dorothy mnf490 systems view of fisheries

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