Ecosystem-based management
[2] To be able to manage fisheries efficiently and effectively it has become increasingly more pertinent to understand not only the biological aspects of the species being studied, but also the environmental variables they are experiencing.
[3][4] Population abundance and structure, life history traits, competition with other species, where the stock is in the local food web, tidal fluctuations, salinity patterns and anthropogenic influences are among the variables that must be taken into account to fully understand the implementation of a "ecosystem-based management" approach.
Interest in ecosystem-based management in the marine realm has developed more recently, in response to increasing recognition of the declining state of fisheries and ocean ecosystems.
During this time, the scientific communities who studied ecology realized that current approaches to the management of national parks did not provide effective protection of the species within.
They explained how large mammals for example could not be supported within the restricted zones of a national park and in order to protect these animals and their ecosystems a new approach would be needed.
This reinforced the idea that a broader definition of what defines an ecosystem needed to be created, suggesting that it be based on the biotic requirements of the largest mammal present.
Conflicts over public interest and understanding of the natural world have created social and political climates that require interagency cooperation, which stands as a backbone for ecosystem-based management.
[citation needed] Because ecosystem-based management is applied to large, diverse areas encompassing an array of interactions between species, ecosystem components, and humans, it is often perceived as a complex process that is difficult to implement.
However, in light of significant ecosystem degradation, there is a need for a holistic approach that combines environmental knowledge and co-ordination with governing agencies to initiate, sustain and enforce habitat and species protection, and include public education and involvement.
[10] As discussed by Slocombe (1998a), goals should be broadly applicable, measurable and readily observable, and ideally be collectively supported in order to be achievable.
Examples may include species composition within an ecosystem or the state of habitat conditions based on local observations or stakeholder interviews.
Thresholds can be used to help guide management, particularly for a species by looking at the conservation status criteria established by either state or federal agencies and using models such as the minimum viable population size.
Evaluation: This final step involves monitoring and assessing data to see how well the management strategies chosen are performing relative to the initial objectives stated.
It is important to note that many of these steps for implementing ecosystem-based management are limited by the governance in place for a region, the data available for assessing ecosystem status and reflecting on the changes occurring, and the time frame in which to operate.
[14][15] Management must take into account the life history of the fish being studied, its association with the surrounding environment, its place in the food web, where it prefers to reside in the water column, and how it is affected by human pressures.
[16] In recent years there has been increasing recognition of anthropogenic disruption to marine ecosystems resulting from climate change, overfishing, nutrient and chemical pollution from land runoff, coastal development, bycatch, and habitat destruction.
Olsson et al. (2008) suggest that the degradation of marine ecosystems is largely the result of poor governance and that new approaches to management are required.
[29] To further complicate matters, it slows this process down as it gets older to invest more energy into reproduction thus further deviating itself from the von Bertalanffy model of growth that was applied to it.
Ecosystem-based management focuses on how individual actions affect the ecosystem services that flow from coupled socio-ecological systems in an integrated fashion, rather than considering these impacts in a piecemeal manner.
Overfishing, coastal development, filling and dredging, mining and other human activities all contribute to the loss of biodiversity and therefore degradation of the ecosystem.
A policy for the protection of endangered marine species, for example, could affect recreational and commercial fisheries, mining, shipping and tourism sectors to name a few.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) faced the issue of poor public awareness in their proposed management strategy which included no-take fishing zones.
To ensure that all key players are on the same page, it is important to have communication between managers, resource users, scientists, government bodies and other stakeholders.
Such benefits or services include vibrant commercial and recreational fisheries, biodiversity conservation, renewable energy from wind or waves and coastal protection.
[33] The aim was to "maintain the ecological integrity of terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems and achieve high levels of human well-being".
MacKinnon (2008) highlighted that the main limitation of this program was the social and economic aspects related to the lack of orientation to improve human well-being.
A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was created during the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement that implemented ecosystem-based management.
Hartig et al. (1998) described eight principles required to make the implementation of ecosystem-based management efficacious: "broad-based stakeholder involvement; commitment of top leaders; agreement on information needs and interpretation; action planning within a strategic framework; human resource development; results and indicators to measure progress; systematic review and feedback; and stakeholder satisfaction".
[36] Scientists and numerous angling clubs have collaborated in a large-scale set of whole-lake experiments (20 gravel pit lakes monitored over a period of six years) to assess the outcomes of ecosystem-based habitat enhancement compared to alternative management practices in fisheries.
The authors argue that restoring ecological processes and key habitats have a larger potential to meet conservation goals than narrow, species-focused actions.
