NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 183
NOAA Fisheries Service's
Large Marine Ecosystems Program:
Status Report
by by Kenneth Sherman, Peter Celone, and Sally Adams
National Marine Fisheries Serv., 28 Tarzwell Dr., Narragansett,
RI 02882
Print
publication date July 2004 ;
web version posted January 3, 2006
Citation: Sherman K, Celone P, Adams S. 2004. NOAA Fisheries Service's Large Marine Ecosystems Program: Status Report. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 183; 21 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
INTRODUCTION
Since 1984, the NOAA Fisheries Service's Large Marine Ecosystems (LME)
Program has been engaged in the development and implementation of an
ecosystem-based approach to support assessment and management of marine
resources and habitats. Five linked program modules have been developed
for introducing the LME approach: productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution
and ecosystem health, socioeconomics, and governance. Taken together,
these modules provide time-series measurements used to support actions
for the recovery, sustainability, and management of marine resources
and habitats. The 10 LMEs of the United States are the Northeast Shelf,
Southeast Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, California Current, Gulf of Alaska,
East Bering Sea, Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Insular Pacific-Hawaii, and
Caribbean Sea (Figure 1).
A global effort is underway by NOAA in partnership with the World Conservation
Union (IUCN), the UN's Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC),
and other UN agencies to improve the long-term sustainability of resources
and environments of the world's 64 LMEs and linked watersheds. Scientific
and technical assistance is provided to developing countries committed
to policies and actions for eliminating transboundary environmental and
resource-use practices that lead to serious degradation of coastal environments
and their linked watersheds, and to losses in biodiversity and food security.
LME DESCRIPTION
DEFINITION
LMEs are natural regions of ocean space encompassing coastal waters
from river basins and estuaries to the seaward boundary of continental
shelves and the outer margins of coastal currents. They are relatively
large regions of 200,000 km2 or greater, the natural boundaries
of which are based on four ecological criteria: bathymetry, hydrography,
productivity, and trophically related populations.
The theory, measurement, and modeling relevant to monitoring the changing
states of LMEs are imbedded in reports on ecosystems with multiple steady
states, and on the pattern formation and spatial diffusion within ecosystems
(Holling 1973, 1986, 1993; Pimm 1984; Sherman and Alexander 1986, 1989;
Sherman et al.
1990; Beddington 1986; Mangel 1991; Levin 1993). The concept that critical
processes controlling the structure and function of biological communities
can best be addressed on a regional basis (Ricklefs 1987) has been applied
to the ocean by using LMEs as the distinct units for marine resources
assessment, monitoring, sand management. In turn, the concept of assessment,
monitoring, and management of marine resources from an LME perspective
has been the topic of a series of ongoing national and international
studies, symposia case studies, and workshops initiated in 1984; in each
instance, the geographic extent of the LME has been defined on the basis
of bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophodynamics. A list
of peer-reviewed published volumes of LME case studies is given in Table 1.
DELINEATION AND MAJOR STRESSORS
Within the geographic limits of LMEs, domains or subsystems can be
defined. For example, the Adriatic Sea is a subsystem of the Mediterranean
Sea LME. In other LMEs, geographic limits are defined by the character
of continental shelves. Among these are the U.S. Northeast Continental
Shelf and its four subsystems -- Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Southern
New England, and Mid-Atlantic Bight (Sherman et
al. 1988, 1998). Other examples of continental shelf LMEs are
the Icelandic Shelf, Yellow Sea, East Bering Sea, North Sea, and Barents
Sea. For LMEs with narrow shelf areas and well-defined currents, the
LMEs are bounded by the outer margins of the major coastal currents.
The Humboldt Current, California Current, Canary Current, Kuroshio Current,
and Benguela Current are examples of coastal current LMEs.
The areas of the world most stressed from habitat degradation, pollution,
and overexploitation of marine resources are the coastal ecosystems.
Ninety percent of the usable annual global biomass yield of fish and
other living marine resources is produced in 64 LMEs (Figure 2) identified
within, and in some cases extending beyond, the boundaries of the exclusive
economic zones of coastal nations located around the margins of the ocean
basins (Sherman 1994; Garibaldi and Limongelli 2003). Levels of primary
production are persistently higher around the margins of the ocean basins
than in the open-ocean pelagic areas (Figure 3). High population density
characterizes these coastal ocean areas and contributes to the pollution
that has its greatest impact on natural productivity cycles through eutrophication
from high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus effluent from estuaries.
Toxins in poorly treated sewage discharge, harmful algal blooms, and
loss of wetland nursery areas to coastal development are ecosystem-level
problems that also need to be addressed (GESAMP 1990).
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Temporal and spatial scales influencing biological production and changing
ecological states in marine ecosystems have been the topic of a number
of theoretical and empirical studies. The selection of scale in any study
is related to the processes under investigation. An excellent treatment
of this topic can be found in Steele (1988). Steele indicates that in
relation to the general ecology of the sea, the best-known models in
marine population dynamics include those by Schaefer (1954) and Beverton
and Holt (1957), following the earlier pioneering approach of Lindemann
(1942). However, as noted by Steele (1988), this array of models is unsuitable
for dealing with temporal or spatial variability in the ocean. A heuristic
projection was produced by Steele (1988) to illustrate scales and ecosystem
indicators of importance in monitoring pelagic components of the ecosystem,
including phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, frontal processes, and short-term
but large-area episodic effects (Figure 4).
A key factor in reaching a determination on the status of ecosystem
condition is the quantitative output from spatial and temporal time series
of indicators of condition in productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution
and ecosystem health, socioeconomics, and governance. Advances in technology
now allow for cost-effective measuring of the changing states of LMEs
using suites of indicators, including those depicted in Figure 5.
LME INDICATOR MODULES
A five-module indicator approach to assessment and management of LMEs
has proven useful in ecosystem-based projects in the United States and
elsewhere. The modules are customized for each LME through a transboundary
diagnostic analysis (TDA) process and a strategic action plan (SAP) development
process for the groups of nations or states sharing an LME. These processes
are critical for integrating science into management in a practical way,
and for establishing appropriate governance regimes.
Of the five modules, three are science-based indicators that focus
on productivity, fish/fisheries, and pollution/ecosystem health. The
other two modules, socioeconomics and governance, support the development
of indicators that improve measures of economic benefits to be derived
from a more sustainable resource use, as well as advance legal and administrative
support for ecosystem-based management practices. The first four modules
support the TDA process, while the governance module is associated with
periodic updating of the SAP development process. Adaptive management
regimes are encouraged through periodic assessment processes (i.e.,
TDA updates) and through updating the action plans as gaps are filled
(Wang 2004).
PRODUCTIVITY MODULE INDICATORS
Primary productivity can be related to the carrying capacity of an
ecosystem for supporting fish resources (Pauly and Christensen 1995).
It has been reported that the maximum global level of primary productivity
for supporting the average annual world catch of fisheries has been reached,
and that further large-scale unmanaged increases in fisheries yields
from marine ecosystems are likely to be at trophic levels below fish
in the marine food web (Beddington 1995).
Measurements of ecosystem productivity can be useful indicators of
the growing problem of coastal eutrophication. In several LMEs, excessive
nutrient loadings of coastal waters have been related to algal blooms
implicated in mass mortalities of living resources, emergence of pathogens
(e.g., cholera, vibrios, red tides, and paralytic shellfish
toxins), and explosive growth of nonindigenous species (Epstein 1993).
The ecosystem parameters measured and used as indicators of changing
conditions in the productivity module are zooplankton biodiversity and
species composition, zooplankton biomass, water-column structure, photosynthetically
active radiation, transparency, chlorophyll-a, nitrite, nitrate,
and primary production. Plankton inhabiting LMEs have been measured over
decadal time scales by deploying continuous plankton recorder systems
monthly across ecosystems from commercial vessels of opportunity. Advanced
plankton recorders can be fitted with sensors for temperature, salinity,
chlorophyll, nitrate/nitrite, petroleum, hydrocarbons, light, bioluminescence,
and primary productivity, providing the means for in-situ monitoring
and for calibrating satellite-derived oceanographic data. Properly calibrated
satellite data can provide information on ecosystem conditions including
physical state (i.e., surface temperature), nutrient characteristics,
primary productivity, and phytoplankton species composition (Berman and
Sherman 2001; Aiken et
al. 1999).
FISH AND FISHERIES MODULE INDICATORS
Changes in biodiversity and species dominance within fish communities
of LMEs have resulted from excessive exploitation, naturally occurring
environmental shifts due to climate change, and coastal pollution. Changes
in biodiversity and species dominance in a fish community can cascade
up the food web to apex predators and down the food web to plankton components
of the ecosystem.
The fish and fisheries module includes both fisheries-independent bottom-trawl
surveys and pelagic-species acoustic surveys to obtain time-series information
on changes in fish biodiversity and abundance levels. Standardized sampling
procedures, when employed from small calibrated trawlers, can provide
important information on changes in fish species (Sherman 1993). Fish
catch provides biological samples for stock identification, stomach content
analyses, age-growth relationships, fecundity, and coastal pollution
monitoring for possibly associated pathological conditions, as well as
data for preparing stock assessments and for clarifying and quantifying
multispecies trophic relationships. The survey vessels can also be used
as platforms for obtaining water, sediment, and benthic samples for monitoring
harmful algal blooms, diseases, anoxia, and changes in benthic communities.
POLLUTION AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH MODULE INDICATORS
In several LMEs, pollution and eutrophication have been important driving
forces of change in biomass yields. Assessing the changing status of
pollution and health of an entire LME is scientifically challenging.
Ecosystem health is a concept of wide interest for which a single precise
scientific definition is difficult. The health paradigm is based on multiple-state
comparisons of ecosystem resilience and stability, and is an evolving
concept that has been the subject of a number of meetings (Sherman 1993).
To be healthy and sustainable, an ecosystem must maintain its metabolic
activity level and its internal structure and organization, and must
resist external stress over time and space scales relevant to the ecosystem
(Costanza 1992).
The pollution and ecosystem health module measures pollution effects
on the ecosystem through the bivalve mollusk monitoring strategy of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mussel-Watch Program, through
the pathobiological examination of fish, through the estuarine and nearshore
monitoring of contaminants and contaminant effects in the water column,
substrate, and selected groups of organisms, and through similar efforts.
Where possible, bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of contaminants
are assessed, and critical life history stages and selected food web
organisms are examined for indicators of exposure to, and effects from,
contaminants. Effects of impaired reproductive capacity, organ disease,
and impaired growth from contaminants are measured. Assessments are made
of contaminant impacts at both species and population levels. Implementation
of protocols to assess the frequency and effect of harmful algal blooms,
emergent diseases, and multiple marine ecological disturbances (Sherman
2000) are included in the pollution module.
In the United States, the EPA has developed a suite of five coastal
condition indices -- water quality, sediment quality, benthic communities,
coastal habitat, and fish tissue contaminants -- as part of an ongoing
collaborative effort with NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies representing states and tribes.
The 2004 report, "National Coastal Condition Report II," includes results
from EPA's analyses of coastal condition indicators and NOAA's fish stock
assessments by LMEs aligned with EPA's national coastal assessment regions
(USEPA 2001, 2004).
SOCIOECONOMIC MODULE INDICATORS
This module emphasizes the practical application of scientific findings
to managing LMEs, and the explicit integration of social and economic
indicators and analyses with all other scientific assessments, to assure
that prospective management measures are cost-effective. Economists and
policy analysts work closely with ecologists and other scientists to
identify and evaluate management options that are both scientifically
credible and economically practical with regard to the use of ecosystem
goods and services.
In order to respond adaptively to enhanced scientific information,
socioeconomic considerations must be closely integrated with science.
This component of the LME approach to marine resources management has
recently been described as the human dimensions of LMEs. A framework
has been developed by the Department of Natural Resource Economics at
the University of Rhode Island for monitoring and assessment of the human
dimensions of LMEs, and for incorporating socioeconomic considerations
into an adaptive management approach for LMEs (Sutinen et
al. 2000). One of the more critical considerations, a method for
economic valuations of LME goods and services, has been developed using
framework matrices for ecological states and economic consequences of
change (Hoagland et
al. 2004).
GOVERNANCE MODULE INDICATORS
The governance module is evolving, based on demonstration projects
now underway in several ecosystems, such that ecosystems will be managed
more holistically than in the past. In LME assessment and management
projects supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for the Yellow
Sea, Guinea Current, and Benguela Current LMEs, agreements have been
reached among the environmental ministers of the countries bordering
these LMEs to enter into joint resource assessment and management activities.
Elsewhere, the Great Barrier Reef and Antarctic LMEs are also being managed
from an ecosystem perspective, the latter under the Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.
Governance profiles of LMEs are being explored to determine their utility
in promoting long-term sustainability of ecosystem resources (Juda and
Hennessey 2001). In each of the LMEs, governance jurisdiction can be
scaled to ensure conformance with existing legislated mandates and authorities.
An example of multiple governance-related jurisdictions is shown in Figure 6.
APPLICATION OF INDICATOR MODULES
TO LME MANAGEMENT
Indicator data derived from spatial and temporal applications of the
five modules are being applied by a growing number of nations in the
assessment and management of LMEs with the financial assistance of the
Global Environment Facility. Among the stressors affecting the sustainability
of LMEs are the growing problem of coastal eutrophication, and the depletion
of fish and fishery resources and biomass yields.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
Continued overfishing in the face of scientific warnings, fishing down
food webs, destruction of habitat, and accelerated pollution loading,
especially nitrogen export, have resulted in significant degradation
to coastal and marine ecosystems of both rich and poor nations. Fragmentation
among institutions, international agencies, and disciplines, lack of
cooperation among nations sharing marine ecosystems, and weak national
policies, legislation, and enforcement all contribute to the need for
a new imperative for adopting ecosystem-based approaches to managing
human activities in these systems in order to avoid serious social and
economic disruption.
Following a 3-yr pilot phase (1991-1994), the Global Environment Facility
was formally launched to forge cooperation and to finance actions in
the context of sustainable development -- actions that address critical
threats to the global environment from biodiversity loss, climate change,
degradation of international waters, ozone depletion, and persistent
organic pollutants. Activities concerning land degradation, primarily
desertification and deforestation as they relate to these threats, are
also addressed. GEF-LME projects are implemented by the UN Development
Program (UNDP), UN Environment Program (UNEP), and World Bank. Expanded
opportunities exist for participation by other agencies.
SCIENCE-BASED ASSESSMENTS OF LME BIOMASS YIELDS
The growing awareness that biomass yields are being influenced by multiple
driving forces has broadened monitoring strategies to encompass food
chain dynamics and the effects of environmental perturbations and pollution
on living marine resources from an ecosystem perspective. To assist stewardship
agencies in implementing ecosystem-based assessment and management practices,
TDAs are being focused on the root causes of trends in LME biomass yields.
In addition, information on principal driving forces of biomass yields
from 29 LME case studies by marine resource experts has been analyzed.
A list of the principal investigators, constituting the expert-systems
analyses, appearing in 12 peer-reviewed and published LME volumes, is
given in Table 1. The biomass yields in Table 2 are based largely on
the mid-point value (i.e., 1995) of LME yields compiled by FAO
for 1990-1999 (Garibaldi and Limongelli 2003). Biomass yield data for
three LMEs not included in the FAO report were taken from published LME
case studies, and are based on the mid-point value for other periods
of time.
Based on the expert systems analyses, principal and secondary driving
forces were assigned to each LME using four categories (climate, fisheries,
eutrophication, and inconclusive) as seen in Table 2. Of the 29 LME case
studies, 13 were assigned to climate forcing as the principal driver
of change in biomass yield, 14 were assigned to fishing as principal
driver, one was assigned to eutrophication, and the remaining one was
deemed inconclusive. In all but three of the 29 LMEs, fishing and climate
accounted for all of the primary and secondary drivers. Eutrophication
was the principal driver in the Black Sea LME, and was the secondary
driver in the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas LMEs.
The contribution of the 29 LMEs to the annual global biomass yields
amounts to 54.4 million metric tons (mmt), or 64% of the total, based
on the average annual global biomass yield from 1995 to 1999 of 85 mmt
(Garibaldi and Limongelli 2003). It would appear that the management
regime for nearly half of this yield from the 29 case-study LMEs (27.0
mmt) will need to focus primarily on the climate signal and secondarily
on catch control, whereas the management regime for slightly less of
this yield (24.8 mmt) will need to focus primarily on catch control and
secondarily on the climate signal, to recover depleted fish stocks and
achieve maximum sustainable yield levels (Table 3).
The influence of climate forcing in biomass yields for the California
Current LME has been analyzed and illustrated by Lluch-Belda et al.
(2003). Evidence of climate forcing for the Humboldt Current LME has
been given by Wolff et al. (2003), and for the Iceland Shelf
LME by Astthorsson and Vilhjálmsson (2002). In contrast, the argument
for urgent reduction in fishing effort is supported by the data in Sherman et
al. (2003) for the U.S. Northeast Shelf LME, and by the expert analysis
of Pauly and Chuenpagdee (2003) for the Gulf of Thailand.
The observation that excessive fishing effort can alter the structure
of the ecosystem, resulting in a shift from relatively high-priced, large-sized,
long-lived, demersal species, down the food chain toward lower-valued,
smaller-sized, shorter-lived, pelagic species (Pauly and Christensen
1995), is supported by the LME data on species biomass yields. Evidence
from the East China Sea, Yellow Sea, and Gulf of Thailand suggests that
these three LMEs are approaching a critical state of change, wherein
recovery to a previous ratio of demersal-to-pelagic species may become
problematic. In all three cases, the fisheries are now being directed
toward fish protein being provided by catches of smaller-sized species
of low value (Chen and Shen 1999; Pauly and Chuenpagdee 2003; Tang 2003).
The species change in biomass yields of the Yellow Sea, as shown in
Figure 10 in Tang (2003), represents an extreme case wherein the annual
demersal species biomass yield was reduced from 200,000 mt in 1955 to
less than 25,000 mt through 1980. The fisheries then targeted the pelagic
anchovy, and between 1990 and 1995, landings of anchovy reached an historic
high of 500,000 mt.
RECOVERING FISHERIES BIOMASS
The GEF-LME projects presently funded or in the pipeline for funding
in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and eastern Europe represent a growing
network of marine scientists, marine managers, and ministerial leaders
who are pursuing ecosystem and fishery recovery goals. The annual fisheries
biomass yields from the ecosystems in the network are significant at
44.8% of the global total (Table 3), and are a firm basis for moving
toward the goals of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) for introducing an ecosystem-based assessment and management approach
to global fisheries by 2010, and for achieving fishing at maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) levels by 2015.
The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishery Practice (FAO 2002)
is supported by most coastal nations, and has immediate applicability
to reaching the WSSD fishery goals. The code argues for moving forward
with a precautionary approach to fisheries sustainability, using available
information in a more conservative approach to total allowable catch
levels than has been the general practice in past decades. Based on Garibaldi
and Limongelli (2003), it appears that the biomass and yields of 11 species
groups in six LMEs have been relatively stable or have shown marginal
increases over the 1990-1999 period. The yield for these six LMEs - the
Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal, Indonesian Sea, North Brazil Shelf, Mediterranean
Sea and the Sulu-Celebes Sea -- was 8.1 mmt, or 9.5 % of the global marine
fisheries yield in 1999 (Figure 7). The countries bordering these six
LMEs are among the world's most populous, representing approximately
one-quarter of the total human population. These LME border countries
increasingly depend on marine fisheries for food security and for national
and international trade. In the absence of national reporting of effort
data for catches in these six LMEs, and given the risks of fishing-down-the-food-chain,
it would appear opportune for the stewardship agencies responsible for
the fisheries of the LME-bordering countries to mandate precautionary
total allowable catch levels.
Evidence for species biomass recovery following significant reduction
in fishing effort through mandated actions is encouraging. In the U.S.
Northeast Shelf LME, management actions to reduce fishing effort, combined
with the robust condition of primary productivity (350 gCm-2 yr-1),
stable zooplankton levels (33 cc/100m3 ), and a relatively
stable oceanographic regime (Sherman et
al. 2002), contributed to: 1) a relatively rapid recovery of depleted
Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel stocks (NEFSC 1999), and 2) initiation
of the recovery of depleted yellowtail flounder and haddock stocks following
a mandated 1994 reduction in fishing effort (Figure 8) (NEFSC 2002).
Three LMEs remain at high risk for fisheries biomass recovery -- expressed
as a pre-1960s ratio of demersal-to-pelagic species -- the Gulf of Thailand,
East China Sea, and Yellow Sea. However, the People's Republic of China
has initiated recovery by mandating 60-90 day closures to fishing in
the Yellow Sea and East China Sea during summer months (Tang 2003). The
country-driven planning and implementation documents supporting the ecosystem
approach to LME assessment and management practices can be found at www.iwlearn.org.
EUTROPHICATION AND NITROGEN OVERENRICHMENT
Nitrogen overenrichment has been reported as a coastal problem for
two decades, from the southeast coast of the United States (Duda 1982)
to the Baltic Sea and other systems (Helsinki Commission 2001). More
recent estimates of nitrogen export to LMEs from linked freshwater basins
are summarized in Figure 9 [as adapted from an image provided courtesy
of N.A. Jaworski; see further Jaworski (1999)]. These recent human-induced
increases in nitrogen flux range from 4- to 8-fold in the United States
from the Gulf of Mexico to the New England coast, while no increase was
documented in areas with little agricultural or few population sources
in Canada (Howarth et
al. 2000).
In European LMEs, recent nitrogen flux increases have been recorded
ranging from 3-fold in Spain to 4-fold in the Baltic Sea to 11-fold in
the Rhine River basin draining to the North Sea LME (Howarth et
al. 2000). Duda and El-Ashry (2000) described the origin of this
disruption of the nitrogen cycle from the Green Revolution of the 1970s
as the world community converted wetlands to agriculture, utilized more
chemical inputs, and expanded irrigation to feed the world. As noted
by Duda (1982) for the Southeast estuaries of the United States and by
Rabalais (1999) for the Gulf of Mexico, much of the large increase in
nitrogen export to LMEs is from agricultural inputs, both from the increased
delivery of fertilizer nitrogen as wetlands were converted to agriculture
and from concentrations of livestock (Duda and Finan 1983) for eastern
North Carolina, where the increase in nitrogen export over the forested
areas ranged from 20- to 500-fold in the late 1970s. Industrialized livestock
production during the last two decades increases the flux, the eutrophication,
and the oxygen depletion even more as reported by the National Research
Council (NRC 2000). The latest GESAMP assessment (GESAMP 2001) also identifies
as significant contributors to eutrophication both sewage from drainages
from large cities and atmospheric deposition from automobiles and
agricultural activities, with the amounts depending on proximity of sources.
GEF is being asked more frequently by countries to help support the
agreed-upon incremental cost of actions to reduce such nitrogen flux.
Actions range from assisting in: 1) development of joint institutions
for ecosystem-based approaches for adaptive management described in this
document; 2) on-the-ground implementation of nitrogen abatement measures
in the agricultural, industrial, and municipal sectors; and 3) breaching
of floodplain dikes so that wetlands recently converted to agriculture
may be reconverted to promote nitrogen assimilation. The excessive levels
of nitrogen contributing to coastal eutrophication constitute a new global
environment problem that is cross-sectoral in nature. Excessive nitrogen
loadings have been identified as problems in the following LMEs that
are receiving GEF assistance: Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Adriatic portion
of the Mediterranean, Yellow Sea, South China Sea, Bay of Bengal, Gulf
of Mexico, and Plata Maritime Front/Patagonia Shelf.
In fact, preliminary global estimates of nitrogen export from freshwater
basins to coastal waters were assembled by Seitzinger and Kroeze (1998).
Their model predicts a doubling of nitrogen to coastal waters by 2050.
Included as Figure 10 and adapted from an image
provided courtesy of S.P. Seitzinger [see further Kroeze and Seitzinger
(1998)], these preliminary estimates of global freshwater basin nitrogen
export are alarming for the future sustainability of LMEs. Given the
expected future increases in population and in fertilizer use, without
significant nitrogen mitigation efforts, LMEs will be subjected to a
future of increasing harmful algal bloom events, reduced fisheries, and
hypoxia that further degrades marine biomass and biological diversity.
A WAY FORWARD:
THE GEF- LME PROJECT APPROACH
TO MANAGEMENT
The only new funding source to emerge from the UN Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) held in Brazil in 1992, GEF counts -- as of this
publication date -- 171 countries as members. During its first decade,
GEF allocated $US 3.2 billion in grant financing, supplemented by more
than $US 8 billion in additional financing, for 800 projects in 156 developing
countries and those in economic transition. All six thematic areas of
GEF, including the land degradation cross-cutting theme, have implications
for coastal and marine ecosystems. Priorities have been established by
the GEF Council in its Operational Strategy adopted in 1995 (GEF 1995).
The international waters focal area was designed to be consistent with
both Chapter 17 and 18 of Agenda 21 of UNCED. In 1995, the GEF Council
included the concept of LMEs in its Operational Strategy as a vehicle
for promoting ecosystem-based management of coastal and marine resources
in the international waters focal area within a framework of sustainable
development. The Report of the Second Meeting of the UN Informal, Open-ended
Consultative Process on Ocean Affairs (UNGA 2001), which was related
to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, recognized the contribution
of GEF in addressing LMEs through its science-based and ecosystem-based
approach.
The geographic area of the LME, its coastal area, and contributing
basins constitute the place-based area for assisting countries to understand
linkages among root causes of degradation and for integrating needed
changes in sectoral economic activities. The LME areas serve to initiate
capacity building and to bring science into pragmatic use in improving
the management of coastal and marine ecosystems. The GEF Operational
Strategy recommends that nations sharing an LME begin to address coastal
and marine issues by jointly undertaking strategic processes for analyzing
factual scientific information on transboundary problems and their root
causes, and for setting priorities for action. The transboundary diagnostic
analysis process provides a useful mechanism to foster participation
at all levels. Countries then determine the national and regional policy,
legal, and institutional reforms and investments needed to address the
priorities in the strategic action plan. This approach allows sound science
to become the basis for policy-making, and establishes a geographic location
upon which an ecosystem-based approach to assessment and management can
be developed. More importantly, these projects engage stakeholders in
dialogue that results in their practical support within the geographic
area for implementing an ecosystem-based approach. Without such participative
processes to engage specific stakeholders in a place-based setting, marine
science has often remained confined to the marine science community or
has not been embraced in policy-making. Furthermore, the science-based
approach encourages transparency through joint monitoring, including
joint survey cruises, and joint assessment processes for countries sharing
an LME, building trust among nations and overcoming any sense that false
information is being reported.
Both developing countries and those in economic transition have requested
and received GEF support for LME projects through GEF's international
waters focal area. The approved GEF-LME projects include not only developing
nations and those in economic transition, but also the developed countries
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, since living
resources, pollution loading, and critical habitats cross the borders
of rich and poor nations alike. The total of $US 650 million which is
currently being invested in the global network of LME projects, is funded
by GEF, other donors, and national governments. At risk in this global
network of LME projects are renewable goods and services valued at $US
10.6 trillion per year. A total of 121 countries have LME projects approved
and/or under preparation for approval by the GEF Council: 70 of the 121
countries are involved with 10 projects already approved; 63 of the 121
countries are involved with seven projects under preparation (Table 4).
The GEF's LME projects are generally funded for an initial 3-5 yr phase,
followed for successful projects by a second 3-5 yr grant. The two phases
result in a 6-10 yr window for participating countries to establish a
self-financed, comprehensive, ecosystem-based assessment and management
system. The five-module assessment and management methodology is being
tested by countries moving toward adopting practical joint governance
institutions through place-based management. This LME approach engages
stakeholders, fosters the participation of the science community, and
leads to the development of adaptive management institutions.
The GEF-supported processes in LME projects foster learning-by-doing
and capacity building just as enabling activities do in other GEF focal
areas. These processes allow the science community to become engaged
and provide interim outputs that serve as vehicles for stimulating stakeholder
participation. These processes foster cross-sectoral integration so that
an ecosystem-based approach to improving management institutions may
be pursued. The LME approach provides a framework for those involved
in integrated coastal management, as well as those addressing land-based
sources of pollution and freshwater basin management, to be integrated
into priority setting. This process builds confidence among different
sectoral interests in a country by establishing a national GEF interministerial
committee, and then among participating countries sharing the LME by
establishing a multisectoral, intergovernmental, GEF project steering
committee. Producing the SAP facilitates development of country-driven,
politically-agreed ways ahead for commitments to action that address
the priorities, in a framework that encourages adaptive management. This
shared commitment and vision for action has proven essential in GEF projects
that have completed the processes in securing commitments for policy,
legal, and institutional reforms in different economic sectors. GEF may
then fund an implementation project to assist countries in addressing
the country-driven priorities for reform and investments.
LME MODELING CONTRIBUTES TO POLICY-MAKING
Empirical and theoretical aspects of yield models for LMEs have been
reviewed by several ecologists. According to Beddington (1986), Daan
(1986), Levin (1990), and Mangel (1991), published dynamic models of
marine ecosystems offer little guidance on the detailed behavior of communities.
However, these authors concur on the need for covering the common ground
between observation and theory by implementing monitoring efforts on
the large spatial and long temporal scales (decadal) of key components
of the LMEs.
The sequence for improving the understanding of the possible mechanisms
underlying observed patterns in LMEs is described by Levin (1990) as:
1) examination of statistical analyses of observed distributional patterns
of physical and biological variables, 2) construction of competing models
of variability and patchiness based on statistical analyses and natural
scales of variability of critical processes, 3) evaluation of competing
models through experimental and theoretical studies of component systems,
and 4) integration of validated component models to provide predictive
models for population dynamics and redistribution. The approach suggested
by Levin (1990) is consistent with the observation by Mangel (1991) that
empirical support for the currently used models of LMEs is relatively
weak, and that a new generation of models is needed that serves to enhance
the linkage between theory and empirical results.
Three models of ecosystem structure and function are being applied
to LMEs with financial assistance from GEF through one mid-sized project, "Promoting
Ecosystem-based Approaches to Fisheries Conservation and LMEs" (www.gefonline.org/projectList.cfm).
Estimates of carrying capacity using ECOPATH/ECOSIM food web approaches
for the world's 64 LMEs are being prepared in a collaboration among scientists
of the University of British Columbia and marine specialists from developing
countries. Similarly, a 24-mo training project is being implemented by
scientists from Rutgers University in collaboration with the IOC to estimate
expected nitrogen loadings for each LME over the next 50 yr. Scientists
from Princeton University are examining particle spectra pattern formation
within LMEs. Additionally, the American Fisheries Society and the World
Council of World Fisheries Societies are collaborating to create an electronic
network that will expedite information access and communication among
marine specialists participating in GEF-supported LME projects.
There is a growing awareness among marine scientists, geographers,
economists, government representatives, and lawyers of the utility of
a more holistic ecosystem approach to resource management (Byrne 1986;
Christy 1986; Alexander 1989; Belsky 1989; Crawford et
al. 1989; Morgan 1989; Prescott 1989). On a global scale, the
loss of sustained biomass yields from LMEs from mismanagement and overexploitation
has not been fully investigated, but is likely very large. Effective
management strategies for LMEs will be contingent on identification of
major driving forces causing large-scale changes in biomass yields. Management
of species responding to strong environmental signals will be enhanced
by improving the understanding of the physical factors forcing biological
change, thereby enhancing forecasts of El Niño-type events. In
other LMEs, where the prime driving force is overfishing, options can
be explored for reductions of fishing effort and implementing adaptive
management strategies (Collie 1991). Further, remedial actions are required
to ensure that the pollution of the coastal zone of LMEs is reduced and
does not become a principal driving force in an LME. Recent reports explore
the application of ecosystem-based research and modeling that are focused
on management (Browman and Stergiou 2004) and on macroecology (Belgrano
2004; Hoagland et al.
2005; Edwards 2005; Grigalunas et
al. 2005).
LME APPROACH TO WORLD SUMMIT TARGETS
Since 1993, the NOAA Fisheries Service has been cooperating with GEF,
IUCN, IOC, and several other UN agencies, (i.e., Industrial
Development Organization, UNDP, UNEP, and FAO) to assist developing countries
in planning and implementing ecosystem-based management focused on LMEs
as the principal assessment and management unit for coastal ocean resources.
NOAA contributes scientific and technical assistance and expertise to
aid developing countries in reaching the targets of the 2002 WSSD (Duda
and Sherman 2002). The targets, agreed on by officials of more than 100
countries, call for the achievement of "substantial" reductions in land-based
sources of pollution by 2006, introduction of the ecosystems approach
to marine resource assessment and management by 2010, designation of
a network of marine protected areas by 2012, and the maintenance and
restoration of fish stocks to MSY levels by 2015.
The GEF-LME strategy supports the WSSD targets for addressing coastal
and marine issues by jointly analyzing scientific information on transboundary
problems and their root causes, and setting priorities for action on
these problems. The TDA process noted earlier provides a useful mechanism
to foster participation at all levels in this information analysis and
priority-setting effort. Countries then determine the national and regional
policy, legal, and institutional reforms and investments needed to address
the priorities in a country-driven SAP. Project goals and milestones
of the SAP promote vertical integration across the LME indicator modules
on an annual basis, leading to an adaptive, ultimately self-financing,
management regime (Figure 11).
Reforms are taking place among the participating countries in operationalizing
this ecosystem-based approach to managing human activities in the different
economic sectors that contribute to place-specific degradation of the
LME and adjacent waters. The WSSD target for introducing ecosystem-based
assessment and management practices by 2010 is likely to be met by most
of the countries constituting the existing LME network. It is unlikely
that the WSSD target for maintaining and restoring fishery resources
to MSY levels by 2015 will be met. However, progress is being made in
recovery of depleted fish stocks through mandated reductions in fishing
effort (Sherman et
al. 2002). With regard to the target for control and reduction
of land-based sources of pollution, considerable additional effort will
be required to achieve "substantial reductions in land-based sources
of pollution by 2006," whereas good progress has been made in designating
marine protected areas within the GEF-LME project network.
The "U.S. Ocean Action Plan" published on 17 December 2004 by the Office
of the President, Washington DC, in response to the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy's Final Report (USCOP 2004), supports the LME concept and
strategy for ecosystem-based management within the UN regional seas programs
and by international fisheries bodies (EOPUS 2004a,b):
Advancing International Oceans Science
Advance the Use of Large Marine Ecosystems. The
United States will promote, within the UN Environment Program's regional
seas programs and by international fisheries bodies, the use of the
Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) concept as a tool for enabling ecosystem-based
management to provide a collaborative approach to management of resources
within ecologically bounded transnational areas. This will be done
in an international context and consistent with customary international
law as reflected in 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Additional information on NOAA's contributions to the global LME movement
toward ecosystem-based management and resource sustainability is available
from the LME Program Office, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Narragansett
Laboratory, Narragansett, RI, and from the LME website: www.lme.noaa.gov.
REFERENCES
CITED
Aiken,
J.; Pollard, R.; Williams, R.; Griffiths, G.; Bellan, I. 1999. Measurements
of the upper ocean structure using towed profiling systems. In: Sherman,
K.; Tang, Q., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the Pacific Rim: assessment,
sustainability, and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; p. 346-362.
Alexander, L.M. 1989. Large marine ecosystems as global management
units. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds. Biomass
yields and geography of large marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc.
Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 111. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p.
339-344.
Astthorsson, O.S.; Vilhjálmsson, H. 2002. Iceland Shelf
Large Marine Ecosystem. In: Sherman, K.; Skjoldal, H.R.,
eds. Large marine ecosystems of the North Atlantic: changing
states and sustainability. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier
Science; p. 219-244.
Beddington, J.R. 1986. Shifts in resource populations in large
marine ecosystems. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.,
eds. Variability and management of large marine ecosystems. Am.
Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 99. Boulder, CO: Westview Press;
p. 9-18.
Beddington, J.R. 1995. The primary requirements. Nature 374:213-214.
Behrenfeld, M.; Falkowski, P.G. 1997. Photosynthetic rates
derived from satellite-based chlorophyll concentration. Limnol.
Oceangr. 42(1):1-20.
Belgrano, A., coordinator. 2004. Theme section: emergent properties
of complex marine systems: a macroecological perspective. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 273:227-302.
Belsky, M.H. 1989. The ecosystem model mandate for a comprehensive
United States ocean policy and Law of the Sea. S. Diego L.
Rev. 26(3):417-495.
Berman, M.S.; Sherman, K. 2001. A towed body sampler for monitoring
marine ecosystems. Sea Technol. 42(9):48-52.
Beverton, R.J.H.; Holt, S.J. 1957. On the dynamics of exploited
fish populations. Fish. Invest. Minist. Agric. Fish. Food
(G.B.) Ser. II 19; 533 p.
Browman H.I.; Stergiou, K.I., coordinators. 2004. Theme section:
perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management
of marine resources. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 274:269-298.
Byrne, J. 1986. Large marine ecosystems and the future of ocean
studies. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds. Variability
and management of large marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv.
Sci. Sel. Symp. 99. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 299-308.
Caddy, J.F. 1993. Contrast between recent fishery trends and
evidence for nutrient enrichment in two large marine ecosystems:
the Mediterranean and the Black Seas. In: Sherman, K.;
Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Large marine ecosystems: stress,
mitigation and sustainability. Washington, DC: AAAS Press; p.
137-147.
Chen, Y.-Q.; Shen, X.-Q. 1999. Changes in the biomass of the
East China Sea Ecosystem. In: Sherman, K.; Tang, Q.,
eds. Large marine ecosystems of the Pacific Rim: assessment,
sustainability and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science;
p. 221-239.
Christy, F.T. 1986. Can large marine ecosystems be managed
for optimum yields? In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.,
eds. Variability and management of large marine ecosystems. Am.
Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 99. Boulder, CO: Westview Press;
p. 263-267.
Collie, J.S. 1991. Adaptive strategies for management of fisheries
resources in large marine ecosystems. In: Sherman, K.;
Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Food chains, yields, models,
and management of large marine ecosystems. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press; p. 225-242.
Costanza, R. 1992. Toward an operational definition of ecosystem
health. In: Costanza, R.; Norton, B.G.; Haskell, B.D.,
eds. Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management.
Washington, DC: Island Press; p. 239-256.
Crawford, R.J.M.; Shannon, L.V.; Shelton, P.A. 1989. Characteristics
and management of the Benguela as a large marine ecosystem. In:
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds. Biomass yields and geography
of large marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 111.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 169-219.
Daan, N. 1986. Results of recent time-series observations for
monitoring trends in large marine ecosystems with a focus on
the North Sea. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds.
Variability and management of large marine ecosystems. Am.
Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 99. Boulder, CO: Westview Press;
p. 145-174.
Duda, A.M. 1982. Municipal point sources and agricultural nonpoint
source contributions to coastal eutrophication. Water Resour.
Bull. 18(3):397-407.
Duda, A.M.; El-Ashry, M.T. 2000. Addressing the global water
and environmental crises through integrated approaches to the
management of land, water, and ecological resources. Water
Int. 25:115-126.
Duda, A.M.; Finan, D.S. 1983. Influence of livestock on nonpoint
source nutrient levels of streams. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric.
Eng. 26(6):1710-1726.
Duda, A.; Sherman, K. 2002. A new imperative for improving
management of large marine ecosystems. Ocean Coast. Manag. 45(2002):797-833.
Edwards, S.F. 2005. Ownership of multi-attribute fishery resources
in large marine ecosystems. Chapter 6 in: Hennessey,
T.; Sutinen, J.G., eds. Sustaining large marine ecosystems: the
human dimension. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science;
p. 137-154.
EOPUS [Executive Office of the President of the United States].
2004a. Executive Order 121704: Committee on Ocean Policy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004.
EOPUS [Executive Office of the President of the United States].
2004b. U.S. Ocean Action Plan (17 December 2004). http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf.
Epstein, P.R. 1993. Algal blooms and public health. World
Resour. Rev. 5(2):190-206.
FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization]. 2002. Code of conduct
for responsible fisheries. www.fao.org/FI/agreem/codecond/ficonde.asp.
Garibaldi, L.; Limongelli, L. 2003. Trends in oceanic captures
and clustering of large marine ecosystems: two studies based
on the FAO capture database, as reported to the FAO by official
national sources. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 435; 71 p.
GEF [Global Environment Facility]. 1995. GEF operational strategy.
Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility; 63 p.
GESAMP [Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Pollution]. 1990. The state of the marine environment. UNEP
Reg. Seas Rep. Stud. 115; 111 p.
GESAMP [Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Pollution]. 2001. Protecting the oceans from land-based activities:
land-based sources and activities affecting the quality and uses
of the marine, coastal and associated freshwater environment. GESAMP
Rep. Stud. 71; 162 p.
Grigalunas, T.A.; Opaluch, J.J.; Diamantides, J.; Woo, D.-S.
2005. Eutrophication in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem:
linking hydrodynamic and economic models for benefit estimation.
Chapter 11 in: Hennessey T.; Sutinen, J., eds. Sustaining
large marine ecosystems: the human dimension. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier; p. 229-248.
Helsinki Commission. 2001. Environment of the Baltic Sea area
1994-1998. Baltic Sea Environ. Proc. 82A; 23 p.
Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds. 2003. Large marine ecosystems
of the world: trends in exploitation, and research. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; 423 p.
Hoagland, P.; Jin, D.; Thunberg, E.; Steinback, S. 2005. Economic
activity associated with the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem:
application of an input-output approach. Chapter 7 in:
Hennessey T.; Sutinen, J., eds. Sustaining large marine ecosystems:
the human dimension. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; p.
159-181.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological
systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4:1-23.
Holling, C.S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems
to local surprise and global change. In: Clark, W.C.;
Munn, R.E., eds. Sustainable development of the biosphere. London,
England: Cambridge Univ. Press; p. 292-317.
Holling, C.S. 1993. Investing in research for sustainability. Ecol.
Appl. 3:552-555.
Howarth, R.; Anderson, D.; Cloern, J.; Elfring, C.; Hopkinson,
C.; Lapointe, B.; Malone, T.; Marcus, N.; McGlathery, K.; Sharpley,
A.; Walker, D. 2000. Nutrient pollution of coastal rivers, bays,
and seas. ESA Iss. Ecol. 7:1-15.
Jaworski, N.A. 1999. Comparison of nutrient loadings and fluxes
into the US Northeast Shelf LME with the Gulf of Mexico and other
LMEs. In: Kumpf, H.; Steidinger, K.; Sherman, K., eds.
The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem: assessment, sustainability,
and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; p. 360-371.
Juda, L.; Hennessey, T. 2001. Governance profiles and the management
of the uses of large marine ecosystems. Ocean Dev. Int. Law. 32:41-67.
Kroeze, C.; Seitzinger, S.P. 1998. Nitrogen inputs to rivers,
estuaries and continental shelves and related nitrous oxide emissions
in 1990 and 2050: a global model. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 52:195-212.
Kumpf, H.; Steidinger, K.; Sherman, K., editors. 1996. The
Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem: assessment, sustainability,
and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 704 p.
Kusnetsov, V.V.; Shuntov, V.P.; Borets, L.A. 1993. Food chains,
physical dynamics, perturbations, and biomass yields of the Sea
of Okhotsk. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold,
B.D., eds. Large marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation and sustainability.
Washington, DC: AAAS Press; p. 69-78.
Levin, S.A. 1990. Physical and biological scales, and modelling
of predator-prey interactions in large marine ecosystems. In:
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Large marine ecosystems:
patterns, processes, and yields. Washington, DC: AAAS Press;
p. 179-187.
Levin, S.A. 1993. Approaches to forecasting biomass yields
in large marine ecosystems. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander,
L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Large marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation
and sustainability. Washington, DC: AAAS Press; p. 36-39.
Lindemann, R.L. 1942. The trophic dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:399-418.
Lluch-Belda, D.; Lluch-Cota, D.B.; Lluch-Cota, S.E. 2003. Figure
9 in: Interannual variability impacts on the California
Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Chapter 9 in: Hempel,
G.; Sherman, K., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the world: trends
in exploitation, protection, and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Elsevier Science; p. 212.
Mangel, M. 1991. Empirical and theoretical aspects of fisheries
yield models for large marine ecosystems. In: Sherman,
K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Food chains, yields, models,
and management of large marine ecosystems. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press; p. 243-261.
McGlade, J.M.; Cury, P.; Koranteng, K.A.; Hardman-Mountford,
N.J., editors. 2002. The Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem:
environmental forcing and sustainable development of marine resources.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V.; 392 p.
Morgan, J.R. 1989. Large marine ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean. In:
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds. Biomass yields and geography
of large marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 111.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 377-394.
NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 1999. Atlantic
herring. In: Report of the 27th Northeast Regional Stock
Assessment Workshop (27th SAW): Stock Assessment Review Committee
(SARC) consensus summary of assessments. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 98-15:281-309.
NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2002. Assessment
of 20 Northeast groundfish stocks through 2001: a report of the
Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM), Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, October 8-11, 2002. U.S.
Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 02-16;
511 p.
NRC [National Research Council]. 2000. Clean coastal waters:
understanding and reducing the effects of nutrient pollution.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 27 p.
Pauly, D.; Christensen, V. 1995. Primary production required
to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255-257.
Pauly, D.; Chuenpagdee, R. 2003. Development of Fisheries in
the Gulf of Thailand Large Marine Ecosystem: analysis of an unplanned
experiment. In: Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds. Large
marine ecosystems of the world: trends in exploitation, protection,
and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p.
337-354.
Pimm, S.L. 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307:321-326.
Prescott, J.R.V. 1989. The political division of large marine
ecosystems in the Atlantic Ocean and some associated seas. In:
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds. Biomass yields and geography
of large marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 111.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 395-442.
Rabalais, N.N.; Turner, R.E.; Wiseman, W.J., Jr. 1999. Hypoxia
in the northern Gulf of Mexico: linkages with the Mississippi
River. In: Kumpf, H.; Steidinger, K.; Sherman, K., eds.
The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem: assessment, sustainability,
and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; p. 297-322.
Ricklefs, R.E. 1987. Community diversity: relative roles of
local and regional processes. Science 235(4785):161-171.
Schaefer, M.B. 1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of populations
important to the management of the commercial marine fisheries. Bull.
Inter-Am. Trop. Tuna Comm. 1:27-56.
Seitzinger, S.P.; Kroeze, C. 1998. Global distribution of nitrous
oxide production and N inputs to freshwater and coastal marine
ecosystems. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 12:93-113.
Sherman, B. 2000. Marine ecosystem health as an expression
of morbidity, mortality, and disease events. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 41(1-6):232-54.
Sherman, K. 1994. Sustainability, biomass yields, and health
of coastal ecosystems: an ecological perspective. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 112:277-301.
Sherman, K. 1998. Assessment, sustainability, and monitoring
of coastal ecosystems: an ecological perspective. In:
Sherman, K.; Okemwa, E.N.; Ntiba, M.J., eds. Large marine ecosystems
of the Indian Ocean: assessment, sustainability, and management.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science; p. 3-22.
Sherman, K., editor. 1993. Emerging theoretical basis for monitoring
the changing states (health) of large marine ecosystems: summary
report of two workshops: 23 April 1992, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Narragansett, Rhode Island, and 11-12 July 1992,Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-100;
27 p.
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., editors. 1986. Variability and
management of large marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
Sel. Symp. 99. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 319 p.
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., editors. 1989. Biomass yields
and geography of large marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv.
Sci. Sel. Symp. 111. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 449 p.
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., editors. 1990. Large
marine ecosystems: patterns, processes and yields. Washington,
DC: AAAS Press; 242 p.
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., editors. 1991. Food
chains, yields, models, and management of large marine ecosystems.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 320 p.
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., editors. 1993. Large
marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation and sustainability. Washington,
DC: AAAS Press; 376p.
Sherman, K.; Grosslein, M.; Mountain, D.; Busch, D.; O'Reilly,
J.; Theroux, R. 1988. The continental shelf ecosystem off the
northeast coast of the United States. Chapter 9 in:
Postma, H.; Zilstra, J.J., eds. Ecosystems of the world 27: continental
shelves. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; p. 279-337.
Sherman, K.; Jaworski, N.A.; Smayda, T.J., editors. 1996. The
Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: assessment, sustainability, and management.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science; 564 p.
Sherman, K.; Kane, J.; Murawski, S.; Overholtz, W.; Solow,
A. 2002. In: Sherman, K.; Skjoldal, H.R., eds. Large
marine ecosystems of the North Atlantic: changing states and
sustainability. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science;
p. 195-215.
Sherman, K.; Okemwa, E.N.; Ntiba, M.J., editors. 1998. Large
marine ecosystems of the Indian Ocean: assessment, sustainability,
and management. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science; 394 p.
Sherman, K.; O'Reilly, J.; Kane, J. 2003. Assessment and sustainability
of the U.S. Northeast Shelf Ecosystem. In: Hempel, G.;
Sherman, K., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the world: trends
in exploitation, protection, and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Elsevier Science; p. 93-120.
Sherman, K.; Skjoldal, H.R., editors. 2002. Large marine ecosystems
of the North Atlantic: changing states and sustainability. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; 449 p.
Sherman, K.; Tang, Q., editors. 1999. Large marine ecosystems
of the Pacific Rim: assessment, sustainability and management.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 465 p.
Steele, J.H. 1988. Scale selection for biodynamic theories. In:
Rothschild, B.J., ed. Toward a theory on biological-physical
interactions in the world ocean. NATO ASI Ser. C Math. Phys.
Sci. 239:513-526.
Sutinen, J.G., editor. 2000. A framework for monitoring and
assessing socioeconomics and governance of large marine ecosystems. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-158; 32 p.
Tang, Q. 2003. Figure 10 in: The Yellow Sea and mitigation
action. Chapter 6 in: Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds.
Large marine ecosystems of the world: trends in exploitation,
protection, and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier
Science; p. 137.
Terazaki, M. 1999. The Sea of Japan Large Marine Ecosystem. In:
Sherman, K.; Tang, Q., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the Pacific
Rim: assessment, sustainability and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Science; p. 199-220.
UNGA [UN General Assembly]. 2001. Report on the work of the
United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process established
by the General Assembly in its resolution 54/33 in order to facilitate
the annual review by the Assembly of developments in ocean affairs
at its second meeting. Rep. A/ 56/121 (22 June 2001);
62 p.
USCOP [U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy]. 2004. Preliminary
report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy -- governor's draft.
Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; 413 p.
USEPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. 2001. National
coastal condition report. EPA-620/R-01/005; 204 p.
USEPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. 2004. National
coastal condition report. EPA-620/R-03/002. http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/nccr2-factsheet.html.
Wang, H. 2004. An evaluation of the modular approach to the
assessment and management of large marine ecosystems. Ocean
Dev. Int. 35:267-286.
Watson, R.; Pauly, D.; Christensen, V.; Froese, R.; Longhurst,
A.; Platt, T.; Sathyendranath, S.; Sherman, K.;O'Reilly, J.;
Celone, P. 2003. Mapping fisheries onto marine ecosystems for
regional, oceanic and global integrations. Chapter 16 in:
Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the
world: trends in exploitation, protection, and research. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p. 375-396.
Wolff, M.; Wosnitza-Mendo, C.; Mendo, J. 2003. Figure 6 in:
The Humboldt Current LME. Chapter 12 in: Hempel, G.;
Sherman, K., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the world: trends
in exploitation, protection, and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Elsevier Science; p. 287.
|
| FAO |
= UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization |
| GEF |
= UN’s Global Environment Facility |
| IOC |
= UN’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission |
| IUCN |
= International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources;
also known as World Conservation Union |
| LME |
= large marine ecosystem |
| NERRS |
= NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System |
| NOAA |
= US Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration |
| SAP |
= strategic action plan |
| TDA |
= transboundary diagnostic analysis |
| UN |
= United Nations |
| UNDP |
= UN Development Program |
| UNEP |
= UN Environment Program |
| UNCED |
= 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development |
| WSSD |
= 2004 World Summit on Sustainable Development |
