An

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

and

National Marine Fisheries Service

partnership activity under

the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee

Project:Advance the “Ecosystem-Based Approach to Resource Management” from Theory to

Application

Agency Contactsfor

Project

Bonnie Brown, MAFAC/VCUDieter Busch, ASMFC/IEI

and Garry Mayer, NMFS/HC

Agency Contactsfor

Project

Bonnie Brown, MAFAC/VCUDieter Busch, ASMFC/IEI

and Garry Mayer, NMFS/HC

The backgrounds and some of the drawings have been copied from presentations prepared by L. Garrison and J. Link (NMFS) and BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission and UBC.

THANK YOU!

Sources of information

Sources of information

General Project Objective:

Develop draft technical guidance to assist marine resource management agencies in moving towards the use of an ecosystem-based approach in addressing their responsibilities

Reasons “Ecosystem-based Management” is a Current Issue

• Competing stake-holders and legislation

• Debate over the importance of different activities limiting resources (fishing, environment, predation, etc.)

• Issues with single species management

• Used as a scapegoat for lack of action

• Advancement of science and modeling

Fishing Down the Food web

Some Potential Outcomes of E-bFM

Protect important ecosystem services,

ID & maintain desired range in ecosystem state,

Conserve biodiversity,

Protect certain species,

Optimize total fish yield of the system,

Optimize yield of particular species, while

Providing for long-term economic viability.

Our role is to lay out the options and tradeoffs…….

Resolve some of the Confusion

• Ecosystem Management – NO, Ecosystem-based approach -YES

• Description of geographic focus area• Abundance measurements• Sustainability (at what level)• Management responsibility (who is on

1st?)

Ecosystem Approach should aid in:

• Clear direction (specific goals) for management

• More accurate and efficient response to general and specific information needs by sister agencies

• Improved public and political understanding of issues and tradeoffs

• Improved process to identify new information needs

This Project is building on:

• The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economics

by the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force (1995)

• Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management by the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (1999)

• Experiences from various applications

The Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force (1995) reported:

The ecosystem based approach is a method for sustaining or restoring natural systems and their functions and values.

It is goal driven, and it is based on a collaboratively developed vision of desired future conditions that integrates ecological, economic, and social factors.

It is applied within a geographic framework defined primarily by ecological boundaries

The desired outcome of the ecosystem approach is to restore and sustain the health, productivity, and biological diversity of ecosystems and the overall quality of life through a natural resource management approach that is fully integrated with social and economic goals.From Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force (1995); and Ecosystem Principles Advisory Pane (1999)

Need to address “Goal Driven” at all levels including the Ecosystem,

Fish Communities, and Populations---------------------------------------------------

And move towards understanding of “healthy state” and/or shared vision of

the desired condition(within historic limitations)

Pillars of E-bFM

2. Assess current Ecosystem Status (Use same Metrics as for description of goals)

1. Goal Setting (Desired Vision for resources in a specific region)

3. Process to Achieve and Maintaine Goals (Management Tools)

1. Ecosystem Goals

Considerations:• Select understandable metrics

applicable to current, historic and future conditions

• Holistic approach should include biological, chemical, and physical parameters

• Agency specific issues as sub-sets

The Goal Setting Process

• Needs to consider historic conditions to “map desired future conditions”

• Needs to have goals clearly defined, not altruisms

• Needs to holistically address ecological tradeoffs

• Needs to be inclusive of all possible stakeholders

• Needs to include the major environmental and regulatory agencies

Workshop to assemble information on past and present from all sources

Back to the Future:Model Reconstruction of

Past Ecosystems

ECOPAT H MODEL

ECOSIM LIM ITS

TRADITIONA L

K NOWLEDGE

EXTINCTION

ABUNDANCE

H ISTORICA L

D OCU MENTS

ARCHA EOLOGY

ANCIENT PAST PAST PRESENT

FISHERY A FISHERY B FISHERY C

TRO

PH

IC L

EV

EL

ECOSYSTEM A ECOSYSTEM B ECOSYSTEM CEVALUATION CRITERIA

Total Catch A1 B1 C1Catch Value A2 B2 C2

Product Diversity A3 B3 C3Size, age, geographic distribution A4 B4 C4

Environmental Conditions A5 B5 C5Social Benefits A6 B6 C6

Ecosystem Biodiversity A7 B7 C7

Evaluation of Different Ecosystem States

2. Assessing Ecosystem Status

• Multiple metrics– Biotic (resource and

non resource)– Abiotic– Human

• Long time series/trends

• Novel ways to package the information

CONTINUING CHALLENGES

• Identification of key topics• Define terms and applicability

to various scales• Identify generic indicators to

define condition of: • A fish population• Multi-species communities• Local and/or regional

environments

Scale Issues

Identify metrics for status and trends of environmental perturbations that could be monitored by/for:

– Watersheds

– Estuaries

– Nearshore regions

– Offshore regions

Determining the magnitude of ecosystem

change: Needs• From historic data,

models, and field observations improve understanding of ecosystem processes– Identify anthropogenic

stresses that influence biomass abundance and distribution

• Prioritize new information needs and support interagency funding initiatives

3. Achieving Ecosystem Goals

•Decision Criteria/Theory– Reference Points– Control Rules for Action

• Implementation/Follow-up– Monitoring– Enforcement

Process - Guidance (Options)for:• Criteria to guide the identification of

geographic range/area

• Indicators of ecosystem/species conditions

• Description of current ecosystem/species setting

• Description of historic state of the ecosystem/species

• Description of the desired state of the ecosystem/species

• Management options and some examples

• Evaluation and follow-up

• Identification and prioritization of crucial new information needs

Tools to influence the direction of ecosystem

change - harvestFishing pressure:• Effort control• Catch quotas• Time or area

closures• Gear modifications

or restrictions to efficiency

• Economic incentives• Ownership based

approaches

Tools to influence the direction of ecosystem

change - habitatEcosystem or Watershed

planning approach for: • Use of Marine Protected

Areas• Water quality standards• Stream access for fish• Wetland restoration and

protection• Restoration of shell reefs• Sand and gravel mining• Gear modifications to

protect habitat and forage

Effective ImplementationWill require:• improved and expanded inter- and intra-

agency communication– cooperation not just with fisheries but other

agencies and the public

• improve understanding of cause/effect relationships impacting fish abundance and distribution– this may focus on existing long-term data sets

• more information– how much, what type, and what priority need to be

determined

• Improved public understanding of management goals, decision process, and data requirements

• Re-linking management to place;

• Re-balancing of decision-making power;

• Increased likelihood of agreement on conservation and rebuilding targets.

What are the Benefits?

Comments or questions?

Please visit our web page at:

www.vcu.edu/mafac

Fish centric