Spanning over more than 4000 km2 in the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia with a population of approximately 5 million, the Ruhr region was a former industrial hub focusing on coal and steel production (Gruehn, 2017). The area was characterized by a very low standard of living, rampant environmental degradation, and a predominantly illiterate population. The 84-kilometer-long Emscher River, which flew through the heart of the region, was used as an open sewer.

Once the coal mines and the steel industry were shut down, large patches of infrastructure and land became worthless, unemployment grew, and so the inhabitants of the area migrated to other parts of the country (Ibid.). Moreover, the polycentric nature of the area with different levels of development and very little understanding of conservation by the public combined with other challenges mentioned above gave the area an overall grim look. Today, the Ruhr area is characterized by an extraordinary industrial legacy, revitalized brown fields, big parks, and green spaces that have made it a leading example of the process of renaturation, conservation, and instrumentalization of ecological functions.

The state of the Ruhr region as described above provided a great opportunity for transformation, and whether the Ecosystem Management Approach (EMA) was successful in doing so will be discussed in the following sections. In this sense, the potential and limitations of the EMA considering its 12 principles as a blueprint for operationalizing the objectives of the Convention on Biodiversity (conservation, sustainable use, and benefit sharing) will be analyzed under four broad themes.

However, the principles themselves will not be strictly classified under specific clusters like economic, social, ecological, etc., since they are all interlinked and complement each other. It is also felt that doing so would diminish the importance of one of the major goals of the approach, i.e., providing a holistic view of the complexity, and dynamics of ecosystems along with the interaction between their different components. For an overview of different principles that are abbreviated as P (number) in the report, please refer to Annexure I at the end of the document.

Balancing human needs and nature conservation

One of the major benefits of EMA, which also distinguishes it from previous approaches, is that it brings together different social, economic, political, and ecological aspects of the system. For instance, on one hand, it highlights the importance of societal needs, interests, and rights in the management of both cultural and biological systems (P1). On the other hand, it focuses on the need to conserve and restore various ecosystem functions and structures to ensure the survival of both the biotic and abiotic environments along with the interactions between them (P5). To avoid conflicts between societal needs and nature conservation, EMA also spells out the need to strike a balance amidst the two and avoid classifying areas as strictly protected or non-protected (P10).

By suggesting that society and nature are intertwined in this way, the approach recognizes that the natural environment is more than just a set of compartmentalized natural resources like trees, rivers, and soils but is rather a dynamic system that should not be exploited by humans but rather used in a more sustainable manner to meet existing needs (Cormier et al., 2016). Moving away from the protection of certain areas to integrated land use planning and widening the scope of protective measures from the species level to entire ecosystems ensures longevity (use but not loose ecosystems) and reduces the likelihood of enumerating and maximizing outputs (Ibid.).

The industrial wood Rheinelbe in this context is a good example of a sound EMA whereby new forests were allowed to grow through natural colonization, over 50 hectares of a former industrial wasteland in Gelsenkirchen (Franz, Güles & Prey, 2008). Overseen by the Project Industrial Forests Ruhr Region and the Forest Timber Operation (NRW), the forest serves as a recreational area for adults, an urban adventure site for children, and a place for extracurricular learning (ibid.).

In addition, the forest is also an open space for art and nature, as it features modern art sculptures by Herman Prigann such as the ‘Stairway to Heaven’ (Balke, 2022). In bringing the project together, not only societal needs have been met (recreation, sustainability education, mental health), but the natural ecosystem has also been given a chance to thrive with minimal interference, thereby providing a balance between both.

However, it is not always easy to align societal interests with nature conservation practices and to strike a balance between the two. For example, Mr. Claus Stiens, representative of the Foundation for the Preservation of Industrial Monuments and Historical Culture, at the Coking Plant Hansa suggested that “the main enemy of the coking plant” which is preserved as a relic from the industrial heritage of the city, “is nature” (Stiens, 2022).

He further added that “nature has to be limited in the area as it has the potential to interfere with the preservation process” (Ibid). For example, mold in the winter or tall trees in the surroundings can destroy the building and hamper the movement of big machines needed for restoration work (Ibid). This is one example of how cultural and biological systems can clash sometimes and so, one must be preferred over the other.

Greening the economy

EMA also provides an economic lens to manage ecosystems whereby internalizing costs and benefits, removing ecologically adverse market distortions, and aligning incentives with biodiversity conservation and sustainability will ensure overall prosperity as resource users will benefit and polluters will pay (P4). Valuation of ecosystem services would inform policymakers of the costs and benefits to not only the natural environment but human wellbeing as well; hence, they would be factored in while making important decisions (DEFRA, 2007). Also, if the benefits of the ecosystem outweigh the costs, the likelihood of conserving it would increase manifolds.

This can be seen within the context of the Ruhr Metropolis, an area spanning 11 cities formerly characterized by the coal and steel industry. The value of the region’s 145 km2 forests owned by the Ruhr administration (RVR) is classified according to the different services it provides in million Euros per year. For example, its recreational value for humans is 112.7, carbon reduction in the air is valued at 5.4, and living space for flora and fauna is valued at 39.2 (RVR, 2021). In this way, the importance of the forest is enhanced, and its protection is incentivized.

In addition, the Ruhr region has successfully embraced the environmental economy, focusing on material efficiency, resource management, water management, and environmental mobility, which attracts global market leaders, incentivizing them to invest in the green economy. As a result, 10% of the total industrial investments in the area are reserved for environmental protection (Ibid.). Moreover, the area is known for its green start-up landscape, where initiatives like the Network for Social Entrepreneurship and Ruhrvalley promote sustainability-oriented business ideas linking society, nature, mobility, and energy supply (Ibid.).

The tourism industry is also an outcome of the economic management of the area, whereby infrastructure like first class cycle tracks, Hohe Mark Nature Park, Nordsternpark, etc., and events like the Night of the Industrial Culture merge nature and culture to generate revenue and make the area more prosperous (Ibid.).

However, understanding and managing nature in an economic context also has its pitfalls. For instance, it can encourage stakeholders to look for short-term gains, and if the overall costs of maintenance of the system outweigh the benefits, the conservation aspect could be abandoned altogether (DEFRA, 2007). For instance, if the revenue from hunting and timber production from the woodlands of the Ruhr outweigh the other aspects, exploitation might begin for profit maximization.

Similarly, it is not easy to evaluate every aspect of the ecosystem due to the existence of missing data, uncertainties, accounting for cumulative effects, and respecting environmental limits, e.g., the health benefits of the woodland in the Ruhr. Also, in the context of the Phoenix Lake, an artificial water body created over the former steel and iron works Hermannshutte, provides many social and environmental benefits that cannot be valued, such as the provision of a clean environment that improves health and thereby reduces medical bills (RVR, 2021).

Moreover, ecosystems and their services are interdependent within themselves and with respect to other ecosystems; hence, their valuations are also dependent upon adjacent services. So, it can be difficult to account for all other services and ecosystems during policy formulation. This also clashes with the EMA’s goal to administer the effects on adjacent ecosystems (P3) and to consider spatial and temporal scales for ecological analysis (P7), as the functions of an ecosystem and the services it provides may not coincide with the spatial and temporal scales of analysis.

Involving all stakeholders

EMA also stresses upon the integration of all stakeholders (P2) from all relevant sectors (P12) along with the knowledge that they bring (P11) to instill greater equity, efficiency, and effectiveness. Stakeholder engagement can also help build consensus and harmonize objectives as everyone shares their needs, ideas, and knowledge. It can provide the public with important information on topics like forest conservation, create a sense of ownership and greater transparency as they feel involved in the process of decision making. Thereby the likelihood of potential conflicts is reduced and the sustainability, flexibility, and autonomy of the plans and associated decisions are strengthened (Haddaway et al., 2017).

For example, during the renaturation of the Emscher River, different smaller projects involved the participation of various stakeholders, including the local people. One such project is the development of a pumping station in the Biefang district, Oberhausen, where once the project was launched by the Emscher Association, all interested residents of the area were involved in designing the new pump station at a public citizen’s gathering in 2011 (Wuppertal Institut für Klima, 2021). Participation by the locals meant that a pump was created that harmonized with the environment, was of high design quality, and was interesting and useful for the residents of the area as well (Ibid.).

Another example is that of the Greentech. Ruhr Network is an amalgamation of companies, institutions, and educational facilities within the Ruhr Metropolis that brings together experts from all sectors, such as scientists, policymakers, and businessmen, to bring innovation in the renewable energy sector along with other programs geared towards the successful sustainable and ecological transformation of the former coal mining areas (RVR, 2021). This is one of the reasons why the structural change policy in the area has been so successful.

Knowledge sharing in this regard was also a major aspect in the Woodland Rheinelbe, where Forest Ranger Oliver Balke from the Forest and Timber Operation, talked about imparting information about sustainability and sustainability practices to people from all generations and age groups so that they understand that the forest is to be cared for if maximum benefits are to be reaped from it (Balke, 2022).

On the other hand, it is difficult to define who a stakeholder is in the first place. Also, even if defined and recognized correctly, the greater the number of stakeholders, the more time consuming and costly it is to reach a consensus. Moreover, competing interests sometimes make it impossible to agree on how certain projects should be undertaken. For example, the Emscher Association, founded in 1899, and the RVR, founded in 2004, work on different projects within the Ruhr area; however, as Mr. Tino Wenning of the RVR mentioned, the heads of the two institutes do not get along quite well because of which they are unable to work together (Wenning, 2022). Also of note is the fact that although science informing policy is vital, sometimes, local knowledge is left out since it is thought to be less technical and advanced in the face of more expert-based feedback (Haddaway et al., 2017).

Acknowledging limits and change

EMA also stresses managing ecosystems within their functional limits (P6) by defining appropriate spatial and temporal scales (P7) with a focus on long term goals (P8) and accounting for the fact that change is inevitable (P9). Such measures ensure that the natural productivity of the ecosystems and the unpredictable, temporary, or artificial environmental conditions which give rise to them are accounted for (Moreno-Mateos et al., 2020). By defining boundaries and focusing on long-term planning, it can be ascertained that both the ecosystem and social cycles are given time to mature, which will then eventually coincide with each other (Meffe, Nielsen, Knight & Schenborn, 2002). Similarly, considering different temporal and spatial scales would ensure that unexpected events in the future, like the COVID pandemic or others like climate change, are accounted for and that policies are structured in a manner that is intrinsic to the defined limits of the ecosystem so that overexploitation is avoided.

Projects like the restoration of the Emscher River, the Industrial Forest Rheinelbe, and the green infrastructure were all developed keeping in mind the long-term aspect of planning, whereby they are to exist forever. Spatial scales were also defined; for example, some parts of the Rheinelbe were declared protected areas and appropriately fenced as well, and different parts of the Emscher River were isolated to renaturate it with plans to connect it with other parts of the larger project. Doing so not only helped humans but also allowed nature to heal so that it flourished once again (Gerner et al., 2018; Meyer & Bürger-Arndt, 2014).

Conversely, it is difficult to define what long term exactly is, and how specific it has to be. Also, while setting long term objectives, it is also important to determine the degree of flexibility of the set objectives. However, this can be difficult to do in the light of limited funding and political will. Similarly, it is difficult to embrace a long-term approach if the spatial scale of the area is not defined. Sometimes, the temporal and spatial scales are set to benefit humans and not for nature’s sake. For example, one of the goals behind the preservation of the coking plant in Kokerei Hansa was for human benefit: preserving the industrial heritage of the city. The boundaries of the project were defined accordingly along with the time scale as well.

Conclusion

An overall assessment of EMA based on four broad themes and the twelve principles for implementation revealed a few important lessons for its applicability in future scenarios. Firstly, recognition of the fact that human and environmental interaction is not simply utilitarian is seminal in making policy decisions more inclusive and transparent (Hettinger, 2012). Secondly, considering all twelve principles while implementing EMA is important, although they would have to be adapted according to the needs of the area they are being applied to (Pirot, Meynell & Elder, 2000).

Thirdly, reliance on only the theoretical and scientific basis of conservation and ecology is not enough, and therefore it has to be combined with knowledge about the complex socioeconomic, institutional, and other diverse factors involved in the overall process of decision making. Fourthly, creative ways to work across all administrative boundaries with the involvement of all stakeholders from different sectors will have to be found to preserve biological diversity. Lastly, it is important for all stakeholders to forgo past practices, acknowledge complexities, and research ways to improve the way nature forms part of the decision-making process and enhance the overall environmental impact assessment process.

In the context of the case study of the Ruhr region, EMA worked despite its several shortcomings that have been detailed in the analysis above. Letting the landscape remain the way it was several years ago would have caused many problems, and no intervention from humans could have further degraded the natural areas because of past practices, i.e., coal mining, treating the Emscher as an open sewer, etc. Here, ecosystem management was seminal in advocating a complete transformation of the Ruhr region, and one major aspect of such a restoration was the healthy human/nature relationship, which the approach advocated for.

To conclude, EMA has immense potential, and it can help both researchers and practitioners overcome many obstacles, dead ends, and frustrations attached with the management of natural resources considering the goals of the Convention on Biodiversity. But at the same time, it is not a solution to all the ecological and social paradoxes in the world today and therefore must evolve keeping pace with shifting times to incorporate the dynamic relationship between humans and ecosystems. At this point in time, however, the approach serves as a good guide towards the sustainable use of ecosystems without destroying them in the pursuit of societal prosperity.

Notes

Balke, O. (2022, May 25). Industrial Wood Rheinelbe: The Growing of New Forests in Densly Urbanised Areas (E. E. Group, Interviewer).
Cormier, R., Kelble, C., Anderson, M., Allen, J., Grehan, A., & Gregersen, Ó. (2016). Moving from ecosystem-based policy objectives to operational implementation of ecosystem-based management measures. ICES Journal Of Marine Science, 74(1), 406-413.
Franz, M., Güles, O., & Prey, G. (2008). Place-Making And ‘Green’ Reuses Of Brownfields In The Ruhr. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 99(3), 316-328. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2008.00464.xGruehn, D. (2017). Regional Planning and Projects in the Ruhr. In M. Yokohari, A. Murakami, Y. Hara, & K. Tsuchiya, Sustainable Landscape Planning in Selected Urban Regions (pp. 215-225). Japan: Springer.
Gerner, N., Nafo, I., Winking, C., Wencki, K., Strehl, C., & Wortberg, T. et al. (2018). Large-scale river restoration pays off: A case study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project. Ecosystem Services, 30, 327-338. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.020.
Haddaway, N. R., Kohl, C., Silva, N. R., Schiemann, J., Spök, A., Stewart, R., Wilhelm, R. (2017). A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environmental Evidence , 1-14.
Hartje, V., Klaphake, A., & Schliep, R. (2003). The International Debate on the Ecosystem Approach: Diffusion of a Codification Effort. Berlin: TU Berlin.
Hettinger, N. (2012). Nature Restoration as a Paradigm for the Human Relationship with Nature. In A. Thompson & J. Bendik-Keymer, Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change : Human Virtues of the Future (1st ed., pp. 27- 46). MIT Press.
Meffe, G., Nielsen, L., Knight, R., & Schenborn, D. (2002). Ecosystem management (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Meyer, K., & Bürger-Arndt, R. (2014). How forests foster human health – Present state of research-based knowledge (in the field of Forests and Human Health). International Forestry Review, 16(4), 421-446. doi: 10.1505/146554814813484103.
Moreno-Mateos, D., Alberdi, A., Morriën, E., van der Putten, W., Rodríguez-Uña, A., & Montoya, D. (2020). The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity. Nature Ecology &Amp; Evolution, 4(5), 676-685. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-1154-1.
Pagiola, S. (2008 ). How Useful is Ecosystem Valuation? Economics and Conservation in the Tropics: A Strategic Dialogue (pp. 1-5). Conservation Strategy Fund; Resources for the Future; Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Pirot, J., Meynell, P., & Elder, D. (2000). Ecosystem management: lessons from around the world (1st ed.). Gland: IUCN.
RVR. (2021). People, Nature, Space: Green infrastructure in the Metropole Ruhr. Germany: Handelsblatt Research Institute.
Stiens, C. (2022, May 23). Preservation of Industrial Monuments and Historical Culture (E. E. Group, Interviewer).
Wenning, T. (2022, May 27). Regional Governnace for a New Green Infrastructure (E. E. Group, Interviewer).
Wuppertal Institut für Klima, U. E. (2021). Emscher 3.0 — on the way to `blue infrastructures´.