Page 10

the overall balance and functioning of the ecosystem.
To this end, catch methods should be as selective as
practicable, and the capture devices used should not be
capable of continuing to fish should they break adrift
from human control.

C. Inputs of sediment and chemicals, borne especially on
rivers and land-based discharges, must not endanger the
balance and functioning of marine ecosystems.

D. National activities in managing 200-mile exclusive
economic zones must not have adverse impacts on the
ecology of adjacent 200-mile EEZs belonging to other
states or on the balance of oceanic systems outside the
limits of national jurisdiction.

E. International cooperation should be promoted in order
to ensure that ecosystems and organisms that occur
within areas of ocean shared between states are man-
aged in a compatible way.

The second broad requirement is to agree on national
and international actions that transform these broad objec-
tives into practical conservation and sustainable-use meth-
ods. These should include sound methods for the study of
marine and oceanic ecosystems; for monitoring especially
the status of stocks of exploited species or incidentally
affected species; and for the collection, international ex-
change, and joint evaluation of the resulting data.

Substantial steps have already been taken in this direc-
tion, through such organizations as IOC and ICES, but these
should be extended by:

A. The development of agreed methods for the manage-
ment of marine resources. It is axiomatic that an
ecosystem approach should be required; that inshore
and offshore fisheries management should be regulated
as part of one planned procedure; that the overall use
patterns for large areas of ocean should be negotiated
and agreed between all states concerned; and that areas
which are especially vulnerable to misuse or need
specially coordinated international activities, should be
identified and managed on such a basis. Beyond this,
the roles of the various national and regional institutions
now existing, and especially the commissions of the
various conventions, should be reviewed so that there is
the optimal international coordination of action.

B. Action to prevent the pollution of the sea from land-
based sources must have high priority, as numerous
ministerial and international meetings have stated in
recent decades. This will only be a practical proposi-
tion, however, if there is international exchange of
information on the precise technologies that achieve
industrial goals while minimizing the production of
persistent and hazardous waste. Very similarly, knowl-
edge of best practice to avoid the excessive release to the

sea of nutrients from intensive agriculture and livestock
husbandry need[s] to be exchanged. It is no good
marine conservationists simply requiring that inputs of
toxic materials to the ocean should be greatly reduced
or prevented, unless it is fully understood that the
consequence of such agreement is that the best available
technology should be freely shared between nations, in
the overall interests of the conservation of the bio-
sphere.

C. Marine conservation areas should have, as part of their
objectives, the protection of habitats that are important
recruitment and breeding areas. They should be consid-
ered and established as a part of the overall strategy for
the safeguarding of marine biological diversity and
ecosystem processes.

I would like to expand a little on this last point. I believe
that the concept of the protected area has perhaps been
transferred from the terrestrial to the marine environment
rather uncritically. There are real differences between
terrestrial and marine ecology that need to be take[n] into
account before protected areas are established and managed.
Among these ecological differences are the following:

A. Very little marine primary productivity passes to the
decomposers. Most marine plankton is ultimately
consumed by herbivorous zooplankton or other con-
sumers, and the benthic detritus feeders are substan-
tially nourished by fecal material, rather than dead-
plant material.

B. Turnover rates are also high in the zooplankton, and
indeed, the whole dynamic of marine systems differs
from that of the terrestrial.

C. Recruitment strategies for marine organisms are often
quite different from those of their terrestrial counter-
parts. Many marine organisms, including benthic and
littoral sedentary organisms, have planktonic larvae.
Many fish species have eggs that are widely dispersed
on ocean currents, and even species of more restricted
dispersion commonly have inshore nursery grounds
and offshore areas exploited by adults.

D. Marine waters mix and mingle, so that nutrients move
over large areas. For example, the nutrients that well to
the surface in Antarctic waters are borne from areas as
far afield as the North Atlantic. The result of these
movements is that it is impractical to define and bound
marine protected areas in ecological terms with the
same precision that terrestrial protected areas can be
defined.

The establishment of boundaries for marine protected
areas is likely to be of very limited ecological significance.
Certainly, these boundaries will be transgressed by water


Page 31

Name Institution Address
Dr. L. D. M. Nelson United Nations Office of the Room DC2-0472
Law of the Sea United Nations
New York, NY 10017
U.S.A.
Tel: (212) 754-3939
Dr. Ezekiel N. Okemwa Kenya Marine and Fisheries P.O. Box 81651
Research Institute Mombasa
KENYA

Dr. Teodora Onciu

Ms. Lidia Orsi

Dr. Thomas Osborn

Dr. Ken Piddington

Dr. Eva Pisano

Dr. Giulio Pontecorvo

Dr. Jan Post

Institut Roumain de Recherches Marines

Instituto Zoologia
Universita di Genova

Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission

The World Bank

Istituto di Anatomia Comparata
Universita Degli Studi di Genova

Graduate School of Business
Columbia University

Environment Division
The World Bank

Tel: 254-11-472333
Fax: 254-11-472215

RO 8700 Constanta
Bd. Mamara 300
ROMANIA

Tel: 916-50870

Via Balbi 5

16126 Genova
ITALY

Tel: (010) 2099463
Fax: (010) 2099323

7 Place de Fontenoy
Paris 75700

FRANCE

Tel: 33-1-45-68-40-16

1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
U.S.A.

Tel: (202) 473-3202
Fax: (202) 477-0565

Viale Benedetto XV, 5
16132 Genova

ITALY

Tel: 010-8050 or 8052
Fax: 010-353-8047

Uris Hall

New York, NY 10027
US.A.

Tel: (212) 854-4405
Fax: (212) 864-4857

1818 H Street
Washington, DC 20433
US.A.

Tel: (202) 473-3400
Fax: (202) 477-6391


Name

Institution

Page 27

Address

Ms. Joy Hyvarinen

Dr. Chidi Ibe

Dr. Erol Izdar

Prof. Jean Jaubert

Mr. Lawrence Jendro

Dr. A. Jeudy de Grissac

Dr. Graeme Kelleher

Prof. R. Khan

Ms. Lee Kimball

Greenpeace International

Nigerian Institute for Oceanography
and Marine Research

Institute of Marine Sciences
and Technology
DEU.

University of Nice

European Branch
Office of Naval Research

MEDU-SPA
United Nations Environment Program

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

School of International Studies
Jawaharlal Nehru University

Council for Ocean Law

Keizersgracht 176
1016 DW Amsterdam
THE NETHERLANDS
Tel: 31-20-5236528

Bar Beach

Victoria Island
P.M.B. 12729
Lagos

NIGERIA

Tel: 234-1-619-517
Fax: 234-1-619-317

SSK Tetsleri

Bloc B

35213 Izmir

TURKEY

Tel: 51-254338

Fax: 51-225368

Telex: 35407 DBTETR

Nice
FRANCE

223 Old Marylebone Road
London, England NW1 STH
UNITED KINGDOM

Tel: 011-44-71-409-4131
Fax: 011-44-71-724-7030

P.O. Box 18019
11610 Athens
GREECE

Tel: 30-1-72-44-536

G.P.O. Box 791
Canberra

AUSTRALIA

Tel: 011-61-62-47-0211
Fax: 011-61-62-47-5761

New Delhi 110067
INDIA

Tel: 667-676, Ext. 275
Telex: 031-73167

1709 New York Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 700

Washington, DC 20009

US.A.

Tel: (202) 662-2593

Fax: (202) 638-0036


Page 36

APPENDIX C
CONFERENCE PROGRAM

PLENARY

Welcoming Address of the Host,
by H.S.H. The Prince Rainier III, Sovereign Prince of
Monaco

Welcome by the Host Institution
by Francois Doumenge, Director of Musee
Oceanographique du Monaco

Marine Conservation and Development for the 1990s
by Martin Holdgate, Director General, The World
Conservation Union

Keynote Address
By John Knauss, Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere of the U.S. Department of Commerce

Introduction to the Conference on Behalf of the Organizers
by Thomas Laughlin

Introduction to LMEs as Entities for Management: An
Ecological Perspective
by Kenneth Sherman

The LME Approach to Regional Seas Action Plans and
Conventions: A Geographic Perspective
by Arthur Dahl

Legal Regimes for Management of LMEs and Their Com-
ponent Resources
by Martin Belsky

Ecological Theory and Alternate Stable States of LMEs
by John Beddington

LME THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

Purpose and Organization of LME Conference from a
Scientific Perspective
by Gotthilf Hempel

Biodynamic Theory and LMEs
by Brian Rothschild

Application of LME Management for Pollution-Driven
Systems
by Alasdair McIntyre

Application of International Global Change Research Pro-
grams to Long-term LME Management
by Michael Reeve

The Utility of LME Concept to Ocean Management
by Robert Knecht

Models for Forecasting Biomass Yields in LMEs
by Simon Levin

REGIONAL CASE STUDIES

The LME Strategy for Resources at Risk within the EEZ of
the United States
by Virginia Tippie and Charles Ehler

The CCAMLR as a Model for Ecosystem Management
by Tucker Scully

The Baltic Sea as a Pollution-driven LME
by Gunnar Kullenberg

A Regional Approach to Research and Management of
Living Marine Resources in the Northern California
Current Ecosystem
by Daniel Bottom

Long-term Variability in the Food Chains, Biomass Yields,
and Oceanography of the Bay of Bengal Ecosystem
by Sree Dwivedi

The North Sea Ecosystem from a Fisheries Yield Perspec-
tive
by Niels Daan

Effects of Physical and Biological Changes on the Biomass
Yield of the Humboldt Current Ecosystem
by Jurgen Alheit and Patricio Bernal

Food Chains, Physical Dynamics, Perturbations, and Bio-
mass Yields of the Sea of Okhotsk Ecosystem
by V. V. Kusnetsov, V. P. Shuntov, and L. A. Borets

The Effects of Long-term Physical and Biological Perturba-
tions of the Contemporary Biomass Yields of the Yel-
low Sea Ecosystem
by Qisheng Tang


Page 4

approach, science managers, representatives from donor
organizations, ocean and coastal managers, and expertise in
the global and regional legal regimes and organizations
relevant to managing ocean uses.

Terms of Reference

The committee would pursue the potential of the LME
concept by: (1) further identification and definition of the
earth’s LMEs; and (2) increased understanding of the appli-
cation of the LME concept to the management of marine
resources from an ecosystems perspective.

The committee would carry out its functions in a
number of ways, including the establishment, as soon as
possible, of a working group of scientists to explore ways of
using the LME concept as a means to identify research,
monitoring, and modeling needs. The committee wouldalso
establish a second working group, consisting of ocean and
coastal managers, to explore ways of applying the LME
approach to a range of management problems through
development of various strategies for coordination by coastal
countries, fisheries commissions, and other relevant man-
agement bodies. A third working group might be estab-
lished in the future to focus on synthesis and transfer of LME
information to decisionmakers.

Priority Actions

Some concrete steps to be undertaken by the Committee
based on deliberations of the IUCN, IOC, and UNEP
workshops and the discussion groups are to:

@ = Producea map of the distribution of LMEs. Such amap
would be sent to regional experts for review and com-
ment.

@ Select a few suitable LMEs for pilot programs.

@ Convene workshops with representatives (scientists
and managers) of the selected LMEs. The objectives of
such workshops would be to: agree on prioritized needs
for pertinent data, demonstrate the use of modeling;
find partners (international agencies, donor institu-
tions, research institutes) in the developed countries
which would assist in regional studies; identify training
needs; and develop a plan for collecting available data
as a basis for regional workshops.

@ Convene regional workshops (one year after first work-
shop) for the purpose of identifying key processes to be
studied (based on the data made available over the
previous 12 months), developing plans for integrated
ecosystem studies on regional and national levels, and
organizing these studies.

@ Follow up with activities, including workshops, which
would analyze new data bases as they became available.

e@  Establisha training package for research and ecosystem

management for national use within EEZs and in re-
gions where LMEs include multiple jurisdictions.

@ Convene periodically (3-6 years) international confer-
ences to report on the state of the world’s LMEs.

e@ Report back to sponsoring organizations.

© Contribute to the deliberations of the U.N. Conference
on Environment and Development in 1992.

Comparative Studies

It was pointed out that comparative studies of similar
ecosystems (for example, the North Sea/Yellow Sea, the
Baltic Sea/Black Sea/Adriatic Sea/Bay of Bengal, etc.) is
one method for advancing the LME concept. This approach
could bean aspect of the regional workshops outlined above.
It would have the advantage of improving understanding of
similar systems, as well as promoting the most relevant
cooperative efforts between developed and developing coun-
tries.

Ecosystem Stress

It was also pointed out that in addition to the need for
research coordination for LMEsand their biological compo-
nents or subsystems, there is a need for immediate manage-
ment action to arrest or reverse ecosystem degradation and
stress due to human action. For some systems, indications
already exist as to the kinds of inputs that led to degradation
of these systems, as well as the type of action that would be
needed to begin to reverse deleterious changes and their
negative economic consequences. In this connection, the
active efforts of Baltic coastal states to reverse contamina-
tion of the LME were viewed with keen appreciation by
conference participants. In other cases, it is clear that open
exchange of information between the parties concerned is
needed, with a view to developing a concerted plan of action.
In this category of affected LMEs are included
subcomponents of LMEs such as degraded intertidal areas
and wetlands, estuarine and anadromous fauna and coastal
wetlands, which form important parts, especially of tropical
and subtropical LMEs. The conference also noted the
fragility of semi-enclosed seas as LMEs currently under
stress. Of particular concern in the immediate future are the
Mediterranean and Black Sea systems, where indications
suggest that the time for effective coordination in planning
management actions may be very short.

The ad hoc committee would cease to exist when the
relevant international institutions and participating scien-
tists and managers are able to proceed with the tasks without
it.

Monaco K. Sherman
6 October 1990 T. Laughlin
D. Elder


Page 14

APPLICATION OF THE LME APPROACH WITHIN REGIONAL SEAS AREAS
Dr. Arthur DahP

The UNEP-sponsored working group reviewed the
correspondence between known LMEs and the existing and
planned regional seas programs around the world. The
regional seas action plans provided a regional
intergovernmental and interagency framework for coopera-
tion in the study and management of several LMEs appro-
priate in many cases to the scale of the ecosystems. The
complementarity of the experience of FAO, IOC, and UNEP
meant that they should work closely together in addressing
the sustainable use of LMEs.

The LME concept provides an additional justification
for regional action, provided that the boundaries of the
system can be recognized and management plans can be
developed accordingly. Since the developing regions cov-
ered by most regional seas programs lack the financial and
technical capacity necessary for LMEstudies, efforts would
be needed to build that capacity. This might include “twin-

ning” of developed- and developing-country institutions,
exchanges of scientists, and training programs in the neces-
sary approaches and techniques. Regional task teams of
local experts could provide one mechanism to bring together
the variety of expertise required, and to train scientists in the
LME approach. Pilot areas could be selected for special
study. Comparative studies could be made of comparable
systems, such as those of semi-enclosed seas or upwelling
areas. Oceanwide workshops could bring together experts
from developed and developing countries to consider the
LME concept in their ocean basin.

The structure of the regional seas programs would also
provide mechanisms for the results of LME studies to be
applied in the integrated management of whole coastal
systems, including pollution assessment and control, envi-
ronmental impact assessment, and coastal zone planning
and management.

PROPOSED IUCN GLOBAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT NETWORK
Dr. Simon N. Stuart?

Introduction

The meeting took place on the morning of 5 October
1990, and was chaired by Dr. Simon N. Stuart of the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC). Dr. Stuart started
with apologies on behalf of Dr. Gary Bernacsek, Convener
of the IUCN/SSC Fisheries Management Specialist Group.
Dr. Bernacsek was to have attended and chaired the meeting,
but was unable to do so because of an accident.

Dr. Stuart provided a brief background on IUCN and
SSC. Previous work on fisheries has been limited to: (1)
field projects and policy work carried out by IUCN’s Wet-
lands and Marine Programs; and (2) assessment of the
impact of fisheries on nontarget species (cetaceans, seals,
otters, marine turtles) by various specialist groups within the
SSC.

In 1988, the SSC decided that a Fisheries Management
Specialist Group (FMSG) should be established, since the
subject represented an area of weakness within IUCN.
There were also concerns that existing advisory mecha-
nisms on fisheries management were not politically or
commercially neutral, and that IUCN had a unique role in
channelling high-quality, independent, technical advice to
local situations in the developing world. The intention was
to form an advising network under the auspices of the SSC,
and working in close collaboration with the Wetlands and

2 Nairobi, Kenya,
> Monaco, 5 October 1990.

Marine Programs. Dr. Garry Bernacsek was asked to serve
as the initial Chairman and Convener of the FMSG. Dr.
Bernacsek has since developed a proposal for the function-
ing and objectives of the FMSG, which includes the sugges-
tion of making the new initiative a collaboration between
IUCN and the Canadian International Development Re-
search Center (IDRC). Dr. Stuart presented a discussion
paper to the meeting, which was a slightly modified version

of Dr. Bernacsek’s original proposal.

Summary of the FMSG Proposal

The specific objectives in Dr. Bernacsek’s proposal

could be summarized as follows: (1) establish global
networks of people, projects, and institutions with initial
focus on artisinal fisheries;
(2) monitor the health of the world’s major fisheries; (3)
identify and deter use of destructive fishing methods; (4)
promote the use of sound management practices for fisher-
ies; (5) conduct training workshops; and (6) organize sym-
posia.

The general objective of the FMSG, as suggested by Dr.
Bernacsek, was “to promote sound management of the
world’s fisheries resources.” The meeting reviewed all
these objectives, as described in the next section.


Page 32

Name

Institution

Address

Dr. Dennis Powers

Dr. Victor Prescott

Dr. Leszek Preski

Dr. J.P. Quignard

Ms. Sue Rallo

Dr. Carleton Ray

Dr. James Readman

Prof. Gulio Relini

Dr. William Richards

Mr. Hugues Richer de Forges

Ing. a. Robles

Hopkins Marine Station
Stanford University

University of Melbourne

Instituto Nacional de Investigacion
y Desarrollo Pes

Ichthyology
University Montpelier II U.S.T.L.

The World Conservation Union

Department of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

International Atomic Energy Agency

Instituto Zoologia
Universita de Genova

Southeast Fisheries Science Center
National Marine Fisheries Service

French Research Institute for
Ocean Utilization

Conservation International

Campus Guaymas
Instituto Technologico y de Estudios
Superioes de Monterrey

Pacific Grove, CA 93950
USA.
Tel: (408) 373-0674

Parkville, Victoria 3052
AUSTRALIA

Playa Grande

Cassilla de Correo 175
Mar del Plata
ARGENTINA

Tel: 514285-7818
Fax: 23-517442

Place E. Bataillon

F-34095 Montpelier Cedex 05

FRANCE

Av. du Mont Blanc
1196 Gland
SWITZERLAND

Clark Hall
Charlottesville, VA 22903
U.S.A.

Tel: (804) 924-0551

19 Av. des Castillans
MC 98000
MONACO

Via Balbi 5
Genova 16126
ITALY

Tel: 10-2099465
Fax: 10-2097323

75 Virginia Beach Drive
Miami, FL 33149
USA.

Tel: (305) 361-4249

66 Av. d’Iena
75116 Paris
FRANCE

Tel: 1-47-23-5528

AP. 484

Guaymas, Sonora 85400
MEXICO

Tel: 622-2-9758

Fax: 622-2-1453


MOS,

o NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-91

5

3 This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results,
Jz _ivterim reports, or special purpose information, and has not undergone external scientific
“SJ review.

The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME)
Concept and Its Application to Regional
Marine Resource Management

1-6 October 1990, Monaco: Conference
Summary and Recommendations

Kenneth Sherman’ and Thomas L. Laughlin,” Editors

‘Narragansett Lab., National Marine Fisheries Serv., Narragansett, RI 02882-1199
2Off. of International Interests, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Washington, DC 20230

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Barbara H. Franklin, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
John A. Knauss, Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
William W. Fox, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
Northeast Region
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Woods Hole, Massachusetts

October 1992


Name

Institution

Page 25

Address

Mr. S. Falk-Peterson

Mr. Alvaro Fernandez

Mr. Abdelbassit Frakhraddine

Mr. Peter Franklin

Dr. Edward A. Frieman

Dr. Tainbao Fu

Dr. Alberto Garcia

Miss Claire Goiran

Observatoire Oceanologique de Banguls
Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique

Instituto Espanol Oceanografia

Hydrographe, Labor
Public d’Essais et d’Etudes

Australian Embassy

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Third Institute of Oceanography

Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia

Musee Oceanographique de Monaco

CNRS UA 117

66650 Banguls sur Mer
FRANCE

Tel: 68-8800-40

Fax: 68-88-16-99

Ave. de Brasil
Madrid
SPAIN
Tel: 59-70-841
Fax: 597-4770

Centre Experimental
Hydraulique, KM7

25 rue d’Azilal
Casablanca 01
MOROCCO

Tel: 23-07-30 or 23-07-32
Fax: 30-27-91

Telex: 24075

Via Allessandra 215
00198 Rome

ITALY

Tel: 832-721

Fax: 39-6-832-723-00

Director’s Office 0210
La Jolla, CA 92093-0210
US.A.

Tel: (619) 534-2826
Fax: (619) 453-0167

ITS Saxue Road
P.O. Box 70
Xizmen, Tugian
CHINA.

Tel: 24880-219

Puerto Pesquero de Fuengirola
(Malaga)

Aptado 285

Fuengirola Malaga

SPAIN

Tel: 011-34-52-47-19-07

Fax: 011-34-52-46-38-08

Avenue Saint Martin
98000 MONACO


movements, with their pollutant load, and by planktonic and
wide-ranging pelagic organisms. While defined areas may
have ecological distinction, this will commonly result from.
habitat features such as depth range, temperature regimes,
and the impact of terrestrial systems. The purpose in
defining marine protected areas is clearly primarily to regu-
late human activities, but even these cannot be bounded
exactly. Certain activities that may affect the integrity of an
area directly, like dynamite fishing, coral mining, the dump-
ing of wastes, the impact of fishery, the impact of tourism,
or the disturbance of the habitat by modification of adjacent
coastlines, can be regulated within the area. Other impacts
will, however, originate well outside any marine protected
area, for example, through the long-distance transfer of
pollution by water or air, the input of substances in drainage
from adjacent land, or the impact of human activities on
adjacent marine areas. In establishing marine protected

Page 11

areas, it is essential to judge which key actions need to be
regulated, and if these occur outside the protected area itself,
then such controls need to be a part of a wider overall policy.

I would like to conclude by commenting on the useful-
ness of this meeting. IUCN needs the judgments it will bring
to bear in evaluating which policies we should be promoting
for the sustainable use of the oceans. We need them also to
judge where the priorities for action lie among the numerous
proposals in “Caring for the World: A Strategy for
Sustainability” -- the document designed to supplement the
World Conservation Strategy of 1980. Ihope that the output
from this meeting will be scientifically authoritative and
environmentally precise, and that you will not hesitate to
criticize existing policy or to propose substitutes, where it is
clear that we need to do things differently, and very prob-
ably, with a greater sense or urgency than has characterized
the human attitude to the oceans over past decades.

REPORTS OF CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS

OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA AND TRAINING NEEDS FOR THE LME APPROACH TO
FISHERY MANAGEMENT
J. Alheit, Chairman, and A. Bakun, Rapporteur’

A workshop on “Oceanographic Data and Training
Needs for the LME Approach to Fisheries Management”
was held in conjunction with the conference. The workshop
met on the morning of 5 October in the library of the Musee
Oceanographique de Monaco. It was sponsored by the
Program of Ocean Science and Living Resources (OSLR).
OSLR itself is cosponsored by the IOC and the FAO. A list
of names of workshop attendees is included at the end of this
workshop report. The institutions and mailing addresses of
the attendees are listed in Appendix B.

Dr. Jurgen Alheit, having been asked by the General
Secretary of IOC to chair the workshop, opened the discus-
sions. He suggested that Andrew Bakun act as rapporteur.
This was accepted by the attendees without discussion. Dr.
Alheit suggested the discussions be structured so as to
separately treat: (1) oceanographic data needs, and (2)
training needs.

Oceanographic Data Needs

It was recognized that the workshop title may be to
some degree a misnomer. We certainly don’t have soundly
based, widely accepted procedures for direct input of oceano-
gtaphic data into fishery management activities available at
this time. It was therefore agreed to direct discussion toward
oceanographic data needed to support the necessary re-
search leading toward development of such procedures. The

1 La Jolla, California, 27 November 1990.

need to forge a connection between ocean science and
fisheries science was emphasized by several participants. It
was suggested that establishment of an appropriate model
framework would be of great aid in this respect. Of course,
the development of such a model framework is itself one of
the ultimate goals of the advocated interdisciplinary re-
search.

There appeared to be a consensus that the comparative
approach offered one very useful avenue into the problem
area. Interregional comparisons among various classes of
LMEs allow incorporation of a wide variety of available
data; integrative analysis may be rather immediate and direct
through a process of pattern recognition. Cited examples of
useful “frameworks” for such comparative studies included
the seasonal/geographical comparisons by Parrish et al.
(1983) of habitat climatology versus reproductive habits of
eastern boundary pelagic fishes, and the extension by Cury
and Roy (1989) to comparison of empirical time-series
relationships. Classes of LMEs amenable to such ap-
proaches might include upwelling ecosystems, semi-en-
closed seas (Baltic, Mediterranean, Great Lakes, etc.), shal-
low shelf ecosystems situated along western ocean bound-
aries, coral reef systems, ocean shelf — deltaic — riverine
interactive systems, and various other classes of comparable
systems. As an alternative to structuring comparative stud-
ies in terms of physical ecosystem settings and processes,
analysis of biogeographic pattern would lead to informative
structures based on life history and food web patterns (i.e.,
a comparative approach via biotic assemblages or “bi-
omes”).


4. Economic and biological data associated with fisheries
can be a valuable source of information on LMEs, but
they can be misleading. Much better understanding is
needed of the relationship between fisheries and LME
biomass dynamics. Further efforts should be made to
relate available national and international fishery statis-
tics to LMEs.

5. Exploitation of ocean resources requires other inputs,
such as capital and labor. Abundance and cost of these
other inputs also affects the optimal intensity and allo-
cation of exploitation. Account must be taken of all
values, not just market values. Information isneededon
natural/physical interactions, effects, and tradeoffs. We
may not need complete detail; rough answers may be
enough, since research and management are costly
themselves.

6. Thecost of management, including enforcementcost, is
important in determining the optimal management or-
ganization. Depending on relative costs and benefits,
different levels of management effort may be appropri-
ate for different resources, activities, or areas within
LMEs. There is no reason to think that a single,
comprehensive management organization is best for
LMEs. Indeed, organizational diseconomies of size
and scope might well hinder the effectiveness of such a
monolithic authority.

7. Principal issue raised by LME approach in terms of
management is scale. As we try to extend the scope of
management, the cost of management increases. The

Page 17

optimal scope of management is likely to be less than
universal, and it may be less than the entire LME. We
may usea subset of a full system as a model of the larger
system.

8. The group agreed that cost-effective case studies could
be useful in determining how to combine economic and
ecological information in managing LMEs. The North
American participants cited the U.S. Northeast Conti-
nental Shelf Ecosystem and its subsystem, Georges
Bank, as promising case studies.

9. An interesting research issue is what information is
needed to determine the optimal size and scope of
management within an LME. How does this informa-
tion differ from that needed to manage an LME?

List of Workshop Participants

The institutions and mailing addresses of the following
individuals are listed in Appendix B.

Dr. James M. Broadus, Dr. Barry Gold
Co-chairman Mrs. Nicole King-Volcy

Dr. Giulio Pontecorvo, Mr. Kelton R. McKinley
Co-chairman Ing. A. Robles

Dr. Lewis Alexander Dr. Jon Sutinen

Dr. Lee Anderson Dr. John P. Wise

Dr. Carlos Bas

REPORTS OF INFORMAL DISCUSSION GROUPS ON CANDIDATE LMEs

Conference participants explored issues relating to the
designation of geographic regions of the globe as candidate
LMEs. Three concurrent discussion sessions were held on
4 October dealing with: (1) enclosed and semi-enclosed
seas, (2) Atlantic Rim regions, and (3) Pacific Rim regions.
Reports fromall three groups recommended that the Confer-
ence give a high priority to the designation of global LMEs,
based on consensus among regional experts. The reports of

the discussion groups were considered during the conclud-
ing plenary session. Based on the reports, the conference
participants agreed that high priority be given to the “...pro-
duction of a map of the distribution of LMEs. Such a map
would be sent to regional experts for review and comment.”
The complete list of conference recommendations is given
in the “Recommendations” section of this volume.

ENCLOSED AND SEMI-ENCLOSED LMEs

Dr. Francois Doumenge, Discussion Leader*

The working group on enclosed and semi-enclosed seas
LMEs did not include discussions of completely closed
fresh- or salt-water systems operating like lakes.

The consensus of the working group was that semi-
enclosed seas have the following characteristics:

* Monaco, 6 October 1990.

1. Water exchanges play an essential role, both in the
world’s oceans and within the same basin, between one
division and another. The character of the exchange
depends on the geomorphology of the straits and on the


Training Needs

It was noted that needs for training in developing
countries are of several types. First, there is a need to
develop the scientific capabilities of research workers. This
needs to be on two levels: (1) postgraduate studies, and (2)
specific training for officers involved in fishery develop-
ment and management. Secondly, training in effective data
management is needed. Thirdly, training on the technician
level is needed both in data collection and in instrumenta-
tion, where instrument failure anda lack of expertise to make
appropriate repairs is a recurring problem. It was also noted
that there are two aspects of training, that of students and that
of teachers.

Dr. Alheit here reiterated a proposal, made earlier in the
general conference discussions, for involvement of devel-
oping countries in LME research. The proposal includes:
(1) a conference to be held on the subject which would
demonstrate the use of modeling, identify data needs, and
develop an example program for integrative LME studies in
developing countries which would include “twinning” ar-
rangements (agency to agency, institution to institution, and
with potential funding sources); (2) a period within which to
compile data (approximately one year); (3) regional confer-
ences to design programs on an integrated ecosystem basis;
and (4) follow-up activities to include training packages on
methods to study ecosystems, and on management of na-
tional EEZs in a regional context, to include short-term
(approximately two weeks) and long-term (master’s level)
courses.

Several participants emphasized the need for expansion
of international research programs to the LMEs of the Indian
Ocean. For example, it was noted that there was specific
concern for expansion of OSLR projects into the Indian
Ocean regions at the recent meeting of the IOC-FAO Guid-
ing Group of Experts on OSLR (Paris, February 1990). It
was announced that Kenya will consider proposing (next
year) and offering to host a regional conference on the LMEs
of the Indian Ocean. A special focus would be directed
toward the linkage between research and training. Partici-
pants reiterated the training value of comparative studies of
ecosystem function.

The development of pilot projects was a recurring
theme in the discussions. These could foster exchange
programs, training opportunities, and scientific collabora-
tion between institutions in developed and developing coun-
tries. Suggested specific types of training included: (1)
tational use of the EEZ; (2) use of remote sensing in coastal
ecology studies; (3) CPR operation and analysis; and (4)
methods for study of estuaries, particularly with respect to
silt, waste disposal, and pollution.

A concern for development of adequate taxonomic
capabilities for LME research was expressed. In the past,
many countries had a major portion of their biological
expertise within the taxonomic specialties. The situation has
changed radically. There are presently few experienced

Page 13

taxonomic specialists and a consequent lack of university
courses for an increasing number of students interested in
taxonomy. It was recommended that courses and work-
shops in taxonomy be organized as components of regional
LME symposia and other types of LME training activities.
These should include modern techniques suchas application
of molecular and biotechnological methods. With regard to
the subject of taxonomy of phytoplankton species involved
in toxic or noxious blooms, it was announced that recurrent
three- to four-week courses are presented at Copenhagen
University, Denmark, under the IOC-FAO OSLR Program
and the IOC TEMA Program. To assist in these activities,
a Danish associate expert in phytoplankton will be assigned
to the IOC Secretariat.

List of Workshop References

Cury, P.; Roy, C. 1989. Optimal environmental window
and pelagic fish recruitment success in upwelling areas.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 670-680.

Parrish, R.H.; Bakun, A.; Husby, D.M.,; Nelson, C.S. 1983.
Comparative climatology of selected environmental
processes in relation to eastern boundary current pe-
lagic fish reproduction. In: Sharp, G.D.; Csirke, J., eds.
Proceedings of the expert consultation to examine
changes in abundance and species composition of neritic
fish resources. FAO Fish. Rep. 291: 731-778.

Pauly, D.; Tsukayama, I., eds. 1987. The Peruvian ancho-
veta and its upwelling ecosystem: three decades of
change. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 15; 351 p. Available from:
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management, Manila, Philippines.

Pauly, D.; Muck, P.; Mendo, J.; Tsukayama, I., eds. 1989.
The Peruvian upwelling ecosystem: dynamics and in-
teractions. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 8; 438 p. Available
from: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management, Manila, Philippines.

List of Workshop Participants

The institutions and mailing addresses of the following
individuals are listed in Appendix B.

Dr. T. O. Ajayi Dr. K. Vagn Hansen

Dr. Jurgen Alheit, Dr. Erol Izdar
Chairman Mr. Roger Krohn

Dr. Andrew Bakun, Dr. Ezekial N. Okemwa
Rapporteur Dr. J.P. Quignard

Dr. Sree Narain Dwivedi Dr. Carleton Ray

Dr. Ramiro Sanchez
Dr. Qisheng Tang

Mr. S. Falk-Petersen
Dr. Alberto Garcia


Page 26

Name Institution Address
Dr. Barry Gold Subcommittee on Science 2319 Rayburn House Office
House Committee on Science, Space, Building
and Technology Washington, DC 20215
U.S. Congress US.A.

Tel: (202) 225-8844
Fax: (202) 225-4438

Dr. E. D. Gomez Marine Science Institute Diliman, Quenzon City 1101
University of the Philippines PHILIPPINES
Tel: 0063-2-989-742
Dr. Fernando Gonzalez-Farias _Institute of Marine Sciences - Limnology Calyada Joel Montes s/n
National Autonomous University of Mexico Mazatlan, Sinalao
MEXICO 82000
Dr. K. Vagn Hansen Danmarks Fiskeri-og Havundersegelser Sindalvej 9850
Hirtshals
DENMARK

Tel: 45-98-450-00
Fax: 45-98-944-190

Dr. Madeleine Havard World Wildlife Fund - United Kingdom Panda House
Weyside Park
Godalming
Surrey GU7 1XR
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 0483-426444
Fax: 0483-426409

Dr. Gotthilf Hempel Center for Tropical Marine Ecology Universitatsallee GW1/A
D-2800 Bremen 33
GERMANY
Tel: 49-421-2185151
Fax: 49-421-2185170

Dr. Martin Holdgate The World Conservation Union Av. du Mont Blanc
1196 Gland
SWITZERLAND
Tel: 41-22-649114
Fax: 41-22-642926

Dr. Van Holliday TRACOR Applied Sciences, Inc. 9150 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
U.S.A.
Tel: (619) 268-9777
Fax: (619) 268-9775

Dr. Michel Huet Bureau Hydrographique International 7, Av. President Kennedy
98000 MONACO
Tel: 93-50-65-87


Page 8

Unions, the ICSU. I believe the experience of ICSU’s
International Geosphere Biosphere Program, the IGBP,
may be useful. Their objective is “to describe and under-
stand the interactive physical, chemical, and biological
processes that regulate the total Earth System, the unique
environment it provides for life, the changes that are occur-
ting in that system, and the manner by which these changes
are influenced by human action.”

Substituting “large marine ecosystem” for “total earth
system” may provide a concise objective for a program of

the type a number of you are interested in developing.
Perhaps the development of sucha program could be consid-
ered in Brazil in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development.

The long-term goal of such a program, or its ultimate
goal, will be to understand how the system works well
enough to predict its future state. That is what science is
about. It will not be easy. The short-term goal, which I
believe is an achievable goal, is no less important. It is to
monitor the health of the ocean.

OPENING ADDRESS: THE CONSERVATION OF LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
Dr. Martin W. Holdgate
Director General
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,
The World Conservation Union

Your Serene Highness, Your Highness, Professor
Doumenge, ladies, and gentlemen. It is a great pleasure for
me to be here in Monaco, on the territory of a state member
of IUCN, and to have the opportunity of addressing this
distinguished gathering.

I want to consider IUCN, The World Conservation
Union’s role in promoting conservation of the large marine
ecosystems with which this symposium is concerned. I use
the word “conservation,” of course, in the usual sense -- the
maintenance of the natural systems of the oceans, as an
important component of planetary biological diversity and
ecological function, and as an important resource for sus-
tainable use by people.

A subsidiary thread to these remarks will concern the
transferability of concepts of conservation and sustainable
use, largely developed on land, into the oceans. This is a
topic on which many of you are far more expert than I am,
but I believe that it is possible to argue that concepts have
from time to time been loosely transferred, and have led, as
a result, to suboptimal formulation of policy goals and
management practices.

For example, the word “development” can be defined
reasonably precisely for terrestrial resources. I would
describe it as the modification of the structure and function-
ing of environmental systems so that an increasing propor-
tion of their productivity is provided ina form directly useful
tohumanity. For example, development may involve chang-
ing forests growing on fertile soil to farmlands capable of
sustainable use, and producing food, fiber, or other useful
products at an enhanced level. Development can also mean
the controlled conversion of productive living resources into
nonproductive built environments, and it is often used
uncritically to refer to the expansion of the technosphere at
the expense of the biosphere, regardless of long-term
sustainability, although IUCN would hope such destructive
development can be minimized.

I digress like this because I think one can contend that
the oceans are not the scene of development in the sense that

the term can be used on land. The transformation of marine
ecosystems to yield an increasing quantity of a product,
directly useful to humanity, has largely been a feature of
coastal zones. Mariculture for algae, mollusks, crustaceans,
and fish has been a growth industry in the last two decades,
but accounts for only about five percent or less of global
fishery landings. Much development affecting the marine
environment has been in the form of the encroachment of the
built environment on the natural, with engineering alter-
ations of coastlines and the discharges of industrial wastes
-- in neither case, conducive to the balance of sustainable
productivity of marine ecosystems.

The fact is that over much of the ocean, sustainability
has not been the determinant motivation in human-use
patterns. As we are all aware, early fisheries treated their
quarry as an “open-access resource” with a strong element
of competition between the exploiters, and these two factors
were directly responsible for the overconsumption, and
consequent depletion, of such target organisms as whales,
fur seals, and a number of stocks of food fishes. In 1982, it
was estimated that world fishery landings were 15- to 20-
percent less than they might have been had fishing effort and
offtake been adjusted to the optimum productivity of the
systems. Since then, there has been, if anything, an increase
in the nonselective and destructive impact of fisheries,
despite the regulatory effort. Industrial fishery and driftnetting
are both threatening the balance of ecological systems, and
tending, through their nonselectivity, to a great degree of
waste through the blind catches of nontarget organisms that
they are capturing and discarding.

The problems created by the “open-access approach”
have been exacerbated by the fact that most offshore fisher-
ies are managed as separate entities from the nearshore
environments that provide the breeding sites and nursery
areas of these “offshore” species. It is becoming more
widely accepted that we can no longer ignore such interre-
lationships. Our management strategies must take account
of the dependence of offshore fisheries on nearshore envi-




Page 23

Name Institution Address
Mrs. Marianne Carr Pezilla-de-Conflent 66730 Sournia
FRANCE
Tel: 0033-68-97-7141
Dr. Juan Carlos Castilla Facultad de Ciencias Biologicas Casilla 114-D
Department of Ecology Santiago
Pontificia Universidad Cotolica de Chile CHILE

Miss Chantal Cattini

Dr. Jorgen Moller Christensen.

Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain

Dr. R. Crema

Prof. Niels Daan

Dr. Arthur Dahl

Mr. Antonio Carlos Diegues

International Atomic Energy Agency

Danish Institute for Fisheries and
Marine Research

Center for the Study of Marine Policy
University of Delaware

Dipartimento di Biologia Animale

The Netherlands Institute for Fishery
Investigations

Regional Office for Europe
United Nations Environment Program

Research and Conservation of Wetlands
University of San Paulo

Tel: (56) (2) 2224516
Fax: (56) (2) 2225515

19 Av. des Castillans
MONACO
Tel: 93-50-44-88

Charlottenlund Castle
DK-2920 Charlottenlund
DENMARK

Tel: 45-316-28552

Fax: 45-316-28536

Newark, DE 19711
US.A.

Tel: (302) 451-8086
Fax: (302) 292-3668

Via Universita 4
41100 Modena
ITALY

Tel: 054-225067

P.O. Box 68

Ijmuidan

THE NETHERLANDS
Tel: 011-31-2550-64646
Fax: 011-31-2550-64644

Palaise des Nations

8-14 Avenue de la Paix
(CH-1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND

Tel: 011-41-22-798-8400
Fax: 011-41-22-798-3945

Rua do Amfiteatro 181
Colmeia - Fauo 6

Sao Paulo 05508
BRAZIL

Tel: 211-0011, Ext. 2307
Fax: 011-814-5050


Page 20

Name

APPENDIX B

Institution

LIST OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

Address

Dr. A. Aboussouan

Dr. T. O. Ajayi

Dr. Lewis Alexander

Dr. Jurgen Alheit

Dr. Denis Allemand

Dr. Lee Anderson

Dr. Andrew Bakun

Dr. Carlos Bas

Dr. John Beddington

Faculte des sciences

Nigerian Institute for Oceanography
and Marine Research

Geography Department
University of Rhode Island

Baltic Research Institute

Centre Scientifique de Monaco

University of Delaware

Pacific Environmental Group
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Facultad de Ciencias del Mar

Imperial College of Science
and Technology
University of London

Case postale 901

13288 Marseille Cedex 08
FRANCE

Tel: 91269205

P.M.B. 12729
Victoria Island
Lagos

NIGERIA.

Tel: 234-01617544
Fax: 234-1-619-317

320 Washburn Hall
Kingston, RI 02881
U.S.A.

Tel: (401) 783-3408

Seestrabe 15

0-2530 Warnemunde
GERMANY

Tel: 011-49-381-58338
Fax: 011-49-381-58336

16 Bd. de Suisse
98000 MONACO

Newark, DE 19711
USA.
Tel: (302) 451-2650

P.O. Box 831
Monterrey, CA 93942
U.S.A.

Tel: (408) 646-3311
Fax: (408) 646-3319

AP. 550

35017 Las Palmas
SPAIN

Tel: 928-35-25-07
Fax: 928-35-00-00

8 Prince’s Gardens

London, England SW7 1NA
UNITED KINGDOM

Tel: 011-44-071-823-7355
Fax: 011-44-071-589-5319


Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface...

Conference Summary and Recommendations

Summary ....
Recommendations

Conference Addresses
Welcoming Address...
H.S.H. The Prince Rainier IIT
Keynote Address ......
Dr. John A. Knauss
Opening Address: The Conservation of Large Marine Ecosystems
Dr. Martin W. Holdgate

Reports of Conference Workshops
Oceanographic Data and Training Needs for the LME Approach to Fishery Management...
Application of the LME Approach within Regional Seas Areas ..
Proposed IUCN Global Fisheries Management Network ..
Economic Indicators of Biomass Yields in LMEs.....

Reports of Informal Conference Discussion Groups on Candidate LMEs
Enclosed and Semi-enclosed LMEs..... 17
Atlantic Rim ..
Pacific Rim

Appendices
A. List of Countries of Conference Attendees
B. List of Conference Participants
C. Conference Program...





ronments, as well as the dependence of different compo-
nents of the marine food web on each other.

Ina similar way, over much of history the discharge of
pollutants to the sea was regarded as the ideal disposal
method because of the vastness of the oceans; the apparently
large dilution that they provided; and the belief that by
putting a waste into the sea, it was being removed from the
immediate environment of humanity. Virtually no country
in the world had, until recently, a considered policy to
regulate its discharges to the oceans at a level well within the
capacity of the marine system to disperse those wastes
without threat to ecological balance, and without the accu-
mulation of undesirable residues in living organisms. Very
similarly, engineering changes on the coastline have nor-
mally been planned without much thought of their impacts
on the ecology and productivity of the systems affected --
even though it has been known for decades among marine
biologists that shallow and productive inshore waters, most
at-risk from engineering development and pollution, were
important nursery areas for species that later moved offshore
and became the targets of commercial fisheries.

Of course, there have been attempts at a regulatory
effort. A number of fisheries commissions, attempting to
give guidance on optimal yields, were established in the
early part of this century. However, being based on volun-
tary consent, they generally had no means of restricting
catches to appropriate levels, and many states withdrew
from the agreements. In the 1950s, the concept of regional
fisheries commissions found favor once again, so that now
they exist for most ocean basins and seas. The main value
of these efforts has been a better monitoring of the state of
stocks, and at least some recognition of the need for regula-
tion of the fishery effort. In the Northeast Atlantic, both the
information base and the controls have been relatively good,
whereas in some other areas, like the North Pacific, only
some species have been effectively managed.

The most recent regional fisheries convention, the
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources, CCAMLR, is unique in that for the first time, it
incorporated in its provisions a requirement that the taking
of krill and other target species should be regulated, not only
so that there was no threat to the species concerned, but so
that the overall balance of the ecosystem was sustained and
the recovery of depleted species unimpaired.

Even so, there are questions as to whether CCAMLR
will effectively regulate international effort on the high seas
in Antarctic waters, any more than the other fisheries con-
ventions have proved their capacity to adjust fishing to the
optimal level, and thereby, provide maximal yields without
ecological imbalance. It is commonly stated that the salva-
tion of marine fisheries has, in fact, been the extension of
national jurisdictions to 200 miles, thereby giving a single
sovereign state at least the opportunity to regulate the use of
resources within its limits. There is nothing surprising about
this. On land too, the establishment of a unique economic
interest ina resource, together with the powers tomanage the
use of that resource, has often been proved the soundest base

Page 9

for conservation and sustainability. Itisa fact, perhaps asad
fact, of modern life that international instruments are
generally less effective than national ones.

Marine pollution has also been a focus for international
action. The London, Paris, and Osloconventions of the early
1970s were established, first and foremost, because of
international concern about the dumping of chemical wastes
in the epicontinental seas. Regional conventions, spear-
headed by UNEP’s Regional Seas Office, now Ocean and
Coastal Areas Program Activities Center, have been a
distinctive feature of the 1970s and 1980s, and do provide
for international action to agree on management objectives
for areas of coastal seas in many parts of the world that are
important for their fisheries and at risk from pollution.
Inevitably, however, these conventions can only operate if
the party sovereign states impose strict controls on their
land-based activities, since the overwhelming bulk of dam-
aging pollution entering the sea comes from the shore, and
progress has been slow. It was only in 1987, for example,
that the “precautionary principle” was accepted by minis-
ters of all the riparian states as a guiding precept in the
regulation of pollution of the North Sea, and only then, also,
that ministers undertook to use the best available technology
to curb the inputs of persistent and dangerous pollutants to
those vulnerable waters.

IUCN is concerned with the sustainable use of natural
resources, and the maintenance of global biodiversity and
global ecological functions, as essential preconditions for an
habitable planet. We are naturally unhappy about the way
in which ocean resources have been used. As the draft
successor volume to the World Conservation Strategy says,
despite the expenditure of billions of dollars and thousands
of lifetimes worldwide in order to understand and regulate
human impact on the sea and its resources, “the efforts have
not even approached what is needed.” We need to form
much clearer policies for the future, and these will have to
encompass both national and international agreements and
actions, since while a greater part of the ocean lies beyond
national jurisdiction, all impacts upon the oceans either arise
within the territory of sovereign states and their contiguous
exclusive economic zones, or are carried out as a result of
national exploitative activities. The international agreement
and instrument is only a frame to guide the national.

I suggest that there are two particular needs as we
approach the future.

The first broad requirement is to codify the objectives
that we should pursue in order to ensure conservation and
sustainable use of ocean and marine resources. There are
five specific objectives that we could consider in this con-
text:

A. The integrity, diversity, and functioning of marine
ecosystems should be maintained.

B. All harvests of marine organisms should be held below
sustainable yield, and the harvest of an individual
species should not endanger stocks of other species or


Page v

PREFACE

The International Conference on the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) Concept and Its Application to Regional Marine
Resource Management was held during 1-6 October 1990 in Monaco. The conference was convened by the U.S. Department
of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The World Conservation Union, U.N. Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission, and International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea. It was
sponsored by the United Nations Environment Program, The World Bank, American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Council for Ocean Law, National Science Foundation, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, International
Coastal & Oceans Organization, Marine Mammal Commission, and Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research.

Patron of the conference was H.S.H. The Prince Rainier III of Monaco. It was hosted by the Musee Oceanographique
de Monaco and The Principality of Monaco.


Review of the FMSG Proposal

A number of general comments were made on the
FMSG proposal as follows:

1. It was agreed that the establishment of a new IUCN/
SSC network would be most beneficial. It was pointed
out that such a network could become a means of
sharing successes, as well as of lessons learned from
failures. It was also pointed out that in a developing-
country context, often very simple support is needed,
such as could be provided through a network.

2. The proposal, as it was originally drafted, did not seem
to provide sufficient emphasis on the key role of ecosys-
tem management. Although it was recognized that the
proposal implicitly called for ecosystem management,
this should be made more explicit.

3. As well as being advisory, the network should also be
catalytic, much in the way adopted by other SSC
specialist groups. Specifically, the FMSG should mo-
bilize local and national efforts in developing countries.

4. There was a general concern that the proposal focussed
too much on “management,” rather than on the tradi-
tional IUCN concerns of “conservation and sustainable
development.” Although this might just be a semantic
point, it is important to stress that management should
cover a broad range of disciplines, ranging from biol-
ogy and ecology to sociology, rural development, and
human population demography.

5. The basic principle of the draft proposal, that the initial
emphasis should be on artisinal fisheries, was upheld.
However, there was a strong opinion that aquaculture
aspects could not be ignored, especially in the rural
development context. In particular, it was felt that the
following three aspects relating to aquaculture should
be important for IUCN: (a) the effects of exotic species
on natural species stocks and communities (through
competition, predation, and spread of disease); (b) the
effects of aquaculture on the recovery of natural stocks
(assuming aquaculture results in reduced pressure on
wild populations); and (c) the effects of aquaculture on
key habitats (such as mangroves and coral reefs).

Asa result of these comments, the general and specific
objectives of the proposal were rewritten. The suggested
general objective was: to promote the sustainable use of the
world’s fisheries resources through an integrated ecological
approach. The specific objectives were rewritten as follows:

1. Tocreate a global fisheries management network con-
sisting of projects, institutions, and individuals carrying

Page 15

out research and development work in fisheries man-
agement, with an initial focus on artisinal fisheries and
related aspects (in particular, aquaculture) from an
LME perspective.

2. Tomonitor, froma conservation and LME perspective,
the state of health of the major fisheries of the world.

3. To identify and deter the use of destructive,
overexploitative, and illegal fishing methods. (No
change made to this objective.)

4. To promote sustainable ecosystem management for
fisheries among fishermen organizations, fishing com-
panies, local authorities, national governments, and
international bodies concerned with fisheries regula-
tion.

5. Topromote training workshops involving IUCN objec-
tives in the sustainable use of fisheries.

6. To promote symposia on various aspects of fisheries
management including those concerned with the LME
concept.

The following comments were also made concerning
these specific objectives. Objective No. 2 would require
subdivision of the network, either regionally, or by each
major fishery. It was suggested that objective No. 3 should
be met in part by development of a new IUCN Policy
Statement on fishing methods. Concerning objectives No’s.
5 and6, it was felt that in its initial stages, the network should
promote, rather than organize, training workshops and sym-
posia, and the FMSG should provide input into the curricula
of these activities. Taking responsibility from organizing
these activities could divert the network from higher priori-
ties during the earlier stages of its development.

Institutional Linkages

The meeting agreed that the IDRC was a particularly
appropriate partner with which to develop linkages for the
launching of the FMSG. Two other possible collaborators
include the ICLARM, particularly from anartisinal fisheries
and aquaculture perspective, and the International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea, which advises the EEC on
fisheries quotas. The FAO would be an obvious partner,
though some concern was expressed that there might be
different philosophical approaches. Among the bilateral
agencies, SIDA and NORAD were suggested as collabora-
tors, and among the nongovernmental organizations, the
World Wildlife Fund and the Center for Marine Conserva-
tion.


PB9I3-185965

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-91

®
9
:
<=

é

7

The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME)
Concept and Its Application to Regional
Marine Resource Management

1-6 October 1990, Monaco:
Conference Summary and
Recommendations

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Region
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Woods Hole, Massachusetts

October 1992

REPRODUCED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161




Page 2

Similarly, changes in velocity and direction of the Equato-
rial Under-Current was the principal force driving variabil-
ity in the yields of the pelagic fisheries of the Gulf of Guinea
Ecosystem according to Drs. Denis Binet of the French
Research Institute for Ocean Utilization in Nantes, France,
and Emile Marchal of the Office of Overseas Scientific
Research and Technology in Paris, France, and of the
Canary Current Ecosystem as reported by Dr. Carlos Bas of
the Spanish Institute of Oceanography in Las Palmas, Spain;
in both LMEs, the effects of fishing in causing large-scale
variability in the biomass yields were considered secondary.

In contrast, loss of habitat in the coastal zones around
the Bay of Bengal Ecosystem has had a detrimental impact
on the nursery grounds of shrimp, whereas the annual yields
of the offshore fisheries of the ecosystem have been increas-
ing from 1.9 million metric tons (mmt) in 1981 to 2.4 mmt
in 1987, according to S.N. Dwivedi of the Department of
Ocean Development in New Delhi, India. Dr. Dwivedi
encouraged the participants to consider the convening of a
symposium and workshops for marine scientists and stu-
dents from India and other countries bordering on the Bay of
Bengal to encourage further study of the sustainability of the
entire Bay of Bengal Ecosystem under the growing stresses
on the ecosystem being imposed by the large population of
people living along its coastal margins.

From the case studies of LMEs, new useful insights
were gained for management with regard to principal driv-
ing forces, and for the desirability of improved monitoring
of the LMEs being driven by physics, such as the Humboldt
Current Ecosystem and the Patagonian Shelf Ecosystem,
not only from a fisheries yield perspective, but also with
regard to early warning of the impacts of global warming
(Dr. A. Bakun: “Physical and Biological Parameters Influ-
encing the Biomass Yields of the Benguela Current, Califor-
nia Current, and Patagonian Shelf Ecosystems”).

Theoretical Legal and Practical
Considerations

From the theoretical presentations on LMEs, it was
apparent that the problems of scale and variability need to be
addressed to improve understanding of processes within an
LME. The theoretical experts, Dr. Simon Levin of Cornell
University (“Models for Forecasting Biomass Yields in
LMEs”), Dr. John Beddington of the University of London
(“Ecological Theory and Alternate Stable States in Large
Marine Ecosystems”), and Dr. Brian Rothschild of the
University of Maryland (“Biodynamic Theory and LMEs”),
stressed the importance of recognizing that more effort is
required in understanding the relationships among scales
and levels of biological and physical organization within
LMEs. In a summary statement, Dr. Levin stressed that
populations do not exist in isolation. Examination of the
effects of pollutants on harvesting and of other stresses is
properly placed within the context of the regional ecosystem
which governs the dynamics of its component populations,

mediates the fate and transport of materials, and is the most
nearly inclusive system feasible for investigating biophysi-
cal interaction.

For these reasons, the LME approach, including the
study of variability, represents a sensible model for ocean
management. In this regard, Dr. Martin Belsky of the
Albany Law School argued that the U.N. Law of the Seacan
be interpreted as mandating an ecosystem approach to
resource and environmental management (“Legal Regimes
for Management of LMEs and Their Component Re-
sources”), and Tucker Scully of the U.S. State Department
provided the conference with an example of the ecosystem
approach to the management of living marine resources in
the Antarctic, supported by a21-country commission and an.
active scientific committee (“The Convention on the Con-
servation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources--A Model
for Ecosystem Management”). Dr. Arthur Dahl of the
United Nations Environment Program indicated to the con-
ference that the LME concept is compatible with the U.N.
regional seas approach to ocean research and management
(“The LME Approach to Regional Seas Action Plans and
Conventions: A Geographic Perspective”).

International Science and Management

The evolution of the LME concept and its applicability
to scientific and management issues involving fisheries,
coastal zone, pollution, and global warming was reported by
Dr. Gotthilf Hempel of the Alfred Wegener Polar Research
Institute in Bremerhaven, Germany (“Purpose and Organi-
zation of LME Conference from a Scientific Perspective”).
Dr. Michael Reeve of the National Science Foundation
(NSF) suggested means for incorporating process-oriented
studies of ocean processes within the framework of LMEs,
particularly with regard to the Global Ecosystems Dynamics
Program of NSF (“Application of International Global
Change Research Programs to Long-term LME Manage-
ment”). The application of the LME approach to the
research of the Faeroe-Plateau Ecosystem was reported by
Dr. K. Vagn Hansen of the Danish Institute for Fisheries and
Marine Research, with special emphasis on the large-scale
gyre system around the periphery of the ecosystem serving
as a boundary feature for plankton and the pelagic stages of
the benthic communities. Progress in applying an ecologi-
cal approach to research and management of the Gulf of
California Ecosystem was given by Dr. Laurence Mee of the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Monaco.

The steps to be taken to integrate LMEscientific studies
into the management of ocean resources and ocean space
were addressed by Professors Robert Knecht and Biliana
Cicin-Sain of the University of Delaware (“The Utility of the
LME Concept to Ocean Management”), and a very well
designed plan for the research and management of the
Northern California Current System LME was put forth by
Dr. Daniel Bottom of the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (“Research and Management in the Northern Cali-


Page 1

CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

Plenary and Case Studies

The three opening-session speakers, H.S.H. The Prince
Rainier III of Monaco, Dr. Martin Holdgate, the Director
General of The World Conservation Union (IUCN), and Dr.
John Knauss, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmo-
sphere of the United States Department of Commerce,
provided the conference with guidance and encouragement
to move forward with research, monitoring, and manage-
ment programs fashioned around the marine ecosystem
concept. The deliberations over the six days of the confer-
ence brought the participants closer to achieving that goal.

The overall objective of the Conference was to intro-
duce the “large marine ecosystem (LME) research and
management approach” toa broadly representative group of
scientists, managers, and administrators concerned with the
sustainable use of marine resources, This was accomplished
with the cooperation of the 140 participants representing
scientists, managers, and administrators from 37 countries.
With regard to the application of the LME approach to
principal driving forces affecting resource yields, the Con-
ference was fortunate to have had expert and comprehensive
presentations on several important LMEs of the Atlantic,
Pacific, and Indian Oceans including the: Adriatic Sea
Ecosystem (Dr. G. Bombace, Italy); Bay of Bengal Ecosys-
tem (Dr. S.N. Dwivedi, India); Baltic Sea Ecosystem [Dr. G.
Kullenberg, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commis-
sion (IOC), Paris, France]; Canary Current Ecosystem (Dr.
C. Bas, Las Palmas, Spain); Faeroe Plateau Ecosystem (Dr.
V. Hansen, Denmark); Great Barrier Reef Ecosystem (Dr.
G. Kelleher, Canberra, Australia); Gulf of California Eco-
system (Dr. L. Mee, Monaco); Gulf of Guinea Ecosystem
(Drs. D. Binet and E. Marchal, France); Humboldt Current
Ecosystem (Drs. J. Alheit, Germany, and P. Bernal, Chile);
Sea of Okhotsk Ecosystem (Drs. V.V. Kuznetsov, V.P.
Shuntov, and L.A. Borets, Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-
lics); and Yellow Sea Ecosystem (Dr. Q. Tang, Peoples
Republic of China).

In addition, comparative analyses on the effects of
basinwide physical and biological parameters influencing
biomass yields were presented on the Barents Sea, Norwe-
gian Sea, and West Greenland Sea Ecosystems by Drs.
Johan Blindheim and Hein Skjoldal of the Institute of
Marine Research, Bergen, Norway, and of the Benguela
Current, California Current, and Patagonian Shelf Ecosys-
tems by Dr. Andrew Bakun of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Mitigation Actions

The feasibility was demonstrated for introducing miti-

gating actions in an effort to increase the sustainability of
usable biomass production of LMEs. In the Yellow Sea,
where the government of the Peoples Republic of China first
introduced juvenile:shrimp for growout purposes in 1984,
fishermen now harvest catches of 10,000 metric tons a year,
based on the premise that the reduction of the natural
predator field of demersal fish stocks provided an opportu-
nity for the introduction of a higher-economic-yield shrimp
resource as reported by Dr. Qisheng Tang of the Huanghai
Sea Fisheries Research Institution, Qingdao, Peoples Re-
public of China (“The Effects of Long-term Physical and
Biological Perturbations of the Contemporary Biomass
Yields of the Yellow Sea Ecosystem”). A second example
was the experimental introduction of artificial reefs or
substrates for incorporating superfluous primary production
to enhance biomass yields of benthic mollusks, fishes, and
crustaceans in the Adriatic Sea Ecosystem presented by Dr.
Giovani Bombace of the Institute of Marine Fisheries Re-
search, Ancona, Italy (“Long-term Variability in the Food
Chains, Biomass Yields, and Oceanography of the Adriatic
Sea Ecosystem”).

With regard to pollution studies, the importance of
controlling the point sources of pollution in the river systems
and wetlands of the coastal margins of LMEs was empha-
sized by Dr. Gunnar Kullenberg of the IOC, Paris, France
(“The Baltic Sea as a Pollution-driven LME”), Dr. Francois
Doumenge of the Oceanographic Museum, Monaco (“En-
closed/Semi-enclosed Seas: A Status Report”), and Dr.
Alasdair McIntyre of Aberdeen, Scotland (“Application of
LME Management for Pollution-driven Systems”); the lack
of significant contamination of the offshore, more open
waters of LMEs was noted. The example of successful
mitigation of the biomagnification of large-scale contami-
nation from heavy metals and organochlorines in the Baltic
was a particularly encouraging example of how scientists,
administrators, and managers of several nations can work
together to carry forward positive management actions for
an entire LME.

Driving Forces

The impacts of ocean physics on pelagic stock yields
and of overfishing on demersal stock yields were considered
as important driving forces in the Sea of Okhotsk ecosystem
by Dr. Vladimir Kusnetsov of the All-Union Scientific
Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography in
Moscow, and his colleagues V. Shuntov and L. Borets of the
Pacific Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanog-
raphy in Vladivostock, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The importance of ocean physics as the principal force
driving variability in biomass yields of the Humboldt Cur-
rent Ecosystem was stressed by Dr. Jurgen Alheit of
POLARMAR in Bremerhaven, Germany, and Patricio Bernal
of the Institute for Fisheries Studies in Santiago, Chile.


Page 34

Name Institution Address
Dr. Boonchai Stensholt Institute of Marine Research P.O. Box 1870
Nordnes 5024
Bergen
NORWAY

Dr. Merrily Stover

Dr. Michel Stretta

Mr. Simon Stuart

Dr. Jon Sutinen

Dr. Qisheng Tang

Dr. Fu Tianbao

Dr. Teny Topalian

Miss Anne Toulemont

University of Maryland-London

Office of Overseas Scientific Research

and Technology

The World Conservation Union

University of Rhode Island

Huanghai Sea Fisheries Research

Institute

Third Institute of Oceanography
State Oceanographic Administration

School of Natural Sciences
California State University

Institut Oceanographique

Tel: 47-5-23-8446
Fax: 47-5-23-8531

10 Hill Road

St. John’s Wood

London, England NW8 9QG
UNITED KINGDOM

Tel: 071-286-6036

Centre ORSTOM

B.P. 5045

34032 Montpellier Cedex
FRANCE

Tel: 67-68-74-00

Av. du Mont Blanc
1196 Gland
SWITZERLAND
Tel: 41-22-649245
Fax: 41-22-642926

Kingston, RI 02881
U.S.A.

Tel: (401) 792-4586
Fax: (401) 782-4766

19 Laiyang Road

Qingdao

PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF
CHINA

Tel: (86) 532-286650

Fax: (86) 532-270702

P.O. Box 70

Xiamen 361005

PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF
CHINA

Tel: 24880

Telex: 93003 BTHXM CN

Long Beach, CA 90840-4501
U.S.A.
Tel: (213) 985-5720

195 rue St. Jacques
75005 Paris
FRANCE


Page 22

Name

Institution

Address

Mr. Michel Boisson

Dr. Jean Boissonnas

Dr. Steve Bolt

Prof. Giovanni Bombace

Mr. Nicola Bonucci

Dr. Phasuk Boonlert

Dr. Daniel Bottom

Dr. James Broadus

Dr. Jose Bustillos-Guzman

Dr. J. F. Caddy

Centre Scientifique de Monaco

Commission of the European Communities

Nature Conservancy Council

Instituto Ricerche Pesca Maritima

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization

Department of Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Marine Policy Center
‘Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas
Kml Carretera San Juan de la Costa

Fisheries Department
UN. Food and Agriculture Organization

16 Bd. de Suisse
MONACO
Tel: 93-15-36-00

200 rue de la Loi

1049 Brussels
BELGIUM

Tel: (32) 2-235-67-87
Fax: (32) 2-236-30-24

Northminster House
Peterborough PE1 1UA
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 011-44-733-340345

Molo Mandracchio
Ancona

ITALY

Tel: 071-204197
Fax: 071-553-13

Via delle Terme di Caraclla
00100 Rome

ITALY

Fax: 57-97-44-08

Rajadamnern Avenue
Bangkok 10200
THAILAND

Tel: (662) 2810542
Fax: (662) 2801502

850 S.W. 15th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
U.S.A.

Tel: (503) 737-4431

Woods Hole, MA 02543
U.S.A.

Tel: (508) 548-1400, Ext. 2774

Telex: 951679

Predio El Comitan
AP. 128

La Paz, B.C.S.
MEXICO

Tel: 682-536-33

Via delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome

ITALY

Tel: 011-396-5797-6482
Fax: 011-396-5782610
Fax: 011-396-5120330


(continued from inside front cover)

77. Shell Disease among Red Crabs Inhabiting Submarine Canyons of the New York Bight. By Randall R.
Young. December 1989. iii+9 p., 18 figs., 5 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB90-194762/AS.

78. Seasonal Distribution Patterns of Commercial Landings of 45 Species off the Northeastern United States
during 1977-88. By Sukwoo Chang. October 1990. v+130 p., 246 figs. NTIS Access. No. PB91-160846.

79. Contaminants in Sediment and Fish Tissue from Estuarine and Coastal Sites of the Northeastern United
States: Data Summary for the Baseline Phase of the National Status and Trends Program Benthic
Surveillance Project, 1984-1986. By Vincent S. Zdanowicz and Donald F. Gadbois. December 1990. x + 138p.,
67 figs., 21 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB92-147453/AS.

80. Distribution of Sexually Immature Components of 10 Northwest Atlantic Groundfish Species Based on
Northeast Fisheries Center Bottom Trawl Surveys, 1968-86. By Susan E. Wigley and Wendy L. Gabriel. January
1991. iv + 17 p., 23 figs., 3 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB92-101617.

81. Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern United States for 1990. By Conservation and
Utilization Division, Northeast Fisheries Center. January 1991. iv + 130 p., 50 figs., 82 tables. NTIS Access. No.
PB91-213785.

82. Response of the Habitat and Biota of the Inner New York Bight to Abatement of Sewage Sludge Dumping:
Third Annual Progress Report--1989. By Anne L. Studholme, Merton C. Ingham, and Anthony Pacheco, eds.
February 1991. vi + 57 p., 74 figs., 20 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB91-208199.

83. Organic Contaminants in Hepatic Tissues of Lobster and Flounder at the New York Bight “12-Mile”
Sewage Sludge Dumpsite: 1987-88. By A.F.J. Draxler, Paul Hauge, and Ashok D. Deshpande. July 1991. iii +
10 p., 3 figs., 8 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB93-114635/AS.

84. Trophodynamics of Select Demersal Fishes in the New York Bight. By Frank W. Steimle and Russell
Terranova. July 1991. iv + 11 p., 1 fig., 16 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB92-157999/AS.

85. Factors Influencing Spring Distribution, Availability, and Recreational Catch of Atlantic Mackerel
(Scomber scombrus) in the Middle Atlantic and Southern New England Regions. By William J. Overholtz, Reed
S. Armstrong, David G. Mountain, and Mark Terceiro. August 1991. iii + 13 p., 9 figs., 3 tables. NTIS Access. No.
PB92- 160209.

86. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1991. By Conservation & Utilization
Division, Northeast Fisheries Science Center. September 1991. iii + 132 p., 55 figs., 72 tables. NTIS Access. No.
PB92-113786.

87. Evidence of Structural Change in Preferences for Seafood. By Steven F. Edwards. January 1992. iii + 12
p., 3 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB93-114650/AS.

88. Synopsis of Principal Diseases of the Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus. By Gretchen A. Messick and Carl J.
Sindermann. January 1992. iii + 24 p., 13 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB92-219757.

89. Proceedings of the NEFC/ASMFC Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, Aging Workshop, 11-13
June 1990, Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, Mass. By Frank P. Almeida, Raoul E. Castaneda, Roman
Jesien, Richard E. Greenfield, and John M. Burnett. January 1992. iii + 7 p., 8 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No.
PB93-114643/AS.

90. Fish and Megainvertebrates Collected in the New York Bight Apex during the 12-Mile Dumpsite Recovery
Study, July 1986-September 1989. By Stuart J. Wilk, Robert A. Pikanowski, Anthony L. Pacheco, Donald G.
McMillan, Beth A. Phelan, and Linda L. Stehlik. October 1992. iv + 78p. 9 figs., 2 tables, 2 app.


Page 21

Name Institution Address
Dr. Gerard Bellan Station Marine d’Endoume Rue Batterie des Lions
Centre National de la Recherche 13007 Marseille
Scientifique FRANCE

Dr. Denise Bellan-Santini

Prof. Martin Belsky

Dr. Garry Bernacsek

Dr. Patricio Bernal

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bernhard

Dr. Denis Binet

Dr. Johan Blindheim

Ing. Aldo Bolondi, V.

Station Marine d’Endoume
Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique

Albany Law School
Union University

Fisheries Management Specialist Group

Instituto de Fomento Pesquero

The World Conservation Union

French Research Institute for
Ocean Utilization
Office of Overseas Scientific
Research and Technology

Institute of Marine Research

Presidente

Tel: 91-41-16-12
Fax: 91-41-16-35

Rue Batterie des Lions
13007 Marseille
FRANCE

Tel: 91-41-16-33
Fax: 91-41-16-35

80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
U.S.A.

Tel: (518) 445-2321

RR.3

Mansonville, PQ JOE 1X0
CANADA

Tel: 514-292-3789

Fax: 514-292-5098
Telex: 05-836-158

Avda. pedro de Valdivia 2633
Casilla 1287

Santiago

CHILE

Tel: 562-225-6325

Fax: 562-225-4362

Telex: 343664 ITOPA CK

Av. du Mont Blanc
1196 Gland
SWITZERLAND

B.P. 1049

44037 Nantes Cedex
FRANCE

Tel: 40-37-40-36

P.O. Box 1870
Nordnes N-5024
Bergen
NORWAY

Tel: 475-235800
Fax: 475-238531

Via Lucio Volumnio, 1-11
Part. IVA

00178 Rome

ITALY




Page 12

In terms of generic data types, the participants enumer-
ated the customary list: temperature, salinity, density, wind,
nutrients, currents, sediment load, light, sea level, fishery
statistics, etc. The need for more ecological, behavioral, and
other “less customary” biological information was empha-
sized, as was the need for data requirements to be model-
driven rather than assembled as a “shopping list.” Because
of the need to direct the studies toward a variety of concerns
including fisheries, tourism, and pollution, certain terrestrial
data such as runoff and information on various coastal
characteristics (vegetation, dredging and filling, erosion,
etc.) are often needed. The connection between estuarine
and offshore processes may be a key issue. Expense of data
acquisition is an important concern. Ship-of-opportunity
programs may cut expenses, but coverage may be uneven.
Sharing of data among countries may present problems as
data perceived as having military applications may remain
classified for undue periods; this may be an area where
actions of international agencies could have beneficial ef-
fects.

On the subject of international data banks for LME
research, it was pointed out that within the Marine Science
and Technology Program of the European Economic Com-
munity (EEC), it has been decided not to create a general
EEC data bank. Instead, a network among national data
banks will be set up to provide access to the broad range of
available data. The network system and the intercalibration
of instruments will be coordinated. However, specific qual-
ity control will be a national responsibility.

Continuous plankton recorder (CPR) systems offer a
means for tracking large time-/space-scale biological vari-
ability within LMEs. The burden of analysis of the samples
is the main impediment to their wide use and utility. Because
of this, samples may be incompletely analyzed; thus it was
suggested that representative samples be saved for more
complete analysis when more advanced biotechnological
and/or computer imaging methods become operational. The
importance of bolstering taxonomic capabilities was stressed,
as was the necessity for interinstitutional and international
collaboration to share the long-term analysis burden in-
volved in generating a data base having broad utility to a
variety of scientific concerns. In this connection, advan-
tages of siting international sorting and taxonomic centers in
countries where costs of analysis may be lowered were cited.

Satellite data appear to have great potential for LME
research. However, difficulties of access (although improv-
ing in very recent years) remain a problem. There is pres-
ently a trend among national agencies toward “marketing”
of satellite data and products in order to recover part of the
cost of technological development, satellite launching, and
operations. The workshop participants suggested that inter-
national agencies register strong complaints about this trend.
It makes little sense that, after enormous expenditures to put
the systems into operation, their data should be unavailable
to support ongoing scientific research programs for lack of
relatively minor specific funding within these programs.

The comparative method has been identified as one of the
most promising avenues for scientific progress in LME
research. Therefore, the withholding of such data from use
by any country or region effectively robs the taxpayers of the
country having borne the heavy expense of establishing a
satellite observation system of an important potential
“payback” (in terms of their own LME concerns) for their
investment. It was reported that a 10-year series of “Landsat”
data lies essentially unutilized for LME research. The use of
this data resource to support broad-scale scientific advance
could be enormously enhanced by free processing and free
provision of charts and maps. The practice of encoding data
streams to prevent broad access is shortsighted and should
be protested.

Assembling data from various ecosystems for use in
applications of the comparative method may present prob-
lems. Scientists of any region who have made large personal
investments of their time and expertise to assemble impor-
tant data sets may be understandably reluctant to give them
up for primary analysis by unspecified scientists of other
regions. However, the problems of LME research are both
crucial and difficult. Precedent guidelines for research
progress tend to be lacking. Innovation and inspiration are
at a premium. Thus, it is particularly important that an
international community of scientists have access to
interregional data bases in order to be able to build upon each
other’s ideas and insights, and to thereby participate in broad
scientific advance to the benefit of all. The IMARPE/GTZ/
ICLARM [Peru Institute of the Sea/German Society for
Technical Cooperation/International Center for Living
Aquatic Resource Management] Peruvian ecosystem project
was cited as an interesting example of an innovative way to
accomplish these goals. Two substantial volumes (Pauly
and Tsukayama 1987; Pauly etal. 1989) analyze and display
a large variety of time series of monthly data extending over
three decades; with the second volume, ICLARM is pre-
pared to provide all the extensive sets of basic and derived
data in computer-readable form (14 floppy disks in IBM-PC
compatible format). A key aspect is that the various chapters
in the volumes are authored by the scientists who have
assembled and provided the data. This affords them, in a
single, readily identifiable reference, the opportunity to: (1)
publish their own initial analysis of their data; (2) establish
identification with their data sets so that follow-on users will
know where to enquire about specific details, etc., and (3)
provide a basis for proper citation of their contribution to
follow-on integrative scientific analysis efforts.

In a somewhat similar area of concern, the issue of
research cruises by ships of one country within the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) of another country was mentioned. It
was pointed out that notification of cruise plans is often not
timely enough to allow for appropriate participation by local
scientists. Earlier notification would be very advantageous
in terms of training opportunities and in terms of participa-
tion of local scientists in making use of the acquired data
with respect to local scientific and socioeconomic issues.


Name Institution

Page 29

Address

Prof. Paul Le Bourdiec Geography Management of Resources

University of Nice

Dr. Carlos Lechuga-Deveze Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas

Prof. Simon Levin
Princeton University

Mr. Hugo Llanos Mansilla Regional Coordinating Unit for
Southeast Pacific Action Plan

Comision Permanente del Pacifico Sur

Dr. Alberto Lonardi Organization of American States

Ms. Indrani Lutchman World Wildlife Fund - United Kingdom

Ms. M. Gerry McCormick-Ray Department of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

Dr. A. D. McIntyre Department of Zoology
University of Aberdeen
Mr. Kelton R. McKinley Office of Economic Development

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

98 Bd. Edouard Herriot
060007 Nice Cedex
FRANCE

Tel: 93-37-53-59

Fax: 93-26-62-27

AP. 128

23000 La Paz, Baja California
MEXICO

Tel: (682) 5-36-26

Fax: (682) 5-36-25

203 Eno Hall

Princeton, NJ 08544-1003
U.S.A.

Tel: (609) 258-6880

Fax: (609) 258-6819

Teatinos 20, Of. 93
Santiago

CHILE

Tel: 726652 or 726654
Fax: 6994202

1889 F Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20815
U.S.A.

Tel: (202) 458-3339
Fax: (202) 458-3167

Panda House
Weyside Park
Godalming

Surry GU7 1XR
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 0483-426444

Clark Hall
Charlottesville, VA 22901
U.S.A.

Tel: (804) 924-0551

Tillydrone Avenue

Aberdeen, Scotland AB9 2TN
UNITED KINGDOM

Tel: 0044-22-4-876544

Fax: 0044-22-4-879156

State of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96848
U.S.A.


Page 30

Name

Institution

Address

Dr. A. Martinez de Mursilla

Dr. Sophie Matsakis

Dr. Laurence Mee

Dr. Garcia Mesinas

Dr. P. Michaud

Dr. Joseph Morgan

Dr. Marvin Moss

Mr. Philip Muller

Mr. Boubakary NDiaye

V. Hesohaizea

Estudiante

International Atomic Energy Agency

Ministerio de Agricultura

Seychelles Fishing Authority

East-West Center
University of Hawaii

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Forum Fisheries Agency

CSRP/SP

Urb. Jaizkibel 38
Fuenterrabia
Guiquizgoa
SPAIN

Tel: 943-618091

Station Zoologique

BP. 28

06230 Villefranche sur Mer
FRANCE

Tel: 93-76-38-39

Fax: 93-76-38-84

19 Av. des Castellans
MONACO
Tel: 931-50-44-38

Calle 38-No. 13-37
Piso 5

Bogota
COLOMBIA

Tel: 287-10-57
Fax: 287-15-86

P.O. Box 449
Victoria
SEYCHELLES
Tel: 24521
Telex: 2284 SFA

1777 East-West Road
Honolulu, HI 96848
U.S.A.

Tel: (808) 944-7263
Fax: (808) 944-7298

Director’s Office 0210
LaJolla, CA 92093-0210
U.S.A.

Tel: (619) 534-2836
Fax: (619) 453-0167

Honiara
SOLOMON ISLANDS
Tel: 677-21124

1 rue Joris
B.P. 209
Dakar
SENEGAL
Tel: 21-2775


Page 18

pressures initiating the flux of water flow in both
directions.

2. Semi-enclosed seas are subject to pressures from con-
tinental phenomena responsible for weather patterns
and for supplying fresh water and sediments.

3. Human activity can increase or reduce continental
pressures on the semi-enclosed seas.

4. Semi-enclosed seas are characterized by young ecosys-
tems which remain unstable and subject to numerous
stresses.

5. In general, semi-enclosed seas consist of a mosaic of
small units which evolved through definite stages in
establishing their biological diversity.

6. Their generally smaller scale is a dominant characteris-
tic relative to the larger oceanic ecosystems. It is
important, therefore, to apply the concept of LMEs to
subunits within which production phenomena are di-
versified through mechanisms that are unique to them
and remain poorly quantified.

ATLANTIC RIM
Dr. Steven Bolt, Discussion Leader’

The initial discussion attempted to reach agreement as
toa definition of LMEs. It soon became apparent that there
was confusion as to how to decide on definitions and
boundaries. It was decided that we would consider the
Atlantic for potential LMEs with each delegate proposing
areas. The concept would then be reappraised in light of a
list of sites put forward by the participants. A list of 20 LME
sites was proposed that encompassed the Atlantic rim from
the Arctic clockwise, from the Norwegian Sea Ecosystem to
the Laboradore Shelf Ecosystem.

All of the delegates agreed that the concept of using an
holistic ecosystem approach to fisheries/conservation/ma-
rine management is an important advance from single-
species economic management. However, it was obvious
from the proposed list of LMEs that there was a substantial
difference of approach by the delegates as to what consti-
tutes an LME. It was, therefore, recommended that there is
a need for a set of criteria to be created to allow countries a
better understanding as to what actually constitutes an LME.

PACIFIC RIM

Dr. Joseph Morgan, Discussion Leader*

The discussants reviewed the designations made earlier
of LMEs around the Pacific Rim. Although no consensus
was reached, the group agreed that the initial designations
published in the 1989 volume by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science represented the basis for
further consideration by regional experts, as recommended
by the full plenary.

The group recommended that further consideration be

given to LMEs in which the predominant issues are not
limited to fisheries assessment and management, but also
include considerations of entire marine communities in
relation to the long-term sustainability of the entire ecosys-
tem. The group referred to the comprehensive presentations
of Dr. Laurence Mee on the Gulf of California Ecosystem
and Dr. Graeme Kelleher on the holistic management of the
entire Great Barrier Reef Ecosystem.

Convener’s Note

The reports of the Atlantic Rim and Pacific Rim Discus-
sion Groups were considered at the concluding plenary
session of the conference. Based on the deliberations, it was
agreed that the list provided by the group of 20 candidate
LMEs for the Atlantic Rim, and the published report on the
Pacific Rim LMEs and the Atlantic Rim LMEs”, were useful
for discussion purposes. No consensus was reached on the

7 Peterborough, United Kingdom.
* Honolulu, Hawaii

candidate systems. The recommendation by the conference
to give highest priority to the designations of LMEs on a
global basis will provide the opportunity to reexamine the
candidate LMEs based on recommendations of regional
experts. To the extent possible, the participants in the
Atlantic Rim and Pacific Rim Discussion Groups will be
included among the regional experts contacted.

° Morgan, J. 1989. .Large marine ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds. Biomass yields and geography of
large marine ecosystems. AAAS Sel. Symp. 111: 377-394. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.
Prescott, J.R.V. 1989. The political division of large marine ecosystems in the Atlantic Ocean and some associated seas. In: Sherman, K.;
Alexander, L.M., eds. Biomass yields and geography of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Sel. Symp. 111: 395-442. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press, Inc.




Effects of Climate Changes on the Biomass Yield of the
Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea, and West Greenland Sea
LMEs
by Johan Blindheim and H. R. Skjoldal

Physical and Biological Parameters Influencing the Bio-
mass Yields of the Benguela, California Current, and
Patagonian Shelf Ecosystems
by Andrew Bakun

Faeroe Plateau Ecosystem: Biological Patterns
by K. Vagn Hansen

The Gulf of California Ecosystem: Patterns and Processes
by Laurence Mee

Long-term Variability in the Food Chains, Biomass Yields,
and Oceanography of the Canary Current Ecosystem by
Carlos Bas

Large Marine Ecosystem of Shelf Areas in the Gulf of
Guinea: Long-term Variability Induced by Climatic
Changes
by Denis Binet and Emile Marchal

Long-term Variability in the Food Chains, Biomass Yields,
and Oceanography of the Adriatic Sea Ecosystem
by Giovanni Bombace

Sustainable Development of the Great Barrier Reef as a
Large Marine Ecosystem
by Graeme Kelleher

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

Application of Advanced Technology for LME Studies
by D. Van Holliday

Application of Molecular and Biotechnological Methods to
Large Marine Ecosystem Studies
by Dennis Powers

Application of Satellite, Remote Sensing, and Buoy Tech-
nology to LME Studies
by James Yoder

The Regional Approaches to LMEs
by Lewis Alexander

Page 37

Large Marine Ecosystems of the Pacific Rim
by Joseph Morgan

The Role of National Political Factors in the Management of
LMEs: Evidence from West Africa
by Victor Prescott

Enclosed/Semi-enclosed Seas: A Status Report
by Francois Doumenge

A Contrast between Recent Fishery Trends and Evidence
for Nutrient Enrichment in Two Large Marine Ecosys-
tems: The Mediterranean and the Black Sea
by John Caddy

REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF DISCUSSION GROUPS TO PLENARY

Atlantic Rim LMEs; Pacific Rim LMEs; Semi-enclosed
Seas LMEs; Enclosed Seas LMEs

WORKSHOPS ORGANIZED BY
CONVENING AND SPONSORING
ORGANIZATIONS

Establishment of an LME Fisheries Management Specialist
Group within IUCN,
IUCN Species Survival Commission

Application of the LME Approach within Regional Seas
Areas
UNEP Regional Seas Program

Oceanographic Data and Training Needs for the LME
Approach to Fisheries Management
IOC/FAO

The Legal Regime for the Management of Living Resources
of an LME
FAO

Economic Indicators of Biomass Yields in LMEs
NOAA-NMFS/IUCN


Name

Institution

Page 35

Address

Ms. Marie Guisippina Lucia
(Representing Prof. Adalberto
Vallega)

Dr. P. Van Klaveren

Dr. Jose Vargas

Mr. Ranier Voelksen

Dr. Lynda Warren

Mr. Howard Wilson

Dr. John P. Wise

Dr. James Yoder

Commission on Marine Geography
International Geophysical Union

Centre Scientifique de Monaco

Centro de Investigaciones del Mar
Universidad de Costa Rica

Station Zoologique

Cardiff Law School
College of Cardiff
University of Wales

Forschungzentrum

Consultant

Physical Oceanography Group
University of Rhode Island

Institute of Geographical Science
University of Genoa
Lungoparco Gropallo 3.5

16122 Genova

ITALY

Tel: (10) 89-12-56

Fax: (10) 81-43-06

Telex: 271114

16 Bd. de Suisse
98000 MONACO
Tel: 93-30-38-79

Codigo Postal 2060
San Jose

COSTA RICA

Tel: 506-243710
Fax: 506-342723

BP. 28

06230 Villefranche sur Mer
FRANCE

Tel: 33-93-76-38-39

Fax: 33-93-76-38-34

Cardiff, Wales
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 0222-874000, Ext. 5454

ATO, KFA Postfach 1913
5170 Julich

GERMANY

Tel: 02461-612-513

Fax: 02561-612-470

4545 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Apt. 1013

Washington, DC 20008

US.A.

Tel: (202) 966-4931

South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
USA.

Tel: (401) 792-6864


Page 5

CONFERENCE ADDRESSES

WELCOMING ADDRESS
H.S.H. The Prince Rainier Ill of Monaco

As President of the International Commission for the
Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea, we are
particularly happy that the Oceanographic Museum in the
Principality of Monaco is hosting this international confer-
ence, the objective of which is to introduce the “large marine
ecosystem” concept and its application to the management
of living resources within the context of regional planning.

The immensity and the urgency of the problems facing
our marine coastal states are highlighted by the joint efforts
of The World Conservation Union, UNESCO’s
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the
Department of Commerce of the United States of America.

The presence at this meeting of Dr. Martin Holdgate,
Director General of The World Conservation Union, of Dr.
Gunnar Kullenberg, Secretary General of UNESCO’s
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, and of Dr.
John Knauss, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
of the United States Department of Commerce, bears wit-
ness to the commitment of these institutions to a sustained
effort to put forward foundations for a new international
order which we feel must be built upon the conservation and
restoration of the marine world’s living resources.

The scientific and economic significance of this confer-
ence has drawn the support of several bodies, namely: the
United Nations Environment Program, The World Bank, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
Council for Ocean Law, the National Science Foundation,
the international Food and Agriculture Organization, the
International Coastal and Oceans Organization, the Marine
Mammal Commission, and the Scientific Committee on the
Oceanic Research, to which we have pleasure in extending
our gratitude and our congratulations to each and to all on
their discernment.

For its part, the International Commission for the Sci-
entific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea is most happy
to have been responsible for the organization of this fifth
conference which expresses converging concerns. We have
no doubt that your discussions will encourage dialogue at
the talks which are to take place in a few days’ time at this
institution’s XXXII Plenary Assembly-Congress whose
deliberations we will follow personally.

Let us not forget that the present conference is the
product of an intense period of preparation led by Danny
Elder, Coordinator of The World Conservation Union’s
Marine Program, Thomas L. Laughlin, Head of the Interna-
tional Liaison Office of the NOAA, and Kenneth Sherman,
Director of the Narragansett Laboratory. We wish also to
acknowledge the efforts of the Oceanographic Museum and
the work of Professor Francois Doumenge and his col-
leagues to whom we extend particular thanks.

We are delighted to see eminent specialists from the
world’s most prestigious oceanographic centers gathered
here for this international conference. Our only regret is the
absence of Professor Takahisa Nemoto, Director of the
Oceanographic Institute of the Imperial University of To-
kyo, who so generously welcomed us aboard the research
vessel Hakuko Maru when berthed in the principality last
January, and who died suddenly a few weeks ago.

As sovereign of a state for which the maritime environ-
ment is vital, we are most particularly aware of the necessity
topreserve the ocean’s resources. By signing the “Ramoge”
agreement with France and Italy, the Principality of Monaco
has committed itself toa regional cooperation policy as early
as year 1976.

Therefore, the Principality of Monaco has taken a
leading role in keeping with the subsequent emergence of a
management policy implicitly founded on the large marine
ecosystem concept.

More than ever before, the spreading of industrial
pollution, the disposal of urban waste at sea, the long range
contamination of aerosols, as well as the global problem of
overexploitation of fish resources which is threatening
extinction of numerous species, demonstrate that all states
are concerned and require a response from mankind as a
whole.

Major disasters can be provoked by climatic, hydro-
logical, or geological accident as well as by the
overexploitation of fish resources or agricultural, urban, or
industrial pollution. Inthe middle term, human activities are
likely to disrupt the ocean/atmosphere relationships and
affect the protective ozone layer as well as the partial
pressure of carbon dioxide in air and water. Appropriate
responses will only be found through an international coop-
eration and a multidisciplinary approach, namely in the
disciplines of physics and biology, as well as economics and
law. Hence, we have given the Principality of Monaco’s
support to the Council of Europe’s Open Partial Agreement
on the prevention of, protection against, and organization of
relief in major natural and technological disasters.

Inthis respect, the Scientific Center of Monaco founded
in 1960 has just undergone reorganization to comply with
the demands of increased efficiency. The European Oceano-
graphic Observatory created within the framework of this
reorganization will contribute to the forecasting, preven-
tion, and handling of major disasters affecting the marine
life. Its research laboratories will develop appropriate
methods and means to detect the risks and to speed up the
restoration of disrupted environments.

Furthermore, the last conference dedicated to large
marine ecosystems highlighted energy transfers and the
relationships between different elements of the marine life.


a giant meteorite, an outpouring of volcanoes, or some
combination of both. To the best of my knowledge, no one
has blamed that boundary on the dinosaurs.

We are probably the first species on this earth capable
of causing a geological boundary. We are certainly the first
species capable of recognizing what we are doing.

Even though we can see the effects of man almost
everywhere in our environment, differentiating between and
quantifying those changes in our environment caused by
man and those resulting from natural variability is often not
easy. Consider climate change, a subject that has captured
the attention of the public and politicians, as well as scien-
tists. The atmosphere of this earth has slowly warmed and
cooled over time scales of decades and centuries. We are
reasonably certain that a major key to variations on this time
scale are a result of ocean-atmosphere interactions. We can
show this is true in a statistical sense in our large computer-
driven global climate models. If we let our models run for
the equivalent of hundreds of years, they show the correct
range and time scale of temperature fluctuations. No two
years are alike. The temperature changes from year to year
and decade to decade. But our models are not yet good
enough that we can input this year’s values and predict next
year’s climate.

Thus, the debate about global warming. There is little
disagreement that a doubling of greenouse gases such as
carbon dioxide and methane will affect our climate. All
models suggest some warming of the atmosphere, but the
positive and negative feedbacks associated with that pertur-
bation are very complicated, and our models are very crude.
One cannot be certain that the slight warming trend of the last
century is natural or man-driven. The present debate is not
about whether a doubling of greenhouse gases will cause
some warming of the atmosphere but about how much and
how soon.

As limited as our knowledge of atmospheric variability
and the reasons for it is, our knowledge of ocean variability
is even more rudimentary. Some of our best evidence is
indirect. Most experts conclude that any variability in the
atmospheric climate of more than a year must be accompa-
nied by an analogous change in the ocean climate. To be
more precise, the changes in the atmospheric climate are
probably driven in large part by changes inthe ocean. Unlike
the atmosphere, where we have reasonably good records of
temperature going backhundreds of years, our ocean records
are very limited. We can simply infer changes in the ocean
by noting the changes in the atmosphere. We do not know
the amplitude and shape of the spectrum in the ocean, let
alone the processes that determine it.

What about biological variability in the ocean? We
continue to gather an increasing number of examples of
biological fluctuations resulting from overfishing and from
localized pollution, but well documented examples of natu-
ral variability are more rare. I expect the best are the high-
frequency, year-to-year changes in the recruitment of com-
mercial fish species. There can be orders of magnitude
variation in yearly recruitment levels, which, in the absence

Page 7

of other pressures, lead to a relatively stable population of
mature fish.

There is some evidence of low-frequency -- greater than
10-years -- fluctuations. Perhaps the best documented is the
periodic dominance of first the sardine and then the anchovy
populations off the west coast of California. Some have
speculated that not all the recent spectacular crashes of
commercial fisheries, such as the Alaskan king crab and the
Peruvian anchovy, have been solely caused by overfishing.
‘Wesuspect that the declines in these fisheries may have been
helped along by natural environmental variability. We
simply do not know enough about the processes involved, or
the complexity of the interactions, to make meaningful
predictions of trends. This we must do, if we are to manage
our living marine resources wisely.

How does all of this apply to LMEs? Let me summa-
tize. This planet is being stressed by a growing population
and a growing standard of living. It is clear that there are
fluctuations in the atmosphere and the ocean as well as in
land and marine ecosystems that are independent of the
influence of man. We have an increasing number of man-
induced changes in our physical environment: the ozone
hole in the stratosphere, smog and acid rain in the atmo-
sphere, pollution in our estuaries, and eutrophication in
some of our enclosed seas. It is often difficult, however, to
separate the natural variation from that which is man-
induced in many of our physical systems, particularly the
oceans. In large part, I believe this is because our level of
understanding is inadequate. With rare exceptions, the
monitoring of physical, chemical, and biological parameters
in LMEs is weak. Without exception, our understanding of
how the systems workin any LMEis weak. Perhaps it istime
to do something about it.

I expect before the end of the century we will have the
beginnings of an international ocean observing system, but
that system will be designed to monitor large-scale ocean/
atmosphere interactions. Its purpose will be climate predic-
tion, and I expect the emphasis, at least in the beginning, will
be centered on such areas as the tropical Pacific and Antarc-
tica where these types of interactions are expected to be
strongest. As contemplated, it is not a system keyed to
LMEs. I expect an LME system would be more concerned
with pollution and other man-induced change. I expect it
would be more ecologically oriented.

If one set out to design a coastal ocean monitoring
system, are LMEs the correct geographical unit? If they are,
would it be useful to organize a set of regional programs,
each designed for a specific LME? Such programs would
have as a goal the monitoring of the system and understand-
ing how the system works and how man is perturbing the
system. Those responsible for the program of each LME
could meet locally on a regular basis. Perhaps every few
years they could come together internationally to compare
notes and report on the health of the ocean.

This is a program that could be organized through one,
or some combination of United Nations agencies, perhaps
with advice from the International Council of Scientific


BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

PB93-185965

Report Nos: NOAA-TM-NMFS-F/NEC-91

Title: Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) Concept and Its Application to Regional Marine
Resource Management. Conference Summary and Recommendations. Held in Monaco on
October 1-6, 1999.

Date: Oct 92

Authors: K. Sherman, and T. L. Laughlin.

Performing Organization: National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center.**National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Washington, DC. Office of International Interests.

Type of Report and Period Covered: Technical memo.

Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Washington, DC. Office of International Interests.

NTIS Field/Group Codes: 48B, 47D, 98F, 68D
Price: PC A@3/MF A@1

Availability: Available from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA. 22161

Number of Pages: 44p

Keywords: “National resources management, “Fisheries, “Meetings, Yield, Ecosystems,
Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Adriatic Sea, Biomass, Barens Sea, Water pollution
control, Coasts, Rivers, Swamps, Baltic Sea, Stress (Physiology), Disasters,
Overfishing.

Abstract: The overall objective of the Conference was to introduce the 'large
marine ecosystem (LME) research and management approach' to a broadly
representative group of scientists, managers, and administrators concerned with the
sustainable use of marine resources. With regard to the application of the LME
approach to principal driving forces affecting resource yields, the Conference was
fortunate to have had expert and comprehensive presentations on several important
LMEs of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans including the: Adriatic Sea
Ecosystem. In addition, comparative analyses on the effects of basinwide physical
and biological parameters influencing biomass yields were presented on the Barents
Sea, Norwegian Sea, and West Greenland Sea Ecosystems.


Page 28

Name

Institution

Address

Mrs. Nicole King-Volcy

Dr. Eskild Kirkegaard

Dr. John Knauss

Prof. Robert Knecht

Mr. Roger Krohn

Dr. Gunnar Kullenberg

Dr. V. V. Kusnetsov

Mr. Tom Laughlin

World Wildlife Fund - International

Danish Institute for Fisheries
and Marine Research

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce

College of Marine Studies
University of Delaware

Benguela Ecology Program
University of Cape Town

Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission

All-Union Scientific Research Institute
of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce

Av. du Mont Blanc
1196 Gland
SWITZERLAND
Tel: 41-22-649222
Fax: 41-22-643239

Charlottenlund Castle
2920 Charlottenlund
DENMARK

Tel: 45-316-28550
Fax: 45-316-28536

Herbert C. Hoover Building,
Room 5128

14th & Constitution Avenue,
N.W.

Washington, DC 20230

US.A.

Tel: (202) 377-3436

Fax: (202) 377-8203

Robinson Hall
Newark, DE 19711
US.A.

Tel: (302) 451-8086
Fax: (302) 292-3668

FRD, Botany Building

Rondebosch 7700

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA

Tel: 021-650-2681

Fax: 021-685-3937

7 Place de Fontenoy
75700 Paris

FRANCE

Tel: 0033-1-4568-3983
Fax: 0033-1-40569316
Telex: 204461 PARIS

17 V. Krasnoselskaya
Moscow 107140
RUSSIA

Tel: 264-92-89

Hoover Building, Room 6228
14th & Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20230

US.A.

Tel: (202) 377-8196

Fax: (202) 377-8203


Page 16

Conclusion

It was agreed that IUCN should continue to pursue this
initiative, and those interested in guiding its further develop-
ment were asked to leave their names and addresses.

ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF BIOMASS YIELDS IN LMEs
Dr. James M. Broadus, Co-chairman,*
and Dr. Giulio Pontecorvo, Co-chairman®

Background

During the last several years, ocean scientists and
managers have gained important new insights into the
processes which govern the ecology of coastal and ocean
species. This has led to a new conceptual framework, called
the “large marine ecosystem approach,” which provides the
basis for developing new strategies for marine resource
management and research. These new strategies have a
broad application: (1) to the ways in which countries
manage their EEZs; and (2) within the context of many
regionally focused conventions and action plans aimed at
environmentally sound management of marine resources.

Conference Objectives

The objective of the overall conference was to assist
scientists, ocean managers, and diplomats in gaining an
understanding of the relevance of the LME approach to
conservation and management in their particular EEZ or
region. Participants learned how they can apply the concept
of LMEs within the context of their own national laws and
regulations, bilateral or multilateral regional arrangements,
and global treaty obligations during a period of increasing
change in global environmental conditions. To achieve
these aims the conference: (1) introduced the “large marine
ecosystem research and management approach” toa broadly
representative group of scientists, managers, administra-
tors, and diplomats concerned with sustainable use of ma-
rine resources; (2)examined the application of the LME
approach toa number of regions with particular reference to
driving forces controlling sustained resource yields in rela-
tion to existing regional conventions and protocols con-
cerned with marine pollution control and the conservation
and management of marine resources; (3) finalized a series
of recommendations for initiating the use of the LME
approach in regions where it is most likely to assist in
improving the conservation, management, and sustainable
use of living marine resources; and (4) recommended appro-
priate monitoring of biological and physical observations

‘ Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
5 New York, New York.

pertinent to forecasting the probable effects of global change
‘on resources at risk.

Workshop Objectives

The one-day workshop, held as a complementary fol-
low-on to the larger LME conference, achieved the follow-
ing objectives: (1) evaluated the utility of using catch, catch
per unit of effort, fishing power, and other economic indica-
tors for monitoring long-term changes in biomass yields for
LMEs; (2) examined the availability and quality of eco-
nomic indices relevant to short-term management of living
marine resources in LMEs; (3) considered alternative sys-
tems for improving exchanges of economic indices perti-
nent to biomass yields of LMEs; and (4) prepared advice for
consideration by marine resource managers on protocols for
improvements to present systems in use for the collection
and dissemination of economic indices relative to monitor-
ing biomass yields in LMEs.

Workshop Report

The workshop reached agreement on the following
conclusions:

1. LMEs contain many types of living resources which
interact in complex ways over time. LMEs are them-
selves natural resources.

2. The information required for effective management of
LMEs depends on the objectives of management.

3. A proper management objective for LMEs is conserva-
tion to maximize their contribution to human well-
being over time. (There was consensus on conservation
rather than strict preservation. Some discussants fa-
vored including some mention of “sustainable” use and
explicit reference to biological diversity.)


Recent issues in this series

62. The Effects of Density Dependent Population Mechanisms on Assessment Advice for the Northwest Atlantic
Mackerel Stock. By W. J. Overholtz, S.A. Murawski, W.L. Michaels, and L.M. Dery. October 1988. v + 49 p.,7 figs.,
20 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB89-151948/AS.

63. Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern United States for 1988. By Conservation and Utilization
Division. October 1988. iii + 135 p., 51 figs., 52 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB89-130819/AS.

64. The Shell Disease Syndrome in Marine Crustaceans. By Carl J. Sindermann. February 1989. v + 43 p., 5 figs.,
2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB89-162523/AS.

65. Stock Assessment Information for Pollock, Pollachius virens (L.), in the Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank, and Gulf
of Maine Regions. By Ralph K. Mayo, Stephen H. Clark, and M. Christina Annand. April 1989. vi + 14 p., 6 figs.,
14 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB90-120676/AS.

66. Guidelines for Estimating Lengths at Age for 18 Northwest Atlantic Finfish and Shellfish Species. By Judith
A. Pentilla, Gary A. Nelson, and John M. Burnett, III. May 1989. iii + 39 p., 18 figs., 19 tables. NTIS Access. No., PB90-
120675/AS.

67. Response of the Habitat and Biota of the Inner New York Bight to Abatement of Sewage Sludge Dumping.
Second Annual Progress Report -- 1988. By Environmental Processes Division, Northeast Fisheries Center. July
1989. vii + 47 p., 39 figs., 11 tables, 3 app. NTIS Access. No. PB90-125444/AS.

68. MARMAP Surveys of the Continental Shelf from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia
(1984-87). Atlas No. 3. Summary of Operations. By John D. Sibunka and Myron J. Silverman. July 1989. iv + 197
P., 36 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB90-160656/AS.

69. The 1988 Experimental Whiting Fishery: A NMFS/Industry Cooperative Program. By Frank P. Almeida,
Thurston S. Burns, and Sukwoo Chang. August 1989. v + 16 p., 9 figs., 11 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB90-
160664/AS.

70. Summer Distribution of Regulated Species on Georges Bank with Reference to the 1988 Experimental
Whiting Fishery. By Frank P. Almeida, Sukwoo Chang, and Thurston S. Burns. September 1989. v+ 25 p., 74 figs.,
1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB90-206525/AS.

71. Allocation of Statewide-Reported MRFSS Catch and Landings Statistics between Areas: Application to
Winter Flounder. By Frank P. Almeida. September 1989. v + 18 p., 5 figs., 6 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB90-
246745.

72. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1989. By Conservation and Utilization
Division, Northeast Fisheries Center. December 1989. iv+ 110 p., 50 figs., 93 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB90-170622/
AS.

73. Surface and Bottom Temperature Distribution for the Northeast Continental Shelf. By David G. Mountain
and Tamara J. Holzwarth. December 1989. iii + 32 p., 31 figs. NTIS Access. No. PB90-252172/AS.

74. Shell Disease of Crustaceans in the New York Bight. By C.J. Sindermann (chair.), F. Csulak (EPA coord.), T.K.
Sawyer (rapp.), R.A. Bullis, D.W. Engel, B.T. Estrella, E.J. Noga, J.B. Pearce, J.C. Rugg, R. Runyon, J.A. Tiedemann,
and R.R. Young. December 1989. vii + 47 p., 7 figs., 4 tables, 4 app. NTIS Access. No. PB90-195058/AS.

75. An Indexed Bibliography of Northeast Fisheries Center Publications and Reports for 1988. By Jon A. Gibson.
December 1989. iii + 32 p. NTIS Access. No. PB91-112912.

76. Finfish Maturity Sampling and Classification Schemes Used during Northeast Fisheries Center Bottom

Trawl Surveys, 1963-89. By Jay Burnett, Loretta O'Brien, Ralph K. Mayo, Jeffrey A. Darde, and Margot L. Bohan.
December 1989. iii+14 p., 11 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB91-128389/AS.

(continued on inside back cover)




Page 24

Name

Institution

Address

Dr. Amos Donohue

Prof. Francois Doumenge

Dr. Egbert Duursma

Dr. Sree Narain Dwivedi

Mr. William Edeson

Dr. Charles Ehler

Dr. Danny Elder

Mrs. Roselore Engemann

Dr. Victoria Fabry

International Directorate
Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Musee Oceanographique de
Monaco

Universite de Groningen

Department of Ocean Development

Senior Legal Officer (Fisheries)
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization

Office of Oceanography and Marine
Assessment
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

The World Conservation Union

International Atomic Energy Agency

International Atomic Energy Agency

200 Kent Avenue
Ottawa, ON K1A OE6
CANADA

Tel: (613) 993-1856
Fax: (613) 993-5995

Av. Saint Martin

9800 Monaco Ville
MONACO

Tel: 0033-93-15-36-00
Fax: 0033-93-50-52-97

Eden Tower

25 Bd. de Belgique
98000 MONACO
Tel: 93-15-94-47
Fax: 93-15-94-47

12 CGO Complex

Block 12

Lodhi Road

New Delhi 111003
INDIA

Tel: 011-91-11-362278
Fax: 011-91-11-360779
Telex: 3161535 DOD IN

Via delle Terme di Caracalla

00100 Rome
ITALY

Tel: 57-97-34-76
Fax: 57-97-44-08

6001 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20852
U.S.A.

Tel: (301) 443-8487

Fax: (301) 984-9356

Av. du Mont Blanc
1196 Gland
SWITZERLAND
Tel: (022) 64-92-39
Fax: (022) 64-29-26

19 Av. des Castillans
MONACO
Tel: 93-50-44-88

19 Av. des Castillans
MONACO
Tel: 93-50-44-88


Page 33

Name Institution Address
Dr. Rafael Robles Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia Avenida Brasil 31
Madrid
SPAIN

Dr. Brian Rothschild

Dr. Ramiro Sanchez

Mr. Cameron Sanders

Mr. Tucker Scully

Dr. Gerard Sequin

Dr. Kenneth Sherman

Dr. H. R. Skjoldal

Dr. Cesar Charles Solamito

Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
University of Maryland

Instituto Nacional de Investigacion
y Desarrollo Pes

Center for Marine Conservation

Office of Oceanography and Polar Affairs
U.S. State Department

Laboratoire d’Oceanographie
Faculte des Sciences
University of Nice

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
National Marine Fisheries Service

Institute for Marine Research

Centre Scientifique de Monaco

Tel: 91-597-4443
Fax: 91-597-4770
Telex: 44460 IEOD

Box 38

Solomons, MD 20688
U.S.A.

Tel: (301) 326-4281
Fax: (301) 326-6987

Playa Grande

Casilla de Correo 175
Mar del Plata
ARGENTINA

Tel: 514285-7818
Fax: 23-517442

1725 de Sales Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
USA.

Tel: (202) 429-5609

Fax: (202) 872-0619

OES/OSP, Room 5801
Washington, DC 20520
U.S.A.

Tel: (202) 64703262

28 Av. de Valrose
06034 Nice
FRANCE

Tel: 93-52-98-98

Narragansett Laboratory

28 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882-1199
US.A.

Tel: (401) 782-3210

Fax: (401) 782-3201

P.O. Box 1870
Nordnes 5024
Bergen
NORWAY

Tel: 47-5-23-8500
Fax: 47-5-23-8531

16 Bd. de Suisse
98000 MONACO


Page 19

APPENDIX A

LIST OF COUNTRIES OF CONFERENCE ATTENDEES

Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Denmark
England, United Kingdom
France
Germany
Greece
India

Italy
Kenya
Mexico
Monaco

Morocco

The Netherlands

Nigeria

Norway

Peoples Republic of China
Phillipines

Romania

Scotland, United Kingdom
Senegal

Seychelles

Solomon Islands

South Africa

Spain

Switzerland

Thailand

Turkey

United States of America
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Wales, United Kingdom


fornia Current Ecosystem”). With regard to management of
LMEs, Dr. Niels Daan of the Institute for Fishery Investiga-
tions, Ijmuiden, The Netherlands, reported on the need for
an integrated management approach to LMEs in general,
and the North Sea Ecosystem in particular. His recent
modeling of the effects of closing areas of the North Sea to
fishing effort to enhance fish stock production showed that
closed areas had little effect in enhancing fisheries produc-
tion (“A Simulation Study of Effects of Closed Areas to All
Fishing with Particular Reference to the North Sea Ecosys-
tem”). Dr. Graeme Kelleher emphasized the utility of a
holistic approach to the management of entire LMEs in his
excellent presentation on “Sustainable Development of the
Great Barrier Reef as a Large Marine Ecosystem.”

New Technology

The way forward in LME studies will be made more
rapidly with the application of new technology now avail-
able in hydroacoustics to deal with the difficult problem of
sampling the zooplankton component of LMEsas described
by Dr. Van Holliday of TRACOR Corp. in San Diego,
California (“Applications of Advanced Acoustic Technol-
ogy in LME Studies”).

The combination of new molecular biological tech-
niques for species and stock identification along with avail-
able laboratory robotics systems should allow for more
efficient biological sampling designs and processing of
samplesatseaand inthe laboratory as outlined by Dr. Dennis
Powers of Stanford University (“Application of Molecular
and Biotechnological Methods to Large Marine Ecosystem
Studies”). On the larger scale, it was clear from the presen-
tation by Dr. James Yoder of the University of Rhode Island
that ocean features and processes can be studied from a
combination of satellites and surveys using color scanning
and other photo-optical sensors for measuring productivity,
standing stock, and flux at the LME scale for the oceans of
the world (“Application of Satellite Remote Sensing and
Optical Buoys/Moorings to LME Studies”).

Regional Approach to LMEs

With regard to the regional approaches to LMEs, we
were given the benefit of a comparison of LMEs around the
Pacific Rim, with emphasis ona comparison of two different
LMEs-- the Sea of Japan and the Humboldt Current -- by Dr.
Joseph Morgan of the East-West Center, University of
Hawaii (“Large Marine Ecosystems of the Pacific Rim”),
followed by a discussion of the role of political factors in the
management of the Canary Current, Gulf of Guinea, and
Benguela Current Ecosystems by Dr. Victor Prescott of the
University of Melbourne, Australia, who has suggested
several follow-on actions (“The Role of National Political
Factors in the Management of LMEs: Evidence from West

Page 3

Africa”). Professor Francois Doumenge of the Oceano-
graphic Museum in Monaco provided a comprehensive
description of the formation of natural regions of the Medi-
terranean, indicating that several of them, including the
Adriatic Sea, constitute natural subsystems, ending with a
cautionary comment that drew attention to the need for
mitigation of river system developments that would gener-
ate negative impacts on the long-term sustainability of the
Mediterranean. The importance of human interventions on
the sustained biomass yields of the Mediterranean and Black
Sea Ecosystems, based on changes in fisheries landings,
were presented by John Caddy of the U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome, Italy (“A Con-
trast between Recent Fishery Trends and Evidence for
Nutrient Enrichment in Two Large Marine Ecosystems:
The Mediterranean and the Black Sea”). The session
concluded with a summary of the biology and physics of the
Gulf of California Ecosystem by Dr. Laurence Mee.
Important areas for further consideration in the devel-
opment and application of the LME concept, including the
clarification of the number and extent of LMEs on a global
basis, were noted by Dr. Lewis Alexander of the University
of Rhode Island (“The Regional Approaches to LMEs”).

RECOMMENDATIONS
Sustainable Development

The conference participants agreed that there are possi-
bilities for applying the LME concept as a useful means for
addressing the many-faceted problem of sustainable devel-
opment of the world’s oceans. The concept provides a
framework for research, monitoring, and modeling of ocean
space that will be of significant aid in focusing marine
research and management aimed at sustaining biomass
yields, and at reducing and eliminating pollution, coastal
zone degradation, and wetlands losses around the terrestial
margins of LMEs on a global basis.

Inexploring the means of pursuing the LME approach,
participants were mindful of the ongoing activities of exist-
ing international organizations as well as dispersed respon-
sibilities within national governments. At the same time, it
was realized that a systemic and comprehensive approach
can only succeed if a means is found to bridge such institu-
tional separations.

LME Committee

The conference agreed that a mechanism which could assist
in building these bridges would be an International ad hoc
Large Marine Ecosystem Committee. Such a committee
could be formed under the auspices of IOC, FAO, UNEP,
and IUCN. It would consist of leading experts in the LME


Page 6

Also emphasized was the urgent need to set up a model
management system to avoid disastrous crises which jeop-
ardize numerous communities over vast areas. The in-
creased incidence of eutrophication which can affect entire
seas -- the Adriatic in 1989 -- and high death tolls -- among
seals in the Northwest Atlantic, great sharks, reptiles and
marine mammals caught in nets drifting in the southern
South Pacific, the northern Pacific, the Bay of Biscay, and,
unfortunately, the Mediterranean -- underline the quite
obvious global dimension of the dangers to which the ocean
is exposed.

It is our fervent hope that scientists will work together
toarouse a universal awareness of the risks incurred if states
do not act quickly to set up multi- and supra-national
systems to provide for the implementation of vital safe-
guards and conservation measures.

The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources is, we feel, an example which
should be followed, as are the concerted efforts in the USA
at federal and state levels, including federal institutions such
as the NOAA, to establish a framework of appropriate
measures for the protection and the conservation of re-
sources and the environment through a dynamic biogeo-
graphical approach in the context of large marine ecosys-
tems.

We are happy that the organizers of this International
Conference on the Large Marine Ecosystem Concept and Its

Application to Regional Marine Resource Management
have chosen the Principality of Monaco to hold this first
meeting outside the USA in association with the Interna-
tional Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the
Mediterranean Sea, founded by my noble ancestor Prince
Albert I. Henceforth, the international law of the sea must
seek its foundations in the results of scientific research.

In this spirit, we feel it is vital that highly qualified fora
such as yours make the voice of wisdom and reason heard
calling for widespread international dialogue to lay down
standards protecting species and their habitats. The devas-
tation which has long gone unpunished, wrought by a series
of mining and fishing processes has already affected wide
areas which were still unsullied 30 or 40 years ago. We will
namely mention the African, American, and South East
Asian intertropical zones as well as the subarctic seas of the
Atlantic and the Pacific.

The southern part of the planet in its turn is being
affected, with damage to Kerguelen shelf and plateau of
Patagonia and Cape and especially the influences of drift-net
fishing in the southern Pacific.

The time has come to react by proposing an alternative
to corporate and national egoism. Our good wishes are
therefore with you throughout your deliberations in the hope
that they will rapidly lead tothe international dialogue which
alone can provide a solution for an anxious and expectant
mankind.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Dr. John Knauss
Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
U.S. Department of Commerce

1 am pleased to be with you here today in this pictur-
esque setting in Monaco, with its long and distinguished
ocean tradition. It is most fitting that His Serene Highness
Prince Rainier has graciously agreed to host this conference.
The Grimaldi family was instrumental in supporting the
great age of ocean discovery during the last century and the
early part of this one. The tradition continues with support
for the Ocean Science Center of Monaco, the International
Hydrographic Bureau, the International Laboratory of Ma-
tine Radioactivity, and the world-famous Musee
Oceanographique. Here in Monaco, where oldtraditions are
facing new challenges, it is appropriate that this conference
serve as a starting point for launching a new international
effort to mitigate the effects of increasing stresses on ocean
resources.

Weare here to discuss large marine ecosystems, LMEs.
My message is a very simple one. If you, the experts,
conclude that this concept makes ecological sense, then I
believe it is high time we get on with the business of
monitoring large marine ecosystems with the goal of trying

to understand how they work. We know LMEs are subject
to large year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability. We
know that much of this variability is independent of man-
induced effects. One of the goals of LME programs must be
to tell the difference between the variability that is “natural”
and that which is anthropogenic.

These are exciting times to be an environmental scien-
tist. Ready or not, we are in the midst of a major, worldwide
ecological experiment. This planet is stressed by a popula-
tion of five billion people, and I expect that stress is going to
increase during the next century as the population heads
toward 10, perhaps 15, billion people. Almost all of us share
the goal of living better than our grandparents did. As a
consequence, we are seeing loss of species, change in
climate, change in our environment. One can make a good
case that if present trends continue, we will be passing
through a geological boundary. And we are responsible.

Like many of you, Ihave followed the debate of the past
few years as to whether the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary,
the K-T boundary that did in the dinosaurs, was caused by