Fishery forum on integrating fishing and ecosystem conservation: the way forward
The Northeast Consortium, Institute for the Study of Earth Oceans and Space, University of New Hampshire, Morse Hall, 39 College Road, Durham, NH 03824, USA
Correspondence to C. W. Glass: tel: +1 603 862 0122; fax: +1 603 862 0243; e-mail: chris.glass{at}unh.edu
The overarching goal of this, the final session of the symposium, was to provide a forum for discussion of the effect of the perceptions and decisions of fishers and resource managers on the success of sustainable use and successful management of fishery resources.
The rationale for such a session was that fishery scientists attempt to provide accurate annual estimates of the state of fish resources and the marine ecosystem. This information is then fed into an advisory process, and fishery managers set total allowable catches (TACs) and conservation-orientated measures. Fishers experience the state of resources at sea daily and often perceive changes in the resource differently. It is critical that fishers' detailed knowledge of the resource be incorporated into the scientific advice given to fishery managers. The forum had a moderator and an invited panel. Its goal was to create dialogue among leaders from the fishing industry, academia, science, and conservation organizations, with a global perspective. Brief position papers were presented by a keynote speaker and members of the panel to set the stage for a final plenary discussion on the way forward towards integrating fishing and ecosystem conservation, taking into consideration lessons learned along with challenges and obstacles to implementation.
The summary presented here does not attempt to reflect the detail of every topic raised during more than 3 h of discussion. It merely emphasizes the salient and topical issues that may have implications for short- to medium-term research. All sessions of the symposium were well attended by fishers and their representatives, and although most were, as to be expected by the geographical location of the meeting, from the northeast US, the issues raised were generally global in nature and therefore have implications well beyond the regional waters of the northeast US.
The session began with a keynote presentation by Siri Ekmaharaj of the Southeast Asia Fisheries Development Centre on "Responsible fishing technologies and sustainable coastal fishery management in Southeast Asia". In his presentation, Ekmaharaj illustrated how multiple stakeholder groups in Southeast Asia have dealt with issues such as rapid depletion of stocks and serious disruption and degradation of coastal resources. This provided an elegant backdrop to the ensuing Fishery Stakeholder Forum and demonstrated how effectively complex issues can be resolved by stakeholder participation.
The Stakeholder Forum that followed the keynote address sought to answer the questions "where do we go from here?" or, perhaps more importantly, "what are the critical steps required of our science in order to better integrate fishing and ecosystem conservation?" A five-member panel consisting of Michael Anderson (Danish Fisherman's Association), Bundit Chokesanguan (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre), Norman Graham (Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway), Captain Paul J. Howard (Executive Director New England Fishery Management Council), and Paul Starr (International Consultant Fisheries Scientist) was invited by the Scientific Steering Committee to provide brief position statements to stimulate discussion. The ensuing discussion was moderated by Jerry Fraser, Editor-in-Chief of National Fisherman magazine.
Paul Howard advocated increasing cooperative research to increase and improve datasets upon which management measures are based. His assertion was that the more comprehensive and complete the datasets, the more buy-in is likely from fishers and managers, and that this is basic to good management and stewardship. This was supported by many participants. Michael Andersen followed by agreeing that achieving buy-in by the fishing industry was critical to any management process, but he also cautioned that fishing is fundamentally about economics, noting that fishers will make sacrifices to promote sustainable fishing, if their losses can be made up in other ways.
In his presentation, Paul Starr echoed the comments of Paul Howard when he raised the issue of data collection and how to fund it. He cited examples from New Zealand, where fishers fund data collection through the country's individual transferable quota system. He also noted that covering data collection costs removes the fear of fishery management agencies of not having enough funding to support the ever-increasing need for data.
Norman Graham highlighted the fact that many of the issues facing scientists and fisheries managers are shared globally. Building on this, he identified the need to use fora such as this to identify common ground and to work more collectively and less in isolation than has previously been the norm.
Throughout the proceedings, there was an emphasis on implementation of responsible fishing practices. Bundit Chokesanguan identified this as a potential issue in many parts of the world. He noted that many fishers were concerned by these phrases and urged better information exchange between policy-makers, managers, and scientists, in addition to better promotion of the positive effects of bycatch reduction devices or reduced-impact gears. He further identified the benefits of "hands-on" approaches to demonstrating devices and their effectiveness in advance of implementation or regulation.
For the remainder of the session, participants engaged in a free-form discussion, and many key issues were identified that point the way forward. One question that emerged was, how might management tools and gear development promote a better balance between conservation concerns and fishing industry needs? Some suggested that fishing gears should be made as efficient as possible. Although this was not universally supported, the argument was put forward that increasing efficiency would help reduce time spent on the water and, therefore, reduce impact on the environment.
Others wondered if fishing-gear technology can really make a difference and questioned whether current gear technology initiatives simply "tweaked" gears that were designed more than a century ago, with all their inherent flaws and shortcomings. Following on this theme, one participant asked why there seemed to be so little innovative thinking and why there were so few novel approaches to fishing gear design or to harvest strategy, and challenged participants to think more outside the box. It was suggested that one reason for the lack of innovation on display may be reticence on the part of investigators to share new ideas before concepts were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the wider issue reflects a more extensive discussion in fisheries science and identifies one area that participants might address in the future. The questions arose, are there more innovative ways to harvest resources from the sea or are current fishing gears the most appropriate method for the present and the future? An ancillary question might be, to what extent creative thinking and innovation might be stifled or restricted by the questions being asked of gear technologists by managers and regulators? One interesting observation by a fishing industry representative was that, in his experience, the industry does not support gear research in general because there is a suspicion that it will ultimately result in loss of revenue. This feeling was certainly not held widely, but nevertheless, it should act as a wake-up call to the scientific community that their efforts in support of better and more effective fishing are not met with universal approval. The onus may fall, therefore, on gear technologists to ensure that appropriate analyses of economic impacts be conducted in conjunction with gear design.
The subject of habitat impact by fishing gear was addressed during these discussions. A number of presentations during the symposium presented results in support of alternative fishing strategies such as pots or traps or other less intrusive gears to replace traditional bottom trawling in certain areas. The concept received support, but others argued that many trawled fishing grounds were as productive now as they were 40 years ago, and at least one participant voiced concern that a blanket indictment of trawl fishing was troubling and had little foundation.
The need for improved data streams arose in many discussions. It was clear that certain areas or fisheries are data rich, whereas others (perhaps the majority) are data poor. This has major implications for management of resources, particularly where mixed assemblages may have both data-poor and data-rich components. It was also clear that more, and often better, data are needed. The need for involvement by the fishing industry in the collection of such data was frequently voiced.
Late in the day's discussions, a cautionary note was sounded. It was reported that research based in Europe has shown that one of the main hurdles to rebuilding stocks may be the finding that very few individual fish effectively contribute to recruitment. Climate and environmental changes occurring in combination with reduced genetic variability caused by the small number of fish responsible for recruitment will make it increasingly difficult for stocks to adapt to other pressures, such as, but not restricted to, fishing pressure. It appears that a degree of adaptability will be required in developing the scientific and management capability to address these potentially significant challenges.
A number of themes emerged from discussions that require action. It was clear that innovative thinking by the scientific community should be encouraged, but innovative thinking should also be reflected in the nature of the questions being asked by managers and regulators. Further, the scientific community should be more willing to share work in progress rather than waiting for research to be complete before sharing concepts and ideas. It was also clear that collaborative research involving equal partnership between industry and science is an effective way to address pressing issues and that neither community can address all of these issues satisfactorily in isolation. There were calls for the fishing industry to be given more responsibility for data collection and for greater involvement in surveys, and that approaches should be identified by which data can be gathered and utilized in a more timely fashion than is currently acceptable. Finally, an obvious and pressing need was identified to ensure that all aspects of fishing and fisheries be included in analyses that drive management of resources. This must include sociological and economic factors, including analyses of performance of measures such as bycatch reduction devices, and periodic assessment of their effectiveness as stocks change in character over time.
Many issues were debated and discussed during the forum, only some of which are reported here. Although the outcome helps to set a collective agenda for short-term research initiatives or topics to address, the greatest measure of success was the intensity of debate that was conducted, sometimes with refreshing candour. The future of our fisheries and marine resources depends on dialogue. The challenge is to provide the opportunity for such dialogue and to ensure that recommendations are acted upon.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||