18 Ecosystem management at national and international level

Renuka Gupta

epgp books

 

Objectives:

1. Explain the Concept of Ecosystem management

2. Understand the Guiding Principles and Goals of ecosystem management

3. Elaborate some International and National case studies

4. Explain the Challenges for ecosystem management

Introduction

The ecosystem is seen as a dynamic web of plant, animal, and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a unit. The scale of an ecosystem can vary from a grain of soil to the entire biosphere and is dependent upon the nature of the management and conservation processes being under taken (Blumenfeld et al., 2009). Ecosystems are complex, adaptive systems that are characterized by historical dependency, nonlinear dynamics, threshold effects, multiple basins of attraction, and limited predictability (Levin, 1999). Increasing evidence suggests that ecosystems often do not respond to gradual change in a smooth way (Gunderson & Pritchard, 2002). Loss of resilience through the combined and often synergistic effects of those pressures can make ecosystems more vulnerable to changes that previously could be absorbed. As a consequence, they may suddenly shift from desired to less desired states in their capacity to sustain ecosystem services to society. In some cases, these shifts may be irreversible (Folke et al., 2004). An ecosystem is healthy if it is active and maintains its organisation and autonomy over time and is resilient to stress (Costanza et al., 1992). In implementing management practices, the Ecosystem Approach (EA) calls for a focus on the structure, processes, functions, and interactions among organisms and their environment. This includes humans and their cultural diversity. Ecosystem management also emphasizes the need for adaptive management and enhanced benefit-sharing to deal with the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems and the absence of complete knowledge or understanding of their functioning. Moreover, EA recognizes that there is no single way to implement the approach since it depends on local, provincial, national, regional, and global conditions (Blumenfeld et al., 2009).

Concept of Ecosystem Management

The Convention on Biological Diversity defines the ecosystem approach as “a strategy for the integrated management of land, water, and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. An ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompasses the essential structures, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems.” It is a holistic way of dealing with natural resource management in an approach that recognizes the inter-connectivity between ecological, social-cultural, economic and institutional structures. Ecosystem management is management driven by explicit goals, executed by policies, protocols, and practices, and made adaptable by monitoring and research based on our best understanding of the ecological interactions and processes necessary to sustain ecological composition, structure and function (Christensen et al., 1996). The central goal of ecosystem management is sustainability, where the emphasis is on delivering ecosystems services for current use without compromising the ability to provide them in the future. A fundamental aspect of this is the need to protect sources of resources or ecosystems (Grumbine, 1997). To use a banking analogy, traditional economic approaches have been living off nature‘s capital, whereas a sustainable economic model based on ecosystem management is an attempt to live off nature‘s interest. This reflects the need to shift away from resource management towards ecosystem management (Munang et al., 2011). It must be stressed that ecosystem management is not a single concept that can be applied to all ecosystems together. Instead it is a concept that, for successful practical management application, must be developed and tailored to suit individual ecosystem and societal resource use requirements (governed by the relevant goals, policies, protocols and practices). A protocol within ecosystem management is to use risk assessment frameworks, considering the climatic hazards, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of biophysical and socio-economic systems, and identify adaptation responses that can minimize potential risks. Whilst ecosystem management can be tailored to ‘local solutions‘ they can work towards shared goals at the global level, to meet ‘local needs within global level objectives‘. Overall, ecosystem management, when applied at the global scale is as much an ethos as a scientific concept. Ecosystem management is not a rejection of an anthropocentric for a totally biocentric worldview. Rather, it is management that acknowledges the importance of human needs while at the same time confronting the reality that the capacity of our world to meet those needs in perpetuity has limits and depends on the functioning of ecosystems (Christensen et al., 1996) that have thresholds of resilience (Munang et al., 2011).

Central to this is that biodiversity is the key to supporting resilient, productive and healthy functioning ecosystems and therefore underpins the provision of ecosystems services (MEA, 2005; TEEB, 2010). For example, the number, kinds and traits of species present determine the organismal traits that influence ecosystem processes, so mediating energy and material fluxes directly or altering abiotic conditions (i.e., limiting resources, disturbance and climate) that regulate process rates (Chapin et al., 2000). Therefore any reduction in species (or diversity at any organizational level) is likely to unbalance the energy and material fluxes and so de-stabilize resilience. An ecosystems approach seeks to ensure that balance is maintained and resilience remains stable (Munang et al., 2011). In the transformation to better biodiversity and ecosystem protection to reverse the cycle in Figure 1, an unprecedented effort will be required to adapt to changing biophysical conditions.

At the core of the ecosystem approach are its twelve guiding principles:

1. Management of land, water, and living resources are a matter of societal choice.

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

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

4. There is a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Therefore, an ecosystem management programme should:

  • Reduce market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity
  • Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use
  • Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible

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

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

7. EA should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

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

9. Management must recognize that change is inevitable.

10. EA should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.

11. EA should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

12. EA should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

The ecosystem based management focuses on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems with recognition that such processes and functions are complex and variable. EA seeks to enhance benefit-sharing, carry out management actions at the appropriate scale and decentralized to the lowest level, and to ensure inter-sectoral cooperation (Blumenfeld et al., 2009).

In applying the 12 principles of the ecosystem approach, the following five points are proposed as operational guidance.

  • Focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems
  • Enhance benefit-sharing
  • Use adaptive management practices
  • Carry out management actions at the scale appropriate for the issue being addressed, with decentralisation to lowest level, as appropriate
  • Ensure inter-sectoral co-operation.

Ecosystem Management Goals

Grumbine (1997) focused on the following specific goals for ecosystem management:

1. Maintain viable populations of all native species in situ.

2. Represent, within protected areas, all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation.

3. Maintain evolutionary and ecological processes (i.e., disturbance regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles, etc.)

4. Manage over periods of time long enough to maintain the evolutionary potential of species and ecosystems.

5. Accommodate human use and occupancy within these constraints.

Ecosystem management differs from prior management concepts in several important ways (Fig 2).

As per Lackey (1998), the seven core principles, or pillars, of ecosystem management define and bound the concept and provide operational meaning:

1. Ecosystem management reflects a stage in the continuing evolution of social values and priorities; it is neither a beginning nor an end;

2. Ecosystem management is place-based and the boundaries of the place must be clearly and formally defined;

3. Ecosystem management should maintain ecosystems in the appropriate condition to achieve desired social benefits;

4. Ecosystem management should take advantage of the ability of ecosystems to respond to a variety of stressors, natural and man-made, but all ecosystems have limited ability to accommodate stressors and maintain a desired state;

5. Ecosystem management may or may not result in emphasis on biological diversity;

6. the term sustainability, if used at all in ecosystem management, should be clearly defined– specifically, the time frame of concern, the benefits and costs of concern, and the relative priority of the benefits and costs; and

7. Scientific information is important for effective ecosystem management, but is only one element in a decision-making process that is fundamentally one of public and private choice.

International Initiatives

  • Chocó Eco-Regional Project, Colombia

The Chocó-Darién eco-regional complex spans across approximately 17 million ha, from Eastern Panamá to North-western Ecuador. It is one of the most bio-diverse regions in the world, recognized for its multitude of forest and freshwater ecosystems, including mangroves, estuarine forests, lowland and montane rain forests. These distinct features all contribute to its renowned biological singularity (WWF, 2014).

WWF used the Ecosystem Management framework in order to identify, prioritise, conserve and manage natural areas. Under this approach, conservation was considered to be the main priority. However, it was recognised there was a need to complement this strategy with an assessment of socio-economic variables in order to reduce the threats and pressures on the ecosystems and natural resources of the Chocó Region. As a result, a regional project is being implemented using the following strategies: (1) promoting conservation and protection of indigenous populations, Afro-American territories and ecological reserves; (2) promoting sustainable management of forestry resources and agricultural systems; (3) strengthening local and regional organisations and capacities; and (4) analysing and influencing policies that will define the development of the region. The main results of the project included the establishment of public and private protected areas and indigenous and ethnic reserves; the formulation of a Forestry Management Plan; the implementation of sustainable forestry and agricultural productive systems; formulation of actions to promote conservation of river banks; and the promotion of domestic animal rearing. Capacity building was also addressed.

  • Preserving the Agro-Forestry System on Mount Kilimanjaro

The “Kihamba” agroforestry system covers 120000 hectares of Mount Kilimanjaro’s southern slopes. The 800 year-old system stands out among agroforestry systems as one of the most sustainable forms of upland farming. Without undermining sustainability, it has been able to support one of the highest rural population densities in Africa, providing livelihoods for an estimated one million people. This agroforestry system has a multilayered vegetation structure similar to a tropical mountain forest which maximizes the use of limited land, provides a large variety of foods all year round and provides substantive environmental services beyond the areas where it is practiced. Because of the high quantities of biomass it produces and its capacity to recycle organic matter on farms, the agroforestry system contributes significantly to carbon storage. The trees and dense vegetation help considerably to ensure that Mount Kilimanjaro can remain the ‘water tower’ for the region.

As an ecologically compatible cash crop, coffee allowed the agroforestry system to adapt successfully to the emerging cash economy. However, in the 1990’s, coffee prices on the world market plummeted at the same time as pests and diseases were increasing. Additionally, many coffee shrubs had reached an age (over 50 years) when they produce less beans. These factors led to a sharp decline in productivity and profitability. It is estimated that 20 percent of coffee cultivations in the area have been abandoned. If this continues, it will have massive environmental and socio-economic implications in the landscape around Mount Kilimanjaro especially on food security, carbon storage, water catchment and soil erosion.

Under FAO’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems Initiative (GIAHS), activities were piloted in 660 households to enhance farmers’ cash income while preserving the ecological and social integrity of the Kihamba system. The project implemented an action plan, formulated together with the community, with the following key activities:

  • Rethinking sources of cash income. Three interventions were agreed on: a) conversion to certified organic coffee farming; b) introduction of vanilla as a high value additional cash crop; and c) introduction of trout aquaculture along the canals of the irrigation system.
  • Rehabilitation of the irrigation system to reduce water loss and expansion of the capacity of storage ponds to cope with longer dry seasons due to climate change.
  • Training in sustainable land management.
  • The interventions in coffee management alone are expected to increase farm cash income by 25 percent in three years.

In addition, the project organized a Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) process to facilitate an informed and independent decision-making process by the community,. Preparatory consultations were held with local government officials, traditional elders, and women’s representatives, where the pros and cons of different development options were discussed. A crucial step to build support in the government was to engage focal points in a Project Facilitating Committee (PFC) and to work across sectors and levels, with agents with different expertise and government mandates (FAO, 2013).

BOX __: Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) System

The Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) system is an application framework for designing and implementing spatially enabled knowledge-based decision support systems for environmental analysis and planning at any geographic scale(s). The system integrates state-of-the-art geographic information system, as well as knowledge-based reasoning and decision modelling, technologies to provide decision support for the adaptive management process of ecosystem management. It integrates a logic engine to perform landscape evaluations, and a decision engine for developing management priorities. The logic component: (1) reasons about large, abstract, multi-faceted ecosystem management problems; (2) performs useful evaluations with incomplete information; (3) evaluates the influence of missing information, and (4) determines priorities for missing information. The planning component determines priorities for management activities, taking into account not only ecosystem condition, but also criteria that account for logistical concerns of potential management actions. Both components include intuitive diagnostic features that facilitate communicating modelling results to a broad audience (Reynolds et al., 2015)

  • Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security in Nicaragua

The tropical mangrove estuary Estero Real is located along the north Pacific coast of Nicaragua. The estuary was declared a protected site in 1983 while in 2003 it was recognized by the Ramsar Convention as an area of international interest. It is at high risk of degradation partly due to shrimp fisheries and aquaculture as well as agricultural practices, urban waste, mining and deforestation in the higher parts of the basin. Heavy sedimentation from poor watershed management, the increased use of pesticides and the loss of mangrove forests are also threatening coastal aquaculture, fisheries and biodiversity in the mangrove ecosystem. Climate variability and climate change are putting additional pressures on the estuary.

To protect this area national and local fisheries and aquaculture institutions in Nicaragua have led the implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquaculture (EAFA) in Estero Real. FAO has supported this initiative through participatory planning and development of management plans. This approach allows fishers and fish farmers to maintain and increase food and income from fish products in the Estero Real, while preserving ecosystem services and increasing community resilience to climate change and other factors. Thanks to this project, coastal fishery and aquaculture communities have become better informed and more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other threats. Following extensive information gathering and support activities, stakeholders agreed on a management plan currently in place made up of four main components:

  • Improvement of environmental management of aquaculture and increased preparedness to climatic related stress by the development and implementation of a monitoring system of the aquatic environment.
  • Generation of alternative livelihood opportunities for small scale fishermen, mostly in aquaculture, to avoid negative fishing practices that might threaten biodiversity, ecosystem resilience and their own livelihoods.
  • Improvement of national/local governance and strengthening collaboration of different institutions that are involved in the management of the area including private sector.
  • Dissemination and communication of the management plan, to foster local involvement, create ownership and improve follow-up. This approach has helped increase understanding of the need to improve linkages with other sectors such as agriculture and future steps will be taken to address this need.

The process has facilitated and improved livelihoods for small scale fishermen and women that are now involved in two very successful shrimp farming cooperatives that are working in partnership with the national fisheries institution and larger scale shrimp farming cooperatives. The EAFA management has helped local stakeholders become more aware of the impacts of climate change and other external threats and understand better the need to improve management of natural resources to increase their own resilience (FAO, 2013).

National Initiatives

  • Sustainable Land, Water and Biodiversity Conservation and Management for Improved Livelihoods in Uttarakhand Watershed Sector Project, India

The Sustainable Land, Water and Biodiversity Conservation, and Management for Improved Livelihoods in Uttarakhand Watershed Sector Project for India aims to improve the productive potential of natural resources and increase incomes of rural inhabitants in selected watersheds through socially inclusive, institutionally and environmentally sustainable approaches. The additional financing aims at scaling-up and mainstreaming the outcome of the activities under the Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Management Project (UDWDP) and enhancing their sustainability by restoring and sustaining ecosystem functions and biodiversity while simultaneously enhancing income and livelihood functions.

The project encompasses three themes: (i) Community participation in watershed development and management aimed at integrating land-water use with the objectives of moisture retention and biomass production, while simultaneously enhancing incomes and livelihood options; (ii) Strengthening administrative capacity of Gram Panchayats to manage project financial resources, implement sub-projects, deliver legally mandated service, and to sustain those services beyond the duration of the project; and (iii) Ensuring equitable participation by all groups, especially the landless and women who rely disproportionately on common resources for fodder, fuel, and other forest products. (Source: World Bank, 2012; Pisupati, 2013)

BOX__: The Sustainable Land and Ecosystem Management (SLEM) Programme

The Sustainable land and Ecosystem Management (SLEM) Programme is a joint initiative of the Government of India and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) under the latter’s Country partnership Programme (CPP). The objective of the SLEM Programmatic Approach is to promote sustainable land management and use of biodiversity as well as maintain the capacity of ecosystems to deliver goods and services while taking into account climate change.

To contribute to the implementation of the 11th Plan, the Sustainable Land and Ecosystem Management Country Partnership Program (SLEM CPP) was developed. The overall objective of the SLEM partnership is to contribute to poverty alleviation in India by promoting enhanced efficiency of natural resource use, improved land and ecosystem productivity, and reduced vulnerability to extreme weather events, including the effects of climate change. Specifically, the partnership will support:

  • Prevention and/or control of land degradation by restoration of degraded (agricultural and forested) lands and biomass cover to produce, harvest, and utilize biomass in ways that maximize productivity, as well as by carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable use of natural resources;
  • Enhancement of local capacity and institution building to strengthen land and ecosystem management;
  • Facilitation of knowledge dissemination and application of national and international good practices in SLEM within and across states; and,
  • Replication and scaling up of successful land and ecosystem management practices and technologies to maximize synergies across the UN Conventions on Biological Diversity (CBD), Climate Change (UNFCCC), and Combating Desertification (UNCCD) conventions.

The Desertification Cell, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) is the national executing agency for the SLEM programmatic approach. ICFRE, Dehradun has been designated as the Technical Facilitation organisation for the SLEM programme (MoEFCC website)

  • Traditional Resource Use and Conflict Management in Keoladeo National Park, India

Keoladeo National Park is a small (2,873 ha) artificial wetland system located near Bharatpur on the Ganges plain. The wetland was created in 1750 by local royalty to attract migratory birds for hunting. Today, over 350 bird species, including the highly endangered Siberian crane, Grus leucogeranus, inhabit the park seasonally. In 1982, Keoladeo was declared a national park. Water buffalo, traditionally allowed to graze in the park, a water weed (Paspalum distichum) growing in the wetland, and the Siberian crane co-existed in a three-way relationship. The buffalo grazed on the weed, controlling its growth. Short-cropping of the weed by buffalo made it possible for the cranes to dig up plants tubers, one of its few food sources. In 1983, however, the Wildlife Protection Act prohibited the grazing of buffalo. As a result the weed grew unchecked to maturity, thereby creating a physical barrier that prevented the cranes from accessing their main food source, which led to a dramatic decrease in the numbers of cranes in the park. The Wildlife Protection Act was formulated and implemented without consultation with local communities, even though they had used the park traditionally – not only for grazing but also for visiting temples in the park, for collecting fruit, and as a source of animal fodder. The Act basically cut them off from their traditional uses of the area. This situation led to a serious conflict between the local communities and authorities. As a result, illegal harvesting of resources and poaching increased, and seven people were killed during violent confrontations. It is noteworthy that other related actions failed to contribute to the aims of the Protection Act owing to inadequate consultations with local communities. These included designation of the area as a Ramsar site (1981), a World Heritage site (1985) and the construction of a 2 meter high wall around the park. A decade-long study, costing nearly US$1 million, indicated that grazing buffalo were key to controlling growth of grasses and water weeds and, therefore, the Siberian crane and other bird populations. Local communities already knew this. Obviously every effort should be made to avoid such conflicts taking place at all. But given the existing situation, the park authorities, a team of natural resource specialists (representing government and NGOs) with the help of the World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) initiated a process of conflict resolution and reconciliation through a three week workshop in 1995. The exercise sought to: determine areas of agreement and disagreement between local communities concerning conservation objectives of the various officially adopted plans; identify new, potentially successful management options; and propose terms of reference for local management committees to be charged with implementing the new measures. The work was based on:

  • a number of rapid rural assessments to document the existing situation;
  • participation of all stakeholders in the workshop;
  • determining ways to provide the maximum benefits to local communities; and
  • widely publicizing the results of the workshop through local language media.

The exercise showed that local communities already had adequate methods to “regulate, control or exercise restraints over their use of resources”, which was a valuable tool for ecosystem-based management of the park (Pirot et al., 2010).

  • India’s REDD+ Strategy: Governing the Climate-Forest Interface

Combining the imperatives of climate change and forest governance may create a more holistic view on ecosystem management, and the huge attention given to climate change may provide the much-needed worldwide attention and resources to address deforestation (Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2012; Phelps et al., 2012). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) is seen as an opportunity to finally address some of the causes of the limited success to combat global deforestation by paying developing countries for the opportunity costs of forest conservation while still maintaining their sovereignty over the management of their forests (McDermott, 2014). From a development perspective, a global REDD+ mechanism has been lauded as a way to operationalize the contested principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in a post-Kyoto climate agreement in a manner that may well be acceptable to all countries. In addition, REDD+ may promote so-called “good governance” in developing countries by making participation in REDD+ schemes conditional on minimum standards for, inter alia, national and sub-national legal and policy frameworks, monitoring and enforcement frameworks, participation by local communities, local forest (user) rights, and decentralized forest management (Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2012; Angelsen et al., 2012; Gupta, 2012). Furthermore, REDD+ may provide additional income for local forest-dependent communities (Cowie et al., 2007).

There are two (self-designated) REDD+ pilot projects in the India, both located in the North-Eastern state of Meghalaya. One is located in the Khasi hills region, and bills itself as the first community-based REDD+ project in India, being initiated by indigenous Khasi communities. There are multiple posited drivers of deforestation in the area, including mining, illegal logging, grazing, fuelwood collection and forest fires. The Khasi hills project aims at watershed restoration through forest restoration activities and reducing pressure on forests, including, inter alia, through stimulating shifts from grazing to animal husbandry, use of fuel-efficient stoves, and regulations on forest use. Based on its experiences with piloting “payment for ecosystem services” arrangements in the region, the US-based non-governmental organization (NGO) Community Forestry International decided, together with indigenous communities, national and international NGOs, and the autonomous district council of Meghalaya, to seek carbon credits deriving from this project as additional financial support for its activities. As a result, the project was recently registered and certified under Plan Vivo standards, a UK-based carbon registry, and has commissioned a broker to sell the carbon credits on the voluntary market (Vijge, 2016).

The other REDD+ pilot project is located in the Garo hills region of Meghalaya, where increased pressure on land has drastically reduced rotation cycles in small-scale slash and burn farming. While traditionally long-term rotation cycles allowed forests to regenerate, current practices have resulted in negative impacts on the area’s biodiversity (World Land Trust, 2013). In 2005, Wildlife Trust India initiated a community-based natural resource management project in the area, in order to protect and regenerate the forests between two protected areas using village reserves, enabling wildlife to migrate along a “green spine” corridor. The main activities of this project include establishment of forest plantations, assisted natural regeneration, and patrolling to prevent illegal logging and grazing. In 2010, Wildlife Trust India and the UK-based NGO World Land Trust began to explore the possibility to add forest carbon sequestration as an additional objective and source of income for the project. In the initial stages of development, a UK-based shipping company signed a (non-binding) contract to fund the project up to its validation and, once issued, buy the carbon credits, in line with the company’s corporate social responsibility goals (Vijge, 2016).

Challenges with Ecosystem Management

Lackey (1998) suggested that the problems facing ecosystem management have five general characteristics:

  • Fundamental public and private values and priorities are in dispute, resulting in partially or wholly mutually exclusive decision alternatives;
  • There is substantial and intense political pressure to make rapid and significant changes in public policy in spite of disputes over values and priorities and the presence of mutually exclusive decision alternatives;
  • Public and private stakes are high, with substantial costs and substantial risks of adverse effects to some groups regardless of which option is selected.
  • Technical facts, ecological and sociological, are highly uncertain.
  • Ecosystem policy problems are meshed in a large framework assuring that policy decisions will have effects outside the scope of the problem.

CONCLUSION

Ecosystems supply the fundamental units of life support, by providing ecosystem services that enable us to produce or utilize food and water. They also provide clean air and climate regulation, shelter and medicines, cultural and aesthetic wellbeing, and can have a vital role in disaster risk reduction. These ecosystem services are however under increasing pressure and threat of further degradation. Hence emphasis should be on to protect, restore and improve ecosystems, particularly those that have been most degraded. Ecosystem management, as an experimental and adaptive process, requires that examples of various kinds of ecosystems to be protected as benchmarks or control areas for comparison to manipulated sites. Only then can effects of management practices be separated from natural processes. Ecosystem processes are often non-linear, and the outcome of such processes often shows time-lags. The result is discontinuities, leading to surprise and uncertainty. Management must be adaptive in order to be able to respond to such uncertainties and contain elements of “learning-by-doing” or research feedback. Measures may need to be taken even when some cause-and-effect relationships are not yet fully established scientifically. An ecosystem based approach will serve as the foundation in developing a ‘Green Economy‘. Ecosystem management acknowledges the importance of human needs while at the same time confronting the reality that the capacity of our world to meet those needs in perpetuity has limits and depends on the functioning of ecosystems. The inadequacy of the traditional resource management paradigm, which primarily focused on site based management strategies, to deal with multiple scales and larger areas that encompass both public and private lands coupled with the growing concern over decreasing biodiversity and loss of ecosystems gave rise to the concept of ecosystem management. Ecosystem management remains an evolving force that must yet respond and adapt to numerous challenges. The greatest challenge for governments and global leaders is to adjust national and international economies in line with climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts whilst maintaining ecosystem health and financial stability. It is recommended that an ecosystems approach becomes centrally embedded within local, national, regional and international level planning and policy making to ensure ecosystem health and in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Summary

We learnt about:

1. The Concept of Ecosystem Management

2. The Guiding Principles and Goals of Ecosystem Management

3. International and National Case Studies

4. The Challenges for Ecosystem Management

you can view video on Ecosystem management at national and international level

References

1. Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D. and Verchot, L.V. “Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices.” Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. 2012.

2. Blumenfeld, S., Lu, C., Christophersen, T. and Coates, D. “Water, Wetlands and Forests. A Review of Ecological, Economic and Policy Linkages.” Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Montreal and Gland. CBD Technical Series No. 47. 2009.

3. Chapin III, F.S., Zavaleta, E.S., Eviner, V.T., Naylor, R.L., Vitousek, P.M., Reynolds, H.L., Hooper, D.U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O.E., Hobbie, S.E., Mack, M.C. and Díaz, S. “Consequences of changing biodiversity.” Nature 2000, 405, 234-242.

4. Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.M.; Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., D‘Antonio, C., Francis, R.,Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peterson, C.H., Turner, M.G. and Woodmansee, R.G. “The report of the ecological society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management.” Ecol. Appl. 1996. 6, 665-691.

5. Costanza, R., Norton, B.G. and Hakell, B. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1992.

6. Cowie, A., Schneider, U.A. and Montanarella, L. “Potential synergies between existing multilateral environmental agreements in the implementation of land use, land-use change and forestry activities.” Environmental Science & Policy. 2007. 10(4): 335–352.

7. Earth Summit. Stakeholder Forum: London, UK, 2010. http://www.earthsummit2012.org/

8. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organisation of United States “FAO Success Stories on Climate Smart Agriculture” Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Sourcebook. 2013. www.fao.org/climatechange/climatesmartclimate-change@fao.org

9. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L. and Holling, C.S. “Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management”. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2004. 35(1), 557-581.

10. Grumbine, R.E. “Reflections on ―What is Ecosystem management.” Conservation Biology. 1997. 11, 41-47.

11. Gunderson, L.H. and Pritchard, L. Resilience and the Behavior of Large-Scale Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 2002.

12. Gupta, A., Lövbrand, E., Turnhout, E. and Vijge, M.J. “In pursuit of carbon accountability: the politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2012. 4(6): 726–731.

13. Lackey, R.T. “Ecosystem management: paradigms and prattle, people and prizes” Renewable Resources Journal. 1998. 1, 8-13.

14. Levin, S. Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. 1999.

15. McDermott, C.L. “REDDuced: from sustainability to legality to units of carbon – the search for common interests in international forest governance.” Environmental Science & Policy. 2014. 35: 12–19.

16. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. p. 155.

17. MoEFCC website, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change; SLEM Programme. http://www.moef.nic.in/division/slem-programme

18. Munang , R.T., Thiaw, I. and Rivington, M. “Ecosystem Management: Tomorrow’s Approach to Enhancing Food Security under a Changing Climate.” 2011. Sustainability3(7),937-954.

19. Phelps, J., Friess, D.A. and Webb, E.L. “Win–win REDD+ approaches belie carbon-biodiversity trade-offs.” Biological Conservation. 2012. 154, 53–60.

20. Pirot, J.Y., Meynell, P.J. and Elder, D. Ecosystem Management: Lessons from Around the World. A Guide for Development and Conservation Practitioners. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 2000

21. Pisupati, B. “Watering Biodiversity, Ecosystem Management.” National Biodiversity Authority, 2013.

22. Reynolds, K., Paplanus,S., Miller B. and Murphy, P. “Design Features behind Success of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System and Future Development” Forests. 2015. 6, 27-46

23. Symle, J., Lobo, C., Milne, G. and Williams, M. Watershed Development in India : An Approach Evolving through Experience. Agriculture and environmental services discussion paper;no. 4. World Bank, Washington, DC. 2014. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/18636

24. TEEB. “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB.” The TEEB Synthesis Report, Nagoya, Japan, 2010.

25. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers. TEEB Report, Brussels, Belgium, 13 November 2009.

26. UNCBD. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. 2000. http://www.cbd.int/ (accessed on 21 October 2010).

27. UNEP. “Green Economy.” UNEP‘s Ground-Breaking Report. United Nations Environment Programme: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/

28. Vijge, M.J. “Carbonizing forest governance: Analyzing the consequences of REDD+ for multilevel forest governance.” 178 pages. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, NL. 2016.

29. Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., McDermott, C., Vijge, M.J. and Cashore, B. “Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: current debates on the breadth of REDD+.” Current Opinion on Environmental Sustainability. 2012. 4(6): 646–653.

30. World Land Trust, 2013. Ecosystem Services in Garo Hills, India. http://www.worldlandtrust.org/eco-services/project-areas/garo-hills

31. WWF-Colombia. Landscape management in Chocó-Darién priority watersheds. WWF-Colombia, Cali Colombia. 2014.