cumulative effects of multiple stressors received much attention. Since then, many other such integrated assessments have taken place in marine waters (e.g., Coll et al.
2012; Knights et al.2013; Korpinen et al.2012) and are now also covering inland and transitional waters (e.g., Borgwardt et al.2019). These integrated assessments all apply different methodologies which may differ on their ability to inform EBM and associated monitoring requirements (Borja et al. 2016). Even within a specific integrated assessment there are methodological choices to be made depending on the chosen subSES and/or the application of the ERA (Piet et al.2017).
The EBM process consisting of four phases (I–IV) has been built around the SES concept that brings together the natural and social scientific disciplines involved in EBM. The contribution of this study to advance EBM occurs primarily in Phase II and Phase III. Advancements in Phase II consists of: (1) approaches to reduce a complex suite of SES to one or more focused subSES to avoid inaction from overwhelming complexity, a common problem when resolving wicked problems such as EBM; and (2) practical guidance based on key EBM principles (Long et al.
2015) involving both the ecological system as well as the social system. Advance- ments in Phase III consists of the organizing the structure and typology of an EBM plan that is explicitly linked to both the ecological system as well as the social system. Even though thefindings of this study are primarily relevant for the science domain, it explicitly acknowledges the interaction with wider society. This approach structurally incorporates consultation with other stakeholder groups in order to enhance the credibility in knowledge production and ascertain salient scientific input in the domain of policy-makers, decision-makers, and managers (Röckmann et al.2015).
Despite the many issues that are still unresolved, this study provides the theoret- ical and conceptual basis to apply some of the methodological studies in this volume (Borgwardt et al.2019; Teixeira et al.2019) in order to advance the implementation of EBM toward and achievement of policy objectives in support of the societal goals for our aquatic systems (see Piet et al.2019).
Acknowledgement This project is part of the AQUACROSS project (Knowledge, Assessment, and Management for AQUAtic Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services aCROSS EU policies) funded by theEuropean Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programmeunder grant agree- ment No 642317.
References
Aanesen, M., Armstrong, C. W., Bloomfield, H. J., & Röckmann, C. (2014). What does stakeholder involvement mean forfisheries management?Ecology and Society, 19(4), 35.
Ansong, J., Gissi, E., & Calado, H. (2017). An approach to ecosystem-based management in maritime spatial planning process.Ocean & Coastal Management, 141, 65–81.
Barnard, S., & Elliott, M. (2015). The 10-tenets of adaptive management and sustainability: An holistic framework for understanding and managing the socio-ecological system.Environmen- tal Science & Policy, 51, 181–191.
Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures.
Public Administration Review, 63, 586–606.
Berkes, F. (2012). Implementing ecosystem-based management: Evolution or revolution?Fish and Fisheries, 13, 465–476.
Bianchi, G. (2008). The concept of the ecosystem approach tofisheries. In G. Bianchi (Ed.),FAO the ecosystem approach tofisheries(pp. 20–38, Chap. 2). Oxfordshire: CABI.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (2015).Principles for building resilience: Sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems(pp. 1–290).
Bissix, G., & Rees, J. A. (2001). Can strategic ecosystem management succeed in multiagency environments?Ecological Applications, 11, 570–583.
Borgström, S., Bodin, Ö., Sandström, A., & Crona, B. (2015). Developing an analytical framework for assessing progress toward ecosystem-based management.Ambio, 44, 357–369.
Borgwardt, F., Robinson, L., Trauner, D., Teixeira, H., Nogueira, A. J., Lillebø, A., Piet, G., Kuemmerlen, M., O’Higgins, T., McDonald, H., Arevalo-Torres, J., Barbosa, A. L., Iglesias- Campos, A., Hein, T., & Culhane, F. (2019). Exploring variability in environmental impact risk from human activities across aquatic realms.Science of the Total Environment, 652, 1396–1408.
Borja, A., Elliott, M., Andersen, J. H., Berg, T., Carstensen, J., Halpern, B. S., Heiskanen, A.-S., et al. (2016). Overview of integrative assessment of marine systems: The ecosystem approach in practice.Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 20.
Christie, P. (2011). Creating space for interdisciplinary marine and coastal research: Five dilemmas and suggested resolutions.Environmental Conservation, 38, 172–186.
Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Albouy, C., Lasram, F. B., Cheung, W. W. L., Christensen, V., Karpouzi, V. S., et al. (2012). The Mediterranean Sea under siege: Spatial overlap between marine biodiversity, cumulative threats and marine reserves.Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21, 465–480.
Cormier, R., Kannen, A., Elliott, M., Hall, P., & Davies, I. M. (2013). Marine and coastal ecosystem-based risk management handbook. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 317.
60 pp.
Cormier, R., Kelble, C. R., Anderson, M. R., Allen, J. I., Grehan, A., & Gregersen, O. (2017).
Moving from ecosystem-based policy objectives to operational implementation of ecosystem- based management measures.ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74, 406–413.
Cormier, R., Elliott, M., & Kannen, A. (2018). IEC/ISO Bow-tie analysis of marine legislation: A case study of the marine strategy framework directive. ICES Cooperative Research.
Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K., & Halpern, B. S. (2008). Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems.Ecology Letters, 11, 1304–1315.
Culhane, F., Teixeira, H., Nogueira, A. J., Borgwardt, F., Trauner, D., Lillebø, A., Piet, G., Kuemmerlen, M., McDonald, H., O’Higgins, T., & Barbosa, A. L. (2019). Risk to the supply of ecosystem services across aquatic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 660, 611–621.
DeFries, R., & Nagendra, H. (2017). Ecosystem management as a wicked problem.Science, 356, 265.
De Lange, H. J., Sala, S., Vighi, M., & Faber, J. H. (2010). Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment–A review and perspectives.Science of the Total Environment, 408, 3871–3879.
Dick, J., Turkelboom, F., et al. (2017).Stakeholders’perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies. Ecosystem Services.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons.Science, 302, 1907–1912.
EEA. (1995).Europe’s environment: The Dobris assessment. European Environmental Agency, 8 pp.
Elliott, M. (2002). The role of the DPSIR approach and conceptual models in marine environmental management: An example for offshore wind power.Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44: III–VII.
Elliott, M., Burdon, D., Atkins, J. P., Borja, A., Cormier, R., de Jonge, V. N., & Turner, R. K.
(2017).“And DPSIR begat DAPSI(W)R(M) !” –A unifying framework for marine environ- mental management.Marine Pollution Bulletin, 118, 27–40.
Elmhirst, T., Connolly, S. R., & Hughes, T. P. (2009). Connectivity, regime shifts and the resilience of coral reefs.Coral Reefs, 28, 949–957.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010).
Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4).https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420.
Frelih-Larsen, A., Bowyer, C., Albrecht, S., Keenleyside, C., Kemper, M., Nanni, S., et al. (2016).
Updated inventory and assessment of soil protection policy instruments in EU member states.
Final Report to DG Environment. Berlin: Ecologic Institute.
Gómez, C. M., Delacámara, G., Arevalo-Torres, J., Barbiere, J., Barbosa, A.L., & Iglesias-Campos, A. (2016). The AQUACROSS innovative concept. Deliverable 3.1, European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Grant Agreement No. 642317.
Hagstrom, G. I., & Levin, S. A. (2017). Marine ecosystems as complex adaptive systems: Emergent patterns, critical transitions, and public goods.Ecosystems, 20, 458–476.
Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., Kappel, C. V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C., Bruno, J. F., et al. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems.Science, 319, 948–952.
Harvey, C. J., Kelble, C. R., & Schwing, F. B. (2017). Implementing“the IEA”: Using integrated ecosystem assessment frameworks, programs, and applications in support of operationalizing ecosystem-based management.ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74, 398–405.
Hobday, A. J., Smith, A. D. M., Stobutzki, I. C., Bulman, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J. M., Deng, R. A., et al. (2011). Ecological risk assessment for the effects offishing.Fisheries Research, 108, 372–384.
Holsman, K., Samhouri, J., Cook, G., Hazen, E., Olsen, E., Dillard, M., Kasperski, S., Gaichas, S., Kelble, C. R., Fogarty, M., & Andrews, K. (2017). An ecosystem-based approach to marine risk assessment.Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 3(1), e01256.https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.
1256.
ICES. (2017). WKBESIO: Report of the WorKshop on balancing economic, social, and institu- tional objectives in integrated assessments.
Katsanevakis, S., Stelzenmuller, V., South, A., Sorensen, T. K., Jones, P. J. S., Kerr, S., Badalamenti, F., et al. (2011). Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: Review of con- cepts, policies, tools, and critical issues.Ocean & Coastal Management, 54, 807–820.
Knights, A. M., Koss, R. S., & Robinson, L. A. (2013). Identifying common pressure pathways from a complex network of human activities to support ecosystem-based management.Ecolog- ical Applications, 23, 755–765.
Knights, A. M., Culhane, F., Hussain, S. S., Papadopoulou, K. N., Piet, G. J., Raakaer, J., Rogers, S. I., et al. (2014). A step-wise process of decision-making under uncertainty when implementing environmental policy.Environmental Science & Policy, 39, 56–64.
Knights, A. M., Piet, G. J., Jongbloed, R. H., Tamis, J. E., White, L., Akoglu, E., Boicenco, L., et al.
(2015). An exposure-effect approach for evaluating ecosystem-wide risks from human activi- ties.ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72, 1105–1115.
Korpinen, S., Meski, L., Andersen, J. H., & Laamanen, M. (2012). Human pressures and their potential impact on the Baltic Sea ecosystem.Ecological Indicators, 15, 105–114.
Lago, M., Mysiak, J., Gomez, C. M., Delacamara, G., & Maziotis A. (Eds.). (2015, October).Use of economic instruments in water management–Insights from international experience. Cham:
Springer.
Levin, P. S., Fogarty, M. J., Murawski, S. A., & Fluharty, D. (2009a). Integrated ecosystem assessments: Developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based management of the ocean.
PLoS Biology, 7, 23–28.
Levin, P. S., Fogarty, M. J., Murawski, S. A., & Fluharty, D. (2009b). Integrated ecosystem assessments: Developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based management of the ocean (perspective).PLoS Biology, 7, e1000014.
Levin, S., Xepapadeas, T., Crépin, A. S., Norberg, J., De Zeeuw, A., Folke, C., Hughes, T., et al.
(2013). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Modeling and policy implica- tions.Environment and Development Economics, 18, 111–132.
Levin, P. S., Kelble, C. R., Shuford, R. L., Ainsworth, C., deReynier, Y., Dunsmore, R., Fogarty, M. J., et al. (2014). Guidance for implementation of integrated ecosystem assessments: A US perspective.ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71, 1198–1204.
Long, R. D., Charles, A., & Stephenson, R. L. (2015). Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management.Marine Policy, 57, 53–60.
Ludwig, D. (2001). The era of management is over.Ecosystems, 4, 758–764.
Nelson, G. C., Bennett, E., Berhe, A. A., Cassman, K., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Dobermann, A., et al.
(2006). Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem change: An overview.Ecology and Society, 11,– 29.
OECD. (1994). Environmental indicators: OECD Core set. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems.
Science, 325, 419–422.
Piet, G. J., Jongbloed, R. H., Knights, A. M., Tamis, J. E., Paijmans, A. J., van der Sluis, M. T., de Vries, P., et al. (2015). Evaluation of ecosystem-based marine management strategies based on risk assessment.Biological Conservation, 186, 158–166.
Piet, G. J., Knights, A. M., Jongbloed, R. H., Tamis, J. E., de Vries, P., & Robinson, L. A. (2017).
Ecological risk assessments to guide decision-making: Methodology matters.Environmental Science & Policy, 68, 1–9.
Piet, G., Culhane, F., Jongbloed, R., Robinson, L., Rumes, B., & Tamis, J. (2019). An integrated risk-based assessment of the North Sea to guide ecosystem-based management.Science of the Total Environment, 654, 694–704.
Poister, T. H., Pitts, D. W., & Edwards, L. H. (2010). Strategic management research in the public sector: A review, synthesis, and future directions.American Review of Public Administration, 40, 522–545.
Polasky, S., de Zeeuw, A., & Wagener, F. (2011). Optimal management with potential regime shifts.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62, 229–240.
Punt, A. E., Butterworth, D. S., de Moor, C. L., de Oliveira, J. A. A., & Haddon, M. (2016).
Management strategy evaluation: Best practices.Fish and Fisheries, 17, 303–334.
Rademeyer, R. A., Plaganyi, E. E., & Butterworth, D. S. (2007). Tips and tricks in designing management procedures.ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, 618–625.
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review.
Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–2431.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Röckmann, C., van Leeuwen, J., Goldsborough, D., Kraan, M., & Piet, G. (2015). The interaction triangle as a tool for understanding stakeholder interactions in marine ecosystem based man- agement.Marine Policy, 52, 155–162.
Ruckelshaus, M., Essington, T., & Levin, P. (2009). Puget Sound, Washington, USA. In K. M. H. Leslie (Ed.), Ecosystem-based management for the oceans (pp. 201–226).
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Samhouri, J. F., Haupt, A. J., Levin, P. S., Link, J. S., & Shuford, R. (2014). Lessons learned from developing integrated ecosystem assessments to inform marine ecosystem-based management in the USA.ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71, 1205–1215.
Stelzenmüller, V., Fock, H. O., Gimpel, A., Rambo, H., Diekmann, R., Probst, W. N., Callies, U., et al. (2015). Quantitative environmental risk assessments in the context of marine spatial
management: Current approaches and some perspectives.ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72, 1022–1042.
Tallis, H., Levin, P. S., Ruckelshaus, M., Lester, S. E., McLeod, K. L., Fluharty, D. L., & Halpern, B. S. (2010). The many faces of ecosystem-based management: Making the process work today in real places.Marine Policy, 34, 340–348.
Teixeira, H., Lillebø, A. I., Culhane, F., Robinson, L., Trauner, D., Borgwardt, F., Kummerlen, M., Barbosa, A., McDonald, H., Funk, A., & O’Higgins, T. (2019). Linking biodiversity to ecosystem services supply: Patterns across aquatic ecosystems.Science of the Total Environ- ment, 657, 517–524.
Turkelboom, F., Leone, M., et al. (2017).When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosystem Services.
Valatin, G., Moseley, D., & Dandy, N. (2016). Insights from behavioural economics for forest economics and environmental policy: Potential nudges to encourage woodland creation for climate change mitigation and adaptation?Forest Policy and Economics, 72, 27–36.
Walther, Y. M., & Möllmann, C. (2014). Bringing integrated ecosystem assessments to real life: A scientific framework for ICES.ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71, 1183–1186.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
from Concept to Practice
Gonzalo Delacámara, Timothy G. O’Higgins, Manuel Lago, and Simone Langhans
Abstract Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM), intended to restore, enhance and/or protect the resilience of ecosystems, is gaining momentum. It is often argued, though, that some of the difficulties to provide practical guidance to conduct EBM stems from the lack of a clear definition. EBM emphasises on factoring in complex linkages in social-ecological systems; dealing with adequate scales (both time and space wise); promoting adaptive management of complex and dynamic systems; and adopting integrated assessment and management frameworks. This chapter shows, on one side, challenges to build consensus on a definition that is both conceptually and theoretically sound as well as practicable; on the other, the enabling factors that make EBM actually happen.
Lessons Learned
• Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) moves away from a limited (partial) consideration of natural systems and society as separate entities.
• Society will face increasing levels of uncertainty—EBM is a more flexible approach that allows for the identification of some of those uncertainties, so
G. Delacámara (*)
IMDEA Water Institute, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain e-mail:gonzalo.delacamara@imdea.org
T. G. O’Higgins
Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland (MaREI), Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork (UCC), Cork, Ireland
e-mail:tim.ohiggins@ucc.ie M. Lago
Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany e-mail:Manuel.lago@ecologic.eu S. Langhans
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain
e-mail:simone.langhans@bc3research.org
©The Author(s) 2020
T. G. O’Higgins et al. (eds.),Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_3
39
that they can be considered in decision-making, hence allowing society to adapt to error.
• EBM is a recognition of the need to“juggling all balls”at once. Since reality is complex, responses will also have to be so.
• EBM is an integrated approach in many different ways: acknowledging for the recognition of linkages between society and ecosystems, between different types of ecosystems, throughout time and space, looking at things from multiple standpoints.
• Enhanced governance is critical to make EBM happen. This is not just about transparency, accountability and meaningful social participation. It is also about using the right incentives, cooperating, coordinating decisions between sectors, improving our knowledge and information base, uptaking innovations, etc.
Needs to Advance EBM
• We need to better understand the complexity of the social, behavioural side of social-ecological systems, to match our understanding of the ecological side.
1 De fi ning Ecosystem-Based Management: Minding Mice at a Crossroads or Not Quite?
Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) has gained increased popularity in recent years; yet, it has been argued that lack of consensus on its definition is precluding progress in terms of design and practical implementation of such approaches. EBM emphasises on considering ecosystem connections; dealing with appropriate spatial and temporal scales; fostering adaptive management of complex social-ecological systems; managing those systems in an integrated way; accounting for the dynamic nature of ecosystems and society, etc. There is no single agreed-upon definition for EBM, which sometimes is even referred to as the ecosystem approach (EA) itself.
What seems common to all definitions, though, is the acknowledgement of the complexity and interspecies relationships within ecological systems, although broader governance elements are also of great importance in most definitions. This chapter does not develop a linguistic, nominal investigation of different definitions of EBM but rather aims at adding conceptual clarity while, at the same time, focusing on enabling factors for their effective uptake in decision- and policy- making for biodiversity and aquatic ecosystem services conservation.
We often demand clear-cut definitions: obvious, without any need of proof, unambiguous, unequivocal. However, demanding rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty is a challenging exercise. Grasping at straws to some extent.
Social-ecological systems such as aquatic ecosystems are highly adaptive and complex. How could one expect their management to be defined in an indisputable way if characterised by adaptability and complexity (Preiser et al.2018)? Nonethe- less, this is far from being a futile exercise since it also provides useful insights for
the practical implementation of these management approaches (see Robinson and Culhane 2020for further details on complexity, EBM and a framework to assess linkages).