Ecosystem-Based Integrated Ocean Management: A Framework for Sustainable Ocean Economy Development

to build a shared multidisciplinary understanding of complex ecosystems spanning the land-sea inter- face and to transfer science to policymakers effec- tively in Florida (Fletcher et al. 2014) and California (Harvey et al. 2016), as well as other large marine ecosystems. Guidance on using the IEA approach can be found on the NOAA website 11 . EBM requires planning across geophysical and jurisdictional boundaries because ecosystems span across both. Transboundary integration across jurisdictional boundaries goes hand in hand with horizontal governance integration, as it requires knowledge-sharing, cooperation and collaboration across institutions responsible for different jurisdic- tions. At the international scale, regional marine cooperation mechanisms already exist, such as the Regional Seas Programmes and Large Marine Ecosystem projects (UNEP 2011, UNEP 2016). Port- man (2011) argues that the crossing of traditional geographic boundaries in MSP processes will cata- lyse other forms of integration, as it will automati- cally require different management bodies to work together and consider ecological interdependen- cies in ways they would not necessarily do within their own geographic remits. Transboundary integration across ecosystem boundaries is a key aspect of EBM. Section 3.3.4 has already highlighted the importance of plan- ning across the land-sea interface, for example, with ICZM, integrated watershed management and wider terrestrial conservation and waste manage- ment mechanisms vital in protecting the ocean from downstream impacts of human activity on land. This has been widely recognized (UNEP GPA 2006) and put into practice in some parts of the world, such as in Switzerland (a landlocked nation) for example, which as a Contracting Party to the OSPAR Commission 12 commits to protecting north-east Atlantic marine environments from riv- er-borne pollutants. The interlinkages of socio-ecological systems are dynamic, with systems changing over time in many ways. Policy measures or economic changes can drive changes in human behaviour that have knock-on effects that reverberate around ecosys- tems, and ecosystem changes can drive changes to human behaviour that have economic and social ramifications. 3.4.5. Transboundary integration 3.4.6. Integration of system dynamics

Box 5. Knowledge integration: useful terminology

When working in EB-IOM, it helps to use precise vocabulary. Various authors have put forward definitions of important terminology that can help define different types and levels of knowledge integration, including Alexander et al. (2019), Schultz-Zehden & Weil (2019), Stember (1991) and Tress et al. (2005). The following definitions, proposed by Tress et al. (2005), can be directly applied to EB-IOM: 1. Disciplinarity: Work that takes place within the bound- aries of currently recognized academic disciplines, ori- ented towards one specific goal or one specific ques- tion. Multidisciplinarity: Work in different academic disci- plines that shares an overarching goal, but has multiple disciplinary objectives, in which participants exchange knowledge without aiming to cross subject boundaries or create integrative knowledge and theory. Interdisciplinarity: Work that integrates knowledge and theory from several academic disciplines towards a common goal, creating new knowledge and theory that cannot be broken down into its disciplinary ingredients and would not have emerged through either discipli- nary or multidisciplinary efforts. Transdisciplinary: Work that combines interdisciplinar- ity with a participatory approach, involving academics from different disciplines as well as non-academic par- ticipants, such as resource managers, user groups and the general public, to create new knowledge and theo- ry and address a common question. Inter- and transdisciplinarity are truly integrative, generating entirely new types of knowledge. Interdisciplinary integration is a precondition for generating the systems-level knowledge that is needed to model socio-ecological dynamics (Frusher et al. 2014). Transdisciplinarity further brings in non-academic knowledge held by a diverse range of stakeholder commu- nities, reflecting different values as well as different ways of knowing (Bennett, 2019a). Multidisciplinarity simply con- sists of illuminating the same central question from several different disciplinary perspectives. While this does not gen- erate new types of knowledge, in some situations it can be sufficient for supporting decision-making. Thus, all three ap- proaches to knowledge integration (multi-, inter- and trans- disciplinarity) have potential application in EB-IOM. 2. 3. 4.

11 See https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/ 12 See https://www.ospar.org/

22