35.2 Implementing Ecosystem Management: Challenges for Ecological Assessment
519
ject team. Another difficult situation arises in cases
where agency representatives find that positions at
their home agencies are no longer available when
their detail with an ecosystem management project
is complete. From the level of broad organizational
incentives to the individual personnel decisions
necessary for designing and implementing successful ecological assessments, these types of issues require changes in agency and institutional
subcultures that are both evolutionary and revolutionary (Kennedy and Quigley, 1994; Shannon,
1994).
Another basic requirement to implement ecosystem management is flexible institutions. Functionally, the requirement for flexibility translates into
institutions that can adopt an adaptive approach to
management. According to Walters (1997), adaptive management refers to "learning by doing" and
entails more than simply undertaking better ecological monitoring and responding to unexpected
management impacts. Two hallmarks of adaptive
management are (1) integration of interdisciplinary
experience and information into models that make
predictions about the impact of alternative policies
and (2) the design and implementation of management actions that are, in fact, experiments themselves. Walters (1997) identifies four common institutional obstacles that account for low success
rates in implementing adaptive management: (1)
modeling for adaptive management planning is frequently supplanted by ongoing modeling exercises;
(2) adaptive management experiments are frequently seen as excessively expensive or ecologically risky; (3) vested interests within management
agencies often oppose experimental policies; and
(4) conflict over trade-offs between ecological values (e.g., restoration of a periodic flooding regime
at the expense of a nonnative rare species). More
fundamentally, existing institutions are rarely designed and funded to undertake the long-term monitoring and evaluation necessary to implement
adaptive management (Ringold et aI., 1996). Barriers such as these must be addressed as institutions
strive to design ecological assessments and implement ecosystem management.
Perhaps the central institutional difficulty, however, involves envisioning and creating institutions
that tackle aspects of each of the foregoing challenges (Meidinger, 1997). From the discussion of
spatial scales, we can see that institutions must fit
the scale of issues to be addressed, with some concerns requiring centralized management, while others are uniquely local in scope. Thus a strong argument can be made that no single agency or
organization will be sufficient for undertaking ecological assessments or implementing ecosystem
management. Similarly, the issues of temporal
scale presented by ecosystem management point to
institutions that must be capable of confronting
equally short-term decisions of great immediacy
and long-term issues that may unfold over decades.
Such temporal adaptability must be combined with
the ability to make human resource and other decisions that are flexible as well. With respect to
agencies, for example, this requires transparency
and openness to the broad world, whether it be another agency, a local government, or a loosely knit
community coalition. Overcoming such basic obstacles as staffing decisions must be coupled with
the ability to undertake management actions that
can be changed with the input of new information
and experience. The ability to collect, process, and
act on values and interests must be added to this
mix as well.
Grumbine (1997) observes that a groundswell of
grassroots support for ecosystem management has
commenced among federal agencies, and at least
part of this change involves increased willingness
to engage in collaborative, multi stakeholder approaches. However, even assuming drastic changes
in the aspects of institutional subcultures currently
impeding implementation of ecosystem management, mere evolution of existing organizations and
institutions is insufficient. The changes must range
far beyond the ways in which government agencies
conduct business. A fundamental element of institutions successfully implementing ecosystem management will be partnerships and networks, including agencies and decision-making bodies at all
levels, nongovernmental organizations of all types,
loosely affiliated groups of issue-oriented citizens,
and interested individuals. Such partnerships are
the building blocks for a new type of institution;
they must be flexible and, in a sense, ephemeral,
remaining dormant when not necessary and recreating themselves as the need arises.
Some observers maintain that we currently are
witnessing such changes. They point to the emergence of an entirely new mode of conservation and
environmental protection, characterized by a reinvigoration and reinvolvement of civil society in
conservation, resource management, and environmental policy (John, 1994). Frequently referred to
as "community-based environmental protection"
(EPA, 1997; NAPA, 1997), such partnerships are
widely hailed as the next generation of conservation and environmental protection (Mann and
Plummer, 1998; Sawhill, 1998). Literally hundreds of instances exist in which diverse groups
of people have taken matters into their own hands
519
ject team. Another difficult situation arises in cases
where agency representatives find that positions at
their home agencies are no longer available when
their detail with an ecosystem management project
is complete. From the level of broad organizational
incentives to the individual personnel decisions
necessary for designing and implementing successful ecological assessments, these types of issues require changes in agency and institutional
subcultures that are both evolutionary and revolutionary (Kennedy and Quigley, 1994; Shannon,
1994).
Another basic requirement to implement ecosystem management is flexible institutions. Functionally, the requirement for flexibility translates into
institutions that can adopt an adaptive approach to
management. According to Walters (1997), adaptive management refers to "learning by doing" and
entails more than simply undertaking better ecological monitoring and responding to unexpected
management impacts. Two hallmarks of adaptive
management are (1) integration of interdisciplinary
experience and information into models that make
predictions about the impact of alternative policies
and (2) the design and implementation of management actions that are, in fact, experiments themselves. Walters (1997) identifies four common institutional obstacles that account for low success
rates in implementing adaptive management: (1)
modeling for adaptive management planning is frequently supplanted by ongoing modeling exercises;
(2) adaptive management experiments are frequently seen as excessively expensive or ecologically risky; (3) vested interests within management
agencies often oppose experimental policies; and
(4) conflict over trade-offs between ecological values (e.g., restoration of a periodic flooding regime
at the expense of a nonnative rare species). More
fundamentally, existing institutions are rarely designed and funded to undertake the long-term monitoring and evaluation necessary to implement
adaptive management (Ringold et aI., 1996). Barriers such as these must be addressed as institutions
strive to design ecological assessments and implement ecosystem management.
Perhaps the central institutional difficulty, however, involves envisioning and creating institutions
that tackle aspects of each of the foregoing challenges (Meidinger, 1997). From the discussion of
spatial scales, we can see that institutions must fit
the scale of issues to be addressed, with some concerns requiring centralized management, while others are uniquely local in scope. Thus a strong argument can be made that no single agency or
organization will be sufficient for undertaking ecological assessments or implementing ecosystem
management. Similarly, the issues of temporal
scale presented by ecosystem management point to
institutions that must be capable of confronting
equally short-term decisions of great immediacy
and long-term issues that may unfold over decades.
Such temporal adaptability must be combined with
the ability to make human resource and other decisions that are flexible as well. With respect to
agencies, for example, this requires transparency
and openness to the broad world, whether it be another agency, a local government, or a loosely knit
community coalition. Overcoming such basic obstacles as staffing decisions must be coupled with
the ability to undertake management actions that
can be changed with the input of new information
and experience. The ability to collect, process, and
act on values and interests must be added to this
mix as well.
Grumbine (1997) observes that a groundswell of
grassroots support for ecosystem management has
commenced among federal agencies, and at least
part of this change involves increased willingness
to engage in collaborative, multi stakeholder approaches. However, even assuming drastic changes
in the aspects of institutional subcultures currently
impeding implementation of ecosystem management, mere evolution of existing organizations and
institutions is insufficient. The changes must range
far beyond the ways in which government agencies
conduct business. A fundamental element of institutions successfully implementing ecosystem management will be partnerships and networks, including agencies and decision-making bodies at all
levels, nongovernmental organizations of all types,
loosely affiliated groups of issue-oriented citizens,
and interested individuals. Such partnerships are
the building blocks for a new type of institution;
they must be flexible and, in a sense, ephemeral,
remaining dormant when not necessary and recreating themselves as the need arises.
Some observers maintain that we currently are
witnessing such changes. They point to the emergence of an entirely new mode of conservation and
environmental protection, characterized by a reinvigoration and reinvolvement of civil society in
conservation, resource management, and environmental policy (John, 1994). Frequently referred to
as "community-based environmental protection"
(EPA, 1997; NAPA, 1997), such partnerships are
widely hailed as the next generation of conservation and environmental protection (Mann and
Plummer, 1998; Sawhill, 1998). Literally hundreds of instances exist in which diverse groups
of people have taken matters into their own hands