new directions in oceans management an overview of current thinking bob o’boyle bedford...

New Directions in OceansManagement

An overview of current thinking

Bob O’BoyleBedford Institute of Oceanography

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

SUMBER: www2.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/.../rap/.../oboyle....Fisheries and Oceans Canada

21st Century Paradigm inOcean Management

Ecosystem Approach to Management

• Each ocean sector one of many

• Control of cumulative impacts across sectors to meet multiple objectives– biodiversity, productivity & habitat


21st Century Paradigm inOcean Management

Management Strategy Evaluation

• Assessment one element of ocean management system (OMS)

• Examination of behaviour of entire OMS– Relative merits of different management strategies

given UNCERTAINTY of each OMS element


Management Strategy Evaluation

PopulationEcosystem

Observation Assessment

HarvestRules

DecisionMaking

Implementation

From McAllister et. al. 1999

Control Module

Operational ModuleTraditional Assessment


Ecosystem

SectorMgt

EAM

Sector e.g. FisheriesAssessment MSE

MSE implementation faster than

EAM

MSEWithin EAM


Ecosystem Approach to Management

(EAM)


What is EAM?(FAO 2003)

• Ecological Understanding as Guide to Management

• Coordinated Management of Sectoral Activities– Ecosystem approach to management within sector– Integrated management across sectors

• Management of Cumulative & Long-term Impacts

• Precautionary Approach


• EAM not replacement for conventional sector, species or activity specific management– Takes broader view

• EAM should be implemented in concert with Integrated Management (IM)– IM = Planning & management across sectors & agencies

(governance)– Onus on multi-national, federal, state & local agencies to

coordinate & communicate on EAM


Is EAM Essential?• Growing awareness that ecosystem approach needed for ocean management

– Collapse of fisheries worldwide– Multiple uses of ocean growing

• Oil & gas, trade, aquaculture• Competition for limited resource (the ocean)

• Many acts, legislations & policies that require harmonization– EAM is a means to do this


Comparison of International EAM Efforts

• Experience with EAM at different stages of development - Lots still to learn

• Canada, EU, Australia, New Zealand & USA– Case studies chosen based on experience with EAM

• Main features identified that lead EAM in 'right direction'


Enablers of EAM

Are there conditions that facilitateacceptance & implementation

of EAM?

• Political Leadership• Legislative Mandate• Overarching Policy• Stakeholder Buy-in


Political Leadership

• Greatly facilitates efforts to advance EAM– Without this, difficult to overcome conventional

management structures

• Associated legislative mandate & resourcing– Establish new institutions– Incentive to existing agencies to embrace EAM

NZ & US are examples where some progress on EAM can be made without legislative mandate

or even national policy (NZ) SUMBER: www2.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/.../rap/.../oboyle....Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Legislative Mandate• Canada

– 1997 Canada Oceans Act, 1992 CEAA & 2003 SARA

• EU– Basis for EAM in ratified international & national laws, treaties, conventions & agreements (e.g.

OSPAR & HELCOM)

• Australia– 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment & associated National Strategy for

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)– 1999 Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act


Legislative Mandate• New Zealand

– No national legislation but development of Fisheries Act & Resource Management Act (cross non-fishery sector planning but within 12 nm)

• US– While no national legislation, ratified UNFA & implementing FAO Code of

Conduct– Federal legislation incorporates EAM principles e.g.:

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Marine Plastic & Pollution Research & Control Act

– New state legislation (Oceans Acts) in California & under development in Massachusetts, Oregon & New Jersey


Overarching Policy• Canada

– 2002 Oceans Strategy

• EU– 6th Environmental Action Program has seven Thematic Strategies, one of

which is• EU Marine Thematic Strategy (EMS) for Protection & Conservation of European Marine

Environment (under development)– Integrates patchwork of legislation, policy, programs & action plans at regional, national, EU

& international levels

• Australia– 1998 Australia Oceans Policy (AOP) basis for Marine Bioregional Planning

(MBP)– Since 2005, MBP backed by 1999 Environmental Protection & Biodiversity

Conservation Act


Overarching Policy• New Zealand

– Oceans Policy delayed by jurisdictional issues with Maori but reintroduced in 2005– Framework for coordinating EAM efforts

• Strategy for Managing Environmental Effects of Fishing (2006)• Biodiversity Strategy (2002) & MPA Policy

• USA– Commission on Oceans Policy (2004), complimented by Pew Oceans Commission

• Coherent, comprehensive & long-range national policy for exploration, protection & use of ocean & coastal resources

• Recommendations on EAM for federal & state authorities with regulatory power over sector activities


Stakeholder Buy-In

• EAM needs build upon the many sector-based consultative / advisory bodies that already exist– Stakeholders must see benefits of EAM

– Regulators must see benefits of EAM


Implementation of EAM

What elements shouldImplementation of EAM have?

Best practices based on case studies


Elements of Implementation

• Planning area boundaries

• Nested planning & management process– Overarching coordination

– Planning area coordination

– Sector management

OutcomeFocused

& Adaptive


Planning Area Boundaries• Ideally, manage circumscribed ecosystem impacted by defined group of

stakeholders– Incorporates not only ecological relationships but also existing regulatory &

socio-economic boundaries

• But…– Ecosystems have varying scales of organization– Many administrative areas & jurisdictions already exist

• No set formula in five case studies – Ecological & administrative realities– Pragmatic approach

• We manage people, not ecosystems!


Canada• 5 Large Ocean Management Areas (offshore) defined so far

– Based upon ecoregions & administrative boundaries

• Challenges– Boundaries with USA on both coasts & in coastal area– Federal / provincial jurisdiction

ESSIM


New Zealand

• Planning areas not officially defined at national level, but…– Under Resource Management Act, within 12 nm Territorial Sea, 10 regional

councils have decision-making authority over most activities (but not fishing)– Under Fisheries Act, fishery has its own areas

• Challenges– Different boundaries used by regional councils, Ministry of Fisheries &

Department of Conservation• None coincide with Maori boundaries, which are becoming increasingly important in

managing oceans activities (inshore mostly)

– No EAM requirements in mining & oil legislation


USA• Planning areas not officially defined at national level but Commission on Oceans

Policy suggested starting with regional fishery management council boundaries

NOAA10 regions based on

Large Marine Ecosystems

EPA5 regions to coordinate large scale

ecosystem based programs

Jurisdictional challenge

AtFederal & State level


Nested Planning & Management Process

• Hierarchical structure links legislative mandate & overarching policy at top to control of sectors at bottom

• Overarching (Canada Ocean Strategy)• Planning area (ESSIM)• Sector (Fishery)• Sub-sector (Crab fleet)

• Objectives at all levels with management actions at planning area & below


Two Types of Objectives

• Conceptual Objectives or Goals– Interpret legislative mandate to be understandable to broad audience

• E.g. Restore Coral Community Biodiversity to pre-1980 levels

• Operational Objectives or Strategies– Link between Conceptual Objective & Management Action– Specific enough to be clear to all

• Refers to indicator (e.g., biomass) & reference point (e.g., 50,000 t)• E.g. Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of Coral Community to 5000 sq km

– Allow measurement of progress towards conceptual objective– Precautionary Approach enters EAM at this point


Terminology• Indicator

– Quantity that can be measured & used to track changes over time

• Reference point / direction– Value of indicator corresponding to target or limit– Direction of indicator towards target or away from

limit


Operational ObjectiveIN

DIC

AT

OR

T IM E

R eference point (target)

Indicator

Perform ancem easures

R eference point (lim it)

Red zone

Yellow zone

Green zone

or PA


OverarchingConceptual Objectives

Planning AreaConceptual Objectives

Planning AreaOperational Objectives

SectorOperational Objectives

Sub - SectorOperational Objectives

Link to National Policy

Link to Overarching COsRegional Priorities

Monitor Ecosystem StatesControl Cumulative Impacts of Sectors

Control Cumulative Impacts of Sub-Sectors

Control Impacts of Sub-Sector

Ecosystem Objectives Hierarchy


Cumulative Impacts

Level of Hierarchy

Conceptual Objective Operational Objective

Overarching Conserve Community Biodiversity N/A

Planning Area Restore Coral Community Biodiversity to pre-1980 levels

Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of Deep Sea Coral Community to 6000 sq km

Fishery Sector N/A Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of Deep Sea Coral Community to 50% of

6000 sq km (3000 sq km)

Crab Fishery N/A Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of Deep Sea Coral Community to 1000 sq km

Groundfish Fishery N/A Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of Deep Sea Coral Community to 1000 sq km

Shrimp Fishery N/A Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of Deep Sea Coral Community to 1000 sq km


Overarching Conceptual Objective

Planning Area Conceptual Objective

Planning Area Operational

Objective

Fisheries Sector OO

Groundfish Fishery OO

Oil & Gas Sector OO

Transport Sector OO

Defense Sector OO

Diversity of Benthic Communities

N/A N/A

Community Biodiversity

Diversity of Fragile Coral Community

N/A N/A

High Diversity Gully Benthic Community

N/A N/A

Overall Species Diversity

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Species Biodiversity SAR Diversity N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Population Biodiversity Genetic Diversity N/A N/A N/A N/A

Primary ProductivityProductivity at base

of food chainN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Productivity of Forage Species

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Trophic StructureTrophic Level Productivity

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Energy transfer N/A N/A N/A N/A

Growth Productivity N/A N/A N/A N/A

Population Generation Time

Recruitment Productivity

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sediment Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A

Physical Features N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sound Environment N/A N/A N/A

Chemical Environment

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Chemical Features N/A N/A N/A N/A

Physiological Processes

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Suite of Conceptual& Operational Objectives

defines EAM inPlanning Area

Colour indicates Performance

OfOperational Objective

Green: Good Yellow: Caution Red: Poor


Overarching Objectives

• Conceptual, long term, & should enable countries to satisfy terms of international agreements & conventions– Linked to legislative mandate & overarching policy

• Guidance & coordination to all planning areas under EAM


Overarching Objectives

• Canada, Australia & EU– All have / considering overarching objectives

• New Zealand– Coordination regionally based

• USA– Commission on Ocean Policy provided set of overarching objectives


CanadaNational

OverarchingObjectives

Socio-economicObjectives Structure

being considered

M ain ta inC om m u n ities

M a in ta inS p ec ies

M a in ta inP op u la tion s

C on serveE cosys tem

C om p on en ts(B iod ive rs ity)

M a in ta inP rim ary

P rod u c tion

M a in ta inTrop h ic

S tru c tu re

M a in ta inP op u la tion s

C on serveC om p on en t's

R o le(P rod u c tivity)

B o ttom

W aterC o lu m n

C on serveP h ys ica l

P rop ert ies

W ate rQ u a lity

B io taQ u a lity

C on serveC h em ica lP rop ert ies

C on serveP h ys ica l /C h em ica lP rop ert ies

C on serva tiono f

S p ec ies &H ab ita t



• Overarching objectives made specific to address issues in planning area, based on…–Ecosystem description

• Components & Relationships–Threats analysis

• Stressor / Receptor Analysis


Receptor (State) Component of Ecosystem being Stressed

Activity Oil & gas Commercial fishing Marine transport

Land- based

activities

Aqua culture

Benthic Community

Species at Risk

Population Diversity

Forage Species Biomass

Target Species

Spawning Biomass

Water Column

Sediment Stressor

Seismic Exploratory drilling

Mobile gear

Fixed gear

etc etc etc

Organic waste and nutrients

Bacteria and viruses

Oil

Chemical contaminants

Sediment movement

and turbidity

Debris

Obstructions

Gear on bottom

Collisions

Light

Canadian Example of Stressor / Receptor Analysis

Sector responsible for threat identified

Gaps in responsibility (e.g., non-point source pollution) identifiedSUMBER: www2.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/.../rap/.../oboyle....Fisheries and Oceans Canada


• Conceptual Objectives formulated & prioritized based on…– Top - down (scientists)

• What are key components being impacted?– Bottom - up (stakeholders)

• What are important stressors to address?– Risk analysis (quantitative / qualitative)

• Risk = impact * likelihood


Determine Ocean Sectors to Implement Planning Area Objectives

• Determine which ocean sectors implicated in which stressors & thus Operational Objectives– Some stressors might come from outside planning

Area– Some objectives, while noted by one sector, might be

relevant to others– Some objectives need to be addressed at sector level,

others at sub-sector level


In Canada• Ecosystem Overview & Assessment Report (EOAR) for each

LOMA– Ecosystem structure / functioning, human activities (e.g. fishing),

stressors (e.g. dragging) & impacted ecosystem components or receptors (e.g. benthic community)

• EOARs to be completed in 2007

• Conservation Objectives being formulated & prioritized– Priority based on

• Ecological & Biological Significant Areas & Species• Degraded Areas & Depleted Species

• Discussion with stakeholders on other objectives


EU

• Coastal member states are to develop Implementation plans including (within x years of EMS adoption):– Assessment of environmental status (within 4 years)– Objectives (within 5 years)– Monitoring program (within 6 years)– Develop & operationalize management actions (by 2016 &

2018 respectively)

• Irish Sea Project– Implementation of EAM tested


• Australia– First regional marine plan (SE Australia) completed in 2004

• 9 conceptual objectives

– Planning currently being conducted for northern & southwestern regions

• New Zealand– Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy

• Conceptual objectives for fisheries, values of special significance, risks to marine environment, Stewardship

• USA– Oceans Commission report

• Regional Ecosystem Assessment should be conducted to assess state & threats to ecosystems


Planning AreaOperational Objectives

• Start with planning area conceptual objective & 'unpack' to point where indicator & reference point can be referred to

• Important to classify indicators• Pressure State Response framework being considered by many

• These are linked to management actions– Basis of decision rules

• Suite of all operational objectives in planning area could inform determination of ecosystem health


Overarching Conceptual Objective

Planning Area Conceptual Objective

Planning Area Operational

Objective

Fisheries Sector OO

Groundfish Fishery OO

Oil & Gas Sector OO

Transport Sector OO

Defense Sector OO

Diversity of Benthic Communities

N/A N/A

Community Biodiversity

Diversity of Fragile Coral Community

N/A N/A

High Diversity Gully Benthic Community

N/A N/A

Overall Species Diversity

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Species Biodiversity SAR Diversity N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Population Biodiversity Genetic Diversity N/A N/A N/A N/A

Primary ProductivityProductivity at base

of food chainN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Productivity of Forage Species

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Trophic StructureTrophic Level Productivity

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Energy transfer N/A N/A N/A N/A

Growth Productivity N/A N/A N/A N/A

Population Generation Time

Recruitment Productivity

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sediment Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A

Physical Features N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sound Environment N/A N/A N/A

Chemical Environment

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Chemical Features N/A N/A N/A N/A

Physiological Processes

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Suite of Operational Objectives

AtPlanning Area Level

could defineEcosystem Health

Colour indicates Performance

OfOperational Objective

Green: Good Yellow: Caution Red: Poor


• Canada– Suites of LOMA operational conservation objectives planned for

2007

• EU– Irish Sea Pilot Project

• Operational conservation objectives established & tested

• Australia– Southeast Regional Marine Plan completed

• Operational objectives under development

• New Zealand– Fiordland

• Activities focused on how to devise operational objectives

• USA– California Action Plan includes 13 operational objectives


Sector Operational Objectives

• Sectoral Operational Objectives already part of management systems of all case studies

• Need to adapt existing sector management to move towards an ecosystem approach– Putting current objectives in EAM framework– Developing new objectives to fill gaps– Engaging regulators & stakeholders on EAM


Conclusions

• Impetus for EAM apparent through endorsement of international treaties / agreements

• EAM adopted in all cases studies– Neither US nor New Zealand have formal national

EAM coordination• Some success in advancing EAM

– Case studies with strong institutional approach likely to be more successful


Conclusions

• Planning area boundaries based on practical realities of conservation & administration– Many jurisdictional issues (international, national,

regional)

• Objective setting & prioritization a challenge– Unclear how socio-economic objectives incorporated– EAM should be participatory, proactive, open &

transparent to ensure credibility & buy-in


Conclusions

• Need to interconnect regulatory agencies to ensure EAM success– Sector plans must be linked to ensure management of cumulative

& long-term impacts• No single sector can implement EAM independently

• Refocus sector management to meet EAM objectives– Don't abandon single species management but fill gaps to meet

EAM objectives


Management Strategy Evaluation(MSE)


Background

• Since 1977, fish stock assessment in Canada (and elsewhere) has focused on counting organisms to inform management decisions

• Stock assessment– Counts current number of organisms– Analyses productivity– Projects impacts on resource of different levels of

harvesting


Issues with Approach• Stock assessment not well integrated into rest of

fisheries management system– Does stock assessment really meet management needs?

• Variability in whole management system not evident– Is stock assessment the problem or enforcement?

• Management increasing recognized as set of interacting systems


Ocean Management System

PopulationEcosystem

ObservationSystem

AssessmentSystem

HarvestRules

DecisionSystem

ImplementationSystem

From McAllister et. al. 1999

Harvest Control Module

Operating ModuleTraditional Assessment


Management Strategy Evaluation• Simulation of ocean management system as a

whole, including– Monitoring program– Measurements that will be made– How measurements will be analysed & used in assessment– How results will be used in management– How decisions will be implemented

• Development of clear objectives to evaluate against - with relevant performance measures (indicator vs. reference point)

• Evaluation of feasible management options


Not focused on how much resource exists & can be harvested

Conducts comparison of which management strategy is most robust (reliable) under different

assumptions of uncertaintySUMBER: www2.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/.../rap/.../oboyle....Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Steps

1. Identify issues and objectives 2. List performance indicators3. Identify alternative solutions (alternative

management scenarios)4. Evaluate each management scenario against

the performance indicators5. Highlight tradeoffs6. Communicate results to stakeholders and

decision-makers

EAM part


Consequences

• Ecosystem / population– Greater emphasis on what is know or otherwise

• Observation– More explicit consideration of uncertainty of different

approaches & impact on rest of management system• Assessment

– provides indicators for decision - making• Could be straight forward• NOT same as ecosystem / population


Consequences (cont'd)

• Harvest Control Rules– What is best for the system?

• Constant F, constant catch, SSB & F, etc

• Decision System– What is influence of deviation from control rule?

• Implementation System– What is impact of different levels of enforcement

& compliance?


Qualitative and Quantitative MSE

• Often not possible to be fully quantitative (requires complex modelling)

• Qualitative MSE– Evaluates impacts from high - medium - low– Can be conducted by a small group of scientists,

managers and stakeholders – Results then evaluated by a broader group


RINGKASAN

• New directions in oceans management implicate significant changes to current approach– Planning & Objectives Hierarchy– Management System

• Will take a number of years of sustained effort to implement– global exchange on concepts & approaches needed


new directions in oceans management an overview of current thinking bob o’boyle bedford...

Documents

oceans canadaenablers

planning management

sectorintegrated management

oceans canadaeam

oceans canadawhat

oceans canadais eam

ecosystembased management

integrated management