International scientific collaboration: ICES WGNARS

Collaborative process and worked examples (DePiper, et al., 2017)

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) Reporting: Context for busy people

"So what?" --John Boreman, September 2016

1. Clear linkage of ecosystem indicators with management objectives

2. Synthesis across indicators for big picture

3. Objectives related to human-well being placed first in report

4. Short (< 30 pages), non-technical (but rigorous) text

5. Emphasis on reproducibility

State of the Ecosystem Report Structure

2020 Report: Summary 2 pager with visualizations, 28 pages of narrative/plots, 1 page orientation

Ecosystem synthesis themes for 2021

Characterizing ecosystem change for fishery management: plain language summary for 2 pager

• Multiple drivers of abundance, defined by the competing factors that influence the amount of fish in the ocean;
• Regime shifts, or ecosystem change can happen rapidly as multiple drivers change; and,
• Reorganization of the ecosystem, multiple factors that interact that change the structure and organization of the ecosystem, e.g. Tropicalization

2021 outline: two sections, each with "what" and "why"

Example: Seafood production objective

Multiple drivers of fish production analysis in progress: environment - fish condition - market price linkages

• Identify multiple and changing drivers of condition and market prices over time

• Recognize regime shifts and potential system reorganization

• Work in progress has identified the following potential drivers

  • Temperature
  • Zooplankton

Example: Social and cultural objectives

Example: Protected species objectives

Example: Climate risks: multiple potential impacts on management

Example: Other ocean uses (Wind): area covered, fisheries impacted

Continuing dialogue with managers shapes report and indicators presented each year: 2021 Requests

Fishery management in the US

Eight regional Fishery Management Councils establish plans for sustainable management of stocks within their jurisdictions. All are governed by the same law, but tailor management to their regional stakeholder needs.

More information: http://www.fisherycouncils.org/ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#magnuson-stevens-act

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC)

Why an ecosystem approach?

"We rebuilt all the stocks, so why is everyone still pissed off?" --Rich Seagraves

in 2011, the Council asked:

And many people answered, from commercial fishery, recreational fishery, environmental organization, and interested public perspectives.

Visioning report:

http://www.mafmc.org/s/MAFMC-stakeholder-input-report-p7b9.pdf

Common themes among all stakeholder groups:

• There is a lack of confidence in the data that drive fishery management decisions.

• Stakeholders are not as involved in the Council process as they can and should be.

• Different jurisdictions and regulations among the many fishery management organizations result in complexity and inconsistency.

• There is a need for increased transparency and communications in fisheries management.

• The dynamics of the ecosystem and food web should be considered to a greater extent in fisheries management decisions.

• Stakeholders are not adequately represented on the Council.

• Pollution is negatively affecting the health of fish stocks.

Visioning report, p. 3:

http://www.mafmc.org/s/MAFMC-stakeholder-input-report-p7b9.pdf

How did MAFMC develop their ecosystem approach?

Visioning Project → Strategic Plan with one objective to develop

"A non-regulatory umbrella document intended to guide Council policy with respect to ecosystem considerations across existing Fishery Management Plans"

Details, including workshop presentations and white papers: http://www.mafmc.org/eafm

Mid-Atlantic Council Ecosystem Approach

• 2016 Ecosystem Approach to Fishery Management (EAFM) Policy Guidance document: http://www.mafmc.org/s/EAFM-Doc-Revised-2019-02-08.pdf

• Mid-Atlantic EAFM framework (Gaichas, et al., 2016):

  

Examples illustrating the use of the framework

Iterative development of the risk assessment

Risk elements: Management

Risk assessent indicators and ranking criteria: Commercial revenue

This element is applied at the ecosystem level. Revenue serves as a proxy for commercial profits.

Total revenue for the region (black) and revenue from MAFMC managed species (red).

EAFM Risk Assessment: 2020 update

Management elements updated from original 2017 risk assessment; added risk rankings for chub mackerel and unmanaged forage fish.

Decreased Risk (5)

• Regulatory complexity risk for summer flounder decreased from high to med-high due to increased consistency in recent years
• Technical interaction risk for commercial scup decreased from med-high to low-med because no accountability measures have been triggered
• Allocation risks for recreational Atlantic mackerel, commercial longfin squid, and commercial spiny dogfish dropped from high to low due to changes in management approaches

Increased Risk (15)

• Bluefish status went from not overfished to overfished
• Increased discards (5), reduced management control (4), allocation (3), other ocean uses (1), regulatory complexity (1)

EAFM Risk Assessment: 2020

How is MAFMC using the risk assessment? What's next?

• Council to proceed with management strategy evaluation (MSE) using the information from conceptual modeling as a basis. Topic: addressing recreational fishery discards with EAFM

Council-selected management question:

Evaluate the biological and economic benefits of minimizing summer flounder discards and converting discards into landings in the recreational sector. Identify management strategies to effectively realize these benefits.

Mid-Atlantic EAFM next steps: management strategy evaluation

MSE approach and timeline

Conclusions

• The process takes time – need to recognize that early and be willing to invest the resources to see it through

  • Need the science to develop and support efforts
  • Need management (and stakeholders) to understand process and concepts and support process

• Collaboration is key

  • Within the science community – diverse expertise is needed
  • Between science and management – understanding what information is needed and important to management, providing tools to management to understand ecosystem linkages and implications
  • Between science and stakeholders – need to build trust, open dialogue (everyone is heard), and sharing data and observations (on water and with information)
  • Between management and stakeholders – listening to/acting on stakeholder priorities and feedback, process not out to add more uncertainty but provide for more informed decisions

• Timely and understandable scientific information

  • Developing a process to create science products at timescales necessary for management
  • Information needs to be relevant and clearly presented
  • Flexibility to use different/alternative data sources when specific data in not available (proxies)

References

Additional resources