SU R VEY
State governments, ecosystem management, and the enlibra
doctrine in the U S
Charles R . M alone *
N uclear W aste Project Office,Capitol Complex,Carson City,N V 89701, US A
R eceived 1 N ovember 1999; received in revised form 31 January 2000; accepted 1 F ebruary 2000
Abstract
Some state governments in the U S are beginning to adopt ecosystem management policies and practices for conserving natural resources. F or the most part, the policies are consistent with the concept of sustaining both economies and the environment. In the western U S, state-level ecosystem management programs are meant to increase the influence that states have on the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Initiative that applies to public lands. This is the intent of the emerging Enlibra doctrine of the Western G overnors’ Association for managing the environment on federal lands. This paper discusses the ecosystem management policies that exist or are being developed throughout the 50 states of the U S, and compares principles of the ecosystem management concept in the federal government, state governments, and the Enlibra doctrine. Basically, the programs contain similar components and objectives, and they all lack sufficient representation of the tenets of ecological economics. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:Ecosystem management; State programs; Enlibra doctrine
www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
1. Introduction
F or managing renewable natural resources, ecosystem approaches are recognized as being suited for sustaining both economies and environ-ments. Traditional multiple-use resources man-agement, on the other hand, is commodity oriented, favors economic development, fails to
integrate humans as parts of ecosystems, and is based on regulatory approaches (D avis, 1997; Cortner and M oote, 1999). U nder the traditional schemes, resource harvesting is not balanced by an increase in resource stewardship, while ecosys-tem management is meant to sustain both economies and natural resources across human generations (M alone, 1998a,b; Szaro et al., 1998). The environmentally aware government generally appreciates the benefits offered by ecosystem-based management in the pursuit of sustainable
* Tel.: +1-775-6873744; fax:+1-775-6875277.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.R . M al-one)
development. This is why ecosystem management has been adopted as the means by which the U S government hopes to achieve sustainable develop-ment (G ore, 1993; IEM TF , 1995; OEP, 1995; PCSD , 1999). F ollowing from the federal initia-tive, some state governments also are moving toward ecosystem-based resources management. The survey reported here addressed adoption of ecosystem management within the nation’s 50 states.
Table 1 lists the principles and characteristics of the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Initiative, part of the significance of which is reflected by the fact that together, the U S F orest Service (U SF S) and the U S D epartment of the Interior (U SD OI) manage 700 million acres of public land, more than one-quarter of the U S. This is especially important in the western U S where the majority of public lands are located. An impact of the federal initiative has been that some private com-mercial activities in the west have been reduced on public lands by land management agencies such as the U SF S and the agencies under the U SD OI. Consequently, under economic pressure from fed-eral constraints, western and southwestern states in the contiguous U S have acted through the Western G overnors’ Association in late 1998 to adopt the Enlibra doctrine (WG A, 1999; M alone, 2000). Enlibra is an initiative aimed at giving various interests within the 19-member states of the WG A greater influence in federal ecosystem management activities.
R egarding application of the concept of ecosys-tem management, the Enlibra doctrine is interest-ing, potentially promisinterest-ing, and of concern at the same time (Table 2). Concern about the doctrine arises because of the cautions reflected in the last four entries listed in Table 2. N o full application of the doctrine has yet been made, and it merits scrutiny as it develops. In part, outside analysis of the doctrine is needed because the 14 contiguous interior western and southwestern U S states are politically conservative whereas ecosystem man-agement is usually viewed as a liberal policy (D avis, 1997; Cortner and M oote, 1999; M alone, 2000). The three progressive Pacific coastal states had some aspects of Enlibra-type ecosystem man-agement underway before the doctrine was
devel-Table 1
G eneral principles and characteristics of ecosystem manage-ment contained in the F ederal Ecosystem M anagemanage-ment Initia-tive (IEM TF , 1995)
– Science and other disciplines are integrated into holistic and interdisciplinary approach to managing natural resources.
– Ecosystems and biodiversity are managed in the context of natural spatial boundaries as well as temporal horizons across which ecosystems constantly change. – Ecosystem management recognizes that ecosystem
components are interconnected, that they include humans, and that altering one component may have effects on others.
– F or policy making, sound scientific information is used instead of subjective judgement.
– M anagement strategies and techniques are adapted as new information becomes available.
– U ncertainty is acknowledged in measuring and evaluating ecosystem characteristics.
– Institutions must become adaptable to new approaches and to cooperation.
– Partnerships based on resource stewardship are formed among stakeholders for collaborative democratic decision making and sharing resource costs and benefits. – Conflict management is used to resolve differences
among stakeholders.
– Ecosystem management seeks to achieve balanced socioeconomic and the environmental sustainability through environmental ethics and resource stewardship.
Table 2
Principles and characteristics of the Enlibra doctrine (WG A, 1999)
– Seeks to combine resources management and
environmental protection and environmental stewardship. – Would reflect interdisciplinary and holistic resources
management.
– Would manage resources according to natural boundaries, not political or administrative ones. – Seeks to use science instead of subjectivity for policy
making and recognizes the need for good science and training.
– Would use cost-effective means for achieving benefits. – Prefers local solutions for meeting national standards for
managing natural resources on public lands.
– Seeks greater participation in natural resources decision making by citizens and private stakeholders who believe that resources can be protected while still using them. – Prefers non-regulatory tools to protect and improve
natural resources and ecosystems.
Table 3
Criteria used to judge the merits of states’ programs relative to supporting the conceptual practice of ecosystem managementa
1. Interdisciplinary approach based on sound science, socioeconomics, and institutional arrangement. 2. Adaptable institutions capable of cooperative and
coordinated actions.
3. R ealistic appreciation of the two aspects of sustainable development.
4. Capable of forming partnerships with interested stakeholders and the public and carrying out democratic decision making.
5. Combined administration for managing renewable natural resources and protecting other components of the environment.
6. Appreciation of the role of environmental education, ethics, and biodiversity stewardship in ecosystem management.
7. Academic support from in-state universities capable of advising and training within the interdisciplinary context of ecosystem management.
aThe criteria are based on the most important principles
and characteristics of the ecosystem management concept as reflected by existing programs.
ecosystem management being the policy of the federal land management agencies, it is natural that state governments are turning attention to ecosystem management.
2. Ecosystem management and state programs
The survey of ecosystem management policies in state governments discussed here took two forms; first, locating state policies designated as being ecosystem management, and second, a search for random policies, programs, and activi-ties in state governments that can serve as compo-nents or building blocks for an ecosystem management policy. To identify existing policies or components that can be used as future policies, criteria were adapted to reflect the concept of ecosystem management as embraced by the F ed-eral Ecosystem M anagement Initiative, and shown in Table 1.
Based initially on Table 1, state government programs were searched for the most common and minimal set of common criteria that appeared useful for the ultimate task. The results of that second step appear in Table 3 which lists seven principles and characteristics of ecosystem man-agement policies, programs, and activities consis-tent with the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Initiative (IEM TF , 1995; OEP, 1995; PCSD , 1999) as well as the professional literature (e.g. TK C, 1996; Vogt et al., 1997; M alone, 1998a,b; Szaro et al., 1998; Cortner and M oote, 1999) that were drawn upon with the results shown in Table 1. Characteristics of the emerging Enlibra doc-trine (Table 2) were not used because no state ecosystem management programs exist based on Enlibra. The programs of the three Pacific coastal states reflect the federal program far more than they do the WG A’s doctrine.
R eaders interested in economic ecology and social sciences will note first off that such disci-plines are represented in Table 1 by only the last entry. M oreover, in Table 3 even that single entry was not used because the principle of sustainable development too seldom appeared among state policies and programs to be useful. Beyond the traditional economic concept of costs and oped. In fact, it was in the Pacific N orthwest
where federal ecosystem management first was applied because of the spotted owl and logging controversy in the 1980s and the 1990s (Yaffee, 1994).
benefits, progressive tenets of economic theory such as ecological economics seldom should be considered in ecosystem management (e.g. TK C, 1996; Vogt et al., 1997; Szaro et al., 1998; Cortner and M oote, 1999). The same applies to other more traditional social sciences, a matter dis-cussed later.
Ecosystem management is of interest especially in the western and southwestern U S because of the Enlibra doctrine of the WG A. The doctrine was adopted in late 1998 by the WG A in response to states’ concerns about the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Initiative that applies to national public lands. The survey reported here was per-formed in the fall of 1999 by searching all 50-state governments for evidence of programs that em-body elements of ecosystem-based management. Programs were surveyed on the world wide web (WWW) by searching states’ home pages. A list of the addresses taken from the WWW and used for the survey is provided in Appendix A. The merits of the programs thus accessed were judged rela-tive to their contributions as building blocks for ecosystem-based approaches for managing natural
resources and protecting the environment. The criteria used for this task (Table 3) reflect generic and reasonably common attributes of ecosystem management as well as what is important in polit-ical and administrative contexts within state government.
Among all 50 U S states, the 14 listed in Table 4 have elements of ecosystem management and stewardship programs. Eleven of the state pro-grams have more than five of the seven ecosys-tem-based program elements listed in the table. Three states, M ichigan, M issouri, and Tennessee, have at least three program elements that would serve as components of ecosystem management programs. States with less than three elements were not considered sufficient for listing in Table 4. F or that group of 36 states, the 14 states that are listed merit consideration as potential models for other states to examine with respect to pro-gressing toward ecosystem management on a par with the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Initiative.
Of all states, F lorida has the strongest ecosys-tem-based program on the basis of the state’s
Table 4
1993 Environmental R eorganization Act. The act merged functions of environmental regulation and natural resources management and provided a mandate for the F lorida D epartment of Environ-mental Protection (D EP) to protect ecosystem functions. Through the Office of Ecosystem M an-agement, the D EP is engaged in enhancing coor-dination of public land acquisition and land use planning programs that are consistent with the criteria listed in Table 3 and used for Table 4. Public and stakeholder participation is a hallmark of the F lorida program in that decisions are not made by experts alone. Another indication that ecosystem management is taken seriously by the F lorida state government is that the OEM ’s pro-grams have influenced the academic propro-grams of the U niversity of F lorida’s College of R esources and Environment. This raises the issue of the role of higher education in fostering ecosystem man-agement within state government, e.g. by provid-ing trained professional for staffing state government programs.
Several other states are well along in developing programs that include aspects such as resources stewardship, environmental education programs, and interaction with state universities. Among the more progressive state programs developed in this respect are the three Pacific coast states, Califor-nia, Oregon, and Washington (Table 4). D espite the WG A’s Enlibra doctrine, these are the only western states that have natural resources policies and practices compatible with ecosystem manage-ment and were undertaken for salmon fisheries and timber resources. The programs follow from the spotted owl controversy (Yaffee, 1994) and appear to be biased toward present-generation economic interests and lacking in a more balanced approach to sustaining natural resources such as that of the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Ini-tiative. This raises a flag of caution regarding the western states’ Enlibra doctrine (Table 2).
The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, approved and funded in 1997 by the state legisla-ture, crosses the administrative lines of state agen-cies involved. Its essential elements are coordinated agency programs, community-based action, monitoring status and achievements, and taking corrective measures. In California,
ecosys-tem management has become the organizing prin-cipal for land use planning and management at the state level and the California R esources Agency has ecosystem management field projects underway. An especially notable one is the Cali-fornia Sierra N evada Ecosystem Project. Various state universities and agencies participate in the project which is a visible and popular one throughout the state. The Washington D epart-ment of N atural R esources recognizes natural re-sources stewardship that emphasizes the human as opposed to the scientific side of ecosystem man-agement. The crown jewel of the state govern-ment’s ecosystem-based management effort is the Salmon R ecovery Program and its F orests and F ish R eport. Similar to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, the Washington counter-part is based on the principles of ecosystem man-agement and integrated natural resources and economic development.
Aside from F lorida in the eastern half of the U S, G eorgia, Illinois, M aryland, M innesota, N ew York, N orth Carolina, and Wisconsin have rea-sonably well-developed state programs that com-pliment ecosystem management. Interdisciplinary approaches and an awareness of a balanced per-spective toward sustainable development are ap-parent in each state, but more so in N orth Carolina. M ost importantly, the six states have integrated environmental protection with natural resources management into a common depart-ment as F lorida has done. U nlike F lorida, how-ever, there is no mandate in other states to adopt an ecosystem approach and less emphasis is placed on public and stakeholder participation in resource management decision making. States that meet less than five of the criteria in Table 4 are M ichigan, M issouri, and Tennessee. In M ichi-gan, the state government maintains a traditional commodity and recreational approach to natural resources and lacks recognition of ecosystem stewardship.
does not yet exist in the three states. F or M issouri, the authority seems to follow from the N atural R esources M anagement Plan envisioned by the state within its F iscal Year 2000 Integrated Strate-gic Plan. It is not apparent what the plans in G eorgia and Tennessee are in this regard, but intentions toward natural resource and environ-mental stewardship appear promising for the future in both states. M aryland shows promise for build-ing a foundation for ecosystem-based management from the federal and state programs associated with the Chesapeake Bay region and the U niversity of M aryland Center for Environmental Science.
3. Discussion
H ighest ranking among the states included in the ecosystem management survey was F lorida. This is because F lorida is the only state having (1) statu-tory and regulastatu-tory authority for both ecosystem management and environmental protection com-bined within one agency and (2) a clear mandate to adopt ecosystem management. The only other states known to have statutory authority for combining environmental compliance with re-sources management are N orth Carolina and Wis-consin, neither of which have a legislative mandate to adopt the ecosystem-based approach to compre-hensive environmental management.
A state’s having legislated authority similar to F lorida probably is the key toward achieving ecosystem management. Once that goal is attained, many other steps and components will follow of necessity. H owever, there are actions that can be taken and programs that can be implemented ahead of legislative authorization of ecosystem management. This has occurred and is in the process of happening in several progressive states other than F lorida. D espite the lack of legislation, states such as G eorgia, M innesota, M issouri, N ew York, and Tennessee have taken steps toward integrating environmental protection and natural resources management.
Another potentially important factor for the prospects of a state’s success with ecosystem man-agement appears to be sound professional and academic support within the state university
sys-tem. This helps the state government with institut-ing a scientifically sound and interdisciplinary ecosystem-based socioeconomic program for bal-ancing economic growth with sustainable natural resources across future human generations. Instill-ing environmental ethics and resource stewardship in other sectors of the state can be assisted by the state’s educational system. Similarly, developing realistic perceptions of what sustainable develop-ment is, i.e. that it implies that resources may pose limits to economic growth, are important for all stakeholders to perceive. This type of support has become available in F lorida, and it appears to be emerging in Illinois, California, and perhaps in M ichigan and Wisconsin.
In addition to F lorida, the states that appear to have the soundest base for moving toward ecosys-tem management are the three Pacific coast states, G eorgia, Illinois, N ew York, N orth Carolina, and possibly M innesota and Wisconsin. The remaining states listed in Table 3 have farther to go but do show degrees of potential, while the 36 states not mentioned herein appear to lack progress regarding ecosystem-based programs. This holds true partic-ularly for states of the western interior and the southwest where many public land resources exist. Presently, these resources largely are addressed by the F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Initiative, al-though California, Oregon, and Washington are initiating states’ initiatives.
The federal initiative has caused concern in the conservative west and southwest regarding states’ rights. The concern gave rise to WG A’s Enlibra doctrine in an attempt to balance, or dilute, the role of the federal government in managing public natural resources. Citizens and other stakeholders interested in how public lands are managed, espe-cially regarding the western and southwestern U S, should take note of the WG A’s Enlibra doctrine. Though still young and evolving as a new doctrine for environmental management, there are some elements of Enlibra (Table 2) that are somewhat similar to the concept and principles of federal ecosystem management (Table 1).
the ideal of sustainable development (e.g. H awken, 1993; D aly, 1996; Jagtenberg and M cK ie, 1997; M urphy, 1997), but usually are not significant within the context of interdisciplinary ecosystem management. Economic policies for sustainability, such as those directed beyond the central organizing principle of growth, are impor-tant for defining sufficiency, equity, and efficiency and broad aspects of environmental integrity from the human point of view. The same economic policies must be made explicit or strongly implied in ecosystem management to bind the view of sustainable economic development with ecological sustainability. In large measure, it will fall to and challenge the field of ecological economics and those who practice it to foster this union.
As a conceptual practice, ecosystem manage-ment has much to offer regarding maintaining renewable natural resources in pursuit of sustain-ability for future generations. M any hurdles re-main regarding overcoming utilitarian views of the environment and creating a lasting land ethic. M uch remains to be accomplished at all levels of government to foster collaborative, democratic decision making. Science, too, has a large role to play by improving the understanding of ecosys-tems and developing effective management tools and strategies. The federal government has made large strides in these regards in the past 15 years, and much of what has been accomplished pro-vides a basis upon which state governments can build ecosystem management policies. In this re-gard, the state of F lorida serves as a successful example that can guide other state governments. In the western U S, adoption of the conservative Enlibra doctrine for applying to federal lands is of potential concern to all citizens. The entire nation benefits from public land resources and 111must recognize how the resources are managed between state and federal governments merits scrutiny.
Appendix A. Bibliography of world wide web addresses used
California R esources Agency. California,
http://ceres.ca.gov/cra/
1999a
Ecosystem M anagement in California,
1999b California. http:/ceres.ca.gov/
ceres/calweb/biodiversity/
ecomgmt.html
California, D epartment of F ish and G ame. http://
1999c
www.dfg.ca.gov/
Sierra N evada Ecosystem California,
1999d Project. http://ceres.ca.gov/
snep/
California, Ecology at the U niversity of California at D avis. http://
1999e
www.ucdavis.edu/
publications/ecology.html D epartment of Environmen-F lorida, 1999a
tal Protection: Ecosystem M anagement. http://
www.dep.state.fl.us/
ecosystem/
U niversity of F lorida College F lorida, 1999b
of N atural R esources and Environment. http://
web.cnre.ufl.edu/
D epartment of N atural G eorgia, 1999
R esources. http://
www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/
mainpage.html
U niversity of Illinois Ecosys-Illinois, 1999a
tem M anagement for Illinois Landowners. http://
www.aces.uiuc.edu/nres/
research/eco/esm.htm Illinois, 1999b D epartment of N atural R
e-sources Ecosystem Programs. http://dnr.state.il.us/c2000/
manage/partner.htm M aryland’s N atural M aryland, 1999a
R esources. http://
www.dnr.state.md.us/
M aryland, U niversity of M aryland Center for Environmental 1999b
Sciences. http://
www.co.cees.edu/
D epartment of N atural M ichigan, 1999a
R esources. http://
www.state.mi.us/dnr/
School of N atural R esources and Environment. http://
www.snre.umich.edu/
Ecosystem M anagement 2000 M ichigan, 1999c
H omepage. http://
www.umich.edu/emsnre/
D epartment of N atural R e-M innesota,
sources Ecosystem Based 1999a
M anagement. http://
dnr.state.mn.us/ebm/
U niversity of M innesota M innesota,
N atural R esources R esearch 1999b
Institute. http://
www.nrri.umn.edu/
D epartment of N atural R e-M issouri, 1999a
sources. http://
www.dnr.state.mo.us/
U niversity of M issouri M issouri, 1999b
School of N atural R esources. http://www.snr.missouri.edu/
The Environment. http://
N ew York, 1999
www.state.ny.us/
environment.htm
D epartment of Environmen-N orth Carolina,
tal and N atural R esources. 1999
http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/
ehnr/
The Oregon Plan for Salmon Oregon, 1999a
and Watersheds. http://
www.oregon-plan.org/
Oregon State U niversity Col-Oregon, 1999b
lege D epartments and Pro-grams. http://www.orst.edu/
D epartment of Environmen-Tennessee, 1999
tal Conservation. http://
www.state.tn.us/environment/i ndex.html
Salmon R ecovery H ome Washington,
Page. http://www.wa.gov/esa/
1999a
D epartment of N atural R e-Washington,
sources. http://
1999b
www.wa.gov:80/dnr/
U niversity of Washington Washington,
College of F orest R esources. 1999c
http://www.cfr.uwa.edu/
Washington, Washington State U niversity Program in Environmental 1999d
Science and R egional Plan-ning. http://www.sci.wsu.edu/
Wisconsin, 1999 D epartment of N atural R e-sources. http://
www.dnr.state.wi.us/
References
Cortner, H .J., M .A. M oote, 1999. The Politics of Ecosystem M anagement. Island Press, Washington, D C, 179 pp. D aly, H .E., 1996. Beyond G rowth. Beacon Press, Boston,
M A, 253 pp.
D avis, C., 1997. Conclusion: public lands and policy change. In: D avis, C. (Ed.), Western Public Lands and Environ-mental Politics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 193 – 202.
G ore, A., 1993. R einventing Environmental M anagement: Ac-companying R eport of the N ational Performance R eview. The White H ouse, Washington, D C.
H awken, P., 1993. The Ecology of Commerce: A D eclaration of Sustainability. H arperCollins Publishers, N ew York, 250 pp.
Interagency Ecosystem M anagement Task F orce (IEM TF ), 1995. The Ecosystem Approach: H ealthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies. The White H ouse, Washington, D C.
Jagtenberg, T., M cK ie, D ., 1997. Eco-Impacts and the G reen-ing of Postmodernity. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 304 pp.
M alone, C.R ., 1998a. The F ederal Ecosystem M anagement Initiative in the U S. In: Lemons, J., G oodman, R ., Westra, L. (Eds.), Environmental Sustainability. K luwer Academic Publishers, D ordecht, The N etherlands, pp. 203 – 217. M alone, C.R ., 1998b. The Southern N evada Ecosystem M
an-agement Initiative. Environments 26 (2), 1 – 15.
M alone, C.R ., 2000. Ecosystem management in the U S. Land-scape U rban Plann. 42 (1), 1 – 18.
M urphy, R ., 1997. Sociology and N ature in Context. West-view Press, Boulder, CO, 319 pp.
Office of Environmental Protection (OEP), 1995. M emoran-dum of U nderstanding to F oster the Ecosystem Approach. The White H ouse, Washington, D C.
President’s Council on Sustainable D evelopment (PCSD ), 1999. Toward a Sustainable America. PCSD , The White H ouse, Washington, D C.
Szaro, R .C., Sexton, W.T., M alone, C.R . (Eds.), 1998. Special issue on ecosystem management. Landscape U rban Plann. 40 (1 – 3), 1 – 233.
on Ecosystem M anagement. The K eystone Center, K ey-stone, CO.
Vogt, K .A., G ordon, J.C., Wargo, J.P., 1997. Ecosystems: Balancing Science with M anagement. Springer – Verlag, N ew York.
Western G overnors’ Association (WG A), 1999. Enlibra: A Shared Environmental D octrine. WG A, D enver, CO. Yaffee, S.L., 1994. The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl: Policy
Lessons for a N ew Century. Island Press, Washington, D C, 430 pp.
