Review: Sherman, Duda (1999) An ecosystem approach to global assessment and management of coastal waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 190:271-287.

Feature Paper: DOWNLOAD * Sherman, Duda (1999) An ecosystem approach to global assessment and management of coastal waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 190:271-287.

Author Abstract: Since the Rio Summit in 1992 the public has become increasingly aware that coastal ecosystems are under signficant threat from pollution, overexploitation, and habitat loss. However, little progress has been made in sustained global actions to reverse their degraded state. It has been no small feat for the world community to come to agreement on international instruments identifying environmental and resource problems, but it is another matter altogether to muster the scientific community and the political will to enact necessary policy reforms and devote necessary funding to restore and protect valuable marine ecosystems. An ecosystems approach is emerging for the assessment and management of coastal waters around the globe utilizing modular strategies for linking science-based assessments of the changing states of large marine ecosystems to socioeconomic benefits expected from achieving long-term sustainability of their resources. To assist developing countries in implementing the ecosystems approach to marine resources development and sustainability in international waters, the Global Environment Facility and its $2 billion trust fund has been opened to universal participation that builds on partnerships with the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environmental Programme, and the World Bank.

Note to Readers: Follow links above for author email, full article text, or the publishing scientific journal. Author notes in my review are in quotes.

Review: This week we'll look at some applications of biogeography aimed at applying global biodiversity analyses  towards conservation and management of those resources.

This week's paper was borne out of the 1992 Rio de Janeiro International Summit on Biological Diversity (variously called the Rio Convention, Rio Summit, or 1992 Biodiversity Convention) and a need to develop management strategies on a global level for cooperating countries bound by the Rio Summit. The three main goals of the Summit were:

    1)    "Conservation of biological diversity / biodiversity"
    2)    "Sustainable use of [biological] components [in ecosystems]"
    3)    "Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources"

This paper was written to note that while many governments worldwide agreed in 1992 to protect biological diversity around the world, that by 1999 little had been done to find the "political will to enact necessary policy reforms and devote necessary funding to restore and protect valuable marine ecosystems."

The authors focus mainly on coastal marine ecosystems, which are being degraded more every year. The authors proposed a method to "link [modular] science-based assessments of the changing states of large marine ecosystems to socioeconomic benefits expected from achieving long-term sustainability of their resources."

The method specifically notes "paradigm shifts" are needed in the following ways: changing the focus from "individual species to ecosystems, small spatial scales to multiple scales, short-term perspectives to long-term perspectives, [the idea of] humans independent of ecosystems to [an understanding that] humans are integral parts of ecosystems, management divorced from research to adaptive management, and managing commodities to sustaining production potential for goods and services."

The authors noted that before the Rio Summit there was the "Global Environment Facility" program to note 4 focus challenges for environmental managers globally:

    1)    Climate change
    2)    Biodiversity conservation
    3)    Ozone depletion
    4)    International waters

In switching to a more global approach, the authors created a map of 50 "large marine ecosystems" worldwide, shown below:

This paper is the first of many that have come since its publication with the aim at mesosystem analyses and determining boundaries of large marine ecosystems. If you note the figure above, though, many isolated island nations (particularly in the Pacific Ocean) are missing from such schemes, but this can be explained for this paper with the understanding that the authors were mainly concerned with coastal marine ecosystems and thus the authors focused mainly on continental coastlines. The authors' criteria for defining LME boundaries focus on "ecosystem (1) productivity, (2) fish and fisheries, (3) pollution and ecosystem health, (4) socioeconomic conditions, and (5) governance."

The paper also outlines a United Nations trust fund developed to aid poorer nations in gathering the resources necessary to apply the agreements of the Rio Summit (funded by 161 countries worldwide at rates depending upon GDP of donor nations, whereby richer nations help subsidize poorer nations). This fund was developed because for most organisms, as we've seen in the past weeks, biodiversity is higher in tropical waters compared to temperate waters. And since many tropical nations are poor (in Asia, Africa, and Latin America) compared to temperate nations (in Europe and North America), some system must be developed to help manage resources where their management hasn't been a priority. In the authors' words "subsistence fishing for protein and income must be sustained for the support of coastal societies that have few economic alternative."

Once the framework is developed (large marine ecosystems), the authors developed various metrics, or "experimental measures of changing ecosystem states and health," noted below:

    1)    Biodiversity
    2)    Stability
    3)    Yields
    4)    Productivity
    5)    Resilience

The authors note that samples aimed at determining ecosystem health should be "focused on parameters relating to the resources at risk from overexploitation, species protected by legislative authority (marine mammals), and other key biological and physical components at the lower end of the food chain (plankton, nutrients, hydrography), including zooplankton composition, zooplankton biomass, water column structure, PAR, transparency, chlorophyll a, NO2, NO3, primary production, pollution, marine mammal biomass, marine mammal composition, runoff, wind stress, seabird community structure, seabird counts, finish composition, finish biomass, domain acid, saxitoxin, and paralytic shellfish poisoning."

The authors also note that "special consideration should be given to improved knowledge of how the natural system generates economic values" and that the interconnectedness of ecosystems should be focused upon, such as how "coastal wetlands [act] as nurseries for fisheries, natural pollution filters, and storm buffers" rather than having managers of individual ecosystems not share knowledge across areas of interest. In other words, if you have a specialist in a certain field, they will be excited and interested and knowledgeable about all aspects in their field, but they may be ignorant of other ecosystems or fields that don't concern their area of focus. However, scientists and specialists in other fields may know, for instance, that their ecosystem of focus is related to another ecosystem in ways that other specialists may not.

The authors also point out that while focus should be made on protecting ecosystems rather than individual species, that "keystone species in a valuable ecosystem" should not be "sacrificed through ignorance" and lack of management. A keystone species, as defined by Paine (1995), is "a species that has a disproportionate effect on its environment relative to its biomass."

The authors summarize their view by noting that managers should "include a generalized characterization of the ways in which human activities affect the natural marine system and the expected 'sensitivity' of these forcing functions to various types and levels of human activity." The authors also note that "natural and social scientists should concentrate further on resolving apparent effects that are confounded by cycles or complex dynamics in the natural system itself."

At the core of such a collaboration, the authors note that at the minimum there should be:

    1)    Integrated waste management
    2)    Water pollution abatement
    3)    Habitat improvement
    4)    Conservation of stressed mangrove and coral reef areas
    5)    Coastal tourism development
    6)    Improvements of the municipal fisheries

In creating such a collaboration, the authors note that their must be "complementarity among international agreements" and that "detailed rules and standards at the global level exist to control pollution from ships, including at-sea disposal of sates, and for whales."
The authors state that from best practices experience, there are several lessons that have been learned to help address ecosystem-level problems:

1. "Donor-driven rather than country-driven institutional arrangements have proved ineffective and recipient countries must take ownership of activities"
2. "Water quality must be considered together with water quantity and ecological considerations in any sectoral development project if sustainable development is to be achieved"
3. "Ecosystem-based approaches, which encompass overfishing, habitat loss, and biological diversity issues in addition to water quality / pollution abatement, are needed for improving management of transboundary water systems"
4. "Interministerial and subnational government involvement is necessary in these joint, multi-country regional initiatives if actual changes in sectoral activities causing the transboundary problems are to be achieved."

The authors conclude their paper with a good summary figure aimed at describing the main problems facing coastal marine ecosystems across political boundaries, noted below:

And while this paper is more than 10 years old now, the recommendations and problems outlined by the paper are just as relevant today as when first published.

Next we'll look at a classic paper on pacific island biogeography. Because the online version that I have a link to (below) is missing figures, and the figures are such an integral part of the paper, I think it is fair for me to host the images from the paper, particularly since the paper text is provided by the publisher (University of Hawaii) freely.