Key characteristics (what EBM is/what EBM is not)
EBM is an approach to resource management that seeks to
correct the deficiencies of traditional approaches that were
seen as overly narrow. To paraphrase Slocombe (1998),
EBM is about finding institutional, administrative, and
scientific ways of managing whole ecosystems instead of
small, arbitrary management units. A discussion of key
characteristics for EBM must explicitly differentiate
EBM from “ecosystem management.” EBM acknowledges that humans manage other humans and their
impacts much more than they manage the nonhuman parts
of the ecosystem. In contrast, ecosystem management was
more liable to ignore the human dimension aspects of ecosystem issues (Slocombe, 1998; NRC, 1999; Boesch,
2006; Layzer, 2012), tending to be dominated by ecological science to the exclusion of social sciences.
While there are many conflicting definitions and
criteria for EBM (Arkema et al., 2006), most scholars
and practitioners agree on a few basic principles:
1. EBM approaches generally occur at broad spatial
scales, such as the Kluane Region of the Yukon in
Alaska or the Great Lakes, which encompasses several
states and two countries.
2. Humans and human activities are explicitly accounted
for as part of the ecosystem, and human stakeholders
are involved in the process of defining problems and
addressing issues.
3. EBM approaches seek to understand linkages between
multiple components of an ecosystem, rather than one
species.
4. EBM approaches are constructed to be adaptive and
flexible, expecting surprises and unforeseen
consequences.
Arkema et al. (2006) emphasize that even isolating
commonalities in EBM definitions at this general level
can be difficult. For example, Layzer (2012) includes
stakeholder involvement in management processes, but
does not emphasize defining systems according to ecological boundaries as opposed to political ones (Levin and
Lubchenco, 2008). A synthesis by Boesch (2006) mentions the multiple-component criterion but does not
emphasize the human dimension component. Moreover,
after the general principles of EBM are covered, scholars
disagree on a whole host of supporting requirements for
EBM. Arkema et al. (2006) reviewed 130 academic articles on EBM and extracted 17 different criteria, including
interdisciplinary approaches, consideration of the precautionary principle, and integration of economic factors into
decisions.
Estuarine-marine EBM
In estuarine marine EBM, as noted earlier, much of the
recent activity that explicitly references EBM happens in
the marine/estuarine context. In 2005, the organization,
COMPASS, released a consensus statement defining
marine EBM and its five emphases:
• Emphasize the protection of ecosystem structure, functioning, and key processes.
• Is place-based in focusing on a specific ecosystem and
the range of activities affecting it.
• Explicitly account for the interconnectedness within
systems, recognizing the importance of interactions
between many target species or key services and other
nontarget species.
• Acknowledge interconnectedness among systems, such
as between air, land, and sea.
• Integrate ecological, social, economic, and institutional
perspectives,
recognizing
their
strong
interdependences.
Leslie and McLeod (2007) outline four principles of
marine EBM: (1) it is necessary to address multiple spatial
and temporal scales; (2) it includes a focus on the link
between marine and human communities; (3) it connects
marine systems and management components with those
focused on land and air; and (4) it emphasizes meaningful
engagement of stakeholders.
Ruckelshaus et al. (2008) offer six principles that overlap with the above but are more operational and less philosophical. These principles are:
• Define spatial boundaries of the system to be managed.
• Develop a clear statement of the EBM objectives.
• Include humans in characterizations of marine systems
and indicators of change.
• Use a variety of strategies to hedge against uncertainty
in the ecosystem response to EBM approaches.
• Use spatial organizing frameworks such as zoning for
coordinating multiple management sectors and
approaches in EBM.
• Links the governance structure with the scale of the ecosystem elements to be managed under an EBM approach.
Like other scholars, Ruckelshaus et al. (2008) note that
actual applications of EBM are relatively rare, yet they do
offer some examples of partial success. These examples
can serve to better illustrate the potential benefits of
EBM. One of these examples comes from the waters of
the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica. Since 1982,
management of marine resources in this area has been
supervised via the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). The krill
fishery is one of the most significant activities needing
management in this area. In a traditional approach, management of the krill fishery would have been concerned
with the continued survival and sustainability of the krill
populations alone. In an EBM context, however, other
species and system components must be considered.
Therefore, fisheries models were developed to account
for negative impacts to various predators on krill as well
as the krill themselves, resulting in recommended rates
of removal that were 25 % lower than in a more traditional
and narrow approach.
Another example discussed by Ruckelshaus et al. (2008)
involves the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
233
EBM is an approach to resource management that seeks to
correct the deficiencies of traditional approaches that were
seen as overly narrow. To paraphrase Slocombe (1998),
EBM is about finding institutional, administrative, and
scientific ways of managing whole ecosystems instead of
small, arbitrary management units. A discussion of key
characteristics for EBM must explicitly differentiate
EBM from “ecosystem management.” EBM acknowledges that humans manage other humans and their
impacts much more than they manage the nonhuman parts
of the ecosystem. In contrast, ecosystem management was
more liable to ignore the human dimension aspects of ecosystem issues (Slocombe, 1998; NRC, 1999; Boesch,
2006; Layzer, 2012), tending to be dominated by ecological science to the exclusion of social sciences.
While there are many conflicting definitions and
criteria for EBM (Arkema et al., 2006), most scholars
and practitioners agree on a few basic principles:
1. EBM approaches generally occur at broad spatial
scales, such as the Kluane Region of the Yukon in
Alaska or the Great Lakes, which encompasses several
states and two countries.
2. Humans and human activities are explicitly accounted
for as part of the ecosystem, and human stakeholders
are involved in the process of defining problems and
addressing issues.
3. EBM approaches seek to understand linkages between
multiple components of an ecosystem, rather than one
species.
4. EBM approaches are constructed to be adaptive and
flexible, expecting surprises and unforeseen
consequences.
Arkema et al. (2006) emphasize that even isolating
commonalities in EBM definitions at this general level
can be difficult. For example, Layzer (2012) includes
stakeholder involvement in management processes, but
does not emphasize defining systems according to ecological boundaries as opposed to political ones (Levin and
Lubchenco, 2008). A synthesis by Boesch (2006) mentions the multiple-component criterion but does not
emphasize the human dimension component. Moreover,
after the general principles of EBM are covered, scholars
disagree on a whole host of supporting requirements for
EBM. Arkema et al. (2006) reviewed 130 academic articles on EBM and extracted 17 different criteria, including
interdisciplinary approaches, consideration of the precautionary principle, and integration of economic factors into
decisions.
Estuarine-marine EBM
In estuarine marine EBM, as noted earlier, much of the
recent activity that explicitly references EBM happens in
the marine/estuarine context. In 2005, the organization,
COMPASS, released a consensus statement defining
marine EBM and its five emphases:
• Emphasize the protection of ecosystem structure, functioning, and key processes.
• Is place-based in focusing on a specific ecosystem and
the range of activities affecting it.
• Explicitly account for the interconnectedness within
systems, recognizing the importance of interactions
between many target species or key services and other
nontarget species.
• Acknowledge interconnectedness among systems, such
as between air, land, and sea.
• Integrate ecological, social, economic, and institutional
perspectives,
recognizing
their
strong
interdependences.
Leslie and McLeod (2007) outline four principles of
marine EBM: (1) it is necessary to address multiple spatial
and temporal scales; (2) it includes a focus on the link
between marine and human communities; (3) it connects
marine systems and management components with those
focused on land and air; and (4) it emphasizes meaningful
engagement of stakeholders.
Ruckelshaus et al. (2008) offer six principles that overlap with the above but are more operational and less philosophical. These principles are:
• Define spatial boundaries of the system to be managed.
• Develop a clear statement of the EBM objectives.
• Include humans in characterizations of marine systems
and indicators of change.
• Use a variety of strategies to hedge against uncertainty
in the ecosystem response to EBM approaches.
• Use spatial organizing frameworks such as zoning for
coordinating multiple management sectors and
approaches in EBM.
• Links the governance structure with the scale of the ecosystem elements to be managed under an EBM approach.
Like other scholars, Ruckelshaus et al. (2008) note that
actual applications of EBM are relatively rare, yet they do
offer some examples of partial success. These examples
can serve to better illustrate the potential benefits of
EBM. One of these examples comes from the waters of
the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica. Since 1982,
management of marine resources in this area has been
supervised via the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). The krill
fishery is one of the most significant activities needing
management in this area. In a traditional approach, management of the krill fishery would have been concerned
with the continued survival and sustainability of the krill
populations alone. In an EBM context, however, other
species and system components must be considered.
Therefore, fisheries models were developed to account
for negative impacts to various predators on krill as well
as the krill themselves, resulting in recommended rates
of removal that were 25 % lower than in a more traditional
and narrow approach.
Another example discussed by Ruckelshaus et al. (2008)
involves the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
233