Serviços de ecossistemas dos tradeoffs do oceano do sul na tomada de decisões

Serviços de ecossistemas dos tradeoffs do oceano do sul na tomada de decisões
Os serviços ecossistêmicos são os benefícios que a humanidade obtém dos ecossistemas naturais. Aqui identificamos os principais serviços prestados pelo Oceano Austral. Estes incluem provisionamento de produtos da pesca, ciclagem de nutrientes, regulação do clima e manutenção da biodiversidade, com benefícios culturais e estéticos associados. Os limites potenciais de captura para o krill antártico (Euphausia superba Dana) são equivalentes a 11% dos desembarques de pesca marítima global. Examinamos também em que medida a tomada de decisões no Sistema do Tratado Antártico (ATS) considera os trade-offs entre os serviços dos ecossistemas, utilizando o manejo da pescaria antártica de krill como estudo de caso. A gestão desta pescaria considera um trade-off de três vias entre o desempenho da pesca, o status do estoque de krill e o de populações de predadores. No entanto, há uma escassez de informações sobre o quão bem esses componentes representam outros serviços do ecossistema que podem ser degradados como resultado da pesca. Há também uma falta de informações sobre como os beneficiários valorizam esses serviços ecossistêmicos. Uma avaliação formal do ecossistema ajudaria a resolver essas lacunas de conhecimento. Também poderia ajudar a harmonizar a tomada de decisões em todo o ATS e promover o reconhecimento global dos serviços do ecossistema do Oceano Sul, fornecendo um inventário padrão dos serviços ecossistêmicos relevantes e seu valor para os beneficiários.
Artigos sugeridos.
Para enviar um pedido de atualização ou retirada deste documento, envie uma Solicitação de atualização / correção / remoção.

Serviços ecossistêmicos do Oceano Austral: trade-offs na tomada de decisões.
Os serviços ecossistêmicos são os benefícios que a humanidade obtém dos ecossistemas naturais. Aqui identificamos os principais serviços prestados pelo Oceano Austral. Estes incluem provisionamento de produtos da pesca, ciclagem de nutrientes, regulação do clima e manutenção da biodiversidade, com benefícios culturais e estéticos associados. Os limites potenciais de captura para o krill antártico (Euphausia superba Dana) são equivalentes a 11% dos desembarques de pesca marítima global. Examinamos também em que medida a tomada de decisões no Sistema do Tratado Antártico (ATS) considera os trade-offs entre os serviços dos ecossistemas, utilizando o manejo da pescaria antártica de krill como estudo de caso. A gestão desta pescaria considera um trade-off de três vias entre o desempenho da pesca, o status do estoque de krill e o de populações de predadores. No entanto, há uma escassez de informações sobre o quão bem esses componentes representam outros serviços do ecossistema que podem ser degradados como resultado da pesca. Há também uma falta de informações sobre como os beneficiários valorizam esses serviços ecossistêmicos. Uma avaliação formal do ecossistema ajudaria a resolver essas lacunas de conhecimento. Também poderia ajudar a harmonizar a tomada de decisões em todo o ATS e promover o reconhecimento global dos serviços do ecossistema do Oceano Sul, fornecendo um inventário padrão dos serviços ecossistêmicos relevantes e seu valor para os beneficiários.
Para enviar este artigo para o seu Kindle, primeiro certifique-se de que nenhuma respostacambridge seja adicionada à sua Lista de E-mail Pessoal Aprovado em suas Configurações de Documentos Pessoais na página Gerenciar Seu Conteúdo e Dispositivos da sua conta Amazon. Em seguida, insira a parte 'nome' do seu endereço de e-mail Kindle abaixo. Saiba mais sobre como enviar para o seu Kindle. Saiba mais sobre como enviar para o seu Kindle.
Observe que você pode selecionar enviar para as variações free. kindle ou kindle. Os e-mails de "free. kindle" são gratuitos, mas só podem ser enviados para o seu dispositivo quando estiver conectado ao wi-fi. Os e-mails de "kindle" podem ser entregues mesmo quando você não está conectado ao wi-fi, mas observe que as taxas de serviço se aplicam.
Volume 25, edição 5 Susie M. Grant (a1), Simeon L. Hill (a1), Philip N. Trathan (a1) e Eugene J. Murphy (a1) DOI: doi / 10.1017 / S0954102013000308.
Para enviar este artigo para a sua conta Dropbox, selecione um ou mais formatos e confirme que concorda em respeitar nossas políticas de uso. Se esta for a primeira vez que você usa esse recurso, você será solicitado a autorizar o Cambridge Core a se conectar ao seu & lt; service & gt; conta. Saiba mais sobre como enviar conteúdo para o Dropbox.
Volume 25, edição 5 Susie M. Grant (a1), Simeon L. Hill (a1), Philip N. Trathan (a1) e Eugene J. Murphy (a1) DOI: doi / 10.1017 / S0954102013000308.
Para enviar este artigo para a sua conta do Google Drive, selecione um ou mais formatos e confirme que concorda em respeitar nossas políticas de uso. Se esta for a primeira vez que você usa esse recurso, você será solicitado a autorizar o Cambridge Core a se conectar ao seu & lt; service & gt; conta. Saiba mais sobre como enviar conteúdo para o Google Drive.
Volume 25, edição 5 Susie M. Grant (a1), Simeon L. Hill (a1), Philip N. Trathan (a1) e Eugene J. Murphy (a1) DOI: doi / 10.1017 / S0954102013000308.
Primeiros autores conjuntos.
Primeiros autores conjuntos.
Envie seu bibliotecário ou administrador por e-mail para recomendar a adição deste diário à coleção da sua organização.
ISSN: 0954-1020 EISSN: 1365-2079 URL: / core / journals / antarctic-science.
Métricas.
Pontuação da atenção Altmetric.
Exibições de texto completo.
As visualizações de texto completo refletem o número de downloads de PDF, PDFs enviados para o Google Drive, Dropbox e Kindle e visualizações de texto em HTML.
Vistas abstratas.
As vistas abstratas refletem o número de visitas à página de destino do artigo.
* Visualizações capturadas no Cambridge Core entre setembro de 2016 - 8 de fevereiro de 2018. Estes dados serão atualizados a cada 24 horas.

A análise do tradeoff do serviço do ecossistema revela o valor do planejamento espacial marinho para múltiplos usos oceânicos.
Editado por Peter M. Kareiva, The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA, e aprovado em 2 de fevereiro de 2012 (recebido para revisão em 1º de setembro de 2011)
O planejamento espacial marinho (MSP) é uma responsabilidade emergente dos gerentes de recursos em todo os Estados Unidos e em outros lugares. Uma das principais vantagens propostas do MSP é que faz com que os compromissos em termos de uso de recursos e os valores do setor (grupo de partes interessadas) sejam explícitos, mas, assim, requer ferramentas para avaliar as compensações. Nós estendemos as análises de compensação da economia para avaliar simultaneamente múltiplos serviços ecossistêmicos e os valores que eles fornecem aos setores usando uma estrutura robusta, quantitativa e transparente. Utilizamos o quadro para avaliar possíveis conflitos entre os setores de energia eólica offshore, pesca comercial e observação de baleias em Massachusetts e identificar e quantificar o valor da escolha de projetos de parques eólicos ideais que minimizem os conflitos entre esses setores. Mais notavelmente, mostramos que o uso do MSP em relação ao planejamento convencional poderia evitar $ 1 milhão de dólares em perdas para os setores históricos de pescaria e observação de baleias e poderia gerar $ 10 bilhões em valor extra para o setor de energia. O valor do MSP aumentou com o maior número de setores considerados e maior a área sob gerenciamento. Importante, a estrutura pode ser aplicada mesmo quando os setores não são medidos em dólares (por exemplo, conservação). Fazer negociações explícitas melhora a transparência na tomada de decisões, ajuda a evitar conflitos desnecessários atribuídos a compromissos percebidos, mas fracos, e concentra o debate na busca das soluções mais eficientes para mitigar os compromissos reais e maximizar os valores do setor. Nossa análise demonstra a utilidade, a viabilidade e o valor do MSP e fornece suporte oportuno para as transições de gerenciamento necessárias para que a sociedade enfrente os desafios de um ambiente oceânico cada vez mais ocupado.
As águas costeiras em todo o mundo estão experimentando uma crescente demanda por seus diversos benefícios humanos ou serviços ecossistêmicos. A demanda vem de setores existentes, como pesca e transporte, que buscam expandir suas atividades e setores emergentes, como energia renovável e aquicultura offshore. A necessidade de coordenar esses usos humanos para reduzir os impactos em todos os setores é um alerta para o planejamento espacial costeiro e marinho (MSP) baseado em ecossistemas (1). Nos Estados Unidos, a Ordem Executiva 13547 atribui essa abordagem ao gerenciamento de recursos marinhos, e muitos estados dos EUA e outros países passaram recentemente legislação que enfatizava o MSP (por exemplo, referência 2).
Apesar do crescente interesse no MSP, foi difícil implementar pelo menos dois motivos (3). Primeiro, os grupos de usuários desconfiam dos efeitos negativos das mudanças regulatórias no status quo, e eles legitimamente pedem provas de que o MSP irá gerar melhorias. A evidência de benefícios pode incluir uma maior eficiência de gerenciamento, maior envolvimento das partes interessadas e resultados que melhoram os objetivos de gerenciamento. Aqui, ilustramos como as decisões de gerenciamento único e multisectorial afetam os valores do setor e como o MSP (ou seja, o planejamento multisectorial coordenado para reduzir os conflitos do setor e o aumento de seus valores) pode melhorar explicitamente os valores do setor, ao mesmo tempo em que alcança metas de gerenciamento, aumentando assim o potencial de buy-in das partes interessadas .
Uma segunda barreira para o MSP é que a ciência para avaliar e comunicar os compromissos entre os usos humanos do oceano e a identificação de estratégias para mediar esses compromissos tem sido lenta ao apanhar as oportunidades políticas emergentes dos esforços para implementar a gestão baseada em ecossistemas, MSP, e áreas marinhas protegidas (4). Todas essas abordagens de gestão são fundamentalmente sobre a tomada de decisões que afetam os tradeoffs entre vários setores. No entanto, as compensações raramente são abordadas de forma explícita ou transparente, e, portanto, muitas vezes não são realizadas ou são mal avaliadas. Uma importante vantagem proposta do MSP é que torna as compensações explícitas, mas, para isso, é necessário ferramentas analíticas para avaliar conflitos espaciais e sinergias entre os setores. A economia tem uma rica história de quantificação e balanceamento de compensações, e a economia de recursos tem feito isso com serviços ecossistêmicos há mais de uma década (por exemplo, refs. 5 e 6), mas este trabalho não foi totalmente reconhecido ou usado explicitamente para informar o MSP. Aqui, extraímos esse legado e ampliá-lo para fornecer uma estrutura robusta, quantitativa e compreensível para avaliar simultaneamente múltiplos serviços do ecossistema marinho e seu valor para os setores.
Energia Renovável como Catalizador para MSP.
Como um dos novos usos do oceano, o desenvolvimento de energia renovável está catalisando o debate sobre como alocamos o espaço oceânico (2, 7). Isto é particularmente verdadeiro em Massachusetts, que aprovou a primeira lei dos EUA que exige o MSP em 2008. O desenvolvimento de energia eólica offshore ajudou a motivar a criação desta lei: parques eólicos foram propostos para áreas onde o aglomerado do setor já é alto, como o contencioso Cape Wind projeto em Nantucket Sound (7). Reconhecendo o debate do parque eólico de Massachusetts como uma oportunidade para demonstrar a viabilidade e a utilidade do MSP, usamos esse exemplo para mostrar o valor agregado de fazer MSP em relação ao gerenciamento convencional de um único setor, que se concentra na maximização de valores setoriais. Em particular, nós (i) geramos cenários alternativos de desenvolvimento de parques eólicos, impulsionados por decisões de gerenciamento único versus multisectorial; (ii) calculou o valor resultante da energia e outros setores com os quais há conflitos espaciais no ecossistema marinho de Massachusetts; (iii) comparou os valores do setor decorrentes de cenários de desenvolvimento alternativo para mostrar como as compensações entre os setores podem ser quantificadas e, em seguida, reduzidas, escolhendo cenários MSP específicos; e (iv) quantificou o potencial valor agregado aos setores usando o MSP em uma abordagem de um único setor.
Concentramo-nos em duas zonas provisórias de energia eólica (P1 e P2) identificadas no Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan para fornecer resultados proativos para orientar futuras decisões de gerenciamento futuro (Fig. 1 A e B) (8). Avaliamos os potenciais impactos das instalações de parques eólicos em dois setores de alto valor e alto perfil: pesca comercial e turismo e conservação de observação de baleias. Concentramo-nos em duas pescarias emblemáticas e de alto valor com diferentes características: a pescaria de lagosta americana, que utiliza equipamentos fixos (armadilhas) no habitat de fundo duro; e a pescaria de solha do inverno, que utiliza equipamentos móveis (redes de arrasto e emaranhados) sobre o habitat principalmente de base macia (Fig. 1 C e D). Nós incluímos observação e conservação de baleias em um único setor que representa o valor para a sociedade das baleias na natureza (Fig. 1 E).
Baía de Massachusetts e distribuições espaciais de recursos e valores do setor. (A) Distribuição de habitats. (B-E) Valores atuais líquidos da energia eólica offshore, da pluvial e da lagosta e dos setores de observação de baleias, respectivamente. O valor em cada célula de grade é escalado em relação ao valor absoluto absoluto do setor (com base na densidade de barco registrada e escalada para o setor de baleias e lucro para os outros setores, ver Métodos) em todas as células da grade, na ausência de outros setores .
Cada zona de energia poderia conter centenas de turbinas com o potencial de alterar a ecologia dos peixes e restringir os padrões de pesca, além de deslocar as espécies de baleias ameaçadas e perturbar o turismo de observação de baleias. Esses setores históricos também interagem direta e indiretamente entre si através do ecossistema, criando potenciais conseqüências imprevistas da ação gerencial. Nós explicamos explicitamente essas interações intersetoriais quando quantificamos os tradeoffs entre os setores sob cenários de gerenciamento alternativo, diferindo no nível de desenvolvimento de energia eólica e configuração espacial de turbinas. Nós identificamos projetos de parques eólicos ideais que minimizam conflitos espaciais e maximizam o valor de cada setor e o valor conjunto do ecossistema. Finalmente, e criticamente, quantificamos os ganhos do setor obtidos a partir da escolha dessas soluções ótimas, demonstrando o valor do MSP.
Trade tradeoffs.
Em termos simples, o MSP distribui setores entre os locais de maior valor com os menores conflitos intersetoriais (4, 9). Aqui, isso significa buscar áreas de energia eólica com alto vento e baixa pesca e valores de observação de baleias. Embora MSP, em última instância, exija análises simultâneas de todos os setores, começamos com tradeoffs em pares entre setores e, em seguida, avançamos para análises de três e quatro direções.
Tomando emprestado da economia, visualizamos compromissos ao traçar os valores do setor uns contra os outros em relação às estratégias de gerenciamento possíveis. Essas parcelas revelam a natureza e a gravidade dos tradeoffs entre os setores, permitem que uma determinada decisão de gerenciamento (um ponto) seja comparada com decisões alternativas (outros pontos) e permita uma fácil visualização e medição dos ganhos potenciais do melhor planejamento espacial multissectorial (Fig. 2 A). Os resultados da gestão de um único setor servem de referência para medir esses ganhos. Os pontos ao longo do limite externo dos resultados (a fronteira da eficiência) representam o conjunto de estratégias de gerenciamento multissetorial (ecossistema) que maximizam as combinações de valores do setor. Estratégias de interior para a fronteira de eficiência podem ser melhoradas, sem nenhum custo para nenhum dos setores, e benefício potencial para ambos, escolhendo soluções representadas por pontos mais próximos ou ao longo da fronteira.
Emparelhar os compromissos em valores do setor em relação às estratégias de gerenciamento espacial e mapas de parques eólicos associados. (A) Exemplo conceitual de tradeoffs do setor. Linhas ortográficas com setas ilustram como medir o valor do MSP em relação ao gerenciamento de um único setor. (B - D) A energia eólica offshore, a solha e a pesca da lagosta e os valores do setor de observação de baleias em relação aos projetos de parques eólicos na baía de Massachusetts. Os valores do setor são dimensionados para 100% no valor máximo sem conflitos intersetoriais. Os triângulos com letras correspondem a mapas de fazendas de energia eólica em E - G. A inserção em B mostra uma visão ampliada para maior clareza.
Usamos algoritmos heurísticos para identificar estratégias ótimas que delimitam as fronteiras de eficiência (Apêndice SI). Embora apenas algumas estratégias (Fig. 2 E-G) sejam indicadas em cada fronteira de eficiência, existe uma estratégia para praticamente todas as posições ao longo de cada fronteira; Isso pode ser encontrado através de pesquisas computacionais adicionais. A análise de sensibilidade mostrou que nossos resultados são robustos para a incerteza nos parâmetros do modelo que caracterizam as funções de estoque-recrutamento e os níveis de biomassa virgem para as espécies da pesca (Apêndice SI, Fig. S4).
As compensações entre setores são claras dos resultados do nosso modelo (Fig. 2 B-D). As linhas de inclinação negativa indicam compensações significativas, e as fronteiras convexas indicam que os tradeoffs não são individuais. A compensação é mais severa para a pescaria de solha, que compete diretamente com o setor de energia para o habitat de base suave e cuja engrenagem móvel é permanentemente excluída de turbinas próximas. Conseqüentemente, o desenvolvimento do setor de energia para a capacidade máxima reduz o valor da pescaria da solha dentro de P1 e P2 para zero. O spillover da solha atribuível a um efeito de reserva "de fato" das turbinas é muito pequeno para compensar as perdas. A perda em valor percentual para a pescaria de lagosta é menos severa devido a regulamentos de exclusão menos rigorosos em torno das turbinas para essa pescaria, pouco habitat rochoso natural nas zonas de energia e geração de um pouco de substrato duro adicional em torno das fundações da turbina. A perda de valor percentual para o setor de observação de baleias é igualmente menos grave: neste caso, os barcos e as baleias são apenas deslocados durante a construção da turbina. Note-se que o setor de observação de baleias é inerentemente limitado a ~88% do seu valor máximo sem conflitos intersetoriais devido aos efeitos da pescaria de lagosta existente sobre o emaranhamento e a disponibilidade de presas (arenque, usado como isca de lagosta); essa compensação poderia ser explorada explicitamente em relação à regulamentação da pesca da lagosta para proteger as baleias, mas isso está além do alcance desta análise.
As parcelas de compensação também nos permitem quantificar e comparar os resultados das configurações específicas de parques eólicos propostos, como o cenário E, que representa o desenvolvimento completo e exclusivo de parques eólicos dentro de P1. Em relação aos setores de pescaria e de energia da solha (Fig. 2 B), E está ao longo da fronteira de eficiência e, portanto, efetivo na redução de conflitos intersetoriais, na medida do possível. No entanto, em relação aos setores de lagosta e observação de baleias, E está bem abaixo das fronteiras de eficiência, indicando sua inferioridade na redução de conflitos em comparação com o que poderia ser alcançado usando MSP (Fig. 2 C e D).
Pode-se ver como o MSP produz configurações que reduzem os conflitos espaciais, comparando soluções mapeadas E, F e G na Fig. 2 com mapas de valores de setor na Fig. 1 B-E. A solução E é eficiente em relação aos setores de energia e solha, porque os remendos na zona norte (P1) estão entre os mais altos disponíveis em energia (veja também o Apêndice SI, Fig. S3), enquanto os remendos na zona sul (P2) são tipicamente mais valioso para a pescaria da solha. A Solução F mede eficientemente o tradeoff da energia-lagosta porque o desenvolvimento de energia evita manchas de lagosta de alto valor, que geralmente estão mais próximas da costa. A solução G também medeia os conflitos do setor de energia-baleia; G resulta em um corredor de manchas não desenvolvidas em P1 que permite passagem desobstruída por embarcações para locais de observação de baleias dentro da zona de energia e no Jeffrey's Ledge. Esses exemplos ressaltam a intenção do MSP de alocar racionalmente múltiplos usos do oceano em um ambiente espacialmente finito. No entanto, encontrar as soluções mais eficientes para a mediação de conflitos entre mesmo apenas dois setores não é trivial sem suporte analítico; Este suporte é ainda mais crítico para identificar soluções eficientes em relação a todos os setores do ecossistema, conforme mostramos a seguir.
Soluções ótimas.
O MSP verdadeiramente ideal exige a consideração simultânea de todos os setores do ecossistema. Fizemos isso em duas etapas (Fig. 3). Primeiro, consideramos uma compensação de três vias em valor entre os setores de energia, baleia e lagosta para produzir uma superfície de fronteira de eficiência 3D (Fig. 3 A). Ao longo das suas bordas, a fronteira de eficiência contém as estratégias das fronteiras de eficiência em dois pares na Fig. 2 C e D; Em todo o resto da superfície são estratégias adicionais (quadrados) que maximizam os valores nos três setores. Selecionar uma opção de gerenciamento específica da superfície de fronteira de eficiência é uma decisão política, que se basearia nas preferências relativas da sociedade para maximizar os valores dos três setores.
Desajustes nos valores do setor em relação às estratégias de gerenciamento espacial. (A) Energia, pescaria de lagosta e comércio de observação de baleias de três vias. Os círculos de conexão de linhas contínuas (veja a inserção de legenda) representam fronteiras de eficiência em pares mostradas na Fig. 2 C e D. Os quadrados e a grade interpolada representam a fronteira de eficiência de três setores. A Estratégia E está abaixo da superfície (veja a Fig. 2 para perspectivas pairares). A linha tracejada indica resultados no gerenciamento de um único setor. (B) Intervalo de pescaria de solha de energia em relação às fronteiras de eficiência em dois, três e quatro segmentos (ver inserção de legenda). Letras e triângulos correspondem aos dos Figs. 2 e 4.
Em segundo lugar, estendemos a análise de compensação para considerar os quatro setores no ecossistema. Embora a visualização da compensação 4D seja desafiadora, o processo analítico é o mesmo. A fronteira de eficiência de quatro setores inclui a fronteira de eficiência de lagosta-baleia de três setores (pontos de superfície e associados na Fig. 3 A) e estratégias adicionais que representam combinações ótimas de valor para os quatro setores. As estratégias adicionais não se situam na fronteira de eficiência de três setores e, em comparação com as estratégias nessa fronteira, aumentam o valor da pescaria da solha (porque agora é contabilizada, Fig. 3 B, veja o Apêndice SI, Fig. S5 para trama 4D completa). Um debate objetivo em torno de um ótimo projeto de parques eólicos em relação a todos os quatro setores deve se concentrar em soluções ao longo desta fronteira abrangente de eficiência.
Valor do MSP.
Aqui, comparamos os ganhos com os setores do MSP com os resultados no âmbito do gerenciamento estratégico de um único setor. As decisões de gestão do setor único são inicialmente reguladas pela área total dentro das zonas de energia que podem ser desenvolvidas: o setor de energia desenvolve os remendos de maior valor até este limite. Em resposta a um determinado projeto de parques eólicos, os setores da pesca ajustam estrategicamente os níveis de esforço da frota para maximizar seus valores. O setor de observação de baleias perde valor em manchas com turbinas que não podem ser recuperadas em outros lugares. Embora nos referimos a este cenário de gestão como "único setor", na realidade, já incorporou algum planejamento multisectorial: as zonas de energia provisória foram escolhidas por Massachusetts porque são bons sites de vento e têm menos conflitos de uso potenciais com setores existentes do que outros locais possíveis (8). Na medida em que essa abordagem quase MSP é efetiva, proporciona uma melhoria em relação ao verdadeiro gerenciamento de um único setor (ou seja, não há pré-seleção de sites de desenvolvimento). Assim, nossa avaliação do valor do MSP é tanto realista quanto ao que está sendo feito em Massachusetts e conservador pelo que se pode esperar do planejamento do MSP.
Os resultados em cenários estratégicos de gerenciamento de setor único são ilustrados na Fig. 3 A pela linha tracejada, que se estende de zero a 100% de valor de energia e representa desenvolvimento de energia em 0,1,2 ... 84 (ou seja, todos) remendos dentro do zonas de energia. A linha está bem abaixo da fronteira da eficiência energética da lagosta-baleia, indicando que ganhos substanciais para esses setores podem ser alcançados, afastando-se do gerenciamento de um único setor e de estratégias multisectoriais ótimas. No entanto, os detalhes desse resultado são desafiadores para visualizar, ainda mais no gráfico 4D (Apêndice SI, Fig. S5). As parcelas de compensação de parcelas fornecem ilustrações mais atraentes do valor potencial do MSP para cada setor. Neste caso, a linha tracejada na Fig. 3 A é representada na Fig. 2 B-D por linhas tracejadas que conectam um ponto escuro para cada um dos 85 resultados de gerenciamento de um único setor.
Em relação aos setores de pescaria e energia da lagosta, o MSP oferece um valor agregado moderado em relação ao manejo de um único setor (Fig. 2 C). Como esses setores valorizam diferentes tipos de habitat, o desenvolvimento de energia deixa intactos muitos manchas de lagosta de alto valor. No entanto, o gerenciamento de um único setor nunca atinge a fronteira de eficiência porque o setor de energia não considera explicitamente a disponibilidade de habitat rochoso para lagostas e a presença de um terceiro tipo de habitat (cascalho) cria uma compensação imperfeita entre habitat duro e de base macia em um patch. A verdadeira troca entre os habitats que afetam os setores é explicada explicitamente apenas no âmbito de uma gestão multisectorial, que procura maximizar o valor para ambos os setores.
O MSP fornece maior valor sobre o gerenciamento de um único setor em relação aos setores de baleias e energia (Fig. 2 D). Isso ocorre porque a observação de baleias não está conectada ao habitat inferior da mesma forma que os valores da energia ou da pesca. A gestão do setor único produz uma forte compensação porque os melhores sites de desenvolvimento eólico não estão relacionados à distribuição espacial de áreas de grande valor para observação de baleias. Isso deixa grandes opções para reafectar o desenvolvimento de energia eólica e encontrar soluções ótimas para ambos os setores.
Como os setores de energia e solhao competem pelo habitat de base suave, as soluções de gerenciamento de setor único estão próximas da fronteira de eficiência em pares para esses dois setores (Fig. 2 B). Em relação a apenas esses dois setores, cujos valores estão fortemente ligados a um recurso comum, o gerenciamento de um único setor mede eficientemente o tradeoff porque a perda de habitat em um setor é quase perfeitamente traduzida em ganhos para o outro. Assim, o MSP acrescenta pouco valor ao gerenciamento de um único setor. No entanto, o valor da pescaria da solha do MSP emerge quando se considera também os outros dois setores, cujos padrões de uso de recursos são dramaticamente diferentes. Isto é ilustrado na Fig. 3 B, onde a fronteira completa e de quatro segmentos de setor contém pontos (diamantes) que aumentam o valor da pesca da lombar em comparação com a fronteira de eficiência de lagosta-baleia de três setores (Fig. 3 B, quadrados). Assim, o MSP fornece valor à pescaria de solha em comparação com quando é excluído da análise multisectorial. Aqui, os ganhos não são atribuíveis a melhorias em relação ao gerenciamento de um único setor, mas a capacidade do MSP de equilibrar otimamente as preferências de projeto de fazenda eqüestre da favela com preferências de outros setores que tenham requisitos de recursos diferentes. Este resultado enfatiza que o MSP deve ser abrangente e inclusivo (ou seja, baseado em ecossistema), minimizando perdas de valor para todos os setores que interagem direta e indiretamente no sistema. Quando mais setores estão incluídos na análise de compensação, os ganhos do MSP se tornam maiores.
As distâncias verticais e horizontais entre resultados de gerenciamento únicos e ótimos indicam o potencial valor agregado pelo MSP (Figuras 2A e 4). As linhas em forma de húmulo na Fig. 4 indicam que o valor do MSP para cada setor é maior quando o valor do outro setor está perto do meio do seu alcance, onde o número de opções e potencial para conflitos de mediação é maior. Mais geralmente, o valor de MSP aumenta com o maior número de estratégias de gerenciamento que são consideradas. Assim, o aumento das zonas de energia provisória deverá aumentar o valor potencial do MSP e, em geral, o MSP criará os maiores benefícios quando feito em grande escala (por exemplo, escala do ecossistema). É claro que as restrições jurisdicionais, logísticas, de dados e outras podem estabelecer um limite superior na escala do MSP.
Valorização para os setores do MSP sobre o gerenciamento estratégico de um único setor, medido para cada cenário de desenvolvimento como mostrado na Figura 2 A. (A) Valor do MSP para os setores de linguado, lagosta e observação de baleias em relação a um nível regulado de desenvolvimento de energia. (B) Valor do MSP para o setor de energia em relação aos níveis alvo regulados dos valores do setor de pesca e observação de baleias (ou seja, 100% menos um impacto percentual máximo permitido). A tabela mostra o valor atual líquido máximo (VPL) em dólares de cada setor por si só (para o setor de baleias, o NPV é para a indústria de turismo de observação de baleias), dentro das zonas de energia provisória (linha superior); Os NPVs são multiplicados por valores percentuais de MSP para gerar os valores do dólar na linha 2 e para cada cenário de letras nas parcelas. Os valores na linha 2 correspondem com o máximo das curvas em A para solha, lagosta e observação de baleias e o pico da linha pontilhada em B para energia.
O planejamento espacial estratégico tem o potencial de aumentar (ou evitar perdas em) os valores do setor de solha, lagosta e baleia em até ~ 1%, 4% e 5%, respectivamente, sem nenhum custo para o setor de energia [Fig. 4 A e tabela associada (Fig. 4, Lower)]. Embora pequenas, essas percentagens refletem benefícios monetários, culturais e de conservação substanciais. Ao longo do esperado horizonte de planejamento de 27 anos, estima-se que as pescarias gerem um valor presente líquido combinado de quase US $ 3 milhões apenas dentro das zonas de energia provisórias na ausência de desenvolvimento de energia; Para a indústria de turismo de observação de baleias, esse valor pode exceder US $ 30 milhões (Fig. 4, Lower, tabela). Assim, mesmo pequenos ganhos percentuais se traduzem em somas monetárias notáveis. Além disso, os requisitos para a conservação da população de baleias e a importância cultural das baleias e pescarias em Massachusetts oferecem uma vantagem em manter esses setores em face de novos grupos de usuários marinhos, enfatizando ainda mais o valor do MSP para reduzir conflitos e aumentar o valor de um ecossistema para a sociedade.
O aumento do valor percentual no setor de energia do MSP pode ser dramático. A colocação estratégica de turbinas em unidades de planejamento vazias de habitat rochoso permite que o setor de energia aumente seu valor em ~ 7% em relação ao gerenciamento de um único setor, sem custo para a pescaria de lagosta (borda direita da linha sólida na Fig. 4 B). Permitir reduções reduzidas nos valores dos setores de pescaria e observação de baleias permite ganhos ainda maiores para o setor de energia. Dado um nível de impacto máximo prescrito em um ou mais setores, o setor de energia pode atingir valores muito maiores se integrar explicitamente as necessidades dos outros setores na localização, em comparação com apenas preencher seus remendos de maior valor até atingir o limite de impacto. Por exemplo, usando o MSP, o setor de energia pode aumentar seu valor & gt; 10% com impacto de & lt; 5% no valor da pescaria de lagosta (F na Fig. 4 B). Da mesma forma, não permitindo uma redução de mais de 5% no setor de observação de baleias e conservação (ou seja, ≥83%), o MSP pode aumentar o valor de energia & gt; 25% (estratégia G). Sob regulamentos mais rigorosos de conservação de baleias, o valor do MSP para o setor de energia excede 45%. Dentro das zonas de energia, o valor presente líquido máximo para o setor de energia poderia exceder US $ 30 bilhões (Fig. 4, Lower, tabela). Assim, o setor de energia poderia atingir economias líquidas até quase US $ 14 bilhões em dólares atuais através do MSP estratégico de parques eólicos em relação aos setores históricos da Baía de Massachusetts.
Discussão.
Paralelamente aos passos decisivos que os governos e as indústrias promovem e desenvolvem para promover e desenvolver energia renovável, a oposição está crescendo a partir de residentes costeiros e grupos de usuários marinhos que temem impactos substanciais (alguns dizem sobreestimados) de parques eólicos offshore em ecossistemas e serviços marinhos (7) . Our MSP approach directly addresses this debate: our case study explicitly quantifies impacts on sectors from energy development and shows how these tradeoffs, and thus people's fears, can be mitigated in Massachusetts Bay. None of the incumbent sectors is immune to negative effects from energy development, and all can benefit from MSP. Across the range of scenarios, the flounder fishery experienced the greatest losses in value (up to 100%), yet unnecessary losses were minimized when MSP was used to allocate uses. Other Massachusetts Bay fisheries that use trawls and/or nets over soft-bottom habitat have the potential for similar losses from wind farms and gains from MSP. Percentage losses to the lobster and whale sectors, although smaller than for the flounder fishery, are significant because they translate into substantial absolute changes in monetary value and have critical cultural and conservation implications. Furthermore, MSP greatly improved lobster fishery and whale-watching values over single-sector management, preventing substantial losses. Finally, as one of the most recent user groups to enter marine ecosystems, offshore renewable energy is under tremendous pressure to limit its impact on incumbent sectors (7), while facing obvious internal incentives to maximize its value given high development costs. Our results indicate that MSP can provide substantial guidance toward these twin objectives.
Conflicts over space are becoming the norm in the oceans, and multisector planning is required to reduce these conflicts and optimize marine management (10). Contentious, often subjective, debate over spatial conflicts is expected to rise as ocean uses intensify and expand, further emphasizing the utility of our approach and value of MSP for quantifying and mediating these conflicts.
Resource managers around the world are now in the midst of deciding what MSP will look like, gathering information, developing tools, and attempting to garner buy-in from often skeptical stakeholders (9). Our concrete approach can rationally and objectively identify solutions to the exact kind of problem that resource managers are facing. We offer an efficient, transparent, and transferrable method for comparing management strategies, identifying win–win solutions and avoiding unnecessary conflicts that arise when stakeholders perceive tradeoffs that do not actually exist. By demonstrating how MSP works and quantifying its value over conventional management, these results may enhance stakeholder and decision-maker buy-in to MSP.
The efficiency frontier, although familiar to economists, has seldom been applied to marine resource management (4). However, its flexibility and simplicity make it a promising tool for decision-makers. Several features add to its utility. First, it is not necessary to characterize sector values in a single currency, such as dollars. Instead, the merits of different decisions can be compared based on changes in sectoral values (in absolute or percentage terms), allowing comparison of very different ecosystem services, including those [e. g., recreational opportunities, nutrient cycling (3)], that rely on nonmarket values, such as aesthetics or conservation. Second, plotting potential solutions relative to the efficiency frontier is a powerful method for visualization and communication, allowing decision-makers to compare many alternatives simultaneously. Although a sector-weighting scheme (e. g., an indifference curve) may determine a single solution on the efficiency frontier to be “optimal,” nearby solutions on the frontier are equally efficient and may be more feasible to implement. This gives decision-makers flexibility to incorporate other considerations (e. g., feasibility, enforceability), selecting a strategy that balances societal preferences and is practical to implement and manage. Additionally, the efficiency frontier can be an effective tool for engaging stakeholders in joint decision-making, highlighting true tradeoffs and serving as a reference point for negotiation. To aid in this, a multidimensional efficiency frontier (Fig. 3 A and SI Appendix , Fig. S5) can be deconstructed into pairwise plots (Figs. 2 and 3 B ) for visual clarity. Regardless of who holds final decision-making authority, or whose values take precedence, the efficiency frontier guides decisions toward efficient strategies and away from suboptimal ones with unnecessary conflicts. Conversely, without a formal tradeoff analysis to identify the most efficient strategies, management tends to produce outcomes interior to the frontier (6).
In our model, we sought to capture the main drivers of, and tradeoffs among, offshore energy and key ecosystem services that it impacts in Massachusetts Bay. However, a number of simplifying assumptions about the dynamics of these services and the marine ecosystem may influence our results. For example, conservation values other than whales (e. g., birds) are affected by wind turbines. A wind farm also may affect coastal viewshed and property values (4), and its submarine infrastructure may affect fish more than we assumed. Furthermore, other industrial sectors, such as shipping, already have high value in Massachusetts Bay and may have implications for conservation and MSP. Consideration of tradeoffs among these sectors may alter the solutions presented here; therefore, our spatial results should be considered heuristic rather than prescriptive. Finally, although we focused on net present value for directly measuring sector values, we recognize that indirect benefits also exist. Modeling indirect benefits, such as employment and coastal waterfront economic activity, would further enrich our understanding of the value of MSP.
Conclusão.
We offer a transparent and quantitative approach to assessing and communicating ecosystem dynamics and the interactions among varied ecosystem services and the sectors they support. The spatially explicit tradeoff analysis we conducted for Massachusetts Bay demonstrates the viability and value of strategic ecosystem-based MSP for informing and rationalizing the often entrenched debates around spatial allocation of marine resources, focusing them on objective conflicts and identifying efficient solutions for improving management outcomes. Such a demonstration of the value-added from MSP over sectoral management has been highlighted as one of the most pressing needs for helping move MSP forward in the United States and elsewhere (11). Inertia is a strong force, and when the costs of non-MSP outcomes are undefined, it is easy for decision-makers to succumb to the notion that MSP planning is too difficult or unnecessary. At the same time, institutional inertia can be quickly overcome when a policy window of opportunity is effectively used (12). The introduction of MSP into US National Ocean Policy represents such a policy window and at a time when spatial conflicts over marine ecosystem services are becoming alarmingly prevalent (10). By showing the utility and feasibility of MSP and quantifying its value over conventional management, we provide timely support and momentum for the transition to comprehensive, ecosystem-based management that is needed to address the challenges we face in an increasingly crowded coastal and marine environment.
We constructed a spatially explicit, coupled biological–economic model with eight hundred sixty-eight 2 × 2 km patches to estimate the spatial distribution and net present value (“value”) of four sectors in Massachusetts Bay in response to wind farm development. To keep the analysis tractable, yet realistic, we focused on two energy zones comprising 84 patches. The zones were designated by Massachusetts because they are good wind sites and have fewer potential conflicts with existing sectors than other possible locations (8). We considered the full range of potential development within the zones (i. e., 0–100% of patches), with up to eight wind turbines per patch depending on bottom type. These energy zones would still be regulated, even without MSP, and under those regulations, the energy sector is expected to strategically design its wind farm to maximize value to its sector. Accordingly, for each level of wind farm development, we modeled two forms of spatial planning: ( i ) single-sector, where energy development focused on the most profitable patches for maximizing the value of its sector ( SI Appendix , Fig. S3), and fishery and whale-watching sectors tried to maximize values of their own sectors in relation to the chosen wind farm design; and ( ii ) multisector, where the energy sector coordinated wind farm design with management of the other sectors to maximize the weighted sum of the values of the sectors, or joint value of the ecosystem. The former represents the expected best outcome without MSP; the latter represents the optimal outcome under ecosystem-based MSP. The best-case reference scenario is not guaranteed in practice in that management decisions may not be strategic for maximizing individual sector values. Consequently, this comparison provides a conservative estimate of gains from MSP. If single-sector management was less strategic or wind farm design further constrained by other regulations, one would expect larger gains from MSP than shown here.
We considered all major ecosystem and intra - and intersectoral dynamics relevant to the problem using the following assumptions (for full details are given in SI Appendix ). Because of cost constraints and impacts from construction noise (i. e., pile driving), wind farm development is limited to soft-bottom habitat. Turbine pylons effectively remove soft-bottom habitat and create a small amount of hard-bottom habitat. During wind farm construction, fishing is excluded from within safety zones (∼1/3-km radius) around each turbine, and, thus, direct benefits to fisheries are lost in those areas. After construction, mobile-gear fishing remains excluded from within each safety zone.
We linked these assumptions to the fishery sectors via spatially explicit, age-structured lobster and flounder population dynamic models. Population models were themselves integrated with limited-entry fishery fleet models emulative of commercial fisheries management and spatial fishing dynamics in Massachusetts. In the fleet model, each fishery (flounder, lobster) operated as a noncooperative group of fishermen, regulated in the aggregate by exogenously determined fishery rules defining a minimum fish size limit, spatial restrictions in relation to wind farm design, and a total allowable fishing effort level by the fleet. In turn, the fleet allocated fishing effort spatially to generate uniform payoff per unit effort across fished patches. Patch-specific annual payoff to each fishery was based on profits, calculated based on revenues from yields and market price, and costs in relation to fishing effort and fish stock density. We modeled both local (within-patch) and regional (Massachusetts Bay) dynamic processes to calculate the payoff of each fishery within the energy zones (Fig. 1).
We used patch-specific average annual densities of whale-watching tourism boats to calculate payoff in each patch to the whale-watching and conservation sectors. We assumed offshore areas of high use by whale-watching boats correspond with areas of higher whale density important not only for tourism but also for conservation. For this sector, annual payoff is lost near wind turbines during their construction because of the safety zones and noise disturbance that displace boats and whales, respectively. Fishery–whale interactions potentially further reduce payoff because of effects of the lobster fishery on whale mortality (via entanglement with trap lines) and densities (attributable to competition for herring prey that is used as lobster bait).
For the payoff of the energy sector, we estimated potential annual profit in each patch based on estimates of revenue from turbines, determined by number per patch, energy production per turbine, and market price for energy produced, and estimates of costs of turbine construction and maintenance.
For every wind farm design scenario considered, we estimated patch-specific equilibrium annual payoffs to each sector during the periods of wind farm construction and operation and then summed the annual payoffs of each sector across the 84 patches. We then appended the two periods to create a time series of the annual payoffs of each sector within the energy zones over the construction and operation of the wind farm. We amortized these time series with a 5% economic discount rate, then summed the discounted payoffs to estimate net present value to each sector over the planning horizon of the wind farm scenario, and calculated the percentage value by scaling the net present value of each sector relative to its maximum.
Agradecimentos.
We thank N. Napoli (SeaPlan) and L. Kaufmann (Boston University) for helping frame the MSP problem and for extensive feedback on our study. K. Lagueux and B. Wikgren (New England Aquarium) provided habitat maps. L. Hatch (Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary) provided whale-watching vessel traffic data. L. Jacobson and A. Johnson (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) assisted with fisheries and whale data, respectively. C. Clark (Cornell University) helped estimate turbine disturbance effects on whales. L. Incze (University of Southern Maine) advised on larval dispersal assumptions. At the University of California, Santa Barbara, K. Selkoe helped frame the study and A. Rassweiller and C. Costello provided technical model assistance. At the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), M. Raneletti gathered species demographic values and S. Walbridge provided assistance with geographic information system analysis. N. Baron (COMPASS), C. English (COMPASS), H. Galindo (COMPASS), E. Goldman (COMPASS), K. McLeod (COMPASS), and two anonymous reviewers all gave very helpful editorial comments. Funding was provided by SeaPlan (B. S.H., C. V.K., and C. W.), the Sustainable Fisheries Group (C. W.), and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation through a grant to NCEAS for ecosystem-based management (B. S.H.).
↵ 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: cwhite bren. ucsb. edu .
Author contributions: C. W., B. S.H., and C. V.K. designed research, performed research, contributed new reagents/analytic tools, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
Referências.
McLeod K , et al. ( 2005 ) Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management ( Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea , Washington, DC ), p 21 .
Douvere F , Ehler CN ( 2009 ) New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning . J Environ Manage 90 : 77 – 88 .
Leslie HM , McLeod KL ( 2007 ) Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based management . Front Ecol Environ 5 : 540 – 548 .
Lester SE , et al. ( 2012 ) Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning . Mar Policy , in press .
Wu JJ , Skelton-Groth K , Boggess WG , Adams RM ( 2003 ) Pacific salmon restoration: Trade-offs between economic efficiency and political acceptance . Contemp Econ Policy 21 : 78 – 89 .
Polasky S , et al. ( 2008 ) Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns . Biol Conserv 141 : 1505 – 1524 .
Firestone J , Kempton W ( 2007 ) Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors . Energy Policy 35 : 1584 – 1598 .
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ( 2009 ) Draft Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan ( Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts , Boston ), Vol 1 , pp 1 – 140 .
Ehler C , Douvere F ( 2009 ) Marine Spatial Planning: A step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management , (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme) IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6., Paris: UNESCO .
McLeod K , Leslie H ( 2009 ) Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans ( Island, WA ), p 368 .
Halpern B , et al. ( 2012 ) Near-term priorities for the science, policy and practice of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) Mar Policy 36 : 198 – 205 .
Olsson P , Folke C , Hughes TP ( 2008 ) Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105 : 9489 – 9494 .
Citation Manager Formats.
More Articles of This Classification.
Biological Sciences.
Sustainability Science.
Conteúdo Relacionado.
Artigos semelhantes.
You May Also be Interested in.
Sign up for Article Alerts.
Jump to section.
PNAS Portals.
Informações para.
Direitos autorais e cópia; Academia Nacional de Ciências de 2018.

Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital.
Edited by Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, and approved April 28, 2015 (received for review May 14, 2014)
Significado.
Adaptive governance (AG) has been suggested as a suitable approach for ecosystem management in changing environments. It rests on the assumption that landscapes and seascapes need to be understood and governed as complex social–ecological systems rather than as ecosystems alone. We compared three AG initiatives and their effects on natural capital and ecosystem services. In comparison with other efforts aimed at conservation and sustainable use of natural capital, adaptive governance developed capacity to manage multiple ecosystem services and respond to ecosystem-wide changes and enabled collaboration across diverse interests, sectors, and institutional arrangements. Internal and external pressures continuously challenge the adaptive capacity of the initiatives.
To gain insights into the effects of adaptive governance on natural capital, we compare three well-studied initiatives; a landscape in Southern Sweden, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, and fisheries in the Southern Ocean. We assess changes in natural capital and ecosystem services related to these social–ecological governance approaches to ecosystem management and investigate their capacity to respond to change and new challenges. The adaptive governance initiatives are compared with other efforts aimed at conservation and sustainable use of natural capital: Natura 2000 in Europe, lobster fisheries in the Gulf of Maine, North America, and fisheries in Europe. In contrast to these efforts, we found that the adaptive governance cases developed capacity to perform ecosystem management, manage multiple ecosystem services, and monitor, communicate, and respond to ecosystem-wide changes at landscape and seascape levels with visible effects on natural capital. They enabled actors to collaborate across diverse interests, sectors, and institutional arrangements and detect opportunities and problems as they developed while nurturing adaptive capacity to deal with them. They all spanned local to international levels of decision making, thus representing multilevel governance systems for managing natural capital. As with any governance system, internal changes and external drivers of global impacts and demands will continue to challenge the long-term success of such initiatives.
Nature’s capital generates essential ecosystem services for people. Providing knowledge and metrics of ecosystem services, their interactions, and how they are generated is crucial for ecosystem-based management of landscapes and seascapes (1 ⇓ –3). It is increasingly appreciated that, in a human-dominated world, ecosystem services are not generated by ecosystems alone, but by social–ecological systems (4, 5). Adaptive governance for ecosystem management employs a social–ecological systems approach (6). “Governance” is here defined as the structures and processes by which people in societies make decisions and share power, creating the conditions for ordered rule and collective action, or institutions of social coordination.
Adaptive governance refers to flexible and learning-based collaborations and decision-making processes involving both state and nonstate actors, often at multiple levels, with the aim to adaptively negotiate and coordinate management of social–ecological systems and ecosystem services across landscapes and seascapes (6 ⇓ –8). The collaboration involves building knowledge and understanding of ecosystem dynamics and services, feeding such knowledge into adaptive management practices, supporting flexible institutions and multilevel governance systems, and dealing with external perturbations, uncertainty, and surprise (6). Practices of natural capital management such as protected areas, environmental subsidies, quotas, or regulations (9) serve as part of the toolbox. Adaptive governance expands the measures available and provides the coordination and the context for choosing between tools, monitoring their effect, and adjusting them as the social–ecological system evolves.
Research on adaptive governance for management of ecosystems and their services in real social–ecological landscapes and seascapes has illuminated the intricate interplay, of individual actors, social networks, organizations, and institutions, that enables or hinders societies to nurture natural capital and implement ecosystem management (10 ⇓ –12). The limited, but rapidly growing, body of governance literature that explicitly addresses the capacity to manage ecosystems adaptively has recently been reviewed (8).
Here, we compare three well-studied empirical cases of adaptive governance, spanning local, national, and international regions: Kristianstads Vattenrike (Southern Sweden), the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), and fisheries in the Southern Ocean (International). First, we present the cases and compare the emergence of adaptive governance in the three regions. Then, we assess changes in natural capital and ecosystem services (cultural, supporting, regulating, and provisioning) in the landscapes and seascapes subject to adaptive governance. We also investigate the capacity of actors in these governance systems to respond to change and new challenges and to handle complexity. Finally, we discuss the cases and findings in relation to three other efforts aimed at conservation and sustainable use of natural capital: Natura 2000 in Europe, lobster fisheries in the Gulf of Maine, North America, and the Common Fisheries Policy in Europe. Methods are presented in SI Text .
The Three Cases.
The adaptive governance systems studied here represent transformations from uncoordinated or sector-based management to a broader ecosystem approach and have emerged independently from each other. They are founded on the notion that humans benefit from nature, that these benefits are generated by whole landscapes and seascapes rather than by individual resources, and that these landscapes and seascapes are shaped by human activities. They combine conservation and development, and, although the concept “ecosystem services” was not used in the early days of the initiatives (i. e., during the 1970s and 1980s), it has now become of regular use in their reports and management plans.
Kristianstads Vattenrike (KV) covers a river basin of 1,040 km 2 within one Swedish municipality (Table S1 and Fig. 1). Since 1989, the cultural landscapes of the area have been managed by a municipal organization in flexible, project-based collaborations with farmers, local steward associations, local entrepreneurs, the county board administration, and national and international actors (10, 13). The organization was established in response to environmental change (e. g., land abandonment, eutrophication, water pollution) to develop and promote conservation and sustainable use of ecological and cultural values of the region’s landscapes (13). The area was designated a biosphere reserve (BR) in 2005 by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (14). All categories of ecosystem services are generated in KV, from substantial amounts of agricultural food products to recreational, aesthetic, and educational services (Table S1) (15). Other services are the buffer against flooding provided by the wetlands and provision of habitats for more than 700 nationally red-listed species ( SI Text ).
Geographic location, size, and images of Southern Ocean, Kristianstads Vattenrike, and Great Barrier Reef.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBR), Australia, covers an area of 345,000 km 2 (Fig. 1) and contributes AU$5.7 billion annually to the Australian economy (16), with a major part from the tourism industry. The Australian federal government enacted the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act in 1975 in response to concerns about threats to the reef from oil drilling, mining, and unexplained outbreaks of coral-eating starfish (16). In 1981 the GBR region was declared a World Heritage Area (Table S1). The governance of GBR is a comanagement arrangement between the Federal State of Australia and the state of Queensland through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), established in 1976. In 1998, the GBRMPA initiated a major rezoning of the marine park called the Representative Areas Program (RAP) to systematically increase the conservation of biodiversity through a network of no-take areas representing different habitats. The RAP, adopted at the highest political level in Australia, was actively used to improve the governance of GBR (11). It was developed in response to the recognition of the need to maintain GBR’s resilience in the face of recurrent disturbances, like human pressures and the challenges of climate change. The GBR generates fish as well as recreational and educational services, attracts tourists, protects the coastline from erosion, and supports biodiversity (Table S1).
The Southern Ocean (SO) is a region of 20,327,000 km 2 covering the waters around the Antarctic continent, including several national territories and large areas beyond national jurisdiction (Fig. 1). Fisheries are monitored and managed by CCAMLR (Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources), a bridging organization connecting governments, environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), and the licensed fishing industry through Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO), acting as observers or members in national delegations (17). CCAMLR was established in 1982. Being responsible for the conservation of Antarctic marine ecosystems, CCAMLR practices an ecosystem-based management approach (ccamlr). CCAMLR manages, e. g., krill Euphausia superba , and Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus elegonoides (18). When the Toothfish fishery developed in the mid-1990s, it had very high levels of illegal fishing (18, 19). This situation represented a major challenge for CCAMLR and required substantial adaptive capacity to address because illegal operators continuously change their activities, vessel color, name, and flag to escape detection and enforcement (17, 20). Reducing illegal fishing has been critical to conserving Southern Ocean fish populations and globally threatened Antarctic seabirds of spiritual and symbolic value, which are caught as by-catch in fishing gear. Antarctic marine ecosystems hold a range of other regulating, supporting, and cultural services (21) (Table S1).
Development of Adaptive Governance.
In all three cases, the move to adaptive governance of whole landscapes and seascapes was triggered by an awakening crisis. In KV, deteriorating water quality hindered people from swimming in the lake, and encroachment of shrubs on grasslands led to decreasing bird populations and reduced options for recreation (10). In the GBR, the risks of climate change with severe coral bleaching events, combined with overfishing, and eutrophication with damaging outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish led to recognition of an iconic coral reef under severe stress (11). The projected collapse of valuable fish stocks and threatened seabirds in the SO, as a consequence of illegal fishing (22), threatened globally relevant values and thus the credibility of CCAMLR.
In each case, the awakening crises mobilized a few key individuals who built trust and knowledge, connected networks, and developed a systems vision combining conservation and development. In hindsight, this process could be described as a mental shift, a reframing of the human–nature relation. In KV, the key actors realized that the wetlands were a result of agricultural practices and that they provided a range of beneficial ecosystem services (10). In the GBR, key actors realized that the reef was not as pristine and resilient as previously believed (11). In the SO, key actors realized that illegal catches dominated the fisheries and that licensed fisheries, conservation activists, and governments had a shared interest in prohibiting illegal fisheries and the erosion of multiple values of the seascape (17).
For this initial awakening and reframing among individuals to spread, we find umbrella concepts crucial in all three cases. In KV, the concept of Ecomuseum Kristianstads Vattenrike (Water Realm) brought five sectors together, including education, cultural (i. e., agricultural) heritage, nature conservation, tourism, and research (10). GBRMPA produced a “reef under pressure” information campaign to raise awareness of the situation and build support across stakeholders and sectors for the rezoning (11). In the SO, a small number of individuals started the new organization the International Southern Oceans Longline Fisheries Information Clearing House (ISOFISH) to reduce illegal fishing (12, 23) and later the fishing industry in CCAMLR developed the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO) with the same purpose (12). These actors carried out substantial investigations of illegal fishing and helped reframe the issue as transnational, organized crime (24), and gained political support. A broad mobilization of ecological knowledge and ongoing activities took place in all cases, connecting previously disconnected actors, such as farmers and conservationists in KV (10), and fishermen, scientists, tourism, and conservation organizations in GBR and the SO (12, 25). Scientific knowledge and scientists played important roles in each case.
There also seems to be alignment with regard to the need for a bridging organization that connects scales to take each initiative forward (13). In KV, a new organization was formed when opportunities coincided, i. e., when the local idea of an Ecomuseum met the municipal need for a new profile at a time when environmental issues were high on the political agenda. In the GBR, the GBRMPA was radically restructured during the rezoning process into a bridging organization that mobilized actors and user groups of concern, building trust and gaining support for an emergency plan to save the reefs (11). In the SO, the mentioned initiatives became truly effective when connected to the existing bridging organization: the CCAMLR secretariat (12).
Effects on Natural Capital.
In Kristianstads Vattenrike, the area of wetlands and sandy grasslands under active management (grazing and mowing) has increased (from 1,222 ha in 1989 to 1,660 ha in 2008 for wet grasslands) ( SI Text ). Restoration of wetlands, sandy grasslands, and aquatic habitats contributes to all four categories of ecosystem services, including nutrient cycling, flood protection, aesthetic values, and habitats for associated organisms ( SI Text ). The visitors center Naturum was built in 2010 as an entrance to the biosphere reserve, attracting around 110,000 visitors per year. The Biosphere Office has enhanced access to the wetland areas, supporting recreational and educational services, and the area of nature reserves has also increased ( SI Text ). Wading bird populations increased between 1990 and 1997, but some species have decreased between 1997 and 2009 ( SI Text ). Suggested reasons include deterioration of nesting grounds by geese grazing, increased predation by fox and birds of prey, and less spring rainfall, reducing the life span of wet ponds ( SI Text ). In 2007, farmers of wet grasslands experienced a prolonged flooding, leaving the fields covered in brown sludge (26). The sludge made the grass unfeasible for grazing and mowing, thereby affecting provisioning services negatively that year and nesting of wading birds the following year. The reasons for the so-called brownification of water are still unclear and cannot be combated by local responses only because this trend prevailed across all of Southern Sweden (27).
In the Great Barrier Reef, the 2004 rezoning that increased nontake areas (NTA) from 5% to 33% was accompanied by changes in fisheries management and new monitoring programs. McCook et al. (28) summarized the major effects of the changes on biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, and social and economic values of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Russ et al. (29) showed that the abundance and size of fish increased as a result of establishing NTA. The NTA also seemed to have decreased the frequency of outbreaks of the coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish, Acanthaster planci (29, 30), although outbreaks remain a problem in the GBR as a whole (31). There is evidence that larval export from marine reserves helped replenish fish populations on both reserves and fished reefs and supports connectivity within the network of marine reserves (32). NTAs may be important in providing postdisturbance refuges to climate disturbances for spawning stocks, which may be critical to regional-scale population persistence and recovery (31, 33).
However, it seems that the rezoning and the network of NTAs have not been sufficient to curb the reduction in hard coral cover of the GBR. Large-scale disturbances, especially tropical storms, coral bleaching events, and starfish outbreaks, seem to be the major reasons for the continued decline (31, 33). These disturbances are interacting with anthropogenic drivers like rising seawater temperatures and ocean acidification, water pollution from terrestrial runoff, and dredging and fossil fuel use (34). There are major concerns to what extent the governance system will be able to deal with the increasing pressures on the reef (35). The limited success and progress in the GBR have caused UNESCO to discuss including the GBR on the List of World Heritage in Danger (36).
In Southern Ocean, quotas are substantially higher for the licensed industry because illegal fishing has been reduced (17). Given the limited knowledge about fish stocks dynamics in these remote areas, scientists have been unable to establish the effects on fish stocks from a reduction of illegal fishing. However, the reduction of illegal longline fishing has substantially reduced the mortalities of seabirds, with a direct positive effect on the population numbers of globally important black-browed ( Thalassarche melanophrys ) and gray-headed ( Thalassarche chrysostoma ) albatrosses (37).
Capacity to Deal with New Challenges.
In Kristianstads Vattenrike, the decline in wading bird populations was identified by the annual nesting bird inventories conducted by bird watchers and biosphere office employees. In response, the biosphere office raised funds and mobilized their networks to identify causes and potential responses, through expert workshops, university research, and experimentation ( SI Text ). The brownification of the water sparked several initiatives led by the biosphere reserve office, including fund raising to assess drivers behind deteriorating water quality, mapping effects on ecosystem services, actors being involved in management and use of these services, and conducting a resilience assessment of the drainage basin of the River Helgeå ( SI Text ). The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management have substantially increased their funding to improve regional water quality, mainly through wetland restoration, an investment in natural capital influenced by KVs efforts to put brownification on the national agenda ( SI Text ).
The initial focus in 1989 on restoring wet grasslands has expanded to include 10 landscape themes, including sandy grasslands, coastal areas, and ground water, all combining the three biosphere reserve functions of conservation, development, and learning. A number of projects are underway in all of the themes, including restoration of habitats, inventories of species and management practices, facilitating dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders, improving access to recreational ecosystem services, and providing educational support ( SI Text ). The adaptive governance network is in the process of expanding collaboration with upstream actors, drawing on national and international levels of decision making and support.
During the rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef in 2001, GBRMPA approached the Australian Government about the increasingly poor water quality of the GBR and the necessity to address up-stream issues and land-based activities (38). This information triggered collaboration with the Queensland Government, with jurisdiction of the watershed, and the production of the “Reef Water Quality” report in 2003. Comanagement and adaptive governance arrangements developed, involving a range of stakeholders, to achieve substantial change in anthropogenic nutrient, sediment, and pesticide runoff. The GBRMPA is one of eight organizations involved in an intergovernmental committee overseeing the operational implementation of reef plans in collaboration with other actors, such as farmers and conservation organizations. There are several achievements, including the implementation of the AU$9 million-a-year Paddock to Reef program, which is an innovative approach to integrating monitoring and modeling at paddock (pasture), catchment, and seascape scales.
Despite these efforts, nutrient runoff and water quality are still major issues in GBR (39). The ability to manage land–sea interactions is a critical challenge for the adaptive governance initiative, including the GBRMPA and the Queensland Government. Pressures from port development, dredging, and other land-based activities are challenging the GBR. Scientists stress that dealing with these local and regional pressures is of crucial importance to strengthen the resilience of the GBR social–ecological system to large-scale drivers like climate change-induced heat stress and intensifying tropical storms (31, 40). Resilience assessment and capacity-building workshops that included managers, scientists, local community members, and other stakeholders have been used to identify management responses to climate change (41).
In Southern Ocean, initial collaboration between governments, environmental NGOs, and the fishing industry to reduce illegal fishing built important trust and collaboration between individuals and networks and generated substantial positive results. The diverse stakeholders benefited from reducing illegal fishing (e. g., reducing pressure on commercially valuable fish stocks, conserving globally threatened seabirds, and ensuring the integrity of national marine borders). Recent discussions in CCAMLR have focused on setting aside large areas in the SO (e. g., the Ross Sea) as protected. This issue has been politically contentious, in part driven by environmental NGOs and with potentially substantial effects on commercial (licensed) fishing activities (42).
Discussão.
There is a need to champion approaches to governance capable of supporting ecosystem management in a manner both flexible enough to address highly contextualized social–ecological issues and responsive enough to adjust to complex, unpredictable feedbacks between social and ecological system components (8, 43 ⇓ –45). The real-world cases of adaptive governance presented here shared three such approaches. First, they built system-wide knowledge and awareness of ecological dynamics, providing an improved foundation for actors to respond in an informed manner. Second, they enabled coordination, negotiation, and collaboration across whole landscapes and seascapes, across sectors, and across institutional levels, allowing issues to be addressed in a holistic manner at the appropriate scale. Third, by drawing on the diverse competences of state and nonstate actors, they used a number of informal means of governance beyond incentives and regulations applied by governments. In the following, we will discuss the usefulness of these approaches through a comparison with three other multilevel governance efforts aimed at conservation and sustainable use of natural capital: Natura 2000 in Europe, lobster fisheries in the Gulf of Maine, North America, and the Common Fisheries Policy in Europe.
Illuminating Contrasts.
The Natura 2000 is one of the European Union’s (EU’s) most important instruments for biodiversity conservation (46) and one of the most ambitious supranational initiatives for nature conservation world-wide (47). Initiated in the mid 1990s, its aim was to create a coherent network of different habitat types, with a view to establishing a solid ecological foundation at the European level for sustainable development. Local administrations were tasked with identifying suitable sites covering at least 10% of national territory, based on lists of threatened species and habitats, and within a very short time frame (48). In numerous cases, implementation of the directive caused conflicts with landowners and users of nature, such as hunters, fishermen, and farmers, who felt excluded from the planning process. Reports from France, Poland, Greece, Germany, and Finland (46, 49 ⇓ ⇓ –52) show that the lack of genuine stakeholder participation and the narrow focus on biodiversity protection reduced local acceptance and engagement and caused delays and difficulties in implementation. In some cases, landowners destroyed conservation values of their land to avoid the new enforced layer of protection, and, in Karvia (Finland), landowners went on a hunger strike in protest (52). What made sense at the European level and from a biodiversity conservation point-of-view was met by resistance at the local level and by other sectors of society, and there was limited capacity to adapt the process to accommodate their perspectives and solve the conflicts.
In contrast to the tensions created by the Natura 2000 implementation, KV succeeded in bringing stakeholders to the table early on and drew on both scientific and local knowledge. The initiative connected local action with regional and global institutions, identified and acted on synergies between conservation and development in the broader landscape and across sectors, and built social–ecological capacity to monitor and respond to changes in natural capital.
The Maine lobster fishery is an example of successful collective action and multilevel governance connected to global markets. In contrast to earlier fishing activities, the lobster population has not been overexploited. The fishers, whose conservation ethic is aligned with maintaining lobster abundance, have worked collectively to minimize illegal actions and preserve reproductive lobster populations through close monitoring (53). However, shifting focus from one resource or resource system to the broader ecosystem dynamics, it seems like centuries of intense fishing in the Gulf of Maine have reduced lobster predators like cod and haddock to such an extent that their role in regulating lobster populations has been lost. As a consequence, the lobster population has become a widespread monoculture. Simplified ecosystems, like monocultures, are vulnerable to disturbance. In New England, south of Maine, there has been >70% decline in lobster abundance due to a lethal shell disease related to increases in ocean temperature (54).
In contrast to the single-species focus in Maine, adaptive governance of the GBR expanded beyond single-species and coral reefs alone to over 70 habitat types and interactions across sectors. Recognizing that GBR generates multiple ecosystem services for multiple beneficiaries, GBRMPA involved diverse user groups and stakeholders, from local to national levels, in conservation for development of the whole seascape.
In the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the European Council of Ministers decide on fishing quotas around all European Seas, based on scientific advice and political priorities, through a species-by-species approach. However, scientific advice has limited influence on the political negotiations of quotas, and the centralized top-down approach leaves little room for stakeholders to contribute to monitoring and enforcement (55, 56). Consequently, fish stocks have been substantially reduced due to ecosystem change, the legitimacy of scientific advice and political decisions is limited, and noncompliance has been problematic (56). The outcomes of the 2013 reform of this policy toward more adaptive ecosystem-based approaches are as yet unclear.
In the Southern Ocean, in contrast to the CFP’s top-down species-by-species approach with weak compliance, scientific advice actively took into consideration the effects of fisheries on dependent species (18). Clear decision rules that relate the quota for the licensed fishery to the level of illegal fishing provided direct incentives for the industry to engage in monitoring and enforcement (17). A scientifically legitimate estimate of the imminent collapse of seabirds and fish stocks, combined with a high level of trust between actors, mobilized critical monitoring at sea and investigations with direct implications for CCAMLR. In addition to informal policy tools (naming and shaming strategies), both environmental NGOs and the fishing industry, through their active engagement within and beyond CCAMLR, contributed substantially with developing innovations in policy tools, including a black list for illegal vessels (17). These actors also contributed key information in investigations, leading to convictions and sentencing of illegal fishing operators and thus provided critically needed resources and competence that governments were unable to provide (25, 57). These actors are perceived by other actors as critical to the effectiveness of CCAMLR (25), in part due to their complementary capacity and resources and their ability to improve the adaptive capacity of CCAMLR (57).
To summarize, the case of Maine illustrates the importance of building system-wide knowledge and awareness of ecological dynamics, the case of Natura 2000 emphasizes the importance of enabling coordination, negotiation, and collaboration across sectors and institutional levels, and the case of CFP highlights the usefulness of drawing on informal means of governance to ensure compliance and the importance of legitimacy. The three adaptive governance cases continuously built capacity to monitor, learn, communicate, and respond to ecosystem-wide changes. They explicitly used ecosystem services and multiple beneficiaries as part of the governance approach. Furthermore, they developed system-wide capacities to mobilize and act in the face of changing conditions, conflicts, and unexpected events. As illustrated by the comparisons, it is unlikely that holistic, systemic knowledge, about the social–ecological systems in focus and the potential for action from on the ground to the multiple levels of governance, will emerge in sector-based resource management, where knowledge and action tend to be produced in silos (58 ⇓ –60). Single NGOs or government-appointed regulatory bodies might respond as fast or faster to anticipated events, such as a forest fire, or an incremental decrease in lobster populations, but would seldom have the capacity to use coordinated ecosystem-based management across the landscape or seascape in the face of unexpected change.
So, what can be said about the visible effects of adaptive governance on natural capital? In KV, without the platform for collaboration between farmers and conservationists, many of the areas now under active management would have been abandoned or used for urban expansion. Without the mobilization of experts and managers to detect, make sense of, and respond to brownification, investments by national government authorities in upstream land management for improved water quality would have been less likely. Access to educational and recreational experiences would have been lower without the outdoor museum and Naturum, direct results of the work of KV. In GBR, the rezoning would not have happened without the GBRMPA. As a result, nontake areas have increased, with positive effects on fish populations, but the rezoning has not been sufficient to curb the reduction in hard coral cover. In the SO, the successes in curbing overfishing would have been impossible without the monitoring, policy development, and investigative capacity of nonstate actors (17).
The Stewardship Challenge.
The three initiatives can be described as early movers and motivators that have inspired followers and influenced policy in several parts of the world ( SI Text ). However, the strategies used to initiate, coordinate, and maintain adaptive governance need to resonate with the individuals, organizations, and institutions in place. The initiation of adaptive governance often involves a major shift in perceptions and procedures, as well as alignment between actors and opportunity contexts (61). In the three cases of adaptive governance, we found an interplay between key actors or policy entrepreneurs working actively to reframe perceptions of the stewardship challenge, existing or emerging bridging organizations to channel resources, gather knowledge, mobilize action, and make collaboration possible, and the linking and development of social–ecological networks and institutions across multiple levels (from local to international) engaging with and supporting the initiative. In other words, the three cases used ecosystem management of landscapes and seascapes, allowed for negotiation and coordination between multiple ecosystem services and multiple interests across multiple levels and were adaptive, were learning-based, and developed with change. These features together are central in adaptive governance of social–ecological systems and ecosystem services.
The flexible nature of adaptive governance structures may challenge accountability (14). All our cases have developed with democracies and high-income countries involved and in situations where policy tends to leave room for and support innovation and bottom-up initiatives for ecosystem management. It is valid to ask whether adaptive governance would be possible without such a context.
Adaptive governance faces the same challenges as all attempts to manage natural capital in the Anthropocene. Today’s connectivity and speed and scale of human action require constant navigating of the larger environment (10, 62). The question remains whether adaptive governance, which largely builds on human relationships and trust, is able to respond to large-scale intensifying drivers and interests. For example, in the KV, the bridging organization now needs to extend collaborations to a diverse set of state and nonstate actors upstream and downstream, and, in GBR, to strengthen the resilience of the reef, GBRMPA will have to successfully deal with and navigate national and international interests and pressures, like dumping of dredge spoil or climate change policies (34). In the SO, the challenge of CCAMLR is to move from the win–win situation of curbing illegal fisheries to negotiating trade-offs between fisheries and conservation, like the attempts to define international no-take areas as part of its ecosystem-based management mandate.
In other words, adaptive governance will always involve a continuous learning process, nurturing of trust, reflection of procedures and structures, and developing collaboration toward common goals. These initiatives are continuously subject to new challenges, whether political, environmental, and economic, and the jury is still out as to what extent the three cases in focus here will be resilient enough to handle such changes for improved stewardship of natural capital in dynamic landscapes and seascapes.
Agradecimentos.
This work was supported by Ebba och Sven Schwartz Stiftelse, Kjell och Märta Beijer Stiftelse, the Baltic Ecosystem Adaptive Management Program, the Nippon Foundation through the Nereus Program, and a core grant to the Stockholm Resilience Centre by Mistra.
↵ 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: lisen. schultz su. se .
Author contributions: L. S., C. F., H. Ö., and P. O. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Referências.
Jansson A , Hammer M , Folke C , Costanza R ( 1994 ) Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability ( Island Press , Washington, DC )
Kareiva P , Tallis H , Ricketts TH , Daily GC , Polasky S ( 2011 ) Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services ( Oxford Univ Press , Oxford )
Goldstein JH , et al. ( 2012 ) Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 ( 19 ): 7565 – 7570.
Reyers B , et al. ( 2013 ) Getting the measure of ecosystem services: A social-ecological approach . Front Ecol Environ 11 ( 5 ): 268 – 273.
Levin S , et al. ( 2013 ) Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Modeling and policy implications . Environ Dev Econ 18 ( 2 ): 111 – 132.
Folke C , Hahn T , Olsson P , Norberg J ( 2005 ) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems . Annu Rev Environ Resour 30 ( 1 ): 441 – 473.
Pahl-Wostl C , et al. ( 2007 ) Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning . Ecol Soc 12 ( 2 ): 30.
Chaffin BC , Gosnell H , Cosens BA ( 2014 ) A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions . Ecol Soc 19 ( 3 ): 56.
Liu J , Li S , Ouyang Z , Tam C , Chen X ( 2008 ) Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105 ( 28 ): 9477 – 9482.
Olsson P , Folke C , Hahn T ( 2004 ) Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden . Ecol Soc 9 ( 4 ): 2.
Olsson P , Folke C , Hughes TP ( 2008 ) Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105 ( 28 ): 9489 – 9494.
Österblom H , Folke C ( 2013 ) Emergence of global adaptive governance for stewardship of regional marine resources . Ecol Soc 18 ( 2 ): 4.
Hahn T , Olsson P , Folke C , Johansson K ( 2006 ) Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: The role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden . Hum Ecol 34 ( 4 ): 573 – 592.
Hahn T ( 2011 ) Self-organized governance networks for ecosystem management: Who is accountable? Ecol Soc 16 ( 2 ): 18.
Schultz L , Folke C , Olsson P ( 2007 ) Enhancing ecosystem management through social-ecological inventories: Lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden . Environ Conserv 34 ( 2 ): 140 – 152.
Deloitte Access Economics ( 2013 ) Economic Contribution of the Great Barrier Reef (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, QLD, Australia)
Österblom H , Sumaila UR ( 2011 ) Toothfish crises, actor diversity and the emergence of compliance mechanisms in the Southern Ocean . Glob Environ Change 21 ( 3 ): 972 – 982.
Constable AJ , De LaMare WK , Agnew DJ , Everson I , Miller D ( 2000 ) Managing fisheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: Practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) . ICES J Mar Sci 57 ( 3 ): 778 – 791.
Agnew DJ ( 2000 ) The illegal and unregulated fishery for toothfish in the southern Ocean, and the CCAMLR catch documentation scheme . Mar Policy 24 ( 5 ): 361 – 374.
Österblom H , Sumaila UR , Bodin O , Hentati Sundberg J , Press AJ ( 2010 ) Adapting to regional enforcement: Fishing down the governance index . PLoS ONE 5 ( 9 ): e12832.
Grant SM , Hill SL , Trathan PN , Murphy EJ ( 2013 ) Ecosystem services of the Southern Ocean: Trade-offs in decision-making . Antarct Sci 25 ( 5 ): 603 – 617.
SC-CCAMLR ( 2002 ) Report of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Scientific Committee of the CCAMLR (SC-CCAMLR, Hobart, TAS, Australia)
Fallon LD , Kriwoken LK ( 2004 ) International influence of an Australian nongovernment organization in the protection of Patagonian toothfish . Ocean Dev Int Law 35 ( 3 ): 221 – 226.
Österblom H , Constable A , Fukumi S ( 2011 ) Illegal fishing and the organized crime analogy . Trends Ecol Evol 26 ( 6 ): 261 – 262.
Österblom H , Bodin Ö ( 2012 ) Global cooperation among diverse organizations to reduce illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean . Conserv Biol 26 ( 4 ): 638 – 648.
Tuvendal M , Elmqvist T ( 2011 ) Ecosystem services linking social and ecological systems: River brownification and the response of downstream stakeholders . Ecol Soc 16 ( 4 ): 21.
Kaién V ( 2007 ) Analysing Temporal and Spatial Variations in DOC Concentrations in Scanian Lakes and Streams, Using GIS and Remote Sensing ( Geobiosphere Science Centre , Lund, Sweden )
McCook LJ , et al. ( 2010 ) Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: A globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107 ( 43 ): 18278 – 18285.
Russ GR , et al. ( 2008 ) Rapid increase in fish numbers follows creation of world’s largest marine reserve network . Curr Biol 18 ( 12 ): R514 – R515.
Williamson DH , Ceccarelli DM , Evans RD , Jones GP , Russ GR ( 2014 ) Habitat dynamics, marine reserve status, and the decline and recovery of coral reef fish communities . Ecol Evol 4 ( 4 ): 337 – 354.
De’ath G , Fabricius KE , Sweatman H , Puotinen M ( 2012 ) The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 ( 44 ): 17995 – 17999.
Harrison HB , et al. ( 2012 ) Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries . Curr Biol 22 ( 11 ): 1023 – 1028.
Hughes TP , et al. ( 2011 ) Shifting base-lines, declining coral cover, and the erosion of reef resilience: Comment on Sweatman et al. (2011) . Coral Reefs 30 : 653 – 660.
Hughes TP , Day JC , Brodie J ( 2015 ) Securing the future of the Great Barrier Reef. Nat Clim Chang , 10.1038/nclimate2604.
Evans LS , Hicks CC , Fidelman P , Tobin RC , Perry AL ( 2013 ) Future scenarios as a research tool: Investigating climate change impacts, adaptation options and outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia . Hum Ecol Interdiscip J 41 : 841 – 857.
Day J , Dobbs K ( 2013 ) Effective governance of a large and complex cross-jurisdictional marine protected area . Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Policy 41 : 14 – 24.
Robertson G , et al. ( 2014 ) Black-browed albatross numbers in Chile increase in response to reduced mortality in fisheries . Biol Conserv 169 : 319 – 333.
Brodie J , Waterhouse J ( 2012 ) A critical review of environmental management of the 'not so Great' Barrier Reef . Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 104-105 : 1 – 22.
Graham NAJ , et al. ( 2013 ) Managing resilience to reverse phase shifts in coral reefs . Front Ecol Environ 11 : 541 – 548.
Maynard JA , Marshall PA , Johnson JE , Harman S ( 2010 ) Building resilience into practical conservation: Identifying local management responses to global climate change in the southern Great Barrier Reef . Coral Reefs 29 ( 2 ): 381 – 391.
Brooks CM ( 2013 ) Competing values on the Antarctic high seas: CCAMLR and the challenge of marine-protected areas . The Polar Journal 3 ( 2 ): 277 – 300.
Chapin FS , et al. ( 2010 ) Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet . Trends Ecol Evol 25 ( 4 ): 241 – 249.
Carpenter SR , et al. ( 2012 ) Program on ecosystem change and society: An international research strategy for integrated social-ecological systems . Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4 ( 1 ): 134 – 138.
Scheffer M , et al. ( 2015) (2015 ) Climate and conservation: Creating a safe operating space for iconic ecosystems . Science 347 ( 6228 ): 1317 – 1319.
Unnerstall H ( 2008 ) Public participation in the establishment and management of the Natura 2000 network: Legal framework and administrative practices in selected member states. UFZ Discussion Papers (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS), Leipzig, Germany)
Weber N , Christophersen T ( 2002 ) The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process . For Policy Econ 4 ( 1 ): 1 – 12.
Rauschmayer F , van den Hove S , Koetz T ( 2009 ) Participation in EU biodiversity governance: How far beyond rhetoric? Environ Plann C Gov Policy 27 ( 1 ): 42 – 58.
Alphandéry P , Fortier A ( 2001 ) Can a territorial policy be based on science alone? The system for creating the Natura 2000 network in France . Sociol Ruralis 41 ( 3 ): 311 – 328.
Grodzińska-Jurczak M , Cent J ( 2011 ) Can public participation increase nature conservation effectiveness? Innovation (Abingdon) 24 ( 3 ): 371 – 378.
Apostolopoulou E , Pantis JD ( 2009 ) Conceptual gaps in the national strategy for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece . Biol Conserv 142 ( 1 ): 221 – 237.
Hiedenpää J ( 2002 ) European-wide conservation versus local well-being: The reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Kavia, SW-Finland . Landsc Urban Plan 61 : 113 – 123.
Acheson JM ( 2003 ) Capturing the Commons: Devising Institutions to Manage the Maine Lobster Industry ( Univ Press of New England , Lebanon, NH )
Steneck RS , et al. ( 2011 ) Creation of a gilded trap by the high economic value of the Maine lobster fishery . Conserv Biol 25 ( 5 ): 904 – 912.
Daw T , Gray T ( 2005 ) Fisheries science and sustainability in international policy: A study of failure in the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy . Mar Policy 29 ( 3 ): 189 – 197.
Österblom H , et al. ( 2011 ) Incentives, social-ecological feedbacks and European fisheries . Mar Policy 35 ( 5 ): 568 – 574.
Bodin Ö , Österblom H ( 2013 ) International fisheries regime effectiveness: Activities and resources of key actors in the Southern Ocean . Glob Environ Change 23 ( 5 ): 948 – 956.
Cumming GS , Cumming DHM , Redman CL ( 2006 ) Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions . Ecol Soc 11 ( 1 ): 14.
Lemos MC, Agrawal A ( 2006 ) Environmental governance . Annu Rev Environ Resour 31 : 297 – 325.
Lebel L , et al. ( 2006 ) Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems . Ecol Soc 11 ( 1 ): 19.
Westley FR , et al. ( 2013 ) A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems . Ecol Soc 18 ( 3 ): 27.
Folke C , et al. ( 2011 ) Reconnecting to the biosphere . Ambio 40 ( 7 ): 719 – 738.
Citation Manager Formats.
More Articles of This Classification.
Social Sciences.
Sustainability Science.
Biological Sciences.
Conteúdo Relacionado.
Artigos semelhantes.
You May Also be Interested in.
Sign up for Article Alerts.
Jump to section.
PNAS Portals.
Informações para.
Direitos autorais e cópia; Academia Nacional de Ciências de 2018.

Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: a useful way to manage and conserve marine resources?
Valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) is widely recognized as a useful, though often controversial, approach to conservation and management. However, its use in the marine environment, hence evidence of its efficacy, lags behind that in terrestrial ecosystems. This largely reflects key challenges to marine conservation and management such as the practical difficulties in studying the ocean, complex governance issues and the historically-rooted separation of biodiversity conservation and resource management. Given these challenges together with the accelerating loss of marine biodiversity (and threats to the ES that this biodiversity supports), we ask whether valuation efforts for marine ecosystems are appropriate and effective. We compare three contrasting systems: the tropical Pacific, Southern Ocean and UK coastal seas. In doing so, we reveal a diversity in valuation approaches with different rates of progress and success. We also find a tendency to focus on specific ES (often the harvested species) rather than biodiversity. In light of our findings, we present a new conceptual view of valuation that should ideally be considered in decision-making. Accounting for the critical relationships between biodiversity and ES, together with an understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning, will enable the wider implications of marine conservation and management decisions to be evaluated. We recommend embedding valuation within existing management structures, rather than treating it as an alternative or additional mechanism. However, we caution that its uptake and efficacy will be compromised without the ability to develop and share best practice across regions.
1. Introdução.
Approaches to biodiversity conservation based on the notion that nature provides for humans have become increasingly popular in recent years, and notably so since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [1]. The value of natural ecosystems to humans is now commonly described using the ecosystem services (ES) concept, where ES are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being [2,3], and value may be expressed in a range of monetary and non-monetary units, or qualitatively [4]. Despite widespread acceptance and use of valuation and the ES concept, including its uptake by prominent international conservation agreements and bodies, it continues to spark controversy. Much of the ongoing debate is centred on how we place a value on different ES. However, the relationship between ES and the biodiversity underpinning them is also a source of confusion in this field [4].
This paper focuses on the growing interest in valuation of marine biodiversity and ES [5,6]. Humans rely on the ocean for food and biotechnological products, for its vital role in global processes such as nutrient cycling and climate regulation, for its contribution to health and well-being from the leisure and recreation opportunities it provides, as well as for income from activities such as tourism [7,8]. The economic value of coastal and oceanic environments based on tangible outputs such as fisheries production, shipping traffic and carbon absorption was recently calculated at US$2.5 trillion each year with the overall value of the ocean estimated as an asset 10 times this figure [9].
Despite its recognized value to humans, the marine environment is facing increasing anthropogenic pressures from resource exploitation, habitat destruction, pollution and the effects of climate change, with associated widespread declines in biodiversity and threats to key ES [10,11]. Although these threats and declines are widely acknowledged, the ocean presents major challenges for its conservation and management [7,12]. Domestic marine conservation and management measures are essential but marine ecosystems are often trans-boundary, and 60% of the ocean comprises ‘high seas’ and deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction. However, effective international initiatives and regulations are notoriously difficult to implement. Additional complexities are introduced by different geo-political environments, each with their own objectives, organizational structures and frameworks [13].
Historically, efforts focused separately on traditional fisheries management or on biodiversity conservation [14]. Since the 1970s with the emergence of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) [15], these pathways have increasingly converged . A significant outcome of this shift has been widespread commitment to the ‘ecosystem-based management’ (EBM) approach. This attempts to balance the benefits that people obtain from the ocean against the productivity, health and resilience of its ecosystems [16]. However, full implementation of EBM for marine systems has yet to be achieved [17].
These challenges are exacerbated by substantial practical difficulties in studying the marine environment and associated sampling biases towards certain systems, regions and taxa, which combine to make lack of data and uncertainty key issues [18]. The high levels of connectivity of marine processes, often across vast scales, also brings challenges. For example, fish spawning and nursery grounds are often geographically separated from where adult fishes are later caught by fisheries . These issues have ramifications for understanding and addressing the interacting effects of anthropogenic multi-stressors [19], but also for understanding the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF). Given the multiple links between BEF and the ES they provide, understanding these relationships is critical for the ES approach and, therefore, for attempts at valuation [4,20–22].
Although interest continues to grow in the use of valuation for the marine environment [5,6,9,23], evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. Given the enormity of the challenges, the urgent need to address them and the scarcity of resources and capacity to dedicate to this, we ask if a valuation approach is appropriate and effective for marine conservation and management.
To begin to address these questions we synthesize and compare the relative merits of adopting a valuation approach in three contrasting ecosystems: the Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs), Southern Ocean and UK coastal seas. Marine ecosystems are of paramount importance to the food security, health and livelihoods of PICT populations [24] and are characterized by a high degree of diversity and endemism. The region supports large offshore industrial tuna fisheries as well as important coastal fisheries. Other threats include climate-induced changes [25,26]. By contrast, the Southern Ocean has no local beneficiaries and supports unique biodiversity in a highly seasonal extreme environment that is experiencing rapid climate change [27]. Although past harvesting was intensive and unregulated, current fisheries are managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Resources (CCAMLR). UK coastal seas support a high diversity of species of both national and international importance. Fisheries and aquaculture are important sectors in the economy, however, the UK also places value on its other marine ES and has pioneered much of the research in this field [28].
These three regions differ in terms of the benefits they provide to humans, the threats they are experiencing and how they are managed. As such they provide useful contrasting case studies from which to begin to explore the current state of knowledge on the use and efficacy of valuation of biodiversity and ES in marine ecosystems.
2. Case studies.
Further details on each case study can be found in the electronic supplementary material, table S1.
(a) Pacific Island Countries and Territories.
(i) Value of marine ecosystems.
The cultures, nutrition and economic development of the PICTs, the 22 island countries and territories within the western and central Pacific region between 25°N and 25°S, are intricately linked to its marine ecosystems. The region has considerable unique biodiversity, in part, owing to its geographical isolation. Coral reefs are integral to PICT livelihoods but there are also large numbers of reefs remote from human pressures; these remain among the best preserved reefs in the world [29]. In addition to providing important habitats, the reefs, sea grass beds and mangroves afford vital coastal protection . Although much of the open ocean is relatively unproductive [30], it supports some of the world's largest tuna fisheries [31]. Seamounts are offshore biodiversity hotspots, key for provisioning and other ES [32]. The region's renowned biodiversity attracts tourists, providing important revenue and employment opportunities [33].
The PICTs have among the highest per capita consumption of fisheries products in the world. Marine resources represent 50–94% of animal protein in the diet of coastal and urban communities. Much of that comes from inshore fisheries, while offshore tuna fisheries provide 60% of the world's tuna [34]. The fisheries have substantial monetary value (including licensing access of foreign tuna vessels which can provide up to 50% of government revenue) and provide vital employment [35,36].
(ii) Main threats.
Inshore resources are under pressure owing to increasing population densities [37,38]. Offshore resources face growing fishing pressure through recent increases in vessel numbers and improving technology [34]. Habitat loss from development contributes to reduced natural shoreline protection from mangroves and coral reefs [39]. Coastal erosion is one of the most serious consequences of beach mining, reef blasting and near shore dredging. Other threats include climate change-induced sea-level rise for low-lying atolls [25,26] and increasing tropical cyclone intensity and frequency [40] that may result in population displacement, inshore habitat damage and impacts on national productivity.
(iii) Conservation and management.
Offshore tuna fisheries fall under the purview of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) as well as national processes (see the electronic supplementary material, table S1). The focus is on tuna as the key resource; requirements to conserve biodiversity are a related but separate consideration. Until recently, WCPFC used maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (the theoretical largest amount of catch that can be taken indefinitely from a fish stock) benchmarks to evaluate stock status. However, the importance of tuna for PICTs drove WCPFC proposals to develop more conservative ‘target reference points’ [41]. A key step has been the valuation of target tuna stocks to highlight their direct and indirect monetary value, and the trade-offs involved in management decisions [42,43]. These valuations are combined with consideration of other economic, social and ecosystem objectives. For example, the agreed target reference point for skipjack tuna, which represents around 70% of tuna catches, reflects objectives for income and employment, catch stability and stock sustainability.
Management systems for tuna are also implemented at the sub-regional scale and the national level. These are influenced by international agreements and WCPFC agreements, but also more implicitly the value of ES to PICTs. Traditional management practices, such as permanent or temporary closure of fishing areas, remain strong in the PICTs [26]. Individual PICTs have taken steps to limit by-catch, including implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs) and ‘shark sanctuaries’ with benefits for tourism and biodiversity protection.
(iv) Impact and challenges of valuation.
Inclusion of the monetary value of provisioning services, combined with consideration of other economic, social and ecosystem objectives, had a direct impact on skipjack tuna with the interim adopted target reference point equating to stock sizes approximately twice that at MSY [43]. While this process did not explicitly account for fishing impacts on biodiversity, it has implicit benefits for the wider ecosystem, while recognizing, for example, aspects of cultural services. As an example for the inshore region, estimates of loss in economic value arising from coastal erosion because of aggregate mining on Majuro Atoll were found to outweigh the contribution of mining to the economy. However, while the importance of other coastal ecosystem values was recognized they were not estimated in this study [44].
(v) Future research.
More research is required in terms of understanding BEF relationships, how these may be affected by change, the implications for ES and linking these more explicitly to management decisions. While valuation of provisioning services has begun, that for other ES is yet to be explicitly included. Other ES such as climate regulation and nutrient cycling are important. Increased protection from climatic events is a priority, combined with the importance of adapting to climate-induced sea-level rise. For example, maintaining and enhancing coral reef structure and function may be a practical and cost effective solution to hazard mitigation and adaptation [45].
In terms of the MPAs, wider benefits for regional tuna stocks (as opposed to less mobile reef fishes) may be limited by their highly migratory nature [46], particularly where fishing effort merely redistributes rather than reduces. For nations reliant on foreign vessel licence fees, as many PICTs are, denying access through large-scale MPAs has significant implications. There is, therefore, a need to explore the balance of different ES within decision-making.
(vi) Summary.
This is a region where the economic value of the fishery resources is high and consideration of other ES is just beginning to be explored. While a range of methods have been employed, from market-based valuations through to survey-based and stated preference techniques [47,48], a more comprehensive valuation is required to capture the PICT context, enable development, ensure food security and allow the conservation of biodiversity [49,50].
(b) Southern Ocean.
(i) Value of marine ecosystems.
The Southern Ocean, defined here as the area encompassing the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) and regions to the south, influences global climate and biogeochemical cycles and supports internationally important fisheries [51]. Its global importance is recognized through the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), which provides a high level of protection and management through international agreements. Grant et al . [27] identified key ES including provisioning services such as fishery products and the growing high-end market for krill oil as a health supplement; regulating services such as climate regulation (e. g. sequestration of CO 2 and regulation of global sea level); supporting services such as nutrient cycling and primary productivity; and cultural services such as tourism and iconic wildlife (e. g. penguins, whales, seals and albatrosses). The role of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning in the polar regions is explored elsewhere in this volume [22]. The Southern Ocean does not border a permanently inhabited landmass. This lack of local beneficiaries means the provisioning services have markets predominantly in East Asia, North America and Europe, whereas the regulatory and supporting services benefit human populations at the global scale [27].
(ii) Main threats.
Southern Ocean ecosystems were subject to two centuries of largely unregulated harvesting (e. g. Antarctic fur seals, baleen whales and finfish [52]). Sixteen nations currently operate here, including fisheries for toothfish, mackerel icefish and Antarctic krill. The krill fishery currently operates at a low level with a catch limit equivalent to only 1% of the estimated biomass (60.3 × 10 6 t) and actual catches lower than this [53]. However, its potential to become one of the largest fisheries in the world has been highlighted [54]. Toothfish and mackerel icefish are likely to be fully exploited and toothfish depleted in some areas of the Indian Ocean through illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing [55].
The region is currently undergoing unprecedented climate-driven changes with local as well as far-reaching consequences [56]. The physical dynamics of Southern Ocean water masses are rapidly changing owing to atmospheric changes including the loss of stratospheric ozone, and are, in turn, affecting the physical and biological carbon pumps; ocean temperatures are increasing; sea ice duration and extent is changing; and ocean acidification is especially pronounced in polar waters [57].
(iii) Conservation and management.
Governance of the Antarctic is unique and comprises a set of international agreements within the ATS. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty regulates all human activities except for fishing, and recognizes the intrinsic value of Antarctica beyond the financial value of its exploitable resources [58]. Within the ATS, fishing activities are managed by CCAMLR, which has been described as a pioneer of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management [13]. The CCAMLR Convention was the first international fisheries management agreement to set out specific ‘principles of conservation’ relating to the wider ecosystem, as an integral part of its harvesting regime (CCAMLR Convention, Article II) [59]. These principles are precautionary and reflect EBM goals in requiring managers to maintain the productivity of harvested populations, to maintain ecological relationships (between the harvested species and any dependent or related species) and to prevent irreversible change (see the electronic supplementary material, table S1). Management decisions must, therefore, consider the trade-offs between current and future catches, and the more general benefits of a healthy ecosystem [27]. However, in the context of CCAMLR's decision-making, fisheries management and related conservation principles are currently being considered separately from information and decisions related to other Southern Ocean ES.
(iv) Impact and challenges of valuation.
Despite ongoing monitoring and data gathering efforts by national science programmes, and coordinated multi-national programmes, such as the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (CEMP), the Census of Antarctic Marine Life (CAML) and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean [60], the Southern Ocean has not been the subject of a detailed or formal regional ecosystem assessment, information on ES is lacking and valuation tends to be based on the economic value of Southern Ocean fisheries [27].
(v) Future research.
The economic value of the fisheries should be considered alongside the value of other ES that the target species provide. For example, in the case of krill this includes their role as a key species in the food web, including contribution to predator production [22], and other intrinsic (i. e. non-monetary) values [27].
Although CCAMLR has resolved to increase consideration of climate change impacts, guidance on how this can be achieved in practice is still being developed. Furthermore, the region is under-represented in global ecosystem assessments such as the MEA [61] and the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) Regional Seas synthesis and global environmental outlook [62,63]. Further understanding of the wider benefits obtained from Southern Ocean ES and biodiversity would help ensure that their value is adequately recognized in decision-making at regional and global scales [58], and would also help improve understanding of the consequences of change in these ecosystems [22].
(vi) Summary.
CCAMLR's management approach incorporates a range of ecosystem-based trade-offs, however, there is currently a lack of information on the value of ES in this region. Concepts of relative and intrinsic value exist within the ATS, and could be further used in informing decision-making. In particular, the valuation of biodiversity and ES could help to articulate specific management objectives within CCAMLR and to communicate these effectively to other regional and global organizations. This could also facilitate the consideration of all ES (including those relating to, e. g. climate regulation, ocean circulation, tourism), and the biodiversity underpinning them, as part of CCAMLR's EBM framework.
(c) UK coastal seas.
(i) Value of marine ecosystems.
UK coastal seas support a high biodiversity that underpins a range of ES and benefits of significant value to UK society and internationally. These include food supplies and contributions to climate regulation (e. g. through high carbon sequestration into salt marshes and seagrass beds, and transport of pelagic carbon offshore into deeper layers), and human health and well-being (e. g. by providing space for recreational activities) [28,64]. Fisheries and rapidly increasing aquaculture are important sectors in the economy [65,66]. However, the UK also relies on its marine biodiversity for other biotic raw materials, such as seaweeds for energy and food additives; regulating services such as bioremediation of waste and disturbance prevention; and cultural services such as education and research.
Beaumont et al . [64] carried out an ES approach to determine the economic value of UK marine biodiversity. They concluded that biodiversity loss is likely to cause unpredictable changes in the provision of ES because of lack of knowledge of the multiple links between biodiversity, functions and the various ES they provide. For example, vulnerable biogenic habitats provide nursery and refuge areas for other species that in turn are important for other ES. In 2011, a comprehensive UK-wide National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) was undertaken which included valuation (monetary and non-monetary) of the ecosystems and services they provide. A key finding was that the UK is comparatively data rich with regard to BEF relationships [28,67], for example, food webs and biogeochemical cycling.
(ii) Main threats.
The NEA highlights a number of threats to UK coastal biodiversity. These include unsustainable fishing practices which can affect food provision and also impact other ES by damaging habitats and through unwanted by-catch. Pollution from land and freshwater run-off was also highlighted as an issue, particularly through emergent new chemicals such as pharmaceuticals and microplastics, and pollution from shipping accidents [28]. Global climate change is already having an effect on UK marine biodiversity with expected impacts on most ES.
(iii) Conservation and management.
The UK marine environment is governed by a complex web of national, European Union (EU) and international policy and legislation that increasingly aim towards sustainable management of the ocean and its biodiversity (electronic supplementary material, table S1) [68]. Fisheries management is progressing towards MSY under the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aims at achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) in EU marine waters through regular, national assessments of key descriptors of the marine environment (e. g. biodiversity and commercial fishes but also marine litter and underwater noise) and implementation of necessary management measures. Measures undertaken in the UK include designation of MPAs and implementation of planning and licencing for all human activities in the marine environment. While many of the policies mention ES, they do not specify marine management in an ES framework, although the UK has used an ES approach within these, for example, to analyse the costs of not reaching GES [69]. Although the UK aims to take an ecosystem approach in developing national marine plans [70], the focus is on sustainable use of marine space within each Marine Plan area (electronic supplementary material, table S1) rather than management and planning for ES.
Indicators to allow changes in ES to be quantified were developed for a case study (Dogger Bank) on using the ES approach in UK marine management. This study demonstrates the use of indicators, the value of marine ecosystems to the public and the need to consider wider stakeholder views [71,72].
(iv) Impact and challenges of valuation.
Valuation approaches in the UK have successfully led to changes in policy. In 2006, the first monetary valuation of UK marine biodiversity provided evidence that supported development of marine legislation (electronic supplementary material, table S1); and the results of the NEA are evident in the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework and its ongoing implementation. Valuation approaches are rapidly permeating into different areas of marine and coastal management, particularly as the UK embraces natural capital accounting for ES. The challenge now is to provide operational tools to support ES assessments and valuations, and resources to collect the required data.
Difficulties in determining non-use values for marine ES can often be to problems faced by the public in assessing their value. Although this is particularly true for marine systems, Jobstvogt et al . [73] demonstrated the public's willingness to pay to protect deep sea habitats in Scotland and showed that the value of such habitats can be assessed using discrete choice questionnaires. However there are still only a small number of such studies for marine habitats that can be used to support valuation of ES.
(v) Future research.
The examples above demonstrate major advances in using valuation in UK marine management. Yet possibly owing to a lack of legislation focused on managing multiple and interacting ES, there is no driver to ensure collection of new data, or organization of existing data, to facilitate such assessments. A key finding of the NEA was that the links between biodiversity, processes and services in UK waters need to be better understood and quantified [28,67]. While this is of global truth it is highlighted here to illustrate that although large datasets are available they are not always accessible, exhaustive, nor spatially matched in order to deliver quantitative, spatial data on ES.
(vi) Summary.
The UK has developed methodological approaches and expertise to assess marine ES and value their benefits. This is combined with a strong interest and willingness of policy makers to use these assessments to support complex decisions on the sustainable use of the marine environment. Continuing efforts to ensure integration of these approaches into the conservation and management of resources throughout UK coastal waters are required.
4. Discussion.
This study, unique in its review of valuation across different marine systems, has revealed a diversity in approaches with varying rates of progress and success. The contrasting case studies together highlight benefits and challenges in using valuation approaches in these different regions. Consideration of the monetary value of fisheries in the PICT has successfully demonstrated that this helps to focus management decisions. In the Southern Ocean, resource management encompasses a broader range of ecosystem considerations, but does not currently include any specific valuation. Work in the UK indicates the steps needed to further these approaches so that wider trade-offs, including the implications of biodiversity changes resulting from both human impacts and natural variability, can be considered explicitly and more routinely in policy and management.
There is a tendency for valuation in marine systems to focus on specific ES (often the harvested species) rather than biodiversity. The PICT case study demonstrates advantages to this relatively simple valuation when brought into an ES context. Here this has led to a more conservative target reference level for tuna and catalysed a process of considering wider ES. However, focusing on the economic value of target species can often result in a failure to consider other ES that the species may provide, and of the underpinning biodiversity and ecosystem structure and functioning. All of these aspects are probably contributing to supporting the fishery as well as providing wider ecosystem benefits.
Many ES do not easily lend themselves to the assignment of a monetary value and in some cases a monetary value may not be appropriate [4]. Direct monetary valuation may even potentially put species at risk, particularly if the species is rare. Increased value can stem from rarity, or valuable species can become rare because of increased consumer demand [74]. That said, recognized high value can also promote conservation efforts for rare species and habitats that are iconic and valued for leisure and recreation (such as cetaceans, seabirds and coral reefs). Without some understanding of ‘value’, less obvious ES such as coastal defence and bioremediation of waste may be ‘lost’ in management decisions or afforded less attention than they merit. Other difficulties include the concept of attaching values to non-use benefits, for example, from supporting or cultural ES. Despite such challenges the UK case study showcases comprehensive work that incorporates both monetary and non-monetary values, and that is increasingly permeating policy and management.
The case studies show that valuation approaches can be effective at national or small-scale regional levels, for example, in enabling different uses of an Exclusive Economic Zone to be considered, and in helping with the implementation of tools such as marine spatial planning, as highlighted in the UK case study. In the Southern Ocean (almost entirely high seas except for sub-Antarctic islands under national jurisdiction), fisheries management and related conservation principles are currently being considered in isolation from information related to other ES such as climate regulation. Here, as has begun in the PICT (e. g. where highly migratory fish stocks and issues of food security are involved), a valuation approach could be useful in incorporating wider ES into decision-making.
However, the need to better understand and incorporate existing knowledge on BEF relationships into the ES approach is fundamental to the success and rate of progress we describe in this study (electronic supplementary material, table S1). Furthermore, consideration of these relationships is not linking as effectively as it could with conservation and management in any of the case study regions. In light of these findings, we propose a conceptual view to valuation that is centred on the critical interactions between biodiversity, ES and an understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning (figure 1). The central role of biodiversity in underpinning these interactions and the delivery of all ES is pivotal to this concept.
Conceptual diagram showing the interacting components (solid circles) that should be considered as part of the valuation of marine ecosystem services (ES) and biodiversity. Biodiversity is central to all of these components, underpinning the delivery of all services provided by the ecosystem, including specific provisioning services such as the harvesting of marine living resources. An understanding of the structure and functioning of ecosystems requires information on biodiversity [4,22], and is crucial to valuation. The case studies presented here demonstrate that these different components have been considered to varying extents in different regions. This may be because specific priorities or management objectives are being addressed, or may simply reflect varying rates of progress. Broadly speaking, the PICTs would currently be positioned mostly in the harvested resources component; the Southern Ocean centred on harvested resources but overlapping with aspects of ecosystem structure and functioning; and the UK would encompass all components, but linking less well to management of harvested resources for example. Valuation approaches for individual components remain useful, however, it is helpful to consider all of these components as part of a broader, overarching concept (dashed line), reflecting the critical relationships and interactions between biodiversity, ES and an understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning.
This conceptual view could provide a useful means to highlight knowledge gaps and key uncertainties, and to define priorities for addressing these for any given region. The role of modelling is likely to be of paramount importance to support this conceptual approach, and the input of better scientific understanding to all its components. For example, development of existing coupled hydrological, ecological and fisheries models, linking them to economic models and decision support tools (e. g. multi-criteria analysis and probabilistic graphical models) and then making them regionally transferable would provide much needed tools [75]. Better collation and use of existing data, plus guided monitoring focusing on ES indicators could also improve the developed decision support tools.
The case studies also highlight challenges such as the need to consider trade-offs in decision-making (e. g. MPAs in the PICT); the need to more clearly define objectives within EBM (e. g. in CCAMLR); and the challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration (including ecologists, modellers, economists, social scientists and policy makers) (e. g. much of the UK work). There is a need to describe and quantify the different elements for consideration in terms that can be understood across multiple sectors, stakeholders and decision-makers. We suggest that valuation conducted within this overarching concept (figure 1) could bring this commonality. Providing the means to improve understanding of the wider implications of decisions in this way will help to bridge the divide between resource management and biodiversity conservation.
Uptake by stakeholders and decision-makers is ultimately required to make this operational. Therefore, rather than treating the valuation of ES and biodiversity as an alternative or additional mechanism, we recommend a multidisciplinary, flexible approach that embeds it in existing resource management frameworks. This would ensure that aspects such as culture, history, data availability, capability and context are accounted for. Further case studies and broad-scale comparative analyses are necessary to provide proof of concept from different regions. Given the general scarcity of resources and capacity, sharing ‘lessons-learned’ across regions would be beneficial in identifying best practice (e. g. approaches that may be particularly relevant for high seas areas), and in helping to tailor approaches to the particular ecological, social, economic and cultural context.
We conclude that a broad approach to valuation is required such that the foundational role of biodiversity in sustaining the value of ecosystems [4] can be brought explicitly into decision-making. By considering the critical relationships between biodiversity, ES and an understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning, this approach provides a more comprehensive recognition of value and as such has strong potential to contribute effectively to the conservation and management of marine resources.
Authors' contributions.
R. D.C. conceived of the study, drafted the manuscript and coordinated the work; S. B. and G. M.P. helped design the study and contributed to writing the manuscript; S. M.G., E. J.M. and M. C.A. contributed to writing the manuscript.
Competing interests.
All authors gave final approval for publication and have no competing interests.
R. D.C. and E. J.M. were supported by the Integrating Climate and Ecosystem Dynamics (ICED) programme under a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) International Opportunities Fund Grant NE/I029943/1 with additional NERC core funding to British Antarctic Survey (BAS). S. B. and M. C.A. acknowledge funding from Marine Ecosystems Research Programme, NERC and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (NE/L003279/1) as well as DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing GES) funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, ‘The Ocean for Tomorrow’ Theme (grant agreement no. 308392), devotes-project. eu. G. M.P. was supported by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade aid program ‘Fisheries for Food Security’. S. M.G. was supported by NERC core funding to BAS.
Acknowledgement.
We thank Nathalie Seddon and anonymous referees for comments that greatly improved this manuscript.
One contribution to a special feature 'The value of biodiversity in the Anthropocene’.

Ecosystem services of the Southern Ocean: trade-offs in decision-making.
Citations.
BioEntities.
Artigos relacionados.
Links externos.
Ecosystem services of the Southern Ocean: trade-offs in decision-making.
Ecosystem services are the benefits that mankind obtains from natural ecosystems. Here we identify the key services provided by the Southern Ocean. These include provisioning of fishery products, nutrient cycling, climate regulation and the maintenance of biodiversity, with associated cultural and aesthetic benefits. Potential catch limits for Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba Dana) alone are equivalent to 11% of current global marine fisheries landings. We also examine the extent to which decision-making within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) considers trade-offs between ecosystem services, using the management of the Antarctic krill fishery as a case study. Management of this fishery considers a three-way trade-off between fisheries performance, the status of the krill stock and that of predator populations. However, there is a paucity of information on how well these components represent other ecosystem services that might be degraded as a result of fishing. There is also a lack of information on how beneficiaries value these ecosystem services. A formal ecosystem assessment would help to address these knowledge gaps. It could also help to harmonize decision-making across the ATS and promote global recognition of Southern Ocean ecosystem services by providing a standard inventory of the relevant ecosystem services and their value to beneficiaries.
Introdução.
“Ecosystem services” are the benefits that mankind obtains from natural ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Daily et al. 2009) including food, fresh water and the maintenance of an equable climate. Human activities put pressure on natural systems, and obtaining one benefit (such as fish for food) from an ecosystem may impact its ability to provide other benefits (such as supporting biodiversity). Organizations charged with managing human activities that impact ecosystems must therefore make trade-offs between the different benefits that ecosystems provide (McLeod & Leslie 2009, Link 2010, Watters et al . in press).
Recent “ecosystem assessments” have attempted to collate information on the character, status, distribution and value of ecosystem services at global or regional scales (IPBES 2012). The objective of collating such information is to clarify how ecosystems, the achievement of social and economic goals and the intrinsic value of nature are interconnected (Ash et al. 2010). Such assessments attempt to translate the complexity of nature into functions that can be more readily understood by decision-makers and non-specialists. Their authors suggest that this increases the transparency of trade-offs associated with decisions that may impact ecosystems (Carpenter et al. 2006, Beaumont et al. 2007, Fisher et al. 2009, UK NEA 2011).
The continent of Antarctica and the surrounding Southern Ocean have, to date, been under-represented in global ecosystem assessments (e. g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, UNEP 2010, 2012) and have not been the subject of any detailed regional assessment. This continent and ocean (which we subsequently refer to as the Antarctic) cover 9.7% of the Earth's surface area and play significant roles in the functioning of the Earth system (Lumpkin & Speer 2007, Mayewski et al. 2009). Their under-representation in ecosystem assessments potentially limits the information available for decision-making about regional and global activities that impact Antarctic ecosystems. It could also lead to underestimates of the consequences of change in Antarctic ecosystems and the global significance of the services they provide.
The governance system for the Antarctic comprises a set of international agreements known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). These treaties imply that the management of activities that impact ecosystems should consider the associated trade-offs. For example, the Protocol on Environmental Protection (1991) recognized “the intrinsic value of Antarctica, including its wilderness and aesthetic values and its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research, in particular research essential to understanding the global environment” (ats. aq/documents/recatt/Att006_e. pdf, accessed April 2013). Decisions on the conduct of human activities, including scientific research, must therefore consider potential impacts on environmental, aesthetic and wilderness values. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources underpins the management of fishing activities in the Southern Ocean. The Convention entered into force in 1982, and established the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources as its decision-making body. The acronym ‘CCAMLR’ is often used to refer to both the Convention and the Commission. In this paper, we use ‘CCAMLR’ to refer to the Commission and ‘the Convention’ to refer to the legal instrument. The Convention aims to ensure the “rational use” of marine living resources subject to “principles of conservation” ( Fig. 1 ) including the maintenance of harvested stocks and of ecological relationships between harvested stocks and other species, the recovery of previously depleted stocks, and the prevention of irreversible change (ccamlr/en/document/publications/convention-conservation-antarctic-marine-living-resources, accessed April 2013). Decisions that comply with the Convention must therefore consider the trade-offs between the current benefit of catches, the benefit of future catches from a healthy stock, and the more general benefits of a healthy ecosystem.
The purpose of the current paper is to review existing knowledge of Southern Ocean ecosystem services and the way this knowledge is currently used in decision-making. We collate available information on the identity, distribution, beneficiaries and global significance of Antarctic marine ecosystem services. We use the management of the main Southern Ocean fishery, which harvests Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba Dana, as a case study to explore the extent to which regional decision-making currently uses the type of information that formal ecosystem assessments generate. A full assessment of the status, trends and value of Southern Ocean ecosystem services is beyond the scope of this study, but we discuss the further work required and the potential benefits of conducting a formal ecosystem assessment. While we acknowledge that these objectives are also relevant to the terrestrial Antarctic, we limit our consideration to the marine ecosystem services of the Southern Ocean. For the purposes of this study, we define the Southern Ocean as the area covered by the Convention (ccamlr/en/organisation/convention-area, accessed April 2013). The northern boundary of this area approximates to the position of the Antarctic Polar Front, which is an important ecological boundary between neighbouring oceans. This front is where cold polar surface waters sink beneath temperate surface waters. It is generally located between c. 50°S and 60°S (Moore et al. 1997); the higher latitude being the northern boundary of all other ATS agreements (ats. aq/imagenes/info/antarctica_e. pdf, accessed April 2013).
The following two sections provide brief introductions to ecosystem assessment and direct human interactions with the Southern Ocean ecosystem. Tables I and ​ andII II present key information about Southern Ocean ecosystem services, and the remaining sections consider the existing use of information on ecosystem services in the management of the Antarctic krill fishery in the Scotia Sea and southern Drake Passage. This forms the basis for our discussion of how an ecosystem assessment might aid CCAMLR's decision-making processes.
Ecosystem assessment.
Ecosystem assessments aim to comprehensively characterize the status and trends of relevant ecosystems, the services they provide, the drivers of change, and the potential consequences of such change (Carpenter et al. 2006, Ash et al. 2010). This includes identifying how ecosystem services affect human well-being, who benefits, and where these beneficiaries are located. It can include identifying the specific value of ecosystem services to their beneficiaries (TEEB 2010). An ecosystem assessment adds value to existing information by clarifying how ecosystems, human well-being and the intrinsic value of nature are interconnected (UK NEA 2011). The practical purpose of these assessments is to provide information that can help decision-makers to better understand how their decisions might change specific ecosystem services. This theoretically equips decision-makers to choose policies that sustain the appropriate suite of services (Ash et al. 2010).
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was a landmark example of a global ecosystem assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Its objective was to “assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being”, and it established a framework which has formed the basis for a number of subsequent global and regional ecosystem assessments (e. g. CAFF 2010, UK NEA 2011, UNEP 2012). The MA recognized four categories of ecosystem services: provisioning (e. g. food, freshwater); regulating (e. g. climate regulation, water purification); cultural (e. g. aesthetic benefits and recreation); and supporting (e. g. nutrient cycling and primary production). These categories notably exclude the roles played by polar icecaps in storing water that would otherwise increase sea levels, and by sea ice in holding back continental ice and increasing the Earth's albedo. They also exclude some naturally occurring resources such as minerals and hydrocarbons.
The MA definition of ecosystem services includes benefits that are directly perceived and used by people (such as food and water) and those that are not (such as storm regulation by wetlands) (Costanza 2008). Direct-use benefits of ecosystem services may be consumptive (e. g. the consumption of wild caught fish), or non-consumptive (e. g. the enjoyment of those fish by scuba divers) (Saunders et al. 2010). Non-use benefits may be derived, for example, from the knowledge that a resource or service exists or is being maintained (Ledoux & Turner 2002, Saunders et al. 2010). Benefits may be enjoyed at the location of a particular ecosystem service (e. g. local subsistence fishing) or at a great distance from it (e. g. large-scale commercial fishing by far seas fleets with global markets).
By definition, ecosystem services have value to their beneficiaries. Ecosystem assessments aim to identify the relative value of each ecosystem service based on various measures. In the case of consumptive use, it might be possible to measure value in economic terms, but it is also important to consider other types of value (Costanza et al. 1997). Various authors have described non-use benefits in terms of existence or presence value, altruistic value (knowledge of benefits being used by the current generation), and bequest value (knowledge of benefits being used by future generations) (Gilpin 2000, Chee et al. 2004, Saunders et al. 2010). The preservation of a resource or service for future use, or the avoidance of irreversible decisions until further information is available (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) is sometimes considered as a use value in itself (Saunders et al. 2010). However, it may be categorised separately as an unknown use, including a ‘quasi-option value’ where future use assumes the availability of increased knowledge or technology (Ledoux & Turner 2002, Chee et al . 2004).
The objective of ecosystem assessment to provide a comparison between ecosystem services has led to attempts to express these different values in standardized, and often monetary, terms. The monetary value of an ecosystem service is arguably equivalent to the cost of replacing that service or finding another means of gaining similar benefits (Ledoux & Turner 2002). In some cases, particularly for those services which constitute the Earth's life support systems (e. g. climate regulation) this value is unlimited, because the service would be irreplaceable if lost completely.
The Total Economic Value (TEV) framework is increasingly used to assess the value of ecosystem services by combining both monetary and non-monetary aspects of overall value (Ledoux & Turner 2002). Figure 2 sets out a simple TEV framework adapted from previous studies (Ledoux & Turner 2002, Chee et al . 2004, Saunders et al. 2010). The loss of ‘natural capital’ such as forests or fish stocks is not included in traditional economic accounting models such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Dasgupta 2010). In some cases, the exploitation of natural resources might result in a positive growth in GDP, when the degradation or unsustainable use of those resources has in fact reduced natural capital. Valuation of ecosystem services provides information that might help to inform policy decisions that reduce such loss or degradation of natural capital (Costanza et al. 1997, Ledoux & Turner 2002).
Human uses of the Southern Ocean.
The Southern Ocean is the only ocean that does not border a permanently inhabited landmass and, consequently, it was unknown and unexploited until the late 1700s. The economic importance of its ecological resources grew rapidly following Captain Cook's discovery of abundant fur seals at South Georgia in 1775. The Southern Ocean became the world's main source of seal products in the 1800s and whale products in the 1900s (Bonner 1984, Headland 1992). Populations of fur seals were reduced almost to extinction by the early 19th century. Attention then shifted to elephant seals and southern right whales. By the first half of the 20th century, these stocks had also declined and improved technology allowed offshore hunting of other baleen whales and sperm whales to become established. Whaling ceased in the 1960s when it was no longer economically viable. Finfish and then Antarctic krill became the major focus for exploitation, which continues until the present-day. Historical harvesting operations and catch sizes are mainly well documented (e. g. Laws 1953, Kock 1992, CCAMLR 2012a, Hill 2013a, fig 14.5), although illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing has occurred, most recently for high-value toothfish (Österblom & Bodin 2012). The extent and scale of this living resource extraction, and the fact that some whale and finfish stocks remain depleted (Bonner 1984, Kock 1992) demonstrates that the Southern Ocean is far from being a pristine wilderness as it is sometimes characterized.
The hostile and remote nature of the Southern Ocean, and the lack of a permanent human population have constrained direct use of its ecosystem services. Nevertheless, marine harvesting, science and tourism all directly impact the Antarctic environment (Clarke & Harris 2003, Tin et al. 2009). Scientific research and its associated logistic and support requirements have been a major focus of human activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean since the early 20th century. Up to 6000 scientific and support personnel are stationed in and around Antarctica at the peak of the summer season (Clarke & Harris 2003), and the Antarctic Treaty aims to maintain a high level of protection for the Antarctic environment as a scientific resource. The iconic wildlife, unique seascapes and coastlines, and relative isolation are all important factors in attracting recreational visitors. Antarctic tourism did not become established until the 1970s, and although it has expanded and diversified significantly during the last 40 years the number of visitors remains relatively low (around 35 000 each year; iaato/tourism-statistics, accessed April 2013).
Ecosystem services provided by the Southern Ocean.
Using the four categories identified by the MA, we have identified and described the ecosystem services provided by the Southern Ocean and the ecosystem components corresponding to the provision of these services ( Table I ). Of the 24 ecosystem services examined by the MA we suggest that 12 have direct relevance in the Southern Ocean. Others are relevant only to terrestrial habitats or where there is a resident human population. Table I also lists the current beneficiaries of each identified ecosystem service and the spatial distribution of these services where applicable. Species that are particularly important to the provision of ecosystem services include harvested species such as Antarctic krill, toothfish, and other fish species; iconic or flagship species (Zacharias & Roff 2001) such as penguins, whales, seals and albatrosses; and phytoplankton, zooplankton, and macro-zooplankton species which play key roles in primary production and nutrient cycling. There are potential benefits from services which are as yet unknown in the Southern Ocean. Endemism is high in many marine taxa (Arntz et al. 1997) suggesting the potential for products that cannot be sourced elsewhere. A few genetic and biochemical materials have been patented for use in pharmaceutical or industrial products but the potential of such resources has yet to be fulfilled (Jabour-Green & Nicol 2003). Other services such as the provision of freshwater may not be viable or utilized at present, but remain potentially important for the future if there are changes to global supply and demand.
Ecosystem services provided by the Southern Ocean have few direct, local beneficiaries. The provisioning services support consumption elsewhere. For example, markets for toothfish and Antarctic krill products are predominantly in northern hemisphere nations in East Asia, North America, and Europe (Catarci 2004, Nicol et al. 2012). Regulating and supporting services such as climate regulation, ocean circulation and nutrient cycling provide benefits to human populations globally.
Marine ecosystem services may occur within well-defined locations (e. g. the spawning grounds of a particular fish species which support a provisioning service), or across much larger and spatially less distinct areas (e. g. sequestration of CO 2 across the entire Southern Ocean). There is some potential for spatially explicit mapping of ecosystem services in the Southern Ocean, for example to illustrate the spatial dimension of catch value (UK NEA 2011). Information is also available on tourist landing sites (iaato/tourism-statistics) and ship traffic (Lynch et al. 2010). Mapping of regulating and supporting services may be more difficult to achieve, although datasets such as sea surface chlorophyll concentrations (e. g. oceancolor. gsfc. nasa. gov) may serve as useful proxies.
Table II presents some simple estimates of the comparative value of the Antarctic krill stock as an illustration of the value of Southern Ocean ecosystem services. The Antarctic krill stock in the Scotia Sea and southern Drake Passage is managed with an interim catch limit but there is also a higher potential limit, known as the “precautionary catch limit” (CCAMLR 2012b). These two catch limits are respectively equivalent to 0.8% and 7.1% of global marine capture fisheries production in 2011 (FAO 2012) with first sale values of about US$ 824 × 10 6 yr -1 and US$ 7.4 × 10 9 yr -1 . The comparable first sale value of the global fish catch is c. US$ 85 × 10 9 yr -1 (Pikitch et al. 2012). The current market for krill oil alone is c. US$ 82 × 10 6 yr -1 (Hill 2013a). These economic values should be considered alongside the value of other ecosystem services provided by the Antarctic krill stock. Pikitch et al. (2012) estimated that the contribution to predator production made by Antarctic krill is higher than that of any comparable species in the world's oceans. Other types of value based on the components of TEV ( Fig. 2 ) might include option, existence, or bequest value. Investment in research and conservation gives some indication of the importance society currently attaches to ecological resources. The coverage of closed or protected areas which limit fishery access, for example at the South Orkney Islands (CCAMLR 2012c) and South Georgia (sgisland. gs/download/MPA/MPA%20Plan%20v1-1.01%20Feb%2027_12.pdf), is a non-monetary indication of conservation investment. However, the cost of research and protection is likely to be much lower than the hypothetical replacement value.
Existing use of information about ecosystem services in the ATS.
Ecosystem assessments aim to characterize ecosystem services in terms of their identity and status. This status might be assessed relative to reference points defining desirable states. Ecosystem assessments also attempt to identify the beneficiaries of ecosystem services and to evaluate potential drivers and consequences of future ecosystem change. This is intended to facilitate decision-making based on trade-offs between ecosystem services. This section uses the Antarctic krill fishery in the Scotia Sea and southern Drake Passage as a case study to identify the extent to which management processes consider trade-offs and use the types of information that are collated in ecosystem assessments.
Overview of decision making within CCAMLR.
The instruments of the ATS govern existing and potential human activities in the Southern Ocean, although these instruments are legally binding only on signatory nations. The Protocol on Environmental Protection prohibits mineral exploitation south of 60°S and specifies the conduct of scientific, logistic and tourist operations. CCAMLR manages fishing activities in the wider Southern Ocean ecosystem. A total of 8% of this area falls under the jurisdiction of national governments (including the marine areas around Heard Island and McDonald Island, Iles Kerguelen and Iles Crozet, the Prince Edward Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands), some of which apply CCAMLR management measures.
CCAMLR manages fishing and related activities by implementing regulations known as Conservation Measures. Commissioners are representatives of national governments. CCAMLR is advised by a Scientific Committee which, in turn, is advised by a number of scientific working groups. Decision-making at each of these levels is by consensus (Hill 2013a, fig 14.4).
The Antarctic krill fishery in the Scotia Sea and southern Drake Passage accounted for 91% by mass of the total Southern Ocean catch in the 2010–11 fishing season (CCAMLR 2012a). There are a number of reviews that describe the development of CCAMLR's management approach for this fishery (Constable et al. 2000, Miller & Agnew 2000, Hill 2013a), which we also summarize here.
The Convention's principles of conservation (CCAMLR 1982) were an early articulation of the goals of Ecosystem Based Management. Ecosystem Based Management takes account of trade-offs between ecosystem services, and has the goals of maintaining the ecosystem productivity, health and resilience that underpins the provision of ecosystem services (McLeod & Leslie 2009). Management of Antarctic krill fisheries has generally focused on the three-way trade-off between the performance of the fishery, the status of the krill stock, and the status of selected krill predators. In this trade-off, the status of krill predators is used as a proxy for the health and resilience of the wider ecosystem ( Fig. 1 ), although CCAMLR has also considered other impacts of the fishery, such as larval fish bycatch (Agnew et al. 2010).
The Antarctic krill harvest from the Scotia Sea and southern Drake Passage has been capped at 620 000 t yr -1 since CCAMLR first began to regulate the fishery in 1991. This interim catch limit is less than the “precautionary catch limit” (currently 5.61 × 10 6 t yr -1 ) which has been updated a number of times in response to revised estimates of Antarctic krill biomass (e. g. Trathan et al. 1995, Hewitt et al. 2004a, SC-CAMLR 2010). The “precautionary catch limit” defines the potential maximum harvest when the management approach is sufficiently developed to allow the interim limit to be removed.
CCAMLR's scientific working groups have used the three-way trade-off to develop and evaluate management approaches that address two key questions: what is the appropriate overall catch limit, and how should this be spatially distributed to minimize local depletion of krill and its predators? The first question led to a set of decision rules which CCAMLR established in the early 1990s to identify the “precautionary catch limit” (SC-CAMLR 1994). These decision rules were formulated for use with simulation models and an estimate of the initial biomass of Antarctic krill, which is assumed to represent the biomass prior to any impacts of fishing. One rule allows for the simulated Antarctic krill stock to be depleted to 75% of its initial biomass. This compares with the maximum sustainable yield reference point which is widely used in other fisheries and allows depletion to around 60% (Smith et al. 2011). Thus the decision rule reserves a proportion of Antarctic krill production for its predators. Smith et al. (2011) suggested that depletion to 75% of initial biomass represents a reasonable trade-off between the benefits of harvesting and ecosystem health. Another rule constrains the risk of the simulated krill population falling to low levels likely to impact productivity.
Work is ongoing within CCAMLR's scientific working groups to address the second question. These groups have identified ecologically-based spatial subdivisions of the fishery (Hewitt et al. 2004b) and assessed the potential consequences of different spatial fishing patterns (Plagányi & Butterworth 2012, Hill 2013b, Watters et al . in press). The krill biomass in any area varies naturally over time (Brierley et al. 2002, Atkinson et al. 2004). The patterns of variability are also likely to change in response to climate change and fishing (Everson et al. 1992). It might therefore be appropriate to vary area-specific catch limits, or other activities, such as monitoring, in response to information about the state of the krill stock or the wider ecosystem (Constable 2002, Trathan & Agnew 2010, SC-CAMLR 2011). CCAMLR's scientific working groups aim to develop a “feedback management procedure” (SC-CAMLR 2011) to address these issues. They have considered the use of data from the fishery, small-scale krill surveys (e. g. Brierley et al. 2002) and krill predators (Constable 2002, Hill et al. 2010) to indicate the state of the ecosystem. However, further work is required on all aspects of the proposed procedure, including definition of its specific objectives.
CCAMLR has not, to date, agreed a management approach that will prevent excessive localized depletion of the krill stock, and consequent impacts on krill predators, if catches increase beyond the interim catch limit. It therefore retains the interim limit and has recently established additional caps within the fishery's four subareas (CCAMLR 2012d).
The Antarctic krill catch increased from 126 000 t in 2001/02 to 181 000 t in 2010/11. This expansion coincided with new developments in harvesting and processing technology and new markets for krill products (Nicol et al. 2012, CCAMLR 2012a). Catches remain below 0.4% of the estimated available biomass in the Scotia Sea and southern Drake Passage (60.3 x 10 6 t), while the interim catch limit is around 1% of this estimate. These values are low compared with most established fisheries elsewhere in the world (FAO 2012) and compared to the standard reference points used to evaluate sustainability (Worm et al. 2009) but some authors have questioned whether any krill fishing is sustainable (Jacquet et al. 2010).
The decision rules represent a practical solution to the need to balance effects on different ecosystem components, which did not require an economic valuation of the relevant ecosystem services. However, CCAMLR has not yet identified an approach which balances these effects at the appropriate ecological scale, and so relies on interim management measures. The current challenges facing the managers of the krill fishery include increasing demand for krill products, public interest in other ecosystem services that krill may support, and the pressure of climate change. CCAMLR is attempting to meet these challenges through developing a “feedback management procedure”.
Consideration of the character and status of ecosystem services.
Antarctic krill is an important species in much of the Southern Ocean, where it is a major prey item for a diverse community of predators including fish, seabirds, marine mammals and cephalopods (Atkinson et al. 2009, Hill et al. 2012). Ecosystem components of interest to CCAMLR therefore include the Antarctic krill stock and its predators. CCAMLR and the wider research community are actively addressing questions about the status and trends of these components. CCAMLR's ecosystem monitoring programme (CEMP) was established in 1987. It aims to detect and record significant changes in critical components of the marine ecosystem and to distinguish between changes due to harvesting of commercial species and changes due to environmental variability, both physical and biological (Croxall 2006). CEMP monitors Antarctic krill and nine predator species (penguins, albatrosses and fur seals) representing the ‘dependent and related populations’ referred to in the Convention's principles of conservation ( Fig. 1 ). The monitored ecosystem components are consistent with the three-way trade-off. The choice of monitored components therefore reinforces the assumption that krill predators are suitable indicators of the wider state of the ecosystem. The spatial scales and species for which the state of predator populations should be evaluated to inform krill fishery management remain to be defined.
In 2000, CCAMLR conducted a multi-national large-scale synoptic survey to estimate the biomass of Antarctic krill in 2 x 10 6 km 2 of the Scotia Sea and southern Drake Passage (Hewitt et al. 2004a). Some CCAMLR Members also monitor krill biomass in smaller areas. For example, the UK has estimated biomass in an area of at least 8000 km 2 to the north of South Georgia since 1981 and on a regular basis since 1996 (Brierley et al. 2002). A series of studies that integrate data from national science programmes has, independently of CCAMLR, produced recent estimates of circumpolar krill biomass and production, and an assessment of trends in krill abundance (Atkinson et al. 2004, 2009). Other studies, mainly associated with CEMP data, have assessed the status and trends of various krill predator populations (e. g. Forcada et al. 2005, Forcada & Trathan 2009). Turner et al. 's (2009) review of Antarctic climate change and environment collated much of the relevant information from published scientific studies, while Flores et al. (2012) provided a more krill-focused review.
Many national science programmes and several international science coordination and implementation bodies have a Southern Ocean focus, addressing questions about the status and trends of ecosystems (e. g. Murphy et al. 2012). These programmes have sometimes identified a particular ecosystem service, or the need to manage activities that affect ecosystem services, as the motivation or benefit of their research, but none has aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of ecosystem status and trends.
Definitions of the desirable states of ecosystem components and of the fishery (and therefore undesirable states to avoid) remain elusive (Hill 2013b). Two prominent recent studies have suggested tentative reference points for “forage” species, such as krill, that support diverse predators. Cury et al. (2011) analysed the relationship between prey availability and seabird breeding success. They recommended maintaining forage species above a third of the maximum biomass observed in long-term studies. Smith et al. (2011) used ecosystem models to assess the propagation of fishery impacts through the foodweb. They suggested maintaining forage species above 75% of their unexploited biomass. Each of these reference points carries caveats which will need to be addressed before implementation. The Cury et al. (2011) analysis was based on aggregated data from a range of ecosystems, including the Scotia Sea. Simplistic application of its recommendations to the krill fishery suggests that krill should be maintained at levels which were only observed in six of the 21 years analysed. This highlights the difficulties in practical application of universal reference points. More detailed consideration of the scale of predator foraging, the response of different predators, and the current state of the ecosystem will be necessary to develop recommendations for the krill fishery. The 75% reference point has already been used to suggest overall krill catch limits, but CCAMLR recognizes that by itself this does not provide adequate protection against localized depletion of krill and consequent impacts on predators (Hewitt et al. 2004b).
Consideration of beneficiaries of ecosystem services.
The Preamble to the Antarctic Treaty (1959) recognized that peaceful use of the Antarctic and scientific cooperation are in the interests of “all mankind” (ats. aq/documents/ats/treaty_original. pdf, accessed April 2013). The Convention states a commitment to “rational use”, which is often interpreted by CCAMLR Members as meaning sustainable fishing. However, the Convention does not explicitly define the term, meaning that it can be applied to the use of other ecosystem services (Watters et al. in press).
Questions about the ability of ecosystem services to supply local needs are inappropriate for the Southern Ocean due to the geographical separation between these ecosystem services and their beneficiaries. This fact might partly explain why there has been little direct consideration within CCAMLR of the relationships between ecosystem services and human well being.
The fishing industry and its employees, suppliers and customers are direct beneficiaries of the Antarctic krill fishery. The beneficiaries of other ecosystem services that the fishery could impact are less clearly defined, although these could include tourists, scientists, and others who might benefit from the maintenance of predator populations and the wider ecosystem (see Table I ). The consensus decision-making in CCAMLR provides a mechanism for accommodating multiple opinions representing multiple ways of valuing different ecosystem services. However, consensus decision-making also has recognized drawbacks including the disproportionate influence of minority opinions and a tendency to default to the status quo. For many Members there will be pressure to ensure that decisions are defensible in terms of both the Convention and public opinion. Nonetheless, in order to have an influence, opinions must be represented at national government level, and there is no automatic requirement to represent all beneficiaries, or to consider the relative value of different ecosystem services to different beneficiaries.
Several conservation-focused non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also take an interest in krill fishery issues. Some of these have observer status within CCAMLR under the umbrella of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition. However, few interest groups or direct beneficiaries have stated their specific objectives for krill fishery management. Hill (2013a) noted that most groups identify “sustainability” as a key requirement but that few have provided a tangible definition of this term. Furthermore, some uses of this term are mutually contradictory. Nonetheless, Österblom & Bodin (2012) reported that 117 diverse organizations responded to the crisis of IUU harvesting of toothfish in the Southern Ocean with shared purpose. Their actions resulted in a substantial reduction in IUU fishing. This suggests that effective cooperation between diverse interest groups is possible.
CCAMLR faces the challenge of making operational decisions on the basis of its conservation principles that are acceptable to a diverse community of beneficiaries and interest groups. At present there is little information about the values that these groups place on ecosystem services, or their specific objectives for the ecosystem or the fishery. The types of question posed by ecosystem assessments might help to identify these values and objectives.
Consideration of future change.
The MA examined how ecosystems and the services they provide might change under plausible future scenarios. This is a key question being asked by many Antarctic-focused national science programmes and international coordinating bodies including the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and the Integrating Climate and Ecosystem Dynamics in the Southern Ocean programme (Murphy et al. 2012), in conjunction with ATS bodies including CCAMLR. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change intends to increase its coverage of the status and prognosis for Southern Ocean ecosystems with a dedicated chapter in the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report. The impetus for such activity has come mainly from the scientific community but the strong interaction between scientists and decision makers within CCAMLR ensures shared purpose.
The paucity of historical data presents a particular challenge for defining baseline status and relative reference points for living components of the Southern Ocean ecosystem (Hill et al. 2006, Trathan et al. 2012). Clarke & Harris (2003) and Turner et al. (2009) identified key influences on the current status of Antarctic ecosystems, and suggest potential ecosystem responses to further change. Climate forcing is a major influence on the Southern Ocean ecosystem (Everson et al. 1992, Turner et al. 2009). This apparently results from complex interactions between natural climate processes, and the anthropogenic effects of the ozone hole and greenhouse gases (Turner et al. 2009, Turner & Overland 2009). Although limited human activity in the Southern Ocean constrains the potential direct influences (Trathan & Agnew 2010), potentially important drivers of change include: fishing; the ongoing consequences of historical exploitation of seals, whales and fish; pollution; disease; and invasive species (Clarke & Harris 2003, Trathan & Reid 2009).
The Convention identifies the importance of the effects of fishing and associated activities “on the marine ecosystem and of the effects of environmental changes”. CCAMLR's 2009 resolution 30/XXVIII (ccamlr/en/resolution-30/xxviii-2009, accessed April 2013) also recognized the importance of climate change, urging “increased consideration of climate change impacts in the Southern Ocean to better inform CCAMLR management decisions” and encouraging “an effective global response to address the challenge of climate change”. These statements require ongoing consideration of how to secure the delivery of a limited set of ecosystem services while minimizing the impact on others. Further work remains necessary to quantify and forecast environmental change, to understand levels of uncertainty, and to assess potential impacts on ecosystem services, including their social and economic implications.
Discussão.
The previous sections have provided a preliminary characterization of the Southern Ocean's ecosystem services, demonstrating their global importance in terms of climate regulation, food supply and the maintenance of biodiversity. The high estimated value of the Antarctic krill stock relative to global fishery landings provides an illustration of this global significance. We have also discussed the extent to which the functions of ecosystem assessment are already integrated into the management of the Antarctic krill fishery. This demonstrates that trade-offs between the benefits obtained from harvesting and the potential impacts on other ecosystem services are a major component of CCAMLR's decision-making process.
The governance system for the Southern Ocean offers unique opportunities for managing the trade-offs between ecosystem services because its influence covers a whole ocean ecosystem. In 2009, CCAMLR designated a Marine Protected Area located entirely within the High Seas (CCAMLR 2012c). This global first is an important milestone in protecting ecosystems that are beyond national jurisdiction. Furthermore the Convention's principles of conservation effectively require management that accounts for such trade-offs. The developing management of the Antarctic krill fishery acknowledges these trade-offs, but simplifies them to a three-way consideration of fishery performance and the status of krill and predator populations. It is appropriate to assess whether this three-way trade-off fully represents CCAMLR's responsibilities under the Convention and the wider ATS. CCAMLR faces further challenges in developing its management approach, and in ensuring that this approach is co-ordinated with organizations responsible for other human activities at both the global and regional scale.
The ecosystem services of the Southern Ocean are a global resource from which all of mankind indirectly benefits. Most beneficiaries of these ecosystem services never have any direct contact with the ecosystem. There is, however, a small and relatively privileged group of direct beneficiaries that includes fishing and tourism companies, affluent tourists and consumers of the premium products (such as krill oil and Antarctic toothfish) derived from Antarctic fisheries. These activities also create employment and therefore another category of beneficiary. In their consideration of growing demand for marine fisheries products, Garcia & Rosenburg (2010) identified krill as a resource that could perhaps support further exploitation. Thus, the composition of the group of direct beneficiaries could change over time. The spatial disconnect between the ecosystem services and the majority of beneficiaries means that the role of interest groups as intermediaries between beneficiaries and managers is particularly pronounced. There is an important distinction between beneficiaries and interest groups. Beneficiaries include the whole human race benefiting from a wide range of ecosystem services, while interest groups often focus on a narrow set of benefits and objectives. The specific requirements of beneficiaries are not currently well understood with the consequence that CCAMLR is yet to define operational objectives for the state of the krill stock, its predators and the wider ecosystem (Hill 2013a, 2013b, Watters et al. in press).
The Southern Ocean ecosystem is strongly influenced by human activities elsewhere (Clarke & Harris 2003), and is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Turner et al. 2009). Ecosystem managers arguably have a duty to maintain the regulatory and supporting services required for healthy ecosystems, and therefore to ensure appropriate interaction with the wider global community on such issues. Identifying objectives that are consistent with its responsibility and influence are an additional challenge faced by CCAMLR.
Ecosystem assessment could help CCAMLR to meet these various challenges by providing a comprehensive characterization of the status, trends, and drivers of change to ecosystems and the services they provide for human well-being. A regional ecosystem assessment for the Southern Ocean would address its under-representation in existing global assessments. Such an assessment would also have benefits for CCAMLR and the wider ATS. Firstly, it would increase knowledge about the connections between the broad suite of Southern Ocean ecosystem services and the social and economic goals of CCAMLR Members. Clearer information on the value of ecosystem services would address the existing need for information about the objectives for each component of the three-way trade-off. It would also promote consideration of ecosystem services that are not currently represented in decision-making. Secondly, an assessment which gives equal consideration to the full range of provisioning, supporting, regulating and cultural services would be a substantial undertaking involving a wide community. This, in itself, could help forge more substantial links between the different components of the ATS. The end product would provide a consistent basis for coordinating activities related to managing or understanding ecosystem impacts.
The information presented here could provide a starting point for such an assessment. New research would be needed to fill some obvious gaps such as the spatial mapping (e. g. Naidoo et al. 2008, Maes et al. 2011) and economic valuation (e. g. Costanza et al. 1997) of ecosystem services, and the assessment would serve as a gap analysis to highlight other data needs. Best-practice developed in many other regional assessments could be useful (Ash 2010). CCAMLR is a user of information on the status and trends of marine ecosystems but it does not fund or directly mandate the collection of such data. The reliance of CCAMLR on donated information is a significant challenge to both the achievement of an ecosystem assessment and the long-term management of ecosystem services in the Southern Ocean (Hill 2013a, 2013b). There are several potential solutions, including a new initiative by the fishing industry to support the scientific work of CCAMLR (Nicol et al. 2012). We acknowledge that an ecosystem assessment would be a significant task in terms of resource requirements and coordination effort, but we believe it would deliver significant and long-term practical benefits.
Conclusão.
The ecosystem services provided by the Southern Ocean are significant on a global scale, as illustrated by the potential of Antarctic krill to supply the equivalent of 11% of current world fishery landings. The terms “ecosystem services” and “ecosystem assessment” are not commonly used within the community concerned with managing human activities in the Southern Ocean. Nonetheless this community is actively gathering and applying much of the information that ecosystem assessments seek to collate. The Convention, in particular, articulates the requirement to consider trade-offs between ecosystem services. The management of the krill fishery represents a practical implementation of this requirement despite a lack of information about how beneficiaries value the relevant ecosystem services. A formal ecosystem assessment could provide necessary information on the wider suite of ecosystem services that fishing might interact with and how beneficiaries value these services. Such information is likely to aid the future development of krill fishery management and help remove the current reliance on interim measures. Formal and comprehensive ecosystem assessment would require considerable investment but could substantially improve coordination between management bodies focused on different human activities at both the regional and global scale.
Agradecimentos.
This paper is a contribution to the Natural Environment Research Council core-funded British Antarctic Survey Ecosystems programme. We are grateful to Sigve Nordum of Aker Biomarine for supplying some of the information presented in Table II .