Forgot your password?
Document Actions
Ecosystem-based management - Special Section, Marine Ecology Progress Series
MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
Vol. 300: 241–296, 2005 Published September 16
Mar Ecol Prog Ser
THEME SECTION
Politics and socio-economics of ecosystem-based
management of marine resources
Idea and coordination: Howard I. Browman, Konstantinos I. Stergiou
CONTENTS* Rosenberg AA, McLeod KL
Implementing ecosystem-based approaches to
Browman HI, Stergiou KI management for the conservation of ecosystem
Introduction ..........……………………………........…… 241–242 services …………...................................….………........ 270–274
Agardy T
Sherman K, Sissenwine M, Christensen V,
Global marine conservation policy versus site-
Duda A, Hempel G, Ibe C, Levin S, Lluch-Belda D,
level implementation: the mismatch of scale and
Matishov G, McGlade J, O’Toole M, Seitzinger S,
its implications ....………......………………….………… 242–248
Serra R, Skjoldal HR, Tang Q, Thulin J,
Fluharty D Vandeweerd V, Zwanenburg K
Evolving ecosystem approaches to management A global movement toward an ecosystem
of fisheries in the USA …………………….....……….… 248–253 approach to management of marine resources ......… 275–279
Hirshfield MF
Sumaila UR
Implementing the ecosystem approach: making
Differences in economic perspectives and imple-
ecosystems matter …....................................….…....…. 253–257
mentation of ecosystem-based management of
Livingston PA marine resources ………………................................…. 279–282
PICES’ role in integrating marine ecosystem
Tudela S, Short K
research in the North Pacific …………………………... 257–259
Paradigm shifts, gaps, inertia, and political agen-
Misund OA, Skjoldal HR das in ecosystem-based fisheries management ..…... 282–286
Implementing the ecosystem approach: experi-
Valdimarsson G, Metzner R
ences from the North Sea, ICES, and the Institute
Aligning incentives for a successful ecosystem
of Marine Research, Norway ……............……....……. 260–265
approach to fisheries management …….........………. 286–291
Rice JC
Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fish- Watson-Wright WM
eries Management — asynchronous co-evolution at Policy and science: different roles in the pursuit of
the interface between science and policy 265–270 solutions to common problems ………..………....……. 291–296
Introduction operationalized (or not). We sought contributions from
colleagues who have been engaged in the interaction
1,** 2
Howard I. Browman , Konstantinos I. Stergiou
of politics with science, and sought to cover as many
1
Institute of Marine Research - Austevoll, 5392 Storebø, Norway
perspectives as possible: non-governmental organiza-
Email: howard.browman@imr.no
tions (NGOs), government, research institutes and uni-
2
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Biology,
Department of Zoology, Box 134, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece versities.
Email: kstergio@bio.auth.gr
The contributors to this Theme Section (TS) describe
The ecosystem-based approach (EA) to the manage- the structural, technical, administrative, operational,
ment of marine resources has been the focus of several socio-economic and scientific complexities associated
recent publications (e.g. Browman & Stergiou 2004, with the adoption and implementation of a holistic EA.
Pikitch et al. 2004, Beddington & Kirkwood 2005, Daan ‘Ecosystem services’, and the need to assess the cumu-
et al. 2005). Despite this flurry of articles, the often lative impacts of all activities (extractive or otherwise)
over-riding importance of political and socio-economic on the ecosystem, are emphasized in several of the con-
forces in establishing and implementing the EA have tributions. The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept
not been adequately addressed (but see Turrell 2004). emerges as a possible practical structure upon which
Thus, we canvassed experts who are familiar with this the EA could be operationalized. The role of uncer-
side of the EA issue, and managers involved in the tainty at various levels of the science–policy interface,
decision to adopt it as national/international policy. and its relation to implementing the EA, are taken up
Our goal was to provide marine scientists with insights from various perspectives. Estimating fish abundance,
into the forces driving the adoption of policies such as and characterizing/predicting ecosystem structure and
the EA, and the mechanisms through which they are function, are inherently difficult, and the result will al-
© Inter-Research 2005 · www.int-res.com
**Contributions are in alphabetical order (by first author)
**The views expressed are those of the author and do not Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher
necessarily reflect the official position of IMR
242 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
ways be fraught with uncertainty. The manner in which LITERATURE CITED
this uncertainty is dealt with depends upon the role that
Allisson EH (2001) Big laws, small catches: global ocean gov-
one plays in the management system. Stock assessment
ernance and the fisheries crisis. J Int Dev 13:933–950
analysts and ecosystem modelers must focus on reduc- Anonymous (1997) Politics and fisheries management.
ing uncertainty. Politicians, policy-makers and fisheries American Fisheries Society, Texas Chapter, Newsletter
23(4):5 (available at www.sdafs.org/tcafs/news/97vol23/
managers must consider this uncertainty within a pre-
news23_4/v23n4.pdf)
cautionary approach: they must adopt the worst-case
Beddington J, Kirkwood G (eds) (2005) Fisheries: a future?
estimates and/or the concept of reversing the burden of Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:3–218
proof (see Pikitch et al. 2004). These different perspec- Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspectives on ecosys-
tives on uncertainty come into play as part of policy- tem-based approaches to the management of marine
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
supporting scientific advising (sensu Smith & Link
Dallmeyer DG (2003) Values at sea. Ethics for the marine
2005). However, the same scrutiny is rarely applied to
environment. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA
the scientific advice associated with policy formation Daan N, Christensen V, Cury PM (eds) (2005) Quantitative
(see Smith & Link 2005). ecosystem indicators for fisheries management. ICES J
Mar Sci 62(3):307–614
Although we provided contributors with a series of
Dunbar MJ (1987) Science policy? Ask a scientist. Can Res
questions that they could address, several issues that
March:4–6
we viewed as important were not taken up. For exam- Marra J (2005) When will we tame the oceans? Nature
ple, the fact that governments in most of the developed 436:175–176
world are reducing funding and personnel in the Masood E (1997) Fisheries science: all at sea when it comes to
politics? Nature 386:105–106
marine research sector begs the question: where are
Pauly D (2003) Ecosystem impacts of the world’s marine fish-
the funds that will allow a complete implementation of
eries. Global Change Newsl 55:21–23
the EA going to come from? Further, the conservation- Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
ist bent of the EA seems at odds with humanity’s in- (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science
305:346–347
tensive–extensive (and unsustainable) exploitation of
Smith TD, Link JS (2005) Autopsy your dead…and living: a
continental ecosystems through large-scale production
proposal for fisheries science, fisheries management and
of crops and livestock, with little if any thought to- fisheries. Fish Fish 6:73–87
wards preserving ecosystem health, biodiversity, en- Spurgeon D (1997) Political interference skewed scientific
demic species, etc. This highlights a general lack of advice on fish stocks? Nature 388:106
Turrell WR (2004) The policy basis of the ‘Ecosystem
discussion concerning the moral, ethical and philo-
Approach’ to fisheries management. EuroGOOS Publica-
sophical aspects of exploiting the sea (although see
tion No. 21, EuroGOOS, Norrköping
Dallmeyer 2003, Marra 2005). The overriding influ-
ence of politics, and of remunerated political lobbying,
in the adoption of policy were not adequately ad-
Global marine conservation policy
dressed (but see, for instance Anonymous 1997, Ma-
versus site-level implementation: the
sood 1997, Spurgeon 1997, Allisson 2001, Pauly 2003).
mismatch of scale and its implications
It is often maintained, either implicitly or explicitly,
that scientists are naïve when it comes to policy issues
Tundi Agardy
and their implementation. Dunbar (1987, p. 6) stated:
There is a belief that the body scientific cannot judge Sound Seas, 6620 Broad Street, Bethesda, Maryland 20186, USA
these important matters, that scientists live in a con- Email: tundiagardy@earthlink.net
founded ‘ivory tower’ dreaming of test tubes, high theory
or the genitalia of insects, and that it takes lawyers, busi- The mismatch of scale. Addressing environmental
nessmen or perhaps emancipated economists to come
issues requires recognition of problems, mobilization
down to practicalities. This is a myth fomented and per-
of resources to develop solutions, and leadership in dri-
petuated by those same lawyers, businessmen, etc. It is
ving change. These actions are best accomplished by
poppycock; no one can know better than scientists how to
get the best results and the most mileage out of science. A ‘thinking globally, acting locally’. However, environ-
scientist looking for advice on the stock market goes to mental problems themselves are rarely local in scale,
the relevant professional, and rightly expects lawyers and
and piecemeal attempts to address them usually fail.
politicians to come to him for guidance in science.
This is particularly true in the conservation of the
We hope that this Theme Section will help us along marine environment, where open marine ecosystems
this path. and the international nature of pollution, overexploita-
tion, and of other threats dictate a large-scale multi-
Acknowledgements. H.I.B.’s ongoing research and his editor-
lateral response. The mismatch between large-scale
ial activity for MEPS are supported by the Institute of Marine
thinking (embodied in marine policy) and small-scale
Research, Norway, by The Research Council of Norway, and
conservation action has serious implications for our
by the Inter-Research Science Center.
243
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
ability to reverse the tide of environmental degrada- generic to lead to solutions that fit the particular cir-
tion occurring in the world’s oceans. cumstances (environmental, economic, social, politi-
Virtually all the world’s nearshore areas experience cal) at a site. A recent example is the push for MPA
multiple threats that act simultaneously to degrade policies that target setting aside 20% of marine areas
ecosystems and decrease ecosystem services (Millen- as no-take reserves, regardless of the habitat or set of
nium Assessment 2005). Threats originate both at the resources to be protected and the threats that these
site of degradation and far away — from land, as well as ecological communities actually face (Agardy et al.
from distant seas. Since oceans are the ultimate sink and 2003). Second, generic policies are often unrealistically
the fate of coastal waters is strongly tied to the condition ambitious or not supported by financial commitments,
of coastal lands, rivers and estuaries, successful conser- thus leading nowhere (de Fontaubert & Agardy 1998,
vation requires addressing not only the use of the marine Wang 2004). In this way, a mismatch occurs between
environment, but land use as well, far up into the water- what is actually happening and what decision makers
sheds. Yet actual conservation projects do not happen on assume is happening.
the global or regional scale — they happen bit by bit, as a It is not for lack of want that coastal and marine con-
result of individuals, communities and institutions re- servation is failing. Many of the earth’s 123 coastal
sponding to a particular need at a particular site. Typical countries have coastal management plans and legisla-
marine conservation interventions include marine pro- tion, and new governance arrangements and regula-
tected areas (MPAs), regulations to protect critical habi- tions are being developed every year. Based on an
tat of a species, and fisheries restrictions for a particular international questionnaire using letters and fax,
fishery. The scale of these responses is usually far too Sorensen (1993) estimated that there were 142 coastal
small to address the bigger (and growing) problems of management initiatives outside the USA, and 20 inter-
unsustainable use of resources, indirect degradation of national initiatives. By 2000, there were a total of 447
marine ecosystems, and large scale declines in environ- initiatives globally, the result of new initiatives since
mental quality, such as those brought about by climate 1993 and of the improved ability to find coastal man-
change (Agardy 1999). agement initiatives through the use of the internet
Thus, the scale at which conservation occurs in site- (Kay & Alder 2005). The latest survey estimates that
level management interventions cannot possibly match there are 698 coastal management initiatives operating
the scale of the problems occurring throughout geo- in 145 nations or semi-sovereign states, including 76 at
graphically larger regions. In contrast, marine policy is the international level (Kay & Alder 2005).
generally developed at much larger scales: both national What drives these initiatives and will likely drive
and global. These policy initiatives could in theory be them in the future is the recognition by governmental
broad enough to holistically address complex environ- and non-governmental organizations (NGO) of prob-
mental problems in the oceans. In fact, several interna- lems that need to be addressed. This brings up another
tional instruments provide impetus for large scale coop- mismatch of scale, which commonly leads to lack of co-
eration, including the United Nations Convention on the ordination in conservation initiatives and, in extreme
Law of the Sea, UN Regional Seas Conventions and Ac- cases, to open conflict. Conservation priorities set at the
tion Plans, Global Programme of Action for the Protec- global or regional scale by big environmental NGOs
tion of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activ- such as the WWF, The Nature Conservancy, Conserva-
ities, Jakarta Mandate on the Conservation and tion International, etc., or multilateral organizations
Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diver- such as the World Bank, are sometimes at odds with
sity, and the Ramsar Convention for wetland protection. local or even national priorities. An example of this is
Yet although global treaties attempt to address dis- the Mexican government’s endorsement of a salt plant
crepancies between small-scale interventions on the in Baja California, which was strongly (and success-
ground and large-scale coastal problems, most of these fully) opposed by the international environmental
international instruments have not been effective in community on the grounds that the plant would dis-
reversing environmental degradation (Speth 2004). turb gray whales, even though top cetacean experts
The problem may indeed be that the scale of such poli- found this argument without merit. The priorities of the
cies is far too big to recognize the particular issues fac- nation of Mexico were thus at odds with the priorities of
ing communities, or to take advantage of the unique internationals NGOs, and the ensuing conflict may
opportunities for conservation that may exist in specific have diverted attention and funds away from more crit-
socio-political or cultural settings. ical threats to Baja California and the Gulf of California.
There are 2 additional reasons why global scale pol- The way in which some of the biggest NGOs set their
icy initiatives tend to fall short of meeting what are priorities has been a source of controversy (e.g. Chapin
commonly held goals of coastal/ocean conservation. 2004); nonetheless, high profile priority-setting schemes
First, the interventions that they prescribe can be too drive the flows of resources to certain areas, at the ex-
244 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
pense of other regions. When global scale priorities are upon recognition of the interconnectivity of fresh-
not in harmony with local priorities, tensions emerge that water, coastal and marine ecosystems and habitats.
threaten the long-term viability of conservation actions, This requires a firm understanding of ecological func-
including MPAs and other key tools of conservation. tioning and of boundaries within various ecosystems,
MPAs and the mismatch of scale. MPAs are fast be- and gap analyses to determine what key sources or
coming the conservation tool of choice for dealing with sinks, or links in the chain of interconnected habitats,
habitat loss, they are increasingly being used to study are missing from the total MPA portfolio (Friedlander
and to manage fisheries problems, and they involve local et al. 2003). And while it is true that planning MPA net-
communities and user groups in management of marine works or systems requires information about connec-
areas. Yet MPAs, and especially fisheries reserves, are tivity and ecological processes (Possingham et al. 2000,
usually far too small to be effective in addressing the Leslie et al. 2003), it would be a fallacy to assume that
complex suite of problems faced by most marine areas, complete ecological knowledge is a prerequisite for
especially when planners and conservation groups ig- moving forward. An MPA network or system can be
nore the context — in terms of the environmental health designed with adaptive management in mind, so that
and condition of surrounding waters and benthos — in protected areas are actually used to garner more
which these islands of protection are sited (Allison et al. applied ecological information, as well as information
1998, Jones in press). Most MPAs are not large enough about the efficacy of management (Agardy 1997).
to meet their stated objectives; even the often touted ex- Because MPAs and networks of areas can target a
ception of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the wide range of objectives, and since they vary greatly in
largest MPA in the world, highlights how degradation of scope, the most comprehensive system of networks
a highly valued area can occur when land management is hierarchical, working at multiple complementary
and ocean management are not in synchrony. scales or levels (Jones 1994, Agardy 2003b). Goals can
When practitioners realized that few MPAs were vary at each level in the hierarchy. For instance, the
meeting broad scale conservation objectives, and that explicit goal at the regional level may be to create
an ad hoc, one-off approach would not lead to effective a system in which all marine ecosystem or habitat types
large scale conservation, the concept of MPA networks are represented within an ocean basin or a country’s
emerged as a way to strategically plan MPAs with the jurisdiction, while at a lower level (and within a
hope that the whole would then be greater than the geographically smaller target area) MPAs might be de-
sum of its parts. There is an obvious need for strategic signed to protect the most ecologically important habi-
MPA networks (Roberts et al. 2001). A system or net- tats within a region. At still another level, the manage-
work that links these areas has a dual nature: connect- ment objective might be the conservation of a flagship
ing physical sites deemed ecologically critical (ecolog- marine species or set of species, with protected areas
ical networks), and linking people and institutions in and management interventions tailored for the specific
order to make effective conservation possible (human needs of the threatened species (Garcia Charton et al.
networks) (Agardy & Wolfe 2002). Networks or sys- 2000). Designing such strategic and functional net-
tems of MPAs have great advantages in that they works requires an understanding of regional ecology
spread the costs of habitat protection across a wide and the multiple (and cumulative) threats affecting not
array of user groups and communities while providing only the ecosystems, but the linkages between them as
benefits to all, and networks also help to overcome the well. Though our ecological understanding of such
mismatch of scale (Agardy 2003b). linkages is far from complete, many leading marine
It is important to distinguish between MPA networks ecologists think that we have enough information to
or systems that are strategically planned to protect the begin designing large-scale networks, which can then
most ecologically critical habitats within a region, and be amended and adapted as new knowledge accrues.
networks of reserves that have a narrower focus and Systems ecology can thus overcome the mismatch of
are designed to protect fisheries stocks or single spe- large-scale policy by helping us decide where pro-
cies. The former are planned in a way that addresses tected areas should be sited and how they should
links between land, freshwater, and coastal systems, be connected, in an ecologically-driven top-down
while the latter focus on larval dispersal, and sources approach. Identification of priority sites can be accom-
and sinks. Although fisheries reserve networks can plished with computer algorithms and software such as
and should be part of MPA systems, their benefits may MARXAN — as employed in rezoning the Great Barrier
have been exaggerated, and critical gaps in knowl- Reef Marine Park (see www.gbrmpa.gov.au) and in the
edge impede the development of such reserve net- Irish Sea Pilot (see www.jncc.gov.uk), or through del-
works for many species (Sale et al. 2005). phic methods that utilize expert opinion to develop
MPA networks are most successful in promoting consensus on key sites. Implementation of the actual
large-scale conservation when their design is based form of the protected area and of conservation policy at
245
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
each site, however, must be be under bottom-up con- network as a starting point, and analyzes which threats
trol, to fit the needs of each particular place. Protected to marine ecosystems and biodiversity cannot be
areas or networks can thus be organized with partner- addressed through a spatial management scheme. In
ships or co-management with indigenous groups and such corridors marine policies are directed not at the
local communities (Jentoft & McCay 1995). The dy- fixed benthic and marine habitat that typically is the
namic nature of a hierarchical marine conservation target for protected area conservation, but rather at the
system should guarantee that any country taking part water quality in the water column, and the marine
in the development of a protected area system will be organisms within it. The connections between the
proactive but responsive to needs at individual sites, various MPAs in a network are maintained by policy
and scientifically rigorous but socially flexible. Individ- initiatives or by reforming the environmental manage-
ual MPAs that are accepted by local communities and ment of areas outside the MPAs. Corridor concepts
thus effective in the long term can be designed strate- provide a way for planners and decision makers to
gically so that there is synergy and complimentarity think about the broader oceanic context in which
between all parts of the network. MPAs are sited, and to develop conservation interven-
Networked MPAs within a region can be adminis- tions that complement spatial management. Marine
tered by a variety of means, e.g. by a single overseeing corridors are nascent efforts that need further concep-
agency that designs both networks and individual pro- tualization and testing in real life situations.
tected areas, by a coordinating body that ties together Overcoming the mismatch of scale. Thus, despite re-
MPAs variously implemented by different government cent strategic approaches to marine conservation, most
agencies, or by an umbrella framework such as the interventions still occur in an ad hoc and opportunistic
‘biosphere reserves’, a designation of UNESCO’s Man manner, as agencies and institutions follow their
and Biosphere Programme (UNESCO 1996). In bio- mandates without really considering how they con-
sphere reserves, local communities become part of the tribute to the big picture beyond their regional, sectoral
network, ecologically critical areas are afforded strict or agency boundaries (NRC 2001). An integrated, sys-
protection while less important or less sensitive areas tematic and hierarchical approach to conservation and
are managed for sustainable use, and the biosphere sustainable use is needed, to allow nations to address
reserve designation itself carries international prestige various geographic scopes and scales of continental
and can help in raising funds (Agardy 1997, UNESCO marine conservation problems simultaneously in a
2000). In the case of coastal and marine resources more holistic manner (Griffis & Kimball 1996). By using
shared by different countries, regional agreements large marine regions (regional seas, semi-enclosed
may prove most effective, based on a better under- seas, or eco-regions) as the focus of management rather
standing of costs and benefits at the regional scale than using globally- or nationally-generated sectoral
(Kimball 2001). An example of such a regional body in approaches that address marine problems issue by
the terrestrial/freshwater environment is the Mekong issue, multilateral agencies can cooperate to address
River Commission (see www.mrcmekong.org) . the full spectrum of threats and embark on developing
While networks can help overcome the mismatch integrated, holistic solutions. For shared coastal and
between the large scale of marine problems and the marine resources, regional agreements may indeed
small scale of most conservation interventions, even prove more effective than global agreements, espe-
strategically planned networks do not necessarily lead cially when such agreements are based on a better un-
to effective marine conservation at the largest scale derstanding of costs and benefits accruing from shared
(Christie et al. 2002). Identification of existing pro- responsibilities (Kimball 2001).
tected areas and tying them together into a regional Admittedly, this prescription for holistic approaches
initiative does not magically create large-scale conser- to ocean management that strategically target entire
vation — although some international institutions have ecosystems, yet catalyze ‘individualized’ conservation
claimed to be achieving this. Since individual MPAs action appropriate to each site, is idealistic and might
were historically established opportunistically rather be considered unfeasible. Indeed, when Meir et al.
than strategically, functional networks will require the (2004) assessed land-based conservation planning,
creation of new MPAs to fill remaining gaps, even in they concluded that large-scale, long-term conserva-
areas where MPAs are common. tion plans are not as effective as short-term, oppor-
But even strategically designed networks can only tunistic interventions. This casts doubt on the ability of
be a starting point for effective conservation, rather the world community to move towards marine conser-
than constituting an end goal. Recognizing that more is vation in the strategic way called for in this contribu-
needed than MPA networks, planners have begun to tion. Yet there are important differences between ter-
explore the concept of marine corridors and protected restrial and marine conservation; there are stronger
seascapes. A marine corridor initiative uses an MPA arguments for regional conservation using networks of
246 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
MPAs, the most important of which is the common Commission on Environmental Cooperation, and at the
property nature of marine resources, which calls for national scale in countries ranging from Australia to
cooperative rather than individualistic responses. Fur- the USA. Smaller regions such as the Gulf of Maine,
thermore, the simple decision rules that Meir et al. shared by Canada and the USA, are also focal points
(2004) promote, such as focusing conservation efforts for regional cooperation, as demonstrated by the mul-
on areas with highest species diversity, are of question- tilateral work undertaken as part of UNEP’s Global
able utility in the marine environment, where patterns Program of Action (see www.gpa.unep.org) and the
of biodiversity are poorly known and where species- work of the Gulf of Maine Council (see www.gulfof-
poor areas such as upwelling regions are of great eco- maine.org). Even at the state level, initiatives are
logical importance (Agardy 2003b). under way to select sites as part of a strategic network
MPAs play a key role in such a strategic approach, of MPAs. In California, USA, for instance, the state
not because they are a panacea, but rather because legislation known as the Marine Life Protection Act
MPAs provide a mechanism to overcome 2 of the (MLPA) has spurred a review of possible methodolo-
biggest obstacles to effective marine conservation. gies to identify sites for networks that would capture
(1) MPAs can help to shed sectoral management and both representative and ecologically critical areas.
addressing the full suite of threats to marine ecology in This initiative is noteworthy in the context of this con-
a holistic manner, as they provide demonstration mod- tribution, because the waters of the State of California
els of how to integrate management across all sectors encompass portions of 3 biogeographic provinces or
(Villa et al. 2002), and in some cases demonstrate how eco-regions, and the MLPA initiative may provide a
to tie ocean management and coastal/watershed man- tangible model for designing regional MPA networks.
agement together. (2) MPAs can help to overcome The nascent efforts in the Mediterranean to develop
management paralysis that arises from the enormous a representative system of MPAs are exemplary. A
scale and complexity of marine environmental prob- legal framework for multilateral cooperation already
lems, and from the strange but pervasive notion that exists under the Barcelona Convention (Convention for
the oceans are a single homogenous, fluid environ- the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollu-
ment; MPAs provide an important ‘sense of place’ to tion, adopted in 1976 and in force since 1978), with the
specific habitats and ecological communities, showing participation of 22 parties from the riparian nations
that not all parts of the ocean are the same, thus raising surrounding the Mediterranean. Though the original
the profile and perceived value of specific places in emphasis of the treaty was on pollution reduction, and
the public’s eye. By attaching special importance to the Convention is considered a success in this regard,
specific sites, MPAs not only create opportunities for the bulk of recent attention among the Parties has
regulations on use of the area, but also create impetus been on habitat and biodiversity conservation. Under
and political will to address problems that originate the Protocol on Specially Protected Areas, the Parties
outside the area, such as land-based sources of pollu- have begun to assemble a list of regionally important
tion. Individual MPAs are on scales small enough to be areas called SPAMIs (Specially Protected Areas of
tractable, while a series of MPAs in a strategic network Mediterranean Importance). Work is now underway to
can promote region-wide marine conservation. use the SPAMI list as a starting point to evaluate what
There are important precedents for such integrated is currently missing from the Mediterranean-wide pro-
regional approaches, suggesting that strategic, large tected area portfolio, in terms of both representation of
scale planning does hold promise for more effective all habitat types and in terms of adequately protected
marine conservation. One is the relatively recent cou- habitats and resources. Once this gap analysis is com-
pling of coastal zone management with catchment pleted, the Parties to the Convention will have guid-
basin or watershed management, as has occurred ance on where to site new MPAs and how to amend
under the European Water Framework Directive and existing ones. The end result could well be a much
projects undertaken under the LOICZ (Land –Sea more effective protection of regional biodiversity,
Interactions in the Coastal Zone) initiative. These fully based on the economies of scale that MPA networks
integrated initiatives, with affecting and affected par- and systems provide, including better opportunities
ties taking part in the planning process, have resulted for management training, cooperative surveillance and
in lower pollutant loads and improved conditions in enforcement, and standardized research protocols.
some estuaries (Millennium Assessment 2005). Through such regional conservation programs, goals
Regional approaches utilizing MPA networks and such as conservation of biodiversity, including rare and
systems are also being developed for the Mediter- threatened species, maintenance of natural ecosystem
ranean Sea under the Barcelona Convention (the functioning at a regional scale, and management of
Mediterranean Regional Seas Agreement), in North fisheries, recreation, education, and research could be
America under the auspices of the North American addressed in a more coordinated and complementary
247
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
fashion (Agardy 2003a). The integrated approach is a LITERATURE CITED
natural response to a complex set of ecological pro-
Agardy TS (1997) Marine protected areas and ocean conser-
cesses and environmental problems, and is an efficient
vation. R.E. Landes, Austin, TX
way to allocate scarce time and resources to address- Agardy T (1999) Ecosystem-based management: a marine
ing the issues that parties deem to be most critical. perspective. In: Maltby E, Holdgate M, Acreman M, Weir
A (eds) Ecosystem management — questions for science
Nations and agencies that participate reap the benefits
and society. RHIER, University of London, Egham, p 44–46
of more effective conservation, while bearing fewer
Agardy T (2003a) An environmentalist’s perspective on
costs by spreading management costs widely and by responsible fisheries: the need for holistic approaches. In:
taking advantage of economies of scale in manage- Sinclair M, Valdimarsson G (eds) Responsible fisheries in
ment training enforcement, etc. Through regional the marine ecosystem. FAO, Rome, p 65–85
Agardy T (2003b) Optimal design of individual marine pro-
initiatives, a top-down holistic perspective can be
tected areas and MPA systems. In: Beaumer JP, Grant A,
matched to bottom-up site-appropriate interventions,
Smith DC (eds) Protected areas. Pro World Conf Aquatic
and the priorities of international groups that funnel Protected Areas, 8–12 August 2002. Australian Society for
attention and money to conservation sites can be har- Fish Biology, Norh Beach, WA, p 111–119
Agardy T, Wolfe L (2002) Institutional options for integrated
monized with local priorities and needs. But 3 things
management of a North American marine protected areas
are required for such integrated, holistic approaches to
network. Commission on Environmental Cooperation
succeed: ecological understanding, sensitivity to social Report, CEC, Montreal. Available at: www.cec.org
and political factors, and leadership that understands Agardy T, Bridgewater P, Crosby MP, Day J and 7 others (2003)
and acknowledges a holistic view and has the strength Dangerous targets: differing perspectives, unresolved
issues, and ideological clashes regarding marine protected
of conviction to move a complicated agenda forward.
areas. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 13:1–15
Ecological understanding is needed to realistically
Allison GW, Lubchenco J, Carr M (1998) Marine reserves are
assess the threats to the marine environment: their necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecol
nature, their scope, how they interact with one Appl 8(1):S79–S92
Chapin M (2004) A challenge to conservationists. Worldwatch
another, and what can be done about them. A knee
Mag Nov/Dec:17–31
jerk reaction to apply a generic policy prescription
Christie P (2004) Marine protected areas as biological suc-
every time an environmental problem arises, without a cesses and social failures in southeast Asia. Am Fish Soc
true understanding of the threats and drivers behind Symp 42:155–164
them, can often result not only in failure of that partic- Christie P, White A, Deguit P (2002) Starting point or solution?
Community-based marine protected areas in the Philip-
ular intervention, but also create obstacles to future
pines. J Environ Manage 66:441–454
conservation (Agardy et al. 2003).
de Fontaubert C, Agardy T (1998) Implementing the protocol
Social science needs to inform us about how solutions on specially protected areas and wildlife of the Cartagena
are developed to address threats at the site level. After Convention. Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev 10(3):
753–854
all, conservation is not about managing ecosystems or
Friedlander A, Sladek Nowlis J, Sanchez JA, Appeldoorn R,
other species, but about managing our own human spe-
Usseglio P, McCormick C, Bejarano S, Mitchell-Chui A
cies. In order to change human behavior, we must under- (2003) Designing effective marine protected areas in
stand what drives people to use resources unsustainably, Sea-flower Biosphere Reserve, Colombia, based on bio-
and what proximate and indirect drivers lead to bad gov- logical and sociological information. Conserv Biol 17(6):
1769–1784
ernance and management (Christie 2004). Social science
Garcia Charton JA, Williams ID, Perez Ruzafa A, Milazzo
can also tell us what is feasible and sustainable — long
M and 5 others (2000) Evaluating the ecological effects of
after the cadre of visiting scientists and conservationists Mediterranean marine protected areas: habitat, scale, and
that initiate the conservation action are gone. the natural variability of ecosystems. Environ Conserv
27(2):159–178
Finally, we must recognize the importance of true
Griffis RB, Kimball KW (1996) Ecosystem approaches to
leadership and ‘the power of one’— and identify indi-
coastal and ocean stewardship. Ecol Appl 6(3):708–712
viduals with the vision, commitment, and power to Jentoft S, McCay B (1995) User participation in fisheries man-
move forward. Such leadership could drive meaningful agement, lessons drawn from international experiences.
regional agreements that allow the development of Mar Pol 19(3):227–246
Jones PJS (1994) A review and analysis of the objectives of
strategically planned MPA networks, and at the same
marine nature reserves. Ocean Coast Manage 23(3):149–178
time address the wider context through pollution con-
Jones PJS (in press) Collective action problems posed by
trols, harmonization of regional land use planning, no-take zones. Mar Pol
river basin management, etc. Only visionary leaders in Kay R, Alder J (2005) Coastal planning and management, 2nd
edn. EF&N Spoon, London
these regions will be able to rally the troops of commit-
Kimball L (2001) International ocean governance. IUCN, Gland
ted individuals doing the small scale work that is con-
Leslie H, Rucklehaus M, Ball I, Andelman S, Possingham H
servation, and convert what are piecemeal and largely (2003) Using siting algorithms in the design of marine
losing battles into a united front against coastal and reserve networks. Ecol Appl 13:S185–S198
ocean degradation. Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP (2004) Does conserva-
248 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Table 1. List of acronyms
tion planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?
Ecol Lett 7:625–622
Millennium Assessment (2005) Millennium ecosystem assess-
EAM Ecosystem approach to management
ment, Vol I: Conditions and trends. In: Agardy T, Alder J
EFH Essential fish habitat
(eds) Coastal systems and coastal communities, chapter
EPAP Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel
19. Available at: www.milleniumassessment.org
FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan
NRC (2001) Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining ocean
ecosystems. Ocean Studies Board, National Research MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
Council, Washington, DC
Possingham H, Ball I, Andelman S (2000) Mathematical mod- MSY Maximum sustainable yield
els for identifying representative reserve networks. In: NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Ferson S, Burgman MA (eds) Quantitative methods in con- NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
servation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 291–306
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Roberts CM, Halpern B, Palumbi SR, Warner RR (2001) Design- Administration
ing marine reserve networks: why small, isolated protected
NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council
areas are not enough. Conserv In Practice 2(3):12–19 (Anchorage, AK)
Sale RF, Cowen RK, Danilowicz BS, Jones GP and 7 others
NRC National Research Council
(2005) Critical science gaps impede use of no-take
POC Pew Oceans Commission
reserves. Trends Ecol Evol 22(2)
SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act
Sorensen J (1993) The international proliferation of inte-
USCOP U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
grated coastal zone management efforts. Ocean Coast
Manage 21(1-3):45–80 WPFMC Western Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Honolulu, HI)
Speth JG (2004) Red sky at morning. Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT
UNESCO (1996) Biosphere reserves: the Seville Strategy and
the statutory framework of the World Network. UNESCO,
from experience gained in actions implemented. Start-
Paris
ing with a fisheries-centric approach makes sense,
UNESCO (2000) Solving the puzzle: the ecosystem approach
and biosphere reserves. UNESCO, Paris because fisheries are a key concern, and they are
Villa F, Tunesi L, Agardy T (2001) Optimal zoning of a marine already managed at the ecosystem scale.
protected area: the case of the Asinara National Marine
Ecosystem approaches to management in marine
Reserve of Italy. Conserv Biol 16(2):515–526
fisheries in the United States arguably originated in
Wang H (2004) Ecosystem management and its application to
1871, when Congress established the U.S. Commission
large marine ecosystems: science, law and politics. Ocean
Dev Int Law 35:41–74 of Fish and Fisheries, designed to reverse the decline
in New England fisheries. Spencer Baird, the first
Commissioner, initiated ecological studies including
Evolving ecosystem approaches to the dynamics of physical and chemical oceanography,
because an understanding of fish ‘... would not be com-
management of fisheries in the USA
plete without a thorough knowledge of their associates
David Fluharty in the sea, especially of such as prey upon them or con-
stitute their food ...’ (cited after Hobart 1995, p. VII).
School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington,
Today we continue to contemplate and debate imple-
3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE, Seattle, Washington 98105, USA
mentation of EAM in federal fisheries. How far have
Email: fluharty@u.washington.edu
we come in 140 yr? I suspect that we may be further
Introduction. Definitions of ecosystem approaches to than commonly thought. To convince you of this, I will
management (EAM; acronyms are listed in Table 1) focus on what is being done correctly in fishery man-
are replete in the fisheries management literature agement, and not on what has been done wrong.
(Brodziak & Link 2002, Garcia et al. 2003, FAO 2003). I Remodeling a house or a fishery management system
define the ecosystem approach to management simply is a process of planning and adapting; it takes time, it
and pragmatically as ‘using what is known about is expensive, and the results are not apparent until the
the ecosystem to manage fisheries.’ This approach project is completed. Thus, I focus on the foundation
acknowledges that fisheries decisions take place in an being laid for EAM, rather than on the shabby exterior.
ecosystem context and ecosystem knowledge can Shifting the baseline from the present to the future.
assist in managing fisheries production and identifying The USA has changed direction with respect to fish-
fishing effects on ecosystems. It draws attention to the eries management in favor of an ecosystem approach
fact that we are not yet applying the ecological knowl- to management. The main drivers include: (1) im-
edge that we presently have. Thus, I argue that effort provement in scientific understanding of the dynamics
to craft a consensus on the ecosystem approach to of fished ecosystems; (2) reaction to the failure in
management is not required before actions are taken achieving sustainable fisheries; (3) increase in public
(Babcock & Pikitch 2004). Such a consensus can evolve involvement and legal action; (4) demonstrable man-
249
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
agement success in applying conservative fishery through appeals for political support from members of
management tools; (5) added consideration of the pro- Congress (Hennessey & Healy 2000).
tection of seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and The SFA set MSY as a limit and required that re-
species that are rare or endangered; (6) strengthened building plans be developed for overfished fisheries to
requirements for management. Other factors are act- restore them within a period of 10 yr. There are
ing on the ecological and socio-economic context for difficulties in making this policy fit all species, related
fisheries management as well. Anoxic ‘dead zones,’ to the utility of the MSY standard itself, and its applica-
hazardous algal blooms, and climate variability and tion to very short- and long-lived species. However,
change are affecting the environment and fisheries. the SFA has given NMFS a foothold for critical review
Increasing energy prices, changing technologies, and of management decisions on catches, and it has given
surging imports of cultured fish and shellfish are mak- considerable legal leverage to environmental advo-
ing the human dimensions of fisheries more vulnerable cacy groups to challenge catch levels and the ade-
to environmental change. This uncertainty generates a quacy of rebuilding plans. This combination of internal
demand for improving the ability to predict ecosystem and external forcing has brought virtually all of the
changes. Together, these conditions are causing major overfished stocks in federal fisheries under rebuilding
rethinking of the incentive structure in fishing as plans (NMFS 2003), although recovery may be slow in
human wants and needs are harmonized with sustain- long-lived species. Still, concerns exist in the environ-
ing marine ecosystems. EAM is a framework for pro- mental community, because the SFA applies only to
viding the right kind of incentives for sustainable fish- species fished under a current fishery management
eries management (sensu Callicott & Mumford 1997, plan where stock assessments are made, as opposed to
Hanna 1998, Hilborn et al. 2005). all other species (commercial or non-commercial). An
To address the prerequisites for EAM, i.e. sustain- EAM is included in the more sophisticated single-spe-
ably managed fisheries, the U.S. Congress amended cies stock assessments through consideration of envi-
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and ronmental variability, risk, and other stochastic factors.
Management Act (MSA) [PL 94-265] in 1996. The Sus- Bycatch minimization. Bycatch is an issue with which
tainable Fisheries Act (SFA) marked the legislative tip- federal fishery managers have been wrestling for some
ping point for changing federal fisheries management time. SFA’s new national standard focused more atten-
standards in significant ways: (1) maximum sustain- tion on the issue (NMFS 1998). The effect of the re-
able yield (MSY) was set as a limit; (2) rebuilding plans quirements to minimize bycatch and to lower mortality
were required for fish stocks defined as overfished; of bycatch has been difficult to monitor. NMFS has
(3) bycatch was to be ‘minimized’; (4) essential fish developed a bycatch website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
habitat (EFH) was to be protected. In addition, the bycatch.htm) and a national approach to standardized
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was bycatch monitoring (NMFS 2004a). Bycatch can pre-
charged with forming an Ecosystem Principles Advi- sent different characteristics in each fishery, area and
sory Panel to assess the extent to which ecosystem season. Relatively few fisheries where bycatch is reli-
principles were being applied in fishery management ably known exist in federal waters, except in Alaska
and to advise on measures to increase their use. where industry-funded observers monitor significant
These legislative mandates set in motion serious portions (> 80%) of the total catch (Tagert 2004). Tech-
management reform efforts at the federal level. Full nical modifications of fishing gear are resulting in lower
implementation of these measures is an important bycatch in some fisheries, and changes are being made
building block toward EAM. Let us examine what has in other fishing practices. Determining what is practica-
happened as a result of the SFA, i.e. with regard to ble in terms of bycatch minimization is far from precise
ending overfishing, counting bycatch, designating (Steele 2004). More importantly from EAM perspec-
EFH and developing EAM. tives, the SFA dealt primarily with bycatch of fishes in
Overfishing and rebuilding plans. Prior to 1996 it commercial fisheries. The NMFS approach to imple-
was possible for regional management councils to mentation went beyond bycatch of fishes to include
allow overfishing, i.e. to set a total allowable catch that bycatch in recreational fisheries, as well as bycatch of
was greater than the MSY. It was possible to substitute highly migratory fish species, as well as non-fish spe-
economic or other considerations for biological con- cies such as seabirds, marine mammals and sea turtles,
siderations in setting allowable catches. No standard where some of the pressing bycatch issues occur.
was set for what catch level constituted ‘overfishing.’ Essential fish habitat (EFH). Under the SFA, NMFS
Therefore, it was seldom feasible for the NMFS to was charged with developing regulatory guidelines for
override council decisions that allowed overfishing. habitat protection within 6 months of passage of the Act.
When NMFS did challenge the scientific bases of these Formal amendment of each fishery management plan
decisions, fishing interests circumvented the agency was required. EFH was defined as habitat used by man-
250 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
aged species of fishes through all life history stages (i.e. management measures tend to target single species
those waters and substrates necessary to the fishes for or species groups, they encompass a wider range of
the purpose of spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to ecosystem components and functions than those
maturity), rather than habitat per se which sustained explicitly targeted, and therefore they constitute an
fishes and other ecosystem components. Therefore, EAM in the sense of applying what we know about the
managers were expected to identify habitat used by ecosystem in managing fisheries.
each of the approximately 1000 managed species and to Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). NMFS
determine how each habitat contributed to fishery pro- made its first formal efforts to articulate EAM in the
duction. In addition, the effect of fishing on habitats was late 1980s by forming a group of scientists charged
to be assessed and measures were to be taken towards with developing a strategic plan. The plan was devel-
mitigating adverse impacts (Kurland 2004). Habitat oped, but not implemented as the result of the change
areas of particular concern could be designated as from a government that was environmentally friendly
well (NMFS 2001). The effort to designate EFH has to one that was less supportive (Boehlert pers. comm.).
vastly increased spatial and temporal understanding of Still, the concept was being explored on many fronts;
fishes and their environments, and this has the potential Island Institute organized a high level conference at
to contribute greatly to EAM (Fluharty 2000). Harvard University in 1992 under the title ‘The System
Not surprisingly, the task of implementing EFH and the Sea’ (Platt 1993), and major journals devoted
proved to be a gravely underfunded mandate to accom- special issues to ecosystems and fisheries (Mooney
plish in an unrealistically compressed timeframe. 1998). The National Research Council was charged
Despite immediate response by NMFS to develop regu- with reviewing fishery management and it advised
latory guidelines, it took until 2002 to finalize them. that an ecosystem approach was needed (NRC 1999).
In the meantime, NMFS scientists and consultants Through the SFA, the U.S. Congress in 1996 man-
worked overtime to compile and assess available data, dated a review of the application of ecosystem princi-
develop regulatory amendments and push these ples in federal fisheries management and requested a
through the regional council process. Eventually, the report on how to increase their application. Congress
hastily developed plan amendments were judged to be charged NMFS to appoint a 20-member panel to carry
inadequate (Coleman & Travis 2000). This led to litiga- out this task. The panel comprised a diverse group
tion and a negotiated settlement which specified new of academics, fishery managers, fishery scientists,
timeframes and requirements (Kurland 2004). New ecologists, economists, non-governmental environ-
EFH protection designations in the 8 council regions mental organizations and industry representatives
now provide building blocks for an EAM, although they from around the USA (full disclosure compels me to
are only part of the foundations of EAM. Examples of inform readers that I had the privilege of serving as
these building blocks are large areas closed to bottom chair of this panel). Over a year-long process of meet-
gear such as trawls, e.g. 95% of the federal waters sur- ings, hearing from fisheries experts, managers, fishing
rounding the Aleutian Islands in Alaska (approximately and environmental interests, the panel derived a tem-
279 000 square n miles). All major seamounts off Alaska plate of ecosystem principles, management goals and
are closed to trawling as well (see www.fakr.noaa.gov/ policies that were needed in EAM (EPAP 1999).
habitat/efh.htm). Thus, EAM is furthered by actions to When the panel assessed the application of this EAM
protect EFH and aided by the synthesis of available template on federal fisheries, it concluded that examples
data on habitats and fishing impacts. The process of of EAM could be found in each of the regional fishery
developing these plans has identified significant data management areas, but that the principles, goals and
gaps. This allows prioritization of research on habitats policies were not applied systematically. We found that
and their relationships to fisheries, and on effects of the most consistent application emerged from ground-
fishing on habitats (Kurland 2004). fish management in the Alaska region, which (1) places
Besides the development of EFH protection mea- caps on total removals, (2) sets conservative harvest quo-
sures, federal fishery management is advancing the tas, (3) develops a yearly report on ecosystem consider-
use of marine protected areas (MPAs) on an increas- ations to be used in the context of management deci-
ingly broad scale as a tool in fishery management sions, (4) employs an Ecosystem Committee to organize
(NRC 2001). Recent designations of fishery manage- discussion and public forums to exploring EAM, (5) man-
ment MPAs include the Sitka Pinnacles Marine ages bycatch and counts it against harvest quotas,
Reserve and crab protection areas in Alaska (Witherell (6) uses marine protected areas, i.e. spatially explicit clo-
unpubl.), extensive trawl closures along the Pacific sures of gear types for fishery management, and (7) has
West Coast to protect rockfish stocks (Hastie 2005), an extensive observer program (Witherell et al. 2000).
and multiple closed areas in New England for ground- Based on this review our primary recommendation
fish recovery (Murawski et al. 2000). While these was that regional management councils develop Fish-
251
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
ery Ecosystem Plans (FEP) to consolidate information global interest in fishery management reform (FAO
about the ecosystem and ecosystem trends in a format 2003, Sinclair & Valdimarsson 2003, Gable 2004, Wal-
that would generally inform fishery management, and ters & Martell 2004, Hennessey & Sutinen 2005). The
would specifically be applied to actions under separate International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
fishery management plans (EPAP 1999). The first iter- convened a major international meeting on ecosystem
ation in the development of the FEP as a tool in U.S. effects of fishing (Hollingsworth 2000) and its Pacific
fishery management would be experimental and not counterpart, the North Pacific Marine Science Organi-
action-forcing. The FEP would be broader in scope and zation developed an assessment of marine ecosystem
longer term than the requisite National Environmental approaches (PICES 2004), and convened 2 study groups
Policy Act (NEPA) assessment for environmental im- to develop EAM (King 2005, Jamieson & Zhang 2005).
pact analysis. The FEP would (1) delineate the geo- The first FEP initiative came through the National
graphic extent of ecosystems; (2) develop a conceptual Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)
model of the food web; (3) describe the habitat needs of Chesapeake Bay office, which began developing an
different components of the ‘significant food web’; FEP for Chesapeake Bay in 2000 (NOAA 2004) to pro-
(4) calculate total removals and relate them to standing vide a synthesis of ecosystem information as decision
biomass, production, optimum yield, natural mortality support to the various fisheries and environmental
and trophic structure to ensure that they are not ex- managers in the region. The original FEP concept was
cessive; (5) assess uncertainty and how buffers are designed for the 8 regional fishery management coun-
included in conservation and management actions; cils. The Chesapeake Bay FEP serves as a decision
(6) develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for support tool for a very complex system of state level
management; (7) describe long term monitoring and management, and FEP development provided valu-
how it is used; (8) identify the elements external to the able feedback on proof of concept.
fishery management process that affect fisheries and At approximately the same time, NMFS convened a
their ecosystems and to engage with other manage- panel under the auspices of the Marine Fisheries Advi-
ment institutions to reduce adverse impacts. sory Committee to further develop technical guidance
The panel saw full implementation of the SFA mea- for implementing an EAM in fisheries; this led to the
sures as initial steps toward EAM. We felt that devel- preparation of a report to supplement the EPAP (1999)
opment of EAM was more likely to be effective if it report (Busch et al. 2003). Based on this advice, mem-
were bottom up, incremental and adaptive, rather than bers of Congress have since 2000 introduced bills
if it were top down, abrupt and rigid. We wanted a rec- which include provisions similar to the EPAP (1999)
ommendation that could be implemented by NMFS recommendations (see http://thomas.loc.gov). In addi-
under existing rules, although we were sensitive to the tion, 2 recent national-level ocean commission reports
potential lack of incentive to change and funding for have endorsed EAM for U.S. fisheries (USCOPS 2004,
development without a legislative mandate. Funda- POC 2003) and the Ocean Action Plan of the U.S.
mentally, it was most important to demonstrate the government states that it continues to work toward
utility of EAM in fishery management and to gain EAM in decision-making (Office of the President
experience using it. 2004).
The panel’s expectation was that NMFS would Following the endorsement of EAM by the 2 ocean
encourage regional councils to prepare ‘pilot’ or commissions, efforts began NOAA-wide to develop an
‘demonstration’ FEPs to gain experience that could be EAM that would apply across its broad spectrum of
used in developing future legislative proposals. The marine regulatory, science and resource management
recommendation was generally well-received by activities. In late summer 2004, NOAA convened a
Congress, fishery management councils and NMFS; it workshop on delineation of regional ecosystems
was greeted warily by fishing interests, because they (DeMaster & Sandifer 2004). The most recent state-
doubted its utility, and it was seen as being too timid by ment from NOAA about EAM developments extends
environmental interests, because they preferred a the discussion relative to EAM in fisheries (NMFS
weaker focus on fisheries. Within NMFS, 2 major fac- 2004b), but intensive work continues inside that
tors worked against immediate implementation of the agency. Apparently, this has caused some concerns
panel recommendations: (1) NMFS could not absorb from the Chairs of the regional fishery management
this major initiative while it was over-worked with councils, who want to be involved more in the de-
implementation of the SFA; (2) NMFS was defending velopment of EAM for NMFS and in congressional
itself in serious legal challenges to mandated tasks and activities on EAM (CCED 2005, Waugh 2005; see
to its record of NEPA compliance. http://managingfisheries.org).
Developing EAM after the panel report. The EAM Regional fishery management councils are making
efforts in U.S. fisheries are part of the developing very diverse and interesting efforts to advance EAM.
252 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
In 2004, NMFS made funding available to the New on delineation of regional ecosystems. NOAA, Charleston,
SC
England, Mid Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of
EPAP (1999) Ecosystem-based fishery management: a report
Mexico councils, for developing pilot projects on
to Congress by the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel.
ecosystem-based management (Managing Fisheries NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD (available at: www.
2005). The South Atlantic Fisheries Management st.nmfs.gov/st7/documents/epap_report.pdf)
Evans D, Wilson B (2005) Role of the North Pacific Fishery
Council is adopting its current Habitat Management
Management Council in the development of an ecosystem
Plan towards a prototype FEP (see http://map.mapwise.
approach to management for the Alaska large marine
com/safmc). The Western Pacific council has devel- ecosystems — draft. North Pacific Fishery Management
oped a Coral Reef Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (WPFMC Council, Anchorage, AK (available at: www.fakr.noaa.
2001) and is considering the development of archipel- gov/npfmc)
FAO (2003) Fisheries management 2: the ecosystem approach
agic FEP as a means of downscaling its Pacific-wide
to fisheries. FAO, Rome
FMPs for greater relevance to the people and fisheries
Fluharty D (2000) Habitat protection, ecological issues, and
in archipelagos. The NPFMC is considering the devel- implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Ecol
opment of an EAM for Alaskan ecosystems (Evans & Appl 10:245–255
Gable FJ (2004) A large marine ecosystem approach to
Wilson 2005) and of an area-specific management
fisheries management and sustainability: linkages and
approach to the Aleutian Islands that is similar to the
concepts towards best practices. NOAA Tech Memo
FEP (NPFMC 2005). NMFS-NE-184
Synopsis. Over the last decade the discussion of Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do CT, Lasserre G (2003).
EAM in fisheries management has been moved from The ecosystem approach to fisheries: issues terminology,
principles, institutional foundations, implementation and
the lunchrooms of scientists to the main stage of U.S.
outlook. FAO Fish Tech Pap 443. FAO, Rome
fisheries management. It is being propelled by an
Hanna SJ (1998) Institutions for marine ecosystems: economic
increasing awareness that insights from EAM can incentives and fishery management. In: Mooney HA (ed)
improve management of fisheries and assist in identi- Ecosystem management and sustainable marine fisheries.
Ecol Appl (Suppl)8:S170–S174
fying and mitigating adverse effects of fishing. While
Hastie J (2005) Managing bycatch in the West Coast ground-
EAM is not limited to fisheries management, the fish-
fish fishery. In: Wooster WS, Quinn J (eds) Summary
eries context provides a basis for advancing from con- Proc Symp on Improving fishery management: melding
cept to action. Fisheries management is accustomed to science and governance. School of Marine Affairs, Univer-
decision-making at ecosystem scales and is now realiz- sity of Washington, Seattle, WA (available at: www.sma.
washington.edu/fishsymp/)
ing that more discrete spatial and temporal manage-
Hennessey T, Sutinen J (eds) (2005) Sustaining large marine
ment is necessary. Presently, there is tension between
ecosystems: the human dimension. Large marine eco-
those experts who advance a central management systems, Vol 13. Elsevier, Amsterdam
approach that focuses on top down and standardized Hennessey T, Healy M (2000) Ludwig’s ratchet and the
collapse of New England groundfish stocks. Coast Manag
implementation of EAM, and those who endorse
22:119–145
regional approaches that are experimental and adap-
Hilborn R, Orensanz JM, Parma AM (2005) Institutions,
tive to diverse circumstances. incentives and the future of fisheries. Phil Trans R Soc
Lond Ser B 360:47–57
Hobart WL (1995) Baird’s legacy: the history and accomplish-
LITERATURE CITED
ments of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service.
Babcock EA, Pikitch EK (2004) Can we reach agreement on a NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-F/SSPO-18
standardized approach to ecosystem-based fishery man- Hollingsworth CE (ed) (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing.
agement? Bull Mar Sci 74:685–692 ICES J Mar Sci 57:465–791
Brodziak J, Link J (2002) Ecosystem-based fishery manage- Jamieson G, Zhang CI (eds) (2005) Report of the study
ment: what is it and how can we do it? Bull Mar Sci 70: group on ecosystem-based management science and its
589–611 application to the North Pacific. Sci Rep 29, PICES,
Busch WDN, Brown BL, Mayer GF (eds) (2003) Strategic Vancouver
guidance for implementing an ecosystem-based approach King JR (ed) (2005) Report of the study group on fisheries and
to fisheries management. DOC/NOAA/NMFS Tech Rep, ecosystem responses to recent regime shifts. Sci Rep 28,
Silver Spring, MD PICES, Vancouver
Callicott JB, Mumford K (1997) Ecological sustainability as a Kurland J (2004) Protecting fish habitat. In: Witherell D (ed)
conservation concept. Conserv Biol 11:32–40 Managing our nation’s fisheries: past, present and future.
Coleman F, Travis J (eds) (2000) Essential fish habitat and Proc Conf Fisheries Management in the United States.
marine reserves. Proc 2nd Mote Int Symp Fish Ecol. Bull North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Anchorage,
Mar Sci 66:525–1009 AK, p 170–175
CCED (2005) Positions of the regional fishery management Managing Fisheries (2005) Developing ecosystem approaches
council chairs on reauthorization of the Magnuson- to fisheries. (available at: http://managingfisheries.org)
Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act [sic] Mooney HA (ed) (1998) Ecosystem management and sus-
April 28. Regional Fishery Management Council Chairs tainable marine fisheries. Ecol Appl (Suppl)8:S1–S174
and Executive Directors, Silver Spring, MD Murawski SA, Brown T, Lai HL, Rago PJ, Hendrickson L
DeMaster D, Sandifer P (2004) Executive summary: workshop (2000) Large-scale closed areas as a fisheries management
253
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
Implementing the ecosystem approach:
tool in temperate marine systems: the Georges Bank
experience. Bull Mar Sci 66(3):775–798
making ecosystems matter
NMFS (1998) Managing the nation’s bycatch: priorities,
programs and actions for the National Marine Fisheries Michael F. Hirshfield
Service. NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD
NMFS (2001) Regional council approaches to the identifica- Oceana, 2501 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20034, USA
tion and protection of habitat areas of particular concern. Email: mhirshfield@oceana.org
DOC/NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD
NMFS (2003) Implementing the Sustainable Fisheries Act:
Introduction. It should be no surprise that conser-
achievements from 1996 to the present. NOAA/NMFS,
vation organizations are strong proponents of
Silver Spring, MD
ecosystem-based management of the oceans. At
NMFS (2004a) Evaluating bycatch: a national approach to
standardized bycatch monitoring programs. NOAA Tech their core, most conservation organizations are com-
Memo NMFS-F/SPO-66
mitted to protecting ocean ecosystems; their mission
NMFS (2004b) NOAA Fisheries’ requirements for an ecosys-
statements often include specific references to
tem approach to management of living marine resources.
‘healthy’ ecosystems. Conservation groups want to
DOC/NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD
NOAA (2004) Chesapeake Bay fisheries ecosystem plan. see oceans that include apex level predators, long-
NOAA/NMFS, Annapolis, MD lived rockfish, complex living benthic habitat, age-
NPFMC (2005) Draft area-specific management for the
structured fish populations, and the maintenance of
Aleutian Islands. Discussion paper, North Pacific Fishery
diverse marine communities. They want to see
Management Council Anchorage, AK (available at: www.
exploitation at levels, and using methods, that will
fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc)
NRC (2001) Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining ocean not compromise these and other ecosystem func-
ecosystems. National Research Council, National Acad-
tions — anywhere in the ocean. For conservation
emy Press, Washington, DC
organizations, the promise of ecosystem approaches
Office of the President (2004) U.S. ocean action plan: the Bush
is that their use will require those who manage
administration’s response to the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy. Washington DC ocean users (in particular those who manage fishers)
POC (Pew Oceans Commission) (2003) America’s oceans: to give greater value to the condition of non-fish
charting a course for change. Pew Trusts, Pew Oceans
components of the ecosystem, in contrast to a single-
Commission (available at: www.pewtrusts.org)
minded focus on ‘production’ (or other extractive
PICES (2004) Marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Spec
uses). These components include not only so-called
Publ 1, PICES, Vancouver
Platt DD (ed) (1993) The system in the sea: applying eco- ‘charismatic’ creatures such as sea turtles, whales
systems principles to marine fisheries, vol 2. Proc Island
and dolphins, but also other members of marine
Institute Conference at Harvard University. Island Insti-
communities, including in particular invertebrates
tute, Rockland, ME
and fishes other than those targeted by fishers. As a
Sinclair M, Valdimarsson G (eds) (2003) Responsible fisheries
in the marine ecosystem. FAO, Rome & CABI Publishing, result of this shift in perspective, conservationists
Wallingford hope that the health of our ocean ecosystems —
Steele L (2004) Technology, data and information in by-
widely considered to be severely compromised (POC
catch management. In: Witherell D (ed) Managing our
2003, USA Commission on Ocean Policy 2004) — will
nation’s fisheries: past, present and future. Proc Conf
begin to improve.
Fisheries Management in the United States. North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Anchorage, AK, For an idea whose time has clearly come (and that
p 202–207
arguably arrived over a decade ago), ecosystem
Tagert J (2004) Policy perspectives on bycatch. In: Witherell D
based management remains remarkably controver-
(ed) Managing our nation’s fisheries: past, present and
sial and seemingly ill defined. It is common to hear
future. Proc Conf Fisheries Management in the United
States. North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, speakers at conferences say ‘of course we all agree
Anchorage, AK, p 196–201 that we need ecosystem based management, but
USCOP (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century: final
we’re still not sure what it means.’ The debate
report. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington,
includes disputes over what problems it is intended
DC (available at: www.oceancommission.gov)
to solve, what measures are appropriately considered
Walters DJ, Martell SJD (2004) Fisheries ecology and man-
agement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ ecosystem based, and, indeed, whether it is needed
Waugh GT (2005) Ecosystem-based management — to amend
at all. For conservationists, ecosystem based manage-
or not amend (the Magnuson-Stevens Act) that is the
ment encompasses all of the threats to ocean ecosys-
question? http://managingfisheries.org
tems, including pollution and non-fisheries based
WPFMC (2001) Fishery management plan for coral reef
ecosystems of the Western Pacific Region: final environ- habitat destruction. A previous MEPS Theme Section
mental impact statement. Western Pacific Fishery Man- on the ecosystem approach (Browman & Stergiou
agement Council, Honolulu, HI
2004) focused on one component of ecosystem based
Witherell D, Pautzke C, Fluharty D (2000) An ecosystem-
management— ecosystem approaches to fisheries
based approach for Alaska groundfish fisheries. ICES J
management (EAF).
Mar Sci 57:771–777
254 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Conservationists think that healthy ecosystems can entists; e.g. Mace 2004, Sissenwine & Murawski 2004)
only coexist with fisheries where managers have is dangerous for slow-growing, late-maturing, long-
solved the triple problems of overfishing, bycatch, and lived species (such as many rockfish and sharks);
habitat destruction. We conservationists think that the higher levels of abundance (and hence lower fishing
EAF is essential to solving those problems. We also rates) are essential to maintain healthy populations.
think that the EAF is the only way to integrate our (2) There is increasing evidence that it is dangerous to
understanding— and management — of the cumulative presume that all mature female fish are of equal impor-
impacts of our actions on the ocean. EAF also provides tance for the population; protecting the older, larger
the opportunity — indeed the necessity — to put pre- females (Berkeley et al. 2004) may be essential for pop-
cautionary management into practice. ulation viability, especially for long-lived, late-matur-
Overfishing from an ecosystem perspective. As dis- ing species. (3) Conservationists have significant con-
cussed in several of the previous MEPS Theme Section cerns about the ecosystem consequences of heavy
contributions (Hilborn 2004, Mace 2004, Sissenwine & fishing on fast-growing, highly productive species,
Murawski 2004), single species fishery management where the populations can seemingly sustain very high
has been largely driven by the concept of maximum levels of fishing mortality; many of these species are
sustainable yield (MSY). While many fisheries scien- relatively low on the food chain, and by fishing heavily
tists have argued that MSY should be a limit, and not a on them, humans act as a superior competitor, poten-
target, there is no question that MSY has indeed been tially devastating the food supply for other species. For
the target for many of the world’s fisheries. There is example, fishing levels may be too high on menhaden
also no question that MSY is a frequently overshot tar- in the eastern USA; menhaden are prey for striped
get, and this has resulted in what fisheries scientists bass, a highly prized species for recreational anglers.
usually refer to as ‘overfishing.’ In fact, the dictionary The management of the krill fishery by the Commis-
definition of ‘to overfish’ has nothing to do with MSY; sion for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
it is much more closely aligned with ecosystem con- Resources (CCAMLR) was meant to address this last
siderations — ‘to fish (a body of water) to such a degree problem, and is an excellent example of the EAF in
as to upset the ecological balance or cause depletion of application. Butterworth (2000) describes the approach
living creatures.’ (American Heritage Dictionary of the (precautionary by design) as follows: ‘If only krill were
English Language 2000). Conservationists hope that to be taken into account, an appropriate target level for
this definition of overfishing will become the standard this ratio [target biomass as % of unfished biomass,
for fisheries managers. M.F.H.] in terms of conventional fisheries management
For conservationists, the premise of fisheries man- might be 50%. On the other hand, the best situation for
agement, that there is a ‘surplus’ of fish waiting to be the predators would be no fishing at all, i.e. a ratio of
caught by humans, is flawed. We must always be 100%. The preliminary target adopted is halfway
aware that any pollock we eat is not available, e.g. for between these 2 ‘extremes’, i.e. 75%.’
a Steller sea lion. Successful fisheries management One of the biggest challenges facing those who are
means not just sustainable catches of fish for humans. concerned about conventional use of MSY for either
Intact ecosystems must be maintained — not necessar- mortality rate or biomass targets (or limits) is to identify
ily pristine, but retaining their components and inter- a generally acceptable alternative criterion. If biomass
relationships, as well as adequate resistance and levels of 40% of the unfished biomass are too low,
resilience to disturbance. The implication that over- either for the species or for the ecosystem it is embed-
fishing is the only (or the main) problem in the world’s ded in, what is the correct level? How should optimal
oceans has the unfortunate consequence of relegating yield (OY) be set, without being viewed as completely
other ecosystem impacts such as habitat destruction arbitrary? Managers in the USA have proposed that
to secondary importance and demonstrates precisely the fishing rate to achieve optimal yield should be 75%
the lack of ecosystem perspective that so concerns of the fishing rate to achieve MSY (Fmsy) for precau-
conservationists. tionary purposes (Restrepo et al. 1998); on the other
Conservationists hope that the EAF will inject much hand, Roughgarden & Smith (1996) proposed main-
needed ecological and biological information into taining 75% of unfished biomass, based only on single
management systems, which currently either lack or species models. As noted above, the precautionary
discount it. As a consequence, the EAF should help level set for the krill fishery was also 75%. From the
address several specific problems with MSY-based sin- perspective of conservationists, fishing to population
gle species management approaches as currently prac- levels of 75% of the unfished biomass seems to be a
ticed. (1) It is becoming clear that the typical target of prudent limit, at least until the behavior of the fishery
reductions in biomass of 50 to 70% below unfished lev- (and consequences for target and other species) can be
els (tacitly or explicitly endorsed by many fisheries sci- monitored.
255
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
Conservationists are greatly concerned that the biodiversity, or particular species are frequently forced
search for OY in an ecosystem context will result in to use relatively blunt instruments (e.g. in the USA:
the development of ever more complex, ever more Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protec-
data-hungry models that will purport to give the tion Act). However, for species being driven towards
‘right’ level of fishing for each species. Alternative extinction as a result of bycatch, such as the small-
approaches that begin with a traditional single spe- toothed sawfish or white marlin, effective management
cies analysis and proceed to adjust fishing rates based action may only be taken when protected status is
on criteria related to the state of the fish population reached; the effort may be fruitless by then, as the pop-
and its community, as was done e.g. for the krill fish- ulation (and ecosystem) may not be able to recover.
ery, appear to provide pragmatic and transparent Under a properly implemented EAF, the management
approaches, (see Mangel & Levin 2005; also Froese threshold would be reached earlier, potentially avert-
2004 for suggestions concerning fisheries for which ing a crisis.
data are scarce). We do not need to wait for formal ecosystem plans
I completely agree with one point frequently made to improve bycatch management. An increase in ob-
by fisheries scientists — if conservationists assume that server coverage (with observers who count every-
simply shifting from single species benchmarks to thing, not just target and protected species); hard
ecosystem benchmarks will solve problems of overfish- caps or quotas for key bycatch species, as well as for
ing, we are likely to be disappointed. As Mace (2004) targets; and incentives for shifting from dirty gear
pointed out, many, if not most, current overfishing with high bycatch to cleaner gear — all of these
problems do not result from insufficiently conservative should be implemented now in order to reduce
stock assessments. Rather, they are the result of politi- bycatch. The North Pacific Fishery Management
cal decisions that ignore scientific advice. As discussed Council has systems in place, for example, where
in Mace (2004), managers are often unwilling to fisheries are shut down when a bycatch quota is
reduce catches to levels below Fmsy, because it would reached. This provides a strong incentive for fishers
result in short-term reductions in fishers’ catches and to avoid bycatch in the first place. However, the only
lead to political problems. How likely, then, are man- bycatch species that merit such management are
agers to heed a call to reduce catch levels even further, those that are valuable to other sectors of the fishing
for the sake of some seemingly intangible long-term industry. In the EAF, this approach would apply to all
benefit, or for the sake of some other ecosystem com- species. Alternatives are needed to the potentially
ponents? It is clear, however, that fisheries manage- hundreds of stock assessments required under such
ment needs to move to a perspective that explicitly rec- an approach. More feasible methods could use indi-
ognizes that a species may be overfished from an cator species for different ecosystem components
ecosystem perspective, even if it is not overfished by that could be tracked using either fisheries or survey
conventional standards (Pikitch et al. 2004). Ulti- data. Changes in the abundance of these species
mately, because any removal of fish affects the marine could then be used to trigger appropriate manage-
ecosystem to some degree, it will be up to the public, ment action.
including fishers and conservation groups, to deter- ‘Habitat’ protection. Habitat protection may be the
mine the level of ‘acceptable’ fishing. Although this biggest beneficiary of the EAF. Under most current
level must be informed by science, it is not a purely sci- approaches, habitat protection is considered for the
entific decision, and may well vary from place to place purpose of conserving commercially or recreationally
or country to country (e.g. in the developed versus the valued species. Indeed, the very word ‘habitat’ is only
developing world). defined in reference to another organism: ‘The area or
Bycatch. The EAF promises to focus much-needed environment where an organism or ecological com-
munity normally lives or occurs: a marine habitat.’
attention on bycatch — and even more importantly, it
also promises a change in perspective. Currently, fish- (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lan-
ers and managers tend to view bycatch either as a guage 2000).
waste issue (how can we fish without catching those Conservationists want organisms that have been
undersized individuals we have to discard?) or a legal considered only as ‘habitat’ components to be valued
issue (how can we fish without getting in trouble for in their own right and preserved for their own sake.
catching protected species?). As a consequence, by- Along with most marine biologists, conservationists
catch management generally ignores the entire range think that all components of an ecosystem have
of species that are not commercially or recreationally intrinsic value, even if there is no obvious or direct
targeted by any fishery and that are not yet legally pro- link to species with cash value. Conservation groups
tected or endangered. Under the current approach, are unanimous in their concern about vulnerable,
conservationists concerned about ecosystem health, fragile, and long-lived species such as deep sea
256 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
corals and sponges, which are easily destroyed by incorporated in both international and national laws.
gear such as bottom trawls. EAF promises to imple- Conservationists are concerned, however, that fish-
ment more effective management of such ‘habitats’— eries advocates will seize on calls for EAF in order to
for example, by preventing expansion of destructive maintain the status quo, delaying action until complex
trawling into unfished areas, by closing areas identi- ecosystem models can be fed with new data. Unfortu-
fied as containing any vulnerable ecological com- nately, we lack a detailed understanding of commu-
munities, and by incorporating invertebrates into nity dynamics and ecosystem function for many ocean
observer programs and bycatch management. EAF ecosystems, and given the extremely high cost and
means a shift from an approach that allows habitat to inherent difficulties of ocean research, lack of infor-
be destroyed unless it is demonstrated to be valuable mation is likely to be a problem for the foreseeable
for commercial species, to an approach that protects future. Such ignorance must not be allowed to pre-
species from fishing impacts unless it can be demon- clude management actions. It makes no sense, in my
strated that the fishing impacts are not harmful. Such view, for scientists to reach a consensus that fishing
a shift in perspective is essential, given the extraordi- effort needs to be reduced substantially, but for man-
nary difficulty of understanding community dynamics agers to fail to reduce it at all, because there is no
consensus on the precise amount of reduction. Cau-
in marine ecosystems, and the destructive capacity of
modern fishing gear. tion can be implemented in a number of ways (see
Cumulative impacts and precaution. Conservation- Mangel & Levin 2005 for a conceptual framework).
ists hope that the EAF will help solve 2 of the more Conservationists’ overarching hope is that manage-
intractable problems of current management: ment will be increasingly based upon indicators of
(1) The EAF promises to require a more thorough ecosystem health, and not simply on assessment of
assessment of the cumulative effects of human activi- individual species. The 2004 Symposium on Quantita-
ties on ecosystem components and processes. Under tive Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management
an ecosystem approach, issues such as the cumulative (see www.ecosystemindicators.org/) is evidence that
level of bycatch in a fishery would become more such an approach may be gaining favor among scien-
explicit, since one key question for ecosystem based tists and managers.
management is the level of production of the entire Conclusions. Conservationists have embraced the
ecosystem that can sustainably be extracted. Simple EAF because we hope it will deal with many issues
ecosystem models, combined with information on that have been inadequately addressed to date by
landings and bycatch, can provide useful informa- conventional management. One of our concerns is
tion concerning the level of primary or secondary pro- that implementing the EAF will provide an excuse to
duction extracted, providing insight into limits on continue the status quo indefinitely while processes
captures. Similarly, if every fish is counted (in an and procedures are being debated. At least in the
approximate sense), the sum of all impacts can finally USA, the legal framework already exists for fisheries
be addressed. Conservationists think that one of the managers to implement many, if not all, of the ele-
best ways to assess cumulative impacts is through ments of an EAF, should they choose to do so. The
environmental impact assessments, as recommended fact that intensive debate about the EAF continues, as
by Jennings (2004). In the USA, environmental impact well as resistance to implementing it, is an indication
not of the scientific difficulties with the concept, but
statements (EISs) are increasingly being used to sup-
rather of political difficulties. Scientific uncertainty
plement traditional fisheries management approaches,
and they provide an opportunity to raise and address will always allow managers a margin of judgment in
many of the questions and concerns described above. decision-making; conservationists hope that, in the
Some of the most important actions taken to protect face of uncertainty, the EAF will result in the benefit
ecosystems, such as the recent decision to close over of the doubt going to ocean protection; fishers hope
60 000 km2 of fishable habitat to bottom trawling in the the benefit of the doubt will go to them. Conservation-
Aleutian Islands region, are the result of environmen- ists think that protecting ocean ecosystems — using
tal impact assessments that thoroughly considered the EAF — will result in fishers who fish less, and who
alternatives to the status quo. Unfortunately, despite fish less destructively when they do. It is not surpris-
the fact that conservationists consider EISs as an ing that fishers and their political allies oppose the
essential part of fisheries management (or perhaps EAF. Nevertheless, if the EAF is not implemented,
because of that fact!), many managers view them, at either explicitly or by incorporating it into existing
best, as a waste of time. management schemes, there is little reason to expect
(2) Conservationists also hope that the EAF will the health of our oceans to improve. That is the
finally provide a tool for the implementation of pre- challenge for all of us — to fish as if the ecosystem
caution in fisheries management, a concept already depended on it. Because it does.
257
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
PICES’ role in integrating marine
Acknowledgements. Many of the ideas in this paper are the
result of discussions with colleagues at Oceana, particularly
ecosystem research in the North Pacific
Janis Searles and Jim Ayers, as well as with other colleagues
in the ocean conservation community. John Warrenchuk, Patricia A. Livingston
Charlotte Hudson, and Janis Searles provided helpful com-
ments. The opinions expressed are my own. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,
Seattle, Washington 98115, US
Email: pat.livingston@noaa.gov
LITERATURE CITED
Introduction. The North Pacific Marine Science
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000)
Organization (PICES) is an international intergovern-
4th edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA
Berkeley SA, Hixon MA, Larson RJ, Love MS (2004) Fisheries mental organization whose primary purpose is to
sustainability via protection of age structure and spatial
promote and coordinate marine research in the North
distribution of fish populations. Fisheries 29:23–32
Pacific. Established in 1992, it is relatively new com-
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspectives on eco-
pared with other marine science organizations such
system-based approaches to the management of marine
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303 as ICES, which has existed for over a century. How-
Butterworth DS (2000) Krill. In: Koch KH (ed) (2000) Under- ever, the roles of these organizations in advancing
standing CCAMLR’s approach to management; available
and communicating scientific knowledge of marine
at www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/am/p5.htm#(a)_Krill
ecosystems are similar. Despite its relative youth as
Froese R (2004) Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with
an organization, PICES has begun to produce inte-
overfishing. Fish Fish 5:86–91
Hilborn R (2004) Ecosystem-based fisheries management: the grated scientific advice and products that reflect the
carrot or the stick? In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds)
emerging focus on ecosystem approaches to manage-
(2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the
ment and that serve the broader needs of its mem-
management of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:
ber countries outside of the scientific community.
275–278
Jennings S (2004) The ecosystem approach to fishery man- These scientific products highlight critical issues
agement: a significant step towards sustainable use of the for ocean managers, such as sources and causes of
marine environment? In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds)
harmful algal blooms, factors influencing production
(2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the
of marine fish stocks, and population dynamics of
management of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:
marine mammals and seabirds. Advice is given to
279–282
Mace PM (2004) In defence of fisheries scientists, single PICES member countries regarding human and cli-
species models and other scapegoats: confronting the
mate influences on North Pacific ecosystems. This
real problems. In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004)
advice will allow member countries to improve pro-
Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the man-
tection and responsible management of ocean re-
agement of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:
285–291 sources, in accordance with accepted international
Mangel M, Levin PS (2005) Regime, phase and paradigm standards. The organization is thus integrating
shifts: making community ecology the basic science for
national scientific efforts and shaping international
fisheries. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 360:95–105
views of ecosystem-based management approaches
POC (Pew Oceans Commission) (2003) America’s living
in the North Pacific.
oceans: charting a course for sea change. Summary report:
recommendations for a new ocean policy. Pew Oceans Evolution of PICES. Organization: Descriptions of
Commission, Arlington, VA
the history and scientific structure of PICES can be
Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
found at www.pices.int. The members comprise most
(2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science
of the countries on the rim of the North Pacific:
305:346–347
Restrepo VR, Thompson GG, Mace PM, Gabriel WL and 7 Canada, People’s Republic of China, Japan, Re-
others (1998) Technical guidance on the use of pre- public of Korea, Russian Federation, and USA. The
cautionary approaches to implementing National Stan-
organization has defined geographic regions for
dard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
reporting scientific activities, which are at the large
and Management Act. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-F/SPO-
marine ecosystem (LME) scale of Sherman (1995).
31, Silver Spring, MD
Roughgarden J, Smith F (1996) Why fisheries collapse and This scale is becoming recognized in the USA and
what to do about it. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:
elsewhere as a starting point for management of
5078–5083
marine regions.
Sissenwine M, Murawski S (2004) Moving beyond ’intelligent
The terms of reference for the organization mainly
tinkering’: advancing an Ecosystem Approach to Fish-
eries. In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspec- deal with advancing scientific knowledge, exchanging
tives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management scientific information and coordinating marine research.
of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:291–295
These activities occupied the marine research commu-
USA Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) An Ocean Blueprint
nity of PICES in its first decade of operation, when the
for the 21st Century, Final Report. Commission on Ocean
organization increased the involvement of a broad
Policy, Washington, DC
258 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
spectrum of marine science disciplines, as well as 2000). It was during this period that PICES devel-
collaboration across scientific disciplines. This is an oped a concept for a North Pacific Ecosystem Status
important stepping-stone towards providing scien- Report as a way to provide useful information to
tific advice that addresses an ecosystem approach to member countries on the status of ecosystems in the
management. North Pacific.
Initial scientific products: It became evident over Recent activities of PICES. Scientific advice: The
time that, although the PICES scientific network was North Pacific Ecosystem Status Report was first pro-
growing in influence among the scientific community, posed to the PICES Science Board, which consists of
it did not have a strong mandate for providing scien- the chairpersons of the various scientific committees
tific advice to its member countries. This was due and programs. The Science Board presented the idea
partly to the mainly scientific terms of reference of to the respective members of the scientific committees
PICES, and to the lack of a heavily used marine region for approval. Scientific committees, which consist of
shared by many countries (as opposed, e.g. to the national representatives of the scientific discipline of
North Sea in Europe). This is in contrast to ICES, which the particular committee, discussed and approved the
is the main source of scientific advice to governments proposal. Next, the Governing Council of PICES,
and international regulatory bodies that manage activ- which consists of high level representatives of the
ities, particularly fisheries and environmental protec- academic community and governmental agencies of
tion, in the North Atlantic Ocean. The scientific prod- each member country, also discussed and approved
ucts that PICES was producing were scientific reports the concept.
and special volumes of peer-reviewed journals in The approved proposal contained an outline to pro-
which the primary target audience was the scientific vide the following information on North Pacific LMEs:
community. (1) status and trends in large scale atmospheric forcing
At the same time, some of the PICES member in the North Pacific; (2) status of lower trophic level
countries appeared to be disengaging from the con- variables such as nutrients, phytoplankton and zoo-
vention. Although the reasons were never explicitly plankton; (3) condition of living marine resources such
communicated, countries were having difficulty as fish and crustaceans, and of top-level predators such
meeting the relatively small financial obligations as seabirds and marine mammals; (4) factors involving
required to keep the organization going. Scientific human populations, contaminants and habitat modifi-
participation of some countries was waning and the cations that might be placing stresses on the marine
discussions among member countries regarding bud- ecosystem.
get and annual dues payments were becoming more Several alternatives were proposed for the proce-
difficult. It seemed likely that some member coun- dures by which the scientific community of PICES
tries did not view their financial contribution to should produce regional status reports. Reports
PICES as providing a net benefit to the country. were already being produced for some regions,
Therefore, PICES needed to move beyond its focus such as Alaska in the USA and British Columbia in
on communication among the scientific community Canada, but in other regions, particularly the
and find a new role that would elevate the useful- shared seas of the western North Pacific rim, scien-
ness of the organization to its member countries. tists had not yet begun sharing the necessary infor-
Provision of scientific products that would be of use mation.
to member countries seemed to be the logical next A PICES working group was formed to produce the
step. North Pacific Ecosystem Status Report. The group
It was during this time that ecosystem approaches had representatives of the scientific committees and
to management (EAM) of marine resources was programs and the PICES Secretariat. International
emerging as the new paradigm to advance manage- commissions such as the International Pacific Hali-
ment of marine areas, particularly with regard to but Commission (IPHC), North Pacific Anadromous
fisheries management (e.g. Grumbine 1993, Larkin Fish Commission (NPAFC), and the Inter-American
1996, Christensen et al. 1996, Haeuber & Franklin Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) were also invited
1996, Mooney 1998, Browman & Stergiou 2004), to provide contributions to the status report. Because
and scientists began to discuss what types of scien- the western Pacific countries had not yet begun to
tific advice would be needed to implement these produce regional ecosystem status reports, 3 PICES
approaches. Ecosystem status reports were becom- workshops were organized around the theme of pro-
ing a common form of providing such advice. viding ecosystem information for the PICES report. In
Development of sensitive ecosystem indicators of 2002 and 2003, workshops were held in Seoul (twice)
changes in ecosystem status to include in such and Vladivostok to describe the status and trends in
reports was a high priority activity (Hollingworth the marginal seas of the western Pacific. These efforts
259
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
brought the scientific community on the western side amounts and sources of pollutants through marine
of the Pacific Ocean together to agree on pressing webs. This information will assist member countries in
management and science issues in the North Pacific, the wise use of the North Pacific Ocean. The newly
and they were an important first step in moving these developed PICES Strategic Plan explicitly recognizes
countries towards an understanding of ecosystem- this important activity, which serves to integrate
based management. national marine ecosystem scientists from govern-
When the scientists gathered to synthesize the find- mental organizations and universities and efforts of
ings of the status report, there was no disagreement national and international programs such as GLOBEC
with regard to the science issues and conclusions. into a deeper understanding of our oceans and the
However, controversy emerged over the naming con- factors influencing them.
ventions (in English) of a regional sea shared by PICES recently formed an ecosystem-based man-
Japan and Korea. The English name that had been agement working group. Its mandate is to describe
adopted by PICES over the years acknowledged the and implement a standard reporting format for
traditional naming of both member countries of this ecosystem-based management initiatives in each
sea: Japan/East Sea. But this practice was challenged PICES member country, including a listing of the
by one of the countries when the draft status report ecosystem-based management objectives of each
was prepared, which used this naming convention. country. This will improve the scientific advice con-
This issue nearly derailed the publication of the report tained in future North Pacific ecosystem status reports
and threatened the continuing participation of some and help PICES scientists to understand and advise
countries in PICES. It seemed for a while that the governments on factors influencing change in the
North Pacific ecosystem status report, conceived to earth’s oceans.
bring the scientific experts of the member countries
together to provide important advice to the respective
countries, would actually accomplish the opposite. LITERATURE CITED
The report (PICES 2004) was published after a 3 yr
gestation, following lengthy discussions of the naming Browman HI, Stergiou KI (2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-
based approaches to the management of marine
convention among the national delegates to PICES
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
and with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Christensen NL (ed) (1996) The report of the Ecological
Commission (IOC). Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for
Since the production of the status report, the Gov- ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):665–691
ernment of the USA made a request to PICES to Grumbine RE (1996) What is ecosystem management? Con-
serv Biol 8(1):27–38
provide scientific advice with regard to the implica-
Haeuber R, Franklin J (eds) (1996) Forum: perspectives in
tions of the 1998 regime shift for North Pacific fish-
ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):694–747
eries. Regime shifts, which are abrupt shifts in Hollingworth C (ed) (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing. ICES
ecosystem composition and regional climate that J Mar Sci 57(3): 465–791
persist for several years or decades, have the poten- Larkin PA (1996) Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem
management. Rev Fish Biol Fish 6:139–164
tial to change the viability of fishing communities
McKinnell SM, Brodeur RD, Hanawa K, Hollowed AB, Polo-
that rely on the production of these ecosystems for
vina JJ, Zhang C (2001). An introduction to the Beyond
their livelihood. The PICES scientific community had El Niño conference: climate variability and marine ecosys-
already held several symposia (e.g. McKinnell et al. tem impacts from the tropics to the Arctic. Prog Oceanogr
2001) and had a large interest in ocean regime 49:1–6
Mooney HA (ed) (1998) Ecosystem management for sustain-
shifts, and this request was a logical way to bring
able marine fisheries. Ecol Appl 8(1):S1–SS174 supple-
that expertise to bear on a question that had impor-
ment
tant economic consequences for the USA. PICES PICES (1996) Report of the PICES-GLOBEC international
responded to this request by gathering its experts program on climate change and carrying capacity. PICES
Sci Rep No. 4. North Pacific Marine Science Organization,
and publishing an advisory report on implications of
Sidney, Canada
regime shifts for management of marine resources
PICES (2004) Marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. PICES
(PICES 2005).
Spec Publ No. 1. North Pacific Marine Science Organiza-
Future scientific products: Thus, PICES is now mov- tion, Sidney, Canada
ing beyond its initial focus on activities and products of PICES (2005) PICES advisory report on fisheries and eco-
system responses to recent regime shifts. North Pacific
interest primarily to scientists, to include activities
Marine Science Organization, Sidney, Canada
focused on applying that scientific knowledge to
Sherman K (1995) Achieving regional cooperation in the
address societal needs, such as prediction of regime
management of marine ecosystems: the use of the large
shifts for marine fisheries managers, understanding marine ecosystem approach. Ocean Coast Manage 29(3):
causes of harmful algal blooms, or documenting the 165–185
260 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Implementing the ecosystem approach: population dynamics of single fish stocks. The FAO
Expert Consultation on Ecosystem-based Fisheries
experiences from the North Sea, ICES,
Management in Reykjavik in 2001 (FAO 2003, Garcia
and the Institute of Marine Research,
et al. 2003) produced an overall, pragmatic solution for
Norway implementing the ecosystem approach to fisheries
(EAF) by merging ecosystem management and fish-
Ole Arve Misund*, Hein Rune Skjoldal
eries management. The EAF principles are yet to be
Institute of Marine Research, PO Box 1870, 5817 Bergen,
implemented by most of the fisheries scientific and
Norway
advisory bodies around the world.
*Email: ole.arve.misund@imr.no
The ecosystem approach has been a central issue in
The ecosystem approach. The ecosystem approach political processes such as the Fifth International Con-
is a management principle which builds on the ference on the Protection of the North Sea held in
recognition that nature is an integrated entity and Bergen in 2002 (NSC 2002), and the development of
that we must take a holistic approach to nature man- a governmental white paper on integrated marine
agement. The science to support ecosystem approach management in Norway in 2002 (Anonymous 2002).
to management must also be integrated and holistic. Similarly, the ecosystem approach was a basis for the
A core element of this science is ecology, with a development of the strategic plan of the International
focus upon the properties and dynamics of ecosys- Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES 2002),
tems (Fenchel 1987). Many scientists and managers and in the reorganisation of the Institute of Marine
have recognised the need for an ecosystem approach Research (IMR), Norway (Anonymous 2001, Misund et
for a long time (Likens 1992), although it is only dur- al. 2005). We reflect here on our experiences from the
ing the last 10 to 15 yr that a broader awareness of political processes for the North Sea and in Norway on
this has developed. developing the ecosystem approach to management.
The increased awareness and formalisation of the We go on to give our views on the development of the
ecosystem approach have emerged as a result of inter- ecosystem approach within 2 scientific organizations
national environmental agreements within the frame- that must deliver scientific advice according to the
work of the United Nations, and a fundamental ecosystem approach, ICES and our home institute
description of the basis of an ‘ecosystem approach’ was (IMR) in Norway.
first formalised in the Stockholm Declaration in 1972 Development of the ecosystem approach for the
(Turrell 2004). The most authoritative account of the North Sea. The first International Conference on the
ecosystem approach is probably in Decision V/6 from Protection of the North Sea was held in Bremen in
the meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Germany in 1987, followed by the 2nd and 3rd Con-
Convention on Biological Diversity in Nairobi, Kenya, ferences in London in 1988 and The Hague in 1990.
in 2000. This decision has an annex with a description, The Ministers at the 3rd Conference in The Hague
principles and operational guidance for application requested that OSPAR (the Convention for the Protec-
of the ecosystem approach (www.biodiv.org/deci- tion of the Marine Environment of the North-East
sions/?m=cop-05). Atlantic) and ICES should establish a North Sea Task
The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept has Force (NSTF), for producing a Quality Status Report
been the basis for a practical development of the (QSR) for the North Sea. This QSR was completed in
ecosystem approach to the management of marine 1993 (NSTF 1993) and identified fisheries as having
resources and environment (Sherman 1995, Duda & major impacts on the North Sea ecosystem. At the 4th
Sherman 2002). Currently, 64 LMEs have been identi- Conference in Esbjerg in 1995, these fisheries impacts
fied, dividing mainly the shelf regions of the globe were discussed by the Ministers responsible for the
into management units. Scientific and management environment.
issues concerning these LMEs have been the subject As host for the 5th Conference, Norway arranged an
of a large number of symposia and books (see Intermediate Ministerial Meeting on the Integration
www.edc.uri.edu/lme). of Fisheries and Environmental Issues in Bergen in
In many fisheries science institutions, advisory com- March 1997. In their Statement of Conclusions (IMM
munities and management bodies, practical imple- 1997), the Ministers responsible for fisheries and the
mentation of the ecosystem approach has been a environment in the countries bordering on the North
central issue for the last years. There is no unified Sea agreed that an ecosystem approach should be
understanding or protocol on how to deliver scientific developed and implemented as a guiding principle for
advice for management of fish stocks under the broad the further integration of fisheries and environmental
scope of the ecosystem implications of fishing, as com- management measures. This was followed by a work-
pared to the traditionally narrow consideration of the shop in Oslo in 1998 where a framework for an eco-
261
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
system approach was drawn up (Anonymous 1998). considerable input from ICES (Advisory Committee on
This framework was adopted with slight modifications Ecosystems, ACE Reports for 2001, 2002, 2003; avail-
by the Ministers at the 5th Conference in Bergen 2002 able at www.ices.dk/products/cooperative.asp), a set
(NSC 2002). of 10 EcoQOs were agreed by the Ministers at the
The framework for an ecosystem approach to man- 5th North Sea Conference (NSC 2002, Annex 3).
agement consists basically of 5 major elements or The ICES Study Group on Ecosystem Monitoring
modules in a management cycle (Fig. 1). Objectives and Assessment proposed the following definition
should relate to the state of the ecosystem. Monitor- of the ecosystem approach (ICES 2000): ‘Integrated
ing and research should be performed to provide management of human activities based on knowledge
updated information about status and trends (moni- of ecosystem dynamics to achieve sustainable use of
toring) and insight into mechanisms and causal re- ecosystem goods and services, and maintenance of
lationships (research). Assessments should use in- ecosystem integrity.’ This formed the basis for the tech-
formation from monitoring and research to evaluate nical definition of ecosystem approach used in a state-
whether objectives are being met or whether pro- ment from the First Joint Ministerial Meeting of the
gress is being made towards meeting them. Scientific Helsinki and OSPAR Commissions (JMM) in Bremen
advice should be formulated clearly to translate the in June 2003 (www.ospar.org), and in the work on
natural complexity into a clear and transparent basis developing the thematic Marine Strategy within
for decisions. Finally, management should respond to the EU (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/
the advice and to the needs for actions to meet the consult_marine.htm):
agreed objectives.
The comprehensive integrated management of human
The Ministers at the 3rd Conference in The Hague activities based on the best available scientific knowl-
had requested that methodology for setting ecological edge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to
objectives should be developed. This work was initi- identify and take action on influences which are critical
to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby achieving
ated by the NSTF and continued by OSPAR after 1993.
sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and
Workshops were held at Bristol in 1992, Geilo in 1993,
maintenance of ecosystem integrity.
and Ulvik in 1995 to consider terminology, feasibility
It is worth stressing the emphasis on integrated man-
and selection criteria for formulating Ecological Qual-
agement of human activities in this definition. Integra-
ity Objectives (EcoQOs). This resulted in a general
methodology or approach for setting EcoQOs (Skjoldal tion between different sectors of the society is a key
1999). In 1997 OSPAR agreed to apply this methodol- element of the ecosystem approach, and this has scien-
ogy to the North Sea as a test case. This work was sub- tific and institutional implications. Scientifically, we
sequently linked to development of the ecosystem need the ability to assess the combined impacts from
approach, filling the need for ecological objectives in different sectors on the marine ecosystems, and institu-
the latter. Based on the outcome of 2 workshops held tionally the sectors need to work closely together. This
at Scheveningen in 1999 and Schiphol in 2001, and means for instance that close collaboration between
the fisheries and environmental conservation sectors is
a prerequisite for an effective ecosystem approach to
management.
Ecosystem
Ecosystem In the Norwegian Government’s White Paper ‘Clean
objectives
objectives and Rich Sea’, which shaped Norwegian marine policy
(Anonymous 2002), the ecosystem approach is seen as
the means of achieving better sector integration. The
marine areas under Norway’s jurisdiction constitute
Adaptive Monitoring
Stake-
Adaptive Monitoring
Stake-
parts of the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the
management Research
holders
management Research
holders
Barents Sea LMEs. The description of the ecosystem
approach in the White Paper was modelled very much
after the framework developed for the North Sea. In
Integrated addition to continuing the international work in the
Integrated
Advice
Advice assessment
assessment North Sea, the Norwegian Government has started to
develop a management plan for the Barents Sea. This
Fig. 1. Framework for the ecosystem approach to ocean man- includes development of EcoQOs and assessments of
agement with main components or modules shown in an iter- the key impacts on the Barents Sea ecosystem: fish-
ative management decision cycle. This is a simplified version
eries, mariculture, offshore oil and gas production,
of the framework in the Bergen Declaration (NSC 2002).
shipping, long-range transport of pollutants, and cli-
Stakeholders should be included in the process, to promote
mate change.
openness and transparency
262 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Developments within ICES. ICES is an independent and it has been partly overhauled to meet the current
scientific and advisory organisation that has existed and future needs for information on the status of and
for more than 100 yr (Rozwadowski 2002). It has tradi- outlook for the marine ecosystems in the North Atlantic
tionally provided governments of the North Atlantic region.
region with advice on harvesting of fish stocks and Integrated assessments of the status and outlook of
on environmental issues such as pollution monitoring, the marine ecosystems could provide a focus and
aggregate extraction, algal blooms, or mariculture. incentive for ICES to become more operational. ICES
Recognising the focus on ecosystems and the need for activities in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea are
stronger integration, ICES initiated in 1999 a process serving as test cases. A Regional Ecosystem Study
to develop a functional strategic plan. This plan Group for the North Sea (REGNS) was established in
includes the ecosystem approach as a foundation for 2003 and is now coordinating efforts to produce an
the work of ICES, and it was signed by delegates from assessment of the recent status and trends in the
the 19 participating countries in 2002 (ICES 2002). North Sea ecosystem, to be finalised in 2006 (ICES
Since then, the 7 scientific committees of ICES have 2004).
developed specific action plans to implement the new There is an increasing awareness that ecosystems
strategy. are not abstract concepts, but real entities in nature.
Responding to the foreseen need for more integrated They are open systems and their boundaries may be
advice on ecosystems, ICES established in 2000 a new fuzzy and to some extent pragmatically determined,
Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) in addition depending on the purpose of their delimitation.
to its 2 existing advisory committees, ACFM (Advisory Nevertheless, there are more or less sharp disconti-
Committee on Fisheries Management) and ACME nuities in physical features and distribution of organ-
(Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment). isms, and these are a help when drawing the bound-
ACE is the ICES body for providing scientific advice aries of LMEs based on ecological criteria (Skjoldal
and information on the status of and outlook for marine 2004a,b).
ecosystems, and on the exploitation of living marine Compiling and assessing information and advising
resources in an ecosystem context. on the status of and outlook for marine ecosystems
The fishery science and the environmental science requires a geographical focus consistent with the
within ICES represent 2 different scientific traditions boundaries of the identified LMEs. This means in prac-
and cultures. Bridging them has not been easy. The tice that experts on different aspects within each eco-
fishery science is very computational using models and system, e.g. physical oceanography, plankton, ben-
sophisticated statistical tools to estimate the current thos, fish, must work together to provide the integrated
and future sizes of fish stocks as a basis for advising analyses and a synthesis of the information. Some
on catch quotas. The environmental science covers a rearrangement of the ICES working groups is required
much broader spectrum of disciplines with stronger to account for regional aspects. Thematic groups to
emphasis on processes and descriptions, and less deal with general issues (e.g. methods, climatic driving
on formalised and standardised computations. The forces) common to all or several specific ecosystems
fisheries scientists work on a tight annual schedule must be maintained. We therefore support develop-
with data collection, stock assessments at working ment of a streamlined and ecosystem-oriented advi-
group meetings, and provision of advice on next year’s sory function with regional working groups, much
quotas to fisheries management institutions. Environ- along the lines proposed by the ICES Study Group on
mental scientists usually have less time pressure from the Advisory Committees and Working Group Proto-
the management system, with environmental assess- cols (ICES 2003), to enable ICES to deliver scientific
ments carried out at more irregular and less frequent advice according to the ecosystem approach.
intervals. The difference between the 2 traditions Developments at IMR. The leaders of the Institute of
materialises clearly, for example, in the difficult issue Marine Research (IMR), Norway, considered that the
of integrating information about oceanographic vari- organization of the institute was not strategically
ability into the regular fish stock assessment process suited to deliver holistic ecosystem-based science and
(Ulltang & Blom 2003). advice to support the ecosystem approach to man-
The ground layer of the ICES structure consists of agement. The IMR had 4 science centres (for living
>100 working or study groups that meet annually or resources, environment, aquaculture, and coastal stud-
work by correspondence to produce reports address- ies) that acted to some extent as separate entities
ing specific terms of reference given to them by the within the institute. The centres conducted their
ICES Council. These groups cover virtually every activities within advisory and science programmes that
aspect of the marine environment. This structure has were specific to each centre. The centres were, fur-
evolved over the decades in response to past needs, thermore, managed as separate economic units, each
263
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
with the responsibility to manage the budget with a The ecosystem programmes build on a common,
positive balance in the long run. Cooperation between simplified understanding of the ecosystem approach to
the centres was less than would be desirable, both sci- focus on 3 main operational goals: (1) a clean sea
entifically and administratively, and it was difficult to (monitoring and advice to secure the lowest possible
achieve the level of cooperation between centres that level of contamination of anthropogenic pollutants in
is required for dealing with ecosystem issues. the marine environment and seafood); (2) better advice
Based on a recommendation from the directors of for sustainable harvest of marine resources (single spe-
IMR, and its acceptance by the Ministry of Fisheries cies models are still applied, but multispecies consider-
and Coastal Affairs, the IMR Board initiated in spring ations and ecosystem information will be taken more
2002 a process to develop a new organisation for the into account); (3) reduced ecosystem effects of fishing
institute. The introduction of the ecosystem approach (improvement of the size and species selectivity of fish-
in the White Paper of the Norwegian Government, in ing gears and reduction of impacts on bottom fauna).
the Bergen Declaration of the 5th North Sea Con- Parts of the Barents, Norwegian and North Seas
ference, and the new strategic plan for ICES were LMEs are within Norwegian jurisdiction. Norway is
triggers of the reorganization of IMR. During a 1.5 yr only one of the countries that have the right to harvest
internal process initiated by the leader group and the living marine resources within these ecosystems.
extended with representatives from the major labour International cooperation at the political, scientific and
unions, a new organisation was developed (Misund management levels is important for effective imple-
et al. 2005). The classical, discipline-oriented struc- mentation of an ecosystem approach. The natural and
ture with centres for marine environment, marine re- anthropogenic drivers that influence the ecosystem
sources, coastal zone and aquaculture
was abandoned. The former pro-
BOARD
gramme structure with 4 advisory
programs following the centre struc-
ture, and up to 10 science pro-
MANAGING DIRECTOR
grammes across the centre structure,
was also abandoned.
The new organization has 3 eco- RESEARCH DIRECTORS
AND
system-based programmes and 1
HEAD OF RESEARCH
thematic science and advisory pro- ADMINISTRATION IN TROMSØ
gramme, 19 research groups, a
technical department divided into 9 INFORMATION
research technical groups, an adminis-
trative department that includes the RESEARCH JOINT FACILITIES
former centre administrations, and an
unchanged research vessel depart-
ment to operate the fleet of the in- 19 RESEARCH GROUPS DEPARTMENT RESEARCH
OF VESSELS
stitute (Fig. 2). These programmes pro-
CENTRE FOR RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
vide a structure for the scientific and DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
advisory activity of IMR by defining all COOPERATION
activities into projects that are carried
out by the research and technical THE BARENTS SEA PROGRAMME
groups.
The 3 ecosystem-based programmes
THE NORWEGIAN SEA AND THE NORTH SEA PROGRAMME
are set up according to the division of
LMEs in the North-Eastern Atlantic
THE COASTAL ZONE PROGRAMME
(Sherman 1995, Sherman & Skjoldal
2002). There is one programme that
covers the Barents Sea LME and THE AQUACULTURE PROGRAMME
one that covers the Norwegian Sea
and the North Sea LMEs together. A
3rd programme covers the coastal zone
of Norway. The 4th programme is
Fig. 2. Present organisational chart (tentative) of the Institute of Marine Research
thematic and covers the aquaculture (IMR), following reorganisation in 2004 for adaptation to the ecosystem approach
activities of the institute. to ocean management.
264 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
structure, productivity and major living resources eries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fish-
eries, No. 4 (Suppl 2)
within these LMEs are different. The science and advi-
Fenchel T (1987) Ecology— potentials and limitations. In:
sory programmes therefore have taken somewhat dif-
Kinne O (ed) Excellence in ecology, Book 1. International
ferent approaches in building up their project portfo- Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe
lios. Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Lasserre G (2003).
The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology,
Within the new organization of IMR, the science and
principles, institutional foundations, implementation and
advisory programmes are still in an early phase of
outlook. FAO Fish Tech Pap No. 443. Rome, FAO
development. In the years to come, attention will be ICES (2000) Report of the Study Group on Ecosystem Assess-
given to further refine and develop the ecosystem ment and Monitoring. ICES CM 2000 / E:09, International
approach as their central element. Surveys in the Bar- Council for Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen
ICES (2002) Towards the 21st century: A strategic plan for
ents Sea and the Norwegian Sea now have a clear
ICES. International Council for the Exploration of the
ecosystem focus, including simultaneous monitoring of
Sea, Copenhagen (available at: www.ices.dk/iceswork/
hydrographic conditions, plankton, fish stocks and strategic%20plan-final.pdf)
marine mammals. The North Sea surveys, however, ICES (2003) Report of the Study Group on ACFM, ACE,
ACME, and Working Group Protocols. ICES CM 2003 /
are still focused on single aspects such as demersal
MCAP:02, International Council for Exploration of the
(IBTS surveys) or pelagic fish stocks (e.g. the herring
Sea, Copenhagen
surveys). These activities have a long tradition of ICES ICES (2004) Report of the Regional Ecosystem Study Group
coordination, and it will take some time to adjust the for the North Sea. ICES CM 2004 / ACE:06. International
various activities coordinated by ICES to support an Council for Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen
IMM (1997) Statement of conclusions. Intermediate Ministerial
effective ecosystem approach to North Sea manage-
Meeting on the Integration of Fisheries and Environmen-
ment.
tal Issues, 13-14 March 1997, Bergen, Norway. Ministry of
In developing the new organisation and structuring Environment, Oslo (available at: http://odin.dep.no/nsc)
the scientific and advisory activities within IMR, we Likens G (1992) The ecosystem approach: its use and abuse.
In: Kinne O (ed) Excellence in ecology, Book 3. Interna-
have chosen a pragmatic strategy. Our philosophy is
tional Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe
that we will further develop the ecosystem approach
Misund OA, Torrissen O, Bjordal Å, Moksness E, Lønne
within our scientific and advisory activities ‘as we go OJ, Toft KØ (2005) A reorganized Institute of Marine
along’. The choice of a new structure and way of func- Research, Norway, to meet the requests for ecosystem
tioning of the institute lowers the effect of the ‘resis- approach in science, surveillance and management
advice. Proc 4th World Fisheries Congress, Vancouver,
tance to change’ inherent in any organisation, and
May 2004. Am Fisheries Soc Books, Bethesda, MD
forces all persons involved to consider the new
NSC (North Sea Conference) (2002) Bergen Declaration. Fifth
requirements by an ecosystem approach free from the International Conference on the Protection of the North
constraints and empowerments from the previous Sea, 20-21 March 2002, Bergen, Norway. Ministry of Envi-
ronment, Oslo. ISBN 82-457-0361-3
structure. In the years to come, the objectives of the
NSTF (North Sea Task Force) (1993) North Sea Quality Status
ecosystem approach to management of fisheries and
Report 1993. North Sea Task Force, Oslo and Paris Com-
marine ecosystems will be clarified and made more missions, London
explicit, and we believe our new organization is well Rozwadowski H (2002) The sea knows no boundaries. A cen-
suited to deliver the scientific support for achieving tury of marine science under ICES. International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea and University of Washing-
those objectives.
ton Press, Seattle, WA
Sherman K (1995) Achieving regional cooperation in the
management of marine ecosystems: the use of the large
LITERATURE CITED
marine ecosystem approach. Ocean Coast Manage 29:
165–185
Anonymous (1998) Workshop on the Ecosystem Approach to
Sherman K, Skjoldal HR (eds) (2002) Large marine ecosystems
the Management and Protection of the North Sea, Oslo,
of the North Atlantic. Changing states and sustainability.
Norway 15–17 June 1998. TemaNord 1998:579, Nordic
Elsevier, Amsterdam
Council, Copenhagen. ISBN 92-893-0245-3
Skjoldal HR (1999) Overview report on Ecological Quality
Anonymous (2001) Rapport fra Havforskningsinstituttets
(EcoQ) and Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs).
arbeidsgruppe for økosystembasert forvaltning’ (Report
Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. ISBN 82-7461-050-4
from the Working Group of the Institute of Marine
Skjoldal HR (2004a) An introduction to the Norwegian Sea
Research on ecosystem based management; in Norwe-
ecosystem. In: Skjoldal HR, Sætre R, Fernø A, Misund OA,
gian). Institute of Marine Research, Bergen
Røttingen I (eds) The Norwegian Sea ecosystem. Tapir
Anonymous (2002) Rent og rikt hav, St.meld. nr. 12
Academic Press, Trondheim, p 15–32
(2001–2002) (Clean and rich sea, Government White
Skjoldal HR (2004b) Fish stocks and fisheries in relation to
Paper; in Norwegian), Ministry of Environment, Oslo.
climate variability and exploitation. In: Wolanski E (ed)
(available at: http://odin.dep.no)
Natural resource system challenge: oceans and aquatic
Duda AM, Sherman K (2002) A new imperative for improv-
ecosystems. Encyclopedia of Life Supporting Systems
ing management of large marine ecosystems. Ocean
(EOLSS), Developed under the auspices of the UNESCO.
Coast Manage 45: 797–833
Eolss Publishers, Oxford. www.eolss.net
FAO 2003. The ecosystem approach to marine capture fish-
265
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
a stable policy environment. On the outside, resource
Turrell WR (2004) The policy basis of the ‘ecosystem
approach’ to fisheries management. EuroGOOS Publica- users want stability to plan their operations rationally.
tion No. 21, EuroGOOS Office, SMHI, 601 76 Norrköping,
It is hard enough for industries to keep up with
Sweden. ISBN 91-974828-1
changes in markets and operating conditions, without
Ulltang Ø, Blom G (ed) (2003) Fish stock assessments and
being uncertain about the regulatory framework in
predictions: integrating relevant knowledge. Sci Mar 67
(Suppl. 1) which they will have to work. On the inside, managers
want stability to develop management plans for
achieving a specified set of objectives, monitoring
the effectiveness of the plans, and adapting manage-
Implementation of the Ecosystem
ment tactics to correct discrepancies. If the policy-
Approach to Fisheries Management –– based objectives change frequently, then effective
asynchronous co-evolution at the management planning and implementation becomes
interface between science and policy impossible.
In a democracy, major change in policies and regula-
Jake C. Rice
tions requires at least consultation, if not legislation.
Both take time and have significant inertia. As a result,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Science Advisory
Secretariat, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0E6
major policy changes are not highly risk prone. For
Email: ricej@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
consultation to demand major change, a groundswell
of support for a new approach already has to exist, or
Introduction. I write from the perspective of a scien- else a convincing case for change has to be made by
tist with a background in terrestrial post-MacArthur the government promoting the change. Governments,
(1972) community ecology. I began to work on marine in turn, want some confidence that they are making a
ecosystem research problems more than 20 yr ago, and change for the better, if they are shaking up a status
was drawn into the web of problems of advising man- quo to which many primary constituencies have
agers and policy developers first on fisheries, and then adapted. Even when there is widespread perception
on a progressively much broader range of issues. that change is needed, consultation and political pro-
For the past decade my advisory work for fisheries cesses which follow democratic practices will be
management and policy has been primarily through biased towards those options that the public wants, not
ICES — where since 1996 I have attended most meet- the options recommended by the science community.
ings of their Advisory Committees on Fisheries Man- Before the science can have a major impact on policy
agement (ACFM), Marine Environment (ACME) and change, it has to be mature enough, so that the scien-
Ecosystems (ACE) — and DFO (as director of the Sci- tists can convince political decision makers that the
ence Advisory Secretariat). The change of the relation- associated costs and benefits are known and that the
ship between science and policy on ecosystem issues costs are justified.
has been particularly apparent in these fairly formal Why science is out of synchrony with policy changes.
advisory settings. Here is what I have seen. The lack of synchrony factors is largely due to 2 fac-
The role of science in formulation of policy on the tors: (1) Ideas gain influence in science slowly. Some
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) is fundamen- ideas, although rarely disputed, are just hard to
tal — but primarily it has been a supporting role, not document fully enough to support management ac-
one of leadership. This is frustrating for both sides, but tions, and the science basis for changes to policy and
it is an inevitable consequence of the reality that sci- management accumulate incrementally. For example,
ence growth is incremental, whereas policy changes it has been acknowledged since the first years of
are saltatory. Few people in either science or policy fisheries science that predator–prey interactions are
understand why that is inevitable, and this lack of important to management (Smith 1994, Rozwadowski
understanding frustrates communication and impedes 2002). However, each time a science body made a
progress, as each group may perceive the other as serious effort to bring those relationships into the advi-
behaving irrationally. The different nature of change sory process, it took a decade or more to collect the
in science and change in policy also provides unlimited necessary information and develop the corresponding
ammunition to those exercising hindsight, to the detri- models (North Sea: Pope 1991; Barents Sea: Yndestad
ment of effective communication and true progress. 2004; Antarctica: CCAMLR 2004), and even more time
Because of the importance of this difference in how to convince the wider science community to accept the
change occurs in science and in policy, it is worthwhile specific tools and the estimates of the interaction rates.
to consider its origins. It has been argued that really new ideas in science are
Why policy changes are saltatory. There are pres- revolutions not evolution (Kuhn 1970), but even in
sures both outside and inside governments to maintain this case, acceptance of the revolutionary idea has to
266 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
(1) The reported uncertainty (sensu Rosenburg & Re-
spread from the first visionaries to the larger commu-
nity. The notion of regime shifts as a dominant pattern strepo 1994) in the scientific advice on policy increases
of environmental variation may be such a quantum when ecosystem considerations are taken seriously. This
change in scientific thinking about ecosystem dy- is in marked contrast to statements made as the field was
namics. Nearly a decade elapsed after the first papers developing, that a more complete modelling framework
would reduce uncertainty. This contradiction and the
framing the idea (e.g. Wooster & Hollowed 1991) ap-
peared, until a major symposium devoted to the topic greater reported uncertainty both retard policy imple-
(McKinnell et al. 2001) was held. Even then, most pa- mentation. The true uncertainty associated with a policy
pers at the symposium presented evidence to support choice always did include model uncertainty, e.g. due to
the validity of the concept, rather than addressing the unknown functional relationships of species interactions
implications of this type of environmental change for and environmental forcing to the status of populations,
policy and management (Rice 2001, Cury et al. 2003). as well as the uncertainty due to the unpredictability of
(2) Those scientists who see the need for policy future states of nature. However, the uncertainty actually
development soonest rarely articulate advice in a way included in the scientific advice often was little more
that is useful to policy. I have observed a number of than uncertainty in estimates of parameter values due to
shortcomings at the science–policy interface when a natural variability and measurement error, in an assess-
new area of scientific inquiry develops: ment formulation which did not explicitly include the
• The most imaginative scientists may have a vision of environmental forcing and species interactions. More-
how better future policies would use their new insights, over, not only does the reported uncertainty in the
but they are ‘naïve’ about how to bring about the nec- science advice increase when the ecosystem approach is
essary policy changes. I conjecture that the imagina- adopted, but also the factors causing the increase are
tion that allows them to be among the first to envision ones that the science advisors had rarely mentioned to
new ecosystem considerations in management is in the managers receiving the advice, because the advisors
conflict with the patience required to have science had been encouraged to keep their messages simple and
influence policy. Their proposals for change may be clear. Policy experts and managers obviously do not
direct, but policy development rarely is. embrace this change (unless they are working in non-
• Early scientific advice is often unhelpful in guiding precautionary frameworks where greater uncertainty
policy. If the new insights come from theoretical gen- allows them to defer painful decisions). Some time is
eralists, these generalists tend to be fuzzy about the needed until scientists are able to phrase their treat-
policy changes that are needed, as well as their conse- ment of uncertainty in a way that makes sense to non-
quences. If the new insights come from disciplinary scientists, and during this transition period both sides
specialists, they often present their calls for policy are frustrated with the other’s inability to deliver.
change from the perspective of their favourite part of (2) When science is struggling with uncertainty, sci-
the ecosystem, rather than from the perspective of entists who are more interested in impact of policy
governance and societal consequences, which are than in doing sound science can gain the spotlight. The
essential considerations to policy specialists. Either ground is fertile for them, because the ecosystem
problem renders the science advice on policy ineffec- approach is beginning to consolidate, so a partial but
tive, due to a lack of clarity about risks and conse- incomplete foundation for advice exists. These advo-
quences crucial to those making policy decisions. cates offer answers that deemphasise the uncertainty,
• The science disciplines that support policy and man- and guide policy towards apparently simple solutions
agement most directly, as well as those conducting to complex problems. Science advocates who are
basic research, both misunderstand and stereotype enthusiastic about, e.g., the Ecosystem Approach are
each other. This magnifies the first 2 shortcomings, as likely to oversell the support that science can deliver
scientists from the 2 streams do not help each other and undersell the transition costs. They may be trying
and often end up neutralising their respective merely to accelerate change, but in the process they
potential contributions. oversimplify complex issues. This may have happened
• Scientists with different theoretical preferences and in the debate about marine protected areas (MPAs;
practical traditions are highly critical of each other’s Hilborn et al. 2004), management based on trophic-
work, creating many opportunities for managers and dynamic balance (http://dels.nas.edu/osb/ecosystem_
stakeholder who are reluctant to change to play off effects.shtml), and bottom-trawling (ICES 2000).
one viewpoint against the other. The advisory situation is awkward at present with re-
Interactions when science is ‘ahead’ of policy. As spect to the EAF. The basic message of the advocacy
the scientific basis for the ecosystem approach begins scientists, to reduce an activity damaging the ecosys-
to mature and consolidate, we are seeing 2 new imped- tem, is right. Even the most experienced and practical
iments to a close harmony of science and policy. science advisors support it, although with some trepi-
267
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
dation, because they know that they are extrapolating to where science has been saying that policy should be
further than they normally go in their advisory role. The based. They can be surprised and disappointed when
body of sound science is not yet great enough to docu- they find that careful science advisors don’t really know
ment fully advice within an ecosystem-based policy the territory well after all, and can provide only limited
framework, but the science advisors can extrapolate as support for the new policies. The advisors know that
readily as anyone from the trends in the knowledge science has merely been indicating the necessary di-
that has accumulated. Hence the ease with which con- rection of change. Much more research will be needed
cepts such as ‘reference direction’ are substituted for to determine how much change is needed to reach new,
‘reference point’ (Link et al. 2002), i.e. instead of advis- safe reference points in an ecosystem content. Policy
ing on how to reach a specific state that is identified as makers, encouraged by the advocacy scientists to move
safe (the ‘reference point’), advisors only take on the boldly, now believe that they have reached this safe
simpler task of advising on the desirable direction of zone well ahead of the science.
change (the ‘reference direction’). It will not be until Interactions when policy moves ‘ahead’ of science.
after policy is changed that hard advice will be needed. After a decade of frustration, when science was ahead
As soon as the questions about implementation of the of policy, science advisors are faced with a new prob-
policy are received, advising on the direction of change lem. Once the policy commitment is made, those asso-
will not be enough. Much of the trepidation in experi- ciated with its development and implementation
enced advisors was due to the fact that they knew that expect solid advice (Ludwig et al. 2001). Will it come
the hard questions about implementation would follow, from practical science advisors, who are well aware
and they lacked the information to answer them. that much more research and monitoring is needed for
When scientific results are oversold and transition full implementation of an ecosystem approach (Pikitch
costs are deemphasised, policy experts are led to be- et al. 2004), or from those willing to speak with great
lieve that there is a complete and tested science basis confidence and certainty, even if neither is justified?
for implementing change. The U.S. Ocean Commission This is a dangerous time. Scientists experienced in
Report (USCOP 2004) and the Pew Report (POC 2003), advising decision makers are embracing the EAF as
and in Europe the Koge and Rotterdam meeting reports a necessary step forward. However, they stress that
(EC 2003, 2004), all include the message that policy implementation must be incremental, a message in
makers believe that the science framework for an which managers take some comfort, for it does not
ecosystem approach to marine management is com- upset their stability of process too dramatically. For
plete. USCOP (2004, p. 47) goes so far as to recommend example, both Annex 5 to the FAO Code of Conduct
that ‘Conservation decisions should be made by NMFS (FAO 2003) and the Implementation Guidelines for the
… They should be based on recommendations from EU Marine Strategy (Rice et al. 2005) stress that change
regional science and technical teams composed of will be incremental, as scientific knowledge and man-
federal, state, and academic scientists. Conservation agement experience continue to grow, and as indus-
decisions should precede and remain unchanged by tries and communities adapt to change. The ecological
allocation decisions …’ — the ecosystem science is aspects of the ecosystem approach are amenable to
ready to be the sole basis for public-interest decisions. incremental change. Assessments and advice can
In these documents, consistent with the impact of advo- account incrementally for environmental forcing fac-
cacy science on ecosystem policy issues, much is made tors and for predator–prey impacts on stock dynamics,
of the opportunities, and little of the costs to get there. as the functional relationships are identified and para-
Most of these major commissions have recommended meterised (ICES 2002, 2003, 2004). Ecosystem effects
an increase in funding of science to address these of fishing can be taken into account in the same way.
challenges, but those recommendations are often slow The danger is that the increments may not be the
to be translated into real increases in science funding. ‘right’ size. They can be perceived as being too large.
These are the conditions when the leap in policy is In Canada, for example, opposition to the inclusion of
made from rarely mentioning ecosystems to featuring marine species under the new Species At Risk Act
them as the cornerstone of policy, as in the Preamble to (SARA) is deep among coastal communities, fishers’
Canada’s Oceans Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca./en/ organisations, and even fisheries management com-
O-2.4/index.html), where the Ecosystem Approach is munities (e.g. DFO 2005), because listing under SARA
listed as one of the 3 foundations of the provisions in the would mean a step from the present fisheries manage-
Act, and in the Bergen Declaration (2001). Policy mak- ment to mandatory prohibitions of all activities causing
ers do not know they have leapt into a poorly charted death or harassment, unless very stringent conditions
wilderness. After years of lagging ever further behind are met. Comparable opposition is found in many
the accumulating body of science, in one set of policy other jurisdictions (FAO 2002). On the other hand,
revisions policy makers believe that they have moved implementation of existing ecosystem knowledge in
268 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
routine fisheries management has proceeded slowly, confidence in managers to act, and give resource users
allowing acknowledged environmental crises to persist potentially restricted by new ecosystem-based man-
(Rice 2005a,b). agement measures ample opportunity to oppose the
How do we ensure that implementation of an ecosys- basis for these measures.
tem approach occurs swiftly enough to generate real The obvious step of obtaining integrated ecosystem
improvements in marine ecosystem status, but not so advice from integrated advisory bodies is being taken
swiftly that society fails to adapt and chooses to oppose by many jurisdictions. These advisory bodies still build
change altogether? The parts of the ecosystem ap- their advice from the parts to the whole, with the parts
proach addressing governance changes — integrated retaining much of their original character. Neither the
planning and management, and inclusiveness and science advisors nor those they advise are comfortable
transparency (Swan & Greboval 2004) — must receive throwing out tools with which they have gained
as much attention as the ecological components. The decades of experience, especially when the new
governance changes create a context for an adaptive tools for integrating ecosystem considerations into the
approach that uses science knowledge as it accumu- assessments are still in their infancy. There is much
lates. Science advisory processes can facilitate these enthusiasm for ‘ecosystem indicators’ as the new foun-
necessary governance changes in inclusiveness and in- dation for scientific advice on an ecosystem approach
tegrated planning, by changing some practices as well. to management (Garcia 1996, Daan et al. 2005), but I
Science peer review and advisory processes must have some scepticism regarding that course. Although
face the challenges posed by an integrated ecosystem ‘policy relevance’ is a core selection criterion for most
approach. The culture of structured peer review is well ecosystem indicator discussions (see review by Rice &
developed with regard to the provision of advice on Rochet 2005), the reliability of the indicators used for
fish stocks, fisheries and pollution. The transition to policy choice is almost never tested in practice (Rochet
advising on these processes in an ecosystem context & Rice 2005). I think that opening many science review
has been difficult in the USA, Canada and Europe for and advisory processes to more diverse types of expe-
at least 2 reasons. riential and traditional knowledge holds more promise
(1) The questions on which advice is sought are often for facilitating truly integrated advice (Rice in press).
poorly framed. Requests for advice still come from reg- Although participants with experiential knowledge
ulatory agencies, which remain largely sector specific have just as much sectoral focus as the science advisors
(fisheries, pollution, etc.). Either the ‘ecosystem advice’ do, the process of combining experiential knowledge
requested is simply a concatenation of the requests with ‘hard science’ has meant uprooting the trust in the
from managers in several sectors, or it represents a tools of one’s discipline and finding ways to truly
compromise that is vague, so that none of the man- merge different kinds of knowledge (Rice in press).
agers feels that the jurisdiction of their own sector is Once started, this practice may turn out to be transfer-
being curtailed. In neither case do the requests have able across disciplines. Just as fishermen’s knowledge
the specificity that allows science advisory bodies to has demonstrated its value in understanding status
provide clear answers. and trends in fish populations and consequences of
(2) When scientists work in advisory contexts they do management measures (Gray in press), many sources
not integrate their knowledge as well as they do in of traditional knowledge may contribute to under-
contexts like multi-disciplinary symposia. From my standing the state of marine ecosystems relative to
experience with 3 ICES Advisory Committees (Fish- their historic conditions, and the effects of human
eries Management, Marine Environment, and Eco- activities on those systems.
systems) the same ecosystem issue may be on the It is also necessary to stem the trend towards politici-
agenda of more than one advisory committee, but each sation of the science applied to management — i.e.
discusses different aspects of the issue and gives towards ‘advocacy science’. The motivation for advo-
weight to different considerations about the options. cacy science is understandable because of the serious-
Each advisory body attacks the ecosystem issue by ness of environmental crises and the lack of synchrony
building incrementally on its past work, and because between advances in science and policy. Scientists
their histories are different, they take different path- passionate about protecting the environment may be
ways in seeking solutions. Even when the 3 commit- tempted to ‘spin’ the scientific evidence, to make the
tees are converging in their deliberations, each is case for policy changes appear stronger than it really
likely to stop at the limits of its own expertise. This pro- is. However, science has its privileged access to policy
vides piecemeal rather than integrated science advice, and decision-making just because it strives to be
and the different considerations emphasised by the impartial and objective. If those goals are sacrificed for
different committees may appear to be inconsistencies. cultivating a public-opinion environment that is less
The gaps and perceived inconsistencies do not inspire sympathetic to harvesting, then science becomes just
269
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
one more special interest group at the table. The sci- series of discipline-centred subprojects; they are punc-
ence community may win debates sometimes, but it tuated by an annual meeting of the teams, at which
will lose sometimes as well. In the last US election a information is shared, but the work is not conducted in
2% margin of victory was called ‘significant political an integrated way throughout the year. Management
capital’ by new commentators. If science chooses to must make increments in regulations large enough to
enter that political arena, should it fail to win a clear make a difference. The major benefits will be reaped
majority of supporters it risks being marginalized in when science advisors, managers, and policy-makers
subsequent policy decisions. Scientists can be activist all take the governance and the ecological components
about their beliefs, but Science itself loses its value if it of an EAF equally seriously. We have to accept that
gives up the objectivity and empiricism on which it is uncertainty in the science inputs to management will
founded and uses evidence selectively to build a case be larger (and more realistic) in an EAF, and we have
for a pre-selected conclusion. to face the fact that decision-making must become
In addition to changes in science advisory processes, more risk averse, or the EAF will leave marine ecosys-
management building on the advice has to become tems worse off, rather than better off.
more averse to risk in practice. Even if all the harvest
implications of an EAF are not known at present, with-
LITERATURE CITED
out question there will be a need to harvest less, to
accommodate both the target species role in the Bergen Declaration (2001) Ministerial declaration: Fifth Inter-
ecosystem and periods of poor environmental produc- national Conference on the Protection of the North Sea.
Bergen, Norway (available at http://odin.dep.no/archive/
tivity (Rice 2005b). At the same time, as discussed
mdvedlegg/01/11/Engel069.pdf)
above, the uncertainty presented explicitly in assess-
CCAMLR (2004) CCAMLR’s management of the Antarctic.
ments and advice has increased. If management is not (CCAMLR, Hobart; available at: http://www.ccamlr.org/
averse to risk, greater uncertainty will result in more pu/E/e_pubs/am/man-ant/p1.2.htm
Cury P, Shannon L, Shin YJ (2003) The functioning of marine
aggressive harvesting, not in less. This makes the
ecosystems: a fisheries perspective. In: Sinclair M, Valdi-
inclusiveness and transparency of both the advisory
marsson G (eds) Responsible fishing in the marine eco-
and management processes even more important, as system. FAO Fish Tech Pap 400, FAO, Rome
many of the failures of traditional single-species fish- Daan N, Christensen V, Cury PM (eds) (2005) Symposium on
eries management occurred because management was Quantitative Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Manage-
ment. ICES J Mar Sci 62:307–614
risk prone. If this remains the case, then an EAF will re-
DFO (2005) Report of the DFO public consultations on SARA
duce sustainability in fisheries, instead of improving it.
listing of Atlantic cod. Department of Fisheries & Oceans,
Opportunities and risks. We are in a crucial time. Ottawa
The scientific case for taking an ecosystem approach is EC (2003) Communication from the Commission to the Coun-
cil and the European Parliament: ‘Towards a strategy to
now strong enough, so that EAF has been embraced
protect and conserve the marine environment’. Council
widely by national and international policy agencies.
conclusion March 7, 2003. European Union, Brussels
Policy has changed in a leap, from a situation where a FAO (2002) An appraisal of the suitability of the CITES crite-
growing body of scientific knowledge about ecosystem ria for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species.
relationships was having little impact on management, FAO Fish Circ 954, FAO, Rome
FAO (2003) The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Tech-
to a situation where science now lacks the ability to
nical guidelines for responsible fisheries No. 4, Suppl 2.
reliably and comprehensively support ecosystem-
FAO, Rome (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/
geared policy initiatives. The resulting practice of y4470e/y4470e00.pdf)
incremental applications of science to management is Garcia S (1996) Indicators for sustainable development of
fisheries. 2nd World Fisheries Congress, Workshop on
fully consistent with emerging policy and management
Fisheries Sustainability Indicators, Brisbane, Australia,
frameworks. However, science must be focused on
August 1996 (available at: www.fao.org/docrep/W4745E/
making reliable incremental steps, not taking adven- w4745e0f.htm)
turous leaps towards ‘holistic’ management, and scien- Gray TS (ed) (in press) Participation in fisheries governance.
tists must integrate the whole science process, not just Springer, Dordrecht
Hilborn R, Stokes K, Maguire JJ, Smith T and 6 others (2004)
the final science products. There are signs of some
When can marine reserves improve fisheries manage-
progress in integration, such as the creation of the
ment? Ocean Coast Manage 47:197–205
Working Group on Regional Ecosystem Descriptions ICES (2000) Report of the Advisory Committee on the Marine
and the Regional Ecosystem Group for the North Sea Environment 1999. CRR 239, ICES, Copenhagen
ICES (2002) Report of the Study Group on Incorporation of
in ICES, which have attracted genuinely diverse mixes
Process Information into Stock-Recruit Models. ICES CM
of experts. However, there is a long way to go. Few
2002/C:01
ecosystem scientists and oceanographers attend com- ICES (2003) Report of the Study Group on Growth, Maturation,
plete fish stock assessment meetings, and many ‘multi- and Condition in Stock Projections. ICES CM 2003/D:02
disciplinary’ research projects quickly evolve into a ICES (2004) Report of the Thirteenth ICES Dialogue Meeting:
270 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
advancing scientific advice for an ecosystem approach to the Implementation of International Fisheries Instruments
management: collaboration amongst managers, scientists, and Factors of Unsustainability and Overexploitation in
and other stakeholders. CRR 267, ICES, Copenhagen Fisheries. Mauritius, 3–7 February 2003. FAO Fish Rep
Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. No. 700, FAO, Rome
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Wooster WS, Hollowed AB (1991) Decadal scale changes in
Link J, Brodziak JTK, Edwards SF, Overholtz WJ, Mountain the northeast Pacific Ocean. Northw Env J 7:361–363
D, Joost JW, Smith TD, Fogerty MJ (2002) Marine ecosys- Yndestad H (2004) The cause of Barents Sea biomass dynam-
tem assessment in a fisheries management context. Can J ics. J Mar Syst 44:107–124
Fish Aquat Sci 59:1429–1440
Ludwig D, Mangel M, Haddad B (2001) Ecology, conserva-
tion, and public policy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:481–517 Implementing ecosystem-based
MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology. Harper & Row,
approaches to management for the
New York
conservation of ecosystem services
McKinnell SM, Brodeur RD, Hanawa K, Hallowed AB, Polo-
vina JJ, Zhang CI (eds) (2001) Pacific climate variability
Andrew A. Rosenberg1, Karen L. McLeod2
and marine ecosystem impacts. Progr Oceanogr 49:1–640
Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
1
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space, Morse Hall
(2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management: reversing
142, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire
the means to an end. Science 305:345–347
03824, USA
POC (Pew Ocean Commission) (2003) America’s living ocean:
Email: andy.rosenberg@unh.edu
charting a course for sea change. Ocean Trust, Washing-
2
Department of Zoology, 3029 Cordley Hall, Oregon State
ton, DC; available at: www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_
University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA
oceans_final_report.pdf
Email: karen.mcleod@science.oregonstate.edu
Pope JG (1991) The ICES Multispecies Assessment Working
Group: evolution, insights and future problems. In: Daan N,
The need for an ecosystem-based approach to man-
Sissenwine MP (eds) Multispecies models relevant to man-
agement (EAM). Widespread degradation of ocean re-
agement of living resources. ICES Mar Sci Symp 193:22–33
sources and continued human pressures on coastal
Rice JC (2001) Implications of variability on many time scales
for scientific advice on sustainable management of living and ocean environments necessitate ecosystem-based
marine resources. Progr Oceanogr 49:189–209 approaches to the management of marine resources. A
Rice JC (2005a) Will an ecosystem approach mitigate the fac-
proliferation of ocean-related activities and growing
tors of unsustainability? In: Maguire JJ, Greboval D (eds)
demands for marine resources have given rise to
3rd Workshop on Factors of Unsustainability, Sept 14–18,
increasingly complicated policies, rules and regula-
2004, Siem Reap, Cambodia. FAO Tech Fish Rep 700
Rice JC (2005b) Is the failure of conventional fisheries man- tions that ostensibly govern those activities. The
agement making the conservationist approach more
declining state of marine ecosystems around the world,
appealing, offering a way out of making tough decisions?
under virtually any definition of ‘state’ (e.g. Pauly et al.
In: Maguire JJ, Greboval D (eds) 3rd Workshop on Factors
1998, Jackson et al. 2001, Myers & Worm 2003, Pan-
of Unsustainability, Sept 14–18, 2004. Siem Reap, Cambo-
dia. FAO Technical Fisheries Report 700 dolfi et al. 2005), indicates that management changes
Rice JC (in press) Bringing ‘experiential knowledge’ into are needed: society has outgrown the policy models
fisheries science advisory processes: lessons learned from
that were developed for managing its impacts on the
the Canadian experience. In: Gray TS (ed) Participation in
marine environment (USCOP 2004).
fisheries governance. Springer, Dordrecht
In many parts of the world, policies to manage
Rice JC, Rochet MJ (2005) A framework for selecting a suite of
indicators for fisheries management. ICES J Mar Sci 62: fisheries, mitigate the effects of coastal development,
516–527
improve water quality and manage numerous other
Rice JC, Trujillo V, Jennings SL, Hylland K, Hagstrom O,
sectors have been developed and implemented in good
Astudillo A, Jensen JN (2005) Guidance on the application
faith. Some of these existing policies have slowed the
of the ecosystem approach to management of humen
activities in the European marine environment. ICES decline or enhanced the recovery of degraded marine
Cooperative Research Report 273. ICES, Copenhagen ecosystems. For example, the use of large marine
Rochet MJ, Rice JC (2005) Testing an objective framework for
protected areas and reductions in fishing mortality
selecting indicators. ICES J Mar Sci 62:528–539
have led to the recovery of some depleted species on
Rosenberg AA, Restrepo VR (1994) Uncertainty and risk eval-
Georges Bank off the Northeast USA (Murawski et al.
uation in stock assessment advice for US marine fisheries.
Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:2715–2720 2000). Fisheries management in Alaska appears to be
Rozwadowski HM (2002) The sea knows no boundaries. Uni-
maintaining a stable harvest of target species through
versity of Washington Press, Seattle, WA
stringent catch controls (Witherell 2004). Marine re-
USCOP (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final
serves in the Dry Tortugas (Gulf of Mexico) are allow-
Report, US Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington
DC (available at: www.oceancommission.gov/documents/ ing several species of grouper and other reef fish to re-
prepub_report/welcome.html) cover (Ault et al. 2005). Nevertheless, the broad-scale
Smith TD (1994) Scaling fisheries: the science of measuring
pattern in the marine environment is one of degrada-
the effects of fishing 1855–1955. Cambridge University
tion and, given the escalating scale of human impacts,
Press, Cambridge
present policies are clearly insufficient.
Swan J, Greboval D (eds) (2004) International Workshop on
271
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
Over the last decade, EAM has been called for in a cient for maintaining ecosystem services, including
variety of ocean policy initiatives around the world to providing high quality, healthy seafood. At the same
address the problems touched on above. In the USA, time, policies themselves interact. For example, coastal
both the Pew Oceans Commission (POC 2003) and the development may alter working waterfront areas or
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP 2004) agreed limit the ability of fishing businesses to operate. Water
that more comprehensive, holistic ecosystem-based quality management measures such as outfall pipes
approaches were urgently needed. Recently, over 200 may also impact specific fishing areas. Neither the im-
academic scientists from institutions in the USA agreed pacts nor the management policies for each sector are
by consensus upon a definition of ecosystem-based independent of each other. Consequently, ecosystem-
management for the oceans, given in part here: based fisheries management (Pikitch et al. 2004) is also
a necessary, but not sufficient, tool for conserving
Ecosystem-based management is an integrated approach
ecosystem services because both the impact of the in-
to management that considers the entire ecosystem,
teractions among different human activities and inter-
including humans. The goal of ecosystem-based man-
agement is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, pro- actions among management policies can be substantial.
ductive and resilient condition so that it can provide the
(3) Cumulative impacts must be explicitly considered
services humans want and need. Ecosystem-based man-
in management. The impacts of human activities in
agement differs from current approaches that usually
aggregate affect ecosystem services. To use a fisheries
focus on a single species, sector, activity or concern; it
considers the cumulative impacts of different sectors. example again, even if each fishery in a large marine
(McLeod et al. 2005, p. 1) ecosystem is reasonably well managed, the cumulative
impacts of all of the fisheries will likely be greater than
Keys to shifting beyond single sector-based ap-
proaches. As governments at various levels attempt to the summed effects of individual fisheries. Individual
implement ecosystem-based approaches, key changes
are needed to move beyond the current sector by
sector approach to management.
D Key Ecosystem Service
(1) Management goals must be framed with respect
to the conservation of ecosystem services, i.e. ensuring
that marine ecosystems can fully function in order to
Ecosystem
C
sustain the delivery of a wide range of services. These Structure, Functioning,
Processes
include provisioning services (e.g. food and fresh
water), regulating services (e.g. climate and flood reg-
extraction
ulation), cultural services (e.g. spiritual and aesthetic habitat pollution
habitat
B modification sedimentation
values), and supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling modification
and primary production) (MA 2005). For most, if not all,
sectors of management, this constitutes a major shift in
perspective. Primary goals of current policy tend to
Fisheries Coastal Zone Water Quality
focus on maximizing catch, business opportunities or Management Management Management
A
economic development, frequently aiming to achieve
sustainable levels of these activities. In contrast, (and all other relevant management entities)
ecosystem-based goals would give precedence to the
Ecosystem-Based Management
long-term potential of systems to deliver a broad suite
of ecosystem services over short-term goals for individ-
Fig. 3. Key aspects of ecosystem-based management. Current
ual services. Such goals inherently recognize that it is
management focuses on regulating the impacts of individual
not possible to sustain humans without sustaining
sectors on particular ecosystem services, such as the produc-
ecosystems over long time frames (Grumbine 1997). tion of food. In contrast, EAM considers the cumulative and
(2) An ecosystem-based approach must account for interactive impacts of multiple sectors on the stocks and flows
interactions among sectors by integrating management of key ecosystem services. Characteristics include: (A) consid-
eration of interactions among policies, without negating the
across multiple sectors (Fig. 3A). Current approaches
need for individual sector management, (B) examination of in-
ignore these interactions at the cost of decreasing the
teractions among the impacts of individual sectors (arrows be-
overall ability of systems to provide a full range of ser- tween impacts) as well as the cumulative impacts of individ-
vices, as well as compromising the ability of any given ual and multiple sectors through time (dotted feedback loops),
and (C) monitoring the effects of these cumulative impacts on
policy to meet individual sector goals. For example, the
ecosystem structure, functioning, and key processes, as well
course of coastal development affects habitat and water
as the way in which reciprocal changes to ecosystems modify
quality, which in turn, alter coastal productivity and those impacts. (D) The goal of ecosystem-based management
fisheries. Thus, doing a very good job of managing fish- is to maintain the flows of key ecosystem services that result
ery impacts on the ecosystem is critical, but not suffi- from ecosystem structure, functioning, and processes
272 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
fishery management plans striving to obtain maximum must be confronted in order to integrate management
sustainable yield often ignore predator–prey interac- using an ecosystem-based approach. However, despite
tions, e.g. that exploiting an important forage species these challenges and the enormous inertia to continue
undermines the productivity of its predator. Cumula- doing business as usual, it is crucial not to delay action.
tive impacts across sectors, such as the habitat impacts Waiting to improve policy approaches until better infor-
of various activities noted above, may also significantly mation becomes available may well mean that the nec-
undermine ecosystem services. For example, in a essary information never will be developed, and even
particular area, the habitat impacts of fishing gear may worse, that marine ecosystems will continue to decline
be minor, but when combined with the effects of and undergo dramatic shifts. At some point, these
increased sedimentation from coastal development, changes may be irreversible, as there is often a threshold
the cumulative impacts of the 2 activities on habitat beyond which altered ecosystems may not return to their
may be significant. Thus, impacts of individual sectors original states (Folke et al. 2004).
on overall ecosystem structure, functioning, and key Many scientific issues need to be considered in order
processes must be evaluated in the context of con- to implement EAM in the marine environment, not the
current impacts in order to sustain the flows of key least of which is the culture of science. Scientific enter-
ecosystem services (Fig. 3B–D). prises, within academia as well as within government,
(4) Creating more cohesive, integrated management tend to be organized around sectors or disciplines in
policies that are understandable across sectors is criti- much the same way that policy and management insti-
cal. As each sector of activity has expanded, the poli- tutions are. Water quality scientists do not interact with
cies intended to manage those activities have become, fisheries scientists or coastal development scientists.
in many cases, alarmingly complex. Fisheries rules run Fisheries scientists study the population dynamics of
to thousands of pages with enormous detail for each species of commercial interest, while marine ecologists
type of fishing activity in each season and each area work to understand the dynamics of other species, and
and differ across regions and countries. Other policy so forth. In order to develop a complete picture of
arenas are similarly complex, but the bottom line is the interactive effects of human activities on marine
that the rules as well as the goals for all sectors are dis- ecosystems, both the scientific and policy communities
junct from one another. The result is an enormously need to be better integrated (Browman & Stergiou
confusing patchwork of management measures that 2004). The problems facing the world’s oceans require
leads to frustration and dissatisfaction on all sides. more effective bridges among relevant scientific disci-
Setting goals that are related to the conservation of plines, and scientists have a responsibility to facilitate
ecosystem services should enable managers to begin such changes with respect to both their own research
fitting together the various pieces of management in a agendas and their institutions (Lubchenco 1998). It
more coherent fashion. For example, area closures are is naïve for us, as scientists, to expect that all of
a management measure used for a multitude of pur- the necessary integration will come at the policy level.
poses across many marine sectors. There are fishery There is also an urgent need for a more complete
closed areas, areas of protected habitat for various understanding of cumulative impacts. While it is pos-
species including fishes, whales and turtles, restricted sible to estimate the impacts of a particular fishery or a
development areas closed to mining or drilling, and particular level of nutrient loading on an individual
marine parks, to name a few. Each closed area is ecosystem service such as the biomass of a certain fish
designed for a specific purpose without reference to stock or the degree of coastal eutrophication, under-
other area management schemes within a region. The standing the cumulative impacts of all activities on one
result is a complex set of overlapping restrictions. An another is much more challenging (Fig. 3B). An ana-
alternative is to design zones in the ocean where lytical framework that allows for an evaluation of
specific activities are allowed. The overall goals of the cumulative impacts of key activities on a suite of
ocean zoning would be the conservation of ecosystem ecosystem services is an important and necessary
services and greater clarity in the regulatory structure. foundation for integrated management. This is a major
Such zones should include some areas that are fully scientific challenge that requires a concerted research
protected from extractive uses, broad areas of habitat effort and the development of more sophisticated
protection that serves several species groups and models to support policy development. Although the
ensures extractive uses are non-destructive, and still complexity of ecosystems may be daunting, we can no
other areas that are more intensively utilized for longer afford to make many of the simplifying assump-
certain activities without undermining the overall tions on which current management is based.
sustainability of a wide range of ecosystem services. We presently have no measurement systems in place
Challenges for implementation: science. Challenges for many ecosystem attributes that are fundamental to
from the perspectives of both science and governance the provision of ecosystem services, such as biodiver-
273
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
sity, on scales large enough to be relevant to manage- clearly stating those aspects about which we are rea-
ment. Recent efforts to develop ocean observation sys- sonably certain undermines efforts to take strong policy
tems have been slow to incorporate measurement of action. In the context of ecosystem-based management,
biological features in general, perhaps because the interaction terms and cumulative impacts will inher-
dimensionality of the problem makes it much more ently include high levels of uncertainty, but it may be
complex than the evaluation of many physical or chem- clear that an interaction is occurring and is substantial.
ical attributes. In the long-term, such measurement In this case, management that accounts for the interac-
systems are needed to better understand the function- tion should move ahead even if the precision of specific
ing of marine ecosystems, as well as the effectiveness of parameters is low. For example, if there is an indication
management decisions. Similarly, we generally lack that fisheries management efforts to recover an over-
experimental systems that are representative of the fished stock are hampered by habitat impacts of, say,
potential impacts of human activities on ecosystem cabling or pipeline routing, then management should
services. The temporal and spatial scales of many ex- seek to minimize those habitat impacts, particularly in
perimental or monitoring studies are simply too small to areas most used by the recovering species. Such pro-
be relevant to management beyond very local scales. tections should not wait for the development of detailed
It is difficult to characterize an appropriate baseline studies on habitat effects if there is even nominal
against which to compare degraded systems. Impor- evidence such an impact may be important.
tantly, the baseline for ecosystem services should not Challenges for implementation: governance. With
be based on recent observations of already degraded respect to governance, several key issues need to be
systems. For example, estimates of the historical abun- addressed to implement ecosystem-based manage-
dance of cod on the Scotian Shelf show that the current ment. Overall, agencies within various levels of govern-
biomass is < 5% of the estimated biomass 150 yr ago ment currently lack a shared vision to conserve the
(Rosenberg et al. 1995). Results for other areas, using breadth of services that humans want and need from
different methods and data, show similar levels of marine ecosystems. This will require crossing jurisdic-
depletion for key commercial species (Myers & Worm tional as well as cultural boundaries and overcoming
2003, Jennings & Blanchard 2004). Most fishery the inertia of current practices. Managing on an ecosys-
management policy currently incorporates biomass- tem basis can quickly devolve into a long and fruitless
rebuilding targets based on observed biomass and debate about delineating ecosystem boundaries. At
population dynamics over the past few decades at best. relatively large regional spatial scales, management
In effect this means that the only reference points for may be most practical at the scales of large marine
management may be from already severely degraded ecosystems (Sherman et al. 1990). In practice, bound-
systems, missing the range of services, including from aries must be delineated with a clear understanding
much higher biomasses of highly valued species, that that they will necessarily be leaky and influenced by
may flow from a restored system. There is a need to processes occurring at both larger and smaller spatial
look back in time, from an interdisciplinary perspec- scales. Drivers of change, ecosystem processes, and the
tive, to develop a complete picture of marine ecosys- stocks and flows of ecosystem services all occur at a va-
tems and their services that reflects a broader range of riety of spatial scales. Thus, effective management will
potential states (Jackson et al. 2001, Pitcher 2001, be required at numerous, nested scales, and there will
Rosenberg et al. 2005). not be a single ideal scale for management.
Finally, there is a strong tendency, within both Most of the primary sectors of human activities that
scientific advice and policies based on that advice, to impact marine systems are managed independently
emphasize uncertainty. Over the last decade or so, under separate statutory authorities, and often by dif-
there has been a concerted effort to describe quantita- ferent agencies. The situation in the USA is typical.
tively the uncertainty in many analyses, e.g. statistical Fisheries are primarily managed by one of the major
approaches to fisheries stock assessments and the use offices in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
of simulations to explore the sensitivity of estimated Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
quantities. These are important advances, and it is vital under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation
to be clear about uncertainty and risk. However, it is and Management Act. Water quality is managed pri-
also crucial not to lose sight of the aspects that we do marily by the Environmental Protection Agency under
know well because of the weight of evidence. For ex- the Clean Water Act. Coastal development is managed
ample, we can well describe the uncertainty in fishery primarily at the state and local levels with several fed-
stock assessment estimates, but in many cases we are eral programs providing guidance or support under
quite certain that overfishing is occurring, even if the the Coastal Zone Management Act and other statutes.
precision in the estimates of harvest rates is quite low However, no single agency possesses the mandate to
(e.g. NOAA 1999). Emphasizing uncertainty without see that the pieces of management across sectors fit
274 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
together, and no one has the mandate to look at inter- R, Zeller D, Pauly D (2003) Hundred-year decline of North
Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish Fish 4:1–24
actions among activities with respect to their overall
Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T,
impact on ecosystem services. This does not necessar-
Gunderson L, Holling CS (2004) Regime shifts, resilience,
ily imply top-down control or oversight. Rather, each of and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev
the implementing agencies needs to be required to Ecol Evol Syst 35:557–581
Grumbine RE (1997) Reflections on ‘what is ecosystem
work together for joint, ecosystem-based, solutions.
management?’ Conserv Biol 11:41–47
They need to be allowed to be more creative in crafting
Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA and 15
management that addresses more than the narrow others (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent
spectrum of issues they may have been tasked with in collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–638
the past. Significant barriers to interagency or cross- Jennings S, Blanchard JL (2004) Fish abundance with no fish-
ing: predictions based on macroecological theory. J Anim
sector cooperation pose a related challenge. Legally,
Ecol 73:632–642
management is currently required to meet only single
Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment:
sector goals. Budgets and other resources are allocated a new social contract for science. Science 279:491-497
by sector. Agency cultures at all levels tend to remain McLeod KL, Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Rosenberg AA (2005)
Scientific consensus statement on marine ecosystem-
within their traditional areas of expertise, much as the
based management. Signed by 219 academic scientists
science programs do. In order to manage on an ecosys-
and policy experts with relevant expertise and published
tem basis, legal and institutional frameworks must be by the Communication Partnership for Science and the
created to develop policies that allow agencies to inte- Sea (available at: http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM)
grate management across sectors. A change in culture MA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis
Report. Island Press, Washington, DC (available at:
is needed, so that working to conserve the full suite of
http://www.maweb.org)
ecosystem services is part and parcel of the primary
Murawski SA, Brown R, Lai HL, Rago PJ, Hendrickson L
agency mandates for conservation and management (2000) Large-scale closed areas as a fisheries management
within the marine environment. We do not mean to tool in temperate marine systems: the Georges Bank
experience. Bull Mar Sci 66:775–798
imply that individual sector management is unneces-
Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of
sary. Without question, the main effects of each sector
predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280–283
need to be managed, and the mandates to do so need NOAA (1999) Our living oceans: report on the status of U.S.
to be strengthened, in the USA and in other nations. living marine resources. National Oceanic and Atmo-
However, the authority and mandate to work across spheric Administration, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-
F/SPO-41
sectors is also essential.
Pandolfi JM, Jackson JBC, Baron N, Bradbury RH and 7 others
Conclusions. As demands for ecosystem services in-
(2005) Are U.S. coral reefs on the slippery slope to slime?
crease, the cumulative effects of numerous human activ- Science 307:1725–1726
ities on land, along the coasts and in the oceans are col- Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R, Torres F Jr
(1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:
lectively diminishing the ability of marine ecosystems to
860–863
provide those services (MA 2005). Nevertheless, there is
POW (Pew Oceans Commission) (2003) America’s living oceans:
currently no clear mandate for management policies that charting a course for sea change. Pew Oceans Commission,
address cumulative impacts and interactions among sec- Arlington, VA (available at: www.pewoceans.org)
tors, nor does any agency possess the overarching goal of Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
(2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science
managing to conserve ecosystem services. In many
305:346–347
cases, it may be possible to reverse the degradation of
Pitcher TJ (2001) Fisheries managed to rebuild ecosystems?
marine ecosystems, but we cannot afford to delay action. Reconstructing the past to salvage the future. Ecol Appl
Ocean policies must be reoriented towards comprehen- 11:601–617
Rosenberg AA, Bolster WJ, Alexander KE, Leavenworth WB,
sive, integrated EAM with the goal of sustaining the de-
Cooper AB, McKenzie MG (2005) The history of ocean
livery of a broad suite of ecosystem services over long
resources: modeling cod biomass using historical records.
time frames, rather than focusing on particular services Front Ecol Evol 3:84–90
to the detriment of the others. Sherman K, Alexander LM, Gold BD (eds) (1990) Large
marine ecosystems: patterns, processes, and yields.
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
LITERATURE CITED
Washington, DC
USCOP (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final
Ault JS, Smith SG, Bohnsack JA, Luo J, Harper DE, Mc-
report to the President and Congress. U.S. Commission on
Clellan DB (2005) Fishery-independent monitoring of
Ocean Policy, Washington, DC (available at: www.ocean-
coral reef fishes and macro-invertebrates in the Dry Tortu-
commission.gov)
gas. Tortugas Reef Fish and Habitat Assessment: 2004
Witherell D (ed) (2004) Managing our nation’s fisheries: past,
Expedition Report. Univ of Miami, Miami, FL
present and future. Proc Conf Fisheries Management in
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspectives on eco-
the United States, Washington, DC, November 2003.
system-based approaches to the management of marine
North Pacific Regional Council Presentation, North Pacific
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK, p 129–150
Christensen V, Guenette S, Heymans JJ, Walters CJ, Watson
275
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
A global movement toward an wide, as well as by a broad constituency in the scien-
tific community.
ecosystem approach to management of
While we concur with the movement toward an eco-
marine resources
system-based approach to the management of marine
K. Sherman1,*, M. Sissenwine2, V. Christensen3, A. fisheries (Gislason & Sinclair 2000, Pitcher 2001, Ster-
Duda4, G. Hempel5, C. Ibe6, S. Levin7,
giou 2002, Garcia et al. 2003, Sainsbury & Sumaila
D. Lluch-Belda8, G. Matishov9, J. McGlade10,
2003, Browman et al. 2004, Pikitch et al. 2004), it is
M. O’Toole11, S. Seitzinger12, R. Serra13,
important to recognize that a broader, place-based
H.-R. Skjoldal14, Q. Tang15, J. Thulin16,
V. Vandeweerd17, K. Zwanenburg18 approach to marine ecosystem assessment and man-
agement, focused on clearly delineated ecosystem
1
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Narragansett Laboratory,
units, is needed and is presently under way, with the
NOAA-Fisheries, 28 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rhode
support of financial grants, donor and UN partner-
Island 02882, USA
*Email: kenneth.sherman@noaa.gov ships, in nations of Africa, Asia, Latin America and
2
Director of Scientific Programs, NOAA-Fisheries, eastern Europe. It is within the boundaries of 64 LMEs
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282, USA
that (1) 90% of the world’s annual yield of marine
3
Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
fisheries is produced (Garibaldi & Limongelli 2003),
British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada
(2) global levels of primary production are the highest,
4
International Waters, Global Environment Facility (GEF)
(3) the degradation of marine habitats is most severe,
Secretariat, World Bank, Washington, DC 20433, USA
5
and (4) coastal pollution is concentrated and levels of
Berater des Präsidenten des Senats für den
Wissenschaftsstandort Bremen-Bremerhaven, Senate of Bremen, eutrophication are increasing (GESAMP 2001). Large
Tiefer 2, 28195 Bremen, Germany
marine ecosystems (LMEs) are natural regions of
6
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO),
coastal ocean space encompassing waters from river
United Nations Compound, Accra, PO Box 1423, Ghana
basins and estuaries to the seaward boundaries of con-
7
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton
University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-1003, USA tinental shelves and outer margins of coastal currents
8
Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas (CICIMAR), and water masses (cf. Fig. 4). They are relatively large
Instituto Politecnico Nacional (IPN), La Paz,
regions characterized by distinct bathymetry, hydro-
Baja California Sur, 23096, Mexico
graphy, productivity, and trophically dependent popu-
9
Academy of Sciences, Murmansk Marine Biological Institute
lations (Alexander 1990, Levin 1990, Sherman 1994;
(MMBI), Azov Branch, Rostov-on-Don 344066, Russia
see www.edc.uri.edu/lme).
10
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen K1050, Denmark
11
Since 1995, the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Benguela Current LME Programme, Coordination Unit,
Windhoek, PO Box 40728, Namibia has provided substantial funding to support country-
12
Institute of Marine & Coastal Sciences, Rutgers, State
driven projects for introducing multisectoral ecosys-
University of New Jersey, Cook Campus, New Brunswick,
tem-based assessment and management practices for
New Jersey 08901-8521, USA
LMEs located around the margins of the oceans. At
13
Instituto de Fomento Pesquero, IFOP, Valparaiso, Casilla 8-V,
present, 121 developing countries are engaged in the
Chile
14
Institute of Marine Research, Bergen 5024, PO Box 1870, preparation and implementation of GEF-LME projects,
Norway
totaling $ 650 million in start-up funding. A total of 10
15
Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Qingdao 266071, China
projects including 70 countries has been approved by
16
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES),
the GEF Council, and another 7 projects involving
Copenhagen K1261, Denmark
51 countries have GEF international waters projects
17
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
under preparation (see www.iwlearn.net).
PO Box 16277, 2500 BE, The Hague, Netherlands
18
A 5 module indicator approach to assessment and
Marine Fish Division, Bedford Institute of Oceanography,
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, B2Y 4A4, Canada management of LMEs has proven useful in ecosystem-
based projects in the USA and elsewhere, using suites
The Large Marine Ecosystem Approach. Reports of of indicators of LME productivity, fish and fisheries,
problems with marine ecosystems are widespread in pollution and ecosystem health, socioeconomics, and
the scientific literature and the news media. Calls for governance. The productivity indicators include spa-
an ecosystem approach to resource assessment and tial and temporal measurements of temperature, salin-
management are seldom accompanied by a practical ity, oxygen, nutrients, primary productivity, chloro-
strategy, particularly one with a payment plan for the phyll, zooplankton biomass, and biodiversity. For fish
approach in developing countries. However, a global and fisheries, indicators are catch and effort statistics,
movement that makes the ecosystem approach to man- demersal and pelagic fish surveys, fish population
agement practical already exists. It is known as the demography, and stock assessments (NMFS 1999).
Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) approach, and it is Pollution and ecosystem health indicators include
being endorsed and supported by governments world- quality indices for water, sediment, benthos, habitats,
276 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Fig. 4. Boundaries of the 64 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) of the world and primary productivity (gC m–2 yr–1). Annual prod-
uctivity estimates are based on SeaWiFS satellite data collected between September 1998 and August 1999, and on the
model developed by Behrenfeld & Falkowski (1997). Color-enhanced image provided by Rutgers University (available at:
www.edc.uri.edu/lme, Introduction)
and fish tissue contaminants (EPA 2004). Socioeco- who are pursuing ecosystem and fishery recovery
nomic and governance indicators are discussed in goals. The annual fisheries biomass yields from the
Sutinen et al. (2000) and Juda & Hennessey (2001). ecosystems in the network are 44.8% of the global total,
The modules are adapted to LME conditions through and are a firm basis for movement by the participating
a transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) process, to countries toward the 2002 World Summit on Sustain-
identify key issues, and a strategic action program able Development (WSSD) targets for introducing eco-
(SAP) development process for the groups of nations or system-based assessment and management by 2010,
states sharing an LME, to remediate the issues (Wang and for recovering depleted stocks and achieving fish-
2004). These processes are critical for integrating sci- ing at maximum sustainable yield levels by 2015. The
ence into management in a practical way, and for FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO
establishing appropriate governance regimes. Of the 1995) is supported by most coastal nations and has
5 modules, 3 modules apply science-based indicators immediate applicability to reaching the WSSD fishery
that focus on productivity, fish/fisheries, and pollu- goals. The code argues for moving forward with a pre-
tion/ecosystem health, and the other 2 modules, socio- cautionary approach to fisheries sustainability, using
economics and governance, focus on economic bene- available information more conservatively to err on the
fits to be gained from a more sustainable resource base side of lower total allowable catch levels than has been
and from providing stakeholders and stewardship the general practice in past decades. Although fishing
interests with legal and administrative support for effort data are not available in FAO global catch report-
ecosystem-based management practices. The first 4 ing statistics and could bias catch data interpretations,
modules support the TDA process, while the gover- it appears that the biomass and yields of 11 species
nance module is associated with periodic updating of groups in 6 LMEs have been relatively stable or have
the SAP development process. Adaptive management shown marginal increases over the period from 1990 to
regimes are encouraged through periodic assessment 1999. The yield for these 6 LMEs — the Arabian Sea,
processes (TDA updates) and through updating the Bay of Bengal, Indonesian Sea, North Brazil Shelf,
action programs as gaps are filled. Mediterranean Sea and the Sulu-Celebes Sea — was
The GEF-LME projects presently funded or in the 8.1 million t, or 9.5% of the global marine fisheries yield
pipeline for funding in Africa, Asia, Latin America and in 1999 (Garibaldi & Limongelli 2003). The countries
eastern Europe represent a growing network of marine bordering these 6 LMEs are among the world’s most
scientists, marine managers, and ministerial leaders populous, representing approximately one-quarter of
277
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
the total human population. These LME border coun- irrigation to feed the world (Duda & El-Ashry 2000).
tries increasingly depend on marine fisheries for food For the estuaries of the southeastern USA (Duda 1982)
security, and for national and international trade. Given and for the Gulf of Mexico (Rabalais et al. 1999), much
the risks of fishing down the food web, it would appear of the increase in nitrogen export to LMEs is from agri-
opportune for the stewardship agencies responsible cultural inputs, from the increased delivery of nitrogen
for the fisheries of the LME-bordering countries to limit fertilizer as wetlands were converted to agriculture,
increases in fishing effort during a period of relative and from livestock production (NRC 2000). Also,
biomass stability. sewage from large cities is a significant contributor to
Evidence for species biomass recovery following sig- eutrophication, as is increased nitrogen in atmospheric
nificant reduction in fishing effort through mandated deposition resulting from combustion of fossil fuels by
actions is encouraging. In the USA Northeast Shelf automobiles and industrial activities (GESAMP 2001).
LME, management actions to reduce fishing effort Global forecast models of nitrogen export from fresh-
contributed to a recovery of depleted herring and water basins to coastal waters indicate that there will be
mackerel stocks and an initiation of the recovery of a 50% increase world-wide in dissolved inorganic nitro-
depleted yellowtail flounder and haddock stocks gen (DIN) export by rivers to coastal systems from 1990
(Sherman et al. 2003); this was in combination with the to 2050 (Seitzinger & Kroeze 1998, Kroeze & Seitzinger
robust condition of average annual primary productiv- 1998). Such increases in nitrogen export are alarming for
ity (350 g C m–2 yr–1) for the past 3 decades, a relatively the future sustainability of LMEs. Given the expected fu-
stable zooplankton biomass at or near 33 cm3 per 100 m3 ture increases in population and in fertilizer use, without
for the past 30 yr (Sherman et al. 2002), and an oceano- significant mitigation of nitrogen inputs, LMEs will be
graphic regime marked by a recurring pattern of inter- subjected to a future of increasing harmful algal bloom
annual variability, but showing no evidence of temper- events, reduced fisheries, and hypoxia that further de-
ature shift of the magnitude described for other North grades marine biomass yields and biological diversity.
Atlantic LMEs, including the Scotian Shelf (Zwanen- Models of nitrogen loading from land-based sources and
burg 2003), the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf (Rice models of ecosystem structure and function are being
2002), the Iceland Shelf (Astthorsson & Vilhjálmsson applied to LMEs with financial assistance from the
2002) and the North Sea (Perry et al. 2005). On the GEF. Estimates of carrying capacity using ECOPATH-
other hand, 3 LMEs remain at high risk for fisheries ECOSIM food web approaches for the world’s 64 LMEs
biomass recovery— expressed as a pre-1960s ratio of are being prepared in a GEF-supported collaboration
demersal to pelagic species — the Gulf of Thailand, between scientists of the University of British Columbia
East China Sea, and Yellow Sea (Pauly & Chuen- and marine specialists from developing countries. Simi-
pagdee 2003, Chen & Shen 1999, Tang & Jin 1999). larly, a 24 mo training project is being implemented by
The People’s Republic of China has initiated steps scientists from Rutgers University in collaboration with
toward recovery by mandating 60–90 d closures to IOC/UNESCO to estimate expected nitrogen loadings
fishing in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea (Tang for each LME over the next decade. Scientists from
2003). The country-driven planning and implementa- Princeton University and the University of California at
tion documents supporting the ecosystem approach to Berkeley are examining particle spectra and pattern for-
LME assessment and management practices can be mation within LMEs. Additionally, the American Fish-
found at www.iwlearn.net. eries Society and the World Council of Fisheries Societies
Nitrogen loadings. Globally, LME projects, in addi- are collaborating in an electronic network to expedite
tion to rebuilding depleted fish stocks and restoring information access and communication among marine
degraded coastal habitats, are also concerned with the specialists (for details on the GEF-LME project, see
mitigation of the effects of nitrogen loadings. Nitrogen www.gefonline.org/projectDetails.cfm?projID=2474).
over-enrichment has been a coastal problem for 2 The growing number of country-driven commit-
decades in the Baltic Sea LME (HELCOM 2001). More ments to move toward ecosystem-based assessment
recent human-induced increases in nitrogen flux and management of marine resources and environ-
range from 4- to 8-fold in the USA from the Gulf of ments provides an unprecedented opportunity for
Mexico to the New England coast (Howarth et al. accelerating the transition to sustainable use, conser-
2000). In European LMEs, recent nitrogen flux in- vation, and development of marine ecosystems. The
creases have ranged from 3-fold in Spain to11-fold social, economic, and environmental costs of inaction
in the Rhine River basin draining to the North Sea LME are simply too high for multilateral and bilateral insti-
(Howarth et al. 2000). This disruption of the nitrogen tutions and international agencies not to support the
cycle originated in the Green Revolution of the 1970s initial efforts of 121 countries attempting to reach the
as the world community converted wetlands to agricul- WSSD marine ecosystem targets for restoration and
ture, utilized more chemical fertilizer, and expanded sustainability. Both developed and developing nations
278 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
have a stake in moving toward the use of sustainable management of the uses of large marine ecosystems.
Ocean Dev Int Law 32:41–67
ecosystem resources. Momentum should not be lost, as
Levin SA (1990) Physical and biological scales and the model-
this could result in irreversible damage to coastal
ling of predator-prey interactions in large marine ecosys-
ecosystems, to the livelihoods and security of poor tems. In: Sherman K, Alexander LM, Gold BD (eds) Large
coastal communities, and to the economies of coastal marine ecosystems: patterns, processes and yields.
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
nations.
Washington, DC, p 179–187
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) (1999) Our living
oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine
LITERATURE CITED
resources, 1999. US Dep Commer, NOAA Tech Memo
NMFS-F/SPO-41
Alexander LM (1990) Geographic perspectives in the man-
NRC (National Research Council) (2000) Clean coastal
agement of large marine ecosystems. In: Sherman K,
waters: understanding and reducing the effects of nutrient
Alexander LM, Gold BD (eds) Large marine ecosystems:
pollution. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
patterns, processes and yields. American Association for
Pauly D, Chuenpagdee R (2003) Development of fisheries in
the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, p 220–223
the Gulf of Thailand large marine ecosystem: analysis of
Astthorsson OS, Vilhjálmsson H (2002) Iceland Shelf LME:
an unplanned experiment. In: Hempel G, Sherman K (eds)
decadal assessment and resource sustainability. In: Sher-
Large Marine Ecosystems of the world: trends in ex-
man K, Skjoldal HR (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the
ploitation, protection, and research. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
North Atlantic. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 219–244
p 337–354
Behrenfeld M, Falkowski PG (1997) Photosynthetic rates
Perry AL, Low PJ, Ellis JR, Reynolds JD (2005) Climate
derived from satellite-based chlorophyll concentrations.
change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science
Limnol Oceanogr 42(1):1–20
308:1912–1915
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspectives on ecosys-
Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
tem-based approaches to the management of marine
(2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305:
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
346–347
Chen YQ, Shen XQ (1999) Changes in the biomass of the East
Pitcher TJ (2001) Fisheries managed to rebuild ecosystems?
China Sea ecosystem. In: Sherman K, Tang Q (eds) Large
Reconstructing the past to salvage the future. Ecol Appl
Marine Ecosystems of the Pacific Rim: assessment, sus-
11:601–617
tainability, and management. Blackwell Science, Malden,
Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Wiseman WJ Jr. (1999) Hypoxia in
MA, p 221–239
the northern Gulf of Mexico: linkages with the Mississippi
Duda AM (1982) Municipal point sources and agricultural
River. In: Kumpf H, Steidinger K, Sherman K (eds) The
nonpoint source contributions to coastal eutrophication.
Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem: assessment, sus-
Water Res Bull 18(3):397–407
tainability, and management. Blackwell Science, Malden,
Duda AM, El-Ashry MT (2000) Addressing the global water
MA, p 297–322
and environmental crises through integrated approaches
Rice J (2002) Changes to the Large Marine Ecosystem of the
to the management of land, water, and ecological
Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. In: Sherman K, Skjoldal
resources. Water Int 25:115–126
HR (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Atlantic:
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2004) National
changing states and sustainability. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
coastal condition report II. Washington, DC, EPA-620/
p 51–104
R-03/002
Sainsbury K, Sumaila UR (2003) Incorporating ecosystem
FAO (1995) Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. FAO,
objectives into management of sustainable marine fish-
Rome (available at: www.fao.org/FI/agreem/codecond/
eries, including ‘best practice’ reference points and use of
ficonde.asp)
marine protected areas. In: Sinclair M, Valdimarsson G
Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Lassarre G (2003)
(eds) Responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. FAO,
The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Rep No. 443, FAO,
Rome & CABI Publishing, Wallingford, p 343–361
Rome
Seitzinger SP, Kroeze C (1998) Global distribution of nitrous
Garibaldi L, Limongelli L (2003). Trends in oceanic captures
oxide production and N inputs to freshwater and coastal
and clustering of large marine ecosystems: two studies
marine ecosystems. Global Biogeochem Cycl 12:93–113
based on the FAO capture database. Fish Tech Pap 435,
Sherman K (1994) Sustainability, biomass yields, and health
FAO, Rome
of coastal ecosystems: an ecological perspective. Mar Ecol
GESAMP (2001) The state of the marine environment. Group
Prog Ser 112:277–301
of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution,
Sherman K, Kane J, Murawski S, Overholtz W, Solow A
Regional Seas Reports and Studies. UNEP, Nairobi
(2002) The US northeast shelf Large Marine Ecosystem:
Gislason H, Sinclair M (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing.
zooplankton trends in fish biomass recovery. In: Sherman
ICES J Mar Sci 57:465–791
K, Skjoldal HR (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the
HELCOM (2001) Environment of the Baltic Sea area
North Atlantic: changing states and sustainability. Else-
1994–1998. Baltic Sea Environment Proc 82A, Helsinki
vier, Amsterdam, p 195–215
Commission, Helsinki
Sherman K, O’Reilly J, Kane J (2003) Assessment and sustain-
Howarth R, Anderson D, Cloern J, Elfring C and 7 others
ability of the U.S. northeast shelf ecosystem. In: Hempel
(2000) Nutrient pollution of coastal rivers, bays, and seas.
G, Sherman K (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the
ESA Issues Ecol 7:1–15
world: trends in exploitation, protection, and research.
Kroeze C, Seitzinger SP (1998) Nitrogen inputs to rivers, estu-
Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 93–120
aries and continental shelves and related nitrous oxide
Stergiou KI (2002) Overfishing, tropicalization of fish stocks,
emissions in 1990 and 2050: a global model. Nutr Cycl
uncertainty and ecosystem management: resharpening
Agroecosyst 52:195–212
Ockham’s razor. Fish Res 55:109
Juda L, Hennessey T (2001) Governance profiles and the
279
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
gola, Namibia and South Africa. In terms of policy, get-
Sutinen JG (ed) (2000) A framework for monitoring and
assessing socioeconomics and governance of large marine ting countries with diverse societal objectives to agree
ecosystems. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE-158
on and implement joint EAMs is a challenge which
Tang Q, Jin X (1999) Ecology and variability of economically
must be met if EAM is to gain universal applicability.
important pelagic fishes in the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea.
I focus on 2 ways by which a country’s societal objec-
In: Sherman K, Tang Q (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of
the Pacific Rim: assessment, sustainability, and manage- tive regarding the use of marine ecosystem resources
ment. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA, p 179–198 can be affected: (1) how the country weights market
Tang Q (2003) The Yellow Sea LME and mitigation action. In:
and non-market values from the ecosystem; (2) which
Hempel G, Sherman K (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of
discount rate is applied to flows of net benefits over
the world: trends in exploitation, protection, and research.
time from the ecosystem.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 121–144
Wang H (2004) An evaluation of the modular approach to the Values and valuation. The economic theory of valu-
assessment and management of Large Marine Ecosys-
ation is based on what people want — their preferences
tems. Ocean Dev Int Law 35:267–286
(Brown 1984, Arrow et al. 1993). People’s preferences
Zwanenburg KCT (2003) The Scotian Shelf. In: Hempel G,
are expressed through the choices and tradeoffs they
Sherman K (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the world:
trends in exploitation, protection, and research. Elsevier, make given the resource and time constraints they
Amsterdam, p 75–92 face. It is therefore important that we capture a given
population’s preferences fully in the decision making
process on the use and non-use of marine ecosystem
Differences in economic perspectives resources. The economic theory of valuation of natural
and implementation of ecosystem-based and environmental resources calls for a comprehen-
management of marine resources sive compilation of all values into a total economic
value (Goulder & Kennedy 1997). The theory stipulates
Ussif Rashid Sumaila
that the total economic value should include market
and non-market values, which consist of direct and
Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2259 Lower
Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada indirect use values, option value, existence value
Email: r.sumaila@fisheries.ubc.ca
(Krutilla 1967), and bequest value (Young 1992).
Market values are traded in the market, e.g. the
value of fish caught and sold in the market. Non-mar-
Ecosystem definition. What is an ecosystem, and
ket values are not traded in the market. Direct use val-
what is ecosystem-based management? There are
ues capture the value of ecosystem goods and services
many answers to these questions (e.g. Sinclair &
Valdimarson 2003). Here is my summary: an ecosystem that are directly used for consumptive purposes, e.g.
is a geographically specified system of organisms, the value of commercial output such as fish harvest.
Indirect use values are values of ecosystem goods and
including humans, the environment, and the processes
that control the system’s dynamics. Similarly, an services that are used as intermediate inputs to pro-
ecosystem-based approach to the management of duction, e.g. services such as water cycling and waste
assimilation. Option value is the potential that the
marine resources (EAM) is geographically specified; it
is also adaptive and takes account of ecosystem knowl- ecosystem will provide currently unknown valuable
goods and services in the future. Existence value
edge and uncertainties. It considers multiple external
(essentially described as non-use value in the litera-
influences, and strives to balance diverse societal ob-
jectives. EAM requires that the connections between ture) is the value conferred by humans on the ecosys-
people and the marine ecosystem be recognized, tem regardless of its use value — an environmental
including the short- and long-term implications of good may be valuable merely because one is happy
human activities along with the processes, compo- that it exists, quite apart from any future option to con-
nents, functions, and carrying capacity of ecosystems. sume it, visit it or otherwise use it; this value may arise
The fact that ecosystems and the EAM are geograph- from aesthetic, ethical, moral or religious considera-
tions. Finally, bequest value captures the willingness
ically specified implies that for ecosystems that are
shared by 2 or more countries, policies that are trans- to pay to preserve a resource for the benefit of one’s
boundary in nature are required to manage them suc- descendants (future generations).
cessfully. Many of the world’s 64 large marine ecosys- A country’s perspective on market and non-market
tems are shared by 2 or more countries (Sherman & values depends on a number of variables, including,
Duda 1999, see also www.seaaroundus.org). For in- (1) net price per unit of market goods and services, and
stance, to effectively apply EAM to the management (2) unit non-market value derived from the ecosystem.
of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem In practice, different countries place different empha-
(BCLME), policies need to be crafted and adopted by sis on market and non market values. Countries that
the 3 countries bordering the ecosystem, namely An- put more emphasis on market values tend to maintain
280 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
lower standing biomass offish in the marine ecosystem, The discussion above can be expressed mathemati-
for example, than those that place more relative value cally as follows:
on non-market values, thereby creating the possibility
δ i = δ i (u, p, ind , r , nml ) (1)
of policy disagreement on how to implement EAM.
where δi denotes the discount rate faced by country i, u
The USA with its emphasis on free markets is an exam-
ple of the former, while Sweden, with less emphasis on is the degree of uncertainty of future outcomes, the
parameters p and ind are the levels of poverty and
free markets, would be an example of the latter.
Discount rates and discounting. The discount rate is indebtedness, respectively, among users of the marine
ecosystem. The parameter r denotes the risk averse-
a pure number per unit of time (usually in %) that
ness of the country and nml denotes the level of non-
allows us to convert values to be received in the future
into values received today. This process of converting malleability of the capital employed to exploit the
future values into present values is known as discount- ecosystem.
ing streams of benefits. People may discount for many The partial derivatives below explain how each of
reasons (see Goulder & Stavins 1997), e.g., (1) people the above parameters may affect the discount rate
are generally impatient and display a preference for faced by a country.
having their benefits today rather than tomorrow (due
∂δ i ∂δ i ∂δ i ∂δ i ∂δ i
> 0; > 0; > 0; < 0; >0
to uncertainty, high debt levels, poverty, etc.), and (2)
∂u ∂p ∂ind ∂r ∂nml
(2) the opportunity cost of capital: with the benefits in
hand now, one has the opportunity to at least deposit it The 1st partial derivative states that, other things
in a bank account and earn interest. being equal, the higher the level of uncertainty of out-
The following quote attributed to Nietzsche (who is not comes is, the higher will be the discount rate. The 2nd
to be quoted on many things, according to my European and 3rd partial derivatives state that, the higher the
friends) captures the motivation for discounting future level of poverty and indebtedness among users of the
flows of benefits vividly: ‘Egoism is the law of perspec- ecosystem is, the higher will be the discount rate (Pen-
tives, as it applies to feelings according to which what is der 1996). According to the 4th derivative, the more
closest to us appears to be large and weighty, while size risk averse a country is, the lower will be its discount
and weight decrease with our distance from things’ (The rate (Pender & Fafchamps 1997, Binswanger 1980).
Globe and Mail, October 27, 2002). The 5th derivative states that the more non-malleable
Discount rates thus reflect how much weight a coun- the capital employed in extracting resources from the
try places on receiving its benefits now, rather than in marine ecosystem is, the higher will be the country’s
the future. In this respect, discounting is used to model discount rate.
human behavior. It therefore provides an analytical High degrees of uncertainty, high levels of indebted-
basis for making value-based decisions. Discount rates ness and poverty, risk loving attitudes and non-malle-
reflect uncertainties associated with potential future ability of the capital used to exploit the marine ecosys-
benefits (Brennan 1997). Everything being equal, high tem, will all result in a country putting too much
uncertainty about future outcomes will lead to a high weight on receiving benefits from the marine ecosys-
discount rate. The discount rate can also be seen as a tem now, rather than later. The country will tend to
measure of a country’s risk averseness. A risk averse enact policies that sacrifice long-term sustainability for
country would adhere more to the precautionary prin- short-term benefits.
ciple, and therefore would shy away from making rad- Discounting has been identified in the environmen-
ical changes to the marine ecosystem. Such a country tal economics literature as a source of problems when
will, other things being equal, have a lower discount assessing the costs and benefits of projects and policies
rate. On the other hand, a risk loving country will have with long-term benefits but short-term costs (Heal
a higher discount rate (Pender & Fafchamps 1997, Bin- 1998). It has been argued that discounting future flows
swanger 1980). When the capital employed to exploit of benefits from marine ecosystems affects our ability
the marine ecosystem is non-malleable (Clark et al. to manage these resources sustainably for the benefits
1979, Sumaila 1995), any policy to reduce capital in an of both current and future generations (Hasselmann
overfished fishery, for example, will lead to stiff resis- et al. 1997, Weitzman 2001, Sumaila 2004, Sumaila &
tance from fishers, because the cost of this policy looms Walters 2005).
large while its future benefits seem small today. In this Differences in discount rates among countries shar-
situation, the discount rate is high. Similarly, high lev- ing the same marine ecosystem will lead to problems in
els of poverty and indebtedness in the communities implementing EAM for the ecosystem, because these
exploiting the marine ecosystem will tend to push a differences will be manifest in diverse social objectives
country to apply high discount rates to the flow of ben- for the countries. In the issue of climate change, for
efits from marine ecosystems (Pender 1996). instance, this partially explains why low discount rate
281
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
countries signed the Kyoto Accord, while high dis- Economic differences between countries that share a
count rate countries did not. A key effect of signing the marine ecosystem can be an obstacle to the implemen-
Accord is that a country will have to implement poli- tation of EAM. These obstacles need to be removed,
cies and actions that may be costly now, in order to not only because of the ecological and scientific bene-
ensure that benefits accrue in the future. fits of EAM (Browman & Stergiou 2004), but also
Let us consider 2 countries, i = 1 and 2, that share a because of its economic benefits, as shown in multi-
marine ecosystem. Let the per period benefit derived species bioeconomic models (e.g. Hannesson 1983,
by country i be Vi (m, nm), which depends on market Flaaten 1988, Fischer & Mirman 1992). Ensuring that
(m) and non-market values (nm). Further, these coun- policies are put in place for the conservation of marine
tries are assumed to have discount rates δ 1 and δ 2, ecosystems through time is even more crucial than in
respectively. If one country imputes more value to m the case of terrestrial ecosystems, since people can
relative to nml, and the other country imputes more easily see what is happening on land and therefore are
value to nm relative n, then there is potential for dis- more able to take action to fix emerging problems.
agreement on how to implement EAM for the shared This is clearly not the case with marine ecosystems.
ecosystem. In addition, if the discount rates in both The use of a combination of the ‘carrot’ and the ‘stick’
countries are different, their preference with respect to together with efforts by NGOs and other civil society
the time at which they want to take their benefits from groups to raise public awareness for the benefit of both
the ecosystem will be different. This, too, will pose current and future generations, will help to get coun-
problems for the implementation of the EAM. tries sharing marine resources to put together EAM
Summary. I have identified potential sources of policy policies that work.
differences between countries that share a marine
ecosystem. These differences are potential sources of Acknowledgements. The support of the Sea Around Us pro-
conflict that can hinder progress in implementing EAM ject and the Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, OCEANA,
of shared ecosystems: (1) relative valuation of market the European Community’s Programme for International
Scientific Co-operation (INCO) through Contract 003739 for
and non-market values, (2) time preference with respect
the INCOFISH project, and the Benguela Current Large
to the valuation of flows of benefits from the ecosystem
Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) program are very much appre-
through discounting. A low discount rate country that ciated.
places a higher relative value on non-market values will
prefer a policy that is more conservationist than a high
LITERATURE CITED
discount rate country that puts more weight on market
values relative to non-market values. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schu-
The important question here is, what can be done to man H (1993) Report of NOAA Panel on Contingent Valu-
ation. Federal Register 58(10):4601–4614
close the economic differences that may exist between
Binswanger HP (1980) Attitudes towards risk: experimental
countries that share a marine ecosystem? Potential solu-
measurement in rural India. Am J Agric Econ 62(3):
tions to the problem include, (1) ‘side payments’ by the 395–407
low discount rate country to the high discount rate coun- Brennan TJ (1997) Discounting the future: economics and
try; this is a result from game theory (Munro 1979, ethics. In: Oates WE (ed) RFF reader in environmental and
resource management. Resources for the future. Washing-
Sumaila 1999), and it amounts to using the ‘carrot’ to get
ton, DC
the high discount rate country to change its discounting
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-
preferences. (2) The part of the population in a high dis- based approaches to the management of marine resources.
count rate country that cares about non-market values Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
Brown TC (1984) The concept of value in resource allocation.
will need to raise awareness of the value to society of
Land Econ 60:231–246
preserving the flow of both market and non-market val-
Clark CW, Clarke FH, Munro GR (1979) The optimal manage-
ues through time; by working to broaden the scope of ment of renewable resource stocks: problems of irre-
values that policy makers take into account, the differ- versible investment. Econometrica 47:25–47
ences between the 2 countries sharing an ecosystem can Fischer RD, Mirman LJ (1992) Strategic dynamic interaction:
fish wars. J Dyn Control 16:267–287
be eliminated, or reduced significantly—the current role
Flaaten O (1988) The economics of multispecies harvesting —
of environmental NGOs and other civil society organiza-
theory and application to the Barents Sea fisheries.
tions is partly geared towards achieving this objective. Studies in contemporary economics. Springer-Verlag,
(3) Other countries with low discount rates should use Berlin
Hannesson R (1983) Optimal harvesting of ecologically inter-
the ‘stick and carrot’ by imposing economic, social, moral
dependent fish species. J Environ Econ Manage 10:329–345
and ethical incentives and sanctions on high discount
Hasselmann K, Hasselmann S, Giering R, Ocana V, von
rate countries to compel them to apply lower discount Storch H (1997) Sensitivity study of optimal CO2 emission
rates to marine resource values, and place more weight paths using a simplified structural integrated assessment
on non-market values. model (SIAM). Clim Change 37:335–343
282 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
become a must). This apparent triumph conceals a
Goulder H, Kennedy D (1997) Valuing ecosystem services:
philosophical bases and empirical methods. In: Daily GC bitter reality: the lack of a scientific and political
(ed) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural
consensus on the conceptual basis and limits of EBM,
ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 23–48
and the unavailability of an operational framework
Goulder LH, Stavins RN (2002) Discounting: an eye on the
generating clear rules for its practical implementation.
future. Nature 419: 673–674
Heal GM (1998) Valuing the future: economic theory and sus- Defining ecosystem-based reference levels for fish-
tainability. Columbia University Press, New York eries management, based on indicators of overall eco-
Krutilla J (1967) Conservation reconsidered. Am Econ Rev 57:
system structure and functioning, and followed by the
787–796
establishment of thresholds for ecosystem overfishing,
Munro GR (1979) The optimal management of transboundary
is crucial to prove that EBM is much more than an
renewable resources. Can J Econ 12:355–376
Pender JL (1996) Discount rates and credit markets: theory appealing concept. This advance in science should be
and evidence from India. J Dev Econ 50(2)257–297
accompanied by steps toward developing effective
Pender JL, Fafchamps M (1997) Precautionary saving, credit
management approaches and operational tools (the
constraints, and irreversible investments: theory and evi-
EBM ‘tool kit’) and political understanding of the
dence from semiarid India. J Business Econ Stat 15(2):
180–194 nuances (and their operational effects) in the termino-
Sinclair M, Valdimarson G. (eds.) (2003) Responsible fisheries logy employed by different stakeholders. These inter-
in the marine ecosystem. FAO, Rome & CABI Publishing,
related processes are key to the delivery of a truly
Wallingford
functional approach that at its core enables society to
Sherman K, Duda AM (1999) An ecosystem approach to
continue to derive services from healthy functioning
global assessment and management of coastal waters.
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 190:271–287 marine ecosystems.
Sumaila UR (1995) Irreversible capital investment in a 2-stage
The story of EBM could become that of an inter-
bimatrix fishery game model. Mar Resour Econ 3:263–283
esting debate but a failed approach; the risk of a
Sumaila UR. (1999) A review of game theoretic models of fish-
complete failure is real. Our society, as users of the
ing. Mar Pol 23(1):1–10
Sumaila UR (2004) Intergenerational cost benefit analysis and global marine resources, cannot afford a failure of
marine ecosystem restoration. Fish Fish 5:329–343 EBM, however, given the cumulative scientific evi-
Sumaila UR, Walters C (2005) Intergenerational discounting:
dence on the degraded state of marine ecosystems
a new intuitive approach. Ecol Econ 52:135–142
and the way this compromises the future of the
Weitzman ML (2001) Gamma discounting. Am Econ Rev
world’s food supplies.
91(1):260–272
Young MD (1992) Sustainable investment and resource use: The underlying debate. The debate on what the
equity, environmental integrity and economic efficiency.
EBM concept must be is currently at a crossroads. The
Man and the Biosphere Series, Vol 9. UNESCO, Paris
discussion that took place in 2003 at the 25th meeting
of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) following
the presentation of the FAO Guidelines on the Eco-
system Approach to Fisheries (FAO 2003) clearly
Paradigm shifts, gaps, inertia, and demonstrated that 2 radically opposed visions of EBM
are struggling against each other.
political agendas in ecosystem-based
In one vision, EBM entails a radical change in the
fisheries management
paradigm underlying ocean management (including
Sergi Tudela1, Katherine Short2 fisheries), accounting for the complexity of exploited
ecosystems and recognizing the need for precaution-
1
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Mediterranean Pro-
ary management of human activities. In this vision,
gramme Office, Canuda 37, 08002 Barcelona, Spain
the preservation of ecologically viable populations of
Email: studela@atw-wwf.org
2
ecosystem components is key to maintain species’
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Global Marine Programme,
Avenue du Mont-Blanc, Gland, 1196 VD, Switzerland functional redundancy and the derived structural and
Email: kshort@wwfint.org
functional ecosystem conditions that ensure ecosystem
resilience and sustained provision of ecosystem ser-
vices (Jackson et al. 2001). Application of the precau-
Success of a label and failure to operationalise a
concept. There is no doubt that the many different tionary principle and development of robust data-poor
ways to refer to the idea of the ecosystem-based man- management approaches are essential features of this
agement (EBM) of fisheries have successfully entered vision.
the politically correct scientific/managerial jargon. The The other vision regards ecosystems from a purely
success of this process is impressive, as demonstrated mechanistic perspective and seeks to maximize human
by widespread reference to the concept in all types of profits by engineering the food web and other ecosys-
documents, including the crucial project applications tem manipulations. Under this logic, the goal of EBM is
to funding agencies and donors (for which it has to obtain ecosystems that are tailored for supplying the
283
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
optimum harvest of the desired species, e.g. in the case Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management to
of fisheries. This perspective is used by pro-whaling identify the appropriate indicators to make FAO’s EAF
countries to argue that trophic competition from operational.
cetaceans is restricting fish harvests for developing The IOC/SCOR International Symposium on Quanti-
countries, thus strategically trying to align the whaling tative Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management
and food security debates within the UN/FAO political (Paris, March–April 2004), intending to fill the gap
framework. described above, resulted in limited progress towards
The FAO Guidelines (FAO 2003) do not readily align the operationalisation of the EBM. Apart from a few
with the first vision outlined above — which is fully exceptions (see Tudela et al. 2005) most contributions
supported by scientific research on ecosystem dynam- did not address the development of operational frame-
ics — but they do integrate many essential features of works based on the proposed indicators, nor did they
elaborate upon precautionary boundaries for ecosys-
the ‘engineering’ vision. This way, they envision the
tem overfishing (Murawski 2000), which are central
EBM of fisheries — now renamed Ecosystem Approach
to Fisheries (EAF) — as being an extension of target aspects to the EBM.
resources oriented management (TROM). The FAO A Khunian revolution in fisheries science. It is hard
Guidelines devote considerable attention to ecosystem to understand what is currently going on in fisheries
manipulations such as creating artificial habitats, science (and management agencies) without recogniz-
restocking and stock enhancement, culling and ing that the EBM concept has generated a situation
intentional introductions, which are considered as that resembles a Khunian revolution (Khun 1962). It is
appropriate elements of EAF. obvious that EBM of fisheries, if understood as a real
change in the underlying paradigm of fisheries sci-
From quantitative ecosystem-based indicators to
operational fisheries management frameworks. As ence, is challenging the validity of classical TROM
outlined above, the development of ecosystem-based approaches. This is leading to a well-known situation
indicators is a key to the operational implementation (inherent to all scientific revolutions) of interim co-
of the EBM, since it opens the door to establish truly occurrence of both approaches, whose advocates are
ecosystem-based reference levels (Caddy & Mahon radically opposed to each other, generating a feeling of
1995), something essential to any fisheries manage- crisis. What makes this situation even more dramatic
ment process. The success (or failure) to identify and is that it concerns an ‘applied science’, one that is
routinely use them will likely determine whether expected to help manage fundamental global food
EBM will give way to a fully new approach or, on the resources, and that it is arising during a real crisis of
contrary, whether it will be restrained to a merely overfishing (with the consequent perception of failure
superficial greening of conventional TROM. Besides, of the paradigm of the last 50 yr).
indicators are not neutral with respect to the current The reluctance to accept the essential holistic para-
debate on the real nature of EBM/EAF. Indicators digm of EBM is at the root of much of the criticism by
focusing on the emergent properties of exploited the scientific establishment. For example, it is often
ecosystems are more likely to support a precaution- argued that EBM makes management increasingly
difficult, since it is assumed to require much more
ary vision of EBM rooted in a paradigm shift than
research. The central issue here is that recognising the
others related to, for instance, simpler predator–prey
complex nature of exploited marine ecosystems should
aspects.
lead to reducing our expectations of science to make
The FAO Guidelines (FAO 2003) provide a useful
accurate quantitative predictions. Moreover, precau-
conceptual framework to address the issue of ecosys-
tem-based indicators: tionary data-poor methodologies, implemented through
adaptive management schemes, do not require in-
For practical purposes the indicator should be an ecosys- creasing parameterisation ad infinitum. It is a paradox
tem property that is thought to be modified by the fish-
that the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries was
ery, so that at least there is a controllable fishery impact
accepted as a mainstream concept before the EBM
for which a target level of change is identified. If it is not
paradigm was, taking into account that it is precisely
appropriate to set a target reference point, then at least a
limit reference point should be set. … (L)ack of scientific the recognition of complexity (and the related un-
certainty should not prevent the selection of indicators certainty in our predictions) associated with the EBM
and reference points that are considered important, or
paradigm that supports the full implementation of the
the clear explanation of a basis for selection. (pp 53, 55)
former.
Nevertheless, the FAO Guidelines suffer from a lack Another typical element of the process of paradigm
of concretion that rends them of little operational use. change is the common attempt of the establishment to
In fact, they already recognize this limitation and co-opt the new approach, in this case by limiting it to a
entrust the SCOR-IOC Working Group on Quantitative mere extension of current fisheries management prac-
284 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
tices — as the FAO Guidelines do — or by perverting it mic world, and with their awareness-raising skills. As
so as to further legitimate the old approach, as for the latter, the ecological footprint issue (the eco-
described above regarding the invigorated claims logical limits to fish production) is a crucial aspect of
justifying ecosystem engineering. the EBM paradigm, and it deserves a considerable
communications effort. This would allow the public to
Conservation and EBM of fisheries: new opportuni-
ties. Under EBM, both the concepts of conservation realize the real extent of the current global fishing cri-
and management achieve a high level of integration. sis and to appreciate what the real limits are for other
The fact that resistance in exploited ecosystems is emerging activities, like mariculture, which is wrongly
maintained by redundancy in the functionality of the perceived by many as the ultimate solution for supply-
different species (Jackson et al. 2001) supports the ing endless amounts of fish.
need to preserve biodiversity (including functional Conservation NGOs, aware of the opportunities
population levels of the different species) to reduce the associated with the new approach, are fully involved in
risk of ecosystem collapses. This approach (conserving the promotion of EBM, often adopting a highly proac-
overall biodiversity) is also useful to preserve keystone tive attitude, working together with academics and
species, crucial to keep the functional and structural policy experts, and providing input in virtually all
integrity of ecosystems, since they are extremely diffi- major international processes (FAO Committee on
cult to identify and change with time within evolving Fisheries, World Summit on Sustainable Development,
ecosystems. With these premises in mind, it is evident Convention on Biological Diversity, etc.). Indeed, WWF
that conserving biodiversity is not only a conservation developed a pioneering document (Ward et al. 2002),
objective driven by moral considerations, but also a suggesting guidelines for the EBM of fisheries and
first order objective for fisheries management, under a ways to proceed, well before FAO completed its
precautionary EBM approach in fisheries that seeks to technical consultation on the issue.
maximize ecosystem resistance and resilience. Fur- Challenges in science for EBM. Owing to its sys-
thermore, increasing evidence of the shifting baseline temic nature, we anticipate that the knowledge of
effect (the change in scientists’ perception about exploited marine ecosystems will never permit at the
the reference status of ecosystems with generations; ecosystem level the kind of mechanistic approach usu-
Pitcher 2001) and the primacy of (over)fishing as the ally followed in single stock management. Therefore,
main factor for ecosystem change (Jackson et al. 2001) EBM should not seek to emulate the current approach
reinforces the need for conservation and fisheries associated with TROM (see Stergiou 2002). It is very
management to coalesce. Indeed, both disciplines important to be fully aware of these inherent limita-
share the goal of rebuilding exploited ecosystems to a tions, knowing the new ‘rules of the game’, and avoid-
reasonably healthy status from the structural and ing the trap of setting impossible goals in EBM
functional point of view, compatible with the maximum research and management, with the potential frustra-
conservation of biodiversity and the supply of the tion and consequent delays in reversing the current
greatest services to society — fisheries ranking high trends. This means that in parallel with studies on
among them. ecosystem functioning and ecosystem effects of fishing
Whilst conservation per se (in the broadest meaning it is crucial to develop new research on precautionary
of the concept: preservation of structurally and func- (i.e. data-poor) EBM, with an emphasis on deriving
tionally healthy ecosystems) might still be considered operational reference frameworks for management
as just a necessary instrument to deliver ‘wilderness’ (Tudela et al. 2005).
(an ecosystem service highly appreciated by some sec- A clear focus on comparative studies of exploited
tors of society), it is also a prerequisite for healthy marine ecosystems, including their historical evolution
ecosystems able to provide other services (e.g supply (Jackson & Sala 2001), combined with ecosystem mod-
of food, sewage depuration; Daily et al. 1997). So, a eling and simulation analyses, is needed at this stage
new role for conservation arises, becoming an integral (in line with Cury’s ‘ecoscope’; Cury 2004). Also, given
component of any EBM approach. the emerging consideration of marine reserves as a pri-
This leads to the emergence of a new responsibility mary tool for EBM of fisheries, studies focusing on its
for conservation NGOs. Far from being seen as ‘intrud- correct design and implementation should be pro-
ers’ in the world of fisheries management (traditionally moted urgently (see Browman & Stergiou 2004).
perceived as more interested in the conservation of One of the main challenges that research on EBM
pristine habitats, rather than in maintaining livelihoods faces deals with the need to integrate knowledge
and securing food supplies), their challenge now is to on non-target species and ecosystem functioning to
contribute to EBM experiences drawing on their broad understand the real dynamics of exploited ecosystems.
expertise in conservation, multidisciplinary work with The highly multidisciplinary approach required to
a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including the acade- achieve this is a major problem in many regions where
285
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
specialists in disciplines unrelated to traditional fish- A preliminary assessment of global fisheries (coastal
eries science are absent from fisheries fora. There and shelf areas) using ecosystem overfishing criteria
has been a long and profound separation between indicates that current catches are several times in
‘applied’ fisheries researchers, in most cases closely excess of the estimated ecosystem-based maximum
linked to governmental fisheries management agen- sustainable catches (see Table 2; Tudela et al. 2005).
cies, and ‘fundamental’ marine ecologists and other This illustrates that EBM is likely to be more restrictive
scientists. than TROM with respect to extractive possibilities,
and means that in the current overcapacity crisis in
Short-term perspectives and global fisheries gover-
nance. Studies aimed at placing fisheries in their eco- the fisheries sector, implementation of EBM will cer-
system context during the last decade have provided tainly find considerable resistance from the industry
overwhelming scientific evidence of the dramatic foot- and politicians. However, it is precisely this critical
print of fisheries on global marine ecosystems (Pauly & situation that makes the development of EBM more
Christensen 1995), and have demonstrated the instru- necessary than ever.
mental role of overfishing in the resulting structural Only great political momentum will bring EBM
and functional degradation of ecosystems (Jackson et beyond mere aesthetic moves (small and scattered
al. 2001). Even so, the separation between the world of marine reserves, a limited reduction of by-catch, etc.).
traditional fisheries management (and science) and the In this sense, the current picture is not optimistic, as
new ecosystem-based approaches remains largely in illustrated by the fact that scientific arguments (even
place. mainstream TROM ones) are systematically subsumed
Comparing fisheries management to ecosystem under political ones, e.g. when the European Council
management, well after the ICES/SCOR Symposium systematically ignores ICES advice regarding the
on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing held in Montpellier annual fishing quotas; another example is the scan-
in 1999 — a milestone in the process towards the acad- dalous political bargaining at ICCAT meetings on tuna
emic recognition of the need for EBM of fisheries — and management (see Anonymous 2004). This globally
the 2001 Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fish- widespread picture exacerbates the normal resistance
eries in the Marine Ecosystem, García et al. (2003) to radically revise the scientific basis for management.
wrote: Indeed, there is no point in tackling such an effort —
with all the costly implications it entails — if there is
Ecosystem management is also supported by science but hardly any fisheries management that is scientifically
decision processes (particularly at international level)
driven.
seem to operate under higher public pressure often orga-
Besides, as a side effect of the failure of traditional
nized by NGOs through an efficient use of the media. It
fisheries management, and given the lack of a unified,
is evolving rapidly, supported by a large number of
citizens, most of them with limited or no understanding of coherent vision for an EBM approach to fisheries,
the costs of change to the sector and who often assume many experts postulate that ‘common sense’ aspects
a zero cost to themselves. (p. 48)
that are essential to any kind of rational fisheries man-
This statement implicitly diminishes the strength agement, including TROM (e.g. stakeholder participa-
and legitimacy of the vast amount of scientific evi- tion, adaptive management,) are distinctive key ele-
dence supporting the need for a new fisheries manage- ments of the new EBM. This adds further confusion to
ment paradigm, by suggesting it is being co-opted by the proper consolidation of EBM and contributes to the
clever, though naïve, NGOs that skilfully manipulate idea of EBM as being a broad improvement of tradi-
an ignorant society. It also assumes a zero cost of keep- tional fisheries management, a sort of chimera of the
ing the status quo, failing to internalise the effects of perfect fisheries management in an imaginary perfect
the global fisheries crisis related to the inadequacy of
the current fisheries management paradigm. Table 2. Ecosystem-based maximum sustainable catches
(EMSC; t km–2 yr–1) at 50 and 70% probability of sustainable
This is just a further example that reinforces the
exploitation for different ecosystem types, compared with
sense that the natural development of fully fledged
current levels of catch and discards. Modified from Tudela
EBM of fisheries will in the short term continue to be
et al. (2005)
obstructed by, (1) the lack of confidence in the transla-
tion of the new approach into realistic and effective
Ecosystem Current catch EMSC50 EMSC70
management measures and tools, (2) historical inertia
types and discards
or resistance to change, (3) rivalries between scientific
schools (including turf wars between fisheries scien- Tropical shelves 2.87 1.46 0.84
Temperate shelves 2.31 1.38 0.80
tists, unwilling to allow ecologists and other academics
Coastal areas
to have a say in their business, or perceiving them as
and coral reefs 10.5 3.96 2.28
competing for funding), and (4) political agendas.
286 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
world. EBM has clearly-defined steps that can be oper- Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the
management of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser
ationalised, whether for an entire ocean or for concrete
274:272–275
fisheries (Ward et al. 2002).
Daily GC, Alexander S, Ehrlich PR and 8 others (1997)
There have been some positive developments. In Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies
spite of the lack of consensus about an operational by natural ecosystems. Issues Ecol 2:1–16
FAO (2003) Fisheries management 2. The ecosystem approach
framework for EBM, several EBM tools are emerging
to fisheries. FAO, Rome
and gaining acceptance. On one hand, technical
Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Lasserre G (2003)
improvements to increase the selectivity of gears are The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Rep no. 443, FAO,
being tested and adopted in many fisheries. On the Rome
other hand, the concept of marine protected areas Jackson J, Sala E (2001) Unnatural oceans. Sci Mar 65:
273–281
(MPAs) as an essential ecosystem-based management
Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA and 15
tool is also strongly consolidating, supported by
others (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent col-
increasing scientific evidence pointing to their efficacy lapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–638
to rebuild ecosystems and benefit fisheries (Roberts et Khun T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
al. 2001). Additionally, a number of countries are pur-
Murawski SA (2000) Definitions of overfishing from an
suing an oceans policy approach which has at its core
ecosystem perspective. ICES J Mar Sci 57:649–658
an ecologically-based perspective of the management Pauly D, Christensen V (1995) Primary production required
issues and challenges for the marine realm. to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255–257
Whatever the outcomes of the current process, it is Pitcher TJ (2001) Fisheries managed to rebuild ecosystems?
Reconstructing the past to salvage the future. Ecol Appl
certain that in the coming years the reader will regu-
11:601–617
larly see the familiar acronyms ‘EAF’, ‘EBM’, ‘EBFM’
Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F, Hawkins JP, Goodridge R
or ‘EAM’ in project proposals, preambles of fisheries (2001) Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries.
regulations, international declarations, FAO docu- Science 294:1920–1923
Stergiou KI (2002) Overfishing, tropicalization of fish stocks,
ments, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations
uncertainty and ecosystem management: resharpening
and other multilateral bodies, etc. However, while it
Ockham’s razor. Fish Res 55:1–9
broadly advocates the application of the ecosystem Tudela S, Coll M, Palomera I (2005) Developing an opera-
approach in oceans management, the most relevant tional reference framework for fisheries management on
global agreement dealing with fisheries issued during the basis of a 2-dimensional index of ecosystem impact.
ICES J Mar Sci 62:585–591
the 21st century, the Plan of Implementation of the
Ward T, Hegerl E, Tarte D, Short K (2002) Policy proposals
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development
and operational guidance for Ecosystem-Based Manage-
(WSSD), still maintains the primacy of the highly con- ment of marine capture fisheries. WWF, Sidney
troversial maximum sustainable yield (MSY) concept
(which is single-species-based and intrinsically non-
precautionary) as the proper target reference level in
Aligning incentives for a successful
sustainable fisheries management. This is still the state
of the art. ecosystem approach to fisheries
The real challenge is to base management on the
management*
ecological reality of complex and finite marine ecosys-
Grimur Valdimarsson, Rebecca Metzner
tems. It is the mandate of those representing civil soci-
ety to seek the political space for promoting this Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization
change. Making the change and decreasing what we (FAO) of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,
00100 Rome, Italy
take from the oceans will require a collective effort.
Emails: grimur.valdimarsson@fao.org, rebecca.metzner@fao.org
LITERATURE CITED
The need for ‘better’ fisheries management. Now
that the notion of the inexhaustibility of the oceans has
Anonymous (2004) Fishing’s secretive controllers. Nature
432:785 finally been rejected by most people and there is a
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (2004) Marine Protected Areas as a
global consensus on the need to achieve sustainable
central element of ecosystem-based management: de-
fisheries, there are increasing efforts worldwide to-
fining their location, size and number. In: Browman HI,
wards ‘improved’ management of fisheries. A common
Stergiou KI (eds) Perspectives on ecosystem-based
approaches to the management of marine resources. Mar view is that fisheries must meet 4 criteria to be desig-
Ecol Prog Ser 274:271-272
Caddy JP, Mahon R (1995) Reference points for fisheries
*The views expressed in this contribution do not necessarily
management. Fish Tech Pap 347, FAO, Rome
reflect the views of the Food and Agriculture Organization
Cury P (2004) Tuning the ecoscope for the Ecosystem
(FAO) of the United Nations
Approach to Fisheries. In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds)
287
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
nated as responsibly managed: (1) produce human conservation, habitat protection, fishery and non-
benefits, (2) be sustainable, (3) have a ‘fair’ distribution fishery impacts, etc. The aim is to ensure that aquatic
of benefits, and (4) not cause ‘unacceptable change’ in ecosystems can produce fish, food, revenues, employ-
marine ecosystems (Sissenwine & Mace 2003). These ment and, more generally, other essential services
can be summarized as people, products, profits, and and livelihoods for the benefit of present and future
planet. generations — despite variability, uncertainty and
There is much less consensus on (or even practical likely natural changes in the ecosystem. The main
consideration of) the mechanics for implementing this. implication is the need to cater for human well-being
However, while the various objectives of fisheries as well as ecosystem well-being (FAO 2004).
management tend to diverge, there is one basic objec- There is no shortage of international fishery conser-
tive: to make sure that enough fish are left in the water vation instruments, guidelines, and international plans
so that they can keep on producing new generations of of action on how to deal with fisheries issues. The
fish. This may seem a simple task, but it has proven to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
be very difficult. (UNCLOS) is at the core of the global fisheries man-
For most fisheries there are very limited or no restric- agement structure. It has been complemented by the
tions on how much fishing can be done. Where maxi- Agreement to Promote Compliance with International
mum limits are set (based upon stock estimates), land- Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing
ings frequently surpass the limits, because there is no Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement)
commercial incentive to adhere to such limits. Penal- and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Pro-
ties are relatively low, and there are many financial visions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
pressures to exceed them. As a consequence, some the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management
25% of all harvested fish stocks are overfished — by of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish
and large by countries that have the greatest technical Stocks (Fish Stocks Agreement).
capability to stick to the catch limits. Thus, it is gener- In 1995 FAO produced the Code of Conduct for
ally agreed that in terms of controlling the catch, the Responsible Fisheries (the Code), recognizing the
systems that most countries have adopted so as not to nutritional, economic, social, environmental and cul-
catch too many fish are far from effective. tural importance of fisheries and the interests of all
The main cause of this ineffectiveness, and the fatal those concerned with the fishery sector. The holistic
flaw of fisheries management, is that most govern- nature of fisheries and fisheries management was fur-
ments and management organizations have chosen to ther clarified at the Reykjavik Conference on Respon-
govern their fisheries by command and control meth- sible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem by focussing
ods that rely on top-down management, even though on defining practical steps to move from the present
these methods have a proven track record of system- fisheries management framework to ecosystems-based
atic failure in even fisheries management (FAO 2003). fisheries management. The Reykjavik Declaration on
Ironically, such methods have been abandoned in most Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem con-
other sectors of modern economies, such as in the cen- firmed that ‘the objective of including ecosystem con-
trally planned industries of the former Eastern Block siderations in fisheries management is to contribute to
countries. Given the added data collection and docu- long-term food security and to human development
mentation required by the adoption of the ecosystem and to assure the effective conservation and sustain-
approach to fisheries EAF management, one can ques- able use of the ecosystem and its resources’. FAO
tion whether this is likely to succeed. Indeed, if we are subsequently published ‘The ecosystem approach to
failing to achieve the basic requirement of encourag- marine capture fisheries’ as a Technical Guideline
ing fishers to leave enough fish in the water for future under the general title of Responsible Fisheries Man-
sustainable harvests, how can we hope that an even agement (FAO 2003), which were accompanied by the
more sophisticated system will work? FAO Fisheries Technical Paper ‘The ecosystem ap-
This essay concludes that EAF management can be proach to fisheries management’ (Garcia et al. 2003).
successful, but that success will require a fundamental Ten years after the 1992 Rio Declaration on the Envi-
change in the nuts and bolts of daily fisheries manage- ronment and Development and, in particular, Chapter
ment — the development and application of participa- 17 of Agenda 21, the 2002 World Summit on Sus-
tory rights-based fishery management regimes. tainable Development in Johannesburg laid out the
The origins of EAF management. The overarching ecosystem approach as an inherent part of the fisheries
principles of EAF management are an extension of the management agenda. In particular, the World Summit
conventional principles and conditions for sustainable called for ‘the application by 2010 of the ecosystem
development of fisheries. It calls for management to approach, noting the Reykjavik Declaration on
explicitly deal with ecosystem issues such as resource Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem’.
288 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Fishery industrialists: providing products, profits,
Perspectives and expectations of EAF management.
and planet: In addition to fishers, there are many indus-
Although ecosystems cannot be managed as such
(they are simply too complicated), we do have some trialists and companies who provide fish products to the
experience in managing human activities through the public. Their objective is to generate ongoing profits for
incentive structures to which humans respond. Thus, themselves, wealth for shareholders and, as a result of
we have the ability to manage people and their this, ongoing employment for their work force. For
impacts on ecosystems. The hook — and the chal- these industrialists, there is a clear incentive to have a
lenge — is the need to understand and build upon the successful EAF management to reduce 2 commercial
various perspectives and expectations of the many production problems: having predictable and consis-
stakeholders who are involved in fisheries-related tent streams of raw materials for their use, and procur-
activities. ing raw materials at the lowest possible cost. In addi-
Fishery biologists: understanding the planet: Fish- tion, these companies have to be able to satisfy their
eries biologists calling for the ecosystem approach consumers. Although commercial enterprises are regu-
have tended to focus on the development of new lated by States and intergovernmental organizations, it
science, information and knowledge that is capable is market perception that is increasingly shaping their
of addressing the complexity of marine ecosystems. activities. Having managed to acquire merchandise of
The intention is to understand ecological processes, ever better quality and ever lower prices by exploiting
patterns and limits, to ‘help managers to ... avoid the the forces of the free market, there are now, more than
loss of ecosystem integrity and to maintain fisheries ever, calls from various stakeholder groups for corpo-
in viable states’ (Cury 2004, p. 273). This is laudable rate ethical behavior, attention to animal welfare, and
and exciting in terms of future marine science, and care for the environment.
implies many years of research opportunities and Corporate responses to these perceived consumer
challenges. pressures include compliance with environmental stan-
Ironically, after decades of fisheries development, it dards such as ISO 14001 and the rise of the Corporate
is an uphill battle to get even the most rudimentary Social Responsibility movement. Any self-respecting
data about capture fisheries, i.e. the basic statistics on company now must have social and environmental
the quantity of fish landed, and the FAO now has a reports. ‘Customer perception is our reality’ was stated
mandate to implement a global strategy to improve the at the 2005 Rome ‘CIES – The Food Business Forum’
landing statistics worldwide. Why? Because fisheries meeting of the largest food retailers in the world.
managers have not implemented regulatory systems Hence, if consumers want the ecosystem approach
that create genuine incentives or strong reasons for applied to fisheries management, then these industri-
fishers to furnish scientists with such information. alists will work to ensure that they provide fishery
Indeed, there may be much greater motivation for fish- products from fisheries that are managed in this way.
Fishers: generating product in the face of produc-
ers to provide much needed data to food processors
tion constraints: Fishers, long (and accurately) touted
and retailers as part of commercial global traceability
initiatives in order to maintain their markets. as the last remaining rugged individualists who are
Civil society and the general public: caring about fighting and conquering the seductive but treacherous
people, products, and planet: The oceans and the sea, are increasingly discovering their image being
marine life therein are increasingly viewed as an repainted as one of pillagers and plunderers who are
important part of humankind’s natural heritage. There sacrificing the oceans’ riches on the altar of private
is a growing expectation that there should be in- sector profits. There is some truth to this: faced with
creased protection of certain types of marine areas increasingly costly regulatory controls and operating
(e.g. reef systems, sea mounts) and species (e.g. costs, there is very real pressure to compromise their
endangered species). As a result, the general public, own future operations and earnings just to meet cur-
and environmentalists in particular, are increasingly rent expenses and market demands. Time and area
expecting that EAF management will limit, or at least constraints on fishing operations create pressures that
restrict, the effects of fishing on these particular com- reduce the ability of fishers to fish responsibly and
ponents of the ecosystem. Nonetheless, the general minimize environmental impacts. Due to the commer-
public also expects to enjoy the benefits of safe, quality cial nature of fishing, minimization of the complexity
seafood at reasonable prices, yet consumers are also and of the impacts of fishing activities on the aquatic
progressively demanding more of fish products. The ecosystem must provide some benefit to the fishers.
emergence of ‘feel good’ eco-labeled products that are They need to have an incentive to provide up to date,
traceable and sustainably harvested is starting to on-line information on every fishing trip that can be
shape the procurement of fish throughout the fish collated and systematically analyzed by experts to
supply chain and from ‘deck to dish’. detect emerging abnormalities in their fishery.
289
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
In the face of economic, fiscal and commercial pres- ered or perceived as a ‘lack of political will’ to improve
sures to fish more (and not less), the inevitable addi- the legal and institutional environment in which fish-
tional reporting requirements of the EAF tend to be eries operate, may merely be a reflection of the degree
viewed as unhelpful in terms of either fishers’ catches of difficulty in embarking upon such lengthy, con-
or their bottom line profits. Indeed, under regulatory tentious and difficult activities.
Fisheries managers: the key to affecting people,
strategies that increase fishing costs and (perhaps)
production, and planet: The conservation measures
reduce catches, it is difficult to generate interest in
implementing additional reporting requirements. frequently implemented by fisheries managers are
In short, fishers can support management that pro- important tools for complementing the core objectives
vides them with rewards for furnishing and sharing of fisheries management (leaving enough fish in the
sophisticated ecosystem information freely and will- water for future sustainable harvests). Such approaches,
ingly, but they need an operating environment that whilst being genuinely well intentioned, typically
does not create commercial pressures to overcapitalize advance the use of innovative conservation tools — but
or race for fish without consideration for conserving the without necessarily considering the financial and eco-
environment. Unfortunately, current command and nomic impacts of their initiatives and regulations on
control management approaches do not create such an the commercial aspects of fishing operations.
operating environment, because they drive up fishers’ Fisheries management needs to understand com-
costs to the extent that fishers are forced to forego mercial fishing realities, financial issues, and business
future profits to meet current expenses. management practices. When it does not, and simply
Politicians: juggling people, production, profits, tries to administratively control the operations and
and planet: Many countries are increasingly relying on actions of fishers, it does not result in conditions that
the fisheries and aquaculture sectors as important align conservation with commerce. Such approaches
sources of jobs, income, and food. Fisheries have not inevitably result in (1) mistrust and escalating con-
traditionally constituted a large component of national flicts — not only between fishers, but also between
economies, yet export earnings from fisheries have managers and fishers and other stakeholders; (2) de-
been increasing around the world. In the absence of creased profitability; and (3) undermined sustainabil-
other social safety nets, the small-scale fisheries sector ity. Indeed, it is in countries where there is a relatively
is also frequently used as a ‘safety valve’ and source of high proportion of economists in government and, in
social security for the most vulnerable and may be left particular, in fisheries agencies — such as in Australia,
to open access even at the potential risks of overfishing Iceland, and New Zealand — where one finds a greater
and ecosystem degradation. Ironically, doing so also alignment of conservation and commercial interests.
puts established small-scale fishing communities at If managers are going to attempt to minimize the
risk. impacts of complex human activities on the aquatic
What is more, capture fisheries and aquaculture ecosystem, they must implement management systems
activities are only one component of coastal zone port- in which fishers’ objectives coincide with those of man-
folios and have to be integrated with interests and agement, so that fishers have reasons for complying
demands from the tourism, transportation, and recre- with managerial decisions and regulations, willingly
ation sectors. Finally, to add to the political burden, contributing to research, and supporting monitoring,
consumers (also known as constituents) are becoming control and surveillance (MCS) activities. In New
vocal in expressing their concerns to politicians about Zealand, Iceland, Australia, and some USA fisheries
the safety, quality, and traceability of fish products. the industry pays for and actively participates in the
Having to balance such a vast array of consumer, com- research and MCS work that supports their fisheries —
mercial, development, and human needs makes the because it is in the industry’s long term financial inter-
fisheries portfolio extremely demanding in terms of est. However, this requires: using management sys-
legislative, consultative, institutional, and political tems and rules that transform the fishing process from
resources. hunting to a calculated enterprise that is commercially
Political expectations of EAF management are long friendly; and creating real reasons — assets in the form
term, yet political timeframes for activism are typically of user rights — that fishers will want to enhance by
short term. This creates a gap between truly sustain- incorporating environmental objectives into their short-
able levels of fishing activities and politically reward- and long-term commercial bottom lines.
ing actions. Under such conditions, there is strong Aligning people, production, profits, and the planet
political motivation to express support for ecosystem for a successful ecosystem approach to fisheries man-
approaches, but less motivation to withstand immedi- agement. On its own, the adoption of EAF manage-
ate pressures to potentially alter ecosystems at more ment will not necessarily lead to the desired win-win
local levels. Consequently, what is frequently consid- outcome of socially responsible and sustainable fish-
290 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
ing. Indeed, at the extreme, the application of EAF The irony is that we have the tools to support suc-
management may lead to a situation where the envi- cessful EAF management — but the collective will to do
ronment, the fisheries sector, and the public are losers so cannot emerge under the current command and
and these efforts end up being discouragingly delu- control management approaches that antagonize com-
sional (Table 3). At the other end of the spectrum, suc- mercial fishers by driving up their costs. Thus, if there
cessful application of EAF management is simply good is to be a genuine petition for a successful ecosystem
business practice. approach to management of fisheries and the marine
There are probably few, if any, examples of top- environment, it is up to politicians to drive the adoption
down fisheries management that can deliver the and implementation of secure, legally protected user/
sophistication that EAF management requires. How- fishing rights systems.
ever, where user rights have been implemented under
incentive aligning management programs, the partici-
LITERATURE CITED
pants actively deliver such sophistication. The ultimate
solution requires setting up management that connects Cook C (2005) A survey of corporate social responsibility. The
profit and planet by aligning the interests of people, Economist, 22 January, p 3–18
production, and profit with the desire for conservation Cury PM (2004) Tuning the ecoscope for the Ecosystem
Approach to Fisheries. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:272–275
(Table 4).
FAO (2003) The ecosystem approach to marine capture fish-
The adoption of EAF management will be successful
eries. FAO Tech Guide for Responsible Fisheries, No. 4
only if there is a concomitant and fundamental change (Suppl 2). FAO, Rome
in the way in which fisheries are managed. Defined FAO (2004) Ecosystem-based management of fisheries.
Marine Resources Service, FAO, Rome (available at:
and secure fishing rights are the core of good fisheries
www.fao.org/figis/servlet/topic?fid=3197)
governance (Sinclair et al. 2002). In simple terms, good
Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Lasserre G (2003)
governance must motivate fishers to ensure that their The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology,
fishing activities are responsible and do not impose principles, institutional foundations, implementation and
unacceptable impacts on the ecosystem. outlook. FAO Fish Tech Pap No. 443. FAO, Rome
Table 3. Sustainable development: People, Products/production, and Planet. Possible scenarios of EAF management
EAF management that increases social welfare EAF management that reduces social welfare
EAF management Successful EAF management Destructive EAF management
that increases • Cooperative regulatory environment for • Cynical obedience to EAF rules
commercial profits • managers, fishers, industrialists, civil society • Dubious social and environmental benefits
• Fishers have reason to actively take up • Expensive regulatory environment (for
• ecosystem considerations • management, fishers, and industrialists)
• Social benefits, including sustainability,
• biodiversity, quality products
EAF management Superficial EAF management Delusional EAF management
that reduces • Antagonistic compliance with EAF rules • Expensive regulatory environment (for
commercial profits • Uncertain product • management, fishers, and industrialists)
• Indeterminate quality • Dubious sustainability
• Dissipated social benefits • Questionable products, quality
Table 4. What do stakeholders care about?
Stakeholder concerns
People Products and production Profit Planet
Fisheries biologists X
Civil society X X
General public X
Fishery industrialists X X X
Politicians X X X X
Managers can set up rules that
Fisheries managers X X
minimize fishers’ costs / maximize
profits within catch limits X
Fishers will fish responsibly
Fishers X X
if conservation makes
economic sense
291
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
who were users of the time series collected by the spe-
Sinclair M, Arnason R, Circes R, Karnicki Z, Sigurjonsson J,
Skjoldal HR, Valdimarsson G (2002) Conference report on cialists (NRC 1995). Scientists had to establish that the
responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. Fish Res 58:
trends were real, that they were present in enough dif-
255–265
ferent data sets to reflect a common underlying cause,
Sissenwine MP, Mace PM (2003) Governance for responsible
and that they were consistent with mechanisms that
fisheries: an ecosystem approach. In: Sinclair M, Valdi-
marsson G (eds) Responsible fisheries in the marine could be linked to directional climate change. Only
ecosystem. FAO, Rome, p 363–390 after this had taken place was the science case consid-
ered credible enough to stimulate policy action. This
process of building the science case for policy action is
still under way, because notwithstanding important
Policy and science: different roles in the
policy commitments already made through the Kyoto
pursuit of solutions to common problems Protocol and national initiatives, debate continues about
the magnitude of the threat and the appropriate policy
Wendy M. Watson-Wright and societal actions (IPCC 2001; see also http://gcmd.
gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/glob_warm.html).
Science Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO),
On the other hand, both scientists and the general
200 Kent St., Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0E6
Email: watson-wrightw@dfo-mpo.gc.ca public have long been aware of the huge impact that
invasive species can have on native ecosystems. In
Introduction. In the marine and fisheries sectors, North America, the consequences of chestnut blight
major policy initiatives often begin with science. How- and Dutch elm disease were easy to see and familiar to
ever, at least initially, they are not recognizable as everyone with even a casual acquaintance with east-
such. Rather, scientifically generated evidence raises ern woodlands or the prairie riparian habitats (Anag-
an alarm about something that is going on ‘out there’. nostakis & Hillman 1992, Hubbes 1999). The effects of
For a while, the science may develop in the ‘discovery’ rabbits introduced into Australia are comparably famil-
phase, accumulating knowledge about something iar, and are cited in introductory university biology
new. The point at which the science is complete texts throughout the world (see www.deh.gov.au/
enough to allow for prediction of potential conse- biodiversity/invasive/publications/rabbit/index.html).
quences is an important benchmark. If the potential Thus, the problem of invasive species was recognized
consequences are severe, such predictions draw atten- widely, but the missing piece was a theoretical frame-
tion, even if they are equivocal. Awareness spreads work that could pull the numerous individual invasions
first within the science community. However, if the together into a single issue amenable to policy action
predicted scenario is inconsistent with the goals of and provide the basis for appropriate policy and
existing policy and management strategies, it does not management measures. The theoretical framework
take long for those involved in policy and management required unifying advances in theoretical ecology
to pay attention. Nonetheless, how policy pays atten- through the 1960s to the 1980s with conservation bio-
tion to the science is variable. logy, which focused ecological theory on applied prob-
I will illustrate the range of interactions that can lems. By the time that zebra mussels invaded the lakes
occur between science and policy using as examples and rivers of eastern Canada both the scientific com-
2 long-standing issues: climate change and invasive munity and the public could call for policy action to
species. Then I will evaluate where the emerging issue address the threats of invasive species (MacIsaac 1996,
of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) fits within D’Itri 1997). The Canadian government now considers
this range. Such an evaluation may suggest ways in invasive species to be a high priority issue. It promotes
which both science and policy can improve the effec- implementation of more stringent preventive measures
tiveness of how they address this crucial issue. (where they are cost effective) and monitoring to
In the case of climate change, the initial science detect invasives as early as possible. Nonetheless,
appeared to be scattered and lacking a central focus. although the science evidence was convincing enough
Scientists working with data from various monitoring to gain wide support for restrictive policies, it is not yet
programs covering very different parts of the ocean– possible to really say what should be done to address
atmosphere system and in different parts of the world the threat when a new species is detected.
began to identify trends in their individual time series. How issues develop in science and policy. Once a
These trends could not be reconciled with either ran- new issue has become credible within the science
dom variation around an average condition, or with community, there are still many possible reactions by
historic oscillations between alternating warm and cold policy makers. In the case of invasive species, Cana-
periods (IPCC 1990). Gradually, these independent dian policy agencies have asked directly for guidance
trends were brought together, often by other scientists from science. They acknowledge the conservation
292 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
issue and confirm that they are ready to act on it. They or require societal sacrifice. Without science guidance
want advice on what should be done to reduce risk and towards effective policies, the policies that are imple-
protect Canadians and the environment. In the case of mented may achieve little. If science focuses only on
climate change, policy responses have been less deci- policy actions which pay off in the long term, there is a
sive. Many high profile international meetings were risk that the public will reject the policies when they
needed to develop science-based policy initiatives, do not see improvements to a situation they consider
and debate continues about which actions are needed. unsatisfactory. The science–policy interface remains
There is ample room to speculate on why these issues important, but the driver changes.
were treated differently. It is possible that the man- Outreach and engagement of partners. When sci-
agers developing the policy responses considered the ence and policy each become interested in an emerg-
scientific evidence to be more credible in the case of ing issue, both reach out to other institutions and
invasive species than in the case of climate change. It departments. However, there are some important dif-
is also possible that the differences in management ferences between the communities with whom they
reflect differences in the costs of the measures consid- establish or strengthen networks. These differences
ered as necessary, and the impacts of those measures reflect both different institutional cultures and the dif-
on businesses and the public. For example, current ferent roles and responsibilities of the 2 sectors. The
policy measures to address aquatic invasive species differences in institutional cultures are important to
prohibit recreational anglers from using certain bait the short-term interactions of science and policy, but
in given watersheds or require commercial ships to can be confused with the differences in their respec-
exchange ballast in specified zones at sea (see tive roles and responsibilities.
www.invadingspecies.com). On the other hand, to For science, the responsibility is to be sound and
address climate change, each adult Canadian is being objective, and to understand as much about the issue
asked to reduce production of greenhouse gasses by and its consequences as possible. The tool for deter-
1 t yr–1 (www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/ mining soundness and objectivity is independent peer
index.asp). The impacts of the policies to address inva- review. The way to acquire data, knowledge, and
sive species are inconvenient to a few groups of Cana- understanding quickly is to share with colleagues.
dians, whereas policies to address climate change ask Both of these mechanisms have fostered a sense of
all citizens to undertake significant lifestyle changes. internationalism within the science community. Inter-
Some may think it reasonable to expect a higher stan- national marine science organizations such as the
dard of scientific evidence in the second case than in International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
the first. (ICES) and the North Pacific Marine Science Organi-
Notwithstanding the differences in the demands on zation (PICES) have flourished, and the science com-
science there is a common thread in the policy re- munity is eager to use these international bodies to
sponses in these examples. At some point the science– focus the expertise of the global science community on
policy dialogue changes from a science ‘push’ to a emerging science challenges. When policy interest in a
policy ‘pull’. It begins with science working to inform science issue grows quickly, one sees proposals for so
policy officers of the need for new or changed policies. many international symposia that the science commu-
Once the policy sector becomes engaged in the issue, nity has difficulty providing new results fast enough to
though, policy-makers increasingly influence the support them all, a situation developing now with inva-
nature of the dialogue. The policy-makers have 2 par- sive species and the ecosystem approach to fisheries.
ticular requirements from science: (1) science advice The responsibilities of policy are different. The dis-
on actions which will improve the situation in the short cussions are more often with other government depart-
term, so they can see (and show to the public) benefits ments and other levels of government. In Canada,
of the policies they implement; (2) science support to Provinces, Territories and municipalities may all be
make their policies credible to the public, so the public facing the same issue, but in different contexts. For
will support adoption of the policies, and compliance invasive species, many federal departments are con-
with them after they have been adopted. The science cerned about threats to native ecosystems, including
community may be most interested in how the issue the Departments of Agriculture, Environment, Natural
relates to scientific theories and understanding of nat- Resources (which includes forestry), Fisheries and
ural processes, and find these needs from policy not Oceans (DFO), Transport, Food Inspection and several
particularly interesting. Nonetheless, the science com- departments with responsibilities in international
munity must treat these needs as research priorities. relations and trade. Provinces and communities must
Without science support for the credibility of policy ini- address invasive species issues as well, and have juris-
tiatives, there is a high risk that the policies will be dictional roles which must be respected. The Govern-
abandoned, particularly if they are costly to implement ment of Canada also has a commitment to consult
293
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
widely with affected stakeholders, from environmental Some other aspects of the science underlying the
organizations to resource users and those involved in EAF have developed more slowly. In Canada, science
trade and commerce. Some groups in Canada, such as and management paid little attention to by-catch of
Aboriginal groups and Wildlife Management Boards, non-target species, except in special cases such as
have the right to be consulted entrenched constitu- entanglements of marine mammals in fishing nets or
tionally and in legislation. If a policy may impact when some fishing gears were prohibited from taking
the responsibilities of these parties, the sponsoring species allocated to another gear sector. Passage of
Department must coordinate and cooperate with all of Canada’s Species-at-Risk Act made by-catch of non-
them. Even for policies solely within the jurisdiction of commercial species a major legal issue, and science
a single department, such as policies on fisheries man- and fisheries management are both struggling to make
agement in DFO, successful implementation of a major up for lost opportunities to quantify fisheries catches
new policy requires at least the cooperation of other completely (CSAS 2002a). Protecting fragile features
departments with economic portfolios, as well as coastal of the seafloor from damage by fishing gears is also a
communities, industry and provinces. recent issue in Canada, and again science is scram-
Hence, the policy and science sectors both engage in bling to identify where such features may be located
discussion with other experts and institutions, but gener- (CSAS 2002b, 2004a). These are cases where policy
ally with different ones. Science experts reach out inter- responded quickly to new legislation and public
nationally within their fields of expertise. Policy-makers expressions of concern, even though science was and
network largely within the country, but across many is not well prepared to advise on exactly what should
parts of the governance systems. Science experts do net- be done to implement the policies.
work with the science experts in other government de- On the other hand, Canadian research and monitor-
partments, but only to the extent that the science inter- ing has contributed to the evidence that fisheries have
ests and issues are shared. Science may have many ecosystem-scale impacts, such as ‘fishing down the
meetings and even joint projects when there are com- food web’ and the loss of large individuals from fish
mon science issues. For example, DFO and Environment communities (Pauly et al. 2001, Myers & Worm 2003).
Canada have supported joint projects on species-at-risk Some of these scientific papers have sparked contro-
issues. However, there is usually little interaction be- versy about how the data are analysed and inter-
tween scientists and officers from departments inter- preted, and which scientific conclusions can be drawn
ested in trade and economic aspects of issues. Policy- from the patterns (http://dels.nas.edu/osb/ecosystem_
makers do network internationally, but generally the effects.shtml). In these cases, policy has been much
focus is on ensuring that international standards are har- slower to pick up on the scientific views as they have
monized. In these discussions, the trade and economic emerged. The slower rate of policy change cannot be
implications of policy changes often have center stage. attributed to science, because the policy implications
of the science on ecosystem effects of fishing have
Implementing an ecosystem approach to fisheries
(EAF). When we consider developing the scientific been clear for some time — take less out and be much
foundations for EAF management and implementing it more selective in what, where, when, and how to
in policy, all of the above considerations are in play. harvest (FAO 2002, Rice in press). It is the social and
Some aspects of the EAF have been well established policy implications that make policy slow to act, since
for many years, and are already reflected in manage- the required policy and management changes will
ment. For example, Canada has applied a very cau- impact the fishing industry and fishery-dependent
tious approach to fishing on lower trophic levels since communities negatively, at least in the short term. Sci-
the 1970s. Capelin quotas were set with an acknowl- ence has to help policy build support in the communi-
edgement that the needs of predatory fishes, seabirds ties for the new approaches, and help management
and marine mammals had to be accommodated before build a willingness in the industry to comply with the
the human harvest could be allocated (Winters & new policies.
Impediments that must be overcome. Dealing with
Carscadden 1978). Similarly, despite a number of
uncertainty: Science’s role in showing the public that a
requests for exploratory fisheries for krill, only a very
restricted fishery has been authorized in 1 inlet in policy change is needed can be as important as sci-
British Columbia (Romaine et al. 1996). Even though ence’s role in showing policy-makers what provisions
management approached fishing on lower trophic the policy should contain. In the case of the EAF,
levels very cautiously, there was no call for a compre- though, science is encountering some of the same
hensive policy on such fisheries until the mid-1990s. impediments that have characterized the science–
However, when the policy was brought forward, it was policy interface on climate change. All science con-
supported strongly by scientists, fisheries managers tains some uncertainty, and when the science addresses
and policy-makers (DFO 2004a). questions as complex as the ecosystem effects of fish-
294 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
ing, the uncertainty is large. For policy experts, large is an extension of the precautionary principle written
scientific uncertainty is a major liability. For example, into the agreements from the United Nations Confer-
placing fisheries management in an ecosystem con- ence on Environment and Development (Rio) and the
text will reduce employment opportunities in fisheries, World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johan-
and increase production costs (Rice in press). There is nesburg) (UN 2002). In Canada, the Species at Risk
uncertainty about how large these socio-economic Act includes this approach explicitly, by specifying
impacts will be and how long they will last. However, that activities which might harm protected species can
the uncertainty about how large the ecological benefits be permitted only when it can be demonstrated that
will be, and how long it will take to secure them, will the harm will not jeopardize recovery (Government of
almost always be much greater than the uncertainty Canada 2002). In the United States, NOAA’s discussion
about short-term social and economic costs. paper on the EAF (NMFS 1999) proposes to extend
This is an imbalance where good science, making this approach through the application of ecosystem
the uncertainties transparent to the users of the sci- approaches to policy and management. This reversal
ence advice, impedes policy actions. It is easy to of burden of proof may be the only realistic way to deal
argue that politicians are elected to protect a nation’s with the significant scientific uncertainties that will
ecosystems from harm, but they are also elected to continue to be present in the science advice on EAF.
protect communities and workers from unnecessary However, it will be extremely challenging to obtain
harm. Science advisors on fisheries have argued for support from other parts of government and from the
decades that short term ‘pain’ to fisheries will be more stakeholders who will bear the greatest share of short-
than compensated by longer-term improved yields term costs from application of the EAF.
from the target species, yet these arguments often fail The reversal of burden of proof is a long-standing
to convince managers and policy makers to take deci- practice in the protection of human health. For exam-
sive measures early (Rice in press). Advice on ecosys- ple, new drugs cannot be marketed until they are
tem effects of fishing is more uncertain than single demonstrated to be safe, or at least until the side
species advice. In fact, science advisors may be able effects are known. However, in natural resource con-
to indicate little more than the direction in which pol- servation, reversing the burden of proof places high
icy change is needed, and very little about exactly costs on industries and user groups who have not tradi-
what benefits will accrue (Link et al. 2002). In those tionally borne them (Tickner 2002). These industries
circumstances, politicians may feel they are being commonly feel that they do not have sufficient finan-
fully responsible in asking how much social and eco- cial resources (e.g. compared to major pharmaceutical
nomic harm is necessary to manage the risk of harm companies, which invest millions of dollars in develop-
to marine ecosystems. When science advisors are ing and testing a new drug before they can market it
uncertain about even the point at which perturbation and begin to recoup the investment). Conservation
of an ecosystem property becomes ‘harm’, policy advocates have sometimes been a bit naïve in pro-
makers may feel quite justified in making changes in moting the view that the resistance to reversing the
very small increments. This approach has often con- burden of proof in industries like fishing is based only
tributed to failures of single-species management, on greed and a fear by the industry that it will not be
where uncertain science advice allowed politicians to able to show that it is sustainable. Industries where the
reduce harvests too gradually to prevent collapses reversal of burden of proof is standard practice operate
(Walters & Maguire 1996). Science experts and policy from quite different economic (and policy) footings
makers individually have learned important lessons than fisheries and similar resource-based industries.
from crises like the one surrounding the Canadian Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, for example, the
Atlantic groundfish in the early 1990s. Nonetheless, fishing industry still has many very small independent
the social and political circumstances in which deci- operators who lack the financial resources for large up-
sion-making is played out have not changed much. front investments. There are also many coastal areas
Science remains uncertain about all but the ‘big pic- which are economically and culturally dependent on
ture’ parts of what will be required to achieve sustain- fishing, and many countries, including Canada, have
ability at the scale of the ecosystem as well as of the policy goals of keeping such communities viable
harvested stocks themselves. This uncertainty remains (Government of Canada 2004).
a major impediment to decisive policy change and It may be necessary to reverse the burden of proof if
effective management action. science evidence is to influence policy and manage-
Reversing the burden of proof: Because uncertainty ment to take an ecosystem approach to fishing. How-
is an impediment to policy and management action, ever, DFO is encountering strong community opposi-
some agencies have proposed adopting a reversal of tion to listing marine fish species as threatened or
burden of proof for at least some parts of the EAF. This endangered under the Species at Risk Act, Canada’s
295
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
first environmental act to contain provisions which ence laboratory. Because these strengths usually dif-
explicitly reverse the burden of scientific evidence fered from laboratory to laboratory, the biological
(DFO 2004b). This experience suggests that the change objectives proposed for keeping the fishery sustain-
to an EAF is going to be very difficult. able within an ecosystem context differed as well.
Clarifying the implications of EAF: There is another Despite 3 yr of committed effort in some parts of the
practical impediment to widespread implementation of DFO, the Objectives Based Fisheries Management
the EAF and of ecosystem based management of other produced suites of ecosystem-related objectives for
marine activities. The ecosystem approach still appears very few fisheries, and the objectives included rarely
to be a vague and fuzzy concept to many in policy and amounted to more than avoiding excessive by-catch
management. Even science advisors can interpret the and not damaging habitats of iconic significance.
concept differently. This is the situation in Canada, for In 2004 a new science-policy - oceans management -
example, despite several key events intended to facili- fisheries management working group has again been
tate development of an ecosystem approach. A key formed to develop an ecosystem approach for DFO’s
Canadian landmark was the workshop on the Eco- policies and programs. It builds on the work accom-
system Approach to Management in March of 2001 plished to date by the previous initiatives, and is trying
(CSAS 2001). The workshop produced a set of 10 con- to dispel the fog surrounding the concept of ‘ecosystem
ceptual ecosystem objectives and supporting prin- approach’. However, progress has not been swift, and
ciples, as well as a science roadmap to make them to this point there has been little agreement on which
operational. Nonetheless it took a science-oceans pilot programs would best illustrate what the eco-
management-policy working group over a year to system approach really is, and what it is not.
adapt the science products into a formal proposal and The difficulty in making progress reflects the com-
plan of action for DFO senior management. As soon as plexity of the task, and not a lack of commitment. All
projects began under the plan of action, it became sectors recognize the need to make timely progress
clear that the ‘conceptual objectives’ were not being towards implementation of EAF. It is just that such
interpreted the same way by scientists from different progress will affect almost everything that DFO does
specialties and different regions of Canada, let alone and manages. With good reason, every sector wants to
by the policy and management sectors, nor by stake- understand the implications of the EAF for their own
holders. Another week-long science workshop was work, and for how they will interact with — and be
needed in the winter of 2003 to agree on how to reacted to by — the stakeholder and user groups with
interpret the main ecological terms in the conceptual whom they work most closely. The science–policy
objectives (CSAS 2004b). interface is back in center-stage, and policy is pulling
Another initiative within DFO fared little better. The the science. Policy needs science to create an under-
Objectives Based Fisheries Management initiative was standing of EAF that is complete and explicit enough
intended to develop explicit biological, social, and eco- for other sectors to realize and pursue their responsibil-
nomic objectives for each Fisheries Management Plan ities.
adopted by DFO. Objectives were to be selected fol- Summary. The main messages from my perspective
lowing an inclusive and consultative approach. Agree- are 3-fold:
ment was reached quickly that the biological objec- (1) Policy making is often an evolutionary process,
tives should include objectives for conservation of key beginning with a science ‘push’, but punctuated with
ecosystem properties potentially affected by the fish- policy ‘pulls’; the science–policy interface is and
eries, and not just for the target species. In practice, should be an iterative process, and neither side should
again, not even separate groups of scientists could have to ‘push’ or ‘pull’ too hard to elicit cooperation
develop lists of ecosystem-related objectives which from the other.
had some minimum of consistency around Canada’s 3 (2) Uncertainty is an issue for politicians and for the
oceans, or sometimes within a single Region. The policy-making process. Scientists accept uncertainty
problem was not that the different fisheries had as part of the process, and have many approaches for
different potential effects on the marine ecosystems measuring and packaging it. However, high uncer-
(although to some extent this is always true). Rather, tainty makes it difficult to build political support for
there was no consistent framework to assist in deciding tough policies, and harder still to gain cooperation in
which ecosystem considerations are obligatory (and their implementation. The precautionary principle and
thus must be addressed with an operational objective) the reversal of the burden of proof are aimed at neu-
versus those which could be considered optional tralizing these political challenges, but they have their
within an EAF. Without a framework for implemen- limitations when decision-making is based on partici-
tation, groups of scientists relied on the particular pation and stewardship, and when science is uncer-
research interests and strengths of each regional sci- tain.
296 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
(3) Creating public understanding for scientific con- IPCC (1990) Climate change — the scientific assessment.
Houghton JT, Jenkins GT, Ephraums JJ (eds) Cambridge
cepts takes time, and consolidation of the evidence for
University Press, Cambridge
the concepts takes even longer. Nonetheless, it is
IPCC (2001) IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change
crucial for policy makers to be fully comfortable with (available et: www.ipcc.ch/)
the concepts and their operational ramifications prior Link JS, Brodziak JTK, Edwards SF, Overholtz WJ, Mountain
D, Jossi JW, Smith TD, Fogarty MJ (2002) Marine ecosys-
to using these concepts as the basis for major policy
tem assessment in a fisheries management context. Can J
changes. Continued dialogue and mutual understand-
Fish Aquat Sci 59:1429–1440
ing are essential in order to enact science-based policy, MacIsaac H (1996) Potential abiotic and biotic impacts of
particularly if policies are intended to anticipate and zebra mussels on the inland waters of North America. Am
address crises proactively, instead of being merely Zool 36:287–299
Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of
reactive.
predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280–283
NMFS (1999) Ecosystem based fisheries management: a
Acknowledgements. Thanks to Serge Labonte and Jake Rice report to Congress by the Ecosystem Principles Advi-
for discussions and for helping to collect the background sory Panel. Department of Commerce, National Marine
information for this contribution. Comments from the editors Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD
improved readability and clarity. NRC (National Research Council) (1995) Natural climate
variability on decade-to-century time scales. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC
LITERATURE CITED Pauly D, Palomares ML, Froese R, Vakily M, Preikshot D,
Wallace S (2001) Fishing down Canadian aquatic food
Anagnostakis SL, Hillman B (1992) Evolution of the chestnut webs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:51–62
tree and its blight. Arnoldia 52:3–10 Rice JC (in press) Will an ecosystem approach mitigate the
CSAS (2001) Proceedings of the National Workshop on factors of unsustainability? In: Maguire JJ, Greboval D
Objectives and Indicators For Ecosystem-based Manage- (eds) Collected papers from the 3rd Workshop on Factors
ment. CSAS Proc 2001/09 of Unsustainability. Siem Reap, Cambodia, Sept 14–18,
CSAS (2002a) Proceedings of the National Science Review 2004. FAO Tech Fish Rep
Meeting on Species at Risk Issues, December 9–13, 2002, Romaine SJ, Mackas DL, Macauley MC, Saxby DJ (1996)
Halifax, Nova Scotia. CSAS Proc 2002/35 Comparisons of repeat acoustic surveys in Jervis Inlet,
CSAS (2002b) Proceedings of a Benthic Habitat Classification British Columbia, 1994–1995. Univ of British Columbia,
Workshop, Meeting of the Maritimes Regional Advisory Vancouver. Fisheries Centre Res Rep 43:48–52
Process. Maintenance of the diversity of ecosystem types: Tickner JA (ed) (2002) Precaution, environmental science and
a framework for the conservation of benthic communities preventive public policy. Island Press, Washington, DC
of the Scotia-Fundy area of the Maritime Region. CSAS UN (2002) Plan of implementation — World Summit on Sus-
Proc 2002/23 tainable Development. United Nations Organization, New
CSAS (2004a) Proceedings of a Benthic Habitat Classification York
Workshop, Meeting of the Maritimes Regional Advisory Walters CJ, Maguire JJ (1996) Lessons for stock assessment
Process. Maintenance of the diversity of ecosystem types: from the northern cod collapse. Rev Fish Biol Fish 6:
benthic classification and usage guidelines for the Scotia- 125–137
Fundy area of the Maritime Region. CSAS Proc 2004/04 Winters GH, Carscadden JE (1978) Review of capelin ecology
CSAS (2004b) Habitat status report on ecosystem objectives. and estimation of surplus yield from predator dynamics.
Habitat Status Report 2004/01 ICNAF Res Bull 13:21–29
D’Itri FM (ed) (1997) Mussels and aquatic nuisance species.
Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI
DFO (2004a) Policy on fisheries on forage species. Internal
The Theme Section may be cited as follows:
document, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa
DFO (2004b) Summary of public consultations on the listing
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2005) Politics and socio-
of cod. Internal document, Department of Fisheries and
economics of ecosystem-based management of marine
Oceans, Ottawa
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300:241–296
FAO (2002a) Guidelines on the Ecosystem Approach to Fish-
eries. FAO Tech Guide for Responsible Fishing 9. FAO,
Individual contributions may be cited as, e.g.
Rome
Government of Canada (2002) Species at Risk Act (available
Rice JC (2005) Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to
at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca./en/s-15.3/text.html)
Fisheries Management — asynchronous co-evolution at
Government of Canada (2004) A policy framework for the
the interface between science and policy. In: Browman HI,
management of fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic coast.
Stergiou KI (eds) Politics and socio-economics of eco-
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa
system-based management of marine resources. Mar Ecol
Hubbes M (1999) The American elm and Dutch elm disease,
Prog Ser 300:265–270
For Chro 75:265–269
Vol. 300: 241–296, 2005 Published September 16
Mar Ecol Prog Ser
THEME SECTION
Politics and socio-economics of ecosystem-based
management of marine resources
Idea and coordination: Howard I. Browman, Konstantinos I. Stergiou
CONTENTS* Rosenberg AA, McLeod KL
Implementing ecosystem-based approaches to
Browman HI, Stergiou KI management for the conservation of ecosystem
Introduction ..........……………………………........…… 241–242 services …………...................................….………........ 270–274
Agardy T
Sherman K, Sissenwine M, Christensen V,
Global marine conservation policy versus site-
Duda A, Hempel G, Ibe C, Levin S, Lluch-Belda D,
level implementation: the mismatch of scale and
Matishov G, McGlade J, O’Toole M, Seitzinger S,
its implications ....………......………………….………… 242–248
Serra R, Skjoldal HR, Tang Q, Thulin J,
Fluharty D Vandeweerd V, Zwanenburg K
Evolving ecosystem approaches to management A global movement toward an ecosystem
of fisheries in the USA …………………….....……….… 248–253 approach to management of marine resources ......… 275–279
Hirshfield MF
Sumaila UR
Implementing the ecosystem approach: making
Differences in economic perspectives and imple-
ecosystems matter …....................................….…....…. 253–257
mentation of ecosystem-based management of
Livingston PA marine resources ………………................................…. 279–282
PICES’ role in integrating marine ecosystem
Tudela S, Short K
research in the North Pacific …………………………... 257–259
Paradigm shifts, gaps, inertia, and political agen-
Misund OA, Skjoldal HR das in ecosystem-based fisheries management ..…... 282–286
Implementing the ecosystem approach: experi-
Valdimarsson G, Metzner R
ences from the North Sea, ICES, and the Institute
Aligning incentives for a successful ecosystem
of Marine Research, Norway ……............……....……. 260–265
approach to fisheries management …….........………. 286–291
Rice JC
Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fish- Watson-Wright WM
eries Management — asynchronous co-evolution at Policy and science: different roles in the pursuit of
the interface between science and policy 265–270 solutions to common problems ………..………....……. 291–296
Introduction operationalized (or not). We sought contributions from
colleagues who have been engaged in the interaction
1,** 2
Howard I. Browman , Konstantinos I. Stergiou
of politics with science, and sought to cover as many
1
Institute of Marine Research - Austevoll, 5392 Storebø, Norway
perspectives as possible: non-governmental organiza-
Email: howard.browman@imr.no
tions (NGOs), government, research institutes and uni-
2
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Biology,
Department of Zoology, Box 134, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece versities.
Email: kstergio@bio.auth.gr
The contributors to this Theme Section (TS) describe
The ecosystem-based approach (EA) to the manage- the structural, technical, administrative, operational,
ment of marine resources has been the focus of several socio-economic and scientific complexities associated
recent publications (e.g. Browman & Stergiou 2004, with the adoption and implementation of a holistic EA.
Pikitch et al. 2004, Beddington & Kirkwood 2005, Daan ‘Ecosystem services’, and the need to assess the cumu-
et al. 2005). Despite this flurry of articles, the often lative impacts of all activities (extractive or otherwise)
over-riding importance of political and socio-economic on the ecosystem, are emphasized in several of the con-
forces in establishing and implementing the EA have tributions. The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept
not been adequately addressed (but see Turrell 2004). emerges as a possible practical structure upon which
Thus, we canvassed experts who are familiar with this the EA could be operationalized. The role of uncer-
side of the EA issue, and managers involved in the tainty at various levels of the science–policy interface,
decision to adopt it as national/international policy. and its relation to implementing the EA, are taken up
Our goal was to provide marine scientists with insights from various perspectives. Estimating fish abundance,
into the forces driving the adoption of policies such as and characterizing/predicting ecosystem structure and
the EA, and the mechanisms through which they are function, are inherently difficult, and the result will al-
© Inter-Research 2005 · www.int-res.com
**Contributions are in alphabetical order (by first author)
**The views expressed are those of the author and do not Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher
necessarily reflect the official position of IMR
242 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
ways be fraught with uncertainty. The manner in which LITERATURE CITED
this uncertainty is dealt with depends upon the role that
Allisson EH (2001) Big laws, small catches: global ocean gov-
one plays in the management system. Stock assessment
ernance and the fisheries crisis. J Int Dev 13:933–950
analysts and ecosystem modelers must focus on reduc- Anonymous (1997) Politics and fisheries management.
ing uncertainty. Politicians, policy-makers and fisheries American Fisheries Society, Texas Chapter, Newsletter
23(4):5 (available at www.sdafs.org/tcafs/news/97vol23/
managers must consider this uncertainty within a pre-
news23_4/v23n4.pdf)
cautionary approach: they must adopt the worst-case
Beddington J, Kirkwood G (eds) (2005) Fisheries: a future?
estimates and/or the concept of reversing the burden of Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:3–218
proof (see Pikitch et al. 2004). These different perspec- Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspectives on ecosys-
tives on uncertainty come into play as part of policy- tem-based approaches to the management of marine
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
supporting scientific advising (sensu Smith & Link
Dallmeyer DG (2003) Values at sea. Ethics for the marine
2005). However, the same scrutiny is rarely applied to
environment. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA
the scientific advice associated with policy formation Daan N, Christensen V, Cury PM (eds) (2005) Quantitative
(see Smith & Link 2005). ecosystem indicators for fisheries management. ICES J
Mar Sci 62(3):307–614
Although we provided contributors with a series of
Dunbar MJ (1987) Science policy? Ask a scientist. Can Res
questions that they could address, several issues that
March:4–6
we viewed as important were not taken up. For exam- Marra J (2005) When will we tame the oceans? Nature
ple, the fact that governments in most of the developed 436:175–176
world are reducing funding and personnel in the Masood E (1997) Fisheries science: all at sea when it comes to
politics? Nature 386:105–106
marine research sector begs the question: where are
Pauly D (2003) Ecosystem impacts of the world’s marine fish-
the funds that will allow a complete implementation of
eries. Global Change Newsl 55:21–23
the EA going to come from? Further, the conservation- Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
ist bent of the EA seems at odds with humanity’s in- (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science
305:346–347
tensive–extensive (and unsustainable) exploitation of
Smith TD, Link JS (2005) Autopsy your dead…and living: a
continental ecosystems through large-scale production
proposal for fisheries science, fisheries management and
of crops and livestock, with little if any thought to- fisheries. Fish Fish 6:73–87
wards preserving ecosystem health, biodiversity, en- Spurgeon D (1997) Political interference skewed scientific
demic species, etc. This highlights a general lack of advice on fish stocks? Nature 388:106
Turrell WR (2004) The policy basis of the ‘Ecosystem
discussion concerning the moral, ethical and philo-
Approach’ to fisheries management. EuroGOOS Publica-
sophical aspects of exploiting the sea (although see
tion No. 21, EuroGOOS, Norrköping
Dallmeyer 2003, Marra 2005). The overriding influ-
ence of politics, and of remunerated political lobbying,
in the adoption of policy were not adequately ad-
Global marine conservation policy
dressed (but see, for instance Anonymous 1997, Ma-
versus site-level implementation: the
sood 1997, Spurgeon 1997, Allisson 2001, Pauly 2003).
mismatch of scale and its implications
It is often maintained, either implicitly or explicitly,
that scientists are naïve when it comes to policy issues
Tundi Agardy
and their implementation. Dunbar (1987, p. 6) stated:
There is a belief that the body scientific cannot judge Sound Seas, 6620 Broad Street, Bethesda, Maryland 20186, USA
these important matters, that scientists live in a con- Email: tundiagardy@earthlink.net
founded ‘ivory tower’ dreaming of test tubes, high theory
or the genitalia of insects, and that it takes lawyers, busi- The mismatch of scale. Addressing environmental
nessmen or perhaps emancipated economists to come
issues requires recognition of problems, mobilization
down to practicalities. This is a myth fomented and per-
of resources to develop solutions, and leadership in dri-
petuated by those same lawyers, businessmen, etc. It is
ving change. These actions are best accomplished by
poppycock; no one can know better than scientists how to
get the best results and the most mileage out of science. A ‘thinking globally, acting locally’. However, environ-
scientist looking for advice on the stock market goes to mental problems themselves are rarely local in scale,
the relevant professional, and rightly expects lawyers and
and piecemeal attempts to address them usually fail.
politicians to come to him for guidance in science.
This is particularly true in the conservation of the
We hope that this Theme Section will help us along marine environment, where open marine ecosystems
this path. and the international nature of pollution, overexploita-
tion, and of other threats dictate a large-scale multi-
Acknowledgements. H.I.B.’s ongoing research and his editor-
lateral response. The mismatch between large-scale
ial activity for MEPS are supported by the Institute of Marine
thinking (embodied in marine policy) and small-scale
Research, Norway, by The Research Council of Norway, and
conservation action has serious implications for our
by the Inter-Research Science Center.
243
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
ability to reverse the tide of environmental degrada- generic to lead to solutions that fit the particular cir-
tion occurring in the world’s oceans. cumstances (environmental, economic, social, politi-
Virtually all the world’s nearshore areas experience cal) at a site. A recent example is the push for MPA
multiple threats that act simultaneously to degrade policies that target setting aside 20% of marine areas
ecosystems and decrease ecosystem services (Millen- as no-take reserves, regardless of the habitat or set of
nium Assessment 2005). Threats originate both at the resources to be protected and the threats that these
site of degradation and far away — from land, as well as ecological communities actually face (Agardy et al.
from distant seas. Since oceans are the ultimate sink and 2003). Second, generic policies are often unrealistically
the fate of coastal waters is strongly tied to the condition ambitious or not supported by financial commitments,
of coastal lands, rivers and estuaries, successful conser- thus leading nowhere (de Fontaubert & Agardy 1998,
vation requires addressing not only the use of the marine Wang 2004). In this way, a mismatch occurs between
environment, but land use as well, far up into the water- what is actually happening and what decision makers
sheds. Yet actual conservation projects do not happen on assume is happening.
the global or regional scale — they happen bit by bit, as a It is not for lack of want that coastal and marine con-
result of individuals, communities and institutions re- servation is failing. Many of the earth’s 123 coastal
sponding to a particular need at a particular site. Typical countries have coastal management plans and legisla-
marine conservation interventions include marine pro- tion, and new governance arrangements and regula-
tected areas (MPAs), regulations to protect critical habi- tions are being developed every year. Based on an
tat of a species, and fisheries restrictions for a particular international questionnaire using letters and fax,
fishery. The scale of these responses is usually far too Sorensen (1993) estimated that there were 142 coastal
small to address the bigger (and growing) problems of management initiatives outside the USA, and 20 inter-
unsustainable use of resources, indirect degradation of national initiatives. By 2000, there were a total of 447
marine ecosystems, and large scale declines in environ- initiatives globally, the result of new initiatives since
mental quality, such as those brought about by climate 1993 and of the improved ability to find coastal man-
change (Agardy 1999). agement initiatives through the use of the internet
Thus, the scale at which conservation occurs in site- (Kay & Alder 2005). The latest survey estimates that
level management interventions cannot possibly match there are 698 coastal management initiatives operating
the scale of the problems occurring throughout geo- in 145 nations or semi-sovereign states, including 76 at
graphically larger regions. In contrast, marine policy is the international level (Kay & Alder 2005).
generally developed at much larger scales: both national What drives these initiatives and will likely drive
and global. These policy initiatives could in theory be them in the future is the recognition by governmental
broad enough to holistically address complex environ- and non-governmental organizations (NGO) of prob-
mental problems in the oceans. In fact, several interna- lems that need to be addressed. This brings up another
tional instruments provide impetus for large scale coop- mismatch of scale, which commonly leads to lack of co-
eration, including the United Nations Convention on the ordination in conservation initiatives and, in extreme
Law of the Sea, UN Regional Seas Conventions and Ac- cases, to open conflict. Conservation priorities set at the
tion Plans, Global Programme of Action for the Protec- global or regional scale by big environmental NGOs
tion of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activ- such as the WWF, The Nature Conservancy, Conserva-
ities, Jakarta Mandate on the Conservation and tion International, etc., or multilateral organizations
Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diver- such as the World Bank, are sometimes at odds with
sity, and the Ramsar Convention for wetland protection. local or even national priorities. An example of this is
Yet although global treaties attempt to address dis- the Mexican government’s endorsement of a salt plant
crepancies between small-scale interventions on the in Baja California, which was strongly (and success-
ground and large-scale coastal problems, most of these fully) opposed by the international environmental
international instruments have not been effective in community on the grounds that the plant would dis-
reversing environmental degradation (Speth 2004). turb gray whales, even though top cetacean experts
The problem may indeed be that the scale of such poli- found this argument without merit. The priorities of the
cies is far too big to recognize the particular issues fac- nation of Mexico were thus at odds with the priorities of
ing communities, or to take advantage of the unique internationals NGOs, and the ensuing conflict may
opportunities for conservation that may exist in specific have diverted attention and funds away from more crit-
socio-political or cultural settings. ical threats to Baja California and the Gulf of California.
There are 2 additional reasons why global scale pol- The way in which some of the biggest NGOs set their
icy initiatives tend to fall short of meeting what are priorities has been a source of controversy (e.g. Chapin
commonly held goals of coastal/ocean conservation. 2004); nonetheless, high profile priority-setting schemes
First, the interventions that they prescribe can be too drive the flows of resources to certain areas, at the ex-
244 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
pense of other regions. When global scale priorities are upon recognition of the interconnectivity of fresh-
not in harmony with local priorities, tensions emerge that water, coastal and marine ecosystems and habitats.
threaten the long-term viability of conservation actions, This requires a firm understanding of ecological func-
including MPAs and other key tools of conservation. tioning and of boundaries within various ecosystems,
MPAs and the mismatch of scale. MPAs are fast be- and gap analyses to determine what key sources or
coming the conservation tool of choice for dealing with sinks, or links in the chain of interconnected habitats,
habitat loss, they are increasingly being used to study are missing from the total MPA portfolio (Friedlander
and to manage fisheries problems, and they involve local et al. 2003). And while it is true that planning MPA net-
communities and user groups in management of marine works or systems requires information about connec-
areas. Yet MPAs, and especially fisheries reserves, are tivity and ecological processes (Possingham et al. 2000,
usually far too small to be effective in addressing the Leslie et al. 2003), it would be a fallacy to assume that
complex suite of problems faced by most marine areas, complete ecological knowledge is a prerequisite for
especially when planners and conservation groups ig- moving forward. An MPA network or system can be
nore the context — in terms of the environmental health designed with adaptive management in mind, so that
and condition of surrounding waters and benthos — in protected areas are actually used to garner more
which these islands of protection are sited (Allison et al. applied ecological information, as well as information
1998, Jones in press). Most MPAs are not large enough about the efficacy of management (Agardy 1997).
to meet their stated objectives; even the often touted ex- Because MPAs and networks of areas can target a
ception of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the wide range of objectives, and since they vary greatly in
largest MPA in the world, highlights how degradation of scope, the most comprehensive system of networks
a highly valued area can occur when land management is hierarchical, working at multiple complementary
and ocean management are not in synchrony. scales or levels (Jones 1994, Agardy 2003b). Goals can
When practitioners realized that few MPAs were vary at each level in the hierarchy. For instance, the
meeting broad scale conservation objectives, and that explicit goal at the regional level may be to create
an ad hoc, one-off approach would not lead to effective a system in which all marine ecosystem or habitat types
large scale conservation, the concept of MPA networks are represented within an ocean basin or a country’s
emerged as a way to strategically plan MPAs with the jurisdiction, while at a lower level (and within a
hope that the whole would then be greater than the geographically smaller target area) MPAs might be de-
sum of its parts. There is an obvious need for strategic signed to protect the most ecologically important habi-
MPA networks (Roberts et al. 2001). A system or net- tats within a region. At still another level, the manage-
work that links these areas has a dual nature: connect- ment objective might be the conservation of a flagship
ing physical sites deemed ecologically critical (ecolog- marine species or set of species, with protected areas
ical networks), and linking people and institutions in and management interventions tailored for the specific
order to make effective conservation possible (human needs of the threatened species (Garcia Charton et al.
networks) (Agardy & Wolfe 2002). Networks or sys- 2000). Designing such strategic and functional net-
tems of MPAs have great advantages in that they works requires an understanding of regional ecology
spread the costs of habitat protection across a wide and the multiple (and cumulative) threats affecting not
array of user groups and communities while providing only the ecosystems, but the linkages between them as
benefits to all, and networks also help to overcome the well. Though our ecological understanding of such
mismatch of scale (Agardy 2003b). linkages is far from complete, many leading marine
It is important to distinguish between MPA networks ecologists think that we have enough information to
or systems that are strategically planned to protect the begin designing large-scale networks, which can then
most ecologically critical habitats within a region, and be amended and adapted as new knowledge accrues.
networks of reserves that have a narrower focus and Systems ecology can thus overcome the mismatch of
are designed to protect fisheries stocks or single spe- large-scale policy by helping us decide where pro-
cies. The former are planned in a way that addresses tected areas should be sited and how they should
links between land, freshwater, and coastal systems, be connected, in an ecologically-driven top-down
while the latter focus on larval dispersal, and sources approach. Identification of priority sites can be accom-
and sinks. Although fisheries reserve networks can plished with computer algorithms and software such as
and should be part of MPA systems, their benefits may MARXAN — as employed in rezoning the Great Barrier
have been exaggerated, and critical gaps in knowl- Reef Marine Park (see www.gbrmpa.gov.au) and in the
edge impede the development of such reserve net- Irish Sea Pilot (see www.jncc.gov.uk), or through del-
works for many species (Sale et al. 2005). phic methods that utilize expert opinion to develop
MPA networks are most successful in promoting consensus on key sites. Implementation of the actual
large-scale conservation when their design is based form of the protected area and of conservation policy at
245
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
each site, however, must be be under bottom-up con- network as a starting point, and analyzes which threats
trol, to fit the needs of each particular place. Protected to marine ecosystems and biodiversity cannot be
areas or networks can thus be organized with partner- addressed through a spatial management scheme. In
ships or co-management with indigenous groups and such corridors marine policies are directed not at the
local communities (Jentoft & McCay 1995). The dy- fixed benthic and marine habitat that typically is the
namic nature of a hierarchical marine conservation target for protected area conservation, but rather at the
system should guarantee that any country taking part water quality in the water column, and the marine
in the development of a protected area system will be organisms within it. The connections between the
proactive but responsive to needs at individual sites, various MPAs in a network are maintained by policy
and scientifically rigorous but socially flexible. Individ- initiatives or by reforming the environmental manage-
ual MPAs that are accepted by local communities and ment of areas outside the MPAs. Corridor concepts
thus effective in the long term can be designed strate- provide a way for planners and decision makers to
gically so that there is synergy and complimentarity think about the broader oceanic context in which
between all parts of the network. MPAs are sited, and to develop conservation interven-
Networked MPAs within a region can be adminis- tions that complement spatial management. Marine
tered by a variety of means, e.g. by a single overseeing corridors are nascent efforts that need further concep-
agency that designs both networks and individual pro- tualization and testing in real life situations.
tected areas, by a coordinating body that ties together Overcoming the mismatch of scale. Thus, despite re-
MPAs variously implemented by different government cent strategic approaches to marine conservation, most
agencies, or by an umbrella framework such as the interventions still occur in an ad hoc and opportunistic
‘biosphere reserves’, a designation of UNESCO’s Man manner, as agencies and institutions follow their
and Biosphere Programme (UNESCO 1996). In bio- mandates without really considering how they con-
sphere reserves, local communities become part of the tribute to the big picture beyond their regional, sectoral
network, ecologically critical areas are afforded strict or agency boundaries (NRC 2001). An integrated, sys-
protection while less important or less sensitive areas tematic and hierarchical approach to conservation and
are managed for sustainable use, and the biosphere sustainable use is needed, to allow nations to address
reserve designation itself carries international prestige various geographic scopes and scales of continental
and can help in raising funds (Agardy 1997, UNESCO marine conservation problems simultaneously in a
2000). In the case of coastal and marine resources more holistic manner (Griffis & Kimball 1996). By using
shared by different countries, regional agreements large marine regions (regional seas, semi-enclosed
may prove most effective, based on a better under- seas, or eco-regions) as the focus of management rather
standing of costs and benefits at the regional scale than using globally- or nationally-generated sectoral
(Kimball 2001). An example of such a regional body in approaches that address marine problems issue by
the terrestrial/freshwater environment is the Mekong issue, multilateral agencies can cooperate to address
River Commission (see www.mrcmekong.org) . the full spectrum of threats and embark on developing
While networks can help overcome the mismatch integrated, holistic solutions. For shared coastal and
between the large scale of marine problems and the marine resources, regional agreements may indeed
small scale of most conservation interventions, even prove more effective than global agreements, espe-
strategically planned networks do not necessarily lead cially when such agreements are based on a better un-
to effective marine conservation at the largest scale derstanding of costs and benefits accruing from shared
(Christie et al. 2002). Identification of existing pro- responsibilities (Kimball 2001).
tected areas and tying them together into a regional Admittedly, this prescription for holistic approaches
initiative does not magically create large-scale conser- to ocean management that strategically target entire
vation — although some international institutions have ecosystems, yet catalyze ‘individualized’ conservation
claimed to be achieving this. Since individual MPAs action appropriate to each site, is idealistic and might
were historically established opportunistically rather be considered unfeasible. Indeed, when Meir et al.
than strategically, functional networks will require the (2004) assessed land-based conservation planning,
creation of new MPAs to fill remaining gaps, even in they concluded that large-scale, long-term conserva-
areas where MPAs are common. tion plans are not as effective as short-term, oppor-
But even strategically designed networks can only tunistic interventions. This casts doubt on the ability of
be a starting point for effective conservation, rather the world community to move towards marine conser-
than constituting an end goal. Recognizing that more is vation in the strategic way called for in this contribu-
needed than MPA networks, planners have begun to tion. Yet there are important differences between ter-
explore the concept of marine corridors and protected restrial and marine conservation; there are stronger
seascapes. A marine corridor initiative uses an MPA arguments for regional conservation using networks of
246 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
MPAs, the most important of which is the common Commission on Environmental Cooperation, and at the
property nature of marine resources, which calls for national scale in countries ranging from Australia to
cooperative rather than individualistic responses. Fur- the USA. Smaller regions such as the Gulf of Maine,
thermore, the simple decision rules that Meir et al. shared by Canada and the USA, are also focal points
(2004) promote, such as focusing conservation efforts for regional cooperation, as demonstrated by the mul-
on areas with highest species diversity, are of question- tilateral work undertaken as part of UNEP’s Global
able utility in the marine environment, where patterns Program of Action (see www.gpa.unep.org) and the
of biodiversity are poorly known and where species- work of the Gulf of Maine Council (see www.gulfof-
poor areas such as upwelling regions are of great eco- maine.org). Even at the state level, initiatives are
logical importance (Agardy 2003b). under way to select sites as part of a strategic network
MPAs play a key role in such a strategic approach, of MPAs. In California, USA, for instance, the state
not because they are a panacea, but rather because legislation known as the Marine Life Protection Act
MPAs provide a mechanism to overcome 2 of the (MLPA) has spurred a review of possible methodolo-
biggest obstacles to effective marine conservation. gies to identify sites for networks that would capture
(1) MPAs can help to shed sectoral management and both representative and ecologically critical areas.
addressing the full suite of threats to marine ecology in This initiative is noteworthy in the context of this con-
a holistic manner, as they provide demonstration mod- tribution, because the waters of the State of California
els of how to integrate management across all sectors encompass portions of 3 biogeographic provinces or
(Villa et al. 2002), and in some cases demonstrate how eco-regions, and the MLPA initiative may provide a
to tie ocean management and coastal/watershed man- tangible model for designing regional MPA networks.
agement together. (2) MPAs can help to overcome The nascent efforts in the Mediterranean to develop
management paralysis that arises from the enormous a representative system of MPAs are exemplary. A
scale and complexity of marine environmental prob- legal framework for multilateral cooperation already
lems, and from the strange but pervasive notion that exists under the Barcelona Convention (Convention for
the oceans are a single homogenous, fluid environ- the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollu-
ment; MPAs provide an important ‘sense of place’ to tion, adopted in 1976 and in force since 1978), with the
specific habitats and ecological communities, showing participation of 22 parties from the riparian nations
that not all parts of the ocean are the same, thus raising surrounding the Mediterranean. Though the original
the profile and perceived value of specific places in emphasis of the treaty was on pollution reduction, and
the public’s eye. By attaching special importance to the Convention is considered a success in this regard,
specific sites, MPAs not only create opportunities for the bulk of recent attention among the Parties has
regulations on use of the area, but also create impetus been on habitat and biodiversity conservation. Under
and political will to address problems that originate the Protocol on Specially Protected Areas, the Parties
outside the area, such as land-based sources of pollu- have begun to assemble a list of regionally important
tion. Individual MPAs are on scales small enough to be areas called SPAMIs (Specially Protected Areas of
tractable, while a series of MPAs in a strategic network Mediterranean Importance). Work is now underway to
can promote region-wide marine conservation. use the SPAMI list as a starting point to evaluate what
There are important precedents for such integrated is currently missing from the Mediterranean-wide pro-
regional approaches, suggesting that strategic, large tected area portfolio, in terms of both representation of
scale planning does hold promise for more effective all habitat types and in terms of adequately protected
marine conservation. One is the relatively recent cou- habitats and resources. Once this gap analysis is com-
pling of coastal zone management with catchment pleted, the Parties to the Convention will have guid-
basin or watershed management, as has occurred ance on where to site new MPAs and how to amend
under the European Water Framework Directive and existing ones. The end result could well be a much
projects undertaken under the LOICZ (Land –Sea more effective protection of regional biodiversity,
Interactions in the Coastal Zone) initiative. These fully based on the economies of scale that MPA networks
integrated initiatives, with affecting and affected par- and systems provide, including better opportunities
ties taking part in the planning process, have resulted for management training, cooperative surveillance and
in lower pollutant loads and improved conditions in enforcement, and standardized research protocols.
some estuaries (Millennium Assessment 2005). Through such regional conservation programs, goals
Regional approaches utilizing MPA networks and such as conservation of biodiversity, including rare and
systems are also being developed for the Mediter- threatened species, maintenance of natural ecosystem
ranean Sea under the Barcelona Convention (the functioning at a regional scale, and management of
Mediterranean Regional Seas Agreement), in North fisheries, recreation, education, and research could be
America under the auspices of the North American addressed in a more coordinated and complementary
247
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
fashion (Agardy 2003a). The integrated approach is a LITERATURE CITED
natural response to a complex set of ecological pro-
Agardy TS (1997) Marine protected areas and ocean conser-
cesses and environmental problems, and is an efficient
vation. R.E. Landes, Austin, TX
way to allocate scarce time and resources to address- Agardy T (1999) Ecosystem-based management: a marine
ing the issues that parties deem to be most critical. perspective. In: Maltby E, Holdgate M, Acreman M, Weir
A (eds) Ecosystem management — questions for science
Nations and agencies that participate reap the benefits
and society. RHIER, University of London, Egham, p 44–46
of more effective conservation, while bearing fewer
Agardy T (2003a) An environmentalist’s perspective on
costs by spreading management costs widely and by responsible fisheries: the need for holistic approaches. In:
taking advantage of economies of scale in manage- Sinclair M, Valdimarsson G (eds) Responsible fisheries in
ment training enforcement, etc. Through regional the marine ecosystem. FAO, Rome, p 65–85
Agardy T (2003b) Optimal design of individual marine pro-
initiatives, a top-down holistic perspective can be
tected areas and MPA systems. In: Beaumer JP, Grant A,
matched to bottom-up site-appropriate interventions,
Smith DC (eds) Protected areas. Pro World Conf Aquatic
and the priorities of international groups that funnel Protected Areas, 8–12 August 2002. Australian Society for
attention and money to conservation sites can be har- Fish Biology, Norh Beach, WA, p 111–119
Agardy T, Wolfe L (2002) Institutional options for integrated
monized with local priorities and needs. But 3 things
management of a North American marine protected areas
are required for such integrated, holistic approaches to
network. Commission on Environmental Cooperation
succeed: ecological understanding, sensitivity to social Report, CEC, Montreal. Available at: www.cec.org
and political factors, and leadership that understands Agardy T, Bridgewater P, Crosby MP, Day J and 7 others (2003)
and acknowledges a holistic view and has the strength Dangerous targets: differing perspectives, unresolved
issues, and ideological clashes regarding marine protected
of conviction to move a complicated agenda forward.
areas. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 13:1–15
Ecological understanding is needed to realistically
Allison GW, Lubchenco J, Carr M (1998) Marine reserves are
assess the threats to the marine environment: their necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecol
nature, their scope, how they interact with one Appl 8(1):S79–S92
Chapin M (2004) A challenge to conservationists. Worldwatch
another, and what can be done about them. A knee
Mag Nov/Dec:17–31
jerk reaction to apply a generic policy prescription
Christie P (2004) Marine protected areas as biological suc-
every time an environmental problem arises, without a cesses and social failures in southeast Asia. Am Fish Soc
true understanding of the threats and drivers behind Symp 42:155–164
them, can often result not only in failure of that partic- Christie P, White A, Deguit P (2002) Starting point or solution?
Community-based marine protected areas in the Philip-
ular intervention, but also create obstacles to future
pines. J Environ Manage 66:441–454
conservation (Agardy et al. 2003).
de Fontaubert C, Agardy T (1998) Implementing the protocol
Social science needs to inform us about how solutions on specially protected areas and wildlife of the Cartagena
are developed to address threats at the site level. After Convention. Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev 10(3):
753–854
all, conservation is not about managing ecosystems or
Friedlander A, Sladek Nowlis J, Sanchez JA, Appeldoorn R,
other species, but about managing our own human spe-
Usseglio P, McCormick C, Bejarano S, Mitchell-Chui A
cies. In order to change human behavior, we must under- (2003) Designing effective marine protected areas in
stand what drives people to use resources unsustainably, Sea-flower Biosphere Reserve, Colombia, based on bio-
and what proximate and indirect drivers lead to bad gov- logical and sociological information. Conserv Biol 17(6):
1769–1784
ernance and management (Christie 2004). Social science
Garcia Charton JA, Williams ID, Perez Ruzafa A, Milazzo
can also tell us what is feasible and sustainable — long
M and 5 others (2000) Evaluating the ecological effects of
after the cadre of visiting scientists and conservationists Mediterranean marine protected areas: habitat, scale, and
that initiate the conservation action are gone. the natural variability of ecosystems. Environ Conserv
27(2):159–178
Finally, we must recognize the importance of true
Griffis RB, Kimball KW (1996) Ecosystem approaches to
leadership and ‘the power of one’— and identify indi-
coastal and ocean stewardship. Ecol Appl 6(3):708–712
viduals with the vision, commitment, and power to Jentoft S, McCay B (1995) User participation in fisheries man-
move forward. Such leadership could drive meaningful agement, lessons drawn from international experiences.
regional agreements that allow the development of Mar Pol 19(3):227–246
Jones PJS (1994) A review and analysis of the objectives of
strategically planned MPA networks, and at the same
marine nature reserves. Ocean Coast Manage 23(3):149–178
time address the wider context through pollution con-
Jones PJS (in press) Collective action problems posed by
trols, harmonization of regional land use planning, no-take zones. Mar Pol
river basin management, etc. Only visionary leaders in Kay R, Alder J (2005) Coastal planning and management, 2nd
edn. EF&N Spoon, London
these regions will be able to rally the troops of commit-
Kimball L (2001) International ocean governance. IUCN, Gland
ted individuals doing the small scale work that is con-
Leslie H, Rucklehaus M, Ball I, Andelman S, Possingham H
servation, and convert what are piecemeal and largely (2003) Using siting algorithms in the design of marine
losing battles into a united front against coastal and reserve networks. Ecol Appl 13:S185–S198
ocean degradation. Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP (2004) Does conserva-
248 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Table 1. List of acronyms
tion planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?
Ecol Lett 7:625–622
Millennium Assessment (2005) Millennium ecosystem assess-
EAM Ecosystem approach to management
ment, Vol I: Conditions and trends. In: Agardy T, Alder J
EFH Essential fish habitat
(eds) Coastal systems and coastal communities, chapter
EPAP Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel
19. Available at: www.milleniumassessment.org
FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan
NRC (2001) Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining ocean
ecosystems. Ocean Studies Board, National Research MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
Council, Washington, DC
Possingham H, Ball I, Andelman S (2000) Mathematical mod- MSY Maximum sustainable yield
els for identifying representative reserve networks. In: NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Ferson S, Burgman MA (eds) Quantitative methods in con- NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
servation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 291–306
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Roberts CM, Halpern B, Palumbi SR, Warner RR (2001) Design- Administration
ing marine reserve networks: why small, isolated protected
NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council
areas are not enough. Conserv In Practice 2(3):12–19 (Anchorage, AK)
Sale RF, Cowen RK, Danilowicz BS, Jones GP and 7 others
NRC National Research Council
(2005) Critical science gaps impede use of no-take
POC Pew Oceans Commission
reserves. Trends Ecol Evol 22(2)
SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act
Sorensen J (1993) The international proliferation of inte-
USCOP U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
grated coastal zone management efforts. Ocean Coast
Manage 21(1-3):45–80 WPFMC Western Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Honolulu, HI)
Speth JG (2004) Red sky at morning. Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT
UNESCO (1996) Biosphere reserves: the Seville Strategy and
the statutory framework of the World Network. UNESCO,
from experience gained in actions implemented. Start-
Paris
ing with a fisheries-centric approach makes sense,
UNESCO (2000) Solving the puzzle: the ecosystem approach
and biosphere reserves. UNESCO, Paris because fisheries are a key concern, and they are
Villa F, Tunesi L, Agardy T (2001) Optimal zoning of a marine already managed at the ecosystem scale.
protected area: the case of the Asinara National Marine
Ecosystem approaches to management in marine
Reserve of Italy. Conserv Biol 16(2):515–526
fisheries in the United States arguably originated in
Wang H (2004) Ecosystem management and its application to
1871, when Congress established the U.S. Commission
large marine ecosystems: science, law and politics. Ocean
Dev Int Law 35:41–74 of Fish and Fisheries, designed to reverse the decline
in New England fisheries. Spencer Baird, the first
Commissioner, initiated ecological studies including
Evolving ecosystem approaches to the dynamics of physical and chemical oceanography,
because an understanding of fish ‘... would not be com-
management of fisheries in the USA
plete without a thorough knowledge of their associates
David Fluharty in the sea, especially of such as prey upon them or con-
stitute their food ...’ (cited after Hobart 1995, p. VII).
School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington,
Today we continue to contemplate and debate imple-
3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE, Seattle, Washington 98105, USA
mentation of EAM in federal fisheries. How far have
Email: fluharty@u.washington.edu
we come in 140 yr? I suspect that we may be further
Introduction. Definitions of ecosystem approaches to than commonly thought. To convince you of this, I will
management (EAM; acronyms are listed in Table 1) focus on what is being done correctly in fishery man-
are replete in the fisheries management literature agement, and not on what has been done wrong.
(Brodziak & Link 2002, Garcia et al. 2003, FAO 2003). I Remodeling a house or a fishery management system
define the ecosystem approach to management simply is a process of planning and adapting; it takes time, it
and pragmatically as ‘using what is known about is expensive, and the results are not apparent until the
the ecosystem to manage fisheries.’ This approach project is completed. Thus, I focus on the foundation
acknowledges that fisheries decisions take place in an being laid for EAM, rather than on the shabby exterior.
ecosystem context and ecosystem knowledge can Shifting the baseline from the present to the future.
assist in managing fisheries production and identifying The USA has changed direction with respect to fish-
fishing effects on ecosystems. It draws attention to the eries management in favor of an ecosystem approach
fact that we are not yet applying the ecological knowl- to management. The main drivers include: (1) im-
edge that we presently have. Thus, I argue that effort provement in scientific understanding of the dynamics
to craft a consensus on the ecosystem approach to of fished ecosystems; (2) reaction to the failure in
management is not required before actions are taken achieving sustainable fisheries; (3) increase in public
(Babcock & Pikitch 2004). Such a consensus can evolve involvement and legal action; (4) demonstrable man-
249
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
agement success in applying conservative fishery through appeals for political support from members of
management tools; (5) added consideration of the pro- Congress (Hennessey & Healy 2000).
tection of seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and The SFA set MSY as a limit and required that re-
species that are rare or endangered; (6) strengthened building plans be developed for overfished fisheries to
requirements for management. Other factors are act- restore them within a period of 10 yr. There are
ing on the ecological and socio-economic context for difficulties in making this policy fit all species, related
fisheries management as well. Anoxic ‘dead zones,’ to the utility of the MSY standard itself, and its applica-
hazardous algal blooms, and climate variability and tion to very short- and long-lived species. However,
change are affecting the environment and fisheries. the SFA has given NMFS a foothold for critical review
Increasing energy prices, changing technologies, and of management decisions on catches, and it has given
surging imports of cultured fish and shellfish are mak- considerable legal leverage to environmental advo-
ing the human dimensions of fisheries more vulnerable cacy groups to challenge catch levels and the ade-
to environmental change. This uncertainty generates a quacy of rebuilding plans. This combination of internal
demand for improving the ability to predict ecosystem and external forcing has brought virtually all of the
changes. Together, these conditions are causing major overfished stocks in federal fisheries under rebuilding
rethinking of the incentive structure in fishing as plans (NMFS 2003), although recovery may be slow in
human wants and needs are harmonized with sustain- long-lived species. Still, concerns exist in the environ-
ing marine ecosystems. EAM is a framework for pro- mental community, because the SFA applies only to
viding the right kind of incentives for sustainable fish- species fished under a current fishery management
eries management (sensu Callicott & Mumford 1997, plan where stock assessments are made, as opposed to
Hanna 1998, Hilborn et al. 2005). all other species (commercial or non-commercial). An
To address the prerequisites for EAM, i.e. sustain- EAM is included in the more sophisticated single-spe-
ably managed fisheries, the U.S. Congress amended cies stock assessments through consideration of envi-
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and ronmental variability, risk, and other stochastic factors.
Management Act (MSA) [PL 94-265] in 1996. The Sus- Bycatch minimization. Bycatch is an issue with which
tainable Fisheries Act (SFA) marked the legislative tip- federal fishery managers have been wrestling for some
ping point for changing federal fisheries management time. SFA’s new national standard focused more atten-
standards in significant ways: (1) maximum sustain- tion on the issue (NMFS 1998). The effect of the re-
able yield (MSY) was set as a limit; (2) rebuilding plans quirements to minimize bycatch and to lower mortality
were required for fish stocks defined as overfished; of bycatch has been difficult to monitor. NMFS has
(3) bycatch was to be ‘minimized’; (4) essential fish developed a bycatch website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
habitat (EFH) was to be protected. In addition, the bycatch.htm) and a national approach to standardized
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was bycatch monitoring (NMFS 2004a). Bycatch can pre-
charged with forming an Ecosystem Principles Advi- sent different characteristics in each fishery, area and
sory Panel to assess the extent to which ecosystem season. Relatively few fisheries where bycatch is reli-
principles were being applied in fishery management ably known exist in federal waters, except in Alaska
and to advise on measures to increase their use. where industry-funded observers monitor significant
These legislative mandates set in motion serious portions (> 80%) of the total catch (Tagert 2004). Tech-
management reform efforts at the federal level. Full nical modifications of fishing gear are resulting in lower
implementation of these measures is an important bycatch in some fisheries, and changes are being made
building block toward EAM. Let us examine what has in other fishing practices. Determining what is practica-
happened as a result of the SFA, i.e. with regard to ble in terms of bycatch minimization is far from precise
ending overfishing, counting bycatch, designating (Steele 2004). More importantly from EAM perspec-
EFH and developing EAM. tives, the SFA dealt primarily with bycatch of fishes in
Overfishing and rebuilding plans. Prior to 1996 it commercial fisheries. The NMFS approach to imple-
was possible for regional management councils to mentation went beyond bycatch of fishes to include
allow overfishing, i.e. to set a total allowable catch that bycatch in recreational fisheries, as well as bycatch of
was greater than the MSY. It was possible to substitute highly migratory fish species, as well as non-fish spe-
economic or other considerations for biological con- cies such as seabirds, marine mammals and sea turtles,
siderations in setting allowable catches. No standard where some of the pressing bycatch issues occur.
was set for what catch level constituted ‘overfishing.’ Essential fish habitat (EFH). Under the SFA, NMFS
Therefore, it was seldom feasible for the NMFS to was charged with developing regulatory guidelines for
override council decisions that allowed overfishing. habitat protection within 6 months of passage of the Act.
When NMFS did challenge the scientific bases of these Formal amendment of each fishery management plan
decisions, fishing interests circumvented the agency was required. EFH was defined as habitat used by man-
250 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
aged species of fishes through all life history stages (i.e. management measures tend to target single species
those waters and substrates necessary to the fishes for or species groups, they encompass a wider range of
the purpose of spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to ecosystem components and functions than those
maturity), rather than habitat per se which sustained explicitly targeted, and therefore they constitute an
fishes and other ecosystem components. Therefore, EAM in the sense of applying what we know about the
managers were expected to identify habitat used by ecosystem in managing fisheries.
each of the approximately 1000 managed species and to Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). NMFS
determine how each habitat contributed to fishery pro- made its first formal efforts to articulate EAM in the
duction. In addition, the effect of fishing on habitats was late 1980s by forming a group of scientists charged
to be assessed and measures were to be taken towards with developing a strategic plan. The plan was devel-
mitigating adverse impacts (Kurland 2004). Habitat oped, but not implemented as the result of the change
areas of particular concern could be designated as from a government that was environmentally friendly
well (NMFS 2001). The effort to designate EFH has to one that was less supportive (Boehlert pers. comm.).
vastly increased spatial and temporal understanding of Still, the concept was being explored on many fronts;
fishes and their environments, and this has the potential Island Institute organized a high level conference at
to contribute greatly to EAM (Fluharty 2000). Harvard University in 1992 under the title ‘The System
Not surprisingly, the task of implementing EFH and the Sea’ (Platt 1993), and major journals devoted
proved to be a gravely underfunded mandate to accom- special issues to ecosystems and fisheries (Mooney
plish in an unrealistically compressed timeframe. 1998). The National Research Council was charged
Despite immediate response by NMFS to develop regu- with reviewing fishery management and it advised
latory guidelines, it took until 2002 to finalize them. that an ecosystem approach was needed (NRC 1999).
In the meantime, NMFS scientists and consultants Through the SFA, the U.S. Congress in 1996 man-
worked overtime to compile and assess available data, dated a review of the application of ecosystem princi-
develop regulatory amendments and push these ples in federal fisheries management and requested a
through the regional council process. Eventually, the report on how to increase their application. Congress
hastily developed plan amendments were judged to be charged NMFS to appoint a 20-member panel to carry
inadequate (Coleman & Travis 2000). This led to litiga- out this task. The panel comprised a diverse group
tion and a negotiated settlement which specified new of academics, fishery managers, fishery scientists,
timeframes and requirements (Kurland 2004). New ecologists, economists, non-governmental environ-
EFH protection designations in the 8 council regions mental organizations and industry representatives
now provide building blocks for an EAM, although they from around the USA (full disclosure compels me to
are only part of the foundations of EAM. Examples of inform readers that I had the privilege of serving as
these building blocks are large areas closed to bottom chair of this panel). Over a year-long process of meet-
gear such as trawls, e.g. 95% of the federal waters sur- ings, hearing from fisheries experts, managers, fishing
rounding the Aleutian Islands in Alaska (approximately and environmental interests, the panel derived a tem-
279 000 square n miles). All major seamounts off Alaska plate of ecosystem principles, management goals and
are closed to trawling as well (see www.fakr.noaa.gov/ policies that were needed in EAM (EPAP 1999).
habitat/efh.htm). Thus, EAM is furthered by actions to When the panel assessed the application of this EAM
protect EFH and aided by the synthesis of available template on federal fisheries, it concluded that examples
data on habitats and fishing impacts. The process of of EAM could be found in each of the regional fishery
developing these plans has identified significant data management areas, but that the principles, goals and
gaps. This allows prioritization of research on habitats policies were not applied systematically. We found that
and their relationships to fisheries, and on effects of the most consistent application emerged from ground-
fishing on habitats (Kurland 2004). fish management in the Alaska region, which (1) places
Besides the development of EFH protection mea- caps on total removals, (2) sets conservative harvest quo-
sures, federal fishery management is advancing the tas, (3) develops a yearly report on ecosystem consider-
use of marine protected areas (MPAs) on an increas- ations to be used in the context of management deci-
ingly broad scale as a tool in fishery management sions, (4) employs an Ecosystem Committee to organize
(NRC 2001). Recent designations of fishery manage- discussion and public forums to exploring EAM, (5) man-
ment MPAs include the Sitka Pinnacles Marine ages bycatch and counts it against harvest quotas,
Reserve and crab protection areas in Alaska (Witherell (6) uses marine protected areas, i.e. spatially explicit clo-
unpubl.), extensive trawl closures along the Pacific sures of gear types for fishery management, and (7) has
West Coast to protect rockfish stocks (Hastie 2005), an extensive observer program (Witherell et al. 2000).
and multiple closed areas in New England for ground- Based on this review our primary recommendation
fish recovery (Murawski et al. 2000). While these was that regional management councils develop Fish-
251
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
ery Ecosystem Plans (FEP) to consolidate information global interest in fishery management reform (FAO
about the ecosystem and ecosystem trends in a format 2003, Sinclair & Valdimarsson 2003, Gable 2004, Wal-
that would generally inform fishery management, and ters & Martell 2004, Hennessey & Sutinen 2005). The
would specifically be applied to actions under separate International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
fishery management plans (EPAP 1999). The first iter- convened a major international meeting on ecosystem
ation in the development of the FEP as a tool in U.S. effects of fishing (Hollingsworth 2000) and its Pacific
fishery management would be experimental and not counterpart, the North Pacific Marine Science Organi-
action-forcing. The FEP would be broader in scope and zation developed an assessment of marine ecosystem
longer term than the requisite National Environmental approaches (PICES 2004), and convened 2 study groups
Policy Act (NEPA) assessment for environmental im- to develop EAM (King 2005, Jamieson & Zhang 2005).
pact analysis. The FEP would (1) delineate the geo- The first FEP initiative came through the National
graphic extent of ecosystems; (2) develop a conceptual Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)
model of the food web; (3) describe the habitat needs of Chesapeake Bay office, which began developing an
different components of the ‘significant food web’; FEP for Chesapeake Bay in 2000 (NOAA 2004) to pro-
(4) calculate total removals and relate them to standing vide a synthesis of ecosystem information as decision
biomass, production, optimum yield, natural mortality support to the various fisheries and environmental
and trophic structure to ensure that they are not ex- managers in the region. The original FEP concept was
cessive; (5) assess uncertainty and how buffers are designed for the 8 regional fishery management coun-
included in conservation and management actions; cils. The Chesapeake Bay FEP serves as a decision
(6) develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for support tool for a very complex system of state level
management; (7) describe long term monitoring and management, and FEP development provided valu-
how it is used; (8) identify the elements external to the able feedback on proof of concept.
fishery management process that affect fisheries and At approximately the same time, NMFS convened a
their ecosystems and to engage with other manage- panel under the auspices of the Marine Fisheries Advi-
ment institutions to reduce adverse impacts. sory Committee to further develop technical guidance
The panel saw full implementation of the SFA mea- for implementing an EAM in fisheries; this led to the
sures as initial steps toward EAM. We felt that devel- preparation of a report to supplement the EPAP (1999)
opment of EAM was more likely to be effective if it report (Busch et al. 2003). Based on this advice, mem-
were bottom up, incremental and adaptive, rather than bers of Congress have since 2000 introduced bills
if it were top down, abrupt and rigid. We wanted a rec- which include provisions similar to the EPAP (1999)
ommendation that could be implemented by NMFS recommendations (see http://thomas.loc.gov). In addi-
under existing rules, although we were sensitive to the tion, 2 recent national-level ocean commission reports
potential lack of incentive to change and funding for have endorsed EAM for U.S. fisheries (USCOPS 2004,
development without a legislative mandate. Funda- POC 2003) and the Ocean Action Plan of the U.S.
mentally, it was most important to demonstrate the government states that it continues to work toward
utility of EAM in fishery management and to gain EAM in decision-making (Office of the President
experience using it. 2004).
The panel’s expectation was that NMFS would Following the endorsement of EAM by the 2 ocean
encourage regional councils to prepare ‘pilot’ or commissions, efforts began NOAA-wide to develop an
‘demonstration’ FEPs to gain experience that could be EAM that would apply across its broad spectrum of
used in developing future legislative proposals. The marine regulatory, science and resource management
recommendation was generally well-received by activities. In late summer 2004, NOAA convened a
Congress, fishery management councils and NMFS; it workshop on delineation of regional ecosystems
was greeted warily by fishing interests, because they (DeMaster & Sandifer 2004). The most recent state-
doubted its utility, and it was seen as being too timid by ment from NOAA about EAM developments extends
environmental interests, because they preferred a the discussion relative to EAM in fisheries (NMFS
weaker focus on fisheries. Within NMFS, 2 major fac- 2004b), but intensive work continues inside that
tors worked against immediate implementation of the agency. Apparently, this has caused some concerns
panel recommendations: (1) NMFS could not absorb from the Chairs of the regional fishery management
this major initiative while it was over-worked with councils, who want to be involved more in the de-
implementation of the SFA; (2) NMFS was defending velopment of EAM for NMFS and in congressional
itself in serious legal challenges to mandated tasks and activities on EAM (CCED 2005, Waugh 2005; see
to its record of NEPA compliance. http://managingfisheries.org).
Developing EAM after the panel report. The EAM Regional fishery management councils are making
efforts in U.S. fisheries are part of the developing very diverse and interesting efforts to advance EAM.
252 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
In 2004, NMFS made funding available to the New on delineation of regional ecosystems. NOAA, Charleston,
SC
England, Mid Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of
EPAP (1999) Ecosystem-based fishery management: a report
Mexico councils, for developing pilot projects on
to Congress by the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel.
ecosystem-based management (Managing Fisheries NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD (available at: www.
2005). The South Atlantic Fisheries Management st.nmfs.gov/st7/documents/epap_report.pdf)
Evans D, Wilson B (2005) Role of the North Pacific Fishery
Council is adopting its current Habitat Management
Management Council in the development of an ecosystem
Plan towards a prototype FEP (see http://map.mapwise.
approach to management for the Alaska large marine
com/safmc). The Western Pacific council has devel- ecosystems — draft. North Pacific Fishery Management
oped a Coral Reef Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (WPFMC Council, Anchorage, AK (available at: www.fakr.noaa.
2001) and is considering the development of archipel- gov/npfmc)
FAO (2003) Fisheries management 2: the ecosystem approach
agic FEP as a means of downscaling its Pacific-wide
to fisheries. FAO, Rome
FMPs for greater relevance to the people and fisheries
Fluharty D (2000) Habitat protection, ecological issues, and
in archipelagos. The NPFMC is considering the devel- implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Ecol
opment of an EAM for Alaskan ecosystems (Evans & Appl 10:245–255
Gable FJ (2004) A large marine ecosystem approach to
Wilson 2005) and of an area-specific management
fisheries management and sustainability: linkages and
approach to the Aleutian Islands that is similar to the
concepts towards best practices. NOAA Tech Memo
FEP (NPFMC 2005). NMFS-NE-184
Synopsis. Over the last decade the discussion of Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do CT, Lasserre G (2003).
EAM in fisheries management has been moved from The ecosystem approach to fisheries: issues terminology,
principles, institutional foundations, implementation and
the lunchrooms of scientists to the main stage of U.S.
outlook. FAO Fish Tech Pap 443. FAO, Rome
fisheries management. It is being propelled by an
Hanna SJ (1998) Institutions for marine ecosystems: economic
increasing awareness that insights from EAM can incentives and fishery management. In: Mooney HA (ed)
improve management of fisheries and assist in identi- Ecosystem management and sustainable marine fisheries.
Ecol Appl (Suppl)8:S170–S174
fying and mitigating adverse effects of fishing. While
Hastie J (2005) Managing bycatch in the West Coast ground-
EAM is not limited to fisheries management, the fish-
fish fishery. In: Wooster WS, Quinn J (eds) Summary
eries context provides a basis for advancing from con- Proc Symp on Improving fishery management: melding
cept to action. Fisheries management is accustomed to science and governance. School of Marine Affairs, Univer-
decision-making at ecosystem scales and is now realiz- sity of Washington, Seattle, WA (available at: www.sma.
washington.edu/fishsymp/)
ing that more discrete spatial and temporal manage-
Hennessey T, Sutinen J (eds) (2005) Sustaining large marine
ment is necessary. Presently, there is tension between
ecosystems: the human dimension. Large marine eco-
those experts who advance a central management systems, Vol 13. Elsevier, Amsterdam
approach that focuses on top down and standardized Hennessey T, Healy M (2000) Ludwig’s ratchet and the
collapse of New England groundfish stocks. Coast Manag
implementation of EAM, and those who endorse
22:119–145
regional approaches that are experimental and adap-
Hilborn R, Orensanz JM, Parma AM (2005) Institutions,
tive to diverse circumstances. incentives and the future of fisheries. Phil Trans R Soc
Lond Ser B 360:47–57
Hobart WL (1995) Baird’s legacy: the history and accomplish-
LITERATURE CITED
ments of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service.
Babcock EA, Pikitch EK (2004) Can we reach agreement on a NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-F/SSPO-18
standardized approach to ecosystem-based fishery man- Hollingsworth CE (ed) (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing.
agement? Bull Mar Sci 74:685–692 ICES J Mar Sci 57:465–791
Brodziak J, Link J (2002) Ecosystem-based fishery manage- Jamieson G, Zhang CI (eds) (2005) Report of the study
ment: what is it and how can we do it? Bull Mar Sci 70: group on ecosystem-based management science and its
589–611 application to the North Pacific. Sci Rep 29, PICES,
Busch WDN, Brown BL, Mayer GF (eds) (2003) Strategic Vancouver
guidance for implementing an ecosystem-based approach King JR (ed) (2005) Report of the study group on fisheries and
to fisheries management. DOC/NOAA/NMFS Tech Rep, ecosystem responses to recent regime shifts. Sci Rep 28,
Silver Spring, MD PICES, Vancouver
Callicott JB, Mumford K (1997) Ecological sustainability as a Kurland J (2004) Protecting fish habitat. In: Witherell D (ed)
conservation concept. Conserv Biol 11:32–40 Managing our nation’s fisheries: past, present and future.
Coleman F, Travis J (eds) (2000) Essential fish habitat and Proc Conf Fisheries Management in the United States.
marine reserves. Proc 2nd Mote Int Symp Fish Ecol. Bull North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Anchorage,
Mar Sci 66:525–1009 AK, p 170–175
CCED (2005) Positions of the regional fishery management Managing Fisheries (2005) Developing ecosystem approaches
council chairs on reauthorization of the Magnuson- to fisheries. (available at: http://managingfisheries.org)
Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act [sic] Mooney HA (ed) (1998) Ecosystem management and sus-
April 28. Regional Fishery Management Council Chairs tainable marine fisheries. Ecol Appl (Suppl)8:S1–S174
and Executive Directors, Silver Spring, MD Murawski SA, Brown T, Lai HL, Rago PJ, Hendrickson L
DeMaster D, Sandifer P (2004) Executive summary: workshop (2000) Large-scale closed areas as a fisheries management
253
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
Implementing the ecosystem approach:
tool in temperate marine systems: the Georges Bank
experience. Bull Mar Sci 66(3):775–798
making ecosystems matter
NMFS (1998) Managing the nation’s bycatch: priorities,
programs and actions for the National Marine Fisheries Michael F. Hirshfield
Service. NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD
NMFS (2001) Regional council approaches to the identifica- Oceana, 2501 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20034, USA
tion and protection of habitat areas of particular concern. Email: mhirshfield@oceana.org
DOC/NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD
NMFS (2003) Implementing the Sustainable Fisheries Act:
Introduction. It should be no surprise that conser-
achievements from 1996 to the present. NOAA/NMFS,
vation organizations are strong proponents of
Silver Spring, MD
ecosystem-based management of the oceans. At
NMFS (2004a) Evaluating bycatch: a national approach to
standardized bycatch monitoring programs. NOAA Tech their core, most conservation organizations are com-
Memo NMFS-F/SPO-66
mitted to protecting ocean ecosystems; their mission
NMFS (2004b) NOAA Fisheries’ requirements for an ecosys-
statements often include specific references to
tem approach to management of living marine resources.
‘healthy’ ecosystems. Conservation groups want to
DOC/NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD
NOAA (2004) Chesapeake Bay fisheries ecosystem plan. see oceans that include apex level predators, long-
NOAA/NMFS, Annapolis, MD lived rockfish, complex living benthic habitat, age-
NPFMC (2005) Draft area-specific management for the
structured fish populations, and the maintenance of
Aleutian Islands. Discussion paper, North Pacific Fishery
diverse marine communities. They want to see
Management Council Anchorage, AK (available at: www.
exploitation at levels, and using methods, that will
fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc)
NRC (2001) Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining ocean not compromise these and other ecosystem func-
ecosystems. National Research Council, National Acad-
tions — anywhere in the ocean. For conservation
emy Press, Washington, DC
organizations, the promise of ecosystem approaches
Office of the President (2004) U.S. ocean action plan: the Bush
is that their use will require those who manage
administration’s response to the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy. Washington DC ocean users (in particular those who manage fishers)
POC (Pew Oceans Commission) (2003) America’s oceans: to give greater value to the condition of non-fish
charting a course for change. Pew Trusts, Pew Oceans
components of the ecosystem, in contrast to a single-
Commission (available at: www.pewtrusts.org)
minded focus on ‘production’ (or other extractive
PICES (2004) Marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Spec
uses). These components include not only so-called
Publ 1, PICES, Vancouver
Platt DD (ed) (1993) The system in the sea: applying eco- ‘charismatic’ creatures such as sea turtles, whales
systems principles to marine fisheries, vol 2. Proc Island
and dolphins, but also other members of marine
Institute Conference at Harvard University. Island Insti-
communities, including in particular invertebrates
tute, Rockland, ME
and fishes other than those targeted by fishers. As a
Sinclair M, Valdimarsson G (eds) (2003) Responsible fisheries
in the marine ecosystem. FAO, Rome & CABI Publishing, result of this shift in perspective, conservationists
Wallingford hope that the health of our ocean ecosystems —
Steele L (2004) Technology, data and information in by-
widely considered to be severely compromised (POC
catch management. In: Witherell D (ed) Managing our
2003, USA Commission on Ocean Policy 2004) — will
nation’s fisheries: past, present and future. Proc Conf
begin to improve.
Fisheries Management in the United States. North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Anchorage, AK, For an idea whose time has clearly come (and that
p 202–207
arguably arrived over a decade ago), ecosystem
Tagert J (2004) Policy perspectives on bycatch. In: Witherell D
based management remains remarkably controver-
(ed) Managing our nation’s fisheries: past, present and
sial and seemingly ill defined. It is common to hear
future. Proc Conf Fisheries Management in the United
States. North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, speakers at conferences say ‘of course we all agree
Anchorage, AK, p 196–201 that we need ecosystem based management, but
USCOP (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century: final
we’re still not sure what it means.’ The debate
report. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington,
includes disputes over what problems it is intended
DC (available at: www.oceancommission.gov)
to solve, what measures are appropriately considered
Walters DJ, Martell SJD (2004) Fisheries ecology and man-
agement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ ecosystem based, and, indeed, whether it is needed
Waugh GT (2005) Ecosystem-based management — to amend
at all. For conservationists, ecosystem based manage-
or not amend (the Magnuson-Stevens Act) that is the
ment encompasses all of the threats to ocean ecosys-
question? http://managingfisheries.org
tems, including pollution and non-fisheries based
WPFMC (2001) Fishery management plan for coral reef
ecosystems of the Western Pacific Region: final environ- habitat destruction. A previous MEPS Theme Section
mental impact statement. Western Pacific Fishery Man- on the ecosystem approach (Browman & Stergiou
agement Council, Honolulu, HI
2004) focused on one component of ecosystem based
Witherell D, Pautzke C, Fluharty D (2000) An ecosystem-
management— ecosystem approaches to fisheries
based approach for Alaska groundfish fisheries. ICES J
management (EAF).
Mar Sci 57:771–777
254 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Conservationists think that healthy ecosystems can entists; e.g. Mace 2004, Sissenwine & Murawski 2004)
only coexist with fisheries where managers have is dangerous for slow-growing, late-maturing, long-
solved the triple problems of overfishing, bycatch, and lived species (such as many rockfish and sharks);
habitat destruction. We conservationists think that the higher levels of abundance (and hence lower fishing
EAF is essential to solving those problems. We also rates) are essential to maintain healthy populations.
think that the EAF is the only way to integrate our (2) There is increasing evidence that it is dangerous to
understanding— and management — of the cumulative presume that all mature female fish are of equal impor-
impacts of our actions on the ocean. EAF also provides tance for the population; protecting the older, larger
the opportunity — indeed the necessity — to put pre- females (Berkeley et al. 2004) may be essential for pop-
cautionary management into practice. ulation viability, especially for long-lived, late-matur-
Overfishing from an ecosystem perspective. As dis- ing species. (3) Conservationists have significant con-
cussed in several of the previous MEPS Theme Section cerns about the ecosystem consequences of heavy
contributions (Hilborn 2004, Mace 2004, Sissenwine & fishing on fast-growing, highly productive species,
Murawski 2004), single species fishery management where the populations can seemingly sustain very high
has been largely driven by the concept of maximum levels of fishing mortality; many of these species are
sustainable yield (MSY). While many fisheries scien- relatively low on the food chain, and by fishing heavily
tists have argued that MSY should be a limit, and not a on them, humans act as a superior competitor, poten-
target, there is no question that MSY has indeed been tially devastating the food supply for other species. For
the target for many of the world’s fisheries. There is example, fishing levels may be too high on menhaden
also no question that MSY is a frequently overshot tar- in the eastern USA; menhaden are prey for striped
get, and this has resulted in what fisheries scientists bass, a highly prized species for recreational anglers.
usually refer to as ‘overfishing.’ In fact, the dictionary The management of the krill fishery by the Commis-
definition of ‘to overfish’ has nothing to do with MSY; sion for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
it is much more closely aligned with ecosystem con- Resources (CCAMLR) was meant to address this last
siderations — ‘to fish (a body of water) to such a degree problem, and is an excellent example of the EAF in
as to upset the ecological balance or cause depletion of application. Butterworth (2000) describes the approach
living creatures.’ (American Heritage Dictionary of the (precautionary by design) as follows: ‘If only krill were
English Language 2000). Conservationists hope that to be taken into account, an appropriate target level for
this definition of overfishing will become the standard this ratio [target biomass as % of unfished biomass,
for fisheries managers. M.F.H.] in terms of conventional fisheries management
For conservationists, the premise of fisheries man- might be 50%. On the other hand, the best situation for
agement, that there is a ‘surplus’ of fish waiting to be the predators would be no fishing at all, i.e. a ratio of
caught by humans, is flawed. We must always be 100%. The preliminary target adopted is halfway
aware that any pollock we eat is not available, e.g. for between these 2 ‘extremes’, i.e. 75%.’
a Steller sea lion. Successful fisheries management One of the biggest challenges facing those who are
means not just sustainable catches of fish for humans. concerned about conventional use of MSY for either
Intact ecosystems must be maintained — not necessar- mortality rate or biomass targets (or limits) is to identify
ily pristine, but retaining their components and inter- a generally acceptable alternative criterion. If biomass
relationships, as well as adequate resistance and levels of 40% of the unfished biomass are too low,
resilience to disturbance. The implication that over- either for the species or for the ecosystem it is embed-
fishing is the only (or the main) problem in the world’s ded in, what is the correct level? How should optimal
oceans has the unfortunate consequence of relegating yield (OY) be set, without being viewed as completely
other ecosystem impacts such as habitat destruction arbitrary? Managers in the USA have proposed that
to secondary importance and demonstrates precisely the fishing rate to achieve optimal yield should be 75%
the lack of ecosystem perspective that so concerns of the fishing rate to achieve MSY (Fmsy) for precau-
conservationists. tionary purposes (Restrepo et al. 1998); on the other
Conservationists hope that the EAF will inject much hand, Roughgarden & Smith (1996) proposed main-
needed ecological and biological information into taining 75% of unfished biomass, based only on single
management systems, which currently either lack or species models. As noted above, the precautionary
discount it. As a consequence, the EAF should help level set for the krill fishery was also 75%. From the
address several specific problems with MSY-based sin- perspective of conservationists, fishing to population
gle species management approaches as currently prac- levels of 75% of the unfished biomass seems to be a
ticed. (1) It is becoming clear that the typical target of prudent limit, at least until the behavior of the fishery
reductions in biomass of 50 to 70% below unfished lev- (and consequences for target and other species) can be
els (tacitly or explicitly endorsed by many fisheries sci- monitored.
255
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
Conservationists are greatly concerned that the biodiversity, or particular species are frequently forced
search for OY in an ecosystem context will result in to use relatively blunt instruments (e.g. in the USA:
the development of ever more complex, ever more Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protec-
data-hungry models that will purport to give the tion Act). However, for species being driven towards
‘right’ level of fishing for each species. Alternative extinction as a result of bycatch, such as the small-
approaches that begin with a traditional single spe- toothed sawfish or white marlin, effective management
cies analysis and proceed to adjust fishing rates based action may only be taken when protected status is
on criteria related to the state of the fish population reached; the effort may be fruitless by then, as the pop-
and its community, as was done e.g. for the krill fish- ulation (and ecosystem) may not be able to recover.
ery, appear to provide pragmatic and transparent Under a properly implemented EAF, the management
approaches, (see Mangel & Levin 2005; also Froese threshold would be reached earlier, potentially avert-
2004 for suggestions concerning fisheries for which ing a crisis.
data are scarce). We do not need to wait for formal ecosystem plans
I completely agree with one point frequently made to improve bycatch management. An increase in ob-
by fisheries scientists — if conservationists assume that server coverage (with observers who count every-
simply shifting from single species benchmarks to thing, not just target and protected species); hard
ecosystem benchmarks will solve problems of overfish- caps or quotas for key bycatch species, as well as for
ing, we are likely to be disappointed. As Mace (2004) targets; and incentives for shifting from dirty gear
pointed out, many, if not most, current overfishing with high bycatch to cleaner gear — all of these
problems do not result from insufficiently conservative should be implemented now in order to reduce
stock assessments. Rather, they are the result of politi- bycatch. The North Pacific Fishery Management
cal decisions that ignore scientific advice. As discussed Council has systems in place, for example, where
in Mace (2004), managers are often unwilling to fisheries are shut down when a bycatch quota is
reduce catches to levels below Fmsy, because it would reached. This provides a strong incentive for fishers
result in short-term reductions in fishers’ catches and to avoid bycatch in the first place. However, the only
lead to political problems. How likely, then, are man- bycatch species that merit such management are
agers to heed a call to reduce catch levels even further, those that are valuable to other sectors of the fishing
for the sake of some seemingly intangible long-term industry. In the EAF, this approach would apply to all
benefit, or for the sake of some other ecosystem com- species. Alternatives are needed to the potentially
ponents? It is clear, however, that fisheries manage- hundreds of stock assessments required under such
ment needs to move to a perspective that explicitly rec- an approach. More feasible methods could use indi-
ognizes that a species may be overfished from an cator species for different ecosystem components
ecosystem perspective, even if it is not overfished by that could be tracked using either fisheries or survey
conventional standards (Pikitch et al. 2004). Ulti- data. Changes in the abundance of these species
mately, because any removal of fish affects the marine could then be used to trigger appropriate manage-
ecosystem to some degree, it will be up to the public, ment action.
including fishers and conservation groups, to deter- ‘Habitat’ protection. Habitat protection may be the
mine the level of ‘acceptable’ fishing. Although this biggest beneficiary of the EAF. Under most current
level must be informed by science, it is not a purely sci- approaches, habitat protection is considered for the
entific decision, and may well vary from place to place purpose of conserving commercially or recreationally
or country to country (e.g. in the developed versus the valued species. Indeed, the very word ‘habitat’ is only
developing world). defined in reference to another organism: ‘The area or
Bycatch. The EAF promises to focus much-needed environment where an organism or ecological com-
munity normally lives or occurs: a marine habitat.’
attention on bycatch — and even more importantly, it
also promises a change in perspective. Currently, fish- (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lan-
ers and managers tend to view bycatch either as a guage 2000).
waste issue (how can we fish without catching those Conservationists want organisms that have been
undersized individuals we have to discard?) or a legal considered only as ‘habitat’ components to be valued
issue (how can we fish without getting in trouble for in their own right and preserved for their own sake.
catching protected species?). As a consequence, by- Along with most marine biologists, conservationists
catch management generally ignores the entire range think that all components of an ecosystem have
of species that are not commercially or recreationally intrinsic value, even if there is no obvious or direct
targeted by any fishery and that are not yet legally pro- link to species with cash value. Conservation groups
tected or endangered. Under the current approach, are unanimous in their concern about vulnerable,
conservationists concerned about ecosystem health, fragile, and long-lived species such as deep sea
256 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
corals and sponges, which are easily destroyed by incorporated in both international and national laws.
gear such as bottom trawls. EAF promises to imple- Conservationists are concerned, however, that fish-
ment more effective management of such ‘habitats’— eries advocates will seize on calls for EAF in order to
for example, by preventing expansion of destructive maintain the status quo, delaying action until complex
trawling into unfished areas, by closing areas identi- ecosystem models can be fed with new data. Unfortu-
fied as containing any vulnerable ecological com- nately, we lack a detailed understanding of commu-
munities, and by incorporating invertebrates into nity dynamics and ecosystem function for many ocean
observer programs and bycatch management. EAF ecosystems, and given the extremely high cost and
means a shift from an approach that allows habitat to inherent difficulties of ocean research, lack of infor-
be destroyed unless it is demonstrated to be valuable mation is likely to be a problem for the foreseeable
for commercial species, to an approach that protects future. Such ignorance must not be allowed to pre-
species from fishing impacts unless it can be demon- clude management actions. It makes no sense, in my
strated that the fishing impacts are not harmful. Such view, for scientists to reach a consensus that fishing
a shift in perspective is essential, given the extraordi- effort needs to be reduced substantially, but for man-
nary difficulty of understanding community dynamics agers to fail to reduce it at all, because there is no
consensus on the precise amount of reduction. Cau-
in marine ecosystems, and the destructive capacity of
modern fishing gear. tion can be implemented in a number of ways (see
Cumulative impacts and precaution. Conservation- Mangel & Levin 2005 for a conceptual framework).
ists hope that the EAF will help solve 2 of the more Conservationists’ overarching hope is that manage-
intractable problems of current management: ment will be increasingly based upon indicators of
(1) The EAF promises to require a more thorough ecosystem health, and not simply on assessment of
assessment of the cumulative effects of human activi- individual species. The 2004 Symposium on Quantita-
ties on ecosystem components and processes. Under tive Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management
an ecosystem approach, issues such as the cumulative (see www.ecosystemindicators.org/) is evidence that
level of bycatch in a fishery would become more such an approach may be gaining favor among scien-
explicit, since one key question for ecosystem based tists and managers.
management is the level of production of the entire Conclusions. Conservationists have embraced the
ecosystem that can sustainably be extracted. Simple EAF because we hope it will deal with many issues
ecosystem models, combined with information on that have been inadequately addressed to date by
landings and bycatch, can provide useful informa- conventional management. One of our concerns is
tion concerning the level of primary or secondary pro- that implementing the EAF will provide an excuse to
duction extracted, providing insight into limits on continue the status quo indefinitely while processes
captures. Similarly, if every fish is counted (in an and procedures are being debated. At least in the
approximate sense), the sum of all impacts can finally USA, the legal framework already exists for fisheries
be addressed. Conservationists think that one of the managers to implement many, if not all, of the ele-
best ways to assess cumulative impacts is through ments of an EAF, should they choose to do so. The
environmental impact assessments, as recommended fact that intensive debate about the EAF continues, as
by Jennings (2004). In the USA, environmental impact well as resistance to implementing it, is an indication
not of the scientific difficulties with the concept, but
statements (EISs) are increasingly being used to sup-
rather of political difficulties. Scientific uncertainty
plement traditional fisheries management approaches,
and they provide an opportunity to raise and address will always allow managers a margin of judgment in
many of the questions and concerns described above. decision-making; conservationists hope that, in the
Some of the most important actions taken to protect face of uncertainty, the EAF will result in the benefit
ecosystems, such as the recent decision to close over of the doubt going to ocean protection; fishers hope
60 000 km2 of fishable habitat to bottom trawling in the the benefit of the doubt will go to them. Conservation-
Aleutian Islands region, are the result of environmen- ists think that protecting ocean ecosystems — using
tal impact assessments that thoroughly considered the EAF — will result in fishers who fish less, and who
alternatives to the status quo. Unfortunately, despite fish less destructively when they do. It is not surpris-
the fact that conservationists consider EISs as an ing that fishers and their political allies oppose the
essential part of fisheries management (or perhaps EAF. Nevertheless, if the EAF is not implemented,
because of that fact!), many managers view them, at either explicitly or by incorporating it into existing
best, as a waste of time. management schemes, there is little reason to expect
(2) Conservationists also hope that the EAF will the health of our oceans to improve. That is the
finally provide a tool for the implementation of pre- challenge for all of us — to fish as if the ecosystem
caution in fisheries management, a concept already depended on it. Because it does.
257
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
PICES’ role in integrating marine
Acknowledgements. Many of the ideas in this paper are the
result of discussions with colleagues at Oceana, particularly
ecosystem research in the North Pacific
Janis Searles and Jim Ayers, as well as with other colleagues
in the ocean conservation community. John Warrenchuk, Patricia A. Livingston
Charlotte Hudson, and Janis Searles provided helpful com-
ments. The opinions expressed are my own. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,
Seattle, Washington 98115, US
Email: pat.livingston@noaa.gov
LITERATURE CITED
Introduction. The North Pacific Marine Science
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000)
Organization (PICES) is an international intergovern-
4th edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA
Berkeley SA, Hixon MA, Larson RJ, Love MS (2004) Fisheries mental organization whose primary purpose is to
sustainability via protection of age structure and spatial
promote and coordinate marine research in the North
distribution of fish populations. Fisheries 29:23–32
Pacific. Established in 1992, it is relatively new com-
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspectives on eco-
pared with other marine science organizations such
system-based approaches to the management of marine
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303 as ICES, which has existed for over a century. How-
Butterworth DS (2000) Krill. In: Koch KH (ed) (2000) Under- ever, the roles of these organizations in advancing
standing CCAMLR’s approach to management; available
and communicating scientific knowledge of marine
at www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/am/p5.htm#(a)_Krill
ecosystems are similar. Despite its relative youth as
Froese R (2004) Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with
an organization, PICES has begun to produce inte-
overfishing. Fish Fish 5:86–91
Hilborn R (2004) Ecosystem-based fisheries management: the grated scientific advice and products that reflect the
carrot or the stick? In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds)
emerging focus on ecosystem approaches to manage-
(2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the
ment and that serve the broader needs of its mem-
management of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:
ber countries outside of the scientific community.
275–278
Jennings S (2004) The ecosystem approach to fishery man- These scientific products highlight critical issues
agement: a significant step towards sustainable use of the for ocean managers, such as sources and causes of
marine environment? In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds)
harmful algal blooms, factors influencing production
(2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the
of marine fish stocks, and population dynamics of
management of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:
marine mammals and seabirds. Advice is given to
279–282
Mace PM (2004) In defence of fisheries scientists, single PICES member countries regarding human and cli-
species models and other scapegoats: confronting the
mate influences on North Pacific ecosystems. This
real problems. In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004)
advice will allow member countries to improve pro-
Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the man-
tection and responsible management of ocean re-
agement of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:
285–291 sources, in accordance with accepted international
Mangel M, Levin PS (2005) Regime, phase and paradigm standards. The organization is thus integrating
shifts: making community ecology the basic science for
national scientific efforts and shaping international
fisheries. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 360:95–105
views of ecosystem-based management approaches
POC (Pew Oceans Commission) (2003) America’s living
in the North Pacific.
oceans: charting a course for sea change. Summary report:
recommendations for a new ocean policy. Pew Oceans Evolution of PICES. Organization: Descriptions of
Commission, Arlington, VA
the history and scientific structure of PICES can be
Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
found at www.pices.int. The members comprise most
(2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science
of the countries on the rim of the North Pacific:
305:346–347
Restrepo VR, Thompson GG, Mace PM, Gabriel WL and 7 Canada, People’s Republic of China, Japan, Re-
others (1998) Technical guidance on the use of pre- public of Korea, Russian Federation, and USA. The
cautionary approaches to implementing National Stan-
organization has defined geographic regions for
dard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
reporting scientific activities, which are at the large
and Management Act. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-F/SPO-
marine ecosystem (LME) scale of Sherman (1995).
31, Silver Spring, MD
Roughgarden J, Smith F (1996) Why fisheries collapse and This scale is becoming recognized in the USA and
what to do about it. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:
elsewhere as a starting point for management of
5078–5083
marine regions.
Sissenwine M, Murawski S (2004) Moving beyond ’intelligent
The terms of reference for the organization mainly
tinkering’: advancing an Ecosystem Approach to Fish-
eries. In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspec- deal with advancing scientific knowledge, exchanging
tives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management scientific information and coordinating marine research.
of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:291–295
These activities occupied the marine research commu-
USA Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) An Ocean Blueprint
nity of PICES in its first decade of operation, when the
for the 21st Century, Final Report. Commission on Ocean
organization increased the involvement of a broad
Policy, Washington, DC
258 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
spectrum of marine science disciplines, as well as 2000). It was during this period that PICES devel-
collaboration across scientific disciplines. This is an oped a concept for a North Pacific Ecosystem Status
important stepping-stone towards providing scien- Report as a way to provide useful information to
tific advice that addresses an ecosystem approach to member countries on the status of ecosystems in the
management. North Pacific.
Initial scientific products: It became evident over Recent activities of PICES. Scientific advice: The
time that, although the PICES scientific network was North Pacific Ecosystem Status Report was first pro-
growing in influence among the scientific community, posed to the PICES Science Board, which consists of
it did not have a strong mandate for providing scien- the chairpersons of the various scientific committees
tific advice to its member countries. This was due and programs. The Science Board presented the idea
partly to the mainly scientific terms of reference of to the respective members of the scientific committees
PICES, and to the lack of a heavily used marine region for approval. Scientific committees, which consist of
shared by many countries (as opposed, e.g. to the national representatives of the scientific discipline of
North Sea in Europe). This is in contrast to ICES, which the particular committee, discussed and approved the
is the main source of scientific advice to governments proposal. Next, the Governing Council of PICES,
and international regulatory bodies that manage activ- which consists of high level representatives of the
ities, particularly fisheries and environmental protec- academic community and governmental agencies of
tion, in the North Atlantic Ocean. The scientific prod- each member country, also discussed and approved
ucts that PICES was producing were scientific reports the concept.
and special volumes of peer-reviewed journals in The approved proposal contained an outline to pro-
which the primary target audience was the scientific vide the following information on North Pacific LMEs:
community. (1) status and trends in large scale atmospheric forcing
At the same time, some of the PICES member in the North Pacific; (2) status of lower trophic level
countries appeared to be disengaging from the con- variables such as nutrients, phytoplankton and zoo-
vention. Although the reasons were never explicitly plankton; (3) condition of living marine resources such
communicated, countries were having difficulty as fish and crustaceans, and of top-level predators such
meeting the relatively small financial obligations as seabirds and marine mammals; (4) factors involving
required to keep the organization going. Scientific human populations, contaminants and habitat modifi-
participation of some countries was waning and the cations that might be placing stresses on the marine
discussions among member countries regarding bud- ecosystem.
get and annual dues payments were becoming more Several alternatives were proposed for the proce-
difficult. It seemed likely that some member coun- dures by which the scientific community of PICES
tries did not view their financial contribution to should produce regional status reports. Reports
PICES as providing a net benefit to the country. were already being produced for some regions,
Therefore, PICES needed to move beyond its focus such as Alaska in the USA and British Columbia in
on communication among the scientific community Canada, but in other regions, particularly the
and find a new role that would elevate the useful- shared seas of the western North Pacific rim, scien-
ness of the organization to its member countries. tists had not yet begun sharing the necessary infor-
Provision of scientific products that would be of use mation.
to member countries seemed to be the logical next A PICES working group was formed to produce the
step. North Pacific Ecosystem Status Report. The group
It was during this time that ecosystem approaches had representatives of the scientific committees and
to management (EAM) of marine resources was programs and the PICES Secretariat. International
emerging as the new paradigm to advance manage- commissions such as the International Pacific Hali-
ment of marine areas, particularly with regard to but Commission (IPHC), North Pacific Anadromous
fisheries management (e.g. Grumbine 1993, Larkin Fish Commission (NPAFC), and the Inter-American
1996, Christensen et al. 1996, Haeuber & Franklin Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) were also invited
1996, Mooney 1998, Browman & Stergiou 2004), to provide contributions to the status report. Because
and scientists began to discuss what types of scien- the western Pacific countries had not yet begun to
tific advice would be needed to implement these produce regional ecosystem status reports, 3 PICES
approaches. Ecosystem status reports were becom- workshops were organized around the theme of pro-
ing a common form of providing such advice. viding ecosystem information for the PICES report. In
Development of sensitive ecosystem indicators of 2002 and 2003, workshops were held in Seoul (twice)
changes in ecosystem status to include in such and Vladivostok to describe the status and trends in
reports was a high priority activity (Hollingworth the marginal seas of the western Pacific. These efforts
259
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
brought the scientific community on the western side amounts and sources of pollutants through marine
of the Pacific Ocean together to agree on pressing webs. This information will assist member countries in
management and science issues in the North Pacific, the wise use of the North Pacific Ocean. The newly
and they were an important first step in moving these developed PICES Strategic Plan explicitly recognizes
countries towards an understanding of ecosystem- this important activity, which serves to integrate
based management. national marine ecosystem scientists from govern-
When the scientists gathered to synthesize the find- mental organizations and universities and efforts of
ings of the status report, there was no disagreement national and international programs such as GLOBEC
with regard to the science issues and conclusions. into a deeper understanding of our oceans and the
However, controversy emerged over the naming con- factors influencing them.
ventions (in English) of a regional sea shared by PICES recently formed an ecosystem-based man-
Japan and Korea. The English name that had been agement working group. Its mandate is to describe
adopted by PICES over the years acknowledged the and implement a standard reporting format for
traditional naming of both member countries of this ecosystem-based management initiatives in each
sea: Japan/East Sea. But this practice was challenged PICES member country, including a listing of the
by one of the countries when the draft status report ecosystem-based management objectives of each
was prepared, which used this naming convention. country. This will improve the scientific advice con-
This issue nearly derailed the publication of the report tained in future North Pacific ecosystem status reports
and threatened the continuing participation of some and help PICES scientists to understand and advise
countries in PICES. It seemed for a while that the governments on factors influencing change in the
North Pacific ecosystem status report, conceived to earth’s oceans.
bring the scientific experts of the member countries
together to provide important advice to the respective
countries, would actually accomplish the opposite. LITERATURE CITED
The report (PICES 2004) was published after a 3 yr
gestation, following lengthy discussions of the naming Browman HI, Stergiou KI (2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-
based approaches to the management of marine
convention among the national delegates to PICES
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
and with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Christensen NL (ed) (1996) The report of the Ecological
Commission (IOC). Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for
Since the production of the status report, the Gov- ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):665–691
ernment of the USA made a request to PICES to Grumbine RE (1996) What is ecosystem management? Con-
serv Biol 8(1):27–38
provide scientific advice with regard to the implica-
Haeuber R, Franklin J (eds) (1996) Forum: perspectives in
tions of the 1998 regime shift for North Pacific fish-
ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):694–747
eries. Regime shifts, which are abrupt shifts in Hollingworth C (ed) (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing. ICES
ecosystem composition and regional climate that J Mar Sci 57(3): 465–791
persist for several years or decades, have the poten- Larkin PA (1996) Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem
management. Rev Fish Biol Fish 6:139–164
tial to change the viability of fishing communities
McKinnell SM, Brodeur RD, Hanawa K, Hollowed AB, Polo-
that rely on the production of these ecosystems for
vina JJ, Zhang C (2001). An introduction to the Beyond
their livelihood. The PICES scientific community had El Niño conference: climate variability and marine ecosys-
already held several symposia (e.g. McKinnell et al. tem impacts from the tropics to the Arctic. Prog Oceanogr
2001) and had a large interest in ocean regime 49:1–6
Mooney HA (ed) (1998) Ecosystem management for sustain-
shifts, and this request was a logical way to bring
able marine fisheries. Ecol Appl 8(1):S1–SS174 supple-
that expertise to bear on a question that had impor-
ment
tant economic consequences for the USA. PICES PICES (1996) Report of the PICES-GLOBEC international
responded to this request by gathering its experts program on climate change and carrying capacity. PICES
Sci Rep No. 4. North Pacific Marine Science Organization,
and publishing an advisory report on implications of
Sidney, Canada
regime shifts for management of marine resources
PICES (2004) Marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. PICES
(PICES 2005).
Spec Publ No. 1. North Pacific Marine Science Organiza-
Future scientific products: Thus, PICES is now mov- tion, Sidney, Canada
ing beyond its initial focus on activities and products of PICES (2005) PICES advisory report on fisheries and eco-
system responses to recent regime shifts. North Pacific
interest primarily to scientists, to include activities
Marine Science Organization, Sidney, Canada
focused on applying that scientific knowledge to
Sherman K (1995) Achieving regional cooperation in the
address societal needs, such as prediction of regime
management of marine ecosystems: the use of the large
shifts for marine fisheries managers, understanding marine ecosystem approach. Ocean Coast Manage 29(3):
causes of harmful algal blooms, or documenting the 165–185
260 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Implementing the ecosystem approach: population dynamics of single fish stocks. The FAO
Expert Consultation on Ecosystem-based Fisheries
experiences from the North Sea, ICES,
Management in Reykjavik in 2001 (FAO 2003, Garcia
and the Institute of Marine Research,
et al. 2003) produced an overall, pragmatic solution for
Norway implementing the ecosystem approach to fisheries
(EAF) by merging ecosystem management and fish-
Ole Arve Misund*, Hein Rune Skjoldal
eries management. The EAF principles are yet to be
Institute of Marine Research, PO Box 1870, 5817 Bergen,
implemented by most of the fisheries scientific and
Norway
advisory bodies around the world.
*Email: ole.arve.misund@imr.no
The ecosystem approach has been a central issue in
The ecosystem approach. The ecosystem approach political processes such as the Fifth International Con-
is a management principle which builds on the ference on the Protection of the North Sea held in
recognition that nature is an integrated entity and Bergen in 2002 (NSC 2002), and the development of
that we must take a holistic approach to nature man- a governmental white paper on integrated marine
agement. The science to support ecosystem approach management in Norway in 2002 (Anonymous 2002).
to management must also be integrated and holistic. Similarly, the ecosystem approach was a basis for the
A core element of this science is ecology, with a development of the strategic plan of the International
focus upon the properties and dynamics of ecosys- Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES 2002),
tems (Fenchel 1987). Many scientists and managers and in the reorganisation of the Institute of Marine
have recognised the need for an ecosystem approach Research (IMR), Norway (Anonymous 2001, Misund et
for a long time (Likens 1992), although it is only dur- al. 2005). We reflect here on our experiences from the
ing the last 10 to 15 yr that a broader awareness of political processes for the North Sea and in Norway on
this has developed. developing the ecosystem approach to management.
The increased awareness and formalisation of the We go on to give our views on the development of the
ecosystem approach have emerged as a result of inter- ecosystem approach within 2 scientific organizations
national environmental agreements within the frame- that must deliver scientific advice according to the
work of the United Nations, and a fundamental ecosystem approach, ICES and our home institute
description of the basis of an ‘ecosystem approach’ was (IMR) in Norway.
first formalised in the Stockholm Declaration in 1972 Development of the ecosystem approach for the
(Turrell 2004). The most authoritative account of the North Sea. The first International Conference on the
ecosystem approach is probably in Decision V/6 from Protection of the North Sea was held in Bremen in
the meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Germany in 1987, followed by the 2nd and 3rd Con-
Convention on Biological Diversity in Nairobi, Kenya, ferences in London in 1988 and The Hague in 1990.
in 2000. This decision has an annex with a description, The Ministers at the 3rd Conference in The Hague
principles and operational guidance for application requested that OSPAR (the Convention for the Protec-
of the ecosystem approach (www.biodiv.org/deci- tion of the Marine Environment of the North-East
sions/?m=cop-05). Atlantic) and ICES should establish a North Sea Task
The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept has Force (NSTF), for producing a Quality Status Report
been the basis for a practical development of the (QSR) for the North Sea. This QSR was completed in
ecosystem approach to the management of marine 1993 (NSTF 1993) and identified fisheries as having
resources and environment (Sherman 1995, Duda & major impacts on the North Sea ecosystem. At the 4th
Sherman 2002). Currently, 64 LMEs have been identi- Conference in Esbjerg in 1995, these fisheries impacts
fied, dividing mainly the shelf regions of the globe were discussed by the Ministers responsible for the
into management units. Scientific and management environment.
issues concerning these LMEs have been the subject As host for the 5th Conference, Norway arranged an
of a large number of symposia and books (see Intermediate Ministerial Meeting on the Integration
www.edc.uri.edu/lme). of Fisheries and Environmental Issues in Bergen in
In many fisheries science institutions, advisory com- March 1997. In their Statement of Conclusions (IMM
munities and management bodies, practical imple- 1997), the Ministers responsible for fisheries and the
mentation of the ecosystem approach has been a environment in the countries bordering on the North
central issue for the last years. There is no unified Sea agreed that an ecosystem approach should be
understanding or protocol on how to deliver scientific developed and implemented as a guiding principle for
advice for management of fish stocks under the broad the further integration of fisheries and environmental
scope of the ecosystem implications of fishing, as com- management measures. This was followed by a work-
pared to the traditionally narrow consideration of the shop in Oslo in 1998 where a framework for an eco-
261
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
system approach was drawn up (Anonymous 1998). considerable input from ICES (Advisory Committee on
This framework was adopted with slight modifications Ecosystems, ACE Reports for 2001, 2002, 2003; avail-
by the Ministers at the 5th Conference in Bergen 2002 able at www.ices.dk/products/cooperative.asp), a set
(NSC 2002). of 10 EcoQOs were agreed by the Ministers at the
The framework for an ecosystem approach to man- 5th North Sea Conference (NSC 2002, Annex 3).
agement consists basically of 5 major elements or The ICES Study Group on Ecosystem Monitoring
modules in a management cycle (Fig. 1). Objectives and Assessment proposed the following definition
should relate to the state of the ecosystem. Monitor- of the ecosystem approach (ICES 2000): ‘Integrated
ing and research should be performed to provide management of human activities based on knowledge
updated information about status and trends (moni- of ecosystem dynamics to achieve sustainable use of
toring) and insight into mechanisms and causal re- ecosystem goods and services, and maintenance of
lationships (research). Assessments should use in- ecosystem integrity.’ This formed the basis for the tech-
formation from monitoring and research to evaluate nical definition of ecosystem approach used in a state-
whether objectives are being met or whether pro- ment from the First Joint Ministerial Meeting of the
gress is being made towards meeting them. Scientific Helsinki and OSPAR Commissions (JMM) in Bremen
advice should be formulated clearly to translate the in June 2003 (www.ospar.org), and in the work on
natural complexity into a clear and transparent basis developing the thematic Marine Strategy within
for decisions. Finally, management should respond to the EU (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/
the advice and to the needs for actions to meet the consult_marine.htm):
agreed objectives.
The comprehensive integrated management of human
The Ministers at the 3rd Conference in The Hague activities based on the best available scientific knowl-
had requested that methodology for setting ecological edge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to
objectives should be developed. This work was initi- identify and take action on influences which are critical
to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby achieving
ated by the NSTF and continued by OSPAR after 1993.
sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and
Workshops were held at Bristol in 1992, Geilo in 1993,
maintenance of ecosystem integrity.
and Ulvik in 1995 to consider terminology, feasibility
It is worth stressing the emphasis on integrated man-
and selection criteria for formulating Ecological Qual-
agement of human activities in this definition. Integra-
ity Objectives (EcoQOs). This resulted in a general
methodology or approach for setting EcoQOs (Skjoldal tion between different sectors of the society is a key
1999). In 1997 OSPAR agreed to apply this methodol- element of the ecosystem approach, and this has scien-
ogy to the North Sea as a test case. This work was sub- tific and institutional implications. Scientifically, we
sequently linked to development of the ecosystem need the ability to assess the combined impacts from
approach, filling the need for ecological objectives in different sectors on the marine ecosystems, and institu-
the latter. Based on the outcome of 2 workshops held tionally the sectors need to work closely together. This
at Scheveningen in 1999 and Schiphol in 2001, and means for instance that close collaboration between
the fisheries and environmental conservation sectors is
a prerequisite for an effective ecosystem approach to
management.
Ecosystem
Ecosystem In the Norwegian Government’s White Paper ‘Clean
objectives
objectives and Rich Sea’, which shaped Norwegian marine policy
(Anonymous 2002), the ecosystem approach is seen as
the means of achieving better sector integration. The
marine areas under Norway’s jurisdiction constitute
Adaptive Monitoring
Stake-
Adaptive Monitoring
Stake-
parts of the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the
management Research
holders
management Research
holders
Barents Sea LMEs. The description of the ecosystem
approach in the White Paper was modelled very much
after the framework developed for the North Sea. In
Integrated addition to continuing the international work in the
Integrated
Advice
Advice assessment
assessment North Sea, the Norwegian Government has started to
develop a management plan for the Barents Sea. This
Fig. 1. Framework for the ecosystem approach to ocean man- includes development of EcoQOs and assessments of
agement with main components or modules shown in an iter- the key impacts on the Barents Sea ecosystem: fish-
ative management decision cycle. This is a simplified version
eries, mariculture, offshore oil and gas production,
of the framework in the Bergen Declaration (NSC 2002).
shipping, long-range transport of pollutants, and cli-
Stakeholders should be included in the process, to promote
mate change.
openness and transparency
262 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Developments within ICES. ICES is an independent and it has been partly overhauled to meet the current
scientific and advisory organisation that has existed and future needs for information on the status of and
for more than 100 yr (Rozwadowski 2002). It has tradi- outlook for the marine ecosystems in the North Atlantic
tionally provided governments of the North Atlantic region.
region with advice on harvesting of fish stocks and Integrated assessments of the status and outlook of
on environmental issues such as pollution monitoring, the marine ecosystems could provide a focus and
aggregate extraction, algal blooms, or mariculture. incentive for ICES to become more operational. ICES
Recognising the focus on ecosystems and the need for activities in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea are
stronger integration, ICES initiated in 1999 a process serving as test cases. A Regional Ecosystem Study
to develop a functional strategic plan. This plan Group for the North Sea (REGNS) was established in
includes the ecosystem approach as a foundation for 2003 and is now coordinating efforts to produce an
the work of ICES, and it was signed by delegates from assessment of the recent status and trends in the
the 19 participating countries in 2002 (ICES 2002). North Sea ecosystem, to be finalised in 2006 (ICES
Since then, the 7 scientific committees of ICES have 2004).
developed specific action plans to implement the new There is an increasing awareness that ecosystems
strategy. are not abstract concepts, but real entities in nature.
Responding to the foreseen need for more integrated They are open systems and their boundaries may be
advice on ecosystems, ICES established in 2000 a new fuzzy and to some extent pragmatically determined,
Advisory Committee on Ecosystems (ACE) in addition depending on the purpose of their delimitation.
to its 2 existing advisory committees, ACFM (Advisory Nevertheless, there are more or less sharp disconti-
Committee on Fisheries Management) and ACME nuities in physical features and distribution of organ-
(Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment). isms, and these are a help when drawing the bound-
ACE is the ICES body for providing scientific advice aries of LMEs based on ecological criteria (Skjoldal
and information on the status of and outlook for marine 2004a,b).
ecosystems, and on the exploitation of living marine Compiling and assessing information and advising
resources in an ecosystem context. on the status of and outlook for marine ecosystems
The fishery science and the environmental science requires a geographical focus consistent with the
within ICES represent 2 different scientific traditions boundaries of the identified LMEs. This means in prac-
and cultures. Bridging them has not been easy. The tice that experts on different aspects within each eco-
fishery science is very computational using models and system, e.g. physical oceanography, plankton, ben-
sophisticated statistical tools to estimate the current thos, fish, must work together to provide the integrated
and future sizes of fish stocks as a basis for advising analyses and a synthesis of the information. Some
on catch quotas. The environmental science covers a rearrangement of the ICES working groups is required
much broader spectrum of disciplines with stronger to account for regional aspects. Thematic groups to
emphasis on processes and descriptions, and less deal with general issues (e.g. methods, climatic driving
on formalised and standardised computations. The forces) common to all or several specific ecosystems
fisheries scientists work on a tight annual schedule must be maintained. We therefore support develop-
with data collection, stock assessments at working ment of a streamlined and ecosystem-oriented advi-
group meetings, and provision of advice on next year’s sory function with regional working groups, much
quotas to fisheries management institutions. Environ- along the lines proposed by the ICES Study Group on
mental scientists usually have less time pressure from the Advisory Committees and Working Group Proto-
the management system, with environmental assess- cols (ICES 2003), to enable ICES to deliver scientific
ments carried out at more irregular and less frequent advice according to the ecosystem approach.
intervals. The difference between the 2 traditions Developments at IMR. The leaders of the Institute of
materialises clearly, for example, in the difficult issue Marine Research (IMR), Norway, considered that the
of integrating information about oceanographic vari- organization of the institute was not strategically
ability into the regular fish stock assessment process suited to deliver holistic ecosystem-based science and
(Ulltang & Blom 2003). advice to support the ecosystem approach to man-
The ground layer of the ICES structure consists of agement. The IMR had 4 science centres (for living
>100 working or study groups that meet annually or resources, environment, aquaculture, and coastal stud-
work by correspondence to produce reports address- ies) that acted to some extent as separate entities
ing specific terms of reference given to them by the within the institute. The centres conducted their
ICES Council. These groups cover virtually every activities within advisory and science programmes that
aspect of the marine environment. This structure has were specific to each centre. The centres were, fur-
evolved over the decades in response to past needs, thermore, managed as separate economic units, each
263
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
with the responsibility to manage the budget with a The ecosystem programmes build on a common,
positive balance in the long run. Cooperation between simplified understanding of the ecosystem approach to
the centres was less than would be desirable, both sci- focus on 3 main operational goals: (1) a clean sea
entifically and administratively, and it was difficult to (monitoring and advice to secure the lowest possible
achieve the level of cooperation between centres that level of contamination of anthropogenic pollutants in
is required for dealing with ecosystem issues. the marine environment and seafood); (2) better advice
Based on a recommendation from the directors of for sustainable harvest of marine resources (single spe-
IMR, and its acceptance by the Ministry of Fisheries cies models are still applied, but multispecies consider-
and Coastal Affairs, the IMR Board initiated in spring ations and ecosystem information will be taken more
2002 a process to develop a new organisation for the into account); (3) reduced ecosystem effects of fishing
institute. The introduction of the ecosystem approach (improvement of the size and species selectivity of fish-
in the White Paper of the Norwegian Government, in ing gears and reduction of impacts on bottom fauna).
the Bergen Declaration of the 5th North Sea Con- Parts of the Barents, Norwegian and North Seas
ference, and the new strategic plan for ICES were LMEs are within Norwegian jurisdiction. Norway is
triggers of the reorganization of IMR. During a 1.5 yr only one of the countries that have the right to harvest
internal process initiated by the leader group and the living marine resources within these ecosystems.
extended with representatives from the major labour International cooperation at the political, scientific and
unions, a new organisation was developed (Misund management levels is important for effective imple-
et al. 2005). The classical, discipline-oriented struc- mentation of an ecosystem approach. The natural and
ture with centres for marine environment, marine re- anthropogenic drivers that influence the ecosystem
sources, coastal zone and aquaculture
was abandoned. The former pro-
BOARD
gramme structure with 4 advisory
programs following the centre struc-
ture, and up to 10 science pro-
MANAGING DIRECTOR
grammes across the centre structure,
was also abandoned.
The new organization has 3 eco- RESEARCH DIRECTORS
AND
system-based programmes and 1
HEAD OF RESEARCH
thematic science and advisory pro- ADMINISTRATION IN TROMSØ
gramme, 19 research groups, a
technical department divided into 9 INFORMATION
research technical groups, an adminis-
trative department that includes the RESEARCH JOINT FACILITIES
former centre administrations, and an
unchanged research vessel depart-
ment to operate the fleet of the in- 19 RESEARCH GROUPS DEPARTMENT RESEARCH
OF VESSELS
stitute (Fig. 2). These programmes pro-
CENTRE FOR RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
vide a structure for the scientific and DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
advisory activity of IMR by defining all COOPERATION
activities into projects that are carried
out by the research and technical THE BARENTS SEA PROGRAMME
groups.
The 3 ecosystem-based programmes
THE NORWEGIAN SEA AND THE NORTH SEA PROGRAMME
are set up according to the division of
LMEs in the North-Eastern Atlantic
THE COASTAL ZONE PROGRAMME
(Sherman 1995, Sherman & Skjoldal
2002). There is one programme that
covers the Barents Sea LME and THE AQUACULTURE PROGRAMME
one that covers the Norwegian Sea
and the North Sea LMEs together. A
3rd programme covers the coastal zone
of Norway. The 4th programme is
Fig. 2. Present organisational chart (tentative) of the Institute of Marine Research
thematic and covers the aquaculture (IMR), following reorganisation in 2004 for adaptation to the ecosystem approach
activities of the institute. to ocean management.
264 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
structure, productivity and major living resources eries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fish-
eries, No. 4 (Suppl 2)
within these LMEs are different. The science and advi-
Fenchel T (1987) Ecology— potentials and limitations. In:
sory programmes therefore have taken somewhat dif-
Kinne O (ed) Excellence in ecology, Book 1. International
ferent approaches in building up their project portfo- Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe
lios. Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Lasserre G (2003).
The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology,
Within the new organization of IMR, the science and
principles, institutional foundations, implementation and
advisory programmes are still in an early phase of
outlook. FAO Fish Tech Pap No. 443. Rome, FAO
development. In the years to come, attention will be ICES (2000) Report of the Study Group on Ecosystem Assess-
given to further refine and develop the ecosystem ment and Monitoring. ICES CM 2000 / E:09, International
approach as their central element. Surveys in the Bar- Council for Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen
ICES (2002) Towards the 21st century: A strategic plan for
ents Sea and the Norwegian Sea now have a clear
ICES. International Council for the Exploration of the
ecosystem focus, including simultaneous monitoring of
Sea, Copenhagen (available at: www.ices.dk/iceswork/
hydrographic conditions, plankton, fish stocks and strategic%20plan-final.pdf)
marine mammals. The North Sea surveys, however, ICES (2003) Report of the Study Group on ACFM, ACE,
ACME, and Working Group Protocols. ICES CM 2003 /
are still focused on single aspects such as demersal
MCAP:02, International Council for Exploration of the
(IBTS surveys) or pelagic fish stocks (e.g. the herring
Sea, Copenhagen
surveys). These activities have a long tradition of ICES ICES (2004) Report of the Regional Ecosystem Study Group
coordination, and it will take some time to adjust the for the North Sea. ICES CM 2004 / ACE:06. International
various activities coordinated by ICES to support an Council for Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen
IMM (1997) Statement of conclusions. Intermediate Ministerial
effective ecosystem approach to North Sea manage-
Meeting on the Integration of Fisheries and Environmen-
ment.
tal Issues, 13-14 March 1997, Bergen, Norway. Ministry of
In developing the new organisation and structuring Environment, Oslo (available at: http://odin.dep.no/nsc)
the scientific and advisory activities within IMR, we Likens G (1992) The ecosystem approach: its use and abuse.
In: Kinne O (ed) Excellence in ecology, Book 3. Interna-
have chosen a pragmatic strategy. Our philosophy is
tional Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe
that we will further develop the ecosystem approach
Misund OA, Torrissen O, Bjordal Å, Moksness E, Lønne
within our scientific and advisory activities ‘as we go OJ, Toft KØ (2005) A reorganized Institute of Marine
along’. The choice of a new structure and way of func- Research, Norway, to meet the requests for ecosystem
tioning of the institute lowers the effect of the ‘resis- approach in science, surveillance and management
advice. Proc 4th World Fisheries Congress, Vancouver,
tance to change’ inherent in any organisation, and
May 2004. Am Fisheries Soc Books, Bethesda, MD
forces all persons involved to consider the new
NSC (North Sea Conference) (2002) Bergen Declaration. Fifth
requirements by an ecosystem approach free from the International Conference on the Protection of the North
constraints and empowerments from the previous Sea, 20-21 March 2002, Bergen, Norway. Ministry of Envi-
ronment, Oslo. ISBN 82-457-0361-3
structure. In the years to come, the objectives of the
NSTF (North Sea Task Force) (1993) North Sea Quality Status
ecosystem approach to management of fisheries and
Report 1993. North Sea Task Force, Oslo and Paris Com-
marine ecosystems will be clarified and made more missions, London
explicit, and we believe our new organization is well Rozwadowski H (2002) The sea knows no boundaries. A cen-
suited to deliver the scientific support for achieving tury of marine science under ICES. International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea and University of Washing-
those objectives.
ton Press, Seattle, WA
Sherman K (1995) Achieving regional cooperation in the
management of marine ecosystems: the use of the large
LITERATURE CITED
marine ecosystem approach. Ocean Coast Manage 29:
165–185
Anonymous (1998) Workshop on the Ecosystem Approach to
Sherman K, Skjoldal HR (eds) (2002) Large marine ecosystems
the Management and Protection of the North Sea, Oslo,
of the North Atlantic. Changing states and sustainability.
Norway 15–17 June 1998. TemaNord 1998:579, Nordic
Elsevier, Amsterdam
Council, Copenhagen. ISBN 92-893-0245-3
Skjoldal HR (1999) Overview report on Ecological Quality
Anonymous (2001) Rapport fra Havforskningsinstituttets
(EcoQ) and Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs).
arbeidsgruppe for økosystembasert forvaltning’ (Report
Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. ISBN 82-7461-050-4
from the Working Group of the Institute of Marine
Skjoldal HR (2004a) An introduction to the Norwegian Sea
Research on ecosystem based management; in Norwe-
ecosystem. In: Skjoldal HR, Sætre R, Fernø A, Misund OA,
gian). Institute of Marine Research, Bergen
Røttingen I (eds) The Norwegian Sea ecosystem. Tapir
Anonymous (2002) Rent og rikt hav, St.meld. nr. 12
Academic Press, Trondheim, p 15–32
(2001–2002) (Clean and rich sea, Government White
Skjoldal HR (2004b) Fish stocks and fisheries in relation to
Paper; in Norwegian), Ministry of Environment, Oslo.
climate variability and exploitation. In: Wolanski E (ed)
(available at: http://odin.dep.no)
Natural resource system challenge: oceans and aquatic
Duda AM, Sherman K (2002) A new imperative for improv-
ecosystems. Encyclopedia of Life Supporting Systems
ing management of large marine ecosystems. Ocean
(EOLSS), Developed under the auspices of the UNESCO.
Coast Manage 45: 797–833
Eolss Publishers, Oxford. www.eolss.net
FAO 2003. The ecosystem approach to marine capture fish-
265
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
a stable policy environment. On the outside, resource
Turrell WR (2004) The policy basis of the ‘ecosystem
approach’ to fisheries management. EuroGOOS Publica- users want stability to plan their operations rationally.
tion No. 21, EuroGOOS Office, SMHI, 601 76 Norrköping,
It is hard enough for industries to keep up with
Sweden. ISBN 91-974828-1
changes in markets and operating conditions, without
Ulltang Ø, Blom G (ed) (2003) Fish stock assessments and
being uncertain about the regulatory framework in
predictions: integrating relevant knowledge. Sci Mar 67
(Suppl. 1) which they will have to work. On the inside, managers
want stability to develop management plans for
achieving a specified set of objectives, monitoring
the effectiveness of the plans, and adapting manage-
Implementation of the Ecosystem
ment tactics to correct discrepancies. If the policy-
Approach to Fisheries Management –– based objectives change frequently, then effective
asynchronous co-evolution at the management planning and implementation becomes
interface between science and policy impossible.
In a democracy, major change in policies and regula-
Jake C. Rice
tions requires at least consultation, if not legislation.
Both take time and have significant inertia. As a result,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Science Advisory
Secretariat, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0E6
major policy changes are not highly risk prone. For
Email: ricej@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
consultation to demand major change, a groundswell
of support for a new approach already has to exist, or
Introduction. I write from the perspective of a scien- else a convincing case for change has to be made by
tist with a background in terrestrial post-MacArthur the government promoting the change. Governments,
(1972) community ecology. I began to work on marine in turn, want some confidence that they are making a
ecosystem research problems more than 20 yr ago, and change for the better, if they are shaking up a status
was drawn into the web of problems of advising man- quo to which many primary constituencies have
agers and policy developers first on fisheries, and then adapted. Even when there is widespread perception
on a progressively much broader range of issues. that change is needed, consultation and political pro-
For the past decade my advisory work for fisheries cesses which follow democratic practices will be
management and policy has been primarily through biased towards those options that the public wants, not
ICES — where since 1996 I have attended most meet- the options recommended by the science community.
ings of their Advisory Committees on Fisheries Man- Before the science can have a major impact on policy
agement (ACFM), Marine Environment (ACME) and change, it has to be mature enough, so that the scien-
Ecosystems (ACE) — and DFO (as director of the Sci- tists can convince political decision makers that the
ence Advisory Secretariat). The change of the relation- associated costs and benefits are known and that the
ship between science and policy on ecosystem issues costs are justified.
has been particularly apparent in these fairly formal Why science is out of synchrony with policy changes.
advisory settings. Here is what I have seen. The lack of synchrony factors is largely due to 2 fac-
The role of science in formulation of policy on the tors: (1) Ideas gain influence in science slowly. Some
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) is fundamen- ideas, although rarely disputed, are just hard to
tal — but primarily it has been a supporting role, not document fully enough to support management ac-
one of leadership. This is frustrating for both sides, but tions, and the science basis for changes to policy and
it is an inevitable consequence of the reality that sci- management accumulate incrementally. For example,
ence growth is incremental, whereas policy changes it has been acknowledged since the first years of
are saltatory. Few people in either science or policy fisheries science that predator–prey interactions are
understand why that is inevitable, and this lack of important to management (Smith 1994, Rozwadowski
understanding frustrates communication and impedes 2002). However, each time a science body made a
progress, as each group may perceive the other as serious effort to bring those relationships into the advi-
behaving irrationally. The different nature of change sory process, it took a decade or more to collect the
in science and change in policy also provides unlimited necessary information and develop the corresponding
ammunition to those exercising hindsight, to the detri- models (North Sea: Pope 1991; Barents Sea: Yndestad
ment of effective communication and true progress. 2004; Antarctica: CCAMLR 2004), and even more time
Because of the importance of this difference in how to convince the wider science community to accept the
change occurs in science and in policy, it is worthwhile specific tools and the estimates of the interaction rates.
to consider its origins. It has been argued that really new ideas in science are
Why policy changes are saltatory. There are pres- revolutions not evolution (Kuhn 1970), but even in
sures both outside and inside governments to maintain this case, acceptance of the revolutionary idea has to
266 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
(1) The reported uncertainty (sensu Rosenburg & Re-
spread from the first visionaries to the larger commu-
nity. The notion of regime shifts as a dominant pattern strepo 1994) in the scientific advice on policy increases
of environmental variation may be such a quantum when ecosystem considerations are taken seriously. This
change in scientific thinking about ecosystem dy- is in marked contrast to statements made as the field was
namics. Nearly a decade elapsed after the first papers developing, that a more complete modelling framework
would reduce uncertainty. This contradiction and the
framing the idea (e.g. Wooster & Hollowed 1991) ap-
peared, until a major symposium devoted to the topic greater reported uncertainty both retard policy imple-
(McKinnell et al. 2001) was held. Even then, most pa- mentation. The true uncertainty associated with a policy
pers at the symposium presented evidence to support choice always did include model uncertainty, e.g. due to
the validity of the concept, rather than addressing the unknown functional relationships of species interactions
implications of this type of environmental change for and environmental forcing to the status of populations,
policy and management (Rice 2001, Cury et al. 2003). as well as the uncertainty due to the unpredictability of
(2) Those scientists who see the need for policy future states of nature. However, the uncertainty actually
development soonest rarely articulate advice in a way included in the scientific advice often was little more
that is useful to policy. I have observed a number of than uncertainty in estimates of parameter values due to
shortcomings at the science–policy interface when a natural variability and measurement error, in an assess-
new area of scientific inquiry develops: ment formulation which did not explicitly include the
• The most imaginative scientists may have a vision of environmental forcing and species interactions. More-
how better future policies would use their new insights, over, not only does the reported uncertainty in the
but they are ‘naïve’ about how to bring about the nec- science advice increase when the ecosystem approach is
essary policy changes. I conjecture that the imagina- adopted, but also the factors causing the increase are
tion that allows them to be among the first to envision ones that the science advisors had rarely mentioned to
new ecosystem considerations in management is in the managers receiving the advice, because the advisors
conflict with the patience required to have science had been encouraged to keep their messages simple and
influence policy. Their proposals for change may be clear. Policy experts and managers obviously do not
direct, but policy development rarely is. embrace this change (unless they are working in non-
• Early scientific advice is often unhelpful in guiding precautionary frameworks where greater uncertainty
policy. If the new insights come from theoretical gen- allows them to defer painful decisions). Some time is
eralists, these generalists tend to be fuzzy about the needed until scientists are able to phrase their treat-
policy changes that are needed, as well as their conse- ment of uncertainty in a way that makes sense to non-
quences. If the new insights come from disciplinary scientists, and during this transition period both sides
specialists, they often present their calls for policy are frustrated with the other’s inability to deliver.
change from the perspective of their favourite part of (2) When science is struggling with uncertainty, sci-
the ecosystem, rather than from the perspective of entists who are more interested in impact of policy
governance and societal consequences, which are than in doing sound science can gain the spotlight. The
essential considerations to policy specialists. Either ground is fertile for them, because the ecosystem
problem renders the science advice on policy ineffec- approach is beginning to consolidate, so a partial but
tive, due to a lack of clarity about risks and conse- incomplete foundation for advice exists. These advo-
quences crucial to those making policy decisions. cates offer answers that deemphasise the uncertainty,
• The science disciplines that support policy and man- and guide policy towards apparently simple solutions
agement most directly, as well as those conducting to complex problems. Science advocates who are
basic research, both misunderstand and stereotype enthusiastic about, e.g., the Ecosystem Approach are
each other. This magnifies the first 2 shortcomings, as likely to oversell the support that science can deliver
scientists from the 2 streams do not help each other and undersell the transition costs. They may be trying
and often end up neutralising their respective merely to accelerate change, but in the process they
potential contributions. oversimplify complex issues. This may have happened
• Scientists with different theoretical preferences and in the debate about marine protected areas (MPAs;
practical traditions are highly critical of each other’s Hilborn et al. 2004), management based on trophic-
work, creating many opportunities for managers and dynamic balance (http://dels.nas.edu/osb/ecosystem_
stakeholder who are reluctant to change to play off effects.shtml), and bottom-trawling (ICES 2000).
one viewpoint against the other. The advisory situation is awkward at present with re-
Interactions when science is ‘ahead’ of policy. As spect to the EAF. The basic message of the advocacy
the scientific basis for the ecosystem approach begins scientists, to reduce an activity damaging the ecosys-
to mature and consolidate, we are seeing 2 new imped- tem, is right. Even the most experienced and practical
iments to a close harmony of science and policy. science advisors support it, although with some trepi-
267
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
dation, because they know that they are extrapolating to where science has been saying that policy should be
further than they normally go in their advisory role. The based. They can be surprised and disappointed when
body of sound science is not yet great enough to docu- they find that careful science advisors don’t really know
ment fully advice within an ecosystem-based policy the territory well after all, and can provide only limited
framework, but the science advisors can extrapolate as support for the new policies. The advisors know that
readily as anyone from the trends in the knowledge science has merely been indicating the necessary di-
that has accumulated. Hence the ease with which con- rection of change. Much more research will be needed
cepts such as ‘reference direction’ are substituted for to determine how much change is needed to reach new,
‘reference point’ (Link et al. 2002), i.e. instead of advis- safe reference points in an ecosystem content. Policy
ing on how to reach a specific state that is identified as makers, encouraged by the advocacy scientists to move
safe (the ‘reference point’), advisors only take on the boldly, now believe that they have reached this safe
simpler task of advising on the desirable direction of zone well ahead of the science.
change (the ‘reference direction’). It will not be until Interactions when policy moves ‘ahead’ of science.
after policy is changed that hard advice will be needed. After a decade of frustration, when science was ahead
As soon as the questions about implementation of the of policy, science advisors are faced with a new prob-
policy are received, advising on the direction of change lem. Once the policy commitment is made, those asso-
will not be enough. Much of the trepidation in experi- ciated with its development and implementation
enced advisors was due to the fact that they knew that expect solid advice (Ludwig et al. 2001). Will it come
the hard questions about implementation would follow, from practical science advisors, who are well aware
and they lacked the information to answer them. that much more research and monitoring is needed for
When scientific results are oversold and transition full implementation of an ecosystem approach (Pikitch
costs are deemphasised, policy experts are led to be- et al. 2004), or from those willing to speak with great
lieve that there is a complete and tested science basis confidence and certainty, even if neither is justified?
for implementing change. The U.S. Ocean Commission This is a dangerous time. Scientists experienced in
Report (USCOP 2004) and the Pew Report (POC 2003), advising decision makers are embracing the EAF as
and in Europe the Koge and Rotterdam meeting reports a necessary step forward. However, they stress that
(EC 2003, 2004), all include the message that policy implementation must be incremental, a message in
makers believe that the science framework for an which managers take some comfort, for it does not
ecosystem approach to marine management is com- upset their stability of process too dramatically. For
plete. USCOP (2004, p. 47) goes so far as to recommend example, both Annex 5 to the FAO Code of Conduct
that ‘Conservation decisions should be made by NMFS (FAO 2003) and the Implementation Guidelines for the
… They should be based on recommendations from EU Marine Strategy (Rice et al. 2005) stress that change
regional science and technical teams composed of will be incremental, as scientific knowledge and man-
federal, state, and academic scientists. Conservation agement experience continue to grow, and as indus-
decisions should precede and remain unchanged by tries and communities adapt to change. The ecological
allocation decisions …’ — the ecosystem science is aspects of the ecosystem approach are amenable to
ready to be the sole basis for public-interest decisions. incremental change. Assessments and advice can
In these documents, consistent with the impact of advo- account incrementally for environmental forcing fac-
cacy science on ecosystem policy issues, much is made tors and for predator–prey impacts on stock dynamics,
of the opportunities, and little of the costs to get there. as the functional relationships are identified and para-
Most of these major commissions have recommended meterised (ICES 2002, 2003, 2004). Ecosystem effects
an increase in funding of science to address these of fishing can be taken into account in the same way.
challenges, but those recommendations are often slow The danger is that the increments may not be the
to be translated into real increases in science funding. ‘right’ size. They can be perceived as being too large.
These are the conditions when the leap in policy is In Canada, for example, opposition to the inclusion of
made from rarely mentioning ecosystems to featuring marine species under the new Species At Risk Act
them as the cornerstone of policy, as in the Preamble to (SARA) is deep among coastal communities, fishers’
Canada’s Oceans Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca./en/ organisations, and even fisheries management com-
O-2.4/index.html), where the Ecosystem Approach is munities (e.g. DFO 2005), because listing under SARA
listed as one of the 3 foundations of the provisions in the would mean a step from the present fisheries manage-
Act, and in the Bergen Declaration (2001). Policy mak- ment to mandatory prohibitions of all activities causing
ers do not know they have leapt into a poorly charted death or harassment, unless very stringent conditions
wilderness. After years of lagging ever further behind are met. Comparable opposition is found in many
the accumulating body of science, in one set of policy other jurisdictions (FAO 2002). On the other hand,
revisions policy makers believe that they have moved implementation of existing ecosystem knowledge in
268 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
routine fisheries management has proceeded slowly, confidence in managers to act, and give resource users
allowing acknowledged environmental crises to persist potentially restricted by new ecosystem-based man-
(Rice 2005a,b). agement measures ample opportunity to oppose the
How do we ensure that implementation of an ecosys- basis for these measures.
tem approach occurs swiftly enough to generate real The obvious step of obtaining integrated ecosystem
improvements in marine ecosystem status, but not so advice from integrated advisory bodies is being taken
swiftly that society fails to adapt and chooses to oppose by many jurisdictions. These advisory bodies still build
change altogether? The parts of the ecosystem ap- their advice from the parts to the whole, with the parts
proach addressing governance changes — integrated retaining much of their original character. Neither the
planning and management, and inclusiveness and science advisors nor those they advise are comfortable
transparency (Swan & Greboval 2004) — must receive throwing out tools with which they have gained
as much attention as the ecological components. The decades of experience, especially when the new
governance changes create a context for an adaptive tools for integrating ecosystem considerations into the
approach that uses science knowledge as it accumu- assessments are still in their infancy. There is much
lates. Science advisory processes can facilitate these enthusiasm for ‘ecosystem indicators’ as the new foun-
necessary governance changes in inclusiveness and in- dation for scientific advice on an ecosystem approach
tegrated planning, by changing some practices as well. to management (Garcia 1996, Daan et al. 2005), but I
Science peer review and advisory processes must have some scepticism regarding that course. Although
face the challenges posed by an integrated ecosystem ‘policy relevance’ is a core selection criterion for most
approach. The culture of structured peer review is well ecosystem indicator discussions (see review by Rice &
developed with regard to the provision of advice on Rochet 2005), the reliability of the indicators used for
fish stocks, fisheries and pollution. The transition to policy choice is almost never tested in practice (Rochet
advising on these processes in an ecosystem context & Rice 2005). I think that opening many science review
has been difficult in the USA, Canada and Europe for and advisory processes to more diverse types of expe-
at least 2 reasons. riential and traditional knowledge holds more promise
(1) The questions on which advice is sought are often for facilitating truly integrated advice (Rice in press).
poorly framed. Requests for advice still come from reg- Although participants with experiential knowledge
ulatory agencies, which remain largely sector specific have just as much sectoral focus as the science advisors
(fisheries, pollution, etc.). Either the ‘ecosystem advice’ do, the process of combining experiential knowledge
requested is simply a concatenation of the requests with ‘hard science’ has meant uprooting the trust in the
from managers in several sectors, or it represents a tools of one’s discipline and finding ways to truly
compromise that is vague, so that none of the man- merge different kinds of knowledge (Rice in press).
agers feels that the jurisdiction of their own sector is Once started, this practice may turn out to be transfer-
being curtailed. In neither case do the requests have able across disciplines. Just as fishermen’s knowledge
the specificity that allows science advisory bodies to has demonstrated its value in understanding status
provide clear answers. and trends in fish populations and consequences of
(2) When scientists work in advisory contexts they do management measures (Gray in press), many sources
not integrate their knowledge as well as they do in of traditional knowledge may contribute to under-
contexts like multi-disciplinary symposia. From my standing the state of marine ecosystems relative to
experience with 3 ICES Advisory Committees (Fish- their historic conditions, and the effects of human
eries Management, Marine Environment, and Eco- activities on those systems.
systems) the same ecosystem issue may be on the It is also necessary to stem the trend towards politici-
agenda of more than one advisory committee, but each sation of the science applied to management — i.e.
discusses different aspects of the issue and gives towards ‘advocacy science’. The motivation for advo-
weight to different considerations about the options. cacy science is understandable because of the serious-
Each advisory body attacks the ecosystem issue by ness of environmental crises and the lack of synchrony
building incrementally on its past work, and because between advances in science and policy. Scientists
their histories are different, they take different path- passionate about protecting the environment may be
ways in seeking solutions. Even when the 3 commit- tempted to ‘spin’ the scientific evidence, to make the
tees are converging in their deliberations, each is case for policy changes appear stronger than it really
likely to stop at the limits of its own expertise. This pro- is. However, science has its privileged access to policy
vides piecemeal rather than integrated science advice, and decision-making just because it strives to be
and the different considerations emphasised by the impartial and objective. If those goals are sacrificed for
different committees may appear to be inconsistencies. cultivating a public-opinion environment that is less
The gaps and perceived inconsistencies do not inspire sympathetic to harvesting, then science becomes just
269
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
one more special interest group at the table. The sci- series of discipline-centred subprojects; they are punc-
ence community may win debates sometimes, but it tuated by an annual meeting of the teams, at which
will lose sometimes as well. In the last US election a information is shared, but the work is not conducted in
2% margin of victory was called ‘significant political an integrated way throughout the year. Management
capital’ by new commentators. If science chooses to must make increments in regulations large enough to
enter that political arena, should it fail to win a clear make a difference. The major benefits will be reaped
majority of supporters it risks being marginalized in when science advisors, managers, and policy-makers
subsequent policy decisions. Scientists can be activist all take the governance and the ecological components
about their beliefs, but Science itself loses its value if it of an EAF equally seriously. We have to accept that
gives up the objectivity and empiricism on which it is uncertainty in the science inputs to management will
founded and uses evidence selectively to build a case be larger (and more realistic) in an EAF, and we have
for a pre-selected conclusion. to face the fact that decision-making must become
In addition to changes in science advisory processes, more risk averse, or the EAF will leave marine ecosys-
management building on the advice has to become tems worse off, rather than better off.
more averse to risk in practice. Even if all the harvest
implications of an EAF are not known at present, with-
LITERATURE CITED
out question there will be a need to harvest less, to
accommodate both the target species role in the Bergen Declaration (2001) Ministerial declaration: Fifth Inter-
ecosystem and periods of poor environmental produc- national Conference on the Protection of the North Sea.
Bergen, Norway (available at http://odin.dep.no/archive/
tivity (Rice 2005b). At the same time, as discussed
mdvedlegg/01/11/Engel069.pdf)
above, the uncertainty presented explicitly in assess-
CCAMLR (2004) CCAMLR’s management of the Antarctic.
ments and advice has increased. If management is not (CCAMLR, Hobart; available at: http://www.ccamlr.org/
averse to risk, greater uncertainty will result in more pu/E/e_pubs/am/man-ant/p1.2.htm
Cury P, Shannon L, Shin YJ (2003) The functioning of marine
aggressive harvesting, not in less. This makes the
ecosystems: a fisheries perspective. In: Sinclair M, Valdi-
inclusiveness and transparency of both the advisory
marsson G (eds) Responsible fishing in the marine eco-
and management processes even more important, as system. FAO Fish Tech Pap 400, FAO, Rome
many of the failures of traditional single-species fish- Daan N, Christensen V, Cury PM (eds) (2005) Symposium on
eries management occurred because management was Quantitative Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Manage-
ment. ICES J Mar Sci 62:307–614
risk prone. If this remains the case, then an EAF will re-
DFO (2005) Report of the DFO public consultations on SARA
duce sustainability in fisheries, instead of improving it.
listing of Atlantic cod. Department of Fisheries & Oceans,
Opportunities and risks. We are in a crucial time. Ottawa
The scientific case for taking an ecosystem approach is EC (2003) Communication from the Commission to the Coun-
cil and the European Parliament: ‘Towards a strategy to
now strong enough, so that EAF has been embraced
protect and conserve the marine environment’. Council
widely by national and international policy agencies.
conclusion March 7, 2003. European Union, Brussels
Policy has changed in a leap, from a situation where a FAO (2002) An appraisal of the suitability of the CITES crite-
growing body of scientific knowledge about ecosystem ria for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species.
relationships was having little impact on management, FAO Fish Circ 954, FAO, Rome
FAO (2003) The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Tech-
to a situation where science now lacks the ability to
nical guidelines for responsible fisheries No. 4, Suppl 2.
reliably and comprehensively support ecosystem-
FAO, Rome (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/
geared policy initiatives. The resulting practice of y4470e/y4470e00.pdf)
incremental applications of science to management is Garcia S (1996) Indicators for sustainable development of
fisheries. 2nd World Fisheries Congress, Workshop on
fully consistent with emerging policy and management
Fisheries Sustainability Indicators, Brisbane, Australia,
frameworks. However, science must be focused on
August 1996 (available at: www.fao.org/docrep/W4745E/
making reliable incremental steps, not taking adven- w4745e0f.htm)
turous leaps towards ‘holistic’ management, and scien- Gray TS (ed) (in press) Participation in fisheries governance.
tists must integrate the whole science process, not just Springer, Dordrecht
Hilborn R, Stokes K, Maguire JJ, Smith T and 6 others (2004)
the final science products. There are signs of some
When can marine reserves improve fisheries manage-
progress in integration, such as the creation of the
ment? Ocean Coast Manage 47:197–205
Working Group on Regional Ecosystem Descriptions ICES (2000) Report of the Advisory Committee on the Marine
and the Regional Ecosystem Group for the North Sea Environment 1999. CRR 239, ICES, Copenhagen
ICES (2002) Report of the Study Group on Incorporation of
in ICES, which have attracted genuinely diverse mixes
Process Information into Stock-Recruit Models. ICES CM
of experts. However, there is a long way to go. Few
2002/C:01
ecosystem scientists and oceanographers attend com- ICES (2003) Report of the Study Group on Growth, Maturation,
plete fish stock assessment meetings, and many ‘multi- and Condition in Stock Projections. ICES CM 2003/D:02
disciplinary’ research projects quickly evolve into a ICES (2004) Report of the Thirteenth ICES Dialogue Meeting:
270 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
advancing scientific advice for an ecosystem approach to the Implementation of International Fisheries Instruments
management: collaboration amongst managers, scientists, and Factors of Unsustainability and Overexploitation in
and other stakeholders. CRR 267, ICES, Copenhagen Fisheries. Mauritius, 3–7 February 2003. FAO Fish Rep
Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. No. 700, FAO, Rome
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Wooster WS, Hollowed AB (1991) Decadal scale changes in
Link J, Brodziak JTK, Edwards SF, Overholtz WJ, Mountain the northeast Pacific Ocean. Northw Env J 7:361–363
D, Joost JW, Smith TD, Fogerty MJ (2002) Marine ecosys- Yndestad H (2004) The cause of Barents Sea biomass dynam-
tem assessment in a fisheries management context. Can J ics. J Mar Syst 44:107–124
Fish Aquat Sci 59:1429–1440
Ludwig D, Mangel M, Haddad B (2001) Ecology, conserva-
tion, and public policy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:481–517 Implementing ecosystem-based
MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology. Harper & Row,
approaches to management for the
New York
conservation of ecosystem services
McKinnell SM, Brodeur RD, Hanawa K, Hallowed AB, Polo-
vina JJ, Zhang CI (eds) (2001) Pacific climate variability
Andrew A. Rosenberg1, Karen L. McLeod2
and marine ecosystem impacts. Progr Oceanogr 49:1–640
Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
1
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space, Morse Hall
(2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management: reversing
142, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire
the means to an end. Science 305:345–347
03824, USA
POC (Pew Ocean Commission) (2003) America’s living ocean:
Email: andy.rosenberg@unh.edu
charting a course for sea change. Ocean Trust, Washing-
2
Department of Zoology, 3029 Cordley Hall, Oregon State
ton, DC; available at: www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_
University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA
oceans_final_report.pdf
Email: karen.mcleod@science.oregonstate.edu
Pope JG (1991) The ICES Multispecies Assessment Working
Group: evolution, insights and future problems. In: Daan N,
The need for an ecosystem-based approach to man-
Sissenwine MP (eds) Multispecies models relevant to man-
agement (EAM). Widespread degradation of ocean re-
agement of living resources. ICES Mar Sci Symp 193:22–33
sources and continued human pressures on coastal
Rice JC (2001) Implications of variability on many time scales
for scientific advice on sustainable management of living and ocean environments necessitate ecosystem-based
marine resources. Progr Oceanogr 49:189–209 approaches to the management of marine resources. A
Rice JC (2005a) Will an ecosystem approach mitigate the fac-
proliferation of ocean-related activities and growing
tors of unsustainability? In: Maguire JJ, Greboval D (eds)
demands for marine resources have given rise to
3rd Workshop on Factors of Unsustainability, Sept 14–18,
increasingly complicated policies, rules and regula-
2004, Siem Reap, Cambodia. FAO Tech Fish Rep 700
Rice JC (2005b) Is the failure of conventional fisheries man- tions that ostensibly govern those activities. The
agement making the conservationist approach more
declining state of marine ecosystems around the world,
appealing, offering a way out of making tough decisions?
under virtually any definition of ‘state’ (e.g. Pauly et al.
In: Maguire JJ, Greboval D (eds) 3rd Workshop on Factors
1998, Jackson et al. 2001, Myers & Worm 2003, Pan-
of Unsustainability, Sept 14–18, 2004. Siem Reap, Cambo-
dia. FAO Technical Fisheries Report 700 dolfi et al. 2005), indicates that management changes
Rice JC (in press) Bringing ‘experiential knowledge’ into are needed: society has outgrown the policy models
fisheries science advisory processes: lessons learned from
that were developed for managing its impacts on the
the Canadian experience. In: Gray TS (ed) Participation in
marine environment (USCOP 2004).
fisheries governance. Springer, Dordrecht
In many parts of the world, policies to manage
Rice JC, Rochet MJ (2005) A framework for selecting a suite of
indicators for fisheries management. ICES J Mar Sci 62: fisheries, mitigate the effects of coastal development,
516–527
improve water quality and manage numerous other
Rice JC, Trujillo V, Jennings SL, Hylland K, Hagstrom O,
sectors have been developed and implemented in good
Astudillo A, Jensen JN (2005) Guidance on the application
faith. Some of these existing policies have slowed the
of the ecosystem approach to management of humen
activities in the European marine environment. ICES decline or enhanced the recovery of degraded marine
Cooperative Research Report 273. ICES, Copenhagen ecosystems. For example, the use of large marine
Rochet MJ, Rice JC (2005) Testing an objective framework for
protected areas and reductions in fishing mortality
selecting indicators. ICES J Mar Sci 62:528–539
have led to the recovery of some depleted species on
Rosenberg AA, Restrepo VR (1994) Uncertainty and risk eval-
Georges Bank off the Northeast USA (Murawski et al.
uation in stock assessment advice for US marine fisheries.
Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:2715–2720 2000). Fisheries management in Alaska appears to be
Rozwadowski HM (2002) The sea knows no boundaries. Uni-
maintaining a stable harvest of target species through
versity of Washington Press, Seattle, WA
stringent catch controls (Witherell 2004). Marine re-
USCOP (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final
serves in the Dry Tortugas (Gulf of Mexico) are allow-
Report, US Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington
DC (available at: www.oceancommission.gov/documents/ ing several species of grouper and other reef fish to re-
prepub_report/welcome.html) cover (Ault et al. 2005). Nevertheless, the broad-scale
Smith TD (1994) Scaling fisheries: the science of measuring
pattern in the marine environment is one of degrada-
the effects of fishing 1855–1955. Cambridge University
tion and, given the escalating scale of human impacts,
Press, Cambridge
present policies are clearly insufficient.
Swan J, Greboval D (eds) (2004) International Workshop on
271
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
Over the last decade, EAM has been called for in a cient for maintaining ecosystem services, including
variety of ocean policy initiatives around the world to providing high quality, healthy seafood. At the same
address the problems touched on above. In the USA, time, policies themselves interact. For example, coastal
both the Pew Oceans Commission (POC 2003) and the development may alter working waterfront areas or
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP 2004) agreed limit the ability of fishing businesses to operate. Water
that more comprehensive, holistic ecosystem-based quality management measures such as outfall pipes
approaches were urgently needed. Recently, over 200 may also impact specific fishing areas. Neither the im-
academic scientists from institutions in the USA agreed pacts nor the management policies for each sector are
by consensus upon a definition of ecosystem-based independent of each other. Consequently, ecosystem-
management for the oceans, given in part here: based fisheries management (Pikitch et al. 2004) is also
a necessary, but not sufficient, tool for conserving
Ecosystem-based management is an integrated approach
ecosystem services because both the impact of the in-
to management that considers the entire ecosystem,
teractions among different human activities and inter-
including humans. The goal of ecosystem-based man-
agement is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, pro- actions among management policies can be substantial.
ductive and resilient condition so that it can provide the
(3) Cumulative impacts must be explicitly considered
services humans want and need. Ecosystem-based man-
in management. The impacts of human activities in
agement differs from current approaches that usually
aggregate affect ecosystem services. To use a fisheries
focus on a single species, sector, activity or concern; it
considers the cumulative impacts of different sectors. example again, even if each fishery in a large marine
(McLeod et al. 2005, p. 1) ecosystem is reasonably well managed, the cumulative
impacts of all of the fisheries will likely be greater than
Keys to shifting beyond single sector-based ap-
proaches. As governments at various levels attempt to the summed effects of individual fisheries. Individual
implement ecosystem-based approaches, key changes
are needed to move beyond the current sector by
sector approach to management.
D Key Ecosystem Service
(1) Management goals must be framed with respect
to the conservation of ecosystem services, i.e. ensuring
that marine ecosystems can fully function in order to
Ecosystem
C
sustain the delivery of a wide range of services. These Structure, Functioning,
Processes
include provisioning services (e.g. food and fresh
water), regulating services (e.g. climate and flood reg-
extraction
ulation), cultural services (e.g. spiritual and aesthetic habitat pollution
habitat
B modification sedimentation
values), and supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling modification
and primary production) (MA 2005). For most, if not all,
sectors of management, this constitutes a major shift in
perspective. Primary goals of current policy tend to
Fisheries Coastal Zone Water Quality
focus on maximizing catch, business opportunities or Management Management Management
A
economic development, frequently aiming to achieve
sustainable levels of these activities. In contrast, (and all other relevant management entities)
ecosystem-based goals would give precedence to the
Ecosystem-Based Management
long-term potential of systems to deliver a broad suite
of ecosystem services over short-term goals for individ-
Fig. 3. Key aspects of ecosystem-based management. Current
ual services. Such goals inherently recognize that it is
management focuses on regulating the impacts of individual
not possible to sustain humans without sustaining
sectors on particular ecosystem services, such as the produc-
ecosystems over long time frames (Grumbine 1997). tion of food. In contrast, EAM considers the cumulative and
(2) An ecosystem-based approach must account for interactive impacts of multiple sectors on the stocks and flows
interactions among sectors by integrating management of key ecosystem services. Characteristics include: (A) consid-
eration of interactions among policies, without negating the
across multiple sectors (Fig. 3A). Current approaches
need for individual sector management, (B) examination of in-
ignore these interactions at the cost of decreasing the
teractions among the impacts of individual sectors (arrows be-
overall ability of systems to provide a full range of ser- tween impacts) as well as the cumulative impacts of individ-
vices, as well as compromising the ability of any given ual and multiple sectors through time (dotted feedback loops),
and (C) monitoring the effects of these cumulative impacts on
policy to meet individual sector goals. For example, the
ecosystem structure, functioning, and key processes, as well
course of coastal development affects habitat and water
as the way in which reciprocal changes to ecosystems modify
quality, which in turn, alter coastal productivity and those impacts. (D) The goal of ecosystem-based management
fisheries. Thus, doing a very good job of managing fish- is to maintain the flows of key ecosystem services that result
ery impacts on the ecosystem is critical, but not suffi- from ecosystem structure, functioning, and processes
272 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
fishery management plans striving to obtain maximum must be confronted in order to integrate management
sustainable yield often ignore predator–prey interac- using an ecosystem-based approach. However, despite
tions, e.g. that exploiting an important forage species these challenges and the enormous inertia to continue
undermines the productivity of its predator. Cumula- doing business as usual, it is crucial not to delay action.
tive impacts across sectors, such as the habitat impacts Waiting to improve policy approaches until better infor-
of various activities noted above, may also significantly mation becomes available may well mean that the nec-
undermine ecosystem services. For example, in a essary information never will be developed, and even
particular area, the habitat impacts of fishing gear may worse, that marine ecosystems will continue to decline
be minor, but when combined with the effects of and undergo dramatic shifts. At some point, these
increased sedimentation from coastal development, changes may be irreversible, as there is often a threshold
the cumulative impacts of the 2 activities on habitat beyond which altered ecosystems may not return to their
may be significant. Thus, impacts of individual sectors original states (Folke et al. 2004).
on overall ecosystem structure, functioning, and key Many scientific issues need to be considered in order
processes must be evaluated in the context of con- to implement EAM in the marine environment, not the
current impacts in order to sustain the flows of key least of which is the culture of science. Scientific enter-
ecosystem services (Fig. 3B–D). prises, within academia as well as within government,
(4) Creating more cohesive, integrated management tend to be organized around sectors or disciplines in
policies that are understandable across sectors is criti- much the same way that policy and management insti-
cal. As each sector of activity has expanded, the poli- tutions are. Water quality scientists do not interact with
cies intended to manage those activities have become, fisheries scientists or coastal development scientists.
in many cases, alarmingly complex. Fisheries rules run Fisheries scientists study the population dynamics of
to thousands of pages with enormous detail for each species of commercial interest, while marine ecologists
type of fishing activity in each season and each area work to understand the dynamics of other species, and
and differ across regions and countries. Other policy so forth. In order to develop a complete picture of
arenas are similarly complex, but the bottom line is the interactive effects of human activities on marine
that the rules as well as the goals for all sectors are dis- ecosystems, both the scientific and policy communities
junct from one another. The result is an enormously need to be better integrated (Browman & Stergiou
confusing patchwork of management measures that 2004). The problems facing the world’s oceans require
leads to frustration and dissatisfaction on all sides. more effective bridges among relevant scientific disci-
Setting goals that are related to the conservation of plines, and scientists have a responsibility to facilitate
ecosystem services should enable managers to begin such changes with respect to both their own research
fitting together the various pieces of management in a agendas and their institutions (Lubchenco 1998). It
more coherent fashion. For example, area closures are is naïve for us, as scientists, to expect that all of
a management measure used for a multitude of pur- the necessary integration will come at the policy level.
poses across many marine sectors. There are fishery There is also an urgent need for a more complete
closed areas, areas of protected habitat for various understanding of cumulative impacts. While it is pos-
species including fishes, whales and turtles, restricted sible to estimate the impacts of a particular fishery or a
development areas closed to mining or drilling, and particular level of nutrient loading on an individual
marine parks, to name a few. Each closed area is ecosystem service such as the biomass of a certain fish
designed for a specific purpose without reference to stock or the degree of coastal eutrophication, under-
other area management schemes within a region. The standing the cumulative impacts of all activities on one
result is a complex set of overlapping restrictions. An another is much more challenging (Fig. 3B). An ana-
alternative is to design zones in the ocean where lytical framework that allows for an evaluation of
specific activities are allowed. The overall goals of the cumulative impacts of key activities on a suite of
ocean zoning would be the conservation of ecosystem ecosystem services is an important and necessary
services and greater clarity in the regulatory structure. foundation for integrated management. This is a major
Such zones should include some areas that are fully scientific challenge that requires a concerted research
protected from extractive uses, broad areas of habitat effort and the development of more sophisticated
protection that serves several species groups and models to support policy development. Although the
ensures extractive uses are non-destructive, and still complexity of ecosystems may be daunting, we can no
other areas that are more intensively utilized for longer afford to make many of the simplifying assump-
certain activities without undermining the overall tions on which current management is based.
sustainability of a wide range of ecosystem services. We presently have no measurement systems in place
Challenges for implementation: science. Challenges for many ecosystem attributes that are fundamental to
from the perspectives of both science and governance the provision of ecosystem services, such as biodiver-
273
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
sity, on scales large enough to be relevant to manage- clearly stating those aspects about which we are rea-
ment. Recent efforts to develop ocean observation sys- sonably certain undermines efforts to take strong policy
tems have been slow to incorporate measurement of action. In the context of ecosystem-based management,
biological features in general, perhaps because the interaction terms and cumulative impacts will inher-
dimensionality of the problem makes it much more ently include high levels of uncertainty, but it may be
complex than the evaluation of many physical or chem- clear that an interaction is occurring and is substantial.
ical attributes. In the long-term, such measurement In this case, management that accounts for the interac-
systems are needed to better understand the function- tion should move ahead even if the precision of specific
ing of marine ecosystems, as well as the effectiveness of parameters is low. For example, if there is an indication
management decisions. Similarly, we generally lack that fisheries management efforts to recover an over-
experimental systems that are representative of the fished stock are hampered by habitat impacts of, say,
potential impacts of human activities on ecosystem cabling or pipeline routing, then management should
services. The temporal and spatial scales of many ex- seek to minimize those habitat impacts, particularly in
perimental or monitoring studies are simply too small to areas most used by the recovering species. Such pro-
be relevant to management beyond very local scales. tections should not wait for the development of detailed
It is difficult to characterize an appropriate baseline studies on habitat effects if there is even nominal
against which to compare degraded systems. Impor- evidence such an impact may be important.
tantly, the baseline for ecosystem services should not Challenges for implementation: governance. With
be based on recent observations of already degraded respect to governance, several key issues need to be
systems. For example, estimates of the historical abun- addressed to implement ecosystem-based manage-
dance of cod on the Scotian Shelf show that the current ment. Overall, agencies within various levels of govern-
biomass is < 5% of the estimated biomass 150 yr ago ment currently lack a shared vision to conserve the
(Rosenberg et al. 1995). Results for other areas, using breadth of services that humans want and need from
different methods and data, show similar levels of marine ecosystems. This will require crossing jurisdic-
depletion for key commercial species (Myers & Worm tional as well as cultural boundaries and overcoming
2003, Jennings & Blanchard 2004). Most fishery the inertia of current practices. Managing on an ecosys-
management policy currently incorporates biomass- tem basis can quickly devolve into a long and fruitless
rebuilding targets based on observed biomass and debate about delineating ecosystem boundaries. At
population dynamics over the past few decades at best. relatively large regional spatial scales, management
In effect this means that the only reference points for may be most practical at the scales of large marine
management may be from already severely degraded ecosystems (Sherman et al. 1990). In practice, bound-
systems, missing the range of services, including from aries must be delineated with a clear understanding
much higher biomasses of highly valued species, that that they will necessarily be leaky and influenced by
may flow from a restored system. There is a need to processes occurring at both larger and smaller spatial
look back in time, from an interdisciplinary perspec- scales. Drivers of change, ecosystem processes, and the
tive, to develop a complete picture of marine ecosys- stocks and flows of ecosystem services all occur at a va-
tems and their services that reflects a broader range of riety of spatial scales. Thus, effective management will
potential states (Jackson et al. 2001, Pitcher 2001, be required at numerous, nested scales, and there will
Rosenberg et al. 2005). not be a single ideal scale for management.
Finally, there is a strong tendency, within both Most of the primary sectors of human activities that
scientific advice and policies based on that advice, to impact marine systems are managed independently
emphasize uncertainty. Over the last decade or so, under separate statutory authorities, and often by dif-
there has been a concerted effort to describe quantita- ferent agencies. The situation in the USA is typical.
tively the uncertainty in many analyses, e.g. statistical Fisheries are primarily managed by one of the major
approaches to fisheries stock assessments and the use offices in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
of simulations to explore the sensitivity of estimated Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
quantities. These are important advances, and it is vital under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation
to be clear about uncertainty and risk. However, it is and Management Act. Water quality is managed pri-
also crucial not to lose sight of the aspects that we do marily by the Environmental Protection Agency under
know well because of the weight of evidence. For ex- the Clean Water Act. Coastal development is managed
ample, we can well describe the uncertainty in fishery primarily at the state and local levels with several fed-
stock assessment estimates, but in many cases we are eral programs providing guidance or support under
quite certain that overfishing is occurring, even if the the Coastal Zone Management Act and other statutes.
precision in the estimates of harvest rates is quite low However, no single agency possesses the mandate to
(e.g. NOAA 1999). Emphasizing uncertainty without see that the pieces of management across sectors fit
274 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
together, and no one has the mandate to look at inter- R, Zeller D, Pauly D (2003) Hundred-year decline of North
Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish Fish 4:1–24
actions among activities with respect to their overall
Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T,
impact on ecosystem services. This does not necessar-
Gunderson L, Holling CS (2004) Regime shifts, resilience,
ily imply top-down control or oversight. Rather, each of and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev
the implementing agencies needs to be required to Ecol Evol Syst 35:557–581
Grumbine RE (1997) Reflections on ‘what is ecosystem
work together for joint, ecosystem-based, solutions.
management?’ Conserv Biol 11:41–47
They need to be allowed to be more creative in crafting
Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA and 15
management that addresses more than the narrow others (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent
spectrum of issues they may have been tasked with in collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–638
the past. Significant barriers to interagency or cross- Jennings S, Blanchard JL (2004) Fish abundance with no fish-
ing: predictions based on macroecological theory. J Anim
sector cooperation pose a related challenge. Legally,
Ecol 73:632–642
management is currently required to meet only single
Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment:
sector goals. Budgets and other resources are allocated a new social contract for science. Science 279:491-497
by sector. Agency cultures at all levels tend to remain McLeod KL, Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Rosenberg AA (2005)
Scientific consensus statement on marine ecosystem-
within their traditional areas of expertise, much as the
based management. Signed by 219 academic scientists
science programs do. In order to manage on an ecosys-
and policy experts with relevant expertise and published
tem basis, legal and institutional frameworks must be by the Communication Partnership for Science and the
created to develop policies that allow agencies to inte- Sea (available at: http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM)
grate management across sectors. A change in culture MA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis
Report. Island Press, Washington, DC (available at:
is needed, so that working to conserve the full suite of
http://www.maweb.org)
ecosystem services is part and parcel of the primary
Murawski SA, Brown R, Lai HL, Rago PJ, Hendrickson L
agency mandates for conservation and management (2000) Large-scale closed areas as a fisheries management
within the marine environment. We do not mean to tool in temperate marine systems: the Georges Bank
experience. Bull Mar Sci 66:775–798
imply that individual sector management is unneces-
Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of
sary. Without question, the main effects of each sector
predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280–283
need to be managed, and the mandates to do so need NOAA (1999) Our living oceans: report on the status of U.S.
to be strengthened, in the USA and in other nations. living marine resources. National Oceanic and Atmo-
However, the authority and mandate to work across spheric Administration, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-
F/SPO-41
sectors is also essential.
Pandolfi JM, Jackson JBC, Baron N, Bradbury RH and 7 others
Conclusions. As demands for ecosystem services in-
(2005) Are U.S. coral reefs on the slippery slope to slime?
crease, the cumulative effects of numerous human activ- Science 307:1725–1726
ities on land, along the coasts and in the oceans are col- Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R, Torres F Jr
(1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:
lectively diminishing the ability of marine ecosystems to
860–863
provide those services (MA 2005). Nevertheless, there is
POW (Pew Oceans Commission) (2003) America’s living oceans:
currently no clear mandate for management policies that charting a course for sea change. Pew Oceans Commission,
address cumulative impacts and interactions among sec- Arlington, VA (available at: www.pewoceans.org)
tors, nor does any agency possess the overarching goal of Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
(2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science
managing to conserve ecosystem services. In many
305:346–347
cases, it may be possible to reverse the degradation of
Pitcher TJ (2001) Fisheries managed to rebuild ecosystems?
marine ecosystems, but we cannot afford to delay action. Reconstructing the past to salvage the future. Ecol Appl
Ocean policies must be reoriented towards comprehen- 11:601–617
Rosenberg AA, Bolster WJ, Alexander KE, Leavenworth WB,
sive, integrated EAM with the goal of sustaining the de-
Cooper AB, McKenzie MG (2005) The history of ocean
livery of a broad suite of ecosystem services over long
resources: modeling cod biomass using historical records.
time frames, rather than focusing on particular services Front Ecol Evol 3:84–90
to the detriment of the others. Sherman K, Alexander LM, Gold BD (eds) (1990) Large
marine ecosystems: patterns, processes, and yields.
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
LITERATURE CITED
Washington, DC
USCOP (2004) An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final
Ault JS, Smith SG, Bohnsack JA, Luo J, Harper DE, Mc-
report to the President and Congress. U.S. Commission on
Clellan DB (2005) Fishery-independent monitoring of
Ocean Policy, Washington, DC (available at: www.ocean-
coral reef fishes and macro-invertebrates in the Dry Tortu-
commission.gov)
gas. Tortugas Reef Fish and Habitat Assessment: 2004
Witherell D (ed) (2004) Managing our nation’s fisheries: past,
Expedition Report. Univ of Miami, Miami, FL
present and future. Proc Conf Fisheries Management in
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspectives on eco-
the United States, Washington, DC, November 2003.
system-based approaches to the management of marine
North Pacific Regional Council Presentation, North Pacific
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK, p 129–150
Christensen V, Guenette S, Heymans JJ, Walters CJ, Watson
275
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
A global movement toward an wide, as well as by a broad constituency in the scien-
tific community.
ecosystem approach to management of
While we concur with the movement toward an eco-
marine resources
system-based approach to the management of marine
K. Sherman1,*, M. Sissenwine2, V. Christensen3, A. fisheries (Gislason & Sinclair 2000, Pitcher 2001, Ster-
Duda4, G. Hempel5, C. Ibe6, S. Levin7,
giou 2002, Garcia et al. 2003, Sainsbury & Sumaila
D. Lluch-Belda8, G. Matishov9, J. McGlade10,
2003, Browman et al. 2004, Pikitch et al. 2004), it is
M. O’Toole11, S. Seitzinger12, R. Serra13,
important to recognize that a broader, place-based
H.-R. Skjoldal14, Q. Tang15, J. Thulin16,
V. Vandeweerd17, K. Zwanenburg18 approach to marine ecosystem assessment and man-
agement, focused on clearly delineated ecosystem
1
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Narragansett Laboratory,
units, is needed and is presently under way, with the
NOAA-Fisheries, 28 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rhode
support of financial grants, donor and UN partner-
Island 02882, USA
*Email: kenneth.sherman@noaa.gov ships, in nations of Africa, Asia, Latin America and
2
Director of Scientific Programs, NOAA-Fisheries, eastern Europe. It is within the boundaries of 64 LMEs
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282, USA
that (1) 90% of the world’s annual yield of marine
3
Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
fisheries is produced (Garibaldi & Limongelli 2003),
British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada
(2) global levels of primary production are the highest,
4
International Waters, Global Environment Facility (GEF)
(3) the degradation of marine habitats is most severe,
Secretariat, World Bank, Washington, DC 20433, USA
5
and (4) coastal pollution is concentrated and levels of
Berater des Präsidenten des Senats für den
Wissenschaftsstandort Bremen-Bremerhaven, Senate of Bremen, eutrophication are increasing (GESAMP 2001). Large
Tiefer 2, 28195 Bremen, Germany
marine ecosystems (LMEs) are natural regions of
6
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO),
coastal ocean space encompassing waters from river
United Nations Compound, Accra, PO Box 1423, Ghana
basins and estuaries to the seaward boundaries of con-
7
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton
University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-1003, USA tinental shelves and outer margins of coastal currents
8
Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas (CICIMAR), and water masses (cf. Fig. 4). They are relatively large
Instituto Politecnico Nacional (IPN), La Paz,
regions characterized by distinct bathymetry, hydro-
Baja California Sur, 23096, Mexico
graphy, productivity, and trophically dependent popu-
9
Academy of Sciences, Murmansk Marine Biological Institute
lations (Alexander 1990, Levin 1990, Sherman 1994;
(MMBI), Azov Branch, Rostov-on-Don 344066, Russia
see www.edc.uri.edu/lme).
10
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen K1050, Denmark
11
Since 1995, the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Benguela Current LME Programme, Coordination Unit,
Windhoek, PO Box 40728, Namibia has provided substantial funding to support country-
12
Institute of Marine & Coastal Sciences, Rutgers, State
driven projects for introducing multisectoral ecosys-
University of New Jersey, Cook Campus, New Brunswick,
tem-based assessment and management practices for
New Jersey 08901-8521, USA
LMEs located around the margins of the oceans. At
13
Instituto de Fomento Pesquero, IFOP, Valparaiso, Casilla 8-V,
present, 121 developing countries are engaged in the
Chile
14
Institute of Marine Research, Bergen 5024, PO Box 1870, preparation and implementation of GEF-LME projects,
Norway
totaling $ 650 million in start-up funding. A total of 10
15
Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Qingdao 266071, China
projects including 70 countries has been approved by
16
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES),
the GEF Council, and another 7 projects involving
Copenhagen K1261, Denmark
51 countries have GEF international waters projects
17
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
under preparation (see www.iwlearn.net).
PO Box 16277, 2500 BE, The Hague, Netherlands
18
A 5 module indicator approach to assessment and
Marine Fish Division, Bedford Institute of Oceanography,
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, B2Y 4A4, Canada management of LMEs has proven useful in ecosystem-
based projects in the USA and elsewhere, using suites
The Large Marine Ecosystem Approach. Reports of of indicators of LME productivity, fish and fisheries,
problems with marine ecosystems are widespread in pollution and ecosystem health, socioeconomics, and
the scientific literature and the news media. Calls for governance. The productivity indicators include spa-
an ecosystem approach to resource assessment and tial and temporal measurements of temperature, salin-
management are seldom accompanied by a practical ity, oxygen, nutrients, primary productivity, chloro-
strategy, particularly one with a payment plan for the phyll, zooplankton biomass, and biodiversity. For fish
approach in developing countries. However, a global and fisheries, indicators are catch and effort statistics,
movement that makes the ecosystem approach to man- demersal and pelagic fish surveys, fish population
agement practical already exists. It is known as the demography, and stock assessments (NMFS 1999).
Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) approach, and it is Pollution and ecosystem health indicators include
being endorsed and supported by governments world- quality indices for water, sediment, benthos, habitats,
276 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Fig. 4. Boundaries of the 64 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) of the world and primary productivity (gC m–2 yr–1). Annual prod-
uctivity estimates are based on SeaWiFS satellite data collected between September 1998 and August 1999, and on the
model developed by Behrenfeld & Falkowski (1997). Color-enhanced image provided by Rutgers University (available at:
www.edc.uri.edu/lme, Introduction)
and fish tissue contaminants (EPA 2004). Socioeco- who are pursuing ecosystem and fishery recovery
nomic and governance indicators are discussed in goals. The annual fisheries biomass yields from the
Sutinen et al. (2000) and Juda & Hennessey (2001). ecosystems in the network are 44.8% of the global total,
The modules are adapted to LME conditions through and are a firm basis for movement by the participating
a transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) process, to countries toward the 2002 World Summit on Sustain-
identify key issues, and a strategic action program able Development (WSSD) targets for introducing eco-
(SAP) development process for the groups of nations or system-based assessment and management by 2010,
states sharing an LME, to remediate the issues (Wang and for recovering depleted stocks and achieving fish-
2004). These processes are critical for integrating sci- ing at maximum sustainable yield levels by 2015. The
ence into management in a practical way, and for FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO
establishing appropriate governance regimes. Of the 1995) is supported by most coastal nations and has
5 modules, 3 modules apply science-based indicators immediate applicability to reaching the WSSD fishery
that focus on productivity, fish/fisheries, and pollu- goals. The code argues for moving forward with a pre-
tion/ecosystem health, and the other 2 modules, socio- cautionary approach to fisheries sustainability, using
economics and governance, focus on economic bene- available information more conservatively to err on the
fits to be gained from a more sustainable resource base side of lower total allowable catch levels than has been
and from providing stakeholders and stewardship the general practice in past decades. Although fishing
interests with legal and administrative support for effort data are not available in FAO global catch report-
ecosystem-based management practices. The first 4 ing statistics and could bias catch data interpretations,
modules support the TDA process, while the gover- it appears that the biomass and yields of 11 species
nance module is associated with periodic updating of groups in 6 LMEs have been relatively stable or have
the SAP development process. Adaptive management shown marginal increases over the period from 1990 to
regimes are encouraged through periodic assessment 1999. The yield for these 6 LMEs — the Arabian Sea,
processes (TDA updates) and through updating the Bay of Bengal, Indonesian Sea, North Brazil Shelf,
action programs as gaps are filled. Mediterranean Sea and the Sulu-Celebes Sea — was
The GEF-LME projects presently funded or in the 8.1 million t, or 9.5% of the global marine fisheries yield
pipeline for funding in Africa, Asia, Latin America and in 1999 (Garibaldi & Limongelli 2003). The countries
eastern Europe represent a growing network of marine bordering these 6 LMEs are among the world’s most
scientists, marine managers, and ministerial leaders populous, representing approximately one-quarter of
277
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
the total human population. These LME border coun- irrigation to feed the world (Duda & El-Ashry 2000).
tries increasingly depend on marine fisheries for food For the estuaries of the southeastern USA (Duda 1982)
security, and for national and international trade. Given and for the Gulf of Mexico (Rabalais et al. 1999), much
the risks of fishing down the food web, it would appear of the increase in nitrogen export to LMEs is from agri-
opportune for the stewardship agencies responsible cultural inputs, from the increased delivery of nitrogen
for the fisheries of the LME-bordering countries to limit fertilizer as wetlands were converted to agriculture,
increases in fishing effort during a period of relative and from livestock production (NRC 2000). Also,
biomass stability. sewage from large cities is a significant contributor to
Evidence for species biomass recovery following sig- eutrophication, as is increased nitrogen in atmospheric
nificant reduction in fishing effort through mandated deposition resulting from combustion of fossil fuels by
actions is encouraging. In the USA Northeast Shelf automobiles and industrial activities (GESAMP 2001).
LME, management actions to reduce fishing effort Global forecast models of nitrogen export from fresh-
contributed to a recovery of depleted herring and water basins to coastal waters indicate that there will be
mackerel stocks and an initiation of the recovery of a 50% increase world-wide in dissolved inorganic nitro-
depleted yellowtail flounder and haddock stocks gen (DIN) export by rivers to coastal systems from 1990
(Sherman et al. 2003); this was in combination with the to 2050 (Seitzinger & Kroeze 1998, Kroeze & Seitzinger
robust condition of average annual primary productiv- 1998). Such increases in nitrogen export are alarming for
ity (350 g C m–2 yr–1) for the past 3 decades, a relatively the future sustainability of LMEs. Given the expected fu-
stable zooplankton biomass at or near 33 cm3 per 100 m3 ture increases in population and in fertilizer use, without
for the past 30 yr (Sherman et al. 2002), and an oceano- significant mitigation of nitrogen inputs, LMEs will be
graphic regime marked by a recurring pattern of inter- subjected to a future of increasing harmful algal bloom
annual variability, but showing no evidence of temper- events, reduced fisheries, and hypoxia that further de-
ature shift of the magnitude described for other North grades marine biomass yields and biological diversity.
Atlantic LMEs, including the Scotian Shelf (Zwanen- Models of nitrogen loading from land-based sources and
burg 2003), the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf (Rice models of ecosystem structure and function are being
2002), the Iceland Shelf (Astthorsson & Vilhjálmsson applied to LMEs with financial assistance from the
2002) and the North Sea (Perry et al. 2005). On the GEF. Estimates of carrying capacity using ECOPATH-
other hand, 3 LMEs remain at high risk for fisheries ECOSIM food web approaches for the world’s 64 LMEs
biomass recovery— expressed as a pre-1960s ratio of are being prepared in a GEF-supported collaboration
demersal to pelagic species — the Gulf of Thailand, between scientists of the University of British Columbia
East China Sea, and Yellow Sea (Pauly & Chuen- and marine specialists from developing countries. Simi-
pagdee 2003, Chen & Shen 1999, Tang & Jin 1999). larly, a 24 mo training project is being implemented by
The People’s Republic of China has initiated steps scientists from Rutgers University in collaboration with
toward recovery by mandating 60–90 d closures to IOC/UNESCO to estimate expected nitrogen loadings
fishing in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea (Tang for each LME over the next decade. Scientists from
2003). The country-driven planning and implementa- Princeton University and the University of California at
tion documents supporting the ecosystem approach to Berkeley are examining particle spectra and pattern for-
LME assessment and management practices can be mation within LMEs. Additionally, the American Fish-
found at www.iwlearn.net. eries Society and the World Council of Fisheries Societies
Nitrogen loadings. Globally, LME projects, in addi- are collaborating in an electronic network to expedite
tion to rebuilding depleted fish stocks and restoring information access and communication among marine
degraded coastal habitats, are also concerned with the specialists (for details on the GEF-LME project, see
mitigation of the effects of nitrogen loadings. Nitrogen www.gefonline.org/projectDetails.cfm?projID=2474).
over-enrichment has been a coastal problem for 2 The growing number of country-driven commit-
decades in the Baltic Sea LME (HELCOM 2001). More ments to move toward ecosystem-based assessment
recent human-induced increases in nitrogen flux and management of marine resources and environ-
range from 4- to 8-fold in the USA from the Gulf of ments provides an unprecedented opportunity for
Mexico to the New England coast (Howarth et al. accelerating the transition to sustainable use, conser-
2000). In European LMEs, recent nitrogen flux in- vation, and development of marine ecosystems. The
creases have ranged from 3-fold in Spain to11-fold social, economic, and environmental costs of inaction
in the Rhine River basin draining to the North Sea LME are simply too high for multilateral and bilateral insti-
(Howarth et al. 2000). This disruption of the nitrogen tutions and international agencies not to support the
cycle originated in the Green Revolution of the 1970s initial efforts of 121 countries attempting to reach the
as the world community converted wetlands to agricul- WSSD marine ecosystem targets for restoration and
ture, utilized more chemical fertilizer, and expanded sustainability. Both developed and developing nations
278 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
have a stake in moving toward the use of sustainable management of the uses of large marine ecosystems.
Ocean Dev Int Law 32:41–67
ecosystem resources. Momentum should not be lost, as
Levin SA (1990) Physical and biological scales and the model-
this could result in irreversible damage to coastal
ling of predator-prey interactions in large marine ecosys-
ecosystems, to the livelihoods and security of poor tems. In: Sherman K, Alexander LM, Gold BD (eds) Large
coastal communities, and to the economies of coastal marine ecosystems: patterns, processes and yields.
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
nations.
Washington, DC, p 179–187
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) (1999) Our living
oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine
LITERATURE CITED
resources, 1999. US Dep Commer, NOAA Tech Memo
NMFS-F/SPO-41
Alexander LM (1990) Geographic perspectives in the man-
NRC (National Research Council) (2000) Clean coastal
agement of large marine ecosystems. In: Sherman K,
waters: understanding and reducing the effects of nutrient
Alexander LM, Gold BD (eds) Large marine ecosystems:
pollution. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
patterns, processes and yields. American Association for
Pauly D, Chuenpagdee R (2003) Development of fisheries in
the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, p 220–223
the Gulf of Thailand large marine ecosystem: analysis of
Astthorsson OS, Vilhjálmsson H (2002) Iceland Shelf LME:
an unplanned experiment. In: Hempel G, Sherman K (eds)
decadal assessment and resource sustainability. In: Sher-
Large Marine Ecosystems of the world: trends in ex-
man K, Skjoldal HR (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the
ploitation, protection, and research. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
North Atlantic. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 219–244
p 337–354
Behrenfeld M, Falkowski PG (1997) Photosynthetic rates
Perry AL, Low PJ, Ellis JR, Reynolds JD (2005) Climate
derived from satellite-based chlorophyll concentrations.
change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science
Limnol Oceanogr 42(1):1–20
308:1912–1915
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2004) Perspectives on ecosys-
Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A and 13 others
tem-based approaches to the management of marine
(2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305:
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
346–347
Chen YQ, Shen XQ (1999) Changes in the biomass of the East
Pitcher TJ (2001) Fisheries managed to rebuild ecosystems?
China Sea ecosystem. In: Sherman K, Tang Q (eds) Large
Reconstructing the past to salvage the future. Ecol Appl
Marine Ecosystems of the Pacific Rim: assessment, sus-
11:601–617
tainability, and management. Blackwell Science, Malden,
Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Wiseman WJ Jr. (1999) Hypoxia in
MA, p 221–239
the northern Gulf of Mexico: linkages with the Mississippi
Duda AM (1982) Municipal point sources and agricultural
River. In: Kumpf H, Steidinger K, Sherman K (eds) The
nonpoint source contributions to coastal eutrophication.
Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem: assessment, sus-
Water Res Bull 18(3):397–407
tainability, and management. Blackwell Science, Malden,
Duda AM, El-Ashry MT (2000) Addressing the global water
MA, p 297–322
and environmental crises through integrated approaches
Rice J (2002) Changes to the Large Marine Ecosystem of the
to the management of land, water, and ecological
Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. In: Sherman K, Skjoldal
resources. Water Int 25:115–126
HR (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Atlantic:
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2004) National
changing states and sustainability. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
coastal condition report II. Washington, DC, EPA-620/
p 51–104
R-03/002
Sainsbury K, Sumaila UR (2003) Incorporating ecosystem
FAO (1995) Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. FAO,
objectives into management of sustainable marine fish-
Rome (available at: www.fao.org/FI/agreem/codecond/
eries, including ‘best practice’ reference points and use of
ficonde.asp)
marine protected areas. In: Sinclair M, Valdimarsson G
Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Lassarre G (2003)
(eds) Responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. FAO,
The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Rep No. 443, FAO,
Rome & CABI Publishing, Wallingford, p 343–361
Rome
Seitzinger SP, Kroeze C (1998) Global distribution of nitrous
Garibaldi L, Limongelli L (2003). Trends in oceanic captures
oxide production and N inputs to freshwater and coastal
and clustering of large marine ecosystems: two studies
marine ecosystems. Global Biogeochem Cycl 12:93–113
based on the FAO capture database. Fish Tech Pap 435,
Sherman K (1994) Sustainability, biomass yields, and health
FAO, Rome
of coastal ecosystems: an ecological perspective. Mar Ecol
GESAMP (2001) The state of the marine environment. Group
Prog Ser 112:277–301
of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution,
Sherman K, Kane J, Murawski S, Overholtz W, Solow A
Regional Seas Reports and Studies. UNEP, Nairobi
(2002) The US northeast shelf Large Marine Ecosystem:
Gislason H, Sinclair M (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing.
zooplankton trends in fish biomass recovery. In: Sherman
ICES J Mar Sci 57:465–791
K, Skjoldal HR (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the
HELCOM (2001) Environment of the Baltic Sea area
North Atlantic: changing states and sustainability. Else-
1994–1998. Baltic Sea Environment Proc 82A, Helsinki
vier, Amsterdam, p 195–215
Commission, Helsinki
Sherman K, O’Reilly J, Kane J (2003) Assessment and sustain-
Howarth R, Anderson D, Cloern J, Elfring C and 7 others
ability of the U.S. northeast shelf ecosystem. In: Hempel
(2000) Nutrient pollution of coastal rivers, bays, and seas.
G, Sherman K (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the
ESA Issues Ecol 7:1–15
world: trends in exploitation, protection, and research.
Kroeze C, Seitzinger SP (1998) Nitrogen inputs to rivers, estu-
Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 93–120
aries and continental shelves and related nitrous oxide
Stergiou KI (2002) Overfishing, tropicalization of fish stocks,
emissions in 1990 and 2050: a global model. Nutr Cycl
uncertainty and ecosystem management: resharpening
Agroecosyst 52:195–212
Ockham’s razor. Fish Res 55:109
Juda L, Hennessey T (2001) Governance profiles and the
279
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
gola, Namibia and South Africa. In terms of policy, get-
Sutinen JG (ed) (2000) A framework for monitoring and
assessing socioeconomics and governance of large marine ting countries with diverse societal objectives to agree
ecosystems. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE-158
on and implement joint EAMs is a challenge which
Tang Q, Jin X (1999) Ecology and variability of economically
must be met if EAM is to gain universal applicability.
important pelagic fishes in the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea.
I focus on 2 ways by which a country’s societal objec-
In: Sherman K, Tang Q (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of
the Pacific Rim: assessment, sustainability, and manage- tive regarding the use of marine ecosystem resources
ment. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA, p 179–198 can be affected: (1) how the country weights market
Tang Q (2003) The Yellow Sea LME and mitigation action. In:
and non-market values from the ecosystem; (2) which
Hempel G, Sherman K (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of
discount rate is applied to flows of net benefits over
the world: trends in exploitation, protection, and research.
time from the ecosystem.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 121–144
Wang H (2004) An evaluation of the modular approach to the Values and valuation. The economic theory of valu-
assessment and management of Large Marine Ecosys-
ation is based on what people want — their preferences
tems. Ocean Dev Int Law 35:267–286
(Brown 1984, Arrow et al. 1993). People’s preferences
Zwanenburg KCT (2003) The Scotian Shelf. In: Hempel G,
are expressed through the choices and tradeoffs they
Sherman K (eds) Large Marine Ecosystems of the world:
trends in exploitation, protection, and research. Elsevier, make given the resource and time constraints they
Amsterdam, p 75–92 face. It is therefore important that we capture a given
population’s preferences fully in the decision making
process on the use and non-use of marine ecosystem
Differences in economic perspectives resources. The economic theory of valuation of natural
and implementation of ecosystem-based and environmental resources calls for a comprehen-
management of marine resources sive compilation of all values into a total economic
value (Goulder & Kennedy 1997). The theory stipulates
Ussif Rashid Sumaila
that the total economic value should include market
and non-market values, which consist of direct and
Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2259 Lower
Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada indirect use values, option value, existence value
Email: r.sumaila@fisheries.ubc.ca
(Krutilla 1967), and bequest value (Young 1992).
Market values are traded in the market, e.g. the
value of fish caught and sold in the market. Non-mar-
Ecosystem definition. What is an ecosystem, and
ket values are not traded in the market. Direct use val-
what is ecosystem-based management? There are
ues capture the value of ecosystem goods and services
many answers to these questions (e.g. Sinclair &
Valdimarson 2003). Here is my summary: an ecosystem that are directly used for consumptive purposes, e.g.
is a geographically specified system of organisms, the value of commercial output such as fish harvest.
Indirect use values are values of ecosystem goods and
including humans, the environment, and the processes
that control the system’s dynamics. Similarly, an services that are used as intermediate inputs to pro-
ecosystem-based approach to the management of duction, e.g. services such as water cycling and waste
assimilation. Option value is the potential that the
marine resources (EAM) is geographically specified; it
is also adaptive and takes account of ecosystem knowl- ecosystem will provide currently unknown valuable
goods and services in the future. Existence value
edge and uncertainties. It considers multiple external
(essentially described as non-use value in the litera-
influences, and strives to balance diverse societal ob-
jectives. EAM requires that the connections between ture) is the value conferred by humans on the ecosys-
people and the marine ecosystem be recognized, tem regardless of its use value — an environmental
including the short- and long-term implications of good may be valuable merely because one is happy
human activities along with the processes, compo- that it exists, quite apart from any future option to con-
nents, functions, and carrying capacity of ecosystems. sume it, visit it or otherwise use it; this value may arise
The fact that ecosystems and the EAM are geograph- from aesthetic, ethical, moral or religious considera-
tions. Finally, bequest value captures the willingness
ically specified implies that for ecosystems that are
shared by 2 or more countries, policies that are trans- to pay to preserve a resource for the benefit of one’s
boundary in nature are required to manage them suc- descendants (future generations).
cessfully. Many of the world’s 64 large marine ecosys- A country’s perspective on market and non-market
tems are shared by 2 or more countries (Sherman & values depends on a number of variables, including,
Duda 1999, see also www.seaaroundus.org). For in- (1) net price per unit of market goods and services, and
stance, to effectively apply EAM to the management (2) unit non-market value derived from the ecosystem.
of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem In practice, different countries place different empha-
(BCLME), policies need to be crafted and adopted by sis on market and non market values. Countries that
the 3 countries bordering the ecosystem, namely An- put more emphasis on market values tend to maintain
280 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
lower standing biomass offish in the marine ecosystem, The discussion above can be expressed mathemati-
for example, than those that place more relative value cally as follows:
on non-market values, thereby creating the possibility
δ i = δ i (u, p, ind , r , nml ) (1)
of policy disagreement on how to implement EAM.
where δi denotes the discount rate faced by country i, u
The USA with its emphasis on free markets is an exam-
ple of the former, while Sweden, with less emphasis on is the degree of uncertainty of future outcomes, the
parameters p and ind are the levels of poverty and
free markets, would be an example of the latter.
Discount rates and discounting. The discount rate is indebtedness, respectively, among users of the marine
ecosystem. The parameter r denotes the risk averse-
a pure number per unit of time (usually in %) that
ness of the country and nml denotes the level of non-
allows us to convert values to be received in the future
into values received today. This process of converting malleability of the capital employed to exploit the
future values into present values is known as discount- ecosystem.
ing streams of benefits. People may discount for many The partial derivatives below explain how each of
reasons (see Goulder & Stavins 1997), e.g., (1) people the above parameters may affect the discount rate
are generally impatient and display a preference for faced by a country.
having their benefits today rather than tomorrow (due
∂δ i ∂δ i ∂δ i ∂δ i ∂δ i
> 0; > 0; > 0; < 0; >0
to uncertainty, high debt levels, poverty, etc.), and (2)
∂u ∂p ∂ind ∂r ∂nml
(2) the opportunity cost of capital: with the benefits in
hand now, one has the opportunity to at least deposit it The 1st partial derivative states that, other things
in a bank account and earn interest. being equal, the higher the level of uncertainty of out-
The following quote attributed to Nietzsche (who is not comes is, the higher will be the discount rate. The 2nd
to be quoted on many things, according to my European and 3rd partial derivatives state that, the higher the
friends) captures the motivation for discounting future level of poverty and indebtedness among users of the
flows of benefits vividly: ‘Egoism is the law of perspec- ecosystem is, the higher will be the discount rate (Pen-
tives, as it applies to feelings according to which what is der 1996). According to the 4th derivative, the more
closest to us appears to be large and weighty, while size risk averse a country is, the lower will be its discount
and weight decrease with our distance from things’ (The rate (Pender & Fafchamps 1997, Binswanger 1980).
Globe and Mail, October 27, 2002). The 5th derivative states that the more non-malleable
Discount rates thus reflect how much weight a coun- the capital employed in extracting resources from the
try places on receiving its benefits now, rather than in marine ecosystem is, the higher will be the country’s
the future. In this respect, discounting is used to model discount rate.
human behavior. It therefore provides an analytical High degrees of uncertainty, high levels of indebted-
basis for making value-based decisions. Discount rates ness and poverty, risk loving attitudes and non-malle-
reflect uncertainties associated with potential future ability of the capital used to exploit the marine ecosys-
benefits (Brennan 1997). Everything being equal, high tem, will all result in a country putting too much
uncertainty about future outcomes will lead to a high weight on receiving benefits from the marine ecosys-
discount rate. The discount rate can also be seen as a tem now, rather than later. The country will tend to
measure of a country’s risk averseness. A risk averse enact policies that sacrifice long-term sustainability for
country would adhere more to the precautionary prin- short-term benefits.
ciple, and therefore would shy away from making rad- Discounting has been identified in the environmen-
ical changes to the marine ecosystem. Such a country tal economics literature as a source of problems when
will, other things being equal, have a lower discount assessing the costs and benefits of projects and policies
rate. On the other hand, a risk loving country will have with long-term benefits but short-term costs (Heal
a higher discount rate (Pender & Fafchamps 1997, Bin- 1998). It has been argued that discounting future flows
swanger 1980). When the capital employed to exploit of benefits from marine ecosystems affects our ability
the marine ecosystem is non-malleable (Clark et al. to manage these resources sustainably for the benefits
1979, Sumaila 1995), any policy to reduce capital in an of both current and future generations (Hasselmann
overfished fishery, for example, will lead to stiff resis- et al. 1997, Weitzman 2001, Sumaila 2004, Sumaila &
tance from fishers, because the cost of this policy looms Walters 2005).
large while its future benefits seem small today. In this Differences in discount rates among countries shar-
situation, the discount rate is high. Similarly, high lev- ing the same marine ecosystem will lead to problems in
els of poverty and indebtedness in the communities implementing EAM for the ecosystem, because these
exploiting the marine ecosystem will tend to push a differences will be manifest in diverse social objectives
country to apply high discount rates to the flow of ben- for the countries. In the issue of climate change, for
efits from marine ecosystems (Pender 1996). instance, this partially explains why low discount rate
281
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
countries signed the Kyoto Accord, while high dis- Economic differences between countries that share a
count rate countries did not. A key effect of signing the marine ecosystem can be an obstacle to the implemen-
Accord is that a country will have to implement poli- tation of EAM. These obstacles need to be removed,
cies and actions that may be costly now, in order to not only because of the ecological and scientific bene-
ensure that benefits accrue in the future. fits of EAM (Browman & Stergiou 2004), but also
Let us consider 2 countries, i = 1 and 2, that share a because of its economic benefits, as shown in multi-
marine ecosystem. Let the per period benefit derived species bioeconomic models (e.g. Hannesson 1983,
by country i be Vi (m, nm), which depends on market Flaaten 1988, Fischer & Mirman 1992). Ensuring that
(m) and non-market values (nm). Further, these coun- policies are put in place for the conservation of marine
tries are assumed to have discount rates δ 1 and δ 2, ecosystems through time is even more crucial than in
respectively. If one country imputes more value to m the case of terrestrial ecosystems, since people can
relative to nml, and the other country imputes more easily see what is happening on land and therefore are
value to nm relative n, then there is potential for dis- more able to take action to fix emerging problems.
agreement on how to implement EAM for the shared This is clearly not the case with marine ecosystems.
ecosystem. In addition, if the discount rates in both The use of a combination of the ‘carrot’ and the ‘stick’
countries are different, their preference with respect to together with efforts by NGOs and other civil society
the time at which they want to take their benefits from groups to raise public awareness for the benefit of both
the ecosystem will be different. This, too, will pose current and future generations, will help to get coun-
problems for the implementation of the EAM. tries sharing marine resources to put together EAM
Summary. I have identified potential sources of policy policies that work.
differences between countries that share a marine
ecosystem. These differences are potential sources of Acknowledgements. The support of the Sea Around Us pro-
conflict that can hinder progress in implementing EAM ject and the Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, OCEANA,
of shared ecosystems: (1) relative valuation of market the European Community’s Programme for International
Scientific Co-operation (INCO) through Contract 003739 for
and non-market values, (2) time preference with respect
the INCOFISH project, and the Benguela Current Large
to the valuation of flows of benefits from the ecosystem
Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) program are very much appre-
through discounting. A low discount rate country that ciated.
places a higher relative value on non-market values will
prefer a policy that is more conservationist than a high
LITERATURE CITED
discount rate country that puts more weight on market
values relative to non-market values. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schu-
The important question here is, what can be done to man H (1993) Report of NOAA Panel on Contingent Valu-
ation. Federal Register 58(10):4601–4614
close the economic differences that may exist between
Binswanger HP (1980) Attitudes towards risk: experimental
countries that share a marine ecosystem? Potential solu-
measurement in rural India. Am J Agric Econ 62(3):
tions to the problem include, (1) ‘side payments’ by the 395–407
low discount rate country to the high discount rate coun- Brennan TJ (1997) Discounting the future: economics and
try; this is a result from game theory (Munro 1979, ethics. In: Oates WE (ed) RFF reader in environmental and
resource management. Resources for the future. Washing-
Sumaila 1999), and it amounts to using the ‘carrot’ to get
ton, DC
the high discount rate country to change its discounting
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (2004) Perspectives on ecosystem-
preferences. (2) The part of the population in a high dis- based approaches to the management of marine resources.
count rate country that cares about non-market values Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303
Brown TC (1984) The concept of value in resource allocation.
will need to raise awareness of the value to society of
Land Econ 60:231–246
preserving the flow of both market and non-market val-
Clark CW, Clarke FH, Munro GR (1979) The optimal manage-
ues through time; by working to broaden the scope of ment of renewable resource stocks: problems of irre-
values that policy makers take into account, the differ- versible investment. Econometrica 47:25–47
ences between the 2 countries sharing an ecosystem can Fischer RD, Mirman LJ (1992) Strategic dynamic interaction:
fish wars. J Dyn Control 16:267–287
be eliminated, or reduced significantly—the current role
Flaaten O (1988) The economics of multispecies harvesting —
of environmental NGOs and other civil society organiza-
theory and application to the Barents Sea fisheries.
tions is partly geared towards achieving this objective. Studies in contemporary economics. Springer-Verlag,
(3) Other countries with low discount rates should use Berlin
Hannesson R (1983) Optimal harvesting of ecologically inter-
the ‘stick and carrot’ by imposing economic, social, moral
dependent fish species. J Environ Econ Manage 10:329–345
and ethical incentives and sanctions on high discount
Hasselmann K, Hasselmann S, Giering R, Ocana V, von
rate countries to compel them to apply lower discount Storch H (1997) Sensitivity study of optimal CO2 emission
rates to marine resource values, and place more weight paths using a simplified structural integrated assessment
on non-market values. model (SIAM). Clim Change 37:335–343
282 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
become a must). This apparent triumph conceals a
Goulder H, Kennedy D (1997) Valuing ecosystem services:
philosophical bases and empirical methods. In: Daily GC bitter reality: the lack of a scientific and political
(ed) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural
consensus on the conceptual basis and limits of EBM,
ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 23–48
and the unavailability of an operational framework
Goulder LH, Stavins RN (2002) Discounting: an eye on the
generating clear rules for its practical implementation.
future. Nature 419: 673–674
Heal GM (1998) Valuing the future: economic theory and sus- Defining ecosystem-based reference levels for fish-
tainability. Columbia University Press, New York eries management, based on indicators of overall eco-
Krutilla J (1967) Conservation reconsidered. Am Econ Rev 57:
system structure and functioning, and followed by the
787–796
establishment of thresholds for ecosystem overfishing,
Munro GR (1979) The optimal management of transboundary
is crucial to prove that EBM is much more than an
renewable resources. Can J Econ 12:355–376
Pender JL (1996) Discount rates and credit markets: theory appealing concept. This advance in science should be
and evidence from India. J Dev Econ 50(2)257–297
accompanied by steps toward developing effective
Pender JL, Fafchamps M (1997) Precautionary saving, credit
management approaches and operational tools (the
constraints, and irreversible investments: theory and evi-
EBM ‘tool kit’) and political understanding of the
dence from semiarid India. J Business Econ Stat 15(2):
180–194 nuances (and their operational effects) in the termino-
Sinclair M, Valdimarson G. (eds.) (2003) Responsible fisheries logy employed by different stakeholders. These inter-
in the marine ecosystem. FAO, Rome & CABI Publishing,
related processes are key to the delivery of a truly
Wallingford
functional approach that at its core enables society to
Sherman K, Duda AM (1999) An ecosystem approach to
continue to derive services from healthy functioning
global assessment and management of coastal waters.
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 190:271–287 marine ecosystems.
Sumaila UR (1995) Irreversible capital investment in a 2-stage
The story of EBM could become that of an inter-
bimatrix fishery game model. Mar Resour Econ 3:263–283
esting debate but a failed approach; the risk of a
Sumaila UR. (1999) A review of game theoretic models of fish-
complete failure is real. Our society, as users of the
ing. Mar Pol 23(1):1–10
Sumaila UR (2004) Intergenerational cost benefit analysis and global marine resources, cannot afford a failure of
marine ecosystem restoration. Fish Fish 5:329–343 EBM, however, given the cumulative scientific evi-
Sumaila UR, Walters C (2005) Intergenerational discounting:
dence on the degraded state of marine ecosystems
a new intuitive approach. Ecol Econ 52:135–142
and the way this compromises the future of the
Weitzman ML (2001) Gamma discounting. Am Econ Rev
world’s food supplies.
91(1):260–272
Young MD (1992) Sustainable investment and resource use: The underlying debate. The debate on what the
equity, environmental integrity and economic efficiency.
EBM concept must be is currently at a crossroads. The
Man and the Biosphere Series, Vol 9. UNESCO, Paris
discussion that took place in 2003 at the 25th meeting
of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) following
the presentation of the FAO Guidelines on the Eco-
system Approach to Fisheries (FAO 2003) clearly
Paradigm shifts, gaps, inertia, and demonstrated that 2 radically opposed visions of EBM
are struggling against each other.
political agendas in ecosystem-based
In one vision, EBM entails a radical change in the
fisheries management
paradigm underlying ocean management (including
Sergi Tudela1, Katherine Short2 fisheries), accounting for the complexity of exploited
ecosystems and recognizing the need for precaution-
1
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Mediterranean Pro-
ary management of human activities. In this vision,
gramme Office, Canuda 37, 08002 Barcelona, Spain
the preservation of ecologically viable populations of
Email: studela@atw-wwf.org
2
ecosystem components is key to maintain species’
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Global Marine Programme,
Avenue du Mont-Blanc, Gland, 1196 VD, Switzerland functional redundancy and the derived structural and
Email: kshort@wwfint.org
functional ecosystem conditions that ensure ecosystem
resilience and sustained provision of ecosystem ser-
vices (Jackson et al. 2001). Application of the precau-
Success of a label and failure to operationalise a
concept. There is no doubt that the many different tionary principle and development of robust data-poor
ways to refer to the idea of the ecosystem-based man- management approaches are essential features of this
agement (EBM) of fisheries have successfully entered vision.
the politically correct scientific/managerial jargon. The The other vision regards ecosystems from a purely
success of this process is impressive, as demonstrated mechanistic perspective and seeks to maximize human
by widespread reference to the concept in all types of profits by engineering the food web and other ecosys-
documents, including the crucial project applications tem manipulations. Under this logic, the goal of EBM is
to funding agencies and donors (for which it has to obtain ecosystems that are tailored for supplying the
283
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
optimum harvest of the desired species, e.g. in the case Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management to
of fisheries. This perspective is used by pro-whaling identify the appropriate indicators to make FAO’s EAF
countries to argue that trophic competition from operational.
cetaceans is restricting fish harvests for developing The IOC/SCOR International Symposium on Quanti-
countries, thus strategically trying to align the whaling tative Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management
and food security debates within the UN/FAO political (Paris, March–April 2004), intending to fill the gap
framework. described above, resulted in limited progress towards
The FAO Guidelines (FAO 2003) do not readily align the operationalisation of the EBM. Apart from a few
with the first vision outlined above — which is fully exceptions (see Tudela et al. 2005) most contributions
supported by scientific research on ecosystem dynam- did not address the development of operational frame-
ics — but they do integrate many essential features of works based on the proposed indicators, nor did they
elaborate upon precautionary boundaries for ecosys-
the ‘engineering’ vision. This way, they envision the
tem overfishing (Murawski 2000), which are central
EBM of fisheries — now renamed Ecosystem Approach
to Fisheries (EAF) — as being an extension of target aspects to the EBM.
resources oriented management (TROM). The FAO A Khunian revolution in fisheries science. It is hard
Guidelines devote considerable attention to ecosystem to understand what is currently going on in fisheries
manipulations such as creating artificial habitats, science (and management agencies) without recogniz-
restocking and stock enhancement, culling and ing that the EBM concept has generated a situation
intentional introductions, which are considered as that resembles a Khunian revolution (Khun 1962). It is
appropriate elements of EAF. obvious that EBM of fisheries, if understood as a real
change in the underlying paradigm of fisheries sci-
From quantitative ecosystem-based indicators to
operational fisheries management frameworks. As ence, is challenging the validity of classical TROM
outlined above, the development of ecosystem-based approaches. This is leading to a well-known situation
indicators is a key to the operational implementation (inherent to all scientific revolutions) of interim co-
of the EBM, since it opens the door to establish truly occurrence of both approaches, whose advocates are
ecosystem-based reference levels (Caddy & Mahon radically opposed to each other, generating a feeling of
1995), something essential to any fisheries manage- crisis. What makes this situation even more dramatic
ment process. The success (or failure) to identify and is that it concerns an ‘applied science’, one that is
routinely use them will likely determine whether expected to help manage fundamental global food
EBM will give way to a fully new approach or, on the resources, and that it is arising during a real crisis of
contrary, whether it will be restrained to a merely overfishing (with the consequent perception of failure
superficial greening of conventional TROM. Besides, of the paradigm of the last 50 yr).
indicators are not neutral with respect to the current The reluctance to accept the essential holistic para-
debate on the real nature of EBM/EAF. Indicators digm of EBM is at the root of much of the criticism by
focusing on the emergent properties of exploited the scientific establishment. For example, it is often
ecosystems are more likely to support a precaution- argued that EBM makes management increasingly
difficult, since it is assumed to require much more
ary vision of EBM rooted in a paradigm shift than
research. The central issue here is that recognising the
others related to, for instance, simpler predator–prey
complex nature of exploited marine ecosystems should
aspects.
lead to reducing our expectations of science to make
The FAO Guidelines (FAO 2003) provide a useful
accurate quantitative predictions. Moreover, precau-
conceptual framework to address the issue of ecosys-
tem-based indicators: tionary data-poor methodologies, implemented through
adaptive management schemes, do not require in-
For practical purposes the indicator should be an ecosys- creasing parameterisation ad infinitum. It is a paradox
tem property that is thought to be modified by the fish-
that the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries was
ery, so that at least there is a controllable fishery impact
accepted as a mainstream concept before the EBM
for which a target level of change is identified. If it is not
paradigm was, taking into account that it is precisely
appropriate to set a target reference point, then at least a
limit reference point should be set. … (L)ack of scientific the recognition of complexity (and the related un-
certainty should not prevent the selection of indicators certainty in our predictions) associated with the EBM
and reference points that are considered important, or
paradigm that supports the full implementation of the
the clear explanation of a basis for selection. (pp 53, 55)
former.
Nevertheless, the FAO Guidelines suffer from a lack Another typical element of the process of paradigm
of concretion that rends them of little operational use. change is the common attempt of the establishment to
In fact, they already recognize this limitation and co-opt the new approach, in this case by limiting it to a
entrust the SCOR-IOC Working Group on Quantitative mere extension of current fisheries management prac-
284 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
tices — as the FAO Guidelines do — or by perverting it mic world, and with their awareness-raising skills. As
so as to further legitimate the old approach, as for the latter, the ecological footprint issue (the eco-
described above regarding the invigorated claims logical limits to fish production) is a crucial aspect of
justifying ecosystem engineering. the EBM paradigm, and it deserves a considerable
communications effort. This would allow the public to
Conservation and EBM of fisheries: new opportuni-
ties. Under EBM, both the concepts of conservation realize the real extent of the current global fishing cri-
and management achieve a high level of integration. sis and to appreciate what the real limits are for other
The fact that resistance in exploited ecosystems is emerging activities, like mariculture, which is wrongly
maintained by redundancy in the functionality of the perceived by many as the ultimate solution for supply-
different species (Jackson et al. 2001) supports the ing endless amounts of fish.
need to preserve biodiversity (including functional Conservation NGOs, aware of the opportunities
population levels of the different species) to reduce the associated with the new approach, are fully involved in
risk of ecosystem collapses. This approach (conserving the promotion of EBM, often adopting a highly proac-
overall biodiversity) is also useful to preserve keystone tive attitude, working together with academics and
species, crucial to keep the functional and structural policy experts, and providing input in virtually all
integrity of ecosystems, since they are extremely diffi- major international processes (FAO Committee on
cult to identify and change with time within evolving Fisheries, World Summit on Sustainable Development,
ecosystems. With these premises in mind, it is evident Convention on Biological Diversity, etc.). Indeed, WWF
that conserving biodiversity is not only a conservation developed a pioneering document (Ward et al. 2002),
objective driven by moral considerations, but also a suggesting guidelines for the EBM of fisheries and
first order objective for fisheries management, under a ways to proceed, well before FAO completed its
precautionary EBM approach in fisheries that seeks to technical consultation on the issue.
maximize ecosystem resistance and resilience. Fur- Challenges in science for EBM. Owing to its sys-
thermore, increasing evidence of the shifting baseline temic nature, we anticipate that the knowledge of
effect (the change in scientists’ perception about exploited marine ecosystems will never permit at the
the reference status of ecosystems with generations; ecosystem level the kind of mechanistic approach usu-
Pitcher 2001) and the primacy of (over)fishing as the ally followed in single stock management. Therefore,
main factor for ecosystem change (Jackson et al. 2001) EBM should not seek to emulate the current approach
reinforces the need for conservation and fisheries associated with TROM (see Stergiou 2002). It is very
management to coalesce. Indeed, both disciplines important to be fully aware of these inherent limita-
share the goal of rebuilding exploited ecosystems to a tions, knowing the new ‘rules of the game’, and avoid-
reasonably healthy status from the structural and ing the trap of setting impossible goals in EBM
functional point of view, compatible with the maximum research and management, with the potential frustra-
conservation of biodiversity and the supply of the tion and consequent delays in reversing the current
greatest services to society — fisheries ranking high trends. This means that in parallel with studies on
among them. ecosystem functioning and ecosystem effects of fishing
Whilst conservation per se (in the broadest meaning it is crucial to develop new research on precautionary
of the concept: preservation of structurally and func- (i.e. data-poor) EBM, with an emphasis on deriving
tionally healthy ecosystems) might still be considered operational reference frameworks for management
as just a necessary instrument to deliver ‘wilderness’ (Tudela et al. 2005).
(an ecosystem service highly appreciated by some sec- A clear focus on comparative studies of exploited
tors of society), it is also a prerequisite for healthy marine ecosystems, including their historical evolution
ecosystems able to provide other services (e.g supply (Jackson & Sala 2001), combined with ecosystem mod-
of food, sewage depuration; Daily et al. 1997). So, a eling and simulation analyses, is needed at this stage
new role for conservation arises, becoming an integral (in line with Cury’s ‘ecoscope’; Cury 2004). Also, given
component of any EBM approach. the emerging consideration of marine reserves as a pri-
This leads to the emergence of a new responsibility mary tool for EBM of fisheries, studies focusing on its
for conservation NGOs. Far from being seen as ‘intrud- correct design and implementation should be pro-
ers’ in the world of fisheries management (traditionally moted urgently (see Browman & Stergiou 2004).
perceived as more interested in the conservation of One of the main challenges that research on EBM
pristine habitats, rather than in maintaining livelihoods faces deals with the need to integrate knowledge
and securing food supplies), their challenge now is to on non-target species and ecosystem functioning to
contribute to EBM experiences drawing on their broad understand the real dynamics of exploited ecosystems.
expertise in conservation, multidisciplinary work with The highly multidisciplinary approach required to
a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including the acade- achieve this is a major problem in many regions where
285
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
specialists in disciplines unrelated to traditional fish- A preliminary assessment of global fisheries (coastal
eries science are absent from fisheries fora. There and shelf areas) using ecosystem overfishing criteria
has been a long and profound separation between indicates that current catches are several times in
‘applied’ fisheries researchers, in most cases closely excess of the estimated ecosystem-based maximum
linked to governmental fisheries management agen- sustainable catches (see Table 2; Tudela et al. 2005).
cies, and ‘fundamental’ marine ecologists and other This illustrates that EBM is likely to be more restrictive
scientists. than TROM with respect to extractive possibilities,
and means that in the current overcapacity crisis in
Short-term perspectives and global fisheries gover-
nance. Studies aimed at placing fisheries in their eco- the fisheries sector, implementation of EBM will cer-
system context during the last decade have provided tainly find considerable resistance from the industry
overwhelming scientific evidence of the dramatic foot- and politicians. However, it is precisely this critical
print of fisheries on global marine ecosystems (Pauly & situation that makes the development of EBM more
Christensen 1995), and have demonstrated the instru- necessary than ever.
mental role of overfishing in the resulting structural Only great political momentum will bring EBM
and functional degradation of ecosystems (Jackson et beyond mere aesthetic moves (small and scattered
al. 2001). Even so, the separation between the world of marine reserves, a limited reduction of by-catch, etc.).
traditional fisheries management (and science) and the In this sense, the current picture is not optimistic, as
new ecosystem-based approaches remains largely in illustrated by the fact that scientific arguments (even
place. mainstream TROM ones) are systematically subsumed
Comparing fisheries management to ecosystem under political ones, e.g. when the European Council
management, well after the ICES/SCOR Symposium systematically ignores ICES advice regarding the
on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing held in Montpellier annual fishing quotas; another example is the scan-
in 1999 — a milestone in the process towards the acad- dalous political bargaining at ICCAT meetings on tuna
emic recognition of the need for EBM of fisheries — and management (see Anonymous 2004). This globally
the 2001 Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fish- widespread picture exacerbates the normal resistance
eries in the Marine Ecosystem, García et al. (2003) to radically revise the scientific basis for management.
wrote: Indeed, there is no point in tackling such an effort —
with all the costly implications it entails — if there is
Ecosystem management is also supported by science but hardly any fisheries management that is scientifically
decision processes (particularly at international level)
driven.
seem to operate under higher public pressure often orga-
Besides, as a side effect of the failure of traditional
nized by NGOs through an efficient use of the media. It
fisheries management, and given the lack of a unified,
is evolving rapidly, supported by a large number of
citizens, most of them with limited or no understanding of coherent vision for an EBM approach to fisheries,
the costs of change to the sector and who often assume many experts postulate that ‘common sense’ aspects
a zero cost to themselves. (p. 48)
that are essential to any kind of rational fisheries man-
This statement implicitly diminishes the strength agement, including TROM (e.g. stakeholder participa-
and legitimacy of the vast amount of scientific evi- tion, adaptive management,) are distinctive key ele-
dence supporting the need for a new fisheries manage- ments of the new EBM. This adds further confusion to
ment paradigm, by suggesting it is being co-opted by the proper consolidation of EBM and contributes to the
clever, though naïve, NGOs that skilfully manipulate idea of EBM as being a broad improvement of tradi-
an ignorant society. It also assumes a zero cost of keep- tional fisheries management, a sort of chimera of the
ing the status quo, failing to internalise the effects of perfect fisheries management in an imaginary perfect
the global fisheries crisis related to the inadequacy of
the current fisheries management paradigm. Table 2. Ecosystem-based maximum sustainable catches
(EMSC; t km–2 yr–1) at 50 and 70% probability of sustainable
This is just a further example that reinforces the
exploitation for different ecosystem types, compared with
sense that the natural development of fully fledged
current levels of catch and discards. Modified from Tudela
EBM of fisheries will in the short term continue to be
et al. (2005)
obstructed by, (1) the lack of confidence in the transla-
tion of the new approach into realistic and effective
Ecosystem Current catch EMSC50 EMSC70
management measures and tools, (2) historical inertia
types and discards
or resistance to change, (3) rivalries between scientific
schools (including turf wars between fisheries scien- Tropical shelves 2.87 1.46 0.84
Temperate shelves 2.31 1.38 0.80
tists, unwilling to allow ecologists and other academics
Coastal areas
to have a say in their business, or perceiving them as
and coral reefs 10.5 3.96 2.28
competing for funding), and (4) political agendas.
286 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
world. EBM has clearly-defined steps that can be oper- Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the
management of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser
ationalised, whether for an entire ocean or for concrete
274:272–275
fisheries (Ward et al. 2002).
Daily GC, Alexander S, Ehrlich PR and 8 others (1997)
There have been some positive developments. In Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies
spite of the lack of consensus about an operational by natural ecosystems. Issues Ecol 2:1–16
FAO (2003) Fisheries management 2. The ecosystem approach
framework for EBM, several EBM tools are emerging
to fisheries. FAO, Rome
and gaining acceptance. On one hand, technical
Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Lasserre G (2003)
improvements to increase the selectivity of gears are The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Rep no. 443, FAO,
being tested and adopted in many fisheries. On the Rome
other hand, the concept of marine protected areas Jackson J, Sala E (2001) Unnatural oceans. Sci Mar 65:
273–281
(MPAs) as an essential ecosystem-based management
Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA and 15
tool is also strongly consolidating, supported by
others (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent col-
increasing scientific evidence pointing to their efficacy lapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–638
to rebuild ecosystems and benefit fisheries (Roberts et Khun T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
al. 2001). Additionally, a number of countries are pur-
Murawski SA (2000) Definitions of overfishing from an
suing an oceans policy approach which has at its core
ecosystem perspective. ICES J Mar Sci 57:649–658
an ecologically-based perspective of the management Pauly D, Christensen V (1995) Primary production required
issues and challenges for the marine realm. to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255–257
Whatever the outcomes of the current process, it is Pitcher TJ (2001) Fisheries managed to rebuild ecosystems?
Reconstructing the past to salvage the future. Ecol Appl
certain that in the coming years the reader will regu-
11:601–617
larly see the familiar acronyms ‘EAF’, ‘EBM’, ‘EBFM’
Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F, Hawkins JP, Goodridge R
or ‘EAM’ in project proposals, preambles of fisheries (2001) Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries.
regulations, international declarations, FAO docu- Science 294:1920–1923
Stergiou KI (2002) Overfishing, tropicalization of fish stocks,
ments, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations
uncertainty and ecosystem management: resharpening
and other multilateral bodies, etc. However, while it
Ockham’s razor. Fish Res 55:1–9
broadly advocates the application of the ecosystem Tudela S, Coll M, Palomera I (2005) Developing an opera-
approach in oceans management, the most relevant tional reference framework for fisheries management on
global agreement dealing with fisheries issued during the basis of a 2-dimensional index of ecosystem impact.
ICES J Mar Sci 62:585–591
the 21st century, the Plan of Implementation of the
Ward T, Hegerl E, Tarte D, Short K (2002) Policy proposals
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development
and operational guidance for Ecosystem-Based Manage-
(WSSD), still maintains the primacy of the highly con- ment of marine capture fisheries. WWF, Sidney
troversial maximum sustainable yield (MSY) concept
(which is single-species-based and intrinsically non-
precautionary) as the proper target reference level in
Aligning incentives for a successful
sustainable fisheries management. This is still the state
of the art. ecosystem approach to fisheries
The real challenge is to base management on the
management*
ecological reality of complex and finite marine ecosys-
Grimur Valdimarsson, Rebecca Metzner
tems. It is the mandate of those representing civil soci-
ety to seek the political space for promoting this Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organization
change. Making the change and decreasing what we (FAO) of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,
00100 Rome, Italy
take from the oceans will require a collective effort.
Emails: grimur.valdimarsson@fao.org, rebecca.metzner@fao.org
LITERATURE CITED
The need for ‘better’ fisheries management. Now
that the notion of the inexhaustibility of the oceans has
Anonymous (2004) Fishing’s secretive controllers. Nature
432:785 finally been rejected by most people and there is a
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (2004) Marine Protected Areas as a
global consensus on the need to achieve sustainable
central element of ecosystem-based management: de-
fisheries, there are increasing efforts worldwide to-
fining their location, size and number. In: Browman HI,
wards ‘improved’ management of fisheries. A common
Stergiou KI (eds) Perspectives on ecosystem-based
approaches to the management of marine resources. Mar view is that fisheries must meet 4 criteria to be desig-
Ecol Prog Ser 274:271-272
Caddy JP, Mahon R (1995) Reference points for fisheries
*The views expressed in this contribution do not necessarily
management. Fish Tech Pap 347, FAO, Rome
reflect the views of the Food and Agriculture Organization
Cury P (2004) Tuning the ecoscope for the Ecosystem
(FAO) of the United Nations
Approach to Fisheries. In: Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds)
287
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
nated as responsibly managed: (1) produce human conservation, habitat protection, fishery and non-
benefits, (2) be sustainable, (3) have a ‘fair’ distribution fishery impacts, etc. The aim is to ensure that aquatic
of benefits, and (4) not cause ‘unacceptable change’ in ecosystems can produce fish, food, revenues, employ-
marine ecosystems (Sissenwine & Mace 2003). These ment and, more generally, other essential services
can be summarized as people, products, profits, and and livelihoods for the benefit of present and future
planet. generations — despite variability, uncertainty and
There is much less consensus on (or even practical likely natural changes in the ecosystem. The main
consideration of) the mechanics for implementing this. implication is the need to cater for human well-being
However, while the various objectives of fisheries as well as ecosystem well-being (FAO 2004).
management tend to diverge, there is one basic objec- There is no shortage of international fishery conser-
tive: to make sure that enough fish are left in the water vation instruments, guidelines, and international plans
so that they can keep on producing new generations of of action on how to deal with fisheries issues. The
fish. This may seem a simple task, but it has proven to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
be very difficult. (UNCLOS) is at the core of the global fisheries man-
For most fisheries there are very limited or no restric- agement structure. It has been complemented by the
tions on how much fishing can be done. Where maxi- Agreement to Promote Compliance with International
mum limits are set (based upon stock estimates), land- Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing
ings frequently surpass the limits, because there is no Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement)
commercial incentive to adhere to such limits. Penal- and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Pro-
ties are relatively low, and there are many financial visions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
pressures to exceed them. As a consequence, some the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management
25% of all harvested fish stocks are overfished — by of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish
and large by countries that have the greatest technical Stocks (Fish Stocks Agreement).
capability to stick to the catch limits. Thus, it is gener- In 1995 FAO produced the Code of Conduct for
ally agreed that in terms of controlling the catch, the Responsible Fisheries (the Code), recognizing the
systems that most countries have adopted so as not to nutritional, economic, social, environmental and cul-
catch too many fish are far from effective. tural importance of fisheries and the interests of all
The main cause of this ineffectiveness, and the fatal those concerned with the fishery sector. The holistic
flaw of fisheries management, is that most govern- nature of fisheries and fisheries management was fur-
ments and management organizations have chosen to ther clarified at the Reykjavik Conference on Respon-
govern their fisheries by command and control meth- sible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem by focussing
ods that rely on top-down management, even though on defining practical steps to move from the present
these methods have a proven track record of system- fisheries management framework to ecosystems-based
atic failure in even fisheries management (FAO 2003). fisheries management. The Reykjavik Declaration on
Ironically, such methods have been abandoned in most Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem con-
other sectors of modern economies, such as in the cen- firmed that ‘the objective of including ecosystem con-
trally planned industries of the former Eastern Block siderations in fisheries management is to contribute to
countries. Given the added data collection and docu- long-term food security and to human development
mentation required by the adoption of the ecosystem and to assure the effective conservation and sustain-
approach to fisheries EAF management, one can ques- able use of the ecosystem and its resources’. FAO
tion whether this is likely to succeed. Indeed, if we are subsequently published ‘The ecosystem approach to
failing to achieve the basic requirement of encourag- marine capture fisheries’ as a Technical Guideline
ing fishers to leave enough fish in the water for future under the general title of Responsible Fisheries Man-
sustainable harvests, how can we hope that an even agement (FAO 2003), which were accompanied by the
more sophisticated system will work? FAO Fisheries Technical Paper ‘The ecosystem ap-
This essay concludes that EAF management can be proach to fisheries management’ (Garcia et al. 2003).
successful, but that success will require a fundamental Ten years after the 1992 Rio Declaration on the Envi-
change in the nuts and bolts of daily fisheries manage- ronment and Development and, in particular, Chapter
ment — the development and application of participa- 17 of Agenda 21, the 2002 World Summit on Sus-
tory rights-based fishery management regimes. tainable Development in Johannesburg laid out the
The origins of EAF management. The overarching ecosystem approach as an inherent part of the fisheries
principles of EAF management are an extension of the management agenda. In particular, the World Summit
conventional principles and conditions for sustainable called for ‘the application by 2010 of the ecosystem
development of fisheries. It calls for management to approach, noting the Reykjavik Declaration on
explicitly deal with ecosystem issues such as resource Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem’.
288 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
Fishery industrialists: providing products, profits,
Perspectives and expectations of EAF management.
and planet: In addition to fishers, there are many indus-
Although ecosystems cannot be managed as such
(they are simply too complicated), we do have some trialists and companies who provide fish products to the
experience in managing human activities through the public. Their objective is to generate ongoing profits for
incentive structures to which humans respond. Thus, themselves, wealth for shareholders and, as a result of
we have the ability to manage people and their this, ongoing employment for their work force. For
impacts on ecosystems. The hook — and the chal- these industrialists, there is a clear incentive to have a
lenge — is the need to understand and build upon the successful EAF management to reduce 2 commercial
various perspectives and expectations of the many production problems: having predictable and consis-
stakeholders who are involved in fisheries-related tent streams of raw materials for their use, and procur-
activities. ing raw materials at the lowest possible cost. In addi-
Fishery biologists: understanding the planet: Fish- tion, these companies have to be able to satisfy their
eries biologists calling for the ecosystem approach consumers. Although commercial enterprises are regu-
have tended to focus on the development of new lated by States and intergovernmental organizations, it
science, information and knowledge that is capable is market perception that is increasingly shaping their
of addressing the complexity of marine ecosystems. activities. Having managed to acquire merchandise of
The intention is to understand ecological processes, ever better quality and ever lower prices by exploiting
patterns and limits, to ‘help managers to ... avoid the the forces of the free market, there are now, more than
loss of ecosystem integrity and to maintain fisheries ever, calls from various stakeholder groups for corpo-
in viable states’ (Cury 2004, p. 273). This is laudable rate ethical behavior, attention to animal welfare, and
and exciting in terms of future marine science, and care for the environment.
implies many years of research opportunities and Corporate responses to these perceived consumer
challenges. pressures include compliance with environmental stan-
Ironically, after decades of fisheries development, it dards such as ISO 14001 and the rise of the Corporate
is an uphill battle to get even the most rudimentary Social Responsibility movement. Any self-respecting
data about capture fisheries, i.e. the basic statistics on company now must have social and environmental
the quantity of fish landed, and the FAO now has a reports. ‘Customer perception is our reality’ was stated
mandate to implement a global strategy to improve the at the 2005 Rome ‘CIES – The Food Business Forum’
landing statistics worldwide. Why? Because fisheries meeting of the largest food retailers in the world.
managers have not implemented regulatory systems Hence, if consumers want the ecosystem approach
that create genuine incentives or strong reasons for applied to fisheries management, then these industri-
fishers to furnish scientists with such information. alists will work to ensure that they provide fishery
Indeed, there may be much greater motivation for fish- products from fisheries that are managed in this way.
Fishers: generating product in the face of produc-
ers to provide much needed data to food processors
tion constraints: Fishers, long (and accurately) touted
and retailers as part of commercial global traceability
initiatives in order to maintain their markets. as the last remaining rugged individualists who are
Civil society and the general public: caring about fighting and conquering the seductive but treacherous
people, products, and planet: The oceans and the sea, are increasingly discovering their image being
marine life therein are increasingly viewed as an repainted as one of pillagers and plunderers who are
important part of humankind’s natural heritage. There sacrificing the oceans’ riches on the altar of private
is a growing expectation that there should be in- sector profits. There is some truth to this: faced with
creased protection of certain types of marine areas increasingly costly regulatory controls and operating
(e.g. reef systems, sea mounts) and species (e.g. costs, there is very real pressure to compromise their
endangered species). As a result, the general public, own future operations and earnings just to meet cur-
and environmentalists in particular, are increasingly rent expenses and market demands. Time and area
expecting that EAF management will limit, or at least constraints on fishing operations create pressures that
restrict, the effects of fishing on these particular com- reduce the ability of fishers to fish responsibly and
ponents of the ecosystem. Nonetheless, the general minimize environmental impacts. Due to the commer-
public also expects to enjoy the benefits of safe, quality cial nature of fishing, minimization of the complexity
seafood at reasonable prices, yet consumers are also and of the impacts of fishing activities on the aquatic
progressively demanding more of fish products. The ecosystem must provide some benefit to the fishers.
emergence of ‘feel good’ eco-labeled products that are They need to have an incentive to provide up to date,
traceable and sustainably harvested is starting to on-line information on every fishing trip that can be
shape the procurement of fish throughout the fish collated and systematically analyzed by experts to
supply chain and from ‘deck to dish’. detect emerging abnormalities in their fishery.
289
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
In the face of economic, fiscal and commercial pres- ered or perceived as a ‘lack of political will’ to improve
sures to fish more (and not less), the inevitable addi- the legal and institutional environment in which fish-
tional reporting requirements of the EAF tend to be eries operate, may merely be a reflection of the degree
viewed as unhelpful in terms of either fishers’ catches of difficulty in embarking upon such lengthy, con-
or their bottom line profits. Indeed, under regulatory tentious and difficult activities.
Fisheries managers: the key to affecting people,
strategies that increase fishing costs and (perhaps)
production, and planet: The conservation measures
reduce catches, it is difficult to generate interest in
implementing additional reporting requirements. frequently implemented by fisheries managers are
In short, fishers can support management that pro- important tools for complementing the core objectives
vides them with rewards for furnishing and sharing of fisheries management (leaving enough fish in the
sophisticated ecosystem information freely and will- water for future sustainable harvests). Such approaches,
ingly, but they need an operating environment that whilst being genuinely well intentioned, typically
does not create commercial pressures to overcapitalize advance the use of innovative conservation tools — but
or race for fish without consideration for conserving the without necessarily considering the financial and eco-
environment. Unfortunately, current command and nomic impacts of their initiatives and regulations on
control management approaches do not create such an the commercial aspects of fishing operations.
operating environment, because they drive up fishers’ Fisheries management needs to understand com-
costs to the extent that fishers are forced to forego mercial fishing realities, financial issues, and business
future profits to meet current expenses. management practices. When it does not, and simply
Politicians: juggling people, production, profits, tries to administratively control the operations and
and planet: Many countries are increasingly relying on actions of fishers, it does not result in conditions that
the fisheries and aquaculture sectors as important align conservation with commerce. Such approaches
sources of jobs, income, and food. Fisheries have not inevitably result in (1) mistrust and escalating con-
traditionally constituted a large component of national flicts — not only between fishers, but also between
economies, yet export earnings from fisheries have managers and fishers and other stakeholders; (2) de-
been increasing around the world. In the absence of creased profitability; and (3) undermined sustainabil-
other social safety nets, the small-scale fisheries sector ity. Indeed, it is in countries where there is a relatively
is also frequently used as a ‘safety valve’ and source of high proportion of economists in government and, in
social security for the most vulnerable and may be left particular, in fisheries agencies — such as in Australia,
to open access even at the potential risks of overfishing Iceland, and New Zealand — where one finds a greater
and ecosystem degradation. Ironically, doing so also alignment of conservation and commercial interests.
puts established small-scale fishing communities at If managers are going to attempt to minimize the
risk. impacts of complex human activities on the aquatic
What is more, capture fisheries and aquaculture ecosystem, they must implement management systems
activities are only one component of coastal zone port- in which fishers’ objectives coincide with those of man-
folios and have to be integrated with interests and agement, so that fishers have reasons for complying
demands from the tourism, transportation, and recre- with managerial decisions and regulations, willingly
ation sectors. Finally, to add to the political burden, contributing to research, and supporting monitoring,
consumers (also known as constituents) are becoming control and surveillance (MCS) activities. In New
vocal in expressing their concerns to politicians about Zealand, Iceland, Australia, and some USA fisheries
the safety, quality, and traceability of fish products. the industry pays for and actively participates in the
Having to balance such a vast array of consumer, com- research and MCS work that supports their fisheries —
mercial, development, and human needs makes the because it is in the industry’s long term financial inter-
fisheries portfolio extremely demanding in terms of est. However, this requires: using management sys-
legislative, consultative, institutional, and political tems and rules that transform the fishing process from
resources. hunting to a calculated enterprise that is commercially
Political expectations of EAF management are long friendly; and creating real reasons — assets in the form
term, yet political timeframes for activism are typically of user rights — that fishers will want to enhance by
short term. This creates a gap between truly sustain- incorporating environmental objectives into their short-
able levels of fishing activities and politically reward- and long-term commercial bottom lines.
ing actions. Under such conditions, there is strong Aligning people, production, profits, and the planet
political motivation to express support for ecosystem for a successful ecosystem approach to fisheries man-
approaches, but less motivation to withstand immedi- agement. On its own, the adoption of EAF manage-
ate pressures to potentially alter ecosystems at more ment will not necessarily lead to the desired win-win
local levels. Consequently, what is frequently consid- outcome of socially responsible and sustainable fish-
290 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
ing. Indeed, at the extreme, the application of EAF The irony is that we have the tools to support suc-
management may lead to a situation where the envi- cessful EAF management — but the collective will to do
ronment, the fisheries sector, and the public are losers so cannot emerge under the current command and
and these efforts end up being discouragingly delu- control management approaches that antagonize com-
sional (Table 3). At the other end of the spectrum, suc- mercial fishers by driving up their costs. Thus, if there
cessful application of EAF management is simply good is to be a genuine petition for a successful ecosystem
business practice. approach to management of fisheries and the marine
There are probably few, if any, examples of top- environment, it is up to politicians to drive the adoption
down fisheries management that can deliver the and implementation of secure, legally protected user/
sophistication that EAF management requires. How- fishing rights systems.
ever, where user rights have been implemented under
incentive aligning management programs, the partici-
LITERATURE CITED
pants actively deliver such sophistication. The ultimate
solution requires setting up management that connects Cook C (2005) A survey of corporate social responsibility. The
profit and planet by aligning the interests of people, Economist, 22 January, p 3–18
production, and profit with the desire for conservation Cury PM (2004) Tuning the ecoscope for the Ecosystem
Approach to Fisheries. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:272–275
(Table 4).
FAO (2003) The ecosystem approach to marine capture fish-
The adoption of EAF management will be successful
eries. FAO Tech Guide for Responsible Fisheries, No. 4
only if there is a concomitant and fundamental change (Suppl 2). FAO, Rome
in the way in which fisheries are managed. Defined FAO (2004) Ecosystem-based management of fisheries.
Marine Resources Service, FAO, Rome (available at:
and secure fishing rights are the core of good fisheries
www.fao.org/figis/servlet/topic?fid=3197)
governance (Sinclair et al. 2002). In simple terms, good
Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Lasserre G (2003)
governance must motivate fishers to ensure that their The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology,
fishing activities are responsible and do not impose principles, institutional foundations, implementation and
unacceptable impacts on the ecosystem. outlook. FAO Fish Tech Pap No. 443. FAO, Rome
Table 3. Sustainable development: People, Products/production, and Planet. Possible scenarios of EAF management
EAF management that increases social welfare EAF management that reduces social welfare
EAF management Successful EAF management Destructive EAF management
that increases • Cooperative regulatory environment for • Cynical obedience to EAF rules
commercial profits • managers, fishers, industrialists, civil society • Dubious social and environmental benefits
• Fishers have reason to actively take up • Expensive regulatory environment (for
• ecosystem considerations • management, fishers, and industrialists)
• Social benefits, including sustainability,
• biodiversity, quality products
EAF management Superficial EAF management Delusional EAF management
that reduces • Antagonistic compliance with EAF rules • Expensive regulatory environment (for
commercial profits • Uncertain product • management, fishers, and industrialists)
• Indeterminate quality • Dubious sustainability
• Dissipated social benefits • Questionable products, quality
Table 4. What do stakeholders care about?
Stakeholder concerns
People Products and production Profit Planet
Fisheries biologists X
Civil society X X
General public X
Fishery industrialists X X X
Politicians X X X X
Managers can set up rules that
Fisheries managers X X
minimize fishers’ costs / maximize
profits within catch limits X
Fishers will fish responsibly
Fishers X X
if conservation makes
economic sense
291
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
who were users of the time series collected by the spe-
Sinclair M, Arnason R, Circes R, Karnicki Z, Sigurjonsson J,
Skjoldal HR, Valdimarsson G (2002) Conference report on cialists (NRC 1995). Scientists had to establish that the
responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. Fish Res 58:
trends were real, that they were present in enough dif-
255–265
ferent data sets to reflect a common underlying cause,
Sissenwine MP, Mace PM (2003) Governance for responsible
and that they were consistent with mechanisms that
fisheries: an ecosystem approach. In: Sinclair M, Valdi-
marsson G (eds) Responsible fisheries in the marine could be linked to directional climate change. Only
ecosystem. FAO, Rome, p 363–390 after this had taken place was the science case consid-
ered credible enough to stimulate policy action. This
process of building the science case for policy action is
still under way, because notwithstanding important
Policy and science: different roles in the
policy commitments already made through the Kyoto
pursuit of solutions to common problems Protocol and national initiatives, debate continues about
the magnitude of the threat and the appropriate policy
Wendy M. Watson-Wright and societal actions (IPCC 2001; see also http://gcmd.
gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/pointers/glob_warm.html).
Science Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO),
On the other hand, both scientists and the general
200 Kent St., Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0E6
Email: watson-wrightw@dfo-mpo.gc.ca public have long been aware of the huge impact that
invasive species can have on native ecosystems. In
Introduction. In the marine and fisheries sectors, North America, the consequences of chestnut blight
major policy initiatives often begin with science. How- and Dutch elm disease were easy to see and familiar to
ever, at least initially, they are not recognizable as everyone with even a casual acquaintance with east-
such. Rather, scientifically generated evidence raises ern woodlands or the prairie riparian habitats (Anag-
an alarm about something that is going on ‘out there’. nostakis & Hillman 1992, Hubbes 1999). The effects of
For a while, the science may develop in the ‘discovery’ rabbits introduced into Australia are comparably famil-
phase, accumulating knowledge about something iar, and are cited in introductory university biology
new. The point at which the science is complete texts throughout the world (see www.deh.gov.au/
enough to allow for prediction of potential conse- biodiversity/invasive/publications/rabbit/index.html).
quences is an important benchmark. If the potential Thus, the problem of invasive species was recognized
consequences are severe, such predictions draw atten- widely, but the missing piece was a theoretical frame-
tion, even if they are equivocal. Awareness spreads work that could pull the numerous individual invasions
first within the science community. However, if the together into a single issue amenable to policy action
predicted scenario is inconsistent with the goals of and provide the basis for appropriate policy and
existing policy and management strategies, it does not management measures. The theoretical framework
take long for those involved in policy and management required unifying advances in theoretical ecology
to pay attention. Nonetheless, how policy pays atten- through the 1960s to the 1980s with conservation bio-
tion to the science is variable. logy, which focused ecological theory on applied prob-
I will illustrate the range of interactions that can lems. By the time that zebra mussels invaded the lakes
occur between science and policy using as examples and rivers of eastern Canada both the scientific com-
2 long-standing issues: climate change and invasive munity and the public could call for policy action to
species. Then I will evaluate where the emerging issue address the threats of invasive species (MacIsaac 1996,
of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) fits within D’Itri 1997). The Canadian government now considers
this range. Such an evaluation may suggest ways in invasive species to be a high priority issue. It promotes
which both science and policy can improve the effec- implementation of more stringent preventive measures
tiveness of how they address this crucial issue. (where they are cost effective) and monitoring to
In the case of climate change, the initial science detect invasives as early as possible. Nonetheless,
appeared to be scattered and lacking a central focus. although the science evidence was convincing enough
Scientists working with data from various monitoring to gain wide support for restrictive policies, it is not yet
programs covering very different parts of the ocean– possible to really say what should be done to address
atmosphere system and in different parts of the world the threat when a new species is detected.
began to identify trends in their individual time series. How issues develop in science and policy. Once a
These trends could not be reconciled with either ran- new issue has become credible within the science
dom variation around an average condition, or with community, there are still many possible reactions by
historic oscillations between alternating warm and cold policy makers. In the case of invasive species, Cana-
periods (IPCC 1990). Gradually, these independent dian policy agencies have asked directly for guidance
trends were brought together, often by other scientists from science. They acknowledge the conservation
292 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
issue and confirm that they are ready to act on it. They or require societal sacrifice. Without science guidance
want advice on what should be done to reduce risk and towards effective policies, the policies that are imple-
protect Canadians and the environment. In the case of mented may achieve little. If science focuses only on
climate change, policy responses have been less deci- policy actions which pay off in the long term, there is a
sive. Many high profile international meetings were risk that the public will reject the policies when they
needed to develop science-based policy initiatives, do not see improvements to a situation they consider
and debate continues about which actions are needed. unsatisfactory. The science–policy interface remains
There is ample room to speculate on why these issues important, but the driver changes.
were treated differently. It is possible that the man- Outreach and engagement of partners. When sci-
agers developing the policy responses considered the ence and policy each become interested in an emerg-
scientific evidence to be more credible in the case of ing issue, both reach out to other institutions and
invasive species than in the case of climate change. It departments. However, there are some important dif-
is also possible that the differences in management ferences between the communities with whom they
reflect differences in the costs of the measures consid- establish or strengthen networks. These differences
ered as necessary, and the impacts of those measures reflect both different institutional cultures and the dif-
on businesses and the public. For example, current ferent roles and responsibilities of the 2 sectors. The
policy measures to address aquatic invasive species differences in institutional cultures are important to
prohibit recreational anglers from using certain bait the short-term interactions of science and policy, but
in given watersheds or require commercial ships to can be confused with the differences in their respec-
exchange ballast in specified zones at sea (see tive roles and responsibilities.
www.invadingspecies.com). On the other hand, to For science, the responsibility is to be sound and
address climate change, each adult Canadian is being objective, and to understand as much about the issue
asked to reduce production of greenhouse gasses by and its consequences as possible. The tool for deter-
1 t yr–1 (www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/ mining soundness and objectivity is independent peer
index.asp). The impacts of the policies to address inva- review. The way to acquire data, knowledge, and
sive species are inconvenient to a few groups of Cana- understanding quickly is to share with colleagues.
dians, whereas policies to address climate change ask Both of these mechanisms have fostered a sense of
all citizens to undertake significant lifestyle changes. internationalism within the science community. Inter-
Some may think it reasonable to expect a higher stan- national marine science organizations such as the
dard of scientific evidence in the second case than in International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
the first. (ICES) and the North Pacific Marine Science Organi-
Notwithstanding the differences in the demands on zation (PICES) have flourished, and the science com-
science there is a common thread in the policy re- munity is eager to use these international bodies to
sponses in these examples. At some point the science– focus the expertise of the global science community on
policy dialogue changes from a science ‘push’ to a emerging science challenges. When policy interest in a
policy ‘pull’. It begins with science working to inform science issue grows quickly, one sees proposals for so
policy officers of the need for new or changed policies. many international symposia that the science commu-
Once the policy sector becomes engaged in the issue, nity has difficulty providing new results fast enough to
though, policy-makers increasingly influence the support them all, a situation developing now with inva-
nature of the dialogue. The policy-makers have 2 par- sive species and the ecosystem approach to fisheries.
ticular requirements from science: (1) science advice The responsibilities of policy are different. The dis-
on actions which will improve the situation in the short cussions are more often with other government depart-
term, so they can see (and show to the public) benefits ments and other levels of government. In Canada,
of the policies they implement; (2) science support to Provinces, Territories and municipalities may all be
make their policies credible to the public, so the public facing the same issue, but in different contexts. For
will support adoption of the policies, and compliance invasive species, many federal departments are con-
with them after they have been adopted. The science cerned about threats to native ecosystems, including
community may be most interested in how the issue the Departments of Agriculture, Environment, Natural
relates to scientific theories and understanding of nat- Resources (which includes forestry), Fisheries and
ural processes, and find these needs from policy not Oceans (DFO), Transport, Food Inspection and several
particularly interesting. Nonetheless, the science com- departments with responsibilities in international
munity must treat these needs as research priorities. relations and trade. Provinces and communities must
Without science support for the credibility of policy ini- address invasive species issues as well, and have juris-
tiatives, there is a high risk that the policies will be dictional roles which must be respected. The Govern-
abandoned, particularly if they are costly to implement ment of Canada also has a commitment to consult
293
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
widely with affected stakeholders, from environmental Some other aspects of the science underlying the
organizations to resource users and those involved in EAF have developed more slowly. In Canada, science
trade and commerce. Some groups in Canada, such as and management paid little attention to by-catch of
Aboriginal groups and Wildlife Management Boards, non-target species, except in special cases such as
have the right to be consulted entrenched constitu- entanglements of marine mammals in fishing nets or
tionally and in legislation. If a policy may impact when some fishing gears were prohibited from taking
the responsibilities of these parties, the sponsoring species allocated to another gear sector. Passage of
Department must coordinate and cooperate with all of Canada’s Species-at-Risk Act made by-catch of non-
them. Even for policies solely within the jurisdiction of commercial species a major legal issue, and science
a single department, such as policies on fisheries man- and fisheries management are both struggling to make
agement in DFO, successful implementation of a major up for lost opportunities to quantify fisheries catches
new policy requires at least the cooperation of other completely (CSAS 2002a). Protecting fragile features
departments with economic portfolios, as well as coastal of the seafloor from damage by fishing gears is also a
communities, industry and provinces. recent issue in Canada, and again science is scram-
Hence, the policy and science sectors both engage in bling to identify where such features may be located
discussion with other experts and institutions, but gener- (CSAS 2002b, 2004a). These are cases where policy
ally with different ones. Science experts reach out inter- responded quickly to new legislation and public
nationally within their fields of expertise. Policy-makers expressions of concern, even though science was and
network largely within the country, but across many is not well prepared to advise on exactly what should
parts of the governance systems. Science experts do net- be done to implement the policies.
work with the science experts in other government de- On the other hand, Canadian research and monitor-
partments, but only to the extent that the science inter- ing has contributed to the evidence that fisheries have
ests and issues are shared. Science may have many ecosystem-scale impacts, such as ‘fishing down the
meetings and even joint projects when there are com- food web’ and the loss of large individuals from fish
mon science issues. For example, DFO and Environment communities (Pauly et al. 2001, Myers & Worm 2003).
Canada have supported joint projects on species-at-risk Some of these scientific papers have sparked contro-
issues. However, there is usually little interaction be- versy about how the data are analysed and inter-
tween scientists and officers from departments inter- preted, and which scientific conclusions can be drawn
ested in trade and economic aspects of issues. Policy- from the patterns (http://dels.nas.edu/osb/ecosystem_
makers do network internationally, but generally the effects.shtml). In these cases, policy has been much
focus is on ensuring that international standards are har- slower to pick up on the scientific views as they have
monized. In these discussions, the trade and economic emerged. The slower rate of policy change cannot be
implications of policy changes often have center stage. attributed to science, because the policy implications
of the science on ecosystem effects of fishing have
Implementing an ecosystem approach to fisheries
(EAF). When we consider developing the scientific been clear for some time — take less out and be much
foundations for EAF management and implementing it more selective in what, where, when, and how to
in policy, all of the above considerations are in play. harvest (FAO 2002, Rice in press). It is the social and
Some aspects of the EAF have been well established policy implications that make policy slow to act, since
for many years, and are already reflected in manage- the required policy and management changes will
ment. For example, Canada has applied a very cau- impact the fishing industry and fishery-dependent
tious approach to fishing on lower trophic levels since communities negatively, at least in the short term. Sci-
the 1970s. Capelin quotas were set with an acknowl- ence has to help policy build support in the communi-
edgement that the needs of predatory fishes, seabirds ties for the new approaches, and help management
and marine mammals had to be accommodated before build a willingness in the industry to comply with the
the human harvest could be allocated (Winters & new policies.
Impediments that must be overcome. Dealing with
Carscadden 1978). Similarly, despite a number of
uncertainty: Science’s role in showing the public that a
requests for exploratory fisheries for krill, only a very
restricted fishery has been authorized in 1 inlet in policy change is needed can be as important as sci-
British Columbia (Romaine et al. 1996). Even though ence’s role in showing policy-makers what provisions
management approached fishing on lower trophic the policy should contain. In the case of the EAF,
levels very cautiously, there was no call for a compre- though, science is encountering some of the same
hensive policy on such fisheries until the mid-1990s. impediments that have characterized the science–
However, when the policy was brought forward, it was policy interface on climate change. All science con-
supported strongly by scientists, fisheries managers tains some uncertainty, and when the science addresses
and policy-makers (DFO 2004a). questions as complex as the ecosystem effects of fish-
294 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
ing, the uncertainty is large. For policy experts, large is an extension of the precautionary principle written
scientific uncertainty is a major liability. For example, into the agreements from the United Nations Confer-
placing fisheries management in an ecosystem con- ence on Environment and Development (Rio) and the
text will reduce employment opportunities in fisheries, World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johan-
and increase production costs (Rice in press). There is nesburg) (UN 2002). In Canada, the Species at Risk
uncertainty about how large these socio-economic Act includes this approach explicitly, by specifying
impacts will be and how long they will last. However, that activities which might harm protected species can
the uncertainty about how large the ecological benefits be permitted only when it can be demonstrated that
will be, and how long it will take to secure them, will the harm will not jeopardize recovery (Government of
almost always be much greater than the uncertainty Canada 2002). In the United States, NOAA’s discussion
about short-term social and economic costs. paper on the EAF (NMFS 1999) proposes to extend
This is an imbalance where good science, making this approach through the application of ecosystem
the uncertainties transparent to the users of the sci- approaches to policy and management. This reversal
ence advice, impedes policy actions. It is easy to of burden of proof may be the only realistic way to deal
argue that politicians are elected to protect a nation’s with the significant scientific uncertainties that will
ecosystems from harm, but they are also elected to continue to be present in the science advice on EAF.
protect communities and workers from unnecessary However, it will be extremely challenging to obtain
harm. Science advisors on fisheries have argued for support from other parts of government and from the
decades that short term ‘pain’ to fisheries will be more stakeholders who will bear the greatest share of short-
than compensated by longer-term improved yields term costs from application of the EAF.
from the target species, yet these arguments often fail The reversal of burden of proof is a long-standing
to convince managers and policy makers to take deci- practice in the protection of human health. For exam-
sive measures early (Rice in press). Advice on ecosys- ple, new drugs cannot be marketed until they are
tem effects of fishing is more uncertain than single demonstrated to be safe, or at least until the side
species advice. In fact, science advisors may be able effects are known. However, in natural resource con-
to indicate little more than the direction in which pol- servation, reversing the burden of proof places high
icy change is needed, and very little about exactly costs on industries and user groups who have not tradi-
what benefits will accrue (Link et al. 2002). In those tionally borne them (Tickner 2002). These industries
circumstances, politicians may feel they are being commonly feel that they do not have sufficient finan-
fully responsible in asking how much social and eco- cial resources (e.g. compared to major pharmaceutical
nomic harm is necessary to manage the risk of harm companies, which invest millions of dollars in develop-
to marine ecosystems. When science advisors are ing and testing a new drug before they can market it
uncertain about even the point at which perturbation and begin to recoup the investment). Conservation
of an ecosystem property becomes ‘harm’, policy advocates have sometimes been a bit naïve in pro-
makers may feel quite justified in making changes in moting the view that the resistance to reversing the
very small increments. This approach has often con- burden of proof in industries like fishing is based only
tributed to failures of single-species management, on greed and a fear by the industry that it will not be
where uncertain science advice allowed politicians to able to show that it is sustainable. Industries where the
reduce harvests too gradually to prevent collapses reversal of burden of proof is standard practice operate
(Walters & Maguire 1996). Science experts and policy from quite different economic (and policy) footings
makers individually have learned important lessons than fisheries and similar resource-based industries.
from crises like the one surrounding the Canadian Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, for example, the
Atlantic groundfish in the early 1990s. Nonetheless, fishing industry still has many very small independent
the social and political circumstances in which deci- operators who lack the financial resources for large up-
sion-making is played out have not changed much. front investments. There are also many coastal areas
Science remains uncertain about all but the ‘big pic- which are economically and culturally dependent on
ture’ parts of what will be required to achieve sustain- fishing, and many countries, including Canada, have
ability at the scale of the ecosystem as well as of the policy goals of keeping such communities viable
harvested stocks themselves. This uncertainty remains (Government of Canada 2004).
a major impediment to decisive policy change and It may be necessary to reverse the burden of proof if
effective management action. science evidence is to influence policy and manage-
Reversing the burden of proof: Because uncertainty ment to take an ecosystem approach to fishing. How-
is an impediment to policy and management action, ever, DFO is encountering strong community opposi-
some agencies have proposed adopting a reversal of tion to listing marine fish species as threatened or
burden of proof for at least some parts of the EAF. This endangered under the Species at Risk Act, Canada’s
295
Theme Section: Politics of ecosystem-based management
first environmental act to contain provisions which ence laboratory. Because these strengths usually dif-
explicitly reverse the burden of scientific evidence fered from laboratory to laboratory, the biological
(DFO 2004b). This experience suggests that the change objectives proposed for keeping the fishery sustain-
to an EAF is going to be very difficult. able within an ecosystem context differed as well.
Clarifying the implications of EAF: There is another Despite 3 yr of committed effort in some parts of the
practical impediment to widespread implementation of DFO, the Objectives Based Fisheries Management
the EAF and of ecosystem based management of other produced suites of ecosystem-related objectives for
marine activities. The ecosystem approach still appears very few fisheries, and the objectives included rarely
to be a vague and fuzzy concept to many in policy and amounted to more than avoiding excessive by-catch
management. Even science advisors can interpret the and not damaging habitats of iconic significance.
concept differently. This is the situation in Canada, for In 2004 a new science-policy - oceans management -
example, despite several key events intended to facili- fisheries management working group has again been
tate development of an ecosystem approach. A key formed to develop an ecosystem approach for DFO’s
Canadian landmark was the workshop on the Eco- policies and programs. It builds on the work accom-
system Approach to Management in March of 2001 plished to date by the previous initiatives, and is trying
(CSAS 2001). The workshop produced a set of 10 con- to dispel the fog surrounding the concept of ‘ecosystem
ceptual ecosystem objectives and supporting prin- approach’. However, progress has not been swift, and
ciples, as well as a science roadmap to make them to this point there has been little agreement on which
operational. Nonetheless it took a science-oceans pilot programs would best illustrate what the eco-
management-policy working group over a year to system approach really is, and what it is not.
adapt the science products into a formal proposal and The difficulty in making progress reflects the com-
plan of action for DFO senior management. As soon as plexity of the task, and not a lack of commitment. All
projects began under the plan of action, it became sectors recognize the need to make timely progress
clear that the ‘conceptual objectives’ were not being towards implementation of EAF. It is just that such
interpreted the same way by scientists from different progress will affect almost everything that DFO does
specialties and different regions of Canada, let alone and manages. With good reason, every sector wants to
by the policy and management sectors, nor by stake- understand the implications of the EAF for their own
holders. Another week-long science workshop was work, and for how they will interact with — and be
needed in the winter of 2003 to agree on how to reacted to by — the stakeholder and user groups with
interpret the main ecological terms in the conceptual whom they work most closely. The science–policy
objectives (CSAS 2004b). interface is back in center-stage, and policy is pulling
Another initiative within DFO fared little better. The the science. Policy needs science to create an under-
Objectives Based Fisheries Management initiative was standing of EAF that is complete and explicit enough
intended to develop explicit biological, social, and eco- for other sectors to realize and pursue their responsibil-
nomic objectives for each Fisheries Management Plan ities.
adopted by DFO. Objectives were to be selected fol- Summary. The main messages from my perspective
lowing an inclusive and consultative approach. Agree- are 3-fold:
ment was reached quickly that the biological objec- (1) Policy making is often an evolutionary process,
tives should include objectives for conservation of key beginning with a science ‘push’, but punctuated with
ecosystem properties potentially affected by the fish- policy ‘pulls’; the science–policy interface is and
eries, and not just for the target species. In practice, should be an iterative process, and neither side should
again, not even separate groups of scientists could have to ‘push’ or ‘pull’ too hard to elicit cooperation
develop lists of ecosystem-related objectives which from the other.
had some minimum of consistency around Canada’s 3 (2) Uncertainty is an issue for politicians and for the
oceans, or sometimes within a single Region. The policy-making process. Scientists accept uncertainty
problem was not that the different fisheries had as part of the process, and have many approaches for
different potential effects on the marine ecosystems measuring and packaging it. However, high uncer-
(although to some extent this is always true). Rather, tainty makes it difficult to build political support for
there was no consistent framework to assist in deciding tough policies, and harder still to gain cooperation in
which ecosystem considerations are obligatory (and their implementation. The precautionary principle and
thus must be addressed with an operational objective) the reversal of the burden of proof are aimed at neu-
versus those which could be considered optional tralizing these political challenges, but they have their
within an EAF. Without a framework for implemen- limitations when decision-making is based on partici-
tation, groups of scientists relied on the particular pation and stewardship, and when science is uncer-
research interests and strengths of each regional sci- tain.
296 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300: 241–296, 2005
(3) Creating public understanding for scientific con- IPCC (1990) Climate change — the scientific assessment.
Houghton JT, Jenkins GT, Ephraums JJ (eds) Cambridge
cepts takes time, and consolidation of the evidence for
University Press, Cambridge
the concepts takes even longer. Nonetheless, it is
IPCC (2001) IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change
crucial for policy makers to be fully comfortable with (available et: www.ipcc.ch/)
the concepts and their operational ramifications prior Link JS, Brodziak JTK, Edwards SF, Overholtz WJ, Mountain
D, Jossi JW, Smith TD, Fogarty MJ (2002) Marine ecosys-
to using these concepts as the basis for major policy
tem assessment in a fisheries management context. Can J
changes. Continued dialogue and mutual understand-
Fish Aquat Sci 59:1429–1440
ing are essential in order to enact science-based policy, MacIsaac H (1996) Potential abiotic and biotic impacts of
particularly if policies are intended to anticipate and zebra mussels on the inland waters of North America. Am
address crises proactively, instead of being merely Zool 36:287–299
Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of
reactive.
predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280–283
NMFS (1999) Ecosystem based fisheries management: a
Acknowledgements. Thanks to Serge Labonte and Jake Rice report to Congress by the Ecosystem Principles Advi-
for discussions and for helping to collect the background sory Panel. Department of Commerce, National Marine
information for this contribution. Comments from the editors Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD
improved readability and clarity. NRC (National Research Council) (1995) Natural climate
variability on decade-to-century time scales. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC
LITERATURE CITED Pauly D, Palomares ML, Froese R, Vakily M, Preikshot D,
Wallace S (2001) Fishing down Canadian aquatic food
Anagnostakis SL, Hillman B (1992) Evolution of the chestnut webs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:51–62
tree and its blight. Arnoldia 52:3–10 Rice JC (in press) Will an ecosystem approach mitigate the
CSAS (2001) Proceedings of the National Workshop on factors of unsustainability? In: Maguire JJ, Greboval D
Objectives and Indicators For Ecosystem-based Manage- (eds) Collected papers from the 3rd Workshop on Factors
ment. CSAS Proc 2001/09 of Unsustainability. Siem Reap, Cambodia, Sept 14–18,
CSAS (2002a) Proceedings of the National Science Review 2004. FAO Tech Fish Rep
Meeting on Species at Risk Issues, December 9–13, 2002, Romaine SJ, Mackas DL, Macauley MC, Saxby DJ (1996)
Halifax, Nova Scotia. CSAS Proc 2002/35 Comparisons of repeat acoustic surveys in Jervis Inlet,
CSAS (2002b) Proceedings of a Benthic Habitat Classification British Columbia, 1994–1995. Univ of British Columbia,
Workshop, Meeting of the Maritimes Regional Advisory Vancouver. Fisheries Centre Res Rep 43:48–52
Process. Maintenance of the diversity of ecosystem types: Tickner JA (ed) (2002) Precaution, environmental science and
a framework for the conservation of benthic communities preventive public policy. Island Press, Washington, DC
of the Scotia-Fundy area of the Maritime Region. CSAS UN (2002) Plan of implementation — World Summit on Sus-
Proc 2002/23 tainable Development. United Nations Organization, New
CSAS (2004a) Proceedings of a Benthic Habitat Classification York
Workshop, Meeting of the Maritimes Regional Advisory Walters CJ, Maguire JJ (1996) Lessons for stock assessment
Process. Maintenance of the diversity of ecosystem types: from the northern cod collapse. Rev Fish Biol Fish 6:
benthic classification and usage guidelines for the Scotia- 125–137
Fundy area of the Maritime Region. CSAS Proc 2004/04 Winters GH, Carscadden JE (1978) Review of capelin ecology
CSAS (2004b) Habitat status report on ecosystem objectives. and estimation of surplus yield from predator dynamics.
Habitat Status Report 2004/01 ICNAF Res Bull 13:21–29
D’Itri FM (ed) (1997) Mussels and aquatic nuisance species.
Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI
DFO (2004a) Policy on fisheries on forage species. Internal
The Theme Section may be cited as follows:
document, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa
DFO (2004b) Summary of public consultations on the listing
Browman HI, Stergiou KI (eds) (2005) Politics and socio-
of cod. Internal document, Department of Fisheries and
economics of ecosystem-based management of marine
Oceans, Ottawa
resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300:241–296
FAO (2002a) Guidelines on the Ecosystem Approach to Fish-
eries. FAO Tech Guide for Responsible Fishing 9. FAO,
Individual contributions may be cited as, e.g.
Rome
Government of Canada (2002) Species at Risk Act (available
Rice JC (2005) Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to
at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca./en/s-15.3/text.html)
Fisheries Management — asynchronous co-evolution at
Government of Canada (2004) A policy framework for the
the interface between science and policy. In: Browman HI,
management of fisheries on Canada’s Atlantic coast.
Stergiou KI (eds) Politics and socio-economics of eco-
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa
system-based management of marine resources. Mar Ecol
Hubbes M (1999) The American elm and Dutch elm disease,
Prog Ser 300:265–270
For Chro 75:265–269