Page 14

ARCTIC
180°w

SOVIET UNION

NORTH 26 G 23 <1
a4

ff, 8
NORTH PACIFIC ATLANTIC

ca

EQUATOR

INDIAN
OCEAN
SOUTH PACIFIC

OCEAN

INDIAN
OCEAN

ANTARCTICA a9
sors Pm

Figure B1. Boundaries of 49 LMEs: (1) Eastern Bering Sea, (2) Gulf of Alaska, (3) California Current, (4) Gulf of California, (5) Gulf
of Mexico, (6) Southeast U.S. Shelf, (7) Northeast U.S. Shelf, (8) Scotian Shelf, (9) Newfoundland Shelf, (10) West
Greenland Shelf, (11) Insular Pacific--Hawaiian, (12) Caribbean Sea, (13) Humboldt Current, (14) Patagonian Shelf, (15)
Brazil Current, (16) Northeast Brazil Shelf, (17) East Greenland Shelf, (18) Iceland Shelf, (19) Barents Sea, (20) Norwegian
Shelf, (21) North Sea, (22) Baltic Sea, (23) Celtic-Biscay Shelf, (24) Iberian Coastal, (25) Mediterranean Sea, (26) Black
Sea, (27) Canary Current, (28) Guinea Current, (29) Benguela Current, (30) Agulhas Current, (31) Somali Coastal Current,
(32) Arabian Sea, (33) Red Sea, (34) Bay of Bengal, (35) South China Sea, (36) Sulu-Celebes Seas, (37) Indonesian Seas,
(38) Northem Australian Shelf, (39) Great Barrier Reef, (40) New Zealand Shelf, (41) East China Sea, (42) Yellow Sea, (43)
Kuroshio Current, (44) Sea of Japan, (45) Oyashio Current, (46) Sea of Okhotsk, (47) West Bering Sea, (48) Faroe Plateau,
and (49) Antarctic.



Page 10

Table B1. List of 29 LMEs and subsystems for which syntheses relating to principal, secondary, or tertiary driving forces controlling
variability in biomass yields have been completed for inclusion in LME volumes through February 1993

Volume
Large Marine Ecosystem Number* Authors
Northeast U.S. Shelf 1 M. Sissenwine
4 P. Falkowski
Southeast U.S. Shelf 4 J. Yoder
Gulf of Mexico 2 W. Richards and M. McGowan
4 B. Brown et al.
California Current 1 A. MacCall
4 M. Mullin
5 D. Bottom
Eastern Bering Shelf 1 L. Incze and J. Schumacher
West Greenland Shelf 3 H. Hovgaard and E. Buch
Norwegian Sea 3 B. Ellertsen et al.
Barents Sea 2 H. Skjoldal and F. Rey
4 V. Borisov
North Sea 1 N, Daan
Baltic Sea 1&5 G. Kullenberg
Tberian Coastal 2 T. Wyatt and G. Perez-Gandaras
Mediterranean- Adriatic Sea 5 G. Bombace
Canary Current 5 C. Bas
Gulf of Guinea 5 D. Binet and E. Marchal
Benguela Current 2 R. Crawford et al.
Patagonian Shelf 5 A. Bakun
Caribbean Sea 3 W. Richards and J. Bohnsack
South China Sea - Gulf of Thailand 2 T. Piyakarnchana
Yellow Sea 2 Q Tang
Sea of Okhotsk 5 V. Kusnetsov et al.
Humboldt Current 5 J. Alheit and P. Bernal
Indonesia Seas - Banda Sea 3 J. Zijlstra and M. Baars
Bay of Bengal 5 S. Dwivedi
Antarctic Marine 1&5 R. Scully et al.
Weddell Sea 3 G. Hempel
Kuroshio Current 2 M. Terazaki
Oyashio Current 2 T. Minoda
Great Barrier Reef 2 R. Bradbury and C. Mundy
5 G. Kelleher
South China Sea 5 D. Pauly and V. Christensen

“1.

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds. 1986, Variability and management of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Sel. Symp. 99. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press, Inc. 319 p.
‘Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.,eds, 1989. Biomass yields and geography of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Sel. Symp. 111. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press, Inc. 493 p.
‘Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. 1990. Large marine ecosystems: pattems, processes, and yields. Washington, DC: AAAS Press. 242

P.
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. 1991. Food chains, yields, models, and management of large marine ecosystems. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, Inc. 320 p.
Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold,
376p.

eds. 1993. Stress, mitigation, and sustainability of large marine ecosystems. Washington, DC: AAAS Press.



Page 18

Dr. Ezekial N. Okemwa

Kenya Marine Fisheries Research Institute
P.O. Box 81651

Mombasa

KENYA

Dr. J.P. Quignard

Ichthyology

University Montpelier II U.S.T.L.
Place E. Bataillon

F-34095 Montpelier Cedex 05
FRANCE

Dr. Carleton Ray

Department of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

Clark Hall

Charlottesville, VA 22903

USA

Dr. Ramiro Sanchez

Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo Pesquero

Playa Grande

Casilla de Correo 175
Mar del Plata -
ARGENTINA

Dr. Qisheng Tang

Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute
19 Laiyang Road

Qingdao, 26003

PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Dr. K. Vagn Hansen

Denmarks Fiskeri-og havundersegelser
P.O. Box 101

9850 Hirtshals

DENMARK



INTRODUCTION

The first meeting of the ad hoc Committee on Large
Marine Ecosystems was held on 22 March 1991 at the Paris
headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The meeting was
hosted by UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission (IOC) and welcomed by Dr. Klaus Voight.
The agenda and list of participants are given in Appendix A.
The terms of reference for the committee, as set forth in the
report of the Conference on the Large Marine Ecosystem
(LME) Concept and Its Application to Regional Marine
Resource Management (held during 1-6 October 1990 in
Monaco) were reviewed and served as a basis for the
meeting agenda. Among the major topics for which deci-
sions were made were:

. provisional designating of LMEs around the globe,

. Monitoring of LMEs,

|. modeling, and

. holding regional workshops and conducting compara-
tive LME studies.

Bowne

THE LME CONCEPT

The LME concept was reviewed. On the basis of U.N.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) statistics, it was
noted that 95 percent of the global fisheries biomass yields
are produced in 49 provisionally identified LMEs. It was
further emphasized that the LME is an ecologically defined
unit of ocean space that is considered useful for ocean
research, monitoring, and management. On a global basis,
LMEs are defined as natural systems, thereby avoiding
artificial definitions of regional space such as 200-mile
exclusive economic zones (EEZ), or of geopolitical space
such as those used by the United Nations Environment
Program’s (UNEP) regional seas programs.

Within LMEs, it is possible to identify the principal
driving forces of changing ecosystem states, whether they
be, for example, pollution, fishing, or climate change. It is
also possible to pursue scientific understanding of such
systems through a comparative method. Where LMEs
overlap political jurisdictions, it is in the self-interest of
states to work together to develop joint monitoring efforts
and compatible management strategies.

IDENTIFICATION OF LMEs

Aworking paper by Dr. Lewis Alexander of the Univer-
sity of Rhode Island, describing the criteria used to designate
the boundaries of the regional LMEs, was tabled and dis-
cussed (Appendix B), The provisional designation of pro-
visional regional LMEs will require relatively minor adjust-
ments to boundaries based on the meeting discussions. For

Page 1

example, Dr. Doumenge, Chairman of the International
Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediter-
ranean Sea (ICSEM), indicated that the Mediterranean Sea-
Atlantic Ocean boundary was located within the Mediterra-
nean Sea approximately 200 miles east of the Straits of
Gibraltar in the vicinity of the Alboran front off western
Algeria. He was also concerned with the placement of the
boundaries of the Celtic-Biscay Shelf Ecosystem, and sug-
gested that the Kuroshio Current and Oyashio Current
Ecosystems be extended several hundred miles to the east.
Dr. John Pope of the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Agricul-
ture, Fisheries, and Food, representing the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), suggested
that the boundaries of the North Sea varied depending on the
objective of the research and monitoring effort, with differ-
ent perspectives among physical, chemical, and biological/
fisheries interests. However, the boundaries as depicted on
the provisional map were adequate for initial discussions.

Dr. Voight of the IOC suggested that we include open-
ocean pelagic systems as part of the LME concept. In this
regard, the committee asked Dr. Annelies Pierrot-Bults,
Chairperson of the IOC’s Scientific Committee on Ocean
Research’s (SCOR) Working Group (WG) 93 on Pelagic
Biogeography, for her opinion. Dr. Pierrot-Bults indicated
that the LME regions were, in general, not inconsistent with
the provisional designation of biogeographic zones under
consideration by SCOR WG 93, and in fact, could be
considered as complementary ecosystems around the mar-
gins of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. Dr.
Doumenge suggested that WG 93 should consider plate
tectonics in the designations of LMEs in the Southwest
Pacific. A recent paper in Nature suggests that biogeo-
chemical provinces of the pelagic ecosystem could provide
boundaries for open-ocean LMEs.'

Following discussion of the provisional LME map, it
was agreed that the map was important and provided the
needed initial designation of LMEs for guiding research,
monitoring, and management, and that it should be reviewed
by regional experts over the next several months. As part of
the review process, Dr. Alexander will make a presentation
based on the map to the International Council of Scientific
Union’s (ICSU) International Association of Marine Geog-
raphers (IAMG) at the annual meeting during 22-24 May in
Seville, Spain. Dr. Sherman will review the LME concept
and provisional map with scientists of the Mediterranean
Seas area in an invited presentation scheduled for 22-27
September in Genoa, Italy, at the “Mediterranean Seas
2000” symposium.

Other possibilities for regional reviews of the map
include an IOC-sponsored meeting planned to be held in
Kenya 9-13 August 1992 to review the LMEs of the Indian
Ocean, and the International Conference on Ocean Manage-
ment in Global Change during June 1992 in Genoa, Italy. In
addition to the representatives of IOC, UNEP, ICES, and
ICSEM in attendance, the map will also be discussed under
less formal conditions with representatives of FAO, UNEP,
The World Conservation Union (IUCN), ICES, the Nordic

‘Platt, T.; Sathyendranath, S.; Ulloa, O.; Harrison, W.G.; Hoepfiner, N.; Goes, J. 1992, Nutrient control of phytoplankton photosynthesis in the

western North Atlantic. Nature 356; 229-231.


Page 15

APPENDIX C

REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP
ON OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA AND TRAINING NEEDS
FOR THE LME APPROACH TO FISHERY MANAGEMENT®

A workshop on “Oceanographic Data and Training
Needs for the LME Approach to Fisheries Management”
was held in conjunction with the International Conference
on the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) Concept and Its
Application to Regional Resource Management held during
1-6 October 1990 in Monaco. The workshop met on the
morning of 5 October in the library of the Musee
Oceanographique de Monaco. It was sponsored by OSLR.
A list of names and addresses of workshop attendees is
included at the end of this workshop report.

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

OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA NEEDS

It was recognized that the workshop title may be to
some degree a misnomer. We certainly don’t have soundly
based, widely accepted procedures for direct input of oceano-
graphic data into fishery management activities available at
this time. It was therefore agreed to direct discussion toward
oceanographic data needed to support the necessary re-
search leading toward development of such procedures. The
need to forge a connection between ocean science and
fisheries science was emphasized by several participants. It
was suggested that establishment of an appropriate model
framework would be of great aid in this respect. Of course,
the development of such a model framework is itself one of
the ultimate goals of the advocated interdisciplinary re-
search.

There appeared to be a consensus that the comparative
approach offered one very useful avenue into the problem
area. Interregional comparisons among various classes of
LMEs allow incorporation of a wide variety of available
data; integrative analysis may be rather immediate and direct
through a process of pattern recognition. Cited examples of
useful “frameworks” for such comparative studies included
the seasonal/geographical comparisons by Parrish et al.
(1983) of habitat climatology versus reproductive habits of
eastern boundary pelagic fishes, and the extension by Cury
and Roy (1989) to comparison of empirical time-series
relationships. Classes of LMEs amenable to such ap-
proaches might include upwelling ecosystems, semi-en-
closed seas (Baltic, Mediterranean, Great Lakes, etc.), shal-

low shelf ecosystems situated along western ocean bound-
aries, coral reef systems, ocean shelf — deltaic — riverine
interactive systems, and various other classes of comparable
systems. As an alternative to structuring comparative stud-
ies in terms of physical ecosystem settings and processes,
analysis of biogeographic pattern would lead to informative
structures based on life history and food web patterns (i.e.,
a comparative approach via biotic assemblages or “bi-
omes”).

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

On the subject of international data banks for LME
research, it was pointed out that within the Marine Science
and Technology Program of the EEC, ithas been decided not
tocreatea general EEC data bank. Instead, anetwork among
national data banks will be set up to provide access to the
broad range of available data. The network system and the
intercalibration of instruments will be coordinated. How-
ever, specific quality control will be a national responsibil-
ity.

Continuous plankton recorder systems offer a means
for tracking large time-scale/space-scale biological vari-
ability within LMEs. The burden of analysis of the samples
is the main impediment to their wide use and utility. Because
of this, samples may be incompletely analyzed; thus it was
suggested that representative samples be saved for more
complete analysis when more advanced biotechnological
and/or computer imaging methods become operational. The
importance of bolstering taxonomic capabilities was stressed,
as was the necessity for interinstitutional and international
collaboration to share the long-term analysis burden in-

. Prepared by J. Alheit, Chairman, and A. Bakun, Rapporteur, in La Jolla, California, on 27 November 1990.


toward the linkage between research and training. Partici-
pants reiterated the training value of comparative studies of
ecosystem function.

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

A concern for development of adequate taxonomic
capabilities for LME research was expressed. In the past,
many countries had a major portion of their biological
expertise within the taxonomic specialties. The situation has
changed radically. There are presently few experienced
taxonomic specialists and a consequent lack of university
courses for an increasing number of students interested in
taxonomy. It was recommended that courses and work-
shops in taxonomy be organized as components of regional
LME symposia and other types of LME training activities.
These should include moder techniques suchas application
of molecular and biotechnological methods. With regard to
the subject of taxonomy of phytoplankton species involved
in toxic or noxious blooms, it was announced that recurrent
three- to four-week courses are presented at Copenhagen
University, Denmark, under the IOC-FAO OSLR Program
and the IOC Training, Education, and Mutual Assistance
Program. To assist in these activities, a Danish associate
expert in phytoplankton will be assigned to the IOC Secre-
tariat.

LIST OF WORKSHOP REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

_ Management, Manila, Philippines.

Page 17

LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Dr. T. O. Ajayi

Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research
P.M.B. 12729

Victoria Island

Lagos

NIGERIA

Dr. Jurgen Alheit (Workshop Chairman)
Baltic Research Institute

Seestrabe 15

0-2530 Warmemunde

GERMANY

Dr. Andrew Bakun (Workshop Rapporteur)
National Marine Fisheries Service

P.O. Box 831

Monterey, CA 93942

USA

Dr. Sree Narain Dwivedi
Department of Ocean Development
12 GCO Complex, Block 12

Lodhi Road

New Delhi 11103

INDIA

Mr. S, Falk-Petersen

Observatoire Oceanologique de Banyuls
CNRS UA 117

66650 Banyuls sur Mer

FRANCE

Dr. Alberto Garcia

Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia
Puerto Pesquero de Fuengirola (Malaga)
Aptado 285

Fuengirola Malaga

SPAIN

Dr. Erol Izdar

Institute of Marine Sciences and Technology
DEU.

SSK Testsleri, Bloc B

35213 Izmir

TURKEY

Mr. Roger Krohn

Benguela Ecology Program FRD
Biology Building

University of Capetown
Rondebosch:7700

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA


Page 12

Table B2. Continued.

Country Percentage of LMEs producing Cumulative
world marine annual biomass percentage
nominal catch* yield

Ecuador 0.84 Humboldt Current

United Kingdom - 0.82 North Sea

Scotland

Poland 0.80 Baltic Sea

Vietnam. 0.77 South China Sea

Malaysia 0.74 Gulf of Thailand, Andaman Sea, Indonesian Seas, and South China Sea

Brazil 0.72 Patagonian Shelf and Brazil Current

Turkey 0.72 Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea

Argentina 0.69 Patagonian Shelf

Namibia 0.64 Benguela Current

Italy 0.62 Mediterranean Sea

Morocco 0.61 Canary Current

New Zealand 0.54 New Zealand Shelf

Netherlands 0.53 North Sea

Portugal 0.49 Iberian Shelf and Canary Current

Faeroe Islands 0.44 Faeroe Plateau 90.30

Pakistan 0.42 Bay of Bengal

Ghana 0.40 Gulf of Guinea

Senegal 0.35 Gulf of Guinea and Canary Current

Venezuela 0.34 Caribbean Sea

Ireland 0.31 Biscay-Celtic Shelf

United Kingdom - 0.30 North Sea

England & Wales

Bangladesh 0.29 Bay of Bengal

Hong Kong 0.28 South China Sea

Sweden 0.26 Baltic Sea

Australia 0.25 Northern Australian Shelf and Great Barrier Reef

Cuba 0.25 Caribbean Sea

*Percentages based on fish catch statistics from FAO Yearbook, vol. 64, 1987.


Page 6

APPENDIX A

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

MEETING AGENDA AND ATTENDEES

AGENDA

Topic

Speaker

22 March 1991

Introduction/Greeting

Review of Recommendations from Monaco --
Round Table Discussion on Implementation
of Recommendations and Functions of Committee

Relevance of LMEs to Regions Supporting 95 Percent
of Global Fisheries Biomass Yields and Improvements to Statistical Base
for Potential and Actual Fishery Yields of LMEs

Action Items Related to Terms of Reference for the Committee

1. Identification of LMEs

2. Establishment of a Working Group of Scientists
to Examine Research, Monitoring, and Modeling Needs

a.

b.

Monitoring of Changing Ecological States of LMEs

Modeling Review

3. Establishment of a Working Group to Examine Ways and Means
to Apply the LME Approach to Management

23 March 1991

4. Regional Workshop Concept

a.

b.

c.
d,

Indian Proposal for a Focus on the Bay of Bengal Ecosystem

Potential for Candidate LME Twinning Studies

(e.g., Baltic, Adriatic, & Black Sea Ecosystems,

Northeast U.S. Shelf, North Sea, & Yellow Sea

Ecosystems; California Current, Humboldt Current,
Benguela Current, & Patagonian Shelf Ecosystems;

Gulf of Mexico & Bay of Bengal Ecosystems

Comparative LME Studies from IUCN Regional Perspective
Comparative LME Studies from UNEP Regional Perspective

5. General LME Workshops

6. International Conferences on State
of the Ocean

a
b.

UNCED
Other

G. Kullenberg.

Discussants: T. Laughlin,
K. Sherman, D. Elder,
and participants

Discussants: K. Sherman
and participants

K. Sherman and participants

R. Williams, K. Sherman,
and participants

D. Elder, T. Laughlin,
and participants

S.N. Dwivedi, J. Alheit,
and participants

S.N. Dwivedi, J. Alheit,
J. Caddy, F. Doumenge,
K. Vagn Hansen, J. Pope
and participants

D. Elder and participants
A. Dahl and participants

J. Alheit and participants

G. Kullenberg and participants

T. Laughlin and participants


GLOBAL OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

Muriel Cole described a resolution adopted by the just-
completed IOC General Assembly describing a global ocean
observing system. One component of this system is to focus
on coastal areas. This component will be designed not only
to identify the effects of global climate change on regions of
the ocean, but also to “monitor and predict anthropogenic
environmental change in the ocean and atmosphere involv-
ing a number of physical, chemical, and biological pro-
cesses...” It was agreed that a logical unit within which
regional monitoring systems could be elaborated is the
LME. Asa follow-on tothis suggestion, a presentationtothe
IOC Executive Council was made in March 1992.‘ The IOC
resolution has been referred to the U.N. Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) for consider-
ation.

MANAGEMENT

The report of the Monaco meeting recommended con-
sideration of establishment of a working group to examine
ways in which the LME concept could be made useful to
ocean managers. The present group’s discussion focussed
instead on other means of pursuing the management impli-
cations of LMEs.

It was pointed out that one important management
problem to which the LME approach would apply isthe need
to integrate consideration of artisanal and offshore fisheries,
currently treated separately by international institutions
such as FAO. An opportunity for raising this issue is
presented by UNCED.

Increased international attention in regard to the envi-
ronmental effects of fisheries, for example the effect of
bottom trawls on benthic communities and gill nets on bird
populations and marine mammals, was identified as another
area in which the LME approach could contribute.

The fisheries implications of the LME approach were
thought to be most important to developing countries be-
cause of the obvious near-term economic implications of
fisheries development and long-term sustainability. The
narrow focus of fisheries management and the exclusion of
commercial fisheries issues from UNEP regional seas pro-
grams were thought to be issues which also might be
addressed through an ecosystemic approach.

Technology transfer and training would be an important
component of a global LME management effort.

There was a general view that the international marine
system remains rather sectoral with FAO focused on fish
and UNEP on pollution, with the U.N. system not yet
prepared to fully adopt an ecosystem approach to marine
Tesource management, although the recent rise in multiagency
intemational programs is promising. The LME isa unifying
concept which would help bridge existing gaps in linking

Page 3

science to management. However, the nature of the interna-
tional system is such that the LME idea will need to be
supported by member governments at relevant international
meetings if the concept is to become practice.

One existing mechanism for integration is the Ecosys-
tem Conservation Group, which includes FAO, UNEP,
UNESCO, IOC, and IUCN. In short, the best means of
drawing international attention to the implications of the
LME approach for science and management would be
publication of papers describing the science and manage-
ment implications of LMEs and bearing multinational spon-
sorship. Such a paper should have several examples of the
successful application of the LME approach in developing
countries.

REGIONAL WORKSHOP CONCEPT

The committee was briefed by Dr. Alheit of
POLARMAR in Bremerhaven, Germany, on the substance
of the discussions leading to the recommendations made in
Monaco for convening a series of regional workshops to
focus on the application of the LME concept to fisheries,
habitat, and pollution problems (see Appendix C). He
indicated that the interest in the LME concept was growing
among fisheries research organizations, particularly in de-
veloping countries. Other committee members agreed, but
emphasized the desirability to extend the framework of
LME studies to encompass research, management, and
monitoring of marine habitats in the coastal zone, wetlands,
and estuaries. Consensus was reached on a strategy for
linking inshore-offshore research, monitoring, and model-
ing efforts through a focus on the problem of seaward
extensions of coastal pollutants and eutrophication related
to increased nutrient loadings, and to the impact of elevated
productivity levels on the entire ecosystem. Other issues of
merit to be addressed include the impact of offshore fisheries
onartisanal fisheries, and the apparent stresses on coral reefs
and mangroves within tropical ecosystems. Dr. Arthur Dahl
of UNEP indicated that the inshore-offshore linkage ap-
proach to ecosystem productivity was consistent with
UNEP’s research and monitoring strategy.

With regard tospecific regional efforts in LMEresearch
for 1991 and 1992, the committee was pleased to take note
of the first announcement of an International Symposium
and Workshop on the Status and Future of Large Marine
Ecosystems of the Indian Ocean scheduled for Mombasa,
Kenya, during 2-7 August 1992 asa first effort of the Kenya
Marine Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRD), the Kenyan-
Belgian Project, and UNEP’s Regional Dispatch Center
(Appendix D). Dr. E. Okemwa, Director of the KMFRI, is
organizing the meeting. It was agreed that Dr. Arthur Dahl
should contact Dr. Okemwa upon his return to Nairobi to
ascertain whether, and if so in what form, the assistance of
the ad hoc Committee is desired. Possible forms of assis-

Sherman, K. 1992, The use of large marine ecosystem concept in the global ocean observing system (GOOS). Paper presented at: Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission Executive Committee Meeting XXV/7; 10 March; Paris, France. English only. Available from: National Marine Fisheries

Service, Narragansett, RI.


Page 2

Council, the European Economic Community (EEC), and
other regional ocean research organizations to obtain their
comments on the regional LME designations.

IMPROVING THE LME APPROACH/
MONITORING

The next order of business, based on the Monaco report,
was identifying ways of improving our ability tomonitor the
changing states and “health” of LMEs. Dr. Robert Williams
of the United Kingdom’s Natural Environment Research
Council’s Plymouth Marine Laboratory, discussed its rela-
tively-low-cost data collection system, the continuous plank-
ton recorder (CPR), and its technologically advanced fol-
Jow-on system, the undulating oceanographic recorder
(UOR). Dr. Williams pointed out that when the CPR system
was initiated in 1939, its originator, Dr. Alister Hardy,
likened it to the global meteorological monitoring system
upon which we now base much of what we know about
global climate change.

The UOR system can monitor up to 18 oceanographic
parameters, and requires minimal technical training to oper-
ate.. Moreover, due to its relatively low operational costs
when deployed from ships of opportunity, it has the potential
of providing a long-term, oceanographic data set for most,
if not all, of the world’s LMEs. As such, it is a good
candidate for funding through the newly created global
environmental facility administered by The World Bank,
together with UNEP and the United Nations Development
Program.

LME MONITORING

Following a presentation by Dr. Williams on the utility
of the CPR and UOR as a means for monitoring
bioenvironmental conditions within LMEs, the committee
endorsed the new series of CPR systems instrumented with
sensors for nitrate/nitrite, temperature, salinity, light,
petrogenic hydrocarbons, chlorophyll, primary productiv-
ity, bioluminescence, large phytoplankton cells, and zoop-
lankton as being most useful as a means for monitoring
changes in the levels of nutrient loadings, water quality,
water column and frontal structure, phytoplankton species
diversity and biomass, and zooplankton community dynam-
ics in LMEs. The use of CPRs in this regard would be
consistent with: (1) the recommendations of the UNEP-
IOC-World Meteorological Organization Group of Experts
on the Long-Term Monitoring System of Coastal and Near-
Shore Phenomena Related to Climate Change’; (2) the
report of the Workshop on Oceanographic Data and Train-

ing Needs for the LME Approach to Fishery Management
(Appendix C); and (3) the Workshop on LME Monitoring
held in July 1991 at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

At present, the standard CPR is being used on transects
that monitor changes in several LMEs, including the North
Sea and the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Extensions
are planned for 1991-92 to transect the Celtic-Biscay Shelf
Ecosystem, the Iberian Shelf Ecosystem, and several sub-
systems of the Mediterranean Sea Ecosystem. Proposals to
support the extensions have been made to the EEC by Dr.
Williams. The possibilities of establishing a CPR operation
and processing center in Italy and Greece for Mediterranean
samples are being considered by committee members Dr.
Vagn Hansen of the EEC and Danish Marine Fisheries
Institute in Hirtshals, Dr. A. Boussoulengas of the IOC in
Paris, and Dr. R. Williams.

To augment the plankton monitoring component, it was
suggested by Dr. Pope that consideration be given to the
inclusion of a bottom trawl and/or midwater trawl and
acoustics survey of demersal and pelagic fish stocks as part
of the long-term LME monitoring strategy. The survey
would provide a means for obtaining time-series measure-
ments of changes in fish communities, while serving as a
source of fish samples to study multispecies interactions and
environmental effects on fish demographics, and to conduct
pathological examinations related to possible effects of
pollution on fish populations. Such a survey can be con-
ducted by using small commercial trawlers from which
oceanographic and plankton measurements can be made
simultaneously. Dr. Pope cited the excellent time series of
fisheries data collected by the government of Thailand using
small chartered trawlers as an example of the great utility of
several decades of time-series data.

The committee considered LME monitoring strategies
that would be suitable for implementation by developing
nations. It was agreed that a monitoring strategy designed
around minimal requirements for indexing primary produc-
tion, plankton, fish, selected levels of pollution, and envi-
ronmental parameters would be appropriate. It was agreed
that initially the sampling strategy be built around readily
transferable technology aimed at measuring long-term
changes in the productivity and biomass yields of LMEs.
Low-cost monitoring could be initiated using: (1) CPRs
from ships of opportunity, and (2) trawling methods with
chartered vessels that would serve as platforms for simulta-
neous collections of plankton and oceanographic measure-
ments. Atmospheric observations bearing on weather and
climate change would be included in the initial monitoring
effort by using standard, internationally approved log forms.

Both the CPR/UOR and fish sampling strategies were
endorsed by the participants at the Large Marine Ecosystem
Monitoring Workshop held in July 1991 at Cornell Univer-
sity in Ithaca, New York.’

2 Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. 1990. Global ocean observing system status report on existing ocean elements and related systems.
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and World Meteorological Organization Report IOC/INF-833, SC-91/WS-4. Available from:

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Paris, France.

> Sherman, K.; Laughlin, T., eds, [1992.] Large Marine Ecosystems Monitoring Workshop report, Comell University, 13-14 July 1991, Comell
University, Ithaca, New York. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-93, in press. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service,

Narragansett, RI.


Page 13

Table B2. Continued.

Country Percentage of LMEs producing Cumulative
world marine annual biomass percentage
nominal catch* yield

Romania 0.25 Black Sea

German Democratic 0.22 Baltic Sea and Scotia Sea

Republic

Panama 0.21 California Current and Caribbean Sea

Sri Lanka 0.19 Bay of Bengal

Nigeria 0.18 Gulf of Guinea

Uruguay 0.17 Patagonian Shelf

Finland 0.16 Baltic Sea 95.13

*Percentages based on fish catch statistics from FAO Yearbook, vol. 64, 1987.



After such a workshop, developing-country partici-

pants would spend several months receiving training in
monitoring methods and in applying these techniques. This
would ensure a series of regional followup workshops
aimed at making the use of the concept an operational reality.
It was agreed that the Kenya and India regional workshops
might be opportunities to test on a pilot basis this approach.

ACTION ITEMS®

LME Provisional Map: Drs. Alexander and Sherman
will conduct reviews of the map with regional experts.
Dr. Alexander will be making a presentation on the area
designations of LMEs at meetings and workshops of the
IAMG. They will be discussing the map during
regional scientific meetings dealing with the Mediter-
ranean, Baltic, Northeast Atlantic, and western Indian
Ocean.

Monitoring, Modeling, and Theory of LMEs: The
consensus reached by the committee for pursuing the
implementation of a relatively low-cost, high-yield
system consisting of deployment of instrumented con-
tinuous plankton and environmental recorders, and of
small trawlers from which to conduct surveys of fisher-
ies stocks and oceanography, will be discussed at
upcoming multilateral regional and bilateral regional
meetings. Workshops on LME theory, modeling, and
monitoring will be held during the summers of 1991 and
1992 at Comell University. Topics for discussion will
include strategies for monitoring the “health” of LMEs
and methods for comparing the relative health among
LMEs as suggested by Dr: Pope.

Management Group: No consensus was reached on
the immediate formation of a management group. The
committee endorsed the strategy for incorporating the
LME concept in multilateral agreements and confer-
ences including the UNCED scheduled for 1992 in
Brazil. The committee also agreed that it was important
to pursue the means for greater integration of the LME
approach into the international marine scientific and
management communities. Inthis regard, Tom Laughlin
will explore developing a multilateral approachto LMEs

Prepared by T. Laughlin and K. Sherman on 11 April 1991.

9.

Page 5

that can be presented to the next UNCED preparatory
meeting.

Kenya LME Meeting: The Kenya meeting on LMEs
scheduled for Mombassa in August 1992 should be
supported.

GLOBEC: Efforts should be made to develop closer
links between the implementation of LME monitoring
strategies and the Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics
Program and Joint Global Ocean Flux Study process-
oriented studies and theory development, model build-
ing, and testing.

Indian Proposal: The present status should be deter-
mined of the proposal fora conference and workshop on
the Bay of Bengal Ecosystem on the Indian side. Con-
tingent on the answer, it may be necessary to delay the
conference until 1993.

Other Twinning Possibilities: Dr. Doumenge will
explore the possibility of twinning at the upcoming
ICSEM meeting.

General LME Meetings: General LME workshops on
a 3-6 year schedule should be organized to improve
understanding of how LMEs can be efficiently moni-
tored with the objective of comparing their changing
states of “health” in relation to stress, sustainability, and
mitigation. Dr. Alheit will explore the possibility of
using the Kenya meeting as a pilot test for the “general”
LME workshop approach.

Provide opportunities to develop and implement
research and monitoring strategies, particularly among
developing countries.

Monitoring: Global monitoring of regional LMEs
should be strengthened.

Funding should be explored for extensions of CPR
“routes” and for organization of regional sample-pro-
cessing centers. Representatives of The World Bank
and other international organizations should be met
with to explore the potential for implementing CPR
routes that cross the LMEs in the Mediterranean Sea,
the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea, and the East and
West Coasts of Africa.


Page 19

APPENDIX D

ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM AND WORKSHOP
ON “STATUS AND FUTURE OF LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS (LME)
OF THE INDIAN OCEAN”

Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute in collaboration with the Kenyan-Belgian Project “Higher

Institute for Marine Science” and Recoscix-WIO Regional Dispatch Center

Organized by:
Convener: Dr. Ezekiel Okemwa
Date: 9-14 August 1992

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The necessity of integrated interdisciplinary marine
research beyond national or regional boundaries has led to
the concept of LMEs. The concept’s importance for conser-
vation and management of the world’s oceans has been
recognized worldwide by many scientists and scientific
organizations.

Following the recommendations of the International
Conference on the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) Con-
cept and Its Application to Regional Marine Resource
Management held during 1-6 October 1990 in Monaco, the
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute is now
pleased to announce the organization of an international
symposium and workshop on “Status and Future of Large
Marine Ecosystems of the Indian Ocean.”

The concept of LMEs is little understood or applied in
the Indian Ocean. It is difficult to relate the differences in
hydrography, bathymetry, and floral or faunal assemblages
within the Indian Ocean. A comprehensive study of the
Indian Ocean ecosystem covering biological, chemical, and
physical parameters is needed. The application of the LME
concept to different areas of the Indian Ocean will be
extremely important for the conservation and management
of the Indian Ocean's living resources.

The meeting will be held in Mombasa, Kenya, from 9
to 14 August 1992. The symposium will consist of consecu-
tive panels in which the principal subject areas will be
discussed. In each of the review panels, the presentation of
areview paper will be followed by a series of selected papers
on the subject area. The symposium will be followed by a
workshop.

The convener of the symposium and workshop is Dr. E.
Okemwa, assisted by Prof. P. Polk, Dr. N. Mweu, Dr. K.
Delbeke, Mrs. H. Oyicke, and Mr. K. Kairu.

SYMPOSIUM OBJECTIVES

1. To bring together experts in the field of marine science
to review and discuss achievement to date on LMEs.

2. To review and discuss the status of marine research in

the Indian Ocean and relate the current knowledge to the
LME approach.

3. To identify constraints and gaps in knowledge that
affect the application of the LME concept, and promote
action to diminish such constraints.

4. To provide guidelines for the planning, launching, and
evaluation of future projects on LMEs.

5. To provide participants with a broad understanding of
the main principles and methods used in LME studies.

SYMPOSIUM THEME

The symposium will, within the concept of the LME,
examine the physical, chemical, and biological interactions
and their implications for resource utilization. In more
detail, this encompasses: (1) case studies on LME concepts;
(2) rational use of EEZs; (3) oceanographic studies; (4)
ecological cycling; (5) fisheries; (6) pollution; (7) conserva-
tion measures, including coastal parks and protected areas;
(8) resources utilization from LME perspectives, and (9)
integration of scientific data in the LME approach to fisher-
ies management.

WORKSHOP TOPICS

1. Inform participants on the methods of the LME ap-
proach, such as remote sensing, taxonomy, efc.

2. Demonstrate the use of modeling.
3. Identify suitable scientific data needs for LME studies.

4. Develop an example program for integrative LME
studies in developing countries, which would include
“twinning” arrangements: (a) agency to agency, (b)
institution to institution, (c) scientist to scientist, and (d)
with potential funding sources.

FT U.S. GOVERMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993-~700-026-~60008


UIE

_PB93-215747

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-92
2

13 This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results,
Jy interim reports, or special purpose information, and has not undergone external scientific
review.

Report of the Meeting
of the ad hoc Committee
on Large Marine Ecosystems

22-23 March 1991
UNESCO Headquarters

Paris, France

Kenneth Sherman’ and Thomas L. Laughlin,? Editors

‘Narragansett Lab., National Marine Fisheries Serv., Narragansett, R] 02882-1199
20ff. of International Interests, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Washington, DC 20230

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

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

October 1992

~ RePropuceney: NITES
, Deparment of Commerce
National fechries Information Service|
| ‘Springteld, Virgina. 22467 :
\ i


Page 8

ATTENDEES
Name Organization Phone & Fax
Dr. Arthur Dahl Regional Office for Europe 011-31-2550-64646

Dr. Annelies Pierrot-Bults

Ms. Dorothy Bergamaschi

Dr. T. Karker

Dr. Muriel Cole

Dr. A. Boussoulengas

United Nations Environment
Program

Palaise des Nations

8-14 Ave. de la Paix

CH-1211 Geneva 10

SWITZERLAND

Scientific Committee on Ocean
Research Working Group 93

c/o Institute of Taxonomic Zoology

University of Amsterdam

Mauritskade 61

1092 AD Amsterdam

THE NETHERLANDS

Office of Ocean Affairs
U.S. State Department
Washington, DC 20520
USA

Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission

U.N. Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization

7 Place de Fontenoy

75007 Paris

FRANCE

Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission

U.N. Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization

7 Place de Fontenoy

75007 Paris

FRANCE

Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission

U.N. Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization

7 Place de Fontenoy

75007 Paris

FRANCE

011-31-2550-64644

31-20-5257234
31-20-5277238

(202) 647-0239

(202) 647-1106

33-1-45684016

33-1-40569316

33-1-45684046
33-1-40569316

33-1-45683992
33-1-40569316



ATTENDEES

Page 7

Name

Organization

Phone & Fax

Mr. Thomas Laughlin

Dr. John Pope

Dr. Jurgen Alheit

Dr. K. Vagn Hansen

Dr. Francois Doumenge

Dr. Robert Williams

Dr. Kenneth Sherman

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Hoover Building, Room 5811

14th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20230

USA

International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea

c/o Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries, & Food

Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 OHT

UNITED KINGDOM

Baltic Research Institute
Seestrabe 15

0-2530 Warnemunde
GERMANY

Danish Institute for Fisheries
& Marine Research

P.B. 101

9850 Hirtshals

DENMARK

International Commission for the
Scientific Exploration of the
Mediterranean Sea & World
Conservation Union

c/o Musee Oceanographique

Avenue Saint-Martin

MC 98000

MONACO

Plymouth Marine Laboratory

Natural Environment Research
Council

Prospect Place .

Plymouth, England PL1 3DH

UNITED KINGDOM

Narragansett Laboratory

National Marine Fisheries Service
28 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

USA

(202) 482-6196
(202) 482-4307

44-0502-562244

011-49-381-58338

011-49-381-58336

45-98-944500
45-98-944190

33-93- 153600
33-93-505297

44-0752-222772
44-0752-670637

(401) 782-3211
(401) 782-3201


Page 4

tance include: presentations by LME experts, assistance in
bringing developing country participants to the meeting, and
presentations on appropriate monitoring technology such as
the CPR or the use of small boats for monitoring purposes.

Dr. Dwivedi of India has proposed to hold an LME
conference on the Bay of Bengal Ecosystem. At the last
minute, Dr. Dwivedi, who was to attend the ad hoc meeting,
was forced to cancel. Therefore, little planning progress
could be made. Dr. Dwivedi indicated that he was continu-
ing to explore the possibilities with his government for
convening the meeting. This proposal was heartily endorsed
by the committee. Dr. Doumenge indicated that it was most
opportune that India was considering a meeting at this time
as the purse seine fleets of several countries were now
operating in the Southwest Indian Ocean, thereby providing
a good data base for studies of biomass yields in the
Southwest Indian Ocean in the region of the Seychelles,
Chagos, and Maldives Islands.

The committee recommended that Dr. Dwivedi be
contacted as soon as possible for information on the status
of planning of the Bay of Bengal Ecosystem symposium
from the Indian side. As the timeframe for organizing the
meeting during 1992 is narrowing, consideration should be
given to slip the dates of the conference to follow the
Mombasa and Oman meetings.

Dr. Alheit informed the committee that The Nether-
lands and Germany are planning expeditions to the Indian
Ocean during 1994-95. ICSEM is planning a meeting in
Trieste, Italy, for January 1992 to compare the Black Seaand.
Adriatic Sea Ecosystems. Dr. Hansen indicated that Den-
mark planned an expedition around the Andaman Sea Eco-
system in the eastern Indian Ocean during 1992. Dr. Elder
indicated that IUCN would be willing to support attendance
at regional LME meetings. Other regional meetings perti-
nent to LMEs are planned for the IOC’s Ocean Science and
Living Resources (OSLR) Program for comparisons of
clupeoid recruitment among the Humboldt Current Ecosys-
tem, Patagonian Shelf Ecosystem, and the California Cur-
rent Ecosystem. Dr. Pope indicated that the ICES
Multispecies Working Group plans to review multispecies
models of the Gulf of Alaska and Norwegian Shelf Ecosys-
tems in September in La Rochelle, France.

TWINNING

One concept identified in Monaco as a means of pursu-
ing the LME approach, while at the same time providing
technical assistance and training in LME monitoring strate-
gies, was a coupling between developing- and developed-
countries’ marine institutions. Dr. Alheit pointed out that
this approach is working very well in the case of a joint
arrangement between Belgium and Kenya.

Dr. Doumenge suggested that upcoming ICSEM meet-
ings could provide an opportunity for discussion of twinning
institutions for monitoring the changing states and health of
the Black Sea Ecosystem.

Several other opportunities for twinning, based on
distinct types of LMEs, include the North Sea/Yellow Sea
Ecosystems and the California Current/Humboldt Current
Ecosystems.

Insummary, the comparative monitoring approach was
endorsed by the committee as a valid scientific effort for
advancing understanding of causes of changes in the states
or health of LMEs.

IUCN

Dr. Elder indicated that the IUCN’s Commission on
Ecology was being reorganized under the new chairmanship
of Dr, Doumenge. The commission will include among its
themes of marine and coastal programs, the LME strategy
for research and monitoring to encourage actions leading to
long-term sustainability of living marine resources. An
important change is a new focus on LMEs as an organizing
principle for the commission. Thus, the commission will
have 12 members, one from each of 12 regions. The focus
and function of these members will be on LMEs within their
regions. This change will be valuable in developing the
LME concept because of both the substantive focus and
result inregional networks of expertise which can be brought
to bear in discussion of the concept worldwide. Dr. Doumenge
will be organizing experts on LMEs for 12 regions of the
globe. In each region a leading expert would be supported
by 10-20 associate experts on particular LMEs.

UNEP REGIONAL SEAS

Dr. Arthur Dahl indicated interest on the part of UNEP
to assist countries interested in adopting the LME approach
in research, monitoring, and management of living marine
Tesources and their habitats. Dr. Dahl reported that the
regional seas secretariat staff supports the LME approach
and has been active in discussing it with representatives of
member states. However, he emphasized that to assure that
the approach is fully vetted and incorporated in the UNEP
agenda, member states will have to emphasize this approach
at UNEP meetings. The next opportunity to do this is at the
annual meeting of the Governing Council of UNEP.

GENERAL LME WORKSHOPS

In addition to regional conferences and symposia, as
Proposed by India and Kenya, the Monaco meeting recom-
mended a set of workshops aimed at translating the LME
concept into operational specifics. For example, such a
workshop could introduce participants of developing coun-
tries to the types of data needed for monitoring the changing
states or “health” of LMEs and the methods for data collec-
tion and aggregation.


Page 16

volved in generating a data base having broad utility to a
variety of scientific concerns. In this connection, advan-
tages of siting international sorting and taxonomic centers in
countries where costs of analysis may be lowered were cited.

Satellite data appear to have great potential for LME
tesearch. However, difficulties of access (although improv-
ing in very recent years) remain a problem. There is
presently a trend among national agencies toward “market-
ing” of satellite data and products in order to recover part of
the cost of technological development, satellite launching,
and operations. The workshop participants suggested that
international agencies register strong complaints about this
trend. It makes little sense that, after enormous expenditures
to put the systems into operation, their data should be
unavailable to support ongoing scientific research programs
for lack of relatively minor specific funding within these
programs. The comparative method has been identified as
one of the most promising avenues for scientific progress in
LME research. Therefore, the withholding of such data
from use by any country or region effectively robs the
taxpayers of the country having bome the heavy expense of
establishing a satellite observation system of an important
potential “payback” (in terms of their own LME concerns)
for their investment. It was reported that a 10-year series of
“Landsat” data lies essentially unutilized for LME research.
The use of this data resource to support broad-scale scien-
tific advance could be enormously enhanced by free pro-
cessing and free provision of charts and maps. The practice
of encoding data streams to prevent broad access is short-
sighted and should be protested.

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

single, readily identifiable reference, the opportunity to: (1)
publish their own initial analysis of their data; (2) to establish
identification with their data sets so that follow-on users will
know where to enquire about specific details, etc.; and (3)
provide a basis for proper citation of their contribution to
follow-on integrative scientific analysis efforts.

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

TRAINING NEEDS

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

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

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




ERRATUM: Refer to this sheet in place of page 11.

Table B2. Percentage contribution by country and LME representing 95 percent of the annual global catch in 1987

Country Percentage of LMEs producing Cumulative
world marine annual biomass percentage
nominal catch* yield
Japan 14.43 Oyashio Current, Kuroshio Current, Sea of Okhotsk, Sea of
Japan, Yellow Sea, East China Sea, West Bering Sea, Eastem
Bering Sea, and Scotia Sea
Union of Soviet 12.63 Sea of Okhotsk, Barents Sea, Norwegian Shelf, West Bering
Socialist Republics Sea, Eastern Bering Sea, and Scotia Sea
United States 7.03 Northeast U.S. Shelf, Southeast U.S. Shelf, Gulf of Mexico,
of America California Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, California Current, Gulf of
Alaska, and Eastern Bering Sea
Peoples Republic 6.72 West Bering Sea, Yellow Sea, East China Sea, and South
of China China Sea
Chile 5.98 Humboldt Current
Peru 5.65 Humboldt Current 52.44
Republic of Korea 3.50 Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, East China Sea, and Kuroshio Current
Thailand 2.48 South China Sea and Indonesian Seas
Indonesia 2.45 Indonesian Seas
Norway 2.40 Norwegian Shelf and Barents Sea
India 2.09 Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea
Denmark 2.07 Baltic Sea and North Sea
Iceland 2.02 Icelandic Shelf
Democratic Peoples 1.99 Sea of Japan and Yellow Sea
Republic of Korea
Philippines 1.78 South China Sea and Sulu-Celebes Seas
Canada 1.75 Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S, Shelf, Newfoundland Shelf 74.97
Spain 1.69 Tberian Coastal Current and Canary Current
Mexico 1.55 Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, and California Current
South Africa 1.12 Benguela Current and Agulhas Current
France 1.00 North Sea, Biscay-Celtic Shelf, and Mediterranean Sea 80.33

*Percentages based on fish catch statislics from FAO Yearbook, vol. 64, 1987.


Page 11

Table B2. Percentage contribution by country and LME representing 95 percent of the annual global catch in 1987
a

Country Percentage of LMEs producing Cumulative
world marine annual biomass percentage
nominal catch* yield

Japan 14.43 Oyashio Current, Kuroshio Current, Sea of Okhotsk, Sea of

Japan, Yellow Sea, East China Sea, West Bering Sea, Eastern
Bering Sea, and Scotia Sea

Union of Soviet 12.63 Sea of Okhotsk, Barents Sea, Norwegian Shelf, West Bering
Socialist Republics Sea, Eastern Bering Sea, and Scotia Sea
United States 7.03 Northeast U.S. Shelf, Southeast U.S. Shelf, Gulf of Mexico,
of America California Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Califomia Current, Gulf of
Alaska, and Eastem Bering Sea
Peoples Republic 6.72 West Bering Sea, Yellow Sea, East China Sea, and South
of China ‘China Sea
Chile 5.98 Humboldt Current
Peru 5.65 Humboldt Current 52.44
Republic of Korea 3.50 Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, East China Sea, and Kuroshio Current
Thailand 2.48 South China Sea and Indonesian Seas
Indonesia 2.45 Indonesian Seas
Norway 2.40 Norwegian Shelf and Barents Sea
India 2.09 Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea
Denmark 2.07 Baltic Sea and North Sea
Iceland 2.02 Icelandic Shelf
Democratic Peoples 1.99 Sea of Japan and Yellow Sea
Republic of Korea
Philippines 1.78 South China Sea and Sulu-Celebes Seas
Canada 1.75 Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Shelf, Newfoundland Shelf 74.97
Spain 1.69 Tberian Coastal Current and Canary Current
Mexico 1.55 Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, and California Current
South Africa 1.12 Benguela Current and Agulhas Current
France 1.00 North Sea, Biscay-Celtic Shelf, and Mediterranean Sea 80.33

*Percentages based on fish catch statistics from FAO Yearbook, vol. 64, 1987.


\, Page ili
TABLE OF CONTENTS ;
> Introductio

The LME Concept ;.
Identification of LMEs,
Improving the LME Approach/Monitoring >
LME Monitoring ;
Global Ocean Observing Syste
Management ;.

Regional Workshop Concept 5
Twinning ;.
IUCN ;
UNEP Regional Seas }.
General LME Workshops
Action Items :.

Appendic
A. Ad hoc Committee on Large Marine Ecosystems Meeting Agenda and Attendees,” 6

B. Background Description and Map;

C. Report of the Workshop on Oceanographic Data and Training Needs for the LME
Approach to Fishery Management ;..

D. Announcement of International Symposium and Workshop on “Status and Future of
Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) of the Indian Ocean.

t

ae re
| Preceding Page Blank ;

\






Page 9

APPENDIX B

BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION AND MAP®

Large marine ecosystems are extensive areas of ocean
space, measuring about 200,000 km? (60,000 nm’) or greater,
and characterized by: (1) distinct hydrographic regimes, (2)
submarine topographies, (3) productivity, and (4) trophi-
cally dependent populations.’ During the past several years,
29 LMEs have been scientifically analyzed by a series of
international experts (Table B1), including analyses of the
principal forces driving the annual variability in biomass
yields of these LMEs. Such analyses constitute a baseline
against which to measure periodically the effects of natural
and human-induced stress, and of actions taken to mitigate
the stress, on the long-term sustainability of fishery re-
sources.

Also recently, a world map has been prepared showing
the boundaries of 49 identifiable LMEs (Figure B1). Several
of these LMEs have been identified as occupying semi-
enclosed seas, such as the Black, Mediterranean, and Carib-
bean Seas. Some of these, in tum, can be divided into
domains, or subsystems, such as in the case of the Adriatic
Sea, a subsystem of the Mediterranean Sea Ecosystem.

Other LMEs have been recognized as having their

© Prepared by L. Alexander and K. Sherman in April 1991

limits defined by the scope of continental margins. The
seaward limits of these LMEs extend beyond the physical
outer limits of the shelves themselves to include all or a
portion of the continental slopes as well. Among these are
the Northeast U.S. Shelf, the East Greenland Sea, and the
Northern Australian Shelf.

In relation to ocean current LMEs, the seaward bound-
aries have been carefully limited to the areas affected by the
currents, rather than relying simply on the 200-mile exclu-
sive economic or fisheries zone limits. Among these are the
Humboldt, Benguela, Canary, and Kuroshio Currents.

Most of the usable global marine biomass yield (greater
than 95 percent) is caught annually within the boundaries of
the EEZs of coastal nations. In 1987, the global yield of
marine fisheries was 80.5-million metric tons (mmt). Of this
amount, only 4.2 percent (3.4 mmt) -- including catches of
tunas, billfishes, and bonitos -- was attributed to catches
outside of EEZs. The major biomass, constituting 95
percent of the annual yield, was caught within the geo-
graphic limits of the 49 identifiable LMEs (Table B2).

7 Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds. 1986. Variability and management of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Sel. Symp. 99. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press, Inc. 319 p.