Chairman's ReportConclusions and recommendationsfrom presentations and discussions

Norway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approachfor Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity

6-10 September 1999

• Hosted by• The Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment

In collaboration with• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)• The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture• The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries• The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Organised by• Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management (DN)• Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)• Foundation for Continuing Education of the Norwegian Institute of Technology (SEVU)

Held at Radisson SAS Royal Garden Hotel, Trondheim, Norway

Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnafele Use of Biologicaf Diversity

Conference Chair• Peter J. Schei

Conference Director• Odd Terje Sandlund

Conference Secretary• Rita Strand

Represented in the International Advisory GroupCenter for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)DIVERSITAS programmeGlobal Environmental Facility (GEF)International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE)Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)The World Bank (WB)United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)World Conservation Union (IUCN)

Represented in the Conference CommitteeNorwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management (DN)Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)Norwegian University for Science and Technology (NTNU)The Municipality of TrondheimThe Royal Norwegian Ministry of AgricultureThe Royal Norwegian Ministry of the EnvironmentThe Royal Norwegian Ministry of FisheriesThe Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Technical organisers• Foundation for Continuing Education of the Norwegian Institute of Technology (SEVU)• Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)

Mtomay/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnable Use erf Biotogicaf Diversity

• © Directorate for Nature ManagementNorwegian Institute for Nature Research

Conference Chairman and responsible for the report• Peter J. Schei, DN

Conference rapporteurs and editors• Gunn Paulsen, DN• Graciela Rusch, NINA

Report advisory group• Peter Bridgewater (Australia)• Eduardo Fuentes (Chile)• Kenton Miller, (USA)• Harold Mooney, (USA)• Jose Sarukhan (Mexico)• Marcel Vernooij (The Netherlands)• Zipangani Vokhiwa, (Malawi)

Session rapporteurs• Tone Woie Alstadheim, DN• Ellen Arneberg, DN• Ingrid Danielsen, DN• Rita Daverdin, NINA• Eva Degre, DN• Heidi Hansen, DN• Kjetil Hindar, NINA• Reidar Hindrum, DN• Jan Husby, DN• Finn Kateras, DN• Kirsti Kval0y, NINA• Anne Langaas, DN• Else Lobersli, DN• Ingrid Bysveen Mj0lner0d, DN• Gunn Paulsen, DN• Graciela Rusch, NINA• Odd Terje Sandlund, NINA• Jostein Sandvik, DN• Bj0rn Age T0mmeras, NINA• Akse 0stebr0t, DN

ISBN: 82-426-1091-6

Computer assistance: Synn0ve Sunde

Edition: 1000

Published in Norway in 1999 byNorwegian Directorate for Nature Management (DN) andNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)Tungasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim, Norway

Telephone + 47 73 58 05 00 Telefax + 47 73 58 05 01Telephone + 47 73 80 14 00 Telefax + 47 73 80 14 01

E-mail: gunn.paulsen@dirnat.nograciela.rusch @ ninatrd.ninaniku.no

Table of contents

Conclusions and recommendations from the Norway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approach for Sustainable Useof Biological Diversity, Trondheim, Norway, 6 -10 September 1999.............................................................................7Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................9Session 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................11Opening session

Chair: Guro Fjellanger, Minister of the Environment, NorwaySession 2............................................................................-...........................-............-............................................15Introductory notes: Ecosystem approach and sustainable use

Session Chair: Peter J. ScheiCo-chair: Zipangani VokhiwaPresentation of the "Malawi principles"................................................................................................................15Herbert PrinsEcosystem approach: from principles to practice ................................................................................................16Edward MaitbySustainable use: fiction or future challenge?...................................................................................................,... 17Bror JonssonBiodiversity and ecosystem functioning ..............................................................................................................18Harold Mooney

Sessions...................................................................."De-centralisation of resource management

Session Chair: Inger StollLocal community control: conflicts and solutions................................................................................................. 19Madhav GadgilThe challenges of community-based management of biodiversity.......................................................................20Vivienne Solfs RiveraInstitutional requirements for community based management of land resources: Case of Tanzania....................21Mary C.R. ShettoDecentralization of resource management in fisheries........................................................................................22Ussif Rashid Sumaila

Session 4..................................................................................................................................................................23Management in dynamic environments

Session Chair: Odd Terje SandlundBioregional management.....................................................................................................................................23Kenton MillerAdaptive management: The only tool for decentralized systems.........................................................................24Rowan B. MartinWithin Fisheries Management Plans in the Maritimes Region of Atlantic Canada ...............................................25Michael SinclairUnderstanding ecosystem condition to maintain productivity and conservation...................................................26lan Cresswell

Session 5..................................................................................................................................................................27The socio-economy of sustainable resource use

Session Chair: Monika HammerSustainable Development and Environmental Change........................................................................................27Charles A. PerringsWildland biodiversity and ecosystem development as the primary tool for their survival: the Area deConservacion Guanacaste, Costa Rica, pilot project...........................................................................................27Daniel H. Janzen

Session 6..................................................................................................................................................................28Cascading effects of resource exploitation on ecosystems

Session Chair: Karin RefsnesThe relevance of ecosystemic services by native species and species assemblages: coupling salmon farmingand sport fishing with biodiversity use and management.....................................................................................28Doris SotoThe future for coastal marine community/ecosystem approaches in invertebrate multispecies management: theneed for spatial "take" and "no-take" areas networking and connectivity..............................................................29Juan Carlos Castilla

Effects of fishing on coral reef ecosystems.........................................................................................................29John L. MunroEcological and evolutionary conservation implications of species interactions in ecosystems .............................30Michel Loreau

Session 7..................................................................................................................................................................31Ecosystem approach in marine resource use

Session Chair: Ragnhild Lofthus ,.The precautionary approach to sustainable utilisaton of marine ecosystems.......................................................31Asmund BjordalThe integration of fisheries and environmental issues: Evolution of the ecosystem approach..............................31Christopher HopkinsBy-catch infisheries............................................................................................................................................32Karen WeaverOverexploitation and extinction in the ocean.......................................................................................................33 \Ransom Myers \

Session 8..................................................................................................................................................................33 -Ecosystem approach in forest resource use

Session Chair: Thor LarsenEcosystems, timber and biodiversity...................................................................................................................33Jeffrey A. SayerSolving the Global Forest Crisis..........................................................................................................................34Richard SteinerUnderlying causes of deforestation .....................................................................................................................34Hans J.H. VerolmeBoreal forests in Russia......................................................................................................................................35Sten NilssonCommunities depend on sustainable use: What are the incentives and constraints?...........................................35Jeffrey McNeely

Session 9..................................................................................................................................................................36Globalisation vs. de-centralisation

Session Chair: Colin ReesGlobalisation of nature and culture: the imperative for diversity ..........................................................................36Peter BridgewaterCompatibility between the WTO framework, protection of the environment and sustainable development..........37Jan-Eirik S0rensenEnvironment and global trade.............................................................................................................................38Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz

Session 10................................................................................................................................................................39Panel debate:

What chance for local resource management in the times of GATT and WTO?Moderator: Ketil Gravir

Session 11 ................................................................................................................................................................40Successes and failures: Case studies in use of biological resources

Session Chair: Cecil MachenaWildlife Quota Setting : A Campfire Case Study.................................................................................................40Norman Rigava and Lillian DimbiLiving Forests, a case study from Norway...........................................................................................................40Berit SannessCommunity approach for the conservation of Zombitse Vohibasia in the south of Madagascar: a successfulexample of community management of natural resources and a basic strategy of eco-regional conservationapproach ............................................................................................................................................................41Bernard KotoCommunity Participation in Coastal Fisheries Management................................................................................41Chandrika Sharma

Session 12................................................................................................................................................................42Follow-up of the Conference

Conference chair: Peter Johan ScheiResearch needs on sustainable use problems.....................................................................................................42Tor-Bjorn Larsson

Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnabte Use of BiotogkjaJ Diversity

The role of the ecosystem approach in international fisheries negotiations..........................................................42Christopher HopkinsThe role of the ecosystem approach in international forestry negotiations........................................................43Knut 0istadIntegrated ecosystem assessments: Catalytic tools for the ecosystem approach.................................................44Walter ReidConclusions and recommendations: Concluding remarks from the Conference chair..........................................45Peter Johan ScheiClosing address, Norwegian Minister of International Development and human rights ........................................45Hilde Frafjord Johnsen

ANNEX 1................................................................................................................................................ . ....... .........48

Working Group on Session 6 - Cascading effects of resource exploitation on ecosystems and Session 7 - Ecosystemapproach in marine resource: Problem oriented, case based suggestions for programmes applying the ecosystemapproach................. ......... ............................................................... .. .... ............... .................... ... . . . ....... .48

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSFROM THE NORWAY/UN CONFERENCEON THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH FORSUSTAINABLE USE OF BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY, TRONDHEIM, NORWAY, 6 - 1 0SEPTEMBER 1999

IntroductionIn January 1998 a workshop was convened in Malawiunder the auspices of the Secretariat of the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) with a view to iden-tify principles that could operationalize the 'ecosystemapproach'. The workshop drew up twelve principles,which were later considered by the Conference of Par-ties at its fourth meeting, in May 1998. The conferenceof the Parties acknowledged the need for a workabledescription and further elaboration of the 'ecosystemapproach'. Against this background, scientists, manag-ers and policy advisors from 95 countries and inter-governmental agencies, institutions and organizationsgathered in Trondheim on 6-10 September 1999, at theinvitation of the Government of Norway.

Three closely interlinked objectives of the Conventionon Biological Diversity are: a) conservation, b) sustain-able use of biological resources and c) a fair and eq-uitable sharing of the benefits deriving from this use.

The Trondheim Conference examined the 'ecosystemapproach' as a mechanism to ensure the sustainabilityof biological resource use. There was broad consensusat the meeting that given the spatial and temporalcomplexity of biodiversity and the human use of eco-systems, the 'ecosystem approach' including adaptivemanagement is the most appropriate framework toachieve the Convention objectives.

The "ecosystem approach" results from convergingmanagement strategies applied in various parts of theworld. It addresses spatially complex, interconnectedand temporarily varying systems. It promotes conser-vation and sustainable uses of biodiversity in an equi-table and socially acceptable manner.

Biodiversity and ecosystem functioningThe many components of biodiversity control thestores and flows of energy, water and nutrients withinecosystems, and provide resistance to major perturba-tions. We have accumulating evidence on the sensitiv-ity of ecosystems to biodiversity alteration or loss, butas yet we do not have adequate knowledge of the fullmagnitude of these relationships now, or under globalchanges. Further fragmentation may have consider-able effects on the delivery of ecosystem services andthese effects may vary with different ecosystem types.Hence we need to apply a precautionary principle orutilize adequate risk-management approaches before

altering ecosystem structure and composition. Weneed to accelerate our efforts to gain new knowledgeabout biodiversity/functional relationships, inter aliathrough international initiatives like the Millenium As-sessment.

The Malawi principles offer an approach that will notonly help gain the information that we need on therelationship between biodiversity and ecosystemstructure and function, but will also help put this knowl-edge into a meaningful framework for achieving eco-system sustainability.

Benefits and servicesThe benefits of biodiversity are found in the array ofservices provided by ecosystems. They provide thebasis of human environmental security andsustainability. The 'ecosystem approach' seeks to en-sure that these services are distributed equitably topeople at local, national, regional, and global scales.Proper valuation of ecosystem services is needed.Further, the perverse incentives that devalue ecosys-tem services need to be removed and replaced withlocal incentives for good management practices. Inparticular, benefits from these services need to beshared with the stakeholders responsible for their pro-duction and management.

DecentralizationConsiderable attention was given to the second Malawiprinciple, which establishes that ecosystem manage-ment should be decentralized to the lowest appropriatelevel. Several examples indicate that decentralizationof management decision-making may render promis-ing results. Decentralization of resource managementhas often been equated to democratizing the processof decision-making and to a broader participation of allstakeholders. This latter does not guarantee the at-tainment of sustainable use, but certainly increases thelikelihood of doing so when all interested parties feel tobe part of the decision-making process. However, de-centralization is likely to have negative effects if it isnot accompanied by proper empowerment, whichimplies both adequate capacity building and assumingresponsibilities. Accountability and transparency inbenefit sharing is crucial to the decentralization proc-ess and to successfully operationalize the Conventionobjectives. There is a need for studies to define whichis the appropriate balance of decentralization versuscentralization for ecosystem management in eachcase. Decentralization needs to be supported by con-comitant policy and legislation frameworks.

Intersectorial cooperationManagement of natural resources, according to the'ecosystem approach', calls for an increased intersec-torial communication and cooperation. Persistent sec-torial views must be overcome at a whole range oflevels (government, management agencies, etc).

Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Susfatnable Use of Biotogicaf K

These changes should range from the formation ofinterministerial bodies within the government (e. g.national biodiversity committees) to the creation ofnetworks for sharing information and experience.

Adaptive managementEcosystem processes and functions are complex andvariable. Their level of uncertainty is increased by theinteraction with social constructs, which need to bebetter understood. Therefore ecosystem managementmust imply a learning process, which helps to adaptmethodologies and practices to the ways in whichthese systems are being managed and monitored.These uncertainties call for flexibility in policy makingand implementation, as well as for management pre-caution. Long-term, inflexible decisions are likely to beinadequate or destructive. Ecosystem managementshould be envisaged as a long-term experiment whichbuilds on its results as it progresses. This "learning -through - doing" will also be an important source ofinformation to gain knowledge of how to best monitorthe results of management and evaluate whether es-tablished goals are being attained.

Additional suggestions:Experience already demonstrates that Parties can takeimmediate steps to promote delivery to people of thefull array of biodiversity benefits from ecosystems. Theapplication and further development of the 'ecosystemapproach1 is a matter of high priority. Building capacityin adaptive management and participation at all appro-priate scales is urgently needed. This should be pro-moted through good case studies leading to guidelineson the implementation of the 'ecosystem approach'.

• Implementation programs should be designed toadjust to the unexpected, rather than to act on thebasis of a belief in certainties.

• The development of capacity in the 'ecosystemapproach', adaptive management, monitoring, in-formation, and participatory management is amatter of high priority.

• While the Conforen^o stressed the need for coun-tries to "get on with implementation" of the 'eco-system approach', it also recognized that Partiesmust better understand ecosystem structure, func-tion and process, as well as temporal and spatialdynamics, including human influence on biodiver-sity.

• At the management level there is a need for inte-grating scientists into decision-making, linking eco-system functions to socio-economics and ensuringinstitutional integration as well as participation oflocal communities at various levels. It was alsostressed to have scientists directly interacting withlocal communities in a two-way process of advisingand learning about ecosystem management.

• As global trade accelerates there needs to be con-tinuing monitoring and discussion on potential ad-verse impacts on biological diversity on ecosystem

properties. Cost effective ways of mitigating ad-verse impacts need to be developed, and, equallymarkets for sustainably produced components ofbiological diversity need to be promoted and fa-cilitated.

• Ecosystem management needs to recognize thediversity of social and cultural factors affectingnatural resource use.

• There is a need to develop accepted methodolo-gies for the valuation of biodiversity and ecosys-tem services.

• There is a need to integrate the 'ecosystem ap-proach' into agriculture, fisheries, forestry andother production systems that have effect onbiodiversity.

• There is a need to investigate where ecosystemrestoration is possible and the most cost-effectiveways of doing it.

The Conference agreed that the outcome of the meet-ing formed a significant contribution to the preparationsof the fifth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scien-tific, Technological and Technical Advice (SBSTTA5).Consequently, the results should be communicated atthe first meeting of the liaison group on the 'ecosystemapproach' to be held in Paris in September 1999.

Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainable Use of BiotogicaE Diversity

INTRODUCTION

The Norway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Ap-proach for Sustainable Use of Biological was hosted bythe Norwegian Ministry of the Environment on behalfof the Norwegian Government, in collaboration with theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Theinternational advisory committe of the Conference hadthe participation of the Secretariat of The Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Edu-cational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation(UNESCO), the United Nations Food and AgriculturalOrganisation (FAO), the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP), the World Bank (WB), the GlobalEnvironmental Facility (GEF), GEF's Scientific andTechnical Advisory Panel (STAP), the InternationalConservation Union (IUCN), the Scientific Committeeon Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), theDIVERSITAS programme, the International Council forthe Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and the Center forInternational Forestry Research (CIFOR). The organi-sation and sponsoring of the Conference was a jointventure between the Norwegian Ministry of the Envi-ronment, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry ofFisheries, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Conference was organised by the Norwegian Di-rectorate for Nature Management (DN), which is theexecutive body of biodiversity management under theMinistry of Environment, in cooperation with the Nor-wegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), bothbased in Trondheim. The preparations for the Nor-way/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approach forSustainable Use of Biological Diversity (EASUB) wereled by a Conference Steering Committee, chaired byMr. Peter Schei at the Norwegian Directorate for Na-ture Management.

The EASUB was the third one in the series of theTrondheim Conferences on Biodiversity, which startedin May 1993. The Trondheim Conferences focus on themultidimensional nature of the implementation of theBiodiversity Convention. There is a need to establishthe best possible scientific basis for this implementa-tion, taking into account that the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity and fair and equitablesharing of benefits derived from it, constitute the veryfoundation for sustainable development. The Confer-ence series aims to establish and develop contact andcollaboration between scientists and policy makersfrom all Parties to the CBD. Its major goal is to en-hance the cross- and multi-sectoral dialogue on biodi-versity research and management, and to contribute toa solid basis for policy and management decisionsneeded to implement the Convention on BiologicalDiversity.

The Conference in May 1993 provided an imput thatwas highly instrumental to the first IntergovernmentalCommittee meeting of the signatories to the CBD in

September that year. The theme of the second Con-ference in July 1996 was scientific and managementproblems related to alien invasive species. The Con-ference provided useful input to the discussions at thesecond SBSTTA meeting in September 1996, and tothe development of the Global Invasive Species Pro-gram (GISP). In June 1997, the organizers of theTrondheim Conferences hosted a workshop on biodi-versity in freshwaters, to provide scientific input to thethird SBSTTA meeting in September 1997.

During the negotiations of the CBD there was generalagreement on the necessity of striking the right bal-ance between conservation and use of biodiversity.Without use or usefulness, no motives for conserva-tion, and without conservation, no sustainability. Thethree objectives of the CBD, conservation, sustainableuse, and sharing of benefits, are closely linked. Thismeans that biodiversity concerns have to be integratedinto all sectors of society whose policies have an im-pact on the environment, and that human dimensionsand interests have to be taken into account when wetry to find solutions to problems about biodiversity loss.

We need to find new and innovative strategies re-garding holistic approaches to answer ecological ques-tions, as well as sector integration, inter-sectoral coop-eration, and stakeholder participation. Focus on singlespecies models and sectorized or fragmented biodiver-sity management has demonstrated only limited suc-cess. We have to develop ways of living with, con-serving and using biological resources in an ecosystemcontext where the various stakeholders and influentsare involved and held responsible for their actions. Themainstream understanding of the 'ecosystem ap-proach' is that it 'integrates ecological protection and, ifnecessary, restoration, with human needs tostrengthen the essential connection between economicprosperity and environmental well-being' (US Inter-agency Ecosystem Management Task Force, 1995).

In a workshop organized in Malawi in January, 1998,and submitted to the 4th Conference of the Parties ofthe CBD (UNEP/CBD/COP/4/lnf.9), identified the fol-lowing twelve principles/characteristics of the 'ecosys-tem approach' to biodiversity management:• Management objectives are a matter of societal

choice.• Management should be decentralized to the lowest

appropriate level.• Ecosystem managers should consider the effects

of their activities on adjacent and other ecosys-tems.

• Recognizing potential gains from managementthere is a need to understand the ecosystem in aneconomic context, considering e.g., mitigating mar-ket distortions, aligning incentives to promote sus-tainable use, and internalizing costs and benefits.

• A key feature of the 'ecosystem approach' includesconservation of ecosystem structure and function-ing.

• Ecosystems must be managed within the limits totheir functioning.

• The 'ecosystem approach' should be undertaken atthe appropriate scale.

• Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lageffects which characterize ecosystem processes,objectives for ecosystem management should beset for the long term.

• Management must recognize that change is inevi-table.

• The 'ecosystem approach' should seek the appro-priate balance between conservation and use ofbiodiversity.

• The 'ecosystem approach' should consider allforms of relevant information, including scientificand indigenous and local knowledge, innovationsand practices.

• The 'ecosystem approach' should involve all rele-vant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

The Norway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Ap-proach for Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity fo-cused on research and development which contributesto an improved understanding of these principles, withthe aim to integrate them in everyday managementpractices. One important goal of the 1999 TrondheimConference has been to provide useful input to discus-sions on one of the major themes at the 5h Conferenceof the Parties in 2000, the sustainable use of the com-ponents of biodiversity.

Against this background, the Norwegian Minister ofEnvironment invited all members of the United Na-tions, as well as relevant UN agencies, all nationalfocal points for the Convention of Biological Diversity,and a number of international instruments and non-governmental organisations in the field of nature andresource management.

The objectives of the Conference were:• To contribute to a sound scientific knowledge of

issues related to the sustainable use of compo-nents of biological diversity.

• To contribute to the development of the conceptand principles of an 'ecosystem approach' to sus-tainable use of biodiversity.

• To provide a forum for cross- and multi-disciplinarydialogue between scientists and policy makers onresearch and management issues related to sus-tainable use of biodiversity, and to contribute toongoing deliberations in other international andnational fora.

The Chairman's Report and the Proceedings will bedistributed to relevant international fora working onissues related to the 'ecosystem approach' and sus-

tainable use of biodiversity, in particular those workingwith the Convention on Biological Diversity and itsSubsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Techno-logical Advice (SBSTTA).

The program included one opening session, nine the-matic sessions, one panel debate and one session offollow-up of the conference.

The themes were covered by more than 35 oral pres-entations, with a main focus on forest and marine eco-sytems, covering most of the elements emerging fromthe following 'ecosystem approach' princi-ples/characteristics:- involvement of stakeholders,- impacts of use on ecosystem functions,- the balance between conservation and use in mul-

tiple use areas- appropriate decentralisation levels,- the balance and relationship between international,

national and local objectives- principles of adaptive management.

Questionnaires were distributed amongst participantsafter each session. Here the participants were invitedto give their views on the most important find-ings/recommendations from each session, and to putforward the most serious difficulties for their imple-mentation. Participants were also asked to suggestpossible means to overcome these difficulties. Finely,they were encouraged to suggest the next stepsneeded to develop and operationalize the principles ofthe 'ecosystem approach' under the CBD. The findingsfrom these questionnaires have been incorporated inthe conclusions and recommendations from the Con-ference.

This document presents the report of the ConferenceChairman, Mr. Peter J. Schei, containing his conclu-sions and recommendations from the presentationsand discussions at the Conference. The text is basedon main points from the lectures and the followingdiscussions and the panel debate, minutes taken bythe session rapporteurs, and discussions within theeditorial group. In most cases abstracts and proceed-ings have been available.

The report does not necessarily represent a consensusamong the participants.

In addition to this report, ordinary proceedings from theConference will be produced and published. A scien-tific book containing selected peer-reviewed contribu-tions to the conference is also being planned.

10

Nor«ay/U$ Conference on. the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainable Use of BiotogieaE Diversity

SESSION 1OPENING SESSIONChair: Guro Fjellanger, Minister of the Environment,Norway

Opening statement were delivered by:• Kare Gj0nnes, Norwegian Minister of Agriculture• Johannes Nakken, State Secretary, Ministry of

Fisheries• Shafqat Kakakhel, UNEP• Jeffrey McNeely, IUCN• Lazclo Miklos, Chair of 4th Conference of Parties

CBD• Anne Katrine Slungard, Mayor of Trondheim• Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary of CBD• Guro Fjellanger, Norwegian Minister of the Envi-

ronment

In his opening statement, K£re Gj0nnes, NorwegianMinister of Agriculture pointed out the following:

Long-term conservation efforts and the sustainable useof natural resources are of concern to all of us. Ourchallenge as decision-makers is to make balancedjudgements, which ensure a fair distribution amongtoday's populations of the asset inherent in biologicaldiversity while preserving their value for future genera-tions.

It is important that we establish close, binding co-operation across traditional sector lines, and this is whythe Ministry of the Environment has organised thisconference in collaboration with the Ministry of Fisher-ies, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry ofAgriculture.

In Norway, the Ministry of Agriculture has the overallresponsibility for formulating and implementing policiesrelating to the protection and utilisation of forest andagricultural land. These policies are designed toachieve important but often-incompatible goals.

Norwegian agricultural policy seeks to increase pro-ductivity, provide for the stability of the rural popula-tion, promote sustainable resource management andmaintain a viable cultural landscape, as well as sharingin the responsibility of preserving biological diversityfor future generations. To maintain balance in theachievement of these goals, it is essential that theagricultural authorities work in close co-operation withthe environmental protection authorities and the com-petent authorities in other sectors at the local, regionaland national levels.

Sustainable use of biological diversity also depends onthe preservation of the basic factors of biological pro-duction and on diversity being given top priority at alllevels in all sectors. Conservation of soil, water and airare all important aspects of the effort of securing bio-

logical diversity and the viability of the major ecosys-tems.

An 'ecosystem approach' to the sustainable utilisationof forestry resources is one of the central topics of thisconference. The Rio conference in 1992 laid thegroundwork for a thorough discussion of internationalpolicy through Agenda 21, the forest principles and thetwo conventions on biological diversity and climatechange. Norway's national forest policy is heavily in-fluenced by these processes, and we will seek to fur-ther establish, at the international level, greater clarityon the balance between commercial utilisation versusthe long-term conservation of forestry resources.

In order to implement more effective measures thatpromote sustainable use, it is necessary to enlist thewidest possible base of support and this requires theparticipation of all sectors potentially affected. In Nor-way, the forestry sector, including the forestry industry,initiated a 3-year project ("Living Forests") to promotemore sustainable forestry. The most important resultsto come out of the project were criteria, indicators andstandards for sustainable forestry. The criteria andindicators, which have now become important tools inpolicy development, monitoring and reporting, arebased on the framework of the Ministerial Conferenceon the Protection of Forests in Europe.

A number of important efforts in the agricultural sectorare crucial to the protection of ecosystems, flora andfauna and their genetic resources, e.g. in Norway,where only 3% of the land is cultivated, protection ofproductive farmland against development and otherimpairments is important. Another important issue is tostep up our efforts to maintain the world's genetic re-sources.

Research and experience show that biologically sus-tainable production methods can be financially worth-while even in a short-term perspective, e.g. grazingand other traditional forms of land use on non-arableland and certain biological pest control methods.

Monitoring systems will provide better information onthe status and development of forest and farmland asviable environments for various organisms, and giveus a better basis for evaluating specific measures andpolicies.

Even though some progress towards the sustainableuse of biological diversity has been made, much re-mains to be done. We must deepen our knowledge onhow ecosystems function, and this Trondheim confer-ence will contribute to the continued development ofthe scientific basis for the management of biologicaldiversity.

11

In his address to the Conference State Secretary in theNorwegian Ministry of the Fisheries, Johannes Nak-ken presented Norwegian views on the internationalmanagement of marine resources and pointed out:

A good management of the environment is of vitalimportance to ensure the productivity of the oceansand as well as healthy and good seafood.

Active co-operation with the environment authoritiesboth nationally and internationally is important.

Norway is among the 10 largest producers of fish in theworld. Over 90 per cent of the catch is exported.

Norway has a large and steadily growing production offarmed fish and shellfish. Most of the farmed productsare also exported. Almost 40 percent of the total exportof seafood comes from aquaculture products. TodayNorway is the largest exporter of seafood (in value) intrr world.

The fisheries industry is the second largest export in-dustry in the country, which illustrates the importanceof this industry in the national economy. In some re-gions, especially in the north of the country, the fish-eries industry is of vital importance for employmentand settlement.

Management of marine resources today is a globalconcern, as the world community in an increasing rateis setting standards for management of the living ma-rine resources and for management of marine envi-ronment as a whole.

The CBD will be a driving force at the global level fordevelopment of the 'precautionary' and the 'ecosystemapproaches' as tools for taking care of the living re-sources at sea and on land.

Increased fishing in international waters has threatenedthe regional management regimes that were estab-lished after the adoption of the Convention on the Lawof the Sea. Norway has made efforts to counteract theconsequences of this kind of fisheries.

Our management strategy includes exploitation of seamammals, like seals and whales. This has lead tostrong opposition from a number of international envi-ronmental organisations and from many governments.The Norwegian struggle to find understanding forcatching sea mammals is not only tied to the need fora balanced exploitation of the resources, but also tothe fact that this catching has long traditions along thecoast and is an important part of our coastal culture.

Norway therefore by necessity has made a long lastingand costly diplomatic and scientific struggle to defendand prove the justification of the catching of seamammals.

The struggle has been fruitful, but there are still manynations that are not willing to accept that seals andwhales should be object of catch. This has made itnecessary to impose strong restrictions on our catch-ing, which has resulted in strong growth of the sealstocks in the Arctic Sea and made it a threat to ourfisheries in the north and to the basis of existence ofthe people in these regions.

The long term strategy is therefore to work activelywithin the global environment processes, like the CBD,where it is agreed that both conservation and use ofthe diversity of species should be the basic principlefor management of nature resources.

Shafqat Kakakhel, Deputy Executive Director ofUNEP, said in his opening address that:

The objectives of the Trondheim Conferences go tothe very heart of the current global debate on sustain-able development and environmental protection.

The Trondheim Conferences have focused on themultidimensional nature of the implementation of theConvention on Biological Diversity addressing thethree closely interlinked objectives of the Convention.

This Conference will provide a forum for the cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary dialogue between scien-tists and policymakers on research and managementissues related to sustainable use of biodiversity. Also,it will contribute to the deliberations in the other inter-national and national fora on issues on the applicationof the 'ecosystem approach' and sustainable use ofbiodiversity.

The sound management and wise stewardship of theearth's biosphere and its ecosystems has emerged asone of the most critical concerns of the global commu-nity, due to various pressures inter alia increasing hu-man population, overexploitation and pollution. Un-abated disruptions on ecosystem processes involvingchanges in both their structure and functioning wouldhave far-reaching consequences for the long-termsurvival of the human species.

Ecosystem-based management can be defined as aholistic integrated approach to conserving biodiversity,using biological resources in a sustainable way andensuring the equitable distribution of benefits arisingfrom any such use. Ecosystem-based management willinclude activities across both land and water, and willcross ownership, political and even internationalboundaries.

Adopting the 'ecosystem approach' means looking atthe functional linkages between target ecosystem andhabitats or ecological communities outside in order todefine viable management units.

12

The ecological Society of America's Committee on theScientific Basis for Ecosystem Management has de-fined an 'ecosystem approach' as "management drivenby explicit goals, executed by policies, protocols andpractices, and made adaptable by monitoring and re-search based on our best understanding of the eco-logical interactions and processes necessary to sustainecosystem composition, structure and function".

Significant progress has been achieved in the devel-opment and promotion of the 'ecosystem approach' bythe CBD, especially SBSTTA, inter alia the interna-tional coral reef initiative, the global taxonomic initia-tive, the work programmes on alien species, agricul-tural biodiversity and the Jakarta mandate on marineand coastal biodiversity.

The Malawi principles represent a significant advancetowards the operationalisation of the 'ecosystem ap-proach'. They recognise the central role that humanbeings play in shaping their ecosystems and the com-plex interlinkages between ecosystems. Hopefully thisconference will facilitate an improved understanding ofthese principles and contribute for the success of thefifth Conference of the Parties (COPS) to be held inNairobi in May 2000.

Several initiatives have contributed to the promotion ofthe 'ecosystem approach', e.g. the IUCN EcosystemManagement, the WWF's Global 200 Ecoregions, theWRI's bioregional planning approach and the ecosys-tem based projects funded by GEF. Special referenceis made of the Ecosystem Conservation Group, whichhas been instrumental in bringing together UNEP,FAO, UNESCO, UNDP, the World Bank, WWF andIUCN to address the objectives of the 'ecosystem ap-proach' at the global level, e.g. large scale ecosystemmanagement (marine and coastal environments) andthe Millennium Assessment.

Jeffrey McNeely, The World Concervation Union(IUCN), Gland, Switzerland

Sustainable use is not a new concept. Throughouthistory, those human groups that have been able touse resources sustainably have survived, while thosethat have abused their resource systems have eitherbecome extinct or have been forced to change theirways of life.

The concept of sustainability should not be limited tothe use of products but also to processes. There is ageneral agreement about the high value of the serv-ices that are provided by highly diverse systems.There is no unique 'ecosystem approach'. We needmany 'ecosystem approaches' at very different scales.

There are two kinds of harvesters:1. Those who harvest for external markets. They can

over-harvest and then move on. There is a weak

feedback between behaviour and productivity ofresource base.

2. Harvesters who live close to resources and dependon a healthy ecosystem. Here there is a strongfeedback between behaviour and productivity ofresource base.

Ecosystem-based management at large, bio-regionalscales has many advantages:1. it is comprehensive, useful to all sectors2. it addresses scale of human impacts3. it is more cost-effective than single-species ap-

proaches4. the scale is large enough to enable multiple use

and ecosystem restoration

But ecosystem-based management has also con-straints. Non-sustainable use may be due to:1. market failures2. insufficient knowledge about processes at this

scale3. bureaucratic obstacles4. ultimate causes of overexploitation relate to poli-

tics, power (differences among stakeholders), andequity issues where ecology has little to contribute.

5. Lack of trust among stakeholders6. Legitimate conflicts of interests.

• Ecosystem management is the trendy approach,but 'Noah's way' is still valid because:

• Species are more objectively defined• Population declines are good indicators of stress• Species are units of interest to people• Species play key roles in providing ecosystem

services

Mr.Laszlo Mikios Slovakian Minister of Environment

To maintain biodiversity we need to protect the condi-tions, i.e. the geophysical system, as well as the formsof life on earth. By protecting the conditions we protectalso the forms, but protecting just the forms does notensure the protection of conditions.

We need to define and choose our object for conser-vation, first, by its importance. In each region there isalways some ecosystem which is representative. Thereis also a need to establish an ecological network.The characteristic, representative ecosystems shouldbe strategic for the network. For each region this im-plies the most characteristic representative landscapetype.

Geo-ecosystems with large spatial extent should beconsidered as representative despite their actual state.Classic nature conservation often prefers ecosystemwith small- extent, rare ecosystems. Large scale geo-ecosystem are usually not interesting despite playing acrucial role in bio-production and other ecologicalfunctions in the landscape.

13

Ecological networks need to be put into a spatial sys-tem. Otherwise, a list of declared areas is not a realnetwork in the ecological sense. What is needed is thewhole space-covering approach.

Agenda 21, Chapter 10 establishes the political basisfor an integrated approach. Nevertheless, there hasbeen little real development in this field, partial ap-proaches prevail.

How to proceed in integrated approach issues? Webelieve in an integrated approach where space is anintegrative frame rather than a scene of conflict ofinterests and a major source of environmental prob-lems.

Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary of the Con-vention on Biological diversity highlighted the followingpoints in his statement:

The Trondheim Conferences have made an importantcontribution to the development and implementation ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity in that theyhave provided scientists and policy-makers with anindependent forum for analysis and dialogue on biodi-versity research and management.

Close interaction between science and policy-makinghas been evident from the outset of the Conventionprocess, where scientists enabled policymakers andnegotiators to assess the status of and threats to biodi-versity. Now, with the challenge of implementing theprovisions of the convention, many countries and or-ganisations need technical and other guidance to fulfiltheir commitments.

The Trondheim Conferences are a particularly valu-able tool for decision, making that incorporates soundscientific knowledge and technical advice, since theCBD does not have a body equivalent to the (Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change) IPPC under theUN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The thematic areas that will probably form the core ofthe Convention's activities for the foreseeable future,are marine and coastal -, forest -, agricultural -, inlandwater - and dryland biodiversity. For each area, theCOP has recommended an 'ecosystem approach' toaddress the three objectives of the Convention. How-ever, generally accepted and measurable criteria forsustainability are still lacking.

The importance of the concept of an 'ecosystem ap-proach' was identified at a very early stage in the con-vention process and has since been endorsed by theUN General Assembly as the main vehicle for a holis-tic approach to conservation and sustainable use. Theconcept is relatively new, and there is a need for anagreed understanding of its guiding principles, meth-

ods, substantial and procedural elements to pave theway for its implementation at all levels.

A number of initiatives have already been undertakento address this issue, inter alia the Malawi workshop in1998, which drew up twelve principles that could op-erationalise the 'ecosystem approach'. Later on,SBSTTA has been asked by COP to develop principlesand other guidance on the concept, taking into accountthe results of the Malawi workshop.

This Conference will hopefully facilitate this endeavourand will contribute a solid basis for future policy andmanagement decisions needed to implement the 'eco-system approach' whereby varying interests ofstakeholders can be reconciled. To this end cross- andmulti-sectoral dialogue is important.

The concepts of sustainable use and 'ecosystem ap-proach' are also linked to a number of other cross-cutting issues and that complicates their operationali-sation. This is a challenge for the scientific communityinterested in the implementation of the Convention. Itis with the view to manage this complexity, that indi-cators of biological diversity are used for the assess-ment of ecosystem sustainability, rather than assessingall the ecosystem components individually. SBSTTAwill consider indicators of biological diversity at its nextmeeting.

In her opening statement to the Conference, GuroFjellanger, Norwegian Minister of Environment em-phasised:

The inadequacy of our current understanding of thekey roles and functions of biodiversity is a seriousshortcoming and must be considered to be an under-lying cause of biodiversity loss. We must resist thetemptation to use this state of relative ignorance as anexcuse for postponing action. We know more thanenough already to improve the ways in which we man-age the biological resources of the planet.

We need to make sure that policymakers use the bestand most up-to-date knowledge at hand. We also needto make sure that scientists have a clear picture of themost pressing policy issues. We need to improve thedialogue between the politicians, policy-makers andthe scientists. This is one of the basic ideas underlyingthe Trondheim Conferences.

World wide, our ability ~ and tendency - to exploit ournatural resources is expanding, as of course arepopulation and consumption. Even in a small, rich, andfairly straightforward society like Norway, we are losingbiodiversity: 103 species of plants and animals havegone extinct in the last 150 years. Almost 300 moreare now threatened, and may well disappear over thenext five to ten years.

14

Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainabte -Use- d-BiobgScaf Dwersity

The various economic sectors have their own legiti-mate objectives and responsibilities in the provision ofgoods and services to society. They must, however,take the interest of biodiversity into consideration whenmeeting society's needs.

I would like to emphasise one of the basic ideas in theBiodiversity Convention; that each sector of societyshould take full responsibility for biodiversity in accor-dance with the measures at its disposal. Although thisobligation is felt mainly at the national level, the sameway of thinking should be applied internationally, forexample in trade policies. This is certainly a funda-mental principle for my government. Productivity andnutrient cycles, and our opportunities to benefit fromthe passive values associated with biological diversity,must be secured.

National authorities need to establish co-ordinatedpolicies and action. Such co-ordinated action must alsobe communicated to local authorities, industry andconsumers. I would like to stress the need for localunderstanding and participation. Unless the peoplemost dependent for their living on the use of biodiver-sity are with us in our endeavour, we will fail.

The obligation under the Convention to prepare na-tional biodiversity action plans should reflect theseimperatives. Norway is now in the midst of preparing asecond-generation action plan on biodiversity incorpo-rating proposals put forward by eleven different minis-tries and their constituencies in various sectors. Wesee it as a tool for co-ordinated policy-making, foridentifying - and achieving -priorities at the turn of theMillennium.

SESSION 2INTRODUCTORY NOTES: ECOSYSTEMAPPROACH AND SUSTA1NABLE USESession Chair: Peter J. ScheiCo-chair: Zipangani Vokhiwa

Presentation of the "Malawi principles"Herbert PrinsWageningen Agricultural UniversityThe Netherlands

"Malawi principles"1. Management objectives are a matter of socie-

tal choice2. Management should be decentralized to the

lowest appropriate level.3. Ecosystem managers should consider the ef-

fects (actual or potential) of their activities onadjacent and other ecosystems.

4. Recognizing potential gains from managementthere is a need to understand the ecosystem inan economic context. Any ecosystem man-agement should -

a) reduce those markel distortions that adverselyaffect biological diversity;

b) align incentives to promote sustainabte use;and

c) internalise costs and benefits in the given eco-system to the extent feasible.

5. A key feature of the 'ecosystem approach1 in-cludes conservation of ecosystem structureand functioning.

6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limitsto their functioning

7. The 'ecosystem approach' should be under-taken at the appropriate scale.

8. Recognizing the varying temporal scales andlag effects which characterize ecosystem pro-cesses, objectives for ecosystem managementshould be set for the long term.

9. Management must recognize that change isinevitable.

10. The 'ecosystem approach' should seek the ap-propriate balance between conservation anduse of biological diversity.

11. The 'ecosystem approach* should consider ailforms of relevant information, including scien-tific and indigenous and local knowledge, In-novations and practices.

12. The 'ecosystem approach' should involve allrelevant sectors erf society and scientific disci-plines.

When developing the Malawi Principles in the spring of1998 the Government of Malawi and The Netherlandsinvited a group of people with different backgroundand from different parts of the world to Malawi to par-

15

Monsay/Ufcl Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnable Use of Biotogteal Diversity

ticipate at a CBD-Workshop on the Ecosystem Ap-proach. The group started with the basic text given inthe Convention on Biodiversity.

Fundamental requirements for the conservation ofecosystems and natural habitats are:1) The in-situ conservation of ecosystems and natural

habitats.2) Maintenance and recovery of viable populations of

species in their natural surroundings.

The objectives of the Convention are:1) The conservation of biological diversity2) The sustainable use of its components, and3) The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising

out of the use of genetic resources

This fundamental requirement has led to what is nowreferred to as the 'ecosystem approach'.The 'ecosystem approach' is being developed to meetthe requirements and objectives of the Convention.Two important questions are then "But why and how".

Ecosystems are central to the 'ecosystem approach'.Properties of ecosystems are; discontinuities, thresh-olds, resilience and interconnectedness of which hu-mans are parts. Fundamental to understand the prob-lems and limitations of managing areas is the aware-ness of that:• ecosystems are complex,• there are many non-linear relationships within eco-

systems,• the outcomes of ecosystem processes often show

time-lags.

The awareness of these complexities results in eco-logical reasoning, which is the realization that ecosys-tems are dynamic, and that they contain elements ofsurprise and uncertainty for the ecosystem manager. Itis thus necessary that management be adaptive. Anecosystem is not a unit of a particular scale (such ashabitat, biotope or biome). Ecosystems can be thoughtto even show a high degree of nestedness. The Con-vention does not define the scale at which an ecosys-tem has to be viewed. Hence the problem or questionshould determine the scale to which the 'ecosystemapproach' is applied to.

All over the world there is an increasing conflict overresource use. Many different legal concepts were de-veloped for the regulated use of land or sea beyondthe individual small-sized plot. Some countries recog-nize tribal lands; other countries have abolished com-munal lands, other countries again did away with pri-vate ownership. Scarcity is at the root of the variety inlegal or traditional judicial systems and rules aboutresource use. Linked to this are the questions of:• Who has the rights to make use of these scarce

resources?

• At which level of social organization can or shoulddecisions be made?

Rules and regulations concerning use or non-use ofscarce resources are thus only rarely the concern ofnational governments only. The Convention of Biologi-cal Diversity, though, is a treaty between national gov-ernments, Yet, use and dependency is nearly always atlevels much closer to the land, or the ecosystem.

Points from questions and comments.• There is a need for a tightening of the definition of

the 'ecosystem approach' based on the twelveMalawi principles.

Ecosystem approach from principles to practiceEdward MaltbyIUCN Commission on Ecosystem ManagementRoyal Holloway Institute of Environmental Research,London, UK.

The 'ecosystem approach' is not a static model but is aprocess for integrating and delivering in a balancedway the three key objects of the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity: conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity and equitable sharing of the benefits.

The 'ecosystem approach' is not a substitution for thetraditional approach to conservation such as emphasison single species, rarities or protected areas whichremain essential parts of the delivery mechanism forbiodiversity conservation. The need for a wider ap-proach arises at least in part because of the deficien-cies of 'classical' approaches to adequately conservebiodiversity and natural resources as evidenced by theunprecedented rate of species extinction and increas-ing conflict over natural resource use. Such historiclimitations include failure to recognise the importanceof ecosystem functioning in providing important goodsand services for people as well as wildlife, involvingmultiple sectoral interests and stakeholder participationin management, inappropriate division of costs andbenefits resulting from ecosystems and the inadequatelinks between nature and culture.

Recently considerable effort has been directed atclarifying the meaning of 'ecosystem approach' anddefining the underlying principles or elements thatshould guide its modus operand!.

Some of these elements, when defined broadly meetgeneral approval e.g. inter alia.• There is no single or unique 'ecosystem approach'.• The final goals of the approaches acknowledge

human participation and interests.• Emphasis is on maintaining the interactions within

and functioning of natural systems.• The approach may be applied over a wide range of

scales

16

Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnabte Us& of BiotogicaE Diversity

How to implement 'ecosystem approaches' practicallyreveals a lack of consensus over what the approachdoes and does not entail, and when it can and cannotbe used. Yet most agree that 'ecosystem approaches'are already being implemented on the ground in manycases, although they are not described as such. Anumber of key but contextually limited actions (TheMalawi, Vilm and Perth workshops) have been impor-tant efforts to build on and give awareness of themeaning of the 'ecosystem approach' especially at atechnical level.

An important next step to further clarification andagreement of the use of an 'ecosystem approach' is toidentify cases where it is already being implementedon the ground. From an analysis of the successes andfailures of these cases, it should be possible to identifythe value and scope of an 'ecosystem approach' inimplementing the Convention's objectives. A consider-able number of such 'case studies' have been com-piled already, and some analysis of these has beenprepared, but these are by no means regionally ornationally comprehensive.

It is necessary for as many countries as possible toprovide what experience they have in implementingwhat they perceive as adopting an 'ecosystem ap-proach' and to give their views on how applicable theyare and what constraints operate in their context. Weneed to make sure an analysis of these experiences isshared with other parties of the Convention, and canlead to better guidance on when and how to use an'ecosystem approach' under the Convention.

Already some of the lessons learnt include the impor-tance in many instances of a non-prescriptive ap-proach and new non-statutory organisations for effec-tive implementation on the ground; a close workingrelationship with local people, guidance and supportmeasures based on demonstration of practical, simpletechniques at the appropriate scale. The potential eco-nomic benefits to individuals from better ecosystemmanagement are imnortant incentives for applyingmethods which will also maintain or restore biodiver-sity. The Tamar 2000 project in the UK aimed at envi-ronmental restoration and sustainable managementpractices over an entire river catchment exemplifiesthese experiences.

In order to effect implementation of the 'ecosystemapproach' we need:At the management level: Involvement of many actorsto ensure (i) Integrating scientists into decision making,(ii) linking ecosystem functions to socio-economics and(iii) cross-sectoral institutional integration or new insti-tutional mechanisms.At the science level: a better understanding of struc-ture, function and processes, as well as temporal andspatial dynamics, and the effects of different manage-ment scenarios and natural change of ecosystems.

At the social level we need to evaluate the alternativemeans for redistributing costs and benefits particularlyin relation to externalities such as subsidies; new envi-ronmental incentives and non-regulatory as well asregulatory mechanisms.

There is a new way of thinking about biodiversity con-servation and management which is encapsulated inthe CBD. The 'ecosystem approach' is vital for meetingthis new challenge. Thinking and approaches to solu-tion still need to be advanced at three levels: concep-tual and technical (especially application); regional andnational guidance; constraints on implementation.There are key roles for the CBD Secretariat, the con-tracting parties and the scientific community and tech-nical networks in meeting this new agenda. It repre-sents an emerging new paradigm for biodiversity con-servation and management.

Points from questions and comments:• Difficulty of optimising the interests of all

stakeholders and the need to find a balance be-tween achieving the Malawi principles within ex-isting realities.

• The importance of inter-agency communicationand interaction is paramount as well as the possi-bility of new independent organisations to coordi-nate 'ecosystem approach' activities.

It is important to remind ourselves that all the problemsare here to be solved, there is no other idea than the'ecosystem approach' that is trying to integrate the keyobjectives of the CBD.

Sustainable use: fiction or future challenge?Bror JonssonNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)Oslo, Norway.

The guiding "Malawi-principles" are far from enough tosecure sustainable use of biodiversity in a complex,modern society. This is both because of (1) the waynature management is administered and carried outand (2) the users themselves.

Management decisions are only partly based on eco-logical points of view. Other professional, as well aspractical, cultural, economical, juridical and politicalregards must also be taken. Nature conservation isseldom given priority in matters concerning biodiversityuse. Unsustainable use may result from time con-straints (decisions are often taken before satisfactoryecological knowledge can be gathered), or a conserva-tive management system (decisions are based on his-torical use, legal rights, short term profit, and the man-agement rules and regulations may be based on ecol-ogically antiquated or inadequate knowledge). Also,the ecological advice given by the scientists may bevague or prove wrong, or the case may be politicallycontroversial and/or professionally disputable making

17

management decisions even harder. At present, thereis a tendency towards decentralized management de-cisions to the lowest appropriate level. This may im-prove the local acceptance of the decisions made, butis no guarantee for sustainable use.

The pressure on natural resources increases steadily.As human beings we are selfish, try to secure our wel-fare and increase our personal status and wealththrough increased resource use. The human populationsize is growing with some 95 million people each year,and the increase will stay high for several years tocome. Thus, there is reason to ask if it ever will bepossible to obtain a balanced, long-term use of naturalresources.

Economically, it is not always the most profitable alter-native to use biodiversity sustainably. Over-exploitation and investment of the revenue in otherbusiness is sometimes more profitable. Moreover, (1)the resources may be common and others may harvestthe resource if you refrain from doing it (the tragedy ofthe commons), (2) you may need the resource nowand cannot afford to make the exploitation sustainable,(3) you do not want to obey any regulation whateverthe management decision is.

The resource use can be improved by:1. limiting the access to commonly owned resources

and obliged co-operation among the users,2. increased flexibility through adaptive management,3. multi-sectorial, strategic planning and inclusion of

ecological thinking in the various use sectors (inte-grated management),

4. managing the systems at a large enough scale tobalance the needs of the biological communities,and

5. increasing the ecological capacity and level ofcompetence.

Points from questions and comments:• What advice should we give to our policy makers

regarding management level? Transfer of respon-sibilities to local communities is difficult and espe-cially when it comes to priorities of sustainable useof biodiversity. There should be economical followup of the responsibilities.

• Predictions do not materialize, richer are becomingricher and the poorer becoming poorer. The popu-lation is growing and this will lead to overuse ofbiodiversity, it is therefore important to stabilize theconsumption at some level.

Biodiversity and ecosystem functioningHarold Mooney

There is general agreement about the potential valueof the 'ecosystem approach' as embodied in the Ma-lawi principle context. Our problem is how to executethese principles within the constraints of both our lim-

ited knowledge of how the biophysical components ofecosystems operate, now as well as in the future, aswell as how to utilize institutional structures to executethese principles even though they were designed alongsectorial rather than ecosystem lines.

There are many case studies that show the value of abroader 'ecosystem approach' to management than wehave utilized in the past. For example, sometimesconservation measures for a particular species can bein conflict with the conservation of other species orhabitats. Good practices in one region for a given spe-cies may have adverse effects on this species andtheir habitats in other parts of their range.

Understanding ecosystems, their structure, processesand functioning is difficult. Eventually we will have theknowledge to manage ecosystems from first principles.Until that time we need to utilize what information wehave on ecosystem functioning in an adaptive man-agement mode and use management manipulations asexperiments with controls in order to maximize oursuccesses.

We are learning about the role of biodiversity on eco-system functioning. Studies on the changes in eco-system functioning resulting from adding and sub-tracting species have shown that species characteris-tics are important for many functional aspects of anecosystem. These include productivity, resilience, aswell as resistance to pests and invasive species.Studies have demonstrated the need for the utilizationof the precautionary principle in modifying ecosystemssince we do not yet have capacity to identify keystonespecies a priori. Such species can be abundant or rare,large or small but yet have a major controlling role inecosystem functioning.

Our job of understanding the biodiversity/functioningrelationships of any given ecosystem is going to be-come increasing difficult as the nature of these sys-tems is altered due to changing land use patterns,climate change, nitrogen deposition and the intrusionof invasive alien species. To deal with these issues wenot only need to improve our scientific understandingbut we need to utilize the Malawi principles and en-gage the many constituencies that have to be involvedin developing new tools and approaches for solvingthese complex issues. For example in order to under-stand and deal with the invasive species problems weneed to engage scientists, managers, lawyers, sociolo-gists, and many sectors of commerce.

Points from questions and comments:• In agriculture in may parts of the world there is a

growing awareness about the need to understandecosystem functions for food productions and useecosystem functions to produce food, inter aliarice.

18

Norway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainabte Use of BiotogteaE Diversity

In some cases protection of species is regulated bylegislation. To achieve the goal of 'ecosystem ap-proach', such legislation must be more flexible, butnot so flexible that misuse is the resultA strong emphasis on 'ecosystem approaches'does not mean that the focus on gaining knowl-edge on species alone should be stopped.

SESSION 3DE-CENTRALISATION OF RESOURCEMANAGEMENTSession Chair: Inger Stoll

Local community control: conflicts and solutionsMadhav GadgilIndian Institute of ScienceBangalore, India

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) serves as thefinancial mechanism for CBD.

Until now the majority of the GEF supported programshave focused on conservation of biodiversity throughprotected areas. It is currently exploring ways tobroaden this approach to include sustamable use.

The aims of the CBD are more complex than those ofother international conventions, e. g. The Conventionof Climate Change: 1) Because it involves all ranges ofscales and complexity. 2) It is not clear what sustain-able use of biodiversity is.

The decisions about spatial and temporal boundariesof what should be sustained, the forms of biologicalproduction and the nature of biological diversity are allsubjective decisions. Socially, it is desirable that theyare broad-based. In particular, individual stakeholdersmay have very different perspectives.

Surprises in the behaviour of natural ecosystems areinevitable; and management systems must be de-signed to adjust to the unexpected, rather than act onthe basis of a spurious belief on certainties. Long-termand large scale plans of intervention are inappropriate.

This calls for flexibility. Flexibility will be ensuredthrough management systems based on small com-munities, and through an adaptive management proc-ess, i. e. learning about the biophysical system and thebehaviour of human agents while using the system.Stakeholder involvement should be directed towardsdeciding on management goals, visualizing alternativemanagement strategies, understanding system be-haviour on the basis of historical observations, on thespot monitoring, and stewardship.

Exploring new paths calls for new institutions and fornew capacities. This is a major task both at nationaland global level.

There is a need of new capacities in: adaptive man-agement, monitoring techniques, information man-agement, and participatory management.

It is suggested that GEF portfolio in the area of sus-tainable use of biodiversity may then focus on buildingof capacity to undertake such adaptive management of

19

Conference m the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatrtabte Use of Biotogicaf Diversity

natural resources; instead of promoting large scaleprogrammes planned in detail by centralized bureauc-racies.

Points from questions and comments:• Usually the GEF-supported National Biodiversity

Strategies and Action Plans are under the mandateof the Environment Department whereas forestpolicies come from Forestry Departments. Thisoften implies high risks of jeopardizing the guide-lines of the Strategy Plan in forests.

• It is very important to focus on incorporating cur-rent knowledge into monitoring techniques. Weknow extremely little about how to monitor theconsequences of management and human use.

• We need to specify the term 'stakeholder'. Noteverybody is equally involved, some closer othersmore distant.

• We need the participation of villages in monitoring.Governments should respond by giving appropri-ate support and donor agencies should supportprojects to build capacity at the community level.

The challenges of community-based management ofbiodiversityVivienne Soli's RiveraIUCN- Mesoamerica

From our experience in the region, the following Ma-lawi principles should read slightly differently:

Ecosystem management must recognize that changeis inevitable. We believe that ecosystem managementneeds to recognize the heterogeneity of social andcultural factors affecting natural resource use.

The 'ecosystem approach' should consider all forms ofrelevant information, including scientific, indigenousand local knowledge, innovations and practices. Localcommunities and ethnic groups are not necessarilyasking for discussions on traditional knowledge asoriented towards intellectual property rights only.

The 'ecosystem approach' should involve all relevantsectors of society. The 'ecosystem approach' shouldpromote the strengthening of democracy. Democraticsystems are indispensable for successful biodiversitymanagement.

Two examples provide an opportunity for following upon practical applications of the 'ecosystem approach'discussion:

The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. In this ini-tiative, conservation, financial, political and technicalinterests have been concentrated in an area wheremore than 46 different ethnic groups live and makeuse of natural resources.

The diverse biological nature of the corridor includingaltered and non-altered ecosystems, coastal and ma-rine areas and human settlements will require differentdegrees of change. Appropriate management strate-gies will thus need to be developed. If this is not seri-ously taken into consideration, the success of this im-portant initiative will be jeopartized, irrespective of theamount of money invested or political priority given tothe effort.

The Costa Rican biodiversity law experienceThe law names an inter-ministerial body, the NationalCommission for Biodiversity Management,(CONAGEBIO), for proposing national policies onbiodivesity access to genetic and biochemical re-sources with a wide participation of all sectors in-volved.

The state recognises and explicitly protects communityintellectual rights, knowledge, practices and innova-tions of indigenous peoples and local communities,related to the use of biodiversity components and as-sociated knowledge. The recognition implies that noneof the forms of protection of the intellectual and indus-trial rights regulated in this section, special laws andinternational law will affect such historical practices

Various lessons have been learned:• The regulation of activities, which are already un-

derway and un-regulated, faces strong political andeconomic opposition.

• Information available to the population in generalpublic on biodiversity and its broad economic, ethi-cal, and social benefits is very limited.

• There is still a need for the state to share decision-making with other sectors of civil society, espe-cially farmer and indigenous sectors

We consider the 'ecosystem approach' to be a tool thatwould support a more integrated way to approach con-servation, rather than gloss over the complexity andcomprehensiveness of biodiversity.

Conservation of forests, in-land waters, agriculture,biological diversity, wildlife or marine-coastal zoneconservation is not a problem that concerns our com-munities. Their problem is survival. The challenge isclear and strong: Can we distribute the benefits of theuse of natural resources in an equitable and just way?

Points from questions and comments:• The process of decentralization implies the transfer

of a mandate from the central administration to anew level of administration. But still, it is the cen-tral government that is the ultimate responsible forthe implementation of CBD.

• Decentralization is a very long-term process. Itdoes imply capacity building and it means to incor-porate new sectors. Policymaking should includeparticipation of communities.

20

• The concept of biodiversity calls for a very broadperspective, not only about the biological re-sources per se but also about the Knowledge sur-rounding these resources.

Institutional requirements for community based man-agement of land resources: Case of TanzaniaMary C.R. ShettoSouthern Highlands Extension and Rural FinancialServices Project, Tanzania

Community-based Management of Land Resources(CBMLR) is defined as an approach where the needsand interests of the community are considered in themanagement of individually or communally ownedresources. Community members must be involved inthe identification of problems and possible solutions. Inmost developing countries like Tanzania, local com-munities largely depend on natural resources as agri-culture and forestry dominate their economies. Thefact that biodiversity is diminishing has far-reachingconsequences on the livelihood of local communities.

Human pressures leads to environmental degradationand desertification in Tanzania's dryland ecosystems.Past conservation efforts has focused mostly on soiland water, ignoring social issues of food security andgender discrimination.

In Tanzania, organised efforts in people's participationin natural resources management has gone throughfour major stages:• Prior to the colonial period: Traditional groupings

(chiefdoms and clans) managed land, water andforest resources

• In the colonial period: Traditional local institutionswere replaced by new institutions reporting to thenational colonial authority

• After the Arusha Declaration: The policy of collec-tive production at village level was initiated andbrought about institutions such as cooperativesand village governments

• Current situation: Farmer's groups have beenformed under the liberalised economy, but they arestill very weak in LRM

A new land policy and law was enacted in 1998 andthree categories of land were recognised:• Village land• General land• Reserved land

The stakeholders of land resources in Tanzania are:• Rural households• Village communities• Urban dwellers and commercial sector• Government and public institutions• International community

The land resources accessible to the stakeholders aresandwiched between the land required for reservesand land used for commercial purposes. These are themajor constraints facing rural communities in LRM:• Limited influence in policy-making• Unfavourable location in marginal areas• Conflicts over resource use• Limited resources• Gender imbalance in the control of land resources• Population growth and urban migration• Poor access to knowledge and technologies

The presence of multiple stakeholders to land and thesocio-economic changes brought about by economicand political liberalisation, create conflicts. The typesor causes of conflicts that have arisen in LRM include:• Household/individual vs. other households/indi-

viduals• Household/individual vs. the village community• Women vs. men• Poor people vs. local elite• Crop cultivators vs. livestock keepers• Unequal application of rules (favouritism)• Unfair distribution of benefits from commons• Unfair representation on village committees• Local demands vs. outside demands• Livelihood requirements vs. resource conservation

Institutions capable of harmonising the needs of thedifferent stakeholders as well as mitigating the con-straints facing the local communities are necessary foreffective CBMLR. Both national, district and villagelevel institutions are needed.

From the above, we may conclude that CBMLR inTanzania is complicated because of the number ofstakeholders involved. In addition, the stress on landresources makes CBMLR difficult. These problemsrequire a mechanism for national policy formulationintegrating and harmonising the interests of differentstakeholders. Further, transparent implementation ofsuch policies is necessary to avoid conflicts that hindercommunity participation in LRM. Authorities at districtlevel should be transformed so that they are fully ac-countable to local communities. At village level, toeffectively meet the needs and exploit fully the capa-bilities of communities, there must be effective localinstitutions linked both horizontally and vertically. For-mation of strong farmers' groups is essential. Further-more, support from governments and NGOs is re-quired.

Points from questions and comments:• The need of diversity of "communities" at the same

level where pointed out.• Tenure is a key community need along with

sources of alternative livelihoods, clear economicand fair markets.

21

iiiiiiiii;

Decentralization of resource management in fisheriesUssif Rashid SumailaChr.Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway, and FisheriesCentre, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, Canada

This paper develops a simple model that allows us toinvestigate the consequences of market-based decen-tralization of fisheries management on the three objec-tives of the CBD, namely, conservation, sustainableuse, and sharing of benefits.

For clarity of the presentation and computational ease,it is assumed that there are two agents in the modelwho are under the control of a body, such as the gov-ernment of a country, or an international organization.

Present value of economic rent, standing biomass andharvest were assessed through modelling of fishingactivities.

One centralized model and one decentralized modelwith two different scenarios are presented:

Centralized model: The authority actively regulates thefishery by fixing quotas and distributing this to the par-ticipants, with a view to balancing the to maximize theprivate benefits to participants in the fishery with soci-ety-wide concerns such as bio-diversity.

Cooperative scenario: Authority to manage fisherydevolved to users and users work together with theobjective of maximizing their joint private long-termeconomic benefits.

Non-cooperative scenario: Authority to manage fisherydevolved to users and they end up using the resoucein a unilateral manner.

We take Namibian hake as an example. We look atthe total net present value of rent (NPV), standingbiomass (the indicator of biodiversity in the model) andharvest for the centralized (the Ministry of Fisheriesand Marine Resources regulates the action of thetrawlers) the decentralized cooperative and the decen-tralized non-cooperative. The centralized model hadthe lowest NPV and the lowest harvest. Of the threemodels the standing biomass was highest for the cen-tralized model. Compared to the cooperative decen-tralized model, harvest was higher and standing bio-mass was lower in the non-cooperative model. But thecooperative model had the highest NPV of the threemodels, an indication of the economic waste resultingfrom non cooperative behaviour.

The modelling framework we develop can be used todetermine the possible outcomes under different insti-tutional assumptions. The approach can help us toexamine the trade-offs between biodiversity conserva-tion, and economic and social considerations. Ques-

tions that can be addressed include, is it possible tostrike the right balance between conservation and theuse of fishery resources when management is decen-tralized? If not, would a properly implemented regula-tory measure help improve the outcome?

Two conclusions can be drawn from the results of thispaper. First decentralization will not automatically re-sult in sustainable use of biodiversity. Chances forachieving sustainable use are greater if participantscooperate. But even in this case, society-wide con-cerns such as biodiversity may not be adequatelytaken into account. Second, to decentralize fisheries ina desirable manner, efforts must be put into facilitatingcooperation by the participants. In addition, decentrali-zation needs to be cast in a framework, which takesinto account broader society-wide concerns.

22

SESSION 4MANAGEMENT IN DYNAMICENVIRONMENTSSession Chair: Odd Terje Sandlund

Bioregional managementKenton MillerWorld Resources InstituteWashington D. C., USA

Experience already demonstrates that Parties can takesteps to deliver the benefits of ecosystems to people inpractical ways. While there remain many almost over-whelming unknowns and uncertainties to the science ofecosystems, on-going efforts around the world alreadyprovide sufficient and transferable guidance on howgovernments, communities, NGOS and civil societycan design and take action.

Four fundamental schools or types of experience areunder way around the world: bioregionalism, biospherereserves, integrated conservation and developmentprojects, and most recently, ecosystem management.Close examination of these efforts suggests that theirgoals and methods are converging. Given the longertime period of experience and the people-orientedbasis of the approach, we will employ the terminologyof the so-called bioregional approach.

The purpose of the bioregional approach is to ensurethe delivery of ecosystem services to people whileprotecting the full diversity of life. The approach isapplied at the 'bioregional' scale, defined as a land orwater territory whose limits are defined by the geo-graphical limits of human communities and ecologicalsystems; it is large enough to maintain the integrity ofthe regions biological communities, habitats and eco-systems; yet it is small enough for local residents toconsider it 'home'; that is, it is a unit of planning andmanagement defined by natural and social criteria.

Within a bioregion we find a mosaic of land and wateruses, including farms, forests, fisheries, villages andinfrastructure. Areas that are critical for the provision ofecosystem services are provided special protectionand management, often under one of the IUCN Cate-gories, or through private and cooperative arrange-ments with land owners or communities.

From our analysis of on going field experiences we cannote the characteristics of these programs. In brief,leadership can come from governmental or non-governmental people, but it is critical that the approachbe essentially 'bottom-up' to develop full stakeholderengagement. All sectors found within the bioregionmust be involved and part of the process. Critical eco-systems are identified and provided appropriate man-agement regimes. Full information about the re-

sources, social, economic and political characteristicsof the bioregion must be made available to allstakeholders equally.

Given the growing limitations of government funds andprofessional personnel, it appears vital that alliancesbe established to mobilize the talents and expertisefound in communities, local universities, NGOs andindigenous groups. Where ecosystems of interestcross international boundaries, institutional mecha-nisms can be established to ensure international coop-eration (Article 5). And finally, replacing older modelsof 'master planning' and full scientific analysis andinventory prior to field action, the approach advocates'learning by doing.' Modern adaptive managementprinciples enable stakeholders to act as managers andquickly gain experience and take timely correctivemeasures.

Growing emphasis is being places on providing 'con-nectivity' through corridors of landscape from region toregion, protected area to protected area, etc. Theseconnections seek to recognize the migration and dis-persal pathways for fauna and flora, the flow of serv-ices from rural to urban areas, the routes of cata-strophic events, among others.

Where problems of biodiversity management tran-scend the geographic scale of individual bioregions, forexample with wide ranging migratory wildlife or streamflow from large watersheds, then additional institutionalarrangements can be established to promote coopera-tion at these wider scales.

The bioregional approach also provides a context andmechanisms within which parties can promote syner-gies among their programs to address the Rio accordson biodiversity, climate and land degradation. Namely,investments in any one commitment can feature pay-offs in the other two. The example of organic agricul-ture is particularly illustrative: improvements in theorganic content of soils increase food security, soilbiota, water holding capacity; they reduce erosion andrun off, and capture and hold carbon.

So, what can Parties do? They can take immediatesteps to implement the bioregional approach in se-lected areas of their countries by:

1. creating an enabling environment that encourageslocal levels of government and communities totake responsibility, make investments in biodiver-sity, and formulate and implement appropriatepolicies, taxes, tenurial rights, etc.;

2. defining units of management that are meaningfulfor action and stewardship (bioregions);

3. ensuring that all stakeholders have full informa-tion;

23

!i|$|s$|pi$

4. establishing processes of negotiation, visioning,goals and means, funds and foundations, etc.;and,

5. establishing partnerships with local government,indigenous and rural communities, and NGOs.

Thus, we suggest that the bioregional approach canhelp Parties to promote practical ways to deliver bene-fits to people drawing upon existing experience andknow-how.

Adaptive management: The only tool for decentralizedsystemsRowan B. MartinIUCN, HarareZimbabwe

Adaptive management recognizes the inevitability ofmanagement interventions in higher orders systemscharacterized by inherent uncertainties and, accord-ingly, requires each act of management to be struc-tured as an experiment.

Adaptive management requires:• A statement of provisional objectives for the sys-

tem to be managed• A hypothesis about the workings of the system• A tentative plan for management interventions• A monitoring program to collect data on relevant

variables, and• A feedback system which permits the management

activities, or the hypothesis, or the objectives to bemodified in light of the information from the moni-toring

Adaptive management is simultaneously a researchmethod and a management approach - 'learning bydoing'. Whilst it is frequently considered as having anarrow application to managing ecological systems,adaptive management can, in fact, encompass farmore than this by the inclusion of economic, social andpolicy dimensions. Indeed, all sustainable developmentissues need to be viewed in a hierarchy of nestedadaptive management systems. Research questionspertaining to large systems, which cannot be answeredby reductionistic scientific methods, may, perhaps, betackled by adaptive management.Passive adaptive management is characterized by thecollection of data in an unchanging management re-gime.Active adaptive management is a deliberate manipula-tion of any system with the objective of understandingits response to a wide range of perturbations. A givenexample shows that by varying the fishing effort over awide range it may be possible to estimate where themaximum sustained yield lies.Although adaptive management has been around forsome thirty years, it has not been adopted widely eitheras a research or a management technique. The"blueprint" approach still dominates mainstream scien-tific methodologies despite its limitations. A key differ-

ence between adaptive management and the classic"blueprint" approach is that the latter requires consid-erable study in advance of any management whereasadaptive management allows the immediate inceptionof any project. And this implies no superiority for theapproach, which demands a large amount of initialstudy. Such study may well be a waste of time be-cause the response of the system under, for example,a harvesting regime may be impossible to predict with-out actually carrying out some harvesting.

Blueprint characteristicsThe blueprint approach differs from adaptive man-agement in the following ways:1. There is a reluctance to re-examine objectives

once they have been established2. It is assumed that if sufficient expert effort is put

into understanding the workings of the systemthere is no need to develop a hypothesis about thesystem and it is possible to design a set of correctmanagement activities

3. Monitoring is aimed more at checking that the ac-tivities have been carried out - rather than estab-lishing whether they are achieving the objectives

4. As a result the method is vulnerable to any signifi-cant changes in the input parameters

Applications of adaptive managementMalawi principle 2: Management should be decentral-ized to the lowest appropriate level.Rights of access to resources and responsibilities fortheir management are the most important factors af-fecting sustainability. Use is most likely to be sustain-able where the prime beneficiaries are the people liv-ing with and using the resource. This principle hasbeen used when setting the quotas for internationalsport hunting in communal lands in Zimbabwe. Forexample, the quotas for sable, eland and zebra requirean expanded institutional framework whereby repre-sentatives from all the villages within a ward meet todecide on the quota. At a higher level, quotas forwider-ranging animals need to be decided at districtlevel. A set of cascaded institutions is needed, and theimportant point is that there is no need for any institu-tion to be larger than the size of the problem it has todeal with.

Malawi principle 5: Conservation of ecosystem struc-ture and functioning.Sustainable use must be addressed at the ecosystemlevel since it is the maintenance of key ecosystemprocess and functions which ultimately determinesustainability. The most complex and desirable eco-systems that we wish to conserve are markedly unsta-ble (non-constant), and achieving our conservationgoals depends on their remaining that way. It is thecontinued instability of these systems which allows forco-existence of their many species. Adams (1996)makes the observation that "Conservation is abouthandling change, and about the transition from past to

24

future". It is this essential aspect of change that char-acterizes adaptive management and makes it so im-portant to adopt as both a research and a managementtool. The CBD has avoided pitfalls of various"blueprint" treaties through its Articles which provideflexibility towards conservation and are ideally suited toadaptive management.

Points from questions and comments:• How is quality assurance obtained at the local

level?• How to deal with commercial utilization at the local

level that does not take environmental considera-tions into account, e.g. meat production versuswildlife conservation

• Management decisions are taken continuously,often without having the full scientific knowledge. Itis a challenge for the scientific community to sup-ply managers with the best available information.

Within Fisheries Management Plans in the MaritimesRegion of Atlantic CanadaMichael SinclairFisheries and Oceans Canada,Dartmouth, N.S., Canada

The Canadian Oceans Act entails new obligations foroceans management. Fisheries must be managedwithin the broader context of integrated ocean man-agement, taking into consideration multiple uses, eco-system features and the precautionary approach. It is achallenge to address different sectoral priorities suchas marine transport, oil and gas, aquaculture, com-mercial fishing and eco-tourism. The use of The termi-nology "incorporating ecosystem objectives withinmanagement plans" rather than "ecosystem manage-ment", is recommended.

Decision-making framework needs to accommodateconflicting objectives within the fishing sector andamongst the aggregate ocean use sectors, but socio-economic objectives for the present situation in fisher-ies management are ^ot considered further.

Fisheries are managed on the single-species basisthroughout Canada. In addition to the single-speciesconservation objectives, there are some ad hoc eco-system considerations in management plans and asso-ciated activities, which shows the need to include eco-system considerations. But are these ad hoc ecosys-tem considerations sufficient to meet the legislatedobligations? If not sufficient, how can they be supple-mented to achieve some more explicitly stated eco-system objectives? Improvements building upon theexisting management system, but in a pro-active man-ner to ensure change recommended.

Could single-species fisheries management achieveecosystem objectives? The answer is NO for a numberof reasons:• Genetic diversity of target species at risk• By-catch species at risk• Dependant species at risk• Increase in scavengers may replace some species

at risk

The problem of geographical boundaries for theevaluation of ecosystem objectives.• Boundaries of marine ecosystems difficult to de-

fine• Relevant oceanographic and biological features

large in geographic area and species specific• Ocean management areas for evaluation of eco-

system objectives defined at smaller scales withinnational, provincial, regional and municipalboundaries

Ecosystem objectives for ocean management areaswill include• Maintenance of biodiversity• Maintenance of habitat productivity

In an example, three Ocean Management Areas(OMA) in the Maritime area of Atlantic Canada wereproposed based on administrative and communityboundaries, while recognizing that specific trans-boundary environmental issues would require decision-making at higher levels. The need to define ecosystemobjectives such as maintaining biodiversity and habitatproductivity, along with relevant performance meas-ures, reference points and management tools, wasdiscussed.

The governance challenge to achieving ecosystemobjectives:

Each of the defined performance measures for eco-system structure and function require monitoring. RAP(Regional Advisory Process) reviews of OMAs will beneeded. The evaluations will also need to considerimpacts of non-fishing industrial activities.

New institutional structures that involve municipalities,provincial departments and provinces, other federaldepartments, First Nations, NGOs as well as repre-sentatives of the relevant commercial interests need tobe developed in a cost effective manner. The principlefunctions that need to be achieved are the audit of thedegree to which the sectoral management plans arebeing implemented in relation to the overarching con-servation objectives, as well as the capacity to resolveconflicts amongst competing users.

Points from questions and comments:• It was pointed out that CBD Article 5 requires par-

ties to cooperate on areas beyond national juris-diction and other matters of mutual interest.

25

• Pragmatic social definition of boundaries allows forlocal political mobilization and empowerment.

• It was asked about possible governance measuresto address trans-boundary resource conflicts andhow the CBD could address such disputes.

Understanding ecosystem condition to maintain pro-ductivity and conservationlan CresswellAustralian National Land and Water Resources Audit

Several Australian-based efforts are currently under-way to provide a better understanding of vegetationand broader ecosystem condition to inform manage-ment at a landscape scale. The focus of the NationalLand and Water Resources Audit is to place the statusand trend of our natural resources in the context ofcurrent management response and generate optionsfor remedial action, development and protection -recognising that natural resource management in-cludes biophysical, social and economic components.

Sustainable use and conservation of Australia's biodi-versity cannot be effectively pursued without such aframework, and data concerning vegetation and eco-system status and condition are critical components ofthis baseline.

Key to the success of this work is to integrate this in-formation with a broad range of natural resource data,and to provide useful tools for management and policydecision-making.

Gaining an understanding of the condition of any par-ticular system is a key requirement for measuring andmonitoring the system's response to the prevailingland-use.

Provision of data and analysis on the status and trendsin natural resource condition is mostly carried out on asectoral basis according to the management and leg-islative responsibilities of individual agencies in eachsub-national jurisdiction. There is generally a lack ofcoordination, and data describing all aspects of thelandscape are fragmented and distributed amongagencies.

Current understanding of natural processes and envi-ronments is still developing, with much research stillneeded. It would be neither possible nor desirable tocollect all known information on all systems, insteadwhat is required is to collect both base information onthe status of our systems as well as information on themajor drivers of change.

There is little agreement on criteria and/or attributes fordefining ecosystem condition. Underlying all previousattempts there is a desire to measure in some way thechange in ecosystem function and/or composition froma perceived desired state. Each measure of ecosystem

condition has been designed to provide a clear indica-tion of change away from a perceived optimal or de-sired state.

The work ahead is to gain agreement on a core set ofattributes, the scale at which they should be measured,and the detailed methods for measuring them.

More generally condition must be recognised as avalue judgement, and an estimate of change awayfrom a desired state. In order to define and then assesscondition those processes that force change within thesystem must be known, and some way of measuringthem must be available. In providing such assess-ments it is important to acknowledge that there hasnever been any one time when ecosystems have beenin status, i.e. change is a continuous process, and allchange has both ecological and social dimensions.

Points from questions and comments:• It is important to recognize that condition state-

ments reflect particular values that are being in-vestigated. Therefore the definition of conditionmust reflect these values.

• Not only are there differences in condition assess-ments based on the landuse, but also from a cul-tural perspective. It is equally important to recog-nize alternative viewpoints and an indigenous peo-ples understanding of condition, especially from aviewpoint of biodiversity maintenance.

• While the species and genetic components ofbiodiversity have agreed standards and protocolsfor exchange of data and information, the samedoes not exist for ecosystems, and agreement onclassification is needed for implementing the 'eco-system approach'.

• Assessment of ecosystem condition (health, vital-ity, integrity) are value judgement providing ameasure of change from a desired optimal statedepending on the purpose of the assessments.

• Provision of clear purpose-driven condition as-sessments for both sustainable use and conserva-tion requires agreed attributes/indicators suitablefor the stated purpose.

26

SESSION 5THE SOCIO-ECONOMY OF SUSTAINABLERESOURCE USESession Chair: Monika Hammer

Sustainable Development and Environmental ChangeCharles A. PerringsUniversity of York, United Kingdom

Development implies a process of evolutionary changewhich has all the usual dynamical properties of com-plex systems: path dependence, sensitivity to initialconditions, non-linearities and discontinuous changearound threshold values for both environmental re-sources and ecological functions. For any economy-environment system there are many possible states(equilibria) and many development paths associatedwith those states.

It has been argued that if we are concerned with theenvironmental sustainability of economic development,the appropriate measure of environmental quality isone that relates emissions or depletion to the assimila-tive or carrying capacity of the environment. This re-flects the notion that the sustainability of activities thatstress ecological systems depends on the resilience ofthose systems. Stress is generally measured by thelevel of demand on the carrying or assimilative capaci-ties of the system. An increase in stress makes thesystem more susceptible to exogenous shocks orchanges in environmental conditions.

One measure of resilience is the magnitude of distur-bance that can be absorbed before a system flips fromone state to another. It is an index of the capacity of asystem to retain productivity following disturbance. Forexample, in ecology and ecotoxicology assimilativecapacity refers either to an ecosystem's ability to returnto the original equilibrium following some pollutionevent, or the capacity of an ecosystem to absorb pol-lution without degrading some notion of biological in-tegrity.

Sustainability is about protecting the resilience of thesystem in desirable states. Resilience often dependson the mix of species - the biodiversity - of the sup-porting environment. A policy for biodiversity conser-vation should include a supporting structure of incen-tives and disincentives to induce the desired response.Such a policy should bring the private and social costof biological resources into line, and it should giveresource users the means to respond to the social costof resource use in a way that is consistent with socialinterests.

While there is a need for better data and better modelsof the behaviour of ecosystems, it is also possible toget much more out of existing and data. In fact, eco-

nomic data can often tell us much about performanceof ecosystems.

Points from questions and comments:• examples of economic data and traditional knowl-

edge can provide long-term data useful for ana-lysing ecosystems

• the scale of property rights (e.g. individual vs. col-lective) needs to be appropriate for the problem,but we must be aware that private property can bea solution or a problem to environmental issues

Wildland biodiversity and ecosystem development asthe primary tool for their survival: the Area de Conser-vacion Guanacaste, Costa Rica, pilot project.Daniel H. JanzenUniversity of Pennsylvania, USA

Non-damaging socio-economic development of thebiodiversity and ecosystems of a large conservedtropical wildland is probably the only viable way toinsure its survival into perpetuity.

Therefore I focus on:biodiversity - if we do not use it, we lose it!

Further, biodiversity development is based on the inte-gration of:• save it - traditionally conservation approach• know it - academic approach (the classical biolo-

gist)• use it - the commercial part

After protection measures have been adopted and theknowledge base has been established you have op-tions for commercial use of biodiversity, either directly(non-damaging harvesting) or indirectly (e.g. birdwatching)

A 'gardenification' of nature implies that humans takecare of and utilize natural ecosystems for products andservices. A gardenification of wildland nature will:• Produce products: their harvest and use must be

managed and understood• Grow wild species: biodiversity services and eco-

systems servicesThis means:i) multicropping , ii)multitasking, iii) multiuse

Key tools for wildlife gardening come in two groups,the former being easy for biologists and the latter verydifficult:

Easy: i) taxonomy, ii) natural history, iii) ecology, iv)evolutionary biology, v) biotechnology, vi) computeri-zation

Difficult: i) legislation, ii)zoning, iii) marketing, iv) de-centralisation, v) democratisation, vi) humanity

27

fstorway/Ufci Conference- on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainable Use of Biologies? Diversity

The Area de Conservation Guanacaste (ACG) innorthwestern Costa Rica, is 15 years of pilot projectbased on this philosophy. It has meant evolving from ablind-protectionist and central-government nationalpark model to a user-friendly, self-sustaining, and de-centralized wildland management process.This process is oriented to 'survival-through-use' and'management-through-knowledge' of the ACG as anintegrated whole rather than as a collection of projects,historical agendas, and regulations developed for otherplaces at other times.

Tropical wildland ecosystems, like ACG, can be mana-ged similarly to other socio-economic sectors throughe.g. planning, investment, compensation for its envi-ronmental services, and knowledgeable custodianship.

Two sets of regulations in biodiversity conservation areneeded: one for the agriculture landscape and one forthe wildland areas

There is a need for a self-sustaining and decentralizedwildland management process.

And what is portable from the ACG? An attitude, aviewpoint!

Points from questions and comments:• conservation management must look for new alli-

ances for the purpose of conservation, especiallywith the agricultural sector, e.g. the orange peelbiodegredation example, and the example of usinggmelina to restore rainforest, and the example ofusing carbon sequestration to finance rainforestrestoration.

• wildland environmental services should be negoti-ated with the consumer as would any commercialbusiness to sell and develop its products.

SESSION 6CASCADING EFFECTS OF RESOURCEEXPLOITATION ON ECOSYSTEMSSession Chair: Karin Refsnes

The relevance of ecosystemic services by native spe-cies and species assemblages: coupling salmon farm-ing and sport fishing with biodiversity use and man-agementDoris SotoFacultad de Pesquerfas y OceanograffaUniversidad Austral de ChilePuerto Montt. Chile

Aquaculture could help to preserve biodiversity byreducing the pressure on commonly harvested aquaticspecies at the local level. Aquaculture could also be ofeconomic value indirectly, e.g. sport fishing around theaquaculture facilities.Some ecosystem services needed and provided bynative biodiversity are (1) nutrient cycling after aquac-ulture and (2) water quality and quantity.

Nutrient cycling after aquacultureSalmon farming utilizing floating pens increase N andP inputs to the lake, bay or estuary where the pens arelocated. Approximately 70% of the P and 30 to 50% ofN in the salmon feed is unassimilated by the fish andreleased to the environment. One way to diminishthese environmental impacts is to prevent nutrientsfrom being lost to bacterial degradation finding alter-native pathways by

• enhance use of native mussel beds under fishfarms

• using artificial reefs to increase habitat heteroge-neity to provide a better chance for native speciesto use the excess nutrients and to increase biodi-versity

• managing the native fish and especially, intro-duced salmon which surround the fish farms to en-hance sport fishing. This provides alternativerevenues and stands as an important approachand management tool for conservation.

Water quality and quantityWater quality (transparency and chemical composition)and availability has also been key players in thesalmon farming success as well as for sport fishing.Such water quality is a result of multiple ecosystemicprocesses and services. One of them relates to theforest as a filter.

The pristine temperate rain forest in southern Chileprovides clean water, which has an economic value forsalmon farming and sport fisheries. Such approach hasbecome a new way for conservation and proper man-agement of native forest, particularly to avoid re-placement with monocultures of non-native trees.

28

fplfiilllli

Points from questions and comments:• This study does not look at the total ecosystem

effects of salmon farming, e.g. the need of 3 tonsof wild fish to produce 1 ton of cultured fish.Salmon farming is not the major consumer of fishmeal, and any attempt to mitigate the environ-mental effects of this economically important ac-tivity, is interesting.

The future for coastal marine community/ecosystemapproaches in invertebrate multispecies management:the need for spatial "lake" and "no-take" areas net-working and connectivityJuan Carlos CastillaDepartamento de Ecologia.F. de Ciencias BiologicasPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileSantiago, Chile

Marine benthic communities/ecosystems and theirexploitable resources show a persistent spatial structure.The species life history, spatial distribution, and variablesaffecting settlement play critical roles in the structure anddynamics of marine communities. Furthermore, thecontribution of different areas to population recruitmentvaries ('source and sink' areas). Therefore, biologicalconnectivity and its dependence on water circulation arekey factors in benthic communities.

Spatial patterns of benthic communities and speciesecological roles are usually not considered in speciesmanagement. The reasons are a) that interest in singlespecies ignores community functioning, b) that multi-species management requires understanding ofcommunity functioning, which is rare, and c) that territorialuse rights in fisheries (TURFs) are non-existent.

We present a novel approach to the management andlegal regulation of shellfish harvesting in Chile.Shellfish are harvested by a small-scale fishery whichis organized locally, and which generates an economicvalue of national importance. The shellfish manage-ment strategy now being developed uses TURF andexclusive access for small-scale fishers, and single-and multi-species management plans. We combinebasic and applied ecological research withexperimental demonstration to fishers that thismanagement strategy actually works on a local scale(i.e. increasing CPUE).

The Chilean coast has the potential for theestablishment of hundreds of spatially distributedTake' areas (Management and Exploitation Areas),alternated with 'No-Take' preserves and/or NationalParks. We propose a spatially structured coastalmanagement system which incorporates biologicalconnectivity, the ecological role of target species, andcommunity functioning. This promotes the rationalmanagement of invertebrate multispecies and habitat

refuges. The proposed practise merges, for the firsttime, conservation and management objectives.

Points from questions and comments:• The success of combining Take and No-Take

areas depends on how far shellfish larvaedisperse, i.e. to what extent No-Take areas canserve as sources for Take areas. Other systemsfor protection (e.g. lUCN's Marine Protected Areas)must be viewed in this context.

• Local fishers should be trained in performing stockassessment themselves.

• Few conflicts are expected as long as local fishersare incorporated in the implementation of themanagement strategy.

Effects of fishing on coral reef ecosystemsJohn L. MunroCaribbean/Eastern Pacific OfficeInternational Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement (ICLARM)British Virgin Islands

Coral reef ecosystems provide a significant proportionof the marine harvests taken by developing countriesin the tropics. The harvest includes a wide variety offish and invertebrates. Coral reef organisms are cap-tured by a wide variety of fishing gears but the trawlnets, gill nets and seine nets which characterize indus-trial-scale temperate water fisheries cannot normallybe used in the vicinity of coral reefs. Few of thesefishing gears are highly selective for particular speciesof fishes or invertebrates and often several hundredspecies are caught by a single method, almost all ofwhich can be sold, bartered or used.

Coral reef fish and invertebrates differ widely in theircatch ability but the larger, slower-growing, predatory,species are usually vulnerable to a wider array of fish-ing gears than are smaller, fast-growing, herbivorousspecies. It thus becomes possible for the most catchable species to become over-fished to the point oflocal extinction while the overall volume of the catch isnot significantly decreased. Over time this leads tochanges in the composition of the community in whichthe organisms at the apex of the food web are progres-sively eliminated.

Islands which receive a constant influx of larvae fromupstream sources are partially buffered against eco-system changes and local extinctions. Isolated islandsare vulnerable to severe structural changes, local ex-tinctions and even the total extinction of some endemicspecies.

In countries where poverty is combined with open ac-cess to aquatic resource systems, over-exploitation ofthe fisheries can lead to profound changes in the coralreef ecosystems. This can include dramatic increasesin the biomasses of some plants and invertebrates as a

29

result of the extinction of their predators and the over-growth of corals by macro-algae. Invariably there is aconcurrent loss of biodiversity.

Points from questions and comments:• There is not yet enough knowledge for enhancing

coral reef fishes by releasing fish larvae.• Coral reefs are suffering from more than overhar-

vesting, e.g. global warming, growth of algae,sedimentation and eutrophication.

• Mangroves are important as nursing areas for sev-eral coral reef fishes, and need to be integratedinto coral reef management.

Ecological and evolutionary conservation implicationsof species interactions in ecosystemsMichel LoreauLaboratoire d'Ecologie,Ecole Normale SuperieureParis, France

Species and ecosystems are bound together by mutualecological constraints and a shared evolutionary his-tory, so that in the long term it may be impossible toconserve one without conserving the other. Speciestraits and their evolution are ultimately constrained byecosystem processes, just as ecosystem properties areconstrained by the ecological and evolutionary historyof interacting species. These mutual constraints areillustrated for a classical tropic cascade and for plant-herbivore interactions in an ecosystem context. Evenin a simple food chain, indirect effects among specieschange the nature of the selective pressures experi-enced by each species depending on the number oftrophic levels, thus leading to species with differenttraits. An example of the complexity generated by eco-system processes on the very nature of species inter-actions is provided by the effect of nutrient cycling onthe ecology and evolution of plant-herbivore interac-tions. Even though herbivores have a direct negativeeffect on plants through biomass consumption, theycan have a positive net effect on plant productivitythrough nutrient recycling. The conditions under whichthis positive ecological effect can turn into an evolu-tionary mutualism, however, are complex; they dependon such features as the spatial structure of the eco-system, the intensity of nutrient cycling and plant com-petition for nutrients. Evolution can even lead to theparadoxical situation where the evolutionary benefit ofherbivory for plants increases while there is an in-creased conflict between the two partners. Some im-plications of local evolution for the resistance of com-munities to disruptions by biological invasions are dis-cussed. It is argued that conservation efforts shouldaim to preserve the rich variety of interactions in whichspecies are imbedded in natural ecosystems.

Points from questions and comments:• The take-home message from theoretical studies

is that biodiversity management will benefit from

integrating population and ecosystemperspectives, and ecological and evolutionaryperspectives.There is evidence that rates of evolution can bemuch more rapid than previously believed.Therefore, evolutionary considerations may beimportant even on a time scale of a fewgenerations.Phenotypic plasticity is a way of changing whichdoes not require evolution, but which itself is sub-ject to evolutionary change.

30

fstonway/UN Conference on the-Ecosystem Approach; For Sustatnab-fe Use of

SESSION 7ECOSYSTEM APPROACH IN MARINERESOURCE USESession Chair: Ragnhild Lofthus

The precautionary approach to sustainable utilisaton ofmarine ecosystemsAsmund BjordalInstitute of Marine ResearchBergen, Norway

The management of marine ecosystems includingfisheries is a young discipline, mainly being developedduring the last 2-3 decades.

Why do we need a 'precautionary approach' (PA)?• fishing capacity exceeds net production of marine

resources• it has proven difficult to control fisheries within

sustainable levels• has been PA developed as a tool for improved

decision making in fisheries management - mainlyto avoid collapse of fish stocks and fisheries

In the development of PA to fisheries managementadvice, the International Council for the Exploration ofthe Sea (ICES) has set limit reference points for aseries of important stocks.• Biim: Low limit biomass to be avoided to safeguard

recruitment to the stock• Fiim: Fishing mortality associated with unknown

populations dynamic or stock collapse

Additionally, ICES has suggested precautionary ap-proach reference points for fisheries management:• Bpa: above Bi,m, to make certain that Bi,m is avoided

(reflects uncertainty)• Fpa: lower F, high probability of not exceeding Fi,m

PA reference points are set by ICES for several stocks.ICES is still in the process of setting reference points.ICES suggests the PA reference points and invite themanagement authorities and the industry to discusstheir appropriate levels. In order to meet the PA tofisheries management, harvest control rules should bedeveloped for the different stocks, with defined pre-agreed measures to be taken when the stock or fisheryapproaches or exceeds the reference points.

The case of the Norwegian spring spawning herringThe spawning stock has traditionally fluctuated be-tween 2 and 16 mill tons due to variability in oceanclimate and corresponding variations in recruitmentand individual growth in the stock. The spawning stockdeclined from a record level in the mid 1940ies about16 mill tons, due to gradually less favourable climaticconditions combined with a considerable increase infishing effort during the same period. In 1972 thespawning stock biomass was estimated as low as 2000

tons. A total ban of fishing was introduced. As thestock increased from the mid SOies PA managementmeasures were made in order to obtain a high andsustainable yield from the stock:• minimum legal catch size of 25 cm• moderate fishing until spawning stock size reach

2.5 mill tons• agreement on share of total allowable catch be-

tween nations• setting Blim, Bpa and Fpa

There are good reasons to believe that the PA to themanagement of the Norwegian spring spawning her-ring will provide sustainability in the utilisation of thisstock, with a low risk of future stock collapse caused byfishing.

With the exception of specific benthic habitats andorganisms as well as possible threatened species, overexploitation of fish stocks seems to have more severeeffects on the fisheries than on the ecosystem. Pollu-tion and contamination do represent a much moresevere threat to the marine ecosystems and do affectthe ecosystem on all tropic levels.

ConclusionSustainable fishery is a good indicator of a healthymarine ecosystem. Implementation of the PA to fish-eries management is therefore a fundamental steptowards sustainable fisheries and consequently also animportant instrument for improving the quality of ma-rine ecosystem.

Points from questions and comments:• Has any kind of pollution until today had a signifi-

cant negative effect on the fisheries? -There is nodirect answer to that, but a sneaking accumulationof pollutants over time is considered as a threatalong with habitat degradation.

The integration of fisheries and environmental issues:Evolution of the 'ecosystem approach'Christopher HopkinsInternational council for the Exploration of the Sea(ICES)Copenhagen, Denmark

The presentation revived the background for develop-ing the 'precautionary approach' in fisheries manage-ment, and the further evolution towards an 'ecosystemapproach' for handling the integration of fisheries andenvironmental issues.

Guiding principles for fisheries management:

Implementation of the provisions of the relevant globaland regional conventions and agreements

Application of a precautionary approach to man

31

Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnairfe Use of BiotogicaE Diversity

agement of living marine resources, as set out in theUN Agreement on Straddling Stocks and Highly Mi-gratory Fish Stocks, and the FAO International Code ofConduct on Responsible Fisheries.

Taking into account the interaction among the differentcomponents in the food-webs of the ecosystems (mul-tispecies approach) and other ecosystems interactions.

Identification of processes in, and influences on, theecosystems which are critical for maintaining theircharacteristic structure and functioning, productivityand biological diversity.

Providing for a chemical, physical and biological envi-ronment in these ecosystems consistent with a highlevel of protection of those critical ecosystem proc-esses.

Integration of environmental objectives into fisheriespolicy.

Maintenance of viable fishing industries, taking ac-count of interests of producers and consumers.

Involvement of fishermen and other relevant parties indecision-making processes.

Reducing or solving problems in one area (e.g. NorthSea) should not add to problems elsewhere

These principles apply to fisheries for human con-sumption and all industrial fisheries.

The main stages and ingredients in evolution of the'ecosystem approach':Development of the 'precautionary approach'

Single species stock assessments for commercialfished species ('target') extended with single speciesreference points (system of targets and limits) prea-greements on harvest rules and recovery plans.

Reference points for commercial target species as thefoundation.

Quantify effects of fishery on non-target species.Establish wider-reaching conservation measures.

Establish quality assured databases on species andhabitats.

Points from questions and comments:• It was commented that ICES is an example of an

institution working along the lines of the "Malawiprinciples" and an 'ecosystem approach'

By-catch in fisheriesKaren WeaverUNEP/CMS, Bonn, Germany

Capture fisheries produce approximately 90 milliontonnes of fish annually, about 35% of which is used foranimal feeds. World wide, 70% of the fish stocks, forwhich data are available, require urgent intervention to:a) avoid decline of the fully exploited resources; b)stop decline of overfished resources; and c) to rebuilddepleted resources. Discards represent a biologicalwaste of 27 million tonnes, or about 25% of the totalcatch.

We will never have enough information about fishstocks and fishing activities, to accurately determineand maintain the appropriate level of effort of fishing,therefore the 'precautionary approach1 is fundamental.Moreover, sustainability cannot be achieved at speciesor individual fishermen levels and solutions must befound at the ecosystem and community levels. Sus-tainable fisheries cannot be built where there is openaccess to stocks. Management of marine fisheries withawareness of ecosystem properties, is essentially aquestion of distinguishing the impacts of fishing fromthose of natural fluctuations in the ocean environment.

By-catch problems are highly correlated with fishingmethod. Examples include seabird mortality associatedwith long line fishing, dolphin mortality associated withpurse seine tuna fishing and turtle mortality associatedwith prawn (or shrimp) trawling. Invariably the solutionsoffered in the short term to by-catch problems involve"technical fixes". Fisheries management will need toconfront the by-catch issue now, not only because ofthe now well established and increasing public profileon the issue, but also as part of international obliga-tions.

An alternate approach to the science-based 'ecosys-tem approach' is the market-based approach. Onesuch example is the eco-labelling schemes that arebeing developed as a way to assure customers of theenvironmentally safe production of fishery products.This will again establish market-based pressures forless destructive fishing techniques.

A trend can be seen running from the general objec-tives of sustainable utilisation in current bindingagreements, to more specific constraints and man-agement methods in subsequent non-binding instru-ments. Implementation of international environmentalinstruments will result in the fishing industry beingsubject to an increasing number of policies that con-serve marine areas by restricting vessel access. Simi-larly, protection and restoration of endangered fishspecies proscribed by various non-binding agreementswill lead to area, fishing method, and by-catch-reducing restriction on fishers. These may not onlycome from international instruments but will usually be

32

Norway/UN Conferences the Ecosystem Approach ForSustainabte Use of BiotogteaE Diversity

implemented through national legislation and policydevelopment.

Points from questions and comments:• The issue of whether by-catch leads to extinctions

in the marine environment was seen as missingthe main point viz that by-catch leads to ecosys-tem shift and that the global society must decidehow much change is acceptable.

Overexploitation and extinction in the oceanRansom MyersKillam Chair of Ocean StudiesDalhousie UniversityDepartment of BiologyHalifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Aspects of the biology of extinction and overexploita-tion in the ocean were discussed in the presentation.There are most certainly extinctions due to overfishingthat we probably are not aware of.

Processes whereby local populations can be driven toextinction were described. Among those is the largestskate in the northwest Atlantic, the barn door skate.This species has been driven nearly extinct thoughmost of its former range. It is locally extinct because ofby-catch. The barn door skate was once very common,and as distinctive as a bald eagle, and yet its neardemise passed without notice.

Further on, the process of overexploitation that led tothe collapse of the cod populations in eastern Canadawas described. Although several ideas of why thestocks collapsed were introduced i.e. water, foreignfishing and seals, the conclusion in the presentationwas that this was mainly due to overfishing by Canadi-ans. Myers criticised the use of subsidies provided forthe fishing industry and that this lead to an increase infishing capacity.

By using meta-analysis to estimate population dynam-ics parameters, it is possible to estimate the conditionsunder which overexploitation and extinction will occur,and which management actions, e.g. reduced fishingmortality or marine reserves, might allow for the longterm viability of marine populations.

Conclusions• avoid unnecessary subsidies• rational exploitation• large protected areas are needed to preserve a

sample of biodiversity

Points from questions and comments:• Could it be an idea to transfer subsidies so the

fisheries can change to other species?-No -There has to be a reduction in the capacity.

Is the population of seals a reason for the poorrecovery of the cod stocks? Can a reduction of theseal population help the cod stock to recover?-There is also other predators in the system. A re-duction of the seal stock may have an effect, butthis is not politically accepted.What kind of data supports the very large MPAs?-We need a set of data big enough to see howthings work without fishery. Tc observe this, weneed large MPAs

33

Monsay/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnabte Use of Biological Diversity

SESSION 8ECOSYSTEM APPROACH IN FORESTRESOURCE USESession Chair: Thor Larsen

Ecosystems, timber and biodiversityJeffrey A. SayerCIFORSitugedeBogor, Indonesia

Classic definitions of "ecosystem management" haveemphasised approaches that are heavily based on atechnological and deterministic views of how to man-age natural resources. However, the real need is forecosystem management to be flexible, adaptive andexperimental as ecosystems are dynamic, complexand unpredictable.

To achieve ecosystem management goals there is aneed for radical reform of forest institutions concerningeducation training, structure and culture. The majorchallenges for ecosystem managers are:• Science-based ability to predict impact of man-

agement of system• Minimise power differentials amongst stakeholders• Facilitate decision making• Optimise total utility of all products and services• Ensure that resource assessments represent all

interests• Represent absent stakeholders (minorities, future

generations etc.)• Monitor outputs (indicators) and provide feedback• Enforce agreed regulations

To improve conservation of biodiversity, ecosystemmanagement must be based on the following; 1) rec-ognition of the full cost, 2) realism about the benefitsand 3) the willingness to pay. Ecosystem managementcould be based on a consensus made from rankingvarious stakeholders interests in the area in questionand primarily be driven by broad agreement on theoutcomes that are desired. There must be consensuson how much timber, which non-timber products, whichcomponents of bio-diversity are required. Ecologicalscience will be important in determining how theseoutcomes are achieved but ecologists should not de-termine the use of the forest.

Points from questions and comments:• Believe in the emphasis on local/national instead

of global/international based ecosystem manage-ment.

• The challenges concerning the global ecologicalcrisis versus global economic crisis are importantto consider.

Solving the Global Forest CrisisRichard SteinerUniversity of AlaskaAnchorageAlaska, USA

An enormous literature exists regarding the link be-tween global deforestation and the loss of biodiversity.Yet today, deforestation and the loss of biodiversitycontinues at historically high levels. In the context ofthe Malawi Principles, global forest management stillhas along way to go.

There are five principal components to resolving thecrisis and bringing human/forest relationships into linewith the Principles-

1) Expansion of Forest Protected Areas - including allremaining frontier forests

2) Sustainable Forestry - practiced on all harvestedforests

3) Restoration - withdrawal of managed lands forrecovery to natural forest

4) Plantation Production - carefully managed, to pro-vide wood needs

5) Reduced Consumption - of all wood products

Each of these efforts will improve the conservation andsustainable use of forests and biodiversity, but theintegration of all five will be necessary to fully resolvethe crisis. It is time for world governments to becomedehypnotized, acknowledge the extent and severity ofthe global forest crisis, and implement immediate andaggressive action toward its resolution.

Increasing worldwide demand for wood products, roadbuilding, fuel wood, clearing for agricultural purposes,population, climate change, urbanization, fires, corrup-tion and illegal logging, perverse financial subsidies,and ineffective trade policies all combine to continuethe decimation of world forests. Just since the Con-vention on Biological Diversity entered into force onDecember 29. 1993, the world has lost about 100 mil-lion hectares of forest and by many ecologists estimatea minimum of 100,000 species have gone extinct.

While tropical rainforests have received a great deal ofattention, the crisis in temperate rainforests is lessdiscussed, yet much more severe. The temperate for-ests, once covering most of Europe, China, the US,and parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Chile,UK, and Argentina, have been the most extensivelyaltered, with less than 3% remaining today as frontierforests (WRI, 1997).The UN is recommended to immediately establish aGlobal Forest Protection and Compensation Fund of atleast $20 billion/yr. to subsidize forest conservationefforts.

34

Norway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainable Use of Biotogicaf Diversity

Points from questions and comments:• It is difficult to assess the size of the forest area

that needs to be retained. This is mostly a finan-cial problem, but should ideally include as muchas possible to avoid unforeseen effects of thedisturbance.

• Efforts should be made to buy forest areas fromlandowners to prevent deforestation.

• Additional efforts to improve situation are to bringwaist of wood related to logging to a minimumand increase the number of protected areas.

Underlying causes of deforestationHans J.H. VerolmeBiodiversity Action Network (Bionet)Washington DC, USA

Bionet is partner in a global joint initiative on the rootcauses of forest loss that attempts to faciliate a dia-logue between all relevant stakeholders. The initiativeaims to deliver solution-oriented recommendations tothe international community that address underlyingcauses of deforestation and forest degradation.

Over 60 case studies of concrete instances of forestloss were performed in 1998 and the initiative con-vened seven regional and one Indigenous Peoples'workshop, to conduct a participatory analysis of thechain of causality. These served as background to aglobal workshop held in Costa Rica in January 1999. Atthat meeting policy makers met with other stakeholdersto develop action-oriented solutions that address theroot causes of the forest crisis. He expressed dismayat the IFF's failure to incorporate the key recommen-dations identified through this process into its work andat government attempts to re-negotiate prior commit-ments. Amongst others, the following important pointswere made:• Full participation of local communities and other

stakeholders in decision-making over management ofnatural resources at the national and internationallevel is required if we intend to reverse the currentrates of forest loss.

• Over-consumption / over-production as related to thefree trade' agenda is a threat to forests.

• Conviction to conserve biodiversity rather thanachieving short-term economic benefits is needed.

• Forests are more than just stands of timber. Forestsare ecosystems that provide valuable services andhave spiritual meaning for individuals, communitiesand society as a whole.

Further specification of the 'ecosystem approach' isessential to the implementation of the CBD. Imple-menting the CBD, however, requires both political willand sound scientific basis. Furthermore, implementa-tion primarily takes place at the national level. Com-mitments entered into at the global level need to betranslated into national action plans, with the involve-ment of those who were often not represented during

the negotiations. This challenge is becoming morepressing as citizens are openly beginning to questionthe need for further international policy debates thatsee little implementation and lack compliance.

Points from questions and comments:• Poverty should not be seen as a root cause of

deforestation, since it is driven by other causessuch as insecure land tenure.

Boreal forests in RussiaSten NilssonForest Resources ProjectInternational Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburg, Austria

The Sustainable Boreal Resources Projsct was pre-sented. Forest growth data show no decrease in totalgrowing stock in Russia from 1961 until 1998, but re-gionally substantial over-harvesting occurs. Harvestinghas decreased since the 1990, and the cleared areahas decreased from 2.1 mill ha to 0.5 mill ha from 1988until 1997. Besides over-harvesting, forest fires are amajor threat to forest biodiversity. Average annualforest area impacted by fires is 3.5 mill ha. Pests, dis-eases and other biotic factors affect 4 mill ha annuallyand abiotic factors impacts 2 mill ha.

There are three fundamental ways to conserve forestbiodiversity in Russia: (1) through protected areas; (2)through biodiversity-sensitive forest management; and(3) through efficient landscape management.

Russia has established a very good network of 'pro-tected areas' in the form of so-called zapovedniks, orstrictly protected areas. These areas are, relativelyspeaking, large and numerous and are often sur-rounded by territory that is effectively wilderness. Inaddition, Russia has state natural reserves, nationalparks, and game parks. The total area of speciallyprotected areas is about 5% of the total forest resourceareas in Russia. These protected areas conserve themajority of rare and endangered species listed in theRussian Red Data Book. Russia's conservation of for-est biodiversity using protected areas seems ratheradvanced—at least on paper—and relative to whatother countries have achieved. However, the eco-nomic decline has seriously deteriorated the manage-ment capacities of protected areas.

Our analysis of the Russian forests shows:• Exploitation of land for timber or other purposes

seriously threatens forest biodiversity.• However, in large-scale uniform landscapes,

careful forest management can increase biodiver-sity.

• Fire suppression may decrease biodiversity.

35

Morway/U$i Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnable Us© of BiologicaE Diversity

• More protected areas and a more efficient distribu-tion of protected areas are required to maintainbiodiversity.

• Forest biodiversity is directly scale-dependent, andfuture policies on biodiversity must take into ac-count the interaction between different scales ofecosystems.

Russia has a long tradition of working with differentlevels of landscapes and thus has excellent platformfor biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity can be dealtwith at the level of the established network of protectedareas and the landscape concept. A full program offorest biodiversity conservation must also deal withforests subjected to timber harvesting and other inter-ventions. Examples of biodiversity conservation treat-ments include leaving mature and dead trees at har-vesting, regenerating with mixed species, and refrain-ing from clear-cutting in all-aged stands of shade toler-ant species. These measures are currently rare in Rus-sian forest management.

Biodiversity conservation must be linked with socialdevelopment. Existing institutional framework cannotsupport biodiversity protection. Today there is nofunding for sustainable forest management.

Points from questions and comments:• How to conserve biodiversity in Russia? Allocate

sufficient funding directly to the areas of concern,not through central institutions.

• Western companies participate in forest over ex-ploitation in Russia. The large forest areas areprobably suitable for ecosystem management. Dothe western companies implement principles forecosystem management? International companiesare not a big problem in Russia. They now operatevery carefully. Opposed to international companiesRussian companies are of more concern.

Communities depend on sustainable use: What are theincentives and constraints?Jeffrey McNeelyIUCNGland, Switzerland

Key issues discussed were:• The scale of sustainability.• The dimensions of sustainable use.• The differential value placed on the benefits of

biodiversity by the various stakeholders.• What commitment do the users have to sustain-

able use?• How to balance individual and social benefits.• Defining the rights of the various stakeholders.• Will the state allow significant commercial benefits

to flow to the disadvantaged rural communities.• Unsustainable use of resources is subsidizing na-

tional development, providing goods whose full

costs are not paid. Development options are be-ginning to narrow as resources become limiting.

Prerequisites.• Clear tenure rights, including ability to exclude

some who may claim rights.• Sufficient knowledge to manage the resource.• Feedback between harvesting levels and produc-

tivity of the systems.• Percieved benefit of sustainable use is greater

than that of resource transformation.• Appropriate legislative and policy framework.

Conclusions.• Sustainable use is a variable, not a constant. It

depends on environmental, economic and socialconditions at a given time and place.

• Sustainable use may be more attractive thancommercial harvest, at least for local people.

• A combination of approaches is needed, rangingfrom strict protection (=non-harvest) to sustainableuse to intensive use.

Points from questions and comments:• Is local people more interested in sustainable use

than in commercial harvest? There are big differ-ences between communities. Some communitieshave strong leaders who want sustainability.Commercial use is not proven to be sustainable, atleast not in the long term. Communities whichmanage their resources in a sustainable way willsurvive. Survival of the communities is consideredto be more important than money.

36

SESSION 9GLOBAL1SATION VS. DE-CENTRALISATIONSession Chair: Colin Rees

Globalisation of nature and culture: the imperative fordiversityPeter BridgewaterDivision of Ecological Science, UNESCO

The first and twelfth Malawi Principles connects envi-ronment and society while the other 10 points are morerelated to technical issues. The report from the Malawimeeting also states that we should take an 'ecosystemapproach' to nature conservation, and highlights that:

• The approach helps define the appropriate man-agement level (local, regional, global);

• It places people as a part of the ecosystem;• It allows integration of traditional/indigenous

knowledge and scientific thinking providing con-servation solutions.

Globalisation what is it?The OECD defines the globalisation in terms of open-ing up of the world's trade and investment regimes,and notes that the process is likely to have a substan-tial effect on the environment:

• the opening up of the world's trade and investmentregimes is more than an economic phenomenon,

• it is a cultural, technological, and now environ-mental phenomenon,

• yet very few species ever were truly globalisers -with the possible exception of migratory species,

• we now have the new globalisers, exotic speciesand new ecological combinations.

Institutional response - While environmental problemshave become globalised, their potential managementsolutions have become more localised. Global con-ventions have tended to create a "lowest commondenominator" approach to resource management,which often ignores aspects of cultural diversity. TheCSD also contributes to this globalising effect. Perhapsthe relation between people and the rest of the bio-sphere will be better understood after this meeting?

Ecological issuesEcologists have frequently ignored people whilst socialscientists and economists have largely excluded thewider environments in which people and their domesti-cated species live. People are a species within thebiosphere.

The challenges to managing, using, sharing and con-serving biological diversity are:

• To contain crises.• To control the potential for conflict.• To avoid seemingly simple linear approaches and

solutions, by calling on a more integrative creativ-ity.

Scale and diversity - awareness of scale and of theexistence of more than one scale. Crucial to the 'eco-system approach' is to deal with processes operating ata wide range of temporal and spatial scale. There arethree basic and interactive elements of diversity: cul-tural, biological and environmental.

The species with cultureHuman species differs from most other species be-cause people have culture. Culture increases ecologi-cal complexity. Such complexity is often explainedthrough the identification of cultural landscape. Lan-guage is a useful indicator of the health of a culturallandscape. The extinction rates for languages explainthe process of biotic and cultural homogenisation ofthe landscape.

ConclusionsTwo central points emerge from this discussion:• Concern about ecosystem management is really

concern about the relationships which exist be-tween people and the rest of the biosphere; and

• While there have been isolated successes, on thewhole people have not managed effectively theirinteraction with the environment and we have asituation with the potential to spin out of control.

The 'ecosystem approach', reflects the gritty reality ofconservation. There is a need for:• Room for more "agreement to disagree" while

making progress.• Room to communicate global ideas in the rapidly

dwindling number of languages and culturalmorphs.

• More focus on the need for adequate reseach di-rection, even if the methodologies are not univer-sally acceptable.

• Less adherence to numbing consensus; betterdescribed as inactivity.

Points from questions and comments:• The elephant issue has now been settled, but it has

taken a long time with habitat destruction.• Local people know their problem better than peo-

ple from other areas.• Red list approach could be applied to languages.

37

Compatibility between the WTO framework, protectionof the environment and sustainable developmentJan-Eirik SorensenDirector, Trade and environment division, The WorldTrade Organisation (WTO)Geneva, Switzerland

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is founded onthree basic principles: non-discrimination, predictabilityand stability, and trade liberalisation. It is a member-driven organisation, where rules are agreed in negotia-tions, decisions taken by consensus, and new rules tobe ratified by each country.

The WTO has a binding dispute settlement mecha-nism, which is the only one of its kind. The only occa-sion when a WTO body can have a direct impact on agovernment's policies is when a dispute leads to aruling of all Members. In all other respects, the WTOdoes not dictate to governments to adopt or drop cer-tain policies.

The WTO Agreement recognises the importance ofresource management, by including as a key goal 'theoptimal use of the world's resources in accordance withthe objective of sustainable development". This is asignificant departure from the objective of the formerGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1947), whichreferred to 'developing the full use of the resources ofthe world.'

However, the WTO is not an environmental protectionagency and does not aspire to be one. Its competencefor policy co-ordination is limited to trade policies, andthose trade-related environmental policies with a sig-nificant impact on trade. Furthermore, manyGATT/WTO Agreements were claimed to already pro-vide significant scope for non-discriminatory nationalenvironmental protection policies.

According to the WTO, trade liberalisation and envi-ronmental protection can be mutually supportive, inthat trade liberalisation (1) has an important role toplay in getting global price mechanisms right, (2) thatmembers have the right to set environmental protec-tion standards at the level which they themselves con-sider appropriate (provided they are not arbitrary, donot discriminate, and are not a disguised restriction ontrade) and (3) by addressing what the Brundtland Re-port (1987) called the 'pollution of poverty', the singlemost important contributor to environmental degrada-tion.

The best way to avoid frictions between the tradeagenda and the environmental agenda is to improvepolicy co-ordination between trade and environmentpolicy makers. First and foremost, this must take placeat the national level, e.g. emphasis the NorwegianMinster of the Environment has placed on this is issue.

It is important to note that the WTO has no rules onbiodiversity as such. The discussion of the relationshipbetween the WTO and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) has basically centred around theAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects of IntellectualProperty Rights (TRIPs), and how the WTO generallyrelates to multilateral environmental agreements(MEAs).

Trade measures agreed to amongst parties to an MEA,even if WTO-inconsistent, could be regarded as 'lexspec/Ms' under public international law, and ought notto give rise to legal problems in the WTO. What re-mains, therefore, is the issue of trade discriminationagainst non-parties to MEAs.

Concerning TRIPs provisions on the protection of bio-technological inventions and plant varieties, whetherby patents or by "sui generis" protection, several issueshave arisen, including (1) patent protection to geneticmaterial in its natural state or to inventions which relyon traditional knowledge, (2) the ethical or environ-mental acceptability of granting patents for inventionsof life-forms, (3) access to environmentally soundtechnology and, (4) a perceived imbalance betweenthe protection accorded to patentable inventions andthe protection available for traditional indigenousknowledge.

The spirit of what we understand to be the 'ecosystemapproach' is in line with what the Ministers stressedwhen they signed the WTO Agreement: There shouldnot be, nor need be, any policy contradiction betweenupholding and safeguarding an open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading systemon the one hand, and acting for the protection of theenvironment, and the promotion of sustainable devel-opment on the other'.

Environment and global tradeRicardo Melendez-OrtizInternational Centre for Trade and Sustainable Devel-opment (ICTSD)Geneva, Switzerland

A key issue is to make sustainable development amain objective of trade policy-making. The world hasagreed to do so on the global arenas for environment(cf. Agenda 21 from 1992) as well as for trade (cf. theWTO preamble).

There are a large number of trade policy influencers,including advocacy groups and business interests, andthese all face a number of challenges. These includelimited contact and opportunities for contact betweentrade policy decision makers and influencers, increas-ing complexity of policies required to address sustain-able development, limited understanding of each oth-ers' concerns and of issues and limited cohesion andco-operation within the different groups of influencers.

38

Morway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainable Use of BiotogksaE Diversity

Some elements framing the international debate onenvironment and global trade during the 1990's arehighlighted. One of these is a need for a vision adjust-ment, where consideration is taken to the objectives ofsustainable development on (1) economic growth(through trade liberalisation) as well as (2) conserva-tion, sustainable use and benefit sharing and (3) intra-and inter-generational equity. Furthermore, there aretensions relating to the need for regulation (i.e. stateintervention), using subsidiarity (e.g. as in the 'eco-system approach') or universality ('the global reality ofmarkets') as policy guidance, policing or co-operationand sovereignty or supra-nationality. Another importantelement was the evolution of very different interna-tional regimes in key areas for sustainable develop-ment. In the trade regime, a hierarchical set of norms,rules and common principles have been developed,while the development regime builds on variants ofincome growth-based strategies. The environmentregime can again be seen as a proliferation of prob-lem- and resource based instruments, ad hoc norms, adiversity of approaches, but with emerging commonprinciples. This results in regimes being incoherent,uncoordinated (including institution building) and une-qual, and dialogue between regimes is challenged.

The perception of an 'imposed' debate in the WTO isreferred, where two main obstacles from the perspec-tive of developing countries is distrust and lack of in-herent capacity. As a result, trade and sustainabledevelopment issues are currently locked into a win/losedebate marked by a unidirectional perspective (withtoo much focus on benefits of free trade at the ex-pense of issues other key factors such as social andenvironmental welfare) and environment as a negotia-tion bargain chip (where environment is seen as anopportunity for obtaining higher trade concessions).Against this background, there is a need to includeenvironmental dimensions in all policies, and key posi-tions of developing as well as of developed countrieswere identified.

Lastly, some elements for reflection on globalisation,decentralisation and the 'ecosystem approach' areprovided. On the one hand, there is globalisation thatcan be seen as a global economic integration of manyformerly economies into one global economy, mainlyby trade and free trade and capital mobility. While onthe other hand the 'ecosystem approach' emphasisessocietal choice, decentralisation, focus on ecosystemissues and long term objectives.

SESSION 10PANEL DEBATE:What chance for local resource management in thetimes of GATT and WTO?Moderator: Ketil GravirNorwegian Broadcasting Cooperation (NRK)

Participants:Ricardo Melendez-OrtizJan-Eirik S0rensenJose SarukhanHolly DublinSubramonia I. AnanthakrishnanRobert Monro

In the panel debate, which also included active contri-bution from the audience, the discussion concentratedaround the following issues.

The moderator was eager to raise the basic questionabout the possibilities to connect a global economyand liberated trade with sustainable use and conserva-tion of biodiversity at the local level.

A reasonable and common discussion about issuesnormally from scientific and management disciplinesso far from each other, is really a challenge. The re-sponsibility for changes in one system will inevitablyaffect the other and, therefore, the responsibility forimpacts is broad.

Negative impact of trade must be coped by nationalefforts to minimise the problems. All these efforts mustnot result in losing their focus on finding the possibili-ties to utilise changes for benefits.

The scaling problem was discussed. If we have smallscale trade, the local communities have closer con-nection to the trade and can easier achieve the bene-fits. Liberated trade enhance large scale and the resultcan be large scale benefits. The large scale can securerules that are common and reliable, active and fairrules, but the influence on practise is limited.

Considering the scall problem, the need of local, na-tional and international incentives - green incentives -are to be considered.

Should the WTO take more environmental and biodi-versity aspects into the trading regimes? Is that amechanism to face overexploitation of biological re-sources and a proper tool to conserve threatened spe-cies? The possibility for local and national authoritiesto achieve the same was discussed.

The need to have harmony between economical inde-pendence and ecological independence. Is this a pre-requisite for successful management of biodiversity?

39

Conference- on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainabte Use of BiotogicaS Diversity

Do WTO create problems for use and conservation ofbiodiversity or did WTO inherit problems which up tonow have been difficult to solve?

Trade is about species, our conference focus on an'ecosystem approach'. Evaluation of this"contradiction" seems uncertain.

From the debate WTO regimes seems to have uncer-tain and various impact on use and conservation ofbiodiversity, (i) WTO has a potential to help via com-mon and fair rules (ii) WTO will make local manage-ment an illusion, (iii) WTO will accelerate overexploi-tation of natural or biological resources and extinctionof species, (iv) WTO (and WB, IMF, IDB, ...) need toadopt new guidelines and philosophies, (v) WTO cannever be fair to obtain sustainable nature managementbecause of the unbalanced economic power in worldtrade, - we will still have power based trade systems.

The level to have decisions on national policy anddevelopment of legislation issues concerning CBD is anational responsibility. The impact of WTO on this andthe wishes to include responsibility in WTO for use andconservation of biodiversity were discussed.

Negotiations are crucial in international policy. Arethese negotiations fair when e.g. US has and largedelegation in CBD matters, even though they are onlya signatory to the Convention. What is the power of allsmall and/or poor countries in such a context?

Following the question for the panel debate the con-nection between WTO, GATT and local resource man-agement can be invisible. The real world in the localcommunities is struggling for survival and not focusedon international trading regimes.

SESSION 11SUCCESSES AND FAILURES: CASESTUDIES IN USE OF BIOLOGICALRESOURCESSession Chair: Cecil Machena

Wildlife Quota Setting : A Campfire Case StudyNorman Rigava and Lillian DimbiWWF SARPOHarare, Zimbabwe.

In the last decade, community based natural resourcemanagement programmes have been promoted as anequitable and sustainable approach to conservation. InZimbabwe, the Communal Areas Management Pro-gramme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) hasprovided communities with some degree of ownershipand control wildlife resources as well as financialbenefits. Empowering communities with the knowledgeand skills to manage their natural resources is an es-sential process which allows them to maximise theircontrol over resources within the context of the legalframework.

WWF as part of the CAMPFIRE service providers hasbeen involved in the development, implementation anddissemination of improved community based resourceplanning and management techniques which are tech-nically robust, cost effective and socially possible.These were developed through a process of Participa-tory Technology Development (PTD) in which technicalassistants worked with selected rural communities todesign, implement, test, monitor and refine locallyapplied management activities. This is consistent withthe "ecosystems approach to conservation" which rec-ognises that "technology" together with ecology andhuman needs are critical elements in the maintenanceof bio-diversity. One of the outputs, which aimed tomerge both scientific and indigenous knowledge, was amethodology for participatory quota setting.

Previously quota setting was done solely by the De-partment of National Parks and Wild Life Management(DNPWLM) in a technical and centralized approachwith little or no input from the communities and otherresource users such as the safari operators. Throughthe developed participatory quota setting process, allmajor stakeholders are involved in a facilitated work-shop in which qualitative and quantitative informationis shared, analyzed, and triangulated to develop thequota. The methodology was disseminated through theproduction of a quota setting manual, a quota settingtool-box, training course for facilitators and quota set-ting workshops.

Although DNPWLM was initially reluctant to accept themethodologies, communities have come to understandthe importance of biological sustainability and the im-portance of monitoring key indicators of such as trophy

40

Conference w the Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnabte Use of Biotogicaf Diversity

quality. Lately analyses of recommended and actualquotas has shown a high degree of convergence.

In CAMPFIRE where more than 90% of the financialincentives for CBNRM are earned from sport huntingquota setting is a crucial activity. Through the method-ology for participatory quota setting the degree of pro-prietorship (ownership and control) of communitiesover wildlife has been enhanced. Proving that commu-nities appreciate and can sustainably manage wildlifewithin their area, is an important step towards influ-encing policy for further devolution of legitimate controlof wildlife to the ward level (sub district).

Points form questions and comments:• It was mentioned in the presentation that Partici-

patory Technology Development is a process, ex-pensive and time consuming. Within CAMPFIRE ithas been tried and used by WWF to develop so-cially possible, simple, technically robust and costeffective wildlife management techniques - one ofwhich is Participatory Wildlife Quota Setting. Thisprocess was accomplished by working with se-lected rural communities in the Zambezi Valley ofZimbabwe.

• Quota setting rests on good and reliable data. Par-ticipatory wildlife quota setting involves all keystakeholders and is based on adaptive manage-ment principles. Wildlife population trend informa-tion other than absolute numbers is used in thequota determination process.

Norman Rigava (e-mail : nrigava@wwf.org.zw) andLilian Dimbi (e-mail: Idimbi ©wwf.org.zw)WWF SARPO, 10 Lanark Road, Belgravia, P O BoxCY1409, Causeway, HarareZimbabwe. Phone / Fax: (263-4) 730599

Living Forests, a case study from NorwayBerit San nessThe Norwegian Forest Owners' FederationOslo, Norway

Since 1920 the Norwegian forest volume has doubled.This increase in volume however does not mean thatenough is done to ensure sustainability in Norwegianforestry. In the 1980's the focus was therefore put onmultiple use of forest resources to balance economical,ecological and social interests. The awareness of usingthe biodiversity in the forest in a sustainable way in-creased among several stakeholders including forestowners and government. The Living Forest project is aresult of this awareness.

Living Forests is a broadly based project that ran from1995 to 1998. The main objectives of the project wereto create international confidence in the forest industrybased on sustainable and environmentally friendlyNorwegian forestry. All stakeholders participated in theproject, including forest owners, forest industries, Nor-

wegian Government, trade unions, as well as consum-ers, recreational, women and environmental organisa-tions. Forest owners and forest industries financed halfof the project while the Norwegian government fi-nanced the other half.

In March 1998, the Living Forests project successfullycompleted a consensus among all 13 stakeholders on23 performance level standards for SFM in Norway -the Living Forests Standards. The consensus wasbased on a thorough and comprehensive developmentprocess. The project ran test areas, launched Re-search and development projects and made compre-hensive studies and documents preparing the Norwe-gian SFM Standards. Certification, skill building andcommunication (national and international) were alsoparts of the Living Forests project. The project includedin addition market surveys and studies on the competi-tive climate of wood compared to plastic, aluminium,steel and concrete

Living Forests followed a defined strategy by first con-centrating the work on defining how to manage Norwe-gian forests sustainable, and thereafter addressing thedocumentation issue. A consensus on how to organisecertification in Norway was taken in June 1998. A studyprogramme to implement the Living Forests Standardsfor SFM in Norway was finalised and launched spring1999.See also: http://www.levendeskoQ.no

Points form questions and comments:• Classifying forest into "diverse forest" and

"plantations/monocultures" is important in sustain-able forestry and binding of carbon

• There are no plantations in Norway. Very little ofthe Norwegian forest is, however, untouched byman, i.e. most of the forest is semi-natural andrelatively diverse.

Community approach for the conservation of ZombitseVohibasia in the south of Madagascar: a successfulexample of community management of natural re-sources and a basic strategy of eco-regional conserva-tion approachBernard KotoWWFAntananarivo, Madagascar

The 'Community approach to conservation in the southof Zombitse-Vohibasia' project of Madagascar hastested an original and innovative approach for man-agement of natural resources based upon transfer ofresponsibilities to local populations and on restorationof traditional structures and values. The communitiesconsist of the autochthonous Bara people and mi-grants. The Bara people are naturally involved in forestpreservation that allows them to provide pasture fortheir cattle and to collect what they need (honey, me-dicinal plants etc). The migrants were originally heavily

41

Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainafcle Use of Biotogjcaf Oversity

involved in forest exploitation through slash and burnmaize cropping, charcoal and firewood production.Currently aware of the negative impact of deforesta-tion, they have become active protectors of the forestalongside the Bara people.

By their own initiative they have proceeded to formu-late and execute a village pact (dina). The village pactcomprises several clauses and clearly defines the rulesand modalities of traditional management of naturalresources: prohibition of new land clearing, enforce-ment of sanctions in the event of violation of the pact,development of follow-up of a collective surveillancesystem.

Local communities benefit from informal hands-ontraining and actively participate in a joint managementof natural resources within the project. The projectuses and restores the value of the local type of forestmanagement and actively collaborates with the Barapeople in the establishment and follow-up of a conser-vation system for the Zombitse Vohibasia nationalpark. The project serves as an interface betweencommunities that are able to express their needthrough design and implementation of micro-projects,and partners that represent potential sources of fund-ing.

The outcome is very promising: skilful management ofland clearing and production of charcoal and firewood,operationalisation of surveillance and inspections con-ducted by local communities. The experiences havebeen transferred to two other local communities.

Points form questions and comments:• Mechanisms for resolving conflicts amongst com-

munities are roundtable discussions, bring peopletogether and sit down and discuss the conflict, andeducate about the value of preserving the forest.Respect for local traditions is also important.

• The understanding of local traditions must form thebasis for any local management plan. The localstructure is the starting point, and from this it ispossible to build management structures. This isthe experience that can be transferred to othercountries.

• Multiple users of the area all directly benefit from aliving forest which is utilised in a sustainable way.

Community Participation in Coastal Fisheries Man-agementChandrika SharmaInternational Collective in Support of Fishworkers(ICSF)Chennai, India

It is widely accepted by governments, developmentagencies, NGOs and people's movements alike thatlocal communities should participate, especially in themanagement of coastal fisheries resources. States,

especially in the South, have lacked the resources toput into place effective management systems, and thishas led to the prevalence of de facto open access con-ditions. Moreover, short-sighted State policies andpractice have not been effective in dealing with theproblems of resource degradation, overexploitationand overcapitalisation.

Justifications for community participation in coastalfisheries management have been predicated on eco-nomic, ecological, technological and socio-culturalconsiderations. It has been pointed out that the partici-pation of local communities can be very effective,since they have a long-term stake in the sustainabilityof resources and an in-depth knowledge about theresource base. Besides leading to several ecological,economic and social benefits, community participationcan also result in better compliance with managementregulations and a more equitable sharing of resources.

However, the 'fishing community' should not be re-garded as a homogeneous entity, especially in thepresent context. This recognition is important sinceeffective participation is dependent on the existence ofdemocratic and equitable institutions at the communitylevel. The absence such institutions can rarely lead tomanagement systems that benefit all and that are so-cially and ecologically sustainable in the long term.The representation of those who labour at sea and oftheir families, as well as of men and women fishwork-ers, has be ensured.

At the same time, the extent to which community par-ticipation in the coastal fisheries management is effec-tive will depend on the framework adopted for man-agement of these resources. Whether community-based systems or nested management systems at thelocal, regional or national level under a fisheries co-management framework, are more appropriate, willdepend on the nature of the resource and on the fac-tors that influence it. What framework is appropriate ina particular context is best decided in consultation withlocal communities. It is also important to take accountof traditional rights to access and use these resources(migrant and part-time fishers) while determining theappropriate framework. Denying access to migrant andpart-time fishers to use the resource may only be re-quired when this undermines the management systemadopted.

Greater participation of communities in coastal fisher-ies management can be in the interest of States andseveral initiatives to facilitate and support greater par-ticipation can, and need, to be undertaken by them.This would include providing a legislative basis forcommunity participation as well as providing a condu-cive and support environment for the emergence andsustenance of democratic institutions at the communitylevel.

42

Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainable Use of Biotogksaf Diversity

SESSION 12FOLLOW-UP OF THE CONFERENCEConference chair: Peter Johan Schei

Research needs on sustainable use problemsTor-Bjorn LarssonSwedish Environmental Protection Agency (SNV)Stockholm, Sweden

The Biodiversity challenge to science is to be able toproduce results that, after transformation into a policy-oriented framework can be used to improve actions fora sustainable use of Biodiversity on local, national,regional and global scale. A prerequisite for all appliedscience is the support of basic knowledge and theory.The challenge is threefold, with the following crucialsteps:• To establish a high quality, balanced multidisci-

plinary (involving both social and natural sciences)cooperation between scientists to address thecomplex biodiversity issues. This cooperationshould not only be 'cosmetic', but truly address theproblems of managing biodiversity.

• To transform the scientific results into valid andgenerally applicable information to be used forpolicy-actions.

• To get this information accepted and implementedby policy-makers, sectors and other actors.

The role of the 'ecosystem approach' in internationalfisheries negotiationsChristopher HopkinsICESCopenhagen, Denmark

The 'ecosystem approach' (more or less synonymousto the precautionary principle) contributes to fisheriesmanagement at the national level, i.e., vs. the public,the management structure, and administrative levels.This forms a basis for the bilateral and multilateraldiscussions and negotiations. The transboundary is-sues figure highly in fisheries management.

The political process needs consensus scientific advicewhile also recognizing risk, uncertainty, and the differ-ential weighting of the issues. The practical constitu-ents of the precautionary (or ecosystem) approach infisheries are:• Single species assessments and management

taking into account critical multispecies and envi-ronmental interactions.

• Extension into 'ecosystem approach' involvingpriorities for target species and critical non-targetspecies (e.g., targets and limits; harvest rulesagreed among parties; recovery plans).

Investments in research and development must in-clude making the scientific results operational in anadvisory context.

We have seen a number of regional responses to theglobal issues related to sustainable fisheries, dialogueand interactions between 'fisheries" and"environmental" commissions, and requests for eco-system-related advice from countries and commis-sions.

Science needs to be pragmatic in terms of funding,practicalities and what can be achieved, and they needto maintain credibility among stakeholders.

The role of the 'ecosystem approach' in internationalforestry negotiationsKnut 0istadForestry Department, Ministry of AgricultureOslo, Norway

Forests simultaneously provide a wide range of social,economic, environmental, cultural and spiritual bene-fits and values. While some of these benefits arelargely local, sub-national and national in scope, othersextend beyond the borders of countries to the trans-boundary, regional and global levels.

A number of factors have contributed to the emer-gence of forests as one of the priority issues on theinternational policy and political agendas, including: i)deforestation, ii) degradation of subsistence value, iii)international trade in forest products, iv) environment,v) sovereignty, vi) evolving partnerships, and, vii) in-ternational agreements.

These international legal and non-legal conventionsand agreements can be grouped in three categories: 1)Agreements devoted to forests and sustainable forestmanagement (IPF) 2) Global environmental issueswith a forest-related element (CBD, FCCC) and 3)International trade and sustainable forest management(WTO).

The agreement on Forest Principles and Agenda 21,the consensus reached by the IPF (endorsed by theUN General Assembly in 1997), are considered to bemajor milestones in the current international dialogueon forest policy. However, many complex and politi-cally sensitive issues remain unresolved and the delib-erations continue under the umbrella of the Intergov-ernmental Forum on Forests. The result of these delib-erations is having a profound impact on how we viewour forest heritage and on our approaches towardsforest management.

Intense discussions in various international fora duringthe past years since the Earth Summit, have led to aconsensus on a number of common elements of sus-tainable forest management world-wide, including thefollowing:• Forests and wooded lands should be viewed as

ecosystems and managed for multiple benefits.

43

Morway/UM Conference- on the- Ecosystem Approach For Sustainable Us& of BtotogicaE DworsSty

• Sustainable forest management includes sustainedsocial, economic and cultural benefits as well asenvironmental values and services.

• There is a need to strengthen national and sub-national institutions that address matters related toforests.

This consensus is further developed at regional level(e.g. within he Pan-European process on the Protec-tion of Forests in Europe) where criteria, indicators andguidelines for sustainable forest management wereadopted. In Norway these criteria, indicators andguidelines form the framework for the national criteria,indicators and standards for sustainable forest man-agement recently agreed upon within the programmecalled Living Forests.

Sustainable management of forests is an exceedinglycomplex task, particularly in countries that lack ade-quate scientific, technical and institutional capacity andstrong political commitment. The decision-makers inmany countries face difficult choices and dilemmaslinked to their need to achieve economic development.Attaining sustainable forest management world-wide iscomplex and involves many challenges:• To recognize diversities of priorities, approaches

and capacities.• To learn from our "experiments" with policy and

with nature (adaptive management).• To share our experiences with others, both suc-

cesses and failures.• To understand that political and policy time hori-

zons are not synchronous with forestry and envi-ronmental time-horizons.

• To advocate cross-sectoral policy harmonisation;for example most stresses and negative impactson forests and wooded lands are external to forestsector and originate in other policy areas such asagriculture, energy, transport and mining.

• To maintain forests and wooded lands of the worldin a healthy and productive state in the collectiveinterest of the global community.

The past experience with the international forest policydialogue provides some important insights, includingthe following:• Sustainable forestry is closely related to the level

of economic development in a country.• The ability to protect the forest resource is related

to economic value.• Sustainable forestry is a societal responsibility

involving harmonisation of forest policy with poli-cies of other sectors such as agriculture, energy,trade, environment and tourism.

• Forest policy may serve as an indicator of a coun-try's commitment in that it involves long-term, inmany cases future generations, perspective andplanning horizon, cross-sectoral policy harmonisa-tion and strong political commitment.

• Sustainable forestry is a collective global responsi-bility.

During the past years, intense international, regionaland national deliberations, on forest policy and on ap-proaches to sustainable forest management, haveunderscored the complexity of the task facing policymakers and forest managers.

Together with the concept of 'ecosystem approach', theconcept of sustainability is the core concept in the in-ternational forest policy deliberations. Sustainabilitywithout any conditions attached is a powerfully attrac-tive concept, but will be impossible to achieve in theabsence of consensus on preferences and valuesamongst different interest groups, an additional chal-lenge will come from changes in these preferencesovertime

Points form questions and comments:• Given that the various international forest issues

have such similar agendas the processes shouldbe united into one.

Integrated Ecosystem Assessments: Catalytic Tools forthe Ecosystem ApproachWalter ReidWorld Resources Inst. (WRI)Seattle, WA, USA

Integrated ecosystem assessments provide an impor-tant tool for the 'ecosystem approach' to the sustain-able use of biodiversity. An international steeringcommittee has been established to explore the possi-bility of launching an international ecosystem assess-ment—the 'Millennium Assessment'—to help meet theinformation needs of the international environmentalconventions and as a way to foster the use of ecosys-tem assessment approaches at local and national lev-els.An ecosystem assessment is an analysis of the capac-ity of an ecosystem to provide goods and servicesimportant for human development. It includes bothecological and economic analysis and it considers boththe current state of the ecosystem and its future poten-tial. An ecosystem assessment could be conducted ata single site, for an entire country, or globally. Twofundamental features of an ecosystem assessmentare: i) the assessment is spatially-based, ii) the as-sessment is multi-sectoral.

One of the most significant benefits of an 'ecosystemapproach' to assessment is that it enables explicittreatment of the interlinkages, synergies, and trade-offs among both the factors changing the ecosystemand the impact of ecosystem change on the array ofgoods and services produced by the ecosystem. Bylooking at the entire array of goods and services pro-vided by ecosystems wise decisions can be made thataddress the interlinkages among them. Analysis of

44

these trade-offs among ecosystem goods and serviceswill become more and more important as human so-cieties place ever greater demands on ecosystems forvarious goods and services. Sectoral approachesmade sense when trade-offs among goods and serv-ices were modest or unimportant. But they are insuffi-cient today, when ecosystem management must meetconflicting goals and take into account the interiink-ages among environmental problems. Integrated,multi-sectoral assessments of the condition of ecosys-tems are becoming more and more feasible and theyare likely to become an essential tool for resourcemanagement.

The goal of the proposed 'millennium assessment'(MA) is to improve the management of ecosystemsaround the world by helping to bring the best availableinformation and knowledge about the condition andfuture prospects of ecosystem goods and services tobear on policy and management decisions. The twodefining features of the ma are its substantive focusand its institutional relationships:• The MA substantive focus is an analysis of the

capacity of ecosystems to provide goods andservices important to human development.

• The MA would be structured institutionally so that itwould serve an IPCC-like function where the pri-mary users of its findings, especially the interna-tional environmental conventions, would identifythe information needs to be filled while independ-ent experts would conduct the assessment andpeer review and publish the findings. (The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, isan science body established independently of theFramework Convention on Climate Change thatprovides the FCCC parties with the state-of-the-artscientific information related to climate change.)

The first Assessment, planned to be undertaken be-tween 2000 and 2004 would address:• Current ecosystem extent and condition. What is

the condition and value of ecosystem goods andservices? What is the distribution of various typesof ecosystems and what is the land- or resource-use pattern associated with them?

• Forecasting ecosystem change. What will be theimpact on ecosystem goods and services of vari-ous changes in ecosystems such as increased ni-trogen supply, climate change, biodiversity loss,more abundant invasive species and land usechange?

The Millennium Assessment would emphasize eco-system conditions at the turn of the millennium to pro-vide baseline information for future assessments. Theecosystem assessment would be repeated at 5 to 10year intervals and become a regular part of the activi-ties of the international community. The Assessmentwould not set goals or advocate specific policies orpractices (policy relevant but not policy prescriptive).

It would assess the natural and social science informa-tion underlying various scenarios or policy options, itwould explain the implications of uncertainty for poli-cymaking, but it would not make policy recommenda-tions.

The 'ecosystem approach1 to the sustainable use ofbiodiversity can be fostered by providing decision-makers with better information on the interlinkages andtrade-offs among various ecosystem goods and serv-ices. Ecosystem assessments are a useful means ofobtaining and disseminating that information. An inter-national steering committee is now exploring the utilityof launching an international ecosystem assessmentprocess that could provide the international environ-mental conventions needed information on ecosystemgoods and services while simultaneously fostering theuse of ecosystem assessments at local and nationallevels.

Conclusions and recommendations: concluding re-marks from the Conference chair (see also page 7 and 48)Peter Johan ScheiDirectorate for Nature ManagementTrondheim, Norway

At this third Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity Ihave been encouraged by the way the presentationsand discussions have consolidated and have devel-oped further the Malawi principles on 'Integrated Eco-system Approach'. We have also seen that there arealready a number of examples of practical implemen-tation of this type of balanced and inclusive strategyfor the management biological resources. The 'eco-system approach' has already adopted as the prefer-able implementation approach under the CBD, and thisconference has confirmed that this approach, as out-lined in the Malawi principles, may significantly con-tribute to the achievement of the broad, three-fold ob-jectives of the convention. At the same time, we rec-ognize the need that this approach is further developedby SBSTTA-5 and finally adopted by COP-5 in Nairobinext year.

It is also clear that close cooperation between the sci-entific community and local people/communities paysoff tremendously when implementing this type of ap-proach, and should be taken into account in futuredevelopment and implementation of the CBD. Thesocioeconomic context has to be at the forefront in anyassessment of biodiversity status and trends, and inorder to be able to apply effectively methods and tech-nology. To ensure the concerned and supporting par-ticipation of local stakeholders in implementation of theconvention, 'there must be something in it for them'.

The findings of the Conference are also summed up inthe 'Conclusions and Recommendations'-section onpage 7 which was adopted by consensus and will sentto the secretariat of CBD. In addition to this summary,

45

Norvway/Uft Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Susfainabie Use of BiotogicaE Diversity

there is an appendix on page 48 which sums up thefindings of a working group on 'Problem oriented, case-based suggestions for programs applying the ecosys-tem approach'.

Closing address, Norwegian Minister of InternationalDevelopment and Human RightsHilde Frafjord Johnsen

In her closing statement, Hilde Frafjord Johnsen ad-dressed the following issues:

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity arefundamental to fostering viable, long-term develop-ment. Conserving biodiversity is not just a matter ofprotecting wildlife in nature reserves. It is a matter ofsafeguarding the natural life-support systems on Earth- purifying the waters, recycling oxygen and carbon,maintaining the fertility of the soil.

At the threshold of a new millennium, the continuingloss of biodiversity is a telling measure of the imbal-ance between human needs and wants and nature'scapacity to supply them. The more we learn about thefunctioning of nature, the more clearly we see the lim-its to the disruption that the natural environment canendure.

More ecologically based management systems offer away of balancing short-term human interests and long-term ecological considerations. The Malawi principles,adopted by the parties to the Biodiversity Convention,provide a very useful framework for a holistic, inte-grated approach to conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity. But the knowledge base of this ap-proach needs to be further developed.

In so doing, due respect must be paid to the fact thatthe major part - perhaps as much as 90 per cent - ofthe world's biodiversity and genetic material is to befound in developing countries. Thus the policy choicesmade in developing countries, and the action takenthere, are decisive for preserving biodiversity. This inturn means that development cooperation - a means ofinfluencing these choices - plays a key role.

Against this background, I would like to highlight a fewof the issues discussed in the last few days, issueswhich I consider to be of fundamental importance.They are:

• the importance of attitudes and values,• the need for effective institutions,• the call for equitable sharing of benefits,• the necessity of international cooperation, and• the imperative of national implementation.

First, the role of attitudes and values. As a rule, whatwe do not value we do not protect. Unless we fullyappreciate how important the ecosystems are for thequality of our lives - and, in some cases, for our ability

to maintain life at all - we are unlikely to make many ofthe hard choices and decisions needed to protectthem. Societies must choose between alternative usesof the natural environment. Should a given wetland bepreserved, or should the land be drained and con-verted to agricultural use? Should a particular forest bemaintained in its current state, or should it be openedfor logging? Should a park be maintained or convertedto a parking lot? These are difficult questions. The waythey are answered is of critical importance for the sur-vival of species in the habitat involved, and for thefunctioning of the complex ecosystems of which theyare a part - and we all are a part.

To make rational choices, we need to know both whichecosystem goods and services are provided by theenvironment and what those services are worth to us.The first item lies in the realm of fact, the second in therealm of value. Whenever we choose between alterna-tive uses of the natural environment, we indicate, atleast implicitly, which alternative is worth more to us.

Second, there is the need for effective institutions atthe international, national and local levels, that is:institutions that can cope with existing and future chal-lenges. Implementing the 'ecosystem approach' willrequire extensive changes in the way we manage ournatural resources and ecosystems nationally. Conser-vation and sustainable use of biodiversity must be-come an integral part of social and economic devel-opment. It must be mainstreamed into all sectoral andcross-sectoral policies, programs and projects, wher-ever it is relevant. This will require much closer coop-eration and coordination than is usual in the traditionalsectoral approach to management of natural re-sources. Cooperation, coordination and coherent poli-cies must be ensured at all levels, from local authori-ties through ministries and research institutions to in-ternational organizations.

Successful conservation and sustainable use of biodi-versity depends on knowledge, resources and activeparticipation by all the relevant stakeholders. This canonly be achieved through transparent and democraticinstitutions that encourage participation in policy de-velopment, planning and implementation. Locally,nationally and internationally. And unless developingcountries are fuliy integrated into our common efforts,our work will be largely futile.

Third, the fair and equitable sharing of the benefitswe obtain from biodiversity is, in the context of theCBD, particularly related to genetic resources and re-lations between countries. On the global scale, certaingroups of people are now living at the expense of oth-ers. This is readily apparent in the disruption and over-exploitation of the world's open-access resources andwaste sinks. In many cases, allocation of land andwater for different activities involves zero sum games.But ecosystem approaches and multiple-use manage-

46

ment can also result in win-win situations - improve-ments in both living conditions and the environment.Hopefully, this conference has broadened our knowl-edge base in this respect.

From my vantage point, the 'North-South' aspects ofsustainable development and biodiversity conservationare crucially important. In my view, much more atten-tion should be paid to the issue of technology transferto developing countries. Fair and equitable sharing ofbenefits related to the use of genetic resources origi-nating in developing countries represents another for-midable challenge. We need to establish appropriatemechanisms to this end.

Fourth, continued international cooperation is es-sential in order to make the Biodiversity Convention aneffective management regime. The practical and fullimplementation of the Convention requires furtherdevelopment of principles and guidelines. Moreover,and very importantly, its objectives and principles needto be integrated into the work of other internationalorganizations and processes, wherever relevant. Wemust make sure that our policies are coherent and thatour various efforts are coordinated, whether we areworking through the UN system, the multilateral finan-cial institutions, the WTO, NGOs or the private sector.

With regard to patents, the Norwegian Government'sposition is that the member states should maintain theright to exclude plants and animals from patentability.For us, this is an important principle in its own right.Given the geographical distribution of genetic material,sticking to this principle is also a matter of protectingthe interests of developing countries. Moreover, inorder to secure agro-biodiversity and food security, theaccess to genetic material should be as open as possi-ble.

Fifth, the achievements the objectives of the Biodiver-sity Convention will ultimately depend on what we doat the national level. National development plansmust take account of the value of biodiversity goodsand services, and policies that lead to depletion mustbe corrected. Some years ago, the Norwegian Gov-ernment adopted a truly multisectoral strategy for im-plementing the Biodiversity Convention. We are cur-rently in the process of reviewing this strategy, andpreparing a more detailed national biodiversity actionplan. This will include specific action plans for all therelevant ministries, including my own - the Ministry ofForeign Affairs.

One of the main objectives of Norwegian develop-ment cooperation is to contribute to conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity. I have already givenyou one good reason why: this is matter of long-termglobal life-support. Moreover, poor people will alwayssuffer the most and be the first to be adversely af-fected by environmental degradation.

Preserving biodiversity ultimately remains a nationalresponsibility - not a donor responsibility. But in reallife, many developing countries need a helping hand,in this field as in others. To help preserve biodiversityin developing countries, Norway's development assis-tance is heavily focused on capacity building. We sup-port systems of information management, so thatplanning and management can be based on adequate,up-to-date knowledge. We stress the importance of aprecautionary approach to the management and har-vesting of biological resources. We support the activeparticipation of developing countries in global efforts tomanage biodiversity. We focus more on the sustain-able use of natural resources than on traditional con-servation.

Our dream for tomorrow is not merely to save the bareessentials of our planet, but to perpetuate its atmos-phere, climate, landscapes, and diversity of life formsin a way that allows human life to prosper. As early asin 1910, Theodore Roosevelt put it like this: 'The Na-tion behaves well if it treats the natural resources asassets which it must turn over to the next generationincreased, and not impaired, in value'. Almost 90 yearslater, in the era of globalization, this challenge is aheavy weight upon our shoulders. It requires us to pre-serve natural systems that are rich and healthy enoughto continue to support human welfare and economicactivity, not only for the next decade, but for the nextcentury and beyond. And only through science-based,sustainable use of natural resources can we safeguardthe interests of future generations.

47

Noway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approach For Sustainabte Use- of Biotogksaf Diversity

ANNEX I

WORKING GROUP ON SESSION 6 - CASCADING EFFECTS OF RESOURCE EXPLOITATIONON ECOSYSTEMS AND SESSION 7 - ECOSYSTEM APPROACH IN MARINE RESOURCE:PROBLEM ORIENTED, CASE BASED SUGGESTIONS FOR PROGRAMMES APPLYING THEECOSYSTEM APPROACH

1. Building from, but also moving beyond the Malawi Principles, there should be a programme of work to in-tegrate 'ecosystem approaches' into everyday management. Everyday management is done by peoplewho work at many scales, from individual fishers, farmers, or forest harvesters through communities,NGOs, district governments, nations, private corporations, large eco-regions, and global organizations.There are already significant cases of success that will provide major input into the programme.

Everyday management works every day. It does not stop and wait for advice. The programme on the'ecosystem approach', to be practical, should be opportunistic. It should offer advice, point out, or pushinto particular problems whenever it can help. This entry point could arise during any of the planning,monitoring, impact evaluating, resource allocating, or negotiating processes tied to a particular problem.The programme should develop and use:

• concrete cases,• lessons learned, and• guidelines

to assist everyday managers. [It could be named the Practical Ecosystem Approach Programme orPEAP.]

The programme should select problem entry points carefully. Managers should immediately see thebenefits of using the approach to understand ecosystems and make better decisions.

2. To assist managers better, and to promote the 'ecosystem approach' by wider and wider ownership ofshared concepts, the programme should define an "ecosystem" firstly by its trophic structures, flows, pro-cesses, and functions. This starting definition will focus the power of the approach by enabling managersat any scale to see new things about their problem, make clearer decisions, and choose better solutions.

Most ecosystem functions related to a problem are performed by a relatively small number of functionalgroups (or guilds) of species. Small means: on the order of ten rather than 100 or 1000. Managers fromone field up through policy makers can analyze their problem in terms of ten (or fewer) functional groupsand learn to apply the 'ecosystem approach' by themselves.

Cases:• Coastal invertebrates in Chile• Coral fish nurseries and choking algae in Caribbean islands• Soil-building fungi and invertebrates in Brasilian conservation tillage systems• Arthropods in Asian irrigated rice fields• Savannas in Southern - Eastern Africa

3. The programme should prioritise action that supports managers in local communities. These communitiesare usually small (<1000 people). They have direct experience with and direct access to the functionalgroups of the ecosystem they will analyse when applying their own 'ecosystem approach'. These commu-nities should usually act with mutually benefiting partners like, local government units, committed aca-demics, neighbouring communities or NGOs. The programme should encourage local scientists and de-velopers of technology in the communities to emerge, obtain new knowledge and act.

The programme should promote scaling up to regional and national levels led by these local communities,and based on their successes. Problem-specific partnerships can be the organic starting point for commu-

48

Morvmy/Ufl Conference on the- Ecosystem Approach For Sustatnable Us© of Biological Diversity

nities to build regional, national, and international alliances and movements applying the 'ecosystem ap-proach'.

Cases:• Caletas in communities of fishers in coastal Chile• Partnerships of coastal communities with NGOs near coral reef fisheries in Philippines and Ja-

maica |• Pastoralists in Southern - Eastern Africa• Rice-growing communities in Asia• Organic cotton- farming cooperatives in West Africa• Organic farming communities in the Himalayan foothills

4. One group of examples of applying an 'ecosystem approach' demonstrates the opportunities offered byconsumer - producer alliances. Consumers buy selectively and support producers (and distributors) thatconserve ecosystem functions in their production practices and supply chains.

Cases:• Large scale forest management in Sweden based on ecosystem approaches certified by the For-

est Stewardship Council• WWF-Unilever initiated Marine Stewardship Council certified responsible fisheries• Sainsbury's (UK) eco-labelling responding to consumer pressure for IP (integrated production ) or

organically produced foods from a number of suppliers in many countries• Campbell's Soup 95% pesticide reduced production rules for intensive vegetable growing in Mex-

ico and the USA• Chocolate industry associations in Europe and North America supporting small scale sustainable

production of cacao in West Africa and South America

5. 'Ecosystem approaches' help policy reforms at local, national, and eco-regional levels. These reforms in-clude identifying and eliminating perverse subsidies, providing ecosystem-conserving incentives, re-allocating funds or other resources to empower local communities, or decisive national and internationalmeasure for rehabilitation of collapsed ecosystem functions.

Cases:• Identifying ecosystem function-disrupting subsidies for:

• reforestation with alien species• high tech, species or geographic range expanding, yield increasing fishing vessels and

gear;• remote sensing of fish stocks;• agricultural pesticides in grant aid packages;

• moratoria and strict enforcement of the precautionary approach to rehabilitate collapsed fishstocks in Northeast and Northwest Atlantic [e.g. Canada and Norway ]

• orohibition on use of P. contorta in Swedish forestry;• local set aside areas for "loco" shellfish in Chile• removing national and local pesticide subsidies to rehabilitate multispecies populations of arthro-

pod predators in agricultural ecosystems in Asia and Africa• local farmers campaigns leading to re-scheduled irrigation water delivery by national agencies for

insect pest control in Java, Indonesia

49

3»;

AWSt4