5. Systemic Management, Fisheries and Ecosystems Services: From Patterns to Policy Chair/Facilitator: Andrea Belgrano, Swedish Board of Fisheries, Lysekil, Sweden Charles Fowler, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, USA Panel members: Magnus Nyström, Dept of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Sweden Fiorenza Micheli, Stanford University, USA Nils Chr. Stenseth, University of Oslo, Norway Robert Steneck, University of Maine, USA Description: The ecological sciences provide a wealth of scientific information useful for setting policy and establishing management practice. The abundance of publications produced by ecologists contain various explanations of observed phenomena, identification of problems (often global), and descriptions of relationships and patterns in various biotic systems. It is this latter discipline, especially the descriptions of patterns in ecological relationships, that provides realistic guidance for decision-making. The other aspects of ecological science, while not directly useful in management, are relevant, in part because they contribute to our understanding of how patterns serve to guide management – management wherein the subjects of study of these other components of the ecological sciences are themselves taken into account. Patterns are defined herein as sets of information that by abundance and repetition identify limits to natural variation thereby differentiating normal and from pathological. Such patterns are exemplified by macroecological patterns. Normal cases exemplify sustainability compared to cases that are abnormal or pathological and unsustainable under the same circumstances. For example, patterns in predator-prey relationships among non-human species can be used to establish sustainable levels of resource use by humans; patterns in selectivity by non-human species can be used to implement evolutionarily enlightened management through selectivity by humans that mimics the selectivity of non-human species. This working group will discuss the use of patterns to establish sustainable harvests (consumption) from ecosystems, from individual species, and from groups of species. Other patterns illustrate sustainable allocations of harvests among alternative species. Still others illustrate the advisable size for protected areas along with their optimal locations. Our chapter specifies the best science for management (and specifically for ecosystem-based fisheries management): the science that characterizes patterns that are integrative of complexity through the processes and factors that contribute to their origin – their emergence. More precisely, this science provides characterization of patterns that are consonant or isomorphic with the specific management questions being addressed. This is in contrast to the current use of scientific information. In conventional management, the ecological information we choose for determining management policy demands, and relies on, non-objective opinion and mistranslation of piecemeal information – often as patterns, but rarely consonant with management questions. The human conversion of non-consonant information to consonant information of conventional management is to be contrasted with the consonance of patterns that require no conversion in systemic management. In this way, systemic management, as pattern-based management, is objective, consistent, and widely, if not universally, applicable (Belgrano & Fowelr 2007 in press). References Belgrano, A. and C.W. Fowler. (In press) Ecology for management: pattern-based policy. In: Ecology Research Horizons, NOVA Publishers, Hauppauge, NY. Carpenter, S. R., and Folke, C. 2006. Ecology for transformation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21(6): 309-315. Fowler, C.W. 2003. Tenets, principles, and criteria for management: the basis for systemic management. Marine Fisheries Review 65(2):1-55. Hughes, T. P., Bellwood, D. R., Folke, C., Steneck, R. S., and Wilson, J. 2005. New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(7): 380-386. Jennings, S., and J. L. Blanchard. 2004. Fish abundance with no fishing: predictions based on macroecological theory. Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 632-642. Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1, 431-436. Lubchenco, J., Olson, A. M. , Brubaker, L. A., Carpenter, S. R., Holland, M. M., Hubbell, S. P., Levin, S. A., MacMahon, J. A., Matson, P. A., Melillo, J. M., Mooney, H. A., Peterson, C. H., Pulliam, H. R., Real, L. A., Regal, P. J. & Risser, P. G. (1991). The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda. Ecology, 72, 371-412. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Products.Synthesis.aspx. Steele, J. H. (2006). Are there eco-metrics for fisheries? Fisheries Research ,77, 1-3. Solé, R.V. & Bascompte, J. (2006). Self-organization in complex ecosystems. Princeton University Press. Taylor, P. J. (2005). Unruly Complexity: Ecology, Interpretation, Engagement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.