Transition to Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
David L. Fluharty
Associate Professor, School of Marine Affairs
University of Washington
I have prepared a series of talking points that touch on three main topics that address developing and implementing ecosystem-based fishery management plans. First, I review some of the intent and rationale of the NMFS Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panelās Report to Congress on Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management. Next, I discuss status of implementation of ecosystem-based fishery management with a focus on impediments to achieving that goal. Third, I conclude with a recommendation for transition to ecosystem-based fishery management.
I believe it is time that we translate ecosystem-based management from an abstract concept into practical management measures. In so doing it is very important to recognize a common goal, i.e., to maintain ecosystem health and sustainability. A healthy ecosystem is good for fisheries and good for the environment and contributes to quality of life.
I regard the benefits to be derived from ecosystem-based fishery management to be a perpetual, but limited, supply of fish for commercial and recreational use and an ecosystem that sustains biodiversity and habitats as well as other non-monetary conceptions of the environment. In the most simplistic sense, a conservative yield of fish from a healthy ecosystem is most likely greater than the yields currently extracted from stressed and overfished ecosystems. Even within the natural variability of ecosystem regimes there is greater resilience to effects of fishing and other uses under healthy versus stressed ecosystems. Experience over the last 25 years under the MSFCMA in fisheries off Alaska demonstrates this point, however, fishery management there is still working hard to more fully incorporate ecosystem concerns. What achieves success in fishery management in terms of sustained yield may still have effects on other ecosystem components. Fishery management is increasingly being called to address these other interactions..
Ecosystem-Based Fisheries
I consciously use the term "ecosystem-based" fishery management instead of "ecosystem management." Ecosystem-based fishery management means using what is known about the ecosystem in the management of fisheries. Ecosystem management is much broader in scope and less defined in terms of management - especially for the marine environment. I am very aware of the inadequacies of fisheries and ecosystem data. I advise that precautionary policies be adopted where there is high uncertainty. My main concern is the failure to use what we know about ecosystems and the way they function. At the same time fisheries managers, using fisheries dependent and independent data, do have a good understanding of how the fisheries work in an ecosystem context. Thus, ecosystem-based fishery management is using ecological knowledge to advise the policies under data limited conditions. It is extremely important to avoid making perfect knowledge of the ecosystem the enemy of using the good knowledge we have.
A second precept is that ecosystem-based fishery management is not a substitute for full implementation of the fishery management requirements under the MSFCMA and especially the amendments in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. The SFA challenges fisheries managers to end overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, address Essential Fish Habitat and fishing effects, account for and reduce bycatch, etc. If these basic fishery management functions are not carried out, there is no hope for an ecosystem-based approach being implemented. Ecosystem-based fishery management is not a panacea and it has prerequisites.
While much of the emphasis on ecosystems relates to biological and social processes, the socio-economic and institutional dimensions of fisheries management are, in some respects more important especially with regard to managing human activities like fisheries. Without the right kinds of incentives to conserve, fishing interests tend to ratchet up levels of fishing and fishing capacity to compete with each other and this tends to result in a downward spiral of fish stocks and eventually overfishing. Much discussion has been focused on the combined economic and political pressures to overfish under current management. The necessary measures to start ecosystem-based management are largely economic and social dealing with allocating fishing rights and responsibilities. Transition to healthy ecosystems demands making tough decisions to protect resources and allocate fishing rights and responsibilities, as well as having adequate funding and people committed to making the system work. The strategy for implementing ecosystem-based fishery management depends heavily on economic and social as well as ecological understanding to inform the choice of measures
I recommend the development of Fishery Ecosystem Plans [FEP] for each of the US ecosystems under fishery management. These FEPs provide directions for management into which the regular Fishery Management Plans could be assessed. Cumulative effects of fishing for all species must be considered to the best of our knowledge while FMPs focus on species or groupings of like species..
While it should be possible to institute ecosystem-based management in the United States without additional legislation, it is necessary 1) to make clear the intent of Congress, 2) to develop an enforceable pathway to implementation and 3) to provide a vehicle for funding and oversight.
Impediments to Implementing Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management
While there are scientific and other questions about how to move forward with ecosystem-based fishery management, I believe the largest set of issues concerns the backlog of implementation of basic environmental and administrative measures as well as the MSFCMA measures.
Repeated lawsuits have demonstrated that the National Environmental Policy Act [developing of EIS, SEIS] is not fully implemented in the current fishery management context in both its procedural and substantive aspects. NMFS is making compliance a top priority based on the statements of its leadership. This is a major task and one that in many cases is overdue. The NMFS is now where the USFS was in the mid-1970s with respect to NEPA compliance.
A second package of issues is very actively raised by Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act challenges with respect to Steller sea lions. This illustrates the point that conservative scientifically based fisheries management may not take into account the broader ecosystem issues that would be done in an ecosystem-based approach.
SFA was passed with its many requirements to upgrade fishery management. Implementation of Essential Fish Habitat provisions is a major stretch for the agency and for the NPFMC in particular. However, as was quickly pointed out in litigation, the fishing effects identification and mitigation components of EFH were performed inadequately.
The foregoing EFH discussion raises a very important point where policy direction is needed. The EFH and HAPC mechanisms can move the development of Marine Protected Areas ahead in the fishery management process.. More and more interest is being expressed in the use of MPAs in fisheries management [NRC 2001 Marine Protected Areas: A Tool for Sustaining Marine Ecosystems]. Time and area closures and gear restrictions have long been part of fishery management and many measures taken have been significant. These types of areas are familiar to fishing interests and are one of the many types of MPAs recognized by the IUCN and in the MPA Executive Order of May 25, 2001. However, there is a large amount of pressure to discount any MPA that is not a "fully-protected", i.e., "no-take" zone in terms of fisheries. Clarifying the role of NMFS in developing MPA measures under the EFH/HAPC process could bevery beneficial.
Implementing the full force of the MSFCMA has proved problematic and the experience from SFA amendments should be instructive as we contemplate the more integrative step of ecosystem-based fishery management. More importantly many of the actions are building the information base and understanding that is needed to take the next steps toward ecosystem-based fisheries management. And they point to how ecosystem-based fisheries management could be useful in providing a strategic focus for what now seems like a series of disparate actions.
Conclusion/Recommendation
The United States is a leader in the development of theoretical and empirical studies of fisheries ecosystems. It should take the lead on implementation of fisheries management that uses this knowledge.
One way to start this iterative and adaptive process is to require that regional fishery management councils prepare Fishery Ecosystem Plans for each ecosystem under their jurisdiction.
The Fishery Ecosystem Plan is a logical extension of fishery management plans under the regional council process that would require councils to fully consider ecosystem trends and dynamics in relationship to the fisheries managed. The NMFS Ecosystem Principles Panel has provided an outline of key elements for how such a FEP could be constructed and put into use. As with any new approach, it makes sense to phase-in the FEP concept by a process that allows experimentation and innovation at the regional level. Congress last year and this year has before it proposals for implementing the ecosystem-based fisheries management recommendations using Fishery Ecosystem Plans as part of Fishery Management Plans.
Adequate funding is critical for success. However, the most critical component of producing meaningful change is to understand what is needed to encourage the development of ecosystem-based fishery management. With time, financial support and legislative incentives, I believe US fisheries management can deliver on its promise to produce healthy and sustainable marine ecosystems from which all of the natural service benefits can be supplied. Already there are signs of progress but it takes a lot of pressure, consistently applied over substantial time to turn a large ship.
 |
UW
School of Marine Affairs 3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98105-6715 uwsma@u.washington.edu |