Background reading: Degnbol et al. 2006  • Marine fisheries are in trouble worldwide  • Fisheries have integral biological...
How do we manage?           Measure Initial              a       Adjusted  Plan           quantity     Plan               ...
Effort, FInput management                              IManage what’s going INTO the fishery          N2 types of manageme...
How do we manage fish (                  SSB or fishable               ?    biomass)                      SSB: 800,000 t  ...
How do we manage fisheries                               (F, effort)   ?                                      1 year      ...
My main questions:What is important for successful       marine fisheries? How can it be implemented?
The overlooked systems view in                 fisheries science         Missing links & the promise of integrated        ...
My main questions:What is important for successful       marine fisheries? How can it be implemented?
Objective & Definitions Highlight management worthy of recommendation                 & those that most often fail--------...
Selected Results from Dankel et al. (2008)1. Japanese anchovy2. Patagonian toothfish3. Alaskan sockeye salmon             ...
Japanese anchovy, P.R. China           • Short-lived; natural stock fluctuations           • Bad management: No Precaution...
Japanese anchovy, P.R. China           • Short-lived; natural stock fluctuations           • Bad management: No Precaution...
Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR                 • ”Olympic” consensus                 •Little data                 •Flags of ...
Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR                 • ”Olympic” consensus                 •Little data                 •Flags of ...
Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR                 • ”Olympic” consensus                 •Little data                 •Flags of ...
Alaskan sockeye salmon, Bristol Bay• state mandate for conservation• Board of Fisheries = direct link to stakeholders, pol...
Alaskan sockeye salmon, Bristol Bay• state mandate for conservation• Board of Fisheries = direct link to stakeholders, pol...
ConclusionsProblematic management: Greenland halibut, Southern  bluefin tuna, Patagonian toothfish   • Overcapacity of low...
ConclusionsSuccessful management: Alaskan sockeye salmon, SouthAfrican cape hakes, Pacific halibut• Relative coastal isola...
What is important for successful       marine fisheries? • stakeholder integration • interdiciplinary scientific advice Ho...
To understand aproblem, you need to  know its context
The Fishery System Context           recovery             plan                      Managers         management           ...
Why conflict?
Motivation: Hilborn (2007)"Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives"  Clarification through   QUANTIFICAT...
Can integrated assessmentsreconcile stakeholder conflicts in marine fisheries management?                      Dorothy Jan...
Bio-socio-economic model for Barents Seacod & capelin
Consensus?stakeholders                managers               scientists
Biological model: cod                   ,                                            Biological model: capelin            ...
Stakeholder preferences    Utility  components         YIELD EMPLOYMENT PROFIT     STOCK LEVEL                            ...
Stakeholder A      Stakeholder B    Stakeholder C  Minimum size                                 Amount of fishing         ...
Joint Stakeholder Satisfaction (JSS)                                       2 control options                         Contr...
How robust is the joint stakeholder          satisfaction?   (”management strategy consensus”)
30% Stakeholder Uncertainty            Even with stakeholder preference uncertainty, both capelin & cod             stakeh...
Take home messages1. Stakeholder conflicts may not be so conflicting as   thought   - our modelled cod has more robust con...
Main questions & theses:What is important for successful marine              fisheries? • stakeholder integration • interd...
Back to Degnbol et al. 2006Cross-disciplinary work must be rewarded not   punished as is typical of today. One cannotexpec...
Context helps form system linkages
Dorothy mnf490 systems view of fisheries
Dorothy mnf490 systems view of fisheries
Dorothy mnf490 systems view of fisheries
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dorothy mnf490 systems view of fisheries

571 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Dorothy mnf490 systems view of fisheries

  1. 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. 2. How do we manage? Measure Initial a Adjusted Plan quantity Plan Goal
  3. 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. 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. 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. 6. My main questions:What is important for successful marine fisheries? How can it be implemented?
  7. 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. 8. My main questions:What is important for successful marine fisheries? How can it be implemented?
  9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13. Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR • ”Olympic” consensus •Little data •Flags of convenience • IUU fishing • ”white gold” 215-238 cm, 130 kg demersal, longline
  14. 14. Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR • ”Olympic” consensus •Little data •Flags of convenience • IUU fishing • ”white gold” 215-238 cm, 130 kg demersal, longline
  15. 15. Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR • ”Olympic” consensus •Little data •Flags of convenience • IUU fishing • ”white gold” 215-238 cm, 130 kg demersal, longline
  16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 20. What is important for successful marine fisheries? • stakeholder integration • interdiciplinary scientific advice How can it be implemented?
  21. 21. To understand aproblem, you need to know its context
  22. 22. The Fishery System Context recovery plan Managers management plan Context leads to systems linkages…
  23. 23. Why conflict?
  24. 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. 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. 26. Bio-socio-economic model for Barents Seacod & capelin
  27. 27. Consensus?stakeholders managers scientists
  28. 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. 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. 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. 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. 32. How robust is the joint stakeholder satisfaction? (”management strategy consensus”)
  33. 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. 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. 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. 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. 37. Context helps form system linkages

×