Ecologically-informed management of natural resources is not new; as ecology and conservation biology have developed, so have ecosystem management thoughts and practices (McIntosh, 1985). Since the 1980s, the scientific and political communities have encouraged land management agencies to adopt ecosystem management practices (GAO, 1994). Many federal and state agencies (USFS, BLM, DOD) have attempted the changes associated with ecosystem management; however, the challenges have often been difficult to meet.

Simply defining the intent and expectations associated with ecosystem management has been problematic. Grumbine (1994, 1996) has defined the concept by focusing on ten themes from the conservation ecology literature. Five of these themes are relevant to agencies trying to change their organizational practices to more fully encompass ecosystem management. These themes are 1) hierarchical context, 2) ecological boundaries, 3) interagency cooperation, 4) adaptive management, and 5) organization change. The first four will be described in the following paragraphs. The fifth, organization change, will be the focus of the next section. These themes are highly interrelated.

Grumbine's concept of hierarchical context relates not to the structure of an agency implementing ecosystem management, but to the way the agency focuses its efforts on the resource. Grumbine suggests that ecosystem management requires an agency to focus its efforts on many different levels. Some activity may be focused on localized issues of small scale (e.g. issues within a refuge), while others are focused on issues that cut across many administrative and political boundaries (e.g. waterfowl migration). The ability to define and work within appropriate ecological boundaries and to move effectively across political and ownership boundaries is a hallmark of successful ecosystem management. Within this context, operational boundaries are defined by issue, not by jurisdiction.

This type of activity suggests the next theme: interagency cooperation. Collaboration within institutions and between institutions is required to achieve resource management goals. Yaffee (1997) discusses how competition between natural resources agencies, fragmentation of responsibility and authority, and inefficient handling of the information needed to solve problems stand in the way of this much needed collaboration. Others describe the all too common occurrence of disputes between people and the organizations they represent overshadowing conflicts between human needs and nature (Christensen et al., 1996, Decker et al., 1996, Driver et al., 1996). Grumbine (1994) notes it is difficult for agencies to share power and influence in making successful partnerships without compromising scientific integrity. Agencies struggle to involve others actively(agencies, landowners, NGOs) in their efforts, and this in and of itself stands in the way of significant ecosystem accomplishments.

Adaptive management and successful leadership of change are among the keys to overcoming the barriers discussed (Grumbine, 1994). Adaptive management recognizes the current validity of scientific data, but also assumes that understanding of phenomena will continue to evolve with ongoing research. As such, managers are expected to create organizations and people who are flexible, open-minded, and able to rapidly adjust to changing situations. As Knight and Meffe (two of the instructors of the FWS course An Approach to Ecosystem Conservation) wrote in 1997, "ecosystem management requires a change from the traditional top-down, hierarchical, risk-averse, boundary-oriented command and control approach. In its place, management of natural resources must be based on individual initiative, is risk taking, decentralization and partnerships." In essence, individuals and groups must be supported (through allocation of authority, money, and time) in creating partnerships and taking actions that most appropriately address the needs of the resource at all scales and across boundaries. This statement is in sharp contrast to the reality present in most resource management agencies. These agencies, based in bureaucratic structures, policies, and procedures, are maintained through funding mechanisms that reward compliance and predictability (Grumbine, 1994).

Despite the challenges, ecosystem management has been successful in some cases. Yaffee and his colleagues at the University of Michigan (1996) chronicled the results of numerous examples of sound ecosystem management and reported that in successful cases, communication and coordination had increased, resource management plans had been developed and implemented, and new decision making structures had been created within the agencies involved. Resource improvements were anticipated, although in most cases, it was much too early to measure such results.