Ecosystem management

This major shift is a result of a growing understanding of how present policies and rules usually focus too much on regulating the catch of one target species and yet disregard how it forages, its prey and the predators involved. To these we must add climatic and hydrographic variations, modification of habitats, pollution threats and other factors. Yet efforts to bring them into an effective strategy have been largely ineffective. Management forecasting tools have been flawed, and while they sometimes may correspond to what has happened in the past, they’re practically useless with respect to future.

The approach has been to impose catch targets upon a fishery in the form of a total allowable catch (TAC). This requires stock assessment using various population models based on a “root” formula: resulting biomass = old biomass less fishing mortality less natural mortality + recruitment.

Back in 2003, Dr. Mikko Heino wrote in the ICES newsletter: “Models that consider fish stocks in isolation from their ecosystem have clearly had their day, and fisheries science is moving on” (World Fishing March 2004). My reading of this is that they were never any good, and we can all see the consequences of this management approach in most areas of the North Atlantic and adjacent seas. Nowadays, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC — World Fishing, July 2004) and many other research institutions are adopting a more holistic attitude. Most agree that to keep the marine ecosystem healthy, fish resources included, all its components must be considered.”

There is growing agreement that mainstream fishery management has been based on flawed assumptions. This makes all the “sustainable yield” notions, optimum sustainable yield (OSY) maximum sustainable yield (MSY) etc., which serve as bases for the TAC fixing, appear like make-believe values. They are therefore values calculated in a tunnel-vision manner on the basis of last year’s (and occasionally some current) data, for use in the future when they will be hardly relevant and often counter-productive.

Fresh start

So what is the new approach about? Let’s start with ecosystem-based management and consider its main elements and their changes in space, time and character. The first element, is the time factor. Any aquatic ecosystem is a dynamic, pulsating, and ever-changing macro-organism. Thus, trends and fluctuations, which have been occurring in the ecosystem throughout history, must be taken into account. The second element embraces all the changes and physical, biological and chemical forces imposed upon the ecosystem by various human activities. Whatever happens to inshore and bottom habitats, as well as the water (upstream and coastal pollution) may also affect the ecosystem’s biota (i.e., all living things). The third element is made up of the relationships between the various species occupying the ecosystem at all stages of their life. This runs from bacteria and phyto-plankton up to top predators, with special attention needing to be paid to the managed “target species”, the physical factors affecting them, their food and predators. Last, but not least is fishing, which apart from massive removal of marine organisms from the system, also influences the genetics of the fished populations. The fishing itself is influenced by the market and the socio-economic context of fishermen and their communities, the industry and consumers.

Only an intelligent analysis and synthesis of the interaction of all those elements can help us to understand the problems and search for solutions. We have to accept that the dynamics of the system are complex and even the best existing models are often of little use for forecasting the outcomes of possible management actions.

In this overall context, ecosystem-based fishery management must address all the particular elements. Those that require intervention must be defined and managed separately, while taking the other elements into account. Flexibility and tailored management for each specific fishery and area should become the rule. There’s no rational way to impose a single “common” policy that does not take all the above into account. We have to analyse fishery by fishery to see, for example, if TACs are the right methodology to use, or other options such as effort control should be the way to manage each one. Unfortunately, some authors and green zealots are trying to hijack the concept of “ecosystem management” in a way which stigmatises fishing as the only problem which needs tackling. While paying lip service to some other factors, they focus on commercial fishing as the main villain, to be constrained or eliminated in order to “protect” marine ecosystems. Their interest doesn’t lie in cleaning up habitats and keeping fisheries prosperous.

They say effort must be undertaken elsewhere. But where?

Quality not quantity

Some fishermen get scared of all this public pressure and noise. They shouldn’t. A proper ecosystem management approach places fishing in its proper context, so that it can no longer be blamed for everything that happens in the sea. Another benefit would be that managers and politicians would not be allowed to keep turning a blind eye to pollution, environmental variations, habitat destruction, etc.

Without doubt, fishery management will become more complicated as it moves away from the current over-simplification of the issues and concepts. This worries some scientists such as Dr. James Crutchfield, a veteran fishery economist. Writing on FISHFOLK Internet List he said: “I don’t mean to be negative. I am simply concerned that those who mouth the words “ecosystem management” know what they are getting into”.

So, it won’t be easy. The point is that to leave the things as they’ve been since the mid 20th century is like pretending the sun is shining when you are in the middle of the night. It is like looking under a street lamp for the key you dropped (because that’s where the light is) instead of looking where you probably dropped it – however dark that place may be.

Ecosystem-based management is coming of age. But, institutional inertia and obstinacy, human conservatism, fear of the unknown and the need to admit own deconstruction of the realities of coastal, marine and living resources will delay its application. We will have to relearn to talk in qualitative terms.