86
profi t and long-term sustainability, and it seems that some of the key stakeholders
and management agencies often tend to be interested in the former while others,
such as numerous environmental agencies, the latter. Christensen et al. ( 1996 ) have
listed a number of obstacles contributing to the imbalance between short-term solutions and long-term intergenerational sustainability. These include (1) inadequate
available information and scarce knowledge about ecosystem structure and functions, (2) centralisation of management and (3) public perception that social and
economic arguments outweigh ecological ones. Thus, ecosystem management and
EAM itself were seen to be ‘silver bullet’ solutions to overcome these obstacles.
Yet almost two decades later, despite a focus on EAM, these obstacles still remain.
As stated earlier, EAM today is acclaimed worldwide not only in science but also in
politics as a means of integrating social, economic and ecological objectives .
Consequently, the approach is believed to facilitate sustainable development of
marine and coastal areas (e.g. Backer et al. 2010 ; CBD 2002 ; Curtin and Prellezo
2010 ). According to Farmer et al. ( 2012 ), one of the most important steps in EAM
is the development of conceptual models that capture a wide range of people’s perceptions about how the system works. The DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State change,
Impact and Response) approach has been proposed as a modelling approach aimed
at shaping environmental sustainability (Atkins et al. 2011 ; Elliott 2002 , 2003 ). If
one examines IAS from a DPSIR perspective, it becomes clear that Drivers facilitating IAS spread in the Baltic Sea include signifi cant environmental risks such as
maritime transportation, eutrophication, overfi shing and low biodiversity . The
Pressures emanating from increased navigation, ballast water discharge, fouling and
aquaculture have the potential to change the status of the biological system (IAS
interactions with native species). As a consequence, IAS may have impacts at different levels of the ecosystem (native species, biodiversity change) and affect goods
and services of interest to mankind (fi sh stocks, tourism, water quality, health
issues). In turn, such a State change needs a Response at the socioeconomic , technological, administrative and legislative levels. It requires controlling the onset of
IAS or at a later stage eradicating an already established IAS, with the latter not
being feasible in marine environments. Importantly, a precautionary approach
appears to dictate the priorities of a top-down approach to controlling IAS (e.g.
through the IMO’s ballast water management). However, Shine et al. ( 2010 ) argue
that the assessment of IAS impacts should generally begin at the local level, in ‘hot
spots’ and ‘stepping stone areas’. Those are usually marinas and port basins, or
areas of special interest like marine protected areas (MPA). Local assessments can
be further integrated into evaluations at the next subregional spatial level (e.g. Gulf
of Finland in the Baltic or Adriatic Sea in the Mediterranean) or at the regional sea
level (EC 2011 ).
The EAM approach has already been promoted by the Global Invasive Species
Programme (GISP) as an effective management approach against biological invasions (CBD Newsletter, 2009–2007). Such a multi-sector and multi-tiered approach
is of particular value in areas where eradication of IAS is not the primary goal. EAM
also suggests community involvement in developing management processes and
includes recipient ecosystem characteristics. The ecosystem approach as described
K. Smolarz et al.
profi t and long-term sustainability, and it seems that some of the key stakeholders
and management agencies often tend to be interested in the former while others,
such as numerous environmental agencies, the latter. Christensen et al. ( 1996 ) have
listed a number of obstacles contributing to the imbalance between short-term solutions and long-term intergenerational sustainability. These include (1) inadequate
available information and scarce knowledge about ecosystem structure and functions, (2) centralisation of management and (3) public perception that social and
economic arguments outweigh ecological ones. Thus, ecosystem management and
EAM itself were seen to be ‘silver bullet’ solutions to overcome these obstacles.
Yet almost two decades later, despite a focus on EAM, these obstacles still remain.
As stated earlier, EAM today is acclaimed worldwide not only in science but also in
politics as a means of integrating social, economic and ecological objectives .
Consequently, the approach is believed to facilitate sustainable development of
marine and coastal areas (e.g. Backer et al. 2010 ; CBD 2002 ; Curtin and Prellezo
2010 ). According to Farmer et al. ( 2012 ), one of the most important steps in EAM
is the development of conceptual models that capture a wide range of people’s perceptions about how the system works. The DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State change,
Impact and Response) approach has been proposed as a modelling approach aimed
at shaping environmental sustainability (Atkins et al. 2011 ; Elliott 2002 , 2003 ). If
one examines IAS from a DPSIR perspective, it becomes clear that Drivers facilitating IAS spread in the Baltic Sea include signifi cant environmental risks such as
maritime transportation, eutrophication, overfi shing and low biodiversity . The
Pressures emanating from increased navigation, ballast water discharge, fouling and
aquaculture have the potential to change the status of the biological system (IAS
interactions with native species). As a consequence, IAS may have impacts at different levels of the ecosystem (native species, biodiversity change) and affect goods
and services of interest to mankind (fi sh stocks, tourism, water quality, health
issues). In turn, such a State change needs a Response at the socioeconomic , technological, administrative and legislative levels. It requires controlling the onset of
IAS or at a later stage eradicating an already established IAS, with the latter not
being feasible in marine environments. Importantly, a precautionary approach
appears to dictate the priorities of a top-down approach to controlling IAS (e.g.
through the IMO’s ballast water management). However, Shine et al. ( 2010 ) argue
that the assessment of IAS impacts should generally begin at the local level, in ‘hot
spots’ and ‘stepping stone areas’. Those are usually marinas and port basins, or
areas of special interest like marine protected areas (MPA). Local assessments can
be further integrated into evaluations at the next subregional spatial level (e.g. Gulf
of Finland in the Baltic or Adriatic Sea in the Mediterranean) or at the regional sea
level (EC 2011 ).
The EAM approach has already been promoted by the Global Invasive Species
Programme (GISP) as an effective management approach against biological invasions (CBD Newsletter, 2009–2007). Such a multi-sector and multi-tiered approach
is of particular value in areas where eradication of IAS is not the primary goal. EAM
also suggests community involvement in developing management processes and
includes recipient ecosystem characteristics. The ecosystem approach as described
K. Smolarz et al.