Managing for stability just doesn’t work.
This epiphany has helped forge the development of ecosystem based management (EBM), theoretically a more holistic approach to natural resource management that is more in tune with natural processes. However, we still haven’t worked out the kinks so something good in theory often falls flat. A couple of recent papers in Conservation Biology discuss the need for measureable endpoints in EBM in order for the plan to be successful. But first, a little background.
There is a slow awakening among management agencies that stability policies aren’t effective – in fact, they often produce the opposite of the desired effect. Need examples as proof? Fire suppression to maintain healthy forest growth promoted through the middle part of the last century is now understood to provide a century’s worth of fuel when natural fires do occur. Such a process was behind the fires that lit the night skies over much of California last summer. These fires even kill the trees that depend on fire for germination, leaving wide swaths of land starting from square one in recovery.
A more subtle example comes from the ocean in the form of fisheries management. Maximum sustainable yield, while the term sounds really nice, depends on complicated models to predict fish populations and doesn’t account for natural variability in ocean circulation, storm patterns, or population dynamics of predators or prey of the fishery species in question. Result? In years with lots of surprises like hurricanes, colder than usual summers, or slower upwelling, the fishers who stick to the MSY as a quota drastically overfish the system, which hasn’t conformed to the model. Whoops, someone forgot to tell the fish to behave.
Hopefully you’re convinced something else is needed. The classic diagram of the alternative, known as the adaptive cycle, was first described by Gunderson and Holling in their 2002 book Panarchy. Basically, an ecosystem (including human activity) begins in the exploitation phase, extracting resources like fish or wood. After a slow development of both the natural and social system in question, a more harmonious balance is struck, termed conservation. But all the regulation and organization bottles up a need for dynamism within the system and eventually there is catastrophic destruction, or release. The resources and people then reorganize, often under new leadership, to create a new system and begin the cycle again. Basically, nothing lasts forever and nature has a tendency to organize.
The important aspects of the system to maintain, then, aren’t the static needs at any one point in the cycle, but the processes that move the cycle along it’s natural path. It’s the idea behind ecosystem based management. Process is important, not result.
Two things of note in this model – there is no endpoint that can be easily measured and monitored and there is no overt priority for human needs in the system. Taking the forest fire example, the burn years are important for the overall system to maintain itself over centuries but if you’re living in the forest the year it’s supposed to burn, life is going to be hard for a little while. What can you point at here as successful management?
Gunderson and Holling warn readers in their original description that the model is designed for ecosystems, not necessarily human institutions. In fact, they make an explicit point that if you let their model become a model for everything, it is useful for nothing.
Granek et al take on the issue in a recent issue of Conservation Biology, proposing ecosystem services as the needed
“common language” to evaluate EBM approaches. They emphasize “a clear mandate to sustain the delivery of ecosystem services and a framework for quantifying trade-offs among them can provide a foundation for coordinated management”.
Quantification of ecosystem services, however, requires interdisciplinary collaboration to combine economic, biogeochemical, ecologic, and social variables into one comparable model. They are representations of ecosystem process and function from an anthropocentric policy perspective, but likely are relevant for stakeholders in any one given area. Granek et al cite the use of the ecosystem service concept gaining traction in management of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, a downstream system requiring collaboration of many land and water uses to maintain any use at all.
Granek et al also acknowledge there are still major challenges in the ecosystem service concept itself that must be solved before utilization by another management system. First, that the quantification process will become another bureaucratic process easily captured by special interests. Second, that services are often hard to quantify in a standard measure, usually monetary, without shortchanging more abstract values. So it may be still to early to employ the concept at a large policy scale.
Peterson et al in the same issue of Conservation Biology also caution that the terms ecosystem function and ecosystem services may be confounded. Although Granek et al specifically said they were using services as a proxy for function, Peterson’s article brings up a valid point that policymakers and the public at large may not understand the nuanced difference between the two. Use of services is a value-laden decision to prioritize current human uses of a system. Other important functions of the system or future human uses are not included in the quantification.
According to Peterson’s critique, “ecosystem workers” are much like Marx’s proletariat, undervalued and commodified. They recognize the need for some quantifiable measurement of management success but offer that “explicitly presenting ecosystem services as discreet and incomplete aspects of ecosystem functions not only allows potential economic and environmental benefits associated with ecosystem services, but also enables the social and political changes required to ensure valuation of ecosystem functions and related biodiversity in ways beyond their measurement on an economic scale”
So the challenge is still out there for a target of management and a metric by which management can be evaluated and revised.
~ Bluegrass Blue Crab
GRANEK, E., POLASKY, S., KAPPEL, C., REED, D., STOMS, D., KOCH, E., KENNEDY, C., CRAMER, L., HACKER, S., BARBIER, E., ASWANI, S., RUCKELSHAUS, M., PERILLO, G., SILLIMAN, B., MUTHIGA, N., BAEL, D., & WOLANSKI, E. (2010). Ecosystem Services as a Common Language for Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management Conservation Biology, 24 (1), 207-216 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01355.x
PETERSON, M., HALL, D., FELDPAUSCH-PARKER, A., & PETERSON, T. (2010). Obscuring Ecosystem Function with Application of the Ecosystem Services Concept Conservation Biology, 24 (1), 113-119 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01305.x