Martina Gonzalez Mateu, Adrianne Michaelis, Suzi Spitzer

Increasing knowledge about ecosystem dynamics over the past several decades has allowed us to make positive changes in our approach to resource management. In the past, management goals primarily focused on protecting single species, and tried to restore ecosystems to historical states that were considered desirable. This management strategy proved to be inefficient, and managers have now turned to a new approach known as Ecosystem Based Management (EBM). By broadening the management focus from individual resources to an ecosystem scale, ecosystem function and resilience became the new priorities. EBM is the current ideal management strategy, but its underlying challenges must be considered, addressed and overcome.

One of the fundamental ideas in EBM is the integration of the social and ecological dimensions of a system (UNEP, 2011; Boesch, 2006). This means that stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process, and final management decisions are the results of collectively accepted compromises (Figure 1). However, the identification of all stakeholders, the challenges of cross-jurisdiction management, the difficulty of reaching compromises that acknowledge and prioritize several different uses of a single resource, and the barriers of scientific communication to the public or to other scientific disciplines make the integration aspect of EBM very complicated. To overcome these problems, the different parties involved must be willing to compromise, requiring governance that promotes cooperation between sectors. It is also important that the public is involved and engaged in ecosystem stewardship (UNEP, 2011). To accomplish these objectives, communication between different groups is essential, and ideally facilitated by specialists. An example of this is the

A second component of EBM entails the need for adaptive management of the system. Adaptive management involves enacting experimental environmental policies that are monitored by managers who can learn from the outcomes and incorporate new knowledge to adjust or construct updated management strategies (Lee, K., 1999) (Figure 2). An example of the application of adaptive management can be found within the original Chesapeake Bay Program objectives. These included very ambitious restoration goals that were revised multiple times over the years, after they were not fully accomplished in the original time frame. This approach is common when there is incomplete knowledge of an ecosystem, and flexible management goals are necessary to cope with the unknown variability and dynamics of any ecosystem. By helping managers learn more about the system, adaptive management could help detect surprises and calculate risks more effectively.

The third element that guides EBM is the precautionary principle, which states that if the consequences of an action are potentially adverse, the action should not be allowed to proceed (Boesch, D.F., 2006). Taking risks is an inherent part of management, thus it is important that the precautionary principle does not become an obstacle and result in complete inaction. For example, when the California condor population in the wild dropped to twenty-two individuals in 1982, managers made the risky decision to capture all of the wild individuals by 1987, and start a captive breeding program. Although the outcome was filled with uncertainty at the time, the recovery of the California Condor is now an example of a conservation success (Walters et al. 2010). In cases like this, the application of the precautionary principle must take into account the risks of both action and inaction, especially when the latter can lead to irreversible losses.

The last of the four guiding principles of EBM is sustainability, and this concept is strongly linked to resilience. It is important for managers to define resilience, as it is often misinterpreted. Resilience can be understood as the magnitude of disturbance that a socioecological system can endure without losing its functions and controls (Carpenter, S. et al. 2001; Boesch, D. F., and Goldman E.B., 2009). Taking this definition into consideration should help to maintain the broad management focus of ensuring the provision of different ecosystem services, rather than protecting single resources or species.

EBM has been practiced on terrestrial ecosystems for over 50 years, but only recently has been applied to marine and coastal environments (UNEP, 2011). To outline the main facets of marine EBM, the EBM Consensus Statement in 2005 proposed a list that included nine key elements. (McLeod et al. 2005). Scientists outlined many desirable but somewhat unrealistic goals such as attaining historical levels of biodiversity, or involving all stakeholders through participatory governance. These types of guidelines, though arguably lofty, serve as important initial steps towards successful EBM.

As resources become increasingly depleted and ecosystem services are lost, acknowledging the link between society and environmental health is crucial. Through effective communication and multi-scale cooperation, change is possible and most challenges of EBM can be overcome.

References:

• Boesch, D. F. (2006). Scientific requirements for ecosystem-based management in the restoration of Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Louisiana [pdf]. Ecological Engineering 26(1), 6–26
• Boesch, D. F. and E. B. Goldman (2009). Chesapeake Bay, USA, in Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans. K. McLeod and H. Leslie (eds) pp. 268–293. Island Press.
• Lee, K. (1999). Appraising adaptive management [pdf]. Conservation ecology, 3(2), 3.
• McLeod, K. L., J. Lubchenco, S. R. Palumbi, and A. A. Rosenberg (2005). Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management.
• UNEP (2011). Taking Steps toward Marine and Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management – An Introductory Guide [pdf].
• Walters, J.R., Derrickson, S.R., Fry, D.M., Marzluff, J.M., Wunderle, J.M. Jr., (2010). Status of the California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) and efforts to achieve its recovery [pdf]. The American Ornithologist's Union 127(4):969-1001.