After the Revolution you have to govern well*

*

F.Castro

(possibly apocryphal)

Structure of the talk

  Structured on the four components of EA and the three dimensions of sustainability (FAO) • Make a lot of generalizations (“avoid platitudes”) • Support many with examples, some with data Consistent themes that emerge: • We need to use what we do know better • Major failures have been due more to weak HUMAN ecology than weak MARINE ecology • Need to integrate life history theory and fisheries population dynamics • More integration ACROSS dimensions, rather than more detail within ecological dimension

Source of title

 The “Revolution of the People” captures the situation today • The “ecosystem approach” has “taken power”. • “The People” supported it for promise of “better life” • Now we have to DELIVER on some of our promises • Otherwise “the people” become nostalgic for the old government; at least its failings were known • We need some clear benefits to balance the cases where we will disappoint. (there will be a few)



Why should we claim victory in the revolution?

EA in marine & fisheries policies since 1990s • Rio & Johannesburg (high level) • CCAMLR (since 1980s!) • UN resolution 61/106 and others • Annex to FAO Code of Conduct (& others) • CBD Marine & Coastal Res IX/20 (& VII, VIII) • EU MSFD and revised Common Fisheries Policy • Canada’s Oceans Act & Fish. Act renewal (draft) • Australia Sustainability Act • At least concepts in Magnusson-Stevens Reauthorisation

Why is this an awkward time?



Policy changes in “big” steps

• Science grows incrementally

POLICY SCIENCE SOLD US OUT

NOW?

~1985 SCIENCE FSA POLICY IS LIVING IN THE DARK AGES UNCLOS?

“The EA Revolution”

We may well be in over our heads

Activities as well as Attitudes have to adjust

More research?

– Sure, but not enough

Ask policy to move slower?

• We risk counter-revolution or another coup.

• There are still sceptics and also people claiming they have all the answers.

SOLVE SOME PROBLEMS

• MAKE BETTER USE OF WHAT WE KNOW • WORK ON THE PARTS THAT ARE FUNCTIONING MOST POORLY

FAO view of the EA

 FOUR COMPONENTS 1. Take account of ALL main forcers on dynamics of harvested stocks 2. Industry is accountable for FULL footprint of the impacts of their activities 3. Governance should be inclusive & participatory 4. Management should be integrated across all users.

Environmental Forcing

“Classic” fish population dynamics model Stock t+1 = Stock t + Recruits + Growth - NatMor - Fishing

Growth, & Natural Mortality were = K Recruitment is function of SSB (Stock t-x ) Model dynamics of F, SSB and R (feedback)

Reality – NONE are constant or just f(SSB) All affected directly by physics (west coast) All affected directly by biotic conditions (food webs) All have INDIRECT EFFECTS & INTERACTIONS FISHING INTERACTS WITH ALL THE TERMS

Science could get stuck here

Why a risk of getting caught here?

 The problems are interesting  The problems are familiar “Over-enthusiasm brings problems  Make the question so complex we can’t solve it  Make the question more complex than the information we have to discriminate right answers from wrong ones!!

WHEN DOES EACH TERM REALLY MATTER?

When does each term matter?

Recruitment

In a well-managed fishery, how much should variance in R impact yield?

Sustainable F rarely > twice Natural Mortality M = f(max age) New work from WGECO merging life history and fish population dynamics

Z % sustainable = 100 – (100e

-Zt

)

[t from aging or von von Bertalanffy k and L inf

]

For gadoids,recruits ~20% of yield, rockfish 3%

SUSTAINABLE BOUNDARY NORTH SEA FISH COMMUNITY FROM LIFE HISTORY INVARIANTS

0.8

0.4

0

BRA

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2

0

B

= 0.764 - 1.954

E n

= 13,

r

2 = 0.492

LYT

0.2

0.4

Over-exploitation Index 0.6

POPULATION TRENDS DO CORRESPOND TO OVERFISHING INDEX 0.8

So when does envt forcing on Recruitment really matter?

If Max Age > ~8 Recruitment VARIATION accommodated with: exploitation rate matched to productivity Effective MCS giving compliance and reliable information for assessments What if productivity CHANGES? That does matter. Can be managed with Biomass reference points faster than detecting changes in productivity (LATER)

When does each term matter?

Growth

   Asymmetric consequences of unstable growth • Faster than recent average: unexpected modest drop in F (quota fisheries) –with more future yield available • Slower: much larger spike in F, esp of older fish – possibly > > 25% and depleted biomass persists Knowing pattern to look for should encourage “don’t count your fish before they grow”. • Be particularly careful not to overestimate growth of large cohorts.

Selective effects of fishing emerging as issue

When does each term matter?

Natural Mortality

Carrying capacity effect (if real) – Biotic Driv.

Top down control of system – Biotic Drivers Lots of food web modelling …..

Per capita Stress – Abiotic (+ biotic) Drivers Hardest change to detect (estimates of M confounded with estimates of F) Serious risk of overexploitation if missed How long a change persists impt to mgmt.

    

M is under-valued compared to R and G

The short-term VARIANCE in M is usually not large nor crucial to management Species differences in M lawful (in several ways) • Size-based, **life-history based, others Step-changes in M VERY important, (Canadian cod stocks & decline of productivity) Community changes also changes aggregate M THIS IS A PLACE WHERE MORE SCIENCE WOULD MATTER A LOT.

Newfoundland Cod -

MORATORIUM PERIOD 1.8

1.3

0.8

0.3

-0.2

1980 1985 1990

Year

1995 2000 2005 2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

1995 2000 Year 2005 4-8 2-3 Different figures because different gears and different analysis methods

Southern Scotian Shelf cod

Relative F Catch / Surv. Biom.

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

1972 1977 3.5

3 2.5

2 1.5

1 0.5

0 1983 1982 1987 1992

Relative F

fundy 3yr avg 1987 1991 shelf 3yr avg 1995 1999 1997 Shelf Fundy 2003 2007 2002

Survey Z

2007

Using what we know: Impact of environment on stock dynamics

  Growing vogue to put environmental term in one or more Population Dynamics equations. WRONG idea – envt. not a consistent factor Consider: D N/N = r (1 When N is large, only terms that affect K matter When N is small, only terms that affect r matter DIFFERENT MECHANISM AT WORK IN STOCK-ENVT INTERACTIONS AT LARGE AND SMALL N SINGLE MODEL TERM FOR “ EFFECT ” – N/K) IS SILLY. ANALYTICAL ALTERNATIVES EXIST.

And use what we already know

For 14 Mgmt Strategy Evaluations in 2005: Ecosystem Consideration In Objectives: 0 Envt Factors in Harvest Control Rules: 1 Environmental Forcing Explicit In Operating Model: 3 Environment Effects Explicit in Robustness Testing: 1 Reference in 2005 WG Reports to guidance from SGPRISM (recr) or GROMAT (growth): 0 of 12 assessment reports Narrative discussion in 9 of 12

Accountability for full footprint

 Gear impacts on “habitat” (direct)  Bycatches of other fish, invertebrates, seabirds, mammals, turtles, etc (direct)  Trophic impacts (direct & indirect)

It’s Just Second Hand News …..

Exploitation rate of forage stocks (1980s) ICNAF & NAFO aggregate quota rule (1970) ICES WG ECO 1990 OSPAR IMPACT I and II – 1994, 1997.

Questions about footprint of activity

  Single factor question: What level of impact is unsustainable? • Existing tools can be generalized • Data poor assessment methods (Bayesian, etc) helping provide even more progress, Cross-factor questions: • How do we calibrate sustainability of impacts across features? MUCH earlier stage of work.

• How do we choose equitable degree of risk aversion across ecosystems components (and interest groups)? (visit later)

“CLASSICAL” THREE-STAGE PA MODEL CAUTIOUS HEALTHY CRITICAL

EN TH CONVENTIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT MORATORIUM

LIMIT RP

REBUILDING

Risk Mgmt RP BIOMASS

“Within feature” challenge: What is sustainable impact

Generalization of B and F framework  Three stage model widespread for B & F    6 assumptions generalize to ANY pair of ecosystem State and Pressure indicators Locating limit requires estimate of productivity OR “replace-ability” OR “ecosystem function served”.

Feasible in data-moderate situations

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Assumptions of 3 stage model in fisheries

A state of the stock exists that is considered healthy, or within safe biological limits When the index of stock status is in the “healthy” or “safe” zone, an exploitation rate exists that is sustainable in the long term.

A biologically based LIMIT exists, below which the stock is at unacceptable risk of “serious or irreversible harm”. When the index of stock status <= the limit, exploitation is to be as close to zero as is possible to achieve There is uncertainty about the position of the limit, the annual estimates of stock status, and inertia and uncertainty about the ability of management to reduce exploitation as the limit is approached. (PRECAUTIONARY Reference Points) reference point, exploitation is to be reduced .

Tasks to undertake for generalization of framework



Position Limit RP on Biodiversity Axes

• Limits are the anchor for all the framework • In Fisheries advice - from stock-recruit relationship A - convex C – Linearly proportional B - flat Spawning stock biomass

Questions to estimate reference point for ANY state/pressure mix

  Is there a slope at all?

Is the origin a reasonable starting point, or is there depensation?

 Is there curvature beyond the starting point, and if so is it convex or concave?

 Position of maximum rate of change in slope?

THOSE ARE REASONABLE SCIENCE QUESTIONS. (Not easy but reasonable).

WE CAN BUILD THIS FRAMEWORK

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 * 500 1000 1500

Abundance of Heteromastus

2000

The “cross-factor” challenge

   How to bring consistent management of impacts to very different TYPES of impacts (EQUITY of governance) Generalization of 3 stage model is PART of the solution WGECO 2009 discussion of what pressure level on different properties causes an EQUAL:  Likelihood of percent perturbation?

  Loss of ability to replace itself?

Loss of ecosystem functionality  Loss of ecosystem goods and services ?

Risk aversion particular complication

    Battlefield of the eco-advocates vs incrementally business-as-usual.

Most opportunity and greatest difficulties so far. NOT data limitation problems – different interpretations of policy requirements NAFO VME identification case history • (Fish mgmt reference points later)

NAFO VMEs

  Policy framework complete • UNGA 61/105 – avoid Serious Adverse Impacts to Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems – or state does NOT AUTHORIZE FISHERY • FAO Technical Guidelines on Deep Sea Fisheries on the High Seas Criteria for SAI and VME NAFO efforts 2007 (fall) to 2009 (spring) • Science Working Group TO WG of Fisheries Managers and Scientists TO Council TO WGFMS TO Council again …

SCIENTISTS WG - MAY 2008

Don’t want major Misses

MARCH 2009

Don’t want major False Alarms

Trophic relations

Trophic Impacts

  Lots of fun for science. This is what we are good at. However – • Management will (and should) not chase every trophic fluctuation • “Consensus” that we cannot engineer ecosystems into pre-selected configurations.

Relevance is in selecting management strategy • FREQUENTLY done for PREY since ICNAF / CCAMLR • RARELY done for PREDATORS re aggregate F for sufficient top down control on system • DIVISIVE when gets to “excess predators” (seals)

Trophic Impacts - 2

    Role of fisheries “trophic cascades” Viewed in “Top-down / bottom up frameworks • Release from top predators • Depletion of prey base for system.

• Can system recover if F is released? Models generally capable of exploring issues “Middle out” impacts may be special case • “Wasp-waist” systems not rare • Envt & fishery impacts on “waist” stock common • WHAT strategy is sustainable? (forage species work)

Other issues with accountability for impacts

  Industry often much better than government at solving problems, if they are motivated to do so • BC Trawl fishery and Boccacio. Catch reduced 60% in 40 months given incentive Effective economic tools / incentives don’t work when the benefits are ecosystem properties not in trade by the fishery!

INCLUSIVE GOVERANCE

COME TOGETHER

INCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE

    Legitimized for fishing industry decades ago Problems in EA are: • How many more interest groups are “stakeholders” • Whose forum to use to reach the decision Necessary to re-engineer roles and processes Core Concepts: • The Assessment of Assessment framework of “Credibility Legitimacy, Relevance”. • 3 Dimensions of Sustainability –

Environmental, Economic AND Social

Credibility Legitimacy Relevance

These are harder to achieve in EA  More types of specialists pass judgement on credibility  More types of stakeholders pass judgement on legitimacy  More dimensions to a decision so more decision-makers looking for relevance LITTLE SERIOUS DISCUSSION ON THIS YET FAILURE ON ANY GIVE ADVICE LOW IMPACT

Dimensions of Sustainability

NO POLICY MAKERS WANT TO MESS UP   Ecologists risk averse on environmental dimension Users risk averse on economic & social   Governments especially risk averse on SOCIAL dimension (on-going test) How does one have an informed dialogue with communities having different risk tolerances (IUCN decline criterion debate)

Weights given to different indicator properties (Rochet & Rice 2005)

Science, Management, Policy and User Community are seeking different things in an “informed decision”.

Signal Detection Theory framework

Around since 1940 in psychometrics 2 x 2 matrix of reality ( +/-) & criterion (+/-) Hit (+/+) – Event is really happening and indicator says problem is present True Negative (-/-) – All is quiet in the world and indicator says all is well Miss (-/+) Problem is occurring, indicator says all clear False Alarm (+/-) All is well but the indicator says problem is present and management action needed.

NO DECISION FRAMEWORK PERFECT – What is cost & tolerance of Miss vs False Alarm?

Science to support inclusiveness in governance

Science to inform inclusive dialogue  Retrospectively North Sea Fisheries advisory framework right > 2/3 of applications   When advice is in error; more Misses than False Alarms (Piet & Rice 2005). • Assessments lag behind declines.

• Rely on annual assessment cycle to correct If roles also have different tolerances for Misses vs False Alarms, then at least we know what the different error rates are for various options. • (Rice & Legace 2007 for IUCN decline criterion)

Governance challenge under EA

Where and how to resolve risk tolerance differences? (See IM portion)  Conflicting agency mandates • Agencies with mandates to MANAGE • Agencies with mandates to PROTECT  At international, national, and sub-national levels • COHERENCE OF THEIR POLICIES IS CENTRAL TO PROGRESS ON EA • Often seem on course to train-wreck

Are we making progress?

MANY causes for pessimism  NAFO example – slow at best     IUCN & CBD – many fishery-hostile meetings under their aegis (IMCC); “eject Shell” initiative IPBES vs Regular Process • Different timetables, different experts, distrust Fish Mgmt and Biodiversity clients classify each other as “partisan threats” No INSTITUTIONAL settings to explore these issues.

Some hints of hope

VME (FAO) and EBSA (CBD) initiatives    Slightly Different policy motivators • FAO UN 61/105; CBD WSSD to COP Both used same expert document as start Each invited experts from other community to key meetings.  Regular calls and some coordination of short and longer-term planning. Are we seeing détente among the experts?

Commonality of FAO and CBD criteria MAY lead to cohernence

FAO (VME): 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Uniqueness / rarity Functional significance of habitat Fragility Life history attributes of species Structural Complexity CBD (EBSA)       Uniqueness / rarity (1) Special importance for life history stages (2, 4) Fragility/slow recovery (3) Biological productivity / diversity (2, 5) Special importance to EN/TH species (1) Naturalness

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT

You can go your own way……

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT Inescapable and Difficult

Why Inescapable?

 Taking account of all forcers • Many pressures are effects of other activities  Taking responsibility for all impacts • Sustainability depends on other pressures  Inclusive governance • Each agency wants to use its fora, even if they broaden participation • Interest groups are “forum shopping”

Why is it difficult?

   Allocation of allowable harvest among fleets often hardest part of fisheries management Now it is allocation of allowable impact among various industries; Some impacts yield no commercial benefits, so calibration of “equity” of sharing needs currencies developed as well

Inner Bay of Fundy Salmon

   Listed under SARA; Recovery Plan mandatory Section 73 – reverse burden of proof • Activities only permitted if Minister is assured activity will not jeopardize survival or recovery Rpa - Human impacts must be reduced 80(?)%, esp on post-smolt stages • Bycatch in wiers, hydroelectric, farming runoff, bycatch in angling, general water quality issues • Two new players as for share of “allowable impact” – large scale aquaculture and tidal power.

• 20 months and no decision on way forward.

High Seas MUCH harder

All the problems see so far:  Greater scientific uncertainty  • Weaker data streams, fewer baselines, etc The turf war between the agencies that manage and the agencies that protect • Huge differences in risk tolerances Miss/False  More challenges to Mgnt/Control/Surv Plus central governance only at level of UNGA DO WE NEED A NEW GOVERNANCE SYSTEM?

After Ridgeway 2009 Healthy ecosystems and reduced biodiversity loss Integrated Management mechanisms, tools, institutional cooperation etc Fishing Knowledge Global norms Mgt. standards incl EAF Incentives Compliance Monitoring Etc Oil & Gas Ship ping MSR Safety and security Other Other Common goals and objectives (ecological, economic, social) Integrated knowledge, common baseline assessments (MEQ), risk assessment, indicators etc, Existing and new legal and regulatory frameworks (e.g., UNCLOS, UNFA, others)

“Implementing Agreement” Healthy ecosystems and reduced biodiversity loss Integrated Management mechanisms, tools, institutional cooperation etc High end “Uber-governance” Fishing Fishing Oil & Gas Ship ping MSR Safety and security Other Other Common goals and objectives (ecological, economic, social) Integrated knowledge, common baseline assessments (MEQ), risk assessment, indicators etc, Existing and new legal and regulatory frameworks (e.g., UNCLOS, UNFA, others)

Problems not solved through heavy IM governance structures

   If we have not taken that model within national jurisdictions, why outside?

Takes decision-making even further from those whose lives are affected “Crushing the columns” doesn’t address: • Information quality & quantity • Differential risk tolerances for Misses / F.A.

• INTEGRATING DECISION OPTIONS ON THE 3 DIMENSIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY

FULLY integrated assessments

“ Integrated” used by everyone, but differently • From physics to top predators (ecologists) • Across various industry sectors (few) • Environmental, Social, Economic (rare) Fully integrated Assessments recommended by:  External Ecosystem Task Team of NOAA  Assessment of Assessments Ambitious, but only way to make REAL progress

Why a necessary path

In the end, the DECISION integrates across all the factors, so useful advice should too.  Build on neutrality of assessment process : • For each option what are consequences on each dimension *** • For each option, what are roles for each sector • If the process specifies the consequences and includes uncertainties in the options, can calculate Miss / False Alarm rate for options without having to resolve the different risk tolerances

FULLY integrated assessments allow :

    Discussion of how to align social and economic incentives with desirable environmental outcomes Exploration of alternative allocations a step away from the decision table Acknowledgement that there are no win win-win options in sustainable use Examining the difference between “optimal” (experts) and “just” (users) outcomes

IEA Can Support Holistic implementation of Ecosystem Approach 1.

2.

IEA Identifies what factors are most crucial to ecosystem s & f / i & r (Cons. Objectives) IEA Identifies what sectors create pressures on the key ecosystem factors 3.

Then IM “fits” pressures within CO limits “Incremental approach” just adds ecosystem concerns to “business as usual” • Can miss key ecosystem factors, • Reach impasse on aggregate pressures • No forum for “integration”

Take home messages

Taking account of environmental forcing: • Good idea, but main failures have not been because we got the ecosystem effects badly wrong. Accountability for full footprint of fishing • Good idea but auditing and partitioning accountability is major challenge to science In both cases not making full use of what we do know • Better marriage between life history theory, community ecology, and fisheries, not more parameters in fisheries models.

Take home messages (2)

Inclusive governance and integrated management • Real progress comes from integrating assessments and advice across the three dimensions of sustainability.

• Real partnerships between natural and social scientists • Failure to make rapid progress will mean counter-revolution to loss to even more extreme revolutionaries.