EAF* – TIME TO DROP THE TERM?
(THOUGH NOT SOME KE Y ASPECTS OF
THE INTENT)
Doug S Butterworth
MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group)
Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics
University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
*THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO FISHERIES
OUTLINE
I.
Introductory Comments
II.
The History
III. Definitions and Interpretations
IV. The Primary Components
V.
A South African Perspective
i) Where are we now and where should we head?
ii) How are such initiatives best structured and advanced?
VI.
Concluding Remarks
I) INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
EAF IS CONTROVERSIAL
WITH WIDE-RANGING VIEWS WORLDWIDE
TWO SENIOR EUROPEAN FISHERIES SCIENTISTS
“Even for intensively studied Northern Hemisphere fisheries, EAF
remains a nebulous aspiration rather than a robust management tool
– for that a pre-requisite is inter-species trade-off decisions by
managers”
“Whoever invented EAF should be shot”
EAF HAS POLITICAL OVERTONES
.
(Like many other issues in Fisheries Science)
ECOLABELLING
(including SASSI-like schemes)
BECOMING A BIGGER SCIENCE-RELATED
CONCERN FOR INDUSTRY THAN EVEN THE SIZE
OF THE TAC
Why? - No point having a quota if lack of certification means that
the fish caught can’t be sold (at a reasonable return)
“EAF” RELATED FACTORS ARE PLAYING
AN INCREASING ROLE IN CERTIFICATION
DECISIONS
II) THE HISTORY
(More from a personal involvement than in terms of
legislative instruments)
CCAMLR (1980)
COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF
ANTARCTIC MARINE LIVING RESOURCES
THE FIRST “ECOSYSTEM” FISHERIES CONVENTION
CCAMLR ARTICLE II

Take account of the direct AND INDIRECT impact of
harvesting

Prevent changes not potentially reversible over two to three
decades
CCAMLR ARTICLE II ORIGINS
May, Beddington, Clark, Holt and Laws - 1979
Management of multispecies fisheries (Science)
Models of a whale-seal-krill ecosystem including predatorprey interactions, and harvesting more than one species
NB: “ECOSYSTEM” FOR CCAMLR =
FOOD-WEB/MULTISPECIES MODELLING
BASIC INTENT OF CCAMLR ECOSYSTEM PROVISIONS
Having stopped harvesting on depleted whale populations to allow
them to recover, don’t undermine that by taking away their food
(krill)
CCAMLR: 1984 SC MEETING
SO WHAT DOES ECOSYSTEM
MANAGEMENT MEAN AND HOW IS IT TO
BE PUT INTO PRACTICE?
SA CONTRIBUTION (DSB et al.)


Need acceptable multispecies model
Not yet possible – need better information on species
abundance trends
MEETING OUTCOME


Realistic multispecies models unlikely to be available for
some considerable time
Minimal information on squid – key research priority
ECOSYSTEM ISSUES – 1990s
SEAL-FISHERY INTERACTIONS

HARP SEALS INCREASES OFF NEWFOUNDLAND

FUR SEAL INCREASES OFF SOUTHERN AFRICA
WHAT IMPACT ON SUSTAINABLE FISH CATCHES –
SHOULD SEALS BE CULLED?

NON-RECOVERY OF STELLER SEALIONS IN THE BERING SEA

IMPACT OF KRILL FISHING ON LAND BREEDING PREDATORS
(INCLUDING FUR SEALS) IN THE SCOTIA SEA
SHOULD FISHERIES BE RESTRICTED?
NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
ECOSYSTEM ISSUES – 1990s
WHALE-FISHERY INTERACTIONS

INCREASING MINKE WHALES OFF NORWAY ON COD

INCREASING WHALE POPULATIONS IN THE NORTWEST PACIFIC
ON JAPANESE FISHERIES
COINCIDED WITH INCREASINGLY FAVOURABLE VOTES
AT CITES TO DOWNLIST ABUNDANT WHALES SPECIES
FROM APPENDIX I (“In danger of extinction”)
CITES HAD SO LISTED VIRTUALLY ALL WHALE SPECIES IN SUPPORT
OF THE 1982 IWC COMMERCIAL WHALING MORATORIUM
JAPAN MOUNTED A MAJOR DIPLOMATIC INITIATIVE,
PARTICULARLY THROUGH FAO COFI, UNDER THE
SOUNDBITE:
WE NEED AN “ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO FISHERIES”
2001: THE REYKJAVIK DECLARATION
THE FIRST FORMAL ADOPTION OF “EAF”
FOLLOWED CONFERENCE ON “RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES
IN THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM”

AIM: TO INCLUDE ECOSYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS IN FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT

INCLUDED BUT WENT BEYOND PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTIONS
TO INCORPORATE, EG, BY-CATCH AND HABITAT
CONSIDERATIONS
THE CYNIC’S QUESTION:
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THIS BROADENING A MOVE TO OFFSET THE
PRO-WHALING INROADS THE JAPANESE WERE MAKING WITH THEIR
(CCAMLR-COMPATIBLE) USE OF THE EAF SLOGAN?
2015: EAF – THE COCHRANE VISION
CLEARLY WE NEED TO MOVE TOWARDS
MANAGING FISHERIES AS WE DO GAME PARKS,
TAKING ACCOUNT OF INTERACTIONS OF
SPECIES WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH THE
ENVIRONMENT
OPERATIONALLY, A CALL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MULTI-SPECIES MODELS AS THE BASIS FOR TACTICAL
DECISION MAKING?
NOTE:
STRATEGIC QUESTION: Will culling seals increase sustainable
fishery yields?
TACTICAL QUESTION: How many seals need to be culled to
increase the sustainable hake catch by 10 000 tons?
WHERE ARE WE 35 YEARS AFTER CCAMLR
INITIATED THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH?
CCAMLR

1984: Realistic multispecies models unlikely to be available for
some considerable time
Initial Antarctic-wide attempts only by Mori, now being updated by Moosa (SA)
Scotia Sea krill fishery impact on predators – only Watters (US) and Plaganyi (SA)
Currently initiative through the IWC SC to kick-start renewed attention, plus
upcoming Japanese and NZ contributions

1984: Minimal information on squid – key research priority
Still no information on abundance

1980: Take account of indirect impact of harvesting
Mid-90s: Interim rule pending more refined analyses (de la Mare & DSB)
Fishery target for krill: 50%K; Predator preference 100%K; Compromise at 75%
20 years on – no update
WHY SO LITTLE PROGRESS?
Little incentive for very large expenditure with krill fishery minimal given economic constraints
WHERE ARE WE 35 YEARS AFTER CCAMLR
INITIATED THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH?
SEAL-FISHERY INTERACTIONS

HARP SEALS INCREASES OFF NEWFOUNDLAND
Still not fully clear – diet data deficiencies (extent of belly-biting)

FUR SEAL INCREASES OFF SOUTHERN AFRICA
Seal increase has stopped, but impact on hake still unclear:
Fewer seals gives more shallow water hake whose additional predation reduces deepwater
hake – hake TAC could go up or down (1995 – Punt & DSB, now being updated by Ross-Gillespie)

NON-RECOVERY OF STELLER SEALIONS IN THE
BERING SEA
Research expenditure to ascertain reasons > US $ 100 million
Result: We DON’T KNOW

GREY SEALS IN GULF OF ST LAWRENCE
Consensus that these are impacting cod recovery
Age data shows increased cod M in absence of confounding F (closed fishery)
SUCCESS NEEDED AN EXTREME SITUATION
THE MAJOR PROBLEM
THE “SECONDARY INTERACTIONS” ARGUMENT
(e.g. as in SA seal-hake model)
THESE CAN REVERSE THE DIRECTION EXPECTED FROM PRIMARY
INTERACTIONS
HEAVILY USED BY ENGOs TO COUNTER SEAL CULlING PROPOSALS
BUT – THIS ALSO APPLIES EQUALLY TO ARGUMENTS THAT
REDUCING FISHING WOULD BENEFIT PREDATORS
SIMPLER MULTI-SPECIES MODELS WITH BETTER FITS TO DATA ARE
APPEALING:
MRM – Minimum realistic models
MICE – Models of intermediate complexity for ecosystem assessment (Plaganyi)
BUT - THEY REMAIN OPEN TO THIS “SECONDARY
INTERACTIONS” COUNTER
HOW FREQUENTLY ARE ECOSYSTEM
PROCESSES INCLUDED IN TACTICAL
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT?
Review of RFMOs worldwide plus US and Australia
Skern-Mauritzen et al. (2015)
Number of cases
Use ecosystem “drivers”
1200
24
Australia – “a leading proponent of EAF implementation”
Use ecosystem “drivers”
0
WHY??
BECAUSE WE KNOW FROM SIMULATION STUDIES THAT
USE OF RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
WELL DETERMINED DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD
(bias-variance tradeoff)
LIMITS TO KNOWLEDGE
Heisenberg and Godel: analogies for marine ecosystems
(DSB, Duffy, Best and Bergh: SAJS 1988 re seal-fisheries issues)
Bergh’s Uncertainty Principle: Certain hypotheses about marine ecosystems are
untestable because the level of sampling required for the precision necessary for the test
would greatly perturb the system
Butterworth’s Incompleteness Principle: Certain hypotheses about marine
ecosystems are untestable because the length of the data time-series required for the
precision necessary is unrealistically great (> 50 years)
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IN FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT (and climate change?) IS HOW BEST TO
DEAL WITH UNRESOLVABLE UNCERTAINTY
(Note: The uncertainty here is “in practice”, not “in principle” as for
Heisenberg/Godel)
THE KEPLERIAN EPIPHANY
THE BEAUTIFUL THEORY: Planets travel in circles around the sun
THE DATA (Tycho Brahe): It’s ellipses, not circles
KEPLER: It smelt like a cartload of dung
THE COCHRANE VISION FOR EAF
(Tactical multispecies modelling based management)
Thirty years ago I shared that vision
Reality though forced me to the Keplerian epiphany that fisheries management
science has, because of various uncertainties, to instead be primarily an exercise
in robust statistical estimation
Though, as an Applied Mathematician, I considered (like Kepler) that this “smelt
like a cartload of dung”
COCHRANE IN GOOD COMPANY?
RECALL THAT EINSTEIN WAS NOT ENAMORED WITH
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
“GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE”
BUT EVEN EINSTEIN MUST
FALL
HAWKING: “Many scientists are like Einstein, in that they have a
deep emotional attachment to determinism. Unlike Einstein, they
have accepted the reduction in our ability to predict”
HOW MANY MARINE BIOLOGISTS HAVE ACCEPTED THIS?
(Even if they think it “smells like a cartload of dung”)
WHAT MIGHT WE BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE?
STRATEGIC (THOUGH NOT TACTICAL) ADVICE
MAREFRAME: Largest EU Marine Research Programme
focusing on EAF implementation – 7.7 million Euros)
(Developed from earlier NAMMCO marine mammal fishery interaction study plan)
Multiple ecosystem models for each of 8 different ecosystems
Iceland
Baltic Sea
West of Scotland
North Sea
Iberian waters
Mediterranean – straits of Sicily
Black Sea
NZ – Chatham Rise
KEY QUESTION: DO DIFFERENT MODELS GIVE ROBUST
PREDICTIONS (e.g. consistent directions for trend estimates)? i.e. is there
robustness to secondary interactions?
MINIMUM PREREQUISITE FOR RELIABLE STRATEGIC ADVICE
ANSWERS IN 2017
ECOSYSTEM MODELS IN SUMMARY

UNLIKELY TO PROGRESS BEYOND STRATEGIC
(Such models do have uses for simulation testing of simpler tactical approaches)

ARE RESOURCE/FINANCE HUNGRY
For data collection
For person-power, given their complexity
Hence, don’t expect other than leading first world countries
to be able to afford to make multiple major contributions
III) DEFINITIONS AND
INTERPRETATIONS
CONVENTION FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
“Ecosystem … management … to meet human requirements to use natural
resources, whilst maintaining … the composition, structure and function of the
habitats or ecosystems concerned”


Nebulous in its all-encompassing nature
Lacks operationality – e.g. provide a decision rule to determine whether or
not management is maintaining “structure and function”
CONSEQUENCES


No clarity or consistent interpretation worldwide of what EAF means in
practice (general view of many RFMO representatives at final EU TXOTX
Programme meeting)
RFMOs do not rank EAF as of high importance (WPCFP, IOTC, ICCAT)
EAF: SHOULD IT BE
ALL-ENCOMPASSING OR MONOLITHIC?
NEITHER

JAKE RICE ON THE 2014 US EAF REVIEW
“the various regions are all doing different things in implementing
EAF, but each Region is doing very sensible things for their
circumstances and there’s no problem with that situation”
New England: tropho-dynamic relationships
North Pacific: physical oceanographic drivers
Gulf of Mexico: multi-fleet, mixed-species fisheries

AN EXTENSION OF THE SINGLES SPECIES
APPROACH OR SOMETHING TOTALLY NEW?
The Reykjavik Declaration is very clear that it is the former in its multiple
references to “including ecosystem considerations in fisheries management”
IV) THE PRIMARY COMPONENTS
THE REYKJAVIK DECLARATION SPLITS EAF
INTO FOUR MAIN COMPONENTS:
1) By-catches
2) Biological (food-web) interactions
3) Habitat impact
4) Environmental/oceanographic impacts
We need to view these as building onto (including them
into) existing single species approaches
V) A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE
.
Where are we now and where should we head?
COMPARE THE REYKJAVIK DECLARATION COMPONENTS WITH
THE THEMES FOR THE AUGUST WWF EAF WORKSHOP:
REYJAVIK
1) By-catches
2) Biological (food-web)
interactions
3) Habitat impact
4) Environmental/oceanographic
impacts
V) A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE
.
Where are we now and where should we head?
COMPARE THE REYKJAVIK DECLARATION COMPONENTS WITH
THE THEMES FOR THE AUGUST WWF EAF WORKSHOP:
REYJAVIK
WWF WORKSHOP
1) By-catches
i) By-catches
2) Biological (food-web)
interactions
ii) Top predator interactions
3) Habitat impact
iii) Spatial management
4) Environmental/oceanographic
impacts
(ecosystem, climate)
iv) Small scale fisheries
WWF WORKSHOP
.
Comparison of theme contents with Reykjavik
i) BY-CATCHES
We are broadly spot-on
 Avoid wasteful use, particularly of genuinely threatened species
(eg shark finning)
 Develop bycatch management approaches in mixed species
fisheries (eg inshore trawl)
 Small pelagic OMP takes account of operational interactions
(juvenile sardine bycatch in anchovy fishery)
Just don’t get ridiculous
eg The New England Windowpane flounder assininity
No commercial value but below BMSY
Recovery plan TAC required by US law restricts catches of co-occurring flounder species
The only threat of extinction involved is to the commercial fishery
WWF WORKSHOP
.
Comparison of theme contents with Reykjavik
ii) TOP PREDATOR INTERACTIONS

Too restricted – need to see this more widely as food-web
interactions at any mid- to upper trophic level

We are probably as committed as we are able to afford the
resources required, eg:

Penguin-fishery interactions

Hake multi-species modelling

Contributions to Antarctic ecosystem modelling
WWF WORKSHOP
.
Comparison of theme contents with Reykjavik
iii) SPATIAL MANAGEMENT (ecosystem, climate)
TERRIBLY MUDDLED THINKING

Handling multi-stock issues through spatial dis-aggregation of catches (e.g. west
coast rock lobster, sardine) is standard single species management, NOT EAF

Some “MPAs” reflect standard single species management, NOT EAF (e.g. the
“kingklip box”)

Some of the issues raised belong more under Reykjavik 3) – Habitat impact,
rather than 4) Environmental /oceanographic impacts (e.g. mining impacts, other
MPAs)
WWF WORKSHOP
.
Comparison of theme contents with Reykjavik
iv) SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
WHAT ON EARTH HAD THIS TO DO WITH EAF????
THIS FALLS UNDER STANDARD SINGLE
SPECIES MANAGEMENT
(At least in current SA circumstances where existing plans have not raised any
issues related to habitat, operational or biological/food-web interactions which
could give rise to trade-off issues in the quanta of different species to allocate to
different groups)
BUT “EAF INVOLVES THE HUMAN ELEMENT”
NO! NO! NO! A FUNDAMENTAL MISCONCEPTION
(unless some of the trade-off issues above are involved)
SMALL SCALE FISHERIES ISSUES
.
PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME!
I AM NOT SAYING THAT SMALL SCALE FISHERIES ARE NOT
IMPORTANT, NOR DESERVING OF MORE ANALYSIS, ATTENTION AND
IMPROVEMENT
WHAT ARE THE BASIC ISSUES HERE?



ALLOCATION OF A LIMITED RESOURCES (involves trade-off decisions)
EFFECTIVE INTERACTION OF STAKEHOLDERS WITH SCIENTISTS
AND MANAGERS
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY INPUTS (these will NOT increase MSY, but may inform
the extent to which TACs are reduced to promote faster resource recovery)
THESE ARE STANDARD SINGLE SPECIES ISSUES, NOT EAF
THERE ARE EXISTING CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH TO PURSUE
THEM (DAFF SWGs AND MWGs)
(but again please don’t misinterpret this as an argument that substantial improvements are
not needed in some of the ways these channels are working at present)
EAF DOES NOT INVOLVE THE
HUMAN ELEMENT
.
HOW CAN I SAY THAT WHEN THE EU MAREFRAME
PROGRAMME STRESSES ITS CONSIDERATION THEREOF???
Note that the levels of fisheries management in the EU show a
strong north-to-south trend

In the north, considerable sophistication, eg in Iceland

Only now the start of stakeholder consultation in the south
Icelandic fisheries management involves biological interaction models for codcapelin and cod-shrimp which in turn involves trade-offs in allocations to different
fisheries
But such reliable use of multi-species models is recognised as a rare exception
For the south, “EAF” is simply being used as a convenient “hook” under which to
promote interactions with stakeholders
V) A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE
.
How are EAF-related initiatives best structured
and advanced?
THE NEBULOUS DEFINITIONS AND CONFUSED UNDERSTANDING OF
EAF SERVE SERVE ONLY TO DETRACT FROM THE FOCUSSED AND COOPERATIVE APPROACH NEEDED TO PROMOTE IMPROVEMENTS IN
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING ONES RELATED TO EAF
COMPONENTS
SO:

DROP REFERENCE TO EAF

STRUCTURE EXTENSIONS TO SINGLE SPECIES
MANAGEMENT UNDER THE FOUR COMPONENTS
OF THE REYKJAVIK DECLARATION
THIS FOR BETTER CLARITY AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS AT ISSUE
WHAT’S THE BEST STRUCTURE AT
GOVERNMENT LEVEL?
.

SINGLE SPECIES ISSUES CLEARLY BELONG
WITH THE DAFF SWGs (WITH THEIR LINKS TO
MWGs)

I ASSERT THAT EAF-RELATED EXTENSIONS
ARE FOR THE MOST PART MOST READILY AND
BEST HANDLED THROUGH THE CURRENT
SYSTEM OF TASK TEAMS APPOINTED UNDER
THE RELEVANT SWG

CONSIDER CURRENT ISSUES UNDER THE
REYKJAVIK COMPONENTS
BY-CATCHES
.

SMALL PELAGICS: OPERATIONAL INTERACTIONS
Already handled through the sardine-anchovy OMP
Falls sensibly under the PWG

INSHORE TRAWL MIXED SPECIES ISSUES
Falls sensibly under the DWG
BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS
.

Resource-greedy to address, so can handle only a few

Such as are being addressed have few common features

Little reason for collective consideration – best each is
handled under pertinent SWG (eg penguin-fisheries under PWG)
HABITAT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
.

These are generally species- or species-group specific

Most sensibly handled by the SWG concerned
POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS ?
(MORE GENERALLY RELEVANT THAN TO A SINGLE SWG)
.

Climate change
Broader group already exists

Poaching
New initiative in WCRL SWG which could broaden to abalone

Socio economic studies
Recent studies in PWG – and they were probably best handled there
IS THERE ANY NEED FOR AN OVERARCHING
DAFF EAF WG AS SOME HAVE SUGGESTED?
VI) CONCLUDING REMARKS
BABIES AND BATHWATER

THERE ARE LIMITED RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR
FISHERIES RESEARCH IN SA

FURTHER EAF INITIATIVES MUST COMPETE AGAINST
SINGLE SPECIES NEEDS

THE SITUATION IN DAFF RE RESOURCES FOR THE
LATTER IS APPALLING – ONE TECHNICIAN TO
CONDUCT AGEING FOR ALL SA RESOURCES

WHERE DO THE HIGHEST PRIORITIES LIE?
VI) CONCLUDING REMARKS
EAF USED FOR ECOLABELLING CRITERIA

THE RELATED DECISIONS HAVE POTENTIALLY MAJOR
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

VAGUENESS NEEDS TO BE REPLACED BY
OPERATIONALISATION

WOULD YOU BE HAPPY TO BE JAILED FOR SPEEDING IF
THE LAW DID NOT SPECIFY WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT
WAS?

VAGUENESS PLAYS INTO THE HANDS OF SOME
INTEREST GROUPS SEEKING TO OPPOSE SPECIFIC
ECOLABEL AWARDS
VI) CONCLUDING REMARKS
VAGUE VISIONS AND NEBULOUS DEFINITIONS
(including use of the term EAF)
MUST FALL
WHY?: THEY SERVE TO CONFUSE AND DETRACT FROM THE
FOCUSSED AND CO-OPERATIVE APPROACH NEEDED TO PROMOTE
IMPROVEMENTS IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
IN SUMMARY
DON’T GENERALISE OPERATIONALISE
Thank you for your attention