Assessing the costs and benefits of agricultural production using an ecosystem approach

Integrated Farm Management (IFM) is seen as one way for agriculture to contribute towards the UKs challenging national targets for climate change, pollution, biodiversity and other environmental factors. Whilst it is clear that IFM and associated assurance schemes have a role in food quality and enhancement of the environment, they fail to address a number of issues. In particular, they fail to take sufficient account of ‘impact’ and ‘outcome’. In contrast, the relatively new concept of an ecosystem approach does consider these and there is extensive synergy between this approach and IFM. This is pertinent because the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is taking steps to embed an ecosystem approach in policy-making and delivery. This paper sets out to explore the links between IFM and an ecosystem approach and introduces a simple matrix to show how an ecosystem approach might be used to assess the outcome of IFM practices. Limited use of an ecosystem approach suggests that this type of methodology could deliver useful results for IFM. However, it should be used as a decision-support tool rather than a decision-maker. The advantage of using an ecosystem approach for assessing the impact of IFM is that it provides a holistic assessment of land management strategies, rather than focusing on either cropping, or environmental management, alone. However, the values assigned to individual parameters are generally based on expert opinion and, as such, are open to interpretation. Indeed, an ecosystem approach should be interdisciplinary, utilising the knowledge and expertise of a range of stakeholders. Whilst the development of an ecosystem approach for use within an agricultural setting shows promise, it is still in its infancy. There is a need for much discussion, between many disciplines, before it becomes accepted practice

Coastal resource planning system: Integrating evaluation of ecological integrity and ecosystem services valuation

Efficient and effective coastal management decisions rely on knowledge of the impact of human activities on ecosystem integrity, vulnerable species, and valued ecosystem services—collectively, human impact on environmental quality (EQ). Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is an emerging approach to address the dynamics and complexities of coupled social-ecological systems. EBM “is intended to directly address the long-term sustainable delivery of ecosystem services and the resilience of marine ecosystems to perturbations” (Rosenberg and Sandifer, 2009). The lack of a tool that integrates human choices with the ecological connections between contributing watersheds and nearshore areas, and that incorporates valuation of ecosystem services, is a critical missing piece needed for effective and efficient coastal management. To address the need for an integrative tool for evaluation of human impacts on ecosystems and their services, Battelle developed the EcoVal™ Environmental Quality Evaluation System. The EcoVal system is an updated (2009) version of the EQ Evaluation System for Water Resources developed by Battelle for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Dee et al., 1972). The Battelle EQ evaluation system has a thirty-year history of providing a standard approach to evaluate watershed EQ. This paper describes the conceptual approach and methodology of the updated EcoVal system and its potential application to coastal ecosystems. (PDF contains 4 pages

An ecosystem approach to knowledge management: Case studies of two Australian SMEs

This study is centred on the premise that knowledge is personalised information which can be enriched through the process of learning, then shared and applied to practical situations to attain value. To highlight the complex nature of knowledge management (KM) as a set of practices and aimed to enhance collaboration, the concept of a Collaborative Leaning Ecosystem (CLES) is presented as holistic approach toward improving practical learning environments. In view of the pressing need for better KM in small-to-medium (SME) enterprises, the CLES framework is used to examine the KM positions of two Australian SMEs. Viewing each case as an 'organisational ecosystem', the holistic assessment of each SME exposes certain KM inefficiencies unique to the firm, which are addressed through a set of actionable KM strategies for improving the relationships among the components interacting within each organisational ecosystem

Ecosystem-based Fishery Management in the Bering Sea

In the Bering Sea, science-based management of major fisheries is designed to control fishing at levels that maintain stable populations of valuable fish. But a single-species approach to managing fisheries does not always consider the interconnections among marine organisms. Many scientists argue that although good single-species management is necessary, fishery managers also need to look at the bigger picture. Ecosystem-based fisheries management is a way to sustain the health of our oceans by accounting for the interconnections among marine life, an ever-changing environment, and human activities including commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing. Tools and approaches to aid in ecosystem-based fisheries management are available to reduce bycatch; conserve important habitat; protect marine food webs; monitor ecosystem health; and evaluate the ecological, social, and economic trade-offs of different management actions. In the Bering Sea, many of these tools are being applied. Yet more will be needed to steward this ecosystem in the years ahead. As our knowledge of the Bering Sea ecosystem grows, as demand for seafood increases, and as impacts of climate change are felt, fishery managers must put a long-term plan in place to address the challenges the future will bring.

Role of science in ecosystem management

Roberts argues that in order to implement ecosystem management, resource management must switch its ecological perspective from an individual-and population-based focus to ecosystem-and landscape-based ecology; from an object (form) to context (function) approach; and adopt a multi-scalar modeling approach. A major role for science in EM is to predict ecosystem behavior under alternative management strategies. Wilcox, Risbrudt, Thomas, and Kessler all emphasized the critical role of a higher level of science, although Daniels pointed out that there is a risk of creating a politics of expertise. Thus participating scientists have a strong responsibility to communicate their knowledge to the public in understandable ways

Editorial: Bridging the gap between policy and science in assessing the health status of marine ecosystems

Human activities,both established and emerging, increasingly affect the provision of marine ecosystem services that deliver societal and economic benefits. Monitoring the status of marine ecosystems and determining how human activities change their capacity to sustain benefits for society requires an evidence-based Integrated Ecosystem Assessment approach that incorporates knowledge of ecosystem functioning and services).Although,there are diverse methods to assess the status of individual ecosystem components, none assesses the health of marine ecosystems holistically, integrating information from multiple ecosystem components. Similarly,while acknowledging the availability of several methods to measure single pressures and assess their impacts, evaluation of cumulative effects of multiple pressures remains scarce.Therefore,an integrative assessment requires us to first understand the response of marine ecosystems to human activities and their pressures and then develop innovative, cost-effective monitoring tools that enable collection of data to assess the health status of large marine areas. Conceptually, combining this knowledge of effective monitoring methods with cost-benefit analyses will help identify appropriate management measures to improve environmental status economically and efficiently. The European project DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) specifically addressed these topics in order to support policymakers and managers in implementing the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Here, we synthesize our main innovative findings, placing these within the context of recent wider research, and identifying gaps and the major future challenges

Bridging the gap between policy and science in assessing the health status of marine ecosystems

Human activities, both established and emerging, increasingly affect the provision of marine ecosystem services that deliver societal and economic benefits. Monitoring the status of marine ecosystems and determining how human activities change their capacity to sustain benefits for society requires an evidence-based Integrated Ecosystem Assessment approach that incorporates knowledge of ecosystem functioning and services). Although, there are diverse methods to assess the status of individual ecosystem components, none assesses the health of marine ecosystems holistically, integrating information from multiple ecosystem components. Similarly, while acknowledging the availability of several methods to measure single pressures and assess their impacts, evaluation of cumulative effects of multiple pressures remains scarce. Therefore, an integrative assessment requires us to first understand the response of marine ecosystems to human activities and their pressures and then develop innovative, cost-effective monitoring tools that enable collection of data to assess the health status of large marine areas. Conceptually, combining this knowledge of effective monitoring methods with cost-benefit analyses will help identify appropriate management measures to improve environmental status economically and efficiently. The European project DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) specifically addressed t hese topics in order to support policy makers and managers in implementing the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Here, we synthesize our main innovative findings, placing these within the context of recent wider research, and identifying gaps and the major future challenges

The ecosystem approach as a framework for understanding knowledge utilisation

The Ecosystem Approach is used to analyse four case studies from England to determine what kind of ecosystem knowledge was used by people, and how it shaped their arguments. The results are reported across decisions making venues concerned with: innovation; conflict management; maintenance of ecosystem function; and, recognising the environment as an asset. In each area we identify the sources and uses of conceptual, instrumental, political and social knowledge. We found that the use of these knowledges can benefit the process as well as the quality of outcomes, and so ‘add value’ to the decision making process. However, the case studies did not exhibit any simple linear-rational model of knowledge use. Ecosystems thinking took many forms and depended on different institutional settings. As an argument making device, the Ecosystem Approach must be seen in the context of a wider set of social and political processes, which involves a range of complex strategies and motives that explain the apparent ‘messiness’ of environmental decision making. The paper demonstrates that as conceptual framework, the ‘ecosystem approach’ provides a valuable theoretical template to help us discover how and what knowledge is used in deliberative styles of decision making

International perceptions of an integrated, multi-sectoral, ecosystem approach to management:Editor’s Choice

Abstract The Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) has emerged over the past decades, largely to promote biodiversity conservation, and more recently sectoral tradeoffs in the management of marine ecosystems. To ascertain the state of practice of EAM operationalization, a workshop was held, which included a pre-workshop online survey. The survey gauged international participants’ perspectives regarding capacity, knowledge, and application of EAM. When asked about the subject, most survey respondents had a general understanding of EAM, and provided a clear definition. Major perceived challenges to EAM objectives by those surveyed included limited knowledge, conflicting interests, insufficient communication, and limited organizational legal frameworks or governance structures. Of those directly involved in an ecosystem approach, the majority responded that processes were in place or developed for application of integrated knowledge toward assessing key issues within their respective sectors (i.e. fisheries, conservation, energy), and that capacity was generally high. Our results show that most respondents, irrespective of sector or geography, see value in considering an integrated, broader ecosystem approach as they manage their sector. Although many participants were from the North Atlantic region, our results suggest that much of the international community is converging toward continued understanding of broad-scale, integrated approaches to marine resource management.</jats:p