Ecologically based fisheries management:
assessment benchmarks.
Jon Nevill
jonathan.nevill@gmail.com
5 July 2008.
The place of ecologically based fisheries management (the ‘ecosystem approach’) within the
development of fishery industry paradigms has been discussed in an earlier chapter. The
purpose of the present discussion is to provide a brief overview of ecologically based
fisheries management (EBFM)1, to identify the essential elements of the approach applicable
to practical fishery management from a literature review, and to use these elements to
formulate testable EBFM benchmarks by which an agency program can be judged.
Fundamental concepts:
The ecosystem approach grew from the disciples of ecology and conservation biology,
combined with a little management theory. The word ecology is derived from the Greek
oikos, meaning ‘house’ or ‘place to live’, and logos ‘knowledge’. Literally, ecology is the study
of organisms ‘at home’. A Webster’s Dictionary definition is “the study of the totality or
pattern of relations between organisms and their environment”. The term (oekologie) was
first used by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel in 1866; however the first significant
textbook on the subject, and the first university course, was written by the Danish botanist
Eugenius Warming in 1909 (Wikipedia 22/6/08). While Warming is often identified as the
founder of ecology, the science owes much to important figures in the mid-twentieth century,
such as Eugene Odum. Odum’s major textbook ‘Fundamentals of Ecology’ is still in use
today (Odum 1971). Odum defined an ecosystem as:
a unit that includes all of the organisms (ie: the "community") in a given area
interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly
defined trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles (ie: exchange of
materials between living and nonliving parts) within the system.
This definition of an ecosystem raises an immediate issue which is important in all attempts
at ecosystem management: where does an ecosystem start and end? Even in situations
which seem to provide distinct natural boundaries, such as a catchment, lake or estuary,
there are clearly flows of organisms and materials which cross these boundaries. Within
extended coastal waters, bioregions may be defined containing repeating patterns of similar
ecossytems (Commonwealth of Australia 2005). Ken Sherman has been instrumental in
promoting the concept of ‘large marine ecosystems’ spatially defined by ocean basin
topography, currents, upwellings and fronts (Sherman & Alexander 1986). Despite the
shortcomings of the ‘ecosystem’ concept, it has proved of great use to scientists and
managers, and provides the foundation for ecosystem based fisheries management.
Ecosystem based management:
Ecosystem based management, although in use in one form or another for the best part of a
century, remains an evolving concept. Grumbine’s seminal essay (Grumbine 1994) provides
important historical perspective. The Ecological Society of America actively promoted
important elements of the ecosystem approach from the early 1930s. People such as Aldo
Leopold were influential in promoting and popularising the concept in the 1940s. “By the late
1980s an ecosystem approach to land management was being supported by many
scientists, managers and others” (Grumbine 1994:28).
Importantly, the concept appeared for the first time in a major international agreement – and
related to marine management – in 1980. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) Article II(3) defined three “principles of conservation”, of
which the second and third principles identify the need for harvesting management to (a)
protect entire ecosystems, and (b) take a cautious approach to ecological risk, particularly
with regard to irreversible effects. The boundaries of the Convention were – appropriately –
defined by the approximate location of the Antarctic Polar Front (otherwise known as the
Antarctic Convergence, at about 500 south) which provides a rough natural boundary for the
Antarctic large marine ecosystem.
1
Grumbine’s 1994 paper is important for a number of reasons, not least of which is his
thoughtful discussion of the social and governance implications of the ecosystem approach.
He suggested a definition:
Ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge of ecological
relationships within a complex socio-political and values framework toward the
general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term
(Grumbine 1994:31).
Grumbine identified five ‘ecosystem management goals’ which, he pointed out, “provide a
striking contrast to the goals of traditional resource management” (Grumbine 1994:31).
These are to:

maintain viable populations of all native species in situ;

represent, within protected areas, all native ecosystem types across their natural
range of variation;

maintain evolutionary and ecological processes;

manage over periods of time long enough to maintain the evolutionary potential of
species and ecosystems; and

accommodate human use and occupancy with these constraints.
Grumbine’s extensive literature survey included few marine examples of either advocacy or
implementation of the ecosystem approach. His finding that the perspectives of the US
Forest Service (on the subject of the ecosystem approach) were narrow and productionoriented may perhaps come as no surprise. A similar finding might be expected in comparing
the perspectives of fisheries management agencies with those of academic ecologists – or
indeed the public at large. Grumbine found: “… in the academic and popular literature there
is general agreement that maintaining ecosystem integrity should take precedence over any
other management goal” (1994:32). This concept has been echoed in policy formulation
down the years. Pikitch et al. (2004:346) echo this idea with respect to fisheries when they
advocate exploitation “without compromising the ecosystem.” Australia’s Oceans Policy
(1998:19) states: “…priority should be given to maintaining ecosystem health and integrity”.
The reality of fisheries management, however, often runs directly counter to such clear
statements of policy intent.
Grumbine explored the long-term implications of the ecosystem approach in the context of
changing social values and institutions. He argued (1994:34) that the comprehensive
application of the ecosystem approach will “not only help reduce our negative impact on the
biosphere, but will also give us the opportunity to reinterpret our place on the planet as one
species amongst many. Protecting ecological integrity becomes the ultimate test of whether
people will learn to fit in with nature. Thus, ecosystem management gains importance far
beyond finding new ways to manage parks and forests” – and, I would add, oceans. This
observation of the ethical importance of the ecosystem approach should not be lost sight of,
and, I believe, is as critical for ocean ecosystems as it is for those of terrestrial and
freshwater environments. Ethical issues are addressed in more detail in an early chapter of
this thesis.
Ecosystem based fisheries management:
Grumbine provided a historical overview and a status report of the concept of ecosystem
based management as it had evolved to 1994. Since then (and especially since 2000) a
number of publications have appeared dealing specifically with the application of the concept
to fisheries management. Moreover, growing public awareness of the biodiversity crisis, and
the likely negative impacts of climate change on what remains of the natural world, has
prompted the endorsement of the ecosystem approach in important international and
national policy statements. A brief summary follows (for details see the earlier chapter on
international agreements).
At the international level, the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 (CBD), through the
related Jakarta Mandate2, explicitly promotes the application of the ecosystem approach to
2
the marine environment. The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 1995,
although not mentioning the ecosystem approach by name, does require complying nations
to adopt several key elements of the approach 3 (see Table 1 below – note that
implementation of the Code’s provisions is voluntary for endorsing nations). The
Implementation Plan of the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 requested
endorsing nations to implement the ecosystem approach to fisheries management by 2010.
Each year the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meets to consider pressing global
issues. For the last several years, the twin UNGA resolutions dealing with fisheries, and with
the Law of the Sea, have endorsed the ecosystem approach, and urged its rapid
implementation. Australia has ratified the CBD, supports the FAO Code of Conduct, the
WSSD Implementation Plan, and has supported all recent UNGA fisheries resolutions.
International endorsement of the ecosystem approach is reflected in core Australian national
policy. The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity
(Commonwealth of Australian 1996) requires the implementation of the ecosystem
approach, including within fisheries management. All Australian jurisdictions endorsed this
Strategy. Australia’s Oceans Policy 1998 (Commonwealth of Australia 1998) did not receive
the same wide jurisdictional endorsement; nevertheless it too requires the implementation of
the ecosystem approach to oceans management. The concept of ecosystem management
lies behind the regional planning approach promoted by the Oceans Policy, where the
planning boundaries coincide, as far as practical, with the boundaries of identified
(provisional) Australian marine bioregions.
Within these documents, and within academic papers which seek to clarify, elaborate and
define ecosystem based fisheries management, key themes emerge. Overall, these themes
are not unlike the themes Grumbine identified in 1994 – as you might expect. They do,
however, add detail important in defining the way the approach may be applied to the marine
environment. These themes are listed in Table 1 below, tabulated with the references of my
literature review. Note that reference codes in bold refer to documents which deal specifically
with EBFM or EBM.
As with EBM, choosing a definition for EBFM from amongst the many available is a matter of
personal preference. A simple statement of purpose is useful: the overall objective of
ecosystem based fishery management is to maintain and restore healthy ecosystems, and
the fisheries they support (after Pikitch et al. 2004:346).
Literature review: what defines EBFM?
Major reviews of EBFM have been published over the last few years. The two theme
sections in Marine Ecology Progress Series (Browman et al. 2004, 2005) contain the views
of over 40 senior marine scientists. An important paper published in Science by Pikitch et al.
(2004) contains the views of 17 senior marine scientists. Major organizations have published
reviews, such as the FAO EBFM guidelines (Garcia et al. 2003), the review by the
Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-ES 2000), as well as the review
by the Ecosystem Approach Task Force (EATF 2003). The United Nations General
Assembly has also considered the ecosystem approach in a number of its recent reviews
(see especially UNGA 2006 A/61/105,156). The American Association for the Advancement
of Science has published a major consensus statement (AAAS 2005). Several important
papers on the subject have appeared in the scientific literature, as well as reviews sponsored
by NGOs (eg: Cripps et al. 2001) and by governments (eg Ward & Hegerl 2003).
I believe I have included all major papers dealing with EBFM published since 2000, however
my literature review is not comprehensive, as several minor papers (eg Vierros et al. 2006)
have been omitted due to time constraints.
Broadly, the papers selected fall into two groups: (a) those focussed on EBM or EBFM, and
(b) more general papers containing substantive discussion of EBFM. There are 18
references in the first category and 10 in the second. Most were published in the period 2000
to 2008.
3
The papers were searched for themes stated by the authors as characteristic of EBFM. Forty
themes were found, as set out in Table 1. The associated references are listed in Table 2.
Of these themes, 18 deal with ‘good governance’, ten with ‘ecological processes’, six with
ecosystem structure, four with evolutionary processes, and two with ocean zoning. If these
themes characterise EBFM, a definition drawn from them might read:
Ecological based fisheries management is management based on a variety of
modern good governance principles and approaches (including ocean zoning),
aimed at rebuilding and maintaining the health of ecosystems and their dependent
fisheries, principally through safeguarding ecological and evolutionary processes,
and ecosystem structure.
A glance at the ‘good governance’ themes (Table 2) shows that many of these themes are
governance approaches which have evolved separately from ecosystem based
management. Of the eighteen themes, ten are very broad, containing no reference to
fisheries, oceans, or even ecosystems – they are simply drawn from modern governance
approaches. In my view, the ‘larger’ of these themes, such as the precautionary and
adaptive approaches, are in fact best discussed quite separately from EBFM, as they are
complex and important approaches in their own right. While I do not agree with their
inclusion in a characterization of EBFM, my view is clearly out of favour: the precautionary
approach is one of the most commonly listed characteristics of EBFM, with adaptive
management not far behind (Table 1).
Of the twenty-four themes which are strongly related to ecosystems (theme groups A, B and
C, as well as D7, and D10-12 in Table 1) some are fairly general (eg: A9, protect from
pollution). Such themes are probably of little use in developing EBFM benchmarks – all
agencies or national governments apply pollution control in one form or another. However
other themes are more specific. The themes of ‘protect habitat’ or ‘report ecosystem
indicators’ seem potentially more useful in attempts to assess the extent to which a fishery
agency is actually implementing EBFM.
The issue of developing indicators and reference points from explicit ecosystem objectives is
discussed in a number of papers. Gislanson et al. (2000:471) suggest that ecosystem
objectives should include:

maintenance of ecosystem diversity;

maintenance of species diversity;

maintenance of genetic variability within species;

maintenance of directly impacted species;

maintenance of ecologically dependent species;

maintenance of trophic level balance.
Once objectives have been chosen, indicators and reference points can be selected for the
six potential ecosystem objectives. Gislanson et al. (2000:471) comment: “There is a need to
reconstruct our image of historical conditions of marine ecosystems in a scientific manner, in
order to define accurate reference points.” They suggest:
4
Table 3. Examples of ecosystem objectives, indicators and reference points for ocean zones
Objective
Indicator
Reference point
Ecosystem diversity
Species diversity
Areas of shelf disturbed by fishing.
Abundance of species at risk.
Area of distribution.
% of each habitat type undisturbed.
Maximum annual bycatch.
% of distribution area relative to
period of moderate abundance.
Species genetic variability
Number of spawning populations.
Selection differentials.
% reduction in spawning areas.
Minimum selection differential.
Directly impacted species
Fishing mortality.
Spawning stock biomass.
Area of distribution.
F0.1
Minimum stock biomass for
safeguarding recruitment and forage.
% of distribution area relative to
period of moderate abundance.
Ecologically dependent
spp.
Abundance of predator.
Condition of predator.
% of prey species in predator diet.
Minimum predator abundance.
Minimum predator condition.
Minimum % in predator diet.
Trophic level balance
Slope of size spectrum.
Pauly’s FIB index (Pauly et al. 2000).
Aggregate annual removals for each
trophic level.
Minimum slope.
Minimum Fishery Is Balanced index.
Maximum % removals.
Maintenance of:
Source: Gislanson et al. (2000:471)
Selecting EBFM benchmarks:
The point of this section is to decide on benchmarks which can be used to assess the extent
to which a fishery management agency is actually implementing an ecosystem based
approach to management. Examining agency policy may not be helpful in this regard, as
there may be a substantial time lag between accepting a policy and implementing it.
My proposal is to select six benchmark indicators so as to provide a graduated scale of
agency EBFM implementation. Two indicators would target information only likely to be
found in agencies with advanced EBFM programs. Two more would target information likely
to be found in most agencies, even those just starting on an EBFM program track. The final
two indicators would sit somewhere in the middle.
All benchmarks should rest on evidence of a tangible nature, such as elements in a program
budget, or agency reports. This rules out the use of several themes listed in Table 1, such as
A9 (too vague) or A10 (open to wide interpretation). My selection (based simply on
judgement exercised within the above constraints) are:
Basic EBFM implementation:
Benchmark 1: D7: is there formal periodic assessment of the impacts of particular fisheries
against agreed objectives, including ecosystem-based objectives?
Benchmark 2: D11: is there monitoring and reporting of agreed ecosystem indicators based
on stated ecosystem objectives?
Alternative basic benchmarks might be developed from themes A3, A7, or A8 – all fairly
basic approaches already widely implemented.
Intermediate EBFM implementation:
Benchmark 3: A5/6: has the agency a substantial program in mapping, protecting and
monitoring critical and vulnerable habitats?
Benchmark 4: B2: are there effective programs in place to monitor and maintain old-growth
age structure in specific fisheries?
Alternative intermediate benchmarks might be developed from themes B3 or B6.
5
Advanced EBFM implementation:
Benchmark 5: C1: has the agency a substantial program to account for evolutionary change
caused by fishing?
Benchmark 6: C3: are there effective programs in place to maintain the spatial extent of all
major sub-populations (both target and bycatch), and maintain and monitor population
genetic diversity?
There appear to be few other opportunities to develop alternative advanced benchmarks
from the themes listed in Table 1.
Benchmark summary:
The above discussion has, on the basis of a literature review, identified the main elements of
adaptive management, and the ecosystem and precautionary approaches, as they apply to
fisheries. For each of these three approaches, six benchmarks are identified, as follows:
The precautionary approach:
A1
Management strategies and plans contain clear objectives, indicators and
performance targets relating to the protection of: target stocks, populations of
dependent and associated species, and habitat.
A2
Fishery management plans use pre-agreed decision rules based partly on limit
reference points equivalent to, or more conservative than, both target stock MSY and
bycatch population MSY for the most vulnerable species of bycatch.
A3
Undesirable outcomes which could result from excessive fishing pressures are
identified, and monitoring programs are in place with sufficient power to rapidly detect
these changes should they occur.
A4
The risks to ecosystem health and integrity are assessed for each major fishery, and
additional caution applied to management programs for high-risk fisheries
A5
Independent peer review is used as quality assurance for major management
policies, strategies and plans.
A6
Management procedures provide for rapid response in the light of unexpected
declines in target stocks, bycatch populations, or habitat value. Such provisions
provide for fisher compensation where necessary.
The ecosystem approach:
B1
There is formal periodic assessment of the impacts of particular fisheries against
agreed objectives, including ecosystem-based objectives.
B2
There is monitoring and reporting of agreed ecosystem indicators based on stated
ecosystem objectives.
B3
There is a substantial program in mapping, protecting and monitoring critical and
vulnerable habitats, funded by the fishery agency or responsible government.
B4
There are effective programs in place to monitor and maintain old-growth age
structure in specific fisheries.
B5
The agency has a substantial program to account for evolutionary change caused by
fishing.
B6
There are effective programs in place to maintain the spatial extent of all major subpopulations (both target and bycatch) affected by specific fisheries, and maintain and
monitor population genetic diversity.
Adaptive management:
C1
The performance of the fishery management agency itself is subject to independent
periodic review against stated objectives, and quantifiable indicators and
performance targets.
6
C2
The management program uses mathematical modelling to pinpoint uncertainties
and generate alternative hypotheses.
C3
The assumptions behind the models are clearly set out and evaluated.
C4
Reports incorporating the use of adaptive management set out the bounding of
management problems in terms of explicit and hidden objectives, and practical
constraints on actions.
C5
There are changes in management controls, designed to test clearly stated
hypotheses, which are sufficiently large to reasonably produce detectable effects; the
size of these effects is estimated in advance, and sufficiently powerful field surveys
undertaken, and statistically examined to deduce the probabilities of both Type I and
Type II errors.
C6
Formal organizational requirements are established for evaluating and reporting the
results of the experimental management strategies, both to managers and
stakeholders.
Each benchmark will be scored as follows:
0 – no evidence of policy or implementation;
1 – policy in place; no substantive implementation at this stage;
2 – policy in place; evidence of partial implementation;
3 – policy in place; evidence of substantial implementation.
7
Table 1. Themes in ecosystem based fisheries management
Theme
Reference
A1
Ecological processes: identify, value, monitor and seek to
maintain ecosystem services
19, 7, 3, 2, 10, 25
A2
Ecological processes: maintain patterns of natural
disturbance
16,
A3
Ecological processes: match management boundaries to
the scale and location of the ecosystem, through
collaborative mechanisms where necessary
14, 15, 16, 27, 28, 19, 8,
7, 6, 3, 2, 10, 1, 25
A4
Ecological processes: map, monitor and protect all
natural habitats where possible
16, 15, 26, 7, 4, 3, 2, 10,
1, 25
A5
Ecological processes: map, monitor and protect critical
habitats4
20, 14, 15, 25
A6
Ecological processes: map, monitor, and provided special
protection for vulnerable habitats
17, 18, 15, 9, 22, 1, 25
A7
Ecological processes: protect biological diversity,
including rare, vulnerable, cryptic, and unknown species
15, 14, 19, 21, 22, 13, 27,
7, 6, 2, 10,1
A8
Ecological processes: protect migratory / spawning
pathways, including rivers and estuaries
16,
A9
Ecological processes: protect ecosystems from pollution,
both land-based and marine
18, 15, 13, 7, 27, 10, 25
A10
Ecological processes: understand and promote resilience
of desirable ecosystem states
19, 4, 10, 1, 25
B1
Ecosystem structure: ensure harvesting of target species
does not undermine the viability or role of dependent or
associated species in the ecosystem: identify and monitor
impacts
6, 7, 14, 27, 4, 3, 2, 10, 1,
25
B2
Ecosystem structure: maintain old-growth age structure in
fish populations
4, 1, 25
B3
Ecosystem structure: maintain the role and proportion of
natural trophic levels, and material flows
15, 9, 27, 7, 6, 4, 10, 1,
25
B4
Ecosystem structure: maintain the role of keystone
species
15, 27
B5
Ecosystem structure: seek to restore degraded
ecosystems
15, 10, 25
B6
Ecosystem structure: top-down control: special protection
(and restoration) for large predators
18, 10
C1
Evolutionary processes: account for evolutionary change
caused by fishing
4, 1, 25
C2
Evolutionary processes: avoid accidental or deliberate
introduction of alien species
14,
C3
Evolutionary processes: maintain spatial extent of all subpopulations, and population genetic diversity
16, 6, 4, 3,
C4
Evolutionary processes: use long-term management
horizons
16, 13, 19, 7, 10, 1, 25
8
Table 1. Themes in ecosystem based fisheries management, continued
Theme
Reference
D1
Good governance: declare a formal ‘duty of care’ towards
ocean health – including government, corporations, and
individuals
13,
D2
Good governance: account for, and manage the
cumulative impacts of incremental activities
15, 13, 10, 25
D3
Good governance: apply the precautionary approach
24, 9, 14, 26, 7, 27, 4, 2,
10, 1, 25
D4
Good governance: data-sharing: eg: vulnerable habitats,
IUU fishing, straddling, migratory,
18, 14, 26, 1
D5
Good governance: enhance equitable benefit sharing
19, 5,
D6
Good governance: ensure appropriate stakeholder
consultation and involvement
19, 5, 4, 3, 2, 16, 1, 25
D7
Good governance: formal assessment of the impacts of
fisheries against benchmarks
24, 13, 25, 19, 7, 6, 1, 25
D8
Good governance: harvesting impacts: minimise bycatch,
discards, habitat gear damage
14, 13, 7, 6, 5, 1, 25
D9
Good governance: management should be decentralised
to the lowest appropriate level
19,
D10
Good governance: state management objectives and
constraints clearly: include explicit ecosystem objectives
8, 7, 6, 2, 1, 25
D11
Good governance: monitor and report agreed ecosystem
indicators based on stated objectives
13, 9, 19, 14, 7, 3, 2, 10,
1, 25
D12
Good governance: question basic assumptions especially
with respect to ecosystem stability over time
4, 2,
D13
Good governance: take uncertainty into account, use
active adaptive management
26, 19, 8, 7, 5, 4, 2,
D14
Good governance: use best available knowledge,
including traditional and fisher knowledge
15, 13, 21, 26, 28, 19, 7,
2, 10, 25
D15
Good governance: use incentives wherever practical to
complement restrictions
26, 19, 1, 25
D16
Good governance: use independent peer review routinely
for important assessments
6,
D17
Good governance: use risk assessment to focus
conservation measures
24, 2
D18
Good governance: reduce fishing overcapacity, ensure
policy transparency, accountability, conflict resolution and
adequate enforcement and compliance monitoring.
5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 25
E1
Ocean zoning: use protected areas: MPAs for biodiversity
conservation
16, 12, 19, 15, 21, 13, 9,
23, 6, 2, 10, 1, 25
E2
Ocean zoning: use protected areas: MPAs for fisheries
enhancement
12, 19, 14, 9, 23, 6, 2, 10,
1, 25
References marked in bold deal principally with defining and elaborating EBFM; remaining
references contain substantial discussion of EBFM.
Codes marked in bold refer to marine or freshwater environments.
9
Table 2: References:
1
Browman, HI, Cury, P, Hilborn, R, Jennings, S, Lotze, HK, Mace, PM, Murawski, SA,
Pauly, D, Sissenwine, MP, Stergiou, KI & Zellar, D (2004) 'Perspectives on
ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources',
Marine Ecological Progress Series, vol. 274, pp. 269-303.
2
Cripps, S, Hegerl, E, Short, K, Tarte, D, Ward, T & Wilson, A (2001) Ecosystem-based
management for marine capture fisheries, WWF-Australia, Sydney.
3
EATF Ecosystem Approach Task Force (2003) Strategic guidance for implementing an
ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, NOAA, Silver Spring
MD.
4
Francis, RC, Hixon, MA, Clarke, ME, Murawski, SA & Ralston, S (2007) 'Ten
commandments for ecosystem-based fisheries scientists', Fisheries, vol. 32,
no. 5, pp. 217-33.
5
Garcia, SM & Cochrane, KL (2005) 'Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of
implementation guidelines', ICES Journal of Marine Sciences, vol. 62, no. 3,
pp. 311-8.
6
Gislason, H, Sinclair, M, Sainsbury, K & O'boyle, R (2000) 'Symposium overview:
incorporating ecosystem objectives within fisheries management.' ICES
Journal of Marine Sciences, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 468-75.
7
Pikitch, EK, Santora, C, Babcock, EA, Bakun, A, Bonfil, R, Conover, DO, Dayton, PK,
Doukakis, P, Fluharty, D, Heneman, B, Houde, ED, Link, J, Livingston, PA,
Mangel, M, McAllister, MK, Pope, JG & Sainsbury, K (2004) 'Ecosystem-based
fishery management', Science, vol. 305, pp. 346-7.
8
Ruckelshaus, MH, Klinger, T, Knowlton, N, DeMaster, DP & Sala, E (2008) 'Marine
Ecosystem-Based Management in Practice: Scientific and Governance
Challenges', BioScience, vol. 58, pp. 53-63.
9
Sissenwine, MP & Mace, PM (2001) 'Governance for responsible fisheries: an
ecosystem approach', paper presented to the Reykjavik Conference on
Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, Reykjavik Iceland, 1-4
October 2001.
10
AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science (2005) Scientific
consensus statement on marine ecosystem-based management, AAAS,
viewed July 12 2007, <www.aaas.org/publications/>.
11
Ward, TJ (2000) 'Indicators for assessing the sustainability of Australia's marine
ecosystems', Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 435-46.
12
Ward, TJ & Hegerl, E (2003) Marine protected areas in ecosystem-based management
of fisheries, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
13
Commonwealth of Australia (1998) Australia's oceans policy, Department of the
Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
14
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation (1995) Code of conduct for responsible
fisheries, Food and Agriculture Organisaiton of the United Nations, Rome.
15
UNGA United Nations General Assemby (2006) Assembly paper A/61/156, UNGA,
New York.
16
Grumbine, RE (1994) 'What Is Ecosystem Management?' Conservation Biology, vol. 8,
no. 1, pp. 27-38.
17
UNGA United Nations General Assemby (2006) Assembly paper A/61/222, UNGA,
New York.
18
UNGA United Nations General Assemby (2006) Assembly paper A/61/105, UNGA,
New York.
10
Table 2: References, continued:
19
CBD-ES Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000)
Conference of the Parties meeting 5, Nairobi, Decision 23, CBD Secretariat
UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23, Ottawa Canada ( to be read in conjunction with the
CBD ‘Jakarta Mandate’ 1995).
20
UNGA United Nations General Assemby (2008) Assembly paper A/63/63, UNGA, New
York.
21
Commonwealth of Australia (1996) National strategy for the conservation of Australia's
biological diversity, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
22
United Nations (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development;
Johannesburg 26 Aug - 4 Sept 2002, United Nations, New York.
23
Sainsbury, K & Sumaila, UR (2001) 'Incorporating ecosystem objectives into
management of sustainable marine fisheries, including best practice reference
points and use of marine protected areas', paper presented to the Reykjavik
Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, Reykjavik
Iceland, 1-4 October 2001.
24
Scandol, JP, Holloway, MG, Gibbs, PJ & Astles, KL (2005) 'Ecosystem-based fisheries
management: an Australian perspective', Aquatic Living Resources, vol. 18,
pp. 261-73.
25
Browman, HI, Stergiou, KI, Agardy, T, Fluharty, D, Hirshfield, M, Livingston, PA,
Misund, OA, Skjoldal, HR, Rice, JC, Rosenberg, A, McLeod, KL, Sherman, K,
Sissenwine, MP, Christensen, V, Duda, AM, Hempel, G, Ibe, C, Levin, S,
Lluch-Belda, D, Matishov, G, McGlade, J, O'Toole, M, Seitzinger, S, Serra, R,
Skjolda, HR, Tang, Q, Thulin, J, Vanderweerd, V, Zwanenburg, K, Sumaila,
UR, Tudela, S, Short, K, Valdimarsson, G, Metzner, R & Watson-Wright, WM
(2005) 'Politics and socio-economics of ecosystem-based management of
marine resources', Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 300 theme section,
pp. 241-96.
26
Hall, SJ & Mainprize, B (2004) 'Towards ecosystem-based fisheries management',
Fish and Fisheries, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-20.
27
Garcia, SM, Zerbi, A, Aliaume, C, Do Chi, T & Lasserre, G (2003) The ecosystem
approach to fisheries: issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations,
implementation, and outlook, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 443, Rome.
28
Lackey, RT (1998) 'Seven pillars of ecosystem management', Landscape and Urban
Planning, vol. 40, no. 21-30.
Reference (codes) marked in bold deal principally with defining and elaborating EBFM;
remaining references contain substantial discussion of EBFM.
Acknowledgements:
Thanks to Marcus Haward for useful comments and encouragement.
Additional references:
Commonwealth of Australia (2005) National marine bioregionalisation of Australia 2005,
Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
Odum, EP (1971) Fundamentals of ecology: third edition, Saunders, Philadelphia.
Pauly, D, Christensen, V & Walters, C (2000) 'ECOPATH, ECOSIM and ECOSPACE as
tools for evaluating ecosystem impacts of fisheries', ICES Journal of Marine
Sciences, vol. 7, pp. 697-706.
Sherman, K & Alexander, LM (eds) (1986) Variability and management of large marine
ecosystems, Westfield Press, Boulder CO.
Vierros, M, Douvere, F & Arico, S (2006) Implementing the ecosystem approach in open
ocean and deep sea environments, United Nations University, Yokahama Japan.
11
Endnotes:
In this paper the term ‘ecosystem approach’ is synonymous with ‘ecosystem based
management’, or ‘ecosystem management’. The later term can be disputed on the grounds
that humans do not understand ecosystems sufficiently well to be said to be able to ‘manage’
them (see the earlier chapter on uncertainties in fishery management).
1
Decision II/8 of the CBD Conference of the Parties (CoP) (Jakarta 1995) states in part: “…
the ecosystem approach should be the primary framework of action to be taken under the
Convention [on Biological Diversity].”
2
3
See, for example, Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 6.8 of the FAO Code.
4
Critical habitats include , generally, spawning sites, corals, mangroves, estuaries, breeding
rivers, seamounts, seagrass, mudflats, wetlands, hydrothermal vents, cold seeps.
12