Food webs and ecosystem trandes in fisheroies management advice.m trends in advice ICES ASC 2024.pptx
MarkDickeyCollas
96 views
11 slides
Sep 25, 2024
Slide 1 of 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
About This Presentation
Presented at 2024 ICES annual science conference. Ecosystem based fishery management often requires some metric of ecosystem structure and function to assess the status of the system (e.g. in the EU MSFD, in the NAFO roadmap for EAF). EBFM also requires an ability to enact measures to respond to tha...
Presented at 2024 ICES annual science conference. Ecosystem based fishery management often requires some metric of ecosystem structure and function to assess the status of the system (e.g. in the EU MSFD, in the NAFO roadmap for EAF). EBFM also requires an ability to enact measures to respond to that status as required and monitor progress of the measures implemented. We will describe the current methods available to fisheries management bodies, and their science advisors, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. It will include empirical and modelling approaches, for data/knowledge rich and poor situations. This description will be put into the context of EBFM in ICES and propose potential ways forward.
This work is linked to the October 2024 published advice from ICES to NEAFC on next steps for EBFM.
Size: 12.63 MB
Language: en
Added: Sep 25, 2024
Slides: 11 pages
Slide Content
Food webs & ecosystem trends in management advice Mark Dickey-Collas DickeyCollas Marine Lara Salvany ICES
Objectives of EBFM Evidence that makes a difference, science that we use assessment of sustainable use of wild species 2022
EBFM in a heterogenous world Differing characteristics & qualities knowledge base & veracity acceptable risk thresholds governance approaches No ‘one size fits all’
Foodweb & ecosystem knowledge input to management systems Qualitative to quantitative Information limited to data rich 50 % risk (MSY) to 0 % risk (extinction) Informing to coproduction of knowledge Adaptive to fixed management
Illustrate with 4 approaches with examples Risk assessments (qualitative / quantitative) Ecosystem status indicators Ecosystem structure & function Monitoring & indicators across ecosystem Overlap & not strictly categorical
1. Risk assessments (qualitative, quantitative) provide guidance on management actions, & some trigger specific management actions for rapid overall assessment to specific quantification of risk applicable from sparse to data/knowledge rich coproduction of knowledge & understanding risk (precaution) linked to objectives Widely used e.g. Australian Ecological Risk Management https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/Final-ERM-Guide_June-2017.pdf
2. Ecosystem status indicators https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/ecosystems/ecosystem-status-reports-gulf-alaska-bering-sea-and-aleutian-islands supplement with ecosystem information the existing management (indicator based) ecosystem trends, stock assessments, climate drivers coproduction is possible best used when structured approach & action linked to risk tables e.g. Bering Sea ecosystem status reports potentially ICES fisheries overviews?
Catch or effort directly informed by knowledge of ecosystem productivity or status (e.g. ecosystem overfishing, total catch limits) often subset of EBFM issues resource & data intensive, often very science driven (≠ coproduction) best linked directly to management decisions e.g. NAFO AEF roadmap guild productivity 3. Ecosystem structure & function https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/rb/2023/redbook2023_final.pdf
4. Monitoring & indicators across ecosystem broad gathering of empirical evidence ecosystem state & pressures very resource intensive rare to include assessment of risk (cumulative to specific pressures) in practice not linked to management decision-making & action little coproduction of knowledge e.g. EU MSFD https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/oceans-and-seas/eu-marine-strategy-framework-directive_en
Whatever your approach, utility is only as good as link to decision-making framework & action Implementation is incremental EBFM implementation requires clearly defined & functioning links between: operational objectives targets management actions ability to respond to evidence & monitor progress
Thanks! What does this mean for integration of foodweb/ecosystem information? Consider nature of your information Know available resources & governance when informing management system (e.g. NEAFC) Monitor implementation (e.g. FAO tool) Watch this space! New advice 27 th September