Transcript Ecosystem-based Management in Canada An overview of

New Directions in Oceans
Management
An overview of current
thinking
Bob O’Boyle
Bedford Institute of Oceanography
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
21st Century Paradigm in
Ocean 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 in
Ocean 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
Operational Module
Control Module
Traditional Assessment
Population
Ecosystem
Observation
Assessment
Implementation
Decision
Making
Harvest
Rules
From McAllister et. al. 1999
EAM
MSE
Within
EAM
MSE
implementation
faster than EAM
Ecosystem
Sector
Mgt
Assessment
Sector e.g. Fisheries
MSE
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 facilitate
acceptance & 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)
Legislative Mandate

Canada


EU


1997 Canada Oceans Act, 1992 CEAA & 2003 SARA
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 should
Implementation 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
Outcome
Focused
&
Adaptive
Planning Area Boundaries

Ideally, manage circumscribed ecosystem
impacted by defined group of stakeholders


But…



Incorporates not only ecological relationships but also
existing regulatory & socio-economic boundaries
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
ESSIM

Challenges


Boundaries with USA on both coasts & in coastal area
Federal / provincial jurisdiction
European Union

11 Eco-regions (from ICES) based upon existing
biogeographical & management regions

Shared jurisdiction greatest challenge

EU Water Framework (coastal), EC (fisheries)
Australia

5 Planning Regions based on Large Marine Domains &
management considerations (jurisdictional & political)

Shared jurisdiction challenge, internationally, with States &
across sectors

AOP only applicable to federal waters, ie.3 nm to international boundary
New Zealand

Planning areas not officially defined at national
level, but…



Under Resource Management Act, within 12 nm
Territorial Sea, 10 regional councils have decisionmaking 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
Jurisdictional
challenge
At
Federal &
State level
NOAA
10 regions based on
Large Marine Ecosystems
EPA
5 regions to coordinate large scale
ecosystem based programs
Nested Planning & Management
Process
 Hierarchical
structure links legislative mandate
& overarching policy at top to control of
sectors at bottom
•
•
•
•
Overarching
Planning area
Sector
Sub-sector
 Objectives
(Canada Ocean Strategy)
(ESSIM)
(Fishery)
(Crab fleet)
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 Objective
INDICATOR
Indicator
Performance
measures
Green zone
Reference point (target)
or PA
Yellow zone
Reference point (limit)
Red zone
TIME
Ecosystem Objectives Hierarchy
Overarching
Conceptual Objectives
Link to National Policy
Planning Area
Conceptual Objectives
Link to Overarching COs
Regional Priorities
Planning Area
Operational Objectives
Monitor Ecosystem States
Control Cumulative Impacts of Sectors
Sector
Operational Objectives
Control Cumulative Impacts of SubSectors
Sub - Sector
Operational Objectives
Control Impacts of Sub-Sector
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
Diversity of Benthic
Communities
Community
Biodiversity
Species Biodiversity
Transport
Sector OO
Defense Sector
OO
N/A
N/A
Diversity of Fragile
Coral Community
N/A
N/A
High Diversity Gully
Benthic Community
N/A
N/A
Overall Species
Diversity
N/A
SAR Diversity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Population Biodiversity
Genetic Diversity
N/A
Primary Productivity
Productivity at base
of food chain
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Productivity of Forage
Species
Trophic Structure
Trophic Level
Productivity
Energy transfer
Population Generation
Time
Growth Productivity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Recruitment
Productivity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sediment Quality
Physical Features
Chemical Features
Physiological
Processes
Suite of Conceptual
& Operational Objectives
defines EAM in
Planning Area
Colour indicates
Performance
Of
Operational Objective
Green:
Yellow:
Red:
Good
Caution
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

All have / considering overarching objectives
 New

& EU
Zealand
Coordination regionally based
 USA

Commission on Ocean Policy provided set of
overarching objectives
Conservation
of
Species &
Habitat
Conserve
Ecosystem
Components
(Biodiversity)
Maintain
Communities
Conserve
Component's
Role
(Productivity)
Maintain
Primary
Production
Conserve
Physical /
Chemical
Properties
Conserve
Physical
Properties
Maintain
Species
Maintain
Trophic
Structure
Bottom
Maintain
Populations
Maintain
Populations
Water
Column
Conserve
Chemical
Properties
Water
Quality
Biota
Quality
Canada
National
Overarching
Objectives
Socio-economic
Objectives Structure
being considered
Planning Area
Conceptual Objectives
 Overarching
objectives made
specific to address issues in
planning area, based on…

Ecosystem description
• Components & Relationships

Threats analysis
• Stressor / Receptor Analysis
Canadian Example of
Stressor / Receptor Analysis
Receptor (State)
Component of Ecosystem being Stressed
Benthic
Community
Species at
Risk
Population
Diversity
Forage
Species
Biomass
Target
Species
Spawning
Biomass
Activity
Water
Column
Sediment
Stressor
Oil & gas
Seismic
Explorator
y drilling
Commercial fishing
Mobile
gear
Fixed
gear
Marine
transport
etc
Landbased
activities
etc
Aqua
culture
etc
Organic
waste and
nutrients
Bacteria and
viruses
Oil
Chemical
contaminants
Sediment
movement
and turbidity
Debris
Obstructions
Gear on
bottom
Collisions
Light
Sector responsible for threat identified
Gaps in responsibility (e.g., non-point source pollution) identified
Planning Area
Conceptual Objectives
 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 Area
Operational 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
Diversity of Benthic
Communities
Community
Biodiversity
Species Biodiversity
Transport
Sector OO
Defense Sector
OO
N/A
N/A
Diversity of Fragile
Coral Community
N/A
N/A
High Diversity Gully
Benthic Community
N/A
N/A
Overall Species
Diversity
N/A
SAR Diversity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Population Biodiversity
Genetic Diversity
N/A
Primary Productivity
Productivity at base
of food chain
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Productivity of Forage
Species
Trophic Structure
Trophic Level
Productivity
Energy transfer
Population Generation
Time
Growth Productivity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Recruitment
Productivity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sediment Quality
Physical Features
Chemical Features
Physiological
Processes
Suite of Operational
Objectives
At
Planning Area Level
could define
Ecosystem Health
Colour indicates
Performance
Of
Operational Objective
Green:
Yellow:
Red:
Good
Caution
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
Operating Module
Traditional Assessment
Harvest Control
Module
Population
Ecosystem
Observation
System
Assessment
System
Implementation
System
Decision
System
Harvest
Rules
From McAllister et. al. 1999
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 uncertainty
Steps

Identify issues and objectives
EAM part

List performance indicators

Identify alternative solutions (alternative
management scenarios)

Evaluate each management scenario
against the performance indicators

Highlight tradeoffs

Communicate results to stakeholders and
decision-makers
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
Summary
 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
Thank You!
Synopsis
Element
Australia
NZ
EU
Canada
Politics
Strong
Strong
Strong but
Green Paper
Legislation
1999 EPBCA
No but RMA
& FA devel
OSPAR,
1997 COA
HELCOM, etc
No but
updates to
many acts
Policy
1998 AOP
Under devel
2002 EMS
2002 COS
2004 USCOP
Areas
5 MBPAs
FA & RMA
areas
11
Ecoregions
5 LOMAs (so
far)
NOAA (10)
EPA (5)
COs
MBP
guidelines
Biodiversity
Strategy
14 COs &
guidelines
EOARs &
Eos
USCOPs
COs &
guidelines
OOs
MPA network
MPA Policy & Irish Sea
Fiordland
Project
By sector
By agency &
state
Challenge
Fed - State
RMA - FA
Coastal
NOAA - EPA
Jurisdiction
Strong
USA
Getting
better
Assessment & EBM

Stock Assessment



few features to consider
few indicators (biomass, F) based upon models
Ecosystem Assessment


require indicators/RPs related to biodiversity,
productivity & habitat
many features to consider
• limited understanding & few models

many potential indicators
• some qualitative & some quantitative

Need different analytical approach

for assessment, decision-making & communication
Traffic Light Approach
 Methodology
to combine diverse indices
into one framework

could foresee indicators / RPs for all parts
of management system
• resource (diversity, productivity, habitat)
• socio-economics
• enforcement
 Promising
for Ecosystem-based
Management

Many issues of assessment framework
remain to be resolved
Traffic Light Approach
Putting Unpacking & Traffic
Light Method Together…
Strategic
Operational
1. Objective
1.1 Sub-Objective
·
·
·
AHA!
1.1.1 Operational Objective
º
·
·
·
·
·
· or
Restore
to
levels
Restore abundance
abundance
toRebuild
levels
maintain
biomass at
Healthy
fish
stocks
for the
comparable
1950-60’s
comparable to
to the
thebenefit
1950-60’s
optimum
levels
of Canadians
Policy Domain
Verb
+
Characteristic 1
+
Reference point
If C1 is RED reduce exploitation
If C1 is YELLOW do not increase
If C1 is GREEN increase slightly
·
·
·
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
·
·
·
2.1.2 Operational Objective
Decision Rules
º
Verb
+
Characteristic 2
+
Reference point
Traffic Light Domain
Management Actions
•
Tools same as now
 Quotas
 Time
•
at Sea limits
 Gear restrictions
 Closed seasons / areas
New ways to control human impacts on
benthic communities


need to classify by type & vulnerability
need to limit human activities by type
Expected Life History Traits
according to Southwood Model
Physiologically
Benign
(High Productivity)
Physiologically
Adverse
(Low Productivity)
Physically
Stable
Offspring medium & small
Longevity medium
Offspring few & large
Longevity long
Physically
Disturbed
Offspring many small
Longevity short
Offspring medium large
Longevity medium
Scope for Growth
Low Productivity
(Adverse)
Food Availability
Water temperature
Variability in temperature
Oxygen Saturation
Stratification
Wave height/period
Lowest
Risk
to
Impact
De p th
G ra in size
C u rre n t
Highest
Risk
to
Impact
Stable
Disturbed
Disturbance
High Productivity
(Benign)
Risk to Impact Map
Areas of Potentially
Higher Sensitivity
Example of Fisheries Issues
• By-catch including
endangered species
• Habitat impacts
• Genetic consequences
Fishery on
Ecosystem
• Large scale community
changes
• Climate change
Ecosystem
on Fishery
• Control of species
interactions (e.g. cod / seal)
Ecosystem
Manipulation