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

Elements of Governance

Direction Coordination Capacity Informed Accountable

Objectives and Attributes of Governance Effective Equitable Responsive Robust Recognition Participation Fair Just Legitimate Connected Nested Polycentric Learning Anticipatory Adaptive Innovative Flexible Efficient

Institutions Laws Policies Rules Norms

Decision-Making Bodies Formal Organizations Informal Networks Structures

Processes

Decision-Making Policy Creation Negotiation of Values Conflict Resolution

Source: Bennett and Satterfield (2018) .

Figure 8. Governance analysis framework.

Another approach is to develop governance frameworks based entirely on empirical analysis of EB-IOM in the real world, for example, the frame- work used by Jones (2014) and Jones et al. (2016), which provides a much simpler but very practical orientation for EB-IOM practitioners aiming to gain a better understanding of their governance con- text. Ecosystem services valuation puts a monetary value on the goods and services that ecosystems provide to humans, from the food we eat and the oxygen we breathe to spiritual, cultural and wellbe- ing benefits associated with spending time in the natural environment (de Groot et al. 2002). Ecosys- tem services are commonly divided into four cat- egories (Fisher & Turner 2008, Klinger et al. 2018, Lillebø et al. 2017, Wallace 2007): 1) Provisioning services: the direct products obtained from ecosystems, such as food, water, wood and genetic resources. 2) Cultural services: the intangible benefits nature provides to humans, for example, aesthetic and recreational values, spiritual and religious values, physical and mental wellbeing, and educational opportunities. 3) Regulating services: ecosystem processes that regulate the environment, for example, climate regulation, water purification and 4.3.5. Ecosystem services valuation

waste management, pollination and protec- tion from natural hazards. 4) Supporting services: basic planetary life support services, such as primary produc- tion, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling and water cycling. Ecosystem services valuation has become a key- stone concept in conservation policy. It provides a common currency for integration of the economic, social and environmental spheres in SEAs and EIAs, and for the integration of market and non-market values into cost-benefit analyses that inform deci- sion makers when weighing up whether a plan, project or development in the marine environment should receive planning approval (Klinger et al. 2018). However, ecosystem services valuation also attracts criticism. On the practical level, there are methodological challenges. For example, depend- ing on the valuation methodology used, there can be vast discrepancies in the results obtained for the same ecosystem service in the same time and geographical space (Hattam et al. 2015, Kenter et al. 2018). When aggregating results for multiple services and across multiple scales, variability asso- ciated with methodological differences becomes amplified. The more global an estimate, the larger its error bars.

32