6.0 A Choice of Futures:

One can consider from clearly presented alternatives a choice of marine futures on many issues regarding marine policy decisions.

Integrated management of marine systems—that is, coordinated management of all alternative uses of the ocean is probably the only way we are going to have any chance of securing a sustainable fishery. Here the decisions are political. Bring the issues up at all levels of government and if necessary get involved to help make changes. See 3.2 Integration
From Marine Fisheries Systems
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.287.aspx.pdf
Although the emphasis in recent years has been on unsustainable fishing practices, fisheries represent only one of many human
influences on marine ecosystems. In coastal marine systems in par- ticular, coastal development—with concomitant problems of local pollution and habitat destruction—is very important. (See Chapter 19.) Non-fisheries human influences such as marine debris and oil slicks are also important on the high seas. As a result, as de- scribed earlier, several nations are attempting to develop legislation and policies to facilitate integrated management of marine systems—that is, coordinated management of all alternative uses of the ocean. Such uses include harvesting marine species for food and other purposes, aquaculture, research, oil and gas exploration, ocean mining, dredging, ocean dumping, energy generation, eco-tourism, marine transportation, and defense. To date, it has proved difficult to integrate the management of all these activities because the authorities regulating these activities are usually inde- pendent of one another (Sissenwine and Mace 2003).
We need to be involved in the choice of options for human sewage and industrial effluent disposal in coastal waters.
We must deal with agricultural runoff head on. People have to make a choice.
The implications for uncontrolled population growth of our communities, making the marine systems unsustainable is an issue of importance needing political decisions.
The pros and cons of sustainable and non-sustainable aquaculture practises should be another area where the public is asked to make a commitment.
The regulation of harvesting and the decision to create reserves and marine protected areas are other aspects that when people are presented with the facts, they should be asked to commit to one alternative or the other.
Our goal should be to make an educated and aware public who can participate in solving the problems of humans living sustainably in the marine area.
The Climate change choice of futures. Implications are mentioned in this reference and the urgency to act now is encouraged

6.1 Threshholds in Systems.

Return to Index

5.10 The First Nations Role

In the document the Earth Charter, http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/2000/10/the_earth_charter.html a clear recognition of the importance of the knowledge of First Nations peoples is stated.

PRINCIPLE 22 of the Rio Declaration: Indigenous people and their communities, and other local communities, have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and fully support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

A reference which may prove useful is from “Breaking Ice” on Adaptive Co-management of Arctic Char in Nunavut territory.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IKt–FmDOMAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA249&dq=Berkes,+F.,+J.+Colding,+and+C.+Folke.+2000.+Rediscovery+of+Traditional+Ecological+Knowledge+as+Adaptive+Management.+Ecological+Applications+10,+no.+5:+1251-62.&ots=BgvyKR2N2w&sig=fhxYaFHSRij2mEADUYU9UO4z4fc

It demonstrate an example of a successful sustainable fishery model based on integration with First Nations traditional knowledge..

6.0 A Choice of Futures

Return to Index

5.9 Historical Connections

Any study about Ecological Sustainability should acknowledge the positive and negative contributions to this goal by human actions and inaction in the near past of British Columbia. Acts of individuals or governments through the years could be targeted which have had significant effects in contribution in this area.It is probably easier to find examples showing the opposite, but we must attempt to point out the positive and try to encourage more.

  • First Nations, an  integral part of the ecosystem. Cultural practices which ensured sustainability of marine resources must be emphasized.

Problems issues:

  • early fisheries using “endless” bountiful resources
  • logging impacting on watersheds and therefore sediment transport to ocean ecosystems
  • transportation corridors for lumber, mining, trade; certainly part of the ecosystem services of the area but also part of what has led to problems.
  • explorers, their contributions and the problems they brought for marine sustainability..
  • Marine mammal harvest: Whales, fur seal and sea otter population decimation and consequent ecosystem impacts.
  • Military.. Is the present use of military test ranges a sustainable use of the marine environment.
  • Subsea sonar problems
  • Humans discharging sewage into the ocean
  • etc

5.10 The First Nations Role

Return to Index

5.6 Aquaculture for a Sustainable Food Supply

Not all aquaculture is bad, and it is certainly necessary if we are to provide for the demand for seafood products. In the literature referenced, the principles of sustainability are emphasized. Reference 9 below gives the statistics of aquaculture products in BC. Polyculture methods used in some third world countries should also be considered as it helps to tie in with the global perspective.. It also helps to fulfill  mandates of the earth charter.

References for resources:

1.Indicators for the Sustainability of Aquaculture. D Pauly

http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/members/dpauly/chaptersInBooksReports/2007/IndicatorsForTheSustainabilityOfAquaCulture.pdf

2. Sustainable Organic Aquaculture: http://www.aquanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=259&Itemid=44

3. Duckweed Farming: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/09/08875.htm#Section%202%20-%20Duckweed%20farming

4. Sustainable Marine Aquaculture, Jan 2007.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_07.pdf

5. DFO video on Sustainable Aquaculture…. Bamfield example.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Aquaculture/aquaculture_e.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Aquaculture/multimedia/video /gain_net_e.wmv

6. DFO- Pacific

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/pacific_e.htm

7. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/innovation_e.htm#2

8. BC -Report of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture.

http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/38thparl/session-3/aquaculture/index.htm

9. Aquaculture Statistics in BC

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/fishstats/aqua/index.html

10. Replacement of Fish Meal with Replacement of Fish Meal with Plant Proteins in Diets for Plant Proteins in Diets for Summer Flounder http://www.hboi.edu/aqua/downloads/pdf/conf07/bengston.pdf

abstract: http://www.hboi.edu/aqua/downloads/pdf/conf07/abstract_bengston.pdf

5.7 The Need for Protected Areas

Return to Index

 

5.5 Ocean Food- What’s in your diet?

Below are presented references which area good background to the concept of how we must harvest and eat from the ocean in a sustainable way and make an effort to promote the consumption of locally sustainably harvested seafood. See the Take Away section for ideas on that.

From: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5352 Oceans in Peril: Protecting Marine Biodiversity publ 2007 “Life almost certainly originated in the oceans, yet the biological diversity of marine habitats is threatened by the activities of one largely land-based species: us. The activities through which humans threaten marine life include overfishing, use of destructive fishing methods, pollution, and commercial aquaculture. In addition, climate change and the related acidification of the oceans is already having an impact on some marine ecosystems. Essential to solving these problems will be more equitable and sustainable management of the oceans as well as stronger protection of marine ecosystems through a well-enforced network of marine reserves. Presently, 76 percent of the world’s fish stocks are fully exploited or overexploited, and many species have been severely depleted, largely due to our growing appetite for seafood. Current fisheries management regimes contribute to the widespread market-driven degradation of the oceans by failing to implement and enforce adequate protective measures. Many policymakers and scientists now agree that we must adopt a radical new approach to managing the seasons that is precautionary in nature and has the protection of the whole marine ecosystem as its primary objective. This “ecosystem approach” is vital if we are to ensure the health of our oceans for future generations.
An ecosystem approach promotes both conservation and the sustainable use of marine resources in an equitable way. It is a holistic approach that considers environmental protection and marine management together, rather than as two separate and mutually exclusive goals. Paramount to the application of this approach is the establishment of networks of fully protected marine reserves, in essence, “national parks” of the sea. These provide protection of whole ecosystems and enable biodiversity to both recover and flourish. They also benefit fisheries by allowing for spillover of fish and larvae or eggs from the reserve into adjacent fishing grounds.
Outside of the reserves, an ecosystem approach requires the sustainable management of fisheries and other resources. Demands on marine resources must be managed within the limits of what the ecosystem can provide indefinitely, rather than being allowed to expand as demographic and market forces dictate. An ecosystem approach requires protection at the level of the whole ecosystem. This is radically different from the current practice, where most fisheries management measures focus simply on single species and do not consider the role of these species in the wider ecosystem.
An ecosystem approach is also precautionary in nature, meaning that a lack of knowledge should not excuse decision-makers from taking action, but rather lead them to err on the side of caution. The burden of proof must be placed on those who want to undertake activities, such as fishing or coastal development, to show that these activities will not harm the marine environment. In other words, current presumptions that favor freedom to fish and freedom of the seas will need to be replaced with the new concept of freedom for the seas.”

Oceans in Peril Quiz: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5358

CATCH OF THE DAY: CHOOSING SEAFOOD FOR HEALTHIER OCEANS World Watch A t a time when international treaties, restrictive quotas, and global regulation of fleets have proven ineffective in pro- tecting beleaguered fish populations, a surprising ally is emerging to tackle the growing fisheries crisis. Buyers of seafood ;including individual consumers, school cafeterias, supermarket chains, and large food processors ;are choosing to avoid threatened or problematic species in favor of fish that are caught or raised with less impact on the world s oceans. While some seafood lovers are concerned about guaranteeing the future availability of popular fish, others wish to preserve the quality of today s seafood by knowing more about how and where it is caught. As more of our daily food options originate in factories, fish remains the last wild food we consume in large quantities and one of our few remaining direct connections to the natural world. Yet even as seafood becomes scarcer, we are eating more of it. Chinese consumers now eat roughly five times as much seafood per capita as they did in 1961, and total fish consumption in China has increased more than tenfold. Over the same period, U.S. seafood consumption jumped 2.5 times. For people living in wealthy nations, seafood is an increasingly popular health food option. With its high levels of fatty acids and trace minerals, nutritionists recognize it as essential to the development and maintenance of good neurological func- tion, not to mention reduced risk of cancer, heart disease, and other debilitating conditions. In poorer nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, people are also eating more fish, if they can afford it. For more than one billion people, mostly in Asia, fish supplies 30 percent of their protein, versus just 6 percent worldwide. From high-profile celebrity campaigns, to shocking footage of shark finning, to the debut of wallet-sized seafood buying guides, everyday consumers are learning more about the consequences of their seafood purchases. The London-based Marine Stewardship Council, the largest global organization that certifies certain seafood as sustainable, has granted its label to 18 fisheries worldwide, including North Sea herring, Australian mackerel, and Baja California red rock lobster, and morethan 370 products in nearly 30 nations now carry the group’s Fish Forever logo. Meanwhile, certain seafood com- panies are beginning to base their business on the story behind the fish ;how it s raised, caught, and processed ; just as many supermarkets and agribusinesses now capitalize on rising interest in organic produce, grass-fed beef, and other environmentally friendly food alternatives. Even large chains like Unilever, Wal-Mart, and Red Lobster have made commit- ments to source their seafood only from intact fish populations or to celebrate the small-scale fishers whose techniques are gen- erally less destructive than industrial fleets. But this growing movement remains fragile, as the com- mitments of many participants remain incomplete or lack staying power. For instance, Wal-Mart s recent pledge to sell only certified sustainable fish in the next 5 years involves no commitments with respect to farmed salmon and Asian- farmed shrimp, which constitute the bulk of its seafood sales. And endangered swordfish, Atlantic cod, and Chilean sea bass are making a comeback on restaurant menus as chefs for- get past campaigns to protect them. Such consumer-oriented campaigns to save marine life aren t new. Previous efforts have been organized in the name of saving whales, seals, dolphins, or other marine species from extinction. Yet most of the fish we eat didn t seem to war- rant the same sort of protection ;a throwback to the long- standing view that the oceans are inexhaustible. Today, most of the world s seafood, from tuna to salmon to bay scallops, is threatened with extinction. For less-threatened species, like shrimp or farmed salmon, survival isn t so much the issue as how the fish is raised or caught, which can have adverse impacts on the environment or human health. In both cases, seafood eaters are increasingly invited to play a role in turning the situation around. Some seafood enthusiasts are going beyond simply investigating the origins of their fish to helping in shoreline cleanups, reforesting coastal areas, and raising shellfish to seed wild beds. A public that better understands the state of the world s oceans can be a driving force in helping governments pass legislation to ban destructive fishing, mandate seafood labels that indicate how fish were caught, and create marine preserves where fish can spawn off-limits to fishing. Being a more deliberate seafood eater doesn’t mean a spartan existence; in fact, it could be the only guarantee that fresh and healthy fish continues to appear on our tables.

5.6 Aquaculture as a sustainable Food Supply

Return to Index

5.4 The Precautionary Principle

This is a realistic tool in our Choice of Futures.

Item 6 of The Earth Charter recognizes the importance of “preventing harm as the best method of environmental protection and when knowledge is limited, and applying a precautionary principle. (reference in the Earth Charter:).

Daily, individuals and governments are faced with making decisions for which there is very little research to support that human modification of an ecosystem can proceed witout a negative effect. In the past, in a drive to maximize economic profits, a decision would be made without knowing the effects on ecosystems or balancing economic profits with environmental profits. Now it is recognized that if there is any doubt about the outcome for the ecosystem, the project should not proceed.

If a marina is to be built in an intertidal mudflat, and if no studies have been done that would show the environmental impact, and the steps necessary to mitigate this projected impact, then decisions on such a project would be put on hold until the science is available.

The FAO has summarized its recommendations on this subject in its report: FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries – Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions – http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3592e/w3592e00.htm

Fisheries Management, fisheries research , fisheries technology and species Introductions are all examined from the point of view of the Precautionary Approach.

In the reference below, three examples in relation to fisheries are discussed :

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE..MAKING IT WORK FOR FISH AND FISHERMEN
By Molly Thomas and Zeke Grader
http://www.pcffa.org/fn-jun00.htm

  • “The first is habitat. With salmon and a number of other commercially-valuable fish stocks, particularly those that are riparian or wetland dependent, merely restricting harvest on a precautionary approach may do little to help stocks unless there is a concomitant use of the principle for the protection of habitat.
  • The second area where the precautionary approach is needed now is with aquaculture. Pollution, nutrient loading, habitat destruction (e.g., mangrove deforestation in shrimp aquaculture), spread of disease, and escaped fish into the wild are all prevalent problems in many forms of aquaculture
  • Third, the precautionary principle has to be applied to genetically-engineered fish or “GMOs” (genetically modified organisms).

The precautionary principle is really just about common sense. As individuals we use the precautionary principle in any situation that involves our own personal safety, at least most of the time. Usually, the ability to weigh these situations increases with age and experience. It is time in this society that we start to use our common sense a little bit more often. Who better to lead this movement than one of the oldest industries on the earth? We have seen it work in the past on discrete stocks of fish, maybe it is time that we insist that we use it universally.”

Other references on the Precationary Approach are included below:

A Canadian Perspective on the Precautionary Approach/Principle
http://www.ec.gc.ca/econom/pamphlet_e.htm

An Australian reference
http://jnevill.customer.netspace.net.au/Precautionary_principle.htm

The Precautionary Principle:
Where the possibility exists of serious or irreversible harm, lack of scientific certainty should not preclude cautious action by decision-makers to prevent such harm. Management needs to anticipate the possibility of ecological damage, rather than react to it as it occurs.
Jon Nevill                                                                                                                2004
There are many definitions of the precautionary principle.  They all have two key elements.  The first is an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary approach it is the responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not result in significant harm. The second key element is the establishment of an obligation, if the level of harm may be high, for cautious action to prevent such harm even in the absence of scientific certainty.
The precautionary principle rests on history and ethics rather than logic or science.  It incorporates the concept that a person or agency should take responsibility for unintentional damage which may (directly or indirectly) result from actions taken by this person or agency. It is also a principle based on experience.  According to Ludwig et al. 1993: “Although there is considerable variation in detail, there is remarkable consistency in the history of resource exploitation: resources are inevitably overexploited, often to the point of collapse or extinction.”  Even though the medium and long-term costs far outweigh short-term benefits, resource over-exploitation continues today. The need for caution is a clear message from recent history (Harremoës et al. 2002).

http://www.ids.org.au/~cnevill/LawlinkNSWStein.htm

Are Decision-makers Too Cautious With The Precautionary Principle?

5.5 Ocean Food: whats in your diet?

Return to Index

5.3 Fishing Down Food Webs

The following reference is presented in its entirety as it summarizes the unsustainable
practice of many global fisheries.

The research of Dr. Pauly of UBC is an example here of our Marine people profiles.

The problem of by-catch is essential in dealing with sustainable fisheries.
1. Fishing Down Marine Food Webs http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover6.html
2. Marine Food Webs
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/marinefoodwebs.htm

This is an online textbook with several graphics illustrating the point. See the
“fishing down marine food web” diagram at the end of page.2.
Fishing Down Marine Food Webs, Daniel Pauly, * Villy
Christensen, Johanne Dalsgaard, Rainer Froese, Francisco Torres Jr.

Science: 6 February 1998 Vol. 279. no. 5352, pp. 860- 863
The mean trophic level of the species groups reported in Food and Agricultural
Organization global fisheries statistics declined from 1950 to
1994. This reflects a gradual transition in landings from long-lived,
high trophic level, piscivorous bottom fish toward short-lived, low
trophic level invertebrates and planktivorous pelagic fish. This effect,
also found to be occurring in inland fisheries, is most pronounced in the
Northern Hemisphere. Fishing down food webs (that is, at lower trophic
levels) leads at first to increasing catches, then to a phase transition
associated with stagnating or declining catches. These results indicate
that present exploitation patterns are unsustainable.
D. Pauly and J.& Dalsgaard, Fisheries Centre, 2204 Main Mall, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4.
V. Christensen, R.Froese, F.Torres Jr.,
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, M.C. Post
Office Box 2631,0718 Makati, Philippines.

Exploitation of the ocean for fish and marine invertebrates, both wholesome and valuable
products, ought to be a prosperous sector, given that capture
fisheries–in contrast to agriculture and aquaculture–reap harvests that
did not need to be sown. Yet marine fisheries are in a global crisis,
mainly due to open access policies and subsidy-driven over-capitalization(1) It may be argued, however, that the global crisis is mainly one of economics or of governance, whereas the global resource base itself fluctuates naturally. Contradicting this more optimistic view, we show here that landings from global fisheries have shifted in the last 45 years from large piscivorous fishes toward smaller invertebrates and planktivorous fishes, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. This may imply major changes in the structure of marine food webs. Two data sets were used. The first has estimates of trophic levels for 22 different species or groups of fish and invertebrates, covering all statistical categories included in the official Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) landings statistics(2). We obtained these estimates from 60 published mass-balance trophic models that covered all major aquatic ecosystem types(3, 4). The models were constructed with the Ecopath software(5) and local data that included detailed diet compositions(6). In such models, fractional trophic levels (7) are estimated values, based on the diet compositions of all ecosystemcomponents rather than assumed values; hence, their precision and accuracy
are much higher than for the integer trophic level values used in earlierglobal studies (8). The 22 trophic levels derived from these6 Ecopath applications range from a definitional value of 1 forprimary producers and detritus to 4.6 (± 0.32) for snappers(family Lutjanidae) on the shelf of Yucatan, Mexico (9). The second dataset we used comprises FAO global statistics (2) of fisheries landings forthe years from 1950 to 1994 which are based on reportssubmitted annually by FAO member countries and other states and wererecently used for reassessing world fisheries potential (10). By combiningthese data sets we could estimate the mean trophic level of landings,presented here as time series by different groupings of all FAO statistical areas and for the world (11). For all marine areas,
the trend over the past 45years has been a decline in the mean trophic level of the fisheries landings, from slightly more than 3.3 in the early 1950s to less than 3.1 in 1994 (Fig. 1A). A dip in the 1960s and early 1970s occurred because of extremely large catches
(106 metric tons (t) per year) of Peruvian anchoveta with a low trophic level (12) of 2.2(±0.42). Since the collapse of the Peruvian anchoveta fishery in 1972-1973, the global trend in the trophic level of marine fisheries landings has been one of steady
decline. Fisheries in inland waters exhibit, on the global level, a similar trend as for the marine areas (Fig. 1B): A clear decline in average trophic level is apparent from the early 1970s, in parallel to, and about 0.3 units below, those of marine catches. The previous
plateau, from 1950 to 1975, is due to insufficiently detailed fishery statistics for the earlier decades (10).Fig. 1. Global trends of mean trophic level of fisheries landings, 1950 to 1994. (A) Marine areas; (B) inland areas. [View Larger Version of this Image (13K GIF file)] In northern temperate areas where the fisheries are most developed, the mean trophic level of the landings has declined steadily over the last two decades. In the North Pacific (FAO areas 61 and 67; Fig. 2A), trophic levels peaked in the early 1970s and have since then
decreased rapidly in spite of the recent increase in landings of Alaska
pollock, Theragra chalcogramma, which has a relatively high trophic level
of 3.8 (±0.24). In the Northwest Atlantic (FAO areas 21and 31; Fig. 2B), the fisheries were initially dominated by planktivorous menhaden, Brevoortia spp., and other small pelagics at low trophic levels. As their landings decreased, the average trophic level of
the fishery initially increased, then in the 1970s it reversed to a steep
decline. Similar declines are apparent throughout the time series for the
Northeast Atlantic (FAO area 27; Fig. 2C) and the Mediterranean (FAO area
37; Fig. 2C), although the latter system operates at altogether lower trophic levels.
Fig. 2. Trends of mean
trophic level of fisheries landings in northern temperate areas,
1950 to 1994. (A) North Pacific (FAO areas 61and 67); (B)
Northwest and Western Central Atlantic (FAO areas 21 and 31); (C)
Northeast Atlantic (FAO area 27); and (D) Mediterranean (FAO area 37).
[View Larger Version of this Image (13K GIF file)]

The Central Eastern Pacific (FAO area 77; Fig. 3A), Southern
and Central Eastern Atlantic (FAO areas 41,47,and 34; Fig.
3B), and the Indo-Pacific (FAO areas 51,57,and 71; Fig. 3C)
show no clear trends over time. In the southern Atlantic this is probably
due to the development of new fisheries, for example, on the Patagonian
shelf, which tends to mask declines of trophic levels in more developed
fisheries. In the Indo-Pacific area, the apparent stability is certainly
due to inadequacies of the statistics, because numerous accounts exist
that document species shifts similar to those that occurred in northern
temperate areas (13)
Fig. 3. Trends of mean trophic levels of fisheries landings in the intertropical belt and
adjacent waters. (A) Central Eastern Pacific (FAO area 77); (B) Southwest,
Central Eastern, and Southeast Atlantic (FAO areas 41,34,and
47); and (C) Indo (west)- Pacific (FAO areas 51,57,and 71).
[View Larger Version of this Image (10K GIF file)] The South Pacific areas (FAO areas 81and 87; Fig. 4A) are
interesting in that they display wide-amplitude fluctuations of trophic
levels, reflecting the growth in the mid-1950s of a huge industrial
fishery for Peruvian anchoveta. Subsequent to the anchoveta fishery
collapse, an offshore fishery developed for horse mackerel, Trachurus
murphyi, which has a higher trophic level (3.3 ± 0.21) and whose
range extends west toward New Zealand (14). Antarctica (FAO areas
48 58 and 88; Fig. 4B) also exhibits high-amplitude variation
of mean trophic levels, from a high of 3.4 due to a fishery that
quickly depleted local accumulations of bony fishes, to a low of
2.3 due to Euphausia superba (trophic level 2.2;±0.40), a
large krill species that dominated the more recent catches.
Fig. 4. High-amplitude changes of mean trophic
levels in fisheries landings. (A) South Pacific (FAO areas 81and
87); (B) Antarctica (FAO areas 48,58,and 88). [View Larger
Version of this Image (8K GIF file)]
The
gross features of the plots in Figs. through 4 while consistent with
previous knowledge of the dynamics of major stocks, may provide new
insights on the effect of fisheries on ecosystems. Further interpretation
of the observed trends is facilitated by plotting mean trophic levels
against catches. For example, the four systems in Fig. 5 illustrate
patterns different from the monotonous increase of catch that may be
expected when fishing down food webs (15). Each of the four systems in
Fig. 5 has a signature marked by abrupt phase shifts. For three of the
examples, the highest landings are not associated with the lowest trophic
levels, as the fishing-down-the-food-web theory would predict. Instead,
the time series tend to bend backward. The exception (where landings
continue to increase as trophic levels decline) is the Southern Pacific
(Fig. 5C), where the westward expansion of horse mackerel fisheries is
still the dominant feature, thus masking more local effects.
Fig. 5. Plots of mean trophic levels in fishery
landings versus the landings (in millions of metric tons) in four marine
regions, illustrating typical backward-bending signatures (note variable
ordinate and abcissa scales). (A) Northwest Atlantic (FAO area 21); (B)
Northeast Atlantic (FAO area 27); (C) Southeast Pacific (FAO area 87); (D)
Mediterranean (FAO area 37). [View Larger Version of this Image (18K GIF
file)] The backward-bending feature of
the plots of trophic levels versus landings, which also occurs in areas
other than those in Fig. 5, may be due to a combination of the following:
(i) artifacts due to the data, methods, and assumptions used; (ii) large
and increasing catches that are not reported to FAO; (iii) massive
discarding of bycatches (16) consisting predominantly of fish with low
trophic levels; (iv) reduced catchability as a result of a decreasing
average size of exploitable organisms; and (v) fisheries-induced changes
in the food webs from which the landings were extracted. Regarding item
(i), the quality of the official landing statistics we used may be seen as
a major impediment for analyses of the sort presented here. We know that
considerable under- and misreporting occur (16). However, for our
analysis, the overall accuracy of the landings is not of major importance,
if the trends are unbiased. Anatomical and functional considerations
support our assumption that the trophic levels of fish are conservative
attributes and that they cannot change much over time, even when ecosystem
structure changes (17). Moreover, the increase of young fish as a
proportion of landings in a given species that result from increasing
fishing pressure would strengthen the reported trends, because the young
of piscivorous species tend to be zooplanktivorous (18) and thus have
lower trophic levels than the adults. Items (ii) and (iii) may be more
important for the overall explanation. Thus, for the Northeast Atlantic,
the estimated (16) discard of 3.7 106 t year1 of bycatch would
straighten out the backward-bending curve of Fig. 5B. Item (iv)
is due to the fact that trophic levels of aquatic organisms are inversely
related to size (19). Thus, the relation between trophic level and catch
will always break down as catches increase: There is a lower size limit
for what can be caught and marketed, and zooplankton is not going to be
reaching our dinner plates in the foreseeable future. Low catchability due
to small size or extreme dilution (<1 g m3) is, similarly, a major
reason why the huge global biomass (109 t) of lanternfish (family
Myctophidae) and other mesopelagics (20) will continue to remain latent
resources. If we assume that fisheries tend to switch from
species with high trophic levels to species with low trophic levels in
response to changes of their relative abundances, then the
backward-bending curves in Fig. 5 may be also due to changes in ecosystem
structure, that is, item (v). In the North Sea, Norway pout, Trisopterus
esmarkii, serves as a food source for most of the important fish species
used for human consumption, such as cod or saithe. Norway pout is also the
most important predator on euphausiids (krill) in the North Sea (3). We
must therefore expect that a directed fishery on this small gadoid
(landings in the Northeast Atlantic are about 3 ? 105 t year1)
will have a positive effect on the euphausiids, which in turn prey on
copepods, a much more important food source for commercial fish species
than euphausiids. Hence, fishing for Norway pout may have a cascading
effect, leading to a build-up of nonutilized euphausiids. Triangles such
as the one involving Norway pout, euphausiids, and copepods, and which may
have a major effect on ecosystem stability, are increasingly being
integrated in ecological theory (21), especially in fisheries biology
(22). Globally, trophic levels of fisheries landings appear to
have declined in recent decades at a rate of about 0.1 per decade,
without the landings themselves increasing substantially. It is likely
that continuation of present trends will lead to widespread fisheries
collapses and to more backward-bending curves such as in Fig. 5, whether
or not they are due to a relaxation of top-down control (23). Therefore,
we consider estimations of global potentials based on extrapolation of
present trends or explicitly incorporating fishing-down-the-food-web
strategies to be highly questionable. Also, we suggest that in the next
decades fisheries management will have to emphasize the rebuilding of fish
populations embedded within functional food webs, within large “no-take”
marine protected areas (24)
2. Sequential
megafaunal collapse in the North Pacific Ocean: An ongoing legacy of
industrial whalingfrom:http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/21/12223
Published online , 2003,
Abstract:
Populations of seals, sea lions, and sea otters have
sequentially collapsed over large areas of the northern North Pacific
Ocean and southern Bering Sea during the last several decades. A bottom-up
nutritional limitation mechanism induced by physical oceanographic change
or competition with fisheries was long thought to be largely responsible
for these declines. The current weight of evidence is more consistent with
top-down forcing. Increased predation by killer whales probably drove the
sea otter collapse and may have been responsible for the earlier pinniped
declines as well. We propose that decimation of the great whales by
post-World War II industrial whaling caused the great whales’ foremost
natural predators, killer whales, to begin feeding more intensively on the
smaller marine mammals, thus “fishing-down” this element of the marine
food web. The timing of these events, information on the abundance, diet,
and foraging behavior of both predators and prey, and feasibility analyses
based on demographic and energetic modeling are all consistent with this
hypothesis.
The abrupt decline of the
western stock of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) across most of
the northern North Pacific Ocean and southern Bering Sea is one of the
world’s most well known yet poorly understood marine conservation
problems. For years, scientists attributed this decline to nutritional
limitation, the presumed consequence of a climate regime shift and/or
competition with regional fisheries (1). Although fisheries and regime
shifts undoubtedly influenced both the fishes and their associated food
webs (2–5), several recent reviews of the available information on sea
lions and their environment, including an assessment by the National
Research Council, cast doubt on the nutritional limitation hypothesis (6,
7), notwithstanding evidence from field and laboratory studies that diet
quality is a factor in sea lion energetics (8). The doubt stems from three
main findings. First, most measures of behavior, physiology, and
morphology from surviving adult sea lions and pups in the western Gulf of
Alaska and Aleutian Islands are inconsistent with nutritional limitation.
These animals have better body condition, reduced foraging effort, and
reduced field metabolic rates relative to similar measures from the
increasing sea lion population in southeast Alaska (7). Second, sea lion
prey is abundant in most areas of the decline (9). Known changes in prey
availability and other features of the oceanic ecosystem are particularly
incongruous with the most precipitous phase of the decline, which occurred
during the mid- to late 1980s, and can be accounted for only by greatly
increased adult mortality (6). Third, populations of piscivorous sea
birds, many of which feed on earlier life stages of the same fish species
consumed by sea lions, have remained stable or increased in the same area
and over the same period that the sea lions have declined (10). Top-down
forcing now appears to have been an important contributor to declines of
Steller sea lions and other marine mammal populations in the region (6).
Likely top-down forcing factors include purposeful shooting, incidental
mortality in fishing gear, and predation. We will suggest that increased
predation was paramount among these factors, and that altered food web
dynamics brought about by human overharvesting initiated the
change.
In the
report “Progress Towards Environmental Sustainability in British
Columbia’s Seafood Sector., May 2001” there are a number of excellent
graphics which present a framework for sustainable fisheries.
http://www.bcseafoodalliance.com/BCSA/AMRSummitReport.pdf
5.4 The Precautionary Principle:

Return to Index

5.1 Fisheries Policies for Sustainability

If Seafood fisheries in British Columbia are to remain sustainable then there must be adherence to a regime of regulations . Management of fisheries in the past has often led to depletion of resources. Examples can be drawn from herring and salmon resources in BC, the anchovy and sardine examples of Pacific Coast of North and South America, and the Atlantic Cod. The unsustainable practises of Drift net fisheries, bottom trawling, and by-catch are examples of why there are problems.(see reference No.5 below).

Here is an opportunity to emphasize best practises for ecologically sustainable fisheries. The Precautionary Principle is at the base of a requirement for sustainable fisheries.

Resource references:

1. In the report “Progress Towards Environmental Sustainability in British Columbia’s Seafood Sector., May 2001″ there are a number of excellent graphics which present a framework for sustainable fisheries.
http://www.bcseafoodalliance.com/BCSA/AMRSummitReport.pdf

The topics below are dealt with in length and provide excellent examples of displays and interactive presentations which could be set up on sustainable fisheries.

Sustainable Fishing and Aquaculture
Sustainable Harvest of Target species and Stocks
Limiting the impacts of Fisheries on Non-Target species,
Limiting Impacts on Habitats and Ecosystems
Ensuring effective management and regulation.

2. The Geoduck Fishery: has established a Code of Conduct for responsible Fishing.

http://www.geoduck.org/pdf/UHA_Code_Report.pdf

3. 2006 BC Seafood Industry report http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/YIR-2006.pdf

4. Seafood Statistics:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/fishstats/index.html

5. FIsheries Issues:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/fisheriesissues.htm

Go to the sustainable aquaculture section

5.2 The Ecosystem Approach

From: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5352 Oceans in Peril: Protecting Marine Biodiversity publ 2007

An ecosystem approach promotes both conservation and the sustainable use of marine resources in an equitable way. It is a holistic approach that considers environmental protection and marine management together, rather than as two separate and mutually exclusive goals. Paramount to the application of this approach is the establishment of networks of fully protected marine reserves, in essence, “national parks” of the sea. These provide protection of whole ecosystems and enable biodiversity to both recover and flourish. They also benefit fisheries by allowing for spillover of fish and larvae or eggs from the reserve into adjacent fishing grounds.
Outside of the reserves, an ecosystem approach requires the sustainable management of fisheries and other resources. Demands on marine resources must be managed within the limits of what the ecosystem can provide indefinitely, rather than being allowed to expand as demographic and market forces dictate. An ecosystem approach requires protection at the level of the whole ecosystem. This is radically different from the current practice, where most fisheries management measures focus simply on single species and do not consider the role of these species in the wider ecosystem.
An ecosystem approach is also precautionary in nature, meaning that a lack of knowledge should not excuse decision-makers from taking action, but rather lead them to err on the side of caution. The burden of proof must be placed on those who want to undertake activities, such as fishing or coastal development, to show that these activities will not harm the marine environment. In other words, current presumptions that favor freedom to fish and freedom of the seas will need to be replaced with the new concept of freedom for the seas.”

Reference:

1.Canessa, R., Conley, K., and Smiley, B. 2003. Bowie Seamount Marine Protected Area: an ecosystem overview report. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2461. …
http://www.seaaroundus.org/…/ASynthesisResearchActivitiesFCEcosystemBaseFish.pdf

2. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2008/scs08-10.pdf.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Serial No. N5511 NAFO SCS Doc. 08/10 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING – JUNE 2008 Report of the NAFO Scientific Council Working Group on Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (WGEAFM) NAFO Headquarters, Dartmouth, Canada 26-30 May 2008.

In recognition of an amended NAFO Convention (currently awaiting ratification) which has principles of an Ecosystem
Approach to Fisheries Management, Scientific Council established a Working Group on the Ecosystem Approach to
Fisheries Management in September 2007. Terms of Reference (ToR1) for this WG relate to the identification of eco-
regions within the NAFO Convention Area (NCA) and the development of ecosystem health indicators.

3. A synthesis of Research Activities at the Fisheries Centre on Ecosystem-based Fisheries Modelling and Assessment with emphasis on the Northern and Central Coast of BC..2007,
S.Guenete,V.Christiansen,C. Hover,M.Lam D.Preikshot, D. Pauly

5.3 Fishing Down Food Webs

 Return to Index

5.0 Humans as a Part of Ocean Systems:

5.1 FISHERIES POLICIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY:

If Seafood fisheries in British Columbia are to remain sustainable then there must be adherence to a regime of regulations . Management of fisheries in the past has often led to depletion of resources. Examples can be drawn from herring and salmon resources in BC, the anchovy and sardine examples of Pacific Coast of North and South America, and the Atlantic Cod. The unsustainable practises of Drift net fisheries, bottom trawling, and by-catch are examples of why there are problems.(see reference No.5 below).

Here is an opportunity to emphasize best practices for ecologically sustainable fisheries. The Precautionary Principle is at the base of a requirement for sustainable fisheries.
Resource references:
1. In the report “Progress Towards Environmental Sustainability in British Columbia’s Seafood Sector., May 2001″ there are a number of excellent graphics which present a framework for sustainable fisheries.
http://www.bcseafoodalliance.com/BCSA/AMRSummitReport.pdf

The topics below are dealt with in length and provide excellent examples of displays and interactive presentations which could be set up on sustainable fisheries.

Sustainable Fishing and Aquaculture
Sustainable Harvest of Target species and Stocks
Limiting the impacts of Fisheries on Non-Target species,
Limiting Impacts on Habitats and Ecosystems
Ensuring effective management and regulation.

2. The Geoduck Fishery: has established a Code of Conduct for responsible Fishing.

http://www.geoduck.org/pdf/UHA_Code_Report.pdf

3. 2006 BC Seafood Industry report http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/YIR-2006.pdf

4. Seafood Statistics:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/fishstats/index.html

5. FIsheries Issues:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/fisheriesissues.htm

Go to the sustainable aquaculture section

5.2 The Ecosystem Approach

From: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5352 Oceans in Peril: Protecting Marine Biodiversity publ 2007

An ecosystem approach promotes both conservation and the sustainable use of marine resources in an equitable way. It is a holistic approach that considers environmental protection and marine management together, rather than as two separate and mutually exclusive goals. Paramount to the application of this approach is the establishment of networks of fully protected marine reserves, in essence, “national parks” of the sea. These provide protection of whole ecosystems and enable biodiversity to both recover and flourish. They also benefit fisheries by allowing for spillover of fish and larvae or eggs from the reserve into adjacent fishing grounds.
Outside of the reserves, an ecosystem approach requires the sustainable management of fisheries and other resources. Demands on marine resources must be managed within the limits of what the ecosystem can provide indefinitely, rather than being allowed to expand as demographic and market forces dictate. An ecosystem approach requires protection at the level of the whole ecosystem. This is radically different from the current practice, where most fisheries management measures focus simply on single species and do not consider the role of these species in the wider ecosystem.
An ecosystem approach is also precautionary in nature, meaning that a lack of knowledge should not excuse decision-makers from taking action, but rather lead them to err on the side of caution. The burden of proof must be placed on those who want to undertake activities, such as fishing or coastal development, to show that these activities will not harm the marine environment. In other words, current presumptions that favor freedom to fish and freedom of the seas will need to be replaced with the new concept of freedom for the seas.”

Reference:

1.Canessa, R., Conley, K., and Smiley, B. 2003. Bowie Seamount Marine Protected Area: an ecosystem overview report. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2461. …
http://www.seaaroundus.org/…/ASynthesisResearchActivitiesFCEcosystemBaseFish.pdf

2. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2008/scs08-10.pdf.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Serial No. N5511 NAFO SCS Doc. 08/10 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING – JUNE 2008 Report of the NAFO Scientific Council Working Group on Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (WGEAFM) NAFO Headquarters, Dartmouth, Canada 26-30 May 2008.

In recognition of an amended NAFO Convention (currently awaiting ratification) which has principles of an Ecosystem
Approach to Fisheries Management, Scientific Council established a Working Group on the Ecosystem Approach to
Fisheries Management in September 2007. Terms of Reference (ToR1) for this WG relate to the identification of eco-
regions within the NAFO Convention Area (NCA) and the development of ecosystem health indicators.

3. A synthesis of Research Activities at the Fisheries Centre on Ecosystem-based Fisheries Modelling and Assessment with emphasis on the Northern and Central Coast of BC..2007,
S.Guenete,V.Christiansen,C. Hover,M.Lam D.Preikshot, D. Pauly

5.3 Fishing Down Food webs

Return to Index

3.2 Integration and Interconnectivity of Marine Ecosystems.

The three themes to be emphasized here overlap into many other aspects of this report as well. We are talking about Ecosystems that by definition are interrelated. I think it is important to point them out as themes however since they may get overlooked otherwise.

1. Marine ecosystems and the organisms living within them are highly interconnected and interdependant.

2. The ecosystems people  live in and the activities they do in everyday life have a close connection with the welfare of marine ecosystems and their organisms.

3. We manage the resources and activities of different ecosystems in isolated jurisdictions of our governments and if change is to be effected, there are implications here.

—————————————————————————————-

1. A problem with defining the model of any marine system is that we have to draw boundaries which immediately restrict the reality of that system. We have a tendency to want to compartmentalize in order to make sense of things but nature doesn’t really work that way. This point should be made clear when modelling any ecosystem in an exhibit, and at every opportunity, the interactions with other ecosystems should be acknowledged.

  • The anadromous fish story is probably the classic one to show interactions . Not only marine and fresh water systems, but the interconnections with surrounding forests as well.
  • Marine mammals which may haul out on our rocky island ecosystems or swim in our local waters, but may within their lifetime traverse thousands of miles of coastal and open oceans.
  • Plankton distribution and migrations across ecosystems, the foam wind swept onto a beach carrying bits of ocean planktonic debris which is gleaned by a migrating shorebird, probably originated in the open ocean or as larvae in distant rocky intertidal zones.

2. A very constructive public education role can be served by any educational curriculum  in providing viewers with the evidence that the ecosystems in which they live and the activities they do in everyday life have a close connection with the welfare of marine ecosystems and their organisms. Just a few of the areas which can be included are as follows

  • coastal cities and the materials they shed into the water.
  • Agriculture runoff and the influence on eutrophication in marine systems.
  • Introduction of exotic species which compromises the ecological integrity of natural ecosystems
  • marine transportation and its effect
  • marine recreation and its effect on organisms and ecosystems.
  • Marine harvesting activities
  • The activities we do that affect climate change.

The point to make in all of this is that all these activities can have a range of impact from severe to non-significant in terms of how ecosystems are effected. Here again the proposal must be made that this is part of our choice of futures for the ocean.

3. The implications for management of the resources in these overlapping ecosystems becomes clear when one can appreciate that we have allowed different levels of governments to deal with different ecosystems without considering their interactions. It points to the need for a holistic model of ecosystem management, rather than a compartmentalized one. This was one of the intents of the Oceans Act.. to break down that conflict in jurisdictions and have a new way of looking at and ensuring sustainability of the marine environment. The fact that agriculture, forestry, parks, military and fisheries are all managed separately with little appreciation of the ecosystems of their overlapping jurisdictions must be presented in all its absurdity for the public to perhaps start an open dialogue on how sustainability can be insured if we can’t get it right.

As part of biodiversity, the ways that organisms themselves have interdependencies provides a number of opportunities to illustrate interesting interrelationships.

 So how can this be portrayed?

  • Start by finding ( if there are any) some positive examples of ecosystem management which takes into account the interrelated aspects of ecosystems.
  • Present best-case scenarios for marine sustainability issues.
  • In the take-aways section, provide constructive acts for visitors to follow up on in order to try to affect change that recognizes the need for a new method of marine ecosystem management.

3.3 Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital

Return to Index