Using existing scientific capacity to set targets for ecosystem-based management: A Puget Sound case study

Samhouri¸ J.

Even though it has been more than 20 years since its creation, there is no consensus on the definition of Ecosystem Management (EM) or Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) yet. This has led to scientists and ecosystem managers giving this type of management their own interpretation and implementation (Grumbine, 1994; Simberloff, 1994).

Fundamentally, ecosystem management is a modern, holistic method of managing a biological system at an ecosystem level that explicitly considers humans as part of that system (Grumbine, 1994; Simberloff, 1994). This approach is promoted by major international organizations (i.e. UNEP, IUCN, and others) as the best solution for the current biodiversity loss crisis.

A frequent problem with the EBM approach is a lack of reference levels and indicators (values or range of values) to determine the current and desirable state of an ecosystem when it comes to managing it (Samhouri et al., 2011). Moreover, EBM relies on terms as ‘sustainability’ and ‘ecosystem health’, concepts whose meaning and measurement are still under debate (Simberloff, 1994). Consequently, it is very difficult to determine the success of an EBM program.

In this week’s paper, the authors reviewed five different approaches to establish reference levels to evaluate EBM programs: i) use of existing reference levels (applied to EBM without any modification), ii) reference directions (applied to EBM after a consensus when there are poor data), iii) reference levels based on nonlinear functional relationships (which identifies environmental conditions or management actions that lead either to slight or dramatic changes in the ecosystem), iv) reference levels based on baselines (taking information from three types of ¨pristine¨ ecosystems: prior to human activity, inside protected areas or from remote locations with minimal human pressure), and v) reference levels based on social norms (incorporating social values). Furthermore, the authors make a short analysis of the application of these five approaches in order to evaluate the Puget Sound EBM program, which has become a national model of how EBMs must be implemented in the USA.

The discussion group started by recognizing that even though the 5 approaches proposed by the authors were appropriate scientific methods to evaluate an EBM program, it was not clear if the case study used was successful or not in illustrating how to apply these approaches. Therefore, the paper left us with a sense of lack of information.

The discussion then focused on three major points:

1. People should be more educated in science: management and political decisions should be based on scientific information. Ecology predicts what could happen to the ecosystem if certain actions were taken, so decision makers should take this in consideration in order to reduce biodiversity loss.
2. Science should consider people: there were different comments about the importance of including the social factor into the management, conservation and study of ecosystems. The idea of considering people’s expectations, and how these may change over time, in this social values approach was stated.
3. There is an urgent need for interdisciplinary panels in the decision making process: scientists should be involved in these. The major challenges are having the participation of ecologists and finding a way of helping people from a non- scientific background understand the ecological information.

Regardless of the ambiguity around what EBM involves, many countries have adopted it as their novel mode to manage natural resources and ecosystem services. Therefore, there is a need to answer the following questions:

• Is it appropriate to adopt EBM when its definition and monitoring are not clear enough?
• In the 1990s, Grumbine (1994) and Simberloff (1994) stated that EBM was been criticized by many scientists (i.e., biologists, ecologists, conservationists) because this type of management considers human’s benefit as a leading point for its utilitarian point of view (ecosystem would be managed according to humans needs). In a 2012 context, what are ecologist’s opinions?
• Crow (1994), stated that EBM urges for close relationships between scientists and ecosystem managers. Then, Carpenter (1996) made a call to the ecological science community to get involve in EBM programs. In a 2012 context, how can we encourage this collaboration? 

References:

• Carpenter, R.A. (1996). Ecology should apply to ecosystem management: A comment. Ecological Applications, 6(4), 1373-1377.
• Crow, T. (1994). Ecosystem Management. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 75(1), 33-35. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20167817. 
• Grumbine, R.E. (1994). What Is Ecosystem Management?. Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27-38). doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010027.x  
• Samhouri, J., Levin, P., James, A., Kershner, J. & Williams, G. (2011). Using existing scientific capacity to set targets for ecosystem-based management: A Puget Sound case of study. Marine Policy, 35, 508-518. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.12.002
• Simberloff, D. (1998). Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passi in the landscape era?. Biological Conservation, 83(3), 247-257. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00081-5