An Economic Perspective of Ecosystem Restoration
An interview with Storm Cunningham

Storm Cunningham is author of
The Restoration Economy (www.RestorationEconomy.com); executive director of the nonprofit research and education organization, Revitalization Institute (www.RevitalizationInstitute.org); and chief executive officer of the consulting firm Revitalization Strategies, Inc. (www.RevitalizationStrategies.com). PBS&J Highlights recently discussed with Cunningham issues related to ecosystem system restoration in the context of its economic impacts. This includes the entire interview with Storm Cunningham.

What are the economic forces driving ecosystem restoration – or is it an emotionally driven market?

Ecosystem restoration has existed as a nascent, niche study for at least 70 years, but it didn’t really pick up steam until the practice of environmental mitigation brought serious dollars into the picture. As ecosystem restoration grew into an industry, the demand for quality standards and rigorous research grew. During this period, there was a lot of debate over its underpinnings. Is it an art, a science, an industry, or all three? Is restoring ecosystems playing God? If so, is it more so than destroying the ecosystems in the first place? Should we try to restore a system back to a certain point in time that we deem to be “pristine,” or should we “merely” try to restore the health of its underlying systems, so it can pursue whatever trajectory is appropriate for current circumstances?

In all of this, there’s been much emotion, much soul-searching, much business, much science, much poetry, and much politics. Language reflects the soul of a culture. The English language has over three times as many synonyms for restoration as it does for new development, maintenance, and conservation combined. That should tell us something about how important the renewal portion of the natural lifecycle is to our psyche.

Why is ecosystem restoration so vital to the continued success of the U.S. economy?

All economies are based on natural resources. My laptop computer required more than 10,000 gallons of water during its manufacturing process and some 40,000 pounds of raw materials in general. An economy that’s based primarily on sprawl (new development)—in a country with finite borders—is a strategy that can only lead to depauperization, degradation, and war.

What are the top technical challenges facing ecosystem restoration as a market force?

First, there is the need to incorporate all of the three modes of the development life cycle into our public agencies’ policies, planning, and budgets. Typically, only the first two modes -- new development and maintenance/conservation – are recognized. But mature economies inevitably must depend primarily on restorative development to continue their economic growth within existing boundaries. This most-important third phase of the universal lifecycle isn’t even recognized in most systems. Therefore, restoration needs tend to be a constant string of expensive surprises—especially in infrastructure, which is just one of the eight sectors of restorative development—requiring emergency funding that can result in poorly-thought-out plans and poor levels of integration with long-term redevelopment needs. To accomplish ecosystem restoration successfully requires first addressing infrastructure restoration needs, such as CSO problems.

Second is the paucity of “tools” – software; management techniques; and physical, chemical, and biological tools – that are specifically designed for restorative purposes. Although restorative development currently accounts for almost $2 trillion annually worldwide, most professionals are doing this work with tools designed for new development. Restoring a bridge or a building is a very different process—requiring very different skills and materials—from creating one in the first place. Likewise, restoring a river is a very different process from damming and channelizing a river.

Then there is the very limited curricula, degrees, and, to a lesser degree, research specific to restorative development in our institutions of higher learning. The jobs that are in most demand these days are often those related to revitalizing communities and restoring natural resources. Planning schools, design schools, public policy schools – they all seem to think that we are still in frontier mode…that building new cities and new buildings is job number one. It isn’t. Far more square commercial footage is restored and renovated every year than is built new. Far more footage of sewer and water systems are renovated every year than are built new. And the growth of ecosystem, watershed, and fishery restoration industries, budgets, and sciences far outstrips the growth of their counterparts related to their counterparts related to extraction of virgin resources. So why are our trade schools and universities still pumping out skills and degrees that don’t address the fastest-growing sector of the economy?

How will environmental regulation continue to play a role in the restoration economy?

For the first time in human history, we can put hard numbers to the value of the damage of environmental transgressions. NOAA has pioneered the application of this trend by applying a three-stage fine to those who destroy turtle grass beds in Florida. There’s a punitive fine that reflects the egregiousness of the offense and the ability of the transgressor to pay. There’s a “lost ecosystem services” fine that attempts to compensate the public for the lost monetary value of fish production, water purification, aesthetic value, and so on. Finally, there’s a “cost of restoration” fine, which is based on actual data from submerged marine vegetation restoration projects. The brownfield revitalization industry offers another example. Every acre of urban brownfield that is remediated and redeveloped saves 4.5 acres of greenfields from being developed. Thus, brownfields restoration is a conservation tool. Rigorously documenting the cost of environmental restoration will be the most powerful conservation tool ever, both for the courts and for policymakers.

To sustain an ecosystem restoration market, will regulators/agencies have to adjust their approach to regulation development?

In addition to supporting restorative policies, sciences, education, and industries, they need to adopt a common taxonomy so restorable assets can be inventoried and addressed the same way in all cities, counties, and states. This will enable us to create integrated regional and national programs, and in so doing, will add wonderful new revitalizing capabilities to vital project/program management and software tools. The eight sectors of restorative development described in The Restoration Economy (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, November 2002) have so far enjoyed universal acceptance. The eight sectors include ecosystems, watersheds, fisheries, agricultural lands, brownfields, infrastructure, heritage, and catastrophe.

A good deal of discussion has occurred regarding the role of adaptive management (AM) in ecosystem restoration efforts. The Water Resource Development Act of 2000 even had specific language that instructed managers implementing the Everglades Restoration to use AM. However, there does not exist agreement on what AM is and how to employ it. Should AM "best practices" be developed? If so, how should these be communicated to people engaged in restoration? Should this be a top down or bottom up proposition? Should there be reference to AM in authorization and appropriation of federal legislation?

Adaptive management is absolutely critical, and the feds should require it. Anytime we’re working with ecosystems, we’re dealing in complexity and surprise. Every time the hydrology changes – such as rehydration resulting from removal of infrastructure – the ecosystem changes. You have to constantly monitor these dynamics and have the ability to propose and assess adjustments to the strategy.

In ecosystem restoration, the pursuit of certainty is the pursuit of failure. We have to acknowledge our ignorance. After all, we’re completely incapable of fabricating a single earthworm from scratch. To think that we can fabricate an ecosystem is an extremely dangerous level of hubris that not only sabotages success, but reduces learning.

Ecosystem restoration is such a young science (and art) that learning should be one of the chief goals. That way, no matter what the outcome, we have at least succeeded in learning. Adaptive management is superior because it allows us to take urgent, necessary actions when we fully understand neither the problem nor the solution. It also forces us to better document the data, the thinking, and our responses, which leads to superior learning.

Ecosystem restoration is being attempted in many areas of the country, including Louisiana, Florida, the Chesapeake, Great Lakes, Colombia River, and Upper Mississippi. We are seeing a good deal of competition for federal resources to support these efforts. While we profess to elevate these programs to an "ecosystem" stature, we relegate them to local or regional competition for funding. Should there be a national "comprehensive plan" for ecosystem restoration? How should we address the funding competition?

“Ecosystem restoration” is a bit of a misnomer for projects such as these. In fact, use of this term is among the causes of the funding challenge you’ve mentioned. It’s problematic in a number of ways.

For example, an ecosystem restoration agenda sets the goals too high, too soon. Ecosystem restoration is the highest and most challenging goal, and it’s the science we understand the least. Ecosystem restoration should be the final stage of an integrated, multiphase strategy that includes in its earlier phases such things as the renovation/removal/replacement of infrastructure, watershed restoration, agricultural land restoration, and brownfields remediation/redevelopment.

The funding problem isn’t just that too many people are chasing too few funds: The problem is that they aren’t chasing a vast array of other funding sources. When an integrated approach is taken, many other sources of funding and incentives (such as tax credits that attract private funding) suddenly become available. Rather than pursuing only funding related to ecosystem restoration, other sources now become relevant, such as infrastructure renewal money, historic restoration grants and tax credits, watershed restoration funds from EPA and state water agencies, brownfield grants and tax credits, Farm Bill funds for the restoration of riparian buffers around farmlands, and many more.

Many times, it is more appropriate for projects to be considered regional revitalization initiatives, not ecosystem restoration projects. Water is a great integrator, but socioeconomic revitalization is the ultimate goal. Everyone wants more jobs, higher incomes, higher tax revenues, better quality of life. If economic growth is based on renewing the capacity of the built environment and on restoring the damage we’ve done to natural resources along the way (as opposed to the old “pioneer” model of basing economic growth on conquering new lands and extracting virgin resources), we’ve got a recipe for sustainable growth.

Why did you create the Revitalization Institute, and what is it accomplishing?

When The Restoration Economy came out almost three years ago, I started doing public talks on the subject. After the talks, people would inevitably say, “Okay, I’ve read the book and heard your talk. Now where can our company, community, or organization go to learn more about integrated approaches to revitalizing economies and restoring natural resources?”

I realized then that most professional and nongovernmental organizations served one narrow discipline and/or didn’t focus on the restorative end of the life cycle. What was needed was an organization that could integrate all sectors of restorative development and all of the players (government, academic, nonprofit, and business), and do all of this on a global basis.

We spent all of 2004 trying to figure out how to accomplish this. In early 2005, we decided that the only way to do so was by integrating existing organizations rather than individuals. We set up three networks: a Partner Network of nonprofits and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations]; an Academic Network of colleges and universities; and an Affiliate Network of for-profit companies that would be trained and authorized to use our integration tools.

Also during 2004, our Technical Council of restoration experts created the first trial versions of our Integrated Restoration Project Rating System and our Integrated Revitalization Program Rating System. On July 1, 2005, after six months of public comment on these tools, we announced our Integrated Revitalization Pilot Program, in which we’re recruiting three communities, three regions, and three projects to test these tools in the real world. These will be featured in my next book, and at the Global Revitalization Summit in Washington DC, November 8-11, 2007.

You can reach Storm Cunningham at the Revitalization Institute, 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314, by e-mail at storm@revitaliz.org, or by phone at 703.706.4780.