Why does it take so long to implement EBFM?
Dave Fluharty, SMA UWOn the Ground & In the Water
University of WashingtonMay 1, 2009
FOCUS ON ECOSYSTEMS FOCUS ON ECOSYSTEMS
ASFA Citations
0200400600800
10001200140016001800
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1994
1996
1998
2000
Year
Nu
mb
er o
f ar
ticl
es
Ecosystem
Ecosystemmanagement
Livingston 2002
EXPLODES!
Evaluation of EBM for Fisheries in 33 Countries
Pitcher et al. 2008
THE SAGA OF Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel
PRECURSOR – NMFS ECOSYSTEM TEAM 1986-87 REPORT – CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATIONS [long time passing]
PRECURSOR – ISLANDS INSTITUTE GULF OF MAINE CONFERENCE ON EBM 1994/5 LED TO 1996 MSA REAUTHORIZATION LANGUAGE BY SEN. SNOWE
ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL REPORT TO
CONGRESS 1999
A team of 20 scientists was convened to advise Congress on use of ecosystem principles in fishery management– late 2007.
Chief recommendation was to develop regional Fishery Ecosystem Plans
ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL [EPAP]
• Chair, David Fluharty University of Washington /NPFMC• Pete Aparicio Texas Shrimpers Association /GOMFMC• Chris Blackburn Alaska Groundfish Data Bank• George Boehlert NMFS/Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory• Felicia Coleman Florida State University /GOMFMC• Philip Conkling Island Institute• Robert Costanza University of Maryland• Paul Dayton University of California San Diego• Robert Francis University of Washington• Doyle Hanan California Department of Fish and Game• Ken Hinman National Coalition for Fisheries Conservation• Ed Houde University of Maryland• James Kitchell University of Wisconsin• Rich Langton Maine Department of Natural Resources• Jane Lubchenco Oregon State University• Marc Mangel University of California Santa Cruz• Russell Nelson FMFC/ GOMFMC/ SAFMC• Victoria O’Connell Alaska Department of Fish and Game• Michael Orbach Duke University• Michael Sissenwine NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center
EPAP CAVEATS
• WE DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF ECOSYSTEMS
• WE CANNOT PREDICT CHANGE IN ECOSYSTEMS AT PRESENT
• ECOSYSTEMS EVOLVE OVER TIME
• MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT CONFIGURED TO ECOSYSTEM SCALE
High Bar/Low Bar
Status quo?
Perfect information totally integrated management
Completely isolatedsingle species/issue management
PREREQUISITES OF EBFM
• EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF FISHERIES BY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
• ABILITY TO ENFORCE REGULATIONS
• ABILITY TO MONITOR HARVESTS -INCLUDING BYCATCH
• ABILITY TO CONTROL CAPACITY TO FISH
OPERATING RULES EPAP
RECOMMENDATIONS MUST BE PRACTICAL AND PRODUCE CHANGE IN CONTEXT OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS
MORE THAN NEPANO NEW LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
EPAP ECOSYSTEM “PRINCIPLES”
• ABILITY TO PREDICT ECOSYSTEM BEHAVIOR IS LIMITED
• ECOSYSTEMS HAVE THRESHOLDS AND LIMITS AFFECTING ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE
• IF LIMITS ARE EXCEEDED, CHANGES CAN BE IRREVERSIBLE
• DIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT TO ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING [DEBATED]
ECOSYSTEM “PRINCIPLES” [cont.]
• MULTIPLE TIME SCALES INTERACT IN AND AMONG ECOSYSTEMS
• COMPONENTS OF ECOSYSTEMS ARE LINKED
• ECOSYSTEM BOUNDARIES ARE OPEN
• ECOSYSTEMS CHANGE WITH TIME
EPAP ASSESSMENT OF USE OF PRINCIPLES IN U.S.
• PREREQUISTES NOT MET IN MANY US FISHERIES [IMPROVING]
• ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ARE SOMETIMES USED IN U.S. FISHERY MANAGEMENT.
• EXAMPLES OF USE ARE GENERALLY LIMITED IN SCOPE
“Using what is known about the marine ecosystemto inform management decisions.”
-adapted from the EcosystemPrinciples Advisory Panel, 1999
What is Ecosystem-based Management?
NoUse
Ecosystem Pristine
Prohibited Use
Extractive Use
EcosystemModified
EcosystemModified –Resilient?Restored?
ECOSYSTEM BASED MANAGEMENT – A PROCESS
EPAP POLICY ADVICE
• CHANGE BURDEN OF PROOF
• APPLY PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
• PURCHASE “INSURANCE”
• LEARN FROM MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE
• USE INCENTIVES TO ACHIEVE GOALS
• PROMOTE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT GOALS
MAINTAIN ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND
SUSTAINABILITY
FISHERIES ECOSYSTEM PLAN [FEP] - PURPOSE
• PROVIDE CLEAR DESCRIPTION OF ECOSYSTEM AND SOCIAL ECONOMIC CONTEXT
• IMPROVE HOW ECOSYSTEM AND SOCIETAL INFORMATION IS USED IN MANAGEMENT
• SET POLICIES BY WHICH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ARE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED
FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN CONTENTS
• DELINEATE GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF ECOSYSTEMS FOR MANAGEMENT
• DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE FOOD WEB [DYNAMICS]
• DESCRIBE HABITAT NEEDS OF DIFFERENT LIFE HISTORY STAGES OF “SIGNIFICANT FOOD WEB” [EFH]
FEP CONTENTS [cont.]
• CALCULATE TOTAL REMOVALS AND RELATE TO ECOSYSTEM
• ASSESS UNCERTAINTIES AND HOW THEY ARE ADDRESSED BY MANAGEMENT
• DEVELOP INDICES OF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AS MANAGEMENT GOAL
FEP CONTENTS [cont.]
• DESCRIBE LONG-TERM MONITORING DATA AND HOW THEY ARE USED
• ASSESS IMPACTS OF ELEMENTS OUTSIDE CONTROL OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
MSA IMPLEMENTATION
• BESIDES EMPHASIS ON STOCK ASSESSMENT MSA 1996 EMPHASIZED OTHER “BUILDING BLOCKS” FOR EBFM
• BRING FISHERIES INTO FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT [NEPA] REQUIREMENTS
• DESIGNATE ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT [EFH]
• REDUCE BYCATCH• ETC.
The Alaskan Ocean Ecosystem
ALASKA Region
EVALUATION
Witherell, D., C. Pautzke and D. Fluharty 2000. An ecosystem-based approach for Alaska groundfish fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57:771-777
IMPLEMENTATION - NEPA
EXAMPLE FROM NPFMC REGION:
SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GROUNDFISH PSEIS
9 VOLUMES + EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7000+ PAGES WEIGHT 41.5 LBS./ 19
KG 2003
EPAP IMPLEMENTATION
• NATIONAL LEVEL [Illustrative]Senate Hearings 1999 – STOCK ASSESSMENT/ECOSYSTEM- BASED
WORKSHOP [APRIL 2000]– NOAA CHESAPEAKE BAY FEP [JULY 2000]– MAFAC/NMFS ADVISORY PANEL [SEPTEMBER
2001 - 2003]– AFS ECOSYSTEM PANEL [AUGUST 2002]– MOTE SYMPOSIUM [OCTOBER 2002]– NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS
AND SYNTHESIS – MODELS– FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN DEMO [2003]?
IMPLEMENTATION NATIONAL
• CONGRESS MSFCMA REAUTHORIZATION– HEFLEY BILL 1999– GILCHREST BILL 2000– SNOWE BILL 2000– KERRY BILL 2000– FARR BILL 2001
GILCHREST BILL 2002 [MARK-UP JUNE 2002]
KERRY DRAFT 2002 [WORKING DRAFT]. ETC.
STEVENS – SCHEDULE FOR 2005
ULTIMATELY REAUTHORIZED 2006.
EBFM IMPLEMENTATION - REGIONAL
• NPFMC – 1994 ECOSYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS/ COMMITTEE/ALEUTIAN ISLAND 2005 + FEP
• CHESAPEAKE BAY FEP – 2000/2006+ AGREED BY 5 STATES
• WPFMC – ARCHIPELAGIC FEP 2004+• SAFMC/CFMC/GOM – $2.0 MILLION
FUNDING FOR STARTING FEP 2004+• NEFMC – DELINEATE BOUNDARIES 2005• PFMC – 2006+ START FEP PLAN PROCESS
FURTHER EFFORTS national
--- Executive Order on MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, May 26, 2000
--- Oceans Act 2000 -- US Oceans Commission Report 2003/04
--- PEW OCEAN COMMISSION 2003
Reasons Why EBFM Not Implemented
• Lack of adequate science?• Lack of a mandate – conflicting mandates?• Good sectoral management is adequate?• Inertia?
– Don’t know how– Fear the unknown
• Feuding scientists/ objectives?• Too complex?• Transaction costs too high?• Can’t afford it?• Lack of political will?• Need for EBFM training and communication?
Lack of Adequate Science?
STATUS OF SOCIAL SCIENCES IN NOAA BUDGET
3.4 Billion24.7 Million= 0.6%
Source, Wiley 2008
NOAA SOCIAL SCIENCE STAFFING
Source, Wiley 2008
Lack Mandate/ Conflicting Mandates?
Not required
Not prohibited
Best Available Science
…XI-XVHow to Implement
Ecosystem Management
EcosystemApproachesto
Mgt.
There is no manual for what we are attempting!
Thanks to Steve Murawski
U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY REPORT 2004
“DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING”“CREATE REGIONAL OCEAN ECOSYSTEM
COUNCILS”“REFINE THE EXISTING FISHERY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM…. TO STRENGTHEN THE USE OF SCIENCE AND TO MOVE TOWARD A MORE ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT APPROACH”
ESTABLISH NATIONAL OCEAN COUNCILREORGANIZE NOAA
National OceanCouncil(Ch. 4)
Regional OceanCouncil*(Ch. 3,5)
GovernancePolicy Development, Coordination,Facilitation
StewardshipAdvice,
Collaboration
Regional Federal
Coordination (Ch. 5)
Offshore Managemen
tRegime (Ch.
6)EcosystemAssessmen
ts (Ch. 5)
Coastal Zone
Management (Ch. 9)
ScientificKnowledge (Ch.
25)
Ocean Data
(Ch. 28)
Mammals (Ch. 20)Health (Ch. 23)Coral (Ch. 21)Fish (Ch. 19)
Habitat (Ch. 11)
IOOS (Ch. 26)
Broad guidelines; coordination; communication
Policy Coordination
Collaboration & Assistance
Key
FunctionsEducation (Ch. 8)
* Voluntary and flexible, formed by Governors and other locally-based interests
Shoreland Development (Ch. 9)
Offshore Uses (Chs. 22, 24)
President’s Councilof Advisors
InformationRegional Ocean
Information Center
US COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY ROC Concept
Policy Context
Understanding ROG
3 Components of ROG
3-Step Analytical FrameworkTest of Analytical FrameworkConclusions
(Hershman 2005)
Good sectoral management is adequate?
Ecosystem-based Management approaches
Traditional fishery management- target species- single species or multi-species
Single sector management
Ecosystem oriented single sector management
Integrated regional multi-sector management
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)- Start with the fishery- add issues of ecosystem impact
Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM)- Start with the ecosystem services- add fishing
Ecosystem Based management (EBM)
- Regional integrated management, multiple use management
ESD policy, Fisheries Act and AFMA fisheries
Australia’s Oceans Policy and Environmental Act
Modified from Sainsbury
Pollock trawl near Kodiak, Alaska. Photo: Mindy Jones, NMFS
Steller sea lion bull. Photo: NMFS
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/
Photo by USACE, http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/dumpdredged/dredgemgmt.html
Valdez Cotainer Terminal http://www.ci.valdez.ak.us/port/marine.html
Common murresUSFWS
Exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea http://www.mms.gov/alaska/fo/INDEX.HTM
Subsistence salmonhttp://www.travelalaska.com
Inertia?
• Don’t know how
• Fear of the unknown
FACTORS AFFECTING PACE OF ADAPTATION OF EBFM
• PRICES [OF INPUTS, e.g., FUEL]• REVENUE [COMPETITION]• CONFLICTS [e.g. WARS]• TECHNOLOGY [SOLVE/CREATE
PROBLEMS]• CHANGING HUMAN VALUES• NATURAL DISASTERS• CLIMATE VARIABILITY/CHANGE
Feuding scientists OR objectives?
Too complex?
Generalized Jurisdiction in Alaska’s Marine Waters and Coastal Zone
3 nm
DNRCoastal DevelopmentAnadromous fish habitat protection
200 nm
US EEZ
DNROil and Gas(marine-based)
ADF&GCommercial fishingRecreational fishing
Marine mammal protection
State-owned submerged lands
State waters
US FWSMarine mammal protectionMigratory birds
MMSOil and Gas (marine-based)
NOAA FisheriesCommercial Fishing
Federal waters
DECDischarges to waters
EPADischarges to watersOcean dumping
US FWSWildlife refuge mgmt
ACOEDredge spoil dumping
ACOENavigation maintenancePorts and harbors
Mean High Tide
Mean Low Tide
Institution
Federal State
NOAA Fisheries/
NPFMC
US FWS Minerals Mgmt. Service
Army Corps
EPA NPS AK DEC AK DNR ADF&G
Factor
Jurisdiction
Structure
Function
Process
Dynamics
Complexity
Synthesis
Comparison
Composite
Alternative
Institutional Profiles(Juda and Hennessey 2001)
ECOSYSTEM STATUS: Physical Environment and Links to Production
Pacific Decadal Oscillation
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
19
00
19
05
19
10
19
15
19
20
19
25
19
30
19
35
19
40
19
45
19
50
19
55
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
Year
Ind
ex
PDO
5-month running mean
15-month running mean
Regional food webs
Do these structural differences result in differences in control?
EBS GOA
Transaction costs too high?
NOAA’s Alignment by GoalStakeholders
• Ecosystems
• Weather & Water
• Climate
• Commerce & Transportation
Outcomes
NOAA Line Offices (6)
NOAA Strategic
PlanM
issi
on G
oal Team
s
NOAA Councils (12)U
sers
Con
stitue
nts
Empl
oyee
sPa
rtne
rs
NOAA’s Process
Program Baseline
Assessments
PLANNINGExternal Inputs
Internal Inputs
Annual Guidance Memorandum
Strategic Plan Update
Goal/Council Assessments
PROGRAMMING
FY/FY/FY/FY/FY
Program Plan Evaluation
Fiscal & Programming Guidance
Program Plan Development
PBAAnalysis
BUDGETING
FY
President’s Budget Submission to Congress
Budget Preparation
DOC Review and Adjustment
OMB Review and Passback
Congressional Appropriation
Apportionment and Allocation of Funds
Program Decision Memorandum (PDM)
EXECUTION
Close-out
Execute Approved LO / Program Annual Oper Plans
Report Results• Eval Performance • Make Adjustments
Performance Plans
BOPs
Monthly/QtrlyExecution Reviews
Can’t afford it?
• Loss due to more conservative management? Short/Long term?
• Science, monitoring, enforcement needs greater than traditional sectoral management?
Lack of political will?
Continued Congressional Interest? Interference?
• FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Monday, September 15, 2003
• LAWMAKERS INSIST ON MORE OPTIONS FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENTPress For Alternatives That Reduce Economic Pain For New England Fishermen
• Three Massachusetts Members of Congress who have played active roles in the efforts to preserve New England's fishing industry, today called upon the Federal Government's senior official on fishing matters to develop new, less economically harmful options for management of New England's fisheries.
• Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Congressmen Barney Frank and John F. Tierney sent a letter to United States Secretary of Commerce Donald L. Evans, urging him to broaden the management options currently under consideration by the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC). The letter recommends exploring whether more modest adjustments to the existing set of New England fisheries management measures may be sufficient to meet required conservation goals, and utilizing alternative scientific models as part of the process for developing a final management plan.
The President takes credit
2006 REAUTHORIZATION AND EBFM
• CONGRESS FINDS THAT COUNCILS ARE INCORPORATING ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES
• EMPHASIZES FURTHER DEVELOPMENT• AUTHORIZES SUPPORT FOR REGIONAL
ECOSYSTEM PILOT PROGRAMS
[ONE OF THE MORE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES – HOW FAR TO GO WITH A MANDATE?]
NOAA SAB RECOMMENDS TO DEVELOP REGIONAL
INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENTS 7/06
Regional, collaborative Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs), conveying information on the status of ecosystem health and evaluating the impacts of current and proposed human activities should be the central products of NOAA ecosystem science.
Ecosystem Goal Ecosystem Goal Team’s Regional Team’s Regional Ecosystem Ecosystem Boundaries (LMEs)Boundaries (LMEs)
65
Need for EBFM training and communication
• Do we need an Ecosystem Service?
• What about creating a EBFM Culture
What to Expect in Next 10 Years of EBFM Implementation
• CHAOS [IN THE BEST SENSE]
• EVOLUTION TOWARD A REVOLUTION
• SIMILAR TO IPCC – DEVELOP ENSEMBLE FORECASTS
• INCREASINGLY COMPREHENSIVE APPROACHES
What to expect ?
Great things from the next generation of scientists and managers
Make way!
THANKS
RE: RESTORATION
• ESTABLISHES COMMUNITY BASED RESTORATION PROGRAMS USING PUBLIC – PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TO RESTORE FISHERY AND COASTAL HABITAT
EXPECTATIONS
• FISHERIES WILL CHANGE UNDER ECOSYSTEM-BASED MGT.
• FISHERIES WILL BE MANAGED FOR ABUNDANCE NOT SCARCITY, I.E., LOWER HARVEST RATE FROM HIGHER BIOMASS
• LESS FISHING CAPACITY AND EMPLOYMENT BUT HIGHER INCOME AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY
EXPECTATIONS [CONT.]
• PRACTICES WITH HIGH HABITAT IMPACTS REPLACED BY ALTERNATE FISHING TECHNIQUES
• GREATER USE OF SPATIALLY EXPLICIT MANAGEMENT MEASURES
• RESTRICTIONS ON FISHERIES TO ACCOMPLISH OTHER GOALS, E.G., BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION
IMPLEMENTATION - EFH
• FULL LIFE-CYCLE APPROACH• IDENTIFY EFH [100 % OF AREA]• MEASURES MUST MEET STANDARD TO
MINIMIZE TO EXTENT PRACTICABLE EFFECTS OF FISHING ON HABITAT [MITIGATE EFFECTS THAT ARE MORE THAN SIGNIFICANT/ NOT MORE THAN TEMPORARY]