Governance characteristics of large marine ecosystems
Introduction
Large marine ecosystems (LMEs) have been defined as relatively large regions of coastal oceans on the order of 200,000 km2 or greater, characterized by distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically dependent populations [1]. Over the past 25 years the LME concept has been used to investigate the problems affecting the world's coastal marine ecosystems, and has had a global impact on how initiatives to address these problems are defined, developed, and funded. The concept has focused attention worldwide on the need to address marine ecosystem issues at a geographical scale that is appropriate to major marine biophysical processes. Attention to LME processes has generated numerous books and articles [e.g., [2], [3]]. The LME concept has provided a rallying point for countries to cooperate in dealing with problems relating to the utilization of transboundary resources. This is supported financially by international funding mechanisms such as the Global Environment Fund (GEF). The 64 LMEs have been proposed as ecologically rational units of ocean space in which ecosystem-based management can be applied (Fig. 1).
This attention to LMEs has been underlain by the LME approach, which is based on 5 modules: productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem health, socioeconomics, and governance [4], [5], [6], [7]. As usually presented, these modules provide a framework for an indicator-based approach to assessing and monitoring LMEs. As pointed out by Sherman et al. [7], some modules have received more attention in both their conceptualization and practical implementation than others, with the socioeconomics and governance module being the least well developed [8].
In pursuing development of the socioeconomic and governance aspects of the LME approach [9], [10], [11] a variety of issues have emerged regarding the way that governance is treated. In particular, there has been the question of how scale issues will be treated. In most LMEs, there is the need for governance arrangements to function across multiple scales (e.g. spatial and jurisdictional) and levels within from local through national to subregional and regional, with links to the global level [12]. There is also the question of whether governance should be partitioned out into a separate module or should be overarching and integrated into each sectoral module [13]. Fanning et al. [12] noted that while the modular approach might be useful as an indicator-based evaluation framework, it provides little guidance on designing interventions for improving governance institutions and processes.
In developing a governance-based LME project for the Caribbean, the above shortcomings in the 5-module approach as currently formulated, led to the proposal and adoption of the LME Governance Framework as a basis for effective interventions at the LME level in the Caribbean [12]. Many of the difficulties encountered in attempting to apply the LME modular approach to the Caribbean LME stem from the geopolitical complexity of the Wider Caribbean Region. In developing the Caribbean LME Project and the Large Marine Ecosystem Governance Framework, approaches in other regions of the world were examined and it became apparent that there is a wide variation in the geopolitical complexity of the 64 LMEs. This led us to pose the following questions:
- •
Do the LMEs vary widely enough in geopolitical complexity that different approaches to governance may be required for different LMEs?
- •
Are there groups of LMEs within which one might take similar approaches to governance?
This study explores the extent to which the 64 LMEs of the world differ in terms of variables that would be expected to reflect geopolitical diversity and complexity and ultimately, governability. It explores the possibility that there are groupings of LMEs among which different governance approaches or models may be required but within which similar governance approaches may be taken. It is within these groupings of LMEs that exchanges of information on experiences (networking) would be most valuable. Conversely, one would expect that transferability of governance experiences might be least likely between highly different clusters.
Section snippets
Methods
All 64 LMEs were included in the analysis (Fig. 1). An LME database was assembled containing the information shown in Table 1, where explanations are provided for the way in which the variables selected might be expected to reflect geopolitical complexity. These variables include geophysical, biological, socioeconomic, and governance descriptor variables of the LMEs. It should be noted that LME boundaries do not correspond to country boundaries. Consequently, assembling information at the LME
Input variables
Distributions of some of the key variables are shown in Fig. 2. These examples illustrate the level of heterogeneity among the LMEs. Clearly, this is a very preliminary analysis based on available information. Some of the indicators used could be refined, such as population living near the coast or in watersheds draining into the LME. The incidence of urban aggregations would also seem to be relevant as these present both challenges in terms of impacts on oceans, as well as opportunities as
Conclusions
This analysis has demonstrated that there is considerable heterogeneity among LMEs with regard to characteristics that would be expected to affect governability. It is therefore likely that a diversity of governance approaches will be required in order to cope with this heterogeneity. It also appears that LMEs can be grouped according to these characteristics. This suggests that different approaches could be considered for clusters rather than for individual LMEs and that there can be sharing
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Nippon Foundation, Japan, for its support of this work through the PROGOVNET Project and the International Development Research Center (IDRC), Canada for its support through the MarGov Project. Thanks also to Mr. Christopher Damon of the Environmental Data Center, University of Rhode Island for assistance with the LME graphics.
References (38)
- et al.
A new imperative for improving management of large marine ecosystems
Ocean and Coastal Management
(2002) - et al.
Accounting for marine economic activities in large marine ecosystems
Ocean and Coastal Management
(2008) - et al.
A large marine ecosystem governance framework
Marine Policy
(2007) - et al.
Governing fisheries as complex adaptive systems
Marine Policy
(2008) - et al.
The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference?
Global Environmental Change
(2009) Limits of governability: institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance
Marine Policy
(2007)Sustainability, biomass yields, and health of coastal ecosystems: an ecological perspective
Marine Ecology-Progress Series
(1994)Modular approach to the monitoring and assessment of large marine ecosystems