Report on the Implementation of Ecosystem-Based Management for Marine Ecosystems

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the role of Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) as a vital framework for the sustainable management of marine ecosystems, directly contributing to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water). Despite the development of numerous decision-making tools to support EBM, global implementation remains slow. Drawing on case studies from Aotearoa New Zealand, this report presents a framework for tool selection and integration, emphasizing collaborative partnerships (SDG 17) and the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge to strengthen institutions (SDG 16). It identifies nine key lessons to improve tool adoption, aiming to enhance marine management and ecosystem protection in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

1. Introduction: EBM as a Framework for Achieving SDG 14

1.1 The Imperative for Sustainable Marine Management

Intensifying anthropogenic stressors are threatening global marine environments, jeopardizing the ecosystem services they provide and hindering progress towards SDG 14 (Life Below Water). Historical management approaches, which often focused on single species or stressors in isolation, have proven inadequate, leading to ecosystem degradation and the collapse of vital economic resources, such as the Newfoundland cod fishery. This highlights the urgent need for a more integrated management strategy.

1.2 EBM Principles and Alignment with the 2030 Agenda

Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) offers a holistic approach that considers entire ecosystems, including human interactions, trade-offs between different uses, and the complex networks that support marine resilience. This methodology is widely accepted as the necessary framework for achieving sustainable marine management and aligns with international agreements like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. By addressing the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic factors, EBM provides a practical pathway to operationalize the targets of SDG 14, SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

2. Challenges to EBM Implementation and SDG Attainment

Despite widespread acceptance, the transition to EBM is slow, contributing to the continued decline of marine ecosystem health. This disconnect between research and implementation presents a significant barrier to achieving global sustainability targets. Key challenges include:

• Fragmented Governance: A lack of clarity in the definition of EBM, coupled with fragmented management jurisdictions and policies, creates confusion for decision-makers. This undermines efforts to build effective and accountable institutions as called for in SDG 16.
• Knowledge and Data Gaps: A perceived lack of empirical data is often cited as a barrier. However, combining quantitative data with qualitative sources, such as expert opinion and Indigenous knowledge, can overcome this challenge.
• Lack of Public and Political Will: Insufficient public understanding of marine ecosystems and EBM can lead to poor decision-making by elected officials, hindering the implementation of long-term sustainable policies.

3. Integrating Indigenous Knowledge for Inclusive Governance (SDG 10 & 16)

3.1 The Aotearoa New Zealand Model

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Sustainable Seas National Science Challenge established seven principles for EBM that are uniquely tailored to the national context. These principles reflect global best practices but are distinguished by their integration of the rights and roles of Māori, the Indigenous People of Aotearoa, as defined by Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi. This approach emphasizes:

• Co-governance and partnership with Indigenous communities.
• The central role of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) alongside Western science.

This model serves as a global exemplar for implementing SDG 16.7 (ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making) and SDG 10.2 (promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all), demonstrating how EBM can be shaped by Indigenous leadership to align with national policy and international commitments.

4. A Framework for Selecting Decision-Support Tools

4.1 Key Assessment Criteria for SDG-Aligned Tools

A wide range of tools, from simple matrices to complex models, exists to support EBM. To ensure these tools are fit-for-purpose and advance sustainability objectives, their selection should be guided by key assessment criteria. The following questions help identify tools that align with the holistic principles of EBM:

1. Does the tool integrate ecosystem complexity?
2. Does it accommodate a range of components, outcomes, and stressors?
3. Can it assess risk at specific places and times?
4. Does it accommodate different knowledge types, including Indigenous and local knowledge?
5. Can it evaluate recovery pathways as well as degradation?
6. Does it effectively evaluate and communicate uncertainty?

4.2 The Necessity of a Multi-Tool Approach

No single tool can adequately address all facets of a complex marine management issue. The effective implementation of EBM often requires a suite of tools used in combination. Tools can be nested or used hierarchically within a broader framework, such as the Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF). This approach allows for the integration of different data types and knowledge systems, filling empirical gaps and providing a more robust evidence base for decision-making that supports multiple SDGs simultaneously.

5. Case Studies in Collaborative Action (SDG 17)

Two case studies from Aotearoa New Zealand demonstrate pathways for applying EBM tools through multi-stakeholder partnerships, reflecting the spirit of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

5.1 Case One: Participatory Marine Restoration

A collaboration involving the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance (a partnership of iwi and councils), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and researchers focused on identifying tools for a marine restoration project. Through a staged and adaptive process, researchers introduced a suite of potential tools to a multi-disciplinary workstream. The group prioritized tools that could:

• Assess risk from diverse viewpoints, including a Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnership perspective.
• Link social, ecological, and cultural indicators.
• Incorporate multiple knowledge types, including mātauranga Māori.
• Account for uncertainty and explore different scenarios.
• Generate spatially and temporally explicit outputs.

This process confirmed that a combination of tools was necessary to support the project’s objectives, underscoring the value of co-design in achieving shared environmental and cultural goals.

5.2 Case Two: Scenario Testing for Sustainable Fisheries Management

This case involved socialising Bayesian Networks (BNs) with government agencies to explore their utility for fisheries management decisions affecting kelp forest ecosystems. BNs were identified as a tool that strongly aligns with EBM criteria due to their ability to integrate quantitative and qualitative data and model uncertainty. Through a series of co-development workshops, participants explored management scenarios related to key species. The process resulted in an increased perceived usefulness of the tool among agency staff, demonstrating that hands-on engagement and scenario testing can build confidence and capacity for applying complex tools to support sustainable resource management (SDG 14.4).

6. Key Lessons for Global EBM Implementation

Based on the engagement with end-users in the case studies, nine key lessons were identified to facilitate the adoption of tools for EBM and accelerate progress towards the SDGs.

1. Tools as Communication Platforms: Tools are most effective when they can be used to communicate complex ideas and illustrate diverse stakeholder values, fostering engagement and collaborative decision-making.
2. Clarity and Interpretability: For tools to be adopted, their mechanics and outputs must be understandable to users with varied technical backgrounds. Participatory development can demystify “black box” models.
3. Building Trust through Transparency: Trust in tool outputs is paramount. This requires transparent communication of model limitations and uncertainties, which enhances the credibility of the results.
4. Value of Scenario Testing: The ability to explore “what if” questions allows decision-makers to assess the potential outcomes of different management actions, making it a highly valued feature for policy and planning.
5. Broad and Inclusive Involvement: The successful application of EBM requires the close involvement of policymakers, practitioners, Indigenous partners, and other relevant stakeholders throughout the entire process.
6. Holistic and Flexible Tools: Tools must be flexible enough to integrate multi-disciplinary information and diverse knowledge types to reflect the complexity of social-ecological systems.
7. Developing In-House Capacity: For complex tools, organizations may need to invest in technical capacity to ensure their effective and sustained use, complementing external expertise.
8. Iterative and Adaptive Introduction: Tools should be introduced in a staged manner, allowing processes to adapt as project needs and user capacity evolve. Longer-term funding cycles are more conducive to this co-development approach.
9. A Suite of Tools is Essential: A combination of tools is almost always required to address the multiple principles of EBM and achieve comprehensive management goals.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

A range of decision-making tools are readily available to support the implementation of EBM and advance the Sustainable Development Goals. The experience in Aotearoa New Zealand demonstrates that integrating the rights, knowledge, and aspirations of Indigenous Peoples into EBM principles is not only possible but essential for creating just and effective environmental governance. The lessons learned from this research provide a globally relevant framework for guiding the selection, socialisation, and utilisation of tools to support EBM. By fostering collaborative partnerships, building trust through transparency, and embracing a holistic, multi-tool approach, the global community can overcome implementation barriers and improve the health and resilience of our marine environments for future generations.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   This is the primary SDG addressed. The entire article focuses on the sustainable management and protection of marine ecosystems through Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM). It discusses threats to marine environments from human activities, the consequences of unsustainable practices like overfishing (e.g., the Newfoundland cod fishery collapse), and strategies for marine ecosystem restoration and protection.

2. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   The article heavily emphasizes the need for collaboration to implement EBM successfully. It highlights partnerships between researchers, government agencies (end-users), Indigenous communities (Māori), and non-governmental organizations (The Nature Conservancy). The two case studies presented are prime examples of multi-stakeholder engagement and co-development processes aimed at achieving sustainable marine management.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   The article discusses the importance of governance structures, policy, and law in marine management. It points out that “the fragmented nature of management jurisdictions, policy and laws” is a challenge. Furthermore, it stresses the need for inclusive and participatory decision-making, specifically referencing the essential role of Māori in co-governance in Aotearoa New Zealand, which aligns with building effective and inclusive institutions.

4. SDG 15: Life on Land

   The article establishes a direct link between terrestrial and marine ecosystems. It states that “stressors arising from the intensification of anthropogenic activities on land… are threatening marine environments” and specifically mentions “increased inputs of terrestrial sediments” leading to coastal darkening and the decline of kelp forests. This connection underscores that sustainable management of land is crucial for protecting marine life.

5. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   The article touches upon the economic aspects of marine resource use, referring to the “blue economy” and the economic devastation caused by the “collapse of the [cod] fishery.” By promoting sustainable EBM, the article implicitly supports the long-term viability of marine-based economies and industries, aligning with the goal of decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  • Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.
    
    Explanation: The article directly mentions threats from “anthropogenic activities on land” and the specific problem of “increased inputs of terrestrial sediments” that contribute to “coastal darkening,” harming marine ecosystems like kelp forests.
  • Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans.
    
    Explanation: This is the central theme of the article. It advocates for EBM as “vital for sustainably managing marine ecosystems” and details a case study focused on a “priority restoration project… ‘Restoration and/or rehabilitation to support cultural harvest and support ecosystem health and resilience’.”
  • Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible.
    
    Explanation: The article uses the historical example of the Newfoundland cod fishery, which collapsed due to “overexploitation,” and a recent case in New Zealand where the “Total Allowable Catch of rock lobster” was reassessed to consider wider ecosystem impacts.
  • Target 14.a: Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology… in order to improve ocean health.
    
    Explanation: The article is dedicated to discussing the development and application of “decision-making tools,” “guidance and frameworks,” and models like “Bayesian Networks (BNs)” to support EBM, directly contributing to building scientific capacity for marine management.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources.
    
    Explanation: The article describes the “Sustainable Seas National Science Challenge” in New Zealand, which fosters collaboration. Case One details a partnership between the “Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance (KMTT)” (a group of iwi and councils) and “The Nature Conservancy (TNC),” showcasing a multi-stakeholder partnership.
  • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.
    
    Explanation: The two case studies are detailed examinations of such partnerships. Case One involves iwi, councils, and an NGO, while Case Two describes workshops between “Sustainable Seas researchers and the Fisheries New Zealand/Department of Conservation group,” representing a partnership between research and public institutions.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
    
    Explanation: The article advocates for “collaborative, co-designed, participatory decision-making processes.” It specifically highlights how EBM principles in New Zealand “emphasise co-governance” and incorporate Māori knowledge (mātauranga Māori) and customs (tikanga), ensuring Indigenous participation in environmental management.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For Target 14.2 (Protect and restore ecosystems):
  
  The article implies ecological indicators to measure ecosystem health. These include:
  • Extent of kelp forests versus urchin (kina) barrens: The text describes how overfishing of predators leads to an increase in sea urchins and a “subsequent loss of kelp forests,” shifting habitats to “kina barren habitats.” Measuring the area of each habitat type would indicate ecosystem health.
  • Biodiversity and ecological functioning: The loss of kelp forests is linked to a “significant loss of biodiversity and ecological functioning,” implying that measures of species richness and ecosystem processes are relevant indicators.
• For Target 14.4 (Sustainable fishing):
  
  The article mentions direct management metrics used as indicators:
  • Total Allowable Catch (TAC): This is explicitly mentioned as a management tool that was “reassessment of the Total Allowable Catch of rock lobster” in New Zealand. The level of TAC relative to scientific advice is a key indicator of sustainable fishing.
  • Status of fish stocks: The article refers to the “collapse of the [cod] fishery” and the “abundance of snapper” and “rock lobster.” The biomass and abundance of fish stocks are critical indicators.
• For Target 14.a (Increase scientific knowledge):
  
  Progress can be measured by the adoption of scientific tools:
  • Uptake and use of decision-support tools: The article’s main purpose is to improve “tool adoption for EBM.” An indicator would be the number of management bodies or projects that utilize tools like Bayesian Networks, spatial prioritization, or risk assessment frameworks.
  • Perceived usefulness of tools: In Case Two, a poll was used to gauge the “perceptions of the usefulness of BNs.” This subjective measure can act as a proxy indicator for the successful transfer and acceptance of scientific tools.
• For Target 16.7 (Inclusive decision-making):
  
  The level of participation is an implied indicator:
  • Inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and stakeholders in governance: The article highlights the incorporation of “mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge)” and the principle of “co-governance” in New Zealand’s EBM framework. The extent to which Indigenous groups are partners in decision-making processes serves as an indicator of inclusivity.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nature.com