Contact Us Search

Location: Alberta Government > Environment > Water > Northern River Basin Study - Home > Table of Contents > Major Findings - Ecosystem Health

Air

|

Land

|

Water

|

Climate Change

|

Waste

|

About Us

|

Quick Links Authorization / Approval Viewer Environmental Education Pesticide Management Regions Air Quality Reports Conferences Reports/Publications Library Services Protection & Enforcement Environmental Assessment/Evaluation News Releases SWEEPS Kit State of the Environment

Advisories Water Warnings Forest Fires

Online Reporting Continuous Emissions Monitoring Drinking Water Quality Data Submission Water Well Drilling Report Submissions Water Use Reporting

NRBS - Home Table of Contents		Northern River Basins Study Final Report 3.0 Major Findings 3.11 Ecosystem Health Introduction A Practical Approach to Monitoring Ecosystem Health Implementing an Integrated Ecosystem Monitoring Program Relevant Documents Related NRBS Question: 13. a).   What predictive tools are required to determine the cumulative effects of man-made discharges on the water and aquatic environment? 13. b).   What are the cumulative effects of man-made discharges on the water and the environment? 14.   What long-term monitoring programs and predictive models are required to provide an ongoing assessment of the state of the aquatic ecosystems? These programs must ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity for input.
NRBS - Home Table of Contents Top of Page		Introduction The traditional approach to environmental management focuses on reducing levels of man-made chemicals to "safe" environmental levels. This "end-of-pipe" strategy has proven effective in reducing contaminant emissions from industries, municipalities and other point sources, but fails to recognize the inherent complexity of ecosystems. Each system, whether it be a small northern river or a large lake, is fundamentally unique and will react to environmental stressors in a distinctive manner. Furthermore, the human residents of the ecosystem have different needs and priorities. Consequently, what may be "safe" for a river in Ontario may constitute a problem in Alberta's northern rivers. The ecosystem approach to environmental management has grown out of this need to recognize the complex interactions that occur within individual systems. It has three general characteristics: it emphasizes the need to collect and synthesize information on ecosystem structure and function; it recognizes that different levels within the ecosystem are interrelated and interdependent; and it necessitates management strategies that are ecological, anticipatory and ethical (adapted from Christie et al. 1986). The concept of humanity as part of the ecosystem, not separate from it, is a vital underlying principle of the ecosystem approach. This means that the health, activities and concerns of local stakeholders should be viewed as characteristics of the ecosystem in which they live. It also means that stakeholders must be included in the decisions that affect their environment. While the ecosystem approach represents a major philosophical advance in environmental management, it proves difficult to implement on a practical level. Implicit in the concept is the desire to attain and maintain the ecosystem at a particular level of function or "health." But what constitutes a healthy ecosystem and how can scientists determine when this state is achieved? Working within the context of the northern river basins, the Synthesis and Modelling Component developed a practical framework for assessing and monitoring ecosystem health. A Practical Approach to Monitoring Ecosystem Health
NRBS - Home Table of Contents Top of Page		Figure 3.11.1 Integrated Monitoring Framework A great deal of effort has gone into defining the term "ecosystem health." Unfortunately, a precise and practical definition of both "ecosystem" and "health" continues to elude environmental managers. It is generally accepted that an ecosystem is defined by the interaction between living organisms (including humans) and their physical environment. But it is difficult to define the absolute boundaries of an ecosystem. All ecosystems are "open" except the global ecosystem that treats the world as a whole. Is a river an ecosystem? An island? A forest? The answer to all of these questions is yes. What defines an ecosystem is largely a question of scale. Rather than defining the border of an ecosystem in absolute terms, it is more important to realize that all imposed boundaries will be arbitrary. In practical terms, these borders may be influenced by the geographic magnitude of the problem, the availability of resources and political boundaries. Within the NRBS, for instance, the ecosystem is defined as the Alberta and Northwest Territories portions of the Peace, Athabasca and Slave River mainstems. As part of this practical definition, one must recognize that social, economic and ecological conditions outside of these borders may influence conditions within the ecosystem.
NRBS - Home Table of Contents Top of Page		A precise definition of health is equally elusive. Once again, NRBS researchers propose that a single, all-encompassing definition may not be necessary. Instead, a more practical approach is proposed—one that recognizes that the perception of health will vary with each ecosystem and over time. This strategy proposes that the desired structure and function of the ecosystem being managed will arise through a process that combines the best available scientific knowledge with societal expectations and concerns. Using this practical approach, NRBS scientists have developed a framework for monitoring and assessing ecosystem health. This process will help researchers and managers to decide what needs to be monitored and for what reason. It also provides a mechanism for measuring the combined effect of multiple environmental stressors on an ecosystem, otherwise known as cumulative effects. There are four general steps in the framework (Figure  3.11.1): Step 1: Identify ecosystem goals.   In the first step, a group of stakeholders, armed with the best available scientific information, begin to describe what they want from the ecosystem—they define what constitutes "ecosystem health" with regard to their specific situation. The stakeholders in each case will include public representatives, special interest groups, industry and all levels of government. One example of an ecosystem goal might be "We want to eat the fish." Step 2: Develop specific management objectives.   Once the goals are defined, they must be further refined into a specific management strategy. This general action plan describes what information is required to address the situation. Using the previous example, a management strategy would outline what general information would signify that the fish are healthy and abundant. Knowledge of current monitoring and regulatory requirements may influence the strategy.
NRBS - Home Table of Contents Top of Page		Step 3: Select appropriate ecosystem indicators.   The management strategy leads quite naturally into the choice of specific indicators—those aspects of the ecosystem that can be monitored to reveal its ongoing status. The indicators can be chemical, biological or sociological depending upon the situation. A good indicator will provide information that is relevant to a number of stakeholder concerns. Step 4: Monitor and assess the state of the chosen indicators.   An effective monitoring program will keep tabs on the indicators and report back to the stakeholders on the state of ecosystem health. Step 5: Take appropriate action.   Information generated through this process will be used to guide environmental planning and management decisions. It will also feed into new or refined ecosystem goals. It is important to realize that this process is not a "one-way street." Quite the opposite, the framework is designed to be a dynamic and iterative process that can respond to changing societal priorities, new scientific information, evolving environmental regulations and other issues.
NRBS - Home Table of Contents Top of Page		One of the key strengths of this approach is that it provides a mechanism for making environmental decisions that fall completely outside the realms of science. Science can analyze or predict the consequences of specific management decisions and can propose cost-effective solutions to environmental problems, but it cannot make societal decisions regarding the future direction of the ecosystem. Within the northern river basins, for instance, science may be able to predict the consequences of pulp mill effluent on the aquatic environment under several different development scenarios, but it cannot decide if another pulp mill should be built. These issues must remain the responsibility of the public stakeholders within the particular system. It can be argued that the Northern River Basins Study has followed this framework to some degree in the design of the science program. Through the 16 guiding questions, the stakeholders on the Study Board took the first step towards defining their goals and priorities for the northern river basins. The science program then enacted a strategy to answer these questions and has proposed a suite of indicators to evaluate aquatic ecosystem health and cumulative effects. The specific indicators are listed in the technical synthesis report cited at the end of this section. Implementing an Integrated Ecosystem Monitoring Program
NRBS - Home Table of Contents Top of Page		The framework represents a theoretical system for assessing and monitoring ecosystem health. Currently, however, there is no administrative body or strategy within the basins to organize such an endeavour. Recognizing this challenge, individuals from the Synthesis and Modelling Component propose the formation of an Integrated Ecosystem Monitoring Committee. A few responsibilities of such a committee might be to: play a lead role in coordinating monitoring efforts within the basins; maintain a common, standardized inventory of basins' issues, monitoring and research; exploit opportunities to improve monitoring and research efficiency; standardize monitoring protocols; provide guidance to monitoring and regulatory agencies concerning the consequences of monitoring findings; report to government and public stakeholders on monitoring and research activities; and integrate stakeholder concerns regarding priorities, findings and required actions. A small independent panel of scientific experts from a variety of fields must be established to guide the Committee on technical matters. The Committee must also consider opportunities whereby communities can participate in monitoring activities. Two opportunities exist. First, the membership should include representatives from the community sector. Second, consideration should be given to incorporating volunteers within the notion of community-based monitoring. Harnessing the enthusiasm of volunteers serves two purposes: it promotes a more cost-effective monitoring program and it involves communities in activities that affect their environment. Relevant Documents
NRBS - Home Table of Contents Top of Page		NRBS Synthesis Reports Cash, K.J., Wrona, F. and Wm. D. Gummer. 1996. Ecosystem Health and Integrated Monitoring in the Northern River Basins. Northern  River Basins Study Synthesis Report No. 10. NRBS Technical Reports Cash, K.J. 1995. Assessing and Monitoring Aquatic Ecosystem Health: Approaches Using Individual, Population and Community / Ecosystem Measurements. Northern River Basins Study Technical Report No. 45. Day, K. and T.B. Reynoldson. 1996. Ecotoxicology of Depositional Sediments, Athabasca River, May and September, 1993. Northern River Basins Study Technical Report No. 59. Saffran, K. 1995. Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Identifications, Athabasca River, May and September 1993. Northern River Basins Study Technical Report No. 50. Other Relevant Documents Christie, W.J., Becker, M., Cowden, J.W. and J.R. Vallentyne.  1986. Managing the Great Lakes Basin as a Home. Journal of Great Lakes Research 12: 2-17.

...PREVIOUS

NEXT...

Environment Home | Search | Contact Us | Privacy Statement |  Minister's Office Expenses Emergency Numbers The user agrees to the terms and conditions set out in the Copyright and Disclaimer statement. © 2009 Government of Alberta