The precautionary and ecosystem approaches to fisheries · Models Evaluation Advice Implementation...
60
1 From the precautionary to the ecosystem approach to fisheries S.M Garcia Chair IUCN-CEM Fisheries Expert Group Sostenibilidad pesquera en los ecosistemas marinos. Santander 1-3 Septiembre 2010
Transcript of The precautionary and ecosystem approaches to fisheries · Models Evaluation Advice Implementation...
1
From the precautionary to the ecosystem approach
to fisheries
S.M Garcia
Chair IUCN-CEM Fisheries Expert Group
Sostenibilidad pesquera en los ecosistemas marinos. Santander 1-3 Septiembre 2010
2
Introduction: the origins
Sustainability indicators
Precautionary approach to fisheries (PAF)
Ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF)
Conclusions
Outline
3
Introduction: the origins
Sustainability indicators
Precautionary approach to fisheries
Ecosystem approach to fisheries
Conclusions
Outline
4
25% stocks depleted Collapses 20 M t of discards Endangered species Modified food chains Degraded habitats Poor economic conditions Rising conflicts Unreliable statistics IUU Loss of image
Outdated development model Inadequate governance Chaotic coastal policies Unclear entitlements Perverse subsidies System complexity
Symptoms
Excessive fishing capacity Insufficient selectivity Misreporting Non-deterrent MCS
Direct causes
Deep roots
The fishery syndrome
Demography, Food security Global market forces Environmental degradation UNCED, WSSD, CBD, IPBES Millennium assessment Non-market values Ethics and animal welfare Climate change Environment advocacy Customer awareness
Contextual factors
5
Societal reactions
Tuna’s End
The New York Times
June 2010
6
Introduction: the origins
Sustainability indicators
The precautionary approach to fisheries
The ecosystem approach to fisheries
Conclusions
Outline
7
Sustainable Development
Development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs (WCED 1987)
The management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable
development conserves ...resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technologically appropriate, economically viable,
and socially acceptable” FAO Council (1988)
FAO (1989): Sustainable development and natural resources management. Conference. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. C 89/2 – Sup. 2. August 1989: 54 p.
WCED. 1987. Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University press: 400 p.
8State of the human system
Sta
te o
f th
e n
atu
ral syste
m
Ba
d R
isk
y
A
ve
rag
e
O
K G
oo
d
Bad Risky average OK Good
Socially
unstable
Ecologically
unstable
Non
Sustainable
Sustainable
Sustainability barometer
9
Sustainability indicators
Provide management dashboard
Guide policy and management action (foresight)
Promote transparency & public scrutiny
Years
Ind
ica
tor
Unknown pristine level
Historical reference level
Target level
Limit level
100%
0%
10
Blim
FmsyF0.1
Bio
ma
ss
Y
ield
C
ost
s
Fishing mortality
Flim
Bmsy
B0.1
Bv
MEY
Fmey
Fisheries Criteria & Indicators
11
Introduction: the origins
Sustainability indicators
The precautionary approach to fisheries
The ecosystem approach to fisheries
Conclusions
Outline
12
Shipyards
Aquaculture
Industrial
fleet
Fish
processing
Maritime
Transport
Oil, Gas
Pipes
Cables
Government
Ports
Marinas
Banks
Fishery
research
NGOsConsumers
Fishery
agency
TourismAgriculture
Artisanal
fleets
Fish
traders
Media
Defense
Chemical
industries
Ecosystem
ResourcesClimate change
Global market
Demography
Resources
Fishery
Synergy
Conflict
Governance
oversight
Coastal
development
Intl. Instruments
Global finance
EnvironmentDrivers
Recreation
fleet
Conservation
Public
The fishery system
13
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to
their capabilities.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UNCED, 1992)www.un-documents.net/rio-dec.htm
PRINCIPLE 15
Precautionary Principle
Threat of harm
UncertaintyPressurefor action
Obligationof precaution
Tailored to capacity
Actionwithout delay
14
Demand for action
The State has the RIGHT and DUTY to take action
The Precautionary Principle is not applicable
The Precautionary Principle is not applicable
The State has the RIGHT to take action
The rationale
Possible harm?
Significant harm?
Irreversible harm?
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
According to Throuwbost 2006)
15
FAO Code of Conduct
General Principle 6.5
States and subregional and regional fisheries management organizations should apply a precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment, taking account of the best scientific evidence
available.
The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and
non-target species and their environment.
16
Assessments
Quality of fishery-dependent data
Consideration of contextual data (e.g. environment, socio-economy, technology)
Robustness of assessment methods
Models realism, oversimplification
Statistical variance
Assessment process (participation, disciplines)
Unknown objectives: of decision-makers and industry
Unknown future response of stakeholders
Interferences with other national policies (e.g. environmental, economic)
Sources of uncertainty
17
Total uncertainty
Ignored
Unconscious
Known
Conscious
Forms of uncertainty
Bias
VarianceSampling error
Natural variability
ReducibleIrreducibleIndeterminacy
Functional error
Structural error
Conceptual errorMeasurement error
18
Illegal fishing
Structure et functions
Environment
Behaviours
Market
Statistics
Parameters
Models
Evaluation
Advice
Implementation
Monitoring & Evaluation.
Scientific observations
Methodology
Variance & bias
Competencies
MCS
Indicators
Participation
Interdisciplinarity
Uncertainty and decisions
OpacityTransparency
19
Precautionary processConventional process
Demand for action
Implement
Assess Options
Implement
Monitor& Evaluate
Predict consequences
Take decision
Expertise
Demand for action
Assess Options
Acceptablerisk?
Y
N
ADAPTIVE LOOP
Betterpractices
The adaptive loop
Drop
20
Demand
Assessment field
Co-assessment
Options
Advicel
Co-implementation
Performance assessment
Decision
Monitoring uivi & Evaluation
New demand/policy Crisis
Good practices
Stakeholders Participation
Disciplines
Traditional
knowledge
Multiple knowledges & disciplines
Adaptive management
21Uncertainty = probability of error
Co
st
of
the e
rro
r
Pre
ven
tive m
ea
su
res
Corrective measures and
contingency plans
Risk, science & decision
RISK
0
22
Decision
Control
Measures
MonitoringAssessment
Identification
Characterisation
Forecasting
Options
Consultation
Perceptions Communication
Values
Knowledges
ManagementAssessment
Participation
Risk management
23
Use of indicators
High RANGE OF RISK Low
Unacceptable high risk
Immediate action
required
Medium-range risk
Mitigation action
recommended
0
100
Low risk
Status quo and watch
24
Natural subsystem
Human subsystem
Spawning biomass
Nursery area
Revenues
Employment
Risk diagram
25
PA of the conventional model
FMEY FMSY
BMSY
BMEY
Fishing mortality
MSY
Target
zone
Buffer
zone
Danger
zone
Bio
mass
LRPThRP
F0.1
No
management
TRP
26Cod in sous-zone IV (Mer du Nord), Divisions VIId (Manche Est), and IIIa (Skagerrak) (CIEM 2004)
1993 68 73 78 83 88 93 98 2003
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Fis
hin
g m
ort
ality
Flim
Fpa
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Blim
Bpa
Blim
Bpa
SS
B in
1000 t
.
FlimFpa
Fishing mortality
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
1963
2003
Target zone
Buffer zone
Not sustainable
A
B
C
1993 68 73 78 83 88 93 98 2003
SS
B (
x 1
000t)
0
300
150
PA dashboards
27
Harvest control rules
Spawning biomass (State)
Bpa
Sustainability
area
Buffer zone
Active
overfishing
Stock
overfished
Blim
Fpa
Fmax
FtargetControl rule
29
Operational Management Procedures
Option A Option B
Theoretical example based on Hill et al. 2007. Model uncertainty in the EAF. Fish and Fisheries, 8: 315-336
Option B= excessive risk
Simulation time span (years)
Rela
tive a
bu
nd
an
ce
0
1
2
Bcurrent
Bmin
Btarget
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
30
Synoptic analysis
31
Risk for the ecosystem or community
productivity
Risk for target stocks Risk for other species Community risk
Target 1
Target 2
Target 3 Fishing
Sharks
Turtles
Processing
Protected
Other species
Risk for habitat
Food security
Employment
Preys
Caught
Not caught Fishing impact
Other impacts
Priority level
Indicator
Reference value
In each block
Source of risk
Consequences
Probability
In each block
Multi-criteria risk analysis
32
Risk matrix
NilVery low
Low HighVery high
1 2 3 4 5
Very rare 1 1 2 3 4 5
Rare 2 2 4 6 8 10
unlikely 3 3 6 9 12 15
Possible 4 4 8 12 16 20
Occasional 5 5 10 15 20 25
Frequent 6 6 12 18 24 30
Probabilité
Impact
X Weight
The result is a risk matrix ranging from 0 to 30
33
Analyse des risques: réponses
Risk IndexDocumentation
requiredAction foreseen
Negligible 0 short No direct action
Weak 1-6Complete justification
Indirect management
Moderate 7-12Complete assessment
Some specific additional measures
High 13-20Complete assessment
Strengthening of current measures probably necessary
Extreme 21-30Complete assessment
Strengthening of current measures certainly necessary
34
Advantage: if properly applied, may reduce risk of negative outcomes
Drawback: if wrongly applied may make things worse. Its radical application may stall development (the main risk for humans is to accept no risk)
The threshold problem: how to define an “acceptable” level of impact?
The burden of proof: how and to whom can it be allocated?
The standard of proof: should be adapted to the level of risk.
PAF dilemmas
35
Selected conclusions on the PAF
The PAF represents an alternative to the ill-defines brokerage and negotiation processes of the past in which biological, social, economic and political factors were considered in a non-transparent manner
It applies precaution in all processes of development and management, minimizing the risk of catastrophic events
It tracks uncertainty and accounts for it in redesigned research and decision-making processes, involving multiple disciplines and important stakeholders
The use of indicators and an adaptive management process ensures social learning, improving performance with time
Its degree of sophistication can be tailored to the context
WE are still learning how to apply the PAF coherently and consistently
We are not applying at all in the large majority of the world fisheries
36
Introduction: the origins
Sustainability indicators
The precautionary approach to fisheries
The ecosystem approach to fisheries
Conclusions
Outline
Complexity
Stocks
Multispecies
Integrated spatial
EAF
Uncertainty-RiskCost of information
37
25% stocks depleted Collapses 20 M t of discards Endangered species Modified food chains Degraded habitats Poor economic conditions Rising conflicts Unreliable statistics IUU Loss of image
Outdated development model Inadequate governance Chaotic coastal policies Unclear entitlements Perverse subsidies System complexity
Symptoms
Excessive fishing capacity Insufficient selectivity Misreporting Non-deterrent MCS
Direct causes
Deep roots
The fisheries syndrome
Demography, Food security Global market forces Environmental degradation UNCED, WSSD, CBD, IPBES Millennium assessment Non-market values Ethics and animal welfare Climate change Environment advocacy Customer awareness
Contextual factors
38
Environmental concerns
Overfishing and depletion
Fishing impact on habitat: destructive practices
Bycatch and discards
Endangered species and growing risk of extinction
Changes in species composition and the food chain
Fishing-induced genetic modifications
The amount of fish reduced to fish meal
Pollution, red tides, fish contamination
Introduction of invasive species
The need to account for natural variations
The need to foresee climate change impact
39
Formal foundations
1972: Stockholm Conference on the human environment
1982 UN LOSC: sustainable development
1987: The Brundtland Report
1992 UNCED and the CBD
1995 FAO CCRF and UNFSA
2001 FAO Reykjavik Conference
2002 WSSD
40
Concepts development
1960s: humanistic views of the ecosystem (in the US)
1970s-1980s: The US process Progressive integration of disciplines
New institutional arrangements
Involvement of stakeholders
1992: Australian National Strategy for ESD
1995: US Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force
1995: First elements in the Code of Conduct and UNFSA .
1995: Introduced as a principle in CBD COP2
2000: 12 principles, 5 operational guidelines in CBD COP 5
2001: EAF concept at the FAO Reykjavik Conference
2002: EA and EAF stresses by WSSD-2012 deadline
2003: 2003: FAO Guidelines
Early dates: Hartje, Klaphake and Schliep. 2003. US process: Malone, C. R. 1997. The federal ecosystem management initiative in the united states. http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/malone01.htm
41
EA Definition (CBD)
The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an
equitable manner.
An ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of
biological organization, which encompass the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among
organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans with their cultural diversity are an integral component of
many ecosystems
Decision V/6 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.CBD Decision VII/11 Annex 1 (2000)
42
EAF Definition
An ecosystem approach to fisheries strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking into account the knowledge
and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within
ecologically meaningful boundaries.
The purpose of an ecosystem approach to fisheries, therefore is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that
addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies,without jeopardizing the options for future generations to
benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystem.
FAO Technical Guidelines on EAF (FAO, 2003)
43
The encounter of two concepts
Ecosystem management
Ecosystem-based fisheries management
Ecosystemic Approach to Fisheries
MaintainThe ecosystem
Conventional
management
Maintain the fishery and the resource
Controlfishing
capacity
Optimize fishingregime andresources
Nature
Conservation
Maintain species/areas Maintain
Improvebiologicalcapacity
Protectspecies
and areas
44
Conventional
approach
Ecosystem
approach
Few objectives
Sectoral
Target / non target species
Stock / fishery scale
Predictive and rigid
Scientific knowledge
Prescriptions
Top-down
Corporate
Opaque, lobbied
Multiple objectives
Integrated & cross sectoral
Biodiversity & environment
Multiple nested scales
Prospective and adaptive
Multiple extended knowledge
+ Incentives
+ Bottom-up + Interactive
Participatory
Public / Transparent
Extension
Paradigm shift
45
ABIOTICWeather
BIOTIC Target species Other species
FISHING Capture Processing
INSTITUTIONS Conventions Regulations Financing Organization Process
OTHER ACTIVITIES
VALUES
CLIM
AT
E
OT
HE
R
EC
OS
YS
TE
MS
MA
RK
ET
S
FluctuationsSurvival
Interactions
Competition
Pro
tectio
n
Reh
ab
ilitatio
n
Demand
Supply
Management
Development
Information
Lobbying
PO
LIC
Y
Gear i
mp
act
Po
llu
tio
n
Clu
es
Ris
ks
Physical habitat Water Contaminants
Living habitat PredatorsPreys
HabitatChange
Adding ecosystem elements
46
Direct use value
Indirect use value
Existence value
Non use value
Total value
Ecosystem services
SupportingProvisioning CulturalRegulation
Ecosystem
Goods Services
47
“Marketization”
Climate change
Ecosystem modification
International instruments
Wars?
Globalization
Degradation
Overcrowding
Soil depletion
Water diversion
Deforestation
Coastal conversion
Overfishing
Species introductions
Urban sewage
Contamination
Coastal erosion Sedimentation
Habitat loss
Reproduction
Agriculture
Forestry
Fisheries
Urbanization
Coastal development
Chemical industries
Wars
Industrialisation
A systemic syndrome
Pre-industrial
Reproduction
Food
Livelihoods
Habitats
Recreation
Wars
Conservation
48
If transfer efficiency is 10%
1000 units
100 units
10 units
1 unit
0.1 unit
0.01
unit
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Forage
species
Piscivores
Predators
HumansTop-down
control
Bottom up control
The trophic chain
49With what consequences?
Selection for balanced harvest?
Unbalanced harvest
Balanced harvest? e.g. 30% flat
Catch
biomass
50
Bottom up
control
Top-down
controlWasp-waist
control
Cury, Shannon et Shin 2003
Predator-prey relations
51
Cap
ture
s
Effort /Temps
Ren
dem
en
ts
Welcomme 1995
Multispecies aspects
52Long-term change (%)
Multisp. Monosp.
Long-term change in
landings (in%) when
passing from 80mm to 120
mm mesh for Cod.
The difference is the result
of the additional predation
of large fish released by the
larger mesh size.Source: Anonyme. 1989. Rapport du Groupe
d’ évaluation multi-espèces du CIEM.
Impact on assessment
53
Ecosystem approach
Clo
se
d a
rea
s / s
ea
so
ns
Management Swiss knife
54
Marine spatial planning
Environment policyEconomic policy
Integrated coastal management
Oil & GasNavigation
Tourism Aquaculture
Fishing
Policy integration
Global SYSTEMIC Large scale
LocalL CONVENTIONAL Small-scale
Operational
Strategic
Short term
Long term
Disciplinary
Multidisciplinary
Planning
Management
Bottom up
Top downStocks
Ecosystems
Reductionist
Systemic
Simple
Complex
Predictive
Prospective
VISIONARY
PRAGMATIC
Multidimensional
56
Where do we stand ?
Realism
Risk aversion
Short term Operational Long term Strategic
Sta
tio
na
ry
De
term
inis
tic
Evo
luti
on
ary
Pro
ba
bil
isti
c
1950 1975 2000
Reasonably systemic
Su
bje
cti
ve d
istr
ibu
tio
n o
f co
un
trie
s
EAF (Postmodern)
Systemic
Adaptive learning
Risk management
Conventional
management
Single output
optimization
Multispecies
management
Multiple
output
optimization
Precautionary
approach
Contingency
planning
EAF
(First level)
Impact
minimization
57
Ecologically unsustainable
Socially unsustainable
Ecologically unstable
Socially unstable
Sustainable
MIN
Pro
tectio
n M
AX
MA
X U
se M
IN
The evolutionary field
Purely utilitarian
Purely preservationist
Environmental ethics, economic failure
Human rights, social legitimacy, Funding
Natural and Human well being
Time
58
Policy
Ecologically unsustainable
Socially unsustainable
Ecologically unstable
Socially unstable
Sustainable
MIN
Pro
tectio
n M
AX
MA
X U
se M
IN
Converging evolutions
Growth
Development
Preservation
Sustainable development
Growth GrowthIUU
Responsible fishing
Preservation
Biodiversity Sustainable useSustainable
use
Preservation
ICAM
ICFMEAF EBFM
1970-90 1990-20101950-70
ICD Management
SLAICD
GrowthIUU
Responsible fishing
Preservation
Biodiversity Sustainable use
PPPs Futures
MSP ICM
2010-30
Green Growth?
59
Tra
de a
nd
go
vern
an
ce r
isk
Intrinsic bio-ecological vulnerability
IUU
MPAs
Discards
Seamounts
Overfishing
EBSAs
Trade controls
Ecolabels
Traceability
Extinction riskManagement
first
Preservation
firstVMEs
EIA
Institutional tensions
Low risk
High risk
60
Low risk
Management
first
Preservation
first
Institutional tensions-2T
rad
e a
nd
go
vern
an
ce
-rela
ted
ri
sk
Intrinsic bio-ecological vulnerability
High risk
Climate change
High seas
62
Thank you for your attention
Sostenibilidad pesquera en los ecosistemas marinos. Santander 1-3 Septiembre 2010
