The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management

An overview of interpretations of the concept & suggestions for how it can be put into

practice

Dorothy J. DankelPhD candidate, fisheries management

Lecture outline• Setting the stage for the ecosystem approach

• Interpretations of EAF

– Australia

– Alaska

– Norway

• Some EAF scientific state-of-the-art methods

• Putting EAF into practice

– Benchmarking: RAPFISH as example

– Moving forward with implementation: revisiting Australia, Alaska & Norway

• Summary & References

PART I

Setting the stage for the ecosystem approach

FAO (2003): EAF strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking account of the knowledge & uncertainties of biotic, abiotic & human components of ecosystems & applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries

UN Convention on Biological Diversity (2000): EA is a strategy for the integrated mgmt of land, water, & living resources that promotes conservation & sustainable use in an equitable way

The fishery system Charles 2001

•Complexity & Diversity!•Human system is integral

Interdisciplinary Science,

EAF

open, interconnected,

complex, & dynamic

Why the ecosystem approach?

• The whole ecosystem is worth more to humanity than the sum of its parts (Browman and Stergiou 2004)

• But, the sum of all single spp. MSYs is larger than the estimated ecosystem MSY!

• Relative ”failure” of the conventional system

– Societal concern over sustainability

• Marine fisheries do not exist in isolation

• Recognition that human fisheries impacts can change ecosystems

– Can be ecologically, economically & socially detrimental

Theory behind EAF

• EAF is a ”new” natural resource paradigm– (Link 2002, Browman & Stergiou 2004)

– The short-term pain of EAF is necessary to reap long-term benefits

– Mechanism towards sustainable fisheries

• Need a holistic approach– To scientific advice, dialogue & implementation

• Manage for ecosystem ”health” & ”integrity”– Link (2002): avoid misnomers! Ecosystem can have more

than 1 state!

• ecosystem status & ecosystem status stability

MSY OMSY

Relationship to other paradigms

Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489

/Ecosystem-based fisheries mgmt

PART II

Interpretations of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

Interpretations of EAF

There are many!

pragmatic idealistic

• ICES: Ecosystem-based marine management is an integrated management av human activity based on knowledge of the ecosystem’s dynamics in order to acheive sustainable use of goods & services from the ecosystem as well as maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem.

• CIEAF (2006, Bianchi et al. 2008): EAF has 2 dimensions1. Vertical dimension of application

2. Horizontal dimension of integration of fisheries into different sectors for a holistic management plan

EAF is a strategy, not an ”action plan”, & must be tailored to each application

Interpretations of EAF

Australia’s interpretation of EAF (McLoughlin et al. 2008, in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008)

Four main threads to EBFM:

1. Application of mgmt actions (incl decision rules) to reduce ecosystem impacts to acceptable level

2. Ecological & stock assmts to inform mgmt

– Ecological risk assmts

– Harvest strategy policies determine TACs/ITQs for 32 stocks

3. Info & data collection to support assmts

4. Education & capacity building to bring the fishing industry & other key stakeholders in the process

Alaska’s interpretation of EAF (Witherell et al. 2000 )

Definition: Ecosystem-based management is a strategy to regulate human activity towards maintaining long-term system sustainability (within the range of natural variability as we understand it) of the North Pacific.

Objective: To provide future generations the opportunities & resources we enjoy today.

Important understandings:

1. Uncontrolled human population growth & consequentdemand for resources is inconsistent with sustainability

2. Ecosystem-based mgmt requires time scales thattranscend human lifetimes

3. Ecosystems are open, interconnected, complex, & dynamic

Norway’s interpretation of EAF

• New Ocean Resource Act (Havressursloven)– Manage resources in a sustainable & socio-economic

profitable way (preserving both environ. & industry)

– Preserve biological diversity as well as wild genetic material

– Will work side by side with the new ”natural diversity act” (naturmagnfoldloven)

– More advanced tracking of catches to punish & deter illegal fishing

– ”Management principle” puts into law the power to management authorities to regulary assess resources & take appropriate measures

Quick summary of EAF interpretations: The old mgmt rules still apply

but even more so in EAF!

• Control/reduce the fishing mortality rate on target spp

• Reduce bycatch & detrimental fishing practices

• Integrate user groups in all stages of decision making

Challenges to EAF: mgmt & scientific

• Short-term pains

– Lower F, effort, revenue

– But, eco-tourism can gain

• Correct incentives to limit illegal behavior (Hilborn 2008 in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008)

• Valuation of ecosystem goods and services

– Speak the language of the industries ($)

• Creation and operation of ecosystem/fisheries system models

– Bio-socio-economic analyses

– Interdisciplinary science & decision making

PART III

How scientists can embrace the ecosystem approach: state-of-the-art examples

Can the reason EAF has been so slow to implement

because we are all waiting for someone else

to take the lead?

Research requirements for EAF(O’Boyle et al. 2008, in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008)

1. Impact of a fishery on ecosystem (bottom

trawling, etc)

2. Impact of ecosystem on fishery (warming

waters, climate change effects, etc)

3. Manipulation of ecosystems thru mgmt and habitat mitigation (leave capelin for cod, etc)

• Understanding issues of:

– biodiversity

– productivity

– habitat

• Spatial/trophic processes/connectivity

• Effects from climate change

• Ecological risk analyses

• Contextual ecosystem modelling

– Ecopath/Ecosim (Walters et al. 1997), Atlantis (Fulton et

al. 2004)

Research requirements for EAF(O’Boyle et al. 2008, in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008)

Link biodiversity to productivity & resilience,habitat type & sensitivity

Discussion at IMR: What is an ecosystem cruise?

• Exploration of abundance (qualitative & quantitative) & spp. distribution, their interactions & the ocean environemnt

– Need knowledge on spp. & trophic interxns

• Quantitative mapping of predator-prey relationships

• Qualtitative knowledge on distribution & relative abundance, habitat choice & geographic distribution

– Ocean environment can be measured thru specific parameters (temp., salinity, O2) via defined transects or on a regional scale

Setting the stage for stakeholder dialogue: map out scenarios

Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489

Mapping economic efficiency loss after ecosystem degradation

Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489

Single sp. approach

EAF

Ecopath/Ecosim modelling (Pauly et al. 2000)

MSY as a ref pt. defining a viability domain (Mace 2001)

Kernel with complex system trajectories of interacting components (Mullon et al. 2004)

ICES prec. Approach (1990s)MSY concept (Schaefer 1954)Catch as func of effort withoutconstraints (Huxley ca. 1880s)Evolution from single spp. thinking to an

operational EAF paradigm

RAPFISH: appraising multi-disciplinary sustainability Pitcher & Preikshot, 2001

A tool to evaluate the comparative sustainability of fisheries

RAPFISH: appraising multi-disciplinary sustainability Pitcher & Preikshot, 2001

Putting RAPFISH into practice in Brazil

An indicator of ecosystem status based on average trophic level & weight of total catch

Increasing trend indicate fisheries expansion but a decreasing trend indicates overfishing

catch, year i trophic level

mean trophic level at start of

series

mean transfer efficiency at start of series (10%)

mean catch at start of series

Fish in Balanceequation

Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489

Hypothetical examples of mgmt measures & socially optimal fishing effort

Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489

Problem: shark bycatch

Total net social welfare increases

Diff btwn final E and socially opt. E is decreased

PART IV

Putting the ecosystem approach in practice: examples from Australia Alaska, & Norway

Implementing EAF in Australia (Fletcher 2008, in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008)

• Substantial progress since 2000 due to:

– Gov’t certified sustainable fisheries

– Requirement for ALL Commonwealth-managed fisheries to submit a comprehensive application to address sustainable guidlines in order to continue exporting their catch

• Realization that motivation must come from within the country, community, industry for success

1. Determine the scope of the assmt with clear descriptions of what you are assessing & what societal values need addressing

2. ID all issues across the range of EAF elements

3. Use a form of risk assmt or PA to determine issues needing direct action

4. Develop a formal mgmt system with clear operational obj based on Step 2, incl a way to assess performance against these objectives

Main steps for implementing EAF in Australia (Fletcher 2008, in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008)

The system does not provide the answers, merely helps with the process!

Australian appl to a tuna fishery

from Fletcher 2008 (in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008)

pragmatic, staged, realistic approach to EAF, which is a risk-based mgmt process, not an excuse for more research

1. Precautionary catch limits

2. By-catch & discard limits

3. Marine mammal & seabird considerations

4. MPAs

5. Continued adaptive

learning towards EBFM

Examples of integrated management

• coordination btwn sectors• ID knowledge gaps• strengthen environmental monitoring programs through a broad advisory group• new reference group of stakeholders to express views• co-existence between industries• preserve biodiversity

• consequences of climate change & acidification• agenda for sustainable use, incl. wind turbines, integration of different interests

How can fisheries management embrace EAF?

• Initiate dialogue with stakeholders– Scientists as facilitators

– Get them on board early

• Be explicit about uncertainty

• Be adaptive & reactive (science & mgmt)

• Science & mgmt should include experts in all relevant components– Biology

– Stock assessment

– Socio-economics

– Enforcement/incentives

components of EAF

Summary• EAF strives for long term sustainable fisheries

– implies a new scientific aproach to the fishery system with broader range of disciplines working together

– implies lower fishing mortality rates (short-term pain for long-term gain)

– EAF is a strategy & the specific tactics need to be regionally tailored

• EAF interpretations: idealistic vs. pragmatic– plethora of EAF definitions has contributed to implementation stalling

– Australia: need to be pragmatic, focus on risk-based mgmt

• In some areas, EAF is implemented– but there is a steep learning curve

– Norway can be world leaders in cross-sectoral ecosystem mgmt

• Scientific challenge is to give ecosystem advice to managers – need to further develop ecosystem models & integrate with socio-

economic models

References Cited (reading list incl as handout)

Bianchi G and Skjodal HR, eds. 2008. The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO 2008.

Browman & Stergiou. 2004. Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274:269-303.

Charles AT (2001). Sustainable Fishery Systems, Blackwell Science Ltd.

Cury et al. 2004. Viability theory for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62:577-584.

FAO. 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries: Issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 443.

FAO. 2008. Human dimensions of the ecosystem approach to fisheries: An overview of context, concepts, tools and methods. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 485.

Fulton, EA, Smith ADM & Punt AE. 2004. Ecological indicators of the ecosystem effects of fishing: Final Report. Report No. R99/1546. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia.

Isaac RV, Santo WE, Bentes B, Frédou FL, Mourão and Frédou T. 2009. An interdisciplinary evaluation of fishery production systems off the state of Pará in North Brazil. Journal of Apllied Ichthyology 25:244-255.

Link J. 2002. What does ecosystem-based fisheries management mean? Fisheries, vol 27 no. 4.

Martins AS, dos Santos LB, Pizetta GT, Monjardim C and Doxsey JR: Interdisciplinary assessment of the status quo of the marine fishery state of Espirito Santo, Brazil, using RAPFISH. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 35:269-276.

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. Report No. 8 to the Storting. (2005-2006) Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands.

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. Report No. 37 to the Storting. (2008-2009) Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Norwegian Sea. (in Norwegian, but a translation will most likely be forthcoming)

Pitcher TJ and Preikshot D. 2001. RAPFISH: a rapid appraisal technique to evaluate the sustainability status of fisheries. Fisheries Research 49:255-270.

Pitcher et al. 2009. An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries. Marine Policy, 33:223-232.

Walters CJ, Christiansen V and Pauly D. 1997. Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass-balance assessments. Reviews in Fish Biology & Fisheries 7, 1-34.

Witherell et al. 2000. An ecosystem-based approach for Alaska groundfish fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 771-777.

Key references from FAO

Here are some slides that were not included in the trial lecture because they represent my own views, but

may be interesting...

Why the Ecosystem Approach must focus on dialogue

– More branches of science

– More interaction on compatible objectives

– More dynamic communication leading to autonomy and user buy-in

managers /gov’tscientists

Bottom-up decision

stakeholders

• HCRs have strategic potential

– As a meeting place for stakeholder/manager/scientist collaboration

– Stakeholder dialogue & buy-in

– As a concrete collaborative product

Achieving integrated management

HCR

Communication workshopsfor successful EAF

• Internal within marine reasearch institutes

– How to present results to managers, communicate uncertainty

• Round-table workshops (sponsored by EU/local governments)

– Trust- & communication-building, transparency, autonomy

managers

scientists

stakeholders

No loss of objectivity or ethics in dynamic communication!

It’s not the plan, it’s the planning- Winston Churchill

Normal science Post-normal science

Academic Academic & social

Mono-disciplinary Trans-disciplinary

Technocratic Participative

Certain Uncertain

Predictive exploratory

Visualizing science paradigms