This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Marine Policy 33 (2009) 801–806

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Marine ecosystem-based management in the Southern Cone of South

America: Stakeholder perceptions and lessons for implementation
Stefan Gelcich a, Omar Defeo b, Oscar Iribarne c, Graciano Del Carpio d, Random DuBois e,
Sebastian Horta b, Juan Pablo Isacch c, Natalio Godoy a, Pastor Coayla Peñaloza d, Juan Carlos Castilla a,
a
Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ecologı́a y Biodiversidad, Departamento de Ecologı́a (CASEB), Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile,
Casilla 114-D, Santiago, Chile.
b
UNDECIMAR, Facultad de Ciencias, Iguá 4225, 11400 Montevideo, Uruguay
c
Laboratorio de Ecologı́a, Departamento de Biologı́a, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales,
Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Argentina and Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina
d
Universidad Nacional de San Agustı́n de Arequipa, Perú
e
Investment Center, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Ecosystem-based management (EBM) has recently received considerable attention. However, examples
Received 3 February 2009 of empirical approaches to marine EBM are scarce. Therefore, empirical information on the presence of
Received in revised form EBM elements within existing policies and the way they may provide settings and lessons for EBM
2 March 2009
implementation is timely. This study analyses stakeholders’ perceptions on the existence of EBM
Accepted 3 March 2009
principles in current marine management practices and policies, and how they determine perceptions
for success and satisfaction regarding coastal management within selected case studies drawn from four
Keywords: developing countries in the Southern Cone of South America. Patterns of response across study sites
Human dimensions show that although EBM principles as such are not explicitly included in management/conservation
Marine conservation
plans, there are policies (mainly local), which generate conditions for more explicit inclusion of them.
Attitudes
These are based on participatory bottom-up planning, place-based management and consensus
Management
Place-based management reaching: all elements included within the theoretical literature on EBM implementation.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Ecosystem-based management (EBM, sensu [1]) is an inte-
grated approach that looks at all links among living and non-living
resources, involving the management of species, other natural
commodities/services, and humans [2] as components of the
ecosystem. EBM also includes the interactions among ecosystem
components and the cumulative impacts of multiple activities,
promoting conservation and sustainable use of resources [3].
Thus, it is not surprising that there has been a constant call for
EBM implementation, which has become a challenge worldwide
[4]. Theoretical insights and guidelines for EBM implementation
have mainly come from developed countries (e.g. [5]). However,
examples of empirical approaches to EBM in marine environ-
ments are still scarce [6,7]. Thus, the main debate surrounding
EBM focuses on its implementation and on the difficulty in
decision-making regarding entire ecosystems, inter-agency juri-
sdictional challenges, the complexities and cost effectiveness of
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jcastilla@bio.puc.cl (J. Carlos Castilla).
new, management schemes [8,9], and the role of top-down and
bottom-up governance approaches [10]. In this sense, the need
for empirical information on the presence of EBM elements/
principles in existing policies and the way they may provide
settings and lessons to further install, improve and adapt EBM
implementation is timely. Pitcher et al. (2009) [11] reviewed and
scored fisheries policies from 33 countries regarding the existence
of EBM attributes, using percentage performance ratings. Overall
scores show that only two countries get a ‘‘good’’ (470%),
performance and about half (16 countries) receive a fail grade of
40% or less (also see [12]). However, the analysis is based on
reviews and experts scores of fisheries policies and contains no
empirical evidence of EBM elements at local scales. Paradoxically,
these scales are the ones at which stakeholders are most
intimately linked to ecosystems and where lessons from successes
or failures on the implementation of EBM elements could be
drawn [1,13].
Coastal environments in the Southern Cone of South America
(SCSA) provide an opportunity to look into the existence of EBM
elements within existing national policies at local scales. Here,
existing policies and/or conservation/management initiatives may
incorporate EBM principles without these being proposed from

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.03.002
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
802 S. Gelcich et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 801–806
the offset, providing important lessons on factors which can
incentive or hinder EBM governance of coastal ecosystems. This
study analyses stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the existence
of 12 EBM principles developed as guidelines by the Convention of
Biodiversity (1992: Table 1). It also explores how perceptions of
EBM elements determine stakeholders’ perceptions of success and
satisfaction regarding coastal management within local case
studies drawn from Chile, Peru, Uruguay and Argentina. Case
studies represent different ecological, socioeconomic, cultural and
political settings and encompass a variety of resources, ecosystem
services and marine management strategies (see research
settings, Table 1 and tables available from authors). However, a
common feature shared by them is that they encompass existing
management measures which appear to contain elements of EBM.
2. Research settings
2.1. Pacific
The Chilean Ancud Municipality Coastal Zone: The coastal zone of
the Municipality of Ancud (411460 –42130 S; 74130 –731250 W), is
located in the north of the Island of Chiloé (ca. 1752 km2). Spatial
boundaries are defined by state statute (Table 2). Fishery
management is regulated by the 1991 Fisheries and Aquaculture
Law (N1 18.892, FAL [14]). FAL defines extractive quotas for fully
exploited pelagic target species and total allowable catches (TAC)
in management and exploitation areas for benthic resources
(MEABRs). MEABRs grant territorial user rights (TURFs) to
associations of artisanal fishers as a way of delegating
management responsibility [15]. Monitoring of TAC is done
through direct stock assessments by consultants in partnership
Table 1
EBM principles developed by the Convention of Biological Diversity [27].
Principle Definition
1 The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a
matter of societal choices (Social choices). (1,2,3)
2 Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level
(Decentralization). (1,2,3,4)
3 Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of
their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems (Adjacent effects).
(1,2,3,4)
4 Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need
to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context
(Economic context). (1,2)
5 Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to
maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the
ecosystem approach (Conservation of functioning). (1,2,3,4)
6 Ecosystem must be managed within the limits of their functioning
(Appropriate limits). (1,2,3,4)
7 The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate
spatial and temporal scales (Appropriate scale). (1,2,3,4)
8 Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that
characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem
management should be set for the long term (Long term). (1,2,3,4)
9 Management must recognize the change is inevitable (inevitable
change). (1,2,3,4)
10 The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between,
and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity (Balance
use/ conservation). (1,2,3,4)
11 The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant
information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge,
innovations and practices (All relevant information). (1,2,3,4)
12 The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society
and scientific disciplines (Multidisciplinary). (1,2,3,4)
Numbers represent other studies where these principles have been considered as
basic EBM elements: (1): Grumble 1994; (2) Arkema et al. 2006; (3) Ruckelshaus et
al. 2008; (4) Ward et al. 2002. Terms in parenthesis represent a short hand
statement for the principle.
with artisan fishers and reported to fishery authorities. At Ancud
there is also monitoring of coastal water quality (National
Environmental Law), which regulates pollutant emissions. Based
on the Chilean Municipality legislation (LOCM, D.S. 18695, 1988),
governance schemes in municipal coastal zones are
straightforward: every municipality in the country (345) must
establish a four-year planning and management instrument
known as PLADECO (‘‘Plan de Desarrollo Comunal’’), including
land use patterns and resource management regulations to
achieve their sustainability/conservation. Each PLADECO is
subjected to periodic evaluations (Table 2) and its construction
is based on a participatory process in which the Municipality
Mayor acts as a facilitator, and where public services, influencing
the municipality terrestrial and marine territories, must agree
upon via a consensus policy.
The Peruvian Islay Province Coastal Zone: The coastal zone of the
Province of Islay (161530 –171110 S; 711510 –721170 W), in the south
western part of Arequipa region extends along ca 59.62 km of the
coast (ca. 1579 km2). Spatial boundaries are defined by state
statute by which Peru is divided into provinces (Table 2). Within
these boundaries three ecosystems are found: rocky shores, sandy
beaches and a coastal wetland. Fishery management/conservation
objectives are based on TAC for target species under the Fishing
Law (Ley General de Pesca D.L. 25977–1992). The National
Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA) regulates a RAMSAR
wetland sanctuary that has a five-year management plan. There is
little monitoring of bio-physical attributes in the area. Governance
is complex (nine institutions). However, a ten-year strategic plan
for local economic development is in place since 2004 (‘‘Plan
Estratégico de Desarollo Concertado Islay’’ PEDECI), attempting to
become an umbrella-like instrument for dialog between different
management/conservation sectors. Clear management objectives
are defined only for the RAMSAR site. Marine management has
been shifting from top-down to bottom-up processes and is
guided by the Ministry of Production.
2.2. Atlantic
The Argentinean San Matias Gulf: Within San Matias Gulf (SMG:
401470 –421130 S; 621500 –631480 W), in the Northern Atlantic
Patagonia (ca. 19,700 km2) spatial boundaries are defined by bio-
physical criteria (Table 2). Fishery management objectives are
based on TAC for target species under the Fishing Law (N1 1960,
Rio Negro Province: RNP). The RNP also governs marine
conservation through spatially explicit regulations (i.e. no-take
marine reserves). There is monitoring of bio-physical attributes by
a fishery scientific institution. Governance is complex (ca. 10
institutions), although the 2005 land development plan (‘‘Plan
Director de Ordenamiento Territorial’’), regulate urban and rural
development. Sewage treatment plans, heavy metal wastes and
urbanization in protected areas are the main drivers in coastal
management. Provincial legislation also regulates protected areas
and conservation of sea mammals.
The Andreoni Canal in the Uruguayan Bañados del Este Biosphere
Reserve: This reserve (12,500 km2) and the contiguous coastal
fringe is characterized by wetlands and coastal lagoons and is a
RAMSAR site since 1984 (331000 –341350 S; 531170 –541230 W). A
system of canals (Andreoni Canal; finalized 1981) was built to
drain wetlands and increase the surface available for agriculture.
The Canal discharges freshwater in the Atlantic Ocean, on Barra
del Chuy beach. This ecosystem (4276 km2) has well-defined
biophysical boundaries. In response to unplanned land use
fostering environmental impacts (hydrological modifications,
eutrophication, desiccation of littoral wetlands), a comprehensive
Land and Water Use Plan for the area was developed in 1992. The
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Gelcich et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 801–806
Table 2
Summary of ecosystem and management attributes for each study case (see text).
Attributes Chile Argentina
Ecosystem type involved  Rocky coast  Gulf
 Bay
 Estuary
Definition of spatial boundaries State statute Hydrographical biophysical
Sectorial governance ca. 7 Institutions ca. 10 Institutions participating
participating
Governance instrument with EBM potential PLADECO+FAL (see text) Land development Plan+RNP
(see text)
EBM explicitly included in management No No
Participatory planning processes Yes Yes
Monitoring of ecosystems in place Yes Yes
Public validation of management and Yes No
conservation plan
Fishery management objectives TAC, TURFs TAC
plan was supported by a consortium of public and private
institutions (‘‘Sustainable Development and Biodiversity Conser-
vation Program of the Bañados del Este’’) [16], created by a Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) initiative. A Management Plan
directed to establish the zoning of the Biosphere Reserve was
delineated, including the area of influence of the Andreoni Canal
proposed as a ‘‘Focal Management Area’’. The term ‘‘Ecosystem
Management’’ is explicitly included in the plan (Table 2).
3. Methods
Research occurred simultaneously in the four countries
between August and December 2007. To determine stakeholders’
perceptions regarding the existence of EBM principles in regula-
tory practices, a two-stage approach was followed: (1) qualitative
data was collected through group meetings with different
stakeholder groups and key-informants; (2) based on qualitative
information, a questionnaire with semi-structured questions and
closed Likert type statements (anchor points 1=Strongly disagree;
5=Strongly agree) was standardized for the four countries. The
questionnaire included: (a) two statements regarding each one of
the 12 EBM principles (see Table 1); (b) five statements regarding
conservation and management success; (c) three questions in
which stakeholders marked their level of satisfaction with coastal
management within their ecosystem. Stakeholder groups
included artisan fishers, rural producers, tourism operators,
academics and authorities. A total of 295 questionnaires adminis-
tered in a face-to-face manner were completed.
Perceptions regarding EBM Principles implementation: Intervie-
wees perceptions regarding the presence of EBM principles were
calculated by adding the responses of each statement (Likert
scores), which relate to a determined principle. This was done
after reverse coding some of the questions. As a result of reverse
coding, a high value meant that a given EBM principle was
perceived to be in place at the study site. For each case study,
differences between stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the
presence of EBM principles and the ‘‘neither agree nor disagree’’
perception were tested using t tests or Mann-Whitney tests.
Perceptions of success and satisfaction regarding coastal manage-
ment and conservation: Interviewee’s perceptions regarding the
success of coastal management and conservation measures were
calculated by adding the responses of each of the five statements
803
Peru Uruguay
 Rocky coast  Watershed
 Sandy coast
State statute Hydrographical, administrative,
geographic
ca.12 Institutions several Institutions participating
participating
PEDECI (see text) PROBIDES (see text)
No Yes
Yes No
No Yes
No Yes
TAC TAC, closures
(Likert scores) related to this topic. Then, responses were averaged
by stakeholder group. Levels of satisfaction were averaged for
each stakeholder group.
EBM principles that determine management success and
satisfaction: The relationship between the presence of EBM
principles and the degree of satisfaction and success that
stakeholders have regarding management and conservation of
the coastal environments they, depend on was assessed through
backward multiple regression analysis. To this end, were tested
EBM principles was selected for multicollinearity (at each
country) and, when variables exhibited correlation coefficients
40.55, only one was selected, based on knowledge of the study
sites (Table 2).
4. Results
Perceptions regarding EBM principles implementation: In the
Chilean case, authorities perceived 11 principles as part of
regulatory practices, whereas conservation practitioners per-
ceived no principle to be included and six principles to be
significantly absent (Table 3). Fishers perceived that three
principles were present and two were absent and had no
significant perception for the rest. In Peru, academics perceived
the greater number of principles (six) to be part of coastal
management, while conservation practitioners perceived only one
principle to be present and six significantly absent (Table 3).
Authorities in Argentina perceived 10 EBM principles to be part of
regulatory practices, whereas conservation practitioners,
academics and fishers perceived 7, 6 and 3 principles present,
respectively. Only tourism operators from the Argentina perceived
principles 10 and 12 to be negatively represented in regulatory
practices (Table 1). In Uruguay, most stakeholders perceived EBM
principles to be absent form current management practices. The
only two positive perceptions came from rural producers
and tourism operators regarding principles 3 and 6, respectively
(Table 3).
Perceptions of success and satisfaction regarding coastal manage-
ment and conservation: Stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the
success and satisfaction differed between countries and stake-
holder categories (Fig. 1). In general, the Chilean case showed
higher levels of satisfaction and success; while the Uruguayan
case showed the lowest levels (Fig. 1). In all cases, authorities
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
804 S. Gelcich et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 801–806

Table 3
a,b
Stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the presence of EMB principles within management and conservation of coastal systems in Chile, Peru, Argentina and Uruguay .

EBM principles Chile Peru Argentina Uruguay

F R T C Ac Au F R T C Ac Au F R T C Ac Au F R T C Ac Au

Social choices 0  + 0 0 +  0   0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0    0
Decentralization + 0 0  + +  0 + 0  + 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0  
Adjacent effects 0 0   0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0
Economic context  0 0  0 +  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 +    0  0
Conservation of functioning 0 0 +  + + 0 0 0  0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appropriate limits 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 + 0  0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0
Appropriate scale + 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0
Long term + 0 0   + + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 0 
Inevitable change 0 0 0 0 0 + + + +  + + 0 0 + + + 0 0  0 0 0
Balance use/ conservation 0 0 + 0 0 +     +  +  + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0
All relevant information +   0 0 + + + 0 0 + + + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0  0
Multidisciplinary      + 0 0   + + 0  0 + + 0 0    0

a
In the table F=fishers, R=rural producers, T=tourism operators, C=conservation NGO personnel, Ac=academics, Au=authorities. EBM principles are represented by
shorthand description from Table 1.
b
Signs represent significantly positive (+) perceptions and significantly negative () perceptions using t tests (po0.05); (0) represent ‘‘neither agree or disagree’’
responses.

variable, the following patterns emerged: (1) principles 1, 6, 11

explained 57% of the variance in the Chilean case (Table 4), with
Au principle 6 being inversely related to the level of success; (2)
Ac
C principle 10 explained 35% of the variance in the Argentinean
Chile

T case; (3) principles 2 and 11explained 35% of the variance in the

R Peruvian case; (4) principles 7 and 10 explained 33% of the
F variance in the Uruguayan case (Table 4).
Au
Argentina

Ac
C
T 5. Discussion
R
F In spite of gaps in biophysical knowledge and ecosystem
Au functioning, a considerable amount of literature advocates for
Ac
EBM in coastal ecosystems (i.e. [3,17–19]). So far, lessons for EBM
C
Perú

T implementation have mainly come from developed countries

R based on top-down strategies and have seldom included empirical
F data on stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the presence of EBM
Au principles in existing management practices [6]. This study shows
Ac
Uruguay

that in the four cases analysed in the SCSA, although EBM

C principles are not explicitly declared in management and
T
R conservation plans and policies, effective implementation may
F be enhanced by using already existing management structures. In
this context, policy based on participatory approaches, bottom-up
0 0
planning, place-based management [20,21] and consensus reach-
Fig. 1. Stakeholders’ perceptions regarding: (A) satisfaction, (B) level of success of ing, all elements included within EBM principles, are fundamental
marine management and conservation practices in the selected case studies. keystone points, without which EBM in SCSA will not be
F=fishers, R=rural producers, T=tourism operators, C=conservation NGO personnel, achievable, no matter how hard we try.
Ac=academics, Au=authorities.
Stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the presence of EBM
principles show that principles 9 ‘‘Management must recognize
the change is inevitable’’ and 11 ‘‘The ecosystem approach should
consistently provided the most positive perceptions regarding consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and
management practices. Fishers’ attitudes showed heterogeneity indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices’’, are
depending on the case. perceived to exist in present regulatory practices by the greater
EBM principles which determine management success and number of stakeholders. In addition, principle 11 was a significant
satisfaction: Backward multiple regression analysis between EBM determinant of interviewees’ perceptions of coastal management
principles and stakeholders individual perceptions of satisfaction success in Chile and Peru (Table 4). This tendency is probably
regarding coastal management and conservation (Table 4) showed related the policy context in Chile and Peru, where local level
that: (1) in Chile, 55% of the variance was explained by principle 2; policies do incentive stakeholder participation in the manage-
(2) in the Argentina, 31% of the variance was explained by ment and control of coastal zone planning and monitoring. This
principle 1; (3) in Peru, 25% of the variance was explained by a should be an indispensable condition to achieve success in EBM
combination of principles 2 and 11; (4) in Uruguay no significant implementation. In Argentina and Uruguay, interviewees who
relationship between EBM principles and stakeholder satisfaction agreed with principle 10 ‘‘The ecosystem approach should seek
was observed. Alternatively, when the degree of success of coastal the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation
management and conservation was used as the dependent and use of biological diversity’’ also perceived grater success of the
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Gelcich et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 801–806 805

Table 4
Results of backward regressions between selected EBM principles and stakeholders’ satisfaction (Sat) and perception of success (Suc) with the management and
conservation of coastal environments a.

Principles Chile Argentina Peru Uruguay

Sat Suc Sat Suc Sat Suc Sat Suc

B (p) B (p) B (p) B (p) B (p) B (p) B (p) B (p)

1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of n.s. 0.33 0.43 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0.24
societal choices. (0.003) (0.026) (0.006)
2: Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level. 0.76 n.s. n.s. n.s. 0.27 0.31 n.s. n.s.
(0.001) (0.01) (0.003)
6: Ecosystem must be managed within the limits of their functioning. n.s. 0.305 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
(0.01)
7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and n.t. n.t. n.t. n.t. n.s. n.s. 0.2 0.35
temporal scales. (0.04) (0.001)
8: Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.
10: The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration n.s. n.s. n.s. 0.592 n.s. n.s. 0.175 0.218
of, conservation and use of biological diversity. (0.02) (0.07) (0.013)
11: The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, n.s. 0.685 n.t. n.t. 0.34 0.40 n.s. n.s.
including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices. (0.001) (0.002) (0.001)
R2 0.58 0.57 0.31 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.06 0.33

a
n.s.=non significant; n.t.=not tested in the model. Values in parenthesis represent the level of significance.

Global
never considered them as a guiding path, but which have
Top-down EBM principle generated enabling policies.
implementation lessons Moving towards effective governance is a key aspect of
(i.e. Large Marine Ecosystems,
Management scales

Cod in northwest Atlantic)
Regional
Country
Bottom-up EBM principle
implementation lessons
(i.e. Chile: PLADECO
Philippines: Local Government Code)
Local
Existing Management Institutions
structures
Fig. 2. Conceptual diagram representing a continuum of EBM implementation
lessons regarding management institutions and management scales which come
from different approaches towards governance.
policy processes. Unexpectedly, perceptions regarding principle 6
‘‘Ecosystem must be managed within the limits of their function-
ing’’ had no relevance in stakeholders’ perceptions of success or
satisfaction, providing evidence on the lack of effectiveness
scientists are having in communicating this issue [3], and on the
need to highlight the potential value of political boundaries in
managing ecosystems. In essence, the devolution of management
authority to stakeholders (principles 2 and 11), as in the case of
the TURFs policies in Chilean artisan fisheries [22], or the
inclusion of stakeholders within the planning process in Argentina
and Peru, have contributed to accomplish the implementation of
key EBM principles. Hence, EBM implementation appears to be
the final product of a process, based on bottom-up approaches
and effective governance, and not a roadmap, as frequently
understood. The Uruguayan case provides a good example of
how the decoupling between management practices and stake-
holder participation makes EBM ineffective and an element which
is only present ‘‘in planning documents and not in reality’’
(O. Defeo, personal communication). Here, EBM plans do exist
within PROBIDES, mainly influenced by external donors (i.e. GEF),
but have not succeeded in practice. EBM principles in Uruguay are
perceived as absent in comparison with case studies which have
successfully implementing EBM [22–24] and developed and
developing countries recognise this. However their contribution
in terms of generating the necessary knowledge for EBM
implementation differs (Fig. 2). Some developed countries have
focused on generating top-down guidelines and theoretical
embeddings for EBM success which require the implementation
of novel management plans and institutions (Fig. 2). Developing
countries may mostly contribute with their empirical, local scale
evidence on the implementation of bottom-up participatory
development and fisheries management. These may be
New considered as the basic building blocks to avoid the risk of top-
structures
down imposition of a set of EBM principles, for realities that are
not prepared for them; or worse, which have developed their own
ways to deal with sustainable management/conservation.
EBM principles in essence represent good practices for
management and conservation, but say little about the necessary
key knowledge gaps which should be addressed regarding
ecosystem functioning. We must keep in mind that the applic-
ability of EBM concerning socio-ecological systems will necessa-
rily be based on the interaction between local, regional and global
scales, and the complementarities between existing and new
management structures in novel ways (Fig. 2). Indeed, most
ecosystem services are delivered at the local scale, but their
supply is greatly influenced by regional or global-scale processes.
So far we lack empirical studies linking socio-ecological diversity
to ecosystem dynamics and in turn to ecosystem services and
human well-being at different scales [25,26].
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge financial contribution by FAO project ‘‘Best
Practices and Lessons Learnt on the Incorporation of Integrated
Ecosystem Management Concepts and Principles in Selected
Coastal Waters of Four Countries in the Southern Cone of South
America’’ to the P. Universidad Católica de Chile. Additionally, S.G.
acknowledges the financial support of project FONDECYT
11070034. J.C.C. acknowledges the FONDAP-FONDECYT CASEB-
Project 1501-0001. We particularly thank stakeholders which took
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
806 S. Gelcich et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 801–806
part in this study. We express our gratitude to our friends from
UNDECIMAR, the National Institute of Fisheries of Uruguay, the
Municipalities of Islay, Mejia, Dean Valdivia, and Ancud Munici-
pality for field and laboratory assistance. Special thanks to Maite
Navarte, Raúl González, Miguel Camarero, Veronica Ortiz and
Manuel Muñoz, who helped in contacting interviewees.
References
[1] Leslie HM, McLeod KL. Confronting the challenges of implementing marine
ecosystem-based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
2007;5:540–8.
[2] Castilla JC, Defeo O. Paradigm shifts needed for world fisheries. Science
2005;309:1324–5.
[3] Arkema KK, Abramson SC, Dewsbury BM. Marine ecosystem-based manage-
ment: from characterization to implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 2006;4:525–32.
[4] Leslie HM. Is a new mandate needed for marine ecosystem-based manage-
ment?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2008;6:43–4.
[5] US Commission on Ocean Policy. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century.
Final Report, Washington DC, USA; 2004.
[6] Flannery W, O0 Cinneide M. Marine spatial planning from the perspective of a
small seaside community in Ireland. Marine Policy 2008;32:980–7.
[7] Ruckelshaus M, Klinger T, Knowlton N, DeMaster D. Marine ecosystem-based
management in practice: scientific and governance challenges. Bioscience
2008;58:53–63.
[8] Christie P, Fluharty D, White A, Eisma-Osorio L, Jatulan W. Assessing the
feasibility of ecosystem-based fisheries management in tropical contexts.
Marine Policy 2007;31:239–50.
[9] Leslie H, Rosenberg AA, Eagle J. Is a new mandate needed for marine
ecosystem-based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
2008;6:43–4.
[10] Castilla JC, Gelcich S. The management of the loco (Concholepas concholepas)
as a driver for self-governance of small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile. In:
Townsend R, Shotton R, Uchida, H. editors, Case studies in fisheries self-
governance. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504, Rome, FAO; 2008.
[11] Pitcher T, Kalikoski D, Short K, Varkey D, Pramod G. An evaluation of progress
in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries.
Marine Policy 2009;33:223–32.
[12] Ward T, Tarte D, Hegerl E, Short K. Policy proposals and operational guidance
for ecosystem-based management of marine capture fisheries. World Wide
fund for nature. Sidney, Australia; 2002.
[13] Gelcich S, Edwards–Jones G, Kaiser M. Heterogeneity in fishers harvesting
decisions under a marine territorial user rights policy. Ecological Economics
2007;61:246–54.
[14] Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (FAL). Ministerio de Economı́a Fomento y
Reconstrucción, Gobierno de Chile. Ley N118892 D.S. N1430; 1991.
[15] Castilla JC. The Chilean small-scale benthic shellfisheries and the institutio-
nalization of new management practices. Ecology International Bulletin
1994;21:47–63.
[16] PROBIDES. Plan Director de la Reserva de Biosfera Bañados del Este (Uruguay).
PROBIDES/GEF/PNUD/UE, Rocha; 1999.
[17] Crowder LB, Osherenko G, Young OR, Airamé S, Norse EA, Baron, N, et al.
Resolving mismatches in US ocean governance. Science 2006;313:617–18.
[18] Levin SA, Lubchenco J. Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based
management. Bioscience 2008;58:27–32.
[19] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).
Human dimensions of the ecosystem approach to fisheries: an overview of
context, concepts, tools and methods. Technical Paper 489, FAO Fisheries;
2008.
[20] Young OR, Osherenko G, Ekstrom J, Crowder LB, Ogden J, Wilson, JA, et al.
Solving the crisis in ocean governance: place-based management of marine
ecosystems. Environment 2007;49:20–32.
[21] Gelcich S, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser M, Castilla JC. Co-management policy can
reduce resilience in traditionally managed marine ecosystems. Ecosystems
2006;9:951–66.
[22] Gelcich S, Kaiser M, Castilla JC, Edwards-Jones G. Engagement in co-
management of marine benthic resources influences environmental percep-
tions of artisanal fishers. Environmental Conservation 2008;35:36–45.
[23] Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC. The striggle to govern the commons. Science
2003;302:1907–12.
[24] Bundy A, Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S, Mahon R. If science is not the answer,
what is? Alternative governance model for the world’s fisheries. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 2008;6:152–5.
[25] Alcamo, J, et al. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for
assessment/millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press; 2003.
[26] Carpenter SR, DeFries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid, WV, et al.
Millennium ecosystems assessment: research needs. Science 2006;314:
257–258.
[27] CBD, 2008. /http://www.cbd.int/programmes/cross-cutting/ecosystem/
principles.aspS.