why regional coastal monitoring for assessment of ecosystem health?

©2000 Blackwell Science, Inc.

HOW ARE WE MANAGING?

.

Why Regional Coastal Monitoring for Assessment of Ecosystem Health?

Kenneth Sherman

USDOC/NOAA/NMFS, Narragansett Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island

ABSTRACT

During recent years, the public and the scientificcommunities have signaled concern over growing degra-dation of ecosystem health, depleted fisheries, pollution,and habitat loss. Public concern has been registered in

newspapers, electronic media, and congressional ac-tions. Scientific concern has moved from the pages ofjournals to the actions of professional societies, as for

example the

Sustainable Biosphere Initiative

of theEcological Society of America (Lubchenco

et al.

1991).Responsive actions at the national and internationallevels have resulted in Conventions and Protocols on

Climate Change, Biodiversity, Ozone, and internation-ally recognized declarations for sustaining marine fish-eries.

INTRODUCTION

Recovery of ecosystem health, depleted marineresources, and environments are vital to coastalcountries and their economies. Published com-mentary on how best to improve the degradedstate of resources and coastal environments arenot without controversy. While some scientists areconcerned with the lack of consistent success inthe management of marine resources (Ludwig

etal.

1993), others stress the utility of science-basedassessments as a key component of marine re-source management practices (Rosenberg

et al.

1993). Given the growing stress from the expand-ing human population on coastal ecosystems, stew-ardship institutions cannot wait for science toachieve a full understanding of ecosystem struc-ture and function. The best presently availablescience is needed to monitor and assess changingecosystem conditions and implement mitigatingactions. In the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic,

scientists have been collecting information forthe past 40 years describing the declines in ma-rine fisheries, habitats, and water quality. But itwasn’t until the later half of the 1990s that gov-ernment policies were coupled with actions to ac-celerate a reversal of overexploitation and envi-ronmental degradation. In the United States, amongthe more forward-looking legislative acts mandatingimprovements in coastal environments and promot-ing fisheries sustainability can be found in recentamendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Con-servation and Management Act, and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act.

In the late 1970s, in response to public con-cerns resulting in Congressional mandates for im-proving coastal water quality and fisheries sustain-ability, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Serviceinitiated systematic bottom-trawl surveys of thefish inhabiting the Northeast Continental Shelf.Oceanographic, plankton, and water quality sur-veys followed, and the transition from a sector-by-sector approach to resource and environmentalmonitoring, assessment, and management actionsadvanced toward an ecosystem-based strategy forimproving the health of coastal waters.

Address correspondence to: Kenneth Sherman, USDOC/NOAA/NMFS, Narragansett Laboratory, 28 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02882; E-mail [email protected]

206

Ecosystem Health Vol. 6 No. 3 September 2000

ECOSYSTEM MONITORINGAND ASSESSMENTS

The Ecological Society of America Committee onthe Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Managementconcluded that the overarching principle for guid-ing ecosystem management is to ensure the inter-generational sustainability of ecosystem goods (e.g.,fish, trees, petroleum) and ecosystem services or pro-cesses, including productivity cycles and hydrologicalcycles (Christensen

et al.

1996). This approach repre-sents a paradigm shift from the highly focused short-term, sector-by-sector resource assessment and man-agement approach in general practice today by natu-ral resource stewardship agencies, to the broadermore encompassing ecosystem approach thatmoves spatially from smaller to larger scales, andfrom short-term to longer-term management prac-tice (Lubchenco 1994). Included in the new para-digm is a movement from the management of com-modities to the sustainability of the productivepotential for ecosystem goods and services (Table 1).

This approach builds on an earlier applicationof “an ecosystem approach” to management of theGreat Lakes Basin Ecosystem (Great Lakes ScienceAdvisory Board 1978; Duda 1990), and more recentefforts in developing an ecosystem assessmentapproach for the management of the North Sea(North Sea Quality Status Report 1993; Reid 1999;TemaNord 1999), the Northeast Shelf of the UnitedStates (Sherman

et al.

1996), the Baltic Sea (Euro-pean Commission for Ocean, Polar Science

et al.

1995), and the Yellow Sea (Lee & Sutinen 1999).The ecosystem approach recognizes humankindand economic/social systems as being integral parts

of the ecosystem. The Great Lakes approach led toagreements between the United States and Canadato follow longer-term pathways for sustainable useof ecological resources. The two decades of experi-ence in struggling to operationalize this ecosystemapproach has resulted in management programs toreverse the trend in coastal degradation. Ecosystem-based management of fisheries has recently beenendorsed by the National Research Council (1999).

The ecosystem-based approach has relevanceto the management of large marine ecosystems(Figure 1). On a global scale, 50 Large Marine Eco-systems (LMEs) produce 95% of the world’s an-nual marine fishery yields and most of the globalocean pollution, overexploitation, and coastal habi-tat alteration occurs within their waters (AAAS 1986,1989, 1990, 1991, 1993; Sherman

et al.

1996; Kumpf

et al.

1999; Sherman & Tang 1999). The LMEs areregions of ocean space encompassing coastal areasfrom river basins and estuaries out to the seawardboundary of continental shelves and the outermargins of coastal current systems. They are rela-tively large, on the order of 200,000 km

2

or greater,characterized by distinct bathymetry, hydrography,productivity, and trophically dependent popula-tions. The theory, measurement, and modeling rel-evant to monitoring the changing states of LMEsare imbedded in reports on ecosystems with chang-ing ecological states, and in the pattern formationand spatial diffusion within ecosystems (Holling1973; Pimm 1984; AAAS 1990; Mangel 1991; Levin1993; Sherman 1994). In relation to the studiesneeded to improve the state of knowledge, it shouldbe noted that for 33 of the 50 LMEs, retrospectiveanalyses have been conducted on the principal driv-

TABLE 1

Some of the substantive changes between traditional resource management and ecosystem management. From Lubchenco (1994)

Ecosystem Management: A Paradigm Shift

From To

Individual Species EcosystemsSmall Spatial Scale Multiple ScalesShort-term Perspective Long-term PerspectiveHumans: Independent of Ecosystems Humans: Integral Parts of EcosystemsManagement Divorced from Research Adaptive ManagementManaging Commodities Sustaining Production Potential for Goods and Services

Sherman: Assessment of Ecosystem Health

207

ing forces affecting changes in biomass yields (Ta-ble 2).

ASSESSMENT MODULES

Based on information obtained from the 33 LMEcase studies, a modular strategy has been devel-oped to provide information for the monitoring,assessment, and management of LMEs. The mod-ules are focused on ecosystem (1) productivity,(2) fish and fisheries, (3) pollution and health, (4)socioeconomic conditions, and (5) governance pro-tocols.

PRODUCTIVITY MODULE

Productivity can be related to the carrying capac-ity of an ecosystem for supporting fish resources(Pauly & Christensen 1995). Recently, scientistshave reported that the maximum global level ofprimary productivity for supporting the average

annual world catch of fisheries has been reached,and further large-scale “unmanaged” increases infisheries yields from marine ecosystems are likelyto be at trophic levels below fish in the marinefood chain (Beddington 1995). Evidence of thiseffect appears to be corroborated by recent changesin the species composition of the fisheries catchesfrom the East China Sea LME (Chen & Shen1999). Measuring ecosystem productivity also canserve as a useful indication of the growing problemof coastal eutrophication (NSQSR 1993). In sev-eral LMEs, excessive nutrient loadings of coastalwaters have been related to algal blooms impli-cated in mass mortalities of living resources, emer-gence of pathogens (e.g. cholera, vibrios, red tides,paralytic shellfish toxins), and explosive growth ofnonindigenous species (Epstein 1993).

The ecosystem parameters measured in theproductivity module are zooplankton biodiversityand information on species composition, zoo-plankton biomass, water column structure, photo-synthetically active radiation (PAR), transparency,

Figure 1. World map of large marine ecosystems.

208


chlorophyll-

a

, NO

2

, NO

3

, and primary produc-tion. Plankton of LMEs have been measured bydeploying Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR)systems monthly across ecosystems from commer-cial vessels of opportunity over decadal time scales(Jossi & Goulet 1993; Planque & Taylor 1998). Ad-vanced plankton recorders can be fitted with sen-sors for temperature, salinity, chlorophyll, nitrate/nitrite, petroleum, hydrocarbons, light, biolumi-nescence, and primary productivity (Aiken

et al.

TABLE 2

List of 33 LMEs and subsystems for which syntheses relating to primary, secondary, or tertiary driving forces controlling variability in biomass yields have been completed for inclusion in LME volumes

Large Marine Ecosystem

VolumeNo. Authors

U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf

1 M. Sissenwine4 P. Falkowski6 S. Murawski

U.S. Southeast Continental Shelf

4 J. Yoder

Gulf of Mexico 2 W. Richards & M. McGowan

4 B. Brown

et al.

9 R. ShippCalifornia Current 1 A. MacCall

4 M. Mullin5 D. Bottom

Eastern Bering Shelf 1 L. Incze &J. Schumacher

8 P. Livingston

et al.

West Greenland Shelf 3 H. Hovgård & E. Buch

Norwegian Sea 3 B. Ellersten

et al.

Barents Sea 2 H. Skjoldal & F. Rey

4 V. BorisovNorth Sea 1 N. DaanBaltic Sea 1 G. KullenbergIberian Coastal 2 T. Wyatt & G.

Perez-GandarasMediterranean-

Adriatic Sea5 G. Bombace

Canary Current 5 C. BasGulf of Guinea 5 D. Binet &

E. MarchalBenguela Current 2 R. Crawford et al.Patagonian Shelf 5 A. BakunCaribbean Sea 3 W. Richards &

J. BohnsackSouth China Sea-

Gulf of Thailand2 T. Piyakarnchana

East China Sea 8 Y-Q Chen &X-Q Shen

Sea of Japan 8 M. TerazakiYellow Sea 2 Q. TangSea of Okhotsk 5 V. Kusnetsov

et al.

Humboldt Current 5 J. Alheit &P. Bernall

Pacific Central American

8 A. Bakun

et al.

(

Continued

)

TABLE 2

Continued.

Large Marine Ecosystem Authors

VolumeNo. Authors

Indonesia Seas-Banda Sea

3 J. Zijlstra & M. Baars

Bay of Bengal 5 S. Dwivedi7 A. Hazizi

et al.

Antarctic Marine 1 & 5 R. Scully

et al.

Weddell Sea 3 G. HempelKuroshio Current 2 M. TerazakiOyashio Current 2 T. MinodaGreat Barrier Reef 2 R. Bradbury &

C. Mundy5 G. Kelleher8 J. Brodie

Somali Current 7 E. OkemwaSouth China Sea 5 D. Pauly &

V. Christensen

Vol. 1 Variability and Management of Large Marine Ecosystems. Editedby K. Sherman and L.M. Alexander. AAAS Selected Symposium 99.Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO, 1986. 319 p.Vol. 2 Biomass Yields and Geography of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ed-ited by K. Sherman and L.M. Alexander. AAAS Selected Symposium111. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO, 1989. 493 p.Vol. 3 Large Marine Ecosystems: Patterns, Processes, and Yields. Editedby K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold. AAAS Symposium.AAAS, Washington, DC, 1990. 242 p.Vol. 4 Food Chains, Yields, Models, and Management of Large MarineEcosystems. Edited by K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold.AAAS Symposium. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO, 1991. 320 p.Vol. 5 Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability.Edited by K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold. AAAS Press,Washington, DC, 1992. 376 p.Vol. 6 The Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability, andManagement. Edited by K. Sherman, N.A. Jaworski, and T. J. Smayda.Blackwell Science, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 1996. 564 p.Vol. 7 Large Marine Ecosystems of the Indian Ocean: Assessment, Sus-tainability, and Management. Edited by K. Sherman, E.N. Okemwa, andM.J. Ntiba. Blackwell Science, Inc., Malden, MA, 1998. 394 p.Vol. 8 Large Marine Ecosystems of the Pacific Rim: Assessment, Sustain-ability, and Management. Edited by K. Sherman and Q. Tang. BlackwellScience, Inc., Malden, MA, 1999. 465 p.Vol. 9 The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem: Assessment, Sus-tainability, and Management. Edited by H. Kumpf, K. Stiedinger, andK. Sherman. Blackwell Science, Inc., Malden, MA, 1999. 736 p.


209

1999), providing the means to monitor changes inphytoplankton, zooplankton, primary productiv-ity, species composition and dominance, and long-term changes in the physical and nutrient charac-teristics of the LME and in the biofeedback ofplankton to the stress of environmental change.

THE FISH AND FISHERIES MODULE

Changes in biodiversity among the dominant spe-cies within fish communities of LMEs have re-sulted from excessive exploitation (Sissenwine &Cohen 1991), naturally occurring environmentalshifts in climate regime (Bakun 1993), or coastalpollution (Mee 1992). Changes in the biodiversityof a fish community can generate cascading ef-fects up the food chain to apex predators anddown the food chain to plankton components ofthe ecosystem (Payne

et al.

1990). These threesources of variability in fisheries yield are opera-ble in most LMEs. However, they can be de-scribed as primary, secondary, and tertiary drivingforces in fisheries yields, contingent on the eco-system under investigation. For example, in theHumboldt Current, Benguela Current, and Cali-fornia Current LMEs, the primary driving forceinfluencing variability in fisheries yield is the in-fluence of changes in upwelling strength (Craw-ford

et al.

1989; Alheit & Bernal 1993; Bakun1999); fishing and pollution effects are secondaryand tertiary effects on fisheries yields. In conti-nental shelf LMEs, including the Yellow Sea andNortheast United States Shelf, excessive fisherieseffort has caused large-scale declines in catch andchanges in the biodiversity and dominance in thefish community (Sissenwine 1986; Tang 1993). Inthese ecosystems, pollution and environmentalperturbation are of secondary and tertiary influ-ence. In contrast, significant coastal pollution andeutrophication have been the principal factorsdriving changes in fisheries yields of the North-west Adriatic (Bombace 1993), Black Sea (Mee1992), and near-coastal areas of the Baltic Sea(Kullenberg 1986). Overexploitation and naturalenvironmental changes are of secondary and ter-tiary importance. Consideration of the drivingforces of change in biomass yield based on multi-year time-series data is important when develop-ing options for management of living marine re-sources for long-term sustainability.

The Fish and Fisheries module includes fish-eries-independent bottom-trawl surveys and acous-tic surveys for pelagic species to obtain time-seriesinformation about changes in fish biodiversity and

abundance levels. Standardized sampling proce-dures, when deployed from small calibrated trawl-ers, can provide important information on di-verse changes in fish species. Fish catch providesbiological samples for stock assessments, stomachanalyses, age, growth, fecundity, and size compar-isons (ICES 1991); data for clarifying and quanti-fying multispecies trophic relationships; and thecollection of samples for monitoring coastal pol-lution. Samples of trawl-caught fish can be used tomonitor pathological conditions that may be asso-ciated with coastal pollution. Trawlers also can beused as platforms for obtaining water, sediment,and benthic samples for monitoring harmful algalblooms, virus vectors of disease, eutrophication,anoxia, and changes in benthic communities.

POLLUTION AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH MODULE

In several LMEs, pollution has been a principaldriving force in changes of biomass yields. Assess-ing the changing status of pollution and health ofthe entire LME is scientifically challenging. Eco-system “health” is a concept of wide interest forwhich a single precise scientific definition is prob-lematical. Methods to assess the health of LMEsare being developed from modifications to a se-ries of indicators and indices described by severalinvestigators (Costanza & Mageau 1999). The over-riding objective is to monitor changes in healthfrom an ecosystem perspective as a measure of theoverall performance of a complex system (Cos-tanza 1992). The health paradigm is based on mul-tiple-state comparisons of ecosystem resilience andstability (Pimm 1984; Holling 1986; Costanza 1992)and is an evolving concept.

Following the definition of Costanza & Mageau(1999), to be healthy and sustainable, an ecosystemmust maintain its metabolic activity level and its in-ternal structure and organization, and must resistexternal stress over time and space scales relevantto the ecosystem. These concepts were discussedby panels of experts at two NOAA workshops con-vened in 1992 (National Oceanic & AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) 1993) and at a series ofworkshops convened by the Nordic Council of En-vironmental Ministers (Lanters

et al.

1999). Five ofthe indices discussed by the participants in both se-ries of workshops are being considered as experi-mental measures of changing ecosystem states andhealth: (1) biodiversity; (2) stability; (3) yields; (4)productivity; and (5) resilience (Sherman & Solow1992; TemaNord 1999). Data from which to de-

210


rive the experimental indices are obtained fromtime-series monitoring of key ecosystem parame-ters. The ecosystem sampling strategy is focusedon parameters relating to resources at risk of over-exploitation, species protected by legislative au-thority (marine mammals), and other key biologi-cal and physical components at the lower end ofthe food chain (plankton, nutrients, hydrography).The parameters of interest are described in Sher-man (1994).

Fish, benthic invertebrates, and other biologi-cal indicator species are used in the Pollution andEcosystem Health module to measure pollutioneffects on the ecosystem, including the monitor-ing of bivalves of “Mussel-Watch,” the pathobio-logical examination of fish, and the estuarine andnearshore monitoring of contaminants and con-taminant effects in the water column, substrate,and in selected groups of organisms (NOAA 1998;Wade

et al.

1998). The routes of bioaccumulationand trophic transfer of contaminants are assessed,and critical life history stages and selected foodchain organisms are examined for parameters thatindicate exposure to, and effects of, contaminants.Impaired reproductive capacity, organ disease, andimpaired growth from contaminants are measured(Myers

et al.

1998). Assessments are made of con-taminant impacts at the individual species andpopulation levels. Implementation of protocols toassess the frequency and effect of harmful algalblooms (Smayda 1991) and emergent diseases (Ep-stein 1993) are included in the pollution module.

THE SOCIOECONOMIC MODULE

This module is characterized by its emphasis onpractical applications of its scientific findings inmanaging an LME and on the explicit integrationof economic analysis with science-based assess-ments to assure that prospective managementmeasures are cost-effective. Economists and policyanalysts will need to work closely with ecologistsand other scientists to identify and evaluate man-agement options that are both scientifically credi-ble and economically practical with regard to theuse of ecosystem goods and services (Hanna 1998).

Designed to respond adaptively to enhancedscientific information, socioeconomic consider-ations and management approaches must be closelyintegrated with the science. This component of theLME approach to marine resources management,developed by the late James Broadus, former Direc-tor of the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution, consists of six interre-lated elements:

1) Human forcing functions.

The natural starting point is a generalized characterization of ways in which human activities affect the natural ma-rine system and the expected “sensitivity” of these forcing functions to various types and lev-els of human activity. Population dynamics, coastal development, and land use practices in the system’s drainage basin are clear examples. Work integrating the efforts of natural and so-cial scientists should concentrate further on re-solving apparent effects (such as eutrophica-tion-associated red tide events or changing fish population structures) that are confounded by cycles or complex dynamics in the natural sys-tem itself. Progress is possible, too, in achieving better characterizations of the way in which hu-man activities affecting ecosystems are medi-ated by alternate management options. Empha-sis should be on isolating and quantifying those forcing activities (sewage discharge, agricul-tural runoff, fishing effort) likely to be ex-pressed most prominently in effects on the nat-ural system.

2) Assessing Impacts.

Another natural element in the systemic approach is to estimate and even predict the economic impacts of unmanaged degradation in a natural system and, obversely, the expected benefits of management mea-sures. Such assessment is a form of standard benefit-cost analysis, but it requires scientific in-formation to describe the effects of human forcing so they may be quantified in economic terms. Initial analysis should focus on the social and economic sectors likely to experience the largest impacts: fishing, aquaculture, public health, recreation, and tourism.

3) Feedbacks.

Collaborative effort between re-source management agencies and stakeholders also should be devoted to reviewing the results of analyses used in identifying and estimating the feedbacks of economic impacts into the hu-man forcing function. For example, extensive coastal eutrophication associated with coastal development and runoff might reduce the suit-ability of coastal areas for aquaculture produc-tion and increase their exposure to red tide damage, thereby putting a premium on cap-ture fishery and increasing pressure on wild stocks. Similar feedback, both negative and positive, should be addressed and expressed in economic terms for all the major sectors.


211

4) Ecosystem Service/The Value of Biodiversity.

Special consideration should be given to improved knowledge of how the natural system generates economic values. Many valuable services pro-vided by natural systems are not traded in mar-kets or included in planning evaluations, so ex-tra care must be taken to assure they are not sacrificed through ignorance. The services pro-vided by coastal wetlands as nurseries for fisher-ies, natural pollution filters, and storm buffers are well-known examples particularly relevant to coastal reclamation activities now underway by NOAA and other federal and state agencies. Other examples are more subtle, including the importance of predator-prey relationships and the possibility of losing unrecognized “key-stone” species in a valuable ecosystem. Experi-ence indicates that growing economic values of aesthetic and recreational or tourism amenities are to be expected in LMEs. Various sources of economic value arising from the natural diver-sity of the LME should be identified and as-sessed in regard to existing uses and potential management innovations.

5) Environmental Economics.

Many of the elements described in this section comprise topics in En-vironmental Economics. Specialists in that field attempt to estimate the economic values (both use and nonuse) associated with environmental resources and to identify conditions associated with their optimal management (to derive the greatest net benefits for society). An important element is the collaboration between scholars from developing and developed nations to transfer and adapt to the needs and techniques of Environmental Economics.

6) Integrated Assessment.

The ultimate objective is integration of all the results achieved above, with scientific characterizations of the LME, into a comprehensive analytic framework (deci-sion support environment) that will permit in-tegrated assessment of human practices, ef-fects, and management options in the region. Such work is at the forefront of recent research on the human dimensions of global environ-mental change as well as research on human in-teractions with natural marine systems.

GOVERNANCE MODULE

The Governance module is evolving based oncase studies now underway among ecosystems tobe managed from a more holistic perspective

than generally practiced in the past. In projectssupported by the Global Environmental Facility(GEF)—for the Yellow Sea ecosystem, the Gulf ofGuinea LME, and the Benguela LME—agree-ments have been reached among the environ-mental ministers of the countries bordering theseLMEs to enter into joint resource assessment andmanagement activities. Among other LMEs, theGreat Barrier Reef ecosystem is being managedfrom an holistic ecosystems perspective (Kelleher1993) along with the Northwest Australian Conti-nental Shelf ecosystem (Sainsbury 1988) beingmanaged by the state and federal governments ofAustralia. The Antarctic marine ecosystem is be-ing managed from an ecosystem perspective un-der the Commission for the Conservation of Ant-arctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) andits 21-nation membership (Scully 1993). Move-ment toward ecosystems management is emerg-ing for the North Sea (NSQSR 1993), Barents Sea(Eikeland 1992), Black Sea (Hey & Mee 1993)and Baltic Sea. Recent reports have examined op-tions for improving linkages between the science-based Fish and Fisheries and Ecosystem Healthmodules to the Socioeconomic (Sutinen

et al.

1998)and Governance modules ( Juda 1999).

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND THE “WHY” PARADIGM FOR MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Before the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil, the Glo-bal Environment Facility (GEF) was establishedwithin the World Bank as a pilot program to testnew approaches and innovative ways to respondto global environmental challenges in four focalareas: climate change, biodiversity conservation,ozone depletion, and international waters. In March1994, after 18 months of intergovernmental negoti-ations, agreement was reached in Geneva to trans-form the GEF from its pilot phase into a permanentfinancial mechanism. The restructured facility,which has so far committed more than $2.5 bil-lion in grant funding, is open to universal partici-pation (currently 165 countries) and builds uponthe partnership between the United Nations De-velopment Programme (UNDP), the United Na-tions Environment Programme (UNEP), and theWorld Bank, which are its implementing agen-cies. In addition to the four focal areas, activitiesto address land degradation are also eligible for

212


TAB

LE 3

Cou

ntrie

s w

here

Mar

ine

Reso

urce

Min

istr

ies

(fis

herie

s, e

nviro

nmen

t, f

inan

ce) a

re s

uppo

rtiv

e of

res

ourc

e as

sess

men

t an

d m

anag

emen

t fr

om a

n ec

osys

tem

s pe

rspe

ctiv

e

Con

tin

ent

LM

EPa

rtic

ipat

ing

coun

trie

sSt

atus

Asi

aB

ay o

f Ben

gal

Ban

glad

esh

, In

dia,

In

don

esia

, Mal

aysi

a, M

aldi

ves,

Sri L

anka

, Th

aila

nd

Init

ial f

undi

ng

appr

oved

. UN

Exe

cuti

ng

Age

ncy

is F

AO

1

.

Sout

h C

hin

a Se

aSu

mat

ra, M

alay

sia,

Cam

bodi

a, T

hai

lan

d, V

ietn

am,

Ch

ina,

Ph

ilipp

ines

, Bor

neo

Init

ial f

undi

ng

appr

oved

. UN

Exe

cuti

ng

Age

ncy

is U

NE

P

2

.

Yello

w S

eaK

orea

, Ch

ina

Init

ial f

undi

ng

appr

oved

. UN

Exe

cuti

ng

Age

ncy

is U

ND

P

3

.A

fric

aG

ulf o

f Gui

nea

Nig

eria

, Gh

ana,

Ivo

ry C

oast

, Ben

in, C

amer

oon

, Tog

oPr

ojec

t in

yea

r 2.

UN

Exe

cuti

ng

Age

ncy

is U

NID

O

4

.B

engu

ela

Cur

ren

tSo

uth

Afr

ica,

Nam

ibia

, An

gola

Init

ial f

undi

ng

appr

oved

. UN

Exe

cuti

ng

Age

ncy

is U

ND

P.So

mal

i Cur

ren

tT

anza

nia

, Ken

yaIn

itia

l fun

din

g pe

ndi

ng.

UN

Exe

cuti

ng

Age

ncy

is U

NE

P.A

gulh

as C

urre

nt

Moz

ambi

que,

Sou

th A

fric

a, M

adag

asca

rIn

itia

l fun

din

g pe

ndi

ng.

UN

Exe

cuti

ng

Age

ncy

is U

NE

P.C

anar

y C

urre

nt

Gui

nea

, Gui

nea

Bis

sau,

Gam

bia,

Cap

e V

erde

, M

auri

tan

ia, M

oroc

co, S

eneg

alIn

itia

l fun

din

g ap

prov

ed. U

N E

xecu

tin

g A

gen

cy is

UN

EP.

Sout

h A

mer

ica

Hum

bold

t Cur

ren

tC

hile

, Per

uIn

pla

nn

ing

phas

e.C

arib

bean

Sea

Bah

amas

, Bar

bado

s, B

eliz

e, B

razi

l, C

olom

bia,

Cos

ta R

ica,

Cub

a, J

amai

ca, M

exic

o, P

anam

a,St

. Luc

ia, T

rin

idad

an

d T

obag

o, V

enez

uela

(I

OC

AR

IBE

mem

bers

)

In p

lan

nin

g ph

ase

wit

h U

NE

SCO

/IO

C

5

.

Eas

tern

Eur

ope

Bal

tic

Sea

Pola

nd,

Est

onia

, Lat

via,

Lit

hua

nia

, Rus

sia,

Fin

lan

d,

Swed

en, G

erm

any,

Den

mar

kIn

itia

l fun

din

g ap

prov

ed. U

N E

xecu

tin

g A

gen

cy is

the

Wor

ld B

ank.

1

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s Fo

od a

nd

Agr

icul

tura

l Org

aniz

atio

n, R

ome.

2

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s E

nvi

ron

men

tal P

rogr

am, N

airo

bi.

3

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s D

evel

opm

ent P

rogr

am, N

ew Y

ork.

4

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s In

dust

rial

Dev

elop

men

t Org

aniz

atio

n, V

ien

na.

5

Un

ited

Nat

ion

s E

duca

tion

al a

nd

Scie

nti

fic

Org

aniz

atio

n/I

nte

rgov

ern

men

tal O

cean

ogra

phic

Com

mis

sion

, Par

is.


213

funding insofar as they relate to one or more ofthe four focal areas.

According to its Operational Strategy (GlobalEnvironment Facility 1996), the GEF will fundprojects and programs that are country-driven andbased on national priorities designed to supportsustainable development. In the international wa-ters area, GEF’s objective is to contribute primarilyas a catalyst to the implementation of a more com-prehensive, ecosystem-based approach to managinginternational waters and their drainage basins as ameans of achieving global environmental benefits(Sherman & Duda 1999). The GEF implementingagencies assist countries to find means of collabo-rating with neighboring countries in internationalwaters projects. The GEF addresses priority trans-boundary concerns consistent with Chapters 17and 18 of Agenda 21 made at the 1992 Earth Sum-mit (Duda & Cruz 1998). Scientists and naturalresource managers from 59 countries represent-ing environmental and fisheries ministries recog-nize the usefulness of LME geographic designa-tion as an ecologically based assessment andmanagement unit for coastal and marine re-sources, and have developed or are in the processof developing proposals for implementing LMEprojects under the Operational Strategy of theGlobal Environment Facility (Table 3).

From this growing LME activity a paradigm isemerging that is moving forward monitoring andassessment and management practices from sin-gle species to multispecies, from small spatialscales to larger spatial scales, from short-termmanagement perspectives to long-term perspec-tives, and from managing single commodities tosustaining the production potential for a wider ar-ray of marine ecosystem goods and services.

Ecosystem management necessitates intergov-ernmental and intersectoral governance accomo-dation. This is why governmental stewardshipagencies will have to identify barriers to inter-agency coordination and why they must developalliances and partnerships with nonfederal agen-cies and private sector stakeholders. Ecosystemmanagement must be able to cope with the un-certainty associated with the complexity of ecosys-tems as natural systems, and the organizationaland institutional complexity of the implementa-tion environment (Acheson 1994). The fit be-tween the spatial and temporal scales of govern-ment jurisdictions on the one hand and ecosystemson the other requires investigation of ways to con-nect ecosystems through “networked institutions”at federal, state, local, and NGO levels. How these

institutions must adapt to deal with the complexityof the ecosystem and the complexity of the gover-nance system in order to achieve an optimal mixof benefits and costs is a fundamental issue (Creed& McCay 1996).

The complex interplay of socioeconomic,ecological, political, and legislative processes un-derscores the need for an integrated approach tothe governance and management of drainage ba-sins, coastal areas, and linked continental shelvesand dominant current systems.

The LME monitoring and assessment ap-proach is designed to be integrative. It provides aframework for linking the governance aspects ofmodular monitoring and assessment with themanagement of drainage basins and coastal areaswith continental shelves and dominant coastalcurrents. The approach addresses the many-fac-eted problem of sustainable development of ma-rine resources; provides a framework for researchmonitoring, assessment, and modeling to allowprediction and better management decisions; andaids in focusing marine assessments and manage-ment on sustaining productivity and conservingthe integrity of ecosystems. The World Bank andthe Global Environment Facility (GEF) haveadopted the LME approach to marine ecosystemresearch and management, viewing it as “an effec-tive way to manage and organize scientific researchon natural processes occurring within marine eco-systems to study how pollutants travel within thesemarine systems.”

According to Sutinen

et al.

(1998) one of themost challenging aspects of ecosystem manage-ment, especially for LMEs, is “[t]he mismatch be-tween the spatial and temporal scales at whichpeople make resource management decisions andthe scales at which ecosystem processes operate”(Christensen

et al.

1996). Christensen and his co-authors, writing for the Ecological Society of Amer-ica, went on to lament that “we have identifiedfew mechanisms to translate the actions occurringwithin individual forest ownership or local fishingcommunities into strategies to reconcile compet-ing demands for resources or promote a regionalvision for sustainability.” Property rights establishthe incentives and time-horizons for resource useand investment (Libecap 1989). From a governanceperspective the property rights paradigm coupledwith the science-based monitoring and assessmentmodules can serve as the framework necessary toimplement LME resource governance and man-agement policies for long-term economic growthand resource sustainability.

214


REFERENCES

AAAS (1989)

Biomass Yields and Geography of Large MarineEcosystems.

AAAS Selected Symposium 111. 493 pp.Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO.

AAAS (1990)

Large Marine Ecosystems: Patterns, Processesand Yields.

242 pp. AAAS Press, Washington, DC.AAAS (1991)

Food Chains, Yields, Models, and Manage-ment of Large Marine Ecosystems.

320 pp. WestviewPress, Inc., Boulder, CO.

AAAS (1993)

Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation,and Sustainability.

pp 376. AAAS Press, Washing-ton, DC.

Acheson, J.M. (ed) (1994)

Anthropology and InstitutionalEconomics.

University Press of America, Lanham, MD.Aiken, J., Pollard, R., Williams, R., Griffiths, G. & Bel-

lan, I. (1999) Measurements of the upper oceanstructure using towed profiling systems. In: Sher-man, K. & Tang, Q. (eds)

Large Marine Ecosystems ofthe Pacific Rim: Assessment, Sustainability, and Manage-ment.

pp. 346–362. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA.Alheit, J. & Bernal, P. (1993) Effects of physical and bi-

ological changes on the biomass yield of the Hum-boldt Current ecosystem. In: Sherman, K., Alex-ander, L.M., Gold, B.D. (eds)

Large Marine Ecosystems:Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability.

pp. 53–68. AAASPress, Washington DC.

American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) (1986)

Variability and Management of LargeMarine Ecosystems. AAAS Selected Symposium 99.

pp.319. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO.

Bakun, A. (1993) The California Current, BenguelaCurrent and Southwestern Atlantic Shelf ecosys-tems: a comparative approach to identifying fac-tors regulating biomass yields. In: Sherman, K., Al-exander, L.M., Gold, B.D. (eds)

Large MarineEcosystems: Stress

,

Mitigation and Sustainability.

pp.199–221. AAAS Press, Washington, DC.

Bakun, A. (1999) A dynamical scenario for simultaneous‘regime-scale’ marine population shifts in widelyseparated LMEs of the pacific. In: Tang, Q. & Sher-man, K. (eds)

The Large Marine Ecosystems of the Pa-cific Rim: Assessment, Sustainability, and Management.

pp. 2–26. Blackwell Science, Inc., Malden, MA.Beddington, J.R. (1995) The primary requirements.

Nature

374

, 213–214.Bombace, G. (1993) Ecological and fishing features of

the Adriatic Sea. In: Sherman, K., Alexander, L.M.,Gold, B.D. (eds)

Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mit-igation, And Sustainability.

pp. 119–136. AAASPress, Washington, DC.

Chen, Y. & Shen, X. (1999) Changes in the biomass ofthe East China Sea ecosystem. In: Sherman, K. &Tang, Q. (eds)

Large Marine Ecosystems of the PacificRim: Assessment, Sustainability, and Management.

pp.221–239. Blackwell Science, Inc., Malden, MA.

Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H., Carpen-ter, S., D’Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin, J.F.,MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peter-

son, C.H., Turner, M.G. & Woodmansee, R.G.(1996) Report of the Ecological Society of Americacommittee on the scientific basis for ecosystemmanagement.

Ecological Applications

6

, 665–691.Costanza, R. (1992) Toward an operational definition

of ecosystem health. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G.,Haskell, B.D. (eds)

Ecosystem Health: New Goals forEnvironmental Management.

pp. 239–256. Island Press,Washington, DC.

Costanza, R. & Mageau, M. (1999) What is a healthyecosystem? In: Sherman, K., Kumpf, H., Steidinger, K.(eds)

The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem: Assess-ment, Sustainability, and Management.

pp. 385–415.Blackwell Science, Malden, MA.

Crawford, R.J.M., Shannon, L.V. & Shelton, P.A. (1989)Characteristics and management of the Benguela asa large marine ecosystem. In: Sherman, K., Alex-ander, L.M. (eds)

Biomass Yields and Geography ofLarge Marine Ecosystems. AAAS Selected Symposium 111.

pp. 169–219. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO.Creed, C.F. & McCay, B.J. (1996) Property rights, con-

servation and institutional authority: policy impli-cations of the Magnuson Act reauthorization forthe mid-Atlantic region.

Tulane Environmental LawJournal

9

, 245–256.Duda, A.M. (1990) Cross-media management of toxic

pollutants in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. In:McNeil, R.Y. & Windsor, J.E. (eds)

Innovations inRiver Basin Management

. pp. 321–333. CanadianWater Resources Association, Cambridge, ON.

Duda, A.M. & Cruz, M.C.J. (1998) Partnerships to sus-tain international waters.

Report in Valuing the GlobalEnvironment: Actions & Investments for a 21st Century.

Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC.Eikeland, P.O. (1992) Multispecies Management of the

Barents Sea Large Marine Ecosystem: A Frame-work for Discussing Future Challenges. The Fridt-jof Nansen Institute, Lysaker, Norway.

Epstein, P.R. (1993) Algal blooms and public health.

World Resource Review

5

, 190–206.European Commission for Ocean, Polar Science

(ECOPS) & European Science Foundation (ESF),European Commission DG XII, and Institute forBaltic Sea Research (1995) Joint Baltic Sea Ecosys-tem Studies: A Science Plan for an InterdisciplinaryEcosystem Analysis in the Baltic Sea. Report of 4 in-ternational Baltic Sea Workshops—18–19 March1993, 4–10 November 1993, 6–8 June 1994, and22–25 January 1995. HELCOM, Helsinki, Finland.

GEF (Global Environment Facility) (1996)

GEF Opera-tion Programs.

Global Environment Facility, Wash-ington, DC.

Great Lakes Science Advisory Board (1978) The Ecosys-tem Approach. Scope and Implications of an Eco-system Approach to Transboundary Problems inthe Great Lakes Basin: Special Report to the Inter-national Joint Commission. Great Lakes ScienceAdvisory Board, Washington, DC.

Hanna, S.S. (1998) Institutions for marine ecosystems:


215

economic incentives and fishery management.

Eco-logical. Applications

8

, 170–174.Hey, E. & Mee, L.D. (1993) Black Sea. The ministerial

declaration: an important step.

Environmental Pollu-tion Law

2315

, 215–217, 235–236.Holling, C.S. (1973) Resilience and Stability of Ecologi-

cal Systems. Institute of Resource Ecology, Univer-sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Holling, C.S. (1986) The resilience of terrestrial ecosys-tems: local surprise and global change. In: Clark,W.C. & Munn, R.E. (eds)

Sustainable Development ofthe Biosphere.

pp. 292–317. Cambridge UniversityPress, London, UK.

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea(ICES) (1991) Report of the Multispecies Assess-ment Working Group. ICES C.M. 1991/Assess 7.

Jossi, J.W. & Goulet, J.R. Jr (1993) Zooplankton trends:U.S. Northeast Shelf ecosystem and adjacent re-gions differ from Northeast Atlantic and NorthSea.

ICES Journal of Marine Science.

50

, 303–313.Juda, L. (1999) Considerations in developing a func-

tional approach to the governance of large marineecosystems.

Ocean Development and International Law

30

, 89–125.Kelleher, G. (1993) Sustainable development of the

Great Barrier Reef as a large marine ecosystem.In: Sherman, K., Alexander, L.M., Gold, B.D.(eds)

Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation, andSustainability.

pp. 272–279. AAAS Press, Washing-ton, DC.

Kullenberg, G. (1986) Long-term changes in the BalticEcosystem. In: Sherman, K. & Alexander, L.M.(eds)

Variability and Management of Large MarineEcosystems.

AAAS Selected Symposium 99

. pp. 19–32.Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO.

Kumpf, H., Steidinger, K. & Sherman, K., eds. (1999)The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine. Ecosystem: Assess-ment, Sustainability, and Management. pp. 736. Black-well Science, Inc. Malden, MA.

Lanters, R.L.P., Skjoldal, H.-R. & Noji, T.T. (eds)(1999) Ecological Quality Objectives for the NorthSea. Basic Document for the Workshop on Ecolog-ical Quality Objectives for the North Sea. Schev-eningen, The Netherlands. 1–3 September 1999.Report RIKZ 99.015. National Institute for Coastaland Marine Management, Institute of Marine Re-search, The Hague, Netherlands.

Lee, S.-G. & Sutinen, G. (1999) Large marine ecosys-tems, socieconomic and governance: Implicationsfor Korea. Korea Observer 30, 9–58.

Levin, S.A. (1993) Approaches to forecasting biomassyields in large marine ecosystems. In: Sherman, K.,Alexander, L.M., Gold, B.D. (eds) Large MarineEcosystems: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability. pp.36–39. AAAS Press, Washington DC.

Libecap, G.D. (1989). Contracting for Property Rights.Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Lubchenco, J. (1994) The scientific basis of ecosystemmanagement: framing the context, language, and

goals. In: Zinn, J. & Corn, M.L. (eds) EcosystemManagement: Status and Potential. 103rd Congress,2nd Session, Committee Print. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Superintendent of Documents.ISBN 0-16-046423-4. 33–39.

Lubchenco, J., Olson, A.M., Brubaker, L.B., Carpenter,S.R., Holland, M.M., Hubbell, S.P., Levin, S.A.,MacMahon, J.A., Matson, P.A., Melillo, J.M.,Mooney, H.A., Peterson, C.H., Pulliam, H.R., Real,L.A., Regal, P.J. & Risser, P.G. (1991) The sustain-able biosphere initiative: an ecological researchagenda. Ecology 72, 317–412.

Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R. & Walters, C. (1993) Uncer-tainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:Lessons from history. Science 260, 17–36.

Mangel, M. (1991) Empirical and theoretical aspects offisheries yield models for large marine ecosystems.In: Sherman, K., Alexander, L.M., Gold, B.D. (eds)Food Chains, Yields, Models, and Management of LargeMarine Ecosystems. pp. 243–261. Westview Press,Inc., Boulder, CO.

Mee, L. (1992) The Black Sea in crisis: a need for con-certed international action. Ambio 21, 1278–1286.

Myers, M.S., Johnson, L.L., Olson, O.P., Stehr, C.M.,Horness, B.H., Collier, T.K. & McCain, B.B. (1998)Toxicopathic hepatic lesions as biomarkers ofchemical contaminant exposure and effects in bot-tomfish species from the Northeast and Pacificcoasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37, 92–113.

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) (1993) Emerging Theoretical Basis for Moni-toring the Changing States (Health) of Large Marine Ec-osystems. Summary Report of Two Workshops: 23April 1992, National Marine Fisheries Service, Nar-ragansett, Rhode Island, and 11–12 July 1992, Cor-nell University, Ithaca, New York. NOAA TechnicalMemorandum NMFS-F/NEC-100.

National Research Council (NRC) (1999) SustainingMarine Fisheries. National Academy Press, Washing-ton, DC.

NOAA (1998) National Status and Trends Program for MarineEnvironmental Quality. National Status and Trends Pro-gram, Silver Spring, MD.

North Sea Quality Status Report (NSQSR) (1993) Osloand Paris Commissions. pp. 1321vi. London. Olsenand Olsen, Fredensborg, Denmark.

Pauly, D. & Christensen, V. (1995) Primary production re-quired to sustain global fisheries. Nature. 374, 255–257.

Payne, P.M., Wiley, D.N., Young, S.B., Pittmann, S.,Clapham, P.J., Jossi, J.W. (1990) Recent fluctua-tions in the abundance of baleen whales in thesouthern Gulf of Maine in relation to changes in se-lected prey. Fisheries Bulletin of the U.S. 88, 687–696.

Pimm, S.L. (1984) The complexity and stability of eco-systems. Nature 307, 321–326.

Planque, B. & Taylor, A.H. (1998) Long-term changesin zooplankton and the climate of the North Atlan-tic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 55, 644–654.

Reid, P.C. (1999) North Sea ecosystem: status report.

216


In: Kumpf, H., Steidinger, K., Sherman, K. (eds)The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem: Assessment,Sustainability, and Management. pp. 476–489. Black-well Science, Inc. Malden, MA.

Rosenberg, A.A., Fogarty, M.K., Sissenwine, M.P., Bedding-ton, J.R., Shepherd, J.G. (1993) Achieving sustainableuse of renewable resources. Science 262, 828–829.

Sainsbury, K.J. (1988) The ecological basis of multispe-cies fisheries and management of a demersal fish-ery in tropical Australia. In: Gulland, J.A. (ed) FishPopulation Dynamics. 2nd edn. pp. 349–382. JohnWiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Scully, R.T. (1993) Convention on the conservation ofAntarctic marine living resources. In: Sherman, K.,Alexander, L.M., Gold, B.D. (eds) Large Marine Eco-systems: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability. pp. 242–251. AAAS Press, Washington, DC.

Sherman, K. (1994) Sustainability, biomass yields, andhealth of coastal ecosystems: an ecological perspec-tive. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 112, 277–301.

Sherman, K. & Duda, A.M. (1999) An ecosystem approachto global assessment and management of coastal wa-ters. Marine Ecology Progress Series 190, 271–287.

Sherman, K., Jaworski, N. & Smayda, T., eds. (1996).The Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainabil-ity, and Management. pp. 564. Blackwell Science,Inc. Cambridge, MA.

Sherman, K. & Solow, A.R. (1992) The Changing Statesand Health of a Large Marine Ecosystem. CM/L38 Ses-sion V. 31p. ICES, Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany.

Sherman, K. & Tang, Q. (eds) (1999) Large Marine Eco-systems of the Pacific Rim: Assessment, Sustainability,and Management. pp. 465. Blackwell Science, Inc.,Malden, MA.

Sissenwine, M.P. (1986) Perturbation of a predator-

controlled continental shelf ecosystem. In: Sher-man, K. & Alexander, L.M. (eds). Variability andManagement of Large Marine Ecosystems. AAAS Se-lected Symposium 99. pp. 55–85. Westview Press,Inc., Boulder, CO.

Sissenwine, M.P. & Cohen, E.B. (1991) Resource pro-ductivity and fisheries management of the north-east shelf ecosystem. In: Sherman, K., Alexander,L.M., Gold, B.D. (eds). Food Chains, Yields, Models,and Management of Large Marine Ecosystems. pp. 107–123. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO.

Smayda, T. (1991) Global epidemic of noxious phy-toplankton blooms and food chain consequencesin large ecosystems. In: Sherman, K., Alexander,L.M., Gold, B.D. (eds). Food Chains, Yields, Modelsand Management of Large Marine Ecosystems. pp. 275–308. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO.

Sutinen, J. et al. (1998) A framework for monitoringand assessing socioeconomics and governance oflarge marine ecosystems. NOAA/NMFS. NortheastFisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Tang, Q. (1993) Effects of long-term physical and bio-logical perturbations on the contemporary bio-mass yields of the Yellow Sea Ecosystem. In: Sher-man, K., Alexander, L.M., Gold, B.D. (eds) LargeMarine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainabil-ity. pp. 79–93. AAAS Press, Washington, DC.

TemaNord (1999) Workshop on Ecological Quality Objec-tives (EcoQOs) for the North Sea. Scheveningen, TheNetherlands. 1–3 September. Nordic Council ofMinisters, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Wade, T.L., Sericano, J.L., Gardinali, P.R., Wolff, G. &Chambers, L. (1998) NOAA’s mussel watch projectcurrent use organic compounds in bivalves. MarinePollution Bulletin 37, 20–26.