522
Ecological Assessments and Implementing Ecosystem Management
frog development" patterns in a forested landscape,
or repetitive cutting of a forest plantation over time,
cumulative impacts are one of the most pervasive
avenues of human-induced stress on ecological systems. Whenever many small decisions affecting a
particular area may be made independently over
long time periods, the incremental impacts are
rarely recognized, seldom addressed, and difficult
to assess. As a consequence, cumulative impacts
may be identified as an area of concern in NEP A,
but they have not figured prominently in most EAs
undertaken to fulfill NEPA requirements (Clark,
1994; McCold and Holman, 1995). For ecological
assessments, the challenge lies in providing a tool
to understand the complexity of interconnected
causal pathways, the feedbacks among and between
human activities and environmental responses, and
the additive effects of human actions over large
spatial scales and long temporal scales.
In contrast to cumulative impacts assessment,
some point to entirely new classes of actions that
are open to scrutiny and evaluation for environmental impacts. From this perspective, areas such
as strategic environmental assessment are at the
cutting edge of environmental assessment practice.
Strategic EA is defined as the "formalized, systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating
the environmental impacts of a policy, plan, or program and its alternatives" (Therivel et aI., 1992).
Traditional EA practice basically has been reactive,
focused primarily on evaluating potential impacts
at the individual project level or, to a much lesser
extent, over larger (e.g., regional) spatial scales. In
contrast, strategic EAs involve evaluating potential
environmental consequences of actions above the
project level and integrating those into decisionmaking processes. For example, a strategic EA
might concentrate on a suggested policy and associated legislative proposals that, if adopted, might
establish a development trajectory responsible for
multiple individual projects with numerous environmental impacts (Buckley, 1998). Similarly, sectoral EA involves evaluating the potential environmental impacts of proposed actions for an entire
sector (e.g., agriculture), with implications for specific projects within that sector (e.g., large-scale animal feedlot operations). Policy and sectoral EAs
enable influence over project selection, a level of
input almost certainly precluded by project-level
EAs. Other EAs in the same vein include issueoriented analyses and evaluations at regional or
broader geographical scales (Buckley, 1998). Even
more ambitious, some propose undertaking EAs to
examine the implications of international treaties
(e.g., North American Free Trade Agreement, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) or national
budgets (e.g., subsidies for grazing, funding for environmental research and development) (Goodland,
1998).
35.4 The Road Ahead
It is clear that widespread adoption and implementation of ecosystem management is far from assured. Similarly, many challenges confront those
who envision the common use of ecological assessments as a tool in the service of ecosystem
management. Yet these challenges are far from insurmountable. We can readily observe changes
afoot that provide opportunities for adopting ecological approaches to land and resource management decisions and refinement of ecological assessment as a tool in support of such decisions.
What is necessary for this evolution to progress?
For Keiter (1995), the enduring "problem" of
ecosystem management is that "continuing confusion and uncertainty persist over how ecosystem
management should be defined and what it means
in practice." Brunner and Clark (1997) posit that
the best way to resolve this dilemma is through a
practice-based approach to ecosystem management
that relies on the development and diffusion of
"prototypes" of successful ecosystem management
experience. They suggest a national process designed to accelerate improvements in ecosystem
management principles for practical purposes. In
their model, innovative ecosystem management approaches are appraised, the information gained is
communicated to the broader community, and then
the innovations are adapted by groups around the
country to fit their own unique circumstances.
It is unclear whether a national prototyping
process will, or even should, be created. However,
we can argue that a de facto prototyping process is
well underway. A tremendous amount of creative
energy has been unleashed around the nation as individuals, groups, and organizations experiment
with novel ways to resolve complex environmental and natural resource issues. Yaffee et al. (1996)
describe over 100 such experiments around the
country, involving diverse organizational partners,
institutional frameworks, and spatial scales. These
examples constitute only a handful of the many experiments underway around the nation. As these
experiences are described, shared, and evaluated in
the context of formal and informal gatherings and
publications, this diffusion process becomes the
evolution of ecosystem management and ecological assessment in action. In essence, the millions
Ecological Assessments and Implementing Ecosystem Management
frog development" patterns in a forested landscape,
or repetitive cutting of a forest plantation over time,
cumulative impacts are one of the most pervasive
avenues of human-induced stress on ecological systems. Whenever many small decisions affecting a
particular area may be made independently over
long time periods, the incremental impacts are
rarely recognized, seldom addressed, and difficult
to assess. As a consequence, cumulative impacts
may be identified as an area of concern in NEP A,
but they have not figured prominently in most EAs
undertaken to fulfill NEPA requirements (Clark,
1994; McCold and Holman, 1995). For ecological
assessments, the challenge lies in providing a tool
to understand the complexity of interconnected
causal pathways, the feedbacks among and between
human activities and environmental responses, and
the additive effects of human actions over large
spatial scales and long temporal scales.
In contrast to cumulative impacts assessment,
some point to entirely new classes of actions that
are open to scrutiny and evaluation for environmental impacts. From this perspective, areas such
as strategic environmental assessment are at the
cutting edge of environmental assessment practice.
Strategic EA is defined as the "formalized, systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating
the environmental impacts of a policy, plan, or program and its alternatives" (Therivel et aI., 1992).
Traditional EA practice basically has been reactive,
focused primarily on evaluating potential impacts
at the individual project level or, to a much lesser
extent, over larger (e.g., regional) spatial scales. In
contrast, strategic EAs involve evaluating potential
environmental consequences of actions above the
project level and integrating those into decisionmaking processes. For example, a strategic EA
might concentrate on a suggested policy and associated legislative proposals that, if adopted, might
establish a development trajectory responsible for
multiple individual projects with numerous environmental impacts (Buckley, 1998). Similarly, sectoral EA involves evaluating the potential environmental impacts of proposed actions for an entire
sector (e.g., agriculture), with implications for specific projects within that sector (e.g., large-scale animal feedlot operations). Policy and sectoral EAs
enable influence over project selection, a level of
input almost certainly precluded by project-level
EAs. Other EAs in the same vein include issueoriented analyses and evaluations at regional or
broader geographical scales (Buckley, 1998). Even
more ambitious, some propose undertaking EAs to
examine the implications of international treaties
(e.g., North American Free Trade Agreement, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) or national
budgets (e.g., subsidies for grazing, funding for environmental research and development) (Goodland,
1998).
35.4 The Road Ahead
It is clear that widespread adoption and implementation of ecosystem management is far from assured. Similarly, many challenges confront those
who envision the common use of ecological assessments as a tool in the service of ecosystem
management. Yet these challenges are far from insurmountable. We can readily observe changes
afoot that provide opportunities for adopting ecological approaches to land and resource management decisions and refinement of ecological assessment as a tool in support of such decisions.
What is necessary for this evolution to progress?
For Keiter (1995), the enduring "problem" of
ecosystem management is that "continuing confusion and uncertainty persist over how ecosystem
management should be defined and what it means
in practice." Brunner and Clark (1997) posit that
the best way to resolve this dilemma is through a
practice-based approach to ecosystem management
that relies on the development and diffusion of
"prototypes" of successful ecosystem management
experience. They suggest a national process designed to accelerate improvements in ecosystem
management principles for practical purposes. In
their model, innovative ecosystem management approaches are appraised, the information gained is
communicated to the broader community, and then
the innovations are adapted by groups around the
country to fit their own unique circumstances.
It is unclear whether a national prototyping
process will, or even should, be created. However,
we can argue that a de facto prototyping process is
well underway. A tremendous amount of creative
energy has been unleashed around the nation as individuals, groups, and organizations experiment
with novel ways to resolve complex environmental and natural resource issues. Yaffee et al. (1996)
describe over 100 such experiments around the
country, involving diverse organizational partners,
institutional frameworks, and spatial scales. These
examples constitute only a handful of the many experiments underway around the nation. As these
experiences are described, shared, and evaluated in
the context of formal and informal gatherings and
publications, this diffusion process becomes the
evolution of ecosystem management and ecological assessment in action. In essence, the millions