Creating policy is a long process, and much time can be spent debating various perspectives and strategies of management. Successfully enacting these strategies, and converting them into relevant useful policy, is an equally challenging task which must then be engaged. It appears as though many implementations of Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) fail to take this vital second step. A study by Arkema outlines clearly, through diverse research, the broad reaching definitions of EBM, to study how these are being implemented in case studies using this management strategy. The results are surprising.
Less than five percent of the case studies specifically outline scientific objectives, or include any aspects of adaptive management or monitoring in their objectives. Furthermore, few accept the study of human interactions as a primary aspect of EBM (Arkema.) This seems particularly absurd. EBM focuses on understanding whole ecosystems, what the various parts provide to others, and how the system is mutually dependent. That being said, the ecosystem would not need to be intentionally managed if it were not for the people living in it. We create management based on EBM in finality to serve our own needs, not the needs of the environment. Because of this, and because of our potential ability to harm ecosystems without understanding out effect on them, it is vital to pursue this.
Even within accepting EBM, many case studies demonstrated an inability to integrate that meaningfully into their policy objectives. Clear scientific objectives generally lack definition, and are rarely connected in the way they truly exist in the ecosystem. Failure to fully realize the spatial and temporal scale on which different parts of ecosystems interact creates further disconnect in policy. When it comes down to it, it’s easy to recognize the need for EBM, but it’s much harder to decipher and implement what that requires.