Upload
dorothy-jane-dankel
View
346
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Background reading: Degnbol et al. 2006
• Marine fisheries are in trouble worldwide• Fisheries have integral biological,
economical and social components• Therefore a paradigm shift (Kuhn!) is
needed towards cross-disciplinary fisheries management to help solve the fisheries crises
InitialPlan
Adjusted Plan
Measurea
quantity
Goal
How do we manage?
Input managementManage what’s going INTO the fishery
IN
Effort, F
Fish stock
OUT
SSB, TAC
Output managementManage what’s coming OUT of the fishery
2 types of management
How do we manage fish (SSB or fishable
biomass)?
SSB: 1 mill t
800,000 < 1.5 mill
Need to adjust Plan
Annualstock
assessment
Goal:SSB= 1.5 mill t
SSB: 800,000 t
Lower TAC
1 year
How do we manage fisheries(F, effort)?
2.4 > 1.3Need to adjust Plan
Annualfisheries
data
Lower F
Sustainable FF = 1.3
1 year
F = 2.4
Fair and clearly specified management policy is in the interest of all stakeholders of the world’s fish resources
My main questions:
What is important for successful marine fisheries?
How can it be implemented?
The overlooked systems view in fisheries science
Missing links & the promise of integrated assessments for sustainable management
Dorothy J. Dankel, PhD
Institute of Marine Research (Havforskningsinstituttet) Pelagic Section
University of Bergen Centre for the Study of the Sciences & the Humanities, Senter for Vitenskapsteori (SVT)
My main questions:
What is important for successful marine fisheries?
How can it be implemented?
Objective & Definitions
-----------------------------------------------------------successsuccess: : exhibits sustainable harvest with control measures
applied to fishing mortality (F) & fleet size
potential problemspotential problems: : exhibits foundations of responsible management:
– stakeholder input, reference points, approved stock assessment , clear & attainable objectives but currently has problems with one or more management issues
serious problemsserious problems: : substantial problems related to very low stock production, low recruitment &/or fleet overcapacity
failurefailure: : management has failed to have control stock collapse with no recovery plan
Highlight management worthy of recommendation& those that most often fail
Selected Results from Dankel et al. (2008)
1. Japanese anchovy
2. Patagonian toothfish
3. Alaskan sockeye salmon
Fishery type
18 cm, 45 grams
Max length & weight
pelagic, nets
Japanese anchovy, P.R. China• Short-lived; natural stock fluctuations
• Bad management: No Precautionary Approach, only closure control, not enough data for quota, no recovery plan
1.4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year
Biom
ass
(mill
ion
t)
Catc
h (m
illio
n t)
Stock size in January
Actual catch
Precautionary/advised catch
Fishing starts
18 cm, 45 grams
pelagic, nets
Japanese anchovy, P.R. China• Short-lived; natural stock fluctuations
• Bad management: No Precautionary Approach, only closure control, not enough data for quota, no recovery plan
1.4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year
Biom
ass
(mill
ion
t)
Catc
h (m
illio
n t)
Stock size in January
Actual catch
Precautionary/advised catch
Fishing starts
18 cm, 45 grams
pelagic, nets
Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR
• ”Olympic” consensus
•Little data
•Flags of convenience
• IUU fishing
• ”white gold”
215-238 cm, 130 kg
demersal, longline
Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR
• ”Olympic” consensus
•Little data
•Flags of convenience
• IUU fishing
• ”white gold”
215-238 cm, 130 kg
demersal, longline
Patagonian toothfish, CCAMLR
• ”Olympic” consensus
•Little data
•Flags of convenience
• IUU fishing
• ”white gold”
215-238 cm, 130 kg
demersal, longline
65-75 cm, 7 kg
Alaskan sockeye salmon, Bristol Bay• state mandate for conservation• Board of Fisheries = direct link to stakeholders, policy transparency• very convenient stock assessment, strong enforcement• ”Orderly, organized pandemonium”
• 6 week season = 90,000 landings
pelagic, net
65-75 cm, 7 kg
Alaskan sockeye salmon, Bristol Bay• state mandate for conservation• Board of Fisheries = direct link to stakeholders, policy transparency• very convenient stock assessment, strong enforcement• ”Orderly, organized pandemonium”
• 6 week season = 90,000 landings
pelagic, net
Conclusions
Problematic management: Greenland halibut, Southern bluefin tuna, Patagonian toothfish
• Overcapacity of low-fecund stocks
Need fleet control• Muliti-nation management
― inherent stakeholder conflicts
• High market demand
Market coop. Control of demand (?)
Successful management: Alaskan sockeye salmon, South African cape hakes, Pacific halibut
• Relative coastal isolation
•Fleet control (single nation management)
•Stakeholder involvement leading to consensus of a management strategy
Conclusions
How can it be implemented?
What is important for successful marine fisheries?
• stakeholder integration• interdiciplinary scientific advice
To understand a problem, you need to
know its context
recoveryplan
management plan
ManagersManagers
The Fishery System Context
Context leads to systems linkages…
Why conflict?
ecosystem preservation
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
employmentyieldprofit
zone of new consensus
zone of traditional fisheries
management
0 population crash
Motivation: Hilborn (2007)"Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives"
Clarification through QUANTIFICATION!
Can integrated assessments reconcile stakeholder conflicts in marine fisheries management?
Dorothy Jane Dankel1,2,3 Mikko Heino1,2,3
Ulf Dieckmann3
1 Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway; 2 Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Norway
3Evolution and Ecology Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
Bio-socio-economic model for Barents Sea cod & capelin
Consensus?
stakeholders
scientists
managers
Biological model: cod Biological model: capelin
Socio-econ model: codEmployment-effort
relationship, costs & revenues
Socio-econ model: capelinEmployment-effort
relationship, costs & revenues
Employment Profit
ConservationYield
Employment Profit
ConservationYield
R,( )1( ) a aM F
a aN t N e− ++ =
, ,
R,( )1( ) a aM F
a aN t N e− ++ =
Stakeholder preferences
YIELD EMPLOYMENT PROFIT STOCK LEVEL(spawning stock
biomass)
FISHERMEN”industrial” 0.3 0 0.7 0
”artisanal” 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3SOCIETY
”employment-oriented”
0.2 0.5 0 0.3
”profit-oriented” 0.2 0 0.6 0.2
CONSERVATIONISTS 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5
assumption: stakeholder group consensus
Utility components
Stakeholders
Stakeholder A Stakeholder B Stakeholder C
Use preference table to map the best scenarios for each stakeholder
Amount of fishing
Min
imum
siz
e
Area of joint satisfaction
Harvest proportion (%)
Min
imum
siz
e (c
m)
Capelin Cod
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
50
100
1
50
5
1
0
15
2
0
status quostatus quo
70% satisfaction
90% satisfaction
Joint Stakeholder Satisfaction (JSS)2 control options
Control parameters that allow for high satisfaction are candidates for a consensus solution
How robust is the joint stakeholder satisfaction?
(”management strategy consensus”)
30% Stakeholder Uncertainty
Goodness of JSS
Fre
quen
cy
Cod more robust
Even with stakeholder preference uncertainty, both capelin & cod stakeholders have high probability of consensus agreement for
management regulations
Take home messages1. Stakeholder conflicts may not be so conflicting as
thought - our modelled cod has more robust consensus than capelin
1. Quantification of stakeholder obj/pref leads to clarification of management consequences
- room for ”revaluation” of objectives for an integrated solution (M.P. Follett 1953)
1. Integrating biological & socio-economic assessments sheds light on utilities that matter to society
Main questions & theses:
What is important for successful marine fisheries?
How can it be implemented?
• stakeholder integration• interdiciplinary scientific advice
• integrated (bio-socio-economic) scientific assessments
Back to Degnbol et al. 2006
Cross-disciplinary work must be rewarded not punished as is typical of today. One cannot
expect that people would freely and knowingly risk their careers. If fisheries scientists—be they
biologists, economists, or sociologists/anthropologists—are forced to
make such a choice, cross-disciplinary cooperation will continue to be something that
we talk about but never realize.
Context helps form system linkages