NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 184
A Large Marine Ecosystem Approach
to Fisheries Management
and Sustainability:
Linkages and Concepts
towards Best Practices
by Frank J. Gable
University of Rhode Island, The Coastal Institute, Narragansett, RI
02882
Print
publication date August 2004 ;
web version posted November 23, 2004
Citation: Gable FJ. 2004. A large marine ecosystem approach to fisheries management and sustainability: linkages and concepts towards best practices. NOAA Tech Memo 184; 84 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
Abstract
This
technical memorandum addresses interdisciplinary aspects of fisheries
assessments as linkages for adaptive management and sustainability of
large marine ecosystems (LME). Natural and human-induced impacts of living
marine resources are considered. Management and the ecological aspects
of fish stock populations in the United States Northeast Continental
Shelf ecosystem are
examined for prospective and emerging “best practices” from a synthesis of the
scientific literature. In accordance with the passage of the domestic Oceans
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-256; e.g., Watkins, 2002) this manuscript further
develops linkages through natural and social science for an interdisciplinary
science policy and governance practice for LME’s. It is meant to provide background
information and promote dialogue on ecosystem-oriented management of living marine
resources. Consideration is given to the precautionary approach in the introduction
of ecosystem-oriented management of the fish stocks of the
Northeast Shelf ecosystem.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of LME's emerged from an American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) selective symposium in the mid 1980's concerning variability
and management of large marine ecosystems (Sherman et al., 1991; Alexander,
1993). “Marine ecosystems may be defined as major units of ecological
function in the marine environment. Ecosystems are communities of organisms
and their physical, chemical and geological environment – distinct assemblages
of species coevolved with a particular environment over long periods
of evolutionary history – interacting as an ecological unit” (Grassle,
2001).
This study incorporates the "tools" of
a policy orientation approach (Gable, 2003) for commercial
marine fisheries management consistent with the LME concept using the
case study approach. The focus is on the multi-method modular plan linked
to the "precautionary principle” (approach) in relation to the authorities
of the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) as well as state agency jurisdictions. The Northeast
Shelf LME can be considered as a part of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (NAFO) statistical areas, and NEFMC, MAMFC, and ASMFC management
locales (see Figure 1). The study advances an ecosystem
approach to living marine resources science policy.
ORIGINS
OF OCEAN MANAGEMENT REGIMES
Following the September 1945 Truman Proclamations (nos.
2667 & 2668) in the United States concerning U.S. policy with respect
to the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental
shelf and coastal fisheries in certain areas of the High Seas, several
ocean law measures were discussed and debated in a series of international
fora. One of them, the Convention on the Continental Shelf was agreed
to in April of 1958 in Geneva (signed by the U.S. in June 1964). It contains
15 codified articles. A related agreement, the 1958 Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, was also codified at Geneva
and was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1961. This agreement contains 32
articles that included preexisting rules regarding international customary
law that provided a greater degree of precision and clarity. The Convention
on the High Seas contains 37 mostly short articles and Annex III
(Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the
High Seas). It was also adopted in 1958. According to Merrell, et al.
(2001) “in
1958, the United Nations convened the first international conference
of plenipotentiaries to examine the law of the sea, and to embody the
results of its work in one or more international conventions. The
1958 conference produced four conventions that codified, to a great extent,
customary law and brought international attention to the oceans.” Years
later, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
began its substantive work in 1974 two years after the first U.N. Conference
on the Human Environment in Stockholm (see Emmelin, 1972). UNCLOS III,
consisting of 319 articles plus several annexes, was signed on December
10th, 1982. It was ratified by the requisite number of countries
(60) and entered into force on November 16th, 1994.
Domestically, the U.S. Congress enacted
the Marine Re- sources and Engineering and Development Act of 1966 (Public
Law 89-454) that created a blue ribbon executive-level commission on
marine science activities later known as the Stratton Commission,
named for the chairman of the 15 member panel. Their report, Our
Nation and the Sea issued in January of 1969, reviewed the status
of American ocean policy and provided specific recommendations for improving
marine resource and ocean management practice. One of the major outcomes
from those recommendations was the creation of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA; est. October 1970; Nelson, 1969).
Merrell, et al., (2001) also mention that among many public laws that
can be traced to the Commission’s 1969 report was the original Magnuson
Fishery and Conservation Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-265).
Two other noteworthy American actions
pertinent to ocean management were (1) the Presidential Proclamation of
December 27, 1988, (No. 5928) in accordance with international law
as reflected in the applicable provisions of the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea and customary international law extending
the U.S. territorial sea to 12 nautical miles. Earlier, (2) the Presidential
Proclamation (5030) of March 10, 1983 established the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) of the U.S. designating sovereign rights over natural resources
out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of
the territorial sea is measured in accordance with international law.
In addition, the Oceans Act of 2000 (P. L. 106-256; effective January
20, 2001) was passed by congress with the task of reviewing the importance
of American oceans and marine resources and formulating a “scientifically
based strategy for protecting and sustaining our oceans” and that this “requires
a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy” (Watkins, 2004).
One of the ocean governance approaches advocated by the U.S. Ocean Commission
is the principle of ecosystem-based management (Watkins, 2004; see
also Witherell, 2004).
LARGE
MARINE ECOSYSTEMS: AN INSTRUMENT TO FOSTER
REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
AND SCIENCE ARRANGEMENTS
LME’s are regions of ecological unity of ocean space comprising coastal
locales from river basins and estuaries to the outer margins of continental
shelves and seaward boundaries of coastal current systems (Griffis and
Kimball, 1996). A combination of ecological criteria including unique
bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophic relationships characterize
LME’s (Sherman, 1989). LME’s are areas yielding 90 percent of the annual
catch of global marine fisheries (Garibaldi and Limongelli, 2003; Sherman
and Duda, 2001). Thus, the LME approach considers accommodating human
utilization of its resources while maintaining ecosystem integrity.
Some areas of the globe have embraced ecosystem considerations as
part of fisheries ecosystem management within the scale of an
LME (Sherman, 1994; Done and Reichelt, 1998; Duda and Sherman, 2002).
English, et al., (1988) discussed Southeast Asia where the emphasis
was on studies of Large Marine Ecosystems (LME’s) using a multispecies
approach for the management of resources. Initiated in 1983, as a response
to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
was the South east Asian Project on Ocean Law, Policy and Management
(SEAPOL). It was designed to promulgate a network of regional specialists
in ocean development and management as a part of the Law of the Sea.
These regional specialists selectively incorporated information on coral,
mangrove and soft bottom benthic communities in the coastal living resources
project (English, et al., 1988). These authors noted on page 372 of their
manuscript, “science is a central issue in any attempt to manage LME’s;” “the
management of LME’s involves political, socioeconomic, scientific and
technical aspects.” The ASEAN Coastal Living Resources Project was an
early example of a multinational approach to the management of LME’s
(English, et al., 1988).
In Australia and New Zealand the LME approach was selected as a means
for introducing an ecosystem-based approach to the assessment and management
of marine resources because of its focus on resource management. Done
and Reichelt (1998) emphasize that in the Oceania LME, “the scope of
the focus on fishery management is placed on optimization of catch
per unit of effort (CPUE) for targeted commercial species along with
bycatch and discard minimization.” Integrated within the LME approach,
as utilized in Australian and New Zealand jurisdictional waters, is
also a focus on both coastal zone and watershed catchment management.
Here, the scope of emphasis for coastal zone management (CZM) is “directed
toward habitat protection for both catch and bycatch species (prohibited
and non specified species bycatch) as well as water quality maintenance.
The reduction of polluted land-based runoff into surface waterways that
drain towards the shore is the principle scope of emphasis for watershed
catchment management” (Done and Reichelt, 1998). Thus, in Oceania, “the
quest for resource sustainability may best be achieved through the combination
of management effort directed to wards coastal habitats and catchment
watersheds as well as the fishery” (Done and Reichelt, 1998).
The governments of the Republic(s) of Angola, Namibia and South Africa
in their desire to manage development and protect for future use the
Benguela Current LME in an integrated and sustainable manner committed
themselves to establishing the “Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem” (BCLME)
program with specific ecosystem-based actions, principles and policies
(O’Toole, 2002). The reasons for the establishment of the BCLME, included:
(1) significant transboundary implications of unsustainable practices
of harvesting of living marine resources (fish stocks), (2) increasing
habitat degradation and alteration which may have contributed to increased
incidence of harmful algal blooms, as well as (3) inadequate governance
capacity to assess and monitor ecosystem status and trends, either nationally
or regionally. The original Strategic Action Program (SAP) was adopted
by signature by government ministers at the end of February of 2000
in the spirit of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(Rio Declaration) and Agenda 21 principles. The BCLME program was established
as an international body under the terms and conditions of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (entry into force
November 1994) and international customary law principles (see e.g. Belsky,
1985). At the outset, for example, the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) is represented on the Interim Benguela Current Commission for
the initial five year BCLME program development phase. Original start up
funding was secured from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in partnership
with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and scientific
and technical assistance coming from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) of the U.S., and ocean science agencies in France,
Germany, and Norway.
In another regional setting north of the BCLME, according to Ukwe
et al., (2003) the countries of the Gulf of Guinea littoral “adopted
an integrated and holistic approach using the LME concept to sustainably
manage the environmental and living resources of the region.” The genesis
for the Guinea Current LME was founded in 1995 with a pilot project
initiative by six littoral nations regarding biodiversity conservation
and water pollution control. Ministers representing the six countries
responsible for the LME project signed the Accra Declaration as an expression
of support for inter-nation cooperation in fostering sustainable management
practices. Donor agency funding was secured via the GEF with implementation
provided through the UNDP in concert with the U.N. Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO) with technical support from NOAA/NMFS and the
U.N. Environment Programme. “The project is anchored in the concept
of LME’s as geographic units for improving the assessment and management
of marine resources” (Ukwe, et al., 2003). The overriding goal of the
ongoing Guinea Current LME Strategic Action Plan (SAP) centers on biological
diversity and the control of aquatic pollution with regard to restoring
and sustaining the health of the living marine resources of the region.
Ukwe, et al. (2003) mention four specific objectives to achieve the
goal revolving around five LME modules (see Figure 2)
including governance capacity building along with ecosystem management
database development
as well as living marine resources assessment and long-term monitoring
and protection strategies. Sherman (1995) illustrated the ecosystem level “energy
matrix” which is comprised of interactions of individuals, populations,
or communities of organisms. In general, the concept of LME’s has been
embraced by the world’s coastal developing nations, but the “predominant
variables” for any given LME may be different even from its neighbor,
depending upon the results of issue prioritization based on consensus
reached through a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (Sherman and Duda,
1999b).
ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED
MANAGEMENT AS A LINK
FOR FOSTERING SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES
More recently, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, “resolutions” have
been crafted for adoption by member nations to apply by 2010 the “ecosystem
approach” to the conservation, management and exploitation of highly
migratory (pelagic) and “straddling” fish stocks (Jahnke, 2003). Resolution
A/57/L.49 concerning a number of fisheries issues was introduced by the
United States of America through Ambassador Mary Beth West, the then
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries to the
fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly on December 10th 2002
(West, 2003). Resolution A/57/L.50 regarding the conservation and management
of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks was also
introduced at the same time by Ambassador West. In her remarks before
the General Assembly, she indicated that “the fisheries draft resolutions
are an assemblage of current ocean issues drawn from the priorities and
interests of Member States.” And “they represent consensus… in making
the oceans safe and healthy environments for sustainable development” (Jahnke,
2003).
Ambassador West’s statement also contained an emphasis on the agreed
to Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation
adopted on September 4th of 2002. She remarked that the Plan
calls on the world community to establish by 2004, a regular United
Nations process for global reporting and assessment of the state of
the marine environment based on existing regional assessments. The Plan
suggests the world community to elaborate regional programmes of action
and to improve links with strategic plans for the sustainable development
of coastal and marine resources (Jahnke, 2003). Thus, the prescribed
benefits of an in place LME approach to living marine resources conservation
biology and management can be seen at work in the international arena
(Alexander, 1999; Belsky, 1985).
The introduced “Resolution (on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, A/57/L.48)
similarly calls upon States to develop national, regional and international
programmes aimed at halting the loss of marine biodiversity. The United
States welcomes this emphasis on integrated regional approaches to oceans
issues.” While at the podium, Ambassador West went on to state, “in that
context (regarding integrated, regional approaches to ocean issues),
we would like to bring to this body’s attention the White Water to Blue
Water oceans partnership initiative currently being planned for the
Caribbean… it aims for an integrated approach to the management of freshwater
watershed and marine ecosystems.” “We hope it might serve as a successful
model for similar efforts in other regions of the world.” Moreover, “the
United States also looks forward to collective efforts to establish
an interagency coordination mechanism on oceans and coastal issues within
the United Nations system” (UNGA, 2002)1.
Specifically, the written draft resolution A/57/L49 introduced by
Ambassador West, noted also, with particularity, “the importance of implementing
the principles elaborated in Article 5 of the Provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating
to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks (entered into force on December 11th 2001),
including ecosystem considerations in the conservation and management
of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.” Draft
resolution A57/L.49 as adopted (now known as 57/142) “encourages all
States to apply by 2010 the ecosystem approach… and supports continuing
work under way at the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) to develop guidelines for the implementation of ecosystem
considerations in fisheries management…” (UNGA, 2003).
Similarly, Resolution 57/141 Oceans and the Law of the Sea (formerly
draft A/57/L/48) “calls upon States to promote the conservation and
management of the oceans in accordance with Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 (i.e.,
Earth Summit, Rio De Janeiro, June 1992; e.g. Garcia and Newton, 1994)
and other relevant international instruments, to develop and facilitate
the use of diverse approaches and tools, including the ecosystem approach,
the elimination of destructive fishing practices, the establishment
of marine protected areas (MPA’s) consistent with international law
and based on scientific information, including representative networks
by 2012 and time/area closures for the protection of nursery grounds
and periods, proper coastal and land use and watershed planning, and
the integration of marine and coastal areas management into key sectors.” In
Section XI Marine Environment, marine resources and sustainable development
of said Resolution 57/141 of December 12th 2002 calls upon
States“to improve the scientific understanding and assessment of marine
and coastal ecosystems as a fundamental basis for sound decision-making
through the actions identified in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation,
including that of relevant data collection of the marine environment” (UNGA,
2003).
In late November of 2003 an analogous resolution was adopted by the
General Assembly. Demonstrating a pattern of agreement by the international
community towards sustainable fisheries another marine affairs oriented
instrument was placed on the table at the U.N. General Assembly. Reaffirming
its resolutions, inter alia, 57/142 and 57/143 of December 12th
2002 (see above), draft resolution A/58/L.18 was on the agenda at the
fifty-eighth session in New York. After a successful roll call adoption
of the “sustainable fisheries… and related instruments resolution” (adopted
as RES/58/14 on November 24th2003) there was affirmation that
in seeking “responsible fisheries in the (large) marine ecosystem” (Section
IX) there is the encouragement for Member States to apply by 2010 the
ecosystem approach. This ecosystem approach and its relevant guidelines,
in part, developed by FAO (Rome, Italy) would provide for the “implementation
of ecosystem considerations in fisheries management” (UNGA, 2004).
Resolution 58/14 of 2003 also “notes with satisfaction” the activities
of the World Bank housed Global Environment Facility (GEF) aimed at “promoting
the reduction of bycatch and discards in fisheries activities.” Discards
add to the effect of fishery landings, for example, “a mid1990’s assessment
suggested that about 25 percent of marine catch is discarded” (Hanna,
1999). Moreover, the GEF has adopted the LME approach to ocean stewardship
of living marine resources (Duda and Sherman, 2002). Resolution 58/14
of 2003 in Section VIII “encourages States to develop ocean policies
and mechanisms on integrated management, including at the subregional
and regional levels;” the LME approach is just such a mechanism and
policy program. The flexible LME approach can aid in achieving sustainable
fisheries by addressing ecosystem considerations like: fishing
overcapacity, large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing, fisheries bycatch
and discards, aid in accomplishing subregional and regional cooperation
in fostering responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem, as well as
address capacity-building and cooperation as it relates to science policy
technical assistance and financial aid mechanisms (see: UNGA, 2004).
As regards “good governance” for the environment, West (2003) emphasizes
the promotion of “sound science based decision-making” within legal,
programmatic, and regulatory frameworks while stating, “changes in marine and
coastal systems can undermine the basic economic and environmental services
provided
by the oceans.” She also writes, “when it comes to the coastal environment,
however, we have learned that regional approaches are often most
effective” (West, 2003). The large marine ecosystem (LME) paradigm
provides just such an effective approach both internationally and/or
domestically in the U.S. The LME approach or initiative provides and
promotes science based decision-making for the ocean and coastal activities,
especially
in the realm of commercial fisheries science policy. The LME modular
assessment approach (Figure 2) is an improved science-based application
to best practices of integrated coastal management (e.g., West, 2003;
Ajayi, et al., 2002; Done and Reichelt, 1998).
CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
THE MANAGEMENT OF LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
While the adoption of ocean affairs related resolutions by the Member
States of the United Nations General Assembly demonstrate a willingness
to move towards
ecosystem-based fisheries management (as a tenet
of adaptive management), more importantly “this acceptance may be emerging
into customary rules of international law which promote consideration of total
ecosystems and the establishment of standards for those systems” (Belsky,
1985)2. Knecht (1994) recognized “that the use of the ecosystem
approach in dealing with large marine ecosystems is already close to becoming
international law.” “Soft laws essentially are statements of international
cooperation, usually in the form of an international treaty or agreement,
which are not binding on (all) States but have the capacity to promote evolving
notions of customary law, they have great importance in the evolution of customary
law” (MacDonald, 1995). He reiterates that “customary international law consists
of ‘rules’ and ‘norms,’ written and unwritten, that may or may not
find expression in treaties … precisely because of its informal nature that
customary law is central to international dialogue; often custom will be on
the basis on which to forge ahead in international disagreements in an
attempt to find common ground” (MacDonald, 1995). Alexander (1999) postulates, “the
articles of the 1982 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
generally support the principles of ecosystem management for living marine
resources. Most indications now point toward a general acknowledgement
of the benefits of integrated ecosystem management in the world’s oceans and
seas.” The objectives of UNCLOS are parallel to those of LME management (Alexander,
1999). Moreover, Cole (2003) asserts that “there have been structural changes
in fisheries decision-making, notably a transformation from a state led approach
towards multileveled decision-making procedures due to key developments in, inter
alia, international law.” Further, she asserts that “there have been considerable
shifts in authority dealing with fisheries regulation and a new, distinct,
global structure is emerging in essence attributed to globalization” (Cole,
2003).
The European Community has recently enacted reforming legislation
for its Member States proscribing a “road map” towards their Common
Fisheries Policy. The Council of the European Union, a regional body
of Member States, enacted Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 of December
20th 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation
of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (COEU, 2002).
This regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States. In some respects, the Europeans seem to be in sync
with the United States by establishing Regional Advisory Councils (Article
31) to enable fisherfolk and other stakeholders the benefit of providing
their local knowledge and experience concerning diverse conditions throughout
European Community jurisdictional waters. This appears somewhat analogous
to the idea for the creation of nonregulatory regional ocean councils
in the U.S. (see Watkins, 2004). Though the European Regional Advisory
Councils are not designed to be independent management bodies with the
authority to make decisions (Gray and Hatchard, 2003) unlike the eight
regional fishery management council’s structure in the U.S.A. that do.
The scope and objectives of EC No. 2371/2002 (Article 2(1)) include
the provision to “aim at a progressive implementation of an ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management.” Included here is the “good governance”objective
of a “decision-making process based on sound scientific advice which
delivers timely results. Broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages
of the
Common Fisheries Policy from conception to implementation” is another
objective under the “principles of good governance” (Article 2(2)).
Specifically, the Regional Advisory Councils were established to “contribute
to the objectives of Article 2(1), that is, “ecosystem-based approach
to fisheries management” and in particular to advise the European Commission on
matters of fisheries management with respect to certain sea areas or
fishing zones.
Under the heading “conservation and sustainability, Article 5(3) recovery
plans” and Article 6 (3) “management plans” “may cover either fisheries
for single stocks or fisheries exploiting a mixture of stocks, and shall
take due count of interactions between stocks and fisheries.” Therefore,
objectives or aims of the European Commission’s “new” approach to fisheries
management refocuses policy towards a long-term view to fostering higher
yield sustainable fisheries while moving towards an ecosystem-based approach to
fisheries management. Curiously under Article 3 “definitions,” none
was provided for what is meant by an ecosystem-based approach! Though,
however, it may be gleaned from the wording above as it relates to both
Recovery and Management Plans. Gray and Hatchard, (2003) suggest that
for coherence with other European Community environmental policies,
the principle of ecosystem management applies to gear regulations under
the Common Fisheries Policy.
ECOSYSTEM
CONSIDERATIONS: THE FORMULATION
OF A BEST-PRACTICES LME APPROACH
“There is a need to enhance the conservation objectives of
fisheries management plans to include explicitly ecosystem
considerations.”
Internationally, Wagner (2001) affirms that the recent Reykjavik
Declaration of Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (October,
2001) includes “ecosystem considerations in fisheries management that
provides a framework to enhance management performance.” These “considerations” incorporate
increased attention to predator-prey relationships and understanding
of the impact of human activities as well as the role of habitat
and factors affecting ecosystem stability and resilience, among others
(Figure 3). The effects of fishing from an ecosystem
perspective, and the effects of environmental change or alterations
on fish stocks
is one intent in providing the New England Fishery Management Council
(NEFMC) and other similarly situated regulatory agencies this kind
of information[3]. In general, due to data limitations and
the lack of breadth and complexity of most single species models, the
effects of fishing on ecosystems have not been incorporated into
most stock assessments (Livingston, 2001; Figure 4). “ Predation on
pelagic fish and squids is an important and large component of the
overall dynamics of the North east Shelf Ecosystem. Herring, except
at very large sizes (>30cm), seldom grow out of the window of predation
by fish over most of their life history” (Overholtz, et al., 1999). “Consumption
of pelagic fish and squid by predatory fish appears to equal or exceed
landings in most years from 1977-1997.” In the 1990’s, “for herring,
consumption also exceeds the current value of MSY for this stock” (Overholtz,
et al., 1999).
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)
utilizes as ecosystem
consideration indicators: physical oceanography indices (e.g.,
temperature and decadal regime shifts); habitat (e.g., groundfish
bottom trawling effort by subregion, closed areas to trawling, and
biota bycatch by all gears in habitats of particular concern (HAPC’s));
target groundfish (e.g., total biomass, total catch by subregion,
groundfish discards including target species discards, recruitment
by subregion); fleet size analogous to humans as a part of the
ecosystem (e.g., total number of vessels actually fishing); forage
(e.g., forage species such as herring et al., bycatch by subregion);
other species (e.g., spiny dogfish, various shark species, jellyfish
and prohibited, other, and nonspecified species bycatch example(s) of
prohibited bycatch include halibut mortality, herring, crab and salmon
species, among others); marine mammals (e.g., seals, sea lions); seabirds
(e.g., population trends and bycatch as well as breeding chronology
and species productivity); and, aggregate indicators (such as possible
regime shifts and trophic level food web catch by subregion). All
of these categories come under the rubric of ecosystem considerations
(Livingston, 2001) at an LME scale whether in the Gulf of Alaska
or the U.S. Northeast Shelf ecosystem (Sherman, 1994; e.g., Giordano,
2003).
Regarding precautionary and conservative catch limits, the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) mandates that “all
fish caught in any fishery (including bycatch), whether landed or discarded
are counted towards the TAC for that stock” (Witherell, et al., 2000).
As a further management precautionary approach it is assumed that there
is 100 percent mortality for all discards regardless if some fish actually
survive. Species are discarded by a fishing vessel because they are
either unwanted “economic discards” or they are regulatory “prohibited
species” (Witherell, et al., 2000). In the North Pacific, a “best practices” approach
institutionalizes that a “comprehensive and mandatory
observer programme” requires 100 percent coverage on any vessel more
than 49m in length overall (Witherell, et al., 2000). This has been
adopted as a “best practice” to provide limits on bycatch and discards,
it does not necessarily address “ecosystem concerns” (Witherell, et
al., 2000).
Other emerging “best practices” (Figure 5 and Figure 6;
see also
Sainsbury and Sumaila, 2003) utilized in the American waters of the
North Pacific for limits on bycatch and discards include certain gear
restrictions, for example, to prevent ghost fishing and reduce bycatch
of non target species gillnets for groundfish are prohibited (Witherell,
et al., 2000). Further, the NPFMC “adopted an improved retention and
utilization programme for all groundfish target fisheries. Beginning
in 1998, 100 percent retention of Pollock and Pacific Cod was required,
regardless of how or where it was caught” (Witherell, et al., 2000).
By 2004, the NPFMC expects that for most regulated species, the discard
rate will be about five percent (Witherell, et al., 2000). It is a
plausible way to manage commercial fisheries while incorporating, with
time, ecosystem considerations.
Ecosystem considerations may also translate to
specific concerns
in a given LME or subarea. Examples of these concerns may entail harvest
rate(s) fishery effects on species composition. Significant differences
exist in the rate of harvest of groundfish species in the New England
Region. Some are harvested close to their Fabc (acceptable
biological catch) levels while other species are taken at variable
lower levels. Perhaps some trawl fisheries are constrained by bycatch
limitations for prohibited species (e.g., yellowtail flounder) and
commercial landings prices for flatfish. As witnessed in the Northeast
United States Continental Shelf LME (Sherman, et al., 1996; Sherman
and Skjoldal, 2002) shifting or resulting high biomasses of predator
species (e.g., dogfish and skates) can have substantial impacts on the
trophodynamics of the marine ecosystem and shift the species assemblages.
Disproportionate harvest rates require constant analysis for lasting
season-to-season implications on the commercial groundfishery. “Fish
populations on Georges Bank changed from dominance by commercially
important groundfish species to less desirable species such as dogfish
and sandlance. Concurrent with a decline in the desirable groundfish
from overfishing were increases in pelagics (herring, mackerel) and
elasmobranches (spiny dogfish, skates)” (Boehlert, 1996).
Witherell, et al., (2000) emphasize that for the North
Pacific, “the
basic ecosystem consideration is a precautionary approach to extraction
of fish resources.” They suggest that the “precautionary principle
was developed over the past 10 years as a policy measure to address
sustainability of natural resources in the face of uncertainty” (e.g.
Kinzig, et al., 2003; Hilborn, 1987). One of their main hypotheses
concerning integrating ecosystem considerations in fisheries management
is that “if fisheries are managed sustainably using a precautionary
approach, it is likely[4] that the overall ecosystem processes,
ecosystem integrity, and biodiversity are also protected to some degree” (Witherell,
et al., 2000; see also Figure 7). Witherell (1999) mentions that specific “ecosystem
consideration” chapters have been prepared as supplementary information
in select annual stock assessment and fishery evaluation reports (e.g.,North
Pacific Fishery Management Council documents dated1998 &1999).
In addition, the NPFMC established an Ecosystem Committee in 1996 whose
mission was to suggest possible ecosystem-oriented approaches into
the fishery management process (e.g., hosting workshops, meetings
and informal discussions) whereby the Committee utilized the scientific
literature to identify elements and prospective principles of ecosystem-oriented
management (see Figure 8 and Figure 9; Table 1). Witherell (1999) stresses
that the NPFMC and the National Marine Fisheries Service have used
a precautionary approach, incorporated as part of ecosystem considerations,
by: a) relying on scientific research and advice, b) conservative catch
quotas, c) comprehensive monitoring and enforcement, d) bycatch controls,
e) habitat conservation areas, and f) additional ecosystem considerations
(see Figure 10 and Figure 11; Restrepo, et al., 1999).
Other “considerations” result from the impacts of fishing
gear on habitat and ecosystems. From numerous articles on this subject
that appear in the open scientific literature, most research appears
performed on trawl gear. Though not the focus of this research, bottom
trawls, as well as other gear types can alter the benthic structure,
sediments and nutrient cycling in certain situations (Witherell et
al., 1997). Now internationally banned pelagic drift nets or “ghost
fishing” created significant bycatch discard issues as well as marine
debris problems. Climatic changes are another “consideration.” Related
to oceanic temperature conditions are year class strengths of commercially
important species (e.g. Sainsbury et al., 2000). Herring and cod appear
to respond favorably with strong year classes with the
onset of warm current regimes. Declines in stocks may be seen, however,
for other finfish (Witherell, 1998; Mountain, 2002; Fogarty, 2001).
More “retrospective”ecosystem change research on this topic might prove
valuable when trying to prepare optimal yield (OY) and maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) figures from biomass estimates for a commercial species.
Witherell (1998) writes about the occurrence on a decadal or longer
frequency in the North Pacific Ocean, of shifts between warm and
cool periods and the compelling links between ocean conditions and
living marine resources production. Significant, rapid and sometimes
unexpected changes may be fostered by variable ocean conditions (Skud,
1982; McFarlane, et al., 2000). These shifting oscillations in the
ocean are characterized as “regime shifts” (Steele, 1998; see e.g., Figure 12).
The NPFMC also incorporates select marine protected
areas (MPA’s)
as a tool for managing bycatch and habitat protection as well as time/area
closures (e.g., Lubchenko, et al., 2003; Botsford, et al., 2003; Hastings
and Botsford, 2003; Carr, 2000). Agardy (2000) reckons in regard to
MPA’s that “the ideal situation seems to be establishment of closed areas
within the context of a larger multiple use protected area such as
a coastal biosphere reserve, marine sanctuary (as in the U.S.),
or other large scale MPA.” She does hypothesize, however, that “closures
having a scientific basis may be viewed by the fishing community as
exclusionary practices that are somehow rooted in social discrimination.” She
also mentions “the spatial dispersal of the harvesting sector is just
as important to the health and character of the ecosystem as biological
dispersal processes, virtually all analysis of marine reserves ignores
the inevitable response of the harvesting sector to closures” (Agardy,
2000; see also Agardy, et al., 2003).
Other ecosystem-oriented management approaches include
the NPFMC’s
adopted regulation prohibiting a directed fishery for select forage
fish that are found to be important prey for higher trophic level species
(such as groundfish) (Witherell, et al., 2000). These authors discuss
continuing progress towards ecosystem-based management that the NPFMC
is trying to fulfill. A draft approach for introducing ecosystem-oriented
management for the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME (see Figure 8 and Figure 9) has been crafted to foster dialogue. The approach is grounded in
elements and principles of ecosystem-based management identified in
the scientific literature. The approach provides a prospective definition
for fisheries ecosystem-based management as well as a presentation
on objectives, goals, guidelines, assumptions and understanding (see
also Witherell, 1999). A “mission statement” of an agency, as it relates
to ecosystem considerations, also would be an important component
of an emerging policy (see: Lynch, et al., 1999).
THE
ECOSYSTEM APPROACH AND BEST PRACTICES
Apollonio (1994) mentioned, “any community of fish species is part of
a larger marine ecosystem.” The ecosystem concept necessitates that
all components cannot be maximized simultaneously. Apollonio (1994) adds “that
variability in fisheries population biomass increase as fishing mortality
(F) increases toward the fishing mortality at MSY (Fmsy).” The
New England experience indicates that “as the high-value species have
been fished down, increasing attention has been focused on species of
lower value, such as squid” and dogfish (Apollonio, 1994). Sutinen (1999) has
uncovered, “fisheries harvesting multiple species are expected to be
more difficult and costly to manage than single species fisheries. This
expectation is supported in the evidence, with a high proportion of multispecies
groundfish fisheries experiencing poor resource conservation and economic
performance” (see Figure 13). Therefore, it is
important to consider fiscal resources needed to adequately address additional
information
needs related to ecosystem-based fisheries management.
Sainsbury and Sumaila (2003) proffer that best practice management
of combined effects of all users achieved through integrated management
of appropriately defined local ecosystems. They suggest that their listing
of potential “best practice reference points” and components “provide
a starting point to accommodate ecosystem considerations in fisheries
management and that evolving substantially in the near future will be
best practice reference points including those related to LME’s concerning
effects of nonfishery uses on the marine environment” (Sherman and Duda,
1999a&b; Table 2; Figure 5; see also e.g. Vandermeulen, 1998).
Ward (2000) identified “gaps and uncertainties” in the process of deriving
his draft key marine ecosystem sustainability indicators. These included
problems with (a) limited ecological knowledge; (b) limited scientific
understanding of credible cause-effect environmental issues; (c) resolving
capacity of monitoring system data capture and analysis processes; (d)
the synthesis and aggregation of data; (e) implementation issues
(case study trials, reference sites, interpretive models); and (f) adapting
and revising sustainability indicators. “Indicators focused mainly on
inputs such as financial or human resources, input loads of pollutants,
size of human population or on outputs, such as number of permits, size
of quota, or number of areas brought under formal management (e.g. MPA)
are unlikely to be suitably robust” (Ward, 2000). “Outcome-based indicators
are crucial components of any effective management system, and are
needed for compliance with ISO 14001 (International Organization for
Standardization, Switzerland) ‘best practice’ and international standards
for environmental management” (Ward, 2000). Similarly, Villa and McLeod
(2002) point out that “no rigorous experimental testing of vulnerability
estimates is possible given our current state of knowledge of the structure
and functions of the environment.” These authors support the view of
ecosystem integrity as “the maintenance of the community structure and
function characteristic of a particular locale deemed satisfactory to
society” (Villa and McLeod, 2002).
One way that fishery management practitioners may bring to bear a “precautionary
approach” in their work, and a recommended management action provided
here, is by agreeing to voluntary environmental standards that provide
value to business and other operations. Thus, the ISO 14000 family of
international Standards on environmental management supports the objective
of “sustainable development” (e.g., Table 3) of a wide-ranging portfolio
of standardized methods that provides business entities and government
with best available scientifically valid data on the environmental effects
of economic activity; a precursor to the technical basis for environmental
(fishery) regulations. The ISO 14000 Series, first printed in September
of 1996, meets the needs and concerns of those interested in the environmental
management of organizations. Specifically, the ISO 14000 family of Standards
is comprised of a systematic approach of documents related to environmental
management systems (EMS; i.e., ISO 14001 and ISO 14004) and procedures
and documents related to environmental management tools, such as EMS
audits and environmental performance evaluations. In the issue at hand,
for example, how much is “allowable” discard and bycatch in a given
fishery? The former Chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council
proclaims, “we have not been able to adequately calculate bycatch in
most of our fisheries because of the lack of information or the funds
to collect it” (Hill, 2002). Careful consideration will need to be given
to the scientific and financial commitment required to introduce ecosystem-based
fisheries management of the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem.
Thus, establishment and implementation of an organization’s environmental
and ecological based management system is central in ascertaining its
ecosystem policy, objectives, and targets providing a benchmark frame
of reference for continuous adjustment and improvement of environmental
performance. Tools for environmental management exist to assist the
organization in fostering and promoting its ecologically oriented policy,
objectives and targets. The ISO 14000 compliance standards are practical
tools for the manager (boat captain; fishery permit holder, regulator,
etc.) who isn’t satisfied with compliance to legislation and directives,
they’re for the proactive organization providing a strategic approach
to conducting, implementing and evaluating environment and ecosystem-related
measures that can bring a sustainable return on investment. Under
ISO 14001, the fishing and public administration sectors have their
own codes. Sainsbury, et al., (2000) also depict the ISO 14000 standards
as important operational strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives.
More information on ISO 14000 EMS usage in the private sector is found
in Coglianese and Nash (2002 & 2001). Therefore, adoption of ISO
14000 compliance standards appear compatible to a sustainable “precautionary
approach” paradigm.
THE PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLE/APPROACH AS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
(CONTROL RULES AND REFERENCE
POINTS)
Dovers and Handmer (1995) provide one salient definition for on-the-ground
usage of the precautionary principle (approach) “where there are threats
of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent
environmental (ecological) degradation. In the application of the precautionary
principle, public and private decisions should be guided by: (i) careful
evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage
to the environment (ecosystem), and (ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted
consequences of various options.” These authors suggest that other elemental
themes for the precautionary principle may be found in the open literature. Two
salient interpretations may be added for LME usage through the following
commentary: (iii) “the precautionary principle recommends an anticipatory
or preventive approach rather than a defensive one which simply reacts
to environmental (ecological) damage when it becomes apparent; and (iv)
uncertainty as to the severity of the environmental impacts resulting
from a development decision or an ongoing human activity should not be
an excuse to avoid or delay environmental protection measures” (Dovers
and Handmer, 1995). These authors also address the issue of the “shifting
burden of proof” towards those proposing a possible harmful action rather
than those advocating environmental (ecological) protection, such as
designated stewardship agencies. Similar in nature to the philosophy
of these authors, this manuscript presents a view believing that
the “shifting burden of proof” conundrum is “beyond official definitions
of the precautionary principle” (Dovers and Handmer, 1995) and workable
on-the-ground reality considering democratic governmental sectoral regulation(s)
especially when considering the overall scale and scope of an LME
setting.
It should be noted that the “shifting burden of proof” is neither a
goal nor objective of an LME approach to living marine resources sustainability.
Another view of the “precautionary principle” (approach) is an “idea
that speaks to the interest of maintaining the integrity of complex
ecosystems and their dynamics” while taking into accord “the great number
of fisheries today depleted or threatened with commercial crashes” (Scheiber,
1997). In order to facilitate better sustainable governance of the oceans
and its attendant living resources, Costanza et al. (1998), posit their
viewpoint, with respect to fisheries, even under controlled access,
management decisions are often made at scales that do not consider
all sources of ecological information. They also suggest that management
fails to consider public owners relying instead to focus on user groups.
They say this has led to fishery management decisions that encompass more
risk than caution. MacDonald (1995) does proffer, however, that two international
arrangements that may formalize the strictest interpretation of the
precautionary principle (including that of the shifting burden of proof)
despite scientific uncertainties are the protection of the ozone layer
found in the Montreal Protocol of 1988, and decisions prohibiting certain
whaling practices implemented through the International Whaling Commission
(IWC). Most other documents encompass non-binding agreements like the
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Rio Conference
(UNCED) declaration(s).
Gerrodette et al. (2002) mention with “regard to the standards of
proof required that must be met” (e.g., Charles, 2002) “it would be
impossible to demonstrate ‘no harm’ given the large uncertainties in
making any predictions about marine ecosystems.” “A basic feature of
any precautionary or risk-averse approach to natural resource management
is that the less certain we are about the effects of an action, the
more cautious we should be. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
Management Act National Standards Guidelines clearly say so. ‘Criteria
used to set target catch levels should be explicitly risk averse, so
that greater uncertainty regarding the status or productive capacity
of a stock or stock complex corresponds to greater caution in setting
target catch levels’” [50 CFR 600.310 (f) (5) (iii)] (Gerrodette, et
al., 2002). These authors advocate, “for current U.S. fishery management
precautionary buffers (the difference between targets and limits) should
therefore be a positive function of uncertainty.”
Charles (2002) states “with regard to the impact of fishing gear on
the ocean habitat the key issue is whether a conservation rationale exists
to favor one technology over another.” He mentions that the traditional
status quo approach is treating all fishing gears equivalently. Charles
(2002) also brings to light the problematic issues surrounding, if,
when, and how fishing areas and closed targeted fisheries will reopen
to fisherfolk. He suggests that one “robust management” policy measure
includes adaptive management “involving suitable monitoring processes,
integration of knowledge (notably traditional ecological knowledge and
fisher knowledge), and mechanisms for incorporating new information,
so management actions can be reassessed as needed to adapt to unexpected
circumstances, to avoid compromising conservation goals”(Charles, 2002).
Holling (1996) proffers, “in adaptive management, policies are designed
as hypotheses and management implemented as experiments to test those
hypotheses”with “consequences of the (management) actions potentially
reversible and that the experimenter learns from the experiment (see
also Figure 14). In another view, Lackey (1997) asserts that the “hypothesis
testing approach works well in research for narrow, mechanistic questions
in science, but not for more complex and typical research and policy
questions.” Despite the foregoing commentary regarding hypothesis testing,
the present problems in commercial fishery catch are unsustainable from
season to season and from species to species. The culprit for this fishery
unsustainability is pointed at “overfishing (e.g., Figure 15) or inefficient
harvesting” (e.g., Repetto, 2001).
Gislason et al., (2000) mention, however, “the power to detect indirect
effects of fishing in marine ecosystems is low, and therefore some
such impacts may be masked.” They further state, “it is often difficult
to separate out the effects of fishing from other anthropogenic influences
(e.g., pollution, habitat modification) and from natural environmental
variability this is particularly the case in nearshore ecosystems” (Gislason
et al., 2000). Willmann and Insull (1993) conclude that environmental
changes brought about in other sectors seemingly unrelated to fisheries
can result in concomitant loss of fish habitat and water quality deterioration, “for
example, land-based pollution providing a toxic effect on fish.” Thus,
they suggest that coastal fisheries management ought to encompass other
sectors into integrated policy making. Much research
indicates, however, that present global exploitation patterns (as well
as regional) do not necessarily employ a precautionary approach and are
consequently unsustainable (Pauly, et al., 2002; Pauly et al., 2000;
Pauly et al., 1998).
Akin to adaptive management is the policy orientation framework or
cycle (Gable, 2003). Using science in adaptive management necessitates
providing explicit expectations of the outcome of policies in order for
designing methods to measure their effectiveness. It also involves
collection and analysis of data so that the actual outcomes can be
compared with hypothesized expectations. Berkes et al. (2000) suggest
that adaptive management “may be viewed as the scientific analogue
of traditional ecological knowledge because of its integration of uncertainty
into management strategies and its emphasis on practices that confer
resilience. Adaptive management emphasizes processes including resource
uses that are part of ecological cycles of renewability.”
Costanza et al. (1998) subscribe to the paradigm of “adaptive management” that
includes cross-disciplinary stakeholder groups, and intergenerational
considerations wherein uncertainty is acknowledged as a core principle
(Figure 16). They state that “precaution” is already
well accepted in the international community where decisions concerning
the use of marine
living resources incorporate uncertainty about potentially irreversible
environmental impacts, and thus are risk-averse. Adaptive management
as defined by Grumbine (1994) “assumes that scientific knowledge is
provisional and focuses on management as a learning process or continuous
experiment
where incorporating the results of previous actions allows managers to
remain flexible and adapt to uncertainty.” Christensen et al. (1996)
subscribe to a definition of adaptive management that to manage resources
sustainably in an environment of uncertainty it is a process that combines
democratic principles, scientific analysis, education, and institutional
learning (see also Table 2). Both definitions are analogous to the policy orientation concept
(Lasswell, 1951).
Richards and Maguire (1998) profess that the “precautionary approach
is now embodied in several international agreements, including the United
Nations Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement
and the voluntary FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Article
6 of the “Straddling Stocks” Agreement, which was ratified by the requisite
number of countries as of December 11th 2001, and thus incorporated
into the Law of the Sea Treaty, provides “the essence of the precautionary
approach whereby ‘States shall be more cautious when information uncertain,
unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific information
shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation
and management measures’ and improved methods are required for dealing
with risk and uncertainty” (Richards and Maguire, 1998).
Stock-specific reference points provide the principle mechanism for
applying the precautionary approach for harvest management strategies
for developed fisheries. The “Straddling Stocks” Agreement, in Article
6, provides that signatory States “shall determine, on the basis of the
best scientific information available, stock-specific reference points
and the action to be taken if they are exceeded. Two types of reference
points are identified: limit reference points set boundaries which are
intended to constrain harvesting within safe biological limits within
which the stocks can produce maximum sustainable yield while target reference
points are intended to meet management objectives” (Richards and Maguire,
1998). “Reference points have been generally defined in terms of the
fishing mortality rate F and expressed as targets rather than
limits. Although reference points have been applied mainly in the context
of biological science, economic or social reference points could and should
also be developed and adopted” (Richards and Maguire, 1998).
“The Straddling Stocks Agreement clearly specifies Fmsy, the
fishing mortality that can produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY), as
a limit reference point that should not be exceeded. In addition, Bmsy, the
biomass that can yield the long-term average MSY on application of Fmsy, is
suggested as a rebuilding target for overfished stocks a specific limit
reference point for stock biomass is not defined. However, given Fmsy, as
a limit reference point, Bmsy could also be interpreted
as a limit reference point” (Richards and Maguire, 1998; see also Restrepo,
et al., 1999). “The question of appropriate reference points for a variable
environment has received limited scientific attention to date (Richards
and Maguire, 1998). Hollowed et al. (2000) found that for Georges Bank
harvest strategies “it was impossible to derive a single fixed value
for Fmsy.” Decadal variability can lead to abrupt
changes suggesting evidence for “environmental forcing is strong in
most marine systems” (see Figure 12).
Regarding implementing the precautionary principle (approach) through
limit reference points is, “they allow specification of simple quantitative
objectives with measurable criteria for determining whether they are
met. This is essential for practical (workable) fisheries management” (Hall,
1999) and, “such reference points typically will need to be set for
localized regions.” Hall, (1999) hypothesizes that when science “uses
multispecies fisheries models to help derive suitable reference points
for management, they are almost always more conservative more precautionary
than the conclusions one draws using only single species models.” Hall
suggests that more promising system level reference points for medium-term
performance
measures may be the trophic status or size structure of the catch these could
be equated to “ecosystem health and integrity.” In principle, simpler
to understand, augment and implement are traditional single species
management approaches of target and non-target reference points. Thus,
the reference point characteristically retains the capacity for proper
regulatory performance measures according to Hall, (1999; but see:
Sutinen, et al., 2000). Basically, “the status of an ecosystem can be
assessed” according to Link, et al. (2002) and that it is “not novel
to assess the status of single species fish stocks.” For the assessment
and management of “large marine ecosystems,” lessons from single species stock
assessment, environmental impact assessment (EIA), and ecological risk
assessment tools and procedures provide appropriate management decision
criteria (Link et al., 2002). Indeed, May et al. (1979) found, “MSY cannot
serve as a guide when applied to each species individually” especially
since many harvested species have robust interactions.
“It is time to propose a wider range of conservation and ecosystem
objectives for fisheries management, as well as corresponding indicators
and reference points that trigger management action. The reference points
for a fishing plan could be the total permissible bycatch level of the
species at risk” (Gislason, et al., 2000). “The indicators for directly
impacted species (target and bycatch species) are well established.
They include, for example, measure for exploitation rate (using size
and age structure changes), spawning stock biomass and geographic distribution.
Reference points for forage species (such as herring) may include consideration
of prey requirements in addition to spawning stock biomass requirements
for safeguarding recruitment”(Gislason, et al., 2000).
For fisheries management, “tools to achieve ecosystem objectives gear
restrictions, closed areas and seasons, including MPA’s, quotas and bycatch
limits and restrictions on days-at-sea, are the same as those already
in use to achieve single species related conservation objectives” (Gislason,
et al., 2000). These are also referred to as input output controls and
technical measures. “The similarity between single-species fisheries
management and an eco system approach should not come as a surprise” (Sissenwine
and Mace, 2003; Figure 17). “Fisheries management
science refers to the broad integration of fisheries science, fisheries
management and
management science.” “The development of fisheries management science
incorporates biological, ecological, economic, social and political
aspects. Currently, the scientific field is dominated by the biological
sciences” (Richards and Maguire, 1998). The use of a policy orientation approach
to LME oriented fisheries management is somewhat analogous and would
in corporate the disciplinary subdivisions listed above (see: Gable,
2003; Clark, 1992).
Restrepo et al. (1999; see Figure 10 and Figure 11) helps to “succinctly” define
a version of the precautionary approach whereby “in fisheries, the precautionary
approach is about applying judicious and responsible fisheries management
practices, based on sound scientific research and analysis, proactively
(to avoid or reverse overexploitation) rather than reactively (once all
doubt has been removed and the resource is severely overexploited) to ensure the
sustainability of fishery resources and associated ecosystems for the
benefit of future as well as current generations.” These authors also
suggest that the precautionary approach can be categorized into fisheries
research, fisheries management and fisheries technology. Considering
if the precautionary principle is science based, “international environmental
policy ultimately relies on scientific evidence to identify issues of
concern and, of course, ‘scientific evidence is rarely, if ever, absolute’” (MacDonald,
1995).
MacDonald (1995) emphasizes that with “respect to fisheries management,
the risk of management error can never be completely eradicated. Scientific
uncertainty is the accepted norm in fisheries management. A zero risk
strategy would imply no development at all. A strategy hardly viable.” Restrepo
et al. (1999) proffer that the “basic idea of using reference points
in a precautionary approach to fisheries management is that targets
should be set sufficiently below limits so that the limits will be avoided
with high probability and targets will be attained on average.” Domestically
the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 “redefined optimum yield to be
no greater than maximum sustainable yield. The new definition of optimum
yield also included the protection of marine ecosystems as a national
benefit to be considered in setting targets.” These authors argue that “conservation
constraints should be met before other objectives” under the precautionary
approach. Young (2003) cautions, however, “applications of the precautionary
principle can be expected to lead to lowering of total allowable catches.
Carried to extremes, the precautionary principle can become a weapon
in the hands of those who wish to terminate consumptive uses of living
resources, regardless of the consequences for human welfare.” He then
suggests that this situation has already transpired within the aegis
of the International Whaling Commission.
MacDonald (1995) emphasizes that the precautionary principle “is not
a scientific risk assessment device and should not be recognized as such
it is principally applied for its value-laden character. It is up to
the policymaker to determine how to apply the principle. In fisheries
management a flexible precautionary principle clearly is needed.” Domestically
in the United States the turtle excluder device (TED) employed in the
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries, “though at the time not
labeled a ‘precautionary approach,’” may be just that kind of sustainable
fisheries policy measure or tool. “The precautionary principle is not
yet recognized as accepted customary law” (MacDonald, 1995), but it is
appears to be heading that way during the last decade or so (see e.g.,
Belsky, 1989).
Presently, there is a proposed Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(NAFO) Precautionary Approach Frame work that places an emphasis on risk
analyses for selected stocks employing fishing mortality and stock biomass
reference points “security margins” (Fbuf and Bbuf)
whereby the “more uncertain the stock assessment, the greater the buffer
(Fbuf & Bbuf) should be” (NAFO, 2003). In effect,
in the Northeast United States Continental Shelf LME fisheries managers
have already established zoning areas for fisheries management. As described
in several United Nations agreements (e.g. Annex II of the UN Straddling
Stocks Agreement to which the United States is a signatory) Flim equals
Fmsy because “Fmsy as a limit is in conformance” with
the prescribed precautionary approach. In the September 2003 adopted “Precautionary
Approach” framework NAFO points out that “fishing somewhat below Fmsy results
in a relatively small loss in average catch, but a large increase in
average biomass (which, in turn, results in a decreased risk to the fish
stock, and increase in Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and a decrease in
the costs of fishing).” There is now consideration of multispecies situations
with the desirability for a stable as possible total allowable catches
(TAC’s). That is, the NAFO Scientific Council adopted a precautionary
approach that takes into account concerns expressed by fisheries managers.
For example, Fmsy has been recommended as a positive “first
step towards ecosystem-based management” objectives ensuring that no
principle fish stock is “fished harder than the single species.” NAFO,
(2003) states, “ecosystem-based
management will likely require even more conservative fishing mortality
targets than ‘traditional’ single-species management.” This precautionary
approach may also include a de-emphasis of Bmsy that attempts
to avoid the impossible problem of “maintaining all stocks in a multispecies
assemblage simultaneously at their respective single-species Bmsy.”
Among the precautionary management measures placed on the table by
Caddy (1999), he suggests that “several simple size-based (fishery) reference
points should be formulated assuming that a precautionary approach oriented
fishery should allow for species to spawn at least once in life history.” He
adds that “a precautionary reference point is one allowing the cohort
a reasonable probability of spawning at least once before capture, and
this criterion can be used to test other F-based reference points for
their conformity -- with this principle those reference points or indices
are not easily intercalibrated.” See also Caddy (1999) for a review of
his “traffic
light” approach for employing graduated precautionary management responses
in fisheries policy.
Restrepo and Powers (1999) discuss the United States NOAA/NMFS utilized
strategy of control rules (CR). Following on the preceding discussion(s),
some control rules, that is, fishing mortality (F), should be
altered depending on the spawning biomass of the resource (B).
They suggest control rules to mean a description of a variable by which
managers have some direct control as a function of some other variable
related to the resource (i.e., F & B). They employ a “precautionary
control rule default target optimum yield (OY) consisting of setting
the TAC target F (mortality) 25 percent below the limit (Flim)
or also referred to as the “maximum fishing mortality threshold” (Restrepo
and Powers, 1999).
Darcy and Matlock (1999) state that with regard to the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104297) or its predecessor Magnuson-Stevens
Act of twenty years earlier, that Congress did not use the term ‘precautionary
approach’ anywhere. They go on to mention, however, that the drafters
of the National Standard Guidelines (found in the Federal Register;
the MSFCMA requires, at section 301(b)), the Secretary of Commerce, through
the Undersecretary of Oceans and Atmospheres, establish advisory “guidelines” based
on the ten National Standards (see Table 4). The MSFCMA does not, however,
explicitly mention, “control rules” to be promulgated as “guidelines.” These
authors suggest that the precautionary approach is implicit in the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 and explicit in the “guidelines” prepared for National
Standard 1 to prevent overfishing. Hsu and Wilen (1997) assert that the
Sustainable Fisheries Act Standards do effectively “provide directives
that are consistent with broad conservation goals and sensible ecosystem
management.”
Considering the 10 National Standards in the Act, Hill (2002) comments
that “avoiding or reducing significant social and economic impacts on
communities dependent on access to the fishery, which is under a rebuilding
program is impossible...There are inherent competing interests between
the varying Standards depending on the perspective one might hold. This
has inevitably led to lawsuits... as to whether the Council has properly
complied with the law.” As a policy alternative, both Goethel (2002)
and Hill (2002) suggest that they would have “Congress qualify or rank the
10 National Standards in order of importance.” An in place ISO-14000
environmental management system would afford organizations the tools
to carry out such a task themselves, and to amend it using the steps
in the policy orientation process (Table 5 and Table 6;
see also Figure 18 & Figure 19) as appropriate.
Rosenberg (2002) discusses control rules stating they “essentially
relate management action to control the fishing mortality rate to the
status of the resource in terms of biomass or some other measure. A control
rule provides a framework for pre-agreed management actions as called
for in the precautionary approach. Uncertainty in the status of the
resource can be included explicitly through the specification of management
targets to be achieved on average and management thresholds that should
never be exceeded.” “Control rules leave little room for negotiation
and consideration of issues such as (stock) rebuilding timeframes and
allocation
between States, groups or gear types” (Rosenberg, 2002). Generally,
these were designed by marine scientists before the managers had provided
any precautionary management systems of their own. Indeed those described
in Rosenberg (2002), for example, have subsequently not been adopted
by the regional international community because of concerns expressed
by the managers (see NAFO, 2003). Perhaps the marine scientists got
a bit ahead of themselves. Thus, Rosenberg (2002) concludes that “the
mechanistic approach of control rules to implementation of precautionary
management may be hindering agreement on conservation restrictions, simply
because it leaves so little room for negotiation.”
Concerning the implementation of the precautionary approach domestically,
Rosenberg (2002) indicates, “the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 carries
forward many of the ideas of the precautionary approach with regard to
preventing overfishing, the use of reference points, reducing bycatch
and protecting habitat.” And, “the burden of proof continues to be on
managers to prove that restrictive measures are essential rather than
to show that harvesting can be safely allowed.” Therefore, reference
points to establish targets or thresholds for defining overfishing is
a tool used to implement precautionary management in the USA, maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) remains as a standard reference point. Garcia,
(1994) theorizes, “in a way, the MSY could be considered a measure of
the maximum assimilative capacity of the stock” (Table 7). “The need
to reduce fishing pressure has resulted in (control) rules that do not
allow fishers to shift from one fishery to another as easily as in the
past” (Rosenberg, 2002). Thus, the need for an LME ecosystem-based approach
to living resources biomass allocation in an adaptive management environment
is necessary to foster sustainable yields. Rosenberg (2002) laments “as
Regional Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, I
found it hard to understand all the rules and changes, and the fishermen
certainly found it equally hard.”5
Garcia (1994) suggests that the precautionary principle refers to “the ‘hard
line’ rule proposed for management of highly polluting activities. The ‘approaches’ refers
to the practical ways and sets of measures which are precautionary in
nature but may lead to more realistic application in fisheries.” “The
burden of proof is traditionally on research and management with the
rare exceptions where scientific work has been used to limit the development
programmes on new fisheries” (Garcia, 1994). Internationally, “the
precautionary principle requires nations to take preventive or corrective
action even in the absence of sufficient scientific evidence of a causal
link between a suspected factor and the adverse effects observed” (Garcia,
1994; Table 8). Thus, the United States in adopting the original Magnuson-Stevens
Act enacted a precautionary action by restricting distant water fishing
fleets from within the 200 nautical mile (pre-EEZ) fisheries zone.
Garcia (1994) believes, “although U.N. General Assembly resolutions
are not legally binding, they can have enormous political significance” noting
their resolutions in the early 1990’s on ‘large-scale pelagic driftnets.” “A
U.N. General Assembly resolution may have an effect wider than that
of a recommendation (its legal status) in revealing what State practice
is, or pointing to what States might be willing to accept.” He also indicates
that the “precautionary principle” is no more than a nonbinding norm,
operating within the framework of particular agreements, but it “may
be on its way to becoming part of customary international law” (see
also Belsky, 1985). Richards and Maguire (1998) hold that the precautionary
approach is acquiring acceptance as a basis for fishery management.” Further,
they maintain, on page 1546 of their article, “that regardless of the
extent to which uncertainties can be quantified,” precaution dictates a
different philosophical and practical approach to “fisheries management
science.” MacDonald (1995) cautions, however, that a more flexible “approach” is
required with respect to fishery management and that a steadfast “principle” (or
rule) cannot be applied in all management realms.
In a more up-to-date synopsis, the European Community on December 20th,
2002, regarding the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries
resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (Council Regulation LEC No.
2371/2002, noted in the Official Journal of the European Communities dated
31/12/2002, this regulation entered into force on January 1st,
2003) has adopted objectives embraced by plurality by the Member States
Community. They “shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures
de signed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide
for their sustainable exploitation and to minimize the impact of fishing
activities on marine ecosystems. It should aim at a progressive implementation
of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management”…, etc. (Article
2 (1)). Article 3 (i) provides a description of the “precautionary approach
to fisheries management means that the absence of adequate scientific
information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing
to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or
dependent species and nontarget species and their environment. Precautionary
reference points are biological reference points and are designed to
mark the boundary between acceptable risks and unacceptable risks.”
Further, Article 5 (3) and Article 6 (3) requires that “recovery plans
and management plans,” respectively, should be drawn up on the basis
of the precautionary approach, and, Article 6 (2) shall include conservation
reference points, which under Article 3 (k) “means values of fish stock
population parameters (such as biomass or fishing mortality rate) used
in fisheries management, for example, with respect to an acceptable
level of biological risk or desired level of yield.” Three types of reference
points are typically considered including limit reference points (“means
values of fish stock population parameters such as biomass or fishing
mortality rate) which should be avoided because they are associated with
unknown population dynamics, stock collapse or impaired recruitment
(Art. 3 (j)), precautionary or buffer reference points and target reference
points. Thus, a precautionary approach has been linked to best practices for
living marine resource capture and exploitation actions and it is therefore
incumbent upon countries to apply it through customary international
law and practice.
To Sissenwine and Mace (2003) the “precautionary approach means that,
when in doubt, err on the side of conservation.” Further, they state
that “an ecosystem approach for responsible fisheries management requires
taking into account trophic interactions in a precautionary fishing mortality
rate strategy” which they define “is geographically specified
fisheries management that takes account of knowledge and uncertainties
about, and among, biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems,
and strives to balance diverse societal objectives” (see also Figure 17). Sissenwine and Mace (2003) believe, “fisheries ecosystem plans (FEP)
are useful vehicles for designing and implementing an ecosystem approach
to responsible fisheries management.” They list three key elements to
consider in developing FEP’s including (a) ocean zoning concepts; (b)
specificity while authorizing fishing activities; and (c) hierarchical
decision-making processes. Sissenwine and Mace (2003) suggest the creation
of a new profession of fisheries and ecosystem practitioners that provide
salient scientific advice.
MANAGING
FISHERIES IN THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM
(MORE "BEST PRACTICES")
Regarding responsible fisheries, Sinclair and Valdimarsson (2003)
state “fish has become the most internationally traded food, as some
37 percent (by quantity) of all fish for human consumption is traded
across borders.” Related to the situation of governance for responsible
domestic or international marine fisheries, Sinclair and Valdimarsson
(2003) lament, “there is no complete global inventory of fisheries management
systems and approaches, whether at the level of countries, stocks or
fisheries.” They go on to state, “several of the 31 regional fishery
bodies (across the globe) implement policies based on total allowable
catch (TAC) and national quotas… these approaches are complemented by
a series of technical measures, including power and size regulation
of vessels; size and mesh dimensions for gear; closed/open seasons/areas
for fishing time encompassing effort ceilings; and catch characteristics
involving minimum landing size, licensing schemes and stage of maturity/age
characteristics.” A movement towards ecosystem-oriented fishery management
may heighten the urgency for addressing rights-based and limited access
regimes (Sinclair and Valdimarsson, 2003; Sutinen at al., 2000).
Sinclair and Valdimarrson (2003) argue, “a first step in moving towards
ecosystem-based fishery management is to identify and describe the different
ecosystems and their boundaries, and then to consider each as a discrete
entity for the purposes of management. Thereafter, ecosystem management
objectives must be developed. The central objective of ecosystem-based
fishery management is to obtain optimal benefits from all marine ecosystems
in a sustainable manner.” These authors, on page 401 of their paper,
suggest, “once the objectives have been identified and agreed upon, it
is necessary to establish appropriate reference points and/or sustainability
indicators… which must be based on the best scientific evidence available” (see Figure 21). The general principles utilized in conventional single-species
management will still apply regarding achieving objectives in suitable
ecosystem-based
fisheries management strategies. Degnbol (2002; Table 9) ascertains
that a “reference point connects management action and outcomes; the
reference point is the yardstick by which it is measured whether management
has achieved its objectives and which indicates the direction for future
management action.” Sinclair and Valdimarsson (2003) claim that responsible
fisheries invoke an “emphasis on application of the precautionary
approach as central to ecosystem-based fisheries management” along with “assessing
impact(s) of climate change.”
Concerning the objectives for ecosystem approaches to fisheries management,
Degnbol (2002) finds that unclear concepts reflect unresolved conflicts
and that “the real challenge of ecosystem-based fisheries management
is the implementation” stage. Degnbol (2002) asserts, “effective capacity
reduction supplemented with measures to reduce habitat damage from fishing
gear and to protect sensitive habitats may address most
ecosystem concerns without requirements for detailed tracking of all
interactions and addressing of all issues separately.” Some practical
obstacles to implementing ecosystem-based management include “defining
the management unit, developing understanding and creating planning and
management frameworks” (Slocombe, 1993). Defining new management units,
such as an LME, is a critical step. It may be a “prerequisite for other
steps toward ecosystem-based management. Oftentimes it may be best to
just transcend existing administrative boundaries and management
units” (Slocombe, 1993). Slocombe (1993) suggests, “the wide popularity
of sustainable development is also becoming a major catalyst for
ecosystem-based management. Cooperative management, management responses to
complex demands and pressures, and protected areas are thought to be
three common origins of ecosystem-based management” (Figure 22).
In terms of developing understanding, “natural science information
alone is not enough, if the goal is management of an entire watershed
or (large marine) ecosystem. The management unit includes people, their
social and economic activities, and their shared and individual beliefs” (Slocombe,
1993). In the marine environment, as a basis for future planning and
management, “synthesis or existing information may be eminently useful
in terms of developing understanding” (Slocombe, 1993). On page 621 of
his paper, Slocombe states, “initial research priorities in most areas
would be gathering and reviewing existing information, identifying and
filling gaps, and integrating it.” Holistic interdisciplinary study
of ecosystems gained impetus in the 1970’s from the UNESCO Man and Biosphere
programs (including the marine biosphere reserve concept mentioned earlier;
see: Kenchington and Agardy, 1990; Slocombe, 1993).
Slocombe, (1998) describes desirable characteristics of goals as those
that should be broad and generally agreed upon, with a degree of normative
implication and reflection of specific values and limits, whereas “objectives
are the specific doable tasks needed to achieve the goal(s)” (see Figure 23 and Figure 24). “Targets are readily observable, usually quantifiable,
events or characteristics that can be aimed for as part of a goal
or objective. Targets are a subset of the broad set of indicators,
which are a priori identified system characteristics that can
provide feedback on progress toward goals and objectives. Criteria
are specific targets, of ten thresholds, that indicate when explicit,
normative goals and objectives have been met” (Slocombe, 1998). “At a
minimum, goals and objectives that address the biophysical environment
and socioeconomic community in terms of structure, function, and process
at an integrated ecosystem level are best” (Slocombe, 1998).
Garcia and Staples (2000; see Table 10) state that a criteria is “an
attribute of the sustainability information system in relation to which
indicators and reference points (targets) may be elaborated.” These
authors provide examples suggesting that revenue is a criteria related
to the well-being of humans in the fishery, spawning biomass is a criteria
related to the well-being of the stock and fishing capacity is a criteria
related to fishing pressure. “A reference point indicates a particular
state of a fisheries indicator corresponding to a situation considered
as desirable (Target Reference Point, TRP), or undesirable and requiring
immediate action”(Limit Reference Points, LRP, and Threshold Reference
Point, ThRP; Garcia and Staples, 2000).
GOVERNANCE
ISSUES FOR ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
McGlade (2001) suggests that governance is a social function whose success
is vital to our future viability; it centers on the management of complex
interdependencies among individuals, corporations, interest groups, and
public agencies who are engaged in interactive decision-making taking
actions that affect each other’s welfare.” While the scientific basis
for fisheries management is traditionally built around a series of models,
the majority of which are aimed at single species, they are all “focused
on the biological aspects of commercially important fish stocks rather
than their status within the marine ecosystem or the marketplace” (McGlade,
2001). McGlade (2001) emphasizes, “by placing such a strong emphasis
on the biological rather than human or economic aspects of fisheries
and by concentrating only on commercially important species, fisheries
managers have not succeeded in generating effective governance of fisheries
or policies.” She states that in activities such as fisheries,
where direct scientific evidence is generally missing… “the concept of
an expert as part of the system of governance has to be broadened to
include those who have particular knowledge about a system” (McGlade,
2001; see also Figure 25). McGlade (2001) suggests, “the
effectiveness of any form of governance depends on good communication,
coordination,
and integration between the various institutions, users, and beneficiaries.
Time and again the importance of this has been underestimated in fisheries,
leading to widespread dissatisfaction and skepticism about the ways and
forms of intervention in management.” International conventions, such
as the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols, are often about the need to identify
what the problem actually is and what opportunities exist for solving
it” (McGlade, 2001).
“In many instances where responsible participation by stakeholders
has been the paradigm for ocean resource governance, such as regional
fishery management councils in the U.S., self-interests have overshadowed
scientific assessments leading to unsustainable exploitation of the
resources” (Boesch, 1999; see also Hanna, 1999; Figure 26). Regarding
the precautionary principle, fundamentally it has its basis in policy
not science. Scientific information is often marginalized or overwhelmed
because of the dominance of economic ratcheting in fishery management
decisions (Boesch, 1999; Ludwig, et al., 1993; see also Hennessey and
Healey, 2000; Hanna, 1999). “Scientists should also have a better understanding
of the policy-making process and the different roles they may play in
the adaptive cycles linking crisis identification, weighing alternatives
and the evaluation of implementation” (Boesch, 1999). Interdisciplinary
science employing “ecosystem considerations” along with developing local
and regional institutions and frameworks that can integrate scientific
information into socioeconomic and political decisions are needed (Boesch,
1999; Botsford, et al., 1997). Concerning global climate change, there
are likely to be many additional consequences to marine environments,
resources and their governance. Science will be increasingly challenged
by governance to forecast and predict short- and long-term effects and
develop means to cope (Boesch, 1999).
“Fishery governance as currently constructed is incompletely designed
variable in multicomponent fishery systems. Instead of accounting for
the multiplicity of ecosystem goods and services, it narrowly focuses
on single species commodity production” (Hanna, 1999). In fisheries, the
overwhelming characteristic of the environment is variability (Hanna,
1999). Regarding governance issues, “great uncertainty exists about the
distributional consequences of new forms of property rights such as individual
transferable quotas” (Hanna, 1999). “Moving to ecosystem management
requires an explicit consideration of multiple objectives not only for
the production of commodity species but also for the protection of species
that provide ecosystem services” (Hanna, 1999). “In some cases, fishery
users are being given more responsibility for management without the
corresponding transfer of skills related to information gathering and
presentation, critical assessment or negotiation” (Hanna, 1999). Imperial
(1999) asserts that ecosystem-oriented management “needs to develop low-cost
mechanisms to facilitate communication, make decisions, and resolve
conflicts between scientists, agency officials, interest groups, and
the public in order to minimize information asymmetries (e.g., Figure 27). This may be one reason why many ecosystem-based management programs
utilize collaborative approaches to decision-making.” “Like many other
government programs, ecosystem-based management is the result of an
evolutionary process of experimentation, goal definition and redefinition,
and the
search for appropriate implementation strategies” (Imperial, 1999).
Morrissey (1996) asserts that ecosystem-based management was founded
by biological scientists and its focus is upon “the healthy productivity
of the place and the relationship of all its living elements.” And that
a “favorable science policy on ecosystem-based management would be “adaptive
to individual situations,” while at the same time having the same standards
of measure stemming from “common scientific grounds.” “Those involved
in global change research study ecosystem functions at Earth System scale. For
social scientists, the question of whether ecosystem management… is beneficial
or detrimental is a human value judgment” (Morrissey, 1996). Domestically,
Griffis and Kimball (1996) suggest that the regional marine fishery management
councils “appear to have the breadth of responsibility and adequate
structure needed for stakeholder input and involvement in decision
making… some Councils have functioned better than others and there are
lessons to be learned from both the successes and failures.” Murawski
(2000) emphasizes that in the U.S., “current management is characterized
as being concerned with ‘conservation of the parts’ of systems, as opposed
to the interrelationships among them.” He suggests, “there is no specific
ecosystem analogue to single-species definitions of overfishing.” “For
the Northeast USA Continental Shelf, the decline in the groundfish resource,
combined with restrictive management directed to that component, has
resulted in the predictable scenario of serial depletion. The practice
of allowing many species to remain outside any management control until
they show signs of overfishing encourages excess depletion (e.g., Hagfish)
and serial depletion, and exacerbates bycatch problems” (Murawski, 2000).
He reiterates, “situations such as those existing off the northeast
USA could benefit greatly from a more formal mechanism to incorporate
ecosystem perspectives (i.e., considerations or interactions) in the
development of management goals and conservation measures (Murawski,
2000).6
“Ecosystem approaches, whether implemented as perspectives on traditional
overfishing paradigms or through explicit ecosystem-based definitions,
require research and advisory services not typically provided by fish
stock assessment science. Nevertheless, additional ecosystem monitoring
and research is necessary with increased emphasis on species interactions,
diversity and variability at various temporal and spatial scales” (Murawski,
2000). He suggests, “ecosystem considerations may increasingly be used to
modify regulations intended primarily to conserve high value species,
to address bycatches (e.g. sea turtles and marine mammals are of significant
concern), predator-prey demands and the side-effects of fishing effort” (Murawski,
2000). Both Goethel (2002) and especially Hill (2002) lament that “vessel
capacity represents the most substantive and controversial issue facing
fishery managers at this time” in the Northeast Continental Shelf area.
Yaffee (1996) emphasizes, “it is critical that innovations in influencing
human behavior, managing organizations, and developing decision-making.
processes receive significant attention as ecosystem management develops,
for it is these changes that will determine the future effectiveness
and relevance of such approaches.” He suggests that “what works is
the use of collaborative decision-making. approaches, developing information
and info networks, mobilize organizational change and innovation, educate
and be educated and empower individuals” (Yaffee, 1996), though, however,
innovations in scientific knowledge and understanding may actually define
and drive the debate.
Juda and Hennessey (2001) illustrated four kinds of governance related
matrices for consideration of management of LME’s. These included
a human use matrix; the effects of human use on ecosystems; impacts of
ecosystem alterations on human uses; and, a governance/use matrix example
illustrating the Gulf of Maine as a geographical setting (see also Sutinen,
et al., 2000). The use of matrices, coupled with careful analyses, can
illustrate integrated relationships between ecosystem effects from human
uses and may also provide a conceptual tool to educate public stakeholders (e.g.,
Olsen 2000). Matrices may also be an appropriate comparative risk assessment
LME approach to marine natural resource assessment (e.g., Gable, 2000;
Harwell et al., 1992).
LARGE
MARINE ECOSYSTEMS AS SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE
(FISHERY) ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED
MANAGEMENT UNITS
A new field of “sustainability science” is evolving. The concept of
sustainability relates to understanding the fundamental character of
interactions between nature and society (Kates et al., 2001). For illustration
here, nature refers to the greater Georges Bank area and society refers
to, in part, fisherfolk, other stakeholders and government regulators
of that “commons.” The interaction of global processes with the ecological
and social characteristics of particular places and sectors may foster
a better overall understanding for ecosystem interactions (e.g., Olsen,
2000). Griffis and Kimball (1996) argue that a main ingredient of ecosystem
approaches to resource management includes defining sustainability and
making it the primary goal or objective.
A novel approach to coastal and nearshore ecosystems was applied
by Sherman (1991). This concept is known as the large marine ecosystems
(LME) approach to the assessment and management of marine resources
and is considered to present an emerging international customary law
paradigm for moving toward fishery sustainability (Belsky, 1985; Sherman
and Duda, 1999b). Indeed, the LME approach provides for accommodating
human use while maintaining ecosystem representation and integrity, among
other goals (e.g., Grumbine, 1994). Machlis et al., (1997) describe five
working principles that are central to LME management, though considerably
less inclusive in actual practice. These principles include “(1) socially
defined goals and management objectives, (2) integrated holistic science,
(3) broad spatial and temperal scales, (4) adaptable institutions, and (5)
collaborative decision-making.”
The Northeast Continental Shelf comprises 260,000 km2 from
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to the Gulf of Maine. This region has contributed
some $1 billion annually to the economy of the adjacent coastal states
from yields of living marine resources such as, molluscs, crustaceans,
fish and algae (Sherman, 1991; Pontecorvo et al., 1980). Historically
throughout the United States in 1994, for example, $3.8 billion in dockside
revenues from U.S. commercial fisheries was contributing to a total
of $20.2 billion in value added to the Gross National Product (West
Group, 1996). Further, by weight of catch, as a whole the U.S. is the
fifth largest fishing nation in the world and the second largest seafood
exporter, having shipped more than $3 billion worth of fishery products
in 1994 (West Group, 1996). By 1999, U.S. commercial landings from marine
fisheries provided some $3.5 billion with a value-added estimated contribution
of $27 billion to the U.S. economy (Scavia et al., 2001). These figures didn’t
include proceeds from recreational fishing efforts.
“Despite appeals for ecosystem management of ocean fisheries, development
of multispecies stock assessment methods and new concepts of large marine
ecosystems, few fisheries are actually managed on a multispecies
basis”(Botsford, et al., 1997). “New assessment methods and management
approaches account for both biological and technical (for example, through
nets harvesting several species) interactions among species. However,
ecosystem management of marine systems requires a sophisticated understanding
of ecosystem dynamics and the organization of component communities.
The development of marine ecosystem management lags significantly behind
management of terrestrial and freshwater systems due to undersampling
of the oceans, their three-dimensional nature and the difficulty
in replicating and controlling experiments” (Botsford, et al., 1997;
see also Rudd, 2004).
“Ocean ecosystems are influenced as much by changes in the physical
environment as by humans. The effects of the physical environment
on marine ecosystems make it difficult to define sustainability in the
context of ecosystem management” (Botsford, et al., 1997; but see: Gislason,
et al., 2000; Witherell, et al., 2000; Kates, et al., 2001; Busch,
2003; Busch, et al., 2003). A promising challenging “protocol for the
development of ecosystem models for management involves use of adaptive
management to identify strong interactions and erect interaction webs
that include physical as well as biological components” (Botsford, et
al., 1997). In the mid-1990’s Boehlert (1996) suggested, “research
on multispecies or ecosystem management has come a long way, but the
approach is not at a stage for implementation. Adaptive fisheries management
uses management regimes in an experimental manner to learn about the
processes regulating fish population size as well as interactions
among species.”
Young (2003) remarks, “analysts are increasingly aware that fish stocks
clearly are components of larger ecosystems. Both abiotic and biotic
processes operating in these larger systems can have dramatic impacts
on the condition of individual stocks. Interdependencies between different
species also can have major consequences for the condition of individual
stocks. Consider the case of cod, which prey on herring and capelin.
Significant changes in the size and location of herring and capelin stocks
may go unnoticed by those focusing on cod stocks.” Young, (2003) states, “the
North Atlantic Oscillation, for instance, can make areas inhospitable
to specific groups of fish. Shifts in the abundance of cod off New England
and the eastern coast of Canada are thought by many observers to be associated
with changes in water temperatures in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean.
Large marine ecosystems are not the stable systems they were
once thought to be. Ecosystems may not automatically return to equilibrium
following relatively severe perturbations.” Operating within and beyond
the bounds of large marine ecosystems (LME’s) are climate change and
variability forces that affect the condition of individual fish stocks.
Long-range transport of pollution from terrestrial runoff and from merchant
vessels are other large scale exogenous forces exerting variability on
individual fish stocks (Young, 2003). “Ecosystem approaches in fisheries
management are still in their infancy” (Perry, at al., 1999; Figure 28).
“Considerable progress has been made in recent years in developing
ecosystem-based approaches to large marine ecosystems… There have since
been significant moves toward more such integrated approaches (pioneered
for Antarctic waters with the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to marine resource management that better
recognize ecological linkages and attempt to take account not just of
target species but also the ecosystem to which they belong. The CCAMLR
has raised awareness of the interdependency of its various components” (Larkin,
1996). Belsky (1999) argues “that prevention of harm and ‘rational
and equitable use’ mean that resources and uses must be studied and managed
in a comprehensive manner, focusing on the large marine ecosystems in
which resources exist.” As such, “the concept of large marine ecosystems
(LME’s) is now widely accepted” (Probert, 2002). Belsky (1999) adds, “the
evolution of the marine ecosystem approach from preferred policy to
binding (international) customary law is demonstrated by the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982), which came into effect
in November, 1994.” “The movement towards an ecosystem approach is best
represented by the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources (CCAMLR) which was ratified in 1982. This treaty represents
the first attempt to develop and apply an ecosystem management approach” (English,
et al., 1988). And, as discussed and described in this manuscript, LME’s
are now a part of “best practices”international customary law (see: Belsky,
1985; Juda and Hennessey, 2001; Duda and Sherman, 2002). Knecht, (1994)
proffers, “the ocean governance process and policymakers… need to take
account of goals and principles emerging at the international level since
these are likely to play a role in shaping future national ocean governance
schemes” (see also Costanza, et al., 1998).
Sutinen and Sobeil (2003) state, “The World Bank and the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) have adopted the LME approach to marine ecosystem research
and management, viewing it as an effective way to manage and organize
scientific research on natural processes occurring within marine ecosystems
and to study how pollutants travel within marine systems.” LME’s also
are an appropriate scale to conduct a comparative risk assessment (e.g.,
Gable, 2000). Longhurst, (2003) points out, “LME’s are clearly an idea
with which the international funding agencies are comfort able because
it suggests formal structure (the standard five LME modules; Figure 2).
It has achieved a high level of recognition and has become a symbol for
generalized environmental concern among scientists and national environment
agencies.” And, as discussed and described in this manuscript, LME’s
are now a part of “best practices” international customary law (see:
Belsky, 1985; Juda and Hennessey, 2001; Duda and Sherman, 2002).
Sutinen and Sobeil (2003) also remark, “LME’s can be divided further
into subsystems such as the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Southern New
England, and the Mid-Atlantic Bight in the case of the Northeast USA
Continental Shelf” (see Figure 29; Sherman, et
al., 1996). The LME approach to management links watershed catchment
basins and intertidal coastal
zones with continental shelves and littoral ocean currents.” Rosenberg
(2003) suggests, “the LME can extend from riverine and estuarine environments
out into the coastal ocean, and even far offshore.” The LME management
approach, inter alia, provides a framework for research
assessment, modeling and monitoring to potentially provide prediction
for better policy decision-making. It also aids in focusing assessments
and management on sustainable ecosystem oriented integrity. And, the
LME approach addresses sustainable development of living marine resources
in a holistic multi-faceted manner. (Sutinen and Sobeil, 2003). One jarring
problem to successful implementation of the LME approach, according to
Sutinen and Sobeil, (2003) may be the imperfect fit between the spatial
and temporal scales of government jurisdictional agencies and ecosystems.
In the United States, for example, the eight regional fishery management
councils resulting from the MFCMA of 1976 (applied March 1st 1977)
provides a salient mechanism (but see Okey, 2003) for alliances and partnerships
between and among private sector stakeholders such as the fishing and
processing industries, non-federal agencies such as particular state
marine resources divisions, interstate compacts such as the Atlantic
States
Marine Fisheries Commission and nongovernmental for profit and nonprofit
organizations. LME management also requires an increase in overall interagency
coordination at all levels of government (federal, state and regional/local)
(Sutinen and Soboil, 2003). Rosenberg (2003) states that the “LME concept
is helpful for thinking of the linkages of biological, chemical and physical
factors across large areas of the coastal ocean. Affecting any one part
of the LME potentially can have repercussions throughout the region.
The LME provides a framework for thinking about potential impacts.” The
impacts on fisheries ecosystems (the biological, oceanographic and
physical environment that supports commercial and recreational species
within a specified management area) of multiple ocean uses, including
sand and gravel mining, submarine telecommunications cables, oil and
gas energy development, marine transportation, contaminants disposal
(also known as “ocean dumping”), recreational tourism and aquaculture,
can occur at the scale of LME’s or may be localized in scope (Rosenberg,
2003).
Rosenberg (2003) argues, “aquaculture may cause habitat degradation
and competitive interactions between farmed and wild fish, which in combination
reduce the productivity of the ecosystem and hence fisheries.” “Aquaculture
is considered by some to eventually mitigate global overfishing, yet
those cultured fish which require more meal derived from wildfish per
unit mass of aquaculture fish produced place even further pressure
on already overexploited wild populations” (Verity, et al., 2002). From
a management policy perspective, competing uses of the oceans are likely
to be complex (Rosenberg, 2003). Verity et al., (2002) state, “it is
well known that fish recruitment and fishery yield can vary 10-fold
from one year to another, and that variability within one region over
many years has scarcely been studied.” “There is substantial evidence
that climate influences long term fluctuations in fish stocks that are
also exploited commercially. The notion that climate changes and fisheries
exploitation interact to cause more persistent changes in ecosystem structure
and function than either would alone derives from evidence that climate
and exploitation together accelerate species replacement” (Verity, et
al., 2002; see also Skud, 1982). Verity et al. (2002) proffer, “one
of the very reasons that it is so difficult to discriminate direct human
impacts on fisheries from climate-induced changes is that the two may
often be synergistic.”
Considering the need for expanded perspective in the marine pelagic
ecosystem, “a new conceptual framework is required around which to organize
future research, data interpretation, and diagnostic prediction” (Verity,
et al., 2002); the LME approach can now be considered as a best practice.
Changing the paradigm about marine pelagic ecosystems will take time
to implement (Verity et al., 2002). They conclude, “linking research
and education is fundamental to achieving success in any endeavor where
public policy, environmental conservation, and stewardship of natural
resources are all equal players” (Verity et al., 2002). “'The ecosystem
concept is very much like the concept of the hereafter: everyone understands
what is meant by it but no one can define exactly what it is’” (Verity
et al., 2002; but see Figure 8 & Figure 9; see also Haeuber, 1996; Figure 30).
Schramm and Hubert (1996) suggest, “ecosystem management makes a lot
of sense if we identify it as a philosophy, a set of values. It recognizes
that humans including their societies, technologies, economies, needs,
and values are part of the ecosystem.” “Implementation of ecosystem
management presents a basic hurdle: consideration of the environment
and all its components such as ecosystem health, ecological integrity,
biological diversity, and the values of people (e.g., the general public,
private property owners, and elected officials” (Schramm and Hubert,
1996). “The essential components of ecosystem management are sustainable
yield, maintenance of biodiversity and protection from the effects of
pollution and habitat degradation. It is centered on managing the top-down
or fisheries component in the context of special measures of protection
for particular species” (Larkin, 1996). Larkin (1996) claims, “the development
of the LME concept is a contemporary crystallization of broader perspectives
in fisheries management.”
Beamish and Mahnken (1999) suggest that ecosystem management “requires
an understanding of the influences that regulate species naturally.
Two of the most frequent news topics in recent years have been fisheries
and climate. Climate will continue to be an important item in the news… but
fisheries may become less so, as we stabilize our expectations through
an improved understanding of the interrelationships among species and
their ecosystems.” “Regimes are large, linked climate-ocean ecosystems
that shift in states over 10 to 30 year periods” (Beamish and Mahnken,
1999). These authors on page six of their manuscript find that “shifts
in the mean carrying capacity occur when there are shifts in a regime.” And
carrying capacity is considered to be the mean biomass that can be
supported in an ecosystem in a particular state or regime. “Ecosystem
management is an exercise in long-term, precautionary thinking. It is
acceptable not to know things” (Beamish and Mahnken, 1999).
Larkin (1996) laments that a perennial source of debate in fisheries
management is “whether changes in the physical environment (bottom
up) or the effects of harvesting (top down) are responsible for major
changes in abundance. Applied to marine ecosystems, the term ecosystem
management is scientific shorthand for the contemporary appreciation
that fisheries management must take greater note of the multispecies
interactions” (Larkin, 1996, see: Figure 31). “The point remains that
the biological objective of ecosystem management must specify the species
mix that is desired in the yield and this may only be possible in general
terms” (Larkin, 1996). “The combined abundance of all species in a guild,
that is, species that exploit the same class of resources in a similar
way might more accurately reflect changes in resources or limiting factors.
The relative abundance of species within a guild might change if only
some species are harvested” (Larkin, 1996; see also Garrison and Link,
2000). Often the best way of ensuring acceptance and implementation of
research findings with special relevance to fishing is through participatory
research. Integrated fisheries management (IFM) “stress the interaction
between the fish resources, the fishing industry and institutional structures” (Larkin,
1996). Larkin (1996) mentions “the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC) has as the main goal of ecosystem management to ensure that human
activities do not significantly alter the natural course of ecosystem
dynamics” (see also Figure 32).
MacKenzie (1997) finds that the “complexity of the ecological system
virtually demands an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving.” Further, “scientific
information must be translated into public policy and framed within the
legal structures that govern society. Once agencies and individuals are
enjoined in the process, a framework for decision-making must be created.
This is the key procedural challenge of the ecosystem approach” (Figure 33). Using lessons learned from experience in the Great Lakes of
North America, integrated resource management strategy demonstrates, “while
consensus is viewed as important, most decisions are made through a formal
voting procedure with majority rule” as it should. “The ecosystem approach
is advocated as a promising tool for marine integrated resource management” (MacKenzie,
1997; see also Odum, 1969; Christensen, 2000; Slocombe, 1993 & 1998).
MacKenzie (1997) declares, “the agency perspective is important because
a basic challenge of the ecosystem approach is to bring different agencies,
organizations, and interests into close working relationships.” Procedural
aspects and issues, such as agency participation, decision-making process
and the (inter)disciplinary representation of individuals are important
to integrated resource management. Challenges to an ecosystem approach,
including that referring to program implementation include, funding or
budgeting, demonstrating tangible results, tracking projects, and training,
among others.
GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES IN PROTOCOLS FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
Pitcher (2001) states, “many fisheries ecologists call for ecosystem
management but there have been few clear statements of what its objective
should be. Trying to define alternative optimal sustainable yields for
each stakeholder results only in confusion.” McGinn (1999) posits that
the fisherfolk community, fishery managers, politicians and the public
(i.e., society) all need to coalesce to reshape fishery incentives (e.g.,
Figure 27). McGinn (1999) adds that in order to move toward sustainable
fisheries, reshaping fishing practices behavior and incentives should
be facilitated that are ecologically sustainable, economically viable
and socially diverse. Barber and Taylor (1990) state, “objectives operationally
support goals, that is, ideals, major accomplishments, ends, or states
of affairs to be achieved, and are measurable.” Further, “objectives
are specific, measurable, and verifiable statements of intermediate tasks
that must be accomplished to attain a goal.” Objectives support goals, “they
are verifiable, specific, and quantifiable, and have a performance measure
attached through which the management agency can be evaluated for its
progress and effectiveness” (Barber and Taylor, 1990). It is implied
that a “fisheries management organization’s goals and objectives are
a reflection of the participants’ values (those of the managers as
well as the values of those trying to influence the decisions). Making
these value judgments involves identifying, selecting, articulating,
and ranking goals and objectives” (Barber and Taylor, 1990; see also Figure 34).
“The formalization of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) objectives undoubtedly
involved values that formed the utilization ethic of managers and the
belief that socioeconomic issues should not be considered (Barber and
Taylor, 1990). The goal of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) can be challenged
on several grounds, one of which is that “it did not account for species
other than the focus of the fishery.
It was not holistic MSY left out too many relevant features,” such
as ecosystem considerations. “Greater holism in fisheries
management can be achieved by consideration of multiple species interactions,
broadscale physical forcing and the response of management to pressure
for greater harvests under uncertainty” (Botsford, et al., 1997). “In
more recent years, industry has become more involved in management with
the advent of optimum yield (OY) goal, which has been legally formalized
under the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA)
as amended in the United States. Based on the OY goal, the MFCMA recognized
the importance of socioeconomic and political goals and objectives.” “The
goals and objectives of optimum yield management are more diverse than
those established solely for conservation purposes” (Barber and Taylor,
1990). This seems true today with the three additional National Standards
promulgated in October 1996 by way of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (P.L.
104297) including sustainable communities and safety at sea (see Table 4).
The fisheries manager “may recognize that the short-term economic
health of fishermen or political needs must be addressed, or to ‘survive’ in
the organization, emphasis might be placed on values that weigh more
heavily towards social or economic goals than towards conservation goals” (Barber
and Taylor, 1990). “A common management action that typifies a suboptimal
external focus is to set very broadly stated goals, without supporting
objectives, that accommodate the values of many diverse external groups.
We contend that fisheries management suffers from this common management
error” (Barber and Taylor, 1990). The purpose of their paper is “a call
to recognize that clearly defined goals, measurable objectives, and
acknowledged values are necessary components of effective fisheries
management” (Barber and Taylor, 1990).
According to De La Mare (1998) “fisheries management requires the collaboration
of fisheries managers (decision makers), scientists, the fishing industry
and other community interests. It requires, inter alia, the formulation
of public policy and the development of scientific advice for its implementation.
Objectives for fisheries management are usually expressed in vague terms
which scientists find ambiguous or uninterpretable.” He emphasizes, “fisheries
management involves both biotic and abiotic factors. The biotic factors
are the exploited stocks and their interactions with competitors, predators
and prey, as well as the effects of the physical environment on them;
the study of this complex forms the mainstream of fisheries science.” Regarding
the scientific approaches to fisheries management further progress is
required in areas not well studied, “these lie largely in the management
world and often involve the interface between science and policy” some
feel that management objectives and procedures are considered to be
outside the realm of science (De La Mare, 1998).
A management-oriented paradigm (one that crosses the boundaries of
traditional fisheries scientific, economic and policy research) would
have decisionmakers pondering, “the objectives, the time scales over
which they are to be achieved and considering the means and the path
we choose to
get there. Not considering the system as a whole tends to lead to myopic
short-term solutions to problems” (De La Mare, 1998). Regarding the multiple
objectives fisheries management structure, one solution, will lie in
the “redefinition of ‘ownership’ away from single species to portfolios
of species. The promotion of sustainable ecosystems does not necessarily
depend on a particular property rights regime but rather on an institutional
environment that promotes those basic functions” (Hanna, 1998). Burroughs
and Clark (1995) remark that long term sustainability of primarily commercial
species, manipulation to improve higher value stocks, and maximizing
economic benefits to the fisherfolk, are typical objectives for LME
management. Greater holism for multispecies ecosystem management of
fisheries as an agent of “human dominated” fisheries management is stressed
by Botsford et al. (1997).
Brodziak and Link (2002) suggest that partly because of the nature
of the fishery-management institutions and the lack of a management oriented
paradigm reliable and effective management is probably the most difficult
step in ecosystem-based fishery management. Further complicating the
situation for managers are the multispecies nature of some fisheries
and bycatch issues. Their contention is that although it may be sufficient
to rebuild depleted groundfish resources, a single-species approach to
fishery management does little to help rebuild the fishery (Brodziak
and Link, 2002). Considering LME goals, Sherman and Duda (1999a&b)
highlight a paradigm shift in ecosystem management from a) individual
species to ecosystems; b) small spatial scale to multiple scales; c)
short-term perspective to decadal long-term; d) human independent to
humans as an integral part; e) management apart from research to adaptive
management;
and f) managing commodities to sustaining production for goods and services
coming out of the ecosystems (see also Witherell, 2004 at page 185).
LMEs AS
A PART OF INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Alexander (1999) defines LME management as “the regulation of activities
and resources to achieve certain objectives. The most common objective
being sustainability of the living marine resources including ecologically
sensitive areas preservation.” Other prospective objectives for LME management
may include, user conflict accommodation (e.g., “wind farms” in traditional/historical
fisheries catch areas); obtaining wealth from the sea in greater values;
and, or increasing (applied) scientific knowledge of regional or global
phenomena to formulate better forecasts or predictions of weather
and climate events on fisheries variability. The holistic or integrated
approach to LME management would typically involve the drainage basins
of rivers and lakes whose waters flow into the coastal zone that encompass an
LME area (Alexander, 1999).
“Both integrated coastal management (ICM) and the management of large
marine ecosystems (LME’s) are concepts that were endorsed by the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in June,
1992” (Olsen, 1999). Olsen goes on to say, “both LME management and
ICM are based on the principle that an overt systems approach to resource
management holds the greatest promise for defining sustainable intensities
and types of human use at various scales. The focus should be on ecosystems
defined as coherent, self-defined, and self-organizing units, comprising
interacting ecologic, economic, and social components.”
Olsen (1999) states, “ICM’s emphasis on the process of governance (arrayed
around the policy process), on participation, on public education, on
(issue-driven) consensus building, and on voluntary compliance all can
be of real use as the management of LME’s and research on the ecosystem
process become more important. Indeed, the evolution of domestic U.S.
oriented LME’s depicts the importance of problems raised by the interactions
between human society (for example, the 10 National Standards found
in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, see: Table 4) and the coastal
ecosystems of which they are a part” (Olsen, 1999). Olsen (2001) states
that integrated coastal management “is a form of adaptive management,” and
that it “requires understanding the interplay between social processes
and ecosystem change.” “Ecosystem governance of all kinds, and coastal
governance in particular, are not nested across scales and are full of
contradictions and gaps.” Science gives legitimacy to particular policy
options or lines of argument and makes the debate over contentious issues
an informed one (Olsen, 2001).
Olsen (2003) argues, “the ultimate goal of sustainable forms of coastal
development is today an undefined ideal.” He further suggests, “sustainable
development requires achieving yet to be defined equilibria among both
social and environmental qualities” (Olsen, 2003). Regarding a framework
and indicators for tracking the processes by which integrated coastal
management initiatives evolve, Olsen (2003) states, “there are many variations
to how the policy cycle model (e.g., Figure 18) can be adapted to integrated
coastal management, but the central idea of a multiple step cycle of
planning-commitment -- implementation-evaluation remains constant” (see
also e.g. Gable, 2003; Jones, 1984). “A culture of learning with high
standards of accountability and professional excellence must be fostered
within the emerging profession of coastal ecosystem governance” (Olsen,
2003).
Perrings (2000) states, “there is a general consensus that land-based
processes pose a major threat to marine capture fisheries in many parts
of the world, however, the linkages between terrestrial activities and
the state of such systems are complex.” Indeed, Perrings on page 514
of his manuscript also mentions, “other coastal developments, particularly
for tourism also have had adverse effects on the productivity of hard-substratum
marine systems such as coastal ecosystems.” It is likely
that the serial depletion of fish stocks is an example of environmental
degradation linked to structural adjustment policies. Perrings (2000)
suggests that from his analysis “four main categories of ‘sustainability’indicators
dominate the marine capture fisheries literature:” (a) stock catch levels;
(b) biodiversity indicators; (c) ecosystem health indicators, and (d)
indicators of socioeconomic stress. Ecosystem health indicators, for
example, are oftentimes combined with biomass yield and biodiversity
indicators (Perrings, 2000; Sherman, 1995 & 1994).
Conventional socioeconomic stress indicators (e.g. catch per unit effort
(CPUE), employment, investment, prices, productivity and income distribution)
are sometimes combined with biological indicators focuses on the industry
rather than the underlying ecosystem (Perrings, 2000; see Figure 35).
Under this rubric, “the indicators should make it possible to fit models
of the causal linkage between terrestrial activities and capture fisheries” in
integrated coastal area management (e.g. Figure 15). He proffers, “the
problem in regulated fisheries lies in the fact that harvesting limits
have been set in the context of negotiations that make little reference
to fishery science” (Perrings, 2000). He cites as one example, the problem
of the Atlantic Blue Fin Tuna (underreporting of catch issues) as well
as the earlier collapse of North Sea and Atlantic herring resources.
“An indicator is a statistic or parameter that tracked over time, provides
information on trends in the condition of a phenomenon and has significance
extending beyond that associated with the properties of the statistic
itself. Environmental indicators focus on trends in environmental changes,
stresses causing them, how the ecosystem and its components are responding
to these changes, and societal responses to prevent, reduce or ameliorate
these stresses” (Vandermeulen, 1998). As the basis for indicator development
an ‘issues’ approach can be adapted. Vandermeulen (1998) acknowledges, “natural
forces may also cause stresses, but the focus for indicators is on human
causes since decision makers in society have more ability to do something
about them.” An example indicator of sustainable use or marine resources
with links to coastal zone management includes commercial catch of all
Atlantic herring stocks designated in a yearly trend series, in relation
to spawning biomass trends and/or landed value of catch (Vandermeulen,
1998).
Bowen and Riley (2003) claim, “creating an indicator framework that
has a place for both process and outcome indicators can help trace management
efforts more directly to environmental and social conditions.” They
suggest that process indicators include, among others, laws written and
passed, budget provided and money spent, licenses or permits issued
or denied and management programs implemented. “Outcome indicators document
the changes in social or physical conditions brought about by the activities of
the public program (e.g. measures of organizational learning or progress;
see e.g. Figure 4). “Achieving the goals (and objectives) of integrated
coastal management (and LME approaches) requires a clear picture of programmatic
progress, environmental conditions and influencing anthropogenic factors.
Attempting to tease out the relative contributions of natural cycles,
episodic events, and anthropogenic influence requires sophisticated
statistical analysis and the occasional heroic assumption(s).” Socioeconomic,
ecological, and management indicators all fit into a linked approach
to (e.g. LME) program performance (Bowen and Riley, 2003).
Antunes and Santos (1999) claim, “the development of monitoring systems
capable of providing information on (large) marine ecosystems and their
response to pressures generated by human activities, is essential to
improve ocean governance.” Further, “interdisciplinary research is needed
to develop linked physical-biological-chemical models and to integrate
the socioeconomic dimension” (Antunes and Santos, 1999). The LME approach
does this effectively. “Compared to other research areas, fisheries science
started early to link the knowledge accumulated by natural and human
science (economics and biology, in particular; Catanzano and Mesnil,
1995). “In many cases, the choice of gear is the primary factor in the
fisherman’s ‘project,’ even more so than the choice of target species.” Since “most gears
require a special vessel design or at least specific on-board equipment” (Catanzano
and Mesnil, 1995).
Clay and McGoodwin (1995) state that a fisheries system involves the “physical
environment, marine organisms, and the people who harvest, utilize and
manage these resources.” “Social scientists see fisheries as complex
systems, involving harvesters, buyers, processors, wholesalers, retailers
and consumers; support industries such as equipment, fuel and ice suppliers;
families and community networks; and scientists, managers, administrators,
and legislators. The interactions of these various individuals and groups,
their knowledge bases, values and perceptions of the fishery, all contribute
to the types of fisheries policies enacted, as well as to the success
or failure of management systems.” Social science studies examine both
the structure of national, regional, and local management institutions
and the adoption of formal and informal rules at the management/agency
level by which fisheries policies are crafted (Clay and McGoodwin, 1995). “There
is increasing recognition that fisheries management is as much a ‘people
management’ problem as a biological or economic one. By definition, a
fishery does not exist in the absence of human fishing effort. Effective
fisheries management must be responsive not only to the biological and
economic concerns, but to social and political ones as well” (Clay and
McGoodwin, 1995).
Crance and Draper (1996) suggest that an important behavioral solution
in coastal zone management resources decisions is “based on awareness
of ecosystem resources, regional coordination for resource protection,
and the use and development with due regard to needs of local populations.” Tradeoffs
between economic, social and ecological components or resource management
may become clearer when behavioral solutions are
incorporated in (fishery) management plans” (Crance and Draper, 1996). “The
central defining concept in integrated coastal management is the effective
integration across sectors, disciplines, agencies, and stakeholders
for the sustainable use of coastal areas and resources” (Poitras, et
al., 2003). For the integration across sectors, they define consensus
as “the building of agreement regarding integrated coastal management
decisions among government agencies, user groups and local communities
through informed discussion, negotiation and public participation” (Poitras,
et al., 2003).
A policy orientation approach (e.g. Gable, 2003) within an
LME paradigm may be quite complementary to the existing scientific and
conservation rationale to management (units) of LME’s espoused by Sherman
(1991 & 1994) and the ecosystem elements for management described
in Hennessey (1998; see: Table 2). Combining local and scientific knowledge,
including the intuitions and experiences of fisherfolk (MacKinson and
Noettestad, 1998; Wilen, et al., 2002) into a LME policy process framework
may uncover the logical set of policy activities associated with government
regulation of fisheries while simultaneously producing a learning-based
approach to fisheries management from an overall coastal area management perspective
(e.g., Crance and Draper, 1996; Olsen et al., 1998).
THE NEED
FOR ECOLOGICAL STUDY:
JELLYFISH AND
CONTEMPORARY CLIMATE CHANGE
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) noted, for example, “jellyfish
in both the Gulf of Alaska and the Eastern Bering Sea have increased
with the largest increases occurring in the 1990’s in the Eastern Bering
Sea and late 1980’s for the Gulf of Alaska. Some relationship with oceanographic
variables is hypothesized” (Livingston, 1999; see also Brodeur, et al.,
1999). One “other species”indicator discussed as it relates to “nonspecified
species bycatch” was that there were large increases in jellyfish in
2000 relative to 1999 and they were dominant species in the “nonspecified
bycatch (Livingston, 2001). Pitcher, (2001) reports on huge jellyfish
increases in the Adriatic, Bering, Black and South China Seas and the
role gelatinous zooplankton play in destabilizing marine ecosystems.
Perhaps there are other factor(s) or threats at work in the temperate
zone of the North Atlantic Ocean. Levitus et al. (2000) have found a “statistically
significant” warming of the world ocean, in the last few decades, including
temperate regions of the North Atlantic. Barnett, et al., (2001) more
or less confirmed the ocean warming hypothesis discussed by Levitus
and his colleagues. Moreover, Robinson (1994) has uncovered that there
is a relatively constant predator-to-prey size ratio in littoral aquatic
food chains and that large interannual variability in plankton production
results from climatic atmospheric forcing in coastal nearshore environs.
Therefore, this recent ocean warming trend in temperate oceanic regions
could lead to a possible “regime shift” in the large marine ecosystem
encompassing the Northeast United States Continental Shelf (Steele, 1998). “The
regime concept forces scientists to examine the natural processes that
regulate fish abundance, particularly those processes linked to climate-ocean
conditions”(McFarlane, et al., 2000; see also Figure 12).
Steele and Schumacher (2000) have found that “pelagic invertebrate
predators, such as “jellies” play a large role in present energy flow
patterns for Georges Bank. They are also a dominant component of unexploited
open ocean eco systems.” Mlot (1997) writes that hydroids, which are
related to jellyfish and anemones, prey directly on Georges Bank fish
larvae, and on copepods, which the fish also eat, they can reduce the
survival of fish larvae by 50 percent. Further, Purcell and Arai (2001)
found that gelatinous predators’ selection for fish eggs and larvae
has been positive for every species for which it has been calculated.
They go on to mention that large gelatinous species while feeding
on high densities of ichthyoplankton may eat tens to hundreds of fish
eggs and larvae daily (Purcell and Arai, 2001). In the Gulf of Maine
area Mills (2001) suggests that it seems that the numbers of ‘jellies’ may
have increased in recent decades in important fishing grounds perhaps
in relation to ocean warming. Quoting from Mills (2001) “the problem
of ocean change is very real. It is unfortunate that we have so little
population and ecological data about medusae and ctenophores in the field
that we usually cannot presently distinguish between fluctuations and
long term, possibly irreversible change.”
Thus, an ecosystem-oriented hypothesis is that there is a natural experiment
of interactions between pelagic invertebrate “jellies” with commercial
fish species in the northwest Atlantic Ocean continental shelf area
that may have equally deleterious regional effects on populations as
that of overfishing (e.g. Safina, 2003; Repetto, 2001) or inefficient
harvesting. Finding the ecological data that will either prove or find
the null hypothesis as part of overall fisheries science and management
in this large marine ecosystem is therefore necessary (e.g. Fogarty,
2001). Jackson et al. (2001) have illustrated some of the important top-down
(food web) ecosystem interactions due to overfishing that in temperate
estuarine environments, jellyfish have become more abundant trophically
after anthropogenic fishing efforts to the detriment of zooplankton
on which they feed. Thus, an assumption is that there is a synergistic
effect between these “forcings.” Earlier, Vitousek et al. (1997) found
that 22 percent of recognized marine fisheries as of 1995 were over-exploited
or already depleted, and 44 percent more were at their limit of exploitation.
Further, they mentioned that worldwide commercial marine fisheries discard
27 million tons of nontarget species annually, a quantity nearly one-third
as large as total landings. Gelatinous marine invertebrates such as
ctenophores, or comb jellies, are common predators in coastal waters
(Madin, 2001; Moeller, 1984) and biological information needs to be found
about them in order to ascertain sustainable harvest levels of commercial
fishing from season to season.
Murawski (1993) has tested the sensitivity of marine fish distributions
in the western North Atlantic to oscillations in ocean temperature for
select commercial groundfish species and indications are fishery
ranges may, in time, move poleward. This type of evolutionary global
change marine science should be taken into account in fishery management
plans (FMP’s) and strategies (e.g., Scavia et al., 2002; Figure 20).
The effects of increased carbon dioxide on marine fisheries are indirect
rather than direct, and occur through changes in the physical and chemical
characteristics of the ocean environment (e.g., Frank et al., 1990; Levitus
et al., 2000). Indeed, climate induced alterations can best be discerned,
and policies developed to mitigate unwanted effects, in a holistic
ecosystem-oriented manner that an LME program provides. Climatic variability
has a principal controlling influence on the structure of a littoral
marine fish assemblage (Attrill and Power, 2002) and thus recruitment
variability (e.g., Rothschild, 2000).
Gonzalez (1996) finds, “major ecosystem processes are climate-driven
governed by broad regimes of temperature and precipitation” (see Figure 12). As a regulatory agency embraces the goal of protecting entire ecosystems “it
will need to rank ecosystems at risk in order to set priorities.” A “zoom-lens
approach” (see also by example, Figure 19) affords an agency to see
more clearly at which scale monitoring is appropriate and to “focus” or
refine their efforts (Gonzalez, 1996). Thus, it is quite likely, “a high
degree of interagency cooperation at various scales will be required
for an ecosystem approach to be workable and successful”(Gonzalez, 1996;
see also Grumbine, 1994).
DISCUSSION
Lasswell (1951) stated more than fifty years ago that “the pace
of specialization in philosophy, natural science, biology, and the social
sciences has been so rapid that colleagues... often complain that they
cannot understand one another.” Hayes (1992) believes “science has become
more difficult for nonspecialists to understand is a truth universally
acknowledged.” Lasswell (1951) further commented that broad fields of
knowledge (e.g. marine affairs) are needed in order to have a
vision of the whole, thus, the ecosystem-oriented approach of the LME
embraces such a view in living marine resource management. Lasswell (1951)
points out that policy sciences policy orientation can be considered “as
the disciplines regarded with explaining the policy-making and policy-executing
process.” These are then combined with locating data and information
and providing interpretations which are relevant to the policy problems
of a given timeframe, scale, and domain (Lasswell, 1951; e.g., MacKinson
and Noettestad, 1998; Longhurst, 1998). Hence, a policy orientation approach
that provides a summary of Northeast Shelf LME living resources and their
utilization practices (Gable, 2003) could serve for identifying the best
practices record for the ecosystem while utilizing the best available
science ecosystem-oriented indices (Link et al., 2002).
Lynch et al., (1999) suggest that a new “joint venture”strategy for
ecosystem management is emerging among regulatory agencies (Figure 29).
Management agencies “continue to struggle with the problem of how to
define in operational terms, let alone implement an ecosystem-based framework
for managing fisheries” (Hall, 2002). Haeuber (1996) suggests, “the evolution
of scientific knowledge regarding the functioning of natural systems
and the linkages between natural and human systems, has increased
our understanding of the emerging generation of environmental problems.” “Focusing
events” in the marine environment have lifted the visibility of fishery
related environmental problems (Haeuber, 1996). “Environmental events can
change the carrying capacity for short or long periods and alter the
competitive environment indirectly, or through direct mortality may change
predator-prey proportions or the relative dominance of competing species” (Hollowed, et
al., 2000; see also Skud, 1982).
“An interdisciplinary scientific effort is needed to develop methodologies
for better understanding and detection of ecosystem change, as well
as evaluation of different ecological functions” (von Bodungen and Turner,
2001; Figure 36). Ecosystem management “involves working across property
boundaries and political jurisdictions, and requires intellectual, physical
and monetary resources to address environmental issues which are not
the exclusive domain of any one entity” (Michaels, et al., 1999). Knowledge
of species life history parameters is perhaps a good starting point for
ecosystem assessment and management approaches (King and McFarlane,
2003). “Environmental pressure builds up via socioeconomic driving forces
and is augmented by natural systems variability, which leads to changes
in environmental systems states and finally to the loss of goods and
services. Although marine systems may be much more sensitive to changes
in their environment, they also may be much more resilient more adaptable
in terms of recovery response to stress and shock” (von Bodungen and
Turner, 2001). These authors claim, “fisheries policies in most countries
have reflected the schism between science and managers/users. It has
not been straightforward for scientists to relate their science to the
various stages in the policy cycle, and for policy makers to recognize
what science is needed or what scientific results have to be incorporated
at which time in the policy cycle (von Bodungen and Turner, 2001).
Talaue-McManus et al. (2003) suggest, “climate change, international
trade and development, and mass tourism are among what may be considered
as global factors affecting coastal areas.” As regards to interpreting
indicators, their interpretation in site-specific cases, however, requires
as much knowledge as is available about the geophysical and biological
processes taking place upstream in an LME estuary or watershed and within
an estuary as well as down stream in the adjacent receiving waters of
the coastal ocean, where the “quantity and quality of river discharge
is a critical determinant of the status of continental shelf ecosystems” (Hall,
2002). Thus, this is important because out of 13,200 known species or
marine fish, almost 80 percent are coastal (Belfiore, 2003). And as mentioned
earlier, “no widely accepted and tested set of sustainable measures exists” for
coastal waters (Belfiore, 2003; Figure 37).
LEGITIMACY
FOR DOMESTIC ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
One may assume that the LME process is entering an advanced state of
utilization if one employs the “policy process” found in Jones (1984).
And it appears that facets of the LME paradigm, in combination with the
precautionary approach, have taken root in international custom law. But
has marine ecosystem-oriented management for the public domain explicitly
seen legitimation through legislation by elected government in the United
States (Keiter, 1996)?7 The answer is a “qualified yes” since
this research is pertinent to evolving Congressional policy as well as
the findings of the Congressional mandated U.S. Ocean Com mission (see
e.g., Watkins, 2004 & 2002). In July of 2002, the U.S. House Resources
Committee voted to pass a bill reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens (Sustainable
Fisheries) Act wherein the language emphasizes the need for a move to
ecosystem-based management. The 2002 House bill (H.R. 4749) emphasized
movement toward ecosystem-based fisheries, as opposed to the traditional
species-based management plans (e.g., Schiermeier, 2002).8
The bill, in section six, would require the Secretary of Commerce (likely
through the Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmospheres, i.e., NOAA) in
concert with the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (established
in 1977) to create a definition for “ecosystem” and “marine ecosystem.” It
would also necessitate an identification of specific marine ecosystems
within each region, as well as a pilot ecosystem based fishery management
plan on both the Atlantic and Pacific seaboard. Also required as a
part of the House of Representatives bill, are criteria for the development
of ecosystem-based management plans, and description and identification
of areas of scientific understanding for which sufficient data are not
yet available. And, the Secretary of Commerce would be required (when
the bill becomes Public Law) to formulate research plans to meet the
data deficit identified in a mandated report to Congress. Consequently,
this study has attempted to introduce components of an “east coast” ecosystem-based
fishery management plan design as potentially required by H.R. 4749,
while taking into account sufficient data requirement needs of the regional
Councils’ policy managers and their constituent audience. This study
has also attempted to begin to answer a question posed by Link (2002a) “what
does ecosystem-based fisheries management mean?” In addition, a 108th Congress
Senate working draft bill was released on February 12th. Maine’s
Senator Olympia Snowe is the sponsor of the legislation referred to
as the Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments Act of 2004. It
too contains a section related to ecosystem research priorities with
a pilot program for fishery ecosystem plans (e.g., Zabel, et al., 2003).
Both bills, when passed, would need to be reconciled between the chambers
in conference committee.
With the passage of the Oceans Act of 2000 (P.L. 106 256; e.g., Watkins,
2002) this study has sought to enhance fostering of sustainability natural
and social science in forging linkages between best practices solutions
to reemerging living marine resources issues within the concept of
sustainability and the “precautionary principle” (see Foster, et.
al., 2000) that includes ecological considerations of fish stocks as
component parts of a model large marine ecosystem. No single model is
necessarily appropriate to all ecosystems because they are complex, dynamic
and non-linear (Low, et al., 1999). According to Jackson et al. (2001),
all coastal ecosystems are already perturbed, and therefore in need
of better and proper management. A shift in the current fisheries science
paradigm toward more successful and integrated approaches utilizing the
best available science to dealing with the fisheries problems is required
now (Lane and Stephenson, 1999).
CONCLUSIONS
Presently, the LME systems approach utilizes a “five module framework.” The
modules include, a) productivity, b) fish and fisheries, c) pollution
and ecosystem health, for example, collecting organisms as bioindicators
of pollutants in finfish and bivalves, d) governance, (e.g., Juda,
1999; Hennessey, 1994; Juda and Hennessey, 2001) and e) socioeconomics
(e.g., Charles, 1988; Dyer and Poggie, 2000; see Figure 2). The tool
of comparative risk assessment may encompass aspects of the five module
LME framework (e.g., Gable, 2000). As part of the LME framework, ecosystem
services can be defined as “the conditions and processes through which
natural ecosystems, and the species that comprise them, sustain and fulfill
human life” (Batabyal, et al., 2003). Ecosystem resilience refers to
the amount of disturbance that can be sustained before a change in (eco)system
control or structure occurs (Batabyal, et al., 2003). Thus, it is appropriate
to discuss fishery resources in concert with socioeconomics and adaptive
management parameters in the framework described in Sherman (1995) into a policy
orientation approach. Because domestically no legal requirement
exists to implement an FMP for a stock that is not overfished, as a
result, fisheries science and management is continuously playing catch
up (Murawski, 2002). Combining coastal pollution, changes in biodiversity,
the degraded states of fish stocks, and the deteriorating condition of
coastal habitat fosters a limiting economic achievement of the full sustainable
potential of coastal eco systems (Sherman, 1995).
From the discipline of natural resource economics, it appears that
people are prompted into action because of the perception or impending
reality of economic loss (e.g., Swallow, 1996). In the Northeast Continental
Shelf ecosystem, the New England groundfish fishery is often cited as not
being managed optimally (Sutinen and Upton, 2000). The overall fisheries
industry to the United States ocean sector economy remains quite viable
and significant (Sherman, 1991; Pontecorvo, 1989; Pontecorvo et al.,
1980). Kerry (2002) laments, however, “the combination of multiple
statutory mandates, complicated regulatory procedures, and resource limitations
have made it almost impossible for managers or fishermen to respond quickly,
flexibly, or appropriately to address a management problem. In addition,
implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act has been plagued by
conflict, delays, and inconsistent interpretations of what we enacted
in 1996.” When fishing restrictions are lifted, after a period of time,
oftentimes a “wave of lawsuits” follows (Braile, 2000). For example,
as of May 1st, 2002 “there were 104 open docket cases against the agency,” i.e.,
NMFS (Kerry, 2002). This would lead even the casual observer to suspect
that fisheries resource management in the U.S. is principally driven
in response to lawsuits. In general it is (Greene, 2002; Gade et al.,
2002; Daley, 2002; Wilmsen, 2002). Greene (2002) comments that the willingness
of fisherfolk, environmentalists, scientists, and the courts to
find common ground will determine the future of the New England
fishing industry.
Traditionally, in the U.S. littoral fishery resources have been ‘common
property’ since ownership is held by all citizens” (Macinko and Raymond,
2001). Property rights regimes have been promulgated in the U.S. (e.g.
Individual Fishery Quotas and Individual Transferable Quotas) and some
researchers suggest these present a more long-term sustainable management
method (Sutinen, et al., 2000; Edwards, 2003). While this may be true,
research here indicates that an in-place transparent ecosystem-oriented
fishery management science policy program is “very likely” better accomplished
while living marine resources are held “in the public trust.” Combining
local and scientific knowledge, including the intuitions and experiences
of fisherfolk (MacKinson and Noettestad, 1998) into a policy process
framework for analysis with select functional activities with attendant
potential product(s) and benefits (Jones, 1984; Clark, 1992) may uncover
the logical set of activities associated with elected government legislative
regulation of fisheries. This may be accomplished while at the same
time producing a learning-based approach to fisheries management from
an overall coastal area management perspective that has already
encompassed property rights regimes for select species such as surf clam/ocean
quahogs (e.g., Crance and Draper, 1996; Olsen et al., 1998).
A policy orientation formula (Gable, 2003; Table 5 & Figure 18, Figure 19, Figure 38) provides a view of fisheries professionals
as participants immeasurably involved in decision making streams and
actions over time
that collectively determine what truly happens to fishery stocks within
an identifiable marine ecosystem. Applying explicit knowledge of decision-making
processes is essential to effective sustainability of living marine resources.
An example of (local) knowledge in the policy process is public participatory
awareness concerning the status of forage fisheries (herring; e.g.
Gamble, 2003), consequences of optional harvest strategies, and economic
rent returns derived from sundry transparent management options. Ocean
science and ocean policy considerations can aid fisheries professionals
in sorting through the mix of science, analysis and politics involved
in important conservation and sustainability policies and programs
(e.g., Clark, 1992). The present study has explored the legislation,
marine policies, science, and the newly mandated ecosystem-based approach
for furthering the implementation of the LME modular strategy to fisheries
management, both domestically and internationally, while generically
taking into accord themes and select “national standard” parameters found
in the U.S. Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and prospective amendments
to that legislation.
ENDNOTES
- At the 74th Plenary Meeting of the U.N. General Assembly,
on December 12th 2002, 132 nations were in favor of A/57/L.48 adopted
as Resolution
A/57/141, only one against (Turkey) and two abstaining (Columbia & Venezuela).
In their affirming statement before the General Assembly, Japan through
Ambassador Akamatsu, explained its position prior to voting on the three
resolutions. In essence, Japan decided to associate itself with “the
consideration of the ecosystem in the conservation and management of
marine living resources” regarding draft resolution A57/L.49. By voice
vote draft resolution A/57/L.49 was adopted as resolution 57/142. Similarly,
draft resolution A/57/L.50 was adopted as resolution 57/143. See: http:www.un.org/ga/57pv.html
Online available November
10th 2003.
- From Belsky (1985) “at a certain point, a series of state practices,
codified in treaties or working agreements, and supported by the writings
of legal scholars and the acknowledgement or acceptance of the world
community, passes from mere examples of national action to a customary
norm of international law. A total ecosystem approach to conservation
and management of resources could become binding customary international
law via this route.”
- From the NEFMC Executive Committee Minutes
of January 9, 2004 (correspondence and reports document #10 of January 2729, 2004) one of the discussion “problem
statements” was that there is a need for advice on ecosystem management
principles. “What is ecosystem based management? We need to know what
it is before it is applied to our plans.” Further, from the “minutes” it
was mentioned that… “very primitive with ecosystem management… descriptive
knowledge should be first step. Understanding ecosystem is difficult
but right thing to do.” In addition, one draft goal stated was to “improve
ecosystem-based management integration of habitat and bycatch, and interactions
between fishery management plans (FMP’s).”
- From inter alia,
Mahlman (1997) & Easterling et al.,
(2000) & the U.S. Global Change Research Program (http://www.usgcrp.gov/
) quantitative terminology used in global (climate) change and policy
(and applicable here) includes:
• “virtually certain projections” = > 99%
probability or chance of being true
• “very likely” or “very probable” =
90 to 99% or 9 out of 10 probability or chance
• “likely” or “probable” =
67 to ~90% or 2 out of 3 chance of being true
• “possible” = 33 to ~66%
probability or chance of being true
• “unlikely” or “some chance” = 10 to
~33% probability or chance of being true
• “very unlikely” or “little chance” =
1 to 10% probability or chance of being true
• “improbable” = < 1%
probability or chance of being true.
- From the NEFMC Executive Committee
Minutes
of January 9, 2004 under the discussion section on “problem statement” the present
NOAA/NMFS Regional Administrator stated that “ecosystem management means
something different to everyone; at some point all must agree as to what
it means …need
to have better linkage with everything we’re doing and not working separately.” This
manuscript provides a baseline dialogue on the meaning
of large marine ecosystem-oriented fisheries management (see also Figure 20).
- NEFMC member Erik Anderson of New Hampshire at
the November 4, 2003 Council meeting in Peabody, Massachusetts put
forward a motion stating
that population parameters used for groundfish would incorporate “ecosystem
interactions” as a condition of (stock) status determination. This was
the first Council meeting that an ecosystem-oriented approach was voted
on and passed unanimously by the members. John Boreman, Director of the
NMFS NEFSC (Woods Hole, MA.) aided when asked by vice chairman Thomas
Hill to elaborate, "…what we’re going to be looking at is just
all species, the whole ecosystem. So, it’s all trophic interactions and
competitors, predators, prey, anything that would affect the population
growth of
a given species.” The word ecosystem is an “expression of carrying capacity
in the system that may be less than the biomass target. If there are
factors out there in the ecosystem that limit the carrying capacity
of that particular species, we should know about that, or we should
include that factor in the analysis.” Thus, Erik Anderson’s use of his
terminology “ecosystem interaction(s)” is equivalent to the “ecosystem
considerations” found in this manuscript. (Source: notarized written
transcription of the audiographic tape dated March 5th, 2004 and received
April, 2nd, 2004 by the NEFMC at pages 158161).
- It is
important to note that according to Keiter (1996) “Congress
is the ultimate policy-making institution; it establishes the nation’s
basic natural resource management policies and priorities,… with implementation
coming through the executive branch of government.”
- The
New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) at their scheduled Providence,
Rhode Island public meeting provided excerpted
copies for
review and discussion of portions of the Preliminary Report of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Governors’Draft, April 2004. Distributed were
the Executive Summary and Chapter 19, Achieving Sustainable Fisheries,
as NEFMC Correspondence & Reports (May 1113, 2004) documents.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this study provided through a competitive contract from
NOAA/NMFS/NEFSC Narragansett, Rhode Island Lab, P.O. No. EA133F03SE0707.
Additional support garnered through a U.S. National Academy of Sciences
National Research Council Research Associateship Award (No. 0497420 marine
science & fisheries) performed at the NOAA/NMFS Narragansett Lab
under the program on “marine ecosystems assessment and management.” Thanks
to Kenneth Sherman, Chief, NMFS Office of Marine Ecosystems Studies
for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript as well as Dean Emeritus
John A. Knauss of the University of Rhode Island (URI), Professor Timothy Hennessey
of URI and Phil Logan, Chief, Social Sciences Branch (NMFS, Woods Hole,
MA.) for discussions and review on aspects of the study and other anonymous
reviewers. Portions of the project are a spinoff of my marine affairs Ph.D,
graduate program of study at URI. The figures and tables were
ably crafted in QuarkxPress software by Sarah Litchfield. The Social
Science Branch of the NMFS NEFSC covered publication costs for binding
and distribution for the NEFSC “technical memorandum” series.
REFERENCES CITED
Agardy, T., 2000. Effects of Fisheries on Marine Ecosystems: A Conservationist’s
Perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57 (3), pp.
761-765.
Agardy, T., P. Bridgewater, M. P. Crosby, J. Day, P.K. Dayton, R. Kenchington,
D. Laffoley, P. McConney, P.A. Murray, J.E. Parks, and L. Peau, 2003.
Dangerous Targets? Unresolved Issues and Ideological Clashes Around
Marine Protected Areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, 13 (4), pp. 353-367.
Ajahi, T., K. Sherman, and Q. Tang, 2002. Support for Marine Sustainability
Science. Science, 297 (5582), p. 772.
Alexander, L. M., 1999. Management of Large Marine Ecosystems: A
Law of the Sea-Based Governance Regime. In: The Gulf of Maine Large
Marine Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability, and Management, Kumpf,
H., K. Steidinger, and K. Sherman, (eds.), Blackwell Sciences,
pp. 511-515.
Alexander, L. M., 1993. Large Marine Ecosystems: A New Focus for
Marine Resources Management. Marine Policy, 17 (3), pp. 186-198.
Antunes, P., and R. Santos, 1999. Integrated Environmental Management
of the Oceans. Ecological Economics, 31 (2), pp. 215-236.
Apollonio, S., 1994. The Use of Ecosystem Characteristics in Fisheries
Management. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 2 (2), pp. 157-180.
Attrill, M.J., and M. Power, 2002. Climatic Influence on a Marine
Fish Assemblage. Nature, 417 (6886), pp. 275-278.
Barber, W.E., and J.N. Taylor, 1990. The Importance of Goals, Objectives,
and Values in the Fisheries Management Process and Organization: A
Review. North American Journal of Fisheries Management,
10 (4), pp. 365-373.
Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001. Detection of Anthropogenic
Climate Change in the World’s Oceans. Science, 292 (5515), pp.
270-274.
Batabyal., A.A., J.R. Kahn, and R. V. O’Neill, 2003. On the Scarcity
Value of Ecosystem Services. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 46 (2), pp. 334-352.
Beamish, R.J., and C. Mahnken, 1999. Taking the Next Step in Fisheries
Management. In: Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries Management,
Alaska Sea Grant College Program, AK-SG-99-01, Fairbanks, pp.
1-21.
Belfiore, S., 2003. The Growth of Integrated Coastal Managment and
the Role of Indicators in Integrated Coastal Management: Introduction
to the Special Issue. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46
(5), pp. 225-234.
Belsky, M.H., 1999. Using Legal Principles to Promote the “Health” of
the Ecosystem. In: The Gulf of Maine Large Marine Ecosystem:
Assessment, Sustainability, and Man agement,Kumpf, H., K. Steidinger,
and K. Sherman, (eds.), Blackwell Sciences, pp. 416-430.
Belsky, M. H., 1989. The Ecosystem Model Mandate for a Comprehensive
United States Ocean Policy and Law of the Sea. San Diego Law Review,
26 (3), pp. 417-495.
Belsky, M.H., 1985. Management of Large Marine Ecosys tems: Developing
a New Rule of Customary International Law. San Diego Law Review,
22 (4), pp. 733-763.
Berkes, F., J. Colding and C. Folke, 2000. Rediscovery of Traditional
Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications,
10 (5), pp. 1251-1262.
Boehlert, G.W., 1996. Biodiversity and the Sustainability of Marine
Fisheries. Oceanography, 9 (1), pp. 28-35.
Boesch, D.F., 1999. The Role of Science in Ocean Governance. Ecological
Economics, 31 (2), pp. 189-198.
Botsford, L.W., F. Micheli, and A. Hastings, 2003. Principles for the
Design of Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications, 13
(1) Supplement, pp. S25-S31.
Botsford, L.W., J. C. Castilla, and C. H. Peterson, 1997. The Management
of Fisheries and Marine Ecosystems. Science, 277 (5325),
pp. 509-515.
Bowen, R.E., and C. Riley, 2003. Socio-economic Indicators and Integrated
Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46
(5), pp. 299-312.
Braile, R., 2000. Wave of Lawsuits Follows Easing of Fishing Restrictions. The
Boston Globe, 258 (24), p. B3.
Brodeur, R.D., C. E. Mills, J.E. Overland, G.E. Walters, and J.D. Schumacher,
1999. Evidence for the Substantial Increase in Gelatinous Zooplankton
in the Bering Sea, with Possible Links to Climate Change. Fisheries
Oceanography, 8 (4), pp. 296-306.
Brodziak, J., J. Link, 2002. Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management:
What is it and How can we do it? Bulletin of Marine Science,
70 (2), pp. 589-611.
Brown, C.P., and S. Mumme, 2000. Applied and Theoretical Aspects of
Binational Watershed Councils (Consejos de Cuencas) in
the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. Natural Re- sources Journal, 40 (4),
pp. 895-929.
Burroughs, R.H., 1996. A Policy Orientation Toward Estuarine Shores.
In: Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments, and Human Alterations,
Nordstrom, K.F., and C.T. Roman (eds.), Chapter 19, John Wiley & Sons,
pp. 435-448.
Burroughs, R.H., and T. W. Clark, 1995. Ecosystem Management: A Comparison
of Greater Yellowstone and Georges Bank. Environmental Management, 19
(5), pp. 649-663.
Busch, W-D. N., B.L. Brown, and G.F. Mayer, (eds.), 2003. Strategic
Guidance for Implementing and Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries
Management. DOC/NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD., Technical Report,
May 2003, 57 pp.
Busch, D., 2003. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Moves
Forward. The Coastal Society Bulletin, 25 (3-4), pp. 1, 4-5, 8
Caddy, J.F., 1999. Deciding on Precautionary Management Measures for
a Stock Based on a Suite of Limit Reference Points (LRPs) as a Basis
for a Multi-LRP Harvest Law. North Atlantic Fisheries Organization
Scientific Council Studies, 32, pp. 55-68.
Carr, M., 2000. Marine Protected Areas: Challenges and Opportunities
for Understanding and Conserving Coastal Marine Ecosystems. Environmental
Conservation, 27 (2), pp. 106-109.
Catanzano, J., and B. Mesnil, 1995. Economics and Biology Used in Fisheries
Research or When Social and Natural Sciences Try to Depict Together the Object of Their Research. Aquatic
Living Resources, 8 (3), pp. 223-232.
Charles, A.T., 2002. The Precautionary Approach and ‘Burden of Proof’ Challenges
in Fishery Management. Bulletin of Marine Science, 70
(2), pp. 683-694.
Charles, A. T., 1988. Fishery Socioeconomics: A Survey. Land Economics,
64 (3), pp. 276-295.
Christensen, N.L., and 12 Others, 1996. The Report of the Ecological
Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem
Management. Ecological Applications, 6 (3), pp. 665-691.
Christensen, V., 2000. Indicators for Marine Ecosystems Affected
by Fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research, 51 (5), pp. 447-500.
Clark, T. W., 1992. Practicing Natural Resource Management with a
Policy Orientation. Environmental Management, 16 (4), pp. 423-433.
Clay, P.M., and J. R. McGoodwin, 1995. Utilizing Social Sciences
in Fisheries Management. Aquatic Living Resources,
8 (3), pp. 203-207.
Coglianese, C., and J. Nash, 2002. Policy Options for Improving
Environmental Management in the Private Sector. Environment,
44 (9), pp. 10-23.
Coglianese, C., and J. Nash, 2001. Bolstering Private-Sector Environmental
Management. Issues in Science and Technology, 17 (3),
pp. 69-74.
Cole, H., 2003. Contemporary Challenges: Globalisation, Global
Interconnectedness and that ‘There are not Plenty More Fish in the
Sea;’ Fisheries, Governance and Globalization: Is There a Relationship? Ocean
and Coastal Management, 46 (1-2), pp. 77-102.
Costanza, R., and 15 Others, 1998. Principles for Sustainable Governance
of the Oceans. Science, 281 (5374), pp. 198-199.
Council of the European Union (COEU), 2002. Council Regulation
(EC) No. 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the Conservation and Sustainable
Exploitation of Fisheries Resources Under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official
Journal of the European Communities, 358, pp. 59-71. Online Available,
November 22nd, 2003 @ http://europa.eu.int/ .
Crance, C., and D. Draper, 1996. Socially Cooperative Choices: An
Approach to Achieving Resource Sustainability in the Coastal Zone. Environmental Management,
20 (2), pp.
175-184.
Daley, B., 2002. Drastic Cuts Ordered in N.E. Fishing: Judges Decision
Seen as Heavy Blow to Industry. The Boston Globe, 261
(117), pp. 1 & B4.
Darcy, G.H., and G. C. Matlock, 1999. Application of the Precautionary
Approach in the National Standard Guidelines for Conservation and Management
of Fisheries in the United States. ICES Journal of
Marine Science, 56 (6), pp. 853-859.
De La Mare, W.K., 1998. Tidier Fisheries Management Requires a
New MOP (Management-oriented Paradigm). Reviews in Fish Biology
and Fisheries, 8 (3), pp. 349-356.
Degnbol, P., 2002. The Ecosystem Approach and Fisheries Management
Institutions: The Noble Art of Addressing Complexity and Uncertainty
with All Onboard and on a Budget. IIFET Paper No. 171 (Denmark), 11
pp. Online Available, January 12th,
2004, @ www.ifm.dk/reports/ 80.pdf.
Done, T.J., and R.E. Reichelt, 1998. Integrated Coastal Zone Management
and Fisheries Ecosystem Management: Generic Tools and Performance Indices. Ecological
Applications, 8 (1), Supplement, pp. S110-S118.
Dovers, S.R., and J.W. Handmer, 1995. Ignorance, the Precautionary
Principle, and Sustainability. Ambio, 24 (2), pp. 92- 97.
Duda, A.M., and K. Sherman, 2002. A New Imperative for Improving
Management of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45
(11-12), pp. 797-833.
Dyer, C.L., and J. J. Poggie, 2000. The Natural Resource Region and
Marine Policy: A Case Study From the New England Groundfish Fishery. Marine
Policy, 24 (3), pp. 245-255.
Easterling, D.R., G.A. Meehl, C. Parmesan, S.A. Changnon, T.R. Karl,
and L.O. Mearns, 2000. Climatic Extremes: Observations, Modeling,
and Impacts. Science, 289 (5487), pp. 2068-2074.
Edwards, S.F., 2003. Property Rights to Multi-Attribute Fishery Resources. Ecological
Economics, 44 (2-3), pp. 309-323.
Emmelin, L., 1972. The Stockholm Conferences. Ambio, 1 (4), pp. 135-140.
English, S.A., R.H. Bradbury, and R.E. Reichelt, 1988. Manage- ment
of Large Marine Ecosystems - A Multinational Approach. In: Proceedings
of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia, Vol. 2, pp. 369-374.
Fluharty, D., 2000. Habitat Protection, Ecological Issues, and Implementation
of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Ecological Applications,
10 (2), pp. 325-337.
Fluharty, D., and 19 Others, 1999. Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management.
A Report to Congress by the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel. U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA/NMFS Technical Report, 54 pp.
Fogarty, M.J., 2001. Climate Variability and Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics:
Implications for Sustainability. In: Challenges of a Changing
Earth: Proceedings of the Global Change Open Science Conference, Amsterdam,
Holland, 10-13 July, 2001, W. Steffen, J. Jaeger, D.J. Carson,
and C. Bradshaw, (eds), Ch. 4, Springer, pp. 27-29.
Foster, K.R., P. Vecchia, and M.H. Repacholi, 2000. Science and the
Precautionary Principle. Science, 288 (5468), pp. 979-981.
Francis, R.I.C.C., and R. Schotten, 1997. “Risk” in Fisheries Management:
A Review. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54 (8),
pp. 1699-1715.
Frank, K. T., R. I Perry, and K. F. Drinkwater, 1990. Predicted Response
of Northwest Atlantic Invertebrate and Fish Stocks to CO2 -
Induced Climate Change. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society, 119 (2), pp. 353-365.
Gable, F.J., 2003. A Practice-Based Coupling of the Precautionary
Principle to the Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries management Concept
with a Policy Orientation: The Northeast United States Continental
Shelf as a Case Example. Coastal Management, 31 (4), pp. 435-456.
Gable, F. J., 2000. The Black Sea: An Environmental and Ecological
Profile. Ocean Yearbook, 14, University of Chicago Press,
pp. 420-467.
Gade, M.A., T.D. Garcia, J.B. Howes, T.M. Schad, and S. Shipman,
2002. Courts, Congress, and Constituencies: Managing Fisheries
by Default. A Report by a Panel of the National Academy
of Public Administration for the Congress and the U.S. Department of
Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 160 pp.
Gamble, M., 2003. Public Information Document for Amendment 2
to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Herring. Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, December, Washington, D.C. 18
pp.
Garcia, S,M., 2000. The FAO Definition of Sustainable Development
and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: An Analysis
of Related Principles, Criteria and Indicators. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 51 (5), pp. 535-541.
Garcia, S.M., 1994. The Precautionary Principle: Its Implications
in Capture Fisheries Management. Ocean & Coastal Management,
22 (2), pp. 99-125.
Garcia, S.M., and D.J. Staples, 2000. Sustainability Reference Systems
and Indicators for Responsible Marine Capture Fisheries: A Review of
Concepts and Elements for a Set of Guidelines. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 51 (5), pp. 385-426.
Garcia, S.M., and C.H. Newton, 1994. Responsible Fisheries: An Overview
of FAO Policy Developments (1945-1994). Marine Pollution Bulletin,
29 (6-12), pp. 528-536.
Garribaldi, L., and L. Limongelli, 2003. Trends in Oceanic Capture
and Clustering of Large Marine Ecosystems. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper 435, 71 pp.
Garrison, L.P., and J.S. Link, 2000. Fishing Effects on Spatial Distribution
and Trophic Guild Structure of the Fish Community in the Georges
Bank Region. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57 (3),
pp. 723-730.
Gerrodette, T., P. Dayton, S. Macinko, and M. J. Fogarty, 2002. Precautionary
Management of Marine Fisheries: Moving Beyond Burden of Proof. Bulletin
of Marine Science, 70 (2), pp. 657-668.
Giordano, M., 2003. The Geography of the Commons: The Role of Scale
and Space. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
93 (2), pp. 365-375.
Gislason, H., M. Sinclair, K. Sainsbury, and R. O’Boyle, 2000. Symposium
Overview: Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives Within Fisheries Management. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 468-475.
Goethel, D.T., 2002. Ocean Policy and Fisheries: A Discussion of
Areas in Need of Change. Statement before the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy, Boston, Massachusetts, July, 2002, Online Available
at: http://www.oceancommission.gov , 3 pp.
Gonzalez, O.J., 1996. Formulating and Ecosystem Approach to Environmental
Protection. Environmental Management, 20 (5),
pp. 597-605.
Grassle, J.F., 2001. Marine Ecosystems. In: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity,
Vol. 4, Academic Press, San Diego, CA., pp. 13-25.
Gray, T., and J. Hatchard, 2003. The 2002 Reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy’s System of Governance - Rhetoric or Reality? Marine
Policy, 27 (6), pp. 545-554.
Greene, K., 2002. Fishery Science: Bigger Populations Needed for
Sustainable Harvests. Science, 296 (5571), pp. 1229- 1230.
Griffis, R.B., and K.W. Kimball, 1996. Ecosystem Approaches to Coastal
and Ocean Stewardship. Ecological Applications, 6 (3),
pp. 708-712.
Grumbine, R.E., 1994. What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation
Biology, 8 (1), pp. 27-38.
Haeuber, R., 1996. Setting the Environmental Policy Agenda: The Case
of Ecosystem Management. Natural Resources Journal, 36
(1), pp. 1-28.
Hall, S.J., 2002. The Continental Shelf Benthic Ecosystem: Current
Status, Agents for Change and Future Prospects. Environmental Conservation,
29 (3), pp. 350-374.
Hall, S.J., 1999. Managing Fisheries Within Ecosystems: Can the Role
of Reference Points be Expanded? Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 9 (6), pp. 579-583.
Hanna, S.S., 1999. Strengthening Governance of Ocean Fishery Resources. Ecological
Economics, 31 (2), pp. 275- 286.
Hanna, S. S., 1998. Institutions for Marine Ecosystems: Economic
Incentives and Fishery Management. Ecological Applications,
8 (1) Supplement, pp. S170-S174.
Harwell, M.A., W. Cooper, R. Flaak, 1992. Prioritizing Ecological
and Human Welfare Risks from Environmental Stresses. Environmental
Management, 16 (4), pp. 451-464.
Hastings, A., and L. W. Botsford, 2003. Comparing Designs of Marine
Reserves for Fisheries and for Biodiversity. Ecological
Applications, 13 (1) Supplement, pp. S65-S70.
Hayes, D. P., 1992. The Growing Inaccessibility of Science. Nature,
356(6372), pp. 739-740.
Hennessey, T. M., 1998. Ecosystem Management: The Governance Approach.
In: Ecosystems Management: A Social Science
Perspective, Soden, D., Lamb, B. L., and Tennert, J. R.,
(eds.), Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa, Ch. 2, pp. 13- 29.
Hennessey, T. M., 1994. Governance and Adaptive Management for
Estuarine Ecosystems: The Case of Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Management,
22 (2), pp. 119-145.
Hennessey, T., and M. Healey, 2000. Ludwig’s Ratchet and the Collapse
of New England Groundfish Stocks. Coastal Management,
28 (3), pp. 187-213.
Hilborn, R., 1987. Living with Uncertainty in Resource Management.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 7 (1),
pp. 1-5.
Hill, T. R., 2002. Testimony by the Chairman, New England Fishery
Management Council, before the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Boston,
Massachusetts, July, 2002, Online Available at: http://www.oceancommission.gov
, 6 pp.
Holling, C.S., 1996. Surprise for Science, Resilience for Ecosystems,
and Incentives for People. Ecological Applications, 6
(3), pp. 733-735.
Hollowed, A.B., N. Bax, R. Beamish, J. Collie, M.
Fogarty, P. Livingston, J. Pope, and J.C. Rice, 2000. Are Multispecies
Models an Improvement
on Single-Species Models for Measuring Fishing Impacts on Marine
Ecosystems? ICES Journal
of Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 707-719
Hsu, S-L, and J.E. Wilen, 1997. Ecosystem Management and the 1996
Sustainable Fisheries Act. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24
(4), pp. 799-811.
Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem-Based
Management: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental
Management, 24 (4), pp. 449-465.
Jackson, J.B.C., and 18 Others, 2001. Historical Overfishing and
the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science, 293 (5530),
pp. 629-638.
Jahnke, M., (ed.), 2003. United Nations Activities: Environmental
Policy Decisions. Environmental Policy and Law, 33 (1), pp.
2-13.
Jones, C. O., 1984. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy,
Third Edition. Harcourt Brace & Company, Orlando, Florida,
276 pp.
Juda, L., 1999. Considerations in Developing a Functional Approach
to the Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Development & International
Law, 30 (2), pp. 89-125.
Juda, L., and T. Hennessey, 2001. Governance Profiles and the Management
of the Uses of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Development & International
Law, 32 (1), pp. 43-69.
Juda, L., R. H. Burroughs, 1990. The Prospects for Comprehensive
Ocean Management. Marine Policy, 14 (1), pp. 23-35.
Kates, R. W., and 22 Others, 2001. Sustainability Science. Science,
292 (5517), pp. 641-642 + Supplementary Material.
Keiter, R.B., 1996. Toward Legitimizing Ecosystem Management on
the Public Domain. Ecological Applications, 6 (3), pp. 727-730.
Kenchington, R.A., and M.T. Agardy, 1990. Achieving Marine Conservation
Through Biosphere Reserve Planning and Management. Environmental
Conservation, 17 (1), pp. 39-44.
Kerry, J. F., 2002. Statement of Senator John F. Kerry (MA.) Senate
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries, Oversight Hearing
on NMFS Management Issues, May 9, 2002, 5 pp.
King, J.R., and G.A. McFarlane, 2003. Marine Fish life History Strategies:
Applications to Fishery Management. Fisheries Management
and Ecology, 10 (4), pp. 249-264.
Kinzig, A., and 20 Others, 2003. Coping with Uncertainty: A Call
for a New Science-Policy Forum. Ambio, 32 (5), pp. 330-335.
Knecht, R.W., 1994. Essay: Emerging International Goals and Principles
and Their Influence on National Ocean Governance. Coastal Management,
22 (2), pp. 177-182.
Lackey, R.T., 1997. Ecosystem Management: In Search of the Elusive
Paradigm. Human Ecology Review, 4 (2), pp. 107- 113.
Lane, D. E., and R. L. Stephenson, 1999. Fisheries-management Science:
A Framework for the Implementation of Fisheries-management Systems. ICES
Journal of Marine Science,
56 (6), pp. 1059-1066.
Larkin, P.A., 1996. Concepts and Issues in Marine Ecosystem Management. Reviews
in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6 (2), pp. 139-164.
Lasswell, H.D., 1951. The Policy Orientation. In: The Policy
Sciences, D. Lerner and H. D. Lasswell (eds.), Stanford University
Press, Palo Alto, California, pp. 3-15.
Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, and C. Stephens, 2000. Warming
of the World Ocean. Science, 287 (5461), pp. 2225-2229.
Link, J.S., 2002a. What Does Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Mean? Fisheries, 27 (4), pp. 18-21.
Link, J. S., 2002b. Ecological Considerations in Fisheries Man- agement:
When Does it Matter? Fisheries, 27 (4), pp. 10- 17.
Link, J.S., J.K.T. Brodziak, S.F. Edwards, W.J. Overholtz, D. Mountain,
J.W. Jossi, T.D. Smith, and M.J. Fogarty, 2002. Marine Ecosystem Assessment
in a Fisheries Management Context. Canadian Journal of Fish and
Aquatic Science, 59 (9), pp. 1429-1440.
Livingston, P., (ed.), 2001. Ecosystem Considerations for 2002. North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska, November, 2001.
Online Available, September 29th, 2003 @ http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/ecosystem/
ecobased.htm .
Livingston, P., (ed.), 1999. Ecosystem Considerations for 2000. North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska, November, 1999.
Online Available, September 29th, 2003 @ http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/ecosystem/
ecobased.htm .
Longhurst, A., 2003. The Symbolism of Large Marine Ecosystems. Fisheries
Research, 61 (1-3), pp. 1-6.
Longhurst, A. R., 1998. Ecological Geography of the Sea. Academic
Press, San Diego, California, 398 pp.
Low, B., R. Costanza, E. Ostrom, J. Wilson, and C.P. Simon. 1999.
Human-Ecosystem Interactions: A Dynamic Integrated Model. Ecological
Economics, 31 (2), pp. 227-242.
Lubchenco, J., S.R. Palumbi, S.D. Gaines, and S. Andelman, 2003.
Plugging a Hole in the Ocean: The Emerging Science of Marine Reserves. Ecological
Applications, 13 (1) Supplement, pp. S3-S7.
Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters, 1993. Uncertainty, Resource
Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History. Science,
260 (5104), pp. 17 & 36.
Lynch, K.D., W.W. Taylor, J.M. Robertson, and K.D. Smith, 1999. Utilizing
Ecosystem Concepts in Fisheries Management Strategies. In: Ecosystem
Approaches for Fisheries Management, Alaska Sea Grant College
Program, AK-SG- 99-01, Fairbanks, pp. 353-366.
MacDonald, J. M., 1995. Appreciating the Precautionary Principle
as an Ethical Evolution in Ocean Management. Ocean Development & International
Law, 26 (3), pp. 255-286.
Macinko, S., and L. Raymond, 2001. Fish on the Range: The Perils
of Crossing Conceptual Boundaries in Natural Resource Policy. Marine
Policy, 25 (2), pp. 123-131.
Machlis, G.E., J.E. Force, and W. R.
Burch Jr., 1997. The Human Ecosystem Part 1: The Human Ecosystem as
an Organizing Concept in Ecosystem
Management. Society & Natural Resources, 10,
pp. 347-367.
Mackenzie, S.H., 1997. Toward Integrated Resource Management: Lessons
from the Ecosystem Approach from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Environmental
Management, 21 (2), pp. 173-183.
Mackinson, S., and L. Noettestad, 1998. Combining Local and Scientific
Knowledge. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 8
(4), pp. 481-490.
Madin, L., 2001. The Jellies vs. the Fish. Ocean Alive: Plain Talk
on Current Topics in Marine Science Presented to the General Public.
WHOI Sea Grant, April 24th, 2001, 1p.
Mahlman, J.D., 1997. Uncertainties in Projections of Human-Caused
Climate Warming. Science, 278 (5342), pp. 1416-1417.
May, R. M., J. R. Beddington, C. W. Clark, S. J. Holt, and R. M.
Laws, 1979. Management of Multispecies Fisheries. Science,
205 (4403), pp. 267-277.
McFarlane, G.A., J.R. King, and R.J. Beamish, 2000. Have There Been
Recent Changes in Climate? Ask the Fish. Progress in
Oceanography, 47 (2-4), pp. 147-169.
McGinn, A. P., 1999. Moving Toward Sustainable Fisheries. Natural
Resources Forum, 23 (2), pp. 135-145.
McGlade, J.M., 2001. Governance and Sustainable Fisheries. In: Science
and Integrated Coastal Management, von Bodungen, B., and R.K.
Turner (eds.), Dahlem University Press, pp. 307-326.
McLain, R.J., and R.G. Lee, 1996. Adaptive Management: Promises
and Pitfalls. Environmental Management, 20 (4), pp. 437-448.
Merrell, W.J., M.H. Katsouros, and J. Bienski, 2001. The Stratton
Commission: The Model for a Sea Change in National Marine Policy. Oceanography,
14 (2), pp. 11-16.
Michaels, S., R.J. Mason, and W.D. Solecki, 1999. The Importance
of Place in Partnerships for Regional Environmental Management. Environmental
Conservation, 26 (3), pp. 159-162.
Mills, C.E., 2001. Jellyfish Blooms: Are Populations Increasing Globally
In Response to Changing Ocean Conditions? Hydrobiologia, 451,
pp. 55-68.
Mlot, C., 1997. Unusual Fish Threat Afloat in the Atlantic. Science
News, 152 (21), p. 325.
Moeller, H., 1984. Reduction of a Larval Herring Population by Jellyfish
Predator. Science, 224 (4649), pp. 621-622.
Morrissey, W.A., 1996. Science Policy and Federal Ecosystem-Based
Management. Ecological Applications, 6 (3), pp. 717-720.
Mountain, D.G., 2002. Potential Consequences of Climate Change for
the Fish Resources in the Mid-Atlantic Region. American Fisheries
Society Symposium, 32, pp. 185-194.
Murawski, S.A., 2002. Scientific Challenges in Supporting Living
Marine Resources Management. Statement to the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. July, Boston, Massachu- setts, 11 pp.
Murawski, S.A., 2000. Definitions of Overfishing from an Ecosystem
Perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 649-658.
Murawski, S. A., 1993. Climate Change and Marine Fish Distributions:
Forecasting from Historical Analogy. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society, 122 (5), pp. 647-658.
NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization), 2003. Proposed
NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework from Scientific Council. NAFO
SCR Doc. 03/23, 5 pp.
Nelson, B., 1969. Marine Commission Invokes NOAA, Urges Refitting
of Nation’s Ark. Science, 163 (3864), pp. 263-265.
Odum, E.P., 1969. The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science,
164 (3877), pp. 262-270.
Okey, T.A., 2003. Membership of the Eight Regional Fishery Management
Councils in the United States: Are Special Interests Over-Represented? Marine
Policy, 27 (3), pp. 193-206.
Olsen, S.B., 2003. Frameworks and Indicators for Assessing Progress
in Integrated Coastal Management Initiatives. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 46 (5), pp. 347-361.
Olsen, S.B., 2001. Inventing Governance Systems That Respond to
Coastal Ecosystem Change. In: Science and Integrated Coastal
Management, von Bodungen, B., and R.K. Turner (eds.), Dahlem
University Press, pp. 327-339.
Olsen, S. B., 2000. Educating for the Governance of Coastal Ecosystems:
The Dimensions of the Challenge. Ocean & Coastal Management,
43 (4-5), pp. 331-341.
Olsen, S., 1999. Linking Integrated Coastal Management with Large
Marine Ecosystems Management. In: The Gulf of Maine Large Marine Ecosystem: Assessment,
Sustainability, and Management, Kumpf, H., K. Steidinger, and
K. Sherman, (eds.), Blackwell Sciences, pp. 626-633.
Olsen, S. B., J. Tobey, and L. Z. Hale, 1998. A Learning-based Approach
to Coastal Management. Ambio, 27 (8), pp. 611-619.
O’Toole, M., 2002. Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Programme
Strategic Action Programme. Updated, November, 2002, Windhoek, Namibia,
23 pp.
Overholtz, W.J., J.S. Link, and L.E. Suslowicz, 1999. Consumption
and Harvest of Pelagic Fishes and Squids in the Gulf of Maine -
Georges Bank Ecosystem. In: Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries
Management, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, AK-SG-99-01,
pp. 163-186.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T.J. Pitcher, U.R. Sumaila,
C.J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller, 2002. Towards Sustainability
in World Fisheries. Nature, 418 (6898), pp. 689-695.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, R. Froese, and M. L. Palomeres, 2000.
Fishing Down Aquatic Food Webs. American Scientist, 88
(1), pp. 46-51.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. Torres
Jr., 1998. Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science, 279 (5352),
pp. 860-863.
Perrings, C., 2000. Sustainability Indicators for Fisheries in Integrated
Coastal Area Management. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 51 (5), pp. 513-522.
Perry, R.I., C.J. Walters, and J.A.
Boutillier, 1999. A Framework for Providing Scientific Advice for the
Management of New and Developing
Fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 9
(2), pp. 125-150.
Phillips, C.G., and J. Randolph, 2000. The Relationship of Ecosystem
Management to NEPA and its Goals. Environmental Management,
26 (1), pp. 1-12.
Pielke, R. A., D. Sarewitz, R. Byerly, and D. Jamieson, 1999. Prediction
in the Earth Sciences and Environmental Policy Making. EOS, Transactions,
the American Geophysical Union, 80 (28), pp. 311-313.
Pitcher, T.J., 2001. Fisheries Managed to Rebuild Ecosystems? Reconstructing
the Past to Salvage the Future. Ecological Applications,
11 (2), pp. 601-617.
Poitras, J., R. Bowen, and J. Wiggin, 2003. Challenges to the Use
of Consensus Building in Integrated Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 46 (5), pp. 391- 405.
Pontecorvo, G., 1989. Contribution of the Ocean Sector to the United
States Economy: Estimated Values for 1987 - A Technical Note. Marine
Technology Society Journal, 23 (2), pp. 7-14.
Pontecorvo, G., M. Wilkinson, R. Anderson, and M. Holdowsky, 1980.
Contribution of the Ocean Sector to the United States Economy. Science,
208 (4447), pp. 1000-1006.
Probert, P.K., 2002. Ocean Science and Conservation - Catching
the Wave. Aquatic Science: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
12 (2), pp. 165-168.
Purcell, J.E., and M.N. Arai, 2001. Interactions of Pelagic Cnidarians
and Ctenophores with Fish: A Review. Hydrobiologia, 451, pp.
27-44.
Repetto, R., 2001. A Natural Experiment in Fisheries Management. Marine
Policy, 25 (4), pp. 251-264.
Restrepo, V. R., and J. E. Powers, 1999. Precautionary Control Rules
in US Fisheries Management: Specification and Performance. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 56 (6), pp. 846-852.
Restrepo, V.R., P.M. Mace, and F.M. Serchuk, 1999. The Precautionary
Approach: A New Paradigm or Business as Usual? In: Our Living Oceans:
Report on the Status of Living Marine Resources, 1999. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-41, pp. 61-70.
Richards, L.J., and J-J. Maguire, 1998. Recent International Agreements
and the Precautionary Approach: New Directions in Fishery Management
Science. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science,
55 (6), pp. 1545-1552.
Robinson, C. L., 1994. The Influence of Ocean Climate on Coastal
Plankton and Fish Production. Fisheries Oceanography,
3 (3), pp. 159-171.
Rothschild, B. J., 2000. “Fish Stocks and Recruitment:” The Past
Thirty Years. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57 (2), pp. 191-201.
Rosenberg, A.A., 2003. Multiple Uses of Marine Ecosystems. In: Responsible
Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, M. Sinclair, and G. Valdimarsson
(eds.), pp. 189-196.
Rosenberg, A.A., 2002. The Precautionary Approach in Application
From a Manager’s Perspective. Bulletin of Marine Science,
70 (2), pp. 577-588.
Rudd, M.A., 2004. An Institutional Framework for Designing and Monitoring
Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management Policy Experiments. Ecological
Economics, 48 (1), pp. 109-124.
Safina, C., 2003. The Continued Danger of Overfishing. Issues in
Science and Technology, 19 (4), pp. 49-51.
Safina, C., 1995. The World’s Imperiled Fish. Scientific American,
273 (5), pp. 46-53.
Sainsbury, K, and U.R. Sumaila, 2003. Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives
into Management of Sustainable Marine Fisheries, Including ‘Best Practice’ Reference
Points and Use of Marine Protected Areas. In: Responsible Fisheries in
the Marine Environment, M. Sinclair, and G. Valdimarsson
(eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 343- 360.
Sainsbury, K.J., A.E. Punt, and A.D.M. Smith, 2000. Design of Operational
Management Strategies for Achieving Ecosystem Objectives. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 731-741.
Scavia, D., and 13 Others, 2002. Climate Change Impacts on U.S. Coastal
and Marine Ecosystems. Estuaries, 25 (2), pp. 149-164.
Scavia, D., and 13 Others, 2001. Coastal Areas and Marine Resources:
The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. A
Report of the National Coastal Assessment Group for the U.S.
Global Change Research Program, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD., 8 pp.
Scheiber, H.N., 1997. From Science to Law to Politics: An Historical
View of the Ecosystem Idea and its Effect on Resource Management. Ecology
Law Quarterly, 24 (4), pp. 631-651.
Schiermeier, Q., 2002. How Many More Fish in the Sea? Nature,
419 (6908), pp. 662-665.
Schramm, H.L., and W.A. Hubert, 1996. Ecosystem Management: Implications
for Fisheries Management. Fisheries, 21 (12), pp. 6-11.
Sherman, K., 2000. Why Regional Coastal Monitoring for Assessment
of Ecosystem Health? Ecosystem Health, 6 (3), pp. 205-216.
Sherman, K., 1995. Achieving Regional Cooperation in the Management
of Marine Ecosystems: The Use of the Large Ecosystem Approach. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 29 (1-3), pp. 165-185.
Sherman, K., 1994. Sustainability, Biomass Yields, and Health of
Coastal Ecosystems: An Ecological Perspective. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 112, pp. 277-301.
Sherman, K., 1991. The Large Marine Ecosystem Concept: Research and
Management Strategy for Living Marine Resources. Ecological Applications,
1 (4), pp. 349-360.
Sherman, K., 1989. Biomass Yields of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean
Yearbook 8, University of Chicago Press, pp. 117-137.
Sherman, K., and H.R. Skjoldal (eds.), 2002. Large Marine Ecosystems
of the North Atlantic: Changing States and Sustainability. Elsevier
Large Marine Ecosystems Series, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 449
pp.
Sherman, K., and A. M. Duda, 2001. Toward Ecosystem-based Recovery
of Marine Biomass Yield. Ambio, 30 (3), pp. 168- 169.
Sherman, K., and A. M. Duda, 1999a. Large Marine Ecosystems: An
Emerging Paradigm for Fishery Sustainability. Fisheries, 24
(12), pp. 15-26.
Sherman, K., and A. M. Duda, 1999b. An Ecosystem Approach to Global
Assessment and Management of Coastal Waters. Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 190, pp. 271-287.
Sherman, K., N.A. Jaworski, and T.J. Smayda, (eds.), 1996. The Northeast
Shelf Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability, and Management. Blackwell
Science, 564 pp.
Sherman, K., L. M. Alexander, and B. D. Gold, (eds.), 1991. Food
Chains, Yields, Models, and Management of Large Marine Ecosystems.
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 320 pp.
Sinclair, M., and G. Valdimarsson, (eds.), 2003. Towards Ecosystem-based
Fisheries Management. In: Responsible Fisheries in the Marine
Ecosystem, FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 393-403.
Sissenwine M.P., P.M. Mace, 2003. Governance for Responsible Fisheries:
An Ecosystem Approach. In: Responsible Fisheries
in the Marine Environment, M. Sinclair and G. Valdimarsson
(eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 363- 390.
Skud, B.E., 1982. Dominance in Fishes: The Relation Between Environment
and Abundance. Science, 216 (4542), pp. 144-149.
Slocombe, D.S., 1998. Defining Goals and Criteria for Ecosystem-Based
Management. Environmental Management 22 (4), pp. 483-493.
Slocombe, D.S., 1993. Implementing Ecosystem-based Management. Bioscience,
43 (9), pp. 612-622.
Sorensen, J. C., and S.T. McCreary, 1990. Institutional Arrangements
for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments, Revised
Second Edition. National Park Service, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Renewable Resources Information Series, Washington,
D.C., 194 pp.
Stanford, J.A., and G.C. Poole, 1996. A Protocol for Ecosystem Management. Ecological
Applications, 6 (3), pp. 741-744.
Steele, J.H., and M. Schumacher, 2000. Ecosystem Structure Before
Fishing. Fisheries Research, 44 (3), pp. 201-205.
Steele, J.H., 1998. Regime Shifts in Marine Ecosystems. Ecological
Applications, 8 (1) Supplement, pp. S33-S36.
Sutinen, J. G., 1999. What Works Well and Why: Evidence From Fishery-Management
Experiences in OECD Countries. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
56 (6), pp. 1051- 1058.
Sutinen, J.G., and M. Soboil, 2003. The Performance of Fisheries
Management Systems and the Ecosystem Challenge. In: Responsible
Fisheries in the Marine Environment, M. Sinclair, and G. Valdimarsson
(eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 291-309.
Sutinen, J. G., and H. F. Upton, 2000. Economic Perspectives on New
England Fisheries Management. Northeastern Naturalist,
7 (4), pp. 361-372.
Sutinen, J. G., (ed.) and 15 Others, 2000. A Framework for Monitoring
and Assessing Socioeconomics and Governance of Large Marine
Ecosystems.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-158, 32 pp.
Swallow, S. K., 1996. Economic Issues in Ecosystem Management:
An Introduction and Overview. Agricultural and Resources
Economics Review, 25 (2), pp. 83-100.
Talaue-McManus, L., S.V. Smith, and R.W. Buddemeier, 2003. Biophysical
and Socio-economic Assessments of the Coastal Zone: The LOICZ Approach. Ocean & Coastal Management,
46 (5), pp. 323-333.
Thia-Eng, C., 1998. Lessons Learned from Practicing Integrated Coastal
Management in Southeast Asia. Ambio, 27 (8), pp. 599-610.
Ukwe, C.N., C.A. Ibe, B.I. Alo, and K.K. Yumkella, 2003. Achieving
a Paradigm Shift in Environmental and Living Resources Management
in the Gulf of Guinea: The Large Marine Ecosystem Approach. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 47 (1-6), pp. 219-225.
U.N. General Assembly, (UNGA) 2002. Verbatim Records of the Plenary
Meetings of the General Assembly, Fifty-Seventh Session, 71st Plenary
Meeting, 10 December 2002, A/57/PV.71 & the 74th Plenary Meeting,
12 December 2002, A/57/PV.74. Online Available, November 10th, 2003
@ http://www.un.org/ga/57/pv.html .
U.N. General Assembly, (UNGA) 2003. Resolution(s) Adopted by the
General Assembly, Fifty-Seventh Session. A/RES/ 57/141 Oceans and the
Law of the Sea, & A/57/142 Large- scale Pelagic Drift-net Fishing,
Unauthorized Fishing in Zones of National Jurisdiction and on the High
Seas/ Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, Fisheries By-catch
and Discards, and Other Developments, & A/ RES/57/143 Agreement
for the Implementation of the Provisions of UNCLOS of 10 December
1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, February, 2003. Online Available,
November 10th, 2003 @ http://www.un.org/ga/ 57.
U.N. General Assembly, (UNGA) 2004. Fifty-Eighth Session, Agenda
Item 52(b), Resolution 58/14, Sustainable Fisheries… and Related
Instruments. Document A/RES/58/14 (A/58/L.18), January 21st 2004,
Online Available February 9th, 2004 @ http://www.un.org/58
.
U.S. EPA, 2001. National Coastal Condition Report, 2001. EPA Technical
Report 620/R-01/005. Washington, D.C., 204 pp.
U.S. EPA, 2000. Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-Making.
Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C., August 2000, EPA-SAB-EC-00-011,
46 pp.
Vallega, A., 1999. Fundamentals of Integrated Coastal Management. The
Geojournal Library, Vol. 49, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,
264 pp.
Vandermeulen, H., 1998. The Development of Marine Indicators for
Coastal Zone Management. Ocean & Coastal Management,
39 (1-2), pp. 63-71.
Verity, P.G., and V. Smetacek, and T.J. Smayda, 2002. Status, Trends
and the Future of the Marine Pelagic Ecosystem. Environmental Conservation,
29 (2), pp. 207-237.
Villa, F., and H. McLeod, 2002. Environmental Vulnerability Indicators
for Environmental Planning and Decision-Mak ing: Guidelines and Applications. Environmental
Management, 29 (3), pp. 335-348.
Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo, 1997.
Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science, 277 (5325),
pp. 494-499.
von Bodungen, B., and R.K. Turner, 2001. Science and Integrated
Management: An Introduction. In: Science and Integrated Coastal
Management, von Bodungen, B., and R.K. Turner (eds.), Dahlem
University Press, pp. 1-14.
Wagner, L. (ed.), 2001. Summary of the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible
Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Sustainable Developments,
61 (1), 11 pp.
Ward, T.J., 2000. Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of
Australia’s Marine Ecosystems. Marine and Freshwater Research,
51 (5), pp. 435-446.
Watkins, J. D., 2004. Sustaining Our Oceans: A Public Resource, A
Public Trust. Oceanography, 17 (1), pp. 102-106.
Watkins, J. D., 2002. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Oceanography,
15 (4), pp. 4-6.
Watson, R., D. Pauly, V. Christensen, R. Froese, A. Longhurst, T.
Platt, S. Sathyendramath, K. Sherman, J. O’Reilly, and P. Celone, 2003.
Mapping Fisheries onto Marine Ecosystems for Regional, Oceanic
and Global Integrations. In: Large Marine Ecosystems of the World:
Trends in Exploitation, Protection, and Research, Hempel, G.,
and Sherman, K., (eds), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 375-395.
West, M.B., 2003. Improving Science Applications to Coastal Management. Marine
Policy, 27 (4), pp. 291-293.
West Group, 1996. Sustainable Fisheries Act, Public Law 104-297,
Senate Report No. 104-276. United States Code Congressional
and Administrative News, 104th Congress - Second Session.
Volume 6, Legislative History, pp. 4073-4119.
Wilen, J.E., M.D. Smith, D. Lockwood, and L.W. Botsford, 2002. Avoiding
Surprises: Incorporating Fisherman Behavior into Management Models. Bulletin of Marine Science,
70 (2), pp. 553-575.
Wilmsen, S., 2002. U.S. Judge Eases Rules on Fishing: Reverses
Order That Sparked Intense Criticism. The Boston Globe,
261 (144), pp. 1 & A26.
Willmann, R., and D. Insull, 1993. Integrated Coastal Fisheries Management. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 21 (1/3), pp. 285-302.
Witherell, D., C. Pautzke, and D. Fluharty, 2000. An Ecosystem-Based
Approach for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries. ICES Journal of
Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 771-777.
Witherell, D, (Ed.), 2004. Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries, Past,
Present and Future. Proceedings of a Conference on Fisheries
Management in the United States, Held in Washington, D.C., November
13-15, 2003, Published by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council,
254 pp.
Witherell, D., 1999. Incorporating Ecosystem Considerations into
Management of Bering Sea Groundfish Fisheries. In: Ecosystem Approaches
for Fisheries Management, Alaska Sea Grant College Program,
AK-SG-99-01, Fairbanks, pp. 315-327.
Witherell, D., (ed.), 1998. Ecosystem Considerations for 1999. North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska, November, 1998.
Online Available, September 29th, 2003 @ http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/ecosystem/
ecobased.htm .
Witherell, D., and 11 Others, 1997. Ecosystem Considerations for
1998. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska,
November, 1997. Online Available, September 29th, 2003 @ http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/
ecosystem/ecobased.htm .
Yaffee, S.L., 1996. Ecosystem Management in Practiice: The Importance of Human Institutions. Ecological Appliications,
6 (3), pp. 724-727.
Young, O. R., 2003. Taking Stock: Management Pitfalls in Fisheries
Science. Environment, 45 (3), pp. 24-33.
Zabel, R.W., C.J. Harvey, S.L. Katz, T.P. Good, and P.S. Levin, 2003.
Ecologically Sustainable Yield. American Scientist, 91 (2),
pp. 150-157.
Editorial Notes
Editorial
Production
This document is the fulfillment of research and
analyses performed under funding from both the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Office of Marine Ecosystem Studies,
and the Center's Social Sciences
Branch. This document has been editorially processed as other contract
reports issued in the NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series: the document as a whole has
been formatted to resemble other
issues, but no copy or technical editing has been performed.
Content Disclaimer
Although released by NOAA, the information in this paper does not
reflect, represent, or form any part
of the support of the policies of NOAA or the Department of Commerce.
Further, release by NOAA does
not imply that NOAA or the Department of Commerce agrees with
the information contained herein.