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

2. 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

3. 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

4. PART I
Setting the stage for the ecosystem
approach

5. 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

6. The fishery system Charles 2001
Interdisciplinary
Science,
EAF
open,
•Complexity & Diversity! interconnected,
•Human system is integral complex, &
dynamic

7. 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

8. 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

9. Relationship to other paradigms
/Ecosystem-based
fisheries mgmt
Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489

10. PART II
Interpretations of the Ecosystem
Approach to Fisheries

11. Interpretations of EAF
There are many!
pragmatic idealistic

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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

23. Setting the stage for
stakeholder dialogue: map out scenarios
Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489

24. Mapping economic efficiency loss
after ecosystem degradation
Source: FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 489

25. 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)

26. RAPFISH: appraising multi-disciplinary
sustainability Pitcher & Preikshot, 2001
A tool to evaluate the comparative sustainability of fisheries

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

28. Putting RAPFISH into practice in
Brazil

31. 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

32. 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

33. PART IV
Putting the ecosystem approach in
practice: examples from Australia
Alaska, & Norway

34. 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

35. 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!

36. 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)

37. 1. Precautionary catch limits
2. By-catch & discard limits
3. Marine mammal & seabird considerations
4. MPAs
5. Continued adaptive
learning towards EBFM

38. 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

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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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.

43. Key references from FAO

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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. Visualizing science paradigms
Normal science Post-normal science
Academic Academic & social
Mono-disciplinary Trans-disciplinary
Technocratic Participative
Certain Uncertain
Predictive exploratory