Pathways of Effects - National Guidelines
Illustrating the links between human activity and its potential impact on aquatic ecosystems

Table of Contents

• Complete Text
• Acronym list
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Preface
• 1.0 Introduction
• 2.0 Ecosystem-based management (EBM)
• 3.0 Pathways of Effect Models
  • 3.1 Role of PoEs
  • 3.2 What is a PoE model?
  • 3.3 Benefits of a PoE model
  • 3.4 PoE design
• 4.0 Types of PoE models
  • 4.1 Holistic models
  • 4.2 Endpoint PoE models
    • 4.2.1 Species-based model
    • 4.2.2 Pressure-based model
    • 4.2.3 Socio-cultural and economic-based model
  • 4.3 Activity/action and sector-based models
    • 4.3.1 Activity or action-based models
    • 4.3.2 Sector-based models
• 5.0 PoE development
  • 5.1 PoE components
    • 5.1.1 Identification of measurable endpoints
    • 5.1.2 Identification of human activities and sub-activities
    • 5.1.3 Identification of pressures
    • 5.1.4 Identification of impacts/ environmental effects
  • 5.2 PoE validation
    • 5.2.1 Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) review process
    • 5.2.2 Social, cultural and economic PoE models review process
• 6.0 Conclusion
• Glossary
• References

REFERENCES

1. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat – Ecosystem Status Report 2004/006. “Identification of ecologically and biologically significant areas.” Fisheries and Oceans, March 2005.
2. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat – Proceedings Series 2004/016. “Proceedings of the Canadian Marine Ecoregions Workshop.” Fisheries and Oceans, August 2004.
3. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat – Science Advisory Report 2005/026. “Guidelines on evaluating ecosystem overviews and assessments: necessary documentation.” Fisheries and Oceans, August 2005.
4. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat – Science Advisory Report 2006/041. “Identification of ecologically significant species and community properties.” Fisheries and Oceans, January 2007.
5. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat – Science Advisory Report 2007/010. “Guidance document on identifying conservation priorities and phrasing conservation objectives for large ocean management areas.” Fisheries and Oceans, April 2007.
6. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat – Science Advisory Report 2009/071. “Pathways of Effects for finfish and shellfish aquaculture.” Fisheries and Oceans, January 2010.
7. Curtin, Richard and Raul Prellezo. “Understanding marine ecosystem based management: A literature review.” Marine Policy 34 (2010): 821-830.
8. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Using the pressure-state-response model to develop indicators of sustainability: OECD framework for environmental indicators.” 1999. Online. Accessed: January 21, 2010.
9. Rockloff, S. et al. Technical Report 82. “Integrated indicator framework for monitoring and reporting on biophysical health and social wellbeing in the coastal zone.” Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary & Waterway Management, January 2006. Online. Accessed: January 21, 2010.
10. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. “Glossary: Part 2: explanation of terms.” 2009. Online. Accessed: January 21, 2010.
11. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2006 Habitat Management: Practitioners guide to the risk management framework for DFO Habitat Management Staff. Habitat Management Program, Fisheries and Oceans, 2006.
12. GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. Assessment and communication of environmental risks in Coastal Aquaculture. 2008.
13. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, 2006. Online. Accessed: January 21, 2010.
14. Pew Oceans Commission. America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington: 2003.
15. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century: Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Washington: 2004
16. U.S Environmental Protection Agency – EPA/630/R-95/002F. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment: Risk Assessment Forum. Washington: 1998.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – EPA/600/R-07/045F. 2008 Report on the Environment. “Chapter 6: Ecological Conditions.” Washington: May 2008. Online. Accessed: January 21, 2010.
18. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Integrated Risk Management Framework. Ottawa: 2001. Online. Accessed: January 25, 2010.
19. Bondad-Reantaso, M.G., J.R. Arthur and R.P. Subasinghe, eds. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 519. “Understanding and applying risk analysis in aquaculture.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2006), 208-304
20. Health Canada. A Framework for Strategic Risk Communications within the Context of Health Canada and the PHAC's Integrated Risk Management. Ottawa: 2006. Online. Accessed: January 21, 2010.
21. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas. Ottawa: 2009. Online. Accessed: June 23, 2011.

Contact Us