2. 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

3. How do we manage?
Measure
Initial
a Adjusted
Plan
quantity Plan
Goal

4. Effort, F
Input management I
Manage what’s going INTO the fishery N
2 types of management
Fish stock
Output management O
U
Manage what’s coming OUT of the fishery T
SSB, TAC

5. How do we manage fish ( SSB or fishable
? biomass)
SSB: 800,000 t
Annual 800,000 < 1.5 mill
SSB: Need to
stock
1 mill t assessment adjust
Plan
Lower TAC
1 year
Goal:
SSB= 1.5 mill t

6. 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

7. My main questions:
What is important for successful
marine fisheries?
How can it be implemented?

8. 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 Section
University of Bergen Centre for the Study of the Sciences & the Humanities, Senter for
Vitenskapsteori (SVT)

9. My main questions:
What is important for successful
marine fisheries?
How can it be implemented?

12. 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 size
potential 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 issues
serious problems: substantial problems related to very low stock
production, low recruitment &/or fleet overcapacity
failure: management has failed to have control stock
collapse with no recovery plan

13. Selected Results from Dankel et al. (2008)
1. Japanese anchovy
2. Patagonian toothfish
3. Alaskan sockeye salmon Max length
& weight
18 cm, 45 grams
Fishery type pelagic, nets

14. 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
1.2
Biomass (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

15. 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
1.2
Biomass (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

16. Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR
• ”Olympic” consensus
•Little data
•Flags of convenience
• IUU fishing
• ”white gold”
215-238 cm, 130 kg
demersal, longline

17. Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR
• ”Olympic” consensus
•Little data
•Flags of convenience
• IUU fishing
• ”white gold”
215-238 cm, 130 kg
demersal, longline

18. Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR
• ”Olympic” consensus
•Little data
•Flags of convenience
• IUU fishing
• ”white gold”
215-238 cm, 130 kg
demersal, longline

19. 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

20. 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

21. Conclusions
Problematic 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 (?)

22. Conclusions
Successful management: Alaskan sockeye salmon, South
African cape hakes, Pacific halibut
• Relative coastal isolation
• Fleet control
(single nation management)
• Stakeholder involvement
leading to consensus of a
management strategy

23. What is important for successful
marine fisheries?
• stakeholder integration
• interdiciplinary scientific advice
How can it be implemented?

24. To understand a
problem, you need to
know its context

25. The Fishery System Context
recovery
plan
Managers
management
plan
Context leads
to systems
linkages…

26. Why conflict?

27. 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

28. Can integrated assessments
reconcile 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, Norway
3
Evolution and Ecology Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA),
Laxenburg, Austria

29. Bio-socio-economic model for Barents Sea
cod & capelin

30. Consensus?
stakeholders managers
scientists

31. 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

32. Stakeholder preferences
Utility
components YIELD EMPLOYMENT PROFIT STOCK LEVEL
(spawning stock
biomass)
Stakeholders
FISHERMEN
”industrial”
0.3 0 0.7 0
”artisanal” 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3
SOCIETY
”employment- 0.2 0.5 0 0.3
oriented”
”profit-oriented” 0.2 0 0.6 0.2
CONSERVATIONISTS 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5
assumption: stakeholder group consensus

33. Stakeholder A Stakeholder B Stakeholder C
Minimum size
Amount of fishing
Area of joint satisfaction
Use preference table to map the best scenarios for each stakeholder

34. 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
150
Minimum 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 (%)

35. How robust is the joint stakeholder
satisfaction?
(”management strategy consensus”)

36. 30% Stakeholder Uncertainty
Even with stakeholder preference uncertainty, both capelin & cod
stakeholders have high probability of consensus agreement for
management regulations
Cod more robust
Frequency
Goodness of JSS

37. Take home messages
1. Stakeholder conflicts may not be so conflicting as
thought
- our modelled cod has more robust consensus than capelin
1. 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

38. 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

39. Back to Degnbol et al. 2006
Cross-disciplinary work must be rewarded not
punished as is typical of today. One cannot
expect that people would freely and knowingly
risk their careers. If fisheries scientists—be they
biologists, economists, or
sociologists/anthropologists—are forced to
make such a choice, cross-disciplinary
cooperation will continue to be something that
we talk about but never realize.

40. Context helps form system linkages