The environmental, economic and social context

The environmental, economic and social dimensions set the context for governance and management, as it is within these dimensions that interactions and cumulative impacts occur. Understanding these dimensions is necessary so that governance arrangements and management actions can be developed and adopted, to mitigate and manage human activities, which may affect marine biodiversity and ecosystems. It is equally important to understand economic and social dimensions so that any proposed governance and management actions, while dealing with a particular issue, do not cause other problems elsewhere in the system. This understanding is important if the goals of EBFM are to be met.

Humans and society depend on natural systems for a wide range of services. The vulnerability of marine ecosystems and the value of the ecosystems services provided require different approaches in understanding and management of human activities (Levin and Lubchenco, 2008). When considering the sustainability and resilience of oceans and fishery resources it is important to understand that these resources are subject to natural variability and need to be managed within their biological constraints. Maintenance of healthy populations of wild living resources in perpetuity is inconsistent with unlimited growth and human consumption of, and demand for, those resources (Mangel et al., 1996). It is, however, also important to acknowledge the importance of human needs and the capacity of the natural world to meet those needs (Christensen et al., 1996). The FAO (2003) suggest that the ability to predict ecosystem behaviour is limited and if ecosystem thresholds and limits are exceeded it may result in ecosystem changes or regime shifts. According to the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (1999) these changes may be irreversible, and therefore should be avoided in order to maintain biodiversity and resilience at the species and community levels. Charles (2001) also highlighted the importance of the sustainability and resilience of human systems and the diversity of economic opportunities for individuals and communities.

Sustainability

Ecosystems and human system components are subject to change. Ecosystems may change due to natural variability or due to the impacts of human activities upon them. As humans rely on ecosystems any changes in these will have an impact on human

systems. Costanza and Patten (1995) determine a sustainable system as one which survives and persists. From this they ask three important questions:

1. What system or subsystems or characteristics of systems persist?

2. For how long?

3. When do we assess whether the system or subsystem, or characteristic has persisted? (Costanza and Patten, 1995 p. 196).

Human systems are organised around ecosystems in terms of their use and benefit to humans. A question for society and decision makers is which system, subsystems, or characteristics they wish to see persist; over what time frame; and how will these be assessed? These, are new types of questions to be answered by society. What needs to be borne in mind when considering such questions is there are often systems or

subsystems of ecosystems that in themselves may not be of interest, but are fundamental to those aspects of ecosystems, which are of interest.

Sustainability is a key element of EBFM, as Charles (2001) points out the concept has broadened from primarily being used in relation to the use of natural resources

(ecological sustainability) to also encompass the notion of socio-economic, community and institutional sustainability. Just what is meant by sustainability for each of these components will be context dependent and needs to be clearly articulated. Overall sustainability requires simultaneous achievement of all four components. If all the components are viewed as critical to sustainability then each must be considered. However, developing a comprehensive framework that is able to do this will be a challenge. Some of these sustainability (ecosystems and human systems) considerations as related to fisheries are outlined below:

Ecosystems:

• ecological sustainability includes ensuring the sustainable harvesting of fish stocks;

• maintaining the resource base and related species at levels that do not foreclose future options; and

Human systems:

• socio-economic sustainability focuses on the macro level in terms of long-term socio-economic welfare; generation of and equitable distribution of sustainable net benefits; and ongoing viability of the fishery sectors;

• community sustainability emphasises the micro level in terms of sustaining communities as valuable entities in their own right; enhancing long-term community and group welfare, and their economic and socio-cultural wellbeing; and

• institutional sustainability involves maintaining long-term financial, administrative and organisational capability of fisheries governance and management organisations, that formally or informally have the ability to enforce resource use regulations and management arrangements (Charles, 2001 pp. 188-189).

In an effort to move towards sustainability it has become increasingly important to develop new conceptual frameworks to understand the dynamics of social and

ecological systems. Complex system theory investigates how human societies deal with change in linked social and ecological systems, build capacity to adapt to change, and respond to change in a manner that does not foreclose future options (Berkes et al. 2003; Folke et al., 2003).

Sustainability should be pursued in conjunction with, or incorporated with, the fundamental goal of resilience, defined by Charles (2001) as the ability of the natural environment to absorb and bounce back from perturbations caused by natural or human actions. Resilience is considered a key concept for both ecosystems and human systems (Charles, 2001 p. 187). The complex dynamics of ecosystem and human system

relationships, structures and processes operate at a range of interdependent nested spatial and temporal scales (Holling et al., 2002).

All dynamic systems including ecosystems and human systems have many feedback loops and nonlinear relationships within and between the dimensions. These interactions can result in periods of relative stasis, punctuated by rapid shifts to new conditions or regimes when systems are overwhelmed by disturbance (Mayer, 2008).

Resilience

The concept of resilience in ecological systems was introduced by Holling in 1973, since then further work has been undertaken including examining approaches to build social and ecological resilience that enhance the capacity of humans systems to deal with complexity and change (Walker et al., 2006 p. 1; Berkes et al., 2003 p. xi). Gunderson (2000) provides a review of the concepts and multiple meanings of resilience; how resilience is related to other key ecosystem properties; and why ecological resilience is key to management of complex human and environmental systems. Gunderson notes some authors define ecosystem as having the quality of a single equilibrium state in which the measure of resilience is in terms of how far the ecosystem has moved from its equilibrium state and how quickly it returns after perturbations. An alternative approach suggests that ecosystems have more than one stable state, where resilience is measured by the magnitude of disturbance which can be absorbed before the system undergoes a regime shift, or significant deterioration

(Gunderson, 2000 pp. 426-428). Examples of such regime shifts include transitions from kelp forest dominated ecosystems to urchin barrens (Tegner and Dayton, 2000); and from coral reef to algae dominated ecosystems (Nystrom and Folke, 2001); deterioration of ecosystems such as Chesapeake Bay, that make it more susceptible to, and slower to recovery from disturbances (Boesch, 2000).

The goals of ecosystem management are often stated in terms of maintaining ecosystem resilience, integrity or health and the conservation of biodiversity and community structure and function, but there is no agreed definition of these terms. It is however important to understand what is meant by these terms and define them, so that

management objectives can be clearly stated, and effective management measures and actions can be implemented, to successfully meet the stated objectives. Link (2000 pp. 1-6) argues ecosystem health is a misnomer, as ecosystems can exhibit multiple states that are functional, although from a human viewpoint some states are more desirable than others, and suggests ecosystem condition or status is a better term. He considers ecosystem integrity a subjective term, because a key question is, how would such integrity be measured, reproduced or evaluated. Instead Link (2000) proposes the term ecosystem sustainability which refers to the maintenance of specified processes humans would like to see persist in a system, as these could be measurable over time, thereby ascertaining the sustainability of an ecosystem. Costanza and Mageau (1999 p. 105)

support this view and propose a healthy ecosystem is one which is sustainable in that it has the ability to maintain its structure and function over time in the face of external stressors.

Notwithstanding these points, resilience remains a key concept to be considered because humans do wish to continue to benefit from ecosystem goods and services. Human activities may compromise ecosystem resilience and in some cases result in regime shifts. There are many examples of such transitions, which suggest that human activities may change the resilience of ecosystems. There are other examples where the

management goal, for example to stabilise food production (fish) was successfully achieved (ecosystem engineering) by reducing natural variability of critical structuring variables (fish populations), resulting in an ecosystem wich is more spatially uniform, less functionally diverse, less resilient and more sensitive to disturbances that might otherwise have been absorbed. Short-term success in optimising production may lead to long-term surprises (Holling and Gunderson, 2002 pp. 60-61). Sustainability and

resilience of human systems are equally important. As these systems become less resilient and more vulnerable, changes also occur in the management agencies,

associated industries and society. Management, in its drive for efficiency, may become progressively more myopic and rigid, the relevant industries become more dependent and inflexible, and the public loses trust. According to Holling and Gunderson (2002) this seems to define a pathology that typically can lead to a crisis triggered by

unexpected and external events. As adaptive capacity is lost, each swing of the cycle demands larger and more expensive solutions from both human systems and ecosystems (Holling and Gunderson, 2002 pp. 60-62).

The notion of resilience is growing in importance as a concept for managing and governing complex linked systems of peoples and nature. Social-Ecological Systems (SESs) are complex, and ideas on resilience are not intended to explain the behaviour of SESs, but provide a framework for systematically thinking about the dynamics and attempts to capture the more general, but not detailed, features of how these systems behave to gain new insights. The SESs framework addresses issues about the dynamics of systems at multiple interacting scales; takes a trans-disciplinary approach which provides a broader understanding than obtained from a single theoretical view; and focuses attention on particular system attributes that play important roles in the

dynamics of SESs. Components of adaptive management include developing a model which examines how the system behaves under management interventions, that is used to ask questions about system behaviour rather than predicting policy consequences. These questions are then evaluated or tested over time through management actions. This approach acknowledges the lack of certainty in science and adopts an interactive, adaptive approach to achieving success. Very few attempts of adaptive management have, however been undertaken as it is considered too costly and risky (Anderies et al., 2006 pp. 163-164, 173-174).

Both natural and human systems are complex adaptive systems characterised by multiple possible outcomes and the potential for rapid change at a range of spatial and temporal scales (Levin and Lubchenco, 2008). Defining and understanding systems resilience that focuses on the behaviour of the system as a whole is not easy, as what constitutes a resilient coupled social ecological system is not well understood. Understanding the factors that may have led to the loss of resilience are not

straightforward as there are many sources (individual behaviour, ideologies, economic policies, management regimes) which influence outcomes. These may also result in cumulative impacts that act to undermine resilience. More research is required for developing design principles for resilient systems and gaining knowledge of managing for resilience through experimental adaptive management approaches that provide new insights and information (Gibbs, 2009).

Marine policy makers are increasingly being asked to consider the resilience of human communities that rely on coastal and marine ecosystem goods and services and the resilience of natural systems. As Gibbs (2009) argues most communities have had little experience in explicitly managing for resilience; an understanding of the factors that make a natural or social system resilient are limited; and there is a lack of consensus based definitions and performance measures for assessing resilience. It will be

necessary to over-come these factors before effective resilience based management can be implemented. The potential confluence of natural events including climate change and impacts of human activities on ecosystems, as well as outcomes from a range of economic and social drivers operating at local, national and global spatial scales, and different temporal scales has led many researchers and policy makers to think in terms of increasing the adaptive capacity and resilience of ecosystems and human systems. A

move towards a resilience based framework is a large cultural shift for policy makers more accustomed to managing for optimal, economically efficient outcomes,

underpinned by optimisation techniques and models, which do not explicitly address system resilience. Communities are concerned with policy making that explicitly encompasses system wide properties, of which resilience is considered one of the most important.