2- Landscape Processes and Ecosystem Management: Implications for Research, Policy and Land Management Applications

2.1 - The roots of landscape ecology and ecosystem approach

Both landscape ecology and ecosystem management have their roots in the Systems Ecology theory of E. P. and H. T. Odum8 and in the further development of these principles at a landscape level by Forman and Godron (1986). Through the 1980s and 1990s the systems approach of landscape ecology has become the new frontier in ecological research9.

The foundations of the landscape ecology principle are that the landscape is a holistic entity integrating the geosphere, the biosphere and the totality of human influences over all spatial and temporal scales. Analytical methods, which look at environmental aspects (such as species) in isolation from the whole, are not sufficient. At issue is the hierarchical organisation of natural systems and the "emergence" of specific characteristics at these various hierarchical levels10. Odum (1991, p.5) states the epistemological position that "[the findings at any level] aid in the study of another level, but never completely explain the phenomena occurring at that level".

For instance, chemistry cannot explain all of genetics; genetics does not explain all of species behaviour; species cannot explain all of ecosystem processes; and individual ecosystems cannot explain all the factors within a landscape. Overly reductionist science is incapable of predicting or prescribing actions relating to these emerging issues, resulting in poor or simply wrong knowledge being applied. The result can often be the inability to see both potential threats and potential opportunities in biodiversity conservation.

With the rise in landscape ecology and the ecosystem approach has come a new vocabulary: biogeography; matrix; patch; patch dynamics; corridor; connectivity; disturbance; etc. With this new paradigm comes an acceptance of the dynamic and indeterministic (probabilistic) reality of nature, together with the reality of a human dimension of influence. The classic thesis of ecology in the past revolved around the idea of "homogeneity" of ecological systems and their tendency to maintain an "equilibrium state"11. The focus was narrowed even more in considering only the natural environment, without a place for human intervention. The landscape ecology paradigm brought about a radical change: the "heterogeneity" and "instability" of ecosystems are emphasised, and human interactions - as part of the landscape - are treated as factors affecting ecological processes from within, rather than necessarily as outside influences of "harm"12.

The implications of this approach extend to the core of research, policy and operational management in the ways we discuss below.

2.2 - Key features of the ecosystem approach

Central to the emerging approach is the view that landscapes and ecosystems represent systems so that the understanding of any hierarchical component (a species, or patch ecosystem, etc.) needs a broader context. This systems approach requires research, policy and management to be integrated across administrative boundaries and specific core interests.

A second important feature is that the key to understanding these systems is to focus on the processes and functions associated - including ecological, economic and social processes and functions. The emphasis on processes leads to considerations across a range of hierarchical scales within a context of the total landscape13.

The third feature is the inclusion of humans as very much part of the ecosystems, with the corollaries that human-excluded preserves are but one approach to biodiversity conservation (and not even necessarily the major one), and that the human use of resources is not necessarily dangerous to ecosystem health14.

A fourth feature is the emphasis on the appropriate culture-nature relationship. Inclusion of culture within nature is insufficient; the ecosystem approach also embraces social equity issues and the application of management for biodiversity through a bottom-up approach to learning. The tools emphasised are adaptive management and participatory capacity building - in contrast to strategies of human exclusion, or top-down direction and "education" by authorities that may devalue local and traditional knowledge.

2.3 - The CBD ecosystem principles and operational approach

The CBD principles of the Ecosystem Management approach include the following15:

  • Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choices
  • Principle 2: Management should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level.
  • Principle 3: Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.
  • Principle 4: Recognising potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:
  1. Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;
  2. Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;
  3. Internalise costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.
  • Principle 5: Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach.
  • Principle 6: Ecosystem must be managed within the limits of their functioning.
  • Principle 7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.
  • Principle 8: Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterise ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.
  • Principle 9: Management must recognise that change is inevitable.
  • Principle 10: The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.
  • Principle 11: The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.
  • Principle 12: The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

The Convention further suggests five strategies to assist in the application of these principles. They include:

  1. Focus on the relationships and processes within ecosystem
  2. Enhance benefit sharing
  3. Use adaptive management techniques
  4. Carry out management actions at the scale appropriate for the issue being addressed, with decentralisation to lowest level, as appropriate
  5. Ensure intersectoral co-operation.

A more detailed outline of the Ecosystem Management approach as interpreted by the parties to the Convention on Biodiversity is available in Appendix B16.

2.4 - Implications of ecosystem approach and landscape ecology to research, policy and management

One of the key implications of the ecosystem approach is the need for an integration of research, policy and operational management. The knowledge that flows between research, policy and operational management of the environment represents a system in itself. Adaptive management recognises and provides for this learning system - with research and other forms of knowledge underpinning good policy (the setting of standards, indicators and appropriate methods given certain circumstances). Good policy in turn underpins good operational management. Monitoring to gather more information for both research and policy is the final essential element to complete the learning heuristic17.

As formerly separated scientific disciplines begin to be integrated within ecological science, there is much greater acceptance of the view of ecological systems being communities formed of collaborations between diverse organisms. This perception is now widely recognised as being a more accurate reflection of how the biosphere works than the narrow view encapsulated by the phrase 'nature red in tooth and claw'. Where sufficient recognition is given to the broader, less visible biotic matrix it can be seen that organisms which are most 'fit' in the evolutionary sense are those that best integrate with the surrounding biotic environment, thus gaining a wider range of potential collaborators from which to source resources. The emerging perspective of a biosphere sustained by collaborative interactions underlies emerging models where retention of global biodiversity is acknowledged as being a necessary prerequisite to the long-term sustainability of human society.

The fact the ecosystem processes do not confine themselves within property boundaries requires administration of ecosystems across these boundaries. There are implication here particularly for the Department of Conservation (DoC) who administer over one third of New Zealand's land area. Considering the whole landscape, across which environmental, social and economic processes interact, is not a strong point of the Department, by its own admission. In its 1999 Post Election Brief DoC acknowledged the poor relationship it had maintained with many of the living communities that occupy these wider landscapes. However its response to improving communication and co-operative landscape management has still tended to extend the DoC reserve paradigm to the local people through top-down "education", rather than the more bottom-up approach employed by Australian counterparts18.

This top-down approach is in conflict with the CBD and ecosystem management approach, which recognises that social equity is a very important principle of biodiversity conservation, especially for local communities - and that participatory, capacity building processes are the proposed means of two-way information exchange. The focus of DoC is a function of its mandate under the Conservation Act (1987), which emphasises a very narrow range of environmental management considerations than those recognised by the CBD. The Landcare Trust19 and regional government have a better reputation in taking these broader community issues on board.

The ecosystem approach also has important implications for farmers, foresters and other resource users. The dominant approach of more productive land uses is to manage their one part of the landscape in isolation from that total landscape. Many foresters manage for environmental effects (hydrology, biodiversity, soil conservation, etc.) only at a forest stand or compartment level, while many farmers manage paddocks without consideration for the ecological processes that flow over the boundaries of their land. Under the ecosystem approach, this focus on particular, isolated areas is no longer sufficient.

The utilitarian approach to land is manifested in trends to impose a homogeneous pattern across the landscape, leading to a reduction in habitat variability that is need for biodiversity20. There are exceptions to this trend, but particular drivers for this homogeneity are intensification and associated economies of scale in both farming and forestry. The major challenge for biodiversity conservation on private land is how to encourage and facilitate habitat heterogeneity both within local ecosystems and across the landscape.

Ecosystem Management leads to a fundamental challenge of the approach of creating reserves as a total substitute for bringing about conservation through sustainable use. One of the strongest advocates for a change of approach away from the "utilitarian commerce or reserve" dichotomy was Botkin (1990). He states:

"Under the old management, management for conservation and management for utilisation (such as harvesting fish and cutting forests for timber) appeared to be different and, in general, incompatible goals. From an old preservationist perspective, nature undisturbed achieved a constancy that was desirable and was disrupted in an undesirable way only by human actions. From an old utilisation perspective, the forest was there to cut, take apart, replace, and put back together as one chose. If nature was like a watch, then one had to choose between the stereotyped preservationist's approach - appreciate the beauty of the watch, and use it to tell time - or the stereotyped engineer's approach - attempt to take the watch apart and improve it, or use the parts for something else. Under the new management, our role in conservation is active: for example harvesting may serve the interests of conservation as well as utilisation, and the goals of conservation and utilisation can be part of one approach." (Botkin 1990, p 156)

These sentiments are echoed by others21 and are at the core of the ecosystem approach.

A very limited application of the Ecosystem Management approach by New Zealand conservationists, scientists, policy makers, farmers and other resource users is lamented by Park (2000). The next section of this report considers New Zealand's ecological and social history to explore potential reasons for this failure to apply this approach until relatively recently. We consider whether the Ecosystem Management approach is relatively more or less relevant to New Zealand as a whole and to MAF's agenda to safeguard biodiversity in agricultural landscapes in particular.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Contact for Enquiries

MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person

 
Print this page Print this page




WebSite survey