Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM ... - IUCN Portals

Congress Document WCC-2012-8.2/2
<strong>Commission</strong> on Ecosystem Management (CEM)
Report 2008–2012
Chair: Piet Wit
1. INTRODUCTION
CEM is IUCN‟s youngest commission. It was established in 1996 by the Members‟ Assembly at
Montreal (Canada), where Ed Maltby was elected its first Chair. CEM can be considered the
successor of the <strong>Commission</strong> on Ecology (COE) that was dismantled at that same event.
Hein van Asperen became CEM‟s second chair in 2000 though for personal reasons he had to retire
after six months. Hillary Masundire then took over and did two terms, to be replaced by the present
Chair Piet WIT. Piet Wit was elected at WCC-Barcelona and at WCC-Jeju will be eligible for a second
term. This report summarizes CEM‟s highlights and challenges of the intersessional period between
Barcelona and Jeju.
In this narrative report, I will try to guide the reader through the results of our work by framing our
activities within the context of IUCN‟s global programme, and not so much to fall back to a dull
enumeration of activities undertaken and results produced.
For more background information, the reader is referred to our web-page:
http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cem/
2. THE CEM MANDATE AND PROGRAMME ADOPTED AT WCC-BARCELONA (2008)
CEM‟s mission, vision and objective as defined by its mandate adopted by WCC-Barcelona:
Mission:
To provide expert guidance on integrated approaches to the management of natural and modified
ecosystems to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable development
Vision:
Healthy ecosystems support life and sustain development
Objective:
Ecosystem approaches to natural resources management mainstreamed worldwide
A CEM steering committee workshop in Çolombia in 2007 formulated a very ambitious CEM
programme for the period 2008–2012. Under each of the five programme areas of IUCN, the CEM
programme identified realistic contributions to the IUCN objectives. It was realistic in the sense that if
funding could be found, our volunteer network could be mobilized to deliver the products as identified.
In spite of the global financial crisis that did not bypass IUCN or CEM, we did well in most of the IUCN
Programme Areas for 2008–2012. In general terms we did relatively well on Core Programme Area 1
(“Conserving biodiversity”) and Thematic Programme Areas 2 (“Changing the climate forecast”), 4
(“Managing ecosystems for human well-being”) and 5 (“Greening the world economy”). Little has been
done in Programme Area 3 („Naturally energising the future”).
It has to be observed that at the level of individual products under the five priority areas, we have been
over optimistic as to what could have been achieved by the volunteer network with the limited funding
that CEM receives. Generating ideas that inspire and bring enthusiasm is not our problem, translating
these into concrete actions and products is a different story. Future planning should be more modest
in its expectations.
378

3. STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
At the onset a number of strategic and tactical measures were taken that would strengthen CEM and
facilitate its members to contribute to the <strong>Commission</strong>‟s goal.
‣ Strengthening CEM membership
In 2008, CEM had about 400 members. In many regions and thematic programmes the number of
members was simply too small to make a difference. In volunteer networks like ours, one needs to
have a large enough number of members to be sure that expertise can be mobilized when it is asked
for. In 2012 we have more than 800 members.
We have also made a special drive to recruit more young professionals as members of CEM. Young
professionals bring in new ideas, more energy and often have more time available compared to older
experts that are fully booked the year round.
‣ <strong>Commission</strong> Structure (see also annex 1)
Like other IUCN <strong>Commission</strong>s, CEM has a matrix structure with thematic groups that usually work at a
global level and regional chairs that look after ecosystem management issues to be addressed by
CEM in the IUCN regions 1 . In a limited number of countries the Regional Chair is supported by
national focal points. These normally are appointed at the request of the membership of that country.
During the previous intersessional programme, CEM had five Focal Areas, each one led by a
coordinator. At this moment CEM has 21 Thematic Groups (TGs). The former Focal Areas‟ activities
were followed up by the present TGs. The Ecosystem Approach, Ecosystem Restoration and
Ecosystem Services have been retained as Thematic Groups, although some of their activities have
been upgraded as separate TGs, in particular the Disaster Response Thematic Group and the
Ecosystem based Adaptation to Climate Change TG. “Ecosystem indicators” as such no longer exist
as a separate entity within CEM. The expertise of this Focal Area can, amongst others, be found in the
TG on the Red List of Ecosystems. The expertise on “Tools for Ecosystem Management” is presently
spread over a number of thematic groups such as the ones on connectivity and capacity building.
In Barcelona (2008) an informal group of experts on the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) presented their
work to WCC. CEM‟s newly elected chair invited Jon Paul Rodriguez and his colleagues to form a
Thematic Group under CEM to further develop the RLE. Thanks to Jon Paul and his colleagues and
CEM/EMP facilitation, the RLE is now well on its way to become another flagship product of IUCN.
CEM stimulates its members to establish thematic groups around topics that are of special interest to
them. With the exception of the Latin American Grassland Group, we can conclude that these “bottomup
groups” are very active. An excellent example is the Fisheries Expert Group that had an article
published in Science (2012). Other examples are the TGs on Mediterranean Ecosystems and the
recently created group on Oases. A group on Invasive Species and Ecosystems is in the making.
Other thematic groups were created at the request of partners of CEM. These include the TGs on
Urban Ecosystems (requests from architects), on Nutrient Cycling (request from IUCN‟s President)
and on Capacity Building (identified by COP8 of the CBD in Bonn, Germany). Some TGs were
established to match with existing programmes within the IUCN Secretariat: TGs on Islands, Drylands,
Wetlands, Coastal Ecosystems, and Ecosystems and the Private Sector.
Thematic groups that have been established at the initiative of the Steering Committee (SC) itself that
have not been mentioned above are the TGs on Mountains and Holarctic Steppes. Presently the SC is
considering the establishment of a new TG on Deep-sea Mining.
CEM has nominated a limited number of Special Advisors and Focal Points to be called upon for
specific questions related to their fields of expertise. Two are former Focal Area Leaders that as such
had completed two terms (for Ecosystem Approach and for Ecosystem Restoration). Others have
been nominated at the request of partners within IUCN.
1 There are some minor differences between CEM regions and IUCN regions.
379

The Steering Committee adopted a policy to nominate young professionals as co-leads to Thematic
Group Leads (TGL) and Regional Chairs. Not all leaders have been associated with such a co-lead
yet, but the results with the few that did are positive and the policy will be stepped up for the oncoming
intersessional programme.
‣ Governance of CEM
The Chair has installed a small Steering Committee of five persons, including himself and the Deputy-
Chair, covering the world‟s continents. This small team turned out to be an effective and efficient
instrument to govern the <strong>Commission</strong>. Personal relations are excellent. Decisions to be taken and
advice asked outside SC meetings are receiving quick responses from all SC members.
Obviously a meeting of a small Steering Committee is less costly. It is therefore possible to organize
two SC meetings per year. These meetings are organized in different IUCN regions, covering the
continents that are represented in the Steering Committee. Each SC meeting is associated with a
workshop addressing an issue of relevance for the IUCN region where the meeting is held.
Collaboration and co-funding for the workshop is sought within the IUCN Secretariat, councillors and
IUCN members. The formula worked out very well: CEM and IUCN became more visible in the
regions, and their positions are strengthened; it helps to bridge the gap between practitioners at the
field level and policy makers, between theory and practice, across sectors and disciplines.
SC meetings and associated workshops were organized in:
Gland, Switzerland (February 2009). The workshop on management of mountain ecosystems and
the impact on down-stream users did not take place because the funding that was promised did
not arrive.
Hustai National Park, Mongolia (September 2009). Associated workshop on Impacts of Climate
Change on Steppes, co-funded by the National Park Trust. The workshop was followed up one
year later by a regional conference on the same topic in which CEM played a leading role.
Bissau, Guinea Bissau (April 2010). The associated workshop on mining was cancelled due to a
coup d’état attempt shortly before the SC meeting. The SC meeting nevertheless took place and
we were received by the Prime Minister.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands (September 2011). The planned meeting in Oceania was
postponed. so we were pleased to be received by the Netherlands Committee of IUCN who cofunded
a workshop on connectivity.
Suva, Fiji (April 2011). IUCN‟s Oceania office co-funded a very successful workshop on
Integrated River Basin Management in Island States.
Moscow, Idaho, USA (September 2011). Associated workshop on ecosystem resilience, cohosted
by the University of Moscow, Idaho.
Saltá, Argentina (March 2012). Associated workshop on Ecosystem based Adaptation to Climate
Change in Latin America, co-hosted by IUCN‟s Regional Office for South America.
Even though the Chair spends about 200 working days on the <strong>Commission</strong>, this was not enough to
pay sufficient attention to all the interests represented by the <strong>Commission</strong>. Therefore a small part of
the <strong>Commission</strong> Operating Fund was set aside to employ Miss Dominique Noome as part-time
assistant to the Chair.
‣ Money matters
The <strong>Commission</strong> Operating Fund is very limited indeed and not sufficient to mobilize the full potential
of our <strong>Commission</strong>. The situation has deteriorated during the present period of financial crisis.
CEM has set aside a small amount of its annual budget that the members may apply for. Applicants
should respond to the following criteria:
Activities should be CEM-member driven
Activities to be funded should have high relevance for CEM, both for the topic itself and for the
expected quality of the output
Activities should enhance CEM‟s visibility
We only apply seed money up to US$ 2,500 for any activity. Applicants should have realistic
chances of raising sufficient funds to at least triple this amount.
380

As CEM has been economizing on its expenses, and as some planned activities were not realized,
CEM has managed to make a modest saving every year. It was planned to use these savings in this
Congress year to assist activities of CEM members to participate and strengthen CEM‟s impact at
WCC. Unfortunately these savings were diverted elsewhere in the Union and it is hoped that IUCN
reviews this action so that, in future, <strong>Commission</strong>s can ensure that they have adequate funds for
costly events such as WCC. If <strong>Commission</strong>s are not entitled to their savings from previous years,
IUCN may suggest other ways for <strong>Commission</strong>s to be able to meet their financial demands for such
matters.
We have to find a balance between time spent on fundraising and precious volunteer time 2 to be spent
on the content of ecosystem management. It is obvious that additional funding can only be assured
with good technical proposals that are firmly rooted in the <strong>Commission</strong>‟s expertise. The Red List of
Ecosystems and our work on Disaster Risk Reduction have given ample proof of that. Both Thematic
Groups have been essential in bringing in substantial amounts of funding for the combined EMP/CEM
programme in their respective fields. Other less spectacular, but still not negligible, amounts of money
have been found to organize workshops, print information material, have members invited to
participate in international fora, etc.
‣ Collaboration
CEM strongly believes in cooperation and collaboration. Leverage is key to our mission. Therefore we
promote collaboration within IUCN and with partners from outside the Union. A successful activity was
launched around the aftermath of the Mexican Gulf Oil Spill where the Chair of CEM for North America
took the lead for a joint activity with other <strong>Commission</strong>s, the Washington Office of IUCN and interested
IUCN Members. The output included a workshop at the Seri-Conference in Merida (Mexico)
coordinated by the Deputy Chair for North America assisted by an intern paid by CEM. The outcome
includes a substantial influence on the research agenda and policy making of the USA government.
During the past quadrennial, the collaboration with the Ecosystem Management Programme (EMP)
has been intensified, and we can now speak of one fully integrated programme where EMP and CEM
are two sides of the same coin. EMP projects on Drylands, Islands, Disasters and Red List of
Ecosystems are matched by thematic groups within CEM.
Due to its mandate and nature, CEM logically seeks to strengthen its collaboration with the biome
programmes of the Secretariat. With the Forest Landscapes Restoration Programme and the Global
Water Programme, relations are good. With the Marine Programme we hope to improve collaboration
during the next intersessional period.
Given the importance of the impacts on ecosystems by actors from the private sector, we had high
expectations of our involvement with the private sector during the past four years. Even though we did
establish good working relations with the Business Programme within the Secretariat, our outreach to
the private sector remained rather limited with input into policy making for the mining sector in
particular through IUCN‟s contacts with ICMM, Rio Tinto and Shell.
CEM experienced a very pleasant interest from IUCN‟s Regional Offices to collaborate with us, in
particular around the SC meetings and associated workshop (see above), but also for other contacts
that we sought for joint actions such as our initiative around the Mexican Gulf Oil Spill (see above).
With the IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation in Malaga, we are presently organizing an
IUCN-wide conference in Libya with the aim to put biodiversity conservation high on the agenda of the
new Libyan government. So far, such initiatives have often come from our side, but we observe that
our expertise is more and more solicited by the regions.
Collaboration with other IUCN <strong>Commission</strong>s was quite successful, in particular with SSC. Some
examples:
The Red List of Ecosystems could not have raised so much interest in such a short time without
the input from SSC
With SSC we share an active task force on systemic pesticides
2 A conservative estimate for the value of our volunteer contributions arrives at US$ 2,000,000 annually, not
counting the funds we raise from elsewhere.
381

With CEESP and SSC we participated in a workshop to revive the Sustainable Use Initiative in
Cambridge (UK)
We participated in the “Sharing Power Conference” of CEESP in New Zealand
We contributed to CEC work on Conservation and the Military sector
WCPA is co-leading the development of a module on Protected Areas and DRR for a Master of
Science course IUCN is developing with PEDRR partners. CEC is also providing feedback on the
lesson plans and learning strategies for this course.
Box 1: Description of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems
The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is being developed as the global standard for the assessment of
ecosystem status, applicable at local, national, regional and global levels based on a unifying risk
assessment framework for ecosystems. This establishes risk assessment criteria and thresholds to
enable attribution to one of three threat categories for the risk of collapse of an ecosystem, through
loss of area, degradation or major functional change.
The primary goal of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is to identify ecosystems at risk of undergoing
changes that reduce their ability to sustain their biota. By using a unified system for assessment of
ecosystem risk, a consistent and widely accepted scientific framework will be available to monitor the
status of the Earth‟s ecosystems and identify those with a high probability of loss, degradation or
functional decline. This will also serve as an empirically-based means for conservation to engage with
land (and water) use or marine spatial planning and decision making, particularly at the national level.
Gobi-desert, Mongolia
4. CEM PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Networks of volunteer experts like the IUCN <strong>Commission</strong>s are characterized by a number of typical
products and services. The data used in this section are summarized in the form of an analytical table
that was sent to the CEM leadership for completion. The table itself can be found on our web page.
Products and services reported include:
‣ Exchange at seminars, workshops and conferences
Even though not all Regional Chairs and Thematic Group Leaders have reported back yet, CEM has
actively and concretely contributed to 90 gatherings of experts. CEM members took the initiative,
organized side events, made presentations, convened relevant stakeholders and facilitated
discussions for future collaborative opportunities. At these seminars, workshops and conferences,
382

experiences were shared, lessons learned identified, and recommendations for ecosystem managers
at different levels formulated.
Substantial CEM input was, amongst others, provided to:
all workshops organized in association with Steering Committee meetings (see above)
workshops initiated by CEM members using their “CEM hat” such as
o 35 (!!) workshops and conferences for the Red List of Ecosystems (see box 1)
o workshop in Washington on the Mexican Gulf Oil Spill, together with the Washington office
o Conference in Estonia “NATURE CONSERVATION BEYOND 2010”, organized by the
University of Estonia
o Steppe conference in Mongolia, organized by the Hustai National Park Trust
o 3 CEM workshops at the XIVth Congress of the Meso-American Society for Biology and
Conservation, together with CATIE
o Workshop in Ouadane (Mauritania) on ecosystem management of oases, together with the
IUCN offices for Mauritania and the Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation in Malaga
o Workshop in Bath (UK) on Neonicotinoids, together with SSC
o Workshop in Libya on conservation, together with IUCN‟s Malaga office
CEM-led side events at other organizations‟ conferences:
o Co-organized sessions and booth at UNISDR and UNISDR Global Platforms, and
International Disaster Risk Forum
o Workshop in Merida (Mexico) at the conference organized by the Society for Ecological
Restoration International
o Workshop on food security at the Ecosystem Services conference, organized in Wageningen
o Several sessions on Ecosystem based Adaptation to Climate Change at International
Conferences of the CBD and of the UNFCCC (Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Nagoya)
o FEG Scientific workshop on selective fisheries and balanced harvest (Nagoya, 2010)
o FEG Workshop on governance for fisheries and marine conservation: interactions and
coevolution ( Bergen, March 2012)
o TGL Mountains-organized international conference on „Global change & the world‟s
mountains‟ (September 2010)
o Workshops in Senegal on climate change:
• in St.Louis, organized by the Transboundary Biosphere Reserve of the Senegal Delta
• in Dakar organized by the LEAD foundation
383

Box 2: ECOSYSTEM BASED ADAPTATION (EbA)
Activities:
Promotion of Ecosystem based Approaches to Adaptation in climate change and biodiversity
negotiations (inputs given in IUCN position papers and negotiations)
Participation as member of IUCN delegations in climate change and biodiversity conventions,
covering especially the fields of climate change adaptation and biodiversity: Climate Change:
Copenhagen, 2009; Cancun, 2010; Durban, 2011; and Biodiversity: Nagoya, 2009
Compilation of case studies and lessons learned from field experiences on EbA and presented in
a CEM side event in Nagoya, 2009
Leadership of a draft of policy principles and guidelines for implementing EbA in adaptation
policies and projects, presented in Durban (2011) by more than 10 international organizations
Presentation of experiences on ecological restoration and the way in which they contribute to
building resilience to address climate change impacts, SERI, Mérida, México, 2011
Publications:
Angela Andrade, Rocío Córdoba, Radhika Dave, Pascal Girot, Bernal Herrera-F., Robert
Munroe, Judy Oglethorpe, Emilia Pramova, James Watson and Walter Vergara (2011), Draft
principles and guidelines for integrating ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation in
project and policy design: a discussion document. CEM/IUCN, CATIE. Kenya. (2-page
summary in English, French and Spanish distributed in Durban).
Andrade Pérez, A., Herrera Fernandez, B. and Cazzolla Gatti, R. (eds.) (2010). Building
Resilience to Climate Change: Ecosystem-based adaptation and lessons from the field. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. 164pp. (CEM Management Series presented in Nagoya). This document has
been mentioned in UNFCCC, 2011. Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation: compilation of
information. FCCC/SBSTA/2011/Inf.8.
David Lamb, Angela Andrade, Gill Shepherd, Keith Bowers, Sasha Alexander, 2011. Building
Resilience when restoring degraded ecosystems: improving biodiversity values and socioeconomic
benefits to communities. CBD. SBSTTA. Montreal. Montreal. 2011.
Andrade Pérez, Angela; Arguedas, Stanley; Vides, Roberto, Guía para la aplicación y monitoreo
del enfoque ecosistémico. IUCN <strong>Commission</strong> on Ecosystem Management, Unesco, MAB,
Fundación para la Conservación del Bosque Chiquitano (FCBC), Conservation International-
Colombia, Universidad para la Cooperación Internacional, Escuela Latinoamericana de Áreas
Protegidas (ELAP-UCI), Costa Rica.
Side events:
“Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) in a Changing Climate: From Practice to Policy?” Lessons
learnt from islands, Adaptation Hub, COP17, Durban
“Threatened Ecosystems, Vulnerable People,” during the 10 th Conference of the Parties of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Nagoya, Japan
EbA-CC presentation at COP10 of the CBD in Nagoya
384

‣ Clearing House mechanisms
One of the first products volunteer networks like CEM may initiate are clearing houses in the
respective field of the thematic groups. Especially in the electronic age, it should be relatively easy to
exchange information and expertise like databases with case studies or discussion platforms. This can
then lead to the identification of lessons learned, best international practices and benchmarking which
are at the basis of products such as guidelines and manuals.
IUCN has promised to provide its <strong>Commission</strong>s with a facility that will enable us to organize these
types of activities and products in a conducive electronic, IUCN-branded environment. Unfortunately,
we are still waiting for this. Out of frustration of this lack of follow up CEM lost a TGL, a leading global
authority on connectivity of ecosystems. At this moment we see that groups within CEM are
developing their platforms of exchange using freely existing social media such as Linkedln, Facebook
or Twitter.
A few outstanding examples of these platforms and their products include:
A learning Community on the Ecosystem Approach in Latin America
IUCN coordinator Ted Trzyna is sending information
An Ecosystem Services assessment in the Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems Group
Golden Steppe Initiative with the preparation of the Atlas of the key steppes
Publication with case studies available on IUCN web page/CBD “Building resilience to climate
change”
Interns for follow up on Idaho workshop on Resilience and to the Washington workshop on the
Mexican Gulf Oil Spill
Sharepoint web portal developed on “Ecosystems and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)” (no longer
supported by IUCN system)
Documentation of RLEs in different countries including Venezuela and South Africa
‣ Manuals, Guidelines and Training
As explained above, the analysis of case studies such as those brought together in clearing house
mechanisms, generally lead to identification of lessons learned to be reflected in guidelines for
ecosystem management and manuals for specific ecosystems in a particular context (sectors and/or
situations).
In the past, CEM members have played crucial roles in the formulation of the principles of ecosystem
management, endorsed by the CBD COP8 at Nairobi. We then made those principles more palatable
for ecosystem managers and decision takers. This still continues. Thanks to the work of CEM, IUCN
has become a leading partner in such issues as Disaster Risk Reduction and Ecosystem based
Adaptation to Climate Change for which guidelines (see boxes 2 and 3) and manuals have been
produced and regularly reprinted, often with a revision to integrate the latest views.
Without being exhaustive, we may mention other guidelines and manual-types of material produced
with substantial input from CEM:
Posters and flyers on steppe management (Mongolia); Springer Press will be publishing a book
based on the outcome of the CEM/Hustai National Park conference in Mongolia
Poster and SERI publication on “Building Resilience undertaking Restoration”
John Liu‟s documentary on Ecosystem Restoration
An instruction booklet for the Military in Peace-keeping operations
Brochure on dryland management, to support a training session at the UN, New York
A Guide for implementation and monitoring of the Ecosystem Approach in Latin America
Contributions to educational publications for the Antarctic
Booklet on management of Island Ecosystems
The transfer of knowledge is an integral part of all CEM‟s activities. On a number of occasions this has
been a very explicit objective of activities of CEM. Most CEM members are in one way or the other
involved with this type of activity. Training activities may cover the full range, from the field workers to
university students, and address target groups from highly diverse sectors. To mention just a few:
The training of trainers of RLE teams that will be used to instruct partners on the Red List
worldwide about the RLE methodology
385

A capacity building training package for national and sub-national policy makers on ecosystem
based DRR (www.pedrr.net)
A M.Sc. course on DRR, by a consortium of universities led by the University of Cologne
(Germany)
A workshop for farmers in the Baviaanskloof (South Africa)
Training courses for park rangers in Latin America on the Ecosystem Approach
Environmental Management course at the University of Calcutta
Box 3: Disaster Risk Reduction
Co-organized sessions and booth at UNISDR
Global Platforms in 2009 and 2011, and
International Disaster Risk Forum in 2010
and 2012; Sharepoint web portal developed
on topic of “Ecosystems and DRR” (no longer
supported by IUCN system)
“Environmental Guidance Note for DRR”
published in 2009, reprinted twice (out of
print)
“Ecosystems for DRR” book to be launched
2012/2013 in collaboration with UNU and
UNEP, published by UNU Press
Developed and delivered training materials in
collaboration with PEDRR partners
Master‟s degree programme, “Eco-DRR”
being developed with UNEP, WWF, UNU,
Cologne University and 10 southern
universities, for launch in winter 2012/2013
Contribution by TGL and N. Ash (formerly
EMP) on ecosystems for DRR published in
2012 IPCC Special Report on Extreme
Events
Several CEM members contributed scientific
chapters in “Ecosystems for DRR, European
context” paper commissioned by TGL for
Council of Europe and converted into
recommendation to be adopted by Council of
Europe, EUR-OPA agreement on natural
hazards management in April 2012
TGL called upon regularly to advise HQ staff
on Disaster Management
‣ Advice, expert opinion and advocacy
In terms of the individual activities of experts in their capacity as CEM members, this is probably the
largest group of activities, but also the least visible one, as much advice and opinion will be expressed
during person to person discussions. Often we are asked to comment on proposals and requests, in
particular by the different partner programmes within IUCN. Our expertise in the TG on ecosystem
services for instance is in high demand. Other times we play a role of advocacy, commenting on
situations without necessarily being asked to do so. An excellent example of this is the work of the
Fisheries Expert Group (see Box 4). Other activities that are highlighted here as just some examples
of our advisory work include:
The work in the jury of the Green Capital of Europe
Expert opinion to Yellow Seas Fisheries Institute on marine algal pollution
Awareness on wetland management in West Bengal
Expert opinion on impacts of mining on ecosystems and their users
Interviews on the risks associated with the use of neonicotinoid insecticides
Advice on the management of the natural ecosystems of Okinawa (Japan)
386

Input to setting the US research agenda to cope with the aftermath of the Mexican Gulf Oil Spill
While our members regularly publish scientific articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, some
articles published by our members were specifically CEM:
o On balanced fisheries in Science (2012), by Serge Garcia and his team
o On the RLE in Conservation Biology (2011), by Jon Paul Rodriguez and his collaborators
o Karin Sudmeier received a PhD on DRR from the University of Lausanne, and contributed to
a number of scientific articles on the same subject
Box 4: The Balanced Harvest proposal
The Fisheries Expert Group of IUCN-CEM organized on 14–16
October 2010, in Nagoya, just before CBD COP10, an international
Scientific Workshop on selective fisheries and balanced harvest
in relation to fisheries and ecosystem sustainability coordinated
by the European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD).
The conclusions were presented to CBD members in a side event.
The conventional single-species selectivity paradigm of fisheries was
briefly reviewed and its performance examined from an ecosystem
perspective. It was stressed that the overall (cumulative) selectivity of
the harvest process in an ecosystem is the result of nested selection
by fishers and fisheries of: (i) habitats; (ii) species assemblages;
(iii) populations; and (iv) individuals. A range of ecosystem models
predict the strong impact of concentrated fishing (selective fishing)
on ecosystem structure stability, resilience and productivity. All
models used indicated that there were advantages (in both yield and
maintenance of ecosystem structure and functioning) in distributing
fishing pressure broadly across available species and ecosystem
compartments instead of a narrow range of species and sizes. Balanced harvesting was therefore
defined by the workshop as a strategy that distributes fishing pressure across the widest possible
range of trophic levels, sizes and species, in proportion to their natural productivity, reducing fishing
pressure where it is excessive. The few attempts to verify the impacts predicted by models in real
ecosystems with empirical data had limited success, indicating that such a demonstration might be a
significant challenge. Data from African small-scale fisheries were presented as a possible example of
the capacity of multiple fisheries targeting an extremely broad range of species and sizes to extract
high yield with limited impact on ecosystem structure. There are also a number of examples of
surprising consequences of selectivity regulations resulting in either operational change in the fishery
or to unexpected shifts in the ecosystem pointing to uncertainties also in the present application of
selectivity. The report is available at http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2011-001.pdf. Policy and
management implications were subsequently reviewed and published in the Policy Forum section of
the journal Science. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1045.figures-only)
.
387

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The final judgment of our work during the intersessional period 2008–2012 is up to the World
Conservation Congress in Jeju.
However, we feel that on the foundations laid by our predecessors, CEM has been able to become
tremendously more influential. Our influence has substantially increased, and the outcome of our work
is now well visible and recognized at different levels within and outside IUCN.
However, significant challenges exist. Some of them are internal to CEM: How to mobilize a volunteer
network of high level and motivated experts that are solicited everywhere and consequently don‟t have
much time; the eternal quest for funding; the disinterest of policy makers and the sometimes wilful
intentions of powerful individuals to destroy ecosystems for short-term gains.
Nevertheless,
CEM has shown that we can make a difference. We have produced flagship products that help
the Union to further the cause of conservation for the benefit of Man and Nature. This we could
never have achieved without the zeal of our members. CEM owes a lot to the individual
members who devote a lot of their time voluntarily to our cause.
We all benefit from their enthusiasm and the quality of their work.
388

ANNEX 1: CEM Leadership
STEERING COMMITTEE
Chair:
Deputy Chair:
Members:
Piet Wit (The Netherlands), wit.syzygy@gmail.com
Angela Andrade (Colombia), a.andrade@conservation.org
Birguy Lamizana (Mali), birguy.lamizana@gmail.com
Said Damhoureyeh (Jordan), saidd@ju.edu.jo
Kelvin Passfield (Cook Islands), kelvin.passfield@gmail.com
REGIONAL CHAIRS AND CO-REGIONAL CHAIRS
North Africa:
West Africa:
Central Africa:
East & Southern Africa:
North America & English and
Spanish-speaking Caribbean:
Meso-America:
South America:
West Asia:
South Asia:
North-East Asia:
South-East Asia:
Oceania:
West Europe:
Eastern Europe and Central Asia:
Brahim Haddane (Morocco), haddane_br@hotmail.com
Edouard Bonkoungou (Burkina Faso),
bonkoungou.edouard@yahoo.fr
Corneille Ewango, ewango_corneille@yahoo.com
Hillary Masundire, masundh@mopipi.ub.bw
Steve Edwards (USA), sre@prxs.org
Bernal Herrera-Fernandez (Costa Rica), bernalhf@catie.ac.cr
Roberto Vides-Almonacid (Bolivia), robertovides@fcbc.org.bo
Samira Omar (Kuwait), somar@kisr.edu.kw
Dhrubajyoti Ghosh (India), ghoshdj.in@gmail.com
Co-Chair: Subhabrata Banerjee (India),
bsubhabrata@hotmail.com
Shoichi Kawano (Japan), skawano@mtb.biglobe.ne.jp
Annadel Cabanban (Philippines),
annadel_cabanban@yahoo.com.sg
Guy Williams (Australia), manalism@gmail.com
Jabier Ruiz-Mirazo (Spain), jruizmirazo@gmail.com
Kalev Sepp (Estonia), Kalev.sepp@emu.ee
NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS
China:
The Netherlands:
Mexico:
France:
Yu Xiubo, yuxb@igsnrr.ac.cn
Hein Pijnappel, h.pijnappel@royalhaskoning.com
Carlos Garcia-Saez, cgarcia@conanp.gob.mx
Marion Peguin, marion.peguin@uicn.fr
THEMATIC GROUP LEADERS AND CO-LEADS
Ecosystems Red List:
Disaster Risk Reduction:
Connectivity Conservation:
The Ecosystem Approach:
Ecosystem Restoration:
Ecosystem Services:
Fisheries Expert Group:
Climate Change Adaptation:
Coastal Ecosystems Group:
Holarctic Steppes:
Capacity Building for Ecosystem
Management:
Jon Paul Rodriguez (Venezuela), jonpaul@ivic.gob.ve
Karen Sudmeier (France), karen.sudmeier@orange.fr
Nicolas Urbina-Cardona (Colombia), nurbina@yahoo.com
Olivier Hamerlynck (Kenya), olivier.hamerlynck@wanadoo.fr
Keith Bowers (USA), kbowers@biohabitats.com
Rudolf de Groot (The Netherlands), dolf.degroot@wur.nl
Co-lead: Jelena Iliç (Serbia), jelena.v.ilic@gmail.com
Serge Garcia (Belgium), garcia.sergemichel@gmail.com
Roberto Cazzolla (Italy), robertocazzolla@virgilio.it
Co-lead: Alexander Froede (Germany),
alexander.froede@gmx.eu
Richard Kenchington (Australia),
richard.kenchington@netspeed.com.au
Tatyana Bragina (Kazakhstan), naurzum@mail.ru
Subir K Ghosh (India), subir.ghosh58@gmail.com
389

Dryland Ecosystems:
Island Ecosystems:
Nutrient Cycling:
Wetland Ecosystems:
Mountain Ecosystems:
Urban Ecosystems:
Ecosystems and Private
Sector:
Grassland Ecosystems in
Latin America:
Mediterranean-Type
Ecosystems:
Oasis Group:
CEM-SSC Task Force on
Systemic Pesticides:
Lene Poulsen (Denmark), lene.poulsen@gmail.com
Arthur Dahl (Switzerland), dahla@bluewin.ch
Co-leads: Rebecca Richardson (Australia),
becrichardson@optusnet.com.au and
Jacqui Evans (Cook Islands) tepaeruevans@gmail.com
Arthur Nonomura (USA), anonomura@mail.ucsd.edu
Mike Acreman (UK), man@ceh.ac.uk
Martin Price (UK), martin.price@perth.uhi.ac.uk
Feng Li (China), lifeng@rcees.ac.cn
Eros Artuso (Australia), erosa@asmandc.com
Co-lead Dany Levy (Switzerland), dlevy@bluewin.ch
Robert Hofstede (Ecuador), hofstederobert@gmail.com
Peggy L. Fiedler (USA), peggy.fiedler@ucop.edu
Co-lead: Chen Yin Noah (USA), chenyin.noah@ucop.edu
Ben Salah (Tunisia), bensalah@hotmail.com
TF leader Maarten Bijleveld van Lexmond, mbvl@club-internet.fr
SPECIAL ADVISORS AND FOCAL POINTS
Ecosystem Approach:
Ecosystem Restoration:
Green Capital of Europe:
Business and Ecosystems:
Arctic ecosystems:
Antarctic:
Nature and Culture:
Gill Sheperd (UK), gillshepherd@compuserve.com
David Lamb (Australia), d.lamb@uq.edu.au
Stamatis Chondrogiannis (Greece), sxond@teemail.gr
Willem Ferwerda (The Netherlands), info@willemferwerda.nl
Hein Rune SkjØldal (Norway), hein.rune.skjoldal@imr.no
David Pitt (Switzerland), pittdelacure@bluewin.ch
Dashka Tserendeleg (Mongolia), dashkats@yahoo.com
390