs hunting) to sustaining ecosystems. For instance, an assessment using provincial-scale datasets has identified several indications of forest ecosystem degradation and unsustainable forest management in Alberta, such as decline in habitat of rare species and in non-timber values, ineffective protected areas, and overcutting of old-growth (Timoney and Lee 2001). The authors conclude: "Without a lowering of disturbance rates, the forest industry may collapse in some regions of the province, with attendant social disruption of human communities and losses of ecological services such as provision of potable water." Long-term decline in productivity and stability have also been documented in the forests of New Brunswick (Baskerville 1988).
However, numerous definitions of ecosystem management exist in the literature and some do not translate well in operational terms. A textbook on conservation biology contains this as a working definition, which includes many of the key ecological concepts debated in the scientific literature (underlined):
Ecosystem management is an approach to maintaining or restoring the composition, structure, and function of natural and modified ecosystems for the goal of long-term sustainability. It is based on a collaboratively developed vision of desired future conditions that integrates ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional perspectives, applied within a geographic framework defined primarily by natural ecological boundaries (Carroll and Meffe 1997).
In general, authors view ecosystem management as a more comprehensive approach to natural resource management, than the one that has been for several decades, which has often been described as single or competing outputs management. Yaffee (1999) defines five different paradigms of resource management that form a continuum: dominant use, multiple use, environmentally sensitive multiple use, ecosystem approach to resource management, and ecoregional management. According to his typology, ecosystem-based management, as it has up to now been conceptualized or applied, refers to any of the three last paradigms of the continuum.
Ecosystem management is essentially expanding the management scale and time horizon, as well as the range of values and uses of resources. This implies more participants in the decisions and a redistribution of responsibilities. On the other hand, the participation of many stakeholders and interests in the definition of vision, goals and criteria of sustainability is seen as a way to insure that a range of ecosystem goods and services will be sustained. Also, most definitions clearly refer to knowledge or science as the foundation of management (Carroll and Meffe 1997).
Ecosystem-based management can be identified "on the ground" if mechanisms are in place for: (1) ecological and integrated systems management; (2) adaptive scientific management; (3) cooperation and collaboration; and (4) integration of social values into management decisions (Rigg 2001).
Because we perceived ecosystem management as a promising popular yet controversial approach, we first examined elements of the debate over ecosystem-based management of forest resources. Then, we surveyed various corporations and organizations which have implemented this approach to the management of forest resources in Canada, to document their motivation, factors of success and obstacles.
Ecosystem management has become a popular science and management issue over the past eight years. As of June 2002, about 350 papers containing the phrase "ecosystem management" in either the title or abstract have been indexed within the Biological Abstract database (Figure1). The number of such papers has increased very rapidly since 1995, attesting a rapid uptake of the concept by the scientific community.
Figure 1. Cumulative number of papers containing the phrase "ecosystem management" in their title or abstract, indexed within the Biological Abstract database
Critiques of ecosystem management have pointed its fuzziness, its self-contradictory ethical foundation, and its lack of clear and measurable objectives. For example, Schlaepfer (1997) thinks the concept of ecosystem management developed in the United States is still defined and interpreted in too many different ways.
Some authors have stressed that definitions of ecosystem management use concepts that cannot be defined easily or fully by ecosystem science. Resource management agencies have been struggling with trying to operationalize some of them, such as ecological integrity (Woodley 1993). Nevertheless, as More (1996) summarizes it:
Ecosystem management is not the only fuzzy concept in natural resources - sustainability, ecosystem health, and indeed the very concept of ecosystem itself are all fuzzy concepts. But this does not mean they are empty, useless, or devoid of meaning; we simply define and use them in different ways.
According to Yaffee (1999), a biocentric ethic emerges in what he defines as the ecosystem approach to resource management, which requires allocating survival rights to nonhuman life. Ferry (1992) has demonstrated that such an ethic is self-contradictory, because it fails to recognize that "any valuation, including that of nature, is done by humans and that, consequently, any normative ethic is to some extent humanistic and anthropocentrist". Biocentric ethic also breaks off with the pragmatism that characterizes Canadian cultures. Many stakeholders, particularly natural resources dependent communities, are unlikely to adopt or support such an outlook. Nevertheless, one could legitimately ask if the "ethical reorientation" is necessary at all if, in the end, society will benefit from services well-managed ecosystems can provide.
Ecosystem management was adopted quickly by some governmental agencies in the United States. No formal studies were conducted to identify the consequences of the changes this new approach entails nor was any well-documented, widely accepted organized methodology developed for its implementation (Thomas 1997). The academic, conceptual descriptions of ecosystem management processes do not supply adequate details to guide the development of decision support systems and are theoretical, lacking adequate field testing to determine how they work in practice (Rauscher 1999). More operation-oriented professionals claim that the concept may simply be undefinable (Gilmore 1997). Sedjo (1996) summarizes this view in the following terms:
Ecosystem management appears to be most intelligible for management philosophy (e.g., thinking on a broad ecosystem scale) or procedures (in establishing ecological boundaries, determining spatial scale, ensuring broad forest attributes, and conducting research). It is least intelligible when determining objectives.
In the United States, the lack of a policy consensus at the national level on ecosystem management has not impeded people and organizations to attempt ad hoc experiments on the ground (Yaffee 1999). For some of them, success lies in having adjacent landowners recognize their interconnectedness and talk to each other or having wildlife managers consider the habitat needs of multiple species (Yaffee 1999).
In Canada, very few on-the-ground experiments have been reported in peer reviewed journals. Our preliminary research, using about nearly 100 key informants, identified about 30 projects that met the criteria of ecosystem management of forest lands. A survey, which successfully gathered information on half of these projects, suggests that the Canadian experience differs markedly from the US one in this domain. Next section describes the methods we used to gather data about ecosystem management experiments in Canada and highlights key results.
The following criteria derived from the definitions and concepts presented above were used for identifying ecosystem-based land management projects:
A research questionnaire was sent to organizations meeting these criteria. The questionnaire aimed at seeking information on: (1)the purpose of the organization, its mission, its financial capability and other details; (2)the methods by which stakeholders take part in decisions; (3) the planning processes (biological, ecological and economic elements considered, activities selected, impact prediction, application, monitoring); and (4)elements which foster or, on the contrary, limit or impede achievement of the management objectives.
All responsible personnel of potential Canadian organizations (42), identified through key informants, were contacted for the purpose of answering an "identification questionnaire" to ensure that each organization did in fact meet the selection criteria. Of these, 31projects were identified as meeting the selection criteria, and 15 returned the questionnaire completed.
The overall response rate (52%) suggests that the information collected provides a fairly realistic picture of the situation of organizations practising ecosystem-based forest management in Canada. The results show that ecosystem-based forest management is still in its infancy in Canada, particularly because of the lack of a clear consensus on its definition and application, the small number of organizations identified by this survey and the diversity of tools and practices used.
In Canada, ecosystem-based forest management is implemented to some degree all over the country by small organizations to large companies, such as multinationals. The budgets of the companies surveyed ranged from $250,000 to over $10million and most projects surveyed are of companies in the latter category.
The organizations surveyed usually manage, entirely or in partnership, at least one other activity (fishing, hunting, camping, conservation, etc.) in addition to wood supplies. The adoption of ecosystem management is motivated by a quest for long-term economic viability and by an awareness that research points to this type of management. Also, 70% of the organizations surveyed are certified: seven with ISO 14001 (Standards for environmental management systems), five with the Forest Stewardship Council, three with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, two with Canada's National Sustainable Forest Management Standard, and one with Forestcare.
The respondent organizations show a definite openness to stakeholders' participation, since their boards of directors include, on average, four groups that are not part of the forest industry. They also consult frequently through public hearings and other forms of consultation. Information is widely disseminated by means of brochures, public tours, publications and press conferences.
Ecosystem-based management depends largely on information about the biophysical environment. The survey shows that a majority of respondents have acquired a large amount of precise data on the environments for which they are responsible (Figure 2).
The organizations surveyed assess the impacts of the various management options on a range of resources (Table 1). These assessments are used to predict the possible consequences of various scenarios, and the selection of one is usually made after discussions and a vote by the stakeholders involved. However, the organizations have problems making predictions. The main reason is the lack of an appropriate model or sufficient expertise for assessing the impacts on a number of resources or environments, particularly the landscape, the economy, and the productivity of ecosystems. There is also a broad diversity of instruments used to forecast the various impacts, suggesting that the tools in this field are still relatively undeveloped. Furthermore, the respondents indicate that they are often dissatisfied with the precision of the tools available.
The majority of respondents monitor the impact of their activities on, in particular, the quality of habitats and the status of some wildlife species. However, the achievement of specific management objectives is not systematically evaluated.
Attaining the objectives of ecosystem management requires a number of favourable factors, such as the support and participation of stakeholders, management and staff. Many authors have identified socio-political tensions and organizational changes as the most challenging impediments to ecosystem management (Bissix and Rees 2001). For instance, Riggs (2001) examined how the U.S. Forest Service has applied the principles of ecosystem management to giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) in Sequoia National Forest, California. From interviews with a number of stakeholders and forest managers, she found that "currently giant sequoias are managed (or left unmanaged) according to the demands (and values) of the most vocal interest group that wields the greatest threat of legal action. (...) This antagonistic environment does little to encourage inclusive and productive collaborative management by a more diverse public." Results of our survey show that, in Canada, relations among stakeholders, personnel and managers are generally perceived as an asset rather than an obstacle in achieving their objectives.
Figure 2: Number of respondents indicating that they have acquired certain types of knowledge concerning their land, are planning or not to do so
Attaining the objectives of ecosystem management requires also information of adequate quality and in sufficient quantity to make informed decisions, and adequate financial resources. Respondents to our survey indicated that obtaining information is often problematic. However, financial aspects are not usually a significant factor in either a positive or negative sense.
These results suggest that organizations which have adopted ecosystem-based management in Canada are those which have benefited from specific favourable social and financial conditions. These organizations are struggling with the same problems that many forward-thinking organizations may face, namely the serious imprecision of the available means or tools.
Table 1. Number of respondents having or not specific assessment of management plans in place
Resource or environment assessed |
YES |
NO |
Impact assessment of management options on water bodies |
10 |
5 |
Impact assessment of management options on soil |
6 |
9 |
Impact assessment of management options on one or more wildlife habitats |
12 |
3 |
Impact assessment of management options on forest cover types |
12 |
3 |
Impact assessment of management options on stand succession |
13 |
2 |
Impact assessment of management options on wildlife population dynamics |
2 |
13 |
Impact assessment of management options on natural cycles (nutrient, water, carbon) |
5 |
10 |
Impact assessment of management options on quality and quantity of wood |
14 |
1 |
Impact assessment of management options on productive capacity of ecosystems |
6 |
9 |
Impact assessment of management options on biodiversity |
10 |
5 |
Impact assessment of management options associated with the risk of natural disturbances |
6 |
9 |
Impact assessment of management options on landscape structure |
9 |
6 |
Impact assessment of management options on landscape quality and aesthetics |
6 |
9 |
Economic impact assessment of management options |
6 |
9 |
Environmental impact assessment (general) |
1 |
We sincerely thank all those who took part in the various stages of the survey. This project would not have been possible without the participation of the informants who supported and guided us in the identification of target organizations, or of the respondents who returned completed questionnaires. The survey was funded through a special contract with the Science Branch of the Canadian Forest Service.
Baskerville, G. A. 1988. Redevelopment of a degrading forest ecosystem. Ambio 17: 314-322.
Bissix, G., and J. A. Rees. 2001. Can strategic ecosystem management succeed in multiagency environments? Ecological Applications 11:570-583.
Carroll, C. R., Meffe, G. K.. 1997. Management to meet conservation goals: General principles. Pages 347-383 in Meffe, G. K., Carroll, C. R. (Editors). Principles of conservation biology. 2nd Edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Ferry, L. 1992. Le nouvel ordre écologique. L'arbre, l'animal et l'homme. Grasset & Fasquelle, Paris. 226 p.
Gilmore, D. W. 1997. Ecosystem management - A needs driven, resource-use philosophy. Forestry Chronicle 73: 560-564.
Goldstein, P. Z. 1999. Functional ecosystems and biodiversity buzzwords. Conservation Biology 13:247-255.
Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8: 27-38.
Haney, A. and Boyce, M. S. 1997. Introduction. Pp.1-17 In Boyce, M. S. and Haney, A. (Editors). Ecosystem management. Applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
More, T. A. 1996. Forestry's fuzzy concepts. An examination of ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry 94:19-23.
Rauscher, H. M. 1999. Ecosystem management decision support for federal forests in the United States: A review. Forest Ecology and Management 114:173-197.
Rigg, C. M. 2001. Orchestrating ecosystem management: Challenges and lessons from Sequoia National Forest. Conservation Biology 15:78-90.
Schlaepfer, R. 1997. Ecosystem-based management of natural resources: a step towards sustainable development. Occasional Paper 6. International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO), Wien, Austria.
Sedjo, R. A. 1996. Toward an operational approach to public forest management. Journal of Forestry 94: 24-27.
Thomas, J. W. 1997. Foreword. In: Kohm, K. A., Franklin, J.F. (Eds)., Creating a Forestry for the 21st century. Island Press, Washington, DC. Pp. ix-xii.
Timoney, K., and P. Lee. 2001. Environmental management in resource-rich Alberta, Canada: First world jurisdiction, third world analogue? Journal of Environmental Management 63:387-405.
Woodley, S. 1993. Monitoring and measuring ecosystem integrity in Canadian National Parks. Pages 155-176 in Woodley, S., Kay, J. Francis, G. (Editors), Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. St.Lucie Press, St. Lucie, Florida.
Yaffee, S. L. 1999. Three faces of ecosystem management. Conservation Biology 13:713-725.
1 Canadian Forest Service, Science Branch, 580 Booth St. 12th Floor, Ottawa, ON, Canada. [email protected]