Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Dorothy mnf490 systems view of fisheries
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Dorothy mnf490 systems view of fisheries

327
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
327
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Hovedside
  • Tittelside
  • Tittelside
  • Transcript

    • 1. Background reading: Degnbol et al. 2006 • Marine fisheries are in trouble worldwide • Fisheries have integral biological, economical and social components • Therefore a paradigm shift (Kuhn!) is needed towards cross-disciplinary fisheries management to help solve the fisheries crises
    • 2. How do we manage? Measure Initial a Adjusted Plan quantity Plan Goal
    • 3. Effort, FInput management IManage what’s going INTO the fishery N2 types of management Fish stockOutput management O UManage what’s coming OUT of the fishery T SSB, TAC
    • 4. How do we manage fish ( SSB or fishable ? biomass) SSB: 800,000 t Annual 800,000 < 1.5 millSSB: Need to stock1 mill t assessment adjust Plan Lower TAC 1 year Goal: SSB= 1.5 mill t
    • 5. How do we manage fisheries (F, effort) ? 1 year F = 2.4 Annual 2.4 > 1.3 fisheries Need to data adjust Plan Lower F Sustainable F Fair and clearly specified F = 1.3 management policy is in the interest of all stakeholders of the world’s fish resources
    • 6. My main questions:What is important for successful marine fisheries? How can it be implemented?
    • 7. The overlooked systems view in fisheries science Missing links & the promise of integrated assessments for sustainable management Dorothy J. Dankel, PhD Institute of Marine Research (Havforskningsinstituttet) Pelagic SectionUniversity of Bergen Centre for the Study of the Sciences & the Humanities, Senter for Vitenskapsteori (SVT)
    • 8. My main questions:What is important for successful marine fisheries? How can it be implemented?
    • 9. Objective & Definitions Highlight management worthy of recommendation & those that most often fail-----------------------------------------------------------success: exhibits sustainable harvest with control measures applied to fishing mortality (F) & fleet sizepotential problems: exhibits foundations of responsible management: – stakeholder input, reference points, approved stock assessment , clear & attainable objectives but currently has problems with one or more management issuesserious problems: substantial problems related to very low stock production, low recruitment &/or fleet overcapacityfailure: management has failed to have control stock collapse with no recovery plan
    • 10. Selected Results from Dankel et al. (2008)1. Japanese anchovy2. Patagonian toothfish3. Alaskan sockeye salmon Max length & weight 18 cm, 45 grams Fishery type pelagic, nets
    • 11. Japanese anchovy, P.R. China • Short-lived; natural stock fluctuations • Bad management: No Precautionary Approach, only closure control, not enough data for quota, no recovery plan 4.5 1.4 4 1.2Biomass (million t) 3.5 Stock size in January 1 Actual catch Catch (million t) 3 Precautionary/advised catch 2.5 0.8 2 0.6 1.5 0.4 1 18 cm, 45 grams 0.2 0.5 0 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Fishing starts Year pelagic, nets
    • 12. Japanese anchovy, P.R. China • Short-lived; natural stock fluctuations • Bad management: No Precautionary Approach, only closure control, not enough data for quota, no recovery plan 4.5 1.4 4 1.2Biomass (million t) 3.5 Stock size in January 1 Actual catch Catch (million t) 3 Precautionary/advised catch 2.5 0.8 2 0.6 1.5 0.4 1 18 cm, 45 grams 0.2 0.5 0 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Fishing starts Year pelagic, nets
    • 13. Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR • ”Olympic” consensus •Little data •Flags of convenience • IUU fishing • ”white gold” 215-238 cm, 130 kg demersal, longline
    • 14. Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR • ”Olympic” consensus •Little data •Flags of convenience • IUU fishing • ”white gold” 215-238 cm, 130 kg demersal, longline
    • 15. Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR • ”Olympic” consensus •Little data •Flags of convenience • IUU fishing • ”white gold” 215-238 cm, 130 kg demersal, longline
    • 16. Alaskan sockeye salmon, Bristol Bay• state mandate for conservation• Board of Fisheries = direct link to stakeholders, policy transparency• very convenient stock assessment, strong enforcement• ”Orderly, organized pandemonium” • 6 week season = 90,000 landings 65-75 cm, 7 kg pelagic, net
    • 17. Alaskan sockeye salmon, Bristol Bay• state mandate for conservation• Board of Fisheries = direct link to stakeholders, policy transparency• very convenient stock assessment, strong enforcement• ”Orderly, organized pandemonium” • 6 week season = 90,000 landings 65-75 cm, 7 kg pelagic, net
    • 18. ConclusionsProblematic management: Greenland halibut, Southern bluefin tuna, Patagonian toothfish • Overcapacity of low-fecund stocks Need fleet control • Muliti-nation management ― inherent stakeholder conflicts • High market demand Market coop. Control of demand (?)
    • 19. ConclusionsSuccessful management: Alaskan sockeye salmon, SouthAfrican cape hakes, Pacific halibut• Relative coastal isolation • Fleet control (single nation management) • Stakeholder involvement leading to consensus of a management strategy
    • 20. What is important for successful marine fisheries? • stakeholder integration • interdiciplinary scientific advice How can it be implemented?
    • 21. To understand aproblem, you need to know its context
    • 22. The Fishery System Context recovery plan Managers management plan Context leads to systems linkages…
    • 23. Why conflict?
    • 24. Motivation: Hilborn (2007)"Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives" Clarification through QUANTIFICATION! profit yield employment zone of new zone of traditional consensus fisheries management Benefits (utility) ecosystem preservation 0 population crash Fishing Effort
    • 25. Can integrated assessmentsreconcile stakeholder conflicts in marine fisheries management? Dorothy Jane Dankel1,2,3 Mikko Heino1,2,3 Ulf Dieckmann3 1 Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway; 2 Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Norway3 Evolution and Ecology Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
    • 26. Bio-socio-economic model for Barents Seacod & capelin
    • 27. Consensus?stakeholders managers scientists
    • 28. Biological model: cod , Biological model: capelin − (M a + FR,a )N a +1 (t ) = N a e − (M a + FR,a ) N a +1 (t ) = N a e Socio-econ model: cod Socio-econ model: capelin Employment-effort Employment-effort relationship, costs & relationship, costs & revenues revenues Yield Conservation Yield Conservation Employment Profit Employment Profit
    • 29. Stakeholder preferences Utility components YIELD EMPLOYMENT PROFIT STOCK LEVEL (spawning stock biomass)StakeholdersFISHERMEN ”industrial” 0.3 0 0.7 0 ”artisanal” 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3SOCIETY ”employment- 0.2 0.5 0 0.3 oriented” ”profit-oriented” 0.2 0 0.6 0.2CONSERVATIONISTS 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 assumption: stakeholder group consensus
    • 30. Stakeholder A Stakeholder B Stakeholder C Minimum size Amount of fishing Area of joint satisfactionUse preference table to map the best scenarios for each stakeholder
    • 31. Joint Stakeholder Satisfaction (JSS) 2 control options Control parameters that allow for high satisfaction are candidates for a consensus solution Capelin Cod 20 70% satisfaction 150Minimum size (cm) 15 90% satisfaction 100 10 status quo 50 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Harvest proportion (%)
    • 32. How robust is the joint stakeholder satisfaction? (”management strategy consensus”)
    • 33. 30% Stakeholder Uncertainty Even with stakeholder preference uncertainty, both capelin & cod stakeholders have high probability of consensus agreement for management regulations Cod more robustFrequency Goodness of JSS
    • 34. Take home messages1. Stakeholder conflicts may not be so conflicting as thought - our modelled cod has more robust consensus than capelin1. Quantification of stakeholder obj/pref leads to clarification of management consequences - room for ”revaluation” of objectives for an integrated solution (M.P. Follett 1953)1. Integrating biological & socio-economic assessments sheds light on utilities that matter to society
    • 35. Main questions & theses:What is important for successful marine fisheries? • stakeholder integration • interdiciplinary scientific advice How can it be implemented? • integrated (bio-socio-economic) scientific assessments
    • 36. Back to Degnbol et al. 2006Cross-disciplinary work must be rewarded not punished as is typical of today. One cannotexpect that people would freely and knowinglyrisk their careers. If fisheries scientists—be they biologists, economists, or sociologists/anthropologists—are forced to make such a choice, cross-disciplinarycooperation will continue to be something that we talk about but never realize.
    • 37. Context helps form system linkages