NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-184

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

August 2004

A Large Marine Ecosystem Approach

to Fisheries Management

and Sustainability:

Linkages and Concepts

towards Best Practices
167. Assessment and Characterization of Salt Marshes in the Arthur Kill (New York and New Jersey) Replanted after a Severe

Oil Spill. By David B. Packer, ed. December 2001. x + 228 p., 54 figs., 58 tables, 6 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2004-106067.

168. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2001. By Gordon T. Waring, Janeen M. Quintal, and

Steven L. Swartz, eds., Phillip J. Clapham, Timothy V.N. Cole, Carol P. Fairfield, Aleta Hohn, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, and Cynthia Yeung, contribs. December 2001. vii + 310 p., 43 figs., 54 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2002-

104350.

169. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2002. By Gordon T. Waring, Janeen M. Quintal, and

Carol P. Fairfield, eds., Phillip J. Clapham, Timothy V.N. Cole, Lance P. Garrison, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Aleta A. Hohn,

Blair G. Maise, Wayne E. McFee, Debra L. Palka, Patricia E. Rosel, Marjorie C. Rossman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Frederick W. Wenzel,

and Cynthia Yeung, contribs. September 2002. vii + 318 p., 42 figs., 56 tables, 4 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104167.

170. Interaction of Shelf Water with Warm-Core Rings, Focusing on the Kinematics and Statistics of Shelf Water Entrained

within Streamers. By Ronald J. Schlitz. March 2003. v + 35 p., 26 figs., 3 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-100158.

171. Length-Weight Relationships for 74 Fish Species Collected during NEFSC Research Vessel Bottom Trawl Surveys. By

Susan E. Wigley, Holly M. McBride, and Nancy J. McHugh. March 2003. vi + 26 p., 1 fig., 3 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-106486.

172. Variability of Temperature and Salinity in the Middle Atlantic Bight and Gulf of Maine Based on Data Collected as

Part of the MARMAP Ships of Opportunity Program, 1978-2001. By Jack W. Jossi and Robert L. Benway. March 2003. vi + 92

p., 74 figs., 5 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2004-100835.

173. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Barndoor Skate, Dipturus laevis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 23 p., 14 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104257.

174. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Clearnose Skate, Raja eglanteria, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

By David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 50 p., 25 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-

104260.

175. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Little Skate, Leucoraja erinacea, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 66 p., 27 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104259.

176. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Rosette Skate, Leucoraja garmani virginica, Life History and Habitat

Characteristics. By David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 17 p., 11 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access.

No. PB2003-104258.

177. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Smooth Skate, Malacoraja senta, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 26 p., 15 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104256.

178. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Thorny Skate, Amblyraja radiata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 39 p., 18 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104255.

179. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

By David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 57 p., 25 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-

104254.

180. Variability in Blood Chemistry of Yellowtail Flounder, Limanda ferruginea, with Regard to Sex, Season, and Geographic

Location. By Renee Mercaldo-Allen, Margaret A. Dawson, Catherine A. Kuropat, and Diane Kapareiko. September 2003. vi + 20 p., 1

fig., 10 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2004-107074.

181. In press.

182. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2003. By Gordon T. Waring, Richard M. Pace, Janeen

M. Quintal, Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds., Nicole Cabana, Phillip J. Clapham, Timothy V.N. Cole, Gregory L. Fulling,

Lance P. Garrison, Aleta A. Hohn, Blair G. Maise, Wayne E. McFee, Keith D. Mullin, Debra L. Palka, Patricia E. Rosel, Marjorie C. Rossman,

Frederick W. Wenzel, and Amy L. Whitingham, contribs. May 2004. vii + 287 p., 47 figs., 58 tables, 4 app., index. NTIS Access. No.

PB2004-106431.

183. In press.

Recent Issues in This Series:
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (ret.), Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

August 2004

This series represents a secondary level of scientific publishing. All issues employ

thorough internal scientific review; some issues employ external scientific review.

Reviews are -- by design -- transparent collegial reviews, not anonymous peer

reviews. All issues may be cited in formal scientific communications.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-184

Frank J. Gable

University of Rhode Island, The Coastal Institute, Narragansett, RI 02882

A Large Marine Ecosystem Approach

to Fisheries Management and Sustainability:

Linkages and Concepts towards Best Practices
Editorial Notes

Editorial Production

This document is the fulfillment of research and analyses performed under funding from both the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Office of Marine Ecosystem Studies, and the Center's Social Sciences

Branch. This document has been editorially processed as other contract reports issued in the NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series: the document as a whole has been formatted to resemble other

issues, but no copy or technical editing has been performed.

Content Disclaimer

Although released by NOAA, the information in this paper does not reflect, represent, or form any part

of the support of the policies of NOAA or the Department of Commerce. Further, release by NOAA does

not imply that NOAA or the Department of Commerce agrees with the information contained herein.

Internet Availability

This issue of the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series is being copublished, i.e., as both a

paper and Web document. The Web document can be accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/

publications/tm/tm184/.
Page iii

Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................ v

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Origins of Ocean Management Regimes ................................................................................................................................ 1

Large Marine Ecosystems: An Instrument to Foster Regional Fisheries Management and Science Arrangements ............. 1

Ecosystem-Oriented Management as a Link for Fostering Sustainable Fisheries ................................................................. 3

Customary International Law and the Management of Large Marine Ecosystems ................................................................ 4

Ecosystem Considerations: The Formulation of a Best-Practices LME Approach ................................................................ 5

The Ecosystem Approach and Best Practices ....................................................................................................................... 7

The Precautionary Principle/Approach as Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 8

Managing Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem ..................................................................................................................... 13

Governance Issues for Ecosystem-Oriented Fisheries Management................................................................................... 14

Large Marine Ecosystems as Sustainable Science Ecosystem-Oriented Management Units .............................................. 16

Goals and Objectives in Protocols for Fisheries Management ............................................................................................ 19

LMEs as a Part of Integrated Coastal Management ............................................................................................................. 20

The Need for Ecological Study: Jellyfish and Contemporary Climate Change ..................................................................... 22

Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Legitimacy for Domestic Ecosystem-Oriented Fisheries Management ................................................................................ 24

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Endnotes.............................................................................................................................................................................. 25

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................................... 26

References Cited .................................................................................................................................................................. 27

Tables

Table 1. Ecosystem approach requires new thinking after Fluharty (2000) and others ................................................... 35

Table 2. Key spatial-temporal scales and principal elements of a systems approach to the research and management of

LMEs ................................................................................................................................................................. 36

Table 3. Bellagio conference principles after Garcia and Staples (2000) .......................................................................... 37

Table 4. Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 national standards ....................................................................................... 38

Table 5. Prospective stages in the policy orientation process... ..................................................................................... 39

Table 6. A proactive precautionary fisheries management policy orientation................................................................. 40

Table 7. Existing proactive precautionary approaches for fisheries management ........................................................... 41

Table 8. Selected proactive precautionary ecosystem management criteria .................................................................... 42

Table 9. Marine ecosystem-based management approach, Degnbol (2002) ................................................................... 43

Table 10. Criteria, reference values and indicators in international LME fisheries ............................................................ 44

Figures

Figure 1. Sketch map of the NE U.S. Continental Shelf LME and watershed .................................................................... 47

Figure 2. Five module LME strategy ................................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 3. Ecosystem considerations in fisheries management .......................................................................................... 49

Figure 4. North Atlantic ecosystem considerations measures and influences ................................................................. 50

Figure 5. Potential “best practices” ecosystem considerations ........................................................................................ 51

Figure 6. Suggested National Academy of Sciences/NRC “best practice” strategies ...................................................... 52

Figure 7. National Environmental Policy Act ecosystem-oriented principles ................................................................... 53

Figure 8. Draft key elements of an ecosystem-oriented fisheries management approach ................................................. 54

Figure 9. Draft ecosystem-oriented fisheries management science policy ....................................................................... 55

Figure 10. Scope of the precautionary approach to fisheries management ........................................................................ 56

Figure 11. Key elements of the precautionary approach after Restrepo et al. (1999) .......................................................... 57

Figure 12. Generalized spatial and temporal effects on NE U.S. Continental Shelf LME..................................................... 58

Figure 13. Fisheries management measures in OECD after Sutinen (1999) ......................................................................... 59

Figure 14. Five key barriers to the use of an experimental approach to planning ............................................................... 60

Figure 15. Rubic’s cube diagram for LME-ICM depicting, e.g., overfishing....................................................................... 61
Page iv

Figure 16. Principles of sustainable oceans governance, after Costanza, et al. (1998) ........................................................ 62

Figure 17. Fisheries ecosystem-oriented approach after Sissenwine and Mace (2003) ...................................................... 63

Figure 18. Adaptive management framework for LME’s after U.S. EPA (2000) .................................................................. 64

Figure 19. Selected representative pathways for policy orientation process ..................................................................... 65

Figure 20. Fishery management plan actions by the NEFMC ............................................................................................. 66

Figure 21. Ecosystem considerations after Sinclair and Valdimarsson (2003) .................................................................... 67

Figure 22. Environmental communication process & substantive methods ....................................................................... 68

Figure 23. Goals comparison matrix for LME after Slocombe (1998) ................................................................................... 69

Figure 24. Common goals and objectives for ecosystem-oriented management, after Stanford and Poole (1996) ............. 70

Figure 25. Risk analysis approaches in decision-making after McGlade (2001) .................................................................. 71

Figure 26. Prospective LME governance systems .............................................................................................................. 72

Figure 27. Iterative protocol for fusing basic/applied scientific research in LME .............................................................. 73

Figure 28. Relationships among science, management, and stakeholders .......................................................................... 74

Figure 29. Draft concept for LME organization after Lynch et al. (1999) ............................................................................ 75

Figure 30. Select ecosystem management principles for LME policy ................................................................................. 76

Figure 31. Multispecies assessments e.g. after ASMFC (2003) .......................................................................................... 77

Figure 32. Analyses needed for LME management system after Larkin (1996) .................................................................. 78

Figure 33. Challenges to the ecosystem approach after MacKenzie (1997) ........................................................................ 79

Figure 34. Role of scientists in an LME approach .............................................................................................................. 80

Figure 35. Characteristics of regulatory institutions after Perrings (2000) .......................................................................... 81

Figure 36. A future LME-ICM process parameters ............................................................................................................. 82

Figure 37. Select recommendations for LME-ICM efforts after Belfiore (2003)................................................................... 83

Figure 38. Advisory group(s) on fishery institutional arrangements ................................................................................. 84
Page v

Abstract

This technical memorandum addresses interdisciplinary aspects of fisheries assessments as linkages for adaptive

management and sustainability of large marine ecosystems (LME). Natural and human-induced impacts of living marine

resources are considered. Management and the ecological aspects of fish stock populations in the United States Northeast

Continental Shelf ecosystem are examined for prospective and emerging “best practices” from a synthesis of the scientific

literature. In accordance with the passage of the domestic Oceans Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-256; e.g., Watkins, 2002) this

manuscript further develops linkages through natural and social science for an interdisciplinary science policy and governance practice for LMEs. It is meant to provide background information and promote dialogue on ecosystem-oriented

management of living marine resources. Consideration is given to the precautionary approach in the introduction of ecosystem-oriented management of the fish stocks of the Northeast Shelf ecosystem.

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

The concept of LME’s emerged from an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selective

symposium in the mid 1980’s concerning variability and management of large marine ecosystems (Sherman et al., 1991;

Alexander, 1993). “Marine ecosystems may be defined as

major units of ecological function in the marine environment. Ecosystems are communities of organisms and their

physical, chemical and geological environment – distinct

assemblages of species coevolved with a particular environment over long periods of evolutionary history – interacting as an ecological unit” (Grassle, 2001).

This study incorporates the “tools” of a policy orientation approach (Gable, 2003) for commercial marine fisheries

management consistent with the LME concept using the

case study approach. The focus is on the multi-method

modular plan linked to the “precautionary principle” (approach) in relation to the authorities of the New England

Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), the Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and the Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) as well as

state agency jurisdictions. The Northeast Shelf LME can

be considered as a part of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries

Organization (NAFO) statistical areas, and NEFMC,

MAMFC, and ASMFC management locales (see Figure 1).

The study advances an ecosystem approach to living marine resources science policy.

ORIGINS OF OCEAN

MANAGEMENT REGIMES

Following the September 1945 Truman Proclamations

(nos. 2667 & 2668) in the United States concerning U.S.

policy with respect to the natural resources of the subsoil

and seabed of the continental shelf and coastal fisheries in

certain areas of the High Seas, several ocean law measures

were discussed and debated in a series of international fora.

One of them, the Convention on the Continental Shelf was

agreed to in April of 1958 in Geneva (signed by the U.S. in

June 1964). It contains 15 codified articles. A related agreement, the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the

Contiguous Zone, was also codified at Geneva and was

ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1961. This agreement contains

32 articles that included preexisting rules regarding international customary law that provided a greater degree of precision and clarity. The Convention on the High Seas contains 37 mostly short articles and Annex III (Convention on

Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the

High Seas). It was also adopted in 1958. According to Merrell,

et al., (2001) “in 1958, the United Nations convened the first

international conference of plenipotentiaries to examine the

law of the sea, and to embody the results of its work in one

or more international conventions. The 1958 conference

produced four conventions that codified, to a great extent,

customary law and brought international attention to the

oceans.” Years later, the Third United Nations Conference

on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) began its substantive

work in 1974 two years after the first U.N. Conference on

the Human Environment in Stockholm (see Emmelin, 1972).

UNCLOS III, consisting of 319 articles plus several annexes,

was signed on December 10th, 1982. It was ratified by the

requisite number of countries (60) and entered into force on

November 16th, 1994.

Domestically, the U.S. Congress enacted the Marine Resources and Engineering and Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-454) that created a blue ribbon executive-level

commission on marine science activities later known as the

Stratton Commission, named for the chairman of the 15 member panel. Their report, Our Nation and the Sea issued in

January of 1969, reviewed the status of American ocean

policy and provided specific recommendations for improving marine resource and ocean management practice. One

of the major outcomes from those recommendations was

the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA; est. October 1970; Nelson, 1969).

Merrell, et al., (2001) also mention that among many public

laws that can be traced to the Commission’s 1969 report

was the original Magnuson Fishery and Conservation Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-265).

Two other noteworthy American actions pertinent to

ocean management were (1) the Presidential Proclamation

of December 27, 1988, (No. 5928) in accordance with international law as reflected in the applicable provisions of the

1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and

customary international law extending the U.S. territorial

sea to 12 nautical miles. Earlier, (2) the Presidential Proclamation (5030) of March 10, 1983 established the Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ) of the U.S. designating sovereign

rights over natural resources out to 200 nautical miles from

the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is

measured in accordance with international law. In addition,

the Oceans Act of 2000 (P. L. 106-256; effective January 20,

2001) was passed by congress with the task of reviewing

the importance of American oceans and marine resources

and formulating a “scientifically based strategy for protecting and sustaining our oceans” and that this “requires a

coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy”

(Watkins, 2004). One of the ocean governance approaches

advocated by the U.S. Ocean Commission is the principle

of ecosystem-based management (Watkins, 2004; see also

Witherell, 2004).

LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS:

AN INSTRUMENT TO FOSTER

REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

AND SCIENCE ARRANGEMENTS

LME’s are regions of ecological unity of ocean space

comprising coastal locales from river basins and estuaries

to the outer margins of continental shelves and seaward
Page 2

boundaries of coastal current systems (Griffis and Kimball,

1996). A combination of ecological criteria including unique

bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophic relationships characterize LME’s (Sherman, 1989). LME’s are areas

yielding 90 percent of the annual catch of global marine

fisheries (Garibaldi and Limongelli, 2003; Sherman and Duda,

2001). Thus, the LME approach considers accommodating

human utilization of its resources while maintaining ecosystem integrity. Some areas of the globe have embraced

ecosystem considerations as part of fisheries ecosystem

management within the scale of an LME (Sherman, 1994;

Done and Reichelt, 1998; Duda and Sherman, 2002).

English, et al., (1988) discussed Southeast Asia where the

emphasis was on studies of Large Marine Ecosystems (LME’s)

using a multispecies approach for the management of resources.

Initiated in 1983, as a response to the Third United Nations

Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), was the Southeast Asian Project on Ocean Law, Policy and Management

(SEAPOL). It was designed to promulgate a network of regional specialists in ocean development and management as a

part of the Law of the Sea. These regional specialists selectively incorporated information on coral, mangrove and softbottom benthic communities in the coastal living resources

project (English, et al., 1988). These authors noted on page 372

of their manuscript, “science is a central issue in any attempt to

manage LME’s;” “the management of LME’s involves political, socio-economic, scientific and technical aspects.” The

ASEAN Coastal Living Resources Project was an early example of a multinational approach to the management of LME’s

(English, et al., 1988).

In Australia and New Zealand the LME approach was

selected as a means for introducing an ecosystem-based

approach to the assessment and management of marine resources because of its focus on resource management. Done

and Reichelt, (1998) emphasize that in the Oceania LME,

“the scope of the focus on fishery management is placed

on optimization of catch per unit of effort (CPUE) for targeted commercial species along with bycatch and discard

minimization.” Integrated within the LME approach, as utilized in Australian and New Zealand jurisdictional waters, is

also a focus on both coastal zone and watershed catchment

management. Here, the scope of emphasis for coastal zone

management (CZM) is “directed toward habitat protection

for both catch and bycatch species (prohibited and nonspecified species bycatch) as well as water quality maintenance. The reduction of polluted land-based runoff into

surface waterways that drain towards the shore is the principle scope of emphasis for watershed catchment management” (Done and Reichelt, 1998). Thus, in Oceania, “the

quest for resource sustainability may best be achieved

through the combination of management effort directed towards coastal habitats and catchment watersheds as well

as the fishery” (Done and Reichelt, 1998).

The governments of the Republic(s) of Angola, Namibia

and South Africa in their desire to manage development

and protect for future use the Benguela Current LME in an

integrated and sustainable manner committed themselves

to establishing the “Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem” (BCLME) program with specific ecosystem-based

actions, principles and policies (O’Toole, 2002). The reasons for the establishment of the BCLME, included: (1) significant transboundary implications of unsustainable practices of harvesting of living marine resources (fish stocks),

(2) increasing habitat degradation and alteration which may

have contributed to increased incidence of harmful algal

blooms, as well as (3) inadequate governance capacity to

assess and monitor ecosystem status and trends, either

nationally or regionally. The original Strategic Action Program (SAP) was adopted by signature by government ministers at the end of February of 2000 in the spirit of the

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration) and Agenda 21 principles. The

BCLME program was established as an international body

under the terms and conditions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (entry into force November

1994) and international customary law principles (see e.g.

Belsky, 1985). At the outset, for example, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is represented on

the Interim Benguela Current Commission for the initial five

year BCLME program development phase. Original startup funding was secured from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and scientific and technical assistance coming from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) of the U.S., and ocean science agencies in France, Germany, and Norway.

In another regional setting north of the BCLME, according to Ukwe et al., (2003) the countries of the Gulf of Guinea

littoral “adopted an integrated and holistic approach using

the LME concept to sustainably manage the environmental

and living resources of the region.” The genesis for the

Guinea Current LME was founded in 1995 with a pilot project

initiative by six littoral nations regarding biodiversity conservation and water pollution control. Ministers representing the six countries responsible for the LME project signed

the Accra Declaration as an expression of support for internation cooperation in fostering sustainable management

practices. Donor agency funding was secured via the GEF

with implementation provided through the UNDP in concert with the U.N. Industrial Development Organization

(UNIDO) with technical support from NOAA/NMFS and

the U.N. Environment Programme. “The project is anchored

in the concept of LME’s as geographic units for improving

the assessment and management of marine resources”

(Ukwe, et al., 2003). The overriding goal of the ongoing

Guinea Current LME Strategic Action Plan (SAP) centers

on biological diversity and the control of aquatic pollution

with regard to restoring and sustaining the health of the

living marine resources of the region. Ukwe, et al., (2003)

mention four specific objectives to achieve the goal revolving around five LME modules (see Figure 2) including governance capacity building along with ecosystem manage-
Page 3

ment database development as well as living marine resources assessment and long-term monitoring and protection strategies. Sherman (1995) illustrated the ecosystem

level “energy matrix” which is comprised of interactions of

individuals, populations, or communities of organisms. In

general, the concept of LME’s has been embraced by the

world’s coastal developing nations, but the “predominant

variables” for any given LME may be different even from its

neighbor, depending upon the results of issue prioritization

based on consensus reached through a Transboundary

Diagnostic Analysis (Sherman and Duda, 1999b).

ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED MANAGEMENT

AS A LINK FOR FOSTERING

SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES

More recently, at the United Nations General Assembly

in New York, “resolutions” have been crafted for adoption

by member nations to apply by 2010 the “ecosystem approach” to the conservation, management and exploitation

of, highly migratory (pelagic) and “straddling” fish stocks

(Jahnke, 2003). Resolution A/57/L.49 concerning a number

of fisheries issues was introduced by the United States of

America through Ambassador Mary Beth West, the then

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries to the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly on

December 10th 2002 (West, 2003). Resolution A/57/L.50 regarding the conservation and management of straddling

fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks was also introduced at the same time by Ambassador West. In her remarks before the General Assembly, she indicated that “the

fisheries draft resolutions are an assemblage of current

ocean issues drawn from the priorities and interests of

Member States.” And “they represent consensus... in making the oceans safe and healthy environments for sustainable development” (Jahnke, 2003).

Ambassador West’s statement also contained an emphasis on the agreed to Johannesburg World Summit on

Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation adopted

on September 4th of 2002. She remarked that the Plan calls

on the world community to establish by 2004, a regular

United Nations process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment based on existing regional assessments. The Plan suggests the world community to elaborate regional programmes of action and to

improve links with strategic plans for the sustainable development of coastal and marine resources (Jahnke, 2003).

Thus, the prescribed benefits of an in-place LME approach

to living marine resources conservation biology and management can be seen at work in the international arena

(Alexander, 1999; Belsky, 1985).

The introduced “Resolution (on Oceans and the Law of

the Sea, A/57/L.48) similarly calls upon States to develop

national, regional and international programmes aimed at

halting the loss of marine biodiversity. The United States

welcomes this emphasis on integrated regional approaches

to oceans issues.” While at the podium, Ambassador West

went on to state, “in that context (regarding integrated,

regional approaches to ocean issues), we would like to bring

to this body’s attention the White Water to Blue Water

oceans partnership initiative currently being planned for

the Caribbean... it aims for an integrated approach to the

management of freshwater watershed and marine ecosystems.” “We hope it might serve as a successful model for

similar efforts in other regions of the world.” Moreover,

“the United States also looks forward to collective efforts

to establish an inter-agency coordination mechanism on

oceans and coastal issues within the United Nations system” (UNGA, 2002)1 .

Specifically, the written draft resolution A/57/L49 introduced by Ambassador West, noted also, with particularity,

“the importance of implementing the principles elaborated

in Article 5 of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to

the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish

Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (entered into force

on December 11th 2001), including ecosystem considerations

in the conservation and management of straddling fish

stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.” Draft resolution

A57/L.49 as adopted (now known as 57/142) “encourages

all States to apply by 2010 the ecosystem approach... and

supports continuing work under way at the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to develop guidelines for the implementation of ecosystem considerations in fisheries management...” (UNGA, 2003).

Similarly, Resolution 57/141 Oceans and the Law of the

Sea (formerly draft A/57/L/48) “calls upon States to promote the conservation and management of the oceans in

accordance with Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 (i.e., Earth Summit, Rio De Janeiro, June 1992; e.g. Garcia and Newton,

1994) and other relevant international instruments, to develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools,

including the ecosystem approach, the elimination of destructive fishing practices, the establishment of marine protected areas (MPA’s) consistent with international law and

based on scientific information, including representative

networks by 2012 and time/area closures for the protection

of nursery grounds and periods, proper coastal and land

use and watershed planning, and the integration of marine

and coastal areas management into key sectors.” In Section

XI Marine Environment, marine resources & sustainable

development of said Resolution 57/141 of December 12th

2002 calls upon States, “to improve the scientific understanding and assessment of marine and coastal ecosystems as a fundamental basis for sound decision-making

through the actions identified in the Johannesburg Plan of

Implementation, including that of relevant data collection

of the marine environment” (UNGA, 2003).

In late November of 2003 an analogous resolution was

adopted by the General Assembly. Demonstrating a pattern
Page 4

of agreement by the international community towards sustainable fisheries another marine affairs oriented instrument was placed on the table at the U.N. General Assembly.

Reaffirming its resolutions, inter alia, 57/142 and 57/143 of

December 12th 2002 (see above), draft resolution A/58/L.18

was on the agenda at the fifty-eighth session in New York.

After a successful roll-call adoption of the “sustainable

fisheries... and related instruments resolution” (adopted as

RES/58/14 on November 24th 2003) there was affirmation that

in seeking “responsible fisheries in the (large) marine ecosystem” (Section IX) there is the encouragement for Member States to apply by 2010 the ecosystem approach. This

ecosystem approach and its relevant guidelines, in part,

developed by FAO (Rome, Italy) would provide for the

“implementation of ecosystem considerations in fisheries

management” (UNGA, 2004).

Resolution 58/14 of 2003 also “notes with satisfaction”

the activities of the World Bank housed Global Environment Facility (GEF) aimed at “promoting the reduction of

bycatch and discards in fisheries activities.” Discards add

to the effect of fishery landings, for example, “a mid-1990’s

assessment suggested that about 25 percent of marine catch

is discarded” (Hanna, 1999). Moreover, the GEF has adopted

the LME approach to ocean stewardship of living marine

resources (Duda and Sherman, 2002). Resolution 58/14 of

2003 in Section VIII “encourages States to develop ocean

policies and mechanisms on integrated management, including at the subregional and regional levels;” the LME approach is just such a mechanism and policy program. The

flexible LME approach can aid in achieving sustainable fisheries by addressing ecosystem considerations like: fishing

overcapacity, large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing, fisheries

bycatch and discards, aid in accomplishing subregional and

regional cooperation in fostering responsible fisheries in

the marine ecosystem, as well as address capacity-building

and cooperation as it relates to science policy technical

assistance and financial aid mechanisms (see: UNGA, 2004).

As regards “good governance” for the environment,

West (2003) emphasizes the promotion of “sound sciencebased decision-making” within legal, programmatic, and

regulatory frameworks while stating, “changes in marine

and coastal systems can undermine the basic economic and

environmental services provided by the oceans.” She also

writes, “when it comes to the coastal environment, however, we have learned that regional approaches are often

most effective (West, 2003). The large marine ecosystem

(LME) paradigm provides just such an effective approach

both internationally and/or domestically in the U.S. The

LME approach or initiative provides and promotes sciencebased decision making for the ocean and coastal activities,

especially in the realm of commercial fisheries science policy.

The LME modular assessment approach (Figure 2) is an

improved science-based application to best practices of

integrated coastal management (e.g., West, 2003; Ajayi, et

al., 2002; Done and Reichelt, 1998).

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

AND THE MANAGEMENT OF LARGE

MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

While the adoption of ocean affairs related resolutions

by the Member States of the United Nations General Assembly demonstrate a willingness to move towards ecosystem-based fisheries management (as a tenet of adaptive

management), more importantly “this acceptance may be

emerging into customary rules of international law which

promote consideration of total ecosystems and the establishment of standards for those systems” (Belsky, 1985)2 .

Knecht, (1994) recognized “that the use of the ecosystem

approach in dealing with large marine ecosystems is already close to becoming international law.” “Soft laws essentially are statements of international cooperation, usually in the form of an international treaty or agreement, which

are not binding on (all) States but have the capacity to

promote evolving notions of customary law, they have great

importance in the evolution of customary law” (MacDonald,

1995). He reiterates that “customary international law consists of ‘rules’ and ‘norms,’ written and unwritten, that may

or may not find expression in treaties ... precisely because

of its informal nature that customary law is central to international dialogue; often custom will be on the basis on

which to forge ahead in international disagreements in an

attempt to find common ground” (MacDonald, 1995).

Alexander (1999) postulates, “the articles of the 1982 United

Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) generally support the principles of ecosystem management for

living marine resources. Most indications now point toward a general acknowledgement of the benefits of integrated ecosystem management in the world’s oceans and

seas.” The objectives of UNCLOS are parallel to those of

LME management (Alexander, 1999). Moreover, Cole (2003)

asserts that “there have been structural changes in fisheries decision-making, notably a transformation from a stateled approach towards multi-leveled decision-making procedures due to key developments in, inter alia, international

law.” Further, she asserts that “there have been considerable shifts in authority dealing with fisheries regulation and

a new, distinct, global structure is emerging in essence attributed to globalization” (Cole, 2003).

The European Community has recently enacted reforming legislation for its Member States proscribing a “road

map” towards their Common Fisheries Policy. The Council

of the European Union, a regional body of Member States,

enacted Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 of December 20th 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy

(COEU, 2002). This regulation is binding in its entirety and

directly applicable in all Member States. In some respects,

the Europeans seem to be in-sync with the United States by

establishing Regional Advisory Councils (Article 31) to
Page 5

enable fisherfolk and other stakeholders the benefit of providing their local knowledge and experience concerning diverse conditions throughout European Community jurisdictional waters. This appears somewhat analogous to the

idea for the creation of non-regulatory regional ocean councils in the U.S. (see Watkins, 2004). Though the European

Regional Advisory Councils are not designed to be independent management bodies with the authority to make

decisions (Gray and Hatchard, 2003) unlike the eight regional fishery management council’s structure in the U.S.A

that do.

The scope and objectives of EC No. 2371/2002 (Article

2(1)) include the provision to “aim at a progressive implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries

management.” Included here is the “good governance”

objective of a “decision-making process based on sound

scientific advice which delivers timely results. Broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the Common Fisheries Policy from conception to implementation” is another

objective under the “principles of good governance” (Article 2(2)). Specifically, the Regional Advisory Councils were

established to “contribute to the objectives of Article 2(1),

that is, “ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management” and in particular to advise the European Commission

on matters of fisheries management with respect to certain

sea areas or fishing zones.

Under the heading “conservation and sustainability,

Article 5(3) recovery plans” and Article 6 (3) “management

plans” “may cover either fisheries for single stocks or fisheries exploiting a mixture of stocks, and shall take due count

of interactions between stocks and fisheries.” Therefore,

objectives or aims of the European Commission’s “new”

approach to fisheries management refocuses policy towards

a long-term view to fostering higher yield sustainable fisheries while moving towards an ecosystem-based approach

to fisheries management. Curiously under Article 3 “definitions,” none was provided for what is meant by an ecosystem-based approach! Though, however, it may be gleaned

from the wording above as it relates to both Recovery and

Management Plans. Gray and Hatchard, (2003) suggest that

for coherence with other European Community environmental policies, the principle of ecosystem management applies

to gear regulations under the Common Fisheries Policy.

ECOSYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS:

THE FORMULATION OF A BESTPRACTICES LME APPROACH

“There is a need to enhance the conservation objectives

of fisheries management plans to include explicitly ecosystem considerations. Internationally, Wagner (2001) affirms

that the recent Reykjavik Declaration of Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (October, 2001) includes “ecosystem considerations in fisheries management that provides a framework to enhance management performance.”

These “considerations” incorporate increased attention to

predator-prey relationships and understanding of the impact of human activities as well as the role of habitat and

factors affecting ecosystem stability and resilience, among

others (Figure 3). The effects of fishing from an ecosystem

perspective, and the effects of environmental change or

alterations on fish stocks is one intent in providing the New

England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and other

similarly situated regulatory agencies this kind of information3 . In general, due to data limitations and the lack of

breadth and complexity of most single species models, the

effects of fishing on ecosystems have not been incorporated into most stock assessments (Livingston, 2001; Figure 4). “Predation on pelagic fish and squids is an important

and large component of the overall dynamics of the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem. Herring, except at very large sizes

(>30cm), seldom grow out of the window of predation by

fish over most of their life history” (Overholtz, et al., 1999).

“Consumption of pelagic fish and squid by predatory fish

appears to equal or exceed landings in most years from

1977-1997.” In the 1990’s, “for herring, consumption also

exceeds the current value of MSY for this stock” (Overholtz,

et al., 1999).

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council

(NPFMC) utilizes as ecosystem consideration indicators:

physical oceanography indices (e.g., temperature and

decadal regime shifts); habitat (e.g., groundfish bottom

trawling effort by subregion, closed areas to trawling, and

biota bycatch by all gears in habitats of particular concern

(HAPC’s)); target groundfish (e.g., total biomass, total catch

by subregion, groundfish discards including target species

discards, recruitment by subregion); fleet size – analogous

to humans as a part of the ecosystem – (e.g., total number

of vessels actually fishing); forage (e.g., forage species such

as herring et al., bycatch by subregion); other species (e.g.,

spiny dogfish, various shark species, jellyfish and prohibited, other, and nonspecified species bycatch – example(s)

of prohibited bycatch include halibut mortality, herring, crab

and salmon species, among others); marine mammals (e.g.,

seals, sea lions); seabirds (e.g., population trends and

bycatch as well as breeding chronology and species productivity); and, aggregate indicators (such as possible regime shifts and trophic-level food web catch by subregion).

All of these categories come under the rubric of ecosystem

considerations (Livingston, 2001) at an LME scale whether

in the Gulf of Alaska or the U.S. Northeast Shelf ecosystem

(Sherman, 1994; e.g., Giordano, 2003).

Regarding precautionary and conservative catch limits,

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)

mandates that “all fish caught in any fishery (including

bycatch), whether landed or discarded are counted towards

the TAC for that stock” (Witherell, et al., 2000). As a further

management precautionary approach it is assumed that there
Page 6

is 100 percent mortality for all discards regardless if some

fish actually survive. Species are discarded by a fishing

vessel because they are either unwanted “economic discards” or they are regulatory “prohibited species”

(Witherell, et al., 2000). In the North Pacific, a “best practices” approach institutionalizes that a “comprehensive and

mandatory observer programme” requires 100 percent coverage on any vessel more than 49m in length overall

(Witherell, et al., 2000). This has been adopted as a “best

practice” to provide limits on bycatch and discards, it does

not necessarily address “ecosystem concerns” (Witherell,

et al., 2000).

Other emerging “best practices” (Figure(s) 5 & 6; see

also Sainsbury and Sumaila, 2003) utilized in the American

waters of the North Pacific for limits on bycatch and discards include certain gear restrictions, for example, to prevent ghost fishing and reduce bycatch of non-target species gillnets for groundfish are prohibited (Witherell, et al.,

2000). Further, the NPFMC “adopted an improved retention

and utilization programme for all groundfish target fisheries. Beginning in 1998, 100 percent retention of Pollock and

Pacific Cod was required, regardless of how or where it was

caught” (Witherell, et al., 2000). By 2004, the NPFMC expects that for most regulated species, the discard rate will

be about five percent (Witherell, et al., 2000). It is a plausible

way to manage commercial fisheries while incorporating,

with time, ecosystem considerations.

Ecosystem considerations may also translate to specific

concerns in a given LME or subarea. Examples of these

concerns may entail harvest rate(s) fishery effects on species composition. Significant differences exist in the rate of

harvest of groundfish species in the New England Region.

Some are harvested close to their Fabc (acceptable biological catch) levels while other species are taken at variable

lower levels. Perhaps some trawl fisheries are constrained

by bycatch limitations for prohibited species (e.g., yellowtail flounder) and commercial landings prices for flatfish. As

witnessed in the Northeast United States Continental Shelf

LME (Sherman, et al., 1996; Sherman and Skjoldal, 2002)

shifting or resulting high biomasses of predator species

(e.g., dogfish and skates) can have substantial impacts on

the trophodynamics of the marine ecosystem and shift the

species assemblages. Disproportionate harvest rates require

constant analysis for lasting season-to-season implications

on the commercial groundfishery. “Fish populations on

Georges Bank changed from dominance by commercially

important groundfish species to less desirable species such

as dogfish and sandlance. Concurrent with a decline in the

desirable groundfish from overfishing were increases in

pelagics (herring, mackerel) and elasmobranches (spiny

dogfish, skates)” (Boehlert, 1996).

Witherell, et al., (2000) emphasize that for the North Pacific, “the basic ecosystem consideration is a precautionary approach to extraction of fish resources.” They suggest that the “precautionary principle was developed over

the past 10 years as a policy measure to address

sustainability of natural resources in the face of uncertainty”

(e.g. Kinzig, et al., 2003; Hilborn, 1987). One of their main

hypotheses concerning integrating ecosystem considerations in fisheries management is that “if fisheries are managed sustainably using a precautionary approach, it is likely4

that the overall ecosystem processes, ecosystem integrity,

and biodiversity are also protected to some degree”

(Witherell, et al., 2000; see also Figure 7). Witherell, (1999)

mentions that specific “ecosystem consideration” chapters

have been prepared as supplementary information in select

annual stock assessment and fishery evaluation reports

(e.g., North Pacific Fishery Management Council documents

dated 1998 & 1999). In addition, the NPFMC established an

Ecosystem Committee in 1996 who’s mission was to suggest possible ecosystem-oriented approaches into the fishery management process (e.g., hosting workshops, meetings and informal discussions) whereby the Committee utilized the scientific literature to identify elements and prospective principles of ecosystem-oriented management (see

Figure(s) 8 & 9; Table 1). Witherell (1999) stresses that the

NPFMC and the National Marine Fisheries Service have

used a precautionary approach, incorporated as part of ecosystem considerations, by: a) relying on scientific research

and advice, b) conservative catch quotas, c) comprehensive monitoring and enforcement, d) bycatch controls, e)

habitat conservation areas, and f) additional ecosystem considerations (see Figure(s) 10 & 11; Restrepo, et al., 1999).

Other “considerations” result from the impacts of fishing gear on habitat and ecosystems. From numerous articles on this subject that appear in the open scientific literature, most research appears performed on trawl gear.

Though not the focus of this research, bottom trawls, as

well as other gear types can alter the benthic structure,

sediments and nutrient cycling in certain situations

(Witherell et al., 1997). Now internationally banned pelagic

drift nets or “ghost fishing” created significant bycatch

discard issues as well as marine debris problems. Climatic

changes are another “consideration.” Related to oceanic

temperature conditions are year class strengths of commercially important species (e.g. Sainsbury et al., 2000). Herring

and Cod appear to respond favorably with strong year

classes with the onset of warm current regimes. Declines in

stocks may be seen, however, for other finfish (Witherell,

1998; Mountain, 2002; Fogarty, 2001). More “retrospective”

ecosystem change research on this topic might prove valuable when trying to prepare optimal yield (OY) and maximum sustainable yield (MSY) figures from biomass estimates for a commercial species. Witherell, (1998) writes

about the occurrence on a decadal or longer frequency in

the North Pacific Ocean, of shifts between warm and cool

periods and the compelling links between ocean conditions

and living marine resources production. Significant, rapid

and sometimes unexpected changes may be fostered by

variable ocean conditions (Skud, 1982; McFarlane, et al.,

2000). These shifting oscillations in the ocean are characterized as “regime shifts” (Steele, 1998; see e.g., Figure 12).

The NPFMC also incorporates select marine protected

areas (MPA’s) as a tool for managing bycatch and habitat
Page 7

protection as well as time/area closures (e.g., Lubchenko, et

al., 2003; Botsford, et al., 2003; Hastings and Botsford, 2003;

Carr, 2000). Agardy (2000) reckons in regard to MPA’s that

“the ideal situation seems to be establishment of closed

areas within the context of a larger multiple-use protected

area such as a coastal biosphere reserve, marine sanctuary

(as in the U.S.), or other large-scale MPA.” She does hypothesize, however, that “closures having a scientific basis

may be viewed by the fishing community as exclusionary

practices that are somehow rooted in social discrimination.”

She also mentions, “the spatial dispersal of the harvesting

sector is just as important to the health and character of the

ecosystem as biological dispersal processes, virtually all

analysis of marine reserves ignores the inevitable response

of the harvesting sector to closures” (Agardy, 2000; see

also Agardy, et al., 2003).

Other ecosystem-oriented management approaches include the NPFMC’s adopted regulation prohibiting a directed fishery for select forage fish that are found to be

important prey for higher trophic level species (such as

groundfish) (Witherell, et al., 2000). These authors discuss

continuing progress towards ecosystem-based management

that the NPFMC is trying to fulfill. A draft approach for

introducing ecosystem-oriented management for the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME (see Figure(s) 8 & 9) has

been crafted to foster dialogue. The approach is grounded

in elements and principles of ecosystem-based management

identified in the scientific literature. The approach provides

a prospective definition for fisheries ecosystem-based management as well as a presentation on objectives, goals,

guidelines, assumptions and understanding (see also

Witherell, 1999). A “mission statement” of an agency, as it

relates to ecosystem considerations, also would be an important component of an emerging policy (see: Lynch, et

al., 1999).

THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

AND BEST PRACTICES

Apollonio (1994) mentioned, “any community of fish

species is part of a larger marine ecosystem.” The ecosystem concept necessitates that all components cannot be

maximized simultaneously. Apollonio (1994) adds “that variability in fisheries population biomass increase as fishing

mortality (F) increases toward the fishing mortality at MSY

(Fmsy).” The New England experience indicates that “as the

high-value species have been fished down, increasing attention has been focused on species of lower value, such

as squid” and dogfish (Apollonio, 1994). Sutinen (1999)

has uncovered, “fisheries harvesting multiple species are

expected to be more difficult and costly to manage than

single-species fisheries. This expectation is supported in

the evidence, with a high proportion of multi-species

groundfish fisheries experiencing poor resource conservation and economic performance” (see Figure 13). Therefore,

it is important to consider fiscal resources needed to adequately address additional information needs related to

ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Sainsbury and Sumaila (2003) proffer that best practice

management of combined effects of all users achieved

through integrated management of appropriately defined

local ecosystems. They suggest that their listing of potential “best practice reference points” and components “provide a starting point to accommodate ecosystem considerations in fisheries management and that evolving substantially in the near future will be best practice reference points

– including those related to LME’s concerning effects of

non-fishery uses on the marine environment” (Sherman and

Duda, 1999a&b; Table 2; Figure 5; see also e.g.

Vandermeulen, 1998).

Ward (2000) identified “gaps and uncertainties” in the

process of deriving his draft key marine ecosystem

sustainability indicators. These included problems with (a)

limited ecological knowledge; (b) limited scientific understanding of credible cause-effect environmental issues; (c)

resolving capacity of monitoring system data capture and

analysis processes; (d) the synthesis and aggregation of

data; (e) implementation issues (case study trials, reference

sites, interpretive models); and (f) adapting and revising

sustainability indicators. “Indicators focused mainly on inputs such as financial or human resources, input loads of

pollutants, size of human population or on outputs, such as

number of permits, size of quota, or number of areas brought

under formal management (e.g. MPA) are unlikely to be suitably robust” (Ward, 2000). “Outcome-based indicators are

crucial components of any effective management system,

and are needed for compliance with ISO 14001 (International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland) ‘best

practice’ and international standards for environmental

management” (Ward, 2000). Similarly, Villa and McLeod

(2002) point out that “no rigorous experimental testing of

vulnerability estimates is possible given our current state

of knowledge of the structure and functions of the environment.” These authors support the view of ecosystem integrity as “the maintenance of the community structure and

function characteristic of a particular locale - deemed satisfactory to society” (Villa and McLeod, 2002).

One way that fishery management practitioners may

bring to bear a “precautionary approach” in their work, and

a recommended management action provided here, is by

agreeing to voluntary environmental standards that provide value to business and other operations. Thus, the ISO

14000 family of international Standards on environmental

management supports the objective of “sustainable development” (e.g., Table 3) of a wide-ranging portfolio of standardized methods that provides business entities and government with best available scientifically valid data on the

environmental effects of economic activity; a precursor to

the technical basis for environmental (fishery) regulations.

The ISO 14000 Series, first printed in September of 1996,

meets the needs and concerns of those interested in the

environmental management of organizations. Specifically,
Page 8

the ISO 14000 family of Standards is comprised of a systematic approach of documents related to environmental management systems (EMS; i.e., ISO 14001 and ISO 14004) and

procedures and documents related to environmental management tools, such as, EMS audits and environmental performance evaluations. In the issue at hand, for example,

how much is “allowable” discard and bycatch in a given

fishery? The former Chairman of the New England Fishery

Management Council proclaims, “we have not been able to

adequately calculate bycatch in most of our fisheries because of the lack of information or the funds to collect it”

(Hill, 2002). Careful consideration will need to be given to

the scientific and financial commitment required to introduce ecosystem-based fisheries management of the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem.

Thus, establishment and implementation of an

organization’s environmental and ecological based management system is central in ascertaining its ecosystem policy,

objectives, and targets providing a benchmark frame of reference for continuous adjustment and improvement of environmental performance. Tools for environmental management exist to assist the organization in fostering and promoting its ecologically oriented policy, objectives and targets. The ISO 14000 compliance standards are practical tools

for the manager (boat captain; fishery permit holder, regulator, etc.) who isn’t satisfied with compliance to legislation

and directives, they’re for the proactive organization providing a strategic approach to conducting, implementing

and evaluating environment and ecosystem-related measures that can bring a sustainable return on investment.

Under ISO 14001, the fishing and public administration sectors have their own codes. Sainsbury, et al., (2000) also

depict the ISO 14000 standards as important operational

strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. More

information on ISO 14000 EMS usage in the private sector

is found in Coglianese and Nash (2002 & 2001). Therefore,

adoption of ISO 14000 compliance standards appear compatible to a sustainable “precautionary approach” paradigm.

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE/

APPROACH AS ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT (CONTROL RULES

AND REFERENCE POINTS)

Dovers and Handmer (1995) provide one salient definition for on-the-ground usage of the precautionary principle

(approach) “where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty

should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to

prevent environmental (ecological) degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private

decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to

avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage

to the environment (ecosystem), and (ii) an assessment of

the risk-weighted consequences of various options.” These

authors suggest that other elemental themes for the precautionary principle may be found in the open literature.

Two salient interpretations may be added for LME usage

through the following commentary: (iii) “the precautionary

principle recommends an anticipatory or preventive approach rather than a defensive one which simply reacts to

environmental (ecological) damage when it becomes apparent; and (iv) uncertainty as to the severity of the environmental impacts resulting from a development decision or an

ongoing human activity should not be an excuse to avoid

or delay environmental protection measures” (Dovers and

Handmer, 1995). These authors also address the issue of

the “shifting burden of proof” towards those proposing a

possible harmful action rather than those advocating environmental (ecological) protection, such as designated stewardship agencies. Similar in nature to the philosophy of

these authors, this manuscript presents a view believing

that the “shifting burden of proof” conundrum is “beyond

official definitions of the precautionary principle” (Dovers

and Handmer, 1995) and workable on-the-ground reality considering democratic governmental sectoral regulation(s)

especially when considering the overall scale and scope of

an LME setting.

It should be noted that the “shifting burden of proof” is

neither a goal nor objective of an LME approach to living

marine resources sustainability. Another view of the “precautionary principle” (approach) is an “idea that speaks to

the interest of maintaining the integrity of complex ecosystems and their dynamics” while taking into accord “the great

number of fisheries today depleted or threatened with commercial crashes” (Scheiber, 1997). In order to facilitate better sustainable governance of the oceans and its attendant

living resources, Costanza et al. (1998), posit their viewpoint, with respect to fisheries, even under controlled access, management decisions are often made at scales that

do not consider all sources of ecological information. They

also suggest that management fails to consider public owners relying instead to focus on user groups. They say this

has led to fishery management decisions that encompass

more risk than caution. MacDonald (1995) does proffer,

however, that two international arrangements that may formalize the strictest interpretation of the precautionary principle (including that of the shifting burden of proof) despite

scientific uncertainties are the protection of the ozone layer

found in the Montreal Protocol of 1988, and decisions prohibiting certain whaling practices implemented through the

International Whaling Commission (IWC). Most other documents encompass nonbinding agreements like the FAO Code

of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Rio Conference (UNCED) declaration(s).

Gerrodette et al., (2002) mention with “regard to the standards of proof required that must be met” (e.g., Charles,

2002) “it would be impossible to demonstrate ‘no harm’ given

the large uncertainties in making any predictions about

marine ecosystems.” “A basic feature of any precautionary

or risk averse approach to natural resource management is

that the less certain we are about the effects of an action,
Page 9

the more cautious we should be. The Magnuson Stevens

Fishery Conservation Management Act National Standards

Guidelines clearly say so. ‘Criteria used to set target catch

levels should be explicitly risk averse, so that greater uncertainty regarding the status or productive capacity of a stock

or stock complex corresponds to greater caution in setting

target catch levels’” [50 CFR 600.310 (f) (5) (iii)] (Gerrodette,

et al., 2002). These authors advocate, “for current U.S. fishery management precautionary buffers (the difference between targets and limits) should therefore be a positive

function of uncertainty.”

Charles (2002) states “with regard to the impact of fishing gear on the ocean habitat the key issue is whether a

conservation rationale exists to favor one technology over

another.” He mentions that the traditional status quo approach is treating all fishing gears equivalently. Charles

(2002) also brings to light the problematic issues surrounding, if, when, and how fishing areas and closed targeted

fisheries will reopen to fisherfolk. He suggests that one

“robust management” policy measure includes adaptive

management “involving suitable monitoring processes, integration of knowledge (notably traditional ecological

knowledge and fisher knowledge), and mechanisms for incorporating new information, so management actions can

be reassessed as needed to adapt to unexpected circumstances, to avoid compromising conservation goals”

(Charles, 2002). Holling (1996) proffers, “in adaptive management, policies are designed as hypotheses and management implemented as experiments to test those hypotheses”

with “consequences of the (management) actions potentially reversible and that the experimenter learns from the

experiment (see also Figure 14). In another view, Lackey

(1997) asserts that the “hypothesis testing approach works

well in research for narrow, mechanistic questions in science, but not for more complex and typical research and

policy questions.” Despite the foregoing commentary regarding hypothesis testing, the present problems in commercial fishery catch are unsustainable from season to season and from species to species. The culprit for this fishery

unsustainability is pointed at “overfishing (e.g. Figure 15)

or inefficient harvesting” (e.g., Repetto, 2001).

Gislason et al., (2000) mention, however, “the power to

detect indirect effects of fishing in marine ecosystems is

low, and therefore some such impacts may be masked.” They

further state, “it is often difficult to separate out the effects

of fishing from other anthropogenic influences (e.g., pollution, habitat modification) and from natural environmental

variability - this is particularly the case in nearshore ecosystems” (Gislason et al., 2000). Willmann and Insull, (1993)

conclude that environmental changes brought about in

other sectors seemingly unrelated to fisheries can result in

concomitant loss of fish habitat and water quality deterioration, “for example, land-based pollution providing a toxic

effect on fish.” Thus, they suggest that coastal fisheries

management ought to encompass other sectors into integrated policy making. Much research indicates, however,

that present global exploitation patterns (as well as regional)

do not necessarily employ a precautionary approach and

are consequently unsustainable (Pauly, et al., 2002; Pauly

et al., 2000; Pauly et al., 1998).

Akin to adaptive management is the policy orientation

framework or cycle (Gable, 2003). Using science in adaptive

management necessitates providing explicit expectations

of the outcome of policies in order for designing methods

to measure their effectiveness. It also involves collection

and analysis of data so that the actual outcomes can be

compared with hypothesized expectations. Berkes et al.,

(2000) suggest that adaptive management “may be viewed

as the scientific analogue of traditional ecological knowledge because of its integration of uncertainty into management strategies and its emphasis on practices that confer

resilience. Adaptive management emphasizes processes –

including resource uses that are part of ecological cycles of

renewability.”

Costanza et al., (1998) subscribe to the paradigm of

“adaptive management” that includes cross-disciplinary

stakeholder groups, and intergenerational considerations

wherein uncertainty is acknowledged as a core principle

(Figure 16). They state that “precaution” is already well

accepted in the international community where decisions

concerning the use of marine living resources incorporate

uncertainty about potentially irreversible environmental

impacts, and thus are risk-averse. Adaptive management as

defined by Grumbine (1994) “assumes that scientific knowledge is provisional and focuses on management as a learning process or continuous experiment where incorporating

the results of previous actions allows managers to remain

flexible and adapt to uncertainty.” Christensen et al. (1996)

subscribe to a definition of adaptive management that to

manage resources sustainably in an environment of uncertainty it is a process that combines democratic principles,

scientific analysis, education, and institutional learning (see

also Table 2). Both definitions are analogous to the policy

orientation concept (Lasswell, 1951).

Richards and Maguire (1998) profess that the “precautionary approach is now embodied in several international

agreements, including the United Nations Straddling Fish

Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement and

the voluntary FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Article 6 of the “Straddling Stocks” Agreement, which

was ratified by the requisite number of countries as of December 11th 2001, and thus incorporated into the Law of the

Sea Treaty, provides “the essence of the precautionary approach whereby ‘States shall be more cautious when information uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of

adequate scientific information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures’ and improved methods are required for

dealing with risk and uncertainty” (Richards and Maguire,

1998).

Stock-specific reference points provide the principle

mechanism for applying the precautionary approach for

harvest management strategies for developed fisheries. The

“Straddling Stocks” Agreement, in Article 6, provides that
Page 10

signatory States “shall determine, on the basis of the best

scientific information available, stock-specific reference

points and the action to be taken if they are exceeded. Two

types of reference points are identified: limit reference points

set boundaries which are intended to constrain harvesting

within safe biological limits within which the stocks can

produce maximum sustainable yield while target reference

points are intended to meet management objectives”

(Richards and Maguire, 1998). “Reference points have been

generally defined in terms of the fishing mortality rate F and

expressed as targets rather than limits. Although reference

points have been applied mainly in the context of biological

science, economic or social reference points could and

should also be developed and adopted” (Richards and

Maguire, 1998).

“The Straddling Stocks Agreement clearly specifies Fmsy,

the fishing mortality that can produce maximum sustainable

yield (MSY), as a limit reference point that should not be

exceeded. In addition, Bmsy, the biomass that can yield the

long-term average MSY on application of Fmsy, is suggested

as a rebuilding target for overfished stocks – a specific limit

reference point for stock biomass is not defined. However,

given Fmsy, as a limit reference point, Bmsy could also be

interpreted as a limit reference point” (Richards and

Maguire, 1998; see also Restrepo, et al., 1999). “The question of appropriate reference points for a variable environment has received limited scientific attention to date

(Richards and Maguire, 1998). Hollowed et al., (2000) found

that for Georges Bank harvest strategies “it was impossible

to derive a single fixed value for Fmsy.” Decadal variability

can lead to abrupt changes suggesting evidence for “environmental forcing is strong in most marine systems” (see

Figure 12).

Regarding implementing the precautionary principle (approach) through limit reference points is, “they allow specification of simple quantitative objectives with measurable

criteria for determining whether they are met. This is essential for practical (workable) fisheries management” (Hall,

1999) and, “such reference points typically will need to be

set for localized regions.” Hall, (1999) hypothesizes that

when science “uses multispecies fisheries models to help

derive suitable reference points for management, they are

almost always more conservative – more precautionary –

than the conclusions one draws using only single species

models.” Hall suggests that more promising system level

reference points for medium-term performance measures may

be the trophic status or size structure of the catch – these

could be equated to “ecosystem health and integrity.” In

principle, simpler to understand, augment and implement

are traditional single species management approaches of

target and non-target reference points. Thus, the reference

point characteristically retains the capacity for proper regulatory performance measures according to Hall, (1999; but

see: Sutinen, et al., 2000). Basically, “the status of an ecosystem can be assessed” according to Link, et al., (2002)

and that it is “not novel to assess the status of single species fish stocks.” For the assessment and management of

“large marine ecosystems,” lessons from single species

stock assessment, environmental impact assessment (EIA),

and ecological risk assessment tools and procedures provide appropriate management decision criteria (Link et al.,

2002). Indeed, May et al. (1979) found, “MSY cannot serve

as a guide when applied to each species individually” especially since many harvested species have robust interactions.

“It is time to propose a wider range of conservation and

ecosystem objectives for fisheries management, as well as

corresponding indicators and reference points that trigger

management action. The reference points for a fishing plan

could be the total permissible bycatch level of the species

at risk” (Gislason, et al., 2000). “The indicators for directly

impacted species (target and bycatch species) are well established. They include, for example, measure for exploitation rate (using size and age structure changes), spawning

stock biomass and geographic distribution. Reference points

for forage species (such as herring) may include consideration of prey requirements in addition to spawning stock

biomass requirements for safeguarding recruitment”

(Gislason, et al., 2000).

For fisheries management, “tools to achieve ecosystem

objectives – gear restrictions, closed areas and seasons,

including MPA’s, quotas and bycatch limits and restrictions on days-at–sea, are the same as those already in use

to achieve single species related conservation objectives”

(Gislason, et al., 2000). These are also referred to as inputoutput controls and technical measures. “The similarity

between single-species fisheries management and an ecosystem approach should not come as a surprise”

(Sissenwine and Mace, 2003; Figure 17). “Fisheries management science refers to the broad integration of fisheries

science, fisheries management and management science.”

“The development of fisheries management science incorporates biological, ecological, economic, social and political aspects. Currently, the scientific field is dominated by

the biological sciences” (Richards and Maguire, 1998). The

use of a policy orientation approach to LME oriented fisheries management is somewhat analogous and would incorporate the disciplinary subdivisions listed above (see:

Gable, 2003; Clark, 1992).

Restrepo et al. (1999; see Figure(s) 10 & 11) helps to

“succinctly” define a version of the precautionary approach

whereby “in fisheries, the precautionary approach is about

applying judicious and responsible fisheries management

practices, based on sound scientific research and analysis,

proactively (to avoid or reverse overexploitation) rather than

reactively (once all doubt has been removed and the resource is severely overexploited) to ensure the

sustainability of fishery resources and associated ecosystems for the benefit of future as well as current generations.” These authors also suggest that the precautionary

approach can be categorized into fisheries research, fisheries management and fisheries technology. Considering if

the precautionary principle is science based, “international

environmental policy ultimately relies on scientific evidence
Page 11

to identify issues of concern and, of course, ‘scientific evidence is rarely, if ever, absolute’” (MacDonald, 1995).

MacDonald (1995) emphasizes that with “respect to fisheries management, the risk of management error can never

be completely eradicated. Scientific uncertainty is the accepted norm in fisheries management. A zero risk strategy

would imply no development at all. A strategy hardly viable.” Restrepo et al., (1999) proffer that the “basic idea of

using reference points in a precautionary approach to fisheries management is that targets should be set sufficiently

below limits so that the limits will be avoided with high

probability and targets will be attained on average.” Domestically the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 “redefined

optimum yield to be no greater than maximum sustainable

yield. The new definition of optimum yield also included

the protection of marine ecosystems as a national benefit to

be considered in setting targets.” These authors argue that

“conservation constraints should be met before other objectives” under the precautionary approach. Young (2003)

cautions, however, “applications of the precautionary principle can be expected to lead to lowering of total allowable

catches. Carried to extremes, the precautionary principle

can become a weapon in the hands of those who wish to

terminate consumptive uses of living resources, regardless

of the consequences for human welfare.” He then suggests

that this situation has already transpired within the aegis of

the International Whaling Commission.

MacDonald (1995) emphasizes that the precautionary

principle “is not a scientific risk assessment device and

should not be recognized as such – it is principally applied

for its value-laden character. It is up to the policy maker to

determine how to apply the principle. In fisheries management a flexible precautionary principle clearly is needed.”

Domestically in the United States the turtle excluder device

(TED) employed in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp

fisheries, “though at the time not labeled a ‘precautionary

approach,’” may be just that kind of sustainable fisheries

policy measure or tool. “The precautionary principle is not

yet recognized as accepted customary law” (MacDonald,

1995), but it is appears to be heading that way during the

last decade or so (see e.g., Belsky, 1989).

Presently, there is a proposed Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Precautionary Approach Framework that places an emphasis on risk analyses for selected

stocks employing fishing mortality and stock biomass reference points “security margins” (Fbuf and Bbuf) whereby

the “more uncertain the stock assessment, the greater the

buffer (Fbuf & Bbuf) should be” (NAFO, 2003). In effect, in

the Northeast United States Continental Shelf LME fisheries managers have already established zoning areas for fisheries management. As described in several United Nations

agreements (e.g. Annex II of the UN Straddling Stocks Agreement to which the United States is a signatory) Flim equals

Fmsy because “Fmsy as a limit is in conformance” with the

prescribed precautionary approach. In the September 2003

adopted “Precautionary Approach” framework NAFO points

out that “fishing somewhat below Fmsy results in a relatively

small loss in average catch, but a large increase in average

biomass (which, in turn, results in a decreased risk to the

fish stock, and increase in Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE),

and a decrease in the costs of fishing).” There is now consideration of multi-species situations with the desirability

for a stable as possible total allowable catches (TAC’s).

That is, the NAFO Scientific Council adopted a precautionary approach that takes into account concerns expressed

by fisheries managers. For example, Fmsy has been recommended as a positive “first step towards ecosystem-based

management” objectives ensuring that no principle fish

stock is “fished harder than the single species.” NAFO,

(2003) states, “ecosystem-based management will likely require even more conservative fishing mortality targets than

‘traditional’ single-species management.” This precautionary approach may also include a deemphasis of Bmsy that

attempts to avoid the impossible problem of “maintaining

all stocks in a multi-species assemblage simultaneously at

their respective single-species Bmsy.”

Among the precautionary management measures placed

on the table by Caddy (1999), he suggests that “several

simple size-based (fishery) reference points should be formulated assuming that a precautionary approach oriented

fishery should allow for species to spawn at least once in

life history.” He adds that “a precautionary reference point

is one allowing the cohort a reasonable probability of spawning at least once before capture, and this criterion can be

used to test other F-based reference points for their conformity with this principle – those reference points or indices

are not easily intercalibrated.” See also Caddy (1999) for a

review of his “traffic light” approach for employing graduated precautionary management responses in fisheries

policy.

Restrepo and Powers (1999) discuss the United States

NOAA/NMFS utilized strategy of control rules (CR). Following on the preceding discussion(s), some control rules,

that is, fishing mortality (F), should be altered depending

on the spawning biomass of the resource (B). They suggest control rules to mean a description of a variable by

which managers have some direct control as a function of

some other variable related to the resource (i.e., F & B).

They employ a “precautionary control rule default target

optimum yield (OY) consisting of setting the TAC target F

(mortality) 25 percent below the limit (Flim) or also referred

to as the “maximum fishing mortality threshold” (Restrepo

and Powers, 1999).

Darcy and Matlock (1999) state that with regard to the

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-297) or

its predecessor Magnuson-Stevens Act of twenty years

earlier, that Congress did not use the term ‘precautionary

approach’ anywhere. They go on to mention, however, that

the drafters of the National Standard Guidelines (found in

the Federal Register; the MSFCMA requires, at section

301(b)), the Secretary of Commerce, through the

Undersecretary of Oceans and Atmospheres, establish advisory “guidelines” based on the ten National Standards

(see Table 4). The MSFCMA does not, however, explicitly
Page 12

mention, “control rules” to be promulgated as “guidelines.”

These authors suggest that the precautionary approach is

implicit in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and explicit

in the “guidelines” prepared for National Standard 1 – to

prevent overfishing. Hsu and Wilen (1997) assert that the

Sustainable Fisheries Act Standards do effectively “provide directives that are consistent with broad conservation

goals and sensible ecosystem management.”

Considering the 10 National Standards in the Act, Hill

(2002) comments that “avoiding or reducing significant social and economic impacts on communities dependent on

access to the fishery, which is under a rebuilding program is

impossible...There are inherent competing interests between

the varying Standards depending on the perspective one

might hold. This has inevitably led to lawsuits...as to

whether the Council has properly complied with the law.”

As a policy alternative, both Goethel (2002) and Hill (2002)

suggest that they would have “Congress qualify or rank

the 10 National Standards in order of importance.” An inplace ISO 14000 environmental management system would

afford organizations the tools to carry out such a task themselves, and to amend it using the steps in the policy orientation process (Table(s) 5 & 6; see also Figure(s) 18 & 19)

as appropriate.

Rosenberg (2002) discusses control rules stating they

“essentially relate management action to control the fishing mortality rate to the status of the resource in terms of

biomass or some other measure. A control rule provides a

framework for preagreed management actions as called for

in the precautionary approach. Uncertainty in the status of

the resource can be included explicitly through the specification of management targets to be achieved on average

and management thresholds that should never be exceeded.”

“Control rules leave little room for negotiation and consideration of issues such as (stock) rebuilding timeframes and

allocation between States, groups or gear types”

(Rosenberg, 2002). Generally, these were designed by marine scientists before the managers had provided any precautionary management systems of their own. Indeed those

described in Rosenberg, (2002) for example, have subsequently not been adopted by the regional international community because of concerns expressed by the managers

(see NAFO, 2003). Perhaps the marine scientists got a bit

ahead of themselves. Thus, Rosenberg (2002) concludes

that “the mechanistic approach of control rules to implementation of precautionary management may be hindering

agreement on conservation restrictions, simply because it

leaves so little room for negotiation.”

Concerning the implementation of the precautionary approach domestically, Rosenberg (2002) indicates, “the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 carries forward many of the

ideas of the precautionary approach with regard to preventing overfishing, the use of reference points, reducing

bycatch and protecting habitat.” And, “the burden of proof

continues to be on managers to prove that restrictive measures are essential rather than to show that harvesting can

be safely allowed.” Therefore, reference points to establish

targets or thresholds for defining overfishing is a tool used

to implement precautionary management in the USA, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) remains as a standard reference point. Garcia, (1994) theorizes, “in a way, the MSY

could be considered a measure of the maximum assimilative

capacity of the stock” (Table 7). “The need to reduce fishing pressure has resulted in (control) rules that do not allow

fishers to shift from one fishery to another as easily as in

the past” (Rosenberg, 2002). Thus, the need for an LME

ecosystem-based approach to living resources biomass allocation in an adaptive management environment is necessary to foster sustainable yields. Rosenberg (2002) laments

“as Regional Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, I found it hard to understand all the rules and

changes, and the fishermen certainly found it equally

hard.”5

Garcia (1994) suggests that the precautionary principle

refers to “the ‘hard line’ rule proposed for management of

highly polluting activities. The ‘approaches’ refers to the

practical ways and sets of measures which are precautionary in nature but may lead to more realistic application in

fisheries.” “The burden of proof is traditionally on research

and management with the rare exceptions where scientific

work has been used to limit the development programmes

on new fisheries” (Garcia, 1994). Internationally, “the precautionary principle requires nations to take preventive or

corrective action even in the absence of sufficient scientific

evidence of a causal link between a suspected factor and

the adverse effects observed” (Garcia, 1994; Table 8). Thus,

the United States in adopting the original MagnusonStevens Act enacted a precautionary action by restricting

distant water fishing fleets from within the 200 nautical mile

(pre-EEZ) fisheries zone.

Garcia (1994) believes, “although U.N. General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, they can have enormous political significance” noting their resolutions in the

early 1990’s on ‘large-scale pelagic driftnets.” “A U.N. General Assembly resolution may have an effect wider than

that of a recommendation (its legal status) in revealing what

State practice is, or pointing to what States might be willing

to accept.” He also indicates that the “precautionary principle” is no more than a non-binding norm, operating within

the framework of particular agreements, but it “may be on

its way to becoming part of customary international law”

(see also Belsky, 1985). Richards and Maguire (1998) hold

that the precautionary approach is acquiring acceptance as

a basis for fishery management.” Further, they maintain, on

page 1546 of their article, “that regardless of the extent to

which uncertainties can be quantified,” precaution dictates

a different philosophical and practical approach to “fisheries management science.” MacDonald (1995) cautions however, that a more flexible “approach” is required with respect to fishery management and that a steadfast “principle” (or rule) cannot be applied in all management realms.

In a more up-to-date synopsis, the European Community on December 20th, 2002, regarding the conservation

and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under
Page 13

the Common Fisheries Policy (Council Regulation LEC No.

2371/2002, noted in the Official Journal of the European

Communities dated 31/12/2002, this regulation entered into

force on January 1st, 2003) has adopted objectives embraced

by plurality by the Member States Community. They “shall

apply the precautionary approach in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to

provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimize

the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. It

should aim at a progressive implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management”...etc., (Article 2 (1)). Article 3 (i) provides a description of the “precautionary approach to fisheries management means that

the absence of adequate scientific information should not

be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated

or dependent species and non-target species and their environment. Precautionary reference points are biological

reference points and are designed to mark the boundary

between acceptable risks and unacceptable risks.”

Further, Article 5 (3) and Article 6 (3) requires that “recovery plans and management plans,” respectively, should

be drawn-up on the basis of the precautionary approach,

and, Article 6 (2) shall include conservation reference points,

which under Article 3 (k) “means values of fish stock population parameters (such as biomass or fishing mortality rate)

used in fisheries management, for example, with respect to

an acceptable level of biological risk or desired level of

yield.” Three types of reference points are typically considered including limit reference points (“means values of fish

stock population parameters such as biomass or fishing

mortality rate) which should be avoided because they are

associated with unknown population dynamics, stock collapse or impaired recruitment (Art. 3 (j)), precautionary or

buffer reference points and target reference points. Thus, a

precautionary approach has been linked to best practices

for living marine resource capture and exploitation actions

and it is therefore incumbent upon countries to apply it

through customary international law and practice.

To Sissenwine and Mace (2003) the “precautionary approach means that, when in doubt, err on the side of conservation.” Further, they state that “an ecosystem approach

for responsible fisheries management requires taking into

account trophic interactions in a precautionary fishing mortality rate strategy” which they define ”is geographically

specified fisheries management that takes account of knowledge and uncertainties about, and among, biotic, abiotic

and human components of ecosystems, and strives to balance diverse societal objectives” (see also Figure 17).

Sissenwine and Mace (2003) believe, “fisheries ecosystem

plans (FEP) are useful vehicles for designing and implementing an ecosystem approach to responsible fisheries

management.” They list three key elements to consider in

developing FEP’s including (a) ocean zoning concepts; (b)

specificity while authorizing fishing activities; and (c) hierarchical decision-making processes. Sissenwine and Mace

(2003) suggest the creation of a new profession of fisheries

and ecosystem practitioners that provide salient scientific

advice.

MANAGING FISHERIES IN THE MARINE

ECOSYSTEM (MORE “BEST

PRACTICES”)

Regarding responsible fisheries, Sinclair and

Valdimarsson (2003) state “fish has become the most internationally traded food, as some 37 percent (by quantity) of

all fish for human consumption is traded across borders.”

Related to the situation of governance for responsible domestic or international marine fisheries, Sinclair and

Valdimarsson (2003) lament, “there is no complete global

inventory of fisheries management systems and approaches,

whether at the level of countries, stocks or fisheries.” They

go on to state, “several of the 31 regional fishery bodies

(across the globe) implement policies based on total allowable catch (TAC) and national quotas... these approaches

are complemented by a series of technical measures, including power and size regulation of vessels; size and mesh

dimensions for gear; closed/open seasons/areas for fishing time encompassing effort ceilings; and catch characteristics involving minimum landing size, licensing schemes

and stage of maturity/age characteristics.” A movement towards ecosystem-oriented fishery management may

heighten the urgency for addressing rights-based and limited access regimes (Sinclair and Valdimarsson, 2003; Sutinen

at al., 2000).

Sinclair and Valdimarrson (2003) argue, “a first step in

moving towards ecosystem-based fishery management is

to identify and describe the different ecosystems and their

boundaries, and then to consider each as a discrete entity

for the purposes of management. Thereafter, ecosystem

management objectives must be developed. The central objective of ecosystem-based fishery management is to obtain optimal benefits from all marine ecosystems in a sustainable manner.” These authors, on page 401 of their paper, suggest, “once the objectives have been identified and

agreed upon, it is necessary to establish appropriate reference points and/or sustainability indicators... which must

be based on the best scientific evidence available” (see

Figure 21). The general principles utilized in conventional

single-species management will still apply regarding achieving objectives in suitable ecosystem-based fisheries management strategies. Degnbol (2002; Table 9) ascertains that

a “reference point connects management action and outcomes; the reference point is the yardstick by which it is

measured whether management has achieved its objectives

and which indicates the direction for future management

action.” Sinclair and Valdimarsson (2003) claim that responsible fisheries invoke an “emphasis on application of the

precautionary approach as central to ecosystem-based fisheries management” along with “assessing impact(s) of climate change.”
Page 14

Concerning the objectives for ecosystem approaches to

fisheries management, Degnbol (2002) finds that unclear

concepts reflect unresolved conflicts and that “the real challenge of ecosystem-based fisheries management is the implementation” stage. Degnbol (2002) asserts, “effective capacity reduction supplemented with measures to reduce

habitat damage from fishing gear and to protect sensitive

habitats may address most ecosystem concerns without

requirements for detailed tracking of all interactions and

addressing of all issues separately.” Some practical obstacles

to implementing ecosystem-based management include “defining the management unit, developing understanding and

creating planning and management frameworks” (Slocombe,

1993). Defining new management units, such as an LME, is

a critical step. It may be a “prerequisite for other steps toward ecosystem-based management. Oftentimes it may be

best to just transcend existing administrative boundaries

and management units” (Slocombe, 1993). Slocombe (1993)

suggests, “the wide popularity of sustainable development

is also becoming a major catalyst for ecosystem-based management. Cooperative management, management responses

to complex demands and pressures, and protected areas are

thought to be three common origins of ecosystem-based

management” (Figure 22).

In terms of developing understanding, “natural-science

information alone is not enough, if the goal is management

of an entire watershed or (large marine) ecosystem. The

management unit includes people, their social and economic

activities, and their shared and individual beliefs”

(Slocombe, 1993). In the marine environment, as a basis for

future planning and management, “synthesis or existing

information may be eminently useful in terms of developing

understanding” (Slocombe, 1993). On page 621 of his paper, Slocombe states, “initial research priorities in most areas would be gathering and reviewing existing information,

identifying and filling gaps, and integrating it.” Holistic interdisciplinary study of ecosystems gained impetus in the

1970’s from the UNESCO Man and Biosphere programs (including the marine biosphere reserve concept mentioned

earlier (see: Kenchington and Agardy, 1990; Slocombe, 1993).

Slocombe, (1998) describes desirable characteristics of

goals as those that should be broad and generally agreed

upon, with a degree of normative implication and reflection

of specific values and limits, whereas “objectives are the

specific doable tasks needed to achieve the goal(s)” (see

Figures 23 & 24). “Targets are readily observable, usually

quantifiable, events or characteristics that can be aimed for

as part of a goal or objective. Targets are a subset of the

broad set of indicators, which are a priori identified system

characteristics that can provide feedback on progress toward goals and objectives. Criteria are specific targets, often thresholds, that indicate when explicit, normative goals

and objectives have been met” (Slocombe, 1998). “At a minimum, goals and objectives that address the biophysical

environment and socioeconomic community in terms of

structure, function, and process at an integrated ecosystem level are best” (Slocombe, 1998).

Garcia and Staples (2000; see Table 10) state that a criteria is “an attribute of the sustainability information system

in relation to which indicators and reference points (targets) may be elaborated.” These authors provide examples

suggesting that revenue is a criteria related to the well being of humans in the fishery, spawning biomass is a criteria

related to the well-being of the stock and fishing capacity is

a criteria related to fishing pressure. “A reference point indicates a particular state of a fisheries indicator corresponding to a situation considered as desirable (Target Reference

Point, TRP), or undesirable and requiring immediate action”

(Limit Reference Points, LRP, and Threshold Reference

Point, ThRP; Garcia and Staples, 2000).

GOVERNANCE ISSUES FOR

ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED FISHERIES

MANAGEMENT

McGlade (2001) suggests that governance is a social

function whose success is vital to our future viability; it

centers on the management of complex interdependencies

among individuals, corporations, interest groups, and public agencies who are engaged in interactive decision-making taking actions that affect each other’s welfare.” While

the scientific basis for fisheries management is traditionally

built around a series of models, the majority of which are

aimed at single species, they are all “focused on the biological aspects of commercially important fish stocks rather

than their status within the marine ecosystem or the marketplace” (McGlade, 2001). McGlade (2001) emphasizes, “by

placing such a strong emphasis on the biological rather

than human or economic aspects of fisheries and by concentrating only on commercially important species, fisheries managers have not succeeded in generating effective

governance of fisheries or policies.” She states that in activities such as fisheries, where direct scientific evidence is

generally missing... “the concept of an expert as part of the

system of governance has to be broadened to include those

who have particular knowledge about a system” (McGlade,

2001; see also Figure 25). McGlade (2001) suggests, “the

effectiveness of any form of governance depends on good

communication, coordination, and integration between the

various institutions, users, and beneficiaries. Time and again

the importance of this has been underestimated in fisheries,

leading to widespread dissatisfaction and skepticism about

the ways and forms of intervention in management.” International conventions, such as the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols, are often about the need to identify what the problem actually is and what opportunities exist for solving it”

(McGlade, 2001).

“In many instances where responsible participation by

stakeholders has been the paradigm for ocean resource

governance, such as regional fishery management councils

in the U.S., self-interests have overshadowed scientific assessments leading to unsustainable exploitation of the re-
Page 15

sources” (Boesch, 1999; see also Hanna, 1999; Figure 26).

Regarding the precautionary principle, fundamentally it has

its basis in policy not science. Scientific information is often marginalized or overwhelmed because of the dominance

of economic ratcheting in fishery management decisions

(Boesch, 1999; Ludwig, et al., 1993; see also Hennessey

and Healey, 2000; Hanna, 1999). “Scientists should also

have a better understanding of the policy-making process

and the different roles they may play in the adaptive cycles

linking crisis identification, weighing alternatives and the

evaluation of implementation” (Boesch, 1999). Interdisciplinary science employing “ecosystem considerations”

along with developing local and regional institutions and

frameworks that can integrate scientific information into

socioeconomic and political decisions are needed (Boesch,

1999; Botsford, et al., 1997). Concerning global climate

change, there are likely to be many additional consequences

to marine environments, resources and their governance.

Science will be increasingly challenged by governance to

forecast and predict short and long-term effects and develop means to cope (Boesch, 1999).

“Fishery governance as currently constructed is incompletely designed variable in multicomponent fishery systems. Instead of accounting for the multiplicity of ecosystem goods and services, it narrowly focuses on single species commodity production” ((Hanna, 1999). In fisheries,

the overwhelming characteristic of the environment is variability (Hanna, 1999). Regarding governance issues, “great

uncertainty exists about the distributional consequences

of new forms of property rights such as individual transferable quotas” (Hanna, 1999). “Moving to ecosystem management requires an explicit consideration of multiple objectives not only for the production of commodity species

but also for the protection of species that provide ecosystem services” (Hanna, 1999). “In some cases, fishery users

are being given more responsibility for management without the corresponding transfer of skills related to information gathering and presentation, critical assessment or negotiation” (Hanna, 1999). Imperial (1999) asserts that ecosystem-oriented management “needs to develop low-cost

mechanisms to facilitate communication, make decisions,

and resolve conflicts between scientists, agency officials,

interest groups, and the public in order to minimize information asymmetries (e.g. Figure 27). This may be one reason

why many ecosystem-based management programs utilize

collaborative approaches to decision-making.” “Like many

other government programs, ecosystem-based management

is the result of an evolutionary process of experimentation,

goal definition and redefinition, and the search for appropriate implementation strategies” (Imperial, 1999).

Morrissey (1996) asserts that ecosystem-based management was founded by biological scientists and its focus is

upon “the healthy productivity of the place and the relationship of all its living elements.” And that a “favorable

science policy on ecosystem-based management would be

“adaptive to individual situations,” while at the same time

having the same standards of measure stemming from “common scientific grounds.” “Those involved in global change

research study ecosystem functions at Earth System scale.

For social scientists, the question of whether ecosystem

management... is beneficial or detrimental is a human value

judgement” (Morrissey, 1996). Domestically, Griffis and

Kimball (1996) suggest that the regional marine fishery management councils “appear to have the breadth of responsibility and adequate structure needed for stakeholder input

and involvement in decision making... some Councils have

functioned better than others and there are lessons to be

learned from both the successes and failures.” Murawski

(2000) emphasizes that in the U.S., “current management is

characterized as being concerned with ‘conservation of the

parts’ of systems, as opposed to the interrelationships

among them.” He suggests, “there is no specific ecosystem

analogue to single-species definitions of overfishing.” “For

the Northeast USA Continental Shelf, the decline in the

groundfish resource, combined with restrictive management

directed to that component, has resulted in the predictable

scenario of serial depletion. The practice of allowing many

species to remain outside any management control until

they show signs of overfishing encourages excess depletion (e.g., Hagfish) and serial depletion, and exacerbates

bycatch problems” (Murawski, 2000). He reiterates, “situations such as those existing off the northeast USA could

benefit greatly from a more formal mechanism to incorporate ecosystem perspectives (i.e., considerations or interactions) in the development of management goals and conservation measures (Murawski, 2000).6

“Ecosystem approaches, whether implemented as perspectives on traditional overfishing paradigms or through

explicit ecosystem-based definitions, require research and

advisory services not typically provided by fish stock assessment science. Nevertheless, additional ecosystem monitoring and research is necessary with increased emphasis

on species interactions, diversity and variability – at various temporal and spatial scales” (Murawski, 2000). He suggests, “ecosystem considerations may increasingly be used

to modify regulations intended primarily to conserve highvalue species, to address bycatches (e.g. sea turtles and

marine mammals are of significant concern), predator-prey

demands and the side-effects of fishing effort” (Murawski,

2000). Both Goethel (2002) and especially Hill (2002) lament

that “vessel capacity represents the most substantive and

controversial issue facing fishery managers at this time” in

the Northeast Continental Shelf area.

Yaffee (1996) emphasizes, “it is critical that innovations

in influencing human behavior, managing organizations, and

developing decision-making processes receive significant

attention as ecosystem management develops, for it is these

changes that will determine the future effectiveness and

relevance of such approaches.” He suggests that “what

works is the use of collaborative decision-making approaches, developing information and info networks, mobilize organizational change and innovation, educate and be
Page 16

educated and empower individuals” (Yaffee, 1996), though,

however, innovations in scientific knowledge and understanding may actually define and drive the debate.

Juda and Hennessey (2001) illustrated four kinds of governance related matrices for consideration of management

of LME’s. These included a human use matrix; the effects of

human use on ecosystems; impacts of ecosystem alterations

on human uses; and, a governance/use matrix example illustrating the Gulf of Maine as a geographical setting (see

also Sutinen, et al., 2000). The use of matrices, coupled with

careful analyses can illustrate integrated relationships between ecosystem effects from human uses and may also

provide a conceptual tool to educate public stakeholders

(e.g., Olsen 2000). Matrices may also be an appropriate comparative risk assessment LME approach to marine natural

resource assessment (e.g., Gable, 2000; Harwell et al., 1992).

LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

AS SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE (FISHERY)

ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED

MANAGEMENT UNITS

A new field of “sustainability science” is evolving. The

concept of sustainability relates to understanding the fundamental character of interactions between nature and society (Kates et al., 2001). For illustration here, nature refers

to the greater Georges Bank area and society refers to, in

part, fisherfolk, other stakeholders and government regulators of that “commons.” The interaction of global processes

with the ecological and social characteristics of particular

places and sectors may foster a better overall understanding for ecosystem interactions (e.g., Olsen, 2000). Griffis

and Kimball (1996) argue that a main ingredient of ecosystem approaches to resource management includes defining

sustainability and making it the primary goal or objective.

A novel approach to coastal and nearshore ecosystems

was applied by Sherman (1991). This concept is known as

the large marine ecosystems (LME) approach to the assessment and management of marine resources and is considered to present an emerging international customary law

paradigm for moving toward fishery sustainability (Belsky,

1985; Sherman and Duda, 1999b). Indeed, the LME approach

provides for accommodating human use while maintaining

ecosystem representation and integrity, among other goals

(e.g., Grumbine, 1994). Machlis et al., (1997) describe five

working principles that are central to LME management,

though considerably less inclusive in actual practice. These

principles include “(1) socially defined goals and management objectives, (2) integrated holistic science, (3) broad

spatial and temperal scales, (4) adaptable institutions, and

(5) collaborative decision making.”

The Northeast Continental Shelf comprises 260,000 km2

from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to the Gulf of Maine.

This region has contributed some $1 billion annually to the

economy of the adjacent coastal states from yields of living

marine resources such as, molluscs, crustaceans, fish and

algae (Sherman, 1991; Pontecorvo et al., 1980). Historically

throughout the United States in 1994, for example, $3.8 billion in dockside revenues from U.S. commercial fisheries

was contributing to a total of $20.2 billion in value added to

the Gross National Product (West Group, 1996). Further, by

weight of catch, as a whole the U.S. is the fifth largest fishing nation in the world and the second largest seafood exporter, having shipped more than $3 billion worth of fishery

products in 1994 (West Group, 1996). By 1999, U.S. commercial landings from marine fisheries provided some $3.5 billion with a value added estimated contribution of $27 billion

to the U.S. economy (Scavia et al., 2001). These figures

didn’t include proceeds from recreational fishing efforts.

“Despite appeals for ecosystem management of ocean

fisheries, development of multispecies stock assessment

methods and new concepts of large marine ecosystems,

few fisheries are actually managed on a multispecies basis”

(Botsford, et al., 1997). “New assessment methods and management approaches account for both biological and technical (for example, through nets harvesting several species)

interactions among species. However, ecosystem management of marine systems requires a sophisticated understanding of ecosystem dynamics and the organization of component communities. The development of marine ecosystem

management lags significantly behind management of terrestrial and freshwater systems due to undersampling of

the oceans, their three-dimensional nature and the difficulty in replicating and controlling experiments” (Botsford,

et al., 1997; see also Rudd, 2004).

“Ocean ecosystems are influenced as much by changes

in the physical environment as by humans. The effects of

the physical environment on marine ecosystems make it

difficult to define sustainability in the context of ecosystem

management” (Botsford, et al., 1997; but see: Gislason, et

al., 2000; Witherell, et al., 2000; Kates, et al., 2001; Busch,

2003; Busch, et al., 2003). A promising challenging “protocol for the development of ecosystem models for management involves use of adaptive management to identify

strong interactions and erect interaction webs that include

physical as well as biological components” (Botsford, at

al., 1997). In the mid-1990’s Boehlert, (1996) suggested, “research on multispecies or ecosystem management has come

a long way, but the approach is not at a stage for implementation. Adaptive fisheries management uses management

regimes in an experimental manner to learn about the processes regulating fish population size as well as interactions among species.”

Young (2003) remarks, “analysts are increasingly aware

that fish stocks clearly are components of larger ecosystems. Both abiotic and biotic processes operating in these

larger systems can have dramatic impacts on the condition

of individual stocks. Interdependencies between different

species also can have major consequences for the condition of individual stocks. Consider the case of cod, which

prey on herring and capelin. Significant changes in the size

and location of herring and capelin stocks may go unno-
Page 17

ticed by those focusing on cod stocks.” Young, (2003)

states, “the North Atlantic Oscillation, for instance, can

make areas inhospitable to specific groups of fish. Shifts in

the abundance of cod off New England and the eastern

coast of Canada are thought by many observers to be associated with changes in water temperatures in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Large marine ecosystems are not

the stable systems they were once thought to be. Ecosystems may not automatically return to equilibrium following

relatively severe perturbations.” Operating within and beyond the bounds of large marine ecosystems (LME’s) are

climate change and variability forces that affect the condition of individual fish stocks. Long-range transport of pollution from terrestrial runoff and from merchant vessels are

other large scale exogenous forces exerting variability on

individual fish stocks (Young, 2003). “Ecosystem approaches

in fisheries management are still in their infancy” (Perry, at

al., 1999; Figure 28).

“Considerable progress has been made in recent years

in developing ecosystem-based approaches to large marine ecosystems... There have since been significant moves

toward more such integrated approaches (pioneered for

Antarctic waters with the Convention on the Conservation

of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to marine resource management that better recognize ecological

linkages and attempt to take account not just of target species but also the ecosystem to which they belong. The

CCAMLR has raised awareness of the interdependency of

its various components” (Larkin, 1996). Belsky (1999) argues “that prevention of harm and ‘rational and equitable

use’ mean that resources and uses must be studied and

managed in a comprehensive manner, focusing on the large

marine ecosystems in which resources exist.” As such, “the

concept of large marine ecosystems (LME’s) is now widely

accepted” (Probert, 2002). Belsky (1999) adds, “the evolution of the marine ecosystem approach from preferred policy

to binding (international) customary law is demonstrated

by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS, 1982), which came into effect in November, 1994.”

“The movement towards an ecosystem-approach is best

represented by the Convention on the Conservation of

Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) which was

ratified in 1982. This treaty represents the first attempt to

develop and apply an ecosystem management approach”

(English, et al., 1988). And, as discussed and described in

this manuscript, LME’s are now a part of “best practices”

international customary law (see: Belsky, 1985; Juda and

Hennessey, 2001; Duda and Sherman, 2002). Knecht, (1994)

proffers, “the ocean governance process and policymakers...

need to take account of goals and principles emerging at

the international level since these are likely to play a role in

shaping future national ocean governance schemes” (see

also Costanza, et al., 1998).

Sutinen and Sobeil (2003) state, “The World Bank and

the Global Environment Facility (GEF) have adopted the

LME approach to marine ecosystem research and management, viewing it as an effective way to manage and organize

scientific research on natural processes occurring within

marine ecosystems and to study how pollutants travel within

marine systems.” LME’s also are an appropriate scale to

conduct a comparative risk assessment (e.g., Gable, 2000).

Longhurst, (2003) points out, “LME’s are clearly an idea

with which the international funding agencies are comfortable because it suggests formal structure (the standard five

LME modules; Figure 2). It has achieved a high level of

recognition and has become a symbol for generalized environmental concern among scientists and national environment agencies.” And, as discussed and described in this

manuscript, LME’s are now a part of “best practices” international customary law (see: Belsky, 1985; Juda and

Hennessey, 2001; Duda and Sherman, 2002).

Sutinen and Sobeil (2003) also remark, “LME’s can be divided further into subsystems such as the Gulf of Maine,

Georges Bank, Southern New England, and the Mid-Atlantic

Bight in the case of the Northeast USA Continental Shelf” (see

Figure 29; Sherman, et al., 1996). The LME approach to management links watershed catchment basins and intertidal

coastal zones with continental shelves and littoral ocean currents.” Rosenberg (2003) suggests, “the LME can extend from

riverine and estuarine environments out into the coastal ocean,

and even far offshore.” The LME management approach, inter

alia, provides a framework for research assessment, modeling

and monitoring to potentially provide prediction for better

policy decision-making. It also aids in focusing assessments

and management on sustainable ecosystem oriented integrity.

And, the LME approach addresses sustainable development

of living marine resources in a holistic multi-faceted manner.

(Sutinen and Sobeil, 2003). One jarring problem to successful

implementation of the LME approach, according to Sutinen

and Sobeil, (2003) may be the imperfect fit between the spatial

and temporal scales of government jurisdictional agencies and

ecosystems.

In the United States, for example, the eight regional fishery management councils resulting from the MFCMA of

1976 (applied March 1st 1977) provides a salient mechanism

(but see Okey, 2003) for alliances and partnerships between

and among private sector stakeholders such as the fishing

and processing industries, non-federal agencies such as

particular state marine resources divisions, interstate compacts such as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and non-governmental for- profit and non-profit organizations. LME management also requires an increase in

overall interagency coordination at all levels of government (federal, state and regional/local) (Sutinen and Soboil,

2003). Rosenberg (2003) states that the “LME concept is

helpful for thinking of the linkages of biological, chemical

and physical factors across large areas of the coastal ocean.

Affecting any one part of the LME potentially can have

repercussions throughout the region. The LME provides a

framework for thinking about potential impacts.” The impacts on fisheries ecosystems (the biological, oceanographic and physical environment that supports commercial and recreational species within a specified management

area) of multiple ocean uses including, sand and gravel
Page 18

mining, submarine telecommunications cables, oil and gas

energy development, marine transportation, contaminants

disposal (also known as “ocean dumping”), recreational

tourism and aquaculture, can occur at the scale of LME’s or

may be localized in scope (Rosenberg, 2003).

Rosenberg (2003) argues, “aquaculture may cause habitat degradation and competitive interactions between farmed

and wild fish, which in combination reduce the productivity

of the ecosystem and hence fisheries.” “Aquaculture is

considered by some to eventually mitigate global overfishing, yet those cultured fish which require more meal derived

from wildfish per unit mass of aquaculture fish produced

place even further pressure on already overexploited wild

populations” (Verity, et al., 2002). From a management policy

perspective, competing uses of the oceans are likely to be

complex (Rosenberg, 2003). Verity et al., (2002) state, “it is

well known that fish recruitment and fishery yield can vary

10 fold from one year to another, and that variability within

one region over many years has scarcely been studied.”

“There is substantial evidence that climate influences longterm fluctuations in fish stocks that are also exploited commercially. The notion that climate changes and fisheries

exploitation interact to cause more persistent changes in

ecosystem structure and function than either would alone

derives from evidence that climate and exploitation together

accelerate species replacement” (Verity, et al., 2002; see also

Skud, 1982). Verity et al., (2002) proffer, “one of the very

reasons that it is so difficult to discriminate direct human

impacts on fisheries from climate-induced changes is that

the two may often be synergistic.”

Considering the need for expanded perspective in the

marine pelagic ecosystem, “a new conceptual framework is

required around which to organize future research, data

interpretation, and diagnostic prediction” (Verity, et al., 2002);

the LME approach can now be considered as a best practice. Changing the paradigm about marine pelagic ecosystems will take time to implement (Verity et al., 2002). They

conclude, “linking research and education is fundamental

to achieving success in any endeavor where public policy,

environmental conservation, and stewardship of natural

resources are all equal players” (Verity et al., 2002). “’The

ecosystem concept is very much like the concept of the

hereafter: everyone understands what is meant by it but no

one can define exactly what it is’” (Verity et al., 2002; but

see Figures 8 & 9; see also Haeuber, 1996; Figure 30).

Schramm and Hubert (1996) suggest, “ecosystem management makes a lot of sense if we identify it as a philosophy, a set of values. It recognizes that humans – including

their societies, technologies, economies, needs, and values

– are part of the ecosystem.” “Implementation of ecosystem management presents a basic hurdle: consideration of

the environment and all its components such as ecosystem

health, ecological integrity, biological diversity, and the

values of people (e.g., the general public, private property

owners, and elected officials” (Schramm and Hubert, 1996).

“The essential components of ecosystem management are

sustainable yield, maintenance of biodiversity and protection from the effects of pollution and habitat degradation. It

is centered on managing the top-down or fisheries component in the context of special measures of protection for

particular species” (Larkin, 1996). Larkin (1996) claims, “the

development of the LME concept is a contemporary crystallization of broader perspectives in fisheries management.”

Beamish and Mahnken (1999) suggest that ecosystem

management “requires an understanding of the influences

that regulate species naturally. Two of the most frequent

news topics in recent years have been fisheries and climate.

Climate will continue to be an important item in the news...

but fisheries may become less so, as we stabilize our expectations through an improved understanding of the interrelationships among species and their ecosystems.” “Regimes

are large, linked climate-ocean ecosystems that shift in states

over 10 to 30 year periods” (Beamish and Mahnken, 1999).

These authors on page six of their manuscript find that

“shifts in the mean carrying capacity occur when there are

shifts in a regime.” And carrying capacity is considered to

be the mean biomass that can be supported in an ecosystem in a particular state or regime. “Ecosystem management

is an exercise in long-term, precautionary thinking. It is acceptable not to know things” (Beamish and Mahnken, 1999).

Larkin (1996) laments that a perennial source of debate

in fisheries management is “whether changes in the physical environment (bottom up) or the effects of harvesting

(top down) are responsible for major changes in abundance.

Applied to marine ecosystems, the term ecosystem management is scientific shorthand for the contemporary appreciation that fisheries management must take greater note

of the multispecies interactions” (Larkin, 1996, see: Figure

31). “The point remains that the biological objective of ecosystem management must specify the species mix that is

desired in the yield and this may only be possible in general

terms” (Larkin, 1996). “The combined abundance of all species in a guild, that is, species that exploit the same class of

resources in a similar way might more accurately reflect

changes in resources or limiting factors. The relative abundance of species within a guild might change if only some

species are harvested” (Larkin, 1996; see also Garrison and

Link, 2000). Often the best way of ensuring acceptance and

implementation of research findings – with special relevance

to fishing – is through participatory research. Integrated

fisheries management (IFM) “stress the interaction between

the fish resources, the fishing industry and institutional

structures” (Larkin, 1996). Larkin (1996) mentions “the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) has as the

main goal of ecosystem management to ensure that human

activities do not significantly alter the natural course of

ecosystem dynamics” (see also Figure 32).

MacKenzie (1997) finds that the “complexity of the ecological system virtually demands an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving.” Further, “scientific information

must be translated into public policy and framed within the

legal structures that govern society. Once agencies and

individuals are enjoined in the process, a framework for

decision-making must be created. This is the key proce-
Page 19

dural challenge of the ecosystem approach” (Figure 33)

Using lessons learned from experience in the Great Lakes of

North America, integrated resource management strategy

demonstrates, “while consensus is viewed as important,

most decisions are made through a formal voting procedure

with majority rule” as it should. “The ecosystem approach

is advocated as a promising tool for marine integrated resource management” (MacKenzie, 1997; see also Odum,

1969; Christensen, 2000; Slocombe, 1993 & 1998). MacKenzie

(1997) declares, “the agency perspective is important because a basic challenge of the ecosystem approach is to

bring different agencies, organizations, and interests into

close working relationships.” Procedural aspects and issues, such as agency participation, decision-making process and the (inter)disciplinary representation of individuals are important to integrated resource management. Challenges to an ecosystem approach, including that referring

to program implementation include, funding or budgeting,

demonstrating tangible results, tracking projects, and training, among others.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

IN PROTOCOLS FOR

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Pitcher (2001) states, “many fisheries ecologists call for

ecosystem management but there have been few clear statements of what its objective should be. Trying to define

alternative optimal sustainable yields for each stakeholder

results only in confusion.” McGinn (1999) posits that the

fisherfolk community, fishery managers, politicians and the

public (i.e., society) all need to coalesce to reshape fishery

incentives (e.g., Figure 27). McGinn (1999) adds that in order to move toward sustainable fisheries, reshaping fishing

practices behavior and incentives should be facilitated that

are ecologically sustainable, economically viable and socially diverse. Barber and Taylor (1990) state, “objectives

operationally support goals, that is, ideals, major accomplishments, ends, or states of affairs to be achieved, and are

measurable.” Further, “objectives are specific, measurable,

and verifiable statements of intermediate tasks that must be

accomplished to attain a goal.” Objectives support goals,

“they are verifiable, specific, and quantifiable, and have a

performance measure attached through which the management agency can be evaluated for its progress and effectiveness” (Barber and Taylor, 1990). It is implied that a “fisheries management organization’s goals and objectives are a

reflection of the participants’ values (those of the managers

as well as the values of those trying to influence the decisions). Making these value judgements involves identifying, selecting, articulating, and ranking goals and objectives” (Barber and Taylor, 1990; see also Figure 34).

“The formalization of maximum sustainable yield (MSY)

objectives undoubtedly involved values that formed the

utilization ethic of managers and the belief that socioeconomic issues should not be considered (Barber and Taylor,

1990). The goal of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) can be

challenged on several grounds, one of which is that “it did

not account for species other than the focus of the fishery.

It was not holistic MSY left out too many relevant features,” such as ecosystem considerations. “Greater holism

in fisheries management can be achieved by consideration

of multiple species interactions, broad-scale physical forcing and the response of management to pressure for greater

harvests under uncertainty” (Botsford, et al., 1997). “In more

recent years, industry has become more involved in management with the advent of optimum yield (OY) goal, which

has been legally formalized under the Magnuson Fisheries

Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) as amended

in the United States. Based on the OY goal, the MFCMA

recognized the importance of socioeconomic and political

goals and objectives.” “The goals and objectives of optimum yield management are more diverse than those established solely for conservation purposes” (Barber and Taylor, 1990). This seems true today with the three additional

National Standards promulgated in October 1996 by way of

the Sustainable Fisheries Act (P.L. 104-297) including sustainable communities and safety as sea (see Table 4).

The fisheries manager “may recognize that the shortterm economic health of fishermen or political needs must

be addressed, or to ‘survive’ in the organization, emphasis

might be placed on values that weigh more heavily towards

social or economic goals than towards conservation goals”

(Barber and Taylor, 1990). “A common management action

that typifies a suboptimal external focus is to set very broadly

stated goals, without supporting objectives, that accommodate the values of many diverse external groups. We

contend that fisheries management suffers from this common management error” (Barber and Taylor, 1990). The purpose of their paper is “a call to recognize that clearly defined goals, measurable objectives, and acknowledged values are necessary components of effective fisheries management” (Barber and Taylor, 1990).

According to De La Mare (1998) “fisheries management

requires the collaboration of fisheries managers (decision

makers), scientists, the fishing industry and other community interests. It requires, inter alia, the formulation of public policy and the development of scientific advice for its

implementation. Objectives for fisheries management are

usually expressed in vague terms which scientists find ambiguous or uninterpretable.” He emphasizes, “fisheries management involves both biotic and abiotic factors. The biotic factors are the exploited stocks and their interactions

with competitors, predators and prey, as well as the effects

of the physical environment on them; the study of this complex forms the mainstream of fisheries science.” Regarding

the scientific approaches to fisheries management further

progress is required in areas not well studied, “these lie

largely in the management world and often involve the interface between science and policy” – some feel that management objectives and procedures are considered to be

outside the realm of science (De La Mare, 1998).
Page 20

A management-oriented paradigm (one that crosses the

boundaries of traditional fisheries scientific, economic and

policy research) would have decision makers pondering,

“the objectives, the time scales over which they are to be

achieved and considering the means and the path we choose

to get there. Not considering the system as a whole tends

to lead to myopic short-term solutions to problems” (De La

Mare, 1998). Regarding the multiple objectives fisheries

management structure, one solution, will lie in the “redefinition of ‘ownership’ away from single species to portfolios

of species. The promotion of sustainable ecosystems does

not necessarily depend on a particular property rights regime but rather on an institutional environment that promotes those basic functions” (Hanna, 1998). Burroughs and

Clark (1995) remark that long-term sustainability of primarily commercial species, manipulation to improve higher value

stocks, and maximizing economic benefits to the fisherfolk,

are typical objectives for LME management. Greater holism

for multispecies ecosystem management of fisheries as an

agent of “human dominated” fisheries management is

stressed by Botsford et al. (1997).

Brodziak and Link (2002) suggest that partly because of

the nature of the fishery-management institutions and the

lack of a management oriented paradigm reliable and effective management is probably the most difficult step in ecosystem-based fishery management. Further complicating the

situation for managers are the multispecies nature of some

fisheries and bycatch issues. Their contention is that although it may be sufficient to rebuild depleted groundfish

resources, a single-species approach to fishery management does little to help rebuild the fishery (Brodziak and

Link, 2002). Considering LME goals, Sherman and Duda

(1999a&b) highlight a paradigm shift in ecosystem management from a) individual species to ecosystems; b) small

spatial scale to multiple scales; c) short-term perspective to

decadal long-term; d) human independent to humans as an

integral part; e) management apart from research to adaptive management; and f) managing commodities to sustaining production for goods and services coming out of the

ecosystems (see also Witherell, 2004 at page 185).

LMEs AS A PART OF INTEGRATED

COASTAL MANAGEMENT

Alexander (1999) defines LME management as “the regulation of activities and resources to achieve certain objectives. The most common objective being sustainability of

the living marine resources including ecologically sensitive

areas preservation.” Other prospective objectives for LME

management may include, user conflict accommodation (e.g.,

“wind farms” in traditional/historical fisheries catch areas);

obtaining wealth from the sea in greater values; and, or

increasing (applied) scientific knowledge of regional or global phenomena to formulate better forecasts or predictions

of weather and climate events on fisheries variability. The

holistic or integrated approach to LME management would

typically involve the drainage basins of rivers and lakes

whose waters flow into the coastal zone that encompass

and LME area (Alexander, 1999).

“Both integrated coastal management (ICM) and the

management of large marine ecosystems (LME’s) are concepts that were endorsed by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in June,

1992” (Olsen, 1999). Olsen goes on to say, “both LME management and ICM are based on the principle that an overt

systems approach to resource management holds the greatest promise for defining sustainable intensities and types

of human use at various scales. The focus should be on

ecosystems defined as coherent, self-defined, and self-organizing units, comprising interacting ecologic, economic,

and social components.”

Olsen (1999) states, “ICM’s emphasis on the process of

governance (arrayed around the policy process), on participation, on public education, on (issue-driven) consensus building, and on voluntary compliance all can be of real

use as the management of LME’s and research on the ecosystem process become more important. Indeed, the evolution of domestic U.S. oriented LME’s depicts the importance of problems raised by the interactions between human society (for example, the 10 National Standards found

in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, see: Table 4) and

the coastal ecosystems of which they are a part” (Olsen,

1999). Olsen (2001) states that integrated coastal management “is a form of adaptive management,” and that it “requires understanding the interplay between social processes

and ecosystem change.” “Ecosystem governance of all

kinds, and coastal governance in particular, are not nested

across scales and are full of contradictions and gaps.” Science gives legitimacy to particular policy options or lines of

argument and makes the debate over contentious issues an

informed one (Olsen, 2001).

Olsen (2003) argues, “the ultimate goal of sustainable

forms of coastal development is today an undefined ideal.”

He further suggests, “sustainable development requires

achieving yet to be defined equilibria among both social

and environmental qualities” (Olsen, 2003). Regarding a

framework and indicators for tracking the processes by

which integrated coastal management initiatives evolve,

Olsen (2003) states, “there are many variations to how the

policy cycle model (e.g., Figure 18) can be adapted to integrated coastal management, but the central idea of a multiple step cycle of planning-commitment – implementationevaluation remains constant” (see also e.g. Gable, 2003;

Jones, 1984). “A culture of learning with high standards of

accountability and professional excellence must be fostered

within the emerging profession of coastal ecosystem governance” (Olsen, 2003).

Perrings (2000) states, “there is a general consensus that

land-based processes pose a major threat to marine capture

fisheries in many parts of the world, however, the linkages

between terrestrial activities and the state of such systems

are complex.” Indeed, Perrings on page 514 of his manu-
Page 21

script also mentions, “other coastal developments, particularly for tourism also have had adverse effects on the productivity of hard-substratum marine systems such as coastal

ecosystems.” It is likely that the serial depletion of fish

stocks is an example of environmental degradation linked

to structural adjustment policies. Perrings (2000) suggests

that from his analysis “four main categories of ‘sustainability’

indicators dominate the marine capture fisheries literature:”

(a) stock catch levels; (b) biodiversity indicators; (c) ecosystem health indicators, and (d) indicators of socioeconomic stress. Ecosystem health indicators, for example, are

oftentimes combined with biomass yield and biodiversity

indicators (Perrings, 2000; Sherman, 1995 & 1994).

Conventional socioeconomic stress indicators (e.g. catch

per unit effort (CPUE), employment, investment, prices, productivity and income distribution) are sometimes combined

with biological indicators focuses on the industry rather

than the underlying ecosystem (Perrings, 2000; see Figure

35). Under this rubric, “the indicators should make it possible to fit models of the causal linkage between terrestrial

activities and capture fisheries” in integrated coastal area

management (e.g. Figure 15). He proffers, “the problem in

regulated fisheries lies in the fact that harvesting limits have

been set in the context of negotiations that make little reference to fishery science” (Perrings, 2000). He cites as one

example, the problem of the Atlantic Blue Fin Tuna

(underreporting of catch issues) as well as the earlier collapse of North Sea and Atlantic Herring resources.

“An indicator is a statistic or parameter that tracked over

time, provides information on trends in the condition of a

phenomenon and has significance extending beyond that

associated with the properties of the statistic itself. Environmental indicators focus on trends in environmental

changes, stresses causing them, how the ecosystem and

its components are responding to these changes, and societal responses to prevent, reduce or ameliorate these

stresses” (Vandermeulen, 1998). As the basis for indicator

development an ‘issues’ approach can be adapted.

Vandermeulen (1998) acknowledges, “natural forces may

also cause stresses, but the focus for indicators is on human causes since decision makers in society have more

ability to do something about them.” An example indicator

of sustainable use or marine resources with links to coastal

zone management includes commercial catch of all Atlantic

herring stocks designated in a yearly trend series, in relation to spawning biomass trends and/or landed value of

catch (Vandermeulen, 1998).

Bowen and Riley (2003) claim, “creating an indicator

framework that has a place for both process and outcome

indicators can help trace management efforts more directly

to environmental and social conditions.” They suggest that

process indicators include, among others, laws written and

passed, budget provided and money spent, licenses or permits issued or denied and management programs implemented. “Outcome indicators document the changes in social or physical conditions brought about by the activities

of the public program (e.g. measures of organizational learning or progress; see e.g. Figure 4). “Achieving the goals

(and objectives) of integrated coastal management (and LME

approaches) requires a clear picture of programmatic

progress, environmental conditions and influencing anthropogenic factors. Attempting to tease out the relative contributions of natural cycles, episodic events, and anthropogenic influence requires sophisticated statistical analysis

and the occasional heroic assumption(s).” Socioeconomic,

ecological, and management indicators all fit into a linked

approach to (e.g. LME) program performance (Bowen and

Riley, 2003).

Antunes and Santos (1999) claim, “the development of

monitoring systems capable of providing information on

(large) marine ecosystems and their response to pressures

generated by human activities, is essential to improve ocean

governance.” Further, “interdisciplinary research is needed

to develop linked physical-biological-chemical models and

to integrate the socioeconomic dimension” (Antunes and

Santos, 1999). The LME approach does this effectively.

“Compared to other research areas, fisheries science started

early to link the knowledge accumulated by natural and

human science (economics and biology, in particular;

Catanzano and Mesnil, 1995). “In many cases, the choice of

gear is the primary factor in the fisherman’s ‘project,’ even

more so than the choice of target species.” Since “most

gears require a special vessel design or at least specific onboard equipment” (Catanzano and Mesnil, 1995).

Clay and McGoodwin (1995) state that a fisheries system involves the “physical environment, marine organisms,

and the people who harvest, utilize and manage these resources.” “Social scientists see fisheries as complex systems, involving harvesters, buyers, processors, wholesalers, retailers and consumers; support industries such as

equipment, fuel and ice suppliers; families and community

networks; and scientists, managers, administrators, and legislators. The interactions of these various individuals and

groups, their knowledge bases, values and perceptions of

the fishery, all contribute to the types of fisheries policies

enacted, as well as to the success or failure of management

systems.” Social science studies examine both the structure of national, regional, and local management institutions and the adoption of formal and informal rules at the

management/agency level by which fisheries policies are

crafted (Clay and McGoodwin, 1995). “There is increasing

recognition that fisheries management is as much a ‘people

management’ problem as a biological or economic one. By

definition, a fishery does not exist in the absence of human

fishing effort. Effective fisheries management must be responsive not only to the biological and economic concerns,

but to social and political ones as well” (Clay and

McGoodwin, 1995).

Crance and Draper (1996) suggest that an important behavioral solution in coastal zone management resources

decisions is “based on awareness of ecosystem resources,

regional coordination for resource protection, and the use

and development with due regard to needs of local populations.” Trade-offs between economic, social and ecological
Page 22

components or resource management may become clearer

when behavioral solutions are incorporated in (fishery)

management plans” (Crance and Draper, 1996). “The central defining concept in integrated coastal management is

the effective integration across sectors, disciplines, agencies, and stakeholders for the sustainable use of coastal

areas and resources” (Poitras, et al., 2003). For the integration across sectors, they define consensus as “the building

of agreement regarding integrated coastal management decisions among government agencies, user groups and local

communities through informed discussion, negotiation and

public participation” (Poitras, et al., 2003).

A policy orientation approach (e.g. Gable, 2003) within

an LME paradigm may be quite complementary to the existing scientific and conservation rationale to management

(units) of LME’s espoused by Sherman (1991 & 1994) and

the ecosystem elements for management described in

Hennessey (1998; see: Table 2). Combining local and scientific knowledge, including the intuitions and experiences of

fisherfolk (MacKinson and Noettestad, 1998; Wilen, et al.,

2002) into a LME policy process framework may uncover

the logical set of policy activities associated with government regulation of fisheries while simultaneously producing a learning-based approach to fisheries management from

an overall coastal area management perspective (e.g.,

Crance and Draper, 1996; Olsen et al., 1998).

THE NEED FOR ECOLOGICAL STUDY:

JELLYFISH AND CONTEMPORARY

CLIMATE CHANGE

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council

(NPFMC) noted, for example, “jellyfish in both the Gulf of

Alaska and the Eastern Bering Sea have increased with the

largest increases occurring in the 1990’s in the Eastern Bering

Sea and late 1980’s for the Gulf of Alaska. Some relationship

with oceanographic variables is hypothesized” (Livingston,

1999; see also Brodeur, et al., 1999). One “other species”

indicator discussed as it relates to “non-specified species

bycatch” was that there were large increases in jellyfish in

2000 relative to 1999 and they were dominant species in the

“non-specified bycatch (Livingston, 2001). Pitcher, (2001)

reports on huge jellyfish increases in the Adriatic, Bering,

Black and South China Seas and the role gelatinous zooplankton play in destabilizing marine ecosystems.

Perhaps there are other factor(s) or threats at work in the

temperate zone of the North Atlantic Ocean. Levitus et al.

(2000) have found a “statistically significant” warming of

the world ocean, in the last few decades, including temperate regions of the North Atlantic. Barnett, et al., (2001) more

or less confirmed the ocean warming hypothesis discussed

by Levitus and his colleagues. Moreover, Robinson (1994)

has uncovered that there is a relatively constant predatorto-prey size ratio in littoral aquatic food chains and that

large interannual variability in plankton production results

from climatic atmospheric forcing in coastal nearshore environs. Therefore, this recent ocean warming trend in temperate oceanic regions could lead to a possible “regime

shift” in the large marine ecosystem encompassing the

Northeast United States Continental Shelf (Steele, 1998).

“The regime concept forces scientists to examine the natural processes that regulate fish abundance, particularly

those processes linked to climate-ocean conditions”

(McFarlane, et al., 2000; see also Figure 12).

Steele and Schumacher (2000) have found that “pelagic

invertebrate predators, such as “jellies” play a large role in

present energy flow patterns for Georges Bank. They are

also a dominant component of unexploited open ocean ecosystems.” Mlot (1997) writes that hydroids, which are related to jellyfish and anemones, prey directly on Georges

Bank fish larvae, and on copepods, which the fish also eat,

they can reduce the survival of fish larvae by 50 percent.

Further, Purcell and Arai (2001) found that gelatinous predators’ selection for fish eggs and larvae has been positive for

every species for which it has been calculated. They go on

to mention that large gelatinous species while feeding on

high densities of ichthyoplankton may eat tens to hundreds

of fish eggs and larvae daily (Purcell and Arai, 2001). In the

Gulf of Maine area Mills (2001) suggests that it seems that

the numbers of ‘jellies’ may have increased in recent decades in important fishing grounds perhaps in relation to

ocean warming. Quoting from Mills (2001) “the problem of

ocean change is very real. It is unfortunate that we have so

little population and ecological data about medusae and

ctenophores in the field that we usually cannot presently

distinguish between fluctuations and long term, possibly

irreversible change.”

Thus, an ecosystem-oriented hypothesis is that there is

a natural experiment of interactions between pelagic invertebrate “jellies” with commercial fish species in the northwest Atlantic Ocean continental shelf area that may have

equally deleterious regional effects on populations as that

of overfishing (e.g. Safina, 2003; Repetto, 2001) or inefficient harvesting. Finding the ecological data that will either

prove or find the null hypothesis as part of overall fisheries

science and management in this large marine ecosystem is

therefore necessary (e.g. Fogarty, 2001). Jackson et al. (2001)

have illustrated some of the important top-down (food web)

ecosystem interactions due to overfishing that in temperate estuarine environments, jellyfish have become more

abundant trophically after anthropogenic fishing efforts to

the detriment of zooplankton on which they feed. Thus, an

assumption is that there is a synergistic effect between

these “forcings.” Earlier, Vitousek et al. (1997) found that 22

percent of recognized marine fisheries as of 1995 were overexploited or already depleted, and 44 percent more were at

their limit of exploitation. Further, they mentioned that worldwide commercial marine fisheries discard 27 million tons of

non-target species annually, a quantity nearly one-third as

large as total landings. Gelatinous marine invertebrates such

as ctenophores, or comb jellies, are common predators in

coastal waters (Madin, 2001; Moeller, 1984) and biological
Page 23

information needs to be found about them in order to ascertain sustainable harvest levels of commercial fishing from

season to season.

Murawski (1993) has tested the sensitivity of marine fish

distributions in the western North Atlantic to oscillations in

ocean temperature for select commercial groundfish species and indications are fishery ranges may, in time, move

poleward. This type of evolutionary global change marine

science should be taken into account in fishery management plans (FMP’s) and strategies (e.g., Scavia et al., 2002;

Figure 20). The effects of increased carbon dioxide on marine fisheries are indirect rather than direct, and occur through

changes in the physical and chemical characteristics of the

ocean environment (e.g., Frank et al., 1990; Levitus et al.,

2000). Indeed, climate induced alterations can best be discerned, and policies developed to mitigate unwanted effects, in a holistic ecosystem-oriented manner that an LME

program provides. Climatic variability has a principal controlling influence on the structure of a littoral marine fish

assemblage (Attrill and Power, 2002) and thus recruitment

variability (e.g., Rothschild, 2000).

Gonzalez (1996) finds, “major ecosystem processes are

climate-driven governed by broad regimes of temperature

and precipitation” (see Figure 12). As a regulatory agency

embraces the goal of protecting entire ecosystems “it will

need to rank ecosystems at risk in order to set priorities.” A

“zoom-lens approach” (see also by example, Figure 19) affords an agency to see more clearly at which scale monitoring is appropriate and to “focus” or refine their efforts

(Gonzalez, 1996). Thus, it is quite likely, “a high degree of

interagency cooperation at various scales will be required

for an ecosystem approach to be workable and successful”

(Gonzalez, 1996; see also Grumbine, 1994).

DISCUSSION

Lasswell (1951) stated more than fifty years ago that

“the pace of specialization in philosophy, natural science,

biology, and the social sciences has been so rapid that

colleagues...often complain that they cannot understand

one another.” Hayes (1992) believes “science has become

more difficult for nonspecialists to understand is a truth

universally acknowledged.” Lasswell (1951) further commented that broad fields of knowledge (e.g. marine affairs)

are needed in order to have a vision of the whole, thus, the

ecosystem-oriented approach of the LME embraces such a

view in living marine resource management. Lasswell (1951)

points out that policy sciences - policy orientation can be

considered “as the disciplines regarded with explaining the

policy-making and policy-executing process.” These are then

combined with locating data and information and providing

interpretations which are relevant to the policy problems of

a given timeframe, scale, and domain (Lasswell, 1951; e.g.,

MacKinson and Noettestad, 1998; Longhurst, 1998). Hence,

a policy orientation approach that provides a summary of

Northeast Shelf LME living resources and their utilization

practices (Gable, 2003) could serve for identifying the best

practices record for the ecosystem while utilizing the best

available science ecosystem-oriented indices (Link et al.,

2002).

Lynch et al., (1999) suggest that a new “joint venture”

strategy for ecosystem management is emerging among

regulatory agencies (Figure 29). Management agencies “continue to struggle with the problem of how to define in operational terms, let alone implement an ecosystem-based

framework for managing fisheries” (Hall, 2002). Haeuber

(1996) suggests, “the evolution of scientific knowledge regarding the functioning of natural systems and the linkages between natural and human systems, has increased

our understanding of the emerging generation of environmental problems.” “Focusing events” in the marine environment have lifted the visibility of fishery related environmental problems (Haeuber, 1996). “Environmental events

can change the carrying capacity for short or long periods

and alter the competitive environment indirectly, or through

direct mortality may change predator-prey proportions or

the relative dominance of competing species” (Hollowed,

et al., 2000; see also Skud, 1982).

“An interdisciplinary scientific effort is needed to develop methodologies for better understanding and detection of ecosystem change, as well as evaluation of different

ecological functions” (von Bodungen and Turner, 2001;

Figure 36). Ecosystem management “involves working

across property boundaries and political jurisdictions, and

requires intellectual, physical and monetary resources to

address environmental issues which are not the exclusive

domain of any one entity” (Michaels, et al., 1999). Knowledge of species life history parameters is perhaps a good

starting point for ecosystem assessment and management

approaches (King and McFarlane, 2003). “Environmental

pressure builds up via socioeconomic driving forces and is

augmented by natural systems variability, which leads to

changes in environmental systems states and finally to the

loss of goods and services. Although marine systems may

be much more sensitive to changes in their environment,

they also may be much more resilient more adaptable in

terms of recovery response to stress and shock” (von

Bodungen and Turner, 2001). These authors claim, “fisheries policies in most countries have reflected the schism

between science and managers/users. It has not been

straightforward for scientists to relate their science to the

various stages in the policy cycle, and for policy makers to

recognize what science is needed or what scientific results

have to be incorporated at which time in the policy cycle

(von Bodungen and Turner, 2001).

Talaue-McManus et al., (2003) suggest, “climate change,

international trade and development, and mass tourism are

among what may be considered as global factors affecting

coastal areas.” As regards to interpreting indicators, their

interpretation in site-specific cases, however, requires as

much knowledge as is available about the geophysical and

biological processes taking place upstream in an LME estu-
Page 24

ary or watershed and within an estuary as well as downstream in the adjacent receiving waters of the coastal ocean,

where the “quantity and quality of river discharge is a critical determinant of the status of continental shelf ecosystems” (Hall, 2002). Thus, this is important because out of

13,200 known species or marine fish, almost 80 percent are

coastal (Belfiore, 2003). And as mentioned earlier, “no widely

accepted and tested set of sustainable measures exists” for

coastal waters (Belfiore, 2003; Figure 37).

LEGITIMACY FOR DOMESTIC

ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED FISHERIES

MANAGEMENT

One may assume that the LME process is entering an

advanced state of utilization if one employs the “policy

process” found in Jones (1984). And it appears that facets

of the LME paradigm, in combination with the precautionary approach, have taken root in international custom law.

But has marine ecosystem-oriented management for the

public domain explicitly seen legitimation through legislation by elected government in the United States (Keiter,

1996)?7 The answer is a “qualified yes” since this research

is pertinent to evolving Congressional policy as well as the

findings of the Congressional mandated U.S. Ocean Commission (see e.g., Watkins, 2004 & 2002). In July of 2002, the

U.S. House Resources Committee voted to pass a bill reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens (Sustainable Fisheries)

Act wherein the language emphasizes the need for a move

to ecosystem-based management. The 2002 House bill (H.R.

4749) emphasized movement toward ecosystem-based fisheries, as opposed to the traditional species-based management plans (e.g., Schiermeier, 2002).8

The bill, in section six, would require the Secretary of

Commerce (likely through the Undersecretary for Oceans

and Atmospheres, i.e., NOAA) in concert with the eight

Regional Fishery Management Councils (established in

1977) to create a definition for “ecosystem” and “marine

ecosystem.” It would also necessitate an identification of

specific marine ecosystems within each region, as well as a

pilot ecosystem based fishery management plan on both

the Atlantic and Pacific seaboard. Also required as a part of

the House of Representatives bill, are criteria for the development of ecosystem-based management plans, and description and identification of areas of scientific understanding for which sufficient data are not yet available. And, the

Secretary of Commerce would be required (when the bill

becomes Public Law) to formulate research plans to meet

the data deficit identified in a mandated report to Congress.

Consequently, this study has attempted to introduce components of an “east coast” ecosystem-based fishery management plan design as potentially required by H.R. 4749,

while taking into account sufficient data requirement needs

of the regional Councils’ policy managers and their constituent audience. This study has also attempted to begin

to answer a question posed by Link (2002a) - “what does

ecosystem-based fisheries management mean?” In addition,

a 108th Congress Senate working draft bill was released on

February 12th. Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe is the sponsor of the legislation referred to as the Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments Act of 2004. It too contains a section related to ecosystem research priorities with

a pilot program for fishery ecosystem plans (e.g., Zabel, et

al., 2003). Both bills, when passed, would need to be reconciled between the chambers in conference committee.

With the passage of the Oceans Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-

256; e.g., Watkins, 2002) this study has sought to enhance

fostering of sustainability natural and social science in forging linkages between best practices solutions to re-emerging living marine resources issues within the concept of

sustainability and the “precautionary principle” (see Foster, et. al., 2000) that includes ecological considerations of

fish stocks as component parts of a model large marine

ecosystem. No single model is necessarily appropriate to

all ecosystems because they are complex, dynamic and nonlinear (Low, et al., 1999). According to Jackson et al. (2001),

all coastal ecosystems are already perturbed, and therefore

in need of better and proper management. A shift in the

current fisheries science paradigm toward more successful

and integrated approaches utilizing the best available science to dealing with the fisheries problems is required now

(Lane and Stephenson, 1999).

CONCLUSIONS

Presently, the LME systems approach utilizes a “five

module framework.” The modules include, a) productivity,

b) fish and fisheries, c) pollution and ecosystem health, for

example, collecting organisms as bioindicators of pollutants in finfish and bivalves, d) governance, (e.g., Juda, 1999;

Hennessey, 1994; Juda and Hennessey, 2001) and e)

socioeconomics (e.g., Charles, 1988; Dyer and Poggie, 2000;

see Figure 2). The tool of comparative risk assessment may

encompass aspects of the five module LME framework (e.g.,

Gable, 2000). As part of the LME framework, ecosystem

services can be defined as “the conditions and processes

through which natural ecosystems, and the species that

comprise them, sustain and fulfill human life” (Batabyal, et

al., 2003). Ecosystem resilience refers to the amount of disturbance that can be sustained before a change in

(eco)system control or structure occurs (Batabyal, et al.,

2003). Thus, it is appropriate to discuss fishery resources in

concert with socioeconomics and adaptive management parameters in the framework described in Sherman (1995) into

a policy orientation approach. Because domestically no

legal requirement exists to implement an FMP for a stock

that is not overfished, as a result, fisheries science and

management is continuously playing catch up (Murawski,

2002). Combining coastal pollution, changes in biodiversity,

the degraded states of fish stocks, and the deteriorating
Page 25

condition of coastal habitat fosters a limiting economic

achievement of the full sustainable potential of coastal ecosystems (Sherman, 1995).

From the discipline of natural resource economics, it

appears that people are prompted into action because of

the perception or impending reality of economic loss (e.g.,

Swallow, 1996). In the Northeast Continental Shelf ecosystem, the New England groundfish fishery is often cited as

not being managed optimally (Sutinen and Upton, 2000).

The overall fisheries industry to the United States ocean

sector economy remains quite viable and significant

(Sherman, 1991; Pontecorvo, 1989; Pontecorvo et al., 1980).

Kerry (2002) laments, however, “the combination of multiple statutory mandates, complicated regulatory procedures,

and resource limitations have made it almost impossible for

managers - or fishermen - to respond quickly, flexibly, or

appropriately to address a management problem. In addition, implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act has

been plagued by conflict, delays, and inconsistent interpretations of what we enacted in 1996.” When fishing restrictions are lifted, after a period of time, oftentimes a “wave

of lawsuits” follows (Braile, 2000). For example, as of May

1st, 2002 “there were 104 open docket cases against the

agency,” i.e., NMFS (Kerry, 2002). This would lead even the

casual observer to suspect that fisheries resource management in the U.S. is principally driven in response to lawsuits. In general it is (Greene, 2002; Gade et al., 2002; Daley,

2002; Wilmsen, 2002). Greene (2002) comments that the willingness of fisherfolk, environmentalists, scientists, and the

courts to find common ground will determine the future of

the New England fishing industry.

Traditionally, in the U.S. littoral fishery resources have

been ‘common property’ since ownership is held by all citizens” (Macinko and Raymond, 2001). Property rights regimes have been promulgated in the U.S. (e.g. Individual

Fishery Quotas and Individual Transferable Quotas) and

some researchers suggest these present a more long-term

sustainable management method (Sutinen, et al., 2000;

Edwards, 2003). While this may be true, research here indicates that an in-place transparent ecosystem-oriented fishery management science policy program is “very likely”

better accomplished while living marine resources are held

“in the public trust.” Combining local and scientific knowledge, including the intuitions and experiences of fisherfolk

(MacKinson and Noettestad, 1998) into a policy process

framework for analysis with select functional activities with

attendant potential product(s) and benefits (Jones, 1984;

Clark, 1992) may uncover the logical set of activities associated with elected government legislative regulation of fisheries. This may be accomplished while at the same time

producing a learning-based approach to fisheries management from an overall coastal area management perspective

that has already encompassed property rights regimes for

select species such as surf clam/ocean quahogs (e.g., Crance

and Draper, 1996; Olsen et al., 1998).

A policy orientation formula (Gable, 2003; Table 5 &

Figure(s) 18, 19 & 38) provides a view of fisheries professionals as participants immeasurably involved in decision

making streams and actions over time that collectively determine what truly happens to fishery stocks within an identifiable marine ecosystem. Applying explicit knowledge of

decision-making processes is essential to effective

sustainability of living marine resources. An example of (local) knowledge in the policy process is public participatory

awareness concerning the status of forage fisheries (herring; e.g. Gamble, 2003), consequences of optional harvest

strategies, and economic rent returns derived from sundry

transparent management options. Ocean science and ocean

policy considerations can aid fisheries professionals in sorting through the mix of science, analysis and politics involved in important conservation and sustainability policies and programs (e.g., Clark, 1992). The present study has

explored the legislation, marine policies, science, and the

newly mandated ecosystem-based approach for furthering

the implementation of the LME modular strategy to fisheries management, both domestically and internationally, while

generically taking into accord themes and select “national

standard” parameters found in the U.S. Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and prospective amendments to that legislation.

ENDNOTES

1. At the 74th Plenary Meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, on December 12th 2002, 132 nations were in

favor of A/57/L.48 adopted as Resolution A/57/141, only

one against (Turkey) and two abstaining (Columbia &

Venezuela). In their affirming statement before the General Assembly, Japan through Ambassador Akamatsu,

explained its position prior to voting on the three resolutions. In essence, Japan decided to associate itself

with “the consideration of the ecosystem in the conservation and management of marine living resources”

regarding draft resolution A57/L.49. By voice vote draft

resolution A/57/L.49 was adopted as resolution 57/142.

Similarly, draft resolution A/57/L.50 was adopted as

resolution 57/143. See: http:www.un.org/ga/57pv.html

Online available November 10th 2003.

2. From Belsky (1985) “at a certain point, a series of state

practices, codified in treaties or working agreements,

and supported by the writings of legal scholars and

the acknowledgement or acceptance of the world community, passes from mere examples of national action

to a customary norm of international law. A total ecosystem approach to conservation and management of

resources could become binding customary international law via this route.”

3. From the NEFMC Executive Committee Minutes of January 9, 2004 (correspondence and reports document #10

of January 27-29, 2004) one of the discussion “problem

statements” was that there is a need for advice on ecosystem management principles. “What is ecosystembased management? We need to know what it is before
Page 26

it is applied to our plans.” Further, from the “minutes”

it was mentioned that... “very primitive with ecosystem management... descriptive knowledge should be

first step. Understanding ecosystem is difficult but right

thing to do.” In addition, one draft goal stated was to

“improve ecosystem-based management integration of

habitat and bycatch, and interactions between fishery

management plans (FMP’s).”

4. From inter alia, Mahlman (1997) & Easterling et al.,

(2000) & the U.S. Global Change Research Program

(http://www.usgcrp.gov/ ) quantitative terminology

used in global (climate) change and policy (and applicable here) includes:

· “virtually certain projections” = > 99% probability

or chance of being true

· “very likely” or “very probable” = 90 to 99% or 9 out

of 10 probability or chance

· “likely” or “probable” = 67 to ~90% or 2 out of 3

chance of being true

· “possible” = 33 to ~66% probability or chance of

being true

· “unlikely” or “some chance” = 10 to ~33% probability or chance of being true

· “very unlikely” or “little chance” = 1 to 10% probability or chance of being true

· “improbable” = < 1% probability or chance of being

true.

5. From the NEFMC Executive Committee Minutes of January 9, 2004 under the discussion section on “problem

statement” the present NOAA/NMFS Regional Administrator stated that “ecosystem management means

something different to everyone; at some point all must

agree as to what it means ...need to have better linkage

with everything we’re doing and not working separately.” This manuscript provides a baseline dialogue

on the meaning of large marine ecosystem-oriented fisheries management (see also Figure 20).

6. NEFMC member Erik Anderson of New Hampshire at

the November 4, 2003 Council meeting in Peabody,

Massachusetts put forward a motion stating that population parameters used for groundfish would incorporate “ecosystem interactions” as a condition of (stock)

status determination. This was the first Council meeting that an ecosystem-oriented approach was voted

on and passed unanimously by the members. John

Boreman, Director of the NMFS NEFSC (Woods Hole,

MA.) aided when asked by vice-chairman Thomas Hill

to elaborate, ...”what we’re going to be looking at is

just all species, the whole ecosystem. So, it’s all trophic

interactions and competitors, predators, prey, anything

that would affect the population growth of a given species.” The word ecosystem is an “expression of carrying capacity in the system that may be less than the

biomass target. If there are factors out there in the ecosystem that limit the carrying capacity of that particular species, we should know about that, or we should

include that factor in the analysis.” Thus, Erik

Anderson’s use of his terminology “ecosystem

interaction(s)” is equivalent to the “ecosystem considerations” found in this manuscript. (Source: notarized written transcription of the audiographic tape

dated March 5th, 2004 and received April, 2nd, 2004 by

the NEFMC at pages 158-161).

7. It is important to note that according to Keiter (1996)

“Congress is the ultimate policy-making institution; it

establishes the nation’s basic natural resource management policies and priorities,... with implementation

coming through the executive branch of government.”

8. The New England Fishery Management Council

(NEFMC) at their scheduled Providence, Rhode Island

public meeting provided excerpted copies for review

and discussion of portions of the Preliminary Report of

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy – Governors’

Draft, April 2004. Distributed were the Executive Summary and Chapter 19, Achieving Sustainable Fisheries,

as NEFMC Correspondence & Reports (May 11-13,

2004) documents.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this study provided through a competitive

contract from NOAA/NMFS/NEFSC Narragansett, Rhode

Island Lab, P.O. No. EA133F-03-SE-0707. Additional support garnered through a U.S. National Academy of Sciences

National Research Council Research Associateship Award

(No. 0497420 - marine science & fisheries) performed at the

NOAA/NMFS Narragansett Lab under the program on “marine ecosystems assessment and management.” Thanks to

Kenneth Sherman, Chief, NMFS Office of Marine Ecosystems Studies for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript as well as Dean Emeritus John A. Knauss of the University of Rhode Island (URI), Professor Timothy

Hennessey of URI and Phil Logan, Chief, Social Sciences

Branch (NMFS, Woods Hole, MA.) for discussions and

review on aspects of the study and other anonymous reviewers. Portions of the project are a spin-off of my marine

affairs Ph.D, graduate program of study at URI. The figures

and tables were ably crafted in QuarkxPress software by

Sarah Litchfield. The Social Science Branch of the NMFSNEFSC covered publication costs for binding and distribution for the NEFSC “technical memorandum” series.
Page 27

REFERENCES CITED

Agardy, T., 2000. Effects of Fisheries on Marine Ecosystems: A

Conservationist’s Perspective. ICES Journal of Marine

Science, 57 (3), pp. 761-765.

Agardy, T., P. Bridgewater, M. P. Crosby, J. Day, P.K. Dayton,

R. Kenchington, D. Laffoley, P. McConney, P.A. Murray,

J.E. Parks, and L. Peau, 2003. Dangerous Targets? Unresolved Issues and Ideological Clashes Around Marine

Protected Areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and

Freshwater Ecosystems, 13 (4), pp. 353-367.

Ajahi, T., K. Sherman, and Q. Tang, 2002. Support for Marine

Sustainability Science. Science, 297 (5582), p. 772.

Alexander, L. M., 1999. Management of Large Marine Ecosystems: A Law of the Sea-Based Governance Regime. In:

The Gulf of Maine Large Marine Ecosystem: Assessment,

Sustainability, and Management, Kumpf, H., K. Steidinger,

and K. Sherman, (eds.), Blackwell Sciences, pp. 511-515.

Alexander, L. M., 1993. Large Marine Ecosystems: A New Focus for Marine Resources Management. Marine Policy,

17 (3), pp. 186-198.

Antunes, P., and R. Santos, 1999. Integrated Environmental

Management of the Oceans. Ecological Economics, 31

(2), pp. 215-236.

Apollonio, S., 1994. The Use of Ecosystem Characteristics in

Fisheries Management. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 2

(2), pp. 157-180.

Attrill, M.J., and M. Power, 2002. Climatic Influence on a Marine Fish Assemblage. Nature, 417 (6886), pp. 275-278.

Barber, W.E., and J.N. Taylor, 1990. The Importance of Goals,

Objectives, and Values in the Fisheries Management Process and Organization: A Review. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 10 (4), pp. 365-373.

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001. Detection of

Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World’s Oceans.

Science, 292 (5515), pp. 270-274.

Batabyal., A.A., J.R. Kahn, and R. V. O’Neill, 2003. On the Scarcity Value of Ecosystem Services. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46 (2), pp. 334-352.

Beamish, R.J., and C. Mahnken, 1999. Taking the Next Step in

Fisheries Management. In: Ecosystem Approaches for

Fisheries Management, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, AK-SG-99-01, Fairbanks, pp. 1-21.

Belfiore, S., 2003. The Growth of Integrated Coastal Managment

and the Role of Indicators in Integrated Coastal Management: Introduction to the Special Issue. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 46 (5), pp. 225-234.

Belsky, M.H., 1999. Using Legal Principles to Promote the

“Health” of the Ecosystem. . In: The Gulf of Maine Large

Marine Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability, and Management,Kumpf, H., K. Steidinger, and K. Sherman, (eds.),

Blackwell Sciences, pp. 416-430.

Belsky, M. H., 1989. The Ecosystem Model Mandate for a

Comprehensive United States Ocean Policy and Law of

the Sea. San Diego Law Review, 26 (3), pp. 417-495.

Belsky, M.H., 1985. Management of Large Marine Ecosystems: Developing a New Rule of Customary International

Law. San Diego Law Review, 22 (4), pp. 733-763.

Berkes, F., J. Colding and C. Folke, 2000. Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management.

Ecological Applications, 10 (5), pp. 1251-1262.

Boehlert, G.W., 1996. Biodiversity and the Sustainability of

Marine Fisheries. Oceanography, 9 (1), pp. 28-35.

Boesch, D.F., 1999. The Role of Science in Ocean Governance.

Ecological Economics, 31 (2), pp. 189-198.

Botsford, L.W., F. Micheli, and A. Hastings, 2003. Principles

for the Design of Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications, 13 (1) Supplement, pp. S25-S31.

Botsford, L.W., J. C. Castilla, and C. H. Peterson, 1997. The

Management of Fisheries and Marine Ecosystems. Science, 277 (5325), pp. 509-515.

Bowen, R.E., and C. Riley, 2003. Socio-economic Indicators

and Integrated Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 46 (5), pp. 299-312.

Braile, R., 2000. Wave of Lawsuits Follows Easing of Fishing

Restrictions. The Boston Globe, 258 (24), p. B3.

Brodeur, R.D., C. E. Mills, J.E. Overland, G.E. Walters, and J.D.

Schumacher, 1999. Evidence for the Substantial Increase

in Gelatinous Zooplankton in the Bering Sea, with Possible Links to Climate Change. Fisheries Oceanography,

8 (4), pp. 296-306.

Brodziak, J., J. Link, 2002. Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management: What is it and How can we do it? Bulletin of Marine

Science, 70 (2), pp. 589-611.

Brown, C.P., and S. Mumme, 2000. Applied and Theoretical

Aspects of Binational Watershed Councils (Consejos de

Cuencas) in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. Natural Resources Journal, 40 (4), pp. 895-929.

Burroughs, R.H., 1996. A Policy Orientation Toward Estuarine

Shores. In: Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments,

and Human Alterations, Nordstrom, K.F., and C.T. Roman (eds.), Chapter 19, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 435-448.

Burroughs, R.H., and T. W. Clark, 1995. Ecosystem Management: A Comparison of Greater Yellowstone and Georges

Bank.Environmental Management, 19 (5), pp. 649-663.

Busch, W-D. N., B.L. Brown, and G.F. Mayer, (eds.), 2003. Strategic Guidance for Implementing and Ecosystem-based

Approach to Fisheries Management. DOC/NOAA/

NMFS, Silver Spring, MD., Technical Report, May 2003,

57 pp.

Busch, D., 2003. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Moves Forward. The Coastal Society Bulletin, 25

(3-4), pp. 1, 4-5, 8

Caddy, J.F., 1999. Deciding on Precautionary Management

Measures for a Stock Based on a Suite of Limit Reference

Points (LRPs) as a Basis for a Multi-LRP Harvest Law.

North Atlantic Fisheries Organization Scientific Council Studies, 32, pp. 55-68.

Carr, M., 2000. Marine Protected Areas: Challenges and Opportunities for Understanding and Conserving Coastal

Marine Ecosystems. Environmental Conservation, 27 (2),

pp. 106-109.

Catanzano, J., and B. Mesnil, 1995. Economics and Biology

Used in Fisheries Research or When Social and Natu-
Page 28

ral Sciences Try to Depict Together the Object of Their

Research.Aquatic Living Resources, 8 (3), pp. 223-232.

Charles, A.T., 2002. The Precautionary Approach and ‘Burden

of Proof’ Challenges in Fishery Management. Bulletin of

Marine Science, 70 (2), pp. 683-694.

Charles, A. T., 1988. Fishery Socioeconomics: A Survey. Land

Economics, 64 (3), pp. 276-295.

Christensen, N.L., and 12 Others, 1996. The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific

Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications, 6 (3), pp. 665-691.

Christensen, V., 2000. Indicators for Marine Ecosystems Affected by Fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research,

51 (5), pp. 447-500.

Clark, T. W., 1992. Practicing Natural Resource Management

with a Policy Orientation. Environmental Management,

16 (4), pp. 423-433.

Clay, P.M., and J. R. McGoodwin, 1995. Utilizing Social Sciences in Fisheries Management. Aquatic Living Resources, 8 (3), pp. 203-207.

Coglianese, C., and J. Nash, 2002. Policy Options for Improving Environmental Management in the Private Sector.

Environment, 44 (9), pp. 10-23.

Coglianese, C., and J. Nash, 2001. Bolstering Private-Sectot

Environmental Management. Issues in Science and Technology, 17 (3), pp. 69-74.

Cole, H., 2003. Contemporary Challenges: Globalisation, Global Interconnectedness and that ‘There are not Plenty

More Fish in the Sea;’ Fisheries, Governance and Globalization: Is There a Relationship? Ocean and Coastal Management, 46 (1-2), pp. 77-102.

Costanza, R., and 15 Others, 1998. Principles for Sustainable

Governance of the Oceans. Science, 281 (5374), pp. 198-

199.

Council of the European Union (COEU), 2002. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources Under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, 358, pp. 59-71. Online

Available, November 22nd, 2003 @ http://europa.eu.int/ .

Crance, C., and D. Draper, 1996. Socially Cooperative Choices:

An Approach to Achieving Resource Sustainability in

the Coastal Zone. Environmental Management, 20 (2),

pp. 175-184.

Daley, B., 2002. Drastic Cuts Ordered in N.E. Fishing: Judges

Decision Seen as Heavy Blow to Industry. The Boston

Globe, 261 (117), pp. 1 & B4.

Darcy, G.H., and G. C. Matlock, 1999. Application of the Precautionary Approach in the National Standard Guidelines for

Conservation and Management of Fisheries in the United

States. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56 (6), pp. 853-

859.

De La Mare, W.K., 1998. Tidier Fisheries Management Requires a New MOP (Management-oriented Paradigm).

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 8 (3), pp. 349-356.

Degnbol, P., 2002. The Ecosystem Approach and Fisheries

Management Institutions: The Noble Art of Addressing

Complexity and Uncertainty with All Onboard and on a

Budget. IIFET Paper No. 171 (Denmark), 11 pp. Online

Available, January 12th, 2004, @ www.ifm.dk/reports/

80.pdf.

Done, T.J., and R.E. Reichelt, 1998. Integrated Coastal Zone

Management and Fisheries Ecosystem Management:

Generic Tools and Performance Indices. Ecological Applications, 8 (1), Supplement, pp. S110-S118.

Dovers, S.R., and J.W. Handmer, 1995. Ignorance, the Precautionary Principle, and Sustainability. Ambio, 24 (2), pp. 92-

97.

Duda, A.M., and K. Sherman, 2002. A New Imperative for Improving Management of Large Marine Ecosystems.

Ocean & Coastal Management, 45 (11-12), pp. 797-833.

Dyer, C.L., and J. J. Poggie, 2000. The Natural Resource Region

and Marine Policy: A Case Study From the New England

Groundfish Fishery. Marine Policy, 24 (3), pp. 245-255.

Easterling, D.R., G.A. Meehl, C. Parmesan, S.A. Changnon,

T.R. Karl, and L.O. Mearns, 2000. Climatic Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and Impacts. Science, 289 (5487),

pp. 2068-2074.

Edwards, S.F., 2003. Property Rights to Multi-Attribute Fishery

Resources.Ecological Economics, 44 (2-3), pp. 309-323.

Emmelin, L., 1972. The Stockholm Conferences. Ambio, 1 (4),

pp. 135-140.

English, S.A., R.H. Bradbury, and R.E. Reichelt, 1988. Management of Large Marine Ecosystems – A Multinational Approach. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Coral

Reef Symposium, Australia, Vol. 2, pp. 369-374.

Fluharty, D., 2000. Habitat Protection, Ecological Issues, and

Implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Ecological Applications, 10 (2), pp. 325-337.

Fluharty, D., and 19 Others, 1999. Ecosystem-Based Fishery

Management. A Report to Congress by the Ecosystems

Principles Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Commerce,

NOAA/NMFS Technical Report, 54 pp.

Fogarty, M.J., 2001. Climate Variability and Ocean Ecosystem

Dynamics: Implications for Sustainability. In: Challenges

of a Changing Earth: Proceedings of the Global Change

Open Science Conference, Amsterdam, Holland, 10-13 July,

2001, W. Steffen, J. Jaeger, D.J. Carson, and C. Bradshaw,

(eds), Ch. 4, Springer, pp. 27-29.

Foster, K.R., P. Vecchia, and M.H. Repacholi, 2000. Science and

the Precautionary Principle. Science, 288 (5468), pp. 979-

981.

Francis, R.I.C.C., and R. Schotten, 1997. “Risk” in Fisheries

Management: A Review. Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences, 54 (8), pp. 1699-1715.

Frank, K. T., R. I Perry, and K. F. Drinkwater, 1990. Predicted

Response of Northwest Atlantic Invertebrate and Fish

Stocks to CO2

 - Induced Climate Change. Transactions of

the American Fisheries Society, 119 (2), pp. 353-365.

Gable, F.J., 2003. A Practice-Based Coupling of the Precautionary Principle to the Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries

management Concept with a Policy Orientation: The Northeast United States Continental Shelf as a Case Example.

Coastal Management, 31 (4), pp. 435-456.
Page 29

Gable, F. J., 2000. The Black Sea: An Environmental and Ecological Profile. Ocean Yearbook, 14, University of Chicago Press, pp. 420-467.

Gade, M.A., T.D. Garcia, J.B. Howes, T.M. Schad, and S.

Shipman, 2002. Courts, Congress, and Constituencies:

Managing Fisheries by Default. A Report by a Panel of

the National Academy of Public Administration for the

Congress and the U.S. Department of Commerce National

Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 160 pp.

Gamble, M., 2003. Public Information Document for Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for

Atlantic Herring. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, December, Washington, D.C. 18 pp.

Garcia, S,M., 2000. The FAO Definition of Sustainable Development and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: An Analysis of Related Principles, Criteria and Indicators.

Marine and Freshwater Research, 51 (5), pp. 535-541.

Garcia, S.M., 1994. The Precautionary Principle: Its Implications in Capture Fisheries Management. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 22 (2), pp. 99-125.

Garcia, S.M., and D.J. Staples, 2000. Sustainability Reference

Systems and Indicators for Responsible Marine Capture

Fisheries: A Review of Concepts and Elements for a Set of

Guidelines. Marine and Freshwater Research, 51 (5), pp.

385-426.

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

An Overview of FAO Policy Developments (1945-1994).

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 29 (6-12), pp. 528-536.

Garribaldi, L., and L. Limongelli, 2003. Trends in Oceanic Capture and Clustering of Large Marine Ecosystems. FAO

Fisheries Technical Paper 435, 71 pp.

Garrison, L.P., and J.S. Link, 2000. Fishing Effects on Spatial

Distribution and Trophic Guild Structure of the Fish Community in the Georges Bank Region. ICES Journal of

Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 723-730.

Gerrodette, T., P. Dayton, S. Macinko, and M. J. Fogarty, 2002.

Precautionary Management of Marine Fisheries: Moving

Beyond Burden of Proof. Bulletin of Marine Science, 70

(2), pp. 657-668.

Giordano, M., 2003. The Geography of the Commons: The

Role of Scale and Space. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, 93 (2), pp. 365-375.

Gislason, H., M. Sinclair, K. Sainsbury, and R. O’Boyle, 2000.

Symposium Overview: Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives Within Fisheries Management. ICES Journal of

Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 468-475.

Goethel, D.T., 2002. Ocean Policy and Fisheries: A Discussion

of Areas in Need of Change. Statement before the U.S.

Commission on Ocean Policy, Boston, Massachusetts,

July, 2002, Online Available at: http://

www.oceancommission.gov , 3 pp.

Gonzalez, O.J., 1996. Formulating and Ecosystem Approach to

Environmental Protection. Environmental Management,

20 (5), pp. 597-605.

Grassle, J.F., 2001. Marine Ecosystems. In: Encyclopedia of

Biodiversity, Vol. 4, Academic Press, San Diego, CA., pp.

13-25.

Gray, T., and J. Hatchard, 2003. The 2002 Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy’s System of Governance — Rhetoric or Reality? Marine Policy, 27 (6), pp. 545-554.

Greene, K., 2002. Fishery Science: Bigger Populations Needed

for Sustainable Harvests. Science, 296 (5571), pp. 1229-

1230.

Griffis, R.B., and K.W. Kimball, 1996. Ecosystem Approaches

to Coastal and Ocean Stewardship. Ecological Applications, 6 (3), pp. 708-712.

Grumbine, R.E., 1994. What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology, 8 (1), pp. 27-38.

Haeuber, R., 1996. Setting the Environmental Policy Agenda:

The Case of Ecosystem Management. Natural Resources

Journal, 36 (1), pp. 1-28.

Hall, S.J., 2002. The Continental Shelf Benthic Ecosystem: Current Status, Agents for Change and Future Prospects.

nvironmental Conservation, 29 (3), pp. 350-374.

Hall, S.J., 1999. Managing Fisheries Within Ecosystems: Can

the Role of Reference Points be Expanded? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 9 (6), pp.

579-583.

Hanna, S.S., 1999. Strengthening Governance of Ocean Fishery Resources. Ecological Economics, 31 (2), pp. 275-

286.

Hanna, S. S., 1998. Institutions for Marine Ecosystems: Economic Incentives and Fishery Management. Ecological

Applications, 8 (1) Supplement, pp. S170-S174.

Harwell, M.A., W. Cooper, R. Flaak, 1992. Prioritizing Ecological and Human Welfare Risks from Environmental Stresses.

Environmental Management, 16 (4), pp. 451-464.

Hastings, A., and L. W. Botsford, 2003. Comparing Designs of

Marine Reserves for Fisheries and for Biodiversity. Ecological Applications, 13 (1) Supplement, pp. S65-S70.

Hayes, D. P., 1992. The Growing Inaccessibility of Science.

Nature, 356 (6372), pp. 739-740.

Hennessey, T. M., 1998. Ecosystem Management: The Governance Approach. In: Ecosystems Management: A Social

Science Perspective, Soden, D., Lamb, B. L., and Tennert,

J. R., (eds.), Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa, Ch. 2, pp. 13-

29.

Hennessey, T. M., 1994. Governance and Adaptive Management for Estuarine Ecosystems: The Case of Chesapeake

Bay. Coastal Management, 22 (2), pp. 119-145.

Hennessey, T., and M. Healey, 2000. Ludwig’s Ratchet and the

Collapse of New England Groundfish Stocks. Coastal

Management, 28 (3), pp. 187-213.

Hilborn, R., 1987. Living with Uncertainty in Resource Management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 7 (1), pp. 1-5.

Hill, T. R., 2002. Testimony by the Chairman, New England

Fishery Management Council, before the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Boston, Massachusetts, July, 2002,

Online Available at: http://www.oceancommission.gov , 6

pp.

Holling, C.S., 1996. Surprise for Science, Resilience for Ecosystems, and Incentives for People. Ecological Applications,

6 (3), pp. 733-735.
Page 30

Hollowed, A.B., N. Bax, R. Beamish, J. Collie, M. Fogarty, P.

Livingston, J. Pope, and J.C. Rice, 2000. Are Multispecies

Models an Improvement on Single-Species Models for

Measuring Fishing Impacts on Marine Ecosystems? ICES

Journal of Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 707-719

Hsu, S-L, and J.E. Wilen, 1997. Ecosystem Management and

the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24 (4), pp. 799-811.

Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional Analysis and EcosystemBased Management: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management, 24

(4), pp. 449-465.

Jackson, J.B.C., and 18 Others, 2001. Historical Overfishing

and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science,

293 (5530), pp. 629-638.

Jahnke, M., (ed.), 2003. United Nations Activities: Environmental Policy Decisions. Environmental Policy and Law,

33 (1), pp. 2-13.

Jones, C. O., 1984. An Introduction to the Study of Public

Policy, Third Edition. Harcourt Brace & Company, Orlando, Florida, 276 pp.

Juda, L., 1999. Considerations in Developing a Functional Approach to the Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean

Development & International Law, 30 (2), pp. 89-125.

Juda, L., and T. Hennessey, 2001. Governance Profiles and the

Management of the Uses of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean

Development & International Law, 32 (1), pp. 43-69.

Juda, L., R. H. Burroughs, 1990. The Prospects for Comprehensive Ocean Management. Marine Policy, 14 (1), pp. 23-35.

Kates, R. W., and 22 Others, 2001. Sustainability Science. Science, 292 (5517), pp. 641-642 + Supplementary Material.

Keiter, R.B., 1996. Toward Legitimizing Ecosystem Management on the Public Domain. Ecological Applications, 6

(3), pp. 727-730.

Kenchington, R.A., and M.T. Agardy, 1990. Achieving Marine

Conservation Through Biosphere Reserve Planning and

Management. Environmental Conservation, 17 (1), pp.

39-44.

Kerry, J. F., 2002. Statement of Senator John F. Kerry (MA.)

Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries, Oversight Hearing on NMFS Management Issues,

May 9, 2002, 5 pp.

King, J.R., and G.A. McFarlane, 2003. Marine Fish life History

Strategies: Applications to Fishery Management. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 10 (4), pp. 249-264.

Kinzig, A., and 20 Others, 2003. Coping with Uncertainty: A

Call for a New Science-Policy Forum. Ambio, 32 (5), pp.

330-335.

Knecht, R.W., 1994. Essay: Emerging International Goals and

Principles and Their Influence on National Ocean Governance.Coastal Management, 22 (2), pp. 177-182.

Lackey, R.T., 1997. Ecosystem Management: In Search of the

Elusive Paradigm. Human Ecology Review, 4 (2), pp. 107-

113.

Lane, D. E., and R. L. Stephenson, 1999. Fisheries-management

Science: A Framework for the Implementation of Fisheries-management Systems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56 (6), pp. 1059-1066.

Larkin, P.A., 1996. Concepts and Issues in Marine Ecosystem

Management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6

(2), pp. 139-164.

Lasswell, H.D., 1951. The Policy Orientation. In: The Policy

Sciences, D. Lerner and H. D. Lasswell (eds.), Stanford

University Press, Palo Alto, California, pp. 3-15.

Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, and C. Stephens, 2000.

Warming of the World Ocean. Science, 287 (5461), pp.

2225-2229.

Link, J.S., 2002a. What Does Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Mean? Fisheries, 27 (4), pp. 18-21.

Link, J. S., 2002b. Ecological Considerations in Fisheries Management: When Does it Matter? Fisheries, 27 (4), pp. 10-

17.

Link, J.S., J.K.T. Brodziak, S.F. Edwards, W.J. Overholtz, D.

Mountain, J.W. Jossi, T.D. Smith, and M.J. Fogarty, 2002.

Marine Ecosystem Assessment in a Fisheries Management Context. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic

Science, 59 (9), pp. 1429-1440.

Livingston, P., (ed.), 2001. Ecosystem Considerations for 2002.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage,

Alaska, November, 2001. Online Available, September

29th, 2003 @ http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/ecosystem/

ecobased.htm .

Livingston, P., (ed.), 1999. Ecosystem Considerations for 2000.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage,

Alaska, November, 1999. Online Available, September 29th,

2003 @ http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/ecosystem/

ecobased.htm .

Longhurst, A., 2003. The Symbolism of Large Marine Ecosystems.Fisheries Research, 61 (1-3), pp. 1-6.

Longhurst, A. R., 1998. Ecological Geography of the Sea.

Academic Press, San Diego, California, 398 pp.

Low, B., R. Costanza, E. Ostrom, J. Wilson, and C.P. Simon.

1999. Human-Ecosystem Interactions: A Dynamic Integrated Model. Ecological Economics, 31 (2), pp. 227-242.

Lubchenco, J., S.R. Palumbi, S.D. Gaines, and S. Andelman,

2003. Plugging a Hole in the Ocean: The Emerging Science of Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications, 13

(1) Supplement, pp. S3-S7.

Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters, 1993. Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History. Science, 260 (5104), pp. 17 & 36.

Lynch, K.D., W.W. Taylor, J.M. Robertson, and K.D. Smith,

1999. Utilizing Ecosystem Concepts in Fisheries Management Strategies. In: Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries

Management, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, AK-SG99-01, Fairbanks, pp. 353-366.

MacDonald, J. M., 1995. Appreciating the Precautionary Principle as an Ethical Evolution in Ocean Management. Ocean

Development & International Law, 26 (3), pp. 255-286.

Macinko, S., and L. Raymond, 2001. Fish on the Range: The

Perils of Crossing Conceptual Boundaries in Natural Resource Policy. Marine Policy, 25 (2), pp. 123-131.
Page 31

Machlis, G.E., J.E. Force, and W. R. Burch Jr., 1997. The Human

Ecosystem Part 1: The Human Ecosystem as an Organizing Concept in Ecosystem Management. Society & Natural Resources, 10, pp. 347-367.

Mackenzie, S.H., 1997. Toward Integrated Resource Management: Lessons from the Ecosystem Approach from the

Laurentian Great Lakes. Environmental Management, 21

(2), pp. 173-183.

Mackinson, S., and L. Noettestad, 1998. Combining Local and

Scientific Knowledge. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 8 (4), pp. 481-490.

Madin, L., 2001. The Jellies vs. the Fish. Ocean Alive: Plain Talk

on Current Topics in Marine Science Presented to the

General Public. WHOI Sea Grant, April 24th, 2001, 1p.

Mahlman, J.D., 1997. Uncertainties in Projections of HumanCaused Climate Warming. Science, 278 (5342), pp. 1416-

1417.

May, R. M., J. R. Beddington, C. W. Clark, S. J. Holt, and R. M.

Laws, 1979. Management of Multispecies Fisheries. Science, 205 (4403), pp. 267-277.

McFarlane, G.A., J.R. King, and R.J. Beamish, 2000. Have There

Been Recent Changes in Climate? Ask the Fish. Progress

in Oceanography, 47 (2-4), pp. 147-169.

McGinn, A. P., 1999. Moving Toward Sustainable Fisheries.

Natural Resources Forum, 23 (2), pp. 135-145.

McGlade, J.M., 2001. Governance and Sustainable Fisheries.

In: Science and Integrated Coastal Management, von

Bodungen, B., and R.K. Turner (eds.), Dahlem University

Press, pp. 307-326.

McLain, R.J., and R.G. Lee, 1996. Adaptive Management: Promises and Pitfalls. Environmental Management, 20 (4), pp.

437-448.

Merrell, W.J., M.H. Katsouros, and J. Bienski, 2001. The Stratton

Commission: The Model for a Sea Change in National

Marine Policy. Oceanography, 14 (2), pp. 11-16.

Michaels, S., R.J. Mason, and W.D. Solecki, 1999. The Importance of Place in Partnerships for Regional Environmental

Management. Environmental Conservation, 26 (3), pp.

159-162.

Mills, C.E., 2001. Jellyfish Blooms: Are Populations Increasing

Globally In Response to Changing Ocean Conditions?

Hydrobiologia, 451, pp. 55-68.

Mlot, C., 1997. Unusual Fish Threat Afloat in the Atlantic.

Science News, 152 (21), p. 325.

Moeller, H., 1984. Reduction of a Larval Herring Population by

Jellyfish Predator. Science, 224 (4649), pp. 621-622.

Morrissey, W.A., 1996. Science Policy and Federal EcosystemBased Management. Ecological Applications, 6 (3), pp.

717-720.

Mountain, D.G., 2002. Potential Consequences of Climate Change

for the Fish Resources in the Mid-Atlantic Region. American

Fisheries Society Symposium, 32, pp. 185-194.

Murawski, S.A., 2002. Scientific Challenges in Supporting Living Marine Resources Management. Statement to the U.S.

Commission on Ocean Policy. July, Boston, Massachusetts, 11 pp.

Murawski, S.A., 2000. Definitions of Overfishing from an Ecosystem Perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57

(3), pp. 649-658.

Murawski, S. A., 1993. Climate Change and Marine Fish Distributions: Forecasting from Historical Analogy. Transactions of

the American Fisheries Society, 122 (5), pp. 647-658.

NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization), 2003. Proposed NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework from

Scientific Council. NAFO SCR Doc. 03/23, 5 pp.

Nelson, B., 1969. Marine Commission Invokes NOAA, Urges

Refitting of Nation’s Ark. Science, 163 (3864), pp. 263-265.

Odum, E.P., 1969. The Strategy of Ecosystem Development.

Science, 164 (3877), pp. 262-270.

Okey, T.A., 2003. Membership of the Eight Regional Fishery

Management Councils in the United States: Are Special

Interests Over-Represented? Marine Policy, 27 (3), pp.

193-206.

Olsen, S.B., 2003. Frameworks and Indicators for Assessing

Progress in Integrated Coastal Management Initiatives.

Ocean & Coastal Management, 46 (5), pp. 347-361.

Olsen, S.B., 2001. Inventing Governance Systems That Respond to Coastal Ecosystem Change. In: Science and

Integrated Coastal Management, von Bodungen, B., and

R.K. Turner (eds.), Dahlem University Press, pp. 327-339.

Olsen, S. B., 2000. Educating for the Governance of Coastal

Ecosystems: The Dimensions of the Challenge. Ocean &

Coastal Management, 43 (4-5), pp. 331-341.

Olsen, S., 1999. Linking Integrated Coastal Management with

Large Marine Ecosystems Management. In: The Gulf of

Maine Large Marine Ecosystem: Assessment,

Sustainability, and Management, Kumpf, H., K. Steidinger,

and K. Sherman, (eds.), Blackwell Sciences, pp. 626-633.

Olsen, S. B., J. Tobey, and L. Z. Hale, 1998. A Learning-based

Approach to Coastal Management. Ambio, 27 (8), pp.

611-619.

O’Toole, M., 2002. Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem

Programme Strategic Action Programme. Updated, November, 2002, Windhoek, Namibia, 23 pp.

Overholtz, W.J., J.S. Link, and L.E. Suslowicz, 1999. Consumption and Harvest of Pelagic Fishes and Squids in the Gulf

of Maine - Georges Bank Ecosystem. In: Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries Management, Alaska Sea Grant

College Program, AK-SG-99-01, pp. 163-186.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T.J. Pitcher, U.R. Sumaila,

C.J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller, 2002. Towards

Sustainability in World Fisheries. Nature, 418 (6898), pp.

689-695.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, R. Froese, and M. L. Palomeres,

2000. Fishing Down Aquatic Food Webs. American

Scientist, 88 (1), pp. 46-51.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. Torres

Jr., 1998. Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science, 279

(5352), pp. 860-863.

Perrings, C., 2000. Sustainability Indicators for Fisheries in Integrated Coastal Area Management. Marine and Freshwater Research, 51 (5), pp. 513-522.
Page 32

Perry, R.I., C.J. Walters, and J.A. Boutillier, 1999. A Framework

for Providing Scientific Advice for the Management of

New and Developing Fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology

and Fisheries, 9 (2), pp. 125-150.

Phillips, C.G., and J. Randolph, 2000. The Relationship of Ecosystem Management to NEPA and its Goals. Environmental Management, 26 (1), pp. 1-12.

Pielke, R. A., D. Sarewitz, R. Byerly, and D. Jamieson, 1999.

Prediction in the Earth Sciences and Environmental Policy

Making. EOS, Transactions, the American Geophysical

Union, 80 (28), pp. 311-313.

Pitcher, T.J., 2001. Fisheries Managed to Rebuild Ecosystems?

Reconstructing the Past to Salvage the Future. Ecological Applications, 11 (2), pp. 601-617.

Poitras, J., R. Bowen, and J. Wiggin, 2003. Challenges to the

Use of Consensus Building in Integrated Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46 (5), pp. 391-

405.

Pontecorvo, G., 1989. Contribution of the Ocean Sector to the

United States Economy: Estimated Values for 1987 - A

Technical Note. Marine Technology Society Journal, 23

(2), pp. 7-14.

Pontecorvo, G., M. Wilkinson, R. Anderson, and M. Holdowsky,

1980. Contribution of the Ocean Sector to the United States

Economy. Science, 208 (4447), pp. 1000-1006.

Probert, P.K., 2002. Ocean Science and Conservation – Catching the Wave. Aquatic Science: Marine and Freshwater

Ecosystems, 12 (2), pp. 165-168.

Purcell, J.E., and M.N. Arai, 2001. Interactions of Pelagic

Cnidarians and Ctenophores with Fish: A Review.

Hydrobiologia, 451, pp. 27-44.

Repetto, R., 2001. A Natural Experiment in Fisheries Management. Marine Policy, 25 (4), pp. 251-264.

Restrepo, V. R., and J. E. Powers, 1999. Precautionary Control

Rules in US Fisheries Management: Specification and

Performance.ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56 (6), pp.

846-852.

Restrepo, V.R., P.M. Mace, and F.M. Serchuk, 1999. The Precautionary Approach: A New Paradigm or Business as

Usual? In: Our Living Oceans: Report on the Status of

Living Marine Resources, 1999. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-41, pp. 61-70.

Richards, L.J., and J-J. Maguire, 1998. Recent International Agreements and the Precautionary Approach: New Directions in

Fishery Management Science. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 55 (6), pp. 1545-1552.

Robinson, C. L., 1994. The Influence of Ocean Climate on

Coastal Plankton and Fish Production. Fisheries Oceanography, 3 (3), pp. 159-171.

Rothschild, B. J., 2000. “Fish Stocks and Recruitment:” The

Past Thirty Years. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57

(2), pp. 191-201.

Rosenberg, A.A., 2003. Multiple Uses of Marine Ecosystems.

In: Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, M.

Sinclair, and G. Valdimarsson (eds.), pp. 189-196.

Rosenberg, A.A., 2002. The Precautionary Approach in Application From a Manager’s Perspective. Bulletin of Marine

Science, 70 (2), pp. 577-588.

Rudd, M.A., 2004. An Institutional Framework for Designing

and Monitoring Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management

Policy Experiments. Ecological Economics, 48 (1), pp.

109-124.

Safina, C., 2003. The Continued Danger of Overfishing. Issues

in Science and Technology, 19 (4), pp. 49-51.

Safina, C., 1995. The World’s Imperiled Fish. Scientific American, 273 (5), pp. 46-53.

Sainsbury, K, and U.R. Sumaila, 2003. Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives into Management of Sustainable Marine

Fisheries, Including ‘Best Practice’ Reference Points and

Use of Marine Protected Areas. In: Responsible Fisheries

in the Marine Environment, M. Sinclair, and G.

Valdimarsson (eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 343-

360.

Sainsbury, K.J., A.E. Punt, and A.D.M. Smith, 2000. Design of

Operational Management Strategies for Achieving Ecosystem Objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57

(3), pp. 731-741.

Scavia, D., and 13 Others, 2002. Climate Change Impacts on

U.S. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. Estuaries, 25 (2),

pp. 149-164.

Scavia, D., and 13 Others, 2001. Coastal Areas and Marine

Resources: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. A Report of the National Coastal

Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research

Program, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD., 8 pp.

Scheiber, H.N., 1997. From Science to Law to Politics: An Historical View of the Ecosystem Idea and its Effect on Resource Management. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24 (4), pp.

631-651.

Schiermeier, Q., 2002. How Many More Fish in the Sea? Nature, 419 (6908), pp. 662-665.

Schramm, H.L., and W.A. Hubert, 1996. Ecosystem Management: Implications for Fisheries Management. Fisheries,

21 (12), pp. 6-11.

Sherman, K., 2000. Why Regional Coastal Monitoring for Assessment of Ecosystem Health? Ecosystem Health, 6 (3),

pp. 205-216.

Sherman, K., 1995. Achieving Regional Cooperation in the

Management of Marine Ecosystems: The Use of the Large

Ecosystem Approach. Ocean & Coastal Management,

29 (1-3), pp. 165-185.

Sherman, K., 1994. Sustainability, Biomass Yields, and Health

of Coastal Ecosystems: An Ecological Perspective. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 112, pp. 277-301.

Sherman, K., 1991. The Large Marine Ecosystem Concept:

Research and Management Strategy for Living Marine

Resources. Ecological Applications, 1 (4), pp. 349-360.

Sherman, K., 1989. Biomass Yields of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Yearbook 8, University of Chicago Press,

pp. 117-137.

Sherman, K., and H.R. Skjoldal (eds.), 2002. Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Atlantic: Changing States and

Sustainability. Elsevier Large Marine Ecosystems Series,

Amsterdam, Netherlands, 449 pp.
Page 33

Sherman, K., and A. M. Duda, 2001. Toward Ecosystem-based

Recovery of Marine Biomass Yield. Ambio, 30 (3), pp. 168-

169.

Sherman, K., and A. M. Duda, 1999a. Large Marine Ecosystems: An Emerging Paradigm for Fishery Sustainability.

Fisheries, 24 (12), pp. 15-26.

Sherman, K., and A. M. Duda, 1999b. An Ecosystem Approach

to Global Assessment and Management of Coastal Waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 190, pp. 271-287.

Sherman, K., N.A. Jaworski, and T.J. Smayda, (eds.), 1996. The

Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability,

and Management. Blackwell Science, 564 pp.

Sherman, K., L. M. Alexander, and B. D. Gold, (eds.), 1991.

Food Chains, Yields, Models, and Management of Large

Marine Ecosystems. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado,

320 pp.

Sinclair, M., and G. Valdimarsson, (eds.), 2003. Towards Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management. In: Responsible

Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 393-403.

Sissenwine M.P., P.M. Mace, 2003. Governance for Responsible Fisheries: An Ecosystem Approach. In: Responsible

Fisheries in the Marine Environment, M. Sinclair and G.

Valdimarsson (eds.), FAO and CABI Publishing, pp. 363-

390.

Skud, B.E., 1982. Dominance in Fishes: The Relation Between

Environment and Abundance. Science, 216 (4542), pp.

144-149.

Slocombe, D.S., 1998. Defining Goals and Criteria for Ecosystem-Based Management. Environmental Management.

22 (4), pp. 483-493.

Slocombe, D.S., 1993. Implementing Ecosystem-based Management. Bioscience, 43 (9), pp. 612-622.

Sorensen, J. C., and S.T. McCreary, 1990. Institutional Arrangements for Managing Coastal Resources and Environments, Revised Second Edition. National Park Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Renewable Resources Information Series, Washington, D.C., 194 pp.

Stanford, J.A., and G.C. Poole, 1996. A Protocol for Ecosystem

Management. Ecological Applications, 6 (3), pp. 741-

744.

Steele, J.H., and M. Schumacher, 2000. Ecosystem Structure

Before Fishing. Fisheries Research, 44 (3), pp. 201-205.

Steele, J.H., 1998. Regime Shifts in Marine Ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 8 (1) Supplement, pp. S33-S36.

Sutinen, J. G., 1999. What Works Well and Why: Evidence

From Fishery-Management Experiences in OECD Countries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56 (6), pp. 1051-

1058.

Sutinen, J.G., and M. Soboil, 2003. The Performance of Fisheries Management Systems and the Ecosystem Challenge.

In: Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Environment,

M. Sinclair, and G. Valdimarsson (eds.), FAO and CABI

Publishing, pp. 291-309.

Sutinen, J. G., and H. F. Upton, 2000. Economic Perspectives on

New England Fisheries Management. Northeastern Naturalist, 7 (4), pp. 361-372.

Sutinen, J. G., (ed.) and 15 Others, 2000. A Framework for Monitoring and Assessing Socioeconomics and Governance

of Large Marine Ecosystems. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-158, 32 pp.

Swallow, S. K., 1996. Economic Issues in Ecosystem Management: An Introduction and Overview. Agricultural and

Resources Economics Review, 25 (2), pp. 83-100.

Talaue-McManus, L., S.V. Smith, and R.W. Buddemeier, 2003.

Biophysical and Socio-economic Assessments of the

Coastal Zone: The LOICZ Approach. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 46 (5), pp. 323-333.

Thia-Eng, C., 1998. Lessons Learned from Practicing Integrated

Coastal Management in Southeast Asia. Ambio, 27 (8),

pp. 599-610.

Ukwe, C.N., C.A. Ibe, B.I. Alo, and K.K. Yumkella, 2003. Achieving a Paradigm Shift in Environmental and Living Resources Management in the Gulf of Guinea: The Large

Marine Ecosystem Approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 47 (1-6), pp. 219-225.

U.N. General Assembly, (UNGA) 2002. Verbatim Records of

the Plenary Meetings of the General Assembly, Fifty-Seventh Session, 71st Plenary Meeting, 10 December 2002,

A/57/PV.71 & the 74th Plenary Meeting, 12 December 2002,

A/57/PV.74. Online Available, November 10th, 2003 @

http://www.un.org/ga/57/pv.html .

U.N. General Assembly, (UNGA) 2003. Resolution(s) Adopted

by the General Assembly, Fifty-Seventh Session. A/RES/

57/141 Oceans and the Law of the Sea, & A/57/142 Largescale Pelagic Drift-net Fishing, Unauthorized Fishing in

Zones of National Jurisdiction and on the High Seas/

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, Fisheries

By-catch and Discards, and Other Developments, & A/

RES/57/143 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of UNCLOS of 10 December 1982 Relating to the

Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks

and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, February, 2003. Online

Available, November 10th, 2003 @ http://www.un.org/ga/

57.

U.N. General Assembly, (UNGA) 2004. Fifty-Eighth Session,

Agenda Item 52(b), Resolution 58/14, Sustainable Fisheries... and Related Instruments. Document A/RES/58/14

(A/58/L.18), January 21st 2004, Online Available February

9th, 2004 @ http://www.un.org/58 .

U.S. EPA, 2001. National Coastal Condition Report, 2001. EPA

Technical Report 620/R-01/005. Washington, D.C., 204 pp.

U.S. EPA, 2000. Toward Integrated Environmental DecisionMaking. Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C.,

August 2000, EPA-SAB-EC-00-011, 46 pp.

Vallega, A., 1999. Fundamentals of Integrated Coastal Management. The Geojournal Library, Vol. 49, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 264 pp.

Vandermeulen, H., 1998. The Development of Marine Indicators for Coastal Zone Management. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 39 (1-2), pp. 63-71.

Verity, P.G., and V. Smetacek, and T.J. Smayda, 2002. Status,

Trends and the Future of the Marine Pelagic Ecosystem.

Environmental Conservation, 29 (2), pp. 207-237.
Page 34

Villa, F., and H. McLeod, 2002. Environmental Vulnerabiloity

Indicators for Environmental Planning and Decision-Making: Guidelines and Applications. Environmental Management, 29 (3), pp. 335-348.

Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo,

1997. Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science,

277 (5325), pp. 494-499.

von Bodungen, B., and R.K. Turner, 2001. Science and Integrated Management: An Introduction. In: Science and

Integrated Coastal Management, von Bodungen, B., and

R.K. Turner (eds.), Dahlem University Press, pp. 1-14.

Wagner, L. (ed.), 2001. Summary of the Reykjavik Conference

on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Sustainable Developments, 61 (1), 11 pp.

Ward, T.J., 2000. Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of

Australia’s Marine Ecosystems. Marine and Freshwater

Research, 51 (5), pp. 435-446.

Watkins, J. D., 2004. Sustaining Our Oceans: A Public Resource,

A Public Trust. Oceanography, 17 (1), pp. 102-106.

Watkins, J. D., 2002. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Oceanography, 15 (4), pp. 4-6.

Watson, R., D. Pauly, V. Christensen, R. Froese, A. Longhurst,

T. Platt, S. Sathyendramath, K. Sherman, J. O’Reilly, and P.

Celone, 2003. Mapping Fisheries onto Marine Ecosystems for Regional, Oceanic and Global Integrations. In:

Large Marine Ecosystems of the World: Trends in Exploitation, Protection, and Research, Hempel, G., and

Sherman, K., (eds), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 375-395.

West, M.B., 2003. Improving Science Applications to Coastal

Management. Marine Policy, 27 (4), pp. 291-293.

West Group, 1996. Sustainable Fisheries Act, Public Law 104-297,

Senate Report No. 104-276. United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 104th Congress - Second

Session. Volume 6, Legislative History, pp. 4073-4119.

Wilen, J.E., M.D. Smith, D. Lockwood, and L.W. Botsford, 2002.

Avoiding Surprises: Incorporating Fisherman Behavior

into Management Models. Bulletin of Marine Science,

70 (2), pp. 553-575.

Wilmsen, S., 2002. U.S. Judge Eases Rules on Fishing: Reverses Order That Sparked Intense Criticism. The Boston

Globe, 261 (144), pp. 1 & A26.

Willmann, R., and D. Insull, 1993. Integrated Coastal Fisheries

Management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21 (1/3),

pp. 285-302.

Witherell, D., C. Pautzke, and D. Fluharty, 2000. An EcosystemBased Approach for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries. ICES

Journal of Marine Science, 57 (3), pp. 771-777.

Witherell, D, (Ed.), 2004. Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries,

Past, Present and Future. Proceedings of a Conference

on Fisheries Management in the United States, Held in

Washington, D.C., November 13-15, 2003, Published by

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 254 pp.

Witherell, D., 1999. Incorporating Ecosystem Considerations

into Management of Bering Sea Groundfish Fisheries. In:

Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries Management, Alaska

Sea Grant College Program, AK-SG-99-01, Fairbanks, pp.

315-327.

Witherell, D., (ed.), 1998. Ecosystem Considerations for 1999.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage,

Alaska, November, 1998. Online Available, September 29th,

2003 @ http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/ecosystem/

ecobased.htm .

Witherell, D., and 11 Others, 1997. Ecosystem Considerations

for 1998. North Pacific Fishery Management Council,

Anchorage, Alaska, November, 1997. Online Available,

September 29th, 2003 @ http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/

ecosystem/ecobased.htm .

Yaffee, S.L., 1996. Ecosystem Management in Practiice: The

Importance of Human Institutions. Ecological

Appliications, 6 (3), pp. 724-727.

Young, O. R., 2003. Taking Stock: Management Pitfalls in Fisheries Science. Environment, 45 (3), pp. 24-33.

Zabel, R.W., C.J. Harvey, S.L. Katz, T.P. Good, and P.S. Levin,

2003. Ecologically Sustainable Yield. American Scientist,

91 (2), pp. 150-157.
Page 35

Table 1. An Ecosystem approach requires new thinking about how marine ecosystems are defined, and how problems

and solutions are framed. (Adopted and modified from Fluharty, 2000; Holling, 1996; Gonzalez, 1996).

• Management scales are nested in a multiple spatial and temporal application of five module multi-sectoral 

suites of indicators ranging in scale from LME’s for the ocean environment into watersheds.

• Ecosystem delineations must be scientifically defensible (e.g. best available science) and administratively

practical.

• LME boundaries are based on ecological criteria such as ecosystem health, resilience, and stability.

• Ecosystem categories of threat, level of threat, and “distance” from desired restoration condition can be 

combined to rank ecosystems at risk. Ranks (should be based on a review of quantitative information by a 

scientific panel with stakeholder participation. Ranks (from e.g. comparative risk assessment(s)) can be 

employed to plan and prioritize management regulatory agency action for ecosystems at various levels of 

present and future risk.

• The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) provides a salient perspective definition of 

an “ecosystem approach to fisheries” that it “strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking into 

account the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems and 

their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecologically meaningful 

boundaries” (see: http://www.fao.org/docrep/).

• Holling (1996) advocates that “at a minimum, the goal of ecosystem management is understanding 

to reduce uncertainties, action to maintain or restore resilience (i.e., the ability of a system to absorb 

change and variation without flipping into a different state where the variables and processes controlling 

structure and behavior suddenly change) as insurance for the unknown, and creation of incentives for 

maintaining sustainable systems”.

• NOAA’s strategic vision stated in New Priorities for the 21st Century places its first mission goal to 

“protect, restore, and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources through ecosystem-based 

management.” Its objectives under this mission goal are economically, scientifically and socially

interdependent.

• Ecosystem-based Management: U.S. ocean and coastal resources should be managed to reflect the 

relationships among all ecosystem components, including humans and nonhuman species and the 

environments in which they live. Applying this principle will require defining relevant geographic

management areas based on ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries. Excerpt from April 2004 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Chapter 3: Setting the Nation’s Sights, at page 32.
Page 36

Table 2. Key spatial and temporal scales and principal elements of a systems approach to the research and management of large

marine ecosystems. (Source original adapted and modified from Sherman, 1994; Sherman and Duda, 1999 a&b; Watson

et al., 2003.)

A. Spatial-temporal scales 

Spatial Temporal Unit

Global (world ocean) Millennia - decadal Pelagic biogeochemical

Regional (exclusive economic zones) Decadal- seasonal Large marine ecosystems 

Local Seasonal- daily Subsystems

B. Research elements 

Spawning strategies 

Feeding strategies 

Productivity, trophodynamics 

Stock fluctuations/recruitment/mortality 

Natural variability (hydrography, currents, water masses, climate regime shifts)

Human perturbations:

(fishing effort, waste disposal, petrogenic hydrocarbon impacts, toxic runoff effects,

aerosol contaminants, eutrophication effects, pollution effects, viral disease. vectors) 

C. Management elements - Options and Advice - International, National, Local 

Bioenvironmental and socioeconomic models 

Adaptive management to optimize sustainable fisheries yields

Mitigation of pollution stress especially in near shore coastal areas from riverine runoff; improvement of ecosystem ‘health’

D. Feedback loop 

Evaluation of ecosystem ‘health’

Evaluation of fisheries status and trends

Evaluation of management for “best practices”, in addition: every ecosystem management effort regardless of its specific 

definition, should include eight principles (adapted from Christensen et al; 1996; Hennessey, 1998):

1. long-term sustainability as fundamental value and objective

2. clear, operational goals

3. sound ecological models and understanding

4. understanding complexity and interconnectedness

5. recognition of the dynamic character of ecosystems

6. attention to context and scale

7. acknowledgment of humans as ecosystem components

8. commitment to adaptability and accountability

From EPA (2001) measurement indicators at spatial and temporal scales include:

1. Measures of community and ecosystem structure and function

• productivity

• abundances and distributions of plants and animals

• diversity

• important attributes of nutrient and chemical cycling

2. Environmental stressors

• primary stressors of coastal ecosystems (including anthropogenic sources)

• habitat variables (measures required to interpret natural variability in rapidly

changing coastal environments)

3. National sampling tier would be stratified by environmental issue, with a monitoring program associated with each

stratum

• Habitat degradation

• Fisheries declines

• Harmful algal blooms

• Hypoxia 

According to Ward (2000) “to ensure ecological relevance, each indicator represents, or relates directly to, one or more of five

important attributes of marine ecosystems-diversity, stability, yields, productivity and resilience”.
Page 37

Table 3. In terms of sustainability, the assessment of the performance of LME-oriented fisheries management systems

can be guided by the “Principals of Sustainable Development Performance Measurements” established by the

Bellagio Conference (1996, Italy) and reported by the Federal Planning Bureau of Belgium (1997, Annex 3).

Briefly, these principles (adapted and modified from Garcia and Staples, 2000) include the need for, inter alia:

• “a guiding vision and clear goals; 

• a holistic perspective;

• consideration of essential elements such as intra- and 

inter-generational equity, resource use and over-consumption,

poverty, rights, ecological conditions, as well as human well-being; 

• adequate scope, with long enough time scales and wide enough spatial scales,

analyzing historical patterns and projecting into the future; 

• practical focus, using an organizing framework, a limited number of key issues and standardized 

indicators, comparing targets, reference values, ranges, and thresholds; 

• openness and transparency; 

• effective communication with a broad and diversified audience, reaching policy and decision-makers,

• using simple information and clear language;

• broad participation by key grass-root professional and technical groups as well as 

decision makers; 

• ongoing assessment of progress towards sustainability, improved capacity, with continuous adjustments

of the framework, promoting adaptive learning and feedback; and

• institutional capacity improving the data collection and analysis as well as decision making 

processes, assigning responsibilities, empowering local communities.”

Present in and supported by the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and its process of implementation, these principals ought to be reflected in any “guidelines” prepared for LME-oriented fisheries.
Page 38

Table 4. National Standards to provide for the conservation and management of the fisheries from the Sustainable

Fisheries Act of 1996, Public Law 104-297 October 11th.

1. Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis,

the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.

2. Conservation and management measures shall be based on the best scientific information available.

3. To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and 

interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination. 

4. Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states. If it 

becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such

allocation shall be 

(a) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; 

(b) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and 

(c) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation or other entity acquires an 

excessive share of such privileges. 

5. Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of 

fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.

6. Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and

contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. 

7. Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary

duplication.

8. Conservation measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including the 

prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery

resources to fishing communities in order to 

(a) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and

(b)to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. 

9. Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable

(a) minimize by-catch and 

(b) to the extent by-catch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such by-catch. 

10. Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life

at sea. 

Note: National Standards 8-10 were added in October 1996 via Public Law 104-297. National Standards 1-4

were inserted via Public Law 98-623, which were amendments to the initial Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265). It is also important to mention that via Public Law

97-453, section 301(b) Guidelines-the Secretary of Commerce “shall establish advisory guidelines (which shall

not have the force and effect of law), based on the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery

management plans.” Adapted and modified from Darcy and Matlock, (1999) and information from

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/magact/mag3.html).
Page 39

Table 5. Selected prospective stages in the policy orientation process in an ecosystem-oriented LME fisheries (management) module. Adapted and modified after, e.g., Jones (1984); Burroughs (1996); Clark (1992); Olsen et al.

(1998); Pielke et al. (1999); Thia-Eng (1998); Hennessey (1994); Juda and Burroughs (1990); Sorensen and

McCreary (1990). The bold highlighted stages below indicate “significant scientific input for this activity”

(Burroughs, 1996). Prediction as a process in fostering sound decision making from scientific research comes

from Pielke et al. (1999) and Steele (1998). It too would contain significant scientific input. 

• Definition of problems in society (problem definition) 

• Initiation/invention may include preliminary investigation of management concepts

• Aggregation of concerned individuals, e.g., stakeholders, also public awareness

• Organization or initiation, e.g., stakeholders consensus building 

• Representation, access to decision makers maintained 

• Agenda setting 

• Formulation of proposals (by government) 

• Legitimation of program by government 

• Preparation of a program may include pilot projects as a potential pre-test 

• Estimation may include a more thorough assessment of management concepts 

• Selection may provide benefits by reducing uncertainty about various options 

• Prediction of policy decisions in planning and managing natural resources 

• Budgeting for government program and (formal adoption of program)

• Adoption of organizational and legal mechanisms 

• Implementation of government program by key actors

• Evaluation of program 

• Refining and consolidating, including, e.g., program monitoring 

• Adjustment and/or termination, including how adjustments come about 
Page 40

Table 6. A proactive precautionary fisheries management policy orientation may combine a variety of approaches

and regulatory tools (adapted and modified from Garcia, 1994; Olsen, 1999) as follows:

• Adopting the sustainable development principle;

• Adopting the principle of precautionary management, with the degree of ‘precaution’ negotiated on a case-by-case 

basis;

• Using the best available science as evidence;

• Adopting a broader range of management benchmarks and reference points more directly related to (recruitment) 

reproduction capacity (safe biological limits, minimum spawning biomass, etc.);

• Developing a set of criteria;

• Taking a risk-averse policy position (e.g. requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA) before authorizing any 

increase of fishing intensity beyond maximum rates of exploitation);

• Agreeing on acceptable levels of impacts (and risk) (e.g. negotiations between stakeholder interest groups, and within 

an appropriate institutional and legislative framework will be necessary);

• Basing management decisions on combined stresses on resources and environment (e.g. insert fisheries in the 

context of coastal zone/areas integrated management, for the U.S., within the scope and parameters of ‘federal 

consistency’ of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended);

• Improving management response time (e.g. adaptive management techniques, reproductive capacity, risk level);

• Improving participation of ‘non-fishery users’ in fisheries management bodies for more ‘transparency’ in fisheries 

management decision-making;

• Improving decision-making procedures (e.g. voting procedures and public comment periods);

• Introducing prior consultation procedures comparable to an EIA report for constituency comments;

• Strengthening enforcement monitoring, control and surveillance and raising penalties to deterrent levels.
Page 41

Table 7. Existing proactive precautionary approaches for fisheries management (adapted and modified from Garcia,

1994; Rosenberg, 2002; Hennessey & Healey, 2000; Sissenwine & Mace, 2003) including:

Step-wise development with effort monitoring and with accompanying research and trawl 

surveys;

Early effort limitations instead of laissez-faire investment strategies which lead to overfishing; 

Design of institutional or financial ‘brakes’ to avoid ‘explosive’ redevelopment (e.g. Ludwig’s

Ratchet) together with possible prior-authorization for ordering new vessels or borrowing money 

for them (before proceeding into a fishery);

Precautionary quotas for species for which proper reliable scientific assessments are not 

available, that is, give priority to conserving productive capacity of the resource when there is 

considerable uncertainty;

Using ‘pessimistic models’ for stocks where low resilience is suspected or established

establish an institutional (policy orientation) framework for management action under the “ruleof-law”;

Recommendations for ‘experimental adaptive management’ to pre-test systems response in

multispecies assessments;

Recommendations of catch targets below the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) e.g. F0-1, F2/3,

FMSY, and ensure that resource use be regularly reviewed for management adjustments;

Adoption of the concept of ‘safe biological limits’, as ecosystem considerations;

Agreement on cautious management thresholds (e.g. minimum spawning biomass) and course 

of action before crisis occurs and initiate corrective measures with little delay.

Despite their general availability, the above measures and variations thereof have not been adopted

widely or successfully implemented in most delineated LME’s.
Page 42

Table 8. Selected proactive precautionary ecosystem management criteria. (Adapted and modified from Garcia,

1994; Garcia, 2000)

From an ecosystem point of view, minimize by-catch or using extremely selective gears might not be

necessarily the best solution (with the proviso that discards be limited to a strict minimum). In multispecies management, a reasonable strategy would be to exploit all species proportionally to their

abundance in order to maintain the overall structure. New criteria are required for species sustainability, for example, minimum reproductive biomass, safe biological limits, optimum recruitment levels, maximum statistical probability of ecological or economical collapse, especially for particularly

low resilience species. New criteria are also needed for precautionary ecosystem management.

Some principles and objectives can be operationalized to:

• minimize anthropogenic conversion of critical ecosystems to ‘lower’ trophic conditions;

• balance habitat conversion with restoration (a no net loss approach);

• maintain food web ecological relationships;

• maintain populations at optimal net annual recruitment increment;

• provide restoration ecology programs for depleted populations;

• minimize risk of irreversible change in the large marine ecosystem, etc.

Widely applied precautionary approach related indicators (after Garcia, 2000) include, inter alia:

• adopting target and limit reference points;

• study and take into account uncertainties and risk by arranging for pre-agreed 

(temporary) emergency management measures in case of threat or unintended, unforeseen

consequences;

• consideration for social and economic impacts of regulatory decisions;

• conducting, for new gear or fisheries development, prior impact assessments (the Orange

Roughy lessons learned approach).
Page 43

Identify the stakeholders: the interested parties;

Prepare a chart of the ecoregions: species, habitats and oceanographic features;

Identify the partners and their interests: stakeholders directly interested or affected by the fishery;

Establish the ecosystem values: habitats, species and uses;

Determine the main potential hazards of the fishery to the ecosystem values;

Conduct an ecological risk assessment: determine the actual risks of the fishery;

Establish the objectives and targets: agreed goals for the ecosystem and the fish stock;

Establish strategies for achieving targets;

Design the information system: includes monitoring of stock and ecological indicators;

Establish information needs and research priorities;

Design performance assessment and review process;

Design and Implement an EBM training and education package for fishers and managers. 

Table 9. “It is increasingly realized that the predictability requirement cannot be fulfilled even within the

limited scope of single stock management without ecosystem considerations”. Ecosystem based

management implementation proposal, taken from Degnbol (2002), suggests that the ecological

aspects of a marine ecosystem-based management approach (EBM) would be implemented using

the following steps in a typical fishery:
Page 44 Table 10. Criteria, reference values and indicators used in international LME fisheries from Garcia and Staples, 2000; Garcia, 2000.

Criteria(Issue) Reference values Indicators

Fishery-related indicators

Catch Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY); Maximum Constant Yield (MCY), Catch.C/MSY.C/MCY.C/LTAY. (MSY - Yield)/MSY. Similar ratios

Maximum Long-TermAverageYield (LTAY); Optimum Yield using MCY, or LTAY. Similar ratios using 2/3 MSY.

(undefined).

Fishing mortality (F) FMSY, FMCY, FLTAY, FMEY, F0.1, FOY (undetermined), FMAX, Flow, Fmed, Fhigh, f.f/area.F.f/fMSY, f/fLTAY, F/FMSY, F/FLTAY, etc. Searching “steaming” time/fishing

Fishing effort (f) 2/3FMSY, F30%SPR, Fcrash, Floss, F>=M, F<M, Zbmp. time (for schooling fish). Area fished/total species range. Fishing capacity

Fishing intensity (f/area) GRTMSY, etc. (GRT). Ratio to optimal capacity.

Fleet capacity (GRT) Vessels in a targeted fishery (open access or permitted)

Catch value or revenues (R) Maximum Sustainable Revenue (MSR). R.R/MSR, (MSR-R)/MSR

Rent Maximum Economic Yield (MEY) = Max. Economic Rent (MER) Rent. Rent/MER.

Technology indicators

Environmental aspects: Selectivity. Ratios to best available (affordable) technology? “Zero Discards”? Prior Lc50. Tc50. Total discards. Discards/By-catch. Discards/Catch.

Discards Consent (PC) or Prior Authorization (PA) procedures. Lists of acceptable

and/or banned gear. Gear regulations. Technologies addressing selectivity,

by-catch of juveniles, and discards (Grid systems, protected nursery areas).

Social indicators

Employment (EMP) Maximum Sustainable Employment (MSE)? EMP. EMP/MSE

Age (A) ? Age (fisheries) or Age (rural sector)

Social cohesion Minimum social unrest. Maximum compliance Non-compliance ratio.

Community resiliency Index of diversity in employment

Community independence %of economic activity based locally

On-board conditions Minimum rate of accident? Maximum rate of insurance Number of accidents/trip? Cost of insurance? % ensured.

Wealth indicator? ? Fisheries over comparable wages in other job categories?

Institutional / Governance Indicators

Management capacity A fisheries with Management plan (MP) % of fisheries covered by MP

Decision-support capacity Appropriate research / monitoring capacity Research staff and budget. GIS capacity. Record of scientific advice

to decision making and to assessment of management performance

degree of participation (in information collection, option analysis,

decision making, enforcement). Number and role of NGOs. Duration

and severity of conflicts (?).

Legislation In line with international agreements and conventions. Also national Rate of adoption of aspects found in the FAO Code of Conduct for 

domestic laws and regulations. Responsible Fisheries?

Partnership / Participation Degree of participation (from 0+No participation to 1=participation in % of Fisheries with partnership mechanism.

decision and enforcement)

MCS Effective MCS system operational. Complies with duties of Flag and Rate of compliance. Number of penalties / Number of infractions

Port State
Table 10 Continued

Criteria(Issue) Reference values Indicators

Institutional / Governance Indicators Continued

Oversight Independent oversight mechanism available % Fisheries covered by Oversight Committees

Effectiveness of sector policy

Research Linkage between research and decision-making (research involved, utilized,

published, publically available, scientific cooperation, independent advice) 

policy orientation

Target resource indicators

Resource biomass (B) B=50% B(virgin). SB>MBAL. SB>0.3B(Virgin). BMSY, BMCY, B50%R, B90%R. B.B/B(virgin). B/BMSY, B/BMCY, B/B50%R, B/B90%R

Spawning biomass (SB) Biomass of target and non-target species. Catch per unit of effort

(cpue) is a proxy indicators for B. In some cases, changes in distribution

area could be used as a proxy to changes in biomass (small pelagic)

Resource structure: Length. Age. Length or age composition and average length or age; ratio of average

Lc50, Lm50, , LF=0 tc50, tm50 length or age to length or age at first maturity (Lm50 and tm50).

Ratio of present average length ( ) to pristine average length or age (LF=0)

eventually simulated with F = 0, Sex-ratio where relevant (e.g. marine

mammals also sea turtles). School size where relevant (e.g., small pelagic 

resources). Index of fat content (e.g., in small pelagic fish used for reduction 

also used for Blue Fin Tuna).

Ecosystem indicators

Biological diversity Minimum possible species loss. Minimum loss of genetic diversity Existence of Marine Protected Areas (MPA). % littoral area protected,

totally, partially. Existence of germplasm conservation scheme.

Biodiversity index.

Water quality ‘Pristine’conditions or conditions at an agreed reference point in time Pollution index; transparency (Secchi values); satellite coastal zone color 

Pollution Conventional standards established by international environmental treaties scanner (CZCS) indications; algae index; release of nitrogen components and 

and conventions, International Maritime Organization (IMO) etc. phosphorates;other global pollution indicators; population density (average

and seasonal peaks); absolute values or ratios to historical levels. % of change.

Critical habitats Minimum % of area of seagrass beds, mangroves, mudflats, coral reefs, Ratio between residual (hinterland) area and ‘Pristine’or reference area, area

‘Pristine’habitat area (or, area at an agreed reference point in time), to be of live and dead coral, grass density, species diversity indexes, other indexes

conserved. % of area which is formally protected; statute. Dead restrictions of condition; protected areas (biosphere reserves)

Environmental economics indicators (to be developed)

Value of environmental assets Compliance, extension education, subsidies and deterence theory

Page 45
Page 46

This page is 

intentionally blank.
Figure 1. Sketch map of the Northeast United States Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) and Watershed.

Page 47
Figure 2. A five module LME strategy developed for assessing and analyzing ecosystem-wide changes in support

of improved adaptive management decision practices (adapted from Sherman, 2000; Gable, 2003).

Productivity

Encompassing photosynthetic activity,

zooplankton (bio)diversity, oceanographic variability, species composition,

chlorophyll-a, primary production, and

carrying capacity for supporting 

fish resources

Fish & fisheries

Encompassing biodiversity, finfish,

shellfish, demersal, pelagic & anadromous

species and sampling, trawl and acoustic

surveys, and environmental shifts in 

climate regime Socioeconomic

Encompassing anthropogenic forcing

functions (e.g., fishing effort/vessel

capacity), sustainability of long-term

socioeconomic benefits, and 

integrated assessments

Governance

Encompassing holistic adaptive management procedures and techniques,

and stakeholder participation and 

representation

Pollution & 

ecosystem health

Encompassing eutrofication, biotoxins,

pathology, emerging disease, health 

measures and indices, and resilience 

and stability

Page 48
Figure 3. Ecosystem Considerations in Fisheries Management: Linking Ecosystem Research to Ecosystem Science Policy

and Management Goals. (Adapted and modified from the North Pacific Fisheries Management Councils’

“Ecosystem Considerations” Reports and the NOAA/NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle).

There is a need to discuss and define the ecosystem-oriented management goals of the regulatory organization

and the tools available to managers to attain those goals. Ecosystem research including GLOBEC (see;

www.usglobec.org) and GLOBEC-like research efforts, habitat research, ongoing trophic interactions work, and

long-term monitoring of commercial and non-commercial species already can serve as indicators of ecosystem

status and trends. These marine science-based indicators can provide and early warning system for managers,

signalling human or climate induced changes that may necessitate management action. Ecosystem considerations that can accompany the traditional stock assessment approach include ecosystem status and trend information and link management actions with ecosystem observations. The New England Fishery Management Council

(and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council) as regulatory agencies within the Northeast United States

Continental Shelf LME ought to commence preparation of a program for science policy ecosystem considerations to facilitate movement towards ecosystem-oriented fisheries management while utilizing a precautionary

approach.

ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

• Maintain living marine resource(s) biodiversity for both targeted and non-targeted species

• Maintain and restore essential fish habitats

• Maintain system sustainability (human consumption sustainable yields and non-extractive uses while utilizing a “precautionary

approach”)

• Maintain the concept that humans are component parts of the marine ecosystem by changes denoted in fishing power and fleet 

composition and number and efficacy of limited entry, license or Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) systems, if any.

• In order to derive standards to measure and track the success of ecosystem-oriented management efforts, management goals 

(and objectives) with regard to the jurisdictional ecosystem must be explicitly stated.

MARINE ECOSYSTEM STATUS INDICATORS

In order to measure and evaluate marine ecosystem status and trends and make management adjustments if warranted, program

monitoring should take into account:

• Status and trend indicators of:

- P hysical abiotic env ironment (NAO, “ regime shift(s),” e tc.)

- Habitat (pollutant/contaminant amounts in the benthic sediments and gro undfish, for ex ample, benthos composition)

- L iving marine re sources (abundance trends of phy toplankton-harmful algal bl ooms, zo oplankton, fo rage fi sh-herring and 

macke rel, i nve rtebrat es, n on-target fish species, m arine mammals-right wh ales,seabirds e. g. by catch/discard amounts)

- Community or ecosystem level (diversity of fishery guilds sampled by bottom trawl surveys, trophic level, size

diversity and model results)

Thus, these indicators can be utilized to potentially assess the possible role that both climate and humans may have on ecosystem variability and provide linkages between ecosystem research and “best practices” sustainable fishery management programs.

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT INDICATORS

In order to measure performance towards meeting the stated goals and objectives, program monitoring should take into accord:

• Bycatch/discard amounts (e.g. specified and non-specified species)

• Area closed to bottom trawling (e.g. marine protected areas and amount time/area closures)

• Trophic level and total amount of catch (e.g. landings)

• Effort levels and controls (e.g. days-at-sea; net mesh size restrictions; gear types; vessel design and crew size, and fishery

observers; and,exploitation rates by specific time/area units for fisheries with time/area quotas)

Thus, these indicators may provide evidence of direct human efforts on ecosystem components in combination with in-place

fishery management actions and the efficacy of such policies.

Page 49
Ecosystem Considerations

Measures and Influences

Influences Outcomes

Closed Areas

Status

and Trends

Policy

Management

Catch

Levels

Physical

Forcing

Effort

Management

Tools

Ecosystem

Indicators

Provide

Feedback

for Adaptive Management

North

Atlantic

Ecosystem

“Pressure-State-Responses”

Figure 4. North Atlantic Ecosystem considerations, measures and influences provide feedback for adaptive management

of resources. (Source: adapted and modified from information available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council see: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/ and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle WA).

Page 50
Figure 5. Recommendations for a potential U.S. LME “best practices” approach to implement regional fishery ecosystem-oriented management.

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

Ecosystem

Considerations

Step 1 Require each fishery manageSte

ment council to report to Congress on

how they are meeting the National

Research Council’s eight ecosystem

recommendations to achieve sustainable fisheries. This serves as a self

evaluation for Councils to determine

where changes should be made.

p 2 Suggest that each

Ste

Council establish an

Ecosystem Committee to provide a forum for information

exchange on ecosystem

research and ecosystem-oriented “best practices” management.

p 3 Require NOAA/NMFS Fisheries

to prepare an annual “status of the

ecosystem” report for each region, similar to the requirement for stock assessment and fishery evaluation reports.

This “status of the ecosystem” report

should contain socio-economic, environmental, ecological, and fishery

ecosystem indicators.

Step 4 Require NOAA/NMFS Fisheries to develop technical

guidelines (not regulations) to assist Councils with preparing fishery ecosystem plans, which include clear goals and objectives.

Step 5 Require that each Council begin

preparation of a draft fishery ecosystem

plan (once the guidelines have been

adopted) to serve as a foundation for all

fishery management plans in the region,

may include pilot projects as a pretest.

Step 6 Require

NOAA/NMFS Fisheries to

identify, within fishery

ecosystem plans, the

research priorities needed

for full implementation of

an ecosystem approach. 

Step 7 Fund research identified in

the previous step, and modify fishery

ecosystem plans as new “best available science” information becomes

available.

(Adapted and modified from North Pacific Fishery Management Council, November 2003; http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/).

Page 51
Figure 6. Suggested “best practice” strategies for implementation of the National Academy of Science National Research Council ecosystem considerations.

U.S. NAS/NRC

Ecosystem

Considerations

(1)

Adopt conservative

harvest levels and set

annual catch limits

(2)

Incorporate

ecosystem-based goals

into management

(3)

Adopt a 

precautionary approach

to deal with 

uncertainty

(5)

Establish

Marine Protected 

Areas as a buffer for 

uncertainty

(6)

Include bycatch and 

discard mortality in

catch accounting

(7)

Institutionalize

scientific and stake holder

rev iew into a tra nsparent

decision making pro cess

(4)

Reduce excess 

fishing capacity and 

assign fishing rights

(8)

Conduct more

research on structure

and function of marine

ecosystems

Ecosystem considerations are

incorpo

Annual limits are set at or below

acceptable biological catch (ABC)

levels recommended by scientists.

Fisheries close when catch limits

are reached. A federal observer 

program - funded by the industry -

monitors and reports catch and

bycatch amounts. All fish caught

count against the limit.

rated into annual stock

assessment rep orts that 

factor in uncertainty of 

population dy namics.

Biodive rsity and regime 

shift indicat ors help reve al

ch anging ecosystem trends 

not yet unders tood, but

which could affect stock 

abu ndance.

Scientists and managers use a

precautionary approach to 

estimate fish abundance and set

catch limits. An overall species

harvest cap is always below the

cumulative biological catch

limits for individual species.

Managers working to end the “race for fish” have acted to

“rationalize” the fisheries. Now deliberating over complex

programs to potentially establish right-based management

in all groundfish.

Managers ought to establish a comprehensive habitat protection policy closing

permanently or seasonally to some or all

fishing to protect marine resources and

sensitive habitat.

Fi shery manage rs should 

implement nu merous measure s

to reduce by catch and ensure

accurate accounting of by catch.

Bycatch-related mort ality

should always be included in

catch accounting.

The Scientific and Statistical

Committee, Advisory Panel, other

appointed committees, including an

Ecosystem Committee, have meetings

all open to the public; public comment is solicited on all proposed 

management measures.

Scientists regularly incorporate uncertainty into stock assessment models and

engage in research to increase understanding of prey/predator relationships, climate and oceanographic shifts, habitat mapping, and impact assessment. Industry

should consider supplementing these efforts by contributing about $2 million

annually to university related marine research and/or observer program(s). 

(Adapted and modified from North Pacific Fishery Management Council, November 2003; http:www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/).

Page 52
Maintain ecosystem

integrity

Manage based on 

natural processes

Sustain ecosystems 

for the long ter m

Manage within 

context of an ecological 

hierarchical 

organization

Integrate scientific 

research, policy, and

management

Develop and 

adopt an interd isciplinary

ap proach to planning and 

manage ment

Incorporate adaptive

management 

procedures

Facilitate public 

participation and 

collaborative decision

making

Develop 

educational programs

and provide for information exchange

Accommodate human

use and occupancy

Figure 7. Ecosystem-oriented management principals modeled on U.S. National Environment Policy

Act (NEPA) of 1969 goals, that are germane for U.S. LME policy. Adapted and modified

from Phillips and Randolph (2000).

Page 53
Figure 8. Draft key elements of an ecosystem-oriented fisheries management approach for the Northeast United

States Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) as a representative example.

Definition(s) Ecosystem-oriented fishery management is “a strategy to regulate human activity towards maintaining long-term

system sustainability (within the range of natural variability as we understand it”, Fluharty, 2000) of the 

Northeast Shelf Ecosystem, covering the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Southern New England, and the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight and their associated estuaries and watersheds. Protecting or restoring the function, structure, and species 

composition of the ecosystem, recognizing that all components are interrelated, and that safeguards the long-term

ecological sustainability, natural diversity and productivity of the ecosystem, and considering the needs of people and 

environmental values. Highlighting the positive correlation between economic prosperity and environmental 

well-being, it is a goal-driven approach to restoring and sustaining healthy ecosystems and their functions and values 

using the best science available. (adapted and modified from Haeuber (1996) from select U.S. federal agency

definitions). Ecosystem-based management “is based on large areas that are diverse ecologically, economically, and

socially, and complexly connected and interacting. It entails scientific, descriptive components as well as normative

components” (Slocombe, 1998). Ecosystem management occurs over multiple scales ranging in scope from a 

focus on the local scale (local abundance, local disturbance) and immediate benefits to broader geographic scales at

the immediate coast and long-term benefits. (Schramm & Hubert, 1996).

Objective The basic ecosystem consideration is a precautionary approach to extraction of fish resources to provide and 

ensure the intergenerational sustainability of ecosystem goods, services and socioeconomic benefits by establishing

appropriate reference points and/or sustainability indicators for restoring and maintaining the fish and fisheries 

produced by this ecosystem based on the best scientific evidence available.

Goals One “goal of the ecosystem approach is to restore, enhance, and protect ecosystem integrity. Ecosystem integrity

entails the alleviation of physical stresses and the restoration of a healthy ecosystem structure and function. For 

those who support the ecosystem approach to integrated marine resources management, the goal is to

institutionalize the concept within elected government” (MacKenzie 1997).

1. Maintain ecosystem productivity and biodiversity consistent with multiple spatial scales natural evolutionary and 

ecological processes, including dynamic change and variability.

2. Maintain and restore habitats essential for fish and their prey, that is, “those waters and substrate necessary to 

fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity” (e.g. see Fluharty, 2000).

3. Maintain system sustainability and sustainable yields of fisheries resources for human consumption including 

halting overfishing, that is, “a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to 

produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis “(e.g. see Fluharty, 2000).

4. Maintain the concept that humans are integral components of the ecosystem.

Guidelines 1. Integrate ecosystem-oriented management through interactive partnerships among the states and regulatory

agencies, stakeholders, (public), regional and international organizations (e.g. NAFO).

2. Utilize peer-review ecological models as an aid in understanding the structure, function, and dynamics of the 

Northeast Shelf ecosystem.

3. Utilize best available science research and monitoring to validate a “best practices” ecosystem -oriented

approach, for sustainable use of fishery resources.

4. Use precaution when faced with uncertainties to minimize risk; management decisions should err on the side 

of resource conservation.

Assumptions 1. Ecosystem-oriented management is an adaptive process which requires periodic evaluation preferably on an 

annual basis for refining and incorporating updated scientific information as it becomes available.

2. Ecosystem-oriented management requires temporal scales that transcend human generations.

3. Fish has become one of the most internationally traded food items, as some 37% (by volume) of all fish for 

human consumption is traded across borders (Sinclair and Valdimarsson, 2003).

Understanding 1. “The ecosystem is considered to be a unit of biological organization made up of all of the organisms in a given

area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to characteristic trophic 

structure and material cycles within the system” (Odum, 1969).

2. Science policy management measures that are consistent with an ecosystem-oriented strategy include

precautionary-conservative catch (allocation) limits, comprehensive monitoring and enforcement, bycatch

controls including adaptable retention and utilization policies, gear restrictions, closed season/closed

area/time marine protected areas (MPA’s), and additional ecosystem considerations that are based

on scientific research and advice (Witherell, et al., 2000).

(Adapted and modified from Sinclair and Validimarsson, 2003; Witherell, et al., 2000; Fluharty, 2000; Sherman and Duda, 1999

a&b; Witherell, 1999; Slocombe, 1998; MacKenzie, 1997; Haeuber, 1996; Schramm and Hubert, 1996; Odum, 1969)

Page 54
Figure 9. Draft ecosystem-oriented fisheries management science policy for the Northeast United States

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) as a representative example.

Definition(s) Ecosystem-oriented fishery management is “a strategy to regulate human activity towards maintaining long-term

system substainability (within the range of natural variability as we understand it”, Fluharty, 2000). The 

area under consideration is the U.S. Northeast Shelf ecosystem and its four sub-areas - the Gulf of Maine,

Georges Bank, Southern New England, and the Mid-Atlantic Bight.

Objective “The basic ecosystem consideration is a precautionary approach to extraction of fish resources” to provide and 

ensure the intergenerational sustainability of ecosystem goals and services by establishing appropriate reference 

points and/or sustainability indicators based on the best scientific evidence available.

Goals 1. Maintain biodiversity consistent with multiple spatial scales natural evolutionary and ecological processes,

including dynamic change and variability.

2. Maintain and restore habitats essential for fish and their prey, that is, “those waters and substrate necessary to 

fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity” (e.g. see Fluharty, 2000).

3. Maintain system sustainability and sustaina ble yields of resources for human consumption and non-extractive

uses, including halting overfishing, that is, “a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a 

fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis “(e.g. see Fluharty, 2000).

4. Maintain the concept that humans are integral components of the ecosystem.

Guidelines 1. Integrate ecosystem-oriented management through interactive partnerships between and among regulatory

agencies, stakeholders, (public), and international regional organizations (e.g. NAFO).

2. Utilize peer-review ecological models as an aid in understanding the structure, function, and dynamics of the 

North Atlantic ecosystem.

3. Utilize best available science research and monitoring to test and validate a “best practices” ecosystem

approach.

4. Use precaution when faced with uncertainties to minimize risk; management decisions should err on the side 

of resource conservation.

Assumptions 1. Ecosystem-oriented management is an experimental adaptive process which requires periodic evaluation,

refining and consolidation to incorporate updated scientific information as it becomes available.

2. Ecosystem-oriented management requires temporal scales that transcend human generations.

3. Fish has become the most internationally traded food, as some 37% (by volume) of all fish for human 

consumption is traded across borders (Sinclair and Valdimarsson, 2003).

Understanding 1. The ecosystem is considered to be a unit of biological organization made up of all the organisms in a given area

(that is a “community”) interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to characteristic

trophic structure and material cycles within the system (Odum, 1969).

2. Science policy management measures that are consistent with an ecosystem-oriented strategy include, among 

others, precautionary-conservative catch (allocation) limits, comprehensive monitoring and enforcement,

by-catch controls including adaptable retention and utilization policies, gear restrictions, closed season/closed

area/time marine protected areas (MPA’s), and additional ecosystem considerations that include relying on 

scientific research and advice, etc.(Witherell, et al., 2000)

(Adapted and modified from Sinclair and Validimarsson, 2003; Witherell, et al., 2000; Fluharty, 2000; Sherman and Duda, 1999

a&b; Witherell, 1999; Odum, 1969)

Page 55
Development

planning

Management Fish capture and

processing

Research

Technology

development

and transfer Legal and 

institutional

frameworks

The scope of the 

precautionary

approach

Fisheries

enhancement

Aquaculture

Figure 10. According to Restrepo et al. (1999), the scope of the precautionary approach to fisheries management

applies at all levels of LME fisheries systems. After completion of the FAO Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries and the technical guidelines on the Precautionary Approach by FAO, the facts

or key elements of the Precautionary Approach that have received the most attention according to

Restrepo et al. (1999) are:

• definitions of overfishing incorpor ating target and limit reference points;

• formulation of decision (control) rules that stipulate in advance what actions will be taken to 

prevent overfishing and promote tar get stock rebuilding;

• incorporation of uncertainty by using a risk-averse approach to calculate targets, constrain

fishing mortality, and rebuild stock biomass.

Page 56
Figure 11. According to Restrepo et al. (1999), key elements of a precautionary approach sustainable LME

fisheries management strategy would encompass the above ecosystem considerations.

Page 57
SHIFTS OCCUR IN UPPER

ATMOSPHERE CIRCULATION

CREATING OCEAN TEMPERATURE

ANOMALIES (e.g. EL NINO; NORTH

ATLANTIC OSCILLATION, SEE; LEVITUS

ETAL., 2000; BARNETT ETAL., 2001)

OCEAN-ATMOSPHERE

ENERGY EXCHANGES

(REGIME SHIFTS, SEE: STEELE, 1998)

ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS (WIND

PRESSURE) AFFECT DIRECTION AND

SPEED OF REGIONAL CURRENTS

AND OFFSHOOT WARM CORE AND

COLD CORE “EDDYS”, IF ANY (NOT

DEPICTED)

CURRENTS AND WINDS AFFECT DURATION, INTENSITYAND LOCATION OF UP

SWELLING (IF ANY), AND DISPERSALOF

NUTRIENTS AND POLLUTION IN

COASTALAREAS TO PERHAPS BEYOND

THE CONTINENTALSHELF.

DAILY TO MONTHLY SEASONAL INTER ANNUAL DECADAL MULTIDECADAL

SHORT-TERM

DIRECTED FISHING 

SUCCESS

FISH

REPRODUCTION

FISH YEAR-CLASS

RECRUITMENT SUCCESS

REGIONAL-SCALE FISH

POPULATION FLUCTUATIONS

GLOBAL

BASIN-WIDE

REGIONAL

LOCAL

SPATIAL SCALES OF PHYSICAL (ABIOTIC) VARIABILITY

AFFECTING MARINE ECOSYSTEM-ORIENTED FISHERY POPULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

“ON A LONGER TIME SCALE, THE ECOSYSTEM IS AFFECTED BY

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH WILL PROBABLY AFFECT MANY

ASPECTS OF FISH DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMICS” (SINCLAIR AND

VALDIMARSSON, 2003, p. 397).

H

H

L

L

L

L

Figure 12. Generalized spatial and temporal effects on Northeast United States Continental Shelf LME

Living Marine Resources (fisheries). Includes aperiodic incursion of Gulf Stream and Labrador

current ocean water. Adapted and modified from Fluharty et al. (1999) and Fluharty (2000).

GULFSTREAM

WIND

STRESS

LABRADOR

CURRENT

Page 58
Total

allowable

catch

Individual

quotas

Other gear

and vessel

restrictions

Vessel

catch limits

Limited

licenses

Idividual

effort

quotas

Fisheries

Management

Measures

Size and sex

selectivity Time and

area closures

Figure 13. Fishery Management Measures practiced in “OECD” countries. It’s been suggested that IFQs are 

perhaps most effective at resource sustainability and that TAC’s might be the least. Adapted and

modified from Sutinen, 1999.

Page 59
Figure 14. Five key barriers to the use of an experimental approach to planning. Adapted and modified

from McLain & Lee (1996).

Substantial

investments in 

monitoring and evaluation

The difficulty of 

reconciling centralized

coordination with 

decentralized

implementation

Feelings on the

p a rt of the fisheries agencies, 

fisherfolk, and environmental 

organizations that the council defers 

to special interests when diff i c u l t

t r a d e - o ffs have to be made

The discrepancy 

between the long planning

horizons needed for a n

experimental approach and

the short tenure for c o u n c i l

m e m b e r s

The unwillingness 

of state and federal resource

managers to risk the political

consequences of experiment

failure

Page 60
Planning via a policy orientation

• Problem definition and prioritization of management issues and concepts

• Budgeting for government program and formal adoption of program by the 

Secretary of Commerce.

• Local participation, organization or initiation (e.g. stakeholders consensus building)

• Formulation of plan for implementation; monitoring and evaluation protocols may

include pilot projects as a potential pre-test

• Evaluation refining and consolidating (FMP’s) and adoption of adjustments (e.g.

adaptive management)

Monitoring and Evaluation e.g. Fishery Managment Plans (FMPs)

• Conduct peri o d i c a l ly during both planning and implementation stage s

• Follow progress, assess performance toward meeting stated goals and objectives (e.g.

“NEPA” National Environmental Policy Act)

• Identify unanticipated, social, economic and environmental consequences of management actions

• Recommended “framework” adjustments in actions and/or objectives to meet goals and

 unanticipated issues

Implementation

• Integration of essential issues into fishery management plans and periodic “framework” adjustments

• Execution of activities through “council” and “commission”processes federal, state, local 

and “NAFO” (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization)

• Coordination by key actors federal, state, local and “NAFO”(Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization)

• Local stakeholder participation via public testimony at open scheduled meetings and written 

commentary (e.g. “ecosystem considerations”)

Institutional and Organizational Arrangements

• Clarification of legal rights and responsibilities, e.g. domestic federal “public laws”CZMA of 1972;

MSFCMA of 1976; Oceans Act of 2000 P.L. 106-256, et al., regional compacts and state laws.

• Clarification of or ganizational e.g. National Marine Fisheries Service, New England Fishery

Management Council, Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Atlantic States Marine Fishery

Commission, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, jurisdiction and responsibilities

• Monitoring and enforcement by NOAA/NMFS and U.S. Coast Guard

Incentives/Regulations

•Tradeable Individual Fishery Quotas (IFQ)

• Limited entry permits

•Vessel fuel taxes, open access license fees

• Non-tradeable fishing permits or quotas

• Closed area/closed time fishing bans

• Regulation of gear, vessels, season bycatch/discards, “VMS”

Direct Public Involvement/Investment

• Restocking “fish hatcheries”

• Fisheries observers aboard

• NMFS cooperative research and

development “SK Grants”

•Technical assistance through state

“sea grant” advisory

• Formal and continuing education and

public awareness

• Alternative livelihood programs

• Coalition of regional fisherfolk 

organizations, non-profit entities

• Designated marine protected areas (MPAs)

Overfishing

ISSUE

PROCESS

Monitoring and evaluation

Implementation

Planning

ACTIONS

ACTIONS Institutional and organizational arrangements

Incentive/regulations to change behavior

Direct public stakeholder

involvement/investment

ISSUES

Pollution

Loss of habitat

Overfishing

PROCESS

Figure 15. “Rubic’s Cube” diagram for a fusion of an integrated LME and Coastal Area Management system for the Northeast

United States Continental Shelf as an illustrative locale. (Ada

pted and modified from Valle

g

a, 1999 and references cited therein).

Page 61
Figure 16. Principles of sustainable oceans governance utilizing an integrated adaptive management approach whereby uncertainty is acknowledged in 

policy-making. The major problems facing the oceans include: climate change, destruction of coastal ecosystems, land-based contamination,

ocean disposal and spills, andoverfishing. Adapted and modified from Costanza et al. (1998).

Responsibility

Scale-matching

Precaution

Participation

Applying the

principles via:

Full Cost

Allocation

Adaptive

Management

“Access to environmental resources carries attendant responsibilities to use them in an ecological sustainable, economically

efficient, and socially fair manner. Individual and corporate

responsibilities and incentives should be aligned with each

other and with broad social and ecological goals”.

“Ecological problems are rarely confined to a single

s c a l e. Decision-making on env i ronmental re s o u rc e s

should (i) be assigned to institutional levels that maximize ecological input, (ii) ensure the flow of ecological

information between institutional levels,(iii) take ownership and actors into account,and (iv) internalize costs and

benefits”.

“In the face of uncertainty about potentially irreversible environmental impacts, decisions concerning their use should err

on the side of caution”.

“Given that some level of uncertainty always exists in environmental resource management, decision-makers should continuously

gather and integrate appropriate ecological, social, and economic

information with the goal of adaptive improvement”.

“All of the internal and external costs and benefits, including

social and ecological,of alternative actions concerning the use

of environmental resources should be identified and allocated.

When appropriate, markets should be adjusted to reflect full

costs”.

“All stakeholders should be engaged in the formulation

and implementation of decisions concerning environmental resources. Full stakeholder awareness and participation contributes to credible, accepted rules that identify and assign the corresponding responsibilities appropriately”.

- shore-based and co-managed fisheries,

- integrated watershed management within an LME,

- environmental bonding

- marine protected areas (MPA’s). Mechanisms for

implementation...

Mechanisms to implement an integrated approach to a new governance structure from Watkins (2004,p. 103) include:

- “basing its structure on ecosystems and using proactive

and adaptive management methods;

- developing principles of ocean stewardship and 

incorporating them into the structure through publicprivate partnerships;

- integrating the government structure both horizontally

and vertically; and

- enabling more consistent participation by regional

stakeholders and management experts.”

Page 62
Goals, objectives and

constraints including

the human dimension

Precautionary and

adaptive conservation

of fisheries resources

Efficient allocation 

of fishing rights

Participatory and 

transparent decision

making Ecosystem protection

for habitat and 

vulnerable species

Management support

for natural and social

scientific information

Enforcement and 

performance evaluation

including program

monitoring

Ecosystemoriented approach for

responsible fisheries

management system

Figure 17. Based on the scientific literature, and the experiences of Sissenwine and Mace (2003), an ecosystem

approach to a responsible fisheries management system ought to encompass the above listed parameters.

An ecosystem approach also needs to take into account environmental variability upon fisheries resources.

Six of the seven parameters of the fisheries ecosystem management system are also employed for

single-species fisheries management (Sissenwine and Mace, 2003). The similarity between single-species

fisheries management and an ecosystem approach should not be a surprise.

Page 63
EARLY STAGES 

PROBLEM DEFINITION

(What are the most important environmental problems and societal and

resource risks? What are LME environmental goals?)

• Sustaining fishery production potential for goods and service rather

than managing commodities;

• Treating adaptive management as experiments with decision-making 

emanating from research;

• Humans as integral parts of ecosystems;

• Long-term sustainability perspective over multiple spatial scales;

• Shift from single species to multi-species ecosystem-oriented 

approach.

Risk Comparisons Goal Setting

Preliminary Options Analysis

“REPORT

CARD”

(Is the nature

of the problem

changing?)

“REPORT

CARD”

(Are we meeting

FMP objectives?)

MIDDLE STAGES

AGENDA SETTING, PREPARATION,

ANALYSIS AND DECISION-MAKING

(What are the best risk reduction opportunities?

How can we achieve our goals and objectives?)

Risk Estimation Screening/Selection

Budgeting Analysis Adoption of Performance

Measures

LATER STAGES

IMPLEMENTATION,

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

REFINING and ADJUSTMENT

(How are fishery management 

plans (FMP) doing?)

Adoption of Organizational and Legal

Mechanisms

Monitoring and Reporting

“Best Practices” Information Evaluation

Risk Comparisons, in which sets of risks-including risks to ecological health systems, human health, productivity carrying capacity

and/or quality of life-are ranked or rated, and a set of risks selected for detailed ecosystem consideration in the middle stages;

Goal Setting, in which the participating stakeholders concur on goals and objectives relating to the risks of concern and measures

that will be used to evaluate progress towards those goals; and

Preliminary Options Analysis, in which an initial range of risk-to-the-resource reduction options is identified and considered in

terms of the estimated total reduction of risk in the long-term and likely benefit-cost of each experimental decision while taking into

accord a precautionary approach.

- Regulatory agency public participation 

open meetings information;

- Expert judgment of trained marine 

scientists, (e.g. social, natural and life);

- Societal values and aggregation of 

concerned individuals;

- Legal and institutional legitimation by

elected government.

Figure 18. Adaptive Management Framework for Integrated Large Marine Ecosystem Environmental Science

Policy Decision-making. (Adapted and modified from EPA, 2000; Sherman and Duda, 1999 a&b;

see also Gable, 2003, Gable, 2000)

Page 64
Policy Formulated for Ecosystem-oriented LME Fisheries Management

Region-specific

limits & constraints

towards

implementation

Biological, Ecosystem & Socioeconomic Limits act as filters:

- Historical/geographical context; Catch; Resource biomass (B); Spawning biomass (SB); Length frequency; Age frequency; Length or 

age-at-first capture (Lc50, tc50); Length or age-at-first-maturity (Lm50, tm50);

- Biological diversity; Water quality; Critical habitats; Intrinsic value of environmental assets;

- Socio-cultural & socio-economic environment; Revenues; Rent; Profit or Benefits; Fisheries GDP Poverty; Health; Human 

Development Index; Employment; Age (A); Social cohesion; Equity; On-Board conditions; Wealth indicator Food insecurity

- Public beliefs / behavioral value judgements

- Formal legal and constitutional structure; Management capacity; Decision-support capacity; Legislation; Partnership / Participation;

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance; Oversight; Dispute resolution;

Criterion “pressure-stateresponse-points” Analysis Response Recommendations to deal with “ pressure points”

Increased likelihood for 

successful policy implementation,

evaluation and refinement

Region-specific

analysis

Figure 19. Selected representative pathways for a policy orientation process for mulation, implementation and refinement. (Adapted and modified from 

Brown and Mumme, 2000; Garcia & Staples, 2000.)

Regional

Lens

1)Limited alternative

economic resources

2) Highly divergent stakeholders

involved

3)Highly intractable problem

(function of limited carrying capacity for

commercial fishery-resources in association

with overall fishing capacity and effort as 

well as vessel investments and/or available 

subsidies; climate change variability - regime 

shifts.

4) Fishing mortality is the pressure indicator, the

spawning stock size the state indicator and the 

projected Total Allowable Catch (TAC) the 

corresponding response indicator (see:

Degnbol,2002).

General prescriptions for

successful policy

1) Objectives consistent with problem definition and stated goals

2) Sound theory (hypothesis testing) between goals and policy

3) Transparent policy orientation stage(s) structure (see:Gable, 2003)

4) Adequate flexible leadership & management skills

5) Adaptive management tools and techniques

6) Public / policy maker conflict threshold

1) Regionally appropriate 

technical solution,

given border region

2) Highly open and transparent

institutional structure and process

(i.e. NEFMC; MAFMC & ASMFC) 

3) Incremental policy formulation

and implementation and subsequent

program evaluation - monitoring

refinement and/or adjustment

4) Theoretically, “the ideal (regulatory) institution 

is adaptively efficient,accommodating an ability to 

respond to change”...though marine ecosystem

management institutional design poses

challenges (Hanna,1998).

Page 65
Figure 20. The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) has several types of representative governance actions that are related to large marine ecosystems (LME) 

management. Most Council actions are related in one way or another. Unless a species is regulated within a fisheries management plan (FMP), the catch of the species

is not managed directly, however, a species may be indirectly restricted via closed areas or gear requirement(s) regulations or other interim measures. An FMP must 

conform to related federal laws as amended such as, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), and the Marine Mammals Protection Act, etc. Adapted and modified from www.nefmc.org especially the document “Types of Council Actions”

dated July 17, 2000 and distributed January 27-29, 2004 at the Newport, Rhode Island Council Meeting.

Fishery

Management Plan

(FMP)

Amendments

to FMP’s

Framework

Adjustments

Emergency

Actions

Specification

Process

Interim

Actions

Technical 

Amendments

An FMP basically identifies the management unit (the species,

fish stocks, and geographical range of the management measures), the management goals, and the measures, regulations,

and objectives needed to achieve the FMP. The fishery (which

can be a group of stocks or species) is distinguished from other

fisheries in terms of biology, area or method of catch. FMPs

typically take 18 months to several years to develop and more

than one year or more for NMFS review, approval and implementation. Can have two separate public comment periods prior

to publication of final rule in the Federal Register. FMPs, and

all subsequent regulatory adjustments must meet the National

Standards and Required Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Management and Conservation Act as amended.

To develop and submit amendments usually takes one

year to 18 months. It may or might not take at least another six months for appr oval implementation depending on

the scope and complexity of the measures. It may or

might not require an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) or a Supplemental Env i ronmental Impact

Statement (SEIS) under NEPA. An EIS of SEIS requirement adds about 2 months to the amendment development process.

An abbreviated rule-making process when there are no significant impacts on the human or physical environment, that integrates the public comment period and the development phases

into the same Council meeting schedule, with the ability to

publish the adjustment as a final rule, thereby eliminating a second public comment period. The scope of the action must fall

within the existing goals and objectives of the management

plan and types of measures already approved in an FMP for the

same fishery. The framework process requires at least two

Council meetings. The public may comment during either

meeting.There is no mandatory timetable or “clock” for NMFS

approval of a framework adjustment, thus overall implementation can be typically about one year including the Council

development phase.

Utilized traditionally to clarify or correct regulations when changes

are needed for the regulation to achieve its original intent. For illustration,if a fishing vessel develops a device for constricting the gear

minimum mesh openings of a net,then a technical amendment may

be used to prohibit that device in order to alleviate prohibited bycatch problems. These may be implemented with or without a public comment period. And, they may be implemented relatively

quickly but there is no fixed time period within which NMFS must

decide on approval, as a consequence implementation can be slow.

The interim action allows measures to be prevented to reduce

overfishing while an FMP or other action is developed which

can take a much longer time. If a Council finds that interim

measures are needed to reduce overfishing for any fishery within its jurisdiction, whether or not a fishery management plan

exists for such a fishery, it may ask the Secretary of Commerce

to implement interim measures or emergency actions. Both will

remain in effect for no more than 180 days. They may be

extended for no more than 180 days, if the public has had an

opportunity for comment on the measures. For extension of a

Council-initiated interim action, the Council must be actively

preparing an FMP, amendment or regulations to address the

emergency or overfishing, (i.e. National Standard I permanently. The situation can result from uncertainty in stock assessments and the best available science at the time .

Emergency actions shorten the time it takes for implementation because an emergency situation is a justification for waiving prior public input. Emergency (and

interim) actions must comply with the same laws that

apply to FMPs and amendments, although, documents

may be prepared after the action is implemented, if “circumstances” warrant.

Most re c e n t ly this was discussed under the NEFMC

Amendment I to the Herring FMP presented March 23rd,

2004 in Gloucester, Massachusetts. There, it was associated

with total allowable catch (TAC) and incidental catch alternatives and options as a “prelude” and simplification of the

H e rring FMP amendment (see earlier) process. It wa s

d e s c ribed as being similar to the fra m ewo rk adjustment

process with likely necessitating two Council meetings and at

least one Plan Development Committee/Advisory Panel meeting. T hus, in general, a specification becomes a framework. It

also should be noted that there are several jurisdictional precouncil meetings that employ individuals expertise, e.g., the

Herring Committee and the Herring Advisory Panel as well as

the “SSC”,etc.

Refining, consolidating 

and adjustment 

“double loop analysis”

Page 66
Figure 21. According to Sinclair and Valdimarsson (2003), adding “ecosystem considerations to present fishery

management system methods can be done gradually, some changes are called for:

• “Instead of addressing a definite fish stock solely, the whole ecosystem and its components will have to be 

included in the consideration. This may well start with some factors only, reflecting the availability of data.

• Definition of management objectives will be broader, without losing sight of those of particular short-term

interest to the fisheries sector.

• The number of reference points and indicators will increase, (e.g. size compositions or average trophic level 

of catch), and hence the need to widen the scientific base for management decisions.

• Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems will have to be strengthened, with inevitability higher 

costs.

• Institutional arrangements will have to be strengthened and broadened to include non-fishery stakeholders

and allow consultations with all legitimate interested parties concerning management objectives as well as 

management measures, although those from the fishery sector, including the fisherfolk themselves, will 

continue to be the nucleus.

• Stakeholder engagement should be promoted through training and public awareness programs.

• A considerable extra effort in research will be required, not only for verifying indicators and reference 

points, but also on the economic and social implications of ecosystem-based fisheries management

(EBFM), including factors such as the equitable sharing of costs and benefits between stakeholders (and by

addressing any overcapacity and fishing effort problems).

• A visible leap ahead is needed to assisting developing countries to increase their capacity to introduce this 

wider fishery management concept into their fisheries.”

Further, to achieve optimal management best practices an effort to reduce uncertainties is important to promote

relevant research on ecosystem subjects such as:

• “considering improved methods for consultation and joint decision making so as to improve ecosystem 

governance;

• ensuring all critical habitats for the key species in the ecosystem are located and mapped, and identifying 

and addressing any threats;

• improving knowledge of the food webs, including prey and predator relationships, to facilitate 

consideration of possible ecosystem responses to different management actions;

• improving the monitoring of by-catch and discards in all fisheries to obtain a better knowledge of the 

amount of catch actually taken; and 

• studying any threats to the marine ecosystems from human sources outside fisheries, whether land-based or 

marine, and investigating means to minimize these.”

Page 67
Facilitated,

representative scoping

workshops and ongoing

consultation

Incentives and methods

forinstitutional

cooperation

Developing visions of

desired futures

Consensus goal definition

and related planning for

theirachievement

Testing and revising

results and process

Environmental

Communication

Process Methods

Scenario-development

exercises

Newsletters and

consultation to 

disseminate information

Using scenarios and

working backward from

desired future scenarios

(backcasting)

Use of expert

and public knowledge to

develop hypotheses 

and models

Spatial Geographical

Information system

analysis methods

Ongoing, multilevel

monitoring

Comprehensive studies

using theory and detailed

knowledge

Environmental

Communication

Substantive Methods

Multidisciplinary

studies with integrative

LME modeling

Innovative approaches 

to evaluation and 

definition of criteria

Figure 22. Environmental communication to elaborate an ecosystem-oriented approach in an LME. A facilitating 

framework of process methods (describing, planning, and managing ... while working with people and

communities), and substantive methods (knowledge through description and analysis). Adapted and

modified from Slocombe, 1998 & 1993.

Refining, consolidating 

and adjustment 

“double loop analysis”

Refining, consolidating 

and adjustment 

“double loop analysis”

Page 68
Figure 23. Goals comparison matrix for LME ecosystem-based management (adapted and modified from Slocombe, 1998).

Goals

Trans- UnderNormative Principled Integrative Complex Dynamic disciplinary Applicable Participatory standable Adaptive

Flows,amounts, areas

Biodiversity

Health

SustainabilityIntegrity

Quality of life

Developing consensus

Developing understanding

Planning and management

Doing things

A

✔ sign indicates strong consistency; a 

o sign, moderate consistency, and a minus sign ( ), not consistent.

o

✔

✔

✔

o

o

✔

✔

o

✔

o

o

✔

o

✔

o

o

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

o

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

o

✔

✔

✔

o

✔

✔

✔

✔

o

o

✔

✔

✔

✔

o

✔

o

o

✔

✔

o

✔

✔

✔

✔

o

o

✔

o

o

o

✔

o

✔

o

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

o

o

o

o

o

✔

o

o

✔

✔

o

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Page 69
Figure 24. Suggested benefits to identifying common goals and objectives for ecosystem-oriented management,

adapted and modified from Stanford and Poole, 1996.

The public has

a better rationale and

understanding of why

agency actions are

being developed.

Value tradeoffs 

become analytical rather

that focal

Stakeholders must 

revisit goals for refinement

and adjustment if the initial strategy is termed

unacceptable

Regulatory

decision-makers have a

common understanding of

why they are pursuing

action strategies

All stakeholders 

view a common protocol

against which to assess 

proposed actions

The success of 

management actions are

able to be weighed against

the listed goals providing 

foraccountability.

Page 70
Risk analysis approaches 

and procedures for involving 

interested actors in governance 

of sustainable fisheries

Page 71

Figure 25. For the precautionary approach to be embedded in fisheries management decision-making, risk

analysis approaches, and procedures for involving interested (though sometimes disenfranchised) 

groups needs to be taken into “consideration”. Adapted and modified from McGlade, 2001.
Clear and consistent 

policy objectives 

and goals

Convincing natural and

social science in support of

those objectives

A priority position on the

policy agenda

Sufficient jurisdiction and

legal authority

Competent and 

committed staff and/or

consultants

Good implementation 

structures and 

techniques

Governance systems 

p reconditions necessary for

LME fisheries program 

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

Effective and feasible

responses to change are

known and operationally

possible

Forecasting

capabilities exist to 

motivate and guide 

management actions

Reliable and valid

indicators have been 

selected

Conditions that foster

successful linking of science

into a sustained LME 

governance pro c e s s

Analyze and 

communicate the processes of

change that the initiative will

attempt to addre s s

Evidence of significant

change to warrant the

attention of society

A m e a s u re of consensus 

exists within the scientific 

c o m m u n i t y

Figure 26. Prospective interconnected LME Governance systems capable of responding to fisheries/coastal

change, adapted and modified from (Olsen 2001; Boesch, 1999).

Page 72
Figure 27. Iterative protocol for fusing basic/applied scientific research and synthesis and public opinionin adaptive

large marine ecosystem LME management. (Adapted and modified from Stanford and Poole , 1996).

Review and 

synthesize

knowledge base

Define or 

delineate the 

ecosystem based on

available information

Identify issue

goals derived from 

scientific synthesis and

public values

Develop

transparent

management

strategy

Implement

management

strategy

Conduct

peer-reviewed research

(basic science

and monitoring)

Identify issue 

objectives from public

scoping process

Refining, consolidating 

and adjustment 

“double loop analysis”

Page 73
Figure 28. Relationships among science, management, and stakeholder participation in the provision of scientific

advice for the precautionary approach to management of fisheries in a large marine ecosystem context.

Arrows and the labels between the arrows indicate the direction of flow for eac h type of information.

(Adapted and modified from Perry et al., 1999).

Biological limits

and risk

Options to evaluate Policy constraints 

for conservation

Cooperative surveys,

local knowledge

Sampling designs,

standards, information

requirements and findings

Goals and 

objectives, preferred

options, impacts

Management

(development of 

“best practices”precautionary

approach strategies)

Scientific research

(generation of 

ecosystem considerations advice)

Stakeholders

(input into development

of marine science biological advice

and management strategies)

Page 74
LME

“Management Team”

LME

“Ecosystem

“Management Team”

Division Chief

Staff Specialists

Fish Production Leader

Research Leader

Program Services Rep.

Fisheries

Group

Management

Team

Mid-Atlantic

Bight

Basin Unit

Southern

New England

Basin Unit

Georges Bank

Basin Unit

Gulf of Maine

Basin Unit

- B.C.

- B.T.

- 3 M.A.

- B.C. = Basin Coordinator (e.g. Northeast United States Continental Shelf)

- B.T. = Basin Team

- 3 M.A. = Management Area

- B.C.

- B.T.

- 2 M.A.

- B.C.

- B.T.

- 1 M.A.

- B.C.

- B.T.

- 1 M.A.

Figure 29. Draft concept for organization of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME Fisheries Governance. 

There would be an interplay among several existing regulatory-oriented agencies, including the New 

England Fisheries Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council and the

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission as well as NOAA/NMFS and the U.S., Coast Guard,

as well as state and local jurisdictional entities etc. (Adapted and modified from Lynch et al., 1999.)

Page 75
Ecological,

socioeconomic

and cultural 

sustainability

Ecological

understanding

systems perspective

Collaborative

public/private

decision building

Multi Spatial and

Temporal scales

Humans as

Ecosystem

components Human values

defined goals and

objectives

Ecosystem

Management

Principles

Organization

change and

adjustment

Science-based

learning

as adaptive 

management

Monitoring

Management

Actions

Coordination

and use of

more research

and data

Figure 30. Select ecosystem management principles for LME environmental policy. Adapted and modified

from Haeuber (1996) and references cited therein.

Page 76
Single species assessments according to Hollowed et al., (2000) traditionally include:

• An assessment of historical reconstruction of a stock to establish key parameters & 

relationships in describing present stock status.

• Short-term forecasting to move a stock towards a desired status through specific 

actions (e.g. TAC).

• Long-term forecasting predictions under various management scenarios of the likely future

status of the stock.

• Instituting a precautionary approach while advising on the robustness of management procedures.

Link (2002a) suggests that single species approaches generally don’t consider:

• species interactions;

• allocation of biomass;

• changes in ecosystem structure or function;

• non-fishing ecosystem services;

• non-target species;

• rare or protected species and biodiversity;

• ecosystem effects of discarding unwanted bycatch; and

• gear impacts on habitat.

Figure 31. Multispecies assessments can enhance and improve single species fishery management decisionmaking over the long-term. Adapted and modified from ASMFC Fisheries Focus 12(2), April 2003,

pp. 7 & 8; see also Hollowed et al., 2000; Link, 2002a.

Gain perspective on 

the relative impacts of

mortality caused by fishing

effort and predation

Identify and 

assess the multiple uses 

of forage (e.g. herring) and

predator species

Evaluate various 

management scenarios via

predictive projection 

methods for multiple

species.

Evaluate carrying 

capacity of the ecosystem

relative to sustaining high

population abundance 

levels

Evaluate the 

feasibility of managing all

species at MSYestimated

from single species 

assessments.

Evaluate trade-offs 

in single species 

management

decision-making

Multispecies/

ecosystem assessments

should be considered as

works in progress.

Solicit

recommendations

for improving data collection for

use in multispecies/ecosystem

a s s e s s m e n t s As more information 

from the best available 

science become apparent,

expand models 

accordingly.

Page 77
(1)

Gain scientific 

understanding and

adequate statistics 

of catch

(2)

Establish which

countries are

eligible to fish

(6)

Monitor the 

living marine

resources

(3)

Obtain agreement

among countries that

each is to prepare a

management plan

(4)

Reconcile the 

management plans (5)

Get approval 

by governments of the

comprehensive

management plan

LME

Management

System

(7)

If necessary,

revise the plan

Figure 32. Suggested analyses needed in the process of establishing a management system for an international

LME setting. Each stage could be disrupted by political and governance concerns and/or budgetary

constraints. (Adapted and modified after Larkin, 1996).

Page 78
Funding to 

match the 

identified needs

Challenges to the

Marine Ecosystem

Approach...

broader issues include the parameters below (adapted and modified from MacKenzie, 1997).

Demonstrating

tangible re s u l t s

(while recognizing that

p rocess is import a n t )

Tracking

projects

(Remediation)

Training for a

working knowledge

of systems theory Geographic scale 

of the ecosystem

(reliance on the physical

attributes)

Measuring

Ecosystem Integrity 

(via a particular

species?)

Modifying Institutional

S t r u c t u res and Mandates 

( recast programs with a focus 

on an ecosystem appro a c h )

Figure 33. Challenges to the ecosystem approach, including generic program implementation, along with

Page 79
Role of 

LME Scientists

Elicit and 

Clarify Goals and

Objectives

Turn Goals and

Objectives into Specific

Attributes

and Criteria

Help Identify a 

Range of Representative

Strategy Choices

Evaluate

(Prediction)

Outcomes

Communicate

Coherently the Results 

to the Policy

Decision Maker

Note any

“Best Practices”

outcomes via

a “Report Card”

Figure 34. The Role of Scientists in an LME Approach. (Adapted and modified from Francis and Schotten, 1997; see 

also Slocombe, 1998; Barber and Taylor, 1990). The role of the policy decision maker is to specify the goals

and objectives of the fishery management plan, while working in association with the scientists, to

evaluate results while weighing the goals and objectives as well as take and disseminate the decision.

Present uncertainty 

(e.g. from conflicting data) 

as Alternative Estimates

(Ranges) but choose one as

“Best” - Most Likely

Page 80
Clearly defined “club” 

membership & 

responsibilities

Rules consistent with local

norms and 

conditions

Recognition

external of the “club”

“Club” membership

participation in 

decision-making

Sanctions imposed

for violation of

adopted rules

Conflict

resolution

mechanisms

Effective

monitoring

program(s)

“Clubs”capable to promote 

sustainable management of (inter)

national public trust mari ne

re sources - (e. g. Marine Stewa rdship

Council; ISO 14001 cert ification

members).

Figure 35. The characteristics of regulatory institutions that have successfully restricted common pool resources

such as marine capture fisheries suggests that these elements are quite important. (Adapted and modified

from Perrings, 2000; see also Imperial, 1999). Berkes et al.(2000) suggest that the Maine Lobster fishery

provides a contemporary members only application of a “club” or “limited partnership”.

Page 81
Figure 36. A future LME integrated coastal management (ICM) process ought to include the parameters below according

to von Budungen and Turner (2001, with modifications). Thus, any related LME-ICM process should aim to unify

all stakeholders including government, scientists, managers, as well as sectoral and public/private interests.

Integration of programs for 

such sectors as fisheries,energy,

transportation, water resources management, disposal of wastes,tourism,

and natural hazards 

management.

Integration of

responsibilities for va rious

LME-ICM tasks among the levels of 

gove rnment-local,state/prov incial, regi onal,

national,international-and between 

the public and private sectors .

Integration among 

disciplines, e.g.,ecology,

geomorphology, marine affairs,marine

biology, economics, civil 

engineering, political 

science, law.

Integrations of 

LME-ICM programs and plans

for economic development,environmental quality management.

Integration of the 

management resources of the

agencies and entities involved.

Integration of all 

elements of manage m e n t ,f rom

planning and design through 

implementation (i.e. ,c o n s t ruction and

installation),operat ion,maintenance, a nd

fe edback from monitoring and 

eva luation ove rtime.

Page 82
Figure 37. Select recommendations for mulated on the use of “indicators” for integrated LME-ICM efforts

(adapted and modified from Belfiore, 2003).

Compiling baseline 

information on the condition

of ecosystems.

Standardizing,

compiling and harm onizing

existing data sets to deve lop

global data sets.

Identifying areas of high 

conservation pri ority, p atterns of

ecosystem interl inkage, a nd

causal re lationships in coastal

systems.

Developing

techniques for gove rnments

and non-gove rnmental orga nizations to engage policy makers and

civil society for better eva luation

of tra deoffs and improved 

decision making.

Indicators, therefore,

should be set as an integral part

of a LME-ICM program or 

project,and revised

accordingly.

Improving integration 

and collaboration among

coastal zone agencies and 

initiatives.

Utilizing multiple 

methods for monitoring and

assessment.

Existing information

could be enhanced by:

Refining, consolidating 

and adjustment 

“double loop analysis”

Page 83
Figure 38. Select institutional arrangements established to aid LME strategic action(s) and management. These types of

advisory groups could be employed in any LME organizational setting. Adapted and modified from O’Toole (2002).

Fisheries and Other

Living Marine

Resources

Environmental

Variability, Ecosystem

Impacts and Improved

Predictability

Biodiversity and 

Ecosystem Health

Information and 

Data Exchange

Training and 

Capacity Development

Legal and 

Marine Affairs

Marine Pollution

Advisory group on:

Page 84
Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

Manuscript Qualification

This series represents a secondary level of scientific

publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

For all issues, the series employs thorough internal scientific

review, but not necessarily external scientific review. For most

issues, the series employs rigorous technical and copy editing.

Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific

publishing should be initially submitted to one of NMFS's

primary series (i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Technical Report

NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review).

Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should

not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication

series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary

series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations

may be submitted to this series.

Manuscripts by Northeast Fisheries Science Center

(NEFSC) authors will be published in this series upon approval

by the NEFSC's Deputy Science & Research Director. Manuscripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series

if: 1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC's mission; 2) the

manuscript meets the Deputy Science & Research Director's

approval; and 3) the author arranges for the printing and binding

funds to be transferred to the NEFSC's Research Communications Unit account from another federal account. For all

manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and published

in this series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the

manuscripts' contents; authors must accept such responsibility.

The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing

are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series

are expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical guidelines

contained in Chapter 1 ("Ethical Conduct in Authorship and

Publication") of the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition (Chicago,

IL: Council of Biology Editors). Copies of the manual are

available at virtually all scientific libraries.

edition of the United States Government Printing Office Style

Manual. That style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific

manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series rely more on the

CBE Style Manual, fifth edition.

For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special

effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works contains

all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial

titles in such lists, use the guidance of the International Standards

Organization; such guidance is easily accessed through the various

Cambridge Scientific Abstracts’ serials source lists (see http://

www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/JAS.htm). Personal communications must include date of contact and full name and mailing

address of source.

For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes, mollusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and Canada,

use Special Publications No. 20 (fishes), 26 (mollusks), and 17

(decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries Society (Bethesda,

MD). For spelling of scientific and common names of marine

mammals, use Special Publication No. 4 of the Society for Marine

Mammalogy (Lawrence, KS). For spelling in general, use the most

recent edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of

the English Language Unabridged (Springfield, MA: G.&C.

Merriam).

Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, tables, and

figure captions should be converted to WordPerfect. In general,

keep text simple (e.g., don't switch fonts and type sizes, don't use

hard returns within paragraphs, don't indent except to begin

paragraphs). Also, don't use an automatic footnoting function; all

notes should be indicated in the text by simple numerical superscripts, and listed together in an "Endnotes" section prior to the

"References Cited" section. Especially, don't use a graphics

function for embedding tables and figures in text.

Tables should be prepared with a table formatting function.

Each figure should be supplied both on paper and on disk, unless

there is no digital file of a given figure. Except under extraordinary

circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations.

Manuscript Preparation

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table

of contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and

acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific

manuscript organization for sections: "Introduction," "Study

Area," "Methods & Materials," "Results," "Discussion" and/

or "Conclusions," "Acknowledgments," and "References Cited."

Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are

obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Operations, Management & Information Services Staff

Research Communications Branch

Editorial Office

Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit one paper copy of the double-spaced

manuscript, one disk copy, and original figures (if applicable).

NEFSC authors must include a completely signed-off "NEFSC

Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage Review Form." Non-NEFSC authors who are not federal employees will be required to sign a

"Release of Copyright" form.

Send all materials and address all correspondence to: Jon A.

Gibson (Biological Sciences Editor), NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.
Research Communications Branch

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The mission of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is "stewardship of living marine resources

for the benefit of the nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the health

of their environment." As the research arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries Science

Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by "conducting ecosystem-based research and assessments of living

marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the recovery and long-term sustainability of these

resources and to generate social and economic opportunities and benefits from their use." Results of NEFSC

research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed scientific journals).

However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its constituents, the NEFSC occasionally

releases its results in its own media. Currently, there are three such media:

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of longterm field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports of overall

assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature surveys of

important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated bibliographies.

All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports

on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected abstracts of,

and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review, but no technical

or copy editing.

Resource Survey Report (formerly Fishermen's Report) -- This information report is a quick-turnaround report on the distribution

and relative abundance of selected living marine resources as derived from each of the NEFSC's periodic research vessel surveys of the

Northeast's continental shelf. There is no scientific review, nor any technical or copy editing, of this report.

OBTAINING A COPY: To obtain a copy of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Reference Document, or to subscribe to the Resource Survey Report, either contact the NEFSC Editorial Office (166 Water St., Woods

Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2228) or consult the NEFSC webpage on "Reports and Publications" (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/

nefsc/publications/).

ANY USE OF TRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT.

MEDIA

 MAIL