Ecosystem-based management is an environmental management approach that recognizes the full array of interactions within an ecosystem, including humans, rather than considering single issues, species, or ecosystem services in isolation.
It can be applied to studies in the terrestrial and marine environments
with challenges being attributed to both. In the marine realm, they are
highly challenging to quantify due to highly migratory species as well
as rapidly changing environmental and anthropogenic factors that can
alter the habitat rather quickly.
To be able to manage fisheries efficiently and effectively it has
become increasingly more pertinent to understand not only the biological
aspects of the species being studied, but also the environmental
variables they are experiencing.
Population abundance and structure, life history traits, competition
with other species, where the stock is in the local food web, tidal
fluctuations, salinity patterns and anthropogenic influences are among
the variables that must be taken into account to fully understand the
implementation of a "ecosystem-based management" approach. Interest in
ecosystem-based management in the marine realm has developed more
recently, in response to increasing recognition of the declining state
of fisheries and ocean ecosystems.
However, due to a lack of a clear definition and the diversity involved
with the environment, the implementation has been lagging.
Terrestrial ecosystem-based management (often referred to as ecosystem management) came into its own during the conflicts over endangered species protection (particularly the northern spotted owl), land conservation, and water, grazing and timber rights in the western United States in the 1980s and 1990s.
Terrestrial ecosystem-based management (often referred to as ecosystem management) came into its own during the conflicts over endangered species protection (particularly the northern spotted owl), land conservation, and water, grazing and timber rights in the western United States in the 1980s and 1990s.
History
The systemic origins of ecosystem-based management are rooted in the ecosystem management policy applied to the Great Lakes of North America in the late 1970s. The legislation created, the "Great Lakes Basin and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
of 1978", was based on the claim that "no park is an island", with the
purpose to show how strict protection of the area is not the best method
for preservation.
This type of management system was however an idea that began long
before and evolved through the testing and challenging of common
ecosystem management practices.
Before its complete synthesis, the management system's historical
development can be traced back to the 1930s. During this time, the
scientific communities who studied ecology realized that current
approaches to the management of national parks did not provide effective
protection of the species within. In 1932, The Ecological Society of
America's Committee for the Study of Plant and Animal Communities
recognized that US national parks needed to protect all the ecosystems
contained within the park in order to create an inclusive and fully
functioning sanctuary, and be prepared to handle natural fluctuations in
its ecology. Also the committee explained the importance for
interagency cooperation and improved public education, as well as
challenged the idea that proper park management would "improve" nature. These ideas became the foundation of modern ecosystem-based management.
As the understanding of how to manage ecosystems shifted, new tenets of the management system were produced. Biologists George Wright
and Ben Thompson accounted for the size and boundary limitations of
parks and contributed to the re-structuring of how park lines were
drawn. They explained how large mammals for example could not be
supported within the restricted zones of a national park and in order to
protect these animals and their ecosystems a new approach would be
needed. Other scientists followed suit, but none were successful in establishing a well-defined ecosystem-based management approach.
In 1979, the importance of ecosystem-based management resurfaced in ecology from two biologists: John and Frank Craighead.
The Craigheads found that grizzly bears of Yellowstone National Park
could not sustain a population if only allowed to live within park
boundaries. This reinforced the idea that a broader definition of what
defines an ecosystem needed to be created, suggesting that it be based
on the biotic requirements of the largest mammal present.
The idea of ecosystem-based management began to catch on and
projects throughout American National Parks reflected the idea of
protecting an ecosystem in its entirety and not based on legal or
ecological restrictions as previously used. Jim Agee and Darryll Johnson
published a book-length report on managing ecosystems in 1988
explaining the theoretical framework management. While they did not
fully embrace ecosystem-based management by still calling for
"ecologically defined boundaries", they stated the importance of
"clearly stated management goals, interagency cooperation, monitoring of
management results, and leadership at the national policy levels".
Most importantly they demanded the recognition of human influence. It
was argued that scientists must keep in mind the "complex social context
of their work" and always be moving towards "socially desirable
conditions".
This need to understand the social aspects of scientific management is
the fundamental step from ecological management to ecosystem-based
management.
Although it continues to become recognized, a debate over
ecosystem-based management continues. Grumbine (1994) believes, while
the approach has evolved, it has not been fully incorporated into
management practices because the most effective forms of it have yet to
be seen.
He articulates that the current ecological climate calls for the most
holistic approach of ecological management. This is in part due to the
rapid decline in biodiversity and because of the constant state of flux
in societal and political views of nature. Conflicts over public
interest and understanding of the natural world have created social and
political climates that require interagency cooperation, which stands as
a backbone for ecosystem-based management.
Implementation
Because
ecosystem-based management is applied to large, diverse areas
encompassing an array of interactions between species, ecosystem
components, and humans, it is often perceived as a complex process that
is difficult to implement. Slocombe (1998b) also noted that in addition,
uncertainty is common and predictions are difficult. However, in light
of significant ecosystem degradation, there is a need for a holistic
approach that combines environmental knowledge and co-ordination with
governing agencies to initiate, sustain and enforce habitat and species
protection, and include public education and involvement. As a result,
ecosystem-based management will likely be increasingly used in the
future as a form of environmental management. Some suggestions for
implementing ecosystem-based management and what the process may involve
are as follows:
Goals and objectives
Defining
clear and concise goals for ecosystem-based management is one of the
most important steps in effective ecosystem-based management
implementation. Goals must move beyond science-based or science-defined
objectives to include social, cultural, economic and environmental
importance. Of equal importance is to make sure that the community and
stake-holders are involved throughout the entire process. Slocombe
(1998a) also stated that a single, end-all goal cannot be the solution,
but instead a combination of goals and their relationships with each
other should be the focus.
As discussed by Slocombe (1998a), goals should be broadly
applicable, measurable and readily observable, and ideally be
collectively supported in order to be achievable. The idea is to provide
direction for both thinking and action and should try to minimize
managing ecosystems in a static state. Goals should also be flexible
enough to incorporate a measure of uncertainty and be able to evolve as
conditions and knowledge change. This may involve focusing on specific
threatening processes, such as habitat loss or introduced invasive
species, occurring within an ecosystem. Overall the goals should be
integrative, to include the structure, organization and processes of the
management of an area. Correct ecosystem-based management should be
based in goals that are both "substantive", to explain the aims and
importance of protecting an area, and "procedural", to explain how
substantive goals will be met.
As described by Tallis et al. (2010), some steps of ecosystem-based management may include:
- Scoping
This step involves the acquisition of data and knowledge from various
sources in order to provide a thorough understanding of critical
ecosystem components. Sources may include literature, informal sources
such as aboriginal residents, resource users, and/or environmental experts. Data may also be gained through statistical analyses, simulation models, or conceptual models.
- Defining indicators
Ecological indicators
are useful for tracking or monitoring an ecosystem's status and can
provide feedback on management progress as stressed by Slocombe (1998a).
Examples may include the population size of a species or the levels of
toxin present in a body of water. Social indicators may also be used
such as the number or types of jobs within the environmental sector or
the livelihood of specific social groups such as indigenous peoples.
- Setting thresholds
Tallis et al. (2010) suggest setting thresholds for each indicator
and setting targets that would represent a desired level of health for
the ecosystem. Examples may include species composition within an
ecosystem or the state of habitat conditions based on local observations
or stakeholder interviews. Thresholds can be used to help guide
management, particularly for a species by looking at the conservation status criteria established by either state or federal agencies and using models such as the minimum viable population size.
- Risk analysis
A range of threats and disturbances, both natural and human, often
can affect indicators. Risk is defined as the sensitivity of an
indicator to an ecological disturbance. Several models can be used to assess risk such as population viability analysis.
- Monitoring
Evaluating the effectiveness of the implemented management strategies
is very important in determining how management actions are affecting
the ecosystem
indicators.
Evaluation: This final step involves monitoring and assessing data to
see how well the management strategies chosen are performing relative to
the initial objectives stated. The use of simulation models or
multi-stakeholder groups can help to assess management.
It is important to note that many of these steps for implementing
ecosystem-based management are limited by the governance in place for a
region, the data available for assessing ecosystem status and
reflecting on the changes occurring, and the time frame in which to
operate.
Challenges
Because
ecosystems differ greatly and express varying degrees of vulnerability,
it is difficult to apply a functional framework that can be universally
applied. These outlined steps or components of ecosystem-based
management can, for the most part, be applied to multiple situations and
are only suggestions for improving or guiding the challenges involved
with managing complex issues. Because of the greater amount of
influences, impacts, and interactions to account for, problems,
obstacles and criticism often arise within ecosystem-based management.
There is also a need for more data, spatially and temporally to help
management make sound decisions for the sustainability of the stock
being studied.
The first commonly defined challenge is the need for meaningful
and appropriate management units. Slocombe (1998b) noted that these
units must be broad and contain value for people in and outside of the
protected area. For example, Aberley (1993) suggests the use of
"bioregions" as management units, which can allow peoples involvement
with that region to come through.
To define management units as inclusive regions rather that exclusive
ecological zones would prevent further limitations created by narrow or
restricting political and economic policy created from the units.
Slocombe (1998b) suggests that better management units should be
flexible and build from existing units and that the biggest challenge is
creating truly effect units for managers to compare against.
Another issue is in the creation of administrative bodies. They
should operate as the essence of ecosystem-based management, working
together towards mutually agreed upon goals. Gaps in administration or
research, competing objectives or priorities between management agencies
and governments due to overlapping jurisdictions, or obscure goals such
as sustainability, ecosystem integrity, or biodiversity
can often result in fragmented or weak management. In addition, Tallis
(2010) stated that limited knowledge of ecosystem components and
function and time constraints that can often limit objectives to only
those that can be addressed in the short-term.
The most challenging issue facing ecosystem-based management is
that there exists little knowledge about the system and its
effectiveness. Slocombe (1998b) stated that with limited resources
available on how to implement the system it is hard to find support for
its use.
Slocombe (1998a) said that criticism of ecosystem-based
management include its reliance on analogy and comparisons, too broadly
applied frameworks, its overlap with or duplication of other methods
such as ecosystem management,
environmental management, or integrated ecosystem assessment, its
vagueness in concepts and application, and its tendency to ignore
historical, evolutionary or individual factors that may heavily
influence ecosystem functioning.
Tallis (2010) stated that ecosystem-based management is seen as a
critical planning and management framework for conserving or restoring
ecosystems though it is still not widely implemented. An ecosystem
approach addresses many relationships across spatial, biological, and
organizational scales and is a goal-driven approach to restoring and
sustaining ecosystems and functions.
In addition, ecosystem-based management involves community influence as
well as planning and management from local, regional and national
government bodies and management agencies. All must be in collaboration
in order to develop a desired future of ecosystem conditions,
particularly where ecosystems have undergone radical degradation and
change. Slocombe (1998b) said that to move forward, ecosystem-based
management should be approached through adaptive management, allowing flexibility and inclusiveness to deal with constant environmental, societal, and political change.
Marine systems
Ecosystem-based
management for marine environments moves away from the traditional
strategies in which single species and single sectors are managed
individually; rather it is an integrated approach which considers all
key activities, particularly anthropogenic, that affect marine environments.
The management must take into account the life history of the fish
being studied, its association with the surrounding environment, its
place in the food web, where it prefers to reside in the water column
and how it is affected by human pressures. The objective is to ensure
sustainable ecosystems, thus protecting the resources and services they
provide for future generations.
In recent years there has been increasing recognition of disruption to marine ecosystems resulting from climate change, overfishing, nutrient and chemical pollution from land runoff, coastal development, bycatch, habitat destruction
and other anthropogenic sources. There are very clear links between
human activities and marine ecosystem functioning; this has become an
issue of high importance because there are many services provided by
marine ecosystems that are declining as a result of these impacts. These
services include the provision of food, fuel, mineral resources,
pharmaceuticals, as well as opportunities for recreation, trade, research and education.
Guerry (2005) has identified an urgent need to improve the
management of these declining ecosystems, particularly in coastal areas,
to ensure a sustainable future. Human communities depend on marine
ecosystems for important resources, but without holistic management
these ecosystems are likely to collapse. It has been suggested that the
degradation of marine ecosystems is largely the result of poor
governance and that new approaches to management are required. The Pew Oceans Commission and the United States Commission on Ocean Policy have indicated the importance of moving from current piecemeal management to a more integrated ecosystem-based approach.
Stock Assessment
In marine environments, it can be increasingly difficult to determine
what part of the population a certain stock comes from. In the case of
the Southern bluefin tuna, it is all one taxonomic stock while in the Pacific Northwest, each river has its own stock of pacific salmon and thus, the clear definition of a particular stock can be quite challenging.
With knowledge on the specific species life history, stock assessment
can be much easier and therefore, knowledge on the animals breeding
patterns, juvenile state and morphological patterns are essential.
Dead salmon in spawning season
Bottom up or top down
.jpg)
Post-dip pose
When trying to analyze the specific species, the manager needs to
fully understand where the species is in terms of the food web. In the North Sea, the puffin population crashed and no one was quite sure why. After further analysis, they realized that the decline in seabird numbers was due to the sandeel population being severely depleted due to fishing pressures and this is an example of top down. In Alaska, the sea otter was hunted mainly for its pelt and was nearly pushed to extinction. As their numbers dwindled, the kelp beds were disappearing as well at an alarming rate due to the sea urchins having no predators and eating all of the kelp. As the sea otters were removed, the rest of the ecosystem in the food chain beneath them were affected, an example of top-down.
Bycatch
In the Gulf of Mexico, the red snapper is one of the most important economical species there is. However, it is a very difficult species to manage due to the bycatch associated with the shrimping industry.
The juveniles are caught in the smaller mesh size used for the shrimp
and thus, a large portion of the red snapper population is subject due
to mortality not associated with the red snapper fishery.
Key elements
Connections
At its core, ecosystem-based management is about acknowledging interdependency
connections, including the linkages between marine ecosystems and human
societies, economies and institutional systems, as well as those among
various species within an ecosystem and among ocean places that are
linked by the movement of species, materials, and ocean currents. Of particular importance is how these factors all react and involve each other. In the Caribbean, the spiny lobster is managed based on a classic population model that for most fishery species works quite well.
However, this species will grow and then halt its growth when it need
to molt its shell and thus instead of a continuous growth cycle, it will
pause its growth and invest its energy in a new shell.
To further complicate matters, it slows this process down as it gets
older to invest more energy into reproduction thus further deviating
itself from the von Bertalanffy model of growth that was applied to it.
The more information we can gather about an ecosystem and all of the
interconnected factors which affect it, the more capable we will be of
better managing that system.
Cumulative impacts
Ecosystem-based management focuses on how individual actions affect the ecosystem services that flow from coupled socio-ecological systems in an integrated fashion, rather than considering these impacts in a piecemeal manner. Loss of biodiversity
in marine ecosystems is an example of how cumulative effects from
different sectors can impact on an ecosystem in a compounding way.
Overfishing, coastal development, filling and dredging, mining and other human activities all contribute to the loss of biodiversity and therefore degradation of the ecosystem.
Work is needed prior to the carrying out of the research to understand
the total effects that each species can have on each other and also on
the environment. It must be carried out every year as well as species
are changing their life history traits and their relationship with the
environment as humans are continually modifying the environment.
Interactions between sectors
The
only way to deal with the cumulative effects of human influences on
marine ecosystems is for various contributing sectors to set common
goals for the protection or management of ecosystems. While some
policies may only affect a single sector, others may affect multiple
sectors. A policy for the protection of endangered marine species, for example, could affect recreational and commercial fisheries, mining, shipping and tourism
sectors to name a few. More effective ecosystem management would result
from the collective adoption of policies by all sectors, rather than
each sector creating their own isolated policies. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico
there are oil rigs, recreational fisheries, commercial fisheries and
multiple tourist attractions. One of the main fisheries is that of the Red Snapper
which inhabits much of the Gulf and employs thousands of people in the
commercial and recreational fishery. During the Deepwater oil spill it
became abundantly obvious that it negatively affected the population
numbers as well as the integrity of the catch that was being made. The
species not only suffered higher mortality rates but the market was less
trusting of the product. An environmental disaster interacted with the
commercial, recreational, and economic sector for a specific species.
Changing public perceptions
Not
all members of the public will be properly informed, or be fully aware,
of current threats to marine ecosystems and it is therefore important
to change public perceptions
by informing people about these issues. It is important to consider the
interest of the public when making decisions about ocean management and
not just those who have a material interest because community support
is needed by management agencies in order to make decisions. The Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) faced the issue of poor public awareness
in their proposed management strategy which included no-take fishing
zones. Olssen (2008) addressed this problem by starting a 'reef under
pressure' information campaign to prove to the public that the Great
Barrier Reef is under threat from human disturbances, and in doing so
were successful in gaining public support.
Bridging science and policy
To
ensure that all key players are on the same page, it is important to
have communication between managers, resource users, scientists,
government bodies and other stakeholders. Leslie and McLeod (2007)
stated that proper engagement between these groups will enable the
development of management initiatives that are realistic and enforceable
as well as effective for ecosystem management. If certain small-scale
players are not involved or informed, it is highly unlikely and equally
challenging to get them to cooperate as well as to follow the rules that
need to be put in place. It is of the utmost importance to have every
stakeholder involved with every step of the process to increase the
cohesion of the process.
Embracing change
Coupled
social-ecological systems are constantly changing in ways that cannot
be fully predicted or controlled. Understanding the resilience of
ecosystems, i.e. the extent to which they can maintain structure,
function, and identity in the face of disturbance, can enable better
prediction of how ecosystems will respond to both natural and
anthropogenic perturbations, and to changes in environmental management.
With how much modification humans are doing to environments, it is
important to understand these changes on a yearly basis as well. Some
species are changing their life histories, Flounder,
due to the increased pressures that humans are placing on the
environment. Thus, when a manager or government does an assessment on
the ecosystem for a given year, the relationship that a species has to
others can change very quickly and thus negate the model that you use
for an ecosystem very quickly if not redefined.
Multiple objectives
Ecosystem-based
management focuses on the diverse benefits provided by marine systems,
rather than on single ecosystem services. Such benefits or services
include vibrant commercial and recreational fisheries, biodiversity
conservation, renewable energy from wind or waves and coastal
protection. The goal is to provide a sustainable fisheries while
incorporating the impacts of other aspects on that resource. When
managed correctly, an ecosystem-based model can greatly improve not only
the resource being managed, but those associated with it.
Learning and adaptation
Because
of the lack of control and predictability of coupled social-ecological
systems, an adaptive management approach is recommended. There can be
multiple different factors that must be overcome (fisheries, pollution,
borders, multiple agencies, etc.) to create a positive outcome. Managers
must be able to react and adapt as to limit the variance associated
with the outcome.
Other examples
Great Bear Rainforest - Canada
The
Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) was implemented by the
British Columbia Government (Canada) in the mid-1990s in the Great Bear Rainforest in order to establish a multiparty land-use planning system. The aim was to "maintain the ecological integrity of terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems and achieve high levels of human well-being". The steps described in the programme included: protect old-growth forests, maintain forest structure at the stand level, protect threatened and endangered species and ecosystems, protect wetlands
and apply adaptive management. MacKinnon (2008) highlighted that the
main limitation of this program was the social and economic aspects
related to the lack of orientation to improve human well-being.
The Great Lakes - Canada and United States
A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was created during the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement that implemented ecosystem-based management.
The transition, according to the authors, from "a narrow to a broader
approach " was not easy because it required the cooperation of both the
Canadian and American governments. This meant different cultural,
political and regulatory perspectives were involved with regards to the
lakes. Hartig et al. (1998) described eight principles required to make
the implementation of ecosystem-based management efficacious:
"broad-based stakeholder involvement; commitment of top leaders;
agreement on information needs and interpretation; action planning
within a strategic framework; human resource development; results and
indicators to measure progress; systematic review and feedback; and
stakeholder satisfaction".
Scallop aquaculture in Sechura Bay, Peru
Peruvian
Bay Scallop is grown in the benthic environment. Intensity of the
fishery has caused concern over recent years and there has been a shift
to more of an environmental management scheme. They are now using food
web models to assess the current situation and to calibrate the stocking
levels that are needed. The impacts of the scallops on the ecosystem
and on other species are now being taken into account as to limit
phytoplankton blooms, overstocking, diseases and overconsumption
in a given year. This study is proposed to help guide both fisherman
and managers in their goal of providing long term success for the
fishery as well as the ecosystem they are utilizing.
Dam removal in the Pacific Northwest
The
Elwha dam removal in Washington state is the largest dam removal
project in the United States. Not only was it blocking several species
of salmon from reaching their natural habitat, it also had millions of
tons of sediment built up behind it.
