probing the depths
Post on 31-Jan-2016
29 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Probing the depthsProbing the depths reverse engineering fisheries landings statisticsreverse engineering fisheries landings statistics
Reg Watson Jackie Alder Villy Christensen Daniel Pauly
‘Sea Around Us’ ProjectFisheries CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, Canadawww.seaaroundus.org
A presentation made at:Place Matters: Geospatial Tools for Marine Science, Conservation and Management, AAAS 2004 Seattle, February 10-13, 2004
IntroductionIntroduction
Why did we do it?Why did we do it? What did we doWhat did we do Main findingsMain findings
global reporting distortions global reporting distortions global trend towards smaller, lower global trend towards smaller, lower
trophic level landingstrophic level landings future scenarios differ by placefuture scenarios differ by place
MethodologyMethodology
Problems to overcomeProblems to overcome what (aggregated groups)what (aggregated groups) who (reflagging)who (reflagging) how much (illegal, discards etc) how much (illegal, discards etc) where (huge areas!)where (huge areas!)
Reporting AreasReporting Areas
48 x 106 km2
AreaArea
USA - 1985 - Pacific Jack Mackerel – FAO 77
DistributionDistribution
USA - 1985 - Pacific Jack Mackerel – FAO 77
Area + DistributionArea + Distribution
USA - 1985 - Pacific Jack Mackerel – FAO 77
Access (EEZ)Access (EEZ)
USA - 1985 - Pacific Jack Mackerel – FAO 77
Distribution + AccessDistribution + Access
USA - 1985 - Pacific Jack Mackerel – FAO 77
Area + Distribution + Area + Distribution + AccessAccess
USA - 1985 - Pacific Jack Mackerel – FAO 77
Landing Allocated (zoom)Landing Allocated (zoom)
USA - 1985 - Pacific Jack Mackerel – FAO 77
½° x ½°
spatial cells
Results Results
reductions in landingsreductions in landings
Decade
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
Decade with Maximum Decade with Maximum LandingsLandings
Prepared by Adrian KitchingmanConservation in Practice
Results Results
reductions in landingsreductions in landings reductions in mean sizereductions in mean size
Length Change Length Change ((1950-2000)1950-2000)
Prepared by Adrian Kitchingman
Standard Length Change (cm)
> 100
> 5
no change
> 5
> 50
> 100
no data
> 50
Increase
Decrease
50
70
90
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
len
gth
(cm
)
Global coastal
North Atlantic
Results Results
reductions in landingsreductions in landings reductions in mean sizereductions in mean size reductions in trophic levelreductions in trophic level
Results Results
reductions in landingsreductions in landings reductions in mean sizereductions in mean size reductions in trophic levelreductions in trophic level fuel needed for fishing fleetsfuel needed for fishing fleets
Global Fuel Use 2000Global Fuel Use 2000
Collaboration with Peter Tyedmers, Dalhousie University
/ 47 M t fuel85 M t landings
Fuel uselitre km-2
< 10
< 50
< 100
< 200
< 300
< 400
< 500
< 1,000
< 1,500
> 1,500
Results Results
reductions in landingsreductions in landings reductions in mean sizereductions in mean size reductions in trophic levelreductions in trophic level fuel needed for fishing fleetsfuel needed for fishing fleets fishing vs marine mammalsfishing vs marine mammals
Results Results
reductions in landingsreductions in landings reductions in mean sizereductions in mean size reductions in trophic levelreductions in trophic level fuel needed for fishing fleetsfuel needed for fishing fleets fishing vs marine mammalsfishing vs marine mammals data for ecosystem models ->data for ecosystem models ->
ScenariosScenarios
Plausible, challenging and relevant Plausible, challenging and relevant stories about how the future might stories about how the future might evolveevolve
NOTNOT
forecasts, projections or predictionsforecasts, projections or predictions
Fisheries & ScenariosFisheries & Scenarios
Previous StudiesPrevious Studies Pope 1989Pope 1989 Cury & Cayré (2001)Cury & Cayré (2001) Pauly (2000)Pauly (2000)
CurrentCurrent Pauly et al. (2003)Pauly et al. (2003) Millennium Assessment (2004)Millennium Assessment (2004)
FocusFocus Millennium Assessment Millennium Assessment Scenarios (2004) Scenarios (2004)
EcologyEcology Adapting MosaicAdapting Mosaic
EconomicsEconomics Techno GardenTechno Garden
PolicyPolicy Global OrchestrationGlobal Orchestration
Current ProjectionsCurrent Projections Order from StrengthOrder from Strength
‘‘Order from Strength’Order from Strength’
Rich protect their borders and Rich protect their borders and minimal investment in poorer minimal investment in poorer countriescountries
Rich try to maintain ecosystem Rich try to maintain ecosystem services by local and national actions services by local and national actions but global impacts are experiencedbut global impacts are experienced
Overall ecosystems and services Overall ecosystems and services declining, some areas OK but declining, some areas OK but vulnerable, others are in perilvulnerable, others are in peril
‘‘Adapting Mosaics’Adapting Mosaics’
Management disaggregated;Management disaggregated; Increased awareness of the Increased awareness of the
importance of resilience;importance of resilience; Local management and learning;Local management and learning; Sharing of lessons learned.Sharing of lessons learned.
‘‘Technogarden’Technogarden’
Improved efficiencies in food Improved efficiencies in food production and other selected production and other selected services;services;
Potential to efficiently use and Potential to efficiently use and sustain ecosystem services;sustain ecosystem services;
Risk of surprises!Risk of surprises!
‘‘Global Orchestration’Global Orchestration’
Economic and environmental Economic and environmental policiespolicies
Trade barriers and subsidies Trade barriers and subsidies phased outphased out
Global initiatives are implementedGlobal initiatives are implemented Human well being improved, Human well being improved,
environment???environment???
Three ModelsThree Models
2050
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Year
Lan
din
gs
(to
nn
es)
TechnoGlobalMosaicStrength
Landings - Benguela Landings - Benguela CurrentCurrent
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Year
Lan
din
gs
valu
e (U
SD
/km
2 )
TechnoGlobalMosaicStrength
Value - Central North Value - Central North PacificPacific
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Year
Lan
din
g d
ivers
ity in
dex
GlobalMosaicStrengthTechno
Diversity - Gulf of ThailandDiversity - Gulf of Thailand
ConclusionsConclusions
Reverse engineering worksReverse engineering works Place mattersPlace matters Policy mattersPolicy matters It is It is notnot too late too late
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
Collaborators:
Peter Tyedmers, Dalhousie University
Adrian Kitchingman, Fred Valdez
and other Sea Around Us Project and Fisheries Centre colleagues
VISIT OUR WEB SITE: WWW.SEAAROUNDUS.ORG
THANK YOU
The Sea Around Us project is a UBC Fisheries Centre partnership with the Pew Charitable Trusts of Philadelphia, USA
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
Collaborators:
Peter Tyedmers, Dalhousie University
Adrian Kitchingman, Fred Valdez
and other Sea Around Us Project and Fisheries Centre colleagues
VISIT OUR WEB SITE: WWW.SEAAROUNDUS.ORG
THANK YOU
The Sea Around Us project is a UBC Fisheries Centre partnership with the Pew Charitable Trusts of Philadelphia, USA
More Results…More Results…
Trophic Level Change Trophic Level Change (1950-(1950-2000)2000)
Prepared by Adrian KitchingmanScientific American July 2003
Trophic Level Change
>1
>.1
no change
>.1
>.5
>1
no data
>.5
Increase
Decrease
top related