|
Copies of FAO publications can be requested from: |
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
ISBN 92-5-004758-4
All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing and Multimedia Service, Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to [email protected]
© FAO 2002
These are the Abstracts of the documents as presented at the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, Iceland, 1-4 October 2001.
Distribution:
All FAO Members
Participants at the Conference
FAO Fisheries Department
FAO Regional Fishery Officers
|
FAO. Abstracts of papers presented at the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Reykjavik, Iceland, 1-4 October 2001. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 658, Suppl. Rome, FAO. 2002. 80p. ABSTRACT The Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem was held in Reykjavik, Iceland, from 1 to 4 October 2001. The Abstracts of the papers as presented at the Conference are given in this Supplement to the FAO Fisheries Report No. 658. The complete version of the papers containing an updated version of the abstracts will be published in special conference proceedings by a commercial company. |
Introduction
After 50 years of particularly rapid geographical expansion and technical advances, and a several-fold increase in annual harvest, marine fisheries are at a crossroad. The sustainability of the present fishery system is being questioned as most fishery resources are either overexploited or fully or heavily exploited. Society has developed much greater awareness of environmental impacts. Consumers from the main markets are becoming aware of the role they can play by expressing their preferences through their purchasing behaviour. A number of eco-labelling schemes are being proposed and tested. There is hope that an ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) approach might also be able to unlock some of the impediments that conventional management has experienced.
Fishery resources
Reported global production of marine capture fisheries has increased from 19 million tonnes in 1950 to about 80 million tonnes in the mid-1980s, oscillating since then around 85 million tonnes. The annual rate of increase of marine catches decreased to almost zero in the 1990s, indicating that, on average, the world oceans have reached their maximal production under the present fishing regime. The global proportion of overfished stocks has kept increasing for the last 25 years, even though the phenomenon may be slowing down. Among the 16 FAO statistical regions of the world’s oceans, a quarter are at their maximum historical level of production, half are slightly below it and the remaining quarter are well below it. The rate of overfishing in the Pacific Ocean seems to follow the same trend as in the Atlantic Ocean, even though its tropical areas seem to be comparatively less pressured. There is some indication of improvement in the Northeast Atlantic. The information confirms the estimates made by FAO in the early 1970s that the global potential for marine fisheries is about 100 million tonnes, of which only 80 million tonnes were probably achievable for practical reasons.
Fishing industry
Since 1950, the fishing power of individual vessels has continued to grow, building on advances in technology. During the last few years, the number of vessels has tended to decrease in developed countries and to increase in some developing ones. Fishing technology has evolved dramatically since the early 1950s, improving safety on board, but fishing still produces more than 25 000 fatalities per year. Improvements have also reduced the environmental impacts of fishing but have significantly increased the capacity to catch fish. Employment in the primary capture fisheries and aquaculture production sectors in 1998 is estimated to have been about 36 million people, comprising about 15 million full-time, 13 million part-time and 8 million occasional workers, about 60% of whom are employed in marine fisheries. For the first time since the early 1970s, growth in employment in the primary sectors of fisheries and aquaculture may be slowing down significantly. The oceans’ ecosystems contribute food for direct human consumption, and this practically doubled between 1950 and 1970, but has stabilized since then at 9.0 to 10 kg of fish per caput, despite world population growth. As total marine capture production stagnates, the per caput supply from marine capture fisheries is likely to decrease substantially, unless more effective management of capture fisheries and further development of aquaculture can increase production. While the reputation of fish as a healthy food has improved, there are concerns for fish quality.
Governance
There is no complete global inventory of fisheries management systems and approaches, by countries, stocks or fisheries. At national level, while most countries have in place some form of limited licensing scheme, they often experience great difficulties in effectively containing an expansion of redundant harvesting capacity. In several countries, access to marine fisheries resources continues to remain unrestricted. More recently, there is an increasing interest in rights-based fisheries management, including individual, company or community held quotas, both transferable or non-transferable. Several of the over thirty regional fishery bodies (RFBs) implement policies based on Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and national quotas with no capacity control. At all levels, these approaches are complemented by a series of technical measures to regulate vessels (e.g., power, size); gear (e.g., size, mesh size); area fished (e.g., closed areas) and fishing time (e.g., fishing effort ceilings, closed seasons); or catch characteristics (e.g., minimum landing size, stage of maturity, egg-bearing), etc. Some of the main challenges facing fisheries today include: overfishing, with the related issues of resources collapse and endangered species; overcapacity, with the related issue of subsidies; environmental impact of fishing; illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU); poor selectivity and discarding; the environmental state of the coastal zone; the integration of fisheries management into coastal zone management; fish trade and eco-labelling; the interface between fisheries management bodies and CITES; and the collaboration between regional fishery bodies and regional environmental conventions. A serious constraint is the inadequate enforcement of and compliance with management measures at both national and regional levels. The fisheries management context and framework have greatly improved through a range of initiatives at global, regional and national levels (e.g., the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries) but the societal request for EBFM raises significantly the complexity of future fisheries management.
Conclusion and discussion
The quality of the data on the state of the resources and the industry needs to be significantly improved for better monitoring and assessment of management performance. However, the information available points unequivocably to an increase of the proportion of overfished stocks and a spreading of overfishing across the entire world ocean. The sector’s awareness has been raised and the industry is evolving positively, but at different speeds in different regions, influenced by the outcomes of more general processes concerning the use of sustainability indicators, the precautionary approach and eco-labelling. Faced with a series of international instruments adopted at the highest level, and with direct implications for fisheries, governments and their fisheries authorities are expected to foster a significant change, but How fast? At what affordable costs? With what resources? Through what pathway?
While there is no alternative to rationalizing the fishery sector and ensuring that it bears the costs of as many of its impacts as possible, considerable attention is needed to ensure that, in the process, fisheries are equitably treated in comparison with other land-based or sea-based sectors, such as agriculture, oil and gas industries, or tourism. This possible placement by society of an inappropriate burden on the fisheries sector as the driving force of degradation of marine ecosystems should not detract in any way from the urgent need for fisheries to act to correct the problems attributable to poor and irresponsible fisheries management practices. This paper, drawing heavily on principles already reflected in the Code of Conduct, highlights many areas where fisheries management and fisheries practice are failing. This Conference represents an opportunity for a renewed commitment to remedy these problems. In order to do so, it is essential for the fisheries community to: (1) improve its own performance; (2) ensure that it is not unduly burdened; and (3) express demands for a substantial reduction in ocean degradation by other industries.
Introduction
During the past decade, a number of international conventions have included new obligations for management activities regulating uses of the oceans. The conventions (and codes) make explicit reference to protection of ecosystem features. The overarching convention in this respect is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Other international legal instruments include the UN Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. In response to these international agreements, national legislation and policies have been put in place to more explicitly incorporate ecosystem considerations within national ocean management regimes.
This paper examines the provisions of selected international instruments to demonstrate the extent to which ecosystem management has been incorporated in those instruments, exemplified by the Australian Ocean Policy and the Canadian Oceans Act. The paper also examines the implementation of ecosystem management principles at the domestic level.
The international instruments discussed are: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks; the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in The Western and Central Pacific Ocean; the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; the Convention on Biological Diversity; the Jakarta Ministerial Statement on the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity; the Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific; and the Washington Declaration on Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities. The national policies examined include Australia’s Oceans Policy and the Canadian Oceans Act 1996.
International conventions and other legal instruments
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) UNCLOS provides rules for the regulation of all uses of oceans and seas. UNCLOS also establishes a framework for the development of conservation and management measures concerning marine resources and scientific research within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of States as well as on the high seas.
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement - UNFSA) UNFSA imposes obligations on Parties to protect the marine environment and requires States to ensure the sustainable utilization of fish stocks. UNFSA require States to apply the precautionary approach and adopt appropriate measures to maintain or restore populations of species that are part of the same ecosystem.
Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPT Convention) The objective of the WCPT Convention is to ensure the long-term and effective conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific, in accordance with UNCLOS and UNFSA.
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing is a non-legally binding code, but with important links to UNCLOS. The Code requires States to implement appropriate measures within the precautionary principle framework to minimize waste, discards, ghost-fishing, and negative impacts of fishing on associated or dependent species.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Although CBD does not specifically address fisheries, it applies to all terrestrial and marine biodiversity, and, as such affects fisheries. CBD outlines measures for conserving biodiversity, including in situ and ex situ conservation measures. General measures for conserving and ensuring ecologically sustainable development include developing national policies, strategies and programmes reflecting the principles espoused in the Convention.
Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific The objective of the Convention is to conserve, utilize and develop the natural resources of the South Pacific region through careful planning and management for the benefit of present and future generations.
National policies for protecting the marine environment
The paper discusses the national policies of two countries that illustrate some of the efforts being undertaken at the national level to promote more responsible approaches to fisheries in the marine ecosystem. These are Australia’s Oceans Policy and the Oceans Act 1996 of Canada. Australia’s Oceans Policy has several objectives, including protection of Australia’s marine biodiversity and the ocean environment, and to ensure that the use of oceanic resources is ecologically sustainable. The Oceans Act of Canada establishes certain obligations for the Minister for Fisheries and Oceans for management and conservation of Canadian waters. The Act also establishes a legal framework for the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine waters within Canadian jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The conclusion analyses the strengths and weaknesses of international efforts to incorporate ecosystem management principles into international instruments. The most notable strengths of the international instruments studied for this paper are the instruments themselves, as they attempt to establish a global framework for the conservation and management of marine environments and resources. Moreover, the inclusion of ecosystem conservation is also a positive element as it is a step away from the traditional species and stock focus. This ecosystem-based focus also provides scope for an increased involvement of regional bodies in establishing integrated marine and coastal management measures. There are, however, several weaknesses that need to be considered. One of the major drawbacks of international instruments is that many States are not party to them, thereby limiting the extent to which these instruments are being applied. The provisions outlined in instruments are often vague and ambiguous with respect to the protection of the marine environment, and these provisions need to be addressed to more clearly assert the environmental protection obligations of States. Even though many of the instruments include IUU, surveillance and enforcement as key issues to be addressed, it will be difficult or even impossible to control these problems through comprehensive and effective monitoring of an area so vast. Moreover, many countries, developing nations in particular, will be hard pressed to find sufficient resources to implement many of the measures outlined in the international instruments.
Internationally, the large-scale industry is a diverse group of both shore-based and at-sea harvesting and processing operations. As with all elements of the fishing industry, the performance of large-scale fisheries is controlled by various degrees of governmental and institutional constraints. The record shows that the degree of responsible fisheries practiced in any sector of the fishing industry largely depends upon the level of responsibility within government and regulatory institutions, and a commitment to responsible fisheries by the fishing industry.
There are a number of reasons why some fisheries have attracted larger vessels, such as remote fishing grounds, the large size of the resource, the perishable nature of the fish, the need for capital-intensive production equipment, and the harsh and dangerous fishing conditions. In this production environment, only large-scale fisheries are able to deliver seafood at cost-effective prices. Without the economies of scale of the large-scale seafood industry, this healthy source of protein would either be left in the water or affordable only to the wealthy.
Greenpeace and other NGOs have repeatedly attacked the large-scale sector as unsustainable and “strip mining” the seas. However, in the North Pacific under USA jurisdiction, the facts dispute this notion. Fisheries in this region are widely regarded as some of the most responsibly and conservatively managed fisheries anywhere in the world. With a track record of nearly 30 years of commercial fishing activities, none of the 63 species of groundfish in the USA North Pacific are classified as overfished or even approaching the overfishing level. Bering Sea pollock, the largest fishery in the USA, is currently at a high biomass level, 10 million metric tons. The allowable harvest rate of Bering Sea pollock in 2001 is well below the acceptable biological catch of 1.85 million tons, and about half of the MSY harvest rate.
The primary reason that these fisheries are healthy and sustainable is due to the responsible application of the precautionary principle in the calculation of quotas and in the overall management of the fishery since the inception of the 200-mile EEZ in the late 1970s. In addition to precautionary levels of allowable catch, harvests are monitored closely and reported on an ongoing basis. In the Alaskan pollock and Pacific whiting fisheries, the large-scale fleets are required to have two federal fishery observers aboard at all times, who collect fishery data on 99% of all hauls. One hundred percent of all fish caught are weighed on flow scales and catch data is reported daily to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the agency responsible for in-season monitoring of the fishery. Both regulatory and voluntary by-catch controls are important tools that have been employed for over 20 years. The large-scale fleet in the North Pacific has the ability to respond rapidly to changes in by-catch and is able to relocate to areas of lower by-catch. This is demonstrated by an overall by-catch rate of 0.6% in the pollock fishery, the lowest of the world’s major fisheries.
Management in the USA North Pacific has implemented marine protected areas to protect habitat. In an effort to protect fish and crab habitat in the eastern Bering Sea, areas closed to bottom trawling encompass 30 000 square miles, or about 25% of the available fishing area. Other ecosystem principles employed include prohibitions on fishing for forage fish stocks in the North Pacific, to protect these important prey species for seabirds and marine mammals. Further, NMFS conducts research on and manages not only targeted fish stocks but also non-targeted species of fish, seabirds, and marine mammals, and takes into consideration the interrelationships between these species and the physical and chemical forces of the marine environment.
The large-scale fleets in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska have been supportive of conservative ecosystem-based management. They are all aware that their economic viability is dependent on sustainable resources, and hence they share a long-term commitment to healthy resources.
Recent changes in USA law have allowed the large-scale sector to pursue new avenues, such as harvesting cooperatives, in which quotas are assigned to vessels, thus ending the race for fish. In an era when most fisheries throughout the world are heavily overcapitalized, managing harvesting effort with Olympic-style quotas, where vessels must compete against each other as frantically as possible, waste and inefficiency are all too common. In certain fisheries, harvesting co-ops have proven to be far superior to Olympic quotas as a management tool. Co-ops have led to reductions in by-catch while at the same time providing increased recovery of processed seafood product: an impressive 36% increase in the pollock fishery. Harvesting cooperatives also result in spreading catch effort more evenly over space and time, decreasing the potential for localized depletion of resources. Because co-ops allow for individual accountability, and hence a meaningful role in managing the resource, co-op members are willing to support, both logistically and financially, scientific research to improve resource assessments, increased monitoring, and testing of innovative fishing practices. For instance, the Pollock Conservation Cooperative contributes US$ 1.4 million annually to fisheries research.
In the USA North Pacific, the large-scale fishing industry, and American Seafoods, are very supportive of good scientific information and understand that sustainable fisheries, such as the eastern Bering Sea pollock fishery, are only possible with good data on stock status and fishery removals. Integrating additional ecosystem data into existing fishery management plans is an ongoing process and will require careful and comprehensive analysis. However, in many parts of the world, this is already being done and these efforts should continue as long as clear, measurable benefits to the environment and stakeholders can be demonstrated. With the right incentives, the fishing industry can provide positive, creative energy for responsible management practices and fishery research.
In 1992, UNCED Agenda 21 highlighted the protection and preservation of highly diverse marine ecosystems and the problems that degraded ecosystems posed to marine fishing activities. The 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement referred to the need to maintain the integrity of ecosystems and to consider problems posed by fishing and degrading ecosystems. Further, the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries gave greater significance to an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.
Artisanal and small-scale fisheries are accorded special recognition by the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and it is in fact the only fisheries sub-sector specifically mentioned in the Code. It contributed more than a quarter of world catch, and accounted for half of the fish used for direct human consumption.
Individually, small-scale fishing units are less threatening to the marine ecosystem than are large-scale ones, because they participate in a multi-species fishery with low quantities of gear that are often passive and selective, and in accordance with the fisheries resources that are seasonably accessible to their gear.
With the widespread adoption of motorization, small-scale fisheries have grown significantly over the past two decades. The rapid expansion of artisanal fishing capacity under open access regimes has begun to exert overfishing pressures on coastal fisheries resources, especially in Asia and Africa. There are increasing conflicts between different gear groups as a result of increased mobility of fishing vessels, capacity expansion and overfishing pressures.
In the present scenario, there is an urgent need for the State to take up fisheries management measures for greater equity and sustainability through consultative mechanisms. In this context, greater recognition should be given to small-scale rather than large-scale fisheries. The emphasis has to change from increasing fish production, toward conservation and management goals.
To initiate fisheries management measures in developing countries, a “crossword” approach could be considered, i.e., filling up management niches that are relatively easy at first, and then moving to more difficult ones with the aid of early breakthroughs or solutions.
There could also be global initiatives towards fisheries management in developing countries. Industrialized countries, in the first place, should not transfer their excess fishing capacity to developing countries. There is also a need to establish a well-designed, time-bound, international aid programme in exchange for a commitment to manage fisheries in a consultative, transparent and sustainable manner.
For small-scale fisheries that are overcrowded in developing countries, industrialized nations could contribute to alleviating such demographic pressure in fisheries by facilitating temporary migration of surplus labour into their fisheries, particularly into fisheries that are earmarked by labour shortage.
Concurrent with proposing and implementing measures that basically address the impact of fishing on fish stocks and the marine habitat, there is also need for measures to minimize the effect of pollution-related habitat degradation on fish stocks, and to better understand the intricacies of weather and climate factors. Programmes to conserve “charismatic” species like sea lions, dolphins and sea turtles also sometimes become counterproductive when these resources multiply in large number and compete with fishers for the quarry, without significantly contributing to the health of the marine ecosystem.
Unlike the single-species model in fisheries management, which is by far the most prominent model in most parts of the world, an ecosystem-based approach to fishery management could be an effective tool in developing countries since it could take into account the complexity of the marine and coastal ecosystems.
A universally acceptable definition of ecosystem-based fishery management, however, has to consider fishers as part of the ecosystem, which is an important consideration for developing countries that have 95 per cent of the world’s fisher population and over 60 per cent of the world’s marine fisheries resources.
An ecosystem approach has to be used in a dialectical sense. It should, on the one hand, take into account the effects of fishing on fish stocks, especially the unequal impact of small-scale and large-scale fishing on targeted fish stocks and the marine and coastal ecosystems, undertaken under different economic, social and political milieu. On the other hand, it should also take into account the effects of marine ecosystems, and alternative livelihoods for fishers. This would be within the framework of what could be considered as an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management indicated in Agenda 21 and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.
The new millennium marks a time when scientific opinion and environmentalist sentiment are at last converging on the perception that the world’s natural marine heritage is facing grave threats. What environmentalists have come to call the “marine biodiversity crisis” is a pervasive and by now well-documented phenomenon, until recently occurring largely unnoticed beneath the deceptively unchanging blanket of the ocean’s surface. The fact that this problem is essentially an invisible one makes it all the more insidious, and our terrestrial bias makes combating the problem a huge and difficult task. Human impacts on our seas take many forms and result from activities that not only affect species directly - such as overfishing, in-filling of wetlands, and coastal deforestation - but also from activities that affect oceans indirectly, as through land-based sources of pollution, freshwater diversion from estuaries, invasive species and climate change.
Due to the expanding scope of both global coastal degradation and fisheries conflicts, environmental groups have recently become more and more involved in fisheries management and conflict resolution. In tackling fisheries issues, most organizations attempt to base their projects and advocacy on the best available scientific information. These groups sometimes undertake in-house scientific research, predictive modelling, and meta-analysis. However, in most cases the NGOs are recipients of scientific information and liaise between the scientific community, decision-makers, and the public. The key scientific information underpinning campaigns and field projects addresses three facets of sustainability: (1) the levels of resource removal that can be realized without adverse impact on the ecosystem, given the particular environmental condition of the ecosystem at time of harvest; (2) the least invasive means by which that harvest can be undertaken at desired levels of harvest, such that habitat impacts and by-catch are minimized; and (3) the most appropriate stocks for large-scale harvest, namely protecting stocks that are sole representatives of genetically unique organisms and stocks whose ecological role is critically important and so not redundant.
Environmental groups, however, are as diverse in their character, approach, and constituencies as the environmental problems they address. They variously function as purveyors of information, as translators of scientific and management language to the vernacular, as honest brokers (although their own value systems cause some to question their honesty), as advocates and lobbyists for certain types of reform or regulatory measures, and as adversaries to management agencies and industry when invoking environmental litigation. In many of these roles, environmental groups have been seen as the antithesis to development, to business interests, and to the needs of many user groups. Yet today environmental groups play an increasingly important non-adversarial role in demonstrating how conservation and sustainable use can be accomplished, through practical, applied conservation projects that benefit users, community groups, business and national interests. If a common environmentalist response to fisheries-induced loss of marine biodiversity can be said to exist (and this is a dangerous assumption, given the diversity of groups and their approaches), it is to synthesize existing information, communicate it, and advocate change in policy and regulations where felt necessary. In addition, some groups go beyond fisheries-by-fisheries management reform to advocate: (i) shifting the burden of proof when evaluating fishing impacts on ecosystems, and (ii) establishing strictly protected marine reserves to further our understanding of and protect species, habitats and ecological processes. Such reserves are implemented in a variety of fashions: as components within larger, multiple-use protected areas that seek to accommodate a wide array of users; as single elements in scientifically-designed reserve networks; and as one tool of many used in corridor approaches, coastal management and regional planning.
From the environmentalist’s or conservationist’s perspective, solutions lie not in shutting down fisheries but rather in modifying the way we undertake management, and in using public awareness to help raise political will to conserve marine systems. Coupling current consumer awareness and purchasing power with strong and effective management could indeed alleviate pressure on many marine species and allow their subsequent recovery. Additionally, environmental groups will need to recognize and support real willingness among governmental agencies and decision-makers to protect areas needed for fish spawning, feeding and migration through marine reserves, and help such forward-thinking agencies to enter into enforceable international agreements to protect shared or commons resources. By highlighting such potential successes, and by working to demonstrate how success can be achieved, environmental groups can begin to shed their image of extremist adversaries, and help decision-making bodies implement effective and beneficial management regimes.
A common thread is now emerging from analysis of cases where fisheries management and marine conservation has succeeded - and we can well learn from this common thread. The central element in these initiatives is a holistic approach - one that considers renewable living resources as part of a wider, interconnected ecosystem, one that evaluates all aspects of production or development, and one that treats humans as bone fide elements of living systems. These integrated approaches take into account ecosystem interconnections and the true ecological costs of fisheries, the entire production chain and its environmental costs, and human interconnections, and thus the social costs (and benefits) of fisheries development. Holistic solutions are those that recognize these connections and try to minimize ecological, environmental and social costs, while maximizing the benefits (and benefit-sharing) that can accrue from engagement in well-managed marine resource use. Given the magnitude and complexity of global fisheries issues, only such holistic prescriptions will make it possible for nations to achieve responsible fisheries in the future.
Meeting the widely expressed requirement that fisheries should somehow be managed on an “ecosystem basis” implies that fisheries-relevant ecological processes, and the fisheries themselves, should be documented in the form of maps. This allows recovery, in intuitive fashion, of at least some of the many dimensions of the complex ecosystems in which the fisheries are embedded.
The implied transition, in fisheries science, from bi-variate time series, to maps as major heuristic devices, has a number of implications - some obvious, some less so - of which a number are here discussed and illustrated. Among the issued covered are: (i) the requirement for a consensus taxonomy of large marine ecosystems; (ii) the need to construct fisheries catch maps in the absence of positive records of what was caught where; (iii) the proper identification of one’s audience; and (iv) the mapping of marine protected areas and reserves.
The seriousness of the fisheries crisis is emphasized in the process, and the case is made that fisheries, if ever they are going to achieve some measure of sustainability - however defined - will ultimately have to be limited not only through the amount of effort they can effectively deploy, but also limited in space, leading to a change to the defaults under which fisheries operate, currently set such that ALL aquatic wildlife can be exploited, if under some restrictions.
A marine ecosystem contains water, detritus and hundreds of kinds of organisms, including bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fishes, mammals and birds. All these components are connected through a complex food web by evolving interactions. The intrinsic complexity of ecological systems that are driven by interactions at multiple levels and scales can help to explain the reasons why, until recently, fisheries management has been largely based on single-species approaches. However, ecosystem-based management represents a paradigm shift, as well as a new attitude towards the exploitation of renewable marine resources. The ecosystem is now viewed at an integrative level for ecological studies, and its overall complexity is perceived as critical to its sustainability. It also becomes important to understand what impacts an ecosystem can tolerate before major structural changes occur, and whether such changes are reversible. In this respect, improved understanding of ecosystem dynamics is critical to predict and manage the consequences of environmental variability and human impacts, such as those induced by marine fisheries, an activity targeting specific species and size-classes. There is considerable evidence that environmental variability plays a major role in controlling abundance and distribution of marine populations, and that fisheries alter ecosystem functioning and state.
This overview presents the most recent theoretical ecological knowledge, documents emergent ecosystem-level ecological patterns and addresses questions regarding the exploitation of marine resources. Do marine ecosystems function differently from terrestrial systems? Are there multiple stable marine ecosystem states? Does removal of top predators in marine ecosystems result in fundamental changes in the plankton (top-down “trophic cascades”), as observed in lakes? Alternatively, are marine ecosystems characterized by bottom-up control, such that fishing predatory fish does not disturb community structure and function? Does heavy exploitation of forage species, such as anchovies and sardines, cause changes in the functioning of upwelling ecosystems? Possible answers to these questions depend on the different energy flow mechanisms assumed to operate within the ecosystem. Thus different types of energy flow in marine ecosystems are considered: bottom-up control (control by primary producers); top-down control (control by predators); and wasp-waist control (control by dominant species).
It is concluded that no general theory can be ascribed to the functioning of marine ecosystems as it depends on its structure, diversity and integrity. Ecological understanding and models of ecosystem functioning are provisional and subject to change, and common sense is not sufficient when studying complex dynamic systems. However, tentative and partial generalizations are proposed, namely that bottom-up control predominates, top-down control plays a role in dampening ecosystem-level fluctuations, trophic cascades seldom occur, and wasp-waist control is most probable in upwelling systems. Moreover, regime shifts, alternation and large-scale synchronized fluctuations in fish stocks, stability of fish communities, and emergent features such as size spectra, are potentially important parameters when assessing states and changes in marine ecosystems. New and meaningful indicators, derived from our current understanding of marine ecosystem functioning, can be used to assess the impact of fisheries and to promote responsible fisheries in marine ecosystems.
Over 100 food webs have been published for marine ecosystems to describe the transfer of food energy from its source in plants, through herbivores, to carnivores and higher order predators. The webs suggest that the lengths of the chains that form food webs are typically short (3-4 links), and that few species feed at more than one trophic level. The webs also suggest that ecosystems with long food chains may be less stable than those with shorter food chains.
Stomach contents have been the primary means for determining what marine organisms eat. More recently developed techniques include faecal analysis and fatty acid signatures from blood or fat samples. Consumption has been estimated from the volume of food found in stomachs, from the feeding rates of captive individuals, and from bio-energetic modelling. Consumption of marine organisms, expressed as a percentage of an individual’s body weight per day, ranges from about 20-30% for zooplankton, to 10% for cephalopods, 1-4% for fish, 4-8% for marine mammals, and 15-20% for sea birds. Immature age classes consume about twice as much (per unit of body weight) as do mature individuals. Furthermore, consumption is not constant throughout the year, but varies seasonally with periods of growth and reproduction. Most groups of species consume 3-10 times more than they produce, and export or pass up the food web about 70-95% of their production. Marine organisms tend to be larger at successive trophic levels and are limited in the sizes of food they can consume. Humans are one of the few species that can prey upon almost any level of the food chain and any size of prey.
It is important to understand cetacean feeding ecology because cetaceans are top predators in the marine ecosystem and play an important role in the food web. Furthermore, interactions between cetacean and fisheries have become a major issue worldwide. Many international fisheries organizations have urged the development of multi-species management systems. It is an important issue in the context of world food security since it is estimated that cetaceans consume three to five times the amount of marine resources harvested for human consumption. In the waters around Japan there is a situation of declining catches in certain fisheries, while at the same time the sampling from the research programme reveals that minke whales are eating at least ten species of fish, including Japanese anchovy, Pacific saury, walleye pollock and other commercially important species.
Japan conducted a whale research programme in the northwestern Pacific from 1994 to1999 under Special Permit, as provided for by Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Since some scientific issues remained outstanding following the 1994-1999 programme, a second phase of the research - a feasibility study for the years 2000 and 2001 - began in July 2000. The priority for this phase of the research is feeding ecology, involving studies on prey consumption by cetaceans, prey preferences of cetaceans, and ecosystem modeling.
Significant observations and new findings were made during 2000, the first year of this research programme, concerning the distribution of minke and Bryde’s whales and the species and size of the fish, krill and squid they consume. While the results of the previous whale research programme in the northwestern Pacific showed that minke whales feed mainly on Pacific saury during midsummer, the research in 2000 showed that minke whales prey on Japanese anchovy, common squid and walleye pollock, thus re-confirming the notion that minke whales are in competition with fisheries and that its food habits are variable and flexible. Research in 2000 also showed that Bryde’s whale distribution areas coincided with the location of skipjack tuna fishing grounds. Since Bryde’s whales feed on Japanese anchovy, which is also the prey of skipjack, the results suggest that Bryde’s whale and skipjack tuna compete over anchovy as prey. The stomach of each sampled sperm whale contained a great amount of different squid species. The ongoing analysis of the stomach contents, including squid beaks, will contribute to the clarification of the feeding ecology of sperm whales.
The final decades of the twentieth century saw the emergence and first applications of multi-species models of marine ecosystems, along with a general recognition of the potential importance of taking into account multi-species interactions when managing fisheries.
Multi-species effects can include biological and technical interactions. Technical interactions are frequently of concern, for example when discards of certain species are believed to be a consequence of the management system. Biological interactions may fundamentally change the perspective of how to utilize an ecosystem, since a fishery or a moratorium on a predator may completely change the survival of a prey, and, conversely, fishing on a prey may affect the growth of a predator.
Modern research on multi-species modelling is highly multidisciplinary in nature, drawing on expertise from fishery science, fish biology, ecology, hydrography, mathematics, statistics, economics, operations research and computer science. As the models become more detailed and complex, they are able to address more issues that are of concern to managers, but at the same time it becomes ever more difficult to interpret results.
Some fundamental issues are raised in the multi-species context, and particularly so when fishing is viewed in the light of the precautionary approach. Some multi-species research has indicated that heavier fishing with smaller mesh sizes may lead to more profits for the fishing industry, whereas most earlier, single-species research has indicated that low fishing pressure, particularly on juveniles, would be beneficial for the resource and the fishery. Conclusions from other research have indicated that economic considerations, such as maximum economic yield, may not be applicable and have failed to lead to sustained utilization, whereas the traditional view has been that long-term economic views will lead to sustainable use of the resources.
This paper seeks to resolve some of these apparent conflicts, drawing on the multidisciplinary nature of fishery science. It is seen that almost all points of view lead to the conclusion that fishing with low fishing pressure is not only sustainable but in accordance with the precautionary approach. Further, almost all multi-species concerns further strengthen the need for reduced fishing pressure.
It is also argued that simple management measures such as quotas, effort control or areal closures alone may not suffice to maintain viable fisheries in multi-species ecosystems.
Incorporation of ecosystem considerations into fisheries management policy requires that we understand, at least conceptually, how other concurrent ocean uses influence ecosystem properties. Ocean uses include disposal of contaminants, marine transportation, oil and gas exploitation, undersea mining for sands and gravel, cables for communication, eco-tourism, aquaculture, recreational activities, as well as fishing and conservation and preservation. In a sense, climate change can be considered a competing use of the ocean because of the fundamental ecosystem changes it may cause.
The interactions of fishing and fisheries with other uses of the ocean can be categorized as direct effects, indirect effects and complex effects. A direct affect of a non-fishing activity on fisheries (or of fisheries on itself) occurs when that activity results in changes in mortality of fish stocks in the ecosystem. For example, by-catch is a direct effect of fishing on fisheries. By-catch can cause mortality of young stages of commercial important fish species. Chemical or nutrient contaminants may result in large-scale die-offs of marine life through their respective toxicity or creation of anoxic zones. Conservation and preservation efforts may directly affect fisheries by lowering the fishing mortality rate. In this case, the effect may be positive or negative with regard to fish yield. Reduced mortality for an overfished resource may allow rebuilding and increased yields. At the same time, efforts to protect a large part of an ecosystem may result in a smaller proportion of the commercially important fish stocks available for exploitation.
An indirect effect occurs when an activity results in changes in the productivity, from reproduction or somatic growth, of commercially important fish populations. For example, habitat destruction due to mining operations can result in reduced productivity because loss of habitat can reduce growth during young stages or reduced reproductive success. Climatic changes may reduce forage fish availability, thereby reducing productivity of commercially important species. Conservation and preservation efforts may increase productivity through increased abundance of prey or increased availability of high quality habitat.
A complex effect occurs when the combined impacts of three or more factors affect the marine ecosystem upon which fisheries depend. For example, habitat loss and contaminants may combine to reduce the productivity of ecosystems. Habitat loss reduces the available areas of feeding, growth, spawning or nursery grounds, and contamination may reduce the suitability of the remaining habitat, even if large-scale mortality does not occur. Such an effect occurs in near-shore or estuarine areas with combined effects of filling of the estuary and runoff from developed land. Aquaculture may cause habitat degradation and cause competitive interactions between farmed and wild fish, which in combination reduce the productivity of the ecosystem and hence fisheries.
These categories are not exclusive, and the lines between them are somewhat blurred. Nevertheless, they provide a useful classification of competing uses of the ocean. However, there are only a few classes of interactions that can be quantified with regard to the extent of the effect. It is sometimes possible to quantify direct effects by estimating mortality rates over time. Less frequently, productivity can be quantified over time. Rarely are we able to understand enough about complex interactions to quantify their impact. Hence, the scientific challenge is to improve our understanding and ultimately our ability to enumerate and quantify the impacts of competing uses of the oceans.
The policy challenge is to address these impacts in the absence of complete or quantitative information. Here, the precautionary approach to resource management can serve as a guide. Fundamentally, fishery management policy should be cautious if a negative interaction is reasonably likely to occur, even if the extent of that interaction is unknown. In practice, this means restraining competing uses that may damage fisheries irrevocably, particularly in highly sensitive areas. For example, mining and drilling activities should be viewed very critically if they are proposed near or in areas of high fisheries production. Even if there is a lack of conclusive evidence that such activities are harmful, caution should be exercised, particularly when the potential risks to the ecosystem are high. In addition, if it is clear that an indirect effect has occurred or is unlikely to be avoided in future, fisheries should be restrained so that the, now reduced, productive capacity of the ecosystem is accounted for. If the productivity of a fish stock has been compromised because of, for example, habitat loss, that stock will be unable to withstand the same fishing pressure as before the loss. Regardless of whether the loss in productivity was due to fishing or other causes, it is important to reduce fishing pressure so as not to compound the error of habitat loss with the error of overfishing.
Overall, competing uses of the oceans are likely to be complex from a management policy perspective. They are also likely to have a major, even dominant role in fisheries management in the near future.
Fishing affects seabed habitats worldwide. However, these impacts are not uniform and are affected by the spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort, and vary with the habitat type and environment in which they occur. Different fishing methodologies vary in the degree to which they affect the sea bed. Towed bottom fishing gears and hydraulic harvesting devices re-suspend the upper layers of the sedimentary habitat and hence re-mobilize contaminants and fine particulate matter into the water column. The ecological significance of these fishing effects has not yet been determined.
Structurally complex habitats (e.g. seagrass meadows, biogenic reefs) and those that are relatively undisturbed by natural perturbations (e.g. deep-water mud substrata) are more adversely affected by fishing than unconsolidated sediment habitats that occur in shallow coastal waters. Structurally complex and stable habitats also have the longest recovery trajectories in terms of the re-colonization of the habitat by the associated fauna.
Comparative studies of areas of the sea bed that have experienced different levels of fishing activity demonstrate that chronic fishing disturbance leads to the removal of high-biomass species that are composed mostly of emergent seabed organisms. These organisms increase the topographic complexity of the sea bed and have been shown to provide shelter for juvenile fishes, reducing their vulnerability to predation. Conversely, small-bodied organisms, such as polychaete worms and scavengers, dominate heavily fished areas. Such a change in habitat may lead to changes in the composition of the resident fish fauna. Fishing also has indirect effects on habitat through the removal of predators that control bio-engineering organisms such as algal-grazing urchins on coral reefs. However, such effects are only manifested in those systems in which the linkages between the main trophic levels are confined to less than ten species.
Management regimes that aim to incorporate both fisheries and habitat conservation objectives can be achieved through the appropriate use of a number of approaches, including total and partial exclusion of towed bottom fishing gears, and seasonal and rotational closure techniques. Different management regimes can only be formulated and tested once objectives and criteria for seabed habitats have been defined.
Most fishing operations trap organisms that are not the primary fishing target, and are commonly referred to as the by-catch. It may include small individuals of the target species, or other species with little or no commercial value. The problem is widespread, with a global estimate of approximately 20 million metric tonnes, representing about a quarter of the total world catch. Shrimp fisheries tend to generate the largest quantities of by-catch, while fisheries for small pelagics the least. By-catch rates in mixed demersal and large pelagic fisheries are intermediate.
By-catch arises because fishing gears have imperfect selection properties, but the problem is made worse by economic pressures resulting from overexploitation. This leads to inefficient use of resources and changes in the abundance of both target and non-target species. Some by-catch species, including certain fish, reptiles, birds and mammals, may be threatened with extinction. Raised public awareness means that these conservation issues increasingly influence fishery management.
Much of the by-catch is simply discarded at sea. While not intended, the imposition of regulations such as minimum landing sizes and catch restrictions may encourage discarding. Most discards do not survive, but the material provides food for other organisms, especially scavengers, whose abundance may increase.
Technical conservation measures, which involve modifications to fishing gear or practices, offer an effective means of reducing by-catch. For trawls, these include grids and square mesh panels that sort animals by size, allowing a part of the catch to escape. For fixed gear, methods can be used to prevent the capture of large animals such as birds and mammals. The successful use of these devices, however, depends on overcoming gear handling constraints and the short-term economic losses often associated with their use.
By-catch is just one component of the total mortality of species affected by fishing. Hence by-catch is not an isolated issue. Addressing the problem requires consideration of the broader question of resource management, including the target species. Success in reducing by-catch requires that chronic problems of excessive exploitation must be tackled, and this remains a major challenge worldwide.
The preservation of genetic resources has become an important element of conservation. This overview is meant to provide an understanding of the importance of conserving genetic variation both at the level of species and of populations within species. The loss of species in the marine environment is not as extensive as in freshwater or terrestrial systems. However, we have an imperfect knowledge of both the numbers of marine species and of extinction events. New species are still being discovered, even in well-studied areas, while proving that something is no longer there has produced conservative estimates of losses. Extinction of marine mammals and gastropod mollusks has been documented. Of these, overfishing has caused the extinction of the Steller’s sea cow and was instrumental in the loss of the Caribbean monk seal. Within species, genetic diversity is partitioned among and within populations.
Overfishing is seen as the major threat to the loss of marine populations, while habitat degradation is threatening anadromous, estuarine and freshwater species, and population extinction has been documented. The number of spawning components is a guide to assisting managers in preserving this aspect of within-species diversity, as they are often identifiable in space and time. Certain species, such as herring, have a large number of populations, while others, such as mackerel, have fewer. Fishing can also alter genetic diversity within populations, even when numbers are high. When fishing is highly selective, it has the potential to permanently change the characteristics within a population, usually in directions of less economic value. Removing large fish generally appears to favour slow-growing, early maturing fish. At all three levels of organization, previous paradigms have not stood the test of time. Marine species can go extinct; marine fish have much more genetic structure than previously supposed; and selective fishing can cause heritable differences in yield and life-history traits.
Marine fisheries landings increased through most of the 1900s, at the same time as their composition has shifted from larger, fish-eating species towards smaller, plankton-eating fishes. Fishing can affect the composition of the fauna by changing the relative abundance and size distribution of target and by-catch species, by affecting the habitat or by providing discards to scavenging populations such as seabirds. This can lead to changes in species interactions that can affect other parts of the ecosystem. In some cases, fisheries-generated reductions in populations of important forage fish has been reported to affect the growth, abundance and distribution of populations of fish, seabirds and marine mammals that depend on these species for food. Other studies have shown that fisheries-generated habitat changes have had knock-on effects on the local fauna. However, most of the cases where changes in species interactions have been linked to fishing come from relatively simple ecosystems, where a major part of the energy has to pass one or a few species positioned at an intermediate level in the food web. In the more complex systems, the effects of fishing are difficult to separate from natural changes in species abundance due to environmental changes in, for example, temperature and currents, or from man-made changes, such as increases in nutrients. For most of these systems, it is therefore unknown how fishing affects their overall structure and function. Although attempts have been made to develop overall indicators of the impact of fishing on marine food webs, the performance of these indicators has not yet been sufficiently studied to allow them to be used in fisheries management.
In considering “responsible fisheries,” the focus is usually on potential effects of fisheries on ecosystems and habitats (i.e. effects of fisheries on the environment). For most, the term “responsible fisheries” implies a need for a change in fishing practices to improve the state of the environment. The state of the environment, however, also inevitably affects fish and therefore fisheries. Many societal activities influence the state of aquatic environments. Thus, in moving towards “responsible fisheries,” changes in societal activities other than fisheries alone may also need to be considered.
The indirect (i.e. non-fishing) effects on fish and fisheries can be divided into two types: those that affect ecosystem structure or population processes, such that recruitment to the fishable stock is reduced, and those that affect the quality (and hence marketability) of the fish product. Environmental changes that can influence recruitment include land use changes that may alter habitats for fish. Damming and re-routing of streams and rivers may reduce access to spawning grounds for fishes that migrate between salt and freshwaters. Erosion (leading to increased turbidity) and eutrophication lead also to changes in habitats and food availability that can also affect recruitment. Intentional and unintentional introductions of new species to a region can alter ecosystems to the point that fisheries are severely affected. All of these influences are well described for individual stocks or local regions. However, a global assessment of the quantitative impact of such changes on fisheries is lacking.
Chemical contamination of aquatic ecosystems can influence the physiology of organisms and thus both the recruitment and the marketability of fish products. Many studies dealing with the potential toxicity of contaminants to physiological processes at the cell and organism level have been carried out. However, few studies have dealt with the effect of contaminants at the population level and thus attempted to quantify the effects of environmental contamination on fisheries. Monitoring of contaminant concentrations in fish meat is, in many regions of the world, standard protocol as part of public health protection measures, and some fisheries, especially in fresh and semi-enclosed marine waters, have been restricted as a result of such contamination. Although, in most cases, contaminant concentrations in wild fishes have been found to below the levels considered to be safe for human consumption, recent studies have shown that, for example, PCB contaminant levels in the muscle of wild fishes are higher than those found in meat produced in commercial agriculture. As knowledge concerning the effects of contaminants on human physiological processes increases, the contaminant concentrations considered as safe for human consumption are being reconsidered and, in some cases, reduced. Thus, the fact that wild fish meat is among the most contaminated with respect to PCBs of the common meat protein sources for the human population suggests that environmental effects on fisheries will be an area of increasing concern in coming years.
This paper has three objectives. First, it presents a modest update of the evidence used in the study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1997) that showed which management measures are effective in conserving marine fisheries and producing significant economic and social benefits. In its original report, OECD found that individual fishing quotas (IFQs) are an effective means of controlling exploitation; of mitigating the race-to-fish and most of its attendant effects; of generating resource rent and increased profits; and of reducing the number of participants in a fishery. IFQs have been effective in limiting catch at or below the total allowable catch (TAC) determined by management authorities. In addition, the OECD evidence indicated that competitive TAC management results in a race-to-fish with all its attendant effects; and that time and area closures have not been effective in assuring resource conservation, though conservation might well have been poorer without them. The update indicates that most of the original results are upheld. The second objective is to report on recent trends in policy since 1995, with a focus on ecosystem-based management policies. These include closures and marine protected areas, large marine ecosystem programmes, measures to protect habitat, and the use of other rights-based management approaches - such as community quotas. Third, the paper examines the governance challenges of ecosystem-based fisheries management. The paper argues that the political marketplace that produces fisheries management policies tends to be biased against conservation and long-term economic benefits. The paper concludes with recommendations for reforming our fishery governance institutions.
The traditional fisheries management approach involves scientists providing their best assessment of the status and productivity of a resource. They then use these results to recommend a control measure, such as a Total Allowable Catch (TAC), based upon some harvest control law, which is usually associated with a biological reference point (e.g. F0.1). Superficially, the Operational Management Procedure (OMP), or equally the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE), approach for providing TAC recommendations may appear identical, as this often also links the results from some form of assessment to a harvest control law. However, the key difference is that the OMP/MSE approach involves simulation testing of the whole process that gives rise to the TAC recommendation within an adaptive management framework. This testing includes checks that application of the control law adopted will not lead to major problems, even if key perceptions about the resource happen to be in error; in other words, explicit account is taken of scientific uncertainties, in the spirit of the precautionary approach. Furthermore, quantitative evaluations are provided of the levels of catch to be anticipated in the medium term, and how these trade off against levels of risk of unintended depletion of the resource, to provide managers with a readily interpretable basis to choose between different management options. However, the process involves some problems in defining risk, which have yet to be resolved.
Examples where ecosystem considerations have been taken into account in extending this OMP/MSE approach beyond the single-species level can be conveniently divided into two broad categories, depending on whether they concentrate primarily on operational (e.g. by-catch) or biological (e.g. predator-prey) interactions between species, and examples are given of each. To date, actual practical applications of this approach are more readily found for cases of operational interactions, particularly in the area of marine mammal by-catch. For practical applications involving biological interactions, the key limiting factor thus far is the paucity of data to estimate the form and magnitude of predation and competition interactions, which precludes confident computation of the trade-offs between harvest policy options that differ in the extents to which they concentrate upon different species. Nevertheless there are approximate approaches for dealing with this problem. We recommend the use of such approaches, while recognizing their limitations, until the data needed to develop more reliable models of biological interactions become available.
There have been considerable efforts in recent years to modify fishing gears and practices to target particular sizes and species of fish and other marine organisms more efficiently, as well as to have less impact on bottom habitats. Recent developments in navigational aids and instruments for improving the classification of bottom habitats enables the fishing industry to harvest target resources more efficiently and to reduce impacts on benthic habitats and their communities. These changes hold promise for the achievement of broader ecosystem objectives, such as maintaining species and ecosystem diversities.
This paper provides a review of successful developments and applications of selective fishing techniques that have been used to achieve ecosystem objectives. For example, the introduction of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawls has dramatically reduced mortality of endangered sea turtles; the declines of the by-catches and discards of finfish in many shrimp trawl fisheries has mainly been the result of the sorting grids and square mesh panels introduced in these fisheries; changes in the construction and operation of tuna purse seines have significantly reduced the mortality of dolphins that are incidentally captured; and technical measures to reduce the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries have been successfully developed. By-catch considerations and gear modifications play an important role in the regulation of several major fisheries, and new by-catch reduction devices and other innovative gear modifications are continuously being proposed and tested to mitigate problems.
This paper also reviews the status of the development of gears, instruments and practices that can reduce the impacts of fishing on benthic communities and their habitats. During the last two decades there has been increasing concerns over the effects of bottom-fishing activities on benthic ecosystems in all major regions where commercial fishing is done. The evidence that fishing gears may injure benthic organisms and at least locally reduce habitat complexity and cause reduced biodiversity has appeared in various media with increasing frequency.
Finally, this paper discuss the most likely future development of commercial fishing practices, including an analysis of the likely consequences that changes to achieve ecosystem objectives might have on the efficiency of fishing. It is unlikely that gear modifications will eliminate all adverse effects completely - progress will take place by modest steps. Therefore, realistic short- and long-term objectives are necessary when attempting to minimize ecosystem impacts of a fishery. Managers should set measurable limits for by-catch levels and benthic disturbances caused by fishing gears. In many cases, a combination of technological improvement, active avoidance of areas and seasons of high by-catch rates (hot spots), and other management actions may be necessary to achieve the desired outcomes. Some gear modifications may make gears more expensive to construct, and more difficult to operate and maintain. Moreover, catches of marketable fish may be reduced. Measures and techniques that increase costs and reduce earnings are unattractive to fishermen. There is little point in introducing totally unacceptable concepts or modifications - they will probably fail. The fishing effectiveness and practicality of new designs are important because an inefficient gear will not be used or will be “sabotaged,” or may require so much additional fishing effort that overall impacts could actually be increased. Close cooperation between the fishing industry, scientists and other stakeholders will be necessary in the process of developing and introducing environmentally friendly fishing technology.
In conclusion, technologies developed in recent years demonstrate that the impact of fishing gears on non-target species and habitats can be significantly reduced without major negative effect on the profitability of the fishing operation. Clearly, economic rewards should be offered for the creation of new types of gear and modifications that reduce by-catch and minimize impact on habitats.
The broadening of fisheries management to include ecosystem-related objectives raises a potentially confusing range of possible issues for consideration in management decisions, in reporting, and in assessing management performance. However, there are methods available and approaches to addressing the issues that are practical, accessible to stakeholder participation, and scientifically assessable. Three broad and interrelated elements are described that allow ecosystem objectives to be practically and operationally incorporated into marine fisheries management systems.
Reporting and assessment of the whole management system against sustainability objectives
Three major points are developed and emphasized:
(i) Indicators and reference points - and consequently performance measures - must explicitly relate to the high-level objectives of management;
(ii) The structure and focus of reports on sustainability must be transparently derived from the high-level objectives. A methodology for this is described that can be used in meetings with stakeholders to elucidate the issues, indicators and reference points, management response and the justification for decisions. It can include risk-based methods to help identify the relative importance of different issues.
(iii) Performance assessment must be of the management system as a whole, rather than solely on the merits of particular parts in isolation. An established methodology (Management Strategy Evaluation) is described that can be used to quantitatively test the likely performance of different management strategies in achieving ecosystem objectives. A management strategy in this context is a combination of monitoring, use of the monitoring data for assessment against reference points, identification of appropriate management measures, and implementation of these measures. This methodology can be used to test any aspect of the strategy in the “common currency” of the management objectives, and to identify the circumstances in which particular strategies are likely to perform well or fail. It has already been used in fisheries in relation to target species, important by-catch species, predator-prey dependencies, and seabed habitats.
Indicators, reference points and performance measures for fisheries ecosystem objectives
There are many options available and some recent summaries are identified. A set of target- and limit-reference points for fisheries ecosystem objectives are provided. These are based broadly on experience to date, and could be practically implemented in the short term. It is not claimed that these reference points are necessary or adequate to achieve sustainability for fisheries and marine ecosystems. Rather, they represent a practical and emerging “best practice” means of operationally accommodating ecosystem-related objectives in fisheries management.
Use of marine protected areas to achieve ecosystem objectives in fisheries management
Fisheries have long used some forms of spatial management, such as closure of nursery areas to protect juvenile fish, but more recently there has been a focus on use of marine protected areas (MPAs) to achieve fishery objectives for the target species and for the ecosystem more generally.
MPAs hold promise as a rational and practical way of managing ocean resources to achieve fishery ecosystem objectives, although this promise should not be overstated. MPAs are best seen as part of a collection of management tools and measures, with a combination of on-reserve and off-reserve measures being used together to achieve sustainable fisheries and marine ecosystems. Several new technological developments are making their design and management more practical. These recent developments are reviewed.
The term, “responsible” can be interpreted in many ways. For an ecosystem approach to fisheries, we believe responsible means sustainable production of human benefits, which are distributed “fairly,” without causing unacceptable changes in marine ecosystems. Governance is broader than fisheries management. It consists of formal and informal rules, and understandings or norms that influence behaviour. An ecosystem approach for responsible fisheries requires self-governance by the scientific community, the fishing industry, and the public (including politicians), as well as responsible fisheries management.
Much has been written about the principles that should underlie an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. The key elements of the approach should be (1) goals and constraints that characterize the desired state of fisheries and undesirable ecosystem changes; (2) conservation measures that are precautionary, take account of species interactions, and are adaptive; (3) allocation of rights to provide incentives for conservation; (4) decision-making that is participatory and transparent; (5) ecosystem protection for habitat and species of special concern; and (6) management support, including scientific information, enforcement, and performance evaluation. Fisheries Ecosystem Plans are a useful vehicle for designing and implementing fisheries management systems that capture these six elements. Such Plans should highlight a hierarchy of management entities, from an ecosystem scale to the local scale of communities; ocean zoning, including MPAs and other geographically defined management measures; and specification of authorized fishing activities, with protocols required for future authorizations.
The scientific community needs to govern itself so that it produces scientific information that is relevant, responsive, respected and right. A multifaceted approach is needed, including monitoring of fisheries and ecosystems, assessments and scientific advice tailored to management needs, and strategic research investments to improve monitoring and assessments in the future. One serious problem facing scientists is the controversial nature of assessments and scientific advice. This problem needs to be addressed with a three-pronged strategy that calls for: separation of scientific institutions from management; collaborative research with the fishing industry; and transparent quality assurance of scientific advice. The last-named requires peer review, which can be either integrated into the process of preparing the advice (referred to as integrated peer review) or it can be conducted following the preparation of the advice (referred to as sequential peer review). The appearance of potential conflict of interest by peer reviewers is a factor in the credibility of the peer review process.
For an ecosystem approach for responsible fisheries, the fishing industry should govern itself to accept responsibility for providing fisheries information, embrace collaborative research, participate in the fishery management process and live with the outcome, comply with regulations, avoid waste, and develop training to instil a responsible fishing ethic. The public (including environmentalists) should also participate in the fisheries management process and live with the outcome. Politicians should produce legislation that is clear in intent and achievable within realistic funding levels. No one should make or condone “end runs” that undermine fishery management decisions. All stakeholders should be respectful of other stakeholders.
The Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem was held in Reykjavik, Iceland, from 1 to 4 October 2001. The abstracts of the papers as presented at the conference are given in this supplement to FAO Fisheries Report No. 658. The conference proceedings, containing complete versions of the papers and updated versions of the abstracts, will be published as a special collection by a commercial company.
