March 9, 2010
Matthew Ehrman
Defining Climate Resilience for the 2010 Forest Planning Rule
The United States Forest Service (USFS) began the process of drafting a new National Forest
System land management planning rule (planning rule) in December 2009. The USFS included
a set of potential principles to frame the comment period discussion, one of which is “an
emphasis on restoration, conservation, and the improved resilience of ecosystems.”1 However,
the NOI offers a few variations on the discussion of resilience. The background section states
that “[developing] a new rule will allow the Agency to integrate forest restoration, watershed
protection, climate resilience, wildlife conservation, the need to support vibrant local economies,
and collaboration into how the Agency manages national forest and grasslands, with the wider
goals of protecting our water, climate, and wildlife while enhancing ecosystem services and
creating economic opportunity [emphasis added].”2 While it sounds like something positive,
directing the Agency to integrate climate resilience into how it manages public lands is
problematic. The preceding principle calls for the improved resilience of ecosystems, which
demonstrates that resilience is a property of something; in this case, an ecosystem. In the context
of the planning rule, both climate resilience and ecosystem resilience refer to USFS resources.
However, climate resilience is framed in terms of the stressor facing that resource and ecosystem
resilience in terms of the resource itself.
The issue at hand is whether directing the Agency to promote climate resilience is different than
a call to enhance ecosystem resilience to stressors that include climate change impacts. This
brief will summarize some of the definitions used in the scientific and management literature,
discuss some of the management approaches to improve resilience, and discuss whether the new
planning rule should frame these goals in terms of ecosystem resilience or climate resilience.
Definitions of Resilience in the Scientific Literature
The Resilience Alliance is a research organization that studies social-ecological systems. In a
handbook for natural resource practitioners, they define resilience as “the ability of a system to
absorb shocks, to avoid crossing a threshold into an alternate and possibly irreversible new state,
and to regenerate after disturbance.”3 The goal of this workbook is to provide the theoretical and
scientific basis for helping practitioners frame natural resource management issues from a broad
perspective that takes a systems-based approach to include social and ecological factors at
different spatial and temporal scales.4
It is possible that some scientific disciplines view the concept of resilience differently, but the
studies I encountered were generally in agreement. One study that measured the resilience of
vegetation to climatic and anthropic stress using satellite data defines resilience as “a
fundamental concept for understanding vegetation as a dynamic component of the climate
system. It expresses the ability of ecosystems to tolerate disturbances and to recover their initial
state.”5 Similarly a report studying the resilience of ecosystem after fire disturbances states,
“Ecological resilience refers to the ability of a system to withstand disturbances without
1
Forest Service, USDA. 2009. News Release: USDA Forest Service Launches Collaborative Process for New
Planning Rule. Washington: Forest Service Press Office.
2
Forest Service, USDA. 2009 National Forest System Land Management Planning. 74 Fed Reg 67165, 67166.
3
Resilience Alliance. 2007. Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems: A practitioners
workbook. http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php, 4.
4
Id, 6.
5
Simonielloa, T., et al. 2007. Estimation of vegetation cover resilience from satellite time series. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences 5: 511.
converting to a wholly new state with different composition, structure and function (Webster et
al. 1975).”6 They go on to say that resilience fundamentally differs from resistance, which is the
ability of an individual to survive a disturbance, which in this case is fire.7
Policy analyses also seek to define resilience. The Climate Leadership Initiative at the
University of Oregon drafted a framework for climate change preparation planning. They
describe resilience as “[the] capacity of natural, human, built, or economic systems to return to a
state of high function and integrity after disturbance.”8 Glicksman, a legal scholar, discusses
ecosystem resilience as it relates to the scientific paradigm that constrains natural resource
management and adaptive management techniques in the US.9 He adopts the Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) definition of resilience described below.10 However, Glicksman offers
this definition to avoid confusion at a conference convened to discuss the concept of resilience
and natural resource issues, where a common understanding of this concept was lacking. This
highlights the necessity for the new planning rule to clarify how the agency intends to define
ecosystem resilience and climate resilience.
The CCSP produced a comprehensive Synthesis and Assessment Product on the potential climate
change impacts facing federally managed lands.11 The report focuses on adaptation options that
can be used to adjust best management practices to “maximize ecosystem resilience to climate
change.”12 In this context, it defines resilience as “[the] amount of change or disturbance that
can be absorbed by a system before the system is redefined by a different set of processes and
structures (i.e. the ecosystem recovers from the disturbance without a major phase shift). This
definition, like the Resilience Alliance definition, is consistent with the first principle discussed
in the NOI for the planning rule “Land management plans could address the need for restoration
and conservation to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to a variety of threats.”13 The first of
those eight potential threat areas listed is climate change. The central focus of the CCSP is
climate change adaptation, but it also recognizes that minimizing the traditional threats to
ecosystem resilience can improve ecosystem resilience to climate change. Such an approach
could eliminate the potential uncertainty with this concept, and also allow the planning rule to
address the other threats to ecosystem resilience separately.
Management Approaches to promote Climate Resilience
The planning rule may require forest plans to consider climate change impacts on ecological,
social, and economic systems. However, for the purposes of forest planning, the concept of
resilience to climate change impacts may only hold value as it relates to ecosystems. In either
6
Schoennagel, Tania, Erica A. H. Smithwick and Monica G. Turner. 2008. Landscape heterogeneity following large
fires: insights from Yellowston National Park, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17: 742.
7
Id.
8
Climate Leadership Initiative. 2008. Preparing the Pacific Northwest for Climate Change: A Framework for
Integrative Preparation Planning for Natural, Human, Built and Economic Systems. University of Oregon, Institute
for a Sustainable Environment: Salem, 4.
9
Glicksman, Robert. 2009. Ecosystem Resilience to Disruptions Linked to Global Climate Change: An Adaptive
Approach to Federal Land Management. Nebraska Law Review 87:401-460.
10
Id, 405.
11
CCSP. 2008. Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report
by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC.
12
Id, 14.
13
Forest Service, USDA, 2009, 67167.
case, it may be better to refer to this concept as “ecosystem resilience to climate change” in order
to eliminate and question over what is being made more resilient.
The planning rule could use some of the resources available to guide managers to the best
practices and management approaches used to improve ecosystem resilience to climate change.
The CCSP report is one such source. It offers seven general adaptation approaches to increase
ecosystem resilience to climate change. It also details the specific stressors and opportunities
facing each federal land management agency.14 Trout Unlimited (TU) also provides a simple
framework expressing many of those same resource management approaches, but broken into
three parts: Protect, Reconnect, and Restore.15 “Protect” refers to the identification and further
protection of high quality and intact ecosystems.16 The “Reconnect” approach looks to connect
those high quality ecosystems by removing barriers to migration and establishing migration
corridors.17 Lastly, “Restore” entails taking a broad landscape-level approach to identifying
damaged ecosystems and restoring the habitat and native populations.18 Although the TU
approach generally focuses on the preservation of trout and salmon populations, it offers the type
of concrete steps already mentioned in the NOI that are needed to set measurable goals for the
planning rule.
Conclusion
The second principle in the forest planning rule’s NOI asks the public to consider whether plans
could proactively address climate change through a series of measures, such as “[management]
will need to restore ecosystem resiliency, and also factor adaptation and mitigation strategies into
planning and project development.”19 The new planning rule should go a step further and offer a
clear definition of resilience. It should also seek to identify the USFS value or resource that
should be managed for resilience, in addition to what it is to be resilient to. The inherent
ambiguity in the term “climate resilience” could pose problems for the USFS as it drafts forest
plans under a planning rule that does not explicitly define climate resilience as ecosystem
resilience to climate change.
It may be that a concept like climate resilience is needed to place an imperative on addressing
climate change impacts in forest plans. However, Christopher Wood of TU explains that climate
change impacts and potential responses should be viewed in the context of the existing natural
conditions on public land. He testified, “Watersheds, riparian systems, and streams that are in
better condition will be more resistant to disturbance and more likely to rebound quickly. On the
other hand, habitats that are degraded and fragmented will be less able to adapt to climate change
risks.”20 As such, measures to improve ecosystem resilience are unlikely to undercut other
measures that seek to enhance ecosystem resilience to climate change.
14
CCSP, 2008.
Trout Unlimited. 2007. Healing Troubled Waters: Preparing Trout and Salmon Habitat for a Changing Climate.
Trout Unlimited: Arlington.
16
Id, 8.
17
Id, 8-9.
18
Id, 9.
19
Id, 67167.
20
United States. Cong. Senate. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearing on Managing Federal Forests
in Response to Climate Change. Testimony of Christopher A. Wood. 18 Nov. 2009: Washington , 2.
15