93M. Alexander, Management Planning for Nature Conservation: A Theoretical Basis & Practical Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5116-3_7, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This chapter introduces the ecosystem approach to management. This is a series of 12 principles that can be applied to planning and management. It is not necessarily about managing ecosystems; the principles can be used to guide biodi-versity management in any situation. In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, the concept of an ‘ecosystem’ is discussed. Most of the early thinking about ecosystem management originated in the USA. This generally assumed that a natural system is sustainable if anthropogenic factors are removed or controlled. The ecosystem approach has not, until recently, been a feature of European conservation, but Europe has recognised and applied most of the principles implied by this approach for a very long time. The most commonly applied, and widely recognised, de fi nition of an ecosystem approach comes from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This chapter will introduce the 12 principles promoted by CBD, which are all given varying levels of attention in other chapters of the book. The principles provide guidance that all management planners should, at least, consider, but it must be recognised that an ecosystem approach does not mean abandoning the established tried, tested and effective methods of conservation. The ecosystem approach to management must be adaptive: this book is about an adaptive approach to man-agement and planning. Finally, there is no single way to implement the ecosystem approach, as it depends on local, provincial, national, regional or global conditions.

7.1 Introduction

This chapter explains the ecosystem approach to management. The most important point to bear in mind when reading this chapter is that the ecosystem approach is not a management system but a series of 12 principles that can be applied to planning and management. The term ‘ecosystem approach’ is, unfortunately, misleading, because many people believe, erroneously, that it is about managing ecosystems.

Chapter 7 The Ecosystem Approach

94 7 The Ecosystem Approach

I must stress that the application of the ecosystem approach is not restricted to ecosystems: it can be used to guide biodiversity management in any situation.

7.2 What Is an Ecosystem ?

Before I discuss the ecosystem approach, I think that, in order to avoid any confu-sion, I should make an attempt to introduce the concept of an ecosystem. The term and concept were fi rst introduced in 1935 by A G Tansley in his paper ‘ The Use and Abuse of Vegetation Concepts and Terms ’ (Tansley 1935 ) . Since that time, so much has been written and taught about ecosystems that it is easy to become lost in the morass of information (Golley 1994 ) . One of the best de fi nitions that I have seen comes from a children’s website, Geography4Kids.com :

The word ecosystem is short for ecological systems. An ecosystem includes all of the living organisms in a speci fi c area. These systems are the plants and animals interacting with their non-living environments (weather, Earth, Sun, soil, atmosphere). An ecosystem’s develop-ment depends on the energy that moves in and out of that system. As far as the boundaries of an ecosystem, it depends upon how you use the term. You could have an entire ecosystem underneath a big rock. On the other hand, you could be talking about the overall ecosystem of the entire planet (biosphere). An ecosystem can be as small as a puddle or as large as the Paci fi c Ocean. That ecosystem includes every living and non-living thing in the area. It is several small communities interacting with each other.

One of the most commonly used de fi nitions is from the Convention on Biological Diversity website, http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem :

A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit.

The concept of an ecosystem is a human construct used to describe the natural world, and we de fi ne ecosystems according to the scale of human interests and our decision-making powers.

The CBD de fi nition can refer to any functioning unit, at any scale, which is deter-mined by local circumstances. A unit could be a veteran tree, a small woodland, a forest or the entire biosphere. We can easily understand that the entire biosphere of planet Earth is an ecosystem, because all the elements, living and otherwise, interact to maintain the global ecosystem, but at a smaller scale it is rather more contrived. A guiding principle is that, ‘an ecosystem has strong interactions amongst its com-ponents and weak interactions across its boundaries’ (UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2010). An example that may help to demonstrate this is the interac-tions between the organisms in a lake (strong interactions) compared to their inter-action with the surrounding land (weak interactions). We might think that an offshore island could easily be de fi ned as an ecosystem, with strong interactions among its isolated components (habitats and populations). But, consider a small Atlantic island off the coast of Wales, with a population of Manx shearwaters

957.2 What Is an Ecosystem?

Puf fi nus puf fi nus (Fig. 7.1 ). These seabirds nest on the island, but feed in the Irish Sea and spend the winter in the South Atlantic, feeding, en route, in the North Atlantic. This example illustrates why we must not take an over simplistic view of ecosystems. To varying degrees, other than the global ecosystem, none are com-pletely isolated: there will be movements in and out. Mobile, and more speci fi cally migratory, species are an obvious case, but there are also movements of the non-living elements, for example, nutrients from seabird guano. In addition, the factors that can in fl uence wildlife on the island can be local or on-site (for example, preda-tory species); they can be offsite (for example, oil pollution); or they can be global in origin (for example, increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). The shearwater example also illustrates the need to work both at a local level, in this case on the island, and at a much wider, even global, scale. Species, sites, places and what we describe as ecosystems cannot be managed or protected in isolation. Wildlife cannot survive as small, isolated islands in a desolate, ravaged landscape.

Fig. 7.1 Manx shearwater

The UK National Ecosystem Assessment website (uknea.unep-wcmc.org) provides an excellent guide to the various categories of ecosystems:

There is not a universal categorisation of ecosystems, but they can be de fi ned as areas which share similar features amongst the factors of:

climatic conditions; • geophysical conditions; • dominant use by humans; • surface cover (based on type of vegetative cover in terrestrial ecosystems or on fresh • water, brackish water, or salt water in aquatic ecosystems); species composition; • resource management systems and institutions. •

96 7 The Ecosystem Approach

7.3 The Ecosystem Approach – Background

Most of the early thinking about ecosystem management originated in the USA (Stankey et al. 1984 ) . Stankey has been publishing since the early 1970s. His approach, endorsed by many new world scientists, is most relevant to wilderness ecosystems. It assumes that a natural system is sustainable if anthropogenic fac-tors are removed or controlled. The latter, i.e. control, dominated their thinking, hence the development of limits of acceptable change (LACs). 1 Conservation management becomes a sequence of risk assessments: how much of a certain human in fl uence, or in fl uences, can an ecosystem tolerate without suffering any permanent damage? The only things that managers would then need to monitor would be the various in fl uences or factors. This may be a good idea, but it assumes that it is always possible identify all the factors and that we will understand how these factors can change the ecosystem. In reality, this can never be done with any certainty.

By contrast, in Europe we have been rather more concerned with expressing the desired outcome of management, i.e. quanti fi ed and measurable objectives. This is mainly because of the value that we place on semi-natural communities and habi-tats, the need for species-speci fi c management and the impact of European and domestic legislation. The difference between Old World and New World conserva-tion had led to a divergence, particularly at the site and species management level. This might explain why the ecosystem approach has not, until recently, become a feature of European conservation. We have, however, recognised and applied most of the principles implied by this approach for a very long time, but we have some-times used a different language to describe them.

Various ecosystem approaches have been described and de fi ned by many differ-ent individuals and organisations in many different ways. The most commonly applied and widely recognised de fi nition comes from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). For most people, the words ‘ecosystem approach’ are assumed to mean the CBD approach. The CBD de fi nition of the ecosystem approach is given above. In interpreting this, it should be understood that:

It was designed to balance the three objectives of the Convention on Biological –Diversity: conservation, sustainable use and the fair and equitable sharing of the bene fi ts arising out of the human use of genetic resources. It recognises that humans, and their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems. It is a strategic approach for the integrated management of land, water and –living organisms that promotes nature conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.

1 Please see Chapter 18 for a description of LACs.

977.4 The Key Principles of the Ecosystem Approach to Management

No individual component of a system is treated in isolation from any other –component. Integration should facilitate a much more strategic approach to tackling the factors that in fl uence biodiversity and help prioritise the effective and ef fi cient use of resources. It is an approach that should encourage synergies rather than con fl icts between –social, economic and environmental objectives.

It is important to understand that an ecosystem approach does not mean abandoning the established tried, tested and effective methods of conservation. It is about widening our current perspective, not changing it completely. We still need to designate and manage protected areas, and we still need to target priority species and habitats. We will need to improve the quality of current protected areas, increase their size, enhance connections and create new sites. Nature reserves and other special conser-vation sites are fundamental to a successful ecosystems approach. They are the reservoirs of species, providing the essential resources for maintaining biodiversity, along with all the bene fi ts that it provides.

In order to respond to uncertainties and the potential for unpredictable outcomes, the ecosystem approach to management must be adaptive. (Adaptive management is grounded in the admission that we do not know enough to man-age ecosystems.) Adaptive management must be planned. It is entirely dependent on the formulation of clear objectives that de fi ne our outcomes, the implementa-tion of management and, most importantly, monitoring. This cyclic and repeti-tive approach is about learning by doing (see Chapter 6 ). Ecosystem management re fl ects the precautionary principle: measures may need to be taken even when some cause-and-effect relationships are not yet fully established scienti fi cally (Chapter 2 ). There is no single way to implement the ecosystem approach, as it depends on local, provincial, national, regional or global conditions .

7.4 The Key Principles of the Ecosystem Approach to Management

Some professional conservationists hold the view that the CBD principles are an overwhelmingly politically correct statement of the obvious, which could weaken our ability to protect wildlife. On the other hand, politicians and government organi-sations usually respond favourably to the principles. Given the status of the CBD, the ecosystem approach is rarely questioned and is generally accepted as an authori-tative expression of fact that cannot be challenged. The principles are expressed in extremely cautious terms. This is an inevitable product of international conventions, where decisions are made through consensus. International conventions can do little more; they seek the agreement of all representatives when making statements and formulating policies.

98 7 The Ecosystem Approach

Weaknesses aside, the principles provide guidance that all management planners should at least consider. As with all guidance, we can take from it the sections that are relevant to our particular circumstances and set aside the remainder.

The following principles are complementary and interlinked.

Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choices.

Different sectors of society view ecosystems in terms of their own economic, cultural and society needs. Indigenous peoples and other local communities living on the land are important stakeholders and their rights and interests should be recognized. Both cultural and biological diversity are central components of the ecosystem approach, and manage-ment should take this into account. Societal choices should be expressed as clearly as pos-sible. Ecosystems should be managed for their intrinsic values and for the tangible or intangible bene fi ts for humans, in a fair and equitable way.

See Chapter 4 for a detailed account of the relevance of stakeholders to manage-ment planning. A stakeholder is any individual, group or community living within the in fl uence of the site or likely to be affected by a management decision or action, and any individual, group or community likely to in fl uence the manage-ment of the site. It is far easier to express an intention to take account of societal choices than it will ever be to apply this principle in practice. The different sectors in any society will have varied, and often extremely contradictory, views and aspi-rations. Even obtaining a balanced view, one that has not been skewed by the extreme ideas of a vociferous minority, can be extraordinarily dif fi cult. The major-ity, and these are generally the people that really matter, are usually silent. Regardless of all dif fi culties and impediments, conservation managers must rec-ognise the need to adopt an inclusive approach that takes account of the interests of stakeholders and, as far as possible, encourages their involvement in all aspects of management and planning.

‘ Ecosystems should be managed for their intrinsic value s and for the tangible or intangible bene fi ts for humans, in a fair and equitable way. ’ This is one of the most important statements in the entire suite of principles, but it is buried in the subtext, and, surprisingly given its signi fi cance, it is not one of the key principles. (See Chapter 8 for a detailed section on intrinsic value.)

Principle 2: Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.

Decentralised systems may lead to greater ef fi ciency, effectiveness and equity. Management should involve all stakeholders and balance local interests with the wider public interest. The closer management is to the ecosystem, the greater the responsibility, ownership, accountability, participation, and use of local knowledge.

Managers should seek to balance local interests with the wider public interest. These are fi ne sentiments, often used to justify decentralisation. However, there are many examples where localised public interest contradicts the wider interests of society. For an ecosystem approach to work, we will need to regulate human activity: this is

997.4 The Key Principles of the Ecosystem Approach to Management

never popular with the public. Local decisions will have to be based on strategic plans. Otherwise, there is a threat that too much decentralisation will diminish any hope of a coordinated national or international approach. Nature conservation and the maintenance of biodiversity are, or should be, global concerns.

Principle 3: Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.

Management interventions in ecosystems often have unknown or unpredictable effects on other ecosystems; therefore, possible impacts need careful consideration and analysis. This may require new arrangements or ways of organization for institutions involved in decision-making to make, if necessary, appropriate compromises.

This is a very obvious and simple principle which is much easier said than done. We really do not know enough about natural systems to have complete con fi dence in our ability to manage them, and we certainly cannot predict the implications of management for other sites. The precautionary principle (Chapter 2 ) should always be applied. So, if there is a risk that intervention on one site may have serious con-sequences for another we need, at the very least, to work with the managers of the threatened site. It is quite dif fi cult to fi nd examples in the more natural ecosystems where these threats occur. An example could be coastal engineering solutions applied at one site to prevent natural erosion, thereby starving a second site of its sand supply.

It is when we interrupt the natural process in an ecosystem that we are most likely to impact on adjoining systems. For example, the Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary is a protected park situated at the foothills of Eastern Himalayas in West Bengal. It has vast areas of fl oodplain grassland interspersed with patches of riverine forest, marsh and swamp. The sanctuary was established in 1941 for the protection of the Indian one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis . The habitat that supports the rhinoceros is tall grassland. This is an ephemeral community, created when monsoon rains fl ood the river Torsa, which fl ows through Jaldapara. The grassland rapidly becomes scrub and, eventually, riverine forest. This persists until fl ooding changes the landscape and creates new opportunities for grassland to establish.

The fl oods are, from a human perspective, destructive, threatening events that happen every year, but, periodically, they can be devastating. People react by attempting to control the fl oods by, among other measures, building dams. Management intervention in the river ecosystem above Jaldapara has already inter-rupted and diminished the impact of fl ooding. Where nature once provided, gangs of women now clear scrub by hand. This is expensive and probably not sustainable. A new, large dam is currently being planned for the Torsa, up river of Jaldapara. This may be good for people, but it will be devastating for the grasslands and, of course, for the rhinos.

100 7 The Ecosystem Approach

In the semi-natural world of cultural landscapes, there are so many examples where the management of one site has implications for others. Probably the most common are the consequences of inappropriate management or lack of management intervention. This is best illustrated when alien invasive species threaten several adjacent sites or ecosystems. For example, rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum, (Fig. 7.2 ) an extremely invasive and destructive species, can only be effectively controlled when tackled over its entire range within any locality. The range can easily extend over several sites and ecosystems. The conditions which prevail when rhodo-dendron has been cleared are perfect places for rhododendron seeds to germinate.

Where the management of one ecosystem is impacting on another the obvious question must be the size or geographical de fi nition of the separate ecosystems. Should they be managed as a single system? Clearly, when ecosystems are de fi ned as management areas attention must be given to Principle 7: ‘The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.’

Principle 4: Recognizing potential gains from management. There is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context.

Any such ecosystem-management programme should:

Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity; – Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; – Internalise costs and bene fi ts in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible. –

The greatest threat to biological diversity lies in its replacement by alternative systems of land use. This often arises through market distortions, which undervalue natural systems and populations and provide perverse incentives and subsidies to favour the conversion of land to less diverse systems.

Fig. 7.2 Rhododendron ponticum, an invasive and destructive species

1017.4 The Key Principles of the Ecosystem Approach to Management

Often those who bene fi t from conservation do not pay the costs associated with conser-vation and, similarly, those who generate environmental costs (e.g. pollution) escape responsibility. Alignment of incentives allows those who control the resource to bene fi t and ensures that those who generate environmental costs will pay.

Principle 5: Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach.

Ecosystem functioning and resilience depends on a dynamic relationship within species, among species and between species and their abiotic environment, as well as the physical and chemical interactions within the environment. The conservation and, where appropri-ate, restoration of these interactions and processes is of greater signi fi cance for the long-term maintenance of biological diversity than simply protection of species.

The management and planning approach which I describe and promote in this book places considerable emphasis on the concept of ‘Favourable Conservation Status ’ (FCS) as a means of de fi ning what we want to achieve for habitats and species. There is no legal basis for using FCS at site level in Europe, but in England and Wales it is a policy applied to sites protected through domestic legislation (the Sites of Special Scienti fi c Interest). The conservation of ecosystem structure and function is central to the de fi nition of Favourable Conservation Status. (See Chapter 15 for a full account of FCS and how structure and function can be addressed in a management plan.)

Principle 6: Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning.

In considering the likelihood or ease of attaining the management objectives, attention should be given to the environmental conditions that limit natural productivity, ecosystem structure, functioning and diversity. The limits to ecosystem functioning may be affected to different degrees by temporary, unpredictable or arti fi cially maintained conditions and, accordingly, management should be appropriately cautious.

This is best explained by example. Consider a raised bog which has a very long history of exploitation: ditches have been cut throughout the site, the hydrological integrity damaged and large quantities of peat have been removed. The result is a rather desolate bog with large areas of mature scrub and a dry surface incapable of sustaining the bog fl ora (Fig. 7.2 ). Some of the most derelict areas provide habi-tats for populations of rare species of invertebrates and birds, including nightjars Caprimulgus europaeus. Nightjars are birds of heathland, moorland, open wood-land with clearings, and recently felled conifer plantations.

Despite the extremely unfavourable condition of the site, it is still recognised as an internationally important raised bog. Its status and designation impose an obligation to restore the raised bog. If this is successful, the habitat suitable for the inverte-brates and the nightjars will be destroyed. Any attempt to protect the ‘temporary arti fi cially maintained conditions’ would seriously jeopardise the legal obligation to obtain the management objective, which would be to restore, and thereafter maintain, the raised bog at a favourable conservation status.

102 7 The Ecosystem Approach

Principle 7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

The approach should be bounded by spatial and temporal scales that are appropriate to the objectives. Boundaries for management will be de fi ned operationally by users, managers, scientists and indigenous and local peoples. Connectivity between areas should be pro-moted where necessary. The ecosystem approach is based upon the hierarchical nature of biological diversity characterized by the interaction and integration of genes, species and ecosystems.

This is a very important principle. Many people believe that the ecosystem approach can only be applied to very large areas of land; they often talk of the landscape level. This principle makes it clear that the ecosystem approach can, and should, be applied at any appropriate scale.

The ‘temporal scale’ is slightly more dif fi cult to understand. It does not suggest that we can manage an ecosystem for a given period of time and then move on. There are approaches to planning, mainly advocated by some authors from the USA, that describe conservation management as ‘conservation projects’ (Margoluis and Salafsky 1998 ) . The implication, intended or otherwise, is that, in common with all projects, there is a beginning and an end. I believe that the management of places or ecosystems for nature conservation should, whenever possible, be recognised as a very long term commitment. In Chapter 14 , I introduce recovery and maintenance management. This is in recognition of the fact that both the type and intensity of management can vary with time, depending on the condition of the feature. The condition of a feature when management commences can be extremely unfavour-able. The management required to move a feature from an unfavourable condition to a favourable condition can be regarded as ‘recovery management’, while the management required to maintain a feature in favourable condition would be

Fig. 7.3 A damaged bog

1037.4 The Key Principles of the Ecosystem Approach to Management

‘maintenance management’. A common failing of conservation management, particularly when it is treated as a series of projects, is to assume that once recovery management has been successful we can forget about the site. However, there is no escaping the fact that conservation management is occasionally opportunistic and short-term: clearly it is better to provide short-term opportunities for wildlife than none at all. There are also ephemeral features: for example, many sand dune sys-tems have a naturally limited life span; they can be part of a dynamic coastal process which creates and eventually erodes a system.

The ‘spatial scale’ is easier to deal with. We might be tempted to think, ‘the bigger the better’, and, clearly, there is some truth in this. The conservation of ecosystems will only be possible if we are able to control all the factors, positive and negative, that impact on and change, or have the potential to change, the ecosystem. (These are the management interventions described in Principle 3.) We can no longer avoid the fact that global climate change is probably the single most signi fi cant factor that we will have to confront. This can only be dealt with strategically at a global level, though most of the actions will have to take place at a local level. Some factors, for example, the use of destructive pesticides, are best tackled at a country level by, for example, legislating against their use. Factors can operate at a regional level: alien invasive species are an obvious example. Finally, some factors can be site, or eco-system, speci fi c. So, what are the implications? Successful ecosystem management will only be possible, at any level, if we can adopt a tiered approach at the global level. This requires that, at each level in the tier, management or controls are appro-priate for that tier. Tiers can be anything from global to the smallest manageable unit. Remember the CBD de fi nition of an ecosystem: ‘A unit could be a veteran tree, a small woodland, a forest or the entire biosphere’.

So often, when organisations or governments consider adopting the ecosystem approach their response is to delineate selected areas, which they call ecosystems. (The concept of an ecosystem is a human construct, used to describe the natural world, and we de fi ne ecosystems according to the scale of human interests and our decision-making powers.) This perpetuates the myth that isolated sites, islands of biodiversity, can, in the long term, survive in a desolate, arti fi cial landscape. ‘The rate of extinction once a species manages to colonize any island is affected by island size’ (MacArthur and Wilson 1967 ) .

The ‘spatial’ scale is often de fi ned by speci fi c distinct habitat types. The adop-tion of management at an ecosystem level offers opportunities for setting aside the traditional divisions between habitats along with any idea that habitats should be static and unchanging. Most habitats in the Old World exist in any given place and time as a consequence of a range of natural and anthropogenic factors. As the fac-tors have changed, and will inevitably continue to change over time, so should the distribution, structure and composition of the habitats in any ecosystem. The transi-tional areas between habitats provide opportunities for so much wildlife, and these areas can only prosper in dynamic ecosystems.

The ecosystem approach, when applied to large areas of land or to a tiered system, could provide dynamic landscapes, better able to respond to natural and anthropo-genic factors. This would enable the establishment of robust and resilient ecosystems,

104 7 The Ecosystem Approach

which have the potential to optimise opportunities for biodiversity and secure a future of wildlife. These areas will inevitably be different to anything that has happened in the past, but should we try to triumph over evolution and, for the fi rst time in the history of our countryside, prevent any further change? Can we realisti-cally fossilise our countryside with reference to a baseline which represents some arbitrary point in time? This is not to suggest that this approach should be univer-sally applied. Even if we work strategically at an ecosystem level, work on the ground has to be at an appropriate scale. Whatever the approach adopted, we will always need to manage the components that comprise ecosystems. We will also need to hold some places in their current condition, or at a status that we de fi ne as favourable. These places are a record of our cultural history. They provide the res-ervoirs of wildlife, habitats and populations of species that are essential if we are to obtain improvements elsewhere.

The sub-text promotes the need for connectivity: this is the re-establishment of linkages between isolated fragments of habitat. Although connectivity is an essential consideration when planning and managing sites, it is not easy to decide where it should be included in a plan. I think that it is best regarded as a factor or in fl uence, because if it is an issue on a site it will have a signi fi cant impact on the management of the features. (See Chapter 14 for a full account of why factors are so important in the planning process.)

Principle 8: Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes. Objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.

Ecosystem processes are characterized by varying temporal scales and lag-effects. This inherently con fl icts with the tendency of humans to favour short-term gains and immediate bene fi ts over future ones.

The problem is that we do not know what long term means. At a time when our ability to visualise the future is obscured by the reality of climate change, ‘long term’ becomes ‘shorter term’. The main point here, however, is the potential contradiction between this principle and the next, which recognises that change is inevitable and advocates adaptive management . Biodiversity or ecosystem objectives, which lie at the very heart of adaptive management, are, quite simply, an expression of something that we want to achieve. They are, and can only be, a re fl ection of our values, knowledge and expertise at the time of writing and must be reviewed, and if necessary changed, at intervals.

Principle 9: Management must recognize the change is inevitable.

Ecosystems change, including species composition and population abundance. Hence, management should adapt to the changes. Apart from their inherent dynamics of change, ecosystems are beset by a complex of uncertainties and potential “surprises” in the human, biological and environmental realms. Traditional disturbance regimes may be important for ecosystem structure and functioning, and may need to be maintained or restored. The ecosystem approach must utilize adaptive management in order to anticipate and cater for such changes and events and should be cautious in making any decision that may foreclose

105References

options, but, at the same time, consider mitigating actions to cope with long-term changes such as climate change.

Please refer to Chapter 6 , which deals with adaptive management.

Principle 10: The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.

Biological diversity is critical both for its intrinsic value and because of the key role it plays in providing the ecosystem and other services upon which we all ultimately depend. There has been a tendency in the past to manage components of biological diversity either as protected or non-protected. There is a need for a shift to more fl exible situations, where conservation and use are seen in context and the full range of measures is applied in a con-tinuum from strictly protected to human-made ecosystems.

Please see Chapter 8 .

Principle 11: The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scienti fi c and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

Information from all sources is critical to arriving at effective ecosystem management strat-egies. A much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and the impact of human use is desirable.

Please see Chapters 12 and 19 .

Principle 12: The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scienti fi c disciplines.

Most problems of biological-diversity management are complex, with many interactions, side-effects and implications, and therefore should involve the necessary expertise and stakeholders at the local, national, regional and international level, as appropriate.

All too frequently, stakeholders are reluctant to recognise expert opinion, and organisations can be tempted to set aside expertise in order to appease local stake-holders. Given that the fi rst principle of the ecosystem approach advocates ‘societal choice’, the intention of this principle must be to emphasise the need for expertise.

References

Golley, F. B. (1994). A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology. More Than the Sum of Its Parts. Yale University Press, New Haven/London.

MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Margoluis, R. and Salafsky, N. (1998). Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects . Island Press, Washington DC.

Stankey, G. H., McCool, S. F. and Stokes, G. L. (1984). Limits of acceptable change: A new frame-work for managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Western Wildlands 10(3), 33–37.

Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetation concepts and terms. Ecology 16(3).