Why does it take so long to implement EBFM?

Dave Fluharty, SMA UWOn the Ground & In the Water

University of WashingtonMay 1, 2009

FOCUS ON ECOSYSTEMS FOCUS ON ECOSYSTEMS

ASFA Citations

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1994

1996

1998

2000

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f ar

ticl

es

Ecosystem

Ecosystemmanagement

Livingston 2002

EXPLODES!

Evaluation of EBM for Fisheries in 33 Countries

Pitcher et al. 2008

THE SAGA OF Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel

PRECURSOR – NMFS ECOSYSTEM TEAM 1986-87 REPORT – CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATIONS [long time passing]

PRECURSOR – ISLANDS INSTITUTE GULF OF MAINE CONFERENCE ON EBM 1994/5 LED TO 1996 MSA REAUTHORIZATION LANGUAGE BY SEN. SNOWE

ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL REPORT TO

CONGRESS 1999

A team of 20 scientists was convened to advise Congress on use of ecosystem principles in fishery management– late 2007.

Chief recommendation was to develop regional Fishery Ecosystem Plans

ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL [EPAP]

• Chair, David Fluharty University of Washington /NPFMC• Pete Aparicio Texas Shrimpers Association /GOMFMC• Chris Blackburn Alaska Groundfish Data Bank• George Boehlert NMFS/Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory• Felicia Coleman Florida State University /GOMFMC• Philip Conkling Island Institute• Robert Costanza University of Maryland• Paul Dayton University of California San Diego• Robert Francis University of Washington• Doyle Hanan California Department of Fish and Game• Ken Hinman National Coalition for Fisheries Conservation• Ed Houde University of Maryland• James Kitchell University of Wisconsin• Rich Langton Maine Department of Natural Resources• Jane Lubchenco Oregon State University• Marc Mangel University of California Santa Cruz• Russell Nelson FMFC/ GOMFMC/ SAFMC• Victoria O’Connell Alaska Department of Fish and Game• Michael Orbach Duke University• Michael Sissenwine NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

EPAP CAVEATS

• WE DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF ECOSYSTEMS

• WE CANNOT PREDICT CHANGE IN ECOSYSTEMS AT PRESENT

• ECOSYSTEMS EVOLVE OVER TIME

• MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT CONFIGURED TO ECOSYSTEM SCALE

High Bar/Low Bar

Status quo?

Perfect information totally integrated management

Completely isolatedsingle species/issue management

PREREQUISITES OF EBFM

• EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF FISHERIES BY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

• ABILITY TO ENFORCE REGULATIONS

• ABILITY TO MONITOR HARVESTS -INCLUDING BYCATCH

• ABILITY TO CONTROL CAPACITY TO FISH

OPERATING RULES EPAP

RECOMMENDATIONS MUST BE PRACTICAL AND PRODUCE CHANGE IN CONTEXT OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS

MORE THAN NEPANO NEW LEGISLATIVE MANDATE

EPAP ECOSYSTEM “PRINCIPLES”

• ABILITY TO PREDICT ECOSYSTEM BEHAVIOR IS LIMITED

• ECOSYSTEMS HAVE THRESHOLDS AND LIMITS AFFECTING ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE

• IF LIMITS ARE EXCEEDED, CHANGES CAN BE IRREVERSIBLE

• DIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT TO ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING [DEBATED]

ECOSYSTEM “PRINCIPLES” [cont.]

• MULTIPLE TIME SCALES INTERACT IN AND AMONG ECOSYSTEMS

• COMPONENTS OF ECOSYSTEMS ARE LINKED

• ECOSYSTEM BOUNDARIES ARE OPEN

• ECOSYSTEMS CHANGE WITH TIME

EPAP ASSESSMENT OF USE OF PRINCIPLES IN U.S.

• PREREQUISTES NOT MET IN MANY US FISHERIES [IMPROVING]

• ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES ARE SOMETIMES USED IN U.S. FISHERY MANAGEMENT.

• EXAMPLES OF USE ARE GENERALLY LIMITED IN SCOPE

“Using what is known about the marine ecosystemto inform management decisions.”

-adapted from the EcosystemPrinciples Advisory Panel, 1999

What is Ecosystem-based Management?

NoUse

Ecosystem Pristine

Prohibited Use

Extractive Use

EcosystemModified

EcosystemModified –Resilient?Restored?

ECOSYSTEM BASED MANAGEMENT – A PROCESS

EPAP POLICY ADVICE

• CHANGE BURDEN OF PROOF

• APPLY PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

• PURCHASE “INSURANCE”

• LEARN FROM MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE

• USE INCENTIVES TO ACHIEVE GOALS

• PROMOTE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT GOALS

MAINTAIN ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND

SUSTAINABILITY

FISHERIES ECOSYSTEM PLAN [FEP] - PURPOSE

• PROVIDE CLEAR DESCRIPTION OF ECOSYSTEM AND SOCIAL ECONOMIC CONTEXT

• IMPROVE HOW ECOSYSTEM AND SOCIETAL INFORMATION IS USED IN MANAGEMENT

• SET POLICIES BY WHICH MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ARE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED

FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN CONTENTS

• DELINEATE GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF ECOSYSTEMS FOR MANAGEMENT

• DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE FOOD WEB [DYNAMICS]

• DESCRIBE HABITAT NEEDS OF DIFFERENT LIFE HISTORY STAGES OF “SIGNIFICANT FOOD WEB” [EFH]

FEP CONTENTS [cont.]

• CALCULATE TOTAL REMOVALS AND RELATE TO ECOSYSTEM

• ASSESS UNCERTAINTIES AND HOW THEY ARE ADDRESSED BY MANAGEMENT

• DEVELOP INDICES OF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AS MANAGEMENT GOAL

FEP CONTENTS [cont.]

• DESCRIBE LONG-TERM MONITORING DATA AND HOW THEY ARE USED

• ASSESS IMPACTS OF ELEMENTS OUTSIDE CONTROL OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

MSA IMPLEMENTATION

• BESIDES EMPHASIS ON STOCK ASSESSMENT MSA 1996 EMPHASIZED OTHER “BUILDING BLOCKS” FOR EBFM

• BRING FISHERIES INTO FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT [NEPA] REQUIREMENTS

• DESIGNATE ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT [EFH]

• REDUCE BYCATCH• ETC.

The Alaskan Ocean Ecosystem

ALASKA Region

EVALUATION

Witherell, D., C. Pautzke and D. Fluharty 2000. An ecosystem-based approach for Alaska groundfish fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57:771-777

IMPLEMENTATION - NEPA

EXAMPLE FROM NPFMC REGION:

SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GROUNDFISH PSEIS

9 VOLUMES + EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7000+ PAGES WEIGHT 41.5 LBS./ 19

KG 2003

EPAP IMPLEMENTATION

• NATIONAL LEVEL [Illustrative]Senate Hearings 1999 – STOCK ASSESSMENT/ECOSYSTEM- BASED

WORKSHOP [APRIL 2000]– NOAA CHESAPEAKE BAY FEP [JULY 2000]– MAFAC/NMFS ADVISORY PANEL [SEPTEMBER

2001 - 2003]– AFS ECOSYSTEM PANEL [AUGUST 2002]– MOTE SYMPOSIUM [OCTOBER 2002]– NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS

AND SYNTHESIS – MODELS– FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN DEMO [2003]?

IMPLEMENTATION NATIONAL

• CONGRESS MSFCMA REAUTHORIZATION– HEFLEY BILL 1999– GILCHREST BILL 2000– SNOWE BILL 2000– KERRY BILL 2000– FARR BILL 2001

GILCHREST BILL 2002 [MARK-UP JUNE 2002]

KERRY DRAFT 2002 [WORKING DRAFT]. ETC.

STEVENS – SCHEDULE FOR 2005

ULTIMATELY REAUTHORIZED 2006.

EBFM IMPLEMENTATION - REGIONAL

• NPFMC – 1994 ECOSYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS/ COMMITTEE/ALEUTIAN ISLAND 2005 + FEP

• CHESAPEAKE BAY FEP – 2000/2006+ AGREED BY 5 STATES

• WPFMC – ARCHIPELAGIC FEP 2004+• SAFMC/CFMC/GOM – $2.0 MILLION

FUNDING FOR STARTING FEP 2004+• NEFMC – DELINEATE BOUNDARIES 2005• PFMC – 2006+ START FEP PLAN PROCESS

FURTHER EFFORTS national

--- Executive Order on MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, May 26, 2000

--- Oceans Act 2000 -- US Oceans Commission Report 2003/04

--- PEW OCEAN COMMISSION 2003

Reasons Why EBFM Not Implemented

• Lack of adequate science?• Lack of a mandate – conflicting mandates?• Good sectoral management is adequate?• Inertia?

– Don’t know how– Fear the unknown

• Feuding scientists/ objectives?• Too complex?• Transaction costs too high?• Can’t afford it?• Lack of political will?• Need for EBFM training and communication?

Lack of Adequate Science?

STATUS OF SOCIAL SCIENCES IN NOAA BUDGET

3.4 Billion24.7 Million= 0.6%

Source, Wiley 2008

NOAA SOCIAL SCIENCE STAFFING

Source, Wiley 2008

Lack Mandate/ Conflicting Mandates?

Not required

Not prohibited

Best Available Science

…XI-XVHow to Implement

Ecosystem Management

EcosystemApproachesto

Mgt.

There is no manual for what we are attempting!

Thanks to Steve Murawski

U.S. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY REPORT 2004

“DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING”“CREATE REGIONAL OCEAN ECOSYSTEM

COUNCILS”“REFINE THE EXISTING FISHERY

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM…. TO STRENGTHEN THE USE OF SCIENCE AND TO MOVE TOWARD A MORE ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT APPROACH”

ESTABLISH NATIONAL OCEAN COUNCILREORGANIZE NOAA

National OceanCouncil(Ch. 4)

Regional OceanCouncil*(Ch. 3,5)

GovernancePolicy Development, Coordination,Facilitation

StewardshipAdvice,

Collaboration

Regional Federal

Coordination (Ch. 5)

Offshore Managemen

tRegime (Ch.

6)EcosystemAssessmen

ts (Ch. 5)

Coastal Zone

Management (Ch. 9)

ScientificKnowledge (Ch.

25)

Ocean Data

(Ch. 28)

Mammals (Ch. 20)Health (Ch. 23)Coral (Ch. 21)Fish (Ch. 19)

Habitat (Ch. 11)

IOOS (Ch. 26)

Broad guidelines; coordination; communication

Policy Coordination

Collaboration & Assistance

Key

FunctionsEducation (Ch. 8)

* Voluntary and flexible, formed by Governors and other locally-based interests

Shoreland Development (Ch. 9)

Offshore Uses (Chs. 22, 24)

President’s Councilof Advisors

InformationRegional Ocean

Information Center

US COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY ROC Concept

Policy Context

Understanding ROG

3 Components of ROG

3-Step Analytical FrameworkTest of Analytical FrameworkConclusions

(Hershman 2005)

Good sectoral management is adequate?

Ecosystem-based Management approaches

Traditional fishery management- target species- single species or multi-species

Single sector management

Ecosystem oriented single sector management

Integrated regional multi-sector management

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)- Start with the fishery- add issues of ecosystem impact

Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM)- Start with the ecosystem services- add fishing

Ecosystem Based management (EBM)

- Regional integrated management, multiple use management

ESD policy, Fisheries Act and AFMA fisheries

Australia’s Oceans Policy and Environmental Act

Modified from Sainsbury

Pollock trawl near Kodiak, Alaska. Photo: Mindy Jones, NMFS

Steller sea lion bull. Photo: NMFS

http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/

Photo by USACE, http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/dumpdredged/dredgemgmt.html

Valdez Cotainer Terminal http://www.ci.valdez.ak.us/port/marine.html

Common murresUSFWS

Exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea http://www.mms.gov/alaska/fo/INDEX.HTM

Subsistence salmonhttp://www.travelalaska.com

Inertia?

• Don’t know how

• Fear of the unknown

FACTORS AFFECTING PACE OF ADAPTATION OF EBFM

• PRICES [OF INPUTS, e.g., FUEL]• REVENUE [COMPETITION]• CONFLICTS [e.g. WARS]• TECHNOLOGY [SOLVE/CREATE

PROBLEMS]• CHANGING HUMAN VALUES• NATURAL DISASTERS• CLIMATE VARIABILITY/CHANGE

Feuding scientists OR objectives?

Too complex?

Generalized Jurisdiction in Alaska’s Marine Waters and Coastal Zone

3 nm

DNRCoastal DevelopmentAnadromous fish habitat protection

200 nm

US EEZ

DNROil and Gas(marine-based)

ADF&GCommercial fishingRecreational fishing

Marine mammal protection

State-owned submerged lands

State waters

US FWSMarine mammal protectionMigratory birds

MMSOil and Gas (marine-based)

NOAA FisheriesCommercial Fishing

Federal waters

DECDischarges to waters

EPADischarges to watersOcean dumping

US FWSWildlife refuge mgmt

ACOEDredge spoil dumping

ACOENavigation maintenancePorts and harbors

Mean High Tide

Mean Low Tide

Institution

Federal State

NOAA Fisheries/

NPFMC

US FWS Minerals Mgmt. Service

Army Corps

EPA NPS AK DEC AK DNR ADF&G

Factor

Jurisdiction

Structure

Function

Process

Dynamics

Complexity

Synthesis

Comparison

Composite

Alternative

Institutional Profiles(Juda and Hennessey 2001)

ECOSYSTEM STATUS: Physical Environment and Links to Production

Pacific Decadal Oscillation

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

19

00

19

05

19

10

19

15

19

20

19

25

19

30

19

35

19

40

19

45

19

50

19

55

19

60

19

65

19

70

19

75

19

80

19

85

19

90

19

95

20

00

Year

Ind

ex

PDO

5-month running mean

15-month running mean

Regional food webs

Do these structural differences result in differences in control?

EBS GOA

Transaction costs too high?

NOAA’s Alignment by GoalStakeholders

• Ecosystems

• Weather & Water

• Climate

• Commerce & Transportation

Outcomes

NOAA Line Offices (6)

NOAA Strategic

PlanM

issi

on G

oal Team

s

NOAA Councils (12)U

sers

Con

stitue

nts

Empl

oyee

sPa

rtne

rs

NOAA’s Process

Program Baseline

Assessments

PLANNINGExternal Inputs

Internal Inputs

Annual Guidance Memorandum

Strategic Plan Update

Goal/Council Assessments

PROGRAMMING

FY/FY/FY/FY/FY

Program Plan Evaluation

Fiscal & Programming Guidance

Program Plan Development

PBAAnalysis

BUDGETING

FY

President’s Budget Submission to Congress

Budget Preparation

DOC Review and Adjustment

OMB Review and Passback

Congressional Appropriation

Apportionment and Allocation of Funds

Program Decision Memorandum (PDM)

EXECUTION

Close-out

Execute Approved LO / Program Annual Oper Plans

Report Results• Eval Performance • Make Adjustments

Performance Plans

BOPs

Monthly/QtrlyExecution Reviews

Can’t afford it?

• Loss due to more conservative management? Short/Long term?

• Science, monitoring, enforcement needs greater than traditional sectoral management?

Lack of political will?

Continued Congressional Interest? Interference?

• FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Monday, September 15, 2003

• LAWMAKERS INSIST ON MORE OPTIONS FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENTPress For Alternatives That Reduce Economic Pain For New England Fishermen

• Three Massachusetts Members of Congress who have played active roles in the efforts to preserve New England's fishing industry, today called upon the Federal Government's senior official on fishing matters to develop new, less economically harmful options for management of New England's fisheries.

• Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Congressmen Barney Frank and John F. Tierney sent a letter to United States Secretary of Commerce Donald L. Evans, urging him to broaden the management options currently under consideration by the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC). The letter recommends exploring whether more modest adjustments to the existing set of New England fisheries management measures may be sufficient to meet required conservation goals, and utilizing alternative scientific models as part of the process for developing a final management plan.

The President takes credit

2006 REAUTHORIZATION AND EBFM

• CONGRESS FINDS THAT COUNCILS ARE INCORPORATING ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES

• EMPHASIZES FURTHER DEVELOPMENT• AUTHORIZES SUPPORT FOR REGIONAL

ECOSYSTEM PILOT PROGRAMS

[ONE OF THE MORE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES – HOW FAR TO GO WITH A MANDATE?]

NOAA SAB RECOMMENDS TO DEVELOP REGIONAL

INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENTS 7/06

Regional, collaborative Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs), conveying information on the status of ecosystem health and evaluating the impacts of current and proposed human activities should be the central products of NOAA ecosystem science.

Ecosystem Goal Ecosystem Goal Team’s Regional Team’s Regional Ecosystem Ecosystem Boundaries (LMEs)Boundaries (LMEs)

65

Need for EBFM training and communication

• Do we need an Ecosystem Service?

• What about creating a EBFM Culture

What to Expect in Next 10 Years of EBFM Implementation

• CHAOS [IN THE BEST SENSE]

• EVOLUTION TOWARD A REVOLUTION

• SIMILAR TO IPCC – DEVELOP ENSEMBLE FORECASTS

• INCREASINGLY COMPREHENSIVE APPROACHES

What to expect ?

Great things from the next generation of scientists and managers

Make way!

THANKS

RE: RESTORATION

• ESTABLISHES COMMUNITY BASED RESTORATION PROGRAMS USING PUBLIC – PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TO RESTORE FISHERY AND COASTAL HABITAT

EXPECTATIONS

• FISHERIES WILL CHANGE UNDER ECOSYSTEM-BASED MGT.

• FISHERIES WILL BE MANAGED FOR ABUNDANCE NOT SCARCITY, I.E., LOWER HARVEST RATE FROM HIGHER BIOMASS

• LESS FISHING CAPACITY AND EMPLOYMENT BUT HIGHER INCOME AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY

EXPECTATIONS [CONT.]

• PRACTICES WITH HIGH HABITAT IMPACTS REPLACED BY ALTERNATE FISHING TECHNIQUES

• GREATER USE OF SPATIALLY EXPLICIT MANAGEMENT MEASURES

• RESTRICTIONS ON FISHERIES TO ACCOMPLISH OTHER GOALS, E.G., BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION

IMPLEMENTATION - EFH

• FULL LIFE-CYCLE APPROACH• IDENTIFY EFH [100 % OF AREA]• MEASURES MUST MEET STANDARD TO

MINIMIZE TO EXTENT PRACTICABLE EFFECTS OF FISHING ON HABITAT [MITIGATE EFFECTS THAT ARE MORE THAN SIGNIFICANT/ NOT MORE THAN TEMPORARY]