• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Dorothy's presentation on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
 

Dorothy's presentation on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

on

  • 2,750 views

Dorothy's presentation on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, used for her tiral lecture May 26, 2009, Bergen, Norway

Dorothy's presentation on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, used for her tiral lecture May 26, 2009, Bergen, Norway

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,750
Views on SlideShare
2,692
Embed Views
58

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
70
Comments
1

8 Embeds 58

http://dorothydankel.blogspot.com 24
http://www.dorothydankel.blogspot.com 15
http://www.slideshare.net 10
http://dorothydankel.blogspot.no 4
http://dorothydankel.blogspot.co.uk 2
http://bdpunpatti.blogspot.com 1
http://www.dorothydankel.blogspot.no 1
http://dorothydankel.blogspot.ru 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Dorothy's presentation on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Dorothy's presentation on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Presentation Transcript

    • The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management An overview of interpretations of the concept & suggestions for how it can be put into practice Dorothy J. Dankel PhD 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
    • 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 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
    • The fishery system Charles 2001 Interdisciplinary Science, EAF open, •Complexity & Diversity! interconnected, •Human system is integral 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 – MSY OMSY (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
    • Relationship to other paradigms /Ecosystem-based fisheries mgmt Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489
    • PART II Interpretations of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
    • Interpretations of EAF There are many! pragmatic idealistic
    • Interpretations of EAF • 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 dimensions 1. 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
    • 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 & consequent demand for resources is inconsistent with sustainability 2. Ecosystem-based mgmt requires time scales that transcend 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
    • Can the reason EAF has been so slow to implement because we are all waiting for someone else to take the lead? PART III How scientists can embrace the ecosystem approach: state-of-the- art examples
    • 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)
    • Research requirements for EAF (O’Boyle et al. 2008, in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008) • Understanding issues of: – biodiversity Link biodiversity to – productivity productivity & resilience, – habitat habitat type & sensitivity • 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)
    • 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 MSY concept (Schaefer 1954) ICES prec. Approach (1990s) Evolution from single spp. thinking to an Catch as func of effort without constraints (Huxley ca. 1880s) operational EAF paradigm EAF MSY as a ref pt. defining a Kernel with complex system viability domain (Mace 2001) trajectories of interacting components (Mullon et al. 2004) Ecopath/Ecosim modelling (Pauly et al. 2000)
    • 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 catch, year i trophic level mean catch at start of series Fish in Balance mean trophic equation level at start of series mean transfer efficiency at start of series (10%) Increasing trend indicate fisheries expansion but a decreasing trend indicates overfishing Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489
    • Hypothetical examples of mgmt measures & socially optimal fishing effort Problem: shark bycatch Diff btwn final E and socially opt. E is decreased Total net social welfare increases Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489
    • 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
    • Main steps for implementing EAF in Australia (Fletcher 2008, in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008) 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 The system does not provide the answers, merely helps with the process!
    • Australian appl to a tuna fishery pragmatic, staged, realistic approach to EAF, which is a risk-based mgmt process, not an excuse for more research from Fletcher 2008 (in Bianchi & Skjodal 2008)
    • 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 components of EAF – Socio-economics – Enforcement/incentives
    • 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 Bottom-up decision managers / scientists gov’t stakeholders – More branches of science – More interaction on compatible objectives – More dynamic communication leading to autonomy and user buy-in
    • Achieving integrated management • HCRs have strategic potential – As a meeting place for stakeholder/manager/scientist collaboration – Stakeholder dialogue & buy-in – As a concrete collaborative product HCR
    • Communication workshops for 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 No loss of objectivity or ethics in dynamic communication! stakeholders managers scientists It’s not the plan, it’s the planning - Winston Churchill
    • Visualizing science paradigms Normal science Post-normal science Academic Academic & social Mono-disciplinary Trans-disciplinary Technocratic Participative Certain Uncertain Predictive exploratory