10 Ecosystem-Based Management
The first topic in the holistic techniques group is ecosystem-based
management. Holistic environmental management was proposed decades ago but has only more recently become a common technique under the heading of ecosystem-based management. Agencies like the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and others have developed frameworks for ecosystem-based management and these frameworks are being used as fundamental processes for managing the environment. In this chapter, we will cover the background and justification for ecosystem-based management, discuss implementation , and use a case study to demonstrate application of ecosystem-based management principles in the New York ocean and Great Lakes.
HISTORY AND MOTIVATIONS OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
The idea of managing ecosystems in a holistic way and at a large scale goes back to Victor Shelford in his Ecological Society of America Nature Sanctuary Plan (1933), Aldo Leopold in his Sand County Almanac (1949), and a few others. Government agencies began implementing ecosystem management in the late 1980s and early 1990s because of broad public controversies about management of western forests, increased attention on large mammals in national parks (e.g., Yellowstone and its grizzly bears (Ursus arctos)), and the general acknowledged decline in biodiversity.
The motivations for implementing ecosystem scale management in the 1990s were many. Aside from the aforementioned biodiversity decline and public awareness of management issues in particular ecosystems, there also existed a widespread lack of progress in addressing environmental deterioration, an increasing focus of people on nature, development of the field of conservation biology, support for increased management through environmental laws, federal mandates for diverse-interest management, and a disappointing trend of delays in environmental management decision-making due to litigation (Grumbine 1994). Along with these issues, at the forefront of society’s attention was an increased awareness among scientists, academics, politicians, and appointed officials of the need for management of ecosystems as a whole (Lackey 1998). This idea was embraced as a bold new concept and a potentially better way to achieve conservation goals (Figure 10.1).
DEFINITION OF EBM
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is defined as an integration of scientific knowledge, based on ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values-oriented framework, with a focus on the general goal of protecting ecosystem integrity over the long term (Grumbine 1994). Brunner and Clark (1997) provide a simpler definition of EBM as a philosophy or paradigm of natural resource management intended to sustain the integrity of ecosystems. Finally, Lackey (1998) called EBM the careful and skillful use of ecological, economic, social, and managerial principles in managing ecosystems to produce, restore, or sustain ecosystem integrity and desired conditions, uses, products, values, and services over the long term. Essentially, the idea is to restore and maintain the health, sustainability, and biological diversity of ecosystems while supporting sustainable economies and communities. An important distinction of EBM is that it involves a plan to manage ecosystems to provide for all associated organisms, as opposed to a strategy or plan for managing individual species. In 2006, Arkema et al. analyzed a variety of definitions for EBM. Their analysis yielded 17 criteria for EBM.
General criteria including sustainability, ecological health and inclusion of humans were important (Yaffee 1996). Sustainability emphasizes maintenance of one or more aspects of the ecosystem. Ecological health includes non-specific goals for ecosystem health or integrity. Inclusion of humans recognizes that humans are elements in an ecosystem and their education and well-being are important components of management decisions.
Ecological criteria such as complexity, temporal and spatial scales were also important. Complexity, meaning the linkages between ecosystem components, such as food web structure, predator–prey relationships, habitat associations, and other biotic and abiotic interactions, should be incorporated into management decisions. Temporal scale incorporates time and the dynamic character of ecosystems. Spatial scale incorporates ecosystem processes which operate over a wide range of locations.
Human criteria included ecosystem goods and services, economic factors and stakeholders. Humans use and value natural resources, such as water quality, harvested products, tourism, and recreation, and these are classified as ecosystem goods and services. Economic factors take into account the costs of ecosystem goods and services. Stakeholders are the varied parties engaged in the management planning to find common solutions.
Finally, management criteria included science-based decisions, boundaries, technology, adaptive management, co-management, a precautionary approach, an interdisciplinary approach, and monitoring. Science-based decisions involve management decisions based on tested hypotheses. Boundaries define the spatial extent to which management decisions apply. Science and technology are used to monitor ecosystem and management actions. Adaptive management improves implementation through systematic evaluation. Co-management promotes shared responsibility between governments and stakeholders. Precautionary approaches manage projects conservatively when uncertainty exists. Interdisciplinary approaches utilize science from several disciplines. Finally, monitoring tracks changes in biotic, abiotic, and human ecosystem components.
IMPLEMENTATION OF EBM
Policy makers, management agencies, and academic scientists have shown increasing interest in implementing EBM (National Research Council 1999). Arkema et al. (2006) analyzed the application of EBM principles in management by reviewing 49 management plans for eight large marine and coastal ecosystems. They applied their 17 EBM criteria to each of the management plans to investigate the consistency with which the EBM criteria were applied in each of the ecosystems. Results from their analyses showed that most of the emphasis within the management plans was placed on ecological criteria (Figure 10.2a). However, the majority of definitions included at least one specific human- dimension criterion, such as ecosystem goods and services. When looking at management objectives addressing EBM criteria, they found that ecological health was a major focus and that ecosystem goods and services were also important (Figure 10.2b). However, specific ecological and management objectives were few. The objectives were mostly aimed at generalized goals (Figure 10.2c). When investigating the percentage of actions addressing EBM criteria, they found again that management actions were largely aimed at general goals, however a little more attention was paid to the human aspects of the ecosystem.
Arkema et al. (2006) concluded from this study that scientists and managers see EBM differently. They found that management objectives and interventions tended to miss critical ecological and human factors emphasized in the academic literature. Academic thinking is more oriented toward ecological and human criteria. Thus, moving forward, scientists and managers need to work collaboratively to generate realistic methods for applying EBM principles, thereby helping to overcome barriers between the scientific concept of EBM and its implementation.
IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF EBM
Brunner and Clark (1997) evaluated three major approaches for improving the principles of EBM. First, they focused on the principle of clarification of the goals of EBM. Researchers and practitioners generally feel that setting clear goals is crucial to the success of EBM. However, goal setting is not enough. Commonly cited goals would not be sufficient for many EBM decisions, even if they were clarified, as judgments are needed in almost every context. EBM must integrate multiple, often incompatible or incommensurate, goals. Political differences must be reconciled as practitioners need to consider how to appeal more effectively to others on their own terms. Second, Brunner and Clark (1997) focused on the principle of needing a better scientific foundation for management decisions. A scientific foundation is often considered a prerequisite for EBM. However, a better scientific foundation of relationships is not necessary for the practical purposes of EBM since scientific generalizations cannot be considered universal from a practical standpoint. Instead, people need to focus on using the existing science in more creative ways to meet our evolving management needs. Management methods need to be contextual, integrative, and interpretive. Third, Brunner and Clark (1997) focused on the principle of implementing a practice-based approach. Practitioners must make interpretations and judgments that function as maps for their decisions. Practitioners review past successful EBM cases for use as standards of good practice from which to distill general principles. However, practitioners also need to identify and address constraints on good practice that recur across cases in EBM and review, design and test innovative models (aka prototypes) that address critical problems within particular ecosystems.
Overall, the practice-based approach recognizes that moral, scientific, and practical considerations are integrated implicitly or explicitly into EBM decisions (Brunner and Clark 1997). The practice-based approach recognizes that such decisions are human factors that most directly affect the integrity of ecosystems, either by sustaining or degrading them. Practice provides a reality check on the considerations integrated into decisions, the best opportunity for learning from experience, and the only reliable gauge of progress in EBM. Clearer general goals and a better scientific foundation are the means for improving decisions on behalf of ecosystem integrity, but they are not ends in themselves.
THEMES OF EBM
There are ten dominant themes of EBM as explained by Grumbine (1994; 1997) (Figure 10.3). First, EBM involves a hierarchical context, which is contextual or big-picture thinking. Systems problems require systems thinkers who can work across disciplines and be imaginative and integrative, flexible and adaptive. Second, a starting step in EBM is to bring all interested parties together to define common problems and
boundaries of concern, also called ecological boundaries. Third, ecological integrity needs to be maintained in the ecosystem. This includes maintaining viable populations of native species, representation of all ecosystem types, maintaining ecological processes, management over the long term, and accommodating human uses. Fourth, practitioners are tasked with finding, collecting and using the best available scientific information (e.g., data), including the human aspects of a system. Fifth, practitioners are also tasked with monitoring the system to gain information on progress toward providing benefits and self-maintenance. Sixth, interagency cooperation among all parties is important, as both a mindset and standard operating procedure, to manage problems and stay focused on the protection of ecological integrity as opposed to social issues. All parties must share power and share in defining the problem and setting key goals. Seventh, we have a long cultural tradition of viewing humans apart from nature. EBM runs counter to this tradition by embedding humans in nature. Eighth, EBM practices adaptive management, which is a process of continuously gathering data on the success of previous actions. This allows the incorporation of feedback from those results to help managers remain flexible, be responsive to change, adapt to uncertainty, and institutionalize learning. Ninth, nature is nonlinear and full of surprise, and management is aimed at balanced, linear, and predictable scenarios. Thus, organizations must attempt to transform themselves to become more flexible through a process called organizational change. People in various roles from top-level decision-makers to mid-level managers to field-level implementers must be supported by organizations as flexible as the complex tasks of EBM require. Finally, people make commitments based on values as much if not more than on facts and logic. Generally, resource allocation decisions, which relate directly to resource use, are matters of political struggle rather than technical fact and as such are more about manipulating human behavior rather than physical things. As managers learn to accept the role of human values explicitly in their management of resources, the success of EBM will become more likely.
APPLICATION OF EBM TO MARINE RESOURCES
The dire state of marine fisheries, oceans, and coasts has reached a level of general public alarm in recent years (Duarte 2002; Lewison et al. 2004; Limburg and Waldman 2009; Eddy et al. 2021). A series of national and international assessments were conducted and the major reports recommended the use of EBM (Pew Oceans Commission 2003; United States Commission on Ocean Policy 2004). Both commissions called for a more comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based approach to address the current and future management challenges of restoring and protecting our oceans.
McLeod et al. (2005) compiled the consensus views from the marine scientific and management community. The main points of the consensus statement are: 1) The key challenges are to refine EBM, and develop a set of principles to guide management and policy; 2) EBM is the application of ecological principles to achieve integrated management of key activities affecting the marine environment; 3) EBM explicitly considers the inter-dependence of all ecosystem components, including species, both human and nonhuman, and the environments in which they live; and 4) The EBM goal for oceans is to protect, maintain, and restore ecosystem function in order to achieve long-term sustainability of marine ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them.
There are four main aspects of scientific knowledge regarding marine ecosystems: 1) The key interactions among species within an ecosystem are essential to maintain if ecosystem services are to be delivered. Some species’ interactions strongly influence the overall behavior of ecosystems. Small changes to these key interactions can produce large ecosystem responses. EBM therefore entails identifying and focusing on the role of key interactions, rather than on all possible interactions; 2) The dynamic and complex nature of ecosystems requires a long-term focus and an understanding that abrupt, unanticipated changes are possible. The abundances of species are inherently difficult to predict, especially over longer time periods, in part because they may change abruptly and with little warning. Management must thus anticipate and be able to adjust to these changes; 3) Ecosystems can recover from many kinds of disturbance, but are not infinitely resilient. There is often a threshold (i.e., tipping point) beyond which an altered ecosystem may not return to its previous state. Features that enhance the ability of an ecosystem to resist or recover from disturbances include the full natural complement of species, genetic diversity within species, multiple representative stands (i.e., copies) of each habitat type, and a lack of degrading stressors from other sources; and 4) Ecosystem services are nearly always undervalued. Although some goods (e.g., fish and shellfish) have significant economic value, most other essential services are neither appreciated nor commonly assigned economic worth. Examples of services that are at risk because they are undervalued include protection of shorelines from erosion, nutrient recycling, control of disease and pests, climate regulation, cultural heritage, and spiritual benefits.
Key elements of an EBM in the marine environment would: 1) Emphasize the protection of ecosystem structure, function, and key processes; 2) Be place-based in focusing on a specific ecosystem and the range of activities affecting it; 3) Explicitly account for the interconnectedness within systems, the import and export of larvae, nutrients, and food, and the importance of interactions between many species or key services and non-target species; 4) Acknowledge interconnectedness among systems, such as between air, land and sea; 5) Integrate ecological, social, economic, and institutional perspectives; 6) Consider cumulative effects of different activities on the diversity and interactions of species; 7) Incorporate measures that acknowledge the inherent uncertainties in ecosystem-based management and account for dynamic changes in ecosystems (i.e., precautionary management); 8) Create complementary and coordinated policies at global, international, national, regional, and local scales, including between coasts and watersheds; 9) Maintain historical levels of native biodiversity in ecosystems to provide resilience to both natural and human-induced changes; 10) Require evidence that an action will not cause undue harm to ecosystem functioning before allowing that action to proceed; 11) Develop multiple indicators to measure the status of ecosystem function, service provision, and effectiveness of management efforts; and 12) Involve all stakeholders through participatory governance that accounts for both local interests and those of the wider public.
Ruckelshaus et al. (2008) defined six basic principles for the application of EBM to the management of resources in marine environments. First, they defined the spatial boundary of the system. The spatial extent of the ecosystem determines which species, other ecosystem attributes, and human activities are the focus of management. Next, they developed a clear statement of the objectives. This included determining which biological and social values were desired from the ecosystem. Potential objectives included maximizing the overall ecosystem harvests and benefits to society, targeting levels of ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling or toxin filtering, and/or increasing ecosystem properties such as resilience, biodiversity, redundancy, and modularity (Levin and Lubchenco 2008). Then they included humans in characterizing ecosystem attributes and indicators. This is an important step as including human uses of and interactions with natural resources improves the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes. Next, they used strategies to hedge against uncertainty in ecosystem responses to EBM. This included building learning into strategy development and adopting an approach that could become more prescriptive over time as information about the system increased. This also included a diversity of regulation, reward, and other incentives for human behaviors consistent with the objectives of the process. Then they used spatial frameworks to coordinate multiple sectors and approaches. This was important to help manage competing uses and authorities from such sectors as fisheries, recreation, research, conservation, and shipping. Finally, they linked the governance structure with the scale of the EBM project, since management decisions, monitoring, and authorities should be governed at the scale of the ecosystem.
CASE STUDY: NEW YORK OCEAN AND GREAT LAKES EBM
In 2006, the New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Act was passed (New York State Senate 2021). This Act declares that: 1) New York’s coastal ecosystems are critical to the state’s environmental and economic security, and integral to the state’s high quality of life and culture. Healthy coastal ecosystems are part of the state’s legacy, and are necessary to support the state’s human and wildlife populations; 2) The policy of the state of New York shall be to conserve, maintain and restore coastal ecosystems so that they are healthy, productive and resilient and able to deliver the resources people want and need; 3) The governance of coastal ecosystems shall be guided by the following principles:
a. Activities within and uses of the coastal ecosystem are sustainable;
b. Ecological health and integrity is maintained;
c. Ecosystems’ interconnections among land, air and water are recognized;
The Act is directly responsible for the establishment of two demonstration areas, the Great South Bay on Long Island and the Sandy Creeks Watershed on the eastern shore of Lake Ontario, to gain on-the- ground experience in applying EBM principles.
In addition, New York developed an EBM concept (Figure 10.4) with the definition that EBM is an emerging, integrated technique that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans, to achieve improved environmental conditions and sustained ecosystem services that support human needs and social goals (New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council 2009; Southern Tier Central regional planning and development 2013). Some principles that generally guide New York’s EBM program are protection of ecosystems, place-based action, interconnectedness within systems, interconnectedness among systems, integration of a variety of perspectives, collaboration, and adaptive management.
Many New York State agencies’ programs to manage human activities had already incorporated EBM principles. For instance, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) mission embodies the principles of EBM: to conserve, improve, and protect New York’s natural resources and environment, and control water, air, and land pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2021). In following this mission, the NYSDEC has created an Office of Climate Change, with units holistically focusing not only on “command-and- control” approaches, but on science, policy, outreach, and partnerships. They have also created the Pollution Prevention Institute, which is designed to complement NYSDEC’s existing regulatory approaches to chemical policy with technical assistance, green business support, green chemistry research, and partnerships between academia, state government, and local industries.
New York State also developed agency guidelines to integrate principles of EBM. The NYSDEC expanded the capacity of the observer network to conduct monitoring and tracking of environmental conditions; developed EBM goals for the Long Island Sound, South Shore Estuary, Peconic Estuary and New York and New Jersey Harbor; created an ecosystem monitoring and assessment program based on indicators that inform adaptive management decision-making; conducted targeted natural resource inventories to identify the location and condition of key habitats and associated species to prioritize the implementation of conservation strategies; and utilized professional literature and existing programs to evaluate potential impacts of climate change on our natural resources which include habitat loss, habitat degradation, change in the timing of biological functions, and harm to populations of fish and wildlife.
Likewise, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has integrated EBM into their master plan and Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Bogan and Cady-Sawyer 2021). They wish to expand stakeholder involvement in planning and evaluations, provide targeted training in EBM to staff, adopt policies that provide direction for present and future agency decisions, implement the Oceans/Great Lakes Literacy Project through educational kiosks, better integrate planning and management programs, and enhance water quality monitoring at state park beaches and lakes.
Also, the State University of New York (SUNY) has implemented elements of EBM by supporting research efforts of SUNY faculty to improve knowledge of ecosystems and EBM. SUNY also supports and implements the recommendations in the Scientific Advisory Group’s Research Priorities statement, and supports, through housing and leadership, initiatives of the Great Lakes Research Consortium and the New York Marine Sciences Consortium. This support led to the development of the Great South Bay Modeling project which built an ecosystem model of the Great South Bay, including temporal, spatial and food web components, for use in evaluating and guiding restoration efforts (one example from the work is Hinrichs et al. 2018). Support from SUNY also helped lead the Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) charged with the development of a New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystems Research and Monitoring Agenda. And, finally, their support led to the establishment of the New York Marine Sciences Research Consortium to serve as the voice for marine research and education and advance marine research priorities in the State.
New York has successfully implemented a number of EBM goals since establishment of the New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Act of 2006. There is more work to do however. Additional priorities in New York to achieve healthy ecosystems through EBM include managing multiple uses of offshore environments, using regional approaches to establish place-based ecosystem goals, enhancing local planning and protection in coastal transition zones, minimizing the effects of upland development, protecting sensitive coastal and offshore habitats, restoring marine and Great Lakes fisheries, managing Great Lakes water levels, managing invasive species, reducing point and non-point source pollution, and implementing riparian buffers.
SUMMARY
EBM involves managing ecosystems in a holistic way and at a large scale. Clear goal setting, use of good scientific foundations for management decisions, employment of a practice-based approach, and acknowledgment of the role that human values play in management of resources all help in the achievement of a successful implementation of EBM. Governmental agencies have developed frameworks for EBM and these frameworks are increasingly being used in managing the environment.
REFERENCES
Arkema, K.K., Abramson, S.C. and Dewsbury, B.M., 2006. Marine ecosystem-based management: From characterization to implementation. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, 4(10), pp.525-532.
Bogan, L.A. and Cady-Sawyer, K., 2021. Integrating Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) in NYS Parks: Balancing Ecosystem Sustainability with Human Needs. Available: https://parks.ny.gov/documents/environment/IntegratingEBMIntoStateParks.pdf (September 2021).
Brunner, R.D. and Clark, T.W., 1997. A Practice-based Approach to Ecosystem Management. Conservation biology, 11(1), pp.48-58.
Duarte, C.M., 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental conservation, 29(2), pp.192-206.
Eddy, T.D., Lam, V.W., Reygondeau, G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Greer, K., Palomares, M.L.D., Bruno, J.F., Ota, Y. and Cheung, W.W., 2021. Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services. One Earth, 4(9), pp.1278-1285.
Grumbine, R.E., 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation biology, 8(1), pp.27-38. Grumbine, R.E., 1997. Reflections on “What is Ecosystem Management?” Conservation Biology, 11(1), pp.41-47.
Hinrichs, C., Flagg, C.N. and Wilson, R.E., 2018. Great South Bay after sandy: Changes in circulation and flushing due to new inlet. Estuaries and Coasts, 41(8), pp.2172-2190.
Lackey, R.T., 1998. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and urban planning, 40(1-3), pp.21-30.
Leopold, A., 1970. A Sand County Almanac. 1949. Ballantine, New York, NY.
Levin, S.A. and Lubchenco, J., 2008. Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management. Bioscience, 58(1), pp.27-32.
Lewison, R.L., Crowder, L.B., Read, A.J. and Freeman, S.A., 2004. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends in ecology & evolution, 19(11), pp.598-604.
Limburg, K.E. and Waldman, J.R., 2009. Dramatic declines in North Atlantic diadromous fishes. BioScience, 59(11), pp.955-965.
McLeod, K.L., Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S.R. and Rosenberg, A.A., 2005. Scientific Consensus State- ment on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, Portland, Oregon.
National Research Council, 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 184 pp.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2021. About DEC. Available: https:// www.dec.ny.gov/24.html (September 2021).
New York State Senate, 2021. Article 14 New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Act. Available: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/A14 (September 2021).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2021a. Ecosystem-Based Management. Available: https://ecosystems.noaa.gov/EBM101/HowDoWeImplementEcosystem-BasedManagement.aspx (September 2021).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2021b. IEA Program, Approach, and EBM. Available: https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/national/EBM (September 2021).
New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council, 2009. Our waters, our communities, our future: Taking bold action now to achieve long-term sustainability of New York’s Ocean and Great Lakes. Draft Plan organized by the New York Department of State for the New York State Governor and Legislature, Albany, NY.
Pew Oceans Commission, 2003. America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.
Ruckelshaus, M., Klinger, T., Knowlton, N. and DeMaster, D.P., 2008. Marine ecosystem-based management in practice: Scientific and governance challenges. BioScience, 58(1), pp.53-63.
Shelford, V.E., 1933. Ecological Society of America: A nature sanctuary plan unanimously adopted by the Society, December 28, 1932. Ecology, 14(2), pp.240-245.
Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board, 2013. Ecosystem-Based Management. Available: https://www.stcplanning.org/ (April 2013).
The Nature Conservancy, 2009. Atlantic Coast Ecosystem-based Management Initiatives. Available: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoc_U-qF02t3Uy7aDjxUL9mpJOuPsaN- bYk9w&usqp=CAU (September 2021).
United States Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report of the United States Commission on Ocean Policy to the President and Congress, Washington DC.
Yaffee, S.L., 1996. Ecosystem management in practice: the importance of human institutions. Ecological applications, 6(3), pp.724-727.
