ESD, environmental sustainability, EPBC, ecosystem based management, integrated fisheries management, EMS’s: how will we ever cope?
Supervising Scientist, Western Australian Marine Research Laboratories,
Department of Fisheries, PO Box 20, North Beach, WA, 6920
Head, ESD Sub-Program of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (Canberra).
Email rfletcher@fish.wa.gov.au
Introduction
Over the last ten years the area of fisheries management has been inundated with a series of new initiatives and, increasingly, their acronyms. The acronyms themselves tend to take on a meaning of their own and often get used interchangeably. This practice appears to be the result of a lack of understanding about the objectives of the initiatives and, most importantly, how they relate to each other.
Each of these initiatives will affect the core business of all Australian fisheries management and research agencies during the next ten years (and in many cases the effect has already started ). It is important, therefore, to have a clear understanding of these initiatives, their implications and how they interact with each other.
In the remainder of this presentation, I will briefly describe each of the main terms mentioned in the title and their relationships to each other. Following this, I will discuss some possible strategies and principles that should be remembered to assist fisheries managers meet what seems like an impossible set of tasks.
Descriptions and relationships amongst the terms
Ecologically sustainable development vs Environmental sustainability
Ecologically sustainable development, or ESD, as it is often termed, is defined in the National Strategy (Commonwealth of Australia 1992) as: “using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased”. With respect to fisheries, this concept means that we not only need to manage the effects of the fishery on the target species (the species that the fishery wants to catch) but also the effects the fishery may have (both direct and indirect) on the broader ecosystem. Furthermore, the concept recognises that a fishery will have both social and economic effects (both positive and negative) at a number of different scales. Finally, the appropriateness of the governance arrangements (the processes and procedures) that are implemented to enable the management of the fishery also requires assessment.
Achieving ESD requires taking into account both long and short-term objectives and incorporating the 'precautionary principle', which I will detail later. Overall, ESD should be seen as a means, not an end: you cannot say you have actually 'achieved' ESD, as the elements within ESD are not fixed, particularly because of the ever-changing social and economic values of society.
Whilst ESD has often been wrongly assumed to address only environmental issues ('Environmental sustainability') the national strategy on ESD recognised that continued development (i.e. utilisation of economic and social resources in a sustainable manner) is a necessary element to meeting the overall objective that total quality of life can be increased. It is the integrated approach of including the wider economic, social and environmental implications within decision-making processes that is the cornerstone, and major innovation, of ESD.
Social and economic factors must be included in the assessment of ESD for fisheries because natural resource management needs to have more than just minimum standards for viable populations. To some degree, most fisheries management agencies have taken account of social and economic factors over the last 50-100 years, even if they have not done so explicitly. Moreover, any alteration to the environment (which will result from any level of harvesting) must have a social or economic benefit otherwise society would class the effect as vandalism.
Depending upon societal (moral) values, the acceptable level of harvesting or effect can vary significantly. For example, several species could be harvested if only the sustainability of populations was the criterion, but the community has decided on moral grounds that for some species (e.g. dolphins) any harvest what soever is unacceptable. Whilst there may be no intrinsic environmental reason for such decisions, they are still consistent with ESD and such examples are likely to become more common.
To assist fisheries agencies understand how to implement and report on ESD, the FRDC1 funded a project coordinated by the Standing Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA2). The result of this project was the development of a national ESD reporting framework to compartmentalise, in an efficient and pragmatic way, the various elements of ESD (Figure 1; Fletcher et al. 2002). This framework covers the retained species, non-retained species, indirect effects on the environment, social benefits and costs of the fishery, governance arrangements (allocation of access being a key factor) and effects of the environment on a fishery (including perturbations caused by other human activities).
Figure 1. The national ESD reporting framework (see www.fisheries-esd.com for details).
The EPBC Act (Export Approvals – Strategic Assessments)
The Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC), which now incorporates the Wildlife Protection (Restriction on Exports and Imports) Act 1982, requires the assessment of export fisheries and all Commonwealth managed fisheries against the 'Guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of fisheries'. These guidelines state that a fishery must maintain viable stock levels of target species, must not threaten bycatch species and must minimise the impact of fishing operations on the ecosystem generally. In other words, the EPBC Act mainly relates to the ecological side of ESD (Figure 2) but it does include some elements of governance associated with management arrangements. It does not involve any social or economic analyses.
Figure 2. The issues that relate to the EPBC Act compared to the ESD framework. The ESD issues shaded grey are not directly relevant to the EPBC assessment process.
Ecosystem based management
Ecosystem based management is, in many respects, a subset of ESD (Figure 3). Like ESD, it is a philosophy for which the definition varies depending on the particular fish species or region being examined. Thus, it can vary enormously in scope from the huge ecosystem for southern bluefin tuna (Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean and South Pacific Ocean), to an ecosystem as small as one tributary of a river for the stocks of some other species.
Harden Jones (1994) defined ecosystem based management as 'the necessity of understanding multi-species interactions and questions of altered structure of the biological community'. This understanding involves assessment of both the direct and indirect impacts of fishing; and to this can be added the environmental impact of other human activities on a fishery.
Figure 3. ESD components relevant to ecosystem based management (grey shaded components are not examined).
Figure 4. The issues that relate to integrated fisheries management (IFM) compared to the ESD framework. The ESD issues shaded red are not directly relevant to the IFM process.
Integrated fisheries management
In many jurisdictions, the commercial and recreational sectors are managed in relative (or in some cases total) isolation to the activities of each other. The need for more explicit management arrangements to be developed is recognised and those arrangements should also include sectors that require 'no-take' areas and indigenous fishing rights. Integrated fisheries management (IFM) therefore, is the process that seeks to manage access to the resources by all stakeholders in an explicit and sensible manner such that the exploitation of stocks by all sectors can be managed in an integrated way.
The information that is required for IFMs includes data on retained species and costs and benefits associated with the various forms of fishing so that appropriate decisions regarding allocation can be assisted (Figure 4 and Fletcher & Curnow, 2002).
In summary, the issues that need to be addressed through applications under the EPBC Act and initiatives related to ecosystem based management and integrated fisheries management and are all subsets of ESD. Consequently, if an ESD assessment is completed this will cover all these issues.
EMS (Environmental management systems)
The final three-letter acronym is EMS, which stands for environmental management systems. The development of an EMS can be used to achieve or improve the level of performance for some or all issues of an individual fishing operation or of an entire fishery. An EMS can be certified by an external body, the most well known of these being the ISO accredited systems. The development of an EMS relies on identifying an objective or level of performance that is required to be met, determining the actions that are needed to achieve this objective or performance, implementing those actions, monitoring the outcomes and revising the actions if necessary. In many cases, Codes of Practice are a way of formalizing the set actions needed across an industry group.
Many of the issues identified as part of the ESD assessments can be addressed through the development of an EMS. Thus the two systems are complimentary.
Implications of these initiatives for fisheries agencies
Materiality of issues and definition of acceptable impact
So how do we deal with all of these initiatives, particularly the increases in reporting and assessment requirements that they will generate?
I believe that the initiative to require third party assessment of the performance of fisheries, such as the EPBC Act, could be perhaps one of the best things to happen for fisheries management in the long term — so long as it is handled appropriately. It could also be a significant risk if handled incorrectly.
There are a number of risks associated with these assessments due to the uncertainty and 'materiality' of the issues to be addressed. When planning the assessment of a fishery, it is possible to generate a list of many issues that could be examined; but only some of these issues are important while others have the perception of importance or simply reflect ignorance of the actual fishing operations.
Possibly the biggest challenge is to determine what is acceptable performance for a fishery. Given that all activities result in some level of alteration to the environment and that stopping an activity also has effects, the real question is: 'how do we determine when the level of change becomes unacceptable?' For example, in one of the case study workshops held to develop the ESD framework, one participant concluded that a rock lobster pot falling off a boat and chipping off a small piece of the limestone reef below was a catastrophic event and was therefore a major impact of the fishery. Is such a conclusion reasonable? Unless we use sensible levels of acceptable change in the EPBC process, leading to appropriate assessments of the adequacy of performance, significant discrepancies and difficulties will ensue.
Information levels
Another major issue relates to the levels of information available on which to base sensible assessments of performance. There are approximately 140 fisheries in Australia, 100 of which could be classed as data-poor even if only the information related to the target species is assessed. And that is the vast majority. Moreover, even those fisheries that are relatively data-rich are usually only data-rich in a few of the ESD components. In most cases once assessments move beyond the main target species, all fisheries have elements for which minimal data are available. So not having sufficient data is a problem that will affect the assessment of EVERY fishery.
Is the answer to go out and collect more data? As explained in another paper presented at this conference (Chesson et al., 2002), collecting more data may sound great but in most cases the cost of doing so will mean it is unlikely to occur. Even if a fishery potentially has resources to collect data, the data collected may not be needed and resources may be wasted which could have been more effectively used elsewhere. In other words, an assessment of the real value of collecting extra data needs to be made before any new monitoring programs are initiated. In particular, one should first ask how will the data be used to effect management: if it will not change how the fishery is managed, why collect it?
Relationship between social attitudes and environmental impacts
Another potential problems is confusion of significant environmental impacts with changes in social attitudes. Like the dolphin example mentioned above, many issues are more about society’s viewpoint from a moral stance and not necessarily a 'real' environmental issue. To give a non-fishery example, although forestry science can determine the intensity of logging of 'old-growth forests' and find the level where this is environmentally sustainable because of forest regeneration times, many people still protest against chopping any of these trees because they want to have 'old' forests, not just 'functioning' forests.
I think that social attitudes are likely to become even more important as drivers of natural resource management policy in the future.
Interactions amongst fishing sectors
One of the main problems that faces minor fisheries is that most of them catch a large number of species which are often targeted by other fisheries besides their own (including recreational and often other commercial fisheries). Many of these fisheries operate in high profile areas near large population centres where management decisions are significant politically. Moreover, there are usually limited data available for many of the species caught in the fisheries and it is likely that cost will obviate sophisticated stock assessments for all of the target species. In addition, any ecosystem effects will not be simple to address because little direct information will be available.
When ESD assessment are completed for inshore commercial fisheries, it is likely that recreational fisheries will need to be done at the same time because of the many issues interacting between fisheries. If there are 'no-take' areas present, they may need simultaneous assessment. This timing of assessments raises the ultimate aim of having effective regional marine planning policies, and for that we will need to have an effective framework to tie the issues together while using suitable allocation or reallocation mechanisms.
Possible strategies to deal with these issues
Scientific inference
A method that will be of great value if we are to deal with the breadth of issues that will confront most fisheries assessments over the coming years is the use of scientific inference; i.e. we should use all of our current understanding and knowledge. There is a vast wealth of material available in the scientific literature, and other resources, that can be used to assist decision making in an explicit matter. After all, there is a fundamental difference between 'uncertainty' and 'no knowledge'. There are a few issues for which we have no knowledge but I know of no issues for which we have full certainty.
Implementing the Precautionary Principle
At this point it may be useful to expand on the Precautionary Principle which states 'the absence of full scientific certainty should not preclude action where irreversible or major detrimental effects are possible'. This does not mean, however, that full certainty about all potential impacts is required before an activity can proceed, but rather that the level of caution required to allow an activity needs to be proportional to the level of potential impacts, the level of information available, and the safeguards and review periods imposed.
Risk assessment
I see that the risk assessment methodologies will be useful tools to assist in prioritising how issues will need to be addressed. All fisheries have been managed using a risk assessment approach to minimise the risk of overfishing. Whereas previously this was done implicitly, we now must move to a more formal, transparent process to satisfy community concerns. To assist in this process, a part of the National ESD Reporting framework includes a set of Consequence tables and Likelihood tables that can help to determine the materiality or priority of issues.
Retained species.
The Consequence table developed for retained species includes a gradation of impacts from negligible (for which there will be no measurable effect on the species) to a catastrophic impact where local extinction will occur (details in Table 1). Most fisheries should be operating at a level which avoids having more than a moderate level of impact; i.e. where the fisheries are considered to be at full exploitation but exhibit little chance of recruitment overfishing.
Table 1 – An example of the consequence levels used in the National ESD Reporting Framework: retained species (target stock) (see www.fisheries-esd.com for full details of all seven Consequence tables and the full risk assessment process).
Level |
Ecological |
Negligible |
Target: undetectable for this population |
Minor |
Target: Possibly detectable. Little impact on population size but none on their dynamics. |
Moderate |
Target: Full exploitation rate where long term recruitment/dynamics not adversely affected |
Severe |
Target: Affecting recruitment levels of stocks or their capacity to increase |
Major |
Target: Likely to cause local extinctions |
Catastrophic |
Target: Local extinctions are imminent/immediate |
We know the general dynamics of most fish species and have some understanding of what the potential effects their life histories can have on their vulnerability to fishing. What we need to do when assessing the risks associated with having a fishery is to ensure that the level of data available is appropriate for the exploitation rate applied to the stocks and the vulnerability of the species involved. Thus, the higher the level of risk or harvesting, the greater the level of information that will be needed to manage the fishery.
Determining the risk for each species involves assessing a number of factors including its growth rate, longevity, migration and dispersal of larvae. For example, if a fishery catches a species that has limited dispersion, low fecundity and is long-lived, taking a limited data approach may not be acceptable for monitoring its performance.
There is value in understanding the total distribution of a species in relation to the area where it is allowed to be fished. If there are ample refuge areas, then having detailed data may not be necessary because the availability of refuge areas should ensure sustainability.
In summary, if a species does not have a high exploitation rate, catch and effort are likely to be sufficient to monitor performance. If the species is high risk and requires aggressive management, maximum information may be required (Table 2). In circumstances where there is a very high exploitation rate and little information is available, either the level of data must be increased or the exploitation rate must be reduced. The choice between these two options should depend upon the value of the fishery and its capacity to fund the monitoring.
Table 2 Relationship between exploitation rates and information levels.
Exploitation rate/risk |
Likely indicators/Limits required |
Low |
Catch or Effort only/Crude CPUE |
Moderate |
Reasonable CPUE. Possibly some extra/occasional biological sampling |
High |
Good CPUE &/or fishery independent surveys; probably biological sampling, leading to estimates of biomass and/or exploitation rates |
Ecosystem impacts.
With respect to assessing the broader ecosystem, there are many issues that could be affected by the operation of a fishery. Risk assessment methodology is a good way of determining which issues are sufficiently important to deal with in addition to the maintenance of the target stocks. As stated above, the major issue is how much change would be acceptable to the ecosystem.
A few concepts to keep in mind when assessing ecosystem effects and fishing include: (a) unlike agricultural systems, which generally rely on replacing a natural ecosystem with an altered state to produce a crop, continued fisheries production actually requires the natural ecosystem to be functioning to enable continued production; (b) fishing often occurs on many species within an ecosystem and therefore much could be learned from the data generated by all the fisheries in an area; and (c) because fishing in most areas targets species representative of most trophic levels, if the ecosystem changes were significant it is likely that any indirect effect occurring to the community would be reflected in changed abundance or behaviour of at least some of those species.
Some very interesting scientific studies on trophic interactions have shown that reduction in a key predator or prey species can lead to major changes in ecosystem functioning, but such results are relatively rare. It is generally the case that only the studies revealing strong interactions are published; hence the literature is somewhat biased towards these. I believe that there are probably many unpublished studies that report only weak interactions.
I consider of greater importance the fact that I could not find one example of a fishery (i.e. the initial target species) that indirectly affected other trophic levels and which was still in good condition. Thus it seems that these ecosystem changes or trophic cascades only occur after a fishery has collapsed or has suffered a significant decline.
We already have a reasonable understanding of the physical impacts that each of the fishing methods has on benthic habitats. Consequently, conducting a specific study may not be necessary unless there is a need to show that a particular area is different. The easiest method of dealing with such issues is to leave areas of the habitat unfished with the relative amount left untouched increasing as the destructive nature of the fishing method increases.
Finally, I need to highlight that ecosystems vary naturally due to shifts in local climate, oceanography and random factors. Thus, they do not have some predefined “inviolate” state. There is no absolute state of equilibrium that must be “achieved”.
In summary, if there is a fishing activity that does not have a great deal of impact, it may occur everywhere; but if the fishing method is likely to have a big impact on the habitat, then it must be constrained and the level of constraint will depend upon the level of direct impact. In terms of trophic level effects, if there are no strong interactions, it should not be necessary to take this into account when determining the maximum exploitation levels for target species. However, if the target species is known to be a key species and the whole community is likely to change if such a target species' population is altered, then more precaution will be required.
There was initially a fear that comprehensive studies and monitoring of ecosystems would be needed for every fishery. This should not, however, be the case. For some fisheries we may only need to articulate why such studies are not required; other fisheries may require more data to enable such a justification to be made; for other fisheries, an adjustment in their management strategy may be needed. Only for a small group of fisheries may explicit monitoring of community structure be needed.
Conclusion
ESD and all the other three letter acronyms are now here to stay in one form or another. Whilst they will undoubtedly require a degree of thought for their implementation, if handled correctly they should mostly result in change to the way things are done and not a huge addition to what is done. The increased transparency of process that will result from their adoption will greatly increase the possibility of gaining broader community acceptance for our management decisions. Community acceptance is fast becoming the most important criterion for evaluating natural resource management agencies – just ask the foresters!
References
Chesson, J., Fletcher, R., Whitworth, B., Sainsbury, K. and Fisher, M. 2002. Safety tips for data collectors. (this volume)
Commonwealth of Australia 1992. The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, AGPS, Canberra.
Fletcher, W.J. 2002. Policy for the implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development for Fisheries and Aquaculture within Western Australia. Fisheries Management Paper, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia No. 157. 70 pp.
Fletcher, W.J., Chesson, J., Fisher M., Sainsbury, K.J., Hundloe, T., Smith, A.D.M. and Whitworth, B. 2002. National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: The 'How To' Guide for Wild Capture Fisheries. FRDC Project 2000/145. Canberra, Australia.
Fletcher, W.J. and Curnow, I. 2002. Processes for the allocation, reallocation and governance of resource access in connection with a framework for the future management of fisheries in Western Australia. Fisheries Management Report, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia No. 7.
Harden Jones, F. R. 1994. Fisheries Ecological Sustainable Development: Terms and Concept, IASOS, University of Tasmania. Kenchington, R. 1993. 'Protection and sustainable use of marine environments and resources', in Maritime Studies, 72:1-5.
1 FRDC –Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (Canberra)
2 A review of all Standing Committees resulted in the SCFA being replaced by the Marine & Coastal Committee of the Natural Resources Management Standing Committee in 2001.
join now
