Information

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

Rationale

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

Annotations to the rationale:

The objectives for managing land, water, and living resources is a matter of societal choice, determined through negotiations and trade-offs among stakeholders having different perceptions, interests, and intentions.  In this regard it should be noted that:

-   Human society is diverse in the kind and manner of relationships that different groups have with the natural world, each viewing the world around them in different ways and emphasising their own economic, cultural, and societal interests and needs.

-   All relevant sectors of society need to have their interests equitably treated, which may involve providing for different outcomes in separate locations or at different times.

-   It is also necessary to ensure that the needs of future generations and the natural world are adequately represented.

-   Given this diversity, good decision-making processes that provide for negotiations and trade-offs are necessary to establish broadly acceptable objectives for the management of particular areas and their living resources.

-   Good decision-making processes incorporate the following characteristics:

  All interested parties (particularly including indigenous and local communities) should be involved in the process,

  It needs to be a clear how decisions are reached and who the decision-maker(s) is(are),

  The decision-makers should be accountable to the appropriate communities of interest,

  The criteria for decisions should be appropriate and transparent, and

  Decisions should be based on, and contribute to, inter-sectoral communication and coordination.

-   Good decisions depend on those involved having access to accurate and timely information and the capacity to apply this knowledge.

Implementation guidelines

1.1   Involve all stakeholders (interested parties) (including indigenous and local communities) in:

-   clearly articulating, defining and agreeing upon the goals of management

  defining problems

  making choices (in principle 12).

1.2 There need to be clearly defined boundaries (in time and space) for the management unit that is the subject of the societal choice process.

1.3   Ensure that those stakeholders that cannot directly represent themselves  are adequately represented by someone else.

1.4   Ensure that all stakeholders have an equitable capacity to be effectively involved, including through ensuring equitable access to information, ability to participate in the processes, etc.

1.5   Ensure that the decision-making process compensates for any inequities of power in society, in order to ensure that those who are normally marginalized (e.g. women, the poor, indigenous people) are not excluded or stifled in their participation.

1.6   Determine who the decision-makers are for each decision, how the decisions will be taken (what process will be used), and what are the limits on the discretion of the decision-maker (e.g. what are the criteria for the decision in law, what is the overall policy guidance within which the decision must fit, etc).

1.7   Ensure that the recognition of stakeholder interests occurs within the full range of decisions over time and space and levels. In doing so, however, ensure that "stakeholder fatigue" does not develop, by incorporating known stakeholder views into future decisions, and allowing efficient stakeholder input.

1.8   Where possible, use existing societal mechanisms, or build new mechanisms that are compatible with existing or desired societal conditions.

1.9   Ensure that decision-makers are accountable to the appropriate communities of interest.

1.10   Develop the capacity to broker negotiations and trade-offs, and manage conflicts, among relevant stakeholder groups in reaching decisions about management, use and conservation of biological resources.

1.11 There need to be mechanisms in place to ensure that, once an appropriate societal choice has been made, the decision will be able to be implemented over the long term, i.e. policy, legislative and control structures need to be in place.

 1.12 Undertake assessment at the national level to analyse effects of ecosystem management practices on society, with a view to find ways and means to mitigate possible constraints between stakeholders in the implementation phase.

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

Rationale:

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

Annotations to the rationale:

Decisions should be made by those who represent the appropriate communities of interest, while management should be undertaken by those with the capacity to implement the decisions. In this regard it should be noted that:

-   There are usually many communities-of-interest in ecosystem management. These can be compatible, complimentary, or contradictory. It is important to ensure that the level of decision-making and management selected maintains an appropriate balance among these interests.

-   Often, but not always, the closer the decision-making and management are to the ecosystem, the greater the participation, responsibility, ownership, accountability and use of local knowledge will be, all of which are critical to the success of management.

-   Because there are several levels of interests with people who have varying capacities to address different aspects of ecosystem management, there are often multiple decision-makers and managers with different roles for any individual place or resource.

-   Decisions made by local resource managers are often affected by, or even subordinate to, environmental, social, economic and political processes that lie outside their sphere of influence, at higher levels of organization. Therefore there is a need for mechanisms to coordinate decisions and management actions at a number of different organizational levels.

Implementation guidelines

2.1   The multiple communities of interest should be identified, and decisions about particular aspects of management assigned to the body that represents the most appropriate community of interest.  If necessary, management functions/decisions should be subdivided.  For example, strategic decisions might be taken by central Government, operational decisions by a local Government or local management agency, and decisions about allocation of benefits between members of a community by the community itself.

2.2   The potential adverse effects of fragmented decision-making and management responsibilities should be compensated for by:

-   ensuring that decisions are appropriately nested and linked

-   sharing information and expertise

-   ensuring good communication between the different management bodies

-   presentation of the overall combination of decisions/management to the community in an understandable and consolidated form so they can effectively interact with the overall system.

-   supportive relationships between the levels.

2.3   Good governance arrangements are essential, particularly:

-   clear accountabilities

-   accountabilities of the necessary authorities

-   accountabilities of competent bodies or persons

Note that this is not a complete enough list, and there seems no good reason to particularly identify these.

2.4   Achieving an appropriate level of decentralization requires taking decisions at a higher level to create an enabling and supportive environment, as well as a commitment to devolve those decision-making responsibilities that are currently situated at too high a level.

2.5   In choosing the appropriate level of decentralization, the following are relevant factors that should be taken into account in choosing the appropriate body.  .

-   whether the body represents the appropriate community of interest

-   whether the body has a commitment to the intent of the function

-   whether the body has the necessary capacity for management

-   efficiency (e.g. by moving the function to a higher level you may have sufficient work to allow maintenance of the necessary level of expertise to do the function efficiently and effectively).

-   whether the body has other functions which represent a conflict of interest

-   the effect on marginalized members of society (e.g. women, marginalized tribal groups)

In some cases problems could be corrected, such as through capacity-building. If no appropriate body is available at the level, a new body might be created, or an existing body modified, or a different level chosen.

2.6   Where functions are to be moved to another level, it is necessary to ensure that the body receiving the responsibility has sufficient capacity to fulfil that responsibility (e.g. resources, systems, authority), and that any risks arising from the transition can be managed.  This means doing capacity-building if necessary to allow the decentralization to occur.

Institutional arrangements are the key.  If you don't have the institutional structure that supports and coordinates the decision-making authorities then their work is worthless.

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

Rationale:

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

Annotations to the rationale:

Ecosystems are not closed systems, but rather open and often connected to other ecosystems. This open structure and connectedness of ecosystems ensures that effects on ecosystem functioning are seldom confined to the point of impact or only to one system. In this regard it should be noted that:

-   The effects of management interventions, or decisions not to intervene, are therefore not confined solely to the point of impact.

-   The effects between ecosystems are frequently non-linear and will likely have associated time-lags.

-   Management systems need to be designed to cope with these issues.

There is a need for this to reflect the fact that impacts are in both directions - into and out of a particular ecosystem. Not just adjacent and downstream, but those have other connections as well (e.g. systems linked by migratory species).

Implementation guidelines

3.1   Natural resource managers, decision makers and politicians should consider the possible effects that their actions could have on adjacent and downstream ecosystems (river basins and coastal zones) so that effects inside and outside the ecosystem are determined.

3.2   Where impacts of management or use of one ecosystem has or is projected to have effects elsewhere, bring together relevant stakeholders and technical expertise to consider how best to minimize adverse consequences

3.3   Environmental impact assessment (EIAs), including strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) should be carried out for developments that may have substantial environmental impacts taking into account all the components of biological diversity. These assessments should adequately consider the potential offsite impacts. The results of these assessments, which can also include social impact assessment, should subsequently acted upon. When identifying existing and potential risks or threats to ecosystem, different scales need to be considered.

3.4   Establish and/or maintain national and regional, where applicable, feed-back mechanisms to monitor the effects of management practices across ecosystems.

Principle 4: Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:

(a) Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;

(b) Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;

(c) Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

Rationale:

The greatest threat to biological diversity lies in its replacement by alternative systems of land use. This often arises through market distortions, which undervalue natural systems and populations and provide perverse incentives and subsidies to favour the conversion of land to less diverse systems. Often those who benefit from conservation do not pay the costs associated with conservation and, similarly, those who generate environmental costs (e.g. pollution) escape responsibility. Alignment of incentives allows those who control the resource to benefit and ensures that those who generate environmental costs will pay.

Annotations to the rationale:

Many ecosystems provide economically valuable goods and services and it is therefore necessary to understand and manage ecosystems in an economic context. Frequently economic systems do not make provision for the many, often, intangible values derived from ecological systems In this regard it should be noted that:

- Ecosystem goods and services are frequently undervalued in economic systems.

- Even when valuation is complete, most environmental goods and services have the characteristic of "public goods" in an economic sense, which are difficult to incorporate into markets.

- It is often difficult to introduce new uses of ecosystems, even where these are less impacting or provide wider benefits to society, because economic and social systems exhibit significant inertia, particularly where strong existing interests are affected by and resist change.

- Many stakeholders with strong interests in the ecosystem, but having limited political and economic influence, may be marginalized from the relevant economic systems.

- Where those who control use of the land do not receive benefits from maintaining natural ecosystems and processes, they are likely to initiate unsustainable land use practices from which they will benefit directly in the short term.  To counter this,  more equitable sharing of benefits is advised.

- International, national and sub-national policies, laws and regulations, including subsidies may provide perverse incentives for unsustainable management of ecosystems.  Economic systems therefore need to be redesigned to accommodate environmental management objectives.

- Addressing the issue of market distortions that adversely affect biodiversity will require establishing dialogue with other sectors.

Deriving economic benefits is not necessarily inconsistent with attaining biodiversity conservation and improvement of environmental quality.

Implementation guidelines

4.1 Develop an understanding of the social and economic context of the issue to which the ecosystem approach is being applied

4.2 Apply appropriate practical economic valuation methodologies for ecosystem goods and services (direct, indirect and intrinsic values); and for the environmental impacts (effects or externalities).

4.3 Aim to reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity

4.4 Align economic and social incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

4.5  Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible. 

4.6 Evaluate the direct as well as indirect economic benefits associated with good ecosystem management including biodiversity conservation and environmental quality.

4.7 Enhance benefits of using biological diversity.

4.8 Ensure equitable sharing of costs and benefits.

Incorporate social and economic values of ecosystem goods and services into National Accounts, policy, planning, education and resource management decisions

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

Rationale:

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

Annotations to the rationale:

Biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of human wellbeing depend on the functioning and resilience of natural ecosystems.  In this regard it should be noted that:

-   Ecosystem services - the benefits people obtain from ecosystems by way of resources, environmental regulation including, support of biospheric processes, inputs to culture, and the intrinsic values of the systems themselves - depend on maintaining and, where appropriate, restoring particular ecological structures and functions.

-   Ecosystem functioning and resilience depend on inter-relationships within and among species, between species and their abiotic environments, and on the physical and chemical interactions within these environments. 

-   Given this complexity, management must focus on maintaining, and where appropriate restoring, the key structures and ecological processes (e.g., hydrological systems, pollination systems, habitats and food webs) rather than just individual species.

-   Given that the loss of genetic diversity predisposes populations and species to local extinction, the conservation of ecosystem composition and structure requires monitoring of population sizes of vulnerable and economically important species.

Management of ecosystem processes has to be carried out despite incomplete knowledge of ecosystem functioning.

Implementation guidelines

5.1 Improve understanding of the interrelationship among ecosystem composition, structure and function with respect to (i) human interaction, needs and values (including cultural aspects), (ii) conservation management of biodiversity, and (iii) environmental quality, integrity and vitality.

5.2 Determine and define conservation, social and economic objectives and goals that can be used to guide policy, management and planning using participatory processes.

5.3 Assess the extent to which ecosystem composition, structure can function contribute to the delivery of goods and services to meet the desired balance of conservation, social and economic outcomes.

5.4 Expand knowledge of the responses of ecosystems, in terms of changes in composition, structure and function, to both internally and externally induced stresses caused by, inter alia, human use, disturbance, pollution, fire, alien species, disease abnormal climatic variations (drought, flood) etc.

5.5 Develop and promote management strategies and practices that enable and ensure conservation of ecosystem service and take account of, or minimize, risks/threats to ecosystem function and structure.

5.6 Apply instruments to maintain and/or restore ecosystem service.

5.7 Where required, develop management strategies and practices to facilitate recovery of ecosystem structure and function (including threatened components) to generate or enhance ecosystem services and biodiversity benefits.

5.8 Develop and apply instruments that contribute to achievement of conservation management goals through a combination of managing protected area networks, ecological networks and areas outside of such networks to meet both short-term and long-term requirements and conservation outcome in accordance with VII/28.

5.9 Monitoring population sizes of vulnerable and important species should be linked to a management plan that identifies appropriate response measures and actions.

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

Rationale:

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

Annotations to the rationale:

There are limits to the level of demand that can be placed on an ecosystem while maintaining its integrity and capacity to continue providing the goods and services that provide the basis for human wellbeing and environmental sustainability. Our current understanding is insufficient to allow these limits to be precisely defined, and therefore a precautionary approach coupled with adaptive management, is advised.  In this regard it should be noted that:

-   Just as there are limits to the demands (production, off-take, assimilation, detoxification) that can be made on ecosystems, so too there are limits to the amount of disturbance that ecosystems can tolerate, depending on the magnitude, intensity, frequency and kind of disturbance.

-   These limits are not static but may vary across sites, through time, and in relation to past circumstances and events.

-   Cumulative effects of interventions over time and space should be assessed when considering ecosystem limits.

-   If these limits are exceeded, an ecosystem undergoes substantial change in composition, structure and functioning, usually with a loss of biodiversity and a resulting lower productivity and capacity to process wastes and contaminants

-   There is considerable lack of knowledge and uncertainty about the actual limits (thresholds for change) in different ecosystems. While further research can reduce these uncertainties, given the dynamic and complex nature of ecosystems we may never have perfect understanding.

-   Given the pervasiveness of uncertainties in managing ecosystems, management will need to be adaptive, with a focus on active learning derived from monitoring the outcomes of planned interventions using a sound experimental approach that allow the effects of the intervention to be accurately determined.

Management to restore lost capacities or control use should be appropriately cautious and apply an adaptive management approach.

Implementation guidelines

6.1 Identify practices that are not sustainable and develop appropriate mechanisms for improvement involving all stakeholders.

6.2 Given the uncertainty associated with defining the limits to ecosystem functioning under most circumstances, the precautionary approach should be applied.

6.3 Implement an adaptive management approach.

6.4 Develop understanding of the limits of ecosystem functioning and the effects of various human use on the delivery of ecosystem goods and services.

6.5 Where permissible limits to change in specific ecosystem components can be agreed, manage within these but monitor and assess the ecosystem response. Feedback the information at regular intervals to those responsible for setting the off-take or other limits.

6.6 Encourage the use of environmental assessments and monitoring to establish ecosystem responses to disturbance, in order to provide management feedback and develop appropriate responses.

6.7 Develop and promote appropriate management strategies and practices that sustain resources and maintain ecosystems within the limits of their functioning.

6.8 Sustainable use management goals and practices should avoid or minimize adverse impacts on ecosystem services, structure and functions as well as other components of ecosystems.

6.9 Formulate, review and implement regulatory framework, codes of practice and other instruments to avoid using ecosystems beyond their limits.

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

Rationale:

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

Annotations to the rationale:

The driving forces of ecosystems, including those due to human activities, vary spatially and through time, necessitating management at more than one scale to meet management objectives. In this regard it should be noted that:

  Ecosystems are made up of biotic and abiotic components and processes, which function at a range of spatial and temporal scales, within a nested hierarchy.

  The dynamics of human social and economic systems also vary across scales of space, time and quality.

  How components are perceived spatially depends partly on the scale of observation. At one scale, individuals of a species may seem relatively regularly and continuously distributed; at another the distribution may be discontinuous.  Likewise with time, for example, at one time scale (e.g., monthly, annually) a component or process may appear predictable; at another, longer or shorter time scale, the temporal dynamics may be unpredictable.

  Management processes and institutions should be designed to match the scales of the aspects of the ecosystem being managed.  More importantly, perhaps, given that ecosystem components and processes are linked across scales of both space and time, management interventions need to be planned to transcend these scales.

  Failure to take scale into account can result in mismatches between the spatial and time frames of the management and those of the ecosystem being managed.  For example, policy makers and planners sometimes may have to consider shorter time frames than the time frames of major ecosystem processes. The reverse can also be true, for example, where bureaucratic inertia can delay the quick management response needed to address a rapidly changing environmental condition. Spatial mismatches are also common, such as when administrative boundaries and those of ecosystem properties or related human activities that they are designed to regulate do not coincide.

Implementation guidelines

7.1 Enhanced capacity is required to analyse and understand the temporal and spatial scales at which ecosystem processes operate, and the effect of management actions on these processes and the delivery of ecosystem goods and services.  Identification of spatial patterns and gaps in connectivity should be included in this analysis.

7.2 Functional mismatches in the administration and management of natural resources should be avoided by readjusting the scale of the institutional response to coincide more closely with spatial and temporal scales of processes in the area under management.  This logic underpins the current global trend towards decentralized natural resource management.

7.3 Given that ecosystem components and processes are linked across scales of both time and space, management interventions need to be planned to transcend these scales.  Developing a nested hierarchy of spatial scales may be appropriate in some circumstances.

7.4 Managing large areas such as river basins or large marine areas may require development of new institutional mechanisms to engage stakeholders across administrative borders and different levels of administration.

7.6 Attention to spatial and temporal scales is needed in the design of assessment and monitoring efforts.

7.7 Concepts of stewardship, intergenerational equity and sustainable yield need to be applied to considerations of the temporal scale.

7.8  Regional collaboration is necessary to deal with large-scale changes.

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

Rationale:

Ecosystem processes are characterized by varying temporal scales and lag-effects. This inherently conflicts with the tendency of humans to favour short-term gains and immediate benefits over future ones.

Annotations to the rationale:

Time needs to be considered explicitly in formulating management plans, and in longer-scale processes need to especially considered and planned for because these are otherwise often neglected. In this regard it should be noted that:

-   People find long-term trends more difficult to detect than short term trends, particularly in complex systems.

-   Management systems tend to operate at relatively short time scales, often much shorter than the timescales for change in ecosystem processes.

-   Where there is a lag between management actions and their outcomes, it is difficult to take reasoned management decisions.

-   Long-term ecological processes, which can be very important, are therefore likely to be poorly accommodated in management systems, unless these are explicitly and carefully designed to address long-term issues.

Awareness of long-term processes is important because it is the long-term, spatially, extensive processes that both characterize and determine the broad ecosystem properties.

Implementation guidelines

8.1 Adaptive management processes should include the development of long-term visions, plans and goals that address inter-generational equity, while taking into account immediate and critical needs (e.g., hunger, poverty, shelter).

8.2 Adaptive management should take into account trade-offs between short-term benefits and long-term goals in decision-making processes.

8.3 Adaptive management should take into account the lag between management actions and their outcomes.

8.4 Monitoring systems should be designed to accommodate the time scale for change in the ecosystem variables selected for monitoring. Alternatively, if the monitoring cannot be adjusted, a more appropriately scaled but still relevant variable should be selected to monitor.

8.5 The capacity to monitor and detect long-term, low frequency changes in ecosystem structure and functioning should be strengthened.

8.6 To implement long-term management requires stability of institutions, legal and policy frameworks, monitoring programs, and extension and awareness-raising programs.

Principle 9:  Management must recognize that change is inevitable.

Rationale:

Ecosystems change, including species composition and population abundance. Hence, management should adapt to the changes. Apart from their inherent dynamics of change, ecosystems are beset by a complex of uncertainties and potential "surprises" in the human, biological and environmental realms. Traditional disturbance regimes may be important for ecosystem structure and functioning, and may need to be maintained or restored. The ecosystem approach must utilize adaptive management in order  to anticipate and cater for such changes and events and should be cautious in making any decision that may foreclose options, but, at the same time, consider mitigating actions to cope with long-term changes such as climate change.

Annotations to the rationale :

Change in ecosystems is both natural and inevitable, and therefore management objectives should not be construed as fixed outcomes but rather the maintenance of natural ecological processes. In this regard it should be noted that:

  Ecosystems change constantly as a result of natural processes. Those changes include shifts in species composition, population abundance, and physical characteristics.

  Such changes are not necessarily constant, variable, dynamic and usually difficult to predict at any point in time.

  It is therefore difficult to select an appropriate outcome or future state of an ecosystem as a static management goal. Instead, in addressing this and Principle 8, management should focus on maintaining the natural processes, which drive those changes. 

  This focus on processes requires a management approach that is flexible and adaptive, both as a response to changing circumstances and to take account of new knowledge and understanding.  Adaptive management should generate new knowledge and reduce uncertainties, thereby allowing the manager to anticipate and cater for change.

  Ecosystem management must therefore involve a learning process that will help to adapt methods and practices to improve the ways in which these systems are being managed and monitored. Flexibility is also needed in policy-making and implementation. Long-term, inflexible decisions are likely to be ineffective or detrimental.

Implementation guidelines

9.1 Adaptive management is needed to respond to changing social and ecological conditions, and to allow management plans and actions to evolve in light of experience.

9.2  Natural resource managers must recognise that natural and human-induced change is inevitable and take this into account in their management plans.

9.3 Adaptive management should be encouraged when there is a risk degradation or loss of habitats, as it can facilitate taking early actions in response to change.

9.4  Monitoring systems, both socio-economic and ecological, are an integral part of adaptive management, and should not be developed in isolation from the goals and objectives of management activities.

9.5  Adaptive management must identify and take account of risks and uncertainties.

9.6  Where changes occur across national borders, the scale of adaptive management may need to be adjusted.

9.7  While ecosystems are inherently dynamic and resilient, special adaptation and mitigation measures are needed when ecosystems may be pushed beyond the limits of natural variation. Capacity-building efforts are needed to address highly vulnerable areas such as small island states and coastal areas.

9.8 Capacity-building efforts are needed to address highly vulnerable areas such as small island states and coastal areas.

9.9  Traditional knowledge and practice should be used to enable better detection and understanding of  ecosystem change, and to develop appropriate adaptation measures.

9.10   Adaptive management should recognize the resilient capacity of ecosystems in response to natural disturbances, and should be aimed at maintaining or restoring this capacity so as to reduce the risk of adverse social and economic consequences of natural variability in ecosystems.

9.11    Awareness-raising measures are needed to enhance public knowledge that ecosystem change is a natural phenomenon, and to build support and capacity for adaptive management.

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

Rationale:

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

Annotations to the rationale:

Biological resources play a role in providing the ecosystem goods and services on which humans ultimately depend. In this regard it should be noted that:

  The ecosystem approach is designed to support the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of biodiversity. 

  Sustainable use and management depends on also achieving conservation objectives.

  Management for conservation and sustainable use are not inherently incompatible, and can be integrated. 

  Integration can be achieved at various scales and in various ways including both spatial and temporal separation across the landscape as well as through integration within a site.

Implementation guidelines

10.1  Develop integrated natural resource management systems and practices to ensure the appropriate balance between, and integration of, the conservation and use of biological diversity, taking into account long- and short-term, direct and indirect, benefits of protection and sustainable use as well as management scale.

10.2  Develop policy, legal, institutional and economic measures that enable the appropriate balance and integration of conservation and use of ecosystems components to be determined.

10.3  Promote participatory integrated planning, ensuring that the full range of possible values and use options are considered and evaluated.

10.4   Seek innovative mechanisms and develop suitable instruments for achieving balance appropriate to the particular problem and local circumstances.

10.5  Manage areas and landscapes in a way that optimises delivery of ecosystem goods and services to meet human requirements, conservation management and environmental quality.

10.6   Determine and define sustainable use objectives that can be used to guide policy, management, and planning, with broad stakeholder participation.

Identify solutions which relieve sectoral pressure on existing resources

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

Rationale:

Information from all sources is critical to arriving at effective ecosystem management strategies. A much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and the impact of human use is desirable. All relevant information from any concerned area should be shared with all stakeholders and actors, taking into account, inter alia, any decision to be taken under Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Assumptions behind proposed management decisions should be made explicit and checked against available knowledge and views of stakeholders.

Annotations to the rationale:

Ecosystems can be viewed at various scales and from different perspectives, each yielding unique information and insights. Good management should therefore consider all relevant information. In this regard it should be noted that:

-   The ecosystem approach is designed to accommodate a range of values and associated goals, and the information and perspectives of the communities that hold those values are therefore important in designing and implementing management.

-   There is no single level of organization at which one can understand and optimize management of ecosystem functioning. Different information sources will address issues at different levels, providing complementary perspectives to support integrated management.

-    

-    

 Implementation guidelines

11.1  Relevant information should be shared with other stakeholders and actors and technical and scientific information be made available in an accessible way (indigenous and local knowledge should be treated with full respect of Article 8(j) and further decisions of the CBD).

11.2  Assumptions behind proposed management decisions should be made explicit based on the best available expertise, explicitly regard scenarios of future change and include the knowledge and views of stakeholders.

11.3  Appropriate mechanisms should be developed to document and make more widely available the information from all relevant disciplines (including natural and social sciences) and from relevant knowledge systems, particularly those based on local and traditional practices. This guideline should be implemented consistent with any decision to be taken under Article 8(j) of the CBD. 

11.4  The implications for ecosystem management of different "world views" based on different knowledge systems should be evaluated.

11.5 Good management depends upon improving the information base and scientific understanding of ecosystems through the promotion, implementation and application of research and integrating this information into decision-making. 

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

Rationale:

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

Annotations to the rationale:

The complexity of ecosystem management for sustained use and conservation requires integrating the activities and actions of many different stakeholders. In this regard it should be noted that:

-   The activities of all sectors affect biological diversity, and can contribute to, or detract from, the achievement of the objectives of the Convention.

-   The management of biodiversity, because of its complexity, and the significance of human impacts, requires a wide range of scientific and management skills, including those located in sectors that have not traditionally been involved in biodiversity conservation or management.

For these reasons the ecosystem approach should provide a framework for fostering greater involvement of all relevant stakeholders and technical expertise in planning and carrying out coordinated activities, sharing management resources, or simply exchanging information.

Implementation guidelines

12.1  The integrated management of land, water and living resources requires increased communication and cooperation, (i) between sectors, (ii) at various levels of Government (national, provincial, local), and (iii) among Governments, civil society and private sector stakeholders. Increased communication among international and regional organizations also.

12.2  Further incorporation of the ecosystem approach as an integral part of planning in, among others, the agriculture, fisheries, forestry and other natural resources management sectors potentially affecting biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, should be encouraged, following the example, for instance, of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Sustainable Forest Management or others. Sectors other than the primary production sectors may also have major effects but are often less recognized in this respect.. These include sectors such as the judicial sector, which affects governance, as well as those such as energy and transport, which are managing or affecting resources either directly or indirectly.

12.3   Procedures and mechanisms should be established to ensure effective participation of all relevant stakeholders and actors during the consultation processes, decision making on management goals and actions, and, where appropriate, in implementing the ecosystem approach.

12.4   The effective implementation of the ecosystem approach may require involving multidisciplinary professional and scientific expertise, including such disciplines as economic, social and natural sciences.

12.5  When assessing the costs and benefits of conserving, maintaining, using and restoring ecosystems, the interests of all relevant sectors should be taken into account for equitable sharing of the benefits according to national law.