Bob O’Boyle
Bedford Institute of Oceanography
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

Ecosystem Approach to Management
 Each ocean sector one of many
 Control of cumulative impacts across sectors to meet multiple objectives
 biodiversity, productivity & habitat

st
Management Strategy Evaluation
 Assessment one element of ocean management system (OMS)
 Examination of behaviour of entire
OMS

Relative merits of different management strategies given UNCERTAINTY of each
OMS element

Operational Module Control Module
Traditional Assessment
Population
Ecosystem
Observation Assessment
Implementation
Decision
Making
Harvest
Rules
From McAllister et. al. 1999

EAM
MSE implementation faster than EAM
Ecosystem
Sector
Mgt
Assessment
Sector e.g. Fisheries
MSE
MSE
Within
EAM

 Ecological Understanding as Guide to
Management
 Coordinated Management of Sectoral Activities


Ecosystem approach to management within sector
Integrated management across sectors
 Management of Cumulative & Long-term Impacts
 Precautionary Approach

 EAM not replacement for conventional sector, species or activity specific management

Takes broader view
 EAM should be implemented in concert with
Integrated Management (IM)

IM = Planning & management across sectors & agencies (governance)

Onus on multi-national, federal, state & local agencies to coordinate & communicate on EAM

 Growing awareness that ecosystem approach needed for ocean management

Collapse of fisheries worldwide

Multiple uses of ocean growing
• Oil & gas, trade, aquaculture
• Competition for limited resource (the ocean)
 Many acts, legislations & policies that require harmonization

EAM is a means to do this

 Experience with EAM at different stages of development - Lots still to learn
 Canada, EU, Australia, New Zealand &
USA

Case studies chosen based on experience with EAM
 Main features identified that lead EAM in
'right direction'

Are there conditions that facilitate acceptance & implementation of EAM?

 Greatly facilitates efforts to advance EAM

Without this, difficult to overcome conventional management structures
 Associated legislative mandate & resourcing

Establish new institutions

Incentive to existing agencies to embrace EAM
NZ & US are examples where some progress on
EAM can be made without legislative mandate or even national policy (NZ)

Legislative Mandate
 Canada

1997 Canada Oceans Act, 1992 CEAA & 2003 SARA
 EU

Basis for EAM in ratified international & national laws, treaties, conventions & agreements (e.g. OSPAR &
HELCOM)
 Australia


1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment & associated National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable
Development (ESD)
1999 Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation
Act

 New Zealand

No national legislation but development of Fisheries Act &
Resource Management Act (cross non-fishery sector planning but within 12 nm)
 US

While no national legislation, ratified UNFA & implementing FAO Code of Conduct


Federal legislation incorporates EAM principles e.g.:
• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Marine
Plastic & Pollution Research & Control Act
New state legislation (Oceans Acts) in California & under development in Massachusetts, Oregon & New Jersey

 Canada

2002 Oceans Strategy
 EU

6th Environmental Action Program has seven Thematic
Strategies, one of which is
• EU Marine Thematic Strategy (EMS) for Protection & Conservation of European Marine Environment (under development)

Integrates patchwork of legislation, policy, programs & action plans at regional, national, EU & international levels
 Australia


1998 Australia Oceans Policy (AOP) basis for Marine
Bioregional Planning (MBP)
Since 2005, MBP backed by 1999 Environmental
Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act

 New Zealand


Oceans Policy delayed by jurisdictional issues with Maori but reintroduced in 2005
Framework for coordinating EAM efforts
• Strategy for Managing Environmental Effects of Fishing (2006)
• Biodiversity Strategy (2002) & MPA Policy
 USA

Commission on Oceans Policy (2004), complimented by
Pew Oceans Commission
• Coherent, comprehensive & long-range national policy for exploration, protection & use of ocean & coastal resources
• Recommendations on EAM for federal & state authorities with regulatory power over sector activities

 EAM needs build upon the many sector-based consultative / advisory bodies that already exist

Stakeholders must see benefits of EAM

Regulators must see benefits of EAM

What elements should
Implementation of EAM have?
Best practices based on case studies

 Planning area boundaries
 Nested planning & management process

Overarching coordination

Planning area coordination
Outcome
Focused
&
Adaptive

Sector management

 Ideally, manage circumscribed ecosystem impacted by defined group of stakeholders

Incorporates not only ecological relationships but also existing regulatory & socio-economic boundaries
 But…


Ecosystems have varying scales of organization
Many administrative areas & jurisdictions already exist
 No set formula in five case studies


Ecological & administrative realities
Pragmatic approach
• We manage people, not ecosystems!


Canada
5 Large Ocean Management Areas (offshore) defined so far

Based upon ecoregions & administrative boundaries
 Challenges


Boundaries with USA on both coasts & in coastal area
Federal / provincial jurisdiction
ESSIM


European Union
11 Eco-regions (from ICES) based upon existing biogeographical & management regions
 Shared jurisdiction greatest challenge

EU Water Framework (coastal), EC (fisheries)


Australia
5 Planning Regions based on Large Marine Domains & management considerations (jurisdictional & political)
 Shared jurisdiction challenge, internationally, with States & across sectors

AOP only applicable to federal waters, ie.3 nm to international boundary

 Planning areas not officially defined at national level, but…

Under Resource Management Act, within 12 nm
Territorial Sea, 10 regional councils have decisionmaking authority over most activities (but not fishing)

Under Fisheries Act, fishery has its own areas
 Challenges

Different boundaries used by regional councils, Ministry of Fisheries & Department of Conservation
• None coincide with Maori boundaries, which are becoming increasingly important in managing oceans activities (inshore mostly)

No EAM requirements in mining & oil legislation

USA
 Planning areas not officially defined at national level but Commission on
Oceans Policy suggested starting with regional fishery management council boundaries
Jurisdictional challenge
At
Federal &
State level
NOAA
10 regions based on
Large Marine Ecosystems
EPA
5 regions to coordinate large scale ecosystem based programs

 Hierarchical structure links legislative mandate
& overarching policy at top to control of sectors at bottom
• Overarching (Canada Ocean Strategy)
• Planning area (ESSIM)
• Sector
• Sub-sector
(Fishery)
(Crab fleet)
 Objectives at all levels with management actions at planning area & below

 Conceptual Objectives or Goals

Interpret legislative mandate to be understandable to broad audience
• E.g. Restore Coral Community Biodiversity to pre-1980 levels
 Operational Objectives or Strategies




Link between Conceptual Objective & Management Action
Specific enough to be clear to all
• Refers to indicator (e.g., biomass) & reference point (e.g., 50,000 t)
• E.g. Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of Coral Community to 5000 sq km
Allow measurement of progress towards conceptual objective
Precautionary Approach enters EAM at this point

 Indicator

Quantity that can be measured & used to track changes over time
 Reference point / direction

Value of indicator corresponding to target or limit

Direction of indicator towards target or away from limit

Indicator
Green zone
Performance measures
Yellow zone
Reference point (target) or PA
Reference point (limit)
Red zone
TIME

Overarching
Conceptual Objectives
Link to National Policy
Planning Area
Conceptual Objectives
Link to Overarching COs
Regional Priorities
Planning Area
Operational Objectives
Monitor Ecosystem States
Control Cumulative Impacts of Sectors
Sector
Operational Objectives
Control Cumulative Impacts of Sub-
Sectors
Control Impacts of Sub-Sector Sub - Sector
Operational Objectives

Level of
Hierarchy
Overarching
Conceptual Objective Operational Objective
Planning Area
Fishery Sector
Crab Fishery
Groundfish Fishery
Shrimp Fishery
Conserve Community
Biodiversity
Restore Coral Community
Biodiversity to pre-1980 levels
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of
Deep Sea Coral Community to
6000 sq km
Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of
Deep Sea Coral Community to 50% of 6000 sq km (3000 sq km)
Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of
Deep Sea Coral Community to
1000 sq km
Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of
Deep Sea Coral Community to
1000 sq km
Limit Area (sq Km) disturbed of
Deep Sea Coral Community to
1000 sq km

Overarching
Conceptual
Objective
Community
Biodiversity
Species Biodiversity
Planning Area
Conceptual
Objective
Planning Area
Operational
Objective
Fisheries Sector
OO
Diversity of Benthic
Communities
Diversity of Fragile
Coral Community
High Diversity Gully
Benthic Community
Overall Species
Diversity
N/A
N/A
N/A
Groundfish
Fishery OO
N/A
SAR Diversity N/A
Population Biodiversity
Primary Productivity
Genetic Diversity
Productivity at base of food chain
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Trophic Structure
Productivity of Forage
Species
Trophic Level
Productivity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A Energy transfer
Population Generation
Time
Growth Productivity
Recruitment
Productivity
Physical Features
Chemical Features
Sediment Quality
Sound Environment
Chemical
Environment
Physiological
Processes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Oil & Gas
Sector OO
Transport
Sector OO
Defense Sector
OO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Suite of Conceptual
& Operational Objectives defines EAM in
Planning Area
Colour indicates
Performance
Of
Operational Objective
Green:
Yellow:
Red:
Good
Caution
Poor

 Conceptual, long term, & should enable countries to satisfy terms of international agreements & conventions

Linked to legislative mandate & overarching policy
 Guidance & coordination to all planning areas under EAM

 Canada, Australia & EU

All have / considering overarching objectives
 New Zealand

Coordination regionally based
 USA

Commission on Ocean Policy provided set of overarching objectives

Conserve
Ecosystem
Components
(Biodiversity)
Conserve
Component's
Role
(Productivity)
Maintain
Communities
Maintain
Species
Maintain
Populations
Conservation of
Species &
Habitat
Maintain
Primary
Production
Maintain
Trophic
Structure
Maintain
Populations
Conserve
Physical /
Chemical
Properties
Conserve
Physical
Properties
Bottom
Water
Column
Conserve
Chemical
Properties
Water
Quality
Biota
Quality
Canada
National
Overarching
Objectives
Socio-economic
Objectives Structure being considered



Ecosystem description
• Components & Relationships

Threats analysis
• Stressor / Receptor Analysis

Benthic
Community
Species at
Risk
Receptor (State)
Component of Ecosystem being Stressed
Population
Diversity
Forage
Species
Biomass
Target
Species
Spawning
Biomass
Water
Column
Sediment
Activity
Stressor
Organic waste and nutrients
Bacteria and viruses
Oil
Chemical contaminants
Sediment movement and turbidity
Debris
Obstructions
Gear on bottom
Collisions
Light
Oil & gas
Seismic Explorator y drilling
Commercial fishing Marine transport
Mobile gear
Fixed gear etc
Land- based activities etc
Aqua culture etc
Sector responsible for threat identified
Gaps in responsibility (e.g., non-point source pollution) identified

 Conceptual Objectives formulated & prioritized based on…

Top - down (scientists)
• What are key components being impacted?

Bottom - up (stakeholders)
• What are important stressors to address?

Risk analysis (quantitative / qualitative)
• Risk = impact * likelihood

 Determine which ocean sectors implicated in which stressors & thus Operational
Objectives

Some stressors might come from outside planning Area

Some objectives, while noted by one sector, might be relevant to others

Some objectives need to be addressed at sector level, others at sub-sector level

 Ecosystem Overview & Assessment Report
(EOAR) for each LOMA

Ecosystem structure / functioning, human activities (e.g. fishing), stressors (e.g. dragging) & impacted ecosystem components or receptors (e.g. benthic community)
• EOARs to be completed in 2007
 Conservation Objectives being formulated & prioritized

Priority based on
• Ecological & Biological Significant Areas & Species
• Degraded Areas & Depleted Species
 Discussion with stakeholders on other objectives

 Coastal member states are to develop
Implementation plans including (within x years of
EMS adoption):

Assessment of environmental status (within 4 years)



Objectives (within 5 years)
Monitoring program (within 6 years)
Develop & operationalize management actions (by
2016 & 2018 respectively)
 Irish Sea Project

Implementation of EAM tested

 Australia


First regional marine plan (SE Australia) completed in
2004
• 9 conceptual objectives
Planning currently being conducted for northern & southwestern regions
 New Zealand

Fiordland Marine Conservation Strategy
• Conceptual objectives for fisheries, values of special significance, risks to marine environment, Stewardship
 USA

Oceans Commission report
• Regional Ecosystem Assessment should be conducted to assess state & threats to ecosystems

 Start with planning area conceptual objective &
'unpack' to point where indicator & reference point can be referred to
• Important to classify indicators
• Pressure State Response framework being considered by many
 These are linked to management actions

Basis of decision rules
 Suite of all operational objectives in planning area could inform determination of ecosystem health

Overarching
Conceptual
Objective
Community
Biodiversity
Species Biodiversity
Planning Area
Conceptual
Objective
Planning Area
Operational
Objective
Fisheries Sector
OO
Diversity of Benthic
Communities
Diversity of Fragile
Coral Community
High Diversity Gully
Benthic Community
Overall Species
Diversity
N/A
N/A
N/A
Groundfish
Fishery OO
N/A
SAR Diversity N/A
Population Biodiversity
Primary Productivity
Genetic Diversity
Productivity at base of food chain
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Trophic Structure
Productivity of Forage
Species
Trophic Level
Productivity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A Energy transfer
Population Generation
Time
Growth Productivity
Recruitment
Productivity
Physical Features
Chemical Features
Sediment Quality
Sound Environment
Chemical
Environment
Physiological
Processes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Oil & Gas
Sector OO
Transport
Sector OO
Defense Sector
OO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Suite of Operational
Objectives
At
Planning Area Level could define
Ecosystem Health
Colour indicates
Performance
Of
Operational Objective
Green:
Yellow:
Red:
Good
Caution
Poor

 Canada

Suites of LOMA operational conservation objectives planned for 2007
 EU

Irish Sea Pilot Project
• Operational conservation objectives established & tested
 Australia

Southeast Regional Marine Plan completed
• Operational objectives under development
 New Zealand

Fiordland
• Activities focused on how to devise operational objectives
 USA

California Action Plan includes 13 operational objectives

 Sectoral Operational Objectives already part of management systems of all case studies
 Need to adapt existing sector management to move towards an ecosystem approach

Putting current objectives in EAM framework

Developing new objectives to fill gaps

Engaging regulators & stakeholders on EAM

 Impetus for EAM apparent through endorsement of international treaties / agreements
 EAM adopted in all cases studies

Neither US nor New Zealand have formal national EAM coordination
• Some success in advancing EAM

Case studies with strong institutional approach likely to be more successful

 Planning area boundaries based on practical realities of conservation & administration

Many jurisdictional issues (international, national, regional)
 Objective setting & prioritization a challenge

Unclear how socio-economic objectives incorporated

EAM should be participatory, proactive, open & transparent to ensure credibility & buy-in

 Need to interconnect regulatory agencies to ensure EAM success

Sector plans must be linked to ensure management of cumulative & long-term impacts
• No single sector can implement EAM independently
 Refocus sector management to meet EAM objectives

Don't abandon single species management but fill gaps to meet EAM objectives

 Since 1977, fish stock assessment in
Canada (and elsewhere) has focused on counting organisms to inform management decisions
 Stock assessment

Counts current number of organisms

Analyses productivity

Projects impacts on resource of different levels of harvesting

 Stock assessment not well integrated into rest of fisheries management system

Does stock assessment really meet management needs?
 Variability in whole management system not evident

Is stock assessment the problem or enforcement?
 Management increasing recognized as set of interacting systems

Operating Module
Traditional Assessment
Harvest Control
Module
Population
Ecosystem
Observation
System
Assessment
System
Implementation
System
Decision
System
Harvest
Rules
From McAllister et. al. 1999

 Simulation of ocean management system as a whole , including





Monitoring program
Measurements that will be made
How measurements will be analysed & used in assessment
How results will be used in management
How decisions will be implemented
 Development of clear objectives to evaluate against - with relevant performance measures
(indicator vs. reference point)
 Evaluation of feasible management options







Identify issues and objectives
List performance indicators
EAM part
Identify alternative solutions (alternative management scenarios)
Evaluate each management scenario against the performance indicators
Highlight tradeoffs
Communicate results to stakeholders and decision-makers

 Ecosystem / population

Greater emphasis on what is know or otherwise
 Observation

More explicit consideration of uncertainty of different approaches & impact on rest of management system
 Assessment
 provides indicators for decision - making
• Could be straight forward
• NOT same as ecosystem / population

 Harvest Control Rules

What is best for the system?
• Constant F, constant catch, SSB & F, etc
 Decision System

What is influence of deviation from control rule?
 Implementation System

What is impact of different levels of enforcement & compliance?

 Often not possible to be fully quantitative
(requires complex modelling)
 Qualitative MSE

Evaluates impacts from high - medium - low

Can be conducted by a small group of scientists, managers and stakeholders

Results then evaluated by a broader group

 New directions in oceans management implicate significant changes to current approach

Planning & Objectives Hierarchy

Management System
 Will take a number of years of sustained effort to implement
 global exchange on concepts & approaches needed

Element
Politics
Australia
Strong
NZ EU
Strong
Canada
Strong but
Green Paper
Strong
USA
Getting better
Legislation
Policy
Areas
COs
OOs
Challenge
1999 EPBCA
1998 AOP
No but RMA
& FA devel
OSPAR,
HELCOM, etc
Under devel 2002 EMS
1997 COA
2002 COS
No but updates to many acts
2004 USCOP
5 MBPAs
MBP guidelines
FA & RMA areas
Biodiversity
Strategy
11
Ecoregions
14 COs & guidelines
MPA network MPA Policy &
Fiordland
Irish Sea
Project
Fed - State RMA - FA
5 LOMAs (so far)
EOARs &
Eos
By sector
Jurisdiction Coastal
NOAA (10)
EPA (5)
USCOPs
COs & guidelines
By agency & state
NOAA - EPA

 Stock Assessment
 few features to consider
 few indicators (biomass, F) based upon models
 Ecosystem Assessment
 require indicators/RPs related to biodiversity, productivity & habitat

 many features to consider
• limited understanding & few models many potential indicators
• some qualitative & some quantitative
 Need different analytical approach
 for assessment, decision-making & communication

 Methodology to combine diverse indices into one framework
 could foresee indicators / RPs for all parts of management system
• resource (diversity, productivity, habitat)
• socio-economics
• enforcement
 Promising for Ecosystem-based
Management

Many issues of assessment framework remain to be resolved

Strategic Operational
1. Objective
·
·
·
1.1 Sub-Objective
AHA!
1.1.1 Operational Objective є
·
·
·
·
·
Verb
+
Characteristic 1
+
Reference point
Indicator 1
Decision Rules
If C1 is RED reduce exploitation
If C1 is YELLOW do not increase
If C1 is GREEN increase slightly
·
·
·
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
·
·
·
2.1.2 Operational Objective є
Verb
+
Characteristic 2
+
Reference point
Policy Domain Traffic Light Domain

•
• Tools same as now
 Quotas
 Time at Sea limits
 Gear restrictions
 Closed seasons / areas
New ways to control human impacts on benthic communities
 need to classify by type & vulnerability
 need to limit human activities by type

Physically
Stable
Physiologically
Benign
(High Productivity)
Offspring medium & small
Longevity medium
Physiologically
Adverse
(Low Productivity)
Offspring few & large
Longevity long
Physically
Disturbed
Offspring many small
Longevity short
Offspring medium large
Longevity medium

Scope for Growth
High Productivity
(Benign)
Low Productivity
(Adverse)
Highest
Risk to
Impact
Lowest
Risk to
Impact
Food Availability
Water temperature
Variability in temperature
Oxygen Saturation
Stratification

Areas of Potentially
Higher Sensitivity

• By-catch including endangered species
• Habitat impacts
• Genetic consequences
Fishery on
Ecosystem
• Large scale community changes
• Climate change
• Control of species interactions (e.g. cod / seal)
Ecosystem on Fishery
Ecosystem
Manipulation