The Ecosystem Approach: from principles to Guidance for better environmental decision-making.

Edward Maltby (University of Liverpool) and Mike Acreman (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

and Sibthorp Trustees

Outline• Conceptual framework

within CBD and beyond.• Origins of Malawi

Principles and developments.

• The Paradigm Shift.• A confusion of

terminology.• Need for further

guidance.• Recommendations from

The Sibthorp Trust.

Economic Prosperity

Social well-being

Environmental sustainability

Equitable sharing

Integrated approaches

Sustainable useConserving biodiversity

2. Enhance benefit sharing

1. Focus on functional relationships and processes within ecosystems

3. Use adaptive management practices

4. Management at appropriate scale and decentralisation

5. Ensure intersectoral cooperation

Structure, outcomes and guidance for the Ecosystem Approach

After Maltby and Crofts, 2004.

SWIMMER | University of Liverpool

Origins of Malawi Principles and subsequent developments.

10 Sibthorp Principles (1996) 12 Malawi Principles (1998).

15 participants from International (mainly natural science) research community / Govt. agencies / IUCN.

2000 Adopted by CBD (COP-5) Call for case studies.

2003 Pathfinder Workshops: Southern Africa ,South America, SE Asia (Smith & Maltby, 2003).

2003 Expert Meeting Montreal endorsed Principles – rationale –explanation - Guidance points.

2004 Briefings for DEFRA and senior staff from other ministries

2004 COP-7 Further elaboration / initiation of CBD sourcebook.

2009 DEFRA Action Plan for mainstreaming into policy. More than a decade after conceptualisation.

2011 UK National Ecosystem Assessment…..2011 NEWP.

EA demands paradigm shift

From To

Preservation Adaptive Management

Sectoral Integrated

Scientific Multifaceted Knowledge

Environmental People and Environment

Top Down Both Directions

National Appropriate Level

Conservationist All Stakeholders

Nature Social and Environmental well-being

SWIMMER | University of Liverpool

Terminology can be Confusing

Ecosystem Approach

Watershed management

Bioregional Planning

Wise Use

Ecosystem Management

Eco-region-based Conservation

Ecosystem-based approach

Sustainable use

Coastal-zone management

Ecosystems Approach

Ecosystem Services Approach

Rivers Trusts: Westcountry Rivers Trust Examples of Tamar 2000

Outputs• 1000+ farmers & landowners given advice• 700+ Integrated Land & River Management Plans• 100 km+ vulnerable riverbank fenced• 16 wetlands restored/improved• 32+ km ditches prioritised for re-vegetation • 200+ sites of accelerated erosion controlled• 14 demonstration sites developed and operational• 180+ sites of habitat improvement • 50+ buffer zones created...

Economic, Environmental & Social Benefits of Tamar 2000 (WRT)

DIRECT BENEFITS predominantly to farmers - average £2,300 per farm, for example through optimising farm inputs, water separation and leak reduction, improved stock health, diversification.

INDIRECT BENEFITS to community, tourist & anglers - difficult to value, examples include improved water quality, flow regime, improved wildlife habitats and fisheries.

Links between Ecosystem Services and human wellbeing

Supporting nutrient cycling soil formation primary

production

Provisioning food fresh water wood and fibre fuel

Regulating climate floods disease clean water

Cultural Aesthetic spiritual education recreation

Security personal safety resource access from disasters

Freedom of choice and action

satisfaction and opportunity for achievement

Basic for life livelihoods nutrition shelter goods

Health strength feeling well clean air clean water

Social social cohesion mutual respect ability to help

others

Ecosystem services Constituents of well-being

Biodiversity

Thicker line = Intensity of linkage between ES and human well-being

Darker line = Increasing potential for socio-economic mediation

Adapted from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Ecosystem services derived from inland rivers, lakes and wetlands

Provisioning services

Food

Fresh water

Fibre and fuel

Biochemicals

Genetic materials

fish, game, fruit, grain etc.

storage, retention, provision

timber, fuel, peat, aggregates

materials from living things

medicine, resistance to pathogens, ornaments

Regulating servicesClimate

Hydrology

Pollution

Erosion

Natural hazards

GHGs, temp., rain, CO2.

recharge, discharge, storage

retention, removal,

protection, retention

floods, storms

Cultural services

Spiritual

Recreation

Aesthetic

Education

well-being, religion

tourism, activities

appreciation

opportunities

Supporting services

Biodiversity

Soil formation

Nutrient cycling

Pollination

habitats

retention, accumulation

storage, processing

habitat & support

Adapted from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005

.

Screen showing the assessment of provision of ecosystem services by the

wetland unit.

UK NEA

Historic dehydration of the land Wetland ecosystems highly fragmented Runoff accelerated Resiliency reduced in face of climate change 42% natural floodplains disconnected(England) 50% all ecosystem services declining Emphasis change from flood defence to flood

risk management.

Freshwaters chapter Maltby & Ormerod et al 2011

Cherwell floodplain

1998 flood flow at Oxford

with no floodplain

• SWIMMER | University of Liverpool

Flooding river marginal wetlands increasesdenitrification

Temp.5°C

Temp.25°C

Dry 6(36 %)

39(23 %)

Flooded 44(17 %)

362(28 %)

Denitrification rate (kg N2O+N2 ha day)and % N2O produced

SWIMMER | University of Liverpool

Loss of carbon as dissolved organic

carbon (DOC) affects water quality

Degraded drained gully site

Peatland restoration

Blocked grip site

Drainage water content aerobic microbial activity

organic matter content extracellular enzyme hydrolysis

CO2

• SWIMMER | University of Liverpool

Functional gradients

Carbon sequestration Floodwater detention

Nutrient & contaminant transformation

Food chain support

EA Principle Requirement for implementation

Societal Choices Stakeholder / Community engagementManagement decentralised to lowest appropriate level.

Balance local interests with wider public interest.Responsibility, ownership, accountability, participation, use of local knowledge.Key role of Rivers Trusts, third sector alongside EA

Consider effects of activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.

May require new organisational arrangements for decision-making.From uplands to sea.

Need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context.

Rectify the cost – benefit disconnect.Realignment of incentives.

Conservation of ecosystem structure and function to deliver ecosystem services high priority target.

ResilienceNatural water retention measures.Wider benefits

Ecosystem must be managed within limits of their functioning.

Functional assessment.

Continued:

EA Principle Requirement for implementation

Ecosystem Approach should be undertaken at appropriate spatial scale.

Catchment scale and interconnectivity

Objectives set for the long term Avoid conflict with short term gains / immediate benefits.

Recognise that change is inevitable Apply adaptive management, avoid foreclosure of options and consider mitigating actions to deal with climate change.

Appropriate balance between an integration of conservation and use of biological diversity.

“Productive” vs “Protected” balance and more flexible integration of habitats to optimise ecosystem services.

Consider all forms of relevant information.

Consultation

Involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

To deal with complex systems with many interactions.

Sibthorp Trust

Ecosystem Approach – Taking Stock and moving forward with new guidance

Need to achieve buy-in across all sectors. Not a different thing to do – a different way to do and connect things you do.

Challenges

Institutional rigidity and inherent difficulties in working across sectoral interests.

Lack of understanding and knowledge amongst many stakeholders

Short-term thinking Lack of data to enable consideration of the ‘full’ economic

valuation of ecosystem services and absence of proven innovative mechanisms to rectify imbalances in responsibility for their maintenance and/or enhancement such as through PES.

Landownership focused on limited/single outcomes. Lack of non-monetary evaluation methods. Cross-sectoral thinking limited by decision-maker

training/experience(linked to all the above).

30 second message about the Ecosystem Approach The Ecosystem Approach provides a flexible framework for environmental management which is holistic and connects all those considerations of societal concern with the best available science and other knowledge which can help to achieve practical sustainable development. It can be implemented in different ways according to the problem addressed and its geographical and/or cultural context.

The G20 Guidance-Framing objectives

• G1 The Ecosystem Approach will be most effective when it is focused on actual and clearly defined issues.

• G2 A major aim should be closer collaboration across government departments, agencies, and all elements of civil society.

• G3 Changes in attitudes from purely material wealth to recognition of wider well-being.

• G4 Management should recognize the value of multi-functional aspects of landscape.

• G5 Objectives should be long-term.

Working together

• G6 At least initially it will be essential to work within existing sectoral arrangements.

• G7 Identify clearly who can contribute to making the necessary changes.

• G8 Need for inter-sectoral cooperation and willingness to work together (cf G3).

Getting the ideas across

• G9 The concept of the EA can be transferred, without substituting the detailed terminology, where it enhances or improves existing integrated approaches.

• G10 A clear communications strategy is an essential pre-requisite of delivery.

Collating information content

• G11 Appropriate-scale demonstration/exemplar projects.• G12 Recognise traditional knowledge systems and how

related decisions are made.• G13 Ensure all information is verified or quality level of

certainty defined.• G14 Provide inventory of sources of information to guide

users and avoid overload – need to help sift information.

Delivery• G15 Take note of unintended results of actions taken in implementation.• G16 Work at the appropriate spatial and temporal scale, reflecting the

nature of the problem or issue being addressed.• G17 Ensure provision to collect sufficient information to undertake a

post project implementation appraisal.• G18 Identify where possible cost savings for different sectors, esp.

industries/private sector/public of implementation of ecosystem approach.

• G19 Review the full range of available tools to implement the Ecosystem Approach most appropriately within the contextual (spatial and temporal) framework of the problem addressed.

• G20 Ensure that provision is made to monitor the progress of implementation against desired targets.

SWIMMER | University of Liverpool

Acknowledgements

Participants of the Sibthorp Cirencester Seminar:

Ecosystem Approach – “Has the Concept Worked?” April 2011. Funding support from DEFRA and The Sibthorp Trust.

Robert Bradburne, Natalie Barker, Stewart Clarke, Roger Crofts, Andrew Church, Laurence Couldrick, Peter Costigan, Nick Davidson, Richard Ellis, Maggie Gill, Steve Hall, Olivier Hamerlynck, Pushpam Kumar, Paul Logan, Patrick Meire, Dianne Mitchell, Joe Morris, Diane Mortimer, Jo Mulongoy, Paul Nolan, Tom Nisbet, Mark Oddy, Dan Osborne, Martin Ross, Shaun Russell, Michael Stewardson, Jonathan Wentworth.