 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
Frequently Asked Questions About
Ecosystem-based Management
by Ken Hinman, President
(his testimony before the House Fisheries SubCommittee, June 14th 2001)
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association October 2001 Newsletter)
In 1996, Congress directed the National
Marine Fisheries Service to establish an Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel to review
and recommend the use of ecosystem principles in federal marine fisheries management. As a member of that panel, and since publication
of the panel’s Report to Congress in 1999, I have spent considerable time writing and
traveling to meetings and workshops, in an effort to promote its recommendations. In my conversations with policy makers, fishery
managers and congressional aides, the three most frequently asked questions are:
The short answer to the first question
is, yes. Indeed, they have already begun. The state and federal agencies that co-manage the
fisheries of Chesapeake Bay are in the initial stages of developing a multispecies
ecosystem plan for the bay’s living resources. The
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, which oversees many valuable commercial and
sport fisheries from North Carolina to the Florida Keys, has also started this process.
Both fishery scientists and managers
recognize the need to address ecological factors.
I emphasize the word need because the question is not really, do fishery
managers want to do this; they don’t have a choice. Ecosystem-based management is gaining increased
interest and attention precisely because the effect that fishing for one species has on
other, related species is at issue in a number of current fishery management debates.
Ecosystem Concerns Already
Shaping Decisions
The return of striped bass along the
Atlantic seaboard has prompted worries that there aren’t enough menhaden and other
prey species to support a robust population. The
heavy harvest of horseshoe crabs for bait fisheries has raised fears that their depleted
numbers leave shore birds without enough fuel (crab eggs) to complete their long
migrations. Some northeast fishermen argue
against conserving dogfish because they think the small sharks prey on more valuable
codfish. Questions have been raised about the
ecosystem effects of removing so many of the sea’s top predators (swordfish, tuna,
billfish, and shark), 27 of which are on the government’s overfished list. A related concern is how increasing catches of
squid, herring and mackerel will affect the recovery of the large pelagic species that
depend on them for food.
The reality is that ecosystem-based
management will occur – already is occurring – shaping not only
perceptions about the wisdom of management decisions but also the decisions themselves. In these and other debates, fishermen and
conservationists are demanding action, sometimes conflicting. Unfortunately, sound responses have been hampered
by questions or misperceptions about the nature and extent of predator-prey interactions,
inadequate or unavailable data about them, and most of all, the lack of an established
process for taking inter-species relationships into consideration.
We are obliged to make sure that
ecological issues are addressed correctly, based on science and agreed upon goals,
adhering to a process that we can understand and believe in. So it is not a question of whether we take on this
challenge, but how. The species-by-species
approach cannot address certain critical issues and problems that will no longer be
ignored. The most dangerous course is the one
we’re on now, forced as we are to deal with these issues, but with no guidance as to
what information is needed and, most importantly, how it should be used in the real world
of making fishery management decisions.
The next frequently asked question is, can
we manage on an ecosystem basis, at least in an informed and effective manner? Again, the answer is yes. The body of information available to fishery
scientists and managers is large and constantly expanding.
Most recently, the new bycatch and essential fish habitat provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act have prompted the gathering and
synthesis of available information on a wide range of species and habitats, from a broad
range of sources.
There is an immensity of raw data out
there that has not been synthesized or analyzed for ecosystem-based management purposes. There are also new tools for ecosystem modeling,
such as ECOPATH and ECOSIM, into which this data can now be plugged. In many instances, there is adequate information -
if made available to fishery managers – along with the modeling tools necessary to
predict fundamental ecological responses to fishing removals, and to make informed
decisions that might minimize the adverse impacts of fishing on trophically-related
species.
Ecosystem-based management is an
ambitious goal, and we will never know or understand everything about how fisheries
operate in an ecosystem context. But as the
Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel stressed, this is not an acceptable excuse to delay
implementing this new approach. Significant
relationships are known and understood. We
know enough, right now, to ask the right questions, identify the critical information and
information needs, and establish a context for considering what we know and applying it to
fishery management decisions.
Ecosystem Plans Are a Supplement,
Not a Substitute
As I said earlier, some fishery
management bodies are already taking the first tentative steps toward an ecosystem-based
approach. They already have the authority and
the discretion, without any changes to current law, to consider predator-prey
relationships and species interactions in fishery management plans. They are not explicitly required to do so,
however, nor are they provided with guidance as to how.
Recommended Changes in the Law
What Congress needs to do, therefore,
is provide both drive and direction to this process.
By that I mean, amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require that the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Regional Fishery Management Councils
Congress should require that all
Fishery Management Plans (FMP) be reviewed and revised to consider predator-prey
interactions, assess how associated species are affected by fishing allowed under each
FMP, and establish conservation and management measures that will protect associated
species and their respective roles in the ecosystem as well as the integrity and
sustainability of the ecosystem overall. This
will require determining the effects of fishing on the food web, setting optimum
population levels to account for ecological factors, and justifying total allowable
catches with respect to interspecies relationships.
Fishery Ecosystem Plans, or FEPs, are
not intended as a substitute for Fishery Management Plans, but rather a means to augment
their effectiveness. The FEP would be an
umbrella document which would include information on the structure and function of the
ecosystem each region’s managed fishing activities are occurring in, so that fishery
managers are aware of the potential impacts of fishing on the various components of the
ecosystem, as well as how changes in the ecosystem might affect certain fisheries. The FEP would also establish indices for measuring
ecosystem health. Councils would continue to
employ FMPs as the primary regulatory vehicle for managing marine fisheries, however, each
council FMP should be required to demonstrate that its objectives and conservation and
management measures are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the FEP. We also urge Congress to authorize sufficient new
funds to assist NMFS and the councils in applying ecosystems principles to fisheries
research and management.
