Source:: Top 10 Myths Concerning Ecosystem Approaches to Ocean Resource
Management
Steven A. Murawski
2006年6月12日 第7回「海と海洋法条約に関する非公式協議」におけるSteve Marawski博士 (NOAA）の講演要旨より
神話１ 海洋資源管理における生態系の取組みは定義が不明確であり、それをどのように実施するか不明である。
実話１ 管理における生態系の取組みはその目的と特徴の両面において十分に定義されている
神話２ 生態系の取組みには管理体制と科学的支援の双方においてパラダイム転換が必要である
Reality #2: Many (if not all) marine resource management institutions throughout
the world have adopted some or most of the EAM characteristics outlined
in the answer to #1, as these institutions have evolved.
神話３ 生態系の取組みのよき実践例は世界中どこの海にもない
Reality #3: There are many compelling examples at the local, regional,
and international levels where EAM principles have successfully been implemented
as a basis for living resource management.
神話４ 生態系の取組みに必要な生態系の諸問題に答えるための情報はどの海域でも不十分である。
Reality #4: As a comprehensive framework, EAM is supported by relevant
biological, oceanographic, economic and social information appropriate
to the problem set being managed.
神話５ 生態系の取組みの考え方は国家間で適用するにはあまりに難しく、技術と予算が工面できる少数の国でしか適用できない。
Reality #5: Regional EAM programs are being implemented in a large and
diverse set of the world's large marine ecosystems (LMEs).
神話６ 生態系的取組みを実施するためのよき原理と指針は存在しない
Reality #6: Principles and guidelines for the development of EAM have been
articulated by a diverse set of sectoral interests both in terrestrial
settings and for coastal and oceanic environments. For example, IUCN has
developed 12 principles of EAM: http://www.iucn.org/themes/cem/documents/ecosapproach/cbd_ecosystem_approach_engl.pdf.
神話７ 生態系管理の諸目的を達成したかどうかを判定できるような管理の基準と指標は存在しない
Reality #7: While it is rather straightforward to establish management
benchmarks for individual species for conservation and utilization purposes
(e.g., population size thresholds and maximum removal rates), indices of
ecosystem health and maintenance are more complicated.
神話８ 生態系の取組みには生態系の全構成要素の種間相互作用を考慮した複雑なモデルが必要である
Reality #8: Simple models of ecosystem function (including basic food webs)
are helpful to guide the establishment of plausible subsets of potential
outcomes, particularly in an adaptive management scenario, where provisional
management policies are considered “experiments” for the purposes of gathering
additional information.
神話９ 生態系の取組みを定義するために必要な系の地理的境界を決めることは不可能である
Reality #9: As noted in #1 above, an ecosystem is defined as a geographically
specific collection of animals, plants, and supporting environmental processes.
神話10 海洋保護区は生態系の取組みの本質的な要素である
実話10 生態系の取組みは海洋保護区の同義語ではない。資源管理を成功させるために海洋保護区の設置は必須ではない。
Myth #1: Ecosystem approaches to ocean resource management are not well
defined and we do not know how to implement them.
Reality #1: Ecosystem approaches to management have been extensively defined
both in terms of their purpose and characteristics.
Myth #2: EAM requires a “paradigm shift” in management institutions and
science support.
Reality #2: Many (if not all) marine resource management institutions throughout
the world have adopted some or most of the EAM characteristics outlined
in the answer to #1, as these institutions have evolved.
Myth #3: There are no good examples of EAM in practice anywhere in the
world's oceans.
Reality #3: There are many compelling examples at the local, regional,
and international levels where EAM principles have successfully been implemented
as a basis for living resource management.
Myth #4: There is insufficient information for any area currently available
to answer all the ecosystem questions necessary for EAM.
Reality #4: Reality: As a comprehensive framework, EAM is supported by
relevant biological, oceanographic, economic and social information appropriate
to the problem set being managed.
Myth #5: EAM is too difficult a concept to apply in multinational RMOs,
and EAM can only apply to a few developed countries in the world that have
the technical and financial resources to support it.
Reality #5: Regional EAM programs are being implemented in a large and
diverse set of the world's large marine ecosystems (LMEs).
Myth #6: There are no good sets of principles or guidelines for implementing
EAM.
Reality #6: Principles and guidelines for the development of EAM have been
articulated by a diverse set of sectoral interests both in terrestrial
settings and for coastal and oceanic environments. For example, IUCN has
developed 12 principles of EAM: http://www.iucn.org/themes/cem/documents/ecosapproach/cbd_ecosystem_approach_engl.pdf.
Myth #7: There are no appropriate management benchmarks and associated
indicators of “success” in achieving ecosystem objectives.
Reality #7: While it is rather straightforward to establish management
benchmarks for individual species for conservation and utilization purposes
(e.g., population size thresholds and maximum removal rates), indices of
ecosystem health and maintenance are more complicated.
Myth #8: A complex model of species interactions among all components of
an ecosystem is necessary to guide EAM.
Reality #8: Simple models of ecosystem function (including basic food webs)
are helpful to guide the establishment of plausible subsets of potential
outcomes, particularly in an adaptive management scenario, where provisional
management policies are considered “experiments” for the purposes of gathering
additional information.
Myth #9: It is impossible to establish the boundaries necessary to define
EAM.
Reality #9: As noted in #1 above, an ecosystem is defined as a geographically
specific collection of animals, plants, and supporting environmental processes.
Myth #10: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are an essential component of EAM.
Reality #10: An EAM is not synonymous with MPAs, and thus one does not
have to implement MPAs in order to be successfully managing resources using
EAM.