The Ecosystem Approach in the 21^st Century: Guiding Science and Management – A Synthesis

Preamble

Maintaining the integrity and health of aquatic ecosystems is critical to sustaining the many valued services that they provide society. Unfortunately, achieving this goal has proven challenging in most of the world’s large ecosystems owing to rampant environmental change caused by human-driven stress, including accelerating climate change, pollution of waterways, habitat modification and destruction, and the continued spread of nonnative species (He and Silliman, 2019; Jenny et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2015; Steffen et al., 2007). These stressors, which can also include purposeful management actions (e.g. nutrient and fisheries management), are presenting a grave challenge globally to efforts aimed at securing a sustainable future for nature, society, and the economy.

To facilitate and successfully operationalize approaches to management and policymaking that can help sustain the world’s ecosystems and their valued services in the face of ongoing and future human-induced ecosystem change, the Ecosystem Approach in the 21^st Century: Guiding Science and Management Conference was held at the University of Windsor (Windsor, Ontario) during August 2022 (Munawar and Hartig, 2020). This conference brought scientists, students, knowledge holders, managers, and policy experts together from across the globe. The year of this conference marked the 50^th anniversary of the signing of the first (1972) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between Canada and the United States of America. In 1978, the concept of the “Ecosystem Approach”, which we define as endeavors that consider the biological, chemical, and physical dimensions of the ecosystem, while also considering humans as part of the system (Vallentyne and Beeton, 1998), was added as a major principle of the GLWQA. Its core concepts continue to guide how agencies manage, remediate, and restore ecosystems degraded by human-driven environmental change (Hartig and Munawar, 2021; Hartig et al., 2020; Mackenzie, 1993; Vallentyne and Beeton, 1988; Vollenweider et al., 1974). While the 2022 Ecosystem Approach conference centered on the North American (Laurentian) Great Lakes, examples of ecosystem-based management (EBM) from other parts of the world were also introduced and discussed in workshops attended by subsets of the conference participants.

Ecosystem-based management is broader than the Ecosystem Approach as it strengthens the emphasis on social systems (e.g. their goals and dynamics), within a holistic, coupled human-natural system approach (Williams et al., 2023). As outlined in Christensen et al. (1996) and Williamson et al. (2023), several key principles embody EBM, including recognizing that humans are a part of ecosystems, that management visions should consider both environmental and societal goals, and that long-term ecosystem resilience is promoted by connectedness and complexity among ecosystem components, both environmental and societal. Ecosystem-based management also highlights the value of focusing on intergenerational ecosystem sustainability and managing adaptively, wherein management actions or strategies are treated as hypotheses to be continually tested by research and monitoring. By considering worldwide applications of EBM, as opposed to only the Ecosystem Approach within the Great Lakes Basin, conference participants could learn from the past, explore ongoing efforts, and identify how remaining challenges to successfully implement EBM approaches locally and globally could be overcome and sustained, both now and in the face of continued “…political, economic, and ecological turmoil…” (Munawar and Hartig, 2020).

Each contribution to this special issue presents a product of a workshop convened as part of the broader Ecosystem Approach in the 21^st Century Conference. The first four papers focus on identifying ways to improve the successful implementation of EBM approaches. The lead paper (Ludsin et al., 2024) provides a general overview of key needs for and barriers to successful EBM, with the next three focusing on specific ways to improve the implementation of EBM. More specifically, these latter three papers respectively discuss the need to: 1) improve the usability and applicability of science in policymaking (Williams et al., 2024); 2) design and implement effective outreach and community engagement components in support of EBM (Kellogg et al., 2024); and 3) acknowledge, appreciate, and invest in Indigenous Ways of Being while planning and executing EBM (Nolan, Duncan et al., 2024). The last three papers in this collection present recommendations about enabling conditions that facilitate the implementation of EBM. Specifically, two papers focus explicitly on the development of Blue Economies in inland (freshwater) ecosystems (i.e. economies that are designed to conserve and sustain aquatic biodiversity such that economic growth and resource use can continue). The first of these papers focuses on the Laurentian Great Lakes (Carlson et al., 2024), with the second centering on the East African Great Lakes (Van der Knaap et al., 2024). The final paper of this special issue moves away from discussing specific management approaches, instead discussing the need for and value of emerging technologies to supporting and advancing EBM approaches in large aquatic ecosystems (Verhamme et al., 2024).

Below, we recap each paper’s major messages and management implications. Afterwards, we offer some synthetic, concluding remarks that have relevance to aquatic ecosystems both large and small.

Improving successful implementation of EBM approaches

Ludsin et al. (2024) report on a workshop focused on identifying ways to enhance successful implementation of EBM approaches globally, including in the Laurentian Great Lakes. This workshop invited scientists from across the world with diverse management experiences and research expertise in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The workshop’s presentations, discussions, and writing exercise provided insights into needs for and barriers to EBM implementation success. Most prominently, Ludsin et al. suggest that setting clear, measurable, and shared goals that are achievable is most critical to successful EBM implementation and also offers the fewest barriers to achievement. By contrast, Ludsin et al. report i) accounting for and navigating governance structure limitations, ii) sustaining support for EBM efforts, and iii) building relationships to ensure ongoing commitment by partners and communities (i.e. getting stakeholder buy-in) as the next most important needs for successful EBM implementation. Unlike the previous need (i.e. goal-setting), these latter three needs face many barriers to implementation, helping to understand why effective EBM strategies have remained globally elusive, including in the Great Lakes. Quality science and effective communication was also deemed essential by many workshop participants; however, these two needs were mentioned less frequently than the others. By combining results from this workshop with insights gathered from the broader scientific literature, Ludsin et al. offer ways to facilitate effective EBM implementation inside and outside of the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin.

Similar to Ludsin et al. (2024), Williams et al. (2024) argue that science is fundamental to sound policymaking in an EBM context and focus explicitly on challenges to applying science in such a context. To help identify and better understand these challenges, Williams et al. use a qualitative-research, comparative case-study approach to identify and characterize the challenges and successes of implementing a science-driven EBM within the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. These case studies, which include the delisting of designated Areas of Concern as identified in the GLWQA – improving coastal resilience and addressing declining offshore lake productivity – were selected because they represent distinct examples of how science informs different policies. Through comparison, Williams et al. identify factors that influence science-policy exchange (i.e. the transfer of research findings into tangible policy actions) and characteristics that influence successful implementation of EBM approaches. This comparative study reveals a diverse set of challenges and successes, which fall into three overarching categories that facilitated or constrained the application of science in an EBM plan: scale, governance, and shared goals. Williams et al. then provide suggestions to help address these potential challenges, including resolving scale mismatches, enhancing boundary work, and co-producing scientific research with those who use research.

In a similar vein as the previous two papers, Kellogg et al. (2024) identify challenges to implementation of EBM approaches and offer recommendations to improve their success. However, these authors focus on the need to understand the function of socioecological systems as the basis of interactions among the general public, management professionals, and policymakers in specific. Kellogg et al. argue that such knowledge about these systems is fundamental to the successful implementation of any ecosystem-based approach. Their investigation of the peer-reviewed literature reveals that through informal outreach and formal education, as well as knowledge mobilization opportunities, researchers, agencies, organizations, and individuals can learn about the intersectionality of biophysical and socioeconomic systems that create place, which can guide adaptive management strategies and facilitate the effective use of EBM approaches. Kellogg et al.’s investigation also finds that outreach and community engagement are essential for changing policies, improving decision-making, and altering individual behaviors. These authors also discuss how experiential learning in formal educational settings can allow learners to apply concepts in and beyond the classroom, thereby fostering a connection to place, and that inter-organizational networks consisting of stakeholders, professional managers, and scientists are critical to generating and mobilizing “knowledge for action.” Kellogg et al.’s exploration provides exemplars of best practices in these intersecting aspects, as well as a variety of recommendations to overcome challenges associated with: i) learning how socioecological systems function; ii) imparting knowledge to different groups (e.g. general public, resource managers, and decisionmakers); and iii) creating conditions to facilitate interactions among researchers, agencies, organizations, and individuals so that actionable science can be co-produced and used effectively in a management context.

Similar to Kellogg et al. (2024), Nolan, Duncan et al. (2024) focus on the importance to effective EBM implementation of understanding longstanding perspectives, values, and knowledge of rightsholders. Indigenous peoples are not just stakeholders, they have constitutionally protected rights. In Canada, a legal duty to consult exists. Unlike any of the previous papers, these authors center on the need for and value of considering Indigenous groups and their knowledge systems in EBM planning. Nolan, Duncan et al. draw from discussions in their conference workshop (initially entitled Indigenous Management Systems), which engaged community practitioners, academicians, and Indigenous youth on the themes of relationships, the Ecosystem Approach, Indigenous-led initiatives, and research in the Laurentian Great Lakes (Nayaano-nibiimaang Gichigamiin in Anishaabemowin, the Ojibwe language). Engagement at the workshop occurred via different forums, including a guided nature walk at Ojibway Nature Centre with First Nation Elders, a shared meal, and a sharing circle. Discussion in the sharing circle was open and free-flowing and focused on several key themes of concern (i.e. relationships and relationality; the critical role youth play and will play in the future; anti-racism; recommendations for policy and practice; and Indigenous Ways of Being and the Ecosystem Approach). These discussions resulted in several recommendations to improve the success of EBM approaches in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. Nolan, Duncan et al. identify the need to recognize Indigenous sovereignty as most critical to elevating these key concerns and supporting a more holistic vision of an ecosystem-based approach to management and scholarship. This recognition includes settler and non-Indigenous scientists investing in and maintaining real relationships by listening to and standing with Indigenous Peoples in an effort to better support and care for their Lands, Waters, and Kin. Additionally, Nolan, Duncan et al. identify the need for better avenues of funding and responsive structures to support Indigenous-led initiatives in these areas including supporting Indigenous First Nations and Tribal groups already engaged in ecosystem monitoring. Doing so can strengthen and bridge capacity in a self-determined way.

Enabling Condition 1: The Blue Economy approach – Value to inland lake management

Many of the core elements of the Ecosystem Approach, which was the focus of the 2022 conference that spawned this special issue (Munawar and Hartig, 2020), can be found within related concepts/frameworks that have emerged during recent decades, including EBM (Williams et al., 2023), Green Infrastructure (Wang and Banzhaf, 2018), and Nature-based Solutions (Sharifi, 2023), among many others (see Ludsin et al., 2024). One other concept that can be traced back to the Ecosystem Approach is Blue Economy, which Carlson et al. (2024) describe herein as a multifaceted concept involving balanced use and conservation of aquatic resources to promote human well-being, economic growth, social equity, and sustainability. Despite its conceptual appeal and rising consideration in aquatic ecosystem management discussions inside and outside of the Great Lakes basin (e.g. Ayilu et al., 2022; Boonstra et al., 2018; Pauly, 2018), the Blue Economy has rarely been applied to inland fisheries, including any of the world’s Great Lakes.

In the first of two papers focused on the Blue Economy, Carlson et al. (2024) discuss the need to conceptualize the Laurentian Great Lakes from a Blue Economy perspective using a coupled human and natural systems (CHANS) framework. Their argument for this need is two-fold. First, these authors acknowledge that sustainable development dialogues have rarely considered inland fish and fisheries. And second, owing to increased threats to inland fish, habitats, and human users in this Laurentian Great Lakes Basin, the need exists to communicate the value of inland fisheries (e.g. ecological, economic, societal) clearly and convincingly and thereby elevate the profile of these important systems. Carlson et al. then describe opportunities to leverage CHANS methods (e.g. metacoupling – human-nature interactions within and between adjacent and distant systems) and associated quantitative approaches to advance fisheries science and management in pursuit of a Blue Economy in the Basin. In addition to illustrating how a metacoupling framework could be used to integrate local and distant human–nature interactions in Laurentian Great Lakes fisheries, these authors articulate an approach for implementing it in other regions of the world, including the African Great Lakes.

Like Carlson et al. (2024), Van der Knaap et al. (2024) argue for the advancement the Blue Economy approach in East Africa’s Great Lakes, particularly in and around lakes Victoria, Tanganyika, and Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa. These authors argue, however, that opportunities for Blue Economy growth will require investment in, commitment to, and management within riparian states and their populations, if challenges associated with continued population growth, increasing fishing effort, pollution and improper waste disposal, biodiversity loss, and fossil fuel exploration and exploitation are to be overcome. Another challenge to Blue Economy growth identified by Van der Knaap et al. is aquaculture, given that capture fisheries have practically reached their maximum outputs. However, these authors suggest aquaculture as a potential opportunity if it could be conducted in a sustainable fashion. In addition, Van der Knaap et al. discuss the recent decision by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa to valuate and manage the services that Africa’s Great Lakes provide such that resultant profits can facilitate continued management, conservation, and expansion of these services “for the sake of the lakes” and the people around them. These authors argue that movement toward a Blue Economy approach would enable food security, natural resource management, and youth employment and revenues for their respective governments, which in turn, could help solve many social and environmental issues.

Enabling Condition 2: Technological advances – A key to EBM success

While this special issue’s first six papers focus on the management process itself, or socioeconomic and socioecological aspects of it, the final paper focuses explicitly on non-human elements of EBM. Specifically, Verhamme et al. (2024) discuss the role of technological advancements in the pursuit of ecosystem-based approaches to management in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. These authors argue that the size of the Great Lakes presents challenges to effective monitoring and management. However, they also suggest that the ability of researchers in even larger oceanic ecosystems to overcome some of these challenges bodes well for the Great Lakes’ likelihood of doing the same regarding limitations associated with traditional sampling methods for habitat and biota (e.g. long latency between data collection and their availability; data not being at sufficient spatial and temporal resolutions). Verhamme et al. identify important focal areas for innovative technologies and technological advancements, including autonomous (aquatic) vehicles, animal telemetry, and bathymetric/habitat delineation. Such advancements could collectively improve understanding of species’ life cycles and food webs, as well as organism movement and activity during the nighttime and lesser-studied seasons (e.g. winter). These authors also discuss the need for improved coordination across institutions, stable funding, and governance linkages that may not yet exist, as emerging technologies begin to address these needs.

Conclusions

Given the growing number of warning signs that human-driven environmental change is causing our planet and its ecosystems to approach critical tipping points (Abrams et al., 2023; Armstrong et al., 2022), the time has come for agencies to fully embrace EBM instead of simply calling for its need. Each of this special issue’s seven papers supports this contention.

As with other parts of the world, the call for EBM has been loud and clear in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin for decades. This call emerged during the 1980s, led by researchers (Christie et al., 1986; Lee et al., 1982; Vallentyne and Beeton, 1988) and eventually supported by a binational agreement (i.e. the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; International Joint Commission, 1987). Since this time, the call for ecosystem-based approaches to management that are holistic, integrative, science-driven, and considerate of the needs of diverse stakeholders and rightsholders has only intensified worldwide (Arkema et al., 2006; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; NOAA, 2023), including in the Laurentian Great Lakes (Budnik et al., 2024; GLFC, 2021; Guthrie et al., 2019; Minns, 2014; Munawar and Hartig, 2020; Sinclair et al., 2023).

Despite this call, successful implementation of EBMs globally has not yet been achieved, including in the Great Lakes of the world. The seven papers in this special issue offer context to help understand why true EBM (Budnik et al., 2024) has not been fully achieved in these ecosystems, as well as elsewhere. In addition to offering a unique perspective on why EBM is valuable, each special issue paper points to remaining challenges that need to be overcome and offers ways to help overcome them. For example, Ludsin et al. (2024) provide a comprehensive perspective on the key needs for EBM success and the barriers to achieving them, with the other papers centering on specific challenges, including informing policy with science (Williams et al., 2024), developing appropriate education and outreach programs (Kellogg et al., 2024), understanding and investing in Indigenous knowledge and Ways of Being (Nolan, Duncan et al., 2024), implementing new economic strategies (i.e. Blue Economy) and holistic research approaches (e.g. CHANS) in inland aquatic ecosystems (Carlson et al., 2024; Van der Knaap et al., 2024), and developing and sustaining useful technologies (Verhamme et al., 2024). Additionally, all seven papers identified a clear, unmet need for continued financial support and investment in EBM, both in the short-term and the long-term. We take this to mean that, once EBMs are started, they should never end. Unfortunately, however, continued support of ecosystem-based approaches is often not the case, a problem emphasized in Ludsin et al. (2024) and elsewhere (Budnik et al., 2024) and also evidenced firsthand by Bay of Quinte (Lake Ontario) researchers who lost their ecosystem-based science program.

This suite of special issue papers also highlights the continued need to better understand and appreciate the socioecological system within each ecosystem, which we know is exceptionally diverse within both the North American (Nolan, Duncan et al., 2024; Williams et al., 2024) and East African (Van der Knaap et al., 2024) Great Lakes basins. Based on the contributions to this special issue, engaging all types of potential collaborators (e.g. general public, resource managers, policymakers, and Indigenous groups) is essential if truly comprehensive, sustainable EBM plans are to emerge (Ludsin et al.., 2024; Nolan, Duncan et al., 2024). Similarly, each paper deems as essential the need to improve communication among different kinds of groups (and sometimes within them, e.g. different branches of an agency). Doing so can allow for clear, agreed-upon goals to be set and partner organization support to be achieved (Ludsin et al., 2024), usable science to be co-produced and applied to inform policy decision-making (Williams et al., 2024), and programs to be developed that can facilitate the co-generation of “knowledge for action” (Kellogg et al., 2024). Broad and diverse participation also is key to the success of Blue Economy approaches to aquatic ecosystem management (Carlson et al., 2024; Van der Knaap et al., 2024).

The needs and challenges identified in these seven papers mesh with a huge literature on EBM (e.g. Arkema et al., 2006; Curtin and Prellezo, 2010; Keough and Blahna, 2006; Link and Marshak, 2022; Pitcher et al., 2009; also see Ludsin et al., 2024 and citations therein), which we view in both negative and positive lights. On the negative side, the common, lingering challenges to EBM that remain both inside and outside of the world’s Great Lakes indicate that achieving EBM will not be easy and it will take a sustained commitment to change by many, as well as time, money, and cooperation among those with divergent views. Although Van der Knaap et al. (2024) offer some optimism for the East African Great Lakes, which have historically been limited by political and civil strife, the political turmoil and polarization that currently exists in the United States does not suggest an easy path forward for the Laurentian Great Lakes.

On the positive side, however, the shared challenges to EBM that many of our aquatic ecosystems face offer a path forward, as we can learn from the experiences in other ecosystems. Thus, by using social science approaches (e.g. Williams et al., 2024), by conducting synthetic reviews (e.g. Kellogg et al., 2024), by studying human–nature linkages across scales (e.g. CHANS, Carlson et al., 2024), by continuing to transfer technological advances from one set of ecosystems to another (Verhamme et al., 2024), and by uplifting and investing in Indigenous-led efforts (Nolan, Duncan et al., 2024), we can continue to identify commonalities among ecosystems, and ideally, a set of general factors that promote (or inhibit) the successful implementation of EBM approaches (e.g. local geography, cultures, values, economic wealth, etc.). Of course, such investigations would need to consider the amazing diversity of ecosystem-based approaches that vary in their names (e.g. Ecosystem Approach, Nature-based Solutions, Green Infrastructure, Nature Contributions to People), terminologies used, and foci (Kirkfeldt, 2019; Ludsin et al., 2024; Maron et al., 2018, Stephenson et al. 2021). Such investigation could continue to lead to robust frameworks to understand and guide the success of EBM planning and implementation, which in turn, could save money in regions of the world that are economically or scientifically poor, or save time where ecosystems are reaching a tipping point due to anthropogenic stress.

While our synthesis offers some highlights of the papers in this special issue, we strongly encourage that they all be read in full, as so much wonderful information exists within each. We are optimistic that the findings, recommendations, and opinions expressed within these papers will provide useful information that can benefit EBM efforts in the short-term, as well as point to knowledge gaps that could be addressed with future research. Only by filling these knowledge gaps and continuing to identify new ways to facilitate the successful implementation of EBM approaches will we attain the ability to rehabilitate and protect the health and integrity of our aquatic ecosystems, which is critical to sustaining biodiversity and the valued services they provide to society, such as potable water, food, recreational opportunities, and economic vitality.