Forgot your password?
Document Actions
testing pdftohtml output filtering
copy and paste job from: pdftohtml -c -q -noframes input.pdf
MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
Mar Ecol Prog Ser
Vol. 274: 269303, 2004
Published June 24
Introduction
Howard I. Browman
1,
**, Konstantinos I. Stergiou
2
1
Institute of Marine Research - Austevoll, 5392 Storebø, Norway
Email: howard.browman@imr.no
2
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Biology,
Department of Zoology, Box 134, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece
Email: kstergio@bio.auth.gr
The urgent need to reduce the intense pressure and
destructive power that modern fishing practices apply
to the world's fisheries, and the oceans that support
them, is now widely recognized (e.g. FAO 2002a,
Hilborn et al. 2003). However, there is far less agree-
ment over the exact levels to which fishing mortality
must be reduced and over how to reduce the indirect
effects of fishing (e.g. bycatch, destruction of the
seafloor), in order to ensure sustainability of catches
and the health of marine ecosystems. And this is to say
nothing of disagreements over how these goals might
be achieved. It has proven all too easy for various
factions -- including some fishery scientists -- to blame
our having arrived at the current crossroads on the
ineffectiveness of existing management practices, and
on the scientific advice that underlies it. Driven by
these forces, and in recognition of the significant direct
and collateral impacts that fishing imposes on marine
ecosystems, an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)
is rapidly being adopted by institutions charged with
stewardship of the marine environment (e.g. NOAA
1999, Brodziak & Link 2002, FAO 2003, Garcia et al.
2003, Sinclair & Valdimarsson 2003). In conjunction
with this EAF is the implementation of Marine Pro-
tected Areas (MPAs), including marine reserves. Both
EAF and MPAs implicitly recognize that the value (to
humanity) of the whole ecosystem is much greater
to the world's fisheries, and the oceans that support
them, is now widely recognized (e.g. FAO 2002a,
Hilborn et al. 2003). However, there is far less agree-
ment over the exact levels to which fishing mortality
must be reduced and over how to reduce the indirect
effects of fishing (e.g. bycatch, destruction of the
seafloor), in order to ensure sustainability of catches
and the health of marine ecosystems. And this is to say
nothing of disagreements over how these goals might
be achieved. It has proven all too easy for various
factions -- including some fishery scientists -- to blame
our having arrived at the current crossroads on the
ineffectiveness of existing management practices, and
on the scientific advice that underlies it. Driven by
these forces, and in recognition of the significant direct
and collateral impacts that fishing imposes on marine
ecosystems, an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)
is rapidly being adopted by institutions charged with
stewardship of the marine environment (e.g. NOAA
1999, Brodziak & Link 2002, FAO 2003, Garcia et al.
2003, Sinclair & Valdimarsson 2003). In conjunction
with this EAF is the implementation of Marine Pro-
tected Areas (MPAs), including marine reserves. Both
EAF and MPAs implicitly recognize that the value (to
humanity) of the whole ecosystem is much greater
than the sum of its parts -- a commendable step for-
ward in-and-of itself. However, there is some disagree-
ment over whether the EAF, and MPAs, truly represent
alternatives that will be any more effective in assisting
us with sustainable management of marine resources
than historical practices. Regardless of the approach
that is taken to decide upon catch limits, or on the loca-
tion, size and number of MPAs, there will always be
the complicated (and socio-economically-politically
charged) question of how these policies should be
implemented and enforced; that is, governance (see,
for example, Mace 2001, Sissenwine & Mace 2003,
Caddy 2004, Cochrane 2004, Stefansson 2004). To
address these issues, we solicited essay-style contribu-
tions from several of the marine and fishery scientists
who are at the forefront of the ongoing debate. Those
essays are presented here.
ward in-and-of itself. However, there is some disagree-
ment over whether the EAF, and MPAs, truly represent
alternatives that will be any more effective in assisting
us with sustainable management of marine resources
than historical practices. Regardless of the approach
that is taken to decide upon catch limits, or on the loca-
tion, size and number of MPAs, there will always be
the complicated (and socio-economically-politically
charged) question of how these policies should be
implemented and enforced; that is, governance (see,
for example, Mace 2001, Sissenwine & Mace 2003,
Caddy 2004, Cochrane 2004, Stefansson 2004). To
address these issues, we solicited essay-style contribu-
tions from several of the marine and fishery scientists
who are at the forefront of the ongoing debate. Those
essays are presented here.
We will not use space summarizing the content of
this Theme Section (TS)-- we encourage you to read
through it. Rather, we take this opportunity to high-
light some of the most important conclusions that issue
from the essays when they are taken as a whole and to
add some commentary of our own. The acronyms used
in this TS are listed in Table 1.
through it. Rather, we take this opportunity to high-
light some of the most important conclusions that issue
from the essays when they are taken as a whole and to
add some commentary of our own. The acronyms used
in this TS are listed in Table 1.
In the critical recommendation of such fishery man-
agement tools as limits on maximum fishing mortality,
minimum spawning stock biomass, or total allowable
catch levels, fishery scientists often disagree about
seemingly subtle (to the layman) aspects of data analy-
sis and interpretation. Although debates such as these
are at the core of the scientific process, the fact that
fishery scientists themselves do not always agree has
been the focus of socio-political criticism, and is surely
one of the reasons that advice on catch quotas is not
often strictly heeded. In the case of the contributions to
this TS, written by proponents sitting on both sides of
the fence, there is a convincing consensus on most of
the key issues. While there is disagreement over just
minimum spawning stock biomass, or total allowable
catch levels, fishery scientists often disagree about
seemingly subtle (to the layman) aspects of data analy-
sis and interpretation. Although debates such as these
are at the core of the scientific process, the fact that
fishery scientists themselves do not always agree has
been the focus of socio-political criticism, and is surely
one of the reasons that advice on catch quotas is not
often strictly heeded. In the case of the contributions to
this TS, written by proponents sitting on both sides of
the fence, there is a convincing consensus on most of
the key issues. While there is disagreement over just
© Inter-Research 2004 · www.int-res.com
Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher
THEME SECTION
Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the
management of marine resources
Idea and coordination: Howard I. Browman, Konstantinos I. Stergiou
Contributors*: Howard I. Browman, Philippe M. Cury, Ray Hilborn, Simon Jennings, Heike K. Lotze,
Pamela M. Mace, Steven Murawski, Daniel Pauly, Michael Sissenwine, Konstantinos I. Stergiou, Dirk Zeller
*
*Contributions are presented in alphabetical order (by first
author)
**The views expressed here are those of the author only
and do not necessarily reflect the official position of The
Institute of Marine Research
Institute of Marine Research