Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2006) 113: 5–18

DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-9090-8 
c Springer 2006

POLICY CHARACTERIZATION OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

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.

Keywords: economic sustainability/growth, ecological integrity, ecosystem management, decision

making process, integrative planning, natural capital and long-term ecological resiliency

1. Introduction

Demands for ecosystem services are increasing as population and consumption

grow. Humanity depends on the services provided by ecosystems including: the
provision of food and water; the regulation of floods and diseases; the cycle of
nutrients; as well as recreational and cultural benefits provided by intact function-
ing ecosystems (IUCN, 2000). At the same time as demand is growing, human
activities such as urban expansion, non-renewable harvesting practices, and waste
production are eroding the ability of many ecosystems to function sustainably.
Management and policy interventions are required to reverse ecosystem degra-
dation and enhance the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being (MEA,
2003).
One new management approach that has been receiving greater attention both
internationally and in Canada is ecosystem management (EM). This collabora-
tive tool brings together relevant stakeholders in a process of integrative plan-
ning to determine how best to maintain the ecological integrity of a particular
ecosystem. The diversity of stakeholder values regarding a particular ecosystem
are combined with scientific information about the dynamics of that ecosystem’s
functions, forming the basis for identifying management objectives, testing hy-
pothesis, making decisions, and reviewing and adjusting earlier objectives and
decisions.
6 A. LAMONT

Ecosystem management has both a scientific and a social component, reflected

in the approaches’ use of stakeholder values and scientific information. The scien-
tific component is EM’s primary goal of protecting and maintaining the ecological
services provided by the ecosystem (MEA, 2003). With an EM framework, this is
in part accomplished through the definition or bounding of the ecosystem using
the scientific definition of the ecosystem. Boundaries are defined by geographic
features (watersheds/mountains) to include a dynamic complex of plant, animal,
and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment (UNCB, 2003).
Management objectives, which are determined by stakeholders to ensure the eco-
logical integrity of the bounded ecosystem, often include protecting biodiversity at
both the ecosystem and species level or maintaining resiliency to provide certain
ecosystem services (Norton, 1992).
However, because ecosystems and species are dynamic (always changing) and
societal values/choices often determine the appropriate level of stock (natural
capital – diversity) and flow (ecological services), the practice of EM becomes a
social construct (Agee and Johnson, 1988; Brown and MacLeod, 1996). As ecosys-
tems become subject to increasing intervention, these societal choices often take
a more dominant position in determining how best to protect the ecosystem. Ulti-
mately, any management approach must strike a balance between human benefits
from the ecosystem’s components and processes, and maintaining the ecosystem’s
ability to provide these services at a sustainable level. Different stakeholders, de-
pending on their interests, often have different views on what level of services
need to be maintained over the long-term, thus their views of the appropriate bal-
ance point between short-term human benefits (economic sustainability/growth)
and long-term ecological resiliency may be different.
This paper reviews some of the challenges associated with implementing EM,
aligning the attributes of a successful regime (explored through case studies), with
evaluation attributes used by central decision makers.

2. Comparing EM to Traditional Management Approaches

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:

1. Scientific Foundation – the continued reliance on science to guide decisions and

set boundaries (Grumbine, 1994).
2. Collaborative Governance – the integration of values (economic and social as
well as environmental) through a collaborative, multi-partner decision making
process (Brown, 1996).
 POLICY CHARACTERIZATION 7

3. Integrative Planning – the establishment of clearly stated long-term goals and

objectives, the implementation of a wide range of policy tools to achieve these
objectives, and the continuous monitoring of the ecosystem (Brody, 2003).
4. Adaptive Management – the structuring of policy or management actions as a
set of testable hypotheses to promote learning from policy implementation, and
to allow for greater adaptability when change does inevitably occur within the
system (Holling, 1978; Walters, 1996).

The traditional approach to addressing environmental problems has involved

command-and-control through regulation. Implemented in a top-down, issue-by-
issue basis, this isolationist approach leaves very little opportunity for thinking
holistically about an ecosystem (Barrett and Barrett, 1997). This traditional man-
agement style is in part a response to the stove-pipe, issue-based management
structure of government agencies and the legislation, guidelines, and policies they
are charged with enforcing. The management structure in EM tends to be more hor-
izontal, allowing for a greater exchange of ideas, creating a more holistic approach
to the problem(s) the ecosystem is facing.
One of the primary strengths of EM is that it brings the consideration of the
ecosystem’s underlying dynamics and science to the fore-front of the decision
making process. The traditional approach often looks at a single problem in isola-
tion, applying a sustainability criterion that places equal weight on the economic,
environmental, and social impacts of a given decision. Within an EM framework,
decisions are made regarding the ecosystem as a whole. While decisions are influ-
enced by social and economic values, the overarching objective is maintaining the
ecological integrity of the ecosystem. By focusing on ecological integrity, having
a strong foundation of scientific knowledge for the particular ecosystem becomes
increasingly important.
When undertaking EM, boundaries are usually determined based on ecologi-
cal definitions; managers from the multiple jurisdictions within those boundaries
are brought together to assist in jointly managing the ecosystem. Within a tra-
ditional management approach, defining management boundaries and objectives
based solely on ecological criteria is often difficult, due to single-issue focused
management and multiple political boundaries. While the single issues focused on
in past regimes are important, in today’s age of limited government resources and
increasing calls for specific place needs, a one-size-fits all approach cannot ensure
protection of ecosystem services. Alternatively, the one-size-fits-all approach may
overly constrain the economy of a particularly resilient habitat. By focusing on
how best to manage the ecosystem in question, EM becomes more place-based or
location specific.
However, for place-based EM to be successful, it must augment this strength of
defining the problem in scientific terms with developing solutions to the problem
within effective social constructs. It is here that EM adapts and borrows from lessons
learned in other management approaches.
8 A. LAMONT

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:

• Preparation, including the top-down delineation of physical, constitutional, and

legalistic boundaries within which stakeholders can make decisions;
• Selection and invitation of stakeholders;
• Development of a terms of reference to guide stakeholder discussions;
• Identification of key interests and a desired vision for the ecosystem;
• Compilation of additional information and evaluation of policy tools;
• Agreeing to a comprehensive plan, which often includes multiple policy tools;
• Implementation of the plan; and
• Monitoring and adjusting the vision and plan over time as additional information
becomes available

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

Management Isolationist Horizontal/ More holistic (address

structure inclusive multiple problems)
Management Single issue focus Ecosystem focus Reduces chance of
objectives cumulative effects
and opposing
objectives
Over-arching Economic/environmental Maintaining More science-
objective trade-offs ecological integrity focused decisions
Management Constitutionally defined Ecologically defined Reduces overlap
boundaries between multiple
jurisdictions
Management One-size fits all Place specific Objectives are relevant
approach to particular system
Citizen Limited consultations Extensive Decisions are more
engagement collaboration transparent to local
stakeholders and
more likely to receive
lasting support
Decision- Linear, top-down Integrative (both Better integration of
making top-down and multiple values
process bottom-up) and increasing the
circular likelihood of
consensus
Follow-up Limited Adaptive Increased
management opportunity to learn
from experiences

Implementing EM is not without challenges. Several international agencies,

through case study analyses, have developed a set of principles or attributes for
successful implementation of EM (IUCN, 2000; MEA, 2003; UNCB, 2003; UNDP
et al., 2003). All of these reports note that the success of EM is not in what policies
are implemented nor in the issues addressed, but instead in the incorporation of the
four defining characteristics of EM (collaborative governance, scientific founda-
tion, integrated planning, and adaptive management) within a functioning decision
making process.

3. Policy Evaluation by Centralized Decision Makers

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

a strong foundation of scientific knowledge, ensuring collaborative governance

through inclusion of stakeholders, and integrating people and knowledge through
an effective planning mechanism. This single initiative evaluation process involves
the systematic analysis of the processes, inputs, and outcomes of any program or
policy using the following criteria:

• 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).

This type of goal/achievement-oriented evaluation is usually conducted by the

decision maker(s) and often reflects trade-offs among the ecological, economic, and
social considerations associated with a particular program. But decisions regarding
the environment are often driven by societal values as well as scientific knowledge.
As such, the public is demanding greater involvement or at least access to the
environmental decision making process. To reflect this, policies and approaches
are often evaluated based on their:

• Legitimacy – the degree to which interested individuals, organisations, and firms

accept the particular instrument;
• Transparency – the degree to which inputs, outcomes, and processes are visible
to the public; and
• Accountability – the distribution of costs and benefits resulting from a program
(Lafferty and Meadowcroft, 1996).

When dealing with complex environmental problems the following criteria are
also commonly considered:

• Flexibility – the ability to cope with changing conditions; and

• Sustainability – does the program or policy leave a lasting effect on the state of
the environment (Verdung, 1998).

Management approaches, including EM can also be evaluated using this frame-

work.

4. Challenges of Ecosystem Management

Achieving the central goal of EM (maintaining ecological integrity) is particularly

challenging, given that EM is often seen as a tool for addressing management
 POLICY CHARACTERIZATION 11

situations in which there is a high level of uncertainty regarding the ecosystem

in questions and for which no simple technological or managerial fix is readily
available. An additional challenge to this approach is that the time-frame in which
changes can be observed within an ecosystem are often significantly longer than
political timeframes, due in part to the built-in lag-effects or safety-valves within
ecosystem processes.
This section using case studies, explores some of the challenges of EM including:
legitimacy, transparency, accountability, relevancy, flexibility, sustainability and
integration. Strategies to overcome challenges are also addressed.

4.1. L EGITIMACY, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY - COLLABORATIVE

GOVERNANCE

The first step in establishing an EM regime is the selection of stakeholders. This

is of particular importance because it is the stakeholders who will decide on the
appropriate path forward and it is also the stakeholders that lend transparency and
legitimacy to the process (WRI, 2003). By giving community members, industry
groups, and non-governmental organizations access to the decision making process,
a wider range of socio-economic values are taken into consideration and the like-
lihood of long-term community support for decisions is enhanced (MEA, 2003).
Unfortunately, with such a wide variety of stakeholders involved in decision mak-
ing the process can become over-burdened by the number of people involved and
the issues or concerns they represent.
In selecting stakeholders, government officials need to balance the need for
stakeholder inclusiveness with the efficiency of the decision making process, while
at the same time maintaining the public legitimacy of the process. To foster legit-
imacy, stakeholder selection criteria are usually defined within the terms of refer-
ence and are often based on a sectoral coalition or perspective-based model (Brown
1996). In each of these models, government officials approach a number of groups
or individuals, who share a common set of interests or beliefs, and ask them to form
a coalition and select a member to represent them in the planning process. Finding
the appropriate level of representation for each of the different interest groups is
a challenging and often an on-going process. To facilitate this, a secondary stake-
holder selection mechanism is included in the terms of reference identifying how
parties can petition the planning team for representation.
One example of a well-designed stakcholder network can be seen in the function-
ing of the fourteen areas of prime concern (ZIP communities) established under the
St. Lawrence Action Plan. Each ZIP team usually includes local citizens, businesses,
industry representatives, academics, NGOs, and first nations. This team works to-
gether to identify issues of concern, conducts assessments of the current state of en-
vironmental knowledge regarding these concerns, holds public consultations on the
assessments, and establishes action priorities for their community which they out-
line in an environmental remediation action plan (ERAP). Throughout this process
12 A. LAMONT

Strategies Saint-Laurent (SSL), a not-for-profit agency, provides technical support

to the community including: facilitation, scientific training and co-ordination with
the efforts of other communities (pers com Madeleine Papineau). With the guidance
of SSL, the Saguenay River ZIP was able to reduce access of livestock to the Sague-
nay River resulting in decreased nitrate and phosphorous levels and improved fish
returns (more information is available at http://www.slv2000.qc.ca/index a.htm).
While delegating decision making authority to a group of community-based
stakeholders often allows for better feedback mechanisms with impacted commu-
nities, it is also possible for decision makers to abuse their newly found pow-
ers. Stakeholders can high-jack or stall the process in side issues, preventing key
questions from being addressed. To prevent this situation from developing and to
promote accountability for moving the decision making process forward, govern-
ments sometimes establish performance indicators and interim deliverables for EM
processes.
In the Atlantic Coastal Action Program, Environment Canada promotes process
accountability from its fourteen ecosystem-based community coalitions by requir-
ing each coalition to meet regularly with the community they represent to identify
priorities, select projects, present their management plans and project ideas, and to
elect a board of directors. Each year the coalition compiles an Annual Plan with
set deliverables identified by stakeholders. This plan is reviewed by government
officials following its design and again at six months to ensure the community coali-
tion’s objectives and plans are feasible within the specified time-period and that
the coalition is on-track to achieving their objectives (pers com Larry Hildebrand).
A list of the fourteen coalitions and some of their specific accomplishments is
available at: http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/community/.
Establishing this type of system promotes dual accountability; stakeholders are
accountable to their communities of interest for developing objectives and manage-
ment plans and they are also accountable to sponsoring-governments for moving
the decision making process forward.
For some stakeholder processes, the use of performance indicators and regu-
lar community consultation has not provided a credible incentive for stakeholders
to work together to make decisions/manage ecosystems. This was the case in the
British Columbia Commission on Resources and the Environment process where
governments became frustrated with the lack of progress by the stakeholders and
decided to end the process by reviewing the work of the stakeholders and imple-
ment their own decisions (Brown, 1996). This sent a clear message to other teams
of stakeholders, that if they could not come to a decision and forward progress,
government would return to past practices.

4.2. IMPACT AND RELEVANCY - SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION

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

(Grumbine, 1994). In designing any environmental project it is essential to under-

stand the factors that may cause changes in the ecosystem, the complex integrated
nature of the various ecosystem components, and the socio-economic factors acting
within the ecosystem (UNCBD, 2003). This information is often the most difficult
to collect as cause-and-effect pathways within an ecosystem are often not linear
and there may be a large number of factors influencing the current state of the
ecosystem.
The goal of any EM project is to promote and protect the ecological integrity
of the ecosystem in question (Grumbine, 1994). To ensure that this occurs and the
project has identifiable achievements, decision makers need a good foundation of
scientific knowledge upon which to base their decisions. Such scientific information
includes:

1. Baseline Information-knowledge of environmental trends over time in such ar-

eas as air quality, water quality and quantity, and species distributions and abun-
dances.
2. Ecosystem Dynamics and Responses-understanding the potential pressures and
their negative or positive impacts on ecosystems including: ecosystem thresh-
olds, structures, functions, and capacities (Brody, 2003).

However, in order for any of this information to be perceived as credible or

legitimate, the information must first be accepted by the scientific community (peer
reviewed) and understood by the stakeholders (MEA, 2003). If information is gath-
ered and options developed prior to consulting with the stakeholders, the approach
is perceived as top-down and imposed for the outside. For this reason, information
gathering, including identifying knowledge gaps and developing research plans for
filling the gaps, becomes a significant component of the decision making process
(MEA, 2003).
By building this understanding, the stakeholders/decision makers are able to de-
termine which services are highly valued and how to develop approaches to maintain
these services, while reducing the potential for unforeseen negative impacts from
unknown feedback loops and indirect affects. Thus, the resulting decisions have
both lasting impact and relevancy to the local community. An additional benefit
of collecting and amalgamating data in an EM context is that regional knowl-
edge sources can be evaluated and included in the decision making process. Such
sources include local or practitioner’s knowledge, traditional knowledge, and local
cultural values. By viewing and managing the ecosystem from a holistic perspec-
tive, stakeholders can assess the cumulative effects of their various decisions and
make appropriate trade-offs.
One example of a research project that is being conducted to reduce the uncer-
tainty with regards to the resiliency of an ecosystem and to assist in future decisions
with regards to adapting to climate change is the Climate-Fire Ecosystem Impact
study under the Northern Ecosystem Initiative (Environment Canada, 2003b). This
14 A. LAMONT

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.

4.3. F LEXIBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY - ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

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.

4.4. R ELEVANT -INTEGRATED PLANNING

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.

4.5. E FFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE - INTEGRATED PLANNING

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

attaching sunset clauses to particular stakeholder policies with governments agree-

ing to monitor the policy over a certain time frame and possibly adopt the policy
into law on a provincial/national level should the policy be deemed effective.

5. Conclusions

Ecosystem management, by bringing together various levels of government and

stakeholders including industry, is likely to result in a more stream-lined decision
making process with reduced over-lap. Furthermore, by testing particular policies
at the local level, the effectiveness of these policies can be evaluated prior to im-
plementation at a provincial or national level.
For EM to move beyond just a consultative exercise, stakeholders must be given
access to a wider range of policy tools. In exchange, central authorities, by pro-
moting EM, can begin to address some of the major governance challenges facing
them today, including: the lack of consensus on environmental/economic tradeoffs,
the need for greater transparency, and the public desire for greater access to the
decision making process.

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.