ECOSYSTEM-BASED

F I S H E RY MANAGEMENT

A Report to Congress

by the

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel

As mandated by the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1996
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL

Chair, David Fluharty ....... University of Washington/North Pacific Fishery

......................................... Management Council

Pete Aparicio .................... Texas Shrimpers Association/Gulf of Mexico Fishery

......................................... Management Council

Christine Blackburn .......... Alaska Groundfish Data Bank

George Boehlert............... NMFS, Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory

Felicia Coleman ............... Florida State University/Gulf of Mexico Fishery

......................................... Management Council

Philip Conkling ................. The Island Institute

Robert Costanza .............. University of Maryland

Paul Dayton ..................... University of California, San Diego

Robert Francis ................. University of Washington

Doyle Hanan .................... California Department of Fish and Game

Ken Hinman ..................... National Coalition for Marine Conservation

Edward Houde ................. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

James Kitchell .................. University of Wisconsin

Rich Langton .................... Maine Department of Marine Resources

Jane Lubchenco............... Oregon State University

Marc Mangel .................... University of California, Santa Cruz

Russell Nelson ................. Florida Marine Fisheries Commission/Gulf of Mexico

......................................... and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils

Victoria O’Connell ............ Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Michael Orbach ................ Duke University

Michael Sissenwine ......... NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NMFS Staff:

Coordinator, Ned Cyr ....... NMFS, Office of Science & Technology

David Detlor ..................... NMFS, Office of Science & Technology

Aliçon Morgan .................. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... iii

Preface ............................................................................................................................ v

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1

Section One: Introduction ............................................................................................... 9

Section Two: Ecosystem Principles, Goals and Policies ................................................13

Section Three: Current Application of the Ecosystem Principles, Goals and Policies ...23

Section Four: Recommendations for Implementing the

 Ecosystem Principles, Goals and Policies in

 U.S. Fisheries Conservation, Management and Research ...........................27

Section Five: Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................37

Glossary ..........................................................................................................................39

Literature Cited ...............................................................................................................41

Appendix A: Charter—NMFS Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel..............................47

Appendix B: MSFCMA Section 406 Fisheries Systems Research .................................51

Appendix C: Meeting Participants...................................................................................53

i
ii
While the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel

takes full responsibility for the content of this report,

we would like to give thanks and credit to others for

the assistance they so generously provided to us. The

first thanks goes to members of Congress who

responded to public and agency interests in

expanding the use of ecosystem-based management

in the fishery management processes in the United

States. Next, we appreciate the help given to the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) by the

National Research Council in nominations for Panel

membership. The Panel is extremely grateful to the

NMFS staff, its regional science centers, regional

administrative staffs and Council staffs for their

technical support and advice during this process.

Similarly, a significant boost to our deliberations

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

came from State and other agencies, individuals and

organizations who met with us (Appendix C) and

provided considerable insight. A special thanks is

due to Alec MacCall and four other (anonymous)

reviewers of the report. Ned Cyr, David Detlor and

Aliçon Morgan, NMFS Office of Science and

Technology, composed the core team who

coordinated meetings, produced drafts and attended

to all the details of text manipulation. Willis Hobart

and David Stanton, NMFS Scientific Publication

Office, deserve special recognition for their editing

assistance and development of a format for this

presentation. Panel members owe a collective debt

of gratitude to our respective institutions, colleagues,

friends and families who have supported and

encouraged our participation in this endeavor.

iii
iv
Seeking solutions to reverse the decline of New

England’s fisheries in 1871, Congress created the

U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries (Hobart

1995). The first appointed Commissioner, Spencer

Baird, initiated marine ecological studies as one of

his first priorities. According to Baird, our

understanding of fish “... would not be complete

without a thorough knowledge of their associates in

the sea, especially of such as prey upon them or

constitute their food....” He understood that the

presence or absence of fish was related not only to

removal by fishing, but also to the dynamics of

physical and chemical oceanography.

Despite this historical, fundamental

understanding of fisheries as part of ecosystems, we

have continued to struggle to manage fish harvests

while simultaneously sustaining the ecosystem.

Recognizing the need for a more holistic

management approach, Congress charged the

National Marine Fisheries Service (a direct

descendant of the U.S. Commission of Fish and

Fisheries) with establishing an Ecosystem Principles

Advisory Panel to assess the extent that ecosystem

principles are used in fisheries management and

research, and to recommend how such principles can

be further implemented to improve our Nation’s

management of living marine resources. The

resulting Panel was composed of members of

industry, academia, conservation organizations and

fishery management agencies. The Panel’s diversity

played a substantial role in the development of a

pragmatic approach to expand ecosystem-based

fishery management within the context of the

existing fishery management system.

The Panel attempted to build on the progress of

past efforts, namely the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries

Act’s (SFA) amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(MSFCMA) (NMFS 1996). The provisions of the

SFA require the Regional Fishery Management

Councils to set harvest rates at or below maximum

sustained yield levels; develop rebuilding plans for

those species that are currently below the long-term

sustainable yield; better account for and minimize

bycatch and discard of fish; identify essential fish

habitat and take measures to protect it; and determine

the effects of fishing on the environment. These

actions are being implemented and are vital to

achieving ecosystem-based management. Still, it

will take years to decades before the results are fully

realized.

The Panel forged a consensus on how to expand

the use of ecosystem principles in fishery

management. We do not have a magic formula, but

we offer a practical combination of principles and

actions that we believe will propel management onto

ecologically sustainable pathways. By asking more

encompassing questions about fisheries management

such as, “What are the effects of fishing on other

ecosystem components?” and “What are acceptable

standards for fisheries removals from ecosystems?”

we are broadening the scope of management and

ultimately making fisheries sustainable.

Ecosystem-based fishery management is likely

to contribute to increased abundance of those species

that have been overfished. It may, however, require

reduced harvest of species of critical importance to

the ecosystem. We expect that ecosystem-based

fishery management will contribute to the stability

of employment and economic activity in the fishing

industry and to the protection of marine biodiversity

on which fisheries depend. As a society, we are

recognizing the limits of the sea to provide resources

and of our abilities to stay within those limits. What

are acceptable levels of change in marine

environments due to fishing? This Report does not

answer that question for society, but it does set a

framework for beginning to take actions based on

the insight of Baird 125 years ago.

David Fluharty

Chair, Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel

Seattle, Washington

November 15, 1998

PREFACE

v
vi
E

cosystem-based management can be an

important complement to existing fisheries

management approaches. When fishery managers

understand the complex ecological and

socioeconomic environments in which fish and

fisheries exist, they may be able to anticipate the

effects that fishery management will have on the

ecosystem and the effects that ecosystem change will

have on fisheries. However ecosystem-based

management cannot resolve all of the underlying

problems of the existing fisheries management

regimes. Absent the political will to stop overfishing,

protect habitat, and support expanded research and

monitoring programs, an ecosystem-based approach

cannot be effective.

A comprehensive ecosystem-based fisheries

management approach would require managers to

consider all interactions that a target fish stock has

with predators, competitors, and prey species; the

effects of weather and climate on fisheries biology

and ecology; the complex interactions between fishes

and their habitat; and the effects of fishing on fish

stocks and their habitat. However, the approach need

not be endlessly complicated. An initial step may

require only that managers consider how the

harvesting of one species might impact other species

in the ecosystem. Fishery management decisions

made at this level of understanding can prevent

significant and potentially irreversible changes in

marine ecosystems caused by fishing.

Recognizing the potential of an ecosystem-based

management approach to improve fisheries

management, Congress requested that the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) convene a panel

of experts to: 1) assess the extent to which ecosystem

principles are currently applied in fisheries research

and management; and 2) recommend how best to

integrate ecosystem principles into future fisheries

management and research. In response, NMFS

created the National Marine Fisheries Service

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (Panel).

WHAT BASIC ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES,

GOALS AND POLICIES CAN BE APPLIED TO

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH?

To guide our deliberations, we developed a set

of eight ecosystem operating principles (Principles)

with societal goals for ecosystems (Goals), and a set

of six management policies (Policies). These

Principles, Goals and Policies were used to evaluate

the current application of ecosystem-based fisheries

management and to develop recommendations for

further implementation of such approaches.

BASIC ECOSYSTEM

PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND POLICIES

Based on the Panel’s experience and review of

the fisheries ecosystem literature, we suggest that

the following Principles, Goals and Policies embody

key elements for ecosystem-based management of

fisheries.

Principles

• The ability to predict ecosystem behavior is

limited.

• Ecosystems have real thresholds and limits which,

when exceeded, can effect major system

restructuring.

• Once thresholds and limits have been exceeded,

changes can be irreversible.

• Diversity is important to ecosystem functioning.

• Multiple scales interact within and among

ecosystems.

• Components of ecosystems are linked.

• Ecosystem boundaries are open.

• Ecosystems change with time.

Goals

• Maintain ecosystem health and sustainability.

Policies

• Change the burden of proof.

• Apply the precautionary approach.

• Purchase “insurance” against unforeseen, adverse

ecosystem impacts.

• Learn from management experiences.

• Make local incentives compatible with global

goals.

• Promote participation, fairness and equity in

policy and management.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

2

TO WHAT EXTENT ARE ECOSYSTEM

PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND POLICIES

CURRENTLY APPLIED IN RESEARCH AND

MANAGEMENT?

The Panel considered a management system

based on the ecosystem Principles, Goals and

Policies, as a framework with which to evaluate the

current application in U.S. marine fisheries

management and research. This model was then

compared to the current state of research and

management.

We conclude that NMFS and the Regional

Fishery Management Councils (Councils) already

consider and apply some of the Principles, Goals and

Policies outlined above, but they are not applied

comprehensively or evenly across Council

jurisdictions, NMFS Regions, or ecosystems. The

fact that the Principles are not applied consistently

in U.S. fisheries management and research should

not be interpreted as reluctance or intransigence on

the part of these entities to adopt ecosystem

approaches. Rather, these agencies lack both a clear

mandate and resources from Congress to carry out

this more comprehensive, but ultimately more

sustainable approach. Furthermore, the ecosystembased management of fisheries is a relatively new

concept and there are considerable gaps in

knowledge and practice.

HOW CAN WE EXPAND THE APPLICATION OF

ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND

POLICIES TO FISHERIES RESEARCH AND

MANAGEMENT?

Several practical measures can be implemented

immediately to make U.S. fisheries management and

research more consistent with the ecosystem

Principles (see Summary of Recommendations).

These measures comprise an incremental strategy

for moving toward ecosystem-based fisheries

research and management.

Councils should continue to use existing Fishery

Management Plans (FMP) for single species or

species complexes, but these should be amended to

incorporate ecosystem approaches consistent with

an overall Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (FEP). The FEP,

to be developed for each major ecosystem under

Council jurisdiction, is a mechanism for

incorporating the Principles, Goals and Policies into

the present regulatory structure. The objectives of

FEPs are to:

• Provide Council members with a clear description

and understanding of the fundamental physical,

biological, and human/institutional context of

ecosystems within which fisheries are managed;

• Direct how that information should be used in the

context of FMPs; and

• Set policies by which management options would

be developed and implemented.

Fisheries management based on the ecosystem

Principles, Goals and Policies must be supported by

comprehensive research. Significant ecosystem

research is now conducted by the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other

agencies, as well as the academic community. This

research is critical and must continue, but must

expand into several key areas. First, we must better

understand the long-term dynamics of marine

ecosystems and how they respond to human-induced

change, particularly changes brought about by

fishing. Second, we must develop governance

systems which have ecosystem health and

sustainability, rather than short-term economic gain,

as their primary goals.

THE FUTURE OF ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES

IN U.S. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Fisheries scientists and managers are beginning

to grasp the potential of ecosystem-based fishery

management to improve the sustainability of

fisheries resources. Given the depressed state of

many U.S. fisheries, this awareness must be

expanded and actions taken to implement this

approach. Our management recommendations and

research actions provide a pragmatic framework

within which to apply the ecosystem Principles,

Goals and Policies. The success of this approach

depends on full implementation of measures already

underway as a result of the passage of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(MSFCMA) (NMFS 1996), particularly the essential

fish habitat (EFH) requirements and strengthened

national standards. The recommendations contained

in this report provide the required next steps.

While some of the recommended actions can start
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

immediately, we believe that legislation is required

to implement measures like the FEP. Given that

legislative processes may require three to five years

to enact the proposed regulations, we recommend

interim actions by the Secretary of Commerce to

develop demonstration FEPs and to encourage

voluntary adoption by management Councils of the

Principles, Goals and Policies proposed herein. We

also are aware that these new tasks will require

additional human and financial resources for full

implementation.

The benefits of adopting ecosystem-based fishery

management and research are more sustainable

fisheries and marine ecosystems, as well as more

economically-healthy coastal communities. We have

identified the actions required to realize these

benefits. We urge the Secretary and Congress to

make those resources available.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Fisheries management and policy

recommendations are directed toward Congress for

implementation by NMFS and the Councils. Interim

measures and research recommendations are directed

toward the Secretary of Commerce for

implementation by NMFS and other appropriate

agencies.

Develop a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (FEP)

Require each Council to develop an FEP for the

ecosystem(s) under its jurisdiction. The FEP is an

umbrella document containing information on the

structure and function of the ecosystem in which

fishing activities occur, so that managers can be

aware of the effects their decisions have on the

ecosystem, and the effects other components of the

ecosystem may have on fisheries.

Each FEP should require the Councils to take, at

least, the following eight actions:

1. Delineate the geographic extent of the

ecosystem(s) that occur(s) within Council

authority, including characterization of the

biological, chemical and physical dynamics

of those ecosystems, and “zone” the area for

alternative uses.

The first step in using an ecosystem approach to

management must be to identify and bound the

ecosystem. Hydrography, bathymetry, productivity

and trophic structure must be considered; as well as

how climate influences the physical, chemical and

biological oceanography of the ecosystem; and how,

in turn, the food web structure and dynamics are

affected. Transfers across ecosystem boundaries

should be noted.

Within each identified ecosystem, Councils

should use a zone-based management approach to

designate geographic areas for prescribed uses. Such

zones could include marine protected areas, areas

particularly sensitive to gear impacts and areas where

fishing is known to negatively affect the trophic food

web.

2. Develop a conceptual model of the food web.

For each targeted species, there should be a

corresponding description of both predator and prey

species at each life history stage over time. FEPs

can then address the anticipated effects of the allowed

harvest on predator-prey dynamics.

3. Describe the habitat needs of different life

history stages for all plants and animals that

represent the “significant food web” and how

they are considered in conservation and

management measures.

Essential fish habitat (EFH) for target and nontarget species at different life stages should be

identified and described. Using habitat and other

ecosystem information, Councils should develop

zone-based management regimes, whereby

geographic areas within an ecosystem would be

reserved for prescribed uses. FEPs should identify

existing and potential gear alternatives that would

alleviate gear-induced damage to EFH, as well as

restrict gears which have adverse affects. Further,

FEPs should evaluate the use of harvest refugia as a

management tool to satisfy habitat needs.

4. Calculate total removals—including

incidental mortality—and show how they

relate to standing biomass, production,

optimum yields, natural mortality and trophic

structure.

Total removals (i.e., reported landings,

unreported landings, discards, and mortality to fish

that come into contact with fishing gear but are not

captured) should be incorporated into qualitative
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

4

food web and quantitative stock assessment models.

These models will allow managers to reduce

uncertainty, monitor ecosystem health and better

predict relative abundance of species affected by the

harvest of target species.

5. Assess how uncertainty is characterized and

what kind of buffers against uncertainty are

included in conservation and management

actions.

Given the variability associated with ecosystems,

managers should be cognizant of the high likelihood

for unanticipated outcomes. Management should

acknowledge and account for this uncertainty by

developing risk-averse management strategies that

are flexible and adaptive.

6. Develop indices of ecosystem health as

targets for management.

Ecosystem health refers to a balanced, integrated,

adaptive community of organisms having a species

composition, diversity and functional organization

that has evolved naturally. Provided that a healthy

state can be determined or inferred, management

should strive to generate and maintain such a state

in a given ecosystem. Inherent in this management

strategy would be specific goals for the ecosystem,

including a description of “unhealthy” states to be

avoided.

7. Describe available long-term monitoring data

and how they are used.

Changes to the ecosystem cannot be determined

without long-term monitoring of biological indices

and climate. Long-term monitoring of chemical,

physical and biological characteristics will provide

a better understanding of oceanic variability and how

climate changes affect the abundance of

commercially important species and their

corresponding food webs.

8. Assess the ecological, human, and

institutional elements of the ecosystem which

most significantly affect fisheries, and are

outside Council/Department of Commerce

(DOC) authority. Included should be a

strategy to address those influences in order

to achieve both FMP and FEP objectives.

Councils and DOC have authority over a limited

range of the human, institutional and natural

components of a marine ecosystem. It is important

to recognize those components of the ecosystem over

which fisheries managers have no direct control, and

to develop strategies to address them in concert with

appropriate international, Federal, State, Tribes and

local entities.

Measures to Implement FEPs

The following are general recommendations to

ensure effective development and implementation

of FEPs:

1. Encourage the Councils to apply ecosystem

Principles, Goals and Policies to ongoing

activities.

In preparation for FEP implementation, Councils

should begin to apply the ecosystem Principles,

Goals and Policies to the conservation and

management measures of existing and future FMPs.

Three actions are particularly important; specifically,

each FMP’s conservation and management measures

should:

• Consider predator-prey interactions affected by

fishing allowed under the FMP.

• Consider bycatch taken during allowed fishing

operations and the impacts such removals have

on the affected species and the ecosystem as a

whole, in terms of food web interactions and

community structure.

• Minimize impacts of fisheries operations on EFH

identified within the FEP.

2. Provide training to Council members and

staff.

To facilitate an ecosystem approach and to aid

the development and implementation of FEPs,

NMFS should provide all Council members with

basic instruction in ecological principles. Further,

training materials should be made available to the

fishing industry, environmental organizations and

other interested parties.

3. Prepare guidelines for FEPs.

The Secretary of Commerce should charge

NMFS and the Councils with establishing guidelines
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

for FEP development, including an amendment

process. NMFS and the Councils should conduct a

deliberative process—similar to the process of

developing National Standards Guidelines—to

ensure that FEPs are realistic and adaptive.

4. Develop demonstration FEPs.

While encouraging all Councils to develop

framework FEPs, the Secretary of Commerce should

designate a Council or Councils to develop a

demonstration FEP, as a model to facilitate rapid

implementation of the full FEP when required in

MSFCMA reauthorization.

5. Provide oversight to ensure development of

and compliance with FEPs.

To ensure compliance with the development of

FEPs, the Secretary of Commerce should establish

a review panel for FEP implementation oversight.

Implicit in this action is the establishment of a

timetable for development of a draft FEP, its review

by the panel, and any necessary revisions before the

draft FEP becomes a basis for policy.

6. Enact legislation requiring FEPs.

To provide NMFS and the Councils with the

mandated responsibility of designing and

implementing FEPs, Congress should require full

FEP implementation in the next reauthorization of

the MSFCMA.

Research Required to Support Management

Require, and provide support for NMFS and

other appropriate agencies to initiate or continue

research on three critical research themes which will

provide the information necessary to support

ecosystem-based fisheries management. These

themes are:

1. Determine the ecosystem effects of fishing.

Fishing affects target species, non-target species,

habitat and potentially marine ecosystems as a whole.

A directed program must be initiated to determine

all effects of fishing on marine ecosystems.

2.Monitor trends and dynamics in marine

ecosystems (ECOWATCH).

In order to detect, understand and react

appropriately to ecosystem changes, a broad-scale

ecosystem research and monitoring program must

be undertaken based on the best available technology.

We refer to this program as “ECOWATCH” because

it will enable scientists and managers to observe

ecosystem changes in a comprehensive manner.

3. Explore ecosystem-based approaches to

governance.

Many of today’s fisheries problems stem from

governance systems which create incentives that are

incompatible with, or inimical to, ecosystem-level

Goals (e.g., health and sustainability). Alternate

governance systems must be identified which

provide fishermen and others with incentives to

consider the health and sustainability of the

ecosystem as primary goals.
6
7

ECOSYSTEM-BASED

FISHERY MANAGEMENT
8
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

was charged by Congress to establish an Ecosystem

Principles Advisory Panel (Panel) to identify

ecosystem principles, evaluate how those principles

are currently used in fishery management and

research, and then to recommend measures that

would expand their use in fishery management and

research. Our Charter (Appendix A) describes the

rationale for our effort and provides the charge to

this Panel. Here we outline our views of the historical

developments and current issues leading to this

charge. We lay out a conceptual framework that

includes management actions and research on marine

resources and fisheries in an ecosystem context.

THE PROBLEM

The world’s oceans are at or near maximum

sustainable fishery yields. The number of

overexploited stocks increased by 2.5 times between

1980 and 1990 (Alverson and Larkin 1994). Much

of the global sustained yield is being accomplished

by increased fishing for species at progressively

lower trophic levels (Pauly et al. 1998). The prospect

of increasing total sustained yield is unlikely (Pauly

and Christensen 1995). Although fisheries provide

direct or indirect employment to about 200 million

people (Garcia and Newton 1997), overfishing is the

most commonly observed result of fishery

development. The consequences of overharvesting

are expressed in social, economic, cultural and

ecological changes. The ecological consequences

of overfishing often are undocumented and may be

poorly known or overlooked.

Since 1990, annual harvests by U.S. fleets have

been slightly in excess of 4.5 million metric tons,

with nearly half of that coming from two fisheries—

menhaden and Alaska pollock. In its annual report

to Congress on the status of the fisheries of the

U. S., NMFS states that of the 727 managed stocks

in the United States, 86 are overfished, 10 are

approaching overfished status, and 183 are not

overfished (NMFS 1997). This leaves 448 stocks,

for which the status is virtually unknown. NMFS

(1997) also indicates that “additional stocks will

likely be identified as overfished” under the new

definition of overfishing in the Magnuson-Stevens

Fisheries Conservation and Management Act

(MSFCMA).

While there are some encouraging recoveries

(e.g., striped bass in the Atlantic and Pacific sardine),

record-setting yields (e.g., Alaska salmon), and

management successes (e.g., Pacific halibut), those

cases are the exceptions rather than the rule. As in

the global case, we should be concerned that

overfishing will be a common consequence for most

fisheries (Ludwig et al. 1993, Mooney 1998),

although this need not be the case (Rosenberg et al.

1993).

This issue is urgent because the current harvest

levels are high and because new fisheries will rise,

be fully capitalized and reach unsustainable levels

of catch levels before the management process can

establish effective constraints. That, unfortunately,

is the too-common lesson of history (Ludwig et al.

1993). In many cases, the ecological correlates of

changing fish populations could have served as

evidence of intensified exploitation effects.

Frequently, the advent of a fishery and

implementation of catch restrictions have unknown

ecological consequences. Too often, we learn about

ecological consequences after the fact, because we

do not consider them in our decision-making, nor

do we monitor ecosystem changes due to increased

exploitation. Those lessons are not unique to

fisheries. Many Federal, regional and State resource

management agencies are now moving toward or

considering an ecosystem approach in their attempt

to provide a holistic framework for resource

management. Fisheries must do so as well (Langton

and Haedrich 1997).

FISHERIES IN AN

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT

Much of the foundation of fisheries science

provides a basis for determining maximum yields

so that fishing can safely remove surplus production

(Hilborn and Walters 1992). However, when fishing

is examined in an ecosystem context, the rationale

for harvesting surplus production is unclear. Marine

ecosystems are effective at capturing energy, cycling

nutrients and producing biomass. Very little, if any

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION

9
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

10

of this biomass, is truly “surplus” to an ecosystem;

before the advent of fisheries, it was recycled within

the ecosystem. Consequently, our societal decision

to harvest fish, induces ecological changes among

competitors, prey and predators as the system

responds to fishing and the trophically-induced

changes fishing causes in ecosystems. These changes

affect future levels of surplus production of the

harvested population, including the possibility that

there may be none.

We understand that fisheries must continue,

because they provide food and desirable social and

economic benefits and

because the cultural

traditions of fishing are

highly valued.

However, we also

understand that

overutilized fisheries

are a serious threat to

those traditions and

benefits (National

Research Council

1999). Conflict thus

develops when

management agencies

(e.g., NMFS, Regional

Fishery Management

Councils, etc.) seek to

implement sustainable

yield policies for open-access resources, when

fishery effects extend to animals protected by our

Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal

Protection Act, and, most recently, when

conservation and management interests assert that

the burden of proof should be placed on the fishing

industry (i.e., to demonstrate that exploitation does

not produce large-scale and long-term ecological

changes) (Dayton 1998). Finding the balance

between competing interests is a difficult challenge,

and each fishery will have its unique solutions. On

the Federal level, NMFS will be expected to provide

the ecological insights that are essential for longterm protection of fish stocks and their ecosystems.

Decisions regarding fishing practices derive from

our social, economic, political and cultural context,

and only secondarily from the ecological context that

supports fisheries (Mooney 1998). A holistic view

requires that we recognize fishery management and

exploitation as a real and integral part of the marine

ecosystem (Langton and Haedrich 1997). Because

fishing actively removes a percentage of one or

several species, it can affect the predators and prey

of those species, their physical habitat, and it can

change the growth and mortality rates of target and

non-target species alike. In short, fishing can and is

likely to alter the structure and function of marine

ecosystems (Dayton 1998, Pauly et al. 1998).

Humans are at the top of the global marine food

chain. We thus have the obligation and opportunity

to make choices to affect the marine environment

positively.

While fishing has a long history, it is a relatively

new force in the scales

of evolutionary time.

Fishing is typically a

species-selective and

size-selective agent of

mortality and,

therefore, is unlike the

natural causes of

mortality. Most of the

fish removed by

fishing activities are in

the middle or near the

tops of food webs in

their habitats. Fishing

can be viewed as a

keystone predator; the

ecological effects of

fishing are therefore

substantially greater and more complex than simply

the biomass removed. Thus, we should expect that

substantial changes have or could occur in those

ecosystems due to fishing. We have witnessed

changes in the landscape around us with the advent

of technology evolved from the axe and the plow.

We should expect equally profound ecological

changes from modern, large-scale uses of the hook

and net.

MANAGING FISHERIES IN

AN ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT

Ecosystem-based fisheries management does not

require that we understand all things about all

components of the ecosystem. We know that the

traditional single-species approach of fisheries

management is tractable, but we also know that it

may not be sufficient. We know that an ecosystem

perspective is desirable, but it is complex and

unpredictable. There simply is not enough money,

time or talent to develop a synthetic and completely

Nature has limits

If nature is a shifting mosaic or in essentially

continuous flux, then it may be wrong to conclude that

whatever societies choose to do in or to the natural world

is fine. The question can be stated as, “If the state of

nature is flux, then is any human-generated change

okay?” ... The answer to this question is a resounding

“No!” ... Human-generated changes must be

constrained because nature has functional, historical,

and evolutionary limits. Nature has a range of ways to

be, but there is a limit to those ways, and therefore,

human changes must be within those limits. (Pickett et

al. 1992).
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION

11

informed view of how fisheries operate in an

ecosystem context. There will always be

unmeasured entities, random effects, and substantial

uncertainties, but these are not acceptable excuses

to delay implementing an ecosystem-based

management strategy.

Each fishery and each ecosystem is unique and

yet, in all cases, we are confronted with four

fundamental problems:

• We do not have a

c o m p l e t e

understanding of the

ecological system

that produces and

supports fishes.

• We cannot forecast

weather or climate

and their effects on

ecosystems.

• Systems evolve over

time and knowing

how the system

works does not

necessarily mean that

an ecosystem would

respond predictably

to future changes in

weather, climate or

fisheries.

• Our institutions are

not configured to

manage at the

ecosystem scale.

Fish and the fisheries

that pursue them are not easily aligned with our

political and jurisdictional boundaries.

These constraints are not unique to fisheries, they

confront all attempts to manage natural resources in

an ecosystem context. We know that the removal of

one species can and does affect others, but rarely

have we developed management plans that

adequately account for those direct and indirect

effects. We know that ecosystems have a limited

carrying capacity that results in bounds on fish yields.

We know that habitat loss contributes to declines in

species abundance, but too often we only regulate

catch, gear or effort for one target species as a way

to compensate for habitat loss and its effects on other

species. We know that major, unexpected events

(e.g., El Niño) can alter ecosystem processes, thus

affecting species targeted by fisheries, but we have

no method for integrating these events into our

assessments of target species population trends

(Mantua et al. 1997, Francis et al. 1998).

What are the potential gains of implementing an

ecosystem approach to management, and how do we

develop a holistic view that is both sufficient and

tractable? In this

report, we develop

a strategy for

i m p l e m e n t i n g

ecosystem-based

management.

First, we

develop a conceptual

model that sets fisheries

in the context of what

we know about

ecosystem theory

(which is provided in

the section on

Ecosystem Principles,

Goals and Policies).

Second, we provide a

brief assessment of the

extent to which

ecosystem principles,

goals and policies are

applied in U.S. fisheries

research and

management (Current

Applications of the

Principles, Goals and

Policies). Third, we

offer a series of specific recommendations for

applying these principles to the operational context

of NMFS, the Regional Fishery Management

Councils (Councils), their administrative structure

and their management activities (Recommendations

for Implementing the Ecosystem Principles, Goals

and Policies in U.S. Fisheries Conservation,

Management and Research). Finally, we

recommend a comprehensive research program to

provide the ecological and governance

underpinnings for ecosystem-based fishery

management.

Taken as a whole, the report presents our best

Legal Authorities for

Ecosystem Management of Fisheries

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act allows fishery managers to consider

ecosystems in setting management objectives. National

Standard 1 requires conservation and management

measures to “prevent overfishing while achieving, on a

continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery”

(Sec. 301(a)(1)). The “optimum” yield is defined as

providing “the greatest overall benefit to the Nation,

particularly with respect to food production and

recreational opportunities, and taking into account the

protection of marine ecosystems” (Sec. 3(28)(A)).

Moreover, the optimum yield is prescribed as “the

maximum sustainable yield from each fishery, as reduced

by any relevant economic, social or ecological factor”

(Sec. 3(28)(B)). In addition, the Act states as one of its

purposes “to promote the protection of essential fish

habitat” (Sec. 2(b)(7)). To the extent that ecosystems

are not being adequately considered in FMPs, it is not

because of a lack of statutory authority so much as it is

a lack of direction about what information is required

and how it should be put into operation.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

12

advice about innovative approaches that can help set

fisheries in an ecosystem context. Ecosystem-based

management is an important new challenge. We

expect that NMFS and Council managers and

scientists will develop creative ways to help meet

that challenge. But these new approaches cannot

substitute for compliance with existing mandates.

Ecosystem-based management will require reevaluation of the institutional structure necessary for

effective management. It will also demand a strong

political will expressed through Congress, NMFS

and the Councils—one based on a broader

appreciation of the ecosystem context within which

we prosecute our fisheries (Hutchings et al. 1997).
There are two requirements for managing human

interactions with marine ecosystems. One is to

develop an understanding of the basic characteristics

and principles of these ecosystems—what patterns

they exhibit and how they function in space and time.

The second is to develop an ability to manage

activities that impact marine ecosystems, consistent

with both their basic principles and with societal

goals concerning the kinds of behavior we would

like ecosystems to exhibit (i.e., health and

sustainability).

This section lists eight basic ecosystem principles

(Principles) and their parallels in human systems that

are part of marine ecosystems. A discussion of

societal goals (Goals) for ecosystem-based

management follows. Finally, a list of general

management policies (Policies) to achieve the Goals

is provided.

BASIC ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES

Marine ecosystems are complex, adaptive

systems composed of interconnected groups of living

organisms and their habitats. Living organisms are

constantly adapting and evolving to their

environment (both to the physical environment,

which varies on multiple scales, and to other living

organisms with which they co-exist); this evolution

leads to complex, sometimes chaotic dynamics.

Marine ecosystems are generally extensive and

open. Their fluid environments are subject to

variability in both local and remote inputs of energy

(a consequence of physics operating on many spatial

and temporal scales) which may dominate such

systems. Highly variable and chaotic dynamics of

living resources are often observed as well.

Today, humans are a major component in most

ecosystems. The human component of the ecosystem

includes the humans themselves, their artifacts and

manufactured goods (economies), and their

institutions and cultures. The human imposition of

fishing mortality, at rates often higher than natural

mortality, can have major impacts not only on

targeted species but on the ecosystem itself.

The following eight Principles have analogs in

both the human and nonhuman aspect of ecosystems:

1. The ability to predict ecosystem behavior is

limited.

Uncertainty and indeterminacy are

fundamental characteristics of the dynamics

of complex adaptive systems. Predicting the

behaviors of these systems cannot be done

with absolute certainty, regardless of the

amount of scientific effort invested. We can,

however, learn the boundaries of expected

behavior and improve our understanding of

the underlying dynamics. Thus, while

ecosystems are neither totally predictable nor

totally unpredictable, they can be managed

within the limits of their predictability.

Properties characterizing marine ecosystems may

vary within wide bounds on decadal and longer time

scales (Fig.1). For example, El Niño events and

decadal climate changes may displace species,

restructure communities and alter overall

productivity in broad oceanic areas. Other

phenomena, sometimes operating on smaller time

scales, may precipitate regime shifts characterized

by major fluctuations in constituent species (Steele

1996), but our ability to predict such events is only

now evolving (Langton et al. 1996) and will always

be shrouded in a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless,

management policies can be guided by the broad

understanding we possess of marine ecosystem

boundaries and production potential limits.

The ability to predict human behavior in fishery

systems is also limited, but evolving. Many

fishermen pass through rounds of fishing in regular

annual patterns, markets respond in predictable ways

to price changes, and fishermen often have

predictable responses to policy proposals or

regulatory changes. Fisheries systems respond to

SECTION TWO: ECOSYSTEM

PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND POLICIES

13
global market trends and economic changes, social

preferences and philosophies. The ability to

describe, explain and predict these human behaviors,

although the behaviors vary according to

circumstance, is increasing with the growing body

of social scientific data and information on fishery

systems.

2. Ecosystems have real thresholds and limits

which, when exceeded, can effect major

system restructuring (Holling and Meffe

1996).

Ecosystems are finite and exhaustible, but

they usually have a high buffering capacity

and are fairly resilient to stress. Often, as

stress is applied to an ecosystem, its

structure and behavior may at first not change

noticeably. Only after a critical threshold is

passed does the system begin to deteriorate

rapidly. Because there is little initial change

in behavior with increasing stress, these

thresholds are very difficult to predict. The

nonlinear dynamics which cause this kind of

behavior are a basic characteristic of

ecosystems.

14

Figure 1. Scales of physical variability affecting marine resources. Variability in marine ecosystems

is linked to variability in the physical environment on a continuum of time and space scales. We

are often constrained to work on scales at which data are available, and long term monitoring must

be carefully designed to address appropriate scales. Figure courtesy of NMFS Pacific Fisheries

Environmental Laboratory.

ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT
SECTION TWO: ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES

15

The concepts of limits and thresholds have been

misused in single-species fishery management in the

sense that they have been viewed as targets for fish

catches rather than levels to be avoided. Because

single-species management has prevailed, limits and

thresholds rarely have been applied in a broader

ecosystem context. Limits in fisheries management

often have been biological reference points such as

prescribed fishing mortality rates or yields, that are

set without concern for other components in the

ecosystem. Many limits are in fact thresholds that,

when exceeded, challenge the resilience of the

managed stock and associated species. Experience

has shown that some past target levels used by

managers, for example maximum sustainable yield,

because they are too close to critical thresholds

(Caddy and Mahon 1995), ultimately lead to stock

declines or damage to ecological communities.

Thresholds are to be avoided to maintain resilience

at the species and community levels. Fishery targets

should be set conservatively, well below the limits

and critical thresholds that compromise the

productive potential and stability of the ecosystem.

Limits and thresholds of non-targeted organisms

have only recently been considered through

mandates of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the

Endangered Species Act, and in the new overfishing

level definitions, bycatch and essential fish habitat

(EFH) provisions of the MSFCMA.

Human systems (fishermen, their communities

and fishery management systems) are both resilient

and generally resistant to change. Thresholds of

profitability, tolerance of regulatory conditions, and

risk or uncertainty-induced stress on fisherydependent human communities are real. Thresholds

must be determined through both constituent advice

and independent research on individual and group

responses to stress. Identification of reference points

for the limits of human resilience may be possible.

3. Once thresholds and limits have been

exceeded, changes can be irreversible.

When an ecosystem is radically altered, it may

never return to its original condition, even

after the stress is removed. This

phenomenon is common in many complex,

adaptive systems.

It is probable that some estuaries, coral reefs

(Hughes 1994), and mangrove ecosystems have been

irreversibly altered by fishing, aquaculture, and other

habitat-destructive activities. Farther offshore,

effects of fishing itself on abundances of target and

non-target organisms may radically alter

communities and ecosystems. It is too soon to know

whether heavily fished systems, such as Georges

Bank, will return to their previous states when fishing

effort is relaxed (Fogarty and Murawski 1998).

Fisheries scientists and managers have demonstrated

an abiding faith in the ability of fish stocks to

compensate for fishing effects by increasing their

level of productivity. Implicitly, that faith is extended

to ecosystems which support exploited stocks. Up

to a point, recoveries are possible. In some coastal

ecosystems, however, resilience and limits have been

exceeded, often by the combined effects of habitat

destruction and fishing, and it is doubtful if they will

return to their original condition.

Changes in ecosystems may permanently alter

human behaviors. When a fisherman goes out of

business, when an annual season of fishing is

disturbed, or when market flow is interrupted, it is

often not possible to reestablish the former business,

pattern or market. Some aspects of human systems

and behavior can be reestablished given enough time

and attention, whereas changes in natural

components of ecosystems are typically more

enduring. In contrast, policy and management

systems are continually subject to change and

reversal.

4. Diversity is important to ecosystem

functioning.

The diversity of components at the individual,

species, and landscapes scales strongly

affects ecosystem behavior. Although the

overall productivity of ecosystems may not

change significantly when particular species

are added or removed, their stability and

resilience may be affected.

Long-term consequences of diversity losses due

to overfishing or poor fishing practices in marine

systems are largely unknown. It is clear, however,

that the economic value of specific components of

catch change dramatically as some stocks are

overfished, to be replaced in the ecosystem by lowervalued species (Deimling and Liss 1994, Fogarty and

Murawski 1998). At the ecosystem level, drastic

alterations of diversity certainly have occurred, and

biological productivity has been redirected to

alternative species, but it is not clear that these
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

16

ecosystems are less productive or less efficient.

However, such ecosystems are often valued less;

witness the loss of tourist revenue in areas that have

suffered damage to coral reef systems. It is prudent

to presume that changes in biodiversity will decrease

resiliency of species, communities and ecosystems,

especially with perturbations that occur over long

time scales (Boehlert 1996).

This principle also applies to the human element.

An economy with more than one sector, a community

with more than one industry, a fishing family with

more than one income from different sources, or an

industry large enough to foster technological

innovation, are all aspects of the strength in diversity

found in human society. Communities which lose

such diversity are more susceptible to stress and

unexpected sources of change.

5. Multiple scales interact within and among

ecosystems.

Ecosystems cannot be understood from the

perspective of a single time, space, or

complexity scale. At minimum, both the next

larger scale and the next lower scale of

interest must be considered when effects of

perturbations are analyzed.

Consequences of perturbations at one scale in

marine systems may be magnified at larger and

smaller scales (Langton et al. 1995). For example,

destruction of a species’ spawning habitat—typically

a small fraction of its range—may translate into

major impacts on species associations and trophic

interactions in the broader feeding areas of recruited

fish. Likewise, effects of fishing on a broad

ecosystem scale may have profound impacts on

components of ecosystems far removed in space and

time—scientists are investigating the relationship

between pollock fishing and the general decline of

Steller sea lion populations in the eastern Bering Sea

and Gulf of Alaska. Seemingly small human

perturbations, applied at a point in time or in one

part of a marine ecosystem, may have unforeseen

impacts because of the open nature and fluid

environment that characterize marine ecosystems.

These features elevate the probability that a stress

applied at one scale will be transmitted and may have

unforeseen effects at other scales in the ecosystem.

Human impacts on ecosystems cannot be

understood from the perspective of a single time,

space, or complexity scale. A fishing community is

subject to perturbations both from its own members

and from outside forces. Fishery systems in one

location are subject to environmental, social,

economic and regulatory forces far removed in time

and space, especially with respect to markets.

6. Components of ecosystems are linked.

The components within ecosystems are

linked by flows of material, energy, and

information in complex patterns.

Critical linkages in marine ecosystems are

sustained by key predator-prey relationships. Large,

long-lived predators and small, short-lived prey (e.g.,

forage fishes) both contribute in major ways to

marine fish catches. Heavy fishing may precipitate

species replacements, both at lower trophic levels

(e.g., sand lance replacing herring and vice-versa)

and at upper trophic levels (e.g., sharks and rays

replacing Atlantic cod) (Fogarty and Murawski

1998). Loss from ecosystems of large and long-lived

predators is of particular concern because they

potentially exercise top-down control of processes

at lower trophic levels. Global data sets have

indicated that the mean trophic level of fish caught

declined significantly from 1950-1994 (Pauly et al.

1998). Fishing down food webs (i.e., fishing at lower

trophic levels) disrupts natural predator-prey

relationships and may lead first to increasing catches,

but then to stagnating or declining yields.

Disruption of ecosystem linkages clearly may

have resounding impacts on human economies and,

in the worst cases, ecosystem stability and

productivity are compromised. Components of

human systems are linked by flows of material,

energy and information. The collapse of a market

may drastically change fishing behavior. A

technological innovation or entry of a new segment

of a fishing fleet may cause far-reaching changes in

dependent human communities.

7. Ecosystem boundaries are open.

Ecosystems are far from equilibrium and

cannot be adequately understood without

knowledge of their boundary conditions,

energy flows, and internal cycling of nutrients

and other materials. Environmental variability

can alter spatial boundaries and energy
SECTION TWO: ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES

17

inputs to ecosystems.

Productive potential of marine ecosystems is

especially sensitive to environmental variability over

a spectrum of temporal and spatial scales. The

unbounded structure of marine communities

provides the backdrop for the high (relative to

terrestrial) variability that is observed (Steele 1991).

Boundaries of ecosystems, or productive regions,

shift with weather and longer-term climate change.

Species abundances and distributions vary in accord

with annual to decadal shifts in ocean features (e.g.,

Pearcy and Schoener 1987, Polovina et al. 1995,

Roemmich and McGowan 1995, Francis et al. 1998,

McGowan et al. 1998). In open systems, local heavy

fishing in combination with major changes in ocean

conditions (e.g., El Niño), can lead to fishery

collapses and associated shifts in the partitioning of

energy or biomass among trophic levels (e.g., Walsh

1981, Barber and Chavez 1983).

Human behavioral systems are also subject to

variability over a spectrum of temporal and spatial

scales, and cannot be understood without knowledge

of their boundary conditions. Certain components

of human systems (people) are closely related and

interact regularly over time; others are only

sporadically in contact and interact in cyclical or

irregular patterns. The more intermittent or sporadic

the contact or interaction, the less stable the human

system (Axelrod 1984).

8. Ecosystems change with time.

Ecosystems change with time in response to

natural and anthropogenic influences.

Different components of ecosystems change

at different rates and can influence the overall

structure of the ecosystem itself and affect

the services provided to society in the form

of fish catch, income and employment.

Marine ecosystems experience directional

changes. Shifts in climate are responsible for many

such changes, but the role of biological interactions

in the absence of human influence are largely

unknown. Dramatic changes in coastal and estuarine

ecosystems, attributable to long-term geological and

erosional processes are easily observed (e.g.,

Chesapeake Bay, see Mountford 1996).

Anthropogenic changes are all too common,

especially in neritic and estuarine ecosystems, or

enclosed seas (e.g., San Francisco Bay (Nichols et

al. 1986), Great Lakes, Black Sea, Aral Sea,

Chesapeake Bay). Species introductions, excess

nutrient loading, damming of tributaries, poor

stewardship of bordering forests, bad agricultural

practices, and poorly-managed fisheries are

examples of factors that cause change. Rapid

advances in fishing technologies (e.g., vessel power,

navigation, sensing-locating and harvest efficiency),

the propensity for fisheries to selectively remove

species, failure to control bycatch, and unintended

damage to the physical structure of ecosystems, have

changed the character of heavily fished ecosystems

(e.g., Georges Bank) (Fogarty and Murawski 1998).

Selective fishing, that often targets long-lived

predators, can have cascading effects on community

structure (Marten 1979, Laws 1977), while heavy

industrial fishing on forage species may have

unintended impacts on top predators, especially those

(e.g., marine mammals) unable to adapt quickly to

changes in the forage base. Removal of large whales

through past whaling practices, likewise, may have

lingering effects on the nature of ecosystem

structures today (National Research Council 1996).

Deterioration of coastal ecosystems may also

generate active attempts at remediation or

enhancement through aquaculture and other means

(Morikawa 1994), which can also generate pollution

and wastes (Wu 1995).

Human activities dependent on ecosystems may

change in response to environmental change and

changes induced by fishing and other activities. In

the short run, these impacts may be considered the

normal consequences of a highly variable activity.

However, humans adapt to long-term changes in

composition of fisheries by stopping fishing or

shifting effort to other species; changes which may

produce adverse impacts. In addition, changes in

perception, values, preferences, patterns of use, and

accumulation of knowledge or expertise may cause

changes over time in the ways humans interact within

ecosystems. Human components of ecosystems

(especially technology and institutions) can change

rapidly in ways that outstrip the capacity for change

of other ecosystem components. Communities may

continue to grow and consumption rates increase,

for example, yet the capacity of the seas to increase

yields of living marine resources is limited. Thus,

fishery management policies must be prepared to

take into account these factors.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

18

BROADENING SOCIETAL GOALS

FOR ECOSYSTEMS

Traditionally, societal goals have emphasized

benefits to humans resulting from extractive uses of

ecosystem components. For example, fishery

management has typically had revenues,

employment, recreational fishing opportunities, and/

or maintenance of traditional lifestyles as explicit or

implicit goals. From an ecosystem perspective, these

goals need to be broadened to include concepts of

health and sustainability (Lubchenco et al. 1991,

National Research Council 1999). Ecosystem health

is the capability of an ecosystem to support and

maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community

of organisms having a species composition, diversity

and functional organization comparable to that of

the natural habitat of the region (Sparks 1995). This

concept is also referred to as biotic integrity, which

is defined as a system’s wholeness, including the

presence of all appropriate elements and occurrence

of all processes at appropriate rates (Angermeier and

Karr 1994, Angermeier 1997). While the concept of

health applied to marine ecosystems is relatively new

and untested, it has become a guiding framework in

several areas, including forest ecosystems (Kolb et

al. 1994), agroecosystems (Gallopin 1995), desert

ecosystems (Whitford 1995) and others (Rapport et

al. 1995).

A healthy ecosystem provides certain ecosystem

goods and services, such as food, fiber, the capacity

for assimilating and recycling wastes, potable water,

clean air, etc. (International Society for Ecosystem

Health, 1998). How do we extract from, and

otherwise utilize ecosystems, while maintaining their

health and the array of non-use services that they

also provide (Costanza et al. 1997) into the indefinite

future?

The challenge to scientists and managers is to

develop useful, quantitative measures of ecosystem

health which can guide management. What level of

fishing, for example, can a “healthy” ecosystem

sustain? How can vigor and resilience be expressed

quantitatively so that managers can maintain them

within healthy limits? These are difficult questions

which will not be answered in their entirety in the

foreseeable future, but incremental implementation

of ecosystem-based fisheries management will begin

to identify ecosystem variables (or indicators) that

are unacceptable. These could be used to guide

management away from unhealthy ecosystem states.

GENERAL ECOSYSTEM-BASED

MANAGEMENT POLICIES

Ecosystem Principles to achieve societal Goals

must be implemented through ecosystem-based

management Policies. There are three overriding

aspects of the Principles that are taken into account

in the six Policies discussed below. These are the

exhaustibility of ecosystems (reflected in Principles

2 and 3), uncertainty about ecosystems (reflected in

Principles 1, 2, 4, and 8), and the role of humans

within ecosystems (reflected in all of the Principles).

The exhaustibility of the ecosystem requires a policy

to change the burden of proof (Policy 1). Both the

exhaustibility of ecosystems and uncertainty about

ecosystems require policies to manage by a

precautionary approach (Policy 2) and to “purchase

insurance” (Policy 3) against adverse ecosystem

impacts. Uncertainty about ecosystems also dictates

that there is learning from management experiences

(Policy 4). The role of humans within ecosystems

requires policies to make incentives for human

behavior consistent with societal goals for

ecosystems (Policy 5). Acceptance and effective

implementation of the policies and management is

served by promoting participation, fairness and

equity (Policy 6). Each of the Policies is discussed

below.

1. Change the burden of proof.

We live in a world where humans are an

important component of almost all

ecosystems. Thus, it is reasonable to assume

that human activities will impact ecosystems.

The modus operandi for fisheries

management should change from the

traditional mode of restricting fishing activity

only after it has demonstrated an

unacceptable impact, to a future mode of only

allowing fishing activity that can be

reasonably expected to operate without

unacceptable impacts.

To date, almost any type of fishing activity has

been allowed until problems arise and regulations

are established to solve them. Decision makers have

to be convinced that management restrictions are

needed. As W. F. Thompson (1919) wrote “. . . proof

that seeks to change the way of commerce and sport

must be overwhelming.” Several authors have argued

that a change is needed in this “burden of proof”

(Sissenwine 1987, Mangel et al. 1996, Dayton 1998).
SECTION TWO: ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES

19

The key elements of the change are: 1) that future

fishing activity should be allowed, if and only if it is

explicitly provided for by fishing regulations which

take into account risk and uncertainty and are

promulgated to protect all elements of the ecosystem,

and 2) that to a substantial degree the responsibility

for providing the information and other support (e.g.,

the cost of management) necessary to manage

fisheries in a sustainable manner, lies with

participants in the fishery.

The first part of the change is analogous to

changing the “null” hypothesis from “marine

fisheries are inexhaustible” (Huxley 1883), to today’s

reality that marine fisheries will usually evolve to a

state of overfishing unless they are carefully

managed (Garcia and Newton 1997). The second

element of the change makes clear that the direct

beneficiaries from fishing should accept a greater

share of the burden (i.e., costs) of fishery

management. The standard of proof associated with

the change (i.e., how much certainty is needed before

a fishing activity is allowed) should be

commensurate with the severity of the risk of a

mistake. Applying the proper standard of proof is

implicitly an element of the precautionary approach

(see Policy 2).

In practice, changing the burden of proof will

mean that, when the effects of fishing on either the

target fish population, associated species, or the

ecosystem are poorly known (relative to the severity

of the potential outcome), fishery managers should

not expand existing fisheries by increasing allowable

catch levels or permitting the introduction of new

effort and should not promote or develop new

fisheries for so-called “underutilized species.”

2. Apply the precautionary approach.

The precautionary approach is a key element

of the United Nations Agreement for

Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory

Species (United Nations 1996) and the Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995). The U.S.

is a signatory of both.

All ecosystems are complex and uncertainty is

unavoidable. Within uncertainty, there is always a

risk of undesirable consequences on fishery

resources (e.g., overfishing) and/or on ecosystems.

The precautionary approach was motivated by the

widely accepted conclusion of scientists and fishery

managers that many of the current problems of

fisheries (i.e., a large number of overfished stocks)

have been caused by the practice of making riskprone fishery management decisions (i.e., to err

toward overfishing) in the face of uncertainty (Garcia

and Newton 1994). One approach to coping with

uncertainty, which is widely applied to other human

endeavors, is to encourage behaviors (often by

enacting regulations) that reduce risk. Thus, the

precautionary approach calls for risk averse decisions

(i.e., to err toward conservation). FAO (1995)

provides guidelines on the application of the

precautionary approach.

3. Purchase “insurance” against unforeseen,

adverse ecosystem impacts.

Even under the precautionary approach, there

is a risk of unforeseen, adverse impacts on

ecosystems. Insurance can be used to

mitigate these impacts if and when they

occur.

Insurance is a common method for guarding

against the risks of unforeseen, adverse impacts of

many human endeavors, and it has been proposed to

guard against adverse ecosystem impacts (Costanza

and Cornwell 1992). A requirement to purchase

insurance provides an incentive to avoid risk-prone

behavior (to reduce the cost of insurance). Thus,

this management policy supports the precautionary

approach.

Insurance can take many forms in addition to the

traditional form of insurance policies or

environmental bonds. Marine protected areas, for

example, are a form of insurance. Protecting parts

of the ecosystem from exploitation can insure future

productivity and sustainability (Carr and Reed 1993,

Dugan and Davis 1993, Agardy 1994, Bohnsack and

Ault 1996, Roberts 1997, Lauck et al. 1998).

Reserves also serve as baseline areas to evaluate

natural variation in animal and plant populations that

are free from fishing impacts.

Another form of insurance is a system to detect

adverse impacts at an early stage so that actions can

be taken to prevent further damage and/or to repair

damage. This form of insurance is more effective if

corrective actions have already been planned and

adopted, such that there is minimal delay when a
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

20

problem is detected.

Environmental bonding, marine protected areas

and a system to detect and respond to adverse impacts

can serve as both insurance and elements of a

precautionary approach.

4. Learn from management experiences.

Management actions and policies can be

considered as experiments and should be

based upon hypotheses about the ecosystem

response. This requires close monitoring of

results to determine to what extent the

hypotheses are supported.

Sustainable management of complex, adaptive

ecosystems must itself be adaptive (Holling 1978).

Management policies are experiments from which

we can learn and improve, rather than absolute

“solutions.” Adaptive management in an “active”

context would demand that hypotheses be put

forward for testing and that alternative models be

considered. Active, adaptive management often

presumes that changes in fishing mortality rates will

be imposed purposefully to induce a response in the

fished stock or in the ecosystem under investigation

(Walters 1986, Hilborn and Walters 1992). This

“active” experimental approach to management is

scientifically sound, but may have limited

applicability in extensive marine ecosystems, at least

within the time scales in which managers must act

and in which fisheries operate. Walters (1997), while

arguing eloquently about potential advantages of

active adaptive management, recognizes the many

arguments that detract from its adoption. For

instance, modeling exercises and experiments

required for the implementation of adaptive

management have often been seen as excessively

expensive or ecologically risky. A less aggressive

form of the adaptive approach, however, is more

generally acceptable and applicable. In this form,

managers learn from actions to the greatest extent

possible and respond expeditiously with alternative

management actions. The willingness and

institutional capability to respond are critical for this

form of management to succeed.

5. Make local incentives compatible with global

goals.

Changing human behavior is most easily

accomplished by changing the local

incentives to be consistent with broader

social goals. The lack of consistency

between local incentives and global goals is

the root cause of many “social traps,”

including those in fisheries management

(Costanza 1987). Changing incentives is

complex and must be accomplished in

culturally appropriate ways.

Global goals, such as long-term sustainability of

a fish population or ecosystem health, are generally

beyond the control of people at a local scale. Their

incentive for conservation is diminished if they have

no assurance that others will conserve or if they will

not share in future benefits from conservation. This

phenomenon is illustrated by the well known “race

for the fish” which can lead to overfishing and

wasteful overcapitalization (Graham 1935, Gordon

1954, Sissenwine and Rosenberg 1993).

A key element of making local incentives

consistent with global goals is to allocate shares of

the fishery such that people at local scales (down to

the scale of individuals) have the incentive to use

their shares efficiently (i.e., not wasting resources

by racing for a share) and to conserve the entire

resource to enhance the value of their shares in the

future. Shares can take many forms such as a fraction

of the total allowable catch (known as an individual

quota), units of fishing effort, or exclusive rights to

fish specific areas. Share-based allocation schemes

might be broadened to take account of indirect

impacts on ecosystems. There are several options

for the local scale to which shares are allocated, such

as to individuals or to communities. The most

effective configuration of a share-based allocation

scheme depends on the specific fishery and

ecosystem that is being managed, but some form of

share-based allocation will usually be necessary to

fulfill this management policy.

6. Promote participation, fairness and equity in

policy and management.

Ecosystem approaches to management rely

on the participation, understanding and

support of multiple constituencies. Policies

that are developed and implemented with the

full participation and consideration of all

stakeholders, including the interests of future

generations, are more likely to be fair and

equitable, and to be perceived as such.

The level and quality of stakeholder participation
in fishery management varies widely, as does the

definition of “stakeholder.” Participation varies from

passive consultation to shared decision making

authority (Sen and Nielsen 1996). Systems organized

to promote the maximum involvement of

stakeholders, including the interests of future

generations, and to emphasize the maximum

appropriate delegation of responsibility and authority

to the lowest possible levels of the management

system (e.g., the local or regional level), tend to have

the highest credibility among fishery constituents

(Pinkerton 1989). This often leads to such effects

as better data sharing and lower enforcement costs.

SECTION TWO: ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES

21
22
We reviewed how the Councils and NMFS

currently apply the ecosystem Principles, Goals, and

Policies in order to help shape strategies for greater

application in the future. We could not undertake a

comprehensive fishery-by-fishery assessment of the

application of the ecosystem Principles in current

research and management activities. Such a task was

beyond our scope given the limited time and

resources available, and was certain to be incomplete.

In addition, we saw little to be gained by evaluating

the past performance of agencies relative to a set of

ecosystem Principles, Goals, and Policies that were

not known to the organizations whose performance

might be judged. Most importantly, the 1996

amendments to the MSFCMA substantially changed

the guidelines for certain management actions so that

past practices are no longer relevant.

Information for the assessment was solicited

from a number of sources, including NMFS Regional

Offices and Fishery Science Centers. NMFS was

asked to consult with Councils and other appropriate

organizations to prepare this information. At our

first meeting, representatives from each NMFS

Fishery Science Center briefed us on the application

of general ecosystem principles. Relying on that

input and on our own knowledge and experience we

then prepared regional overviews which served as

the basis for this assessment.

To organize the assessment, we posed a series of

questions that reflect the application of the Principles.

These questions and our answers to each are given

below.

Q: Have science-based ecosystem boundaries

been identified, and are they used to specify

resource management units?

A: Marine ecosystem boundaries are generally open,

but bathymetric and other oceanographic features

create biological discontinuities or shape gradients

that allow marine ecosystems to be defined. On a

regional scale, the Council jurisdictions reasonably

correspond to such bathymetric and oceanographic

features. Within these jurisdictions, management

unit boundaries generally parallel the scientific

information about the distribution of exploited fish

stocks. Because fish distributions are also affected

by the topographic and oceanographic features that

are important to other biological components of

ecosystems, it is often the case that management units

corresponding to stock distributions also correspond

to ecosystem boundaries. For example, this occurs

with cod in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem, which are

managed as a single stock by the New England

Fishery Management Council. There are many

situations where this is not the case, and many cases

where the scientific basis for defining stock

boundaries is minimal. Exchange rates across

boundaries are seldom known or explicitly

considered in management. This is particularly true

for highly migratory species such as tunas, swordfish

and billfishes. Exchange rates are important within

ecosystems for some forms of management, such as

area closures (including marine protected areas) that

are used to conserve exploited stocks of fish, or more

broadly, to conserve marine ecosystems.

The issue of ecosystem boundaries also has

connections with human institutions. In some cases,

the jurisdiction of management institutions does not

match ecosystem boundaries or stock boundaries of

some resources. This has led to various arrangements

for interjurisdictional management of fisheries, such

as international commissions, interstate fishery

management commissions, and joint Fishery

Management Plans (FMP) of two or more Councils.

While some useful steps have been taken to deal with

interjurisdictional issues, little consideration has been

given to mobility of the fishing industry (both

recreational and commercial) between jurisdictions,

or to the diversity of people within the jurisdictions.

Another factor related to the definition of

ecosystem boundaries is the impact that nonfishing

sectors of society have on marine ecosystems.

Management of coastal resources, agriculture and

forestry, in addition to fisheries, is also required to

effectively apply the ecosystem Principles, Goals and

SECTION THREE: CURRENT APPLICATION

OF THE ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES,

GOALS AND POLICIES

23
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

24

Policies. If it is impractical to include these activities

within ecosystem boundaries, exchanges across

boundaries caused by these activities must be

considered. In addition, institutional arrangements

are needed to address cross-sectorial effects on

ecosystems. Generally, such arrangements are

lacking, although the recent MSFCMA amendment

that calls for the identification of EFH should be an

impetus for making such arrangements.

We conclude that ecosystem boundaries are

generally defined and are reflected in management,

but these definitions will have to be amended in order

to integrate our recommendations for an ecosystem

approach to management.

Q: Is scientific uncertainty in stock assessments

and knowledge about marine ecosystems

described to managers, and is this

uncertainty considered in FMPs (such as by

including buffers)?

A: Many sources of uncertainty affect stock

assessments: 1) imperfections in catch statistics

(sometimes from misreporting), 2) imprecise

estimates of biological parameters, 3) variability in

fishery independent resource surveys, and 4) natural

variability in biological processes, particularly in

recruitment. All these sources of uncertainty should

be considered when determining the variance

associated with estimates of current and future stock

size. But, the uncertainty in stock assessment

estimates is not always characterized, and even when

it is, the true uncertainty is probably greater since it

is difficult to account for all sources of uncertainty.

Nevertheless, managers are usually made aware of

at least some degree of uncertainty; their reaction to

uncertainty varies among regions. For example, the

North Pacific Fishery Management Council is noted

for generally acting conservatively in the face of

uncertainty (i.e., applying the precautionary

approach), whereas some other Councils have

consistently done the opposite (i.e., making riskprone decisions) in the past. Recent changes in the

MSFCMA and international agreements requiring

the application of the precautionary approach should

encourage risk-averse decisions by all Councils in

the future.

Stock assessment uncertainty is only one of

several areas of imprecision that should concern

fishery managers. Uncertainty about fishery effects

on ecosystems is high and generally is not

characterized. There are some cases where fishery

managers have attempted to account for ecological

relationships in spite of uncertainty, such as

prohibiting pollock trawling within 10-20 miles of

islands that are occupied by endangered Steller sea

lions, to minimize the risk that near-shore fishing

will deplete their prey, however, these cases are rare.

Scientific uncertainty in stock assessments and

ecosystems is an inherent reflection of highly

complex systems that extend over vast areas and

depths. We conclude that uncertainty is characterized

to some degree. In the future, fishery managers need

to consistently apply the precautionary approach in

the face of uncertainty.

Q: Is there routine monitoring of ecosystems and

are the results used to support management?

A: The fish component of marine ecosystems is

monitored routinely for many stocks and in most U.S.

regions. Standardized trawl surveys of the

northeastern U.S., initiated in 1963 and now

conducted three times per year, are the most

extensive example of monitoring of the fish

component, yet, some fish stocks are virtually

unsampled by the current survey program. In other

regions, fish stocks are only surveyed every third

year. In addition, fishery-dependent monitoring is

conducted.

Monitoring of fish is far more extensive than is

the monitoring of other marine ecosystem

components. Some systems such as San Francisco

Bay, Chesapeake Bay and the Northeast U.S. have

long-standing ecosystem monitoring programs

which measure ecosystem components other than

fish, but the use of such programs is not widespread

for ecosystems and fisheries under the jurisdiction

of NMFS and the Councils.

Other ecosystem components that might be

monitored are human demographics, marine

mammals, birds, benthos, zooplankton,

phytoplankton, and physical and chemical factors.

While there is a significant amount of human census

data and other information about people, changes in

the demographics and cultural aspects of participants

in fisheries are not routinely monitored, nor are there

studies of economics. As a result of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act, many populations of marine

mammals are monitored, although this monitoring

is limited in extent. Coastal sea birds are monitored
SECTION THREE: CURRENT APPLICATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLES

25

in some regions. There are long-term time-series of

plankton data, such as California Cooperative

Oceanic Fisheries Investigations data off of

California, and Marine Resources Monitoring

Assessment and Prediction and Continuous Plankton

Recorder data in New England waters. With

advances in satellite remote sensing, it is now

possible to monitor primary production and some

physical variables synoptically over vast regions.

There has been very little monitoring of benthos,

except for a few sites and generally for only a few

years. Lack of time-series data on the benthos is an

impediment to understanding the effects of mobile

fishing gear on benthic habitats.

Monitoring data are used in a variety of ways in

the management process. Fish monitoring results

constitute a critical input to stock assessments, which

are used to support fisheries management. Limited

socioeconomic data are used for various impact

analyses that accompany fishery management

decisions. Information on other ecosystem

components is sometimes considered to help explain

variability in fishery resources, but such relationships

are usually uncertain or speculative and therefore

are seldom used by managers.

Q: Have the food webs of target species been

identified and is this information used in

FMPs?

A: There are extensive databases on the stomach

content of fishes in some regions, such as the

Northeast and Alaska where hundreds of thousands

of fish of many species have been sampled over

several decades. Some multispecies predator/prey

models have been developed, but generally these

models are better at explaining the effects that trophic

relationships might have had, rather than predicting

future patterns and variations.

To date, use of food web information in fisheries

management has been limited. This reflects the

limited predictive power of existing multispecies

predator/prey models. Knowledge of food webs is

considered qualitatively in some management

decisions, such as the Pacific Fishery Management

Council’s FMP for anchovies which sets aside some

of the population as forage.

Q: Are total removals, including discards, taken

into account in stock assessments and

management?

A: Total removals are made up of the reported

landings, unreported landings, discards, and

mortality to fish that come in contact with fishing

gear but are not captured. Stock assessments are

routinely based on reported landings and discard

estimates, if available. Discard estimates are derived

from fishing vessel logbook reports and/or from atsea observers on fishing vessels. Larger groundfish

vessels operating in the northeast Pacific are required

to have 100% observer coverage, and this improves

the quality of discard data for these fisheries.

Observers in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery

estimate that discards of finfish are over four times

larger than the catch of shrimp. For at least one

important Gulf species, red snapper, discards are the

largest component of mortality. But there are many

species where there are virtually no discard data

(although discarding exists). Estimates of unreported

landings and/or mortality of fish that come in contact

with fishing gear, but are not captured, are very rare.

Stock assessments are robust to under estimates of

total removals so long as the proportion not included

in removal estimates is constant, which is a

reasonable assumption under some circumstances.

There are alternative ways for fisheries

management to account for total removals. When

discards are estimated, they are usually included in

the stock assessments which support fisheries

management. For example, discards of juvenile

swordfish are factored into the swordfish stock

assessments conducted by the member countries of

the International Commission for the Conservation

of Atlantic Tunas. The discards may be taken into

account by reducing the allowable catch based on

the expected level of discards, or by counting

estimates of discards against the allowable catch.

Alternatively, management might use measures that

are less dependent on knowing total removals, such

as gear restrictions, effort controls or area closures.

We conclude that total removals are probably

underestimated, and significantly so in some cases.

Therefore, more effort is needed to estimate total

removals and to apply management strategies that

are robust in the face of uncertainty about total

removals.

Q: Have the effects of fishing on the ecosystem

been studied?

A: This is a relatively new research endeavor. There
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

26

is clear evidence that fishing alters species

composition (e.g., fishing on Georges Bank appears

to have shifted the community from predominately

Atlantic cod to sharks and skates (Fogarty and

Murawski 1998)). Pauly et al. (1998) recently

showed that there has been a significant worldwide

reduction in mean trophic level of species fished.

Several studies that have demonstrated that mobile

fishing gear alters benthic habitat (Auster and

Langton 1999), but little is known about the

implications of these changes. Further, there has

been even less research conducted on other fishing

gears.

Q: Are the habitat needs of different life history

stages of target and nontarget species known

and are they considered in FMPs?

A: The habitats that are used by some or all of the

life-history stages of many species of fish are known.

But habitat utilization does not mean that the habitat

is obligatory (i.e., the species must have that habitat

to successfully complete its life-cycle). The

mechanistic relationship between a fish species at a

particular life history stage, and the type of habitat

it occupies, is unknown for most species and lifehistory stages. It is most critical to understand the

essential habitat needs of fish near shore, where

anthropogenic effects on habitat are likely to be most

significant.

The relationships between fish and habitat are

summarized as a basis of EFH determinations to be

included in FMP amendments, as required by the

MSFCMA. These amendments require that the

habitat needs of fish populations be given serious

consideration in the future when government

agencies make decisions that are likely to adversely

affect EFH. Fishing itself is an activity that has the

potential to affect EFH. Taking account of these

potential effects is a major challenge facing Councils.
In this section, we describe approaches for

incorporating the Principles, Goals and Policies

established in Section II into the fisheries

management and research processes of the current

Council system. We strongly believe that the key to

an effective ecosystem approach is to fish more

conservatively. The depressed condition of many

U.S. stocks is related primarily to unsustainable

levels of fishing effort, rather than ecosystem effects.

With few exceptions, scientists understand the levels

of fishing effort required to produce sustainable

yields, but fishery managers are challenged by a

highly politicized process to exceed those levels for

short-term gains. Setting maximum sustainable yield

and optimum yield conservatively, and respecting

these conservative goals in the face of political and

economic pressure is essential in any ecosystem

approach.

Many current U.S. fishery management problems

such as overfishing, bycatch and protection of EFH

are addressed in the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA)

of 1996. Each of these SFA provisions is an

important step toward the use of ecosystem principles

in fishery management. However, these measures

do not add up to an ecosystem approach.

FMPs for single species or species complexes

should continue to be the basic tool of fisheries

management for the foreseeable future. However,

managements actions under FMPs alone are not

sufficient to implement an ecosystem approach. A

mechanism is required to integrate FMPs and include

the ecosystem Principles, Goals, and Policies in a

way that will be meaningful. That mechanism is the

Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (FEP).

THE FISHERIES

ECOSYSTEM PLAN (FEP)

Our primary recommendation is that each

Council (including NMFS in the case of Atlantic

highly migratory species) develop the FEP as a

mechanism for incorporating ecosystem Principles,

Goals and Policies into the present fisheries

management structure. The objectives of FEPs are

to:

• Provide Council members with a clear description

and understanding of the fundamental physical,

biological, and human/institutional context of

ecosystems within which fisheries are managed;

• Direct how that information should be used in the

context of FMPs; and

• Set policies by which management options would

be developed and implemented.

Councils would develop FEPs for each major

ecosystem under their jurisdiction. For example, the

North Pacific Fishery Management Council might

have two FEPs—one for the Bering Sea/Aleutian

Islands and one for the Gulf of Alaska. Councils

with overlapping ecosystems, or with significant

species migration across ecosystem boundaries

would work together on a joint FEP. In the event of

transnational ecosystems, appropriate international

arrangements would be sought to implement an

ecosystem approach.

The FEP should be used as a metric against which

all fishery-specific FMPs are measured to determine

whether or not management effectively incorporates

the ecosystem Principles, Goals and Policies. The

FEP should also contain regulations or management

measures which extend across individual FMPs. The

FEP should serve as a nexus for existing FMPs and

provide a context for considering Council

management actions with respect to all living marine

resources, whether managed or not.

SECTION FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

IMPLEMENTING THE ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES,

GOALS AND POLICIES IN U.S. FISHERIES

CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH

27
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

28

FEPs must contain the information about

ecosystem that allows managers to make informed

decisions, but the primary purpose of the plans is to

prescribe how fisheries will be managed from an

ecosystem perspective. Careful consideration must

be given to the structure and required content of an

FEP to balance the needs for plans to be both

substantive and realistic. It is appropriate that NMFS

lead a deliberative and inclusive (of a broad range

of interests and expertise) process to prepare

guidelines for FEPs (analogous to the processes that

have been used to prepare guidelines for

implementing National Standards). Preparation of

such specific guidelines was beyond the scope of

our Panel Charter, but we did identify Council actions

that must be taken when guidelines are prepared, to

be consistent with the Panel's recommendations:

1. Delineate the geographic extent of the

ecosystem(s) that occur(s) within Council

authority, including characterization of the

biological, chemical and physical dynamics of

those ecosystems, and “zone” the area for

alternative uses.

2. Develop a conceptual model of the food web.

3. Describe the habitat needs of different life history

stages for all plants and animals that represent

the “significant food web” and how they are

considered in conservation and management

measures.

4. Calculate total removals—including incidental

mortality—and show how they relate to standing

biomass, production, optimum yields, natural

mortality and trophic structure.

5. Assess how uncertainty is characterized and what

kind of buffers against uncertainty are included

in conservation and management actions.

6. Develop indices of ecosystem health as targets

for management.

7. Describe available long-term monitoring data

and how they are used.

8. Assess the ecological, human, and institutional

elements of the ecosystem which most

significantly affect fisheries, and are outside

Council/Department of Commerce (DOC)

authority. Included should be a strategy to

address those influences in order to achieve both

FMP and FEP objectives.

The eight FEP actions are elaborated below:

1. Delineate the geographic extent of the

ecosystem(s) that occur(s) within Council

authority, including characterization of the

biological, chemical, and physical dynamics

of those ecosystems, and “zone” the area for

alternative uses.

The ecosystems supporting fisheries in the

United States vary markedly (Apollonio 1994), and

the way in which fisheries are managed within them

will vary according to their individual characteristics.

Managers must be able to geographically delineate

the systems under their authority, and have a

scientific understanding of the structure, function,

and processes that occur within their respective

ecosystems, and between their systems and others.

This delineation should include both ecological and

human/institutional components and their

interactions. This includes the extent of our

knowledge of climate, how climate affects the

physical and biological oceanography of the system,

and how, in turn, these affect food web structure and

dynamics.

Councils should use information from FEPs to

develop zone-based management regimes. In a

zoning approach, geographic areas within an

ecosystem would be reserved for prescribed uses.

For example, use of gears which are demonstrated

to have an adverse effect on EFH could be limited

to prescribed areas. Currently, FMPs are required

to describe and mitigate gear effects on EFH, but

FEPs should go further, not only identifying where

habitat impacts occur, but also identifying specific

zones where certain gears should be restricted. A

zone-based approach could also limit fishing

activities in areas where potential negative trophic

impacts could occur. The North Pacific Fisheries

Management Council’s establishment of no-trawl

zones in red king crab habitat is an example of such

a measure. Zoning can also be used to limit bycatch,

by restricting fishing activities in areas where high

levels of bycatch are likely to occur.

A zoning approach should also include the

establishment of marine protected areas. A speciesspecific approach to habitat protection, as currently

practiced, may result in many small protected areas
SECTION FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS

29

with occasionally conflicting regulations that are

difficult to understand and often difficult to enforce.

Complete protection of relatively large portions of

marine ecosystems, in the form of harvest refugia,

may provide the best way to characterize habitat

needs and also serve as management tools (Bohnsack

and Ault 1996, Roberts 1997). Each FEP should

consider and evaluate the potential benefits of harvest

refugia and support research to evaluate their use.

2. Develop a conceptual model of the food web.

Fisheries managers cannot control the weather

or long-term physical changes in the ecosystems that

produce the managed resources. They can, however,

control what species are fished and the total numbers

and individual sizes of resources removed. Thus,

managers should have a conceptual understanding

of the food web, and should use that information in

making decisions about harvest. For each species

for which there is an FMP, there should be a

description of both the prey species and the predators

at each stage in the life cycle. Where information

on certain species is not available for all life stages,

managers should refer to species inhabiting similar

ecological niches or their functional equivalents as

the basis for defining trophic links. Following this,

the FEP should contain an analysis of the anticipated

impacts of the allowed harvest on predator-prey

dynamics, even if data gaps force such a statement

to be largely qualitative.

Marine Protected Areas

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) offer promise as

a means to implement the precautionary approach and

mitigate the effects of fishing in an ecosystem

(Yoklavich 1998). However, the utility of the approach

depends on the way MPAs are defined and established.

The concept of MPAs represents a continuum, from

marine wilderness areas to areas in which only a few

specific activities might be restricted. We use the term

to mean the entire spectrum of usage, and suggest that

managers carefully define their conservation and

management objectives before determining the

characteristics of a given MPA.

MPAs should be representative of the larger

ecosystem and, as such, would serve as experimental

sites for investigating processes and mechanisms that

would be operable throughout the region. MPAs must

be established with the understanding that ecosystems

change over time and that research results have to be

evaluated relative to this natural variability as distinct

from variability resulting from human exploitation of

a resource. MPAs represent a form of insurance

against excessive exploitation. Although we aspire to

a level of understanding that would allow for strategic

management of our nation’s fisheries, uncertainty and

indeterminacy are fundamental ecosystem

characteristics. Hence, research is needed on the

optimal size of MPAs, sources and sinks for new

recruits, and the social and management issues

required for successful implementation.

Ecosystem Modeling

Modeling is an essential scientific tool in developing

ecosystem approaches for fishery management. Simple

descriptions of prey and predator species and models

of how they interrelate are good starting points but they

are inadequate. What is required is a food-web based

mathematical model. Such a model could examine

factors that affect primary productivity and how

changes in it affect the relationships that exist among

all components of the ecosystem. Such a model could

assist in assessing the trade-offs among harvests of fish

species in different parts of the food web, how

abundance of marine mammals relates to populations

of its prey species, and how much of the total primary

production is required to sustain ecosystem harvest.

Recent models such as ECOPATH (Polovina 1984,

Christensen and Pauly 1995, Pauly and Christensen

1995) have been applied and have provided insight into

some fundamental ecosystem questions. ECOPATH

provides a framework for summarizing natural rates

of growth and consumption of marine populations. This

allows small-scale studies or models (such as fish

bioenergetics models or diet composition data) to be

viewed in a common currency, in the context of the

ecosystem as a whole.

Presently, dynamic mathematical models (e.g.,

ECOSIM (Walters et al. 1997)) are being developed

but they have been applied only experimentally in

actual fishery management situations. Using them as

active parts of the FEP could facilitate model

development and testing. Most importantly, models

have the potential to provide managers with

information about how ecosystems are likely to respond

to changes in fishery management practices (Botsford

et al. 1997). Like FEPs, these models will be unique to

each system and its important attributes.
3. Describe the habitat needs of different life

history stages for all plants and animals that

represent the “significant food web” and how

they are considered in conservation and

management measures.

Marine organisms generally have different

dietary and habitat requirements for each life cycle

stage (e.g., Atlantic cod on Georges Bank; Fig. 2).

Traditional management practices often limit fishing

effort in an attempt to protect spawning stock while

ignoring management strategies that would prevent

negative effects on survivorship at each life cycle

stage. In an effort to address this issue, FMPs are

now required to include a description of EFH. This

is probably best considered in a multiple-species

context, including overlapping habitats of suites of

species with similar life cycles that occupy similar

habitats as well as their prey. Thus, each Council

should include EFH considerations within the FEP,

using the ecosystem approach to describe such

habitat based on the EFH descriptions from existing

FMPs.

ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

30

4. Calculate total removals—including

incidental mortality—and show how they

relate to standing biomass, production,

optimum yield, natural mortality and trophic

structure.

Ecosystem overfishing occurs when fishing

directly or indirectly results in a reduction of

ecosystem health. Direct impacts on target species

include changes in the total population status, age

structure, and sex ratio within the population.

Indirect impacts can occur on component species or

on ecosystem health. Pauly et al. (1998) describe

trophic effects of fishing which yield apparently

nonlinear, unanticipated results with potential

negative effects on sustainability. Thus, a measure

of total removals of a target species should include

fish landed and fish caught and released (with some

determination of mortality rates of released fish),

predation at each life history stage, and loss through

incidental capture.

Figure 2. Life history stages of Atlantic cod versus habitat requirements as characterized for

Georges Bank in the Northwest Atlantic (artwork by Dave Stanton, adapted from Lough 1989).

Sand

Gravelly

sand

Gravel

pavement

Gravelly

sand

Juveniles

Adults

Eggs and larvae

Bouldery

sea floor
SECTION FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS

31

Mortality associated with bycatch can produce

significant biological losses and ecological shifts in

community structure within ecosystems (Alverson

et al. 1994). To address bycatch issues, FEPs should:

1) identify potential shifts in community structure

and their consequences, and indicate how they should

be mitigated; 2) identify bycatch associated with

particular gear types, not just by providing a list of

species, but also by identifying how bycatch in a

given species changes both spatially and temporally;

and 3) identify existing or potential alternative gear

types which would reduce bycatch.

5. Assess how uncertainty is characterized and

what kind of buffers against uncertainty are

included in conservation and management

actions.

The more complex an ecosystem, the greater the

unpredictability. The ultimate uncertainty and risk

is associated with those practices that affect

ecosystem equilibrium, such as significant changes

in climate or hydrology that have potentially

significant global effects. Therefore management

actions that aim for specific outcomes should be

accompanied by the anticipated probabilities

associated with achieving those outcomes. Given

the variability associated with ecosystem states and

the general low precision, high variance, and

unknown potential for bias in fisheries data—and

thus in the models used to predict outcomes—

managers must recognize the high likelihood for

unanticipated results. Hence, decision-makers

should account for this uncertainty with the

development of flexible, adaptive, and risk-averse

management strategies.

Each FEP should identify those factors or issues

which are likely to bear the greatest degree of

uncertainty within that ecosystem. Stock assessment

reports, prepared for each new or continuing FMP,

should characterize uncertainty and indicate how that

uncertainty is incorporated into the assessment. The

characterization of uncertainty in stock assessments

is an example of how the policy of the precautionary

approach should be incorporated into the FEP, and

one of the best example of insurance against

unknowable ecosystem dynamics.

Although uncertainty may render management

strategies that are effective in one system ineffective

in another, the application of the precautionary

approach is a policy which can be implemented in

any ecosystem. Because each ecosystem will have

different levels of uncertainty and risk associated

with it, managers must develop specific risk criteria

for application of the precautionary approach within

each system.

6. Develop indices of ecosystem health as

targets for management.

The use of a goal such as ecosystem health to

guide fishery management forces resource scientists

and managers to define desired ecosystem states,

typically based on historical information reflecting

ecosystem structure and yield. Once this has been

accomplished, management strategies can be

developed to generate and maintain these healthy

states. Defining a healthy ecosystem is problematic

in practice, so we also recommend that managers

identify “unhealthy” ecosystem states which should

be avoided. For example, FEP goals could be to

prevent the extinction of any ecosystem component,

to maintain a specific, high mean trophic level in

the ecosystem, or to maintain benthic biomass within

the range of natural variability. Each Council should

be charged to develop its own FEP goals and metrics

based on unique ecosystem characteristics.

7. Describe available long-term monitoring data

and how they are used.

Although most physical and biological databases

represent relatively short periods of time and

therefore do not characterize long-term variability,

the amount and quality of physical data available

relevant to fisheries have improved markedly in

recent years (Boehlert and Schumacher 1997). These

data are essential for the development of models to

predict changes in oceanographic conditions.

Biological baseline data often are difficult to

evaluate, given the current impacts of fisheries on

marine ecosystems and the largely unpredictable

outcomes of these impacts. However, reasonable

estimates of preexploitation conditions can be made

in some cases (Pauly 1995).

Each FEP should include a prioritized long-term

monitoring plan, designed to allow the assessment

of the changing states of ecosystem health relative

to established baseline conditions. This will be

facilitated through the implementation of the

research recommendations. As discussed by

Christensen et al. (1996), monitoring programs

should include ways to determine whether
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

32

management actions effectively protect ecosystem

function. Thus, these programs must be empirically

sound and supported by rigorous statistical sampling

that avoids bias. While the probability of

accomplishing this is low—because replication is

often unrealistic and sample sizes are, of necessity,

quite small—it does not justify avoidance of

establishing long-term monitoring programs (Walters

1986). In particular, the issue of cumulative impacts

cannot be addressed without baseline data.

Monitoring programs are essential to the success of

fisheries management, particularly if we are to

discern effects due to fishery policies from those due

to other factors.

8. Assess the ecological, human, and institutional

elements of the ecosystem which most

significantly affect fisheries, and are outside

Council/DOC authority. Included should be a

strategy to address those influences in order

to achieve both FMP and FEP objectives.

In many cases the preponderance of the

ecosystem relevant to a particular fishery is under

the jurisdiction of the Councils and DOC, but in

many cases significant portions of the ecosystem will

be outside of that jurisdiction. Examples include

salmon, where inland water and habitat issues are

paramount and under the jurisdiction of other

Federal, State, local and tribal authorities; highly

migratory species, where significant parts of the

ecosystem are under the jurisdiction of different

nations; or ecosystems as extensive as the Gulf of

Mexico, where general water quality is critically

affected by inflow from ecosystems as broad as the

Mississippi River drainage area. Some elements of

the ecosystem may be outside of Council/DOC

jurisdiction; human constituents may move in and

out of Council/DOC jurisdiction and many

institutions other than the Councils/DOC may share

authority over parts of the ecosystem.

Accounting for the effects of these external

influences in the FEP is a two-stage process. First,

Councils must identify the most significant elements

which are outside Council/DOC authority. This list

should include the most significant external effects

on ecosystem health. Second, Councils should

develop a strategic approach to mitigate each of the

major impacts. This approach could include the

development of agreements with other agencies to

address significant ecosystem impacts, or increased

research on ecosystem functions or processes which

Aquaculture and Stock Enhancement:

Are Cautions being Heeded?

With declining fish stocks, there is growing

pressure to artificially boost harvests, either

through aquaculture in coastal waters or through

stock enhancement. The potential benefits of

aquaculture include: increased production of

cultured fish which can contribute to food and

economic security without placing additional

pressure on wild stocks. In addition, stock

enhancement may help rebuild or sustain depleted

wild stocks.

However, many existing aquaculture programs

have developed without attention to their impacts

on marine ecosystems (Naylor et al. 1998). Salmon

culture and ocean ranching provide good examples.

Hatcheries have led to manifold problems,

including interbreeding between native and nonnative stocks (Lannan et al. 1989), decreases in

genetic biodiversity (Ryman et al. 1995), introduced

species problems, and threats to carrying capacity,

even in the open ocean (Ogura and Ito 1994). Early

calls to genetically “upgrade the wild stocks”

(Moav et al. 1978) to improve production have

given way to attention to the “usually negative”

genetic impacts of aquaculture (Beveridge et al.

1994). Wilcove et al. (1992) captured this

sentiment, stating “Introduced genes can be as

harmful as introduced species, especially when

hatchery-bred fish compete with wild populations.”

Dramatic examples of human manipulation of

coastal ecosystems are provided in Japan, where

coastal fisheries have been maintained at a near

constant level by increasing mariculture production

and stock enhancement while natural production

has declined (Morikawa 1994). Aside from

potential genetic effects as noted above, high

intensity coastal aquaculture decreases public

access to the coastal ocean for recreation and other

pursuits. Marine fish culture can also lead to

additional pollution and wastes. Excess feed, feces

and other organic matter from fish farms can

accumulate in the benthos and result in a

substantial alteration of the benthic community.

(Wu 1995, Henderson and Ross 1995, Hansen

1994). In addition, some prophylactic chemicals

and drugs used in fish culture have unknown

impacts on marine ecosystems. Clearly, both stock

enhancement and marine aquaculture must be

approached carefully to maximize their benefits

while ensuring the health of natural ecosystems and

the continued production of wild stocks (Travis et

al. 1998).
SECTION FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS

33

MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT FEPS

The following are general recommendations to

ensure effective development and implementation

of FEPs:

1. Encourage the Councils to apply ecosystem

Principles, Goals and Policies to ongoing

activities.

In preparation for FEP implementation, Councils

should begin to apply the ecosystem Principles,

Goals and Policies to the conservation and

management measures of existing and future FMPs.

Three actions are particularly important; specifically,

each FMP’s conservation and management measures

should:

are affected by outside influences, and which may

require mitigation.

Institutional and Human Ecologies—

The Case of Pacific Coast Salmon

The ecology of a Pacific coast salmon fishery

includes not only the ocean environment but the rivers

in which the fish spawn and the terrestrial habitat

related to those rivers. The human ecology of that

salmon fishery includes not only the commercial,

tribal and recreational fishermen, but also their

ancillary businesses and industries. There are also

the businesses and industries which have direct effects

on the ocean and the coastal riverine habitats (oil

and gas, logging, hydroelectric power, development

and construction, agriculture and other water

diverters) and the citizens who are concerned about

the salmon and their habitat even though they do not

directly interact with the fish.

The institutional ecology of this salmon fishery

includes NMFS, other Federal and State fishery

agencies, Native American tribes, and all those

institutions which govern the behavior of all of the

constituent groups of the human ecology. In fact, 37

Federal agencies, in 9 executive level departments,

have some authority over activities affecting marine

fisheries and their habitat (Hinman and Safina 1992).

Not only is it important to recognize the critical role

of this broader set of institutions, but also the role of

information, education, and involvement of all of the

individuals and groups within the broader set of

human constituents whose behaviors are governed

by those institutions.

• Consider predator-prey interactions affected by

fishing allowed under the FMP.

Optimum yields should be set considering

ecological factors and the integrity of the

ecosystem, and total allowable catches should

be justified with respect to total ecosystem

biomass, production and interspecies

relationships.

• Consider bycatch taken during allowed fishing

operations and the impacts such removals have

on the affected species and the ecosystem as a

whole, in terms of food web interactions and

community structure.

FMPs should identify bycatch taken by gear

types and should not just provide a list of species,

but describe how bycatch changes temporally

and spatially in a given fishery. Management

actions should consider the implications of such

removals and their consequences. FMPs should

identify and consider existing or potential

alternative gear types or fishing practices which

could reduce such bycatch.

• Minimize impacts of fisheries operations on

EFH identified within the FEP.

Gear effects on habitat can be considerable. Gear

used to harvest a particular species may directly

or indirectly affect other species—managed or

unmanaged—within the ecosystem. FMPs

should not only identify such impacts but should

also identify existing or potential alternative gear

types or fishing patterns, such as area closures,

which could alleviate these impacts.

2. Provide training to Council members and

staff.

To facilitate an ecosystem approach and to aid

the development and implementation of FEPs,

NMFS should provide all Council members with

basic instruction in ecological principles. Further,

training materials should be made available to the

fishing industry, environmental organizations and

other interested parties.

3. Prepare guidelines for FEPs.

The Secretary of Commerce should charge

NMFS and the Councils with establishing guidelines
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

34

for FEP development, including an amendment

process. NMFS and the Councils should conduct a

deliberative process—similar to the process of

developing National Standards Guidelines—to

ensure that FEPs are realistic and adaptive.

4. Develop demonstration FEPs.

Choose one or more of the Councils to develop

a demonstration FEP. Convene a workshop

involving all Councils and other relevant participants

which would help develop useful demonstration

FEPs.

Encourage all Councils to develop framework

FEPs, consisting of such information as can be

collected with little additional effort, to facilitate

rapid implementation of the full FEP when required

by the next MSFCMA reauthorization.

5. Provide oversight to ensure development of

and compliance with FEPs.

To ensure compliance with the development of

FEPs, the Secretary of Commerce should establish

a review panel for FEP implementation oversight.

Implicit in this action is the establishment of a

timetable for development of a draft FEP, its review

by the panel, and any necessary revisions before the

draft FEP becomes a basis for policy.

6. Enact legislation requiring FEPs.

To provide NMFS and the Councils with the

mandated responsibility of designing and

implementing FEPs, Congress should require full

FEP implementation in the next reauthorization of

the MSFCMA.

RESEARCH REQUIRED

TO SUPPORT MANAGEMENT

Our identification of the Principles and

associated management Policies reflects a vast

amount of scientific knowledge about marine

ecosystems and their relationship to humankind.

This knowledge is the result of more than 125 years

of scientific investment. Yet, the current state of

scientific knowledge is not sufficient to fully

implement the Principles and Policies. To more fully

benefit from the application of the Principles and

Policies, there is an urgent need for a better

understanding of ecosystem processes in general, and

about the state and dynamics of specific ecosystems.

The Panel did not attempt to develop an

exhaustive set of research recommendations. That

is better left to more specialized groups of scientists.

Instead, we highlighted three research themes based

on several criteria. First, we selected themes that

were clearly related to the Principles and the Policies

that form the basis of an ecosystem approach to

fisheries management. Second, we placed a priority

on identification of new research directions,

compared to current research programs that support

fisheries management. These new research

directions are not recommended as alternatives to

the current research programs, rather they are an

additional requirement. Third, we highlighted

themes for which NMFS has a unique responsibility.

The three recommended research themes are: 1)

determine the ecosystem effects of fishing, 2)

monitor trends and dynamics of marine ecosystems,

and 3) explore ecosystem-based approaches to

governance. Each of the themes is briefly described

and discussed below.

1. Determine the ecosystem effects of fishing.

The effects of fishing on the species that are

landed are generally understood, although the data

that are necessary to assess specific stocks of fish

are sometimes minimal. It is well known that the

effect of fishing on a “target species” can be severe,

with abundance reduced by a factor of 10 or more.

Fishing is a form of directional selection on fished

species that may alter not only population

characteristics (i.e., age structure), but also the

genetic makeup of the population. Research on

genetic changes from fishing is appropriate. It is

also known that fishing can have significant effects

on nontarget species and, potentially, on marine

ecosystems as a whole. These effects occur as a

result of bycatch and discarding of non-target species

(including marine mammals, reptiles and birds),

trophic linkages between target and non-target

species, and alteration of habitat caused by fishing

gear. All three of these effects need to be studied.

The research should consider how fishing changes

ecosystems (i.e., abundance and diversity of species,

food web dynamics, amount of various habitat types,

and the functional significance of changes). An

important element of this research will be to explore

the utility of quantitative ecosystem health indices

as a tool for managers. The research should also
SECTION FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS

35

include consideration of strategies for applying the

precautionary approach in light of uncertainty about

ecosystem effects of fishing, and mitigation of

undesirable effects. One particularly promising

approach for risk-averse management is the

establishment of marine protected areas and through

traditional fisheries management techniques like

time/area closures.

2. Monitor trends and dynamics in marine

ecosystems (ECOWATCH).

We recommend the initiation of a significant new

ecosystem monitoring program. We refer to the

program as “ECOWATCH” because it will enable

scientists and policy makers to observe natural and

human-caused changes in marine ecosystems in a

comprehensive manner. Target fish species are

routinely monitored using landings data and resource

surveys that apply standardized sampling methods.

But even for some important exploited species,

landings data and/or resource survey data are limited.

Data on other components of marine ecosystems are

even more limited, although there are some valuable

time series of plankton data for a few ecosystems

and for some marine mammal populations. For these

reasons, ECOWATCH should be scientifically

designed to provide data to improve existing models

(i.e., stock assessments), but also for input for future

ecosystem models. Research on ecosystem models

based on current concepts of important ecosystem

linkages is a useful application of ECOWATCH

monitoring data.

We recommend substantial expansion of existing

programs that collect data on trends and dynamics

of marine ecosystems and which characterize the

biological and physical relationships pertinent to

ecosystem-based management. This expansion is

needed to fill gaps in current data collection programs

for some target species where data are limited, and

systematically observe how other components of

ecosystems vary. There are several reasons to

observe marine ecosystems holistically. Such

observations are needed to determine and understand

indirect effects of fishing within marine ecosystems.

In a sense, these observations are a form of ecosystem

insurance. Because we cannot currently predict all

of the ecosystem effects of fishing, we should be

watching for evidence of such changes so that it is

possible to react if the changes are adverse or

positive. Ecosystem observations are also needed

to distinguish human caused changes from natural

changes. Large spatial and temporal scale (over

ocean basins and decades) changes in ecosystems,

called regime shifts, are known to occur. Routine

monitoring and analysis of key ecosystem variables

are needed in order to detect regime shifts and, if

possible, to forecast them.

We envision that ECOWATCH will assess the

productive capacity of marine ecosystems, including

data on fish, shellfish, primary production, plankton,

benthic communities (impacts on fishing sites versus

control sites), marine mammals, birds, and physical

and chemical factors. It will be necessary to make a

major investment in new technology to make

ECOWATCH feasible. It will be necessary to employ

several different sampling “vehicles” including

research vessels; dockside and sea sampling of

fisheries; remote sensing from satellites, aircraft, and

buoys; submersibles and autonomous underwater

vehicles. It will be essential to develop modern data

management systems so that variables can be related

to each other and so that information is accessible.

Models need to be developed to assimilate data and

produce information products that enhance our

ability to evaluate and make conscious decisions

regarding marine ecosystems.

3. Explore ecosystem-based approaches to

governance.

Many of today’s fishery problems result from

failed governance systems. One of the major

shortcomings of past and most present governance

systems is that they do not create incentives for

humans to be prudent predators (i.e., efficient in the

uses of natural resources and concerned about longterm conservation). A related problem is that

members of the fishing industry and the concerned

public often feel alienated from the institutions that

govern fisheries. The challenge of achieving

effective governance from an ecosystem perspective

is even greater. From such a perspective, incentives

for efficiency and conservation must apply to indirect

effects of fishing on segments of society that are not

directly concerned with fisheries, and to other

industry sectors that indirectly affect fisheries. A

broad array of stakeholders should have the

opportunity to participate in the system of

governance.

We envision a multifaceted research program

including: 1) research on the social and economic

importance of fisheries, and of other ecosystem uses
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

36

that affect fisheries, to better understand social

objectives, motivations for behavior, and options for

creating effective incentive systems; 2) case studies

and comparative studies (with other industry sectors)

to identify factors that determine success or failure

of governance systems; and 3) management

experiments to test approaches for involving

stakeholders in governance systems and for making

decisions when faced with multiple objectives (i.e.,

from different societal perspectives and across

sectors).

While NMFS clearly has lead responsibility for

these themes, the research strategies should be

developed and implemented as National, interagency

programs, involving academic as well as government

scientists. Because the ecosystem Principles apply

globally, the U.S. should participate in, and initiate

when necessary, international programs that further

fisheries management objectives. A significant

enhancement in resources (e.g., funding, staff,

fishery research vessels) will be required if these

research recommendations are to be fulfilled.
Recognition of major problems in U.S. fisheries

prompted Congress to legislate the Sustainable

Fisheries Act (SFA) in 1996. This amendment

strengthened the MSFCMA and gave new direction

to NMFS and the Councils to halt overfishing,

develop recovery plans for overfished fisheries,

avoid and reduce bycatch mortality, identify and

protect EFH, investigate ways to reduce fishing

capacity, and implement numerous other

conservation measures. These represent the

beginnings of an ecosystem approach to fishery

management. Rapid response and hard work by

NMFS, the Councils, fishing industries,

environmental groups and other interested parties

will produce change that eventually will result in

marked improvements in the status and management

of our fisheries resources. Still, there is more to be

done.

The appointment of the NMFS Ecosystem

Principles Advisory Panel is a key provision of the

SFA. Congress called for an assessment of the extent

to which ecosystem principles are being applied in

fishery conservation, management and research and

for recommendations on how to use them further to

improve management. Our review of the use of

ecosystem principles finds some positive indications,

but much room for further application. The fisheries

ecosystem science being conducted is of high quality,

but the types of research and assessments, and the

geographic coverage are extremely limited and

inadequate to inform fishery management. Where

scientific information on fisheries ecosystems is

produced, it is often used in the management process.

However, it is inadequate relative to the scope of

the problems and the geographic scale of our Nation’s

marine fisheries.

At present, NMFS and the Councils often are

using the best available science to manage stocks on

a single species or species-complex basis. If fishery

management is to further incorporate ecosystem

principles, Congress must provide a specific mandate

to NMFS and the Councils to do so and must fund

the scientific infrastructure required to support the

decision-making process. Requiring Councils to

prepare FEPs provides a mechanism to focus and

SECTION FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

inform fishery management, to measure progress

toward implementation of ecosystem-based fishery

management, to identify research needs and

ultimately to insure healthy and productive

ecosystems.

U.S. fisheries under an ecosystem-based

management system are likely to be quite different

than today’s fisheries. New management tools will

be employed including share-based systems.

Fisheries and gear types that have significant adverse

impacts on other ecosystem components may be

modified or phased out and other types of fisheries

and gears may replace them. In some cases, fish

stocks may have to be exploited at lower harvest

levels than presently indicated in order to sustain

other ecosystem components. Some areas that are

now fished may become fisheries reserves where

harvests are restricted to protect a spawning stock

or other sensitive life-history stages; this may result

in changes to traditional fishing practices. The shortterm consequences of such changes, which may be

painful, must be balanced against future benefits in

the form of sustainable fisheries and fishing

communities.

The next ten years are critical for the future of

U.S. fisheries. Already, important changes are

underway as a result of the SFA, and the next round

of legislation/reauthorization of the MSFCMA

should provide additional impetus for reform.

Implementation of an ecosystem-based approach will

take time and there will be trials and errors. A great

deal of education about this new approach will be

required, and all involved must be prepared to learn.

The two hardest lessons are likely to be shifting the

burden of proof to the fishery to demonstrate that

the ecosystem will not be damaged by fishing, and

to develop a truly precautionary approach to fishery

management. The learning curve will be steep for

all involved; society as a whole, will be increasingly

challenged to help define ecosystem health and the

limits of acceptable change in marine ecosystems,

while still allowing sustainable fishing practices.

37
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

38
ALLOWABLE BIOLOGICAL CATCH—Catch that can be

taken in a specific year that achieves the biological

objectives, or avoids the biological constraints, of

fishery management. Such objectives and constraints

are usually set in terms of stock sizes that must be

maintained and/or fishing mortality rates that shall

not be exceeded. Estimates of allowable biological

catch should be based on the best scientific advice

available.

BURDEN OF PROOF—The responsibility to

demonstrate that a fishing activity will or will not

lead to overfishing or negative effects on the

ecosystem.

BYCATCH—Unintentional catch; i.e., catch that

occurs incidentally in a fishery that intends to catch

fish with other characteristics (e.g., size, species).

CARRYING CAPACITY—The numbers or biomass of

resources that can be supported by an ecosystem.

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT—The rules,

regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures

(A) which are required and useful to rebuild, restore,

or maintain, any fishery resource and the marine

environment; and (B) which are designed to ensure

that: (i) a supply of food and other products may be

taken, and that recreational benefits may be obtained,

on a continuing basis; (ii) irreversible or long-term

adverse effects on fishery resources and the marine

environment are avoided; and (iii) there will be a

multiplicity of options available with respect to

future uses of these resources (NMFS 1996).

DISCARDS—A portion of what is caught and returned

to the sea unused. Discards may be either alive or

dead. There are many types of discards, such as

economic discards (when a portion of the catch that

it is not economically rational to land is discarded),

regulatory discards (when discarding occurs because

of a prohibition on retaining some of the catch),

highgrade discards (discarding of the portion of the

catch with a lower value than the portion retained in

order to comply with regulations that limit how much

catch can be retained). Highgrading is a form of

regulatory discarding.

ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT—Fishery

management actions aimed at conserving the

structure and function of marine ecosystems, in

addition to conserving the fishery resource.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT—Those waters and

substrate necessary for fish to spawn, breed, feed

and grow to maturity (NMFS 1996).

FISH—Defined herein as finfish, mollusks,

crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal

and plant life other than marine mammals and birds

(NMFS 1996).

FISHERY—(A) One or more stocks of fish which can

be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and

management and which are identified on the basis

of geographical, scientific, technical, recreational and

economics characteristics; and (B) any fishing for

such stocks (NMFS 1996).

FISHING—Any activity which can reasonably be

expected to result in the catching, taking or

harvesting of fish; or any operations at sea in support

of, or in preparation for such activities.

FISHING MORTALITY—A measurement of the rate of

mortality of fish in a population caused by fishing.

FISH STOCK—A species, subspecies, geographical

grouping, or other grouping of fish that is managed

as a unit (NMFS 1996).

MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD—A management goal

specifying the largest long-term average catch or

yield (in terms of weight of fish) that can be taken,

continuously (sustained) from a stock or stock

complex under prevailing ecological and

environmental conditions, without reducing the size

of the population.

OPTIMUM YIELD—(A) The amount of fish which will

provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation,

particularly with respect to food production and

recreational opportunities, and taking into account

the protection of marine ecosystems; (B) is

prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum

sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any

GLOSSARY

39
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

40

relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and

(C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for

rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the

maximum sustainable yield in such fishery (NMFS

1996).

OVERFISHING—Fishing at a rate or level that

jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex

to produce maximum sustainable yield on a

continuing basis (NMFS 1996).

PRIMARY PRODUCTION—Creation of organic matter

by plants through photosynthesis (using inorganic

carbon, nutrients and an external energy source) to

form the base of the food chain.

RECRUITMENT—A measure of the weight or number

of fish which enter a defined portion of the stock

such as fishable stock (those fish above the minimum

legal size) or spawning stock (those fish which are

sexually mature).

REGIME SHIFT—Major changes in levels of

productivity and reorganization of ecological

relationships over vast oceanic regions which could

be caused by various sources including climate

variability or overfishing.

RESILIENCE—The ability of a population or

ecosystem to withstand change and to recover from

stress (natural or anthropogenic).

SIGNIFICANT FOOD WEB—A predator/prey interaction

that is important to either the predator or prey

population.

STOCK ASSESSMENT—An evaluation of a stock in

terms of abundance and fishing mortality levels and

trends, and relative to fishery management objectives

and constraints if they have been specified.

SURPLUS PRODUCTION—Total weight of fish that can

be removed by fishing without changing the size of

the population. It is calculated as the sum of the

growth in weight of individuals in a population, plus

the addition of biomass from new recruits, minus

the biomass of mortality of animals lost to natural

mortality, during a defined period (usually one year).

TARGET SPECIES—Those fish explicitly sought by

fishermen to meet social and economic needs. Their

catch are the direct consequence of targeted fishing

effort. NON-TARGET SPECIES include all others.

TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH—The annual catch from

a stock that is allowed according to fishery

management regulations.

TROPHIC WEB—The network that represents the

predator/prey interactions of an ecosystem.
Agardy, M. T. 1994. Advances in marine

conservation: The role of protected areas. Trends in

Ecology and Evolution 9(7):267–270.

Alverson, D. L., M. H. Freeburg, S. A. Murawski

and J. G. Pope. 1994. A Global Assessment of

Fisheries Bycatch and Discards. FAO Fisheries

Technical Paper 339, Food and Agriculture

Organization, Rome.

Alverson, D. L. and P. A. Larkin. 1994. Fisheries:

Fisheries Science and Management. Pages 150-167

in: C. D. Voigtlander (ed.) The state of the world’s

fishery resources: Proceedings of the World Fishery

Congress, Plenary Session, Oxford and IBH

Publishing, New Delhi.

Angermeier, P. L. 1997. Conceptual roles of

biological integrity and diversity. Pages 49-65 in: J.

E. Williams, C. A. Wood and W. P. Dombeck (eds.)

Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Angermeier, P. L. and J. R. Karr. 1994. Biological

integrity versus biological diversity as policy

directives - Protecting biotic resources. Bioscience

44(10):690-697.

Apollonio, S. 1994. The use of ecosystem

characteristics in fisheries management. Reviews in

Fisheries Science 2(2):157–180.

Auster, P. J. and R. W. Langton. 1999. The effects of

fishing on fish habitat. Pages 150-187 in: L. Benaka

(ed.) Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and

Rehabilitation . American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Axelrod, R. 1984. Evolution of Cooperation. Basic

Books, New York.

Barber, R. T. and F. P. Chavez. 1983. Biological

consequences of El Niño. Science 222:1203–1210.

Beveridge, M. C. M., L. G. Ross and L. A. Kelly.

1994. Aquaculture and biodiversity. Ambio

23(8):497–502.

Boehlert, G. W. 1996. Biodiversity and the

sustainability of marine fisheries. Oceanography

9(1):28–35.

Boehlert, G. W. and J. D. Schumacher (eds.), 1997.

Changing oceans and changing fisheries:

environmental data for fisheries research and

management. United States Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest

Fisheries Science Center, Technical Memorandum

NMFS-SWFSC-239.

Bohnsack, J. A. and J. S. Ault. 1996. Management

strategies to conserve marine biodiversity.

Oceanography 9:73–82.

Botsford, L. W., J. C. Castilla and C. H. Peterson.

1997. The management of fisheries and marine

ecosystems. Science 277:509-515.

Caddy, J. F. and R. Mahon. 1995. Reference Points

for Fisheries Management. FAO Fisheries Technical

Paper 347, Food and Agriculture Organization,

Rome.

Carr, M. H. and D. C. Reed. 1993. Conceptual issues

relevant to marine harvest refuges: Examples from

temperate reef fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Science 50:2019–2028.

Christensen, N. L. and 12 others. 1996. The report

of the Ecological Society of America committee on

the scientific basis for ecosystem management.

Ecological Applications 6(3):665–691.

Christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1995. Fish production,

catches and the carrying capacity of the world

oceans. ICLARM Quarterly 18(3):34-40.

Costanza, R. 1987. Social traps and environmental

policy. BioScience 37:407–412.

LITERATURE CITED

41
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

42

Costanza, R. and L. Cornwell. 1992. The 4P approach

to dealing with scientific uncertainty. Environment

34(9):12–20, 42.

Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M.

Grasso, B. Hannon, S. Naeem, K. Limburg, J.

Paruelo, R. V. O’Neill, R. Raskin, P. Sutton and M.

van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s

ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature

387:253–260.

Dayton, P. K. 1998. Reversals of the burden of proof

in fisheries management. Science 279:821–822.

Deimling, E. A. and W. J. Liss. 1994. Fishery

development in the eastern North Pacific: A naturalcultural system perspective, 1888-1976. Fisheries

Oceanography 3:60–77.

Dugan, J. E. and G. E. Davis. 1993. Applications of

marine refugia to coastal fisheries management.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science

50:2029–2042.

Fogarty, M. J. and S. A. Murawski. 1998. Large-scale

disturbance and the structure of marine systems:

Fishery impacts on Georges Bank. Ecological

Applications Supplement 8(1):S6–S22.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 1995. Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,

Rome.

Francis, R. C., S. R. Hare, A. B. Hollowed and W. S.

Wooster. 1998. Effects of interdecadal climate

variability on the oceanic ecosystems of the NE

Pacific. Fisheries Oceanography 7:1–21.

Gallopin, G. C. 1995. The potential of agroecosystem

health as a guiding concept for agricultural research.

Ecosystem Health 1(3):129–141.

Garcia, S. M. and C. H. Newton. 1994. Responsible

fisheries: An overview of Food and Agricultural

Organization policy developments (1945-1994).

Marine Pollution Bulletin 29: 528–536.

Garcia, S. M. and C. H. Newton. 1997. Current

situation, trends and prospects in world capture

fisheries. Pages 3-27 in: E. K. Pikitch, D. D. Huppert

and M. P. Sissenwine (eds.) Global Trends: Fisheries

Management. American Fisheries Society

Symposium 20. American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Gordon, H. S. 1954. The economic theory of

common property resources: The fishery. Journal of

Political Economy 62:124–142.

Graham, M. 1935. Modern theory of exploiting a

fishery, and its application to North Sea trawling.

Journal du Conseil 13:264–274.

Hansen, P. K. 1994. Benthic impact of marine fish

farming. Pages 77-81 in: A. Ervik, P. K. Hansen,

and V. Wennevik (eds.) Proceedings of CanadaNorway Workshop on Environmental Impacts of

Aquaculture. Fisken-Havet, Bergen, Norway.

Havforskningsintituttet. No. 13.

Henderson, A. R. and D. J. Ross. 1995. Use of

macrobenthic infaunal communities in the

monitoring and control of the impact of marine cage

fish farming. Aquaculture Research 26:659-678.

Hilborn, R. and C. J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative

Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and

Uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Hinman, K., and C. Safina. 1992. Summary and

recommendation. Pages 245-249 in: R. H. Stroud

(ed.) Stemming the Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat

Loss: Proceedings of a Symposium on Conservation

of Coastal Fish Habitat. Baltimore, Maryland,

March 7-9, 1991, Marine Recreational Fisheries

Symposium 14, National Coalition for Marine

Conservation, Inc., Savannah, Georgia.

Hobart, W. L. (ed.) 1995. Baird’s Legacy: The

History and Accomplishments of NOAA’s National

Marine Fisheries Service, 1871–1996. United States

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine

Fisheries Service, Technical Memorandum NMFSF/SPO-18.
LITERATURE CITED

43

Holling, C. S. (ed.) 1978. Adaptive Environmental

Assessment and Management. John Wiley and Sons,

London.

Holling, C. S. and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command

and control, and the pathology of natural resource

management. Conservation Biology 10(2):328-337.

Hughes, T. P. 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts, and

large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef.

Science 265:1547-1551.

Hutchings, J. A., C. Walter and R. L. Haedrich. 1997.

Is scientific inquiry incompatible with the

government information control? Canadian Journal

of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 54(5):1198.

Huxley, T. H. 1883. Inaugural Address. The Fisheries

Exhibition Literature, International Fisheries

Exhibition, London 4:1–22.

International Society for Ecosystem Health. 1998.

What is ecosystem health? URL: http://

www.uoguelph.ca/~rmoll/whatiseh.html.

Kolb, T. E., M. R. Wagner and W. W. Covington.

1994. Concepts of forest health: Utilitarian and

ecosystem perspectives. Journal of Forestry 92: 10–

15.

Langton, R. W., P. J. Auster and D.C. Schneider.

1995. A spatial and temporal perspective on research

and management of groundfish in the northwest

Atlantic. Reviews in Fisheries Science 3(3):201-229.

Langton, R. W. and R. L. Haedrich. 1997.

Ecosystem-based management. Pages 153-158 in:

J. Boreman, B. S. Nakashima, J. A. Wilson and R.

L. Kendall (eds.) Northwest Atlantic Groundfish:

Perspectives on a Fishery Collapse. American

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Langton, R. W., R. S. Steneck, V. Gotcetas, F. Juanes

and P. Lawton. 1996. The interface between fisheries

research and habitat management. North American

Journal of Fisheries Management 16:1–7.

Lannan, J. E., G. A. E. Gall, J. E. Thorpe, C. E. Nash

and B. E. Ballachey. 1989. Genetic resource

management of fish. Genome 31:798–804.

Lauck, T., C. W. Clark, M. Mangel and G. R. Munro.

1998. Implementing the precautionary principle in

fisheries management through marine reserves.

Ecological Applications Supplement 8(1):S72–S78.

Laws, R. M. 1977. Seals and whales of the Southern

Ocean. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society, London B279:81–96.

Lough, R. G., P. C. Valentine, D. C. Potter, P. J.

Auditore, G. R. Bolz, J. S. Neilson and R. I. Perry.

1989. Ecology and distribution of juvenile cod and

haddock in relation to sediment type and bottom

currents on eastern Georges Bank. Marine Ecology

Progress 56:1-12.

Lubchenco, J., A. M. Olson, L. B. Brubaker, S. R.

Carpenter, M. M. Holland, S. P. Hubbell, S. A. Levin,

J. A. MacMahon, P. A. Matson, J. M. Melillo, H. A.

Mooney, C. H. Peterson, H. R. Pulliam, L. A. Real,

P. J. Regal and P. G. Risser. 1991. The sustainable

biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda.

A report of the Ecological Society of America.

Ecology 72(2):371–412.

Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn and C. J. Walters. 1993.

Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:

Lessons from history. Science 260:17, 36.

Mangel, M. and 41 co-authors. 1996. Principles for

the conservation of wild living resources. Ecological

Applications 6(2):338-362.

Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace

and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal

climate oscillation with impacts on salmon

production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological

Society 78:1069–1079.

Marten, G. G. 1979. Predator removal: Effect on

fisheries yields in Lake Victoria (East Africa).

Science 203:646–648.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

44

McGowan, J. A., D. R. Cayan and L. M. Dorman.

1998. Climate-ocean variability and ecosystem

response in the Northeast Pacific. Science 281:210-

217.

Moav, R., T. Brody and G. Hulata. 1978. Genetic

improvement of wild fish populations. Science

201:1090–1094.

Mooney, H. A. (ed.) 1998. Ecosystem management

for sustainable fisheries. Ecological Applications

Supplement 8(1): S1.

Morikawa, T. 1994. Maintenance of the fisheries

environment and efforts to increase the resources in

the coastal waters of Japan. Marine Pollution Bulletin

29:537–549.

Mountford, K. 1996. A capsule history of the

Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Program.

URL:http://www.epa.gov/r3chespk/cbp_home/

bay_eco/history/histcont.htm.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. United States Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, NMFS, Technical Memorandum

NMFS-F/SPO-23.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997.

Report to Congress: Status of fisheries of the United

States. United States Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

NMFS, Silver Spring, Maryland.

National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea

Ecosystem. National Academy Press, Washington,

D. C.

National Research Council. 1999. Sustaining Marine

Fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington,

D. C.

Naylor, R. L., R. J. Goldburg, H. Mooney, M.

Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, N. Kautsky, J.

Lubchenco, J. Primavera and M. Williams. 1998.

Nature’s subsidies to shrimp and salmon farming.

Science 282:883-884.

Nichols, F. H., J. E. Cloern, S. N. Luoma and D. H.

Peterson. 1986. The modification of an estuary.

Science 231:567-573.

Ogura, M. and S. O. Ito. 1994. Change in the known

ocean distribution of Japanese chum salmon,

Oncorhynchus keta, in relation to the progress of

stock enhancement. Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Science 51:501–505.

Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline

syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution 10:430.

Pauly, D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary

production required to sustain global fisheries.

Nature 374:255–257.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese

and F. Torres Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food

webs. Science 279:860–863.

Pearcy, W. G. and A. Schoener. 1987. Changes in

the marine biota coincident with the 1982-83 El Niño

in the Northeastern Subarctic Pacific Ocean. Journal

of Geophysical Research 92:14417–14420.

Pickett, S. T. A., V. T. Parker and P. L. Fiedler. 1992.

The new paradigm in ecology: Implications for

conservation biology above the species level. Pages

65-88 in: P. L. and S. K. Jain (eds.) Conservation

Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature

Conservation, Preservation, and Management.

Chapman and Hall, New York.

Pinkerton, E. (ed.) 1989. Co-operative Management

of Local Fisheries: New Directions for Improved

Management and Community Development.

University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver,

British Columbia.

Polovina, J. J. 1984. Model of a coral reef ecosystem

I. The ECOPATH model and its application to French

Frigate Shoals. Coral Reefs 3:1-10.

Polovina, J. J., G. T. Mitchum and G. T. Evans. 1995.

Decadal and basin-scale variation in mixed layer

depth and the impact on biological production in the

Central and North Pacific, 1960–88. Deep-Sea

Research I 42:1701–1716.
Rapport, D. J., C. Gaudet and P. Calow (eds.) 1995.

Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-scale

Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Roberts, C. M. 1997. Ecological advice for the global

fisheries crisis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution

12:35–38.

Roemmich, D. and J. McGowan. 1995. Climatic

warming and the decline of zooplankton in the

California Current. Science 267:1324–1326.

Rosenberg, A. A., M. J. Fogarty, M. P. Sissenwine,

J. R. Beddington and J. G. Shepherd. 1993.

Achieving sustainable use of renewable resources.

Science 262:828–829.

Ryman, N., F. Utter and L. Laikre. 1995. Protection

of intraspecific biodiversity of exploited fishes.

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 5:417–446.

Sen, S. and J. R. Nielson. 1996. Fisheries comanagement: A comparative analysis. Marine Policy

20(5):405–418.

Sissenwine, M. P. and A. Rosenberg. 1993. Marine

fisheries at a critical juncture. Fisheries 18(10):6–

14.

Sissenwine, M. P. 1987. Councils, NMFS, and the

Law. Pages 203-204 in: R. Stroud (ed.) Recreational

Fisheries (11). Sport Fishing Institute. Washington,

D. C.

Sparks, R. E. 1995. Need for ecosystem management

of large rivers and flood plains. Bioscience

45(3):168-182.

Steele, J. H. 1991. Marine ecosystem dynamics:

comparison of scales. Ecological Research 6:175–

183.

Steele, J. H. 1996. Regime shifts in fisheries

management. Fisheries Research 25:19–23.

Thompson, W. F. 1919. The scientific investigation

of marine fisheries, as related to the work of the Fish

and Game Commission in Southern California.

Fisheries Bulletin (Canada) 2:3–27.

45

LITERATURE CITED

Travis, J., F. Coleman, C. B. Grimes, D. Conover, T.

M. Bert and M. Tringali. 1998. Critically assessing

stock enhancement: An introduction to the Mote

Symposium. Bulletin of Marine Science 62(2):305-

311.

United Nations. 1996. Agreement for the

Implementation of the Provisions of the United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10

December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and

Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly

Migratory Fish Stocks. United Nations General

Assembly, New York.

Walsh, J. J. 1981. A carbon budget for overfishing

off Peru. Nature 290:300–304.

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of

Renewable Resources. Macmillan, New York.

Walters, C. J. 1997. Challenges in adaptive

management of riparian and coastal ecosystems.

Conservervation Ecology (online) 1(2): 1. URL:

http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1

Walters, C., V. Christensen and D. Pauly. 1997.

Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems

from trophic mass-balance assessments. Reviews in

Fish Biology and Fisheries 7(2):139-172.

Whitford, W. H. 1995. Desertification: Implications

and limitations of the ecosystem health metaphor.

Pages 273-293 in: D. J. Rapport, C. Gaudet, and P.

Calow (eds.) Evaluating and Monitoring the Health

of Large-scale Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New

York.

Wilcove, D., M. Bean and P. C. Lee. 1992. Fisheries

management and biological diversity: Problems and

opportunities. Transactions of the North American

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 5:373–

383.

Wu, R. S. S. 1995. The environmental impact of

marine fish culture: Towards a sustainable future.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 31(4-12):159-166.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

46

Yoklavich, M. M. 1998. Marine harvest refugia for

west coast rockfish: An Introduction to the

Workshop. Pages 1-5 in: M. M. Yoklavich (ed.)

Marine Harvest Refugia for West Coast Rockfish: A

Workshop. United States Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

NMFS, Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC255.
The Charter was provided to the Panel as initial

guidance from NMFS. It was subsequently modified

after Panel review.

INTRODUCTION

Section 406 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries

Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) as

amended through 1996 (Appendix B) requires the

Secretary of Commerce to establish a Panel to

provide advice to the Secretary and Congress on

ways to incorporate ecosystem principles in fisheries

conservation and management activities. The need

for such a Panel has arisen from the perceived failure

of traditional management approaches to ensure

sustainable fisheries. Yields of many marine

fisheries worldwide have declined in recent years;

in the U.S., 42% of fish stocks are considered

overutilized. The causes of these declines have been

complex, and include overharvesting of target and

non-target species, habitat alteration and loss,

pollution and natural environmental change. Stocks

in this condition are not able to provide the same

sustained economic and social benefits as those in

healthy fisheries.

A basic premise of ecosystem-based management

is that the relationship between living marine

resources and the ecosystem within which they exist

must be well understood. This requires a more

comprehensive approach to fisheries research than

is necessary for traditional single-species

management approaches, although single-species

stock assessments have become increasingly

sophisticated and some now incorporate

environmental parameters. Successful

implementation of ecosystem-based management

will require consideration of, inter alia, essential

habitat requirements, hydrography, trophic

relationships and physical and biological processes.

An important element of the Panel’s duties will be

to determine what information is essential to the task

of ecosystem-based fisheries conservation and

management, and how that information should be

collected.

Managers must also understand the complex

linkages between natural ecosystems and the

economic, social and political dynamics of human

systems. Humans are integral components of

ecosystems and their interests, values and

motivations must be understood and factored into

resource management decisions. Information on

human systems is as important as that from natural

systems and must be included in any ecosystem

research and management efforts.

Efficient use of existing information and

information flow to management are important topics

for Panel consideration. In developing an ecosystem

approach to research and management, it is important

to recognize that a great deal is already known about

marine ecosystems, but that this information is not

consistently applied in current management efforts.

This is, in large part, because there is no agreed upon

method or process for applying it. Therefore,

emphasis must be placed not only on what new

information is required, but also on how to apply

existing information effectively. In addition, it must

be recognized that both science and management are

ongoing processes, and that mechanisms are required

to incorporate new scientific, social, cultural,

economic and institutional information into the

management process as it becomes available. This

may require managers to be trained in ecosystem

approaches, so that valuable new information will

be recognized and utilized where appropriate.

The complicated legislative and institutional

framework that currently regulates resource

management decision making poses a significant

challenge to the implementation of ecosystem-based

fisheries conservation and management. Although

the MSFCMA is the principal legislation governing

U.S. marine fisheries, other Federal legislation

including the Marine Mammal Protection Act and

APPENDIX A: CHARTER—NATIONAL

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ECOSYSTEM

PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL

47
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

48

the Endangered Species Act, as well as State laws

and international agreements, provide for the

conservation and management of marine resources.

This geographic, legislative and institutional

fragmentation of conservation and management

responsibilities is not consistent with ecosystem

principles, which ignore human boundaries and

jurisdictions. It also indicates the need for an

‘institutional ecology’ and a ‘legislative ecology’

which parallel more closely the natural ecosystem.

Coordination of these legislative and institutional

responsibilities across jurisdictional lines, as well as

the appropriate involvement of all stakeholders in

the decision making process, will be a significant

task in implementing ecosystem-based management.

The U.S. lacks a single and unifying legislative

mandate or policy governing the use of resources

from marine ecosystems. Consequently, decisions

on resource management within marine ecosystems

often are in conflict with one another. For example,

it is axiomatic that fishery yields cannot be

maximized for all species simultaneously. Likewise,

the goal of protecting all marine mammals within

an ecosystem may not be consistent with the goal of

sustaining maximum fisheries yields, and vice versa.

From the outset, resource managers must determine

what values are placed on a marine ecosystem and

its components, and which goods and services are

expected to be produced from each ecosystem. The

recommendations of this Panel regarding the

development of such policies will be an important

step towards improved fisheries conservation and

management.

Numerous panels, committees and task forces

have been constituted in the past to consider how

ecosystem approaches should be applied to natural

resource management issues. Many solid

recommendations have emerged from these efforts,

however few appear to be implemented in fisheries

management, as evidenced by Congress’ mandate

for this Panel. While the reasons for this failure are

probably multiple, an underlying cause may be that

many of the recommendations have been more

theoretical than practical, and have provided the

practicing manager with little in the way of

implementable management tools. Unlike these

previous efforts, it is fully intended that the NMFS

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel will develop

specific, practical and implementable

recommendations for the research, conservation and

management of living marine resources, along with

longer term goals and directions.

PURPOSE

The Panel’s purpose is to advise NMFS and

Congress on the application of ecosystem principles

in fisheries conservation and management and

research activities.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Panel will:

1. Conduct an analysis of the extent to which

ecosystem principles are being applied in

fishery1 conservation and management2

activities, including research activities. The

analysis should include the following:

Conservation and management issues

A review of the extent to which ecosystem

principles are being applied in: 1) the development

of fishery management plans by the Councils; 2) the

development of advice by NMFS to the Councils;

and 3) other regulatory and rule-making activities

of NMFS.

An identification and analysis of cases in which

ecosystem principles have been successfully applied

in fisheries conservation and management activities.

Research issues

A review of the status of ecosystem science

1The term “fishery” means — (A) one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of conservation and management

and which are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical, recreational and economics characteristics; and (B) any

fishing for such stocks.

2The term “conservation and management” refers to all the rules, regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures (A) which are

required and useful to rebuild, restore, or maintain, any fishery resource and the marine environment; and (B) which are designed to

ensure that:

(i) a supply of food and other products may be taken, and that recreational benefits may be obtained, on a continuing basis;

(ii) irreversible or long-term adverse effects on fishery resources and the marine environment are avoided; and

(iii) there will be a multiplicity of options available with respect to future uses of these resources.
APPENDIX A: CHARTER

49

within NOAA and other entities involved with

research in the marine environment (e.g., academic

institutions, other Federal and State agencies).

An analysis of whether current research efforts

within these agencies and institutions are adequate

to support fisheries ecosystem conservation and

management.

2. Propose a specific, prioritized course of

actions that the Secretary of Commerce,

Congress and NMFS should undertake to

expand the application of ecosystem

principles in fishery conservation and

management. For example, the following

issues might be considered:

Conservation and management issues

What specific, practical actions can be taken to

apply ecosystem principles in fisheries conservation

and management activities in the near term, before

more complete information is available on ecosystem

structure and function?

What barriers (scientific, social, institutional,

economic, administrative, legislative) exist to the

application of ecosystem principles in U.S. fisheries

conservation and management activities? What

solutions can be proposed?

Should changes be made to the Council structure

or mission to better apply ecosystem principles in

conservation and management activities? If so, what

should the changes be?

Does the U.S. need additional legislation, or

changes to current legislation, to improve the

scientific and regulatory infrastructure to support

ecosystem-based conservation and management?

Research issues

Which research topics should be priorities for

the development of a long-term information base to

support marine ecosystem management?

How can agencies and institutions involved in

marine and fisheries science collaborate more

effectively to take advantage of complementary

research efforts, and synergize results from a broader

ecosystem perspective?

What are the most meaningful time and space

scales for marine ecosystem research which will

directly support conservation and management

efforts?

Is sufficient information available to determine

the value of harvest refugia in fisheries ecosystem

management? If not, what additional information is

required?

3. Produce a report to Congress by October 1998

which includes the above information, plus

any other information as may be appropriate.

The principal focus of the analyses in Section 1

above should be on conservation and management

and research activities conducted within the U.S.,

including those marine ecosystems and their

resources which are shared by the U.S. and other

countries (e.g., transboundary stocks). However, the

Panel should consider pertinent examples from other

areas of the world where ecosystem approaches have

been used. The Panel should focus on research,

conservation and management activities which

pertain to ecosystems or species under the

jurisdiction of the MSFCMA.

Panel Membership

According to MSFCMA Section 406, the

Advisory Panel shall consist of not more than 20

individuals and include:

Individuals with expertise in the structures,

functions and physical and biological

characteristics of ecosystems; and

Representatives from the Regional Fishery

Management Councils, States, fishing industry,

conservation organizations or others with

expertise in the management of marine resources.

Nominations for panelists were solicited from

the National Academy of Sciences, Councils, States,

fishing industry and conservation organizations, as

well as other appropriate regional and national

stakeholders. The Panel membership is balanced

geographically, so that regional issues can be

addressed.

Travel Costs

Travel expenses for the panelists to attend panel
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

50

meetings will be paid by the government at

prevailing government rates.

Format and Panel Duration

The Panel will convene three two-day meetings

in September 1997, November-December 1997, and

February-March 1998. Additional meetings or

conference calls may be held as required. The Panel

may be requested to continue to advise NMFS on

ecosystem issues after October 1998 if such advice

is required.

All meetings will be open to the public, and each

meeting will include a specific opportunity for public

input. Members of the public wishing to make

presentations or statements at the meetings must

notify the NMFS Office of Science and Technology

at least two weeks in advance of the meeting date,

which will be published in the Register.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PANEL.—Not later

than 180 days after the enactment of the Sustainable

Fisheries Act, the Secretary shall establish an

advisory panel under this Act to develop

recommendations to expand the application of

ecosystem principles in fishery conservation and

management activities.

(b) PANEL MEMBERSHIP.—The advisory panel

shall consist of not more than 20 individuals and

include—

(1) individuals with expertise in the structures,

functions, and physical and biological

characteristics of ecosystems; and

(2) representatives from the Councils, States,

fishing industry, conservation organizations, or

others with expertise in the management of

marine resources.

(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Prior to selecting

advisory panel members, the Secretary shall, with

respect to panel members described in subsection

(b)(1), solicit recommendations from the National

Academy of Sciences.

APPENDIX B: MSFCMA SECTION 406

FISHERIES SYSTEMS RESEARCH

(d) ECOSYSTEM REPORT.—Within two years

of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

shall submit to the Congress a completed report of

the panel established under this section, which shall

include—

(1) an analysis of the extent to which ecosystem

principles are being applied in fishery

conservation and management activities,

including research activities;

(2) proposed actions by the Secretary and by the

Congress that should be undertaken to expand

the application of ecosystem principles in fishery

conservation and management; and

(3) such other information as may be appropriate.

(e) PROCEDURAL MATTER.—The procedural

matters under section 302(j) with respect to advisory

panels shall apply to the Fisheries Ecosystem

Management advisory panel..

51
ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

52
First Meeting—September 9 & 10, 1997

Washington, DC

Presenters:

Dave Allison

Allison Associates

Larry Buckley

NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

David Evans

NMFS, Deputy Assistant Administrator

Karen Garrison

Natural Resources Defense Council

Craig Harrison

Pacific Seabird Group

Don Leedy

NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries

Pat Livingston

NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center

Jeff Polovina

NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center

Mike Schiewe

NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Jim Thomas

NMFS, Office of Habitat Protection

Nancy Thompson

NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Guests:

Roger Griffis

NOAA, Office of Policy and Strategic Planning

Kate Wing

Staff, Senate Commerce Committee

Tom Eagle

NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

Second Meeting—December 15 & 16, 1997

Seattle, Washington

Presenters:

John Gauvin

Executive Director, Groundfish Forum

Chuck Fowler

NMFS, National Marine Mammal Lab

Lowell Fritz

NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center

Peter Fricke

NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries

Rod Fujita

Environmental Defense Fund

Tom Okey

Center for Marine Conservation

Ken Stump

Dave Witherell

North Pacific Fishery Management Council

Guests:

Kerim Aydin

University of Washington

Jim Balsiger

Director, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science

Center

Ed Casillas

NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Tracy Collier

NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center

John Fell

University of Washington

Bill Hines

NMFS, Alaska Region

APPENDIX C: MEETING PARTICIPANTS

53
Loh-Lee Low

NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center

Clarence Pautzke

Executive Director, North Pacific Fisheries

Management Council

Mike Schiewe

NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

John Stein

NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Usha Varanasi

Director, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science

Center

Kate Wing

Senate Commerce Committee

Third Meeting—February 26 & 27, 1998

Key Largo, Florida

Presenters:

Kimberly Davis

Center for Marine Conservation

Graeme Parks

Marine Resources Assessment Group Americas

Alexander Stone

Reefkeeper International

Guests:

Tom Eagle

NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

Chuck Fowler

NMFS, National Marine Mammal Lab

William Fox, Jr.

Director, NMFS Office of Science and

Technology

Eduardo Martinez

NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center

ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

54