NOAA Tech Memo 184

This technical memorandum addresses interdisciplinary aspects of fisheries assessments as linkages for adaptive management and sustainability of large marine ecosystems (LME). Natural and human-induced impacts of living marine resources are considered. Management and the ecological aspects of fish stock populations in the United States Northeast Continental Shelf ecosystem are examined for prospective and emerging “best practices” from a synthesis of the scientific literature. In accordance with the passage of the domestic Oceans Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-256; e.g., Watkins, 2002) this manuscript further develops linkages through natural and social science for an interdisciplinary science policy and governance practice for LME’s. It is meant to provide background information and promote dialogue on ecosystem-oriented management of living marine resources. Consideration is given to the precautionary approach in the introduction of ecosystem-oriented management of the fish stocks of the Northeast Shelf ecosystem.

The concept of LME's emerged from an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selective symposium in the mid 1980's concerning variability and management of large marine ecosystems (Sherman et al., 1991; Alexander, 1993). “Marine ecosystems may be defined as major units of ecological function in the marine environment. Ecosystems are communities of organisms and their physical, chemical and geological environment – distinct assemblages of species coevolved with a particular environment over long periods of evolutionary history – interacting as an ecological unit” (Grassle, 2001).

This study incorporates the "tools" of a policy orientation approach (Gable, 2003) for commercial marine fisheries management consistent with the LME concept using the case study approach. The focus is on the multi-method modular plan linked to the "precautionary principle” (approach) in relation to the authorities of the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) as well as state agency jurisdictions. The Northeast Shelf LME can be considered as a part of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) statistical areas, and NEFMC, MAMFC, and ASMFC management locales (see Figure 1). The study advances an ecosystem approach to living marine resources science policy.

Following the September 1945 Truman Proclamations (nos. 2667 & 2668) in the United States concerning U.S. policy with respect to the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf and coastal fisheries in certain areas of the High Seas, several ocean law measures were discussed and debated in a series of international fora. One of them, the Convention on the Continental Shelf was agreed to in April of 1958 in Geneva (signed by the U.S. in June 1964). It contains 15 codified articles. A related agreement, the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, was also codified at Geneva and was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1961. This agreement contains 32 articles that included preexisting rules regarding international customary law that provided a greater degree of precision and clarity. The Convention on the High Seas contains 37 mostly short articles and Annex III (Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas). It was also adopted in 1958. According to Merrell, et al. (2001) “in 1958, the United Nations convened the first international conference of plenipotentiaries to examine the law of the sea, and to embody the results of its work in one or more international conventions. The 1958 conference produced four conventions that codified, to a great extent, customary law and brought international attention to the oceans.” Years later, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) began its substantive work in 1974 two years after the first U.N. Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm (see Emmelin, 1972). UNCLOS III, consisting of 319 articles plus several annexes, was signed on December 10^th, 1982. It was ratified by the requisite number of countries (60) and entered into force on November 16^th, 1994.

Domestically, the U.S. Congress enacted the Marine Re- sources and Engineering and Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-454) that created a blue ribbon executive-level commission on marine science activities later known as the Stratton Commission, named for the chairman of the 15 member panel. Their report, Our Nation and the Sea issued in January of 1969, reviewed the status of American ocean policy and provided specific recommendations for improving marine resource and ocean management practice. One of the major outcomes from those recommendations was the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA; est. October 1970; Nelson, 1969). Merrell, et al., (2001) also mention that among many public laws that can be traced to the Commission’s 1969 report was the original Magnuson Fishery and Conservation Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-265).

Two other noteworthy American actions pertinent to ocean management were (1) the Presidential Proclamation of December 27, 1988, (No. 5928) in accordance with international law as reflected in the applicable provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and customary international law extending the U.S. territorial sea to 12 nautical miles. Earlier, (2) the Presidential Proclamation (5030) of March 10, 1983 established the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the U.S. designating sovereign rights over natural resources out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured in accordance with international law. In addition, the Oceans Act of 2000 (P. L. 106-256; effective January 20, 2001) was passed by congress with the task of reviewing the importance of American oceans and marine resources and formulating a “scientifically based strategy for protecting and sustaining our oceans” and that this “requires a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy” (Watkins, 2004). One of the ocean governance approaches advocated by the U.S. Ocean Commission is the principle of ecosystem-based management (Watkins, 2004; see also Witherell, 2004).

LME’s are regions of ecological unity of ocean space comprising coastal locales from river basins and estuaries to the outer margins of continental shelves and seaward boundaries of coastal current systems (Griffis and Kimball, 1996). A combination of ecological criteria including unique bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophic relationships characterize LME’s (Sherman, 1989). LME’s are areas yielding 90 percent of the annual catch of global marine fisheries (Garibaldi and Limongelli, 2003; Sherman and Duda, 2001). Thus, the LME approach considers accommodating human utilization of its resources while maintaining ecosystem integrity. Some areas of the globe have embraced ecosystem considerations as part of fisheries ecosystem management within the scale of an LME (Sherman, 1994; Done and Reichelt, 1998; Duda and Sherman, 2002).

English, et al., (1988) discussed Southeast Asia where the emphasis was on studies of Large Marine Ecosystems (LME’s) using a multispecies approach for the management of resources. Initiated in 1983, as a response to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), was the South east Asian Project on Ocean Law, Policy and Management (SEAPOL). It was designed to promulgate a network of regional specialists in ocean development and management as a part of the Law of the Sea. These regional specialists selectively incorporated information on coral, mangrove and soft bottom benthic communities in the coastal living resources project (English, et al., 1988). These authors noted on page 372 of their manuscript, “science is a central issue in any attempt to manage LME’s;” “the management of LME’s involves political, socioeconomic, scientific and technical aspects.” The ASEAN Coastal Living Resources Project was an early example of a multinational approach to the management of LME’s (English, et al., 1988).

In Australia and New Zealand the LME approach was selected as a means for introducing an ecosystem-based approach to the assessment and management of marine resources because of its focus on resource management. Done and Reichelt (1998) emphasize that in the Oceania LME, “the scope of the focus on fishery management is placed on optimization of catch per unit of effort (CPUE) for targeted commercial species along with bycatch and discard minimization.” Integrated within the LME approach, as utilized in Australian and New Zealand jurisdictional waters, is also a focus on both coastal zone and watershed catchment management. Here, the scope of emphasis for coastal zone management (CZM) is “directed toward habitat protection for both catch and bycatch species (prohibited and non specified species bycatch) as well as water quality maintenance. The reduction of polluted land-based runoff into surface waterways that drain towards the shore is the principle scope of emphasis for watershed catchment management” (Done and Reichelt, 1998). Thus, in Oceania, “the quest for resource sustainability may best be achieved through the combination of management effort directed to wards coastal habitats and catchment watersheds as well as the fishery” (Done and Reichelt, 1998).

The governments of the Republic(s) of Angola, Namibia and South Africa in their desire to manage development and protect for future use the Benguela Current LME in an integrated and sustainable manner committed themselves to establishing the “Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem” (BCLME) program with specific ecosystem-based actions, principles and policies (O’Toole, 2002). The reasons for the establishment of the BCLME, included: (1) significant transboundary implications of unsustainable practices of harvesting of living marine resources (fish stocks), (2) increasing habitat degradation and alteration which may have contributed to increased incidence of harmful algal blooms, as well as (3) inadequate governance capacity to assess and monitor ecosystem status and trends, either nationally or regionally. The original Strategic Action Program (SAP) was adopted by signature by government ministers at the end of February of 2000 in the spirit of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration) and Agenda 21 principles. The BCLME program was established as an international body under the terms and conditions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (entry into force November 1994) and international customary law principles (see e.g. Belsky, 1985). At the outset, for example, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is represented on the Interim Benguela Current Commission for the initial five year BCLME program development phase. Original start up funding was secured from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and scientific and technical assistance coming from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S., and ocean science agencies in France, Germany, and Norway.

In another regional setting north of the BCLME, according to Ukwe et al., (2003) the countries of the Gulf of Guinea littoral “adopted an integrated and holistic approach using the LME concept to sustainably manage the environmental and living resources of the region.” The genesis for the Guinea Current LME was founded in 1995 with a pilot project initiative by six littoral nations regarding biodiversity conservation and water pollution control. Ministers representing the six countries responsible for the LME project signed the Accra Declaration as an expression of support for inter-nation cooperation in fostering sustainable management practices. Donor agency funding was secured via the GEF with implementation provided through the UNDP in concert with the U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) with technical support from NOAA/NMFS and the U.N. Environment Programme. “The project is anchored in the concept of LME’s as geographic units for improving the assessment and management of marine resources” (Ukwe, et al., 2003). The overriding goal of the ongoing Guinea Current LME Strategic Action Plan (SAP) centers on biological diversity and the control of aquatic pollution with regard to restoring and sustaining the health of the living marine resources of the region. Ukwe, et al. (2003) mention four specific objectives to achieve the goal revolving around five LME modules (see Figure 2) including governance capacity building along with ecosystem management database development as well as living marine resources assessment and long-term monitoring and protection strategies. Sherman (1995) illustrated the ecosystem level “energy matrix” which is comprised of interactions of individuals, populations, or communities of organisms. In general, the concept of LME’s has been embraced by the world’s coastal developing nations, but the “predominant variables” for any given LME may be different even from its neighbor, depending upon the results of issue prioritization based on consensus reached through a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (Sherman and Duda, 1999b).

More recently, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, “resolutions” have been crafted for adoption by member nations to apply by 2010 the “ecosystem approach” to the conservation, management and exploitation of highly migratory (pelagic) and “straddling” fish stocks (Jahnke, 2003). Resolution A/57/L.49 concerning a number of fisheries issues was introduced by the United States of America through Ambassador Mary Beth West, the then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries to the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly on December 10^th 2002 (West, 2003). Resolution A/57/L.50 regarding the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks was also introduced at the same time by Ambassador West. In her remarks before the General Assembly, she indicated that “the fisheries draft resolutions are an assemblage of current ocean issues drawn from the priorities and interests of Member States.” And “they represent consensus… in making the oceans safe and healthy environments for sustainable development” (Jahnke, 2003).

Ambassador West’s statement also contained an emphasis on the agreed to Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation adopted on September 4^th of 2002. She remarked that the Plan calls on the world community to establish by 2004, a regular United Nations process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment based on existing regional assessments. The Plan suggests the world community to elaborate regional programmes of action and to improve links with strategic plans for the sustainable development of coastal and marine resources (Jahnke, 2003). Thus, the prescribed benefits of an in place LME approach to living marine resources conservation biology and management can be seen at work in the international arena (Alexander, 1999; Belsky, 1985).

The introduced “Resolution (on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, A/57/L.48) similarly calls upon States to develop national, regional and international programmes aimed at halting the loss of marine biodiversity. The United States welcomes this emphasis on integrated regional approaches to oceans issues.” While at the podium, Ambassador West went on to state, “in that context (regarding integrated, regional approaches to ocean issues), we would like to bring to this body’s attention the White Water to Blue Water oceans partnership initiative currently being planned for the Caribbean… it aims for an integrated approach to the management of freshwater watershed and marine ecosystems.” “We hope it might serve as a successful model for similar efforts in other regions of the world.” Moreover, “the United States also looks forward to collective efforts to establish an interagency coordination mechanism on oceans and coastal issues within the United Nations system” (UNGA, 2002)¹.

Specifically, the written draft resolution A/57/L49 introduced by Ambassador West, noted also, with particularity, “the importance of implementing the principles elaborated in Article 5 of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (entered into force on December 11^th 2001), including ecosystem considerations in the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.” Draft resolution A57/L.49 as adopted (now known as 57/142) “encourages all States to apply by 2010 the ecosystem approach… and supports continuing work under way at the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to develop guidelines for the implementation of ecosystem considerations in fisheries management…” (UNGA, 2003).

Similarly, Resolution 57/141 Oceans and the Law of the Sea (formerly draft A/57/L/48) “calls upon States to promote the conservation and management of the oceans in accordance with Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 (i.e., Earth Summit, Rio De Janeiro, June 1992; e.g. Garcia and Newton, 1994) and other relevant international instruments, to develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools, including the ecosystem approach, the elimination of destructive fishing practices, the establishment of marine protected areas (MPA’s) consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012 and time/area closures for the protection of nursery grounds and periods, proper coastal and land use and watershed planning, and the integration of marine and coastal areas management into key sectors.” In Section XI Marine Environment, marine resources and sustainable development of said Resolution 57/141 of December 12^th 2002 calls upon States“to improve the scientific understanding and assessment of marine and coastal ecosystems as a fundamental basis for sound decision-making through the actions identified in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, including that of relevant data collection of the marine environment” (UNGA, 2003).

In late November of 2003 an analogous resolution was adopted by the General Assembly. Demonstrating a pattern of agreement by the international community towards sustainable fisheries another marine affairs oriented instrument was placed on the table at the U.N. General Assembly. Reaffirming its resolutions, inter alia, 57/142 and 57/143 of December 12th 2002 (see above), draft resolution A/58/L.18 was on the agenda at the fifty-eighth session in New York. After a successful roll call adoption of the “sustainable fisheries… and related instruments resolution” (adopted as RES/58/14 on November 24^th2003) there was affirmation that in seeking “responsible fisheries in the (large) marine ecosystem” (Section IX) there is the encouragement for Member States to apply by 2010 the ecosystem approach. This ecosystem approach and its relevant guidelines, in part, developed by FAO (Rome, Italy) would provide for the “implementation of ecosystem considerations in fisheries management” (UNGA, 2004).

Resolution 58/14 of 2003 also “notes with satisfaction” the activities of the World Bank housed Global Environment Facility (GEF) aimed at “promoting the reduction of bycatch and discards in fisheries activities.” Discards add to the effect of fishery landings, for example, “a mid1990’s assessment suggested that about 25 percent of marine catch is discarded” (Hanna, 1999). Moreover, the GEF has adopted the LME approach to ocean stewardship of living marine resources (Duda and Sherman, 2002). Resolution 58/14 of 2003 in Section VIII “encourages States to develop ocean policies and mechanisms on integrated management, including at the subregional and regional levels;” the LME approach is just such a mechanism and policy program. The flexible LME approach can aid in achieving sustainable fisheries by addressing ecosystem considerations like: fishing overcapacity, large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing, fisheries bycatch and discards, aid in accomplishing subregional and regional cooperation in fostering responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem, as well as address capacity-building and cooperation as it relates to science policy technical assistance and financial aid mechanisms (see: UNGA, 2004).

As regards “good governance” for the environment, West (2003) emphasizes the promotion of “sound science based decision-making” within legal, programmatic, and regulatory frameworks while stating, “changes in marine and coastal systems can undermine the basic economic and environmental services provided by the oceans.” She also writes, “when it comes to the coastal environment, however, we have learned that regional approaches are often most effective” (West, 2003). The large marine ecosystem (LME) paradigm provides just such an effective approach both internationally and/or domestically in the U.S. The LME approach or initiative provides and promotes science based decision-making for the ocean and coastal activities, especially in the realm of commercial fisheries science policy. The LME modular assessment approach (Figure 2) is an improved science-based application to best practices of integrated coastal management (e.g., West, 2003; Ajayi, et al., 2002; Done and Reichelt, 1998).

While the adoption of ocean affairs related resolutions by the Member States of the United Nations General Assembly demonstrate a willingness to move towards ecosystem-based fisheries management (as a tenet of adaptive management), more importantly “this acceptance may be emerging into customary rules of international law which promote consideration of total ecosystems and the establishment of standards for those systems” (Belsky, 1985)². Knecht (1994) recognized “that the use of the ecosystem approach in dealing with large marine ecosystems is already close to becoming international law.” “Soft laws essentially are statements of international cooperation, usually in the form of an international treaty or agreement, which are not binding on (all) States but have the capacity to promote evolving notions of customary law, they have great importance in the evolution of customary law” (MacDonald, 1995). He reiterates that “customary international law consists of ‘rules’ and ‘norms,’ written and unwritten, that may or may not find expression in treaties … precisely because of its informal nature that customary law is central to international dialogue; often custom will be on the basis on which to forge ahead in international disagreements in an attempt to find common ground” (MacDonald, 1995). Alexander (1999) postulates, “the articles of the 1982 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) generally support the principles of ecosystem management for living marine resources. Most indications now point toward a general acknowledgement of the benefits of integrated ecosystem management in the world’s oceans and seas.” The objectives of UNCLOS are parallel to those of LME management (Alexander, 1999). Moreover, Cole (2003) asserts that “there have been structural changes in fisheries decision-making, notably a transformation from a state led approach towards multileveled decision-making procedures due to key developments in, inter alia, international law.” Further, she asserts that “there have been considerable shifts in authority dealing with fisheries regulation and a new, distinct, global structure is emerging in essence attributed to globalization” (Cole, 2003).

The European Community has recently enacted reforming legislation for its Member States proscribing a “road map” towards their Common Fisheries Policy. The Council of the European Union, a regional body of Member States, enacted Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 of December 20^th 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (COEU, 2002). This regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. In some respects, the Europeans seem to be in sync with the United States by establishing Regional Advisory Councils (Article 31) to enable fisherfolk and other stakeholders the benefit of providing their local knowledge and experience concerning diverse conditions throughout European Community jurisdictional waters. This appears somewhat analogous to the idea for the creation of nonregulatory regional ocean councils in the U.S. (see Watkins, 2004). Though the European Regional Advisory Councils are not designed to be independent management bodies with the authority to make decisions (Gray and Hatchard, 2003) unlike the eight regional fishery management council’s structure in the U.S.A. that do.

The scope and objectives of EC No. 2371/2002 (Article 2(1)) include the provision to “aim at a progressive implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.” Included here is the “good governance”objective of a “decision-making process based on sound scientific advice which delivers timely results. Broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the Common Fisheries Policy from conception to implementation” is another objective under the “principles of good governance” (Article 2(2)). Specifically, the Regional Advisory Councils were established to “contribute to the objectives of Article 2(1), that is, “ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management” and in particular to advise the European Commission on matters of fisheries management with respect to certain sea areas or fishing zones.

Under the heading “conservation and sustainability, Article 5(3) recovery plans” and Article 6 (3) “management plans” “may cover either fisheries for single stocks or fisheries exploiting a mixture of stocks, and shall take due count of interactions between stocks and fisheries.” Therefore, objectives or aims of the European Commission’s “new” approach to fisheries management refocuses policy towards a long-term view to fostering higher yield sustainable fisheries while moving towards an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. Curiously under Article 3 “definitions,” none was provided for what is meant by an ecosystem-based approach! Though, however, it may be gleaned from the wording above as it relates to both Recovery and Management Plans. Gray and Hatchard, (2003) suggest that for coherence with other European Community environmental policies, the principle of ecosystem management applies to gear regulations under the Common Fisheries Policy.

ECOSYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS: THE FORMULATION
OF A BEST-PRACTICES LME APPROACH

“There is a need to enhance the conservation objectives of fisheries management plans to include explicitly ecosystem considerations.” Internationally, Wagner (2001) affirms that the recent Reykjavik Declaration of Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (October, 2001) includes “ecosystem considerations in fisheries management that provides a framework to enhance management performance.” These “considerations” incorporate increased attention to predator-prey relationships and understanding of the impact of human activities as well as the role of habitat and factors affecting ecosystem stability and resilience, among others (Figure 3). The effects of fishing from an ecosystem perspective, and the effects of environmental change or alterations on fish stocks is one intent in providing the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and other similarly situated regulatory agencies this kind of information[3]. In general, due to data limitations and the lack of breadth and complexity of most single species models, the effects of fishing on ecosystems have not been incorporated into most stock assessments (Livingston, 2001; Figure 4). “ Predation on pelagic fish and squids is an important and large component of the overall dynamics of the North east Shelf Ecosystem. Herring, except at very large sizes (>30cm), seldom grow out of the window of predation by fish over most of their life history” (Overholtz, et al., 1999). “Consumption of pelagic fish and squid by predatory fish appears to equal or exceed landings in most years from 1977-1997.” In the 1990’s, “for herring, consumption also exceeds the current value of MSY for this stock” (Overholtz, et al., 1999).

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) utilizes as ecosystem consideration indicators: physical oceanography indices (e.g., temperature and decadal regime shifts); habitat (e.g., groundfish bottom trawling effort by subregion, closed areas to trawling, and biota bycatch by all gears in habitats of particular concern (HAPC’s)); target groundfish (e.g., total biomass, total catch by subregion, groundfish discards including target species discards, recruitment by subregion); fleet size analogous to humans as a part of the ecosystem (e.g., total number of vessels actually fishing); forage (e.g., forage species such as herring et al., bycatch by subregion); other species (e.g., spiny dogfish, various shark species, jellyfish and prohibited, other, and nonspecified species bycatch example(s) of prohibited bycatch include halibut mortality, herring, crab and salmon species, among others); marine mammals (e.g., seals, sea lions); seabirds (e.g., population trends and bycatch as well as breeding chronology and species productivity); and, aggregate indicators (such as possible regime shifts and trophic level food web catch by subregion). All of these categories come under the rubric of ecosystem considerations (Livingston, 2001) at an LME scale whether in the Gulf of Alaska or the U.S. Northeast Shelf ecosystem (Sherman, 1994; e.g., Giordano, 2003).

Regarding precautionary and conservative catch limits, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) mandates that “all fish caught in any fishery (including bycatch), whether landed or discarded are counted towards the TAC for that stock” (Witherell, et al., 2000). As a further management precautionary approach it is assumed that there is 100 percent mortality for all discards regardless if some fish actually survive. Species are discarded by a fishing vessel because they are either unwanted “economic discards” or they are regulatory “prohibited species” (Witherell, et al., 2000). In the North Pacific, a “best practices” approach institutionalizes that a “comprehensive and mandatory observer programme” requires 100 percent coverage on any vessel more than 49m in length overall (Witherell, et al., 2000). This has been adopted as a “best practice” to provide limits on bycatch and discards, it does not necessarily address “ecosystem concerns” (Witherell, et al., 2000).

Other emerging “best practices” (Figure 5 and Figure 6; see also Sainsbury and Sumaila, 2003) utilized in the American waters of the North Pacific for limits on bycatch and discards include certain gear restrictions, for example, to prevent ghost fishing and reduce bycatch of non target species gillnets for groundfish are prohibited (Witherell, et al., 2000). Further, the NPFMC “adopted an improved retention and utilization programme for all groundfish target fisheries. Beginning in 1998, 100 percent retention of Pollock and Pacific Cod was required, regardless of how or where it was caught” (Witherell, et al., 2000). By 2004, the NPFMC expects that for most regulated species, the discard rate will be about five percent (Witherell, et al., 2000). It is a plausible way to manage commercial fisheries while incorporating, with time, ecosystem considerations.

Ecosystem considerations may also translate to specific concerns in a given LME or subarea. Examples of these concerns may entail harvest rate(s) fishery effects on species composition. Significant differences exist in the rate of harvest of groundfish species in the New England Region. Some are harvested close to their F_abc (acceptable biological catch) levels while other species are taken at variable lower levels. Perhaps some trawl fisheries are constrained by bycatch limitations for prohibited species (e.g., yellowtail flounder) and commercial landings prices for flatfish. As witnessed in the Northeast United States Continental Shelf LME (Sherman, et al., 1996; Sherman and Skjoldal, 2002) shifting or resulting high biomasses of predator species (e.g., dogfish and skates) can have substantial impacts on the trophodynamics of the marine ecosystem and shift the species assemblages. Disproportionate harvest rates require constant analysis for lasting season-to-season implications on the commercial groundfishery. “Fish populations on Georges Bank changed from dominance by commercially important groundfish species to less desirable species such as dogfish and sandlance. Concurrent with a decline in the desirable groundfish from overfishing were increases in pelagics (herring, mackerel) and elasmobranches (spiny dogfish, skates)” (Boehlert, 1996).

Witherell, et al., (2000) emphasize that for the North Pacific, “the basic ecosystem consideration is a precautionary approach to extraction of fish resources.” They suggest that the “precautionary principle was developed over the past 10 years as a policy measure to address sustainability of natural resources in the face of uncertainty” (e.g. Kinzig, et al., 2003; Hilborn, 1987). One of their main hypotheses concerning integrating ecosystem considerations in fisheries management is that “if fisheries are managed sustainably using a precautionary approach, it is likely[4] that the overall ecosystem processes, ecosystem integrity, and biodiversity are also protected to some degree” (Witherell, et al., 2000; see also Figure 7). Witherell (1999) mentions that specific “ecosystem consideration” chapters have been prepared as supplementary information in select annual stock assessment and fishery evaluation reports (e.g.,North Pacific Fishery Management Council documents dated1998 &1999). In addition, the NPFMC established an Ecosystem Committee in 1996 whose mission was to suggest possible ecosystem-oriented approaches into the fishery management process (e.g., hosting workshops, meetings and informal discussions) whereby the Committee utilized the scientific literature to identify elements and prospective principles of ecosystem-oriented management (see Figure 8 and Figure 9; Table 1). Witherell (1999) stresses that the NPFMC and the National Marine Fisheries Service have used a precautionary approach, incorporated as part of ecosystem considerations, by: a) relying on scientific research and advice, b) conservative catch quotas, c) comprehensive monitoring and enforcement, d) bycatch controls, e) habitat conservation areas, and f) additional ecosystem considerations (see Figure 10 and Figure 11; Restrepo, et al., 1999).

Other “considerations” result from the impacts of fishing gear on habitat and ecosystems. From numerous articles on this subject that appear in the open scientific literature, most research appears performed on trawl gear. Though not the focus of this research, bottom trawls, as well as other gear types can alter the benthic structure, sediments and nutrient cycling in certain situations (Witherell et al., 1997). Now internationally banned pelagic drift nets or “ghost fishing” created significant bycatch discard issues as well as marine debris problems. Climatic changes are another “consideration.” Related to oceanic temperature conditions are year class strengths of commercially important species (e.g. Sainsbury et al., 2000). Herring and cod appear to respond favorably with strong year classes with the onset of warm current regimes. Declines in stocks may be seen, however, for other finfish (Witherell, 1998; Mountain, 2002; Fogarty, 2001). More “retrospective”ecosystem change research on this topic might prove valuable when trying to prepare optimal yield (OY) and maximum sustainable yield (MSY) figures from biomass estimates for a commercial species. Witherell (1998) writes about the occurrence on a decadal or longer frequency in the North Pacific Ocean, of shifts between warm and cool periods and the compelling links between ocean conditions and living marine resources production. Significant, rapid and sometimes unexpected changes may be fostered by variable ocean conditions (Skud, 1982; McFarlane, et al., 2000). These shifting oscillations in the ocean are characterized as “regime shifts” (Steele, 1998; see e.g., Figure 12).

The NPFMC also incorporates select marine protected areas (MPA’s) as a tool for managing bycatch and habitat protection as well as time/area closures (e.g., Lubchenko, et al., 2003; Botsford, et al., 2003; Hastings and Botsford, 2003; Carr, 2000). Agardy (2000) reckons in regard to MPA’s that “the ideal situation seems to be establishment of closed areas within the context of a larger multiple use protected area such as a coastal biosphere reserve, marine sanctuary (as in the U.S.), or other large scale MPA.” She does hypothesize, however, that “closures having a scientific basis may be viewed by the fishing community as exclusionary practices that are somehow rooted in social discrimination.” She also mentions “the spatial dispersal of the harvesting sector is just as important to the health and character of the ecosystem as biological dispersal processes, virtually all analysis of marine reserves ignores the inevitable response of the harvesting sector to closures” (Agardy, 2000; see also Agardy, et al., 2003).

Other ecosystem-oriented management approaches include the NPFMC’s adopted regulation prohibiting a directed fishery for select forage fish that are found to be important prey for higher trophic level species (such as groundfish) (Witherell, et al., 2000). These authors discuss continuing progress towards ecosystem-based management that the NPFMC is trying to fulfill. A draft approach for introducing ecosystem-oriented management for the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME (see Figure 8 and Figure 9) has been crafted to foster dialogue. The approach is grounded in elements and principles of ecosystem-based management identified in the scientific literature. The approach provides a prospective definition for fisheries ecosystem-based management as well as a presentation on objectives, goals, guidelines, assumptions and understanding (see also Witherell, 1999). A “mission statement” of an agency, as it relates to ecosystem considerations, also would be an important component of an emerging policy (see: Lynch, et al., 1999).

THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH AND BEST PRACTICES

Apollonio (1994) mentioned, “any community of fish species is part of a larger marine ecosystem.” The ecosystem concept necessitates that all components cannot be maximized simultaneously. Apollonio (1994) adds “that variability in fisheries population biomass increase as fishing mortality (F) increases toward the fishing mortality at MSY (F_msy).” The New England experience indicates that “as the high-value species have been fished down, increasing attention has been focused on species of lower value, such as squid” and dogfish (Apollonio, 1994). Sutinen (1999) has uncovered, “fisheries harvesting multiple species are expected to be more difficult and costly to manage than single species fisheries. This expectation is supported in the evidence, with a high proportion of multispecies groundfish fisheries experiencing poor resource conservation and economic performance” (see Figure 13). Therefore, it is important to consider fiscal resources needed to adequately address additional information needs related to ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Sainsbury and Sumaila (2003) proffer that best practice management of combined effects of all users achieved through integrated management of appropriately defined local ecosystems. They suggest that their listing of potential “best practice reference points” and components “provide a starting point to accommodate ecosystem considerations in fisheries management and that evolving substantially in the near future will be best practice reference points including those related to LME’s concerning effects of nonfishery uses on the marine environment” (Sherman and Duda, 1999a&b; Table 2; Figure 5; see also e.g. Vandermeulen, 1998).

Ward (2000) identified “gaps and uncertainties” in the process of deriving his draft key marine ecosystem sustainability indicators. These included problems with (a) limited ecological knowledge; (b) limited scientific understanding of credible cause-effect environmental issues; (c) resolving capacity of monitoring system data capture and analysis processes; (d) the synthesis and aggregation of data; (e) implementation issues (case study trials, reference sites, interpretive models); and (f) adapting and revising sustainability indicators. “Indicators focused mainly on inputs such as financial or human resources, input loads of pollutants, size of human population or on outputs, such as number of permits, size of quota, or number of areas brought under formal management (e.g. MPA) are unlikely to be suitably robust” (Ward, 2000). “Outcome-based indicators are crucial components of any effective management system, and are needed for compliance with ISO 14001 (International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland) ‘best practice’ and international standards for environmental management” (Ward, 2000). Similarly, Villa and McLeod (2002) point out that “no rigorous experimental testing of vulnerability estimates is possible given our current state of knowledge of the structure and functions of the environment.” These authors support the view of ecosystem integrity as “the maintenance of the community structure and function characteristic of a particular locale deemed satisfactory to society” (Villa and McLeod, 2002).

One way that fishery management practitioners may bring to bear a “precautionary approach” in their work, and a recommended management action provided here, is by agreeing to voluntary environmental standards that provide value to business and other operations. Thus, the ISO 14000 family of international Standards on environmental management supports the objective of “sustainable development” (e.g., Table 3) of a wide-ranging portfolio of standardized methods that provides business entities and government with best available scientifically valid data on the environmental effects of economic activity; a precursor to the technical basis for environmental (fishery) regulations. The ISO 14000 Series, first printed in September of 1996, meets the needs and concerns of those interested in the environmental management of organizations. Specifically, the ISO 14000 family of Standards is comprised of a systematic approach of documents related to environmental management systems (EMS; i.e., ISO 14001 and ISO 14004) and procedures and documents related to environmental management tools, such as EMS audits and environmental performance evaluations. In the issue at hand, for example, how much is “allowable” discard and bycatch in a given fishery? The former Chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council proclaims, “we have not been able to adequately calculate bycatch in most of our fisheries because of the lack of information or the funds to collect it” (Hill, 2002). Careful consideration will need to be given to the scientific and financial commitment required to introduce ecosystem-based fisheries management of the Northeast Shelf Ecosystem.

Thus, establishment and implementation of an organization’s environmental and ecological based management system is central in ascertaining its ecosystem policy, objectives, and targets providing a benchmark frame of reference for continuous adjustment and improvement of environmental performance. Tools for environmental management exist to assist the organization in fostering and promoting its ecologically oriented policy, objectives and targets. The ISO 14000 compliance standards are practical tools for the manager (boat captain; fishery permit holder, regulator, etc.) who isn’t satisfied with compliance to legislation and directives, they’re for the proactive organization providing a strategic approach to conducting, implementing and evaluating environment and ecosystem-related measures that can bring a sustainable return on investment. Under ISO 14001, the fishing and public administration sectors have their own codes. Sainsbury, et al., (2000) also depict the ISO 14000 standards as important operational strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. More information on ISO 14000 EMS usage in the private sector is found in Coglianese and Nash (2002 & 2001). Therefore, adoption of ISO 14000 compliance standards appear compatible to a sustainable “precautionary approach” paradigm.

Dovers and Handmer (1995) provide one salient definition for on-the-ground usage of the precautionary principle (approach) “where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental (ecological) degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment (ecosystem), and (ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.” These authors suggest that other elemental themes for the precautionary principle may be found in the open literature. Two salient interpretations may be added for LME usage through the following commentary: (iii) “the precautionary principle recommends an anticipatory or preventive approach rather than a defensive one which simply reacts to environmental (ecological) damage when it becomes apparent; and (iv) uncertainty as to the severity of the environmental impacts resulting from a development decision or an ongoing human activity should not be an excuse to avoid or delay environmental protection measures” (Dovers and Handmer, 1995). These authors also address the issue of the “shifting burden of proof” towards those proposing a possible harmful action rather than those advocating environmental (ecological) protection, such as designated stewardship agencies. Similar in nature to the philosophy of these authors, this manuscript presents a view believing that the “shifting burden of proof” conundrum is “beyond official definitions of the precautionary principle” (Dovers and Handmer, 1995) and workable on-the-ground reality considering democratic governmental sectoral regulation(s) especially when considering the overall scale and scope of an LME setting.

It should be noted that the “shifting burden of proof” is neither a goal nor objective of an LME approach to living marine resources sustainability. Another view of the “precautionary principle” (approach) is an “idea that speaks to the interest of maintaining the integrity of complex ecosystems and their dynamics” while taking into accord “the great number of fisheries today depleted or threatened with commercial crashes” (Scheiber, 1997). In order to facilitate better sustainable governance of the oceans and its attendant living resources, Costanza et al. (1998), posit their viewpoint, with respect to fisheries, even under controlled access, management decisions are often made at scales that do not consider all sources of ecological information. They also suggest that management fails to consider public owners relying instead to focus on user groups. They say this has led to fishery management decisions that encompass more risk than caution. MacDonald (1995) does proffer, however, that two international arrangements that may formalize the strictest interpretation of the precautionary principle (including that of the shifting burden of proof) despite scientific uncertainties are the protection of the ozone layer found in the Montreal Protocol of 1988, and decisions prohibiting certain whaling practices implemented through the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Most other documents encompass non-binding agreements like the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Rio Conference (UNCED) declaration(s).

Gerrodette et al. (2002) mention with “regard to the standards of proof required that must be met” (e.g., Charles, 2002) “it would be impossible to demonstrate ‘no harm’ given the large uncertainties in making any predictions about marine ecosystems.” “A basic feature of any precautionary or risk-averse approach to natural resource management is that the less certain we are about the effects of an action, the more cautious we should be. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act National Standards Guidelines clearly say so. ‘Criteria used to set target catch levels should be explicitly risk averse, so that greater uncertainty regarding the status or productive capacity of a stock or stock complex corresponds to greater caution in setting target catch levels’” [50 CFR 600.310 (f) (5) (iii)] (Gerrodette, et al., 2002). These authors advocate, “for current U.S. fishery management precautionary buffers (the difference between targets and limits) should therefore be a positive function of uncertainty.”

Charles (2002) states “with regard to the impact of fishing gear on the ocean habitat the key issue is whether a conservation rationale exists to favor one technology over another.” He mentions that the traditional status quo approach is treating all fishing gears equivalently. Charles (2002) also brings to light the problematic issues surrounding, if, when, and how fishing areas and closed targeted fisheries will reopen to fisherfolk. He suggests that one “robust management” policy measure includes adaptive management “involving suitable monitoring processes, integration of knowledge (notably traditional ecological knowledge and fisher knowledge), and mechanisms for incorporating new information, so management actions can be reassessed as needed to adapt to unexpected circumstances, to avoid compromising conservation goals”(Charles, 2002). Holling (1996) proffers, “in adaptive management, policies are designed as hypotheses and management implemented as experiments to test those hypotheses”with “consequences of the (management) actions potentially reversible and that the experimenter learns from the experiment (see also Figure 14). In another view, Lackey (1997) asserts that the “hypothesis testing approach works well in research for narrow, mechanistic questions in science, but not for more complex and typical research and policy questions.” Despite the foregoing commentary regarding hypothesis testing, the present problems in commercial fishery catch are unsustainable from season to season and from species to species. The culprit for this fishery unsustainability is pointed at “overfishing (e.g., Figure 15) or inefficient harvesting” (e.g., Repetto, 2001).

Gislason et al., (2000) mention, however, “the power to detect indirect effects of fishing in marine ecosystems is low, and therefore some such impacts may be masked.” They further state, “it is often difficult to separate out the effects of fishing from other anthropogenic influences (e.g., pollution, habitat modification) and from natural environmental variability this is particularly the case in nearshore ecosystems” (Gislason et al., 2000). Willmann and Insull (1993) conclude that environmental changes brought about in other sectors seemingly unrelated to fisheries can result in concomitant loss of fish habitat and water quality deterioration, “for example, land-based pollution providing a toxic effect on fish.” Thus, they suggest that coastal fisheries management ought to encompass other sectors into integrated policy making. Much research indicates, however, that present global exploitation patterns (as well as regional) do not necessarily employ a precautionary approach and are consequently unsustainable (Pauly, et al., 2002; Pauly et al., 2000; Pauly et al., 1998).

Akin to adaptive management is the policy orientation framework or cycle (Gable, 2003). Using science in adaptive management necessitates providing explicit expectations of the outcome of policies in order for designing methods to measure their effectiveness. It also involves collection and analysis of data so that the actual outcomes can be compared with hypothesized expectations. Berkes et al. (2000) suggest that adaptive management “may be viewed as the scientific analogue of traditional ecological knowledge because of its integration of uncertainty into management strategies and its emphasis on practices that confer resilience. Adaptive management emphasizes processes including resource uses that are part of ecological cycles of renewability.”

Costanza et al. (1998) subscribe to the paradigm of “adaptive management” that includes cross-disciplinary stakeholder groups, and intergenerational considerations wherein uncertainty is acknowledged as a core principle (Figure 16). They state that “precaution” is already well accepted in the international community where decisions concerning the use of marine living resources incorporate uncertainty about potentially irreversible environmental impacts, and thus are risk-averse. Adaptive management as defined by Grumbine (1994) “assumes that scientific knowledge is provisional and focuses on management as a learning process or continuous experiment where incorporating the results of previous actions allows managers to remain flexible and adapt to uncertainty.” Christensen et al. (1996) subscribe to a definition of adaptive management that to manage resources sustainably in an environment of uncertainty it is a process that combines democratic principles, scientific analysis, education, and institutional learning (see also Table 2). Both definitions are analogous to the policy orientation concept (Lasswell, 1951).

Richards and Maguire (1998) profess that the “precautionary approach is now embodied in several international agreements, including the United Nations Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement and the voluntary FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Article 6 of the “Straddling Stocks” Agreement, which was ratified by the requisite number of countries as of December 11^th 2001, and thus incorporated into the Law of the Sea Treaty, provides “the essence of the precautionary approach whereby ‘States shall be more cautious when information uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures’ and improved methods are required for dealing with risk and uncertainty” (Richards and Maguire, 1998).

Stock-specific reference points provide the principle mechanism for applying the precautionary approach for harvest management strategies for developed fisheries. The “Straddling Stocks” Agreement, in Article 6, provides that signatory States “shall determine, on the basis of the best scientific information available, stock-specific reference points and the action to be taken if they are exceeded. Two types of reference points are identified: limit reference points set boundaries which are intended to constrain harvesting within safe biological limits within which the stocks can produce maximum sustainable yield while target reference points are intended to meet management objectives” (Richards and Maguire, 1998). “Reference points have been generally defined in terms of the fishing mortality rate F and expressed as targets rather than limits. Although reference points have been applied mainly in the context of biological science, economic or social reference points could and should also be developed and adopted” (Richards and Maguire, 1998).

“The Straddling Stocks Agreement clearly specifies F_msy, the fishing mortality that can produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY), as a limit reference point that should not be exceeded. In addition, B_msy, the biomass that can yield the long-term average MSY on application of F_msy, is suggested as a rebuilding target for overfished stocks a specific limit reference point for stock biomass is not defined. However, given F_msy, as a limit reference point, B_msy could also be interpreted as a limit reference point” (Richards and Maguire, 1998; see also Restrepo, et al., 1999). “The question of appropriate reference points for a variable environment has received limited scientific attention to date (Richards and Maguire, 1998). Hollowed et al. (2000) found that for Georges Bank harvest strategies “it was impossible to derive a single fixed value for F_msy.” Decadal variability can lead to abrupt changes suggesting evidence for “environmental forcing is strong in most marine systems” (see Figure 12).

Regarding implementing the precautionary principle (approach) through limit reference points is, “they allow specification of simple quantitative objectives with measurable criteria for determining whether they are met. This is essential for practical (workable) fisheries management” (Hall, 1999) and, “such reference points typically will need to be set for localized regions.” Hall, (1999) hypothesizes that when science “uses multispecies fisheries models to help derive suitable reference points for management, they are almost always more conservative more precautionary than the conclusions one draws using only single species models.” Hall suggests that more promising system level reference points for medium-term performance measures may be the trophic status or size structure of the catch these could be equated to “ecosystem health and integrity.” In principle, simpler to understand, augment and implement are traditional single species management approaches of target and non-target reference points. Thus, the reference point characteristically retains the capacity for proper regulatory performance measures according to Hall, (1999; but see: Sutinen, et al., 2000). Basically, “the status of an ecosystem can be assessed” according to Link, et al. (2002) and that it is “not novel to assess the status of single species fish stocks.” For the assessment and management of “large marine ecosystems,” lessons from single species stock assessment, environmental impact assessment (EIA), and ecological risk assessment tools and procedures provide appropriate management decision criteria (Link et al., 2002). Indeed, May et al. (1979) found, “MSY cannot serve as a guide when applied to each species individually” especially since many harvested species have robust interactions.

“It is time to propose a wider range of conservation and ecosystem objectives for fisheries management, as well as corresponding indicators and reference points that trigger management action. The reference points for a fishing plan could be the total permissible bycatch level of the species at risk” (Gislason, et al., 2000). “The indicators for directly impacted species (target and bycatch species) are well established. They include, for example, measure for exploitation rate (using size and age structure changes), spawning stock biomass and geographic distribution. Reference points for forage species (such as herring) may include consideration of prey requirements in addition to spawning stock biomass requirements for safeguarding recruitment”(Gislason, et al., 2000).

For fisheries management, “tools to achieve ecosystem objectives gear restrictions, closed areas and seasons, including MPA’s, quotas and bycatch limits and restrictions on days-at-sea, are the same as those already in use to achieve single species related conservation objectives” (Gislason, et al., 2000). These are also referred to as input output controls and technical measures. “The similarity between single-species fisheries management and an eco system approach should not come as a surprise” (Sissenwine and Mace, 2003; Figure 17). “Fisheries management science refers to the broad integration of fisheries science, fisheries management and management science.” “The development of fisheries management science incorporates biological, ecological, economic, social and political aspects. Currently, the scientific field is dominated by the biological sciences” (Richards and Maguire, 1998). The use of a policy orientation approach to LME oriented fisheries management is somewhat analogous and would in corporate the disciplinary subdivisions listed above (see: Gable, 2003; Clark, 1992).

Restrepo et al. (1999; see Figure 10 and Figure 11) helps to “succinctly” define a version of the precautionary approach whereby “in fisheries, the precautionary approach is about applying judicious and responsible fisheries management practices, based on sound scientific research and analysis, proactively (to avoid or reverse overexploitation) rather than reactively (once all doubt has been removed and the resource is severely overexploited) to ensure the sustainability of fishery resources and associated ecosystems for the benefit of future as well as current generations.” These authors also suggest that the precautionary approach can be categorized into fisheries research, fisheries management and fisheries technology. Considering if the precautionary principle is science based, “international environmental policy ultimately relies on scientific evidence to identify issues of concern and, of course, ‘scientific evidence is rarely, if ever, absolute’” (MacDonald, 1995).

MacDonald (1995) emphasizes that with “respect to fisheries management, the risk of management error can never be completely eradicated. Scientific uncertainty is the accepted norm in fisheries management. A zero risk strategy would imply no development at all. A strategy hardly viable.” Restrepo et al. (1999) proffer that the “basic idea of using reference points in a precautionary approach to fisheries management is that targets should be set sufficiently below limits so that the limits will be avoided with high probability and targets will be attained on average.” Domestically the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 “redefined optimum yield to be no greater than maximum sustainable yield. The new definition of optimum yield also included the protection of marine ecosystems as a national benefit to be considered in setting targets.” These authors argue that “conservation constraints should be met before other objectives” under the precautionary approach. Young (2003) cautions, however, “applications of the precautionary principle can be expected to lead to lowering of total allowable catches. Carried to extremes, the precautionary principle can become a weapon in the hands of those who wish to terminate consumptive uses of living resources, regardless of the consequences for human welfare.” He then suggests that this situation has already transpired within the aegis of the International Whaling Commission.

MacDonald (1995) emphasizes that the precautionary principle “is not a scientific risk assessment device and should not be recognized as such it is principally applied for its value-laden character. It is up to the policymaker to determine how to apply the principle. In fisheries management a flexible precautionary principle clearly is needed.” Domestically in the United States the turtle excluder device (TED) employed in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries, “though at the time not labeled a ‘precautionary approach,’” may be just that kind of sustainable fisheries policy measure or tool. “The precautionary principle is not yet recognized as accepted customary law” (MacDonald, 1995), but it is appears to be heading that way during the last decade or so (see e.g., Belsky, 1989).

Presently, there is a proposed Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Precautionary Approach Frame work that places an emphasis on risk analyses for selected stocks employing fishing mortality and stock biomass reference points “security margins” (F_buf and B_buf) whereby the “more uncertain the stock assessment, the greater the buffer (F_buf & B_buf) should be” (NAFO, 2003). In effect, in the Northeast United States Continental Shelf LME fisheries managers have already established zoning areas for fisheries management. As described in several United Nations agreements (e.g. Annex II of the UN Straddling Stocks Agreement to which the United States is a signatory) F_lim equals F_msy because “F_msy as a limit is in conformance” with the prescribed precautionary approach. In the September 2003 adopted “Precautionary Approach” framework NAFO points out that “fishing somewhat below F_msy results in a relatively small loss in average catch, but a large increase in average biomass (which, in turn, results in a decreased risk to the fish stock, and increase in Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), and a decrease in the costs of fishing).” There is now consideration of multispecies situations with the desirability for a stable as possible total allowable catches (TAC’s). That is, the NAFO Scientific Council adopted a precautionary approach that takes into account concerns expressed by fisheries managers. For example, F_msy has been recommended as a positive “first step towards ecosystem-based management” objectives ensuring that no principle fish stock is “fished harder than the single species.” NAFO, (2003) states, “ecosystem-based management will likely require even more conservative fishing mortality targets than ‘traditional’ single-species management.” This precautionary approach may also include a de-emphasis of B_msy that attempts to avoid the impossible problem of “maintaining all stocks in a multispecies assemblage simultaneously at their respective single-species B_msy.”

Among the precautionary management measures placed on the table by Caddy (1999), he suggests that “several simple size-based (fishery) reference points should be formulated assuming that a precautionary approach oriented fishery should allow for species to spawn at least once in life history.” He adds that “a precautionary reference point is one allowing the cohort a reasonable probability of spawning at least once before capture, and this criterion can be used to test other F-based reference points for their conformity -- with this principle those reference points or indices are not easily intercalibrated.” See also Caddy (1999) for a review of his “traffic light” approach for employing graduated precautionary management responses in fisheries policy.

Restrepo and Powers (1999) discuss the United States NOAA/NMFS utilized strategy of control rules (CR). Following on the preceding discussion(s), some control rules, that is, fishing mortality (F), should be altered depending on the spawning biomass of the resource (B). They suggest control rules to mean a description of a variable by which managers have some direct control as a function of some other variable related to the resource (i.e., F & B). They employ a “precautionary control rule default target optimum yield (OY) consisting of setting the TAC target F (mortality) 25 percent below the limit (F_lim) or also referred to as the “maximum fishing mortality threshold” (Restrepo and Powers, 1999).

Darcy and Matlock (1999) state that with regard to the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104297) or its predecessor Magnuson-Stevens Act of twenty years earlier, that Congress did not use the term ‘precautionary approach’ anywhere. They go on to mention, however, that the drafters of the National Standard Guidelines (found in the Federal Register; the MSFCMA requires, at section 301(b)), the Secretary of Commerce, through the Undersecretary of Oceans and Atmospheres, establish advisory “guidelines” based on the ten National Standards (see Table 4). The MSFCMA does not, however, explicitly mention, “control rules” to be promulgated as “guidelines.” These authors suggest that the precautionary approach is implicit in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and explicit in the “guidelines” prepared for National Standard 1 to prevent overfishing. Hsu and Wilen (1997) assert that the Sustainable Fisheries Act Standards do effectively “provide directives that are consistent with broad conservation goals and sensible ecosystem management.”

Considering the 10 National Standards in the Act, Hill (2002) comments that “avoiding or reducing significant social and economic impacts on communities dependent on access to the fishery, which is under a rebuilding program is impossible...There are inherent competing interests between the varying Standards depending on the perspective one might hold. This has inevitably led to lawsuits... as to whether the Council has properly complied with the law.” As a policy alternative, both Goethel (2002) and Hill (2002) suggest that they would have “Congress qualify or rank the 10 National Standards in order of importance.” An in place ISO-14000 environmental management system would afford organizations the tools to carry out such a task themselves, and to amend it using the steps in the policy orientation process (Table 5 and Table 6; see also Figure 18 & Figure 19) as appropriate.

Rosenberg (2002) discusses control rules stating they “essentially relate management action to control the fishing mortality rate to the status of the resource in terms of biomass or some other measure. A control rule provides a framework for pre-agreed management actions as called for in the precautionary approach. Uncertainty in the status of the resource can be included explicitly through the specification of management targets to be achieved on average and management thresholds that should never be exceeded.” “Control rules leave little room for negotiation and consideration of issues such as (stock) rebuilding timeframes and allocation between States, groups or gear types” (Rosenberg, 2002). Generally, these were designed by marine scientists before the managers had provided any precautionary management systems of their own. Indeed those described in Rosenberg (2002), for example, have subsequently not been adopted by the regional international community because of concerns expressed by the managers (see NAFO, 2003). Perhaps the marine scientists got a bit ahead of themselves. Thus, Rosenberg (2002) concludes that “the mechanistic approach of control rules to implementation of precautionary management may be hindering agreement on conservation restrictions, simply because it leaves so little room for negotiation.”

Concerning the implementation of the precautionary approach domestically, Rosenberg (2002) indicates, “the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 carries forward many of the ideas of the precautionary approach with regard to preventing overfishing, the use of reference points, reducing bycatch and protecting habitat.” And, “the burden of proof continues to be on managers to prove that restrictive measures are essential rather than to show that harvesting can be safely allowed.” Therefore, reference points to establish targets or thresholds for defining overfishing is a tool used to implement precautionary management in the USA, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) remains as a standard reference point. Garcia, (1994) theorizes, “in a way, the MSY could be considered a measure of the maximum assimilative capacity of the stock” (Table 7). “The need to reduce fishing pressure has resulted in (control) rules that do not allow fishers to shift from one fishery to another as easily as in the past” (Rosenberg, 2002). Thus, the need for an LME ecosystem-based approach to living resources biomass allocation in an adaptive management environment is necessary to foster sustainable yields. Rosenberg (2002) laments “as Regional Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, I found it hard to understand all the rules and changes, and the fishermen certainly found it equally hard.”⁵

Garcia (1994) suggests that the precautionary principle refers to “the ‘hard line’ rule proposed for management of highly polluting activities. The ‘approaches’ refers to the practical ways and sets of measures which are precautionary in nature but may lead to more realistic application in fisheries.” “The burden of proof is traditionally on research and management with the rare exceptions where scientific work has been used to limit the development programmes on new fisheries” (Garcia, 1994). Internationally, “the precautionary principle requires nations to take preventive or corrective action even in the absence of sufficient scientific evidence of a causal link between a suspected factor and the adverse effects observed” (Garcia, 1994; Table 8). Thus, the United States in adopting the original Magnuson-Stevens Act enacted a precautionary action by restricting distant water fishing fleets from within the 200 nautical mile (pre-EEZ) fisheries zone.

Garcia (1994) believes, “although U.N. General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, they can have enormous political significance” noting their resolutions in the early 1990’s on ‘large-scale pelagic driftnets.” “A U.N. General Assembly resolution may have an effect wider than that of a recommendation (its legal status) in revealing what State practice is, or pointing to what States might be willing to accept.” He also indicates that the “precautionary principle” is no more than a nonbinding norm, operating within the framework of particular agreements, but it “may be on its way to becoming part of customary international law” (see also Belsky, 1985). Richards and Maguire (1998) hold that the precautionary approach is acquiring acceptance as a basis for fishery management.” Further, they maintain, on page 1546 of their article, “that regardless of the extent to which uncertainties can be quantified,” precaution dictates a different philosophical and practical approach to “fisheries management science.” MacDonald (1995) cautions, however, that a more flexible “approach” is required with respect to fishery management and that a steadfast “principle” (or rule) cannot be applied in all management realms.

In a more up-to-date synopsis, the European Community on December 20^th, 2002, regarding the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (Council Regulation LEC No. 2371/2002, noted in the Official Journal of the European Communities dated 31/12/2002, this regulation entered into force on January 1^st, 2003) has adopted objectives embraced by plurality by the Member States Community. They “shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures de signed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimize the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. It should aim at a progressive implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management”…, etc. (Article 2 (1)). Article 3 (i) provides a description of the “precautionary approach to fisheries management means that the absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and nontarget species and their environment. Precautionary reference points are biological reference points and are designed to mark the boundary between acceptable risks and unacceptable risks.”

Further, Article 5 (3) and Article 6 (3) requires that “recovery plans and management plans,” respectively, should be drawn up on the basis of the precautionary approach, and, Article 6 (2) shall include conservation reference points, which under Article 3 (k) “means values of fish stock population parameters (such as biomass or fishing mortality rate) used in fisheries management, for example, with respect to an acceptable level of biological risk or desired level of yield.” Three types of reference points are typically considered including limit reference points (“means values of fish stock population parameters such as biomass or fishing mortality rate) which should be avoided because they are associated with unknown population dynamics, stock collapse or impaired recruitment (Art. 3 (j)), precautionary or buffer reference points and target reference points. Thus, a precautionary approach has been linked to best practices for living marine resource capture and exploitation actions and it is therefore incumbent upon countries to apply it through customary international law and practice.

To Sissenwine and Mace (2003) the “precautionary approach means that, when in doubt, err on the side of conservation.” Further, they state that “an ecosystem approach for responsible fisheries management requires taking into account trophic interactions in a precautionary fishing mortality rate strategy” which they define “is geographically specified fisheries management that takes account of knowledge and uncertainties about, and among, biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems, and strives to balance diverse societal objectives” (see also Figure 17). Sissenwine and Mace (2003) believe, “fisheries ecosystem plans (FEP) are useful vehicles for designing and implementing an ecosystem approach to responsible fisheries management.” They list three key elements to consider in developing FEP’s including (a) ocean zoning concepts; (b) specificity while authorizing fishing activities; and (c) hierarchical decision-making processes. Sissenwine and Mace (2003) suggest the creation of a new profession of fisheries and ecosystem practitioners that provide salient scientific advice.

Regarding responsible fisheries, Sinclair and Valdimarsson (2003) state “fish has become the most internationally traded food, as some 37 percent (by quantity) of all fish for human consumption is traded across borders.” Related to the situation of governance for responsible domestic or international marine fisheries, Sinclair and Valdimarsson (2003) lament, “there is no complete global inventory of fisheries management systems and approaches, whether at the level of countries, stocks or fisheries.” They go on to state, “several of the 31 regional fishery bodies (across the globe) implement policies based on total allowable catch (TAC) and national quotas… these approaches are complemented by a series of technical measures, including power and size regulation of vessels; size and mesh dimensions for gear; closed/open seasons/areas for fishing time encompassing effort ceilings; and catch characteristics involving minimum landing size, licensing schemes and stage of maturity/age characteristics.” A movement towards ecosystem-oriented fishery management may heighten the urgency for addressing rights-based and limited access regimes (Sinclair and Valdimarsson, 2003; Sutinen at al., 2000).

Sinclair and Valdimarrson (2003) argue, “a first step in moving towards ecosystem-based fishery management is to identify and describe the different ecosystems and their boundaries, and then to consider each as a discrete entity for the purposes of management. Thereafter, ecosystem management objectives must be developed. The central objective of ecosystem-based fishery management is to obtain optimal benefits from all marine ecosystems in a sustainable manner.” These authors, on page 401 of their paper, suggest, “once the objectives have been identified and agreed upon, it is necessary to establish appropriate reference points and/or sustainability indicators… which must be based on the best scientific evidence available” (see Figure 21). The general principles utilized in conventional single-species management will still apply regarding achieving objectives in suitable ecosystem-based fisheries management strategies. Degnbol (2002; Table 9) ascertains that a “reference point connects management action and outcomes; the reference point is the yardstick by which it is measured whether management has achieved its objectives and which indicates the direction for future management action.” Sinclair and Valdimarsson (2003) claim that responsible fisheries invoke an “emphasis on application of the precautionary approach as central to ecosystem-based fisheries management” along with “assessing impact(s) of climate change.”

Concerning the objectives for ecosystem approaches to fisheries management, Degnbol (2002) finds that unclear concepts reflect unresolved conflicts and that “the real challenge of ecosystem-based fisheries management is the implementation” stage. Degnbol (2002) asserts, “effective capacity reduction supplemented with measures to reduce habitat damage from fishing gear and to protect sensitive habitats may address most ecosystem concerns without requirements for detailed tracking of all interactions and addressing of all issues separately.” Some practical obstacles to implementing ecosystem-based management include “defining the management unit, developing understanding and creating planning and management frameworks” (Slocombe, 1993). Defining new management units, such as an LME, is a critical step. It may be a “prerequisite for other steps toward ecosystem-based management. Oftentimes it may be best to just transcend existing administrative boundaries and management units” (Slocombe, 1993). Slocombe (1993) suggests, “the wide popularity of sustainable development is also becoming a major catalyst for ecosystem-based management. Cooperative management, management responses to complex demands and pressures, and protected areas are thought to be three common origins of ecosystem-based management” (Figure 22).

In terms of developing understanding, “natural science information alone is not enough, if the goal is management of an entire watershed or (large marine) ecosystem. The management unit includes people, their social and economic activities, and their shared and individual beliefs” (Slocombe, 1993). In the marine environment, as a basis for future planning and management, “synthesis or existing information may be eminently useful in terms of developing understanding” (Slocombe, 1993). On page 621 of his paper, Slocombe states, “initial research priorities in most areas would be gathering and reviewing existing information, identifying and filling gaps, and integrating it.” Holistic interdisciplinary study of ecosystems gained impetus in the 1970’s from the UNESCO Man and Biosphere programs (including the marine biosphere reserve concept mentioned earlier; see: Kenchington and Agardy, 1990; Slocombe, 1993).

Slocombe, (1998) describes desirable characteristics of goals as those that should be broad and generally agreed upon, with a degree of normative implication and reflection of specific values and limits, whereas “objectives are the specific doable tasks needed to achieve the goal(s)” (see Figure 23 and Figure 24). “Targets are readily observable, usually quantifiable, events or characteristics that can be aimed for as part of a goal or objective. Targets are a subset of the broad set of indicators, which are a priori identified system characteristics that can provide feedback on progress toward goals and objectives. Criteria are specific targets, of ten thresholds, that indicate when explicit, normative goals and objectives have been met” (Slocombe, 1998). “At a minimum, goals and objectives that address the biophysical environment and socioeconomic community in terms of structure, function, and process at an integrated ecosystem level are best” (Slocombe, 1998).

Garcia and Staples (2000; see Table 10) state that a criteria is “an attribute of the sustainability information system in relation to which indicators and reference points (targets) may be elaborated.” These authors provide examples suggesting that revenue is a criteria related to the well-being of humans in the fishery, spawning biomass is a criteria related to the well-being of the stock and fishing capacity is a criteria related to fishing pressure. “A reference point indicates a particular state of a fisheries indicator corresponding to a situation considered as desirable (Target Reference Point, TRP), or undesirable and requiring immediate action”(Limit Reference Points, LRP, and Threshold Reference Point, ThRP; Garcia and Staples, 2000).

McGlade (2001) suggests that governance is a social function whose success is vital to our future viability; it centers on the management of complex interdependencies among individuals, corporations, interest groups, and public agencies who are engaged in interactive decision-making taking actions that affect each other’s welfare.” While the scientific basis for fisheries management is traditionally built around a series of models, the majority of which are aimed at single species, they are all “focused on the biological aspects of commercially important fish stocks rather than their status within the marine ecosystem or the marketplace” (McGlade, 2001). McGlade (2001) emphasizes, “by placing such a strong emphasis on the biological rather than human or economic aspects of fisheries and by concentrating only on commercially important species, fisheries managers have not succeeded in generating effective governance of fisheries or policies.” She states that in activities such as fisheries, where direct scientific evidence is generally missing… “the concept of an expert as part of the system of governance has to be broadened to include those who have particular knowledge about a system” (McGlade, 2001; see also Figure 25). McGlade (2001) suggests, “the effectiveness of any form of governance depends on good communication, coordination, and integration between the various institutions, users, and beneficiaries. Time and again the importance of this has been underestimated in fisheries, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and skepticism about the ways and forms of intervention in management.” International conventions, such as the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols, are often about the need to identify what the problem actually is and what opportunities exist for solving it” (McGlade, 2001).

“In many instances where responsible participation by stakeholders has been the paradigm for ocean resource governance, such as regional fishery management councils in the U.S., self-interests have overshadowed scientific assessments leading to unsustainable exploitation of the resources” (Boesch, 1999; see also Hanna, 1999; Figure 26). Regarding the precautionary principle, fundamentally it has its basis in policy not science. Scientific information is often marginalized or overwhelmed because of the dominance of economic ratcheting in fishery management decisions (Boesch, 1999; Ludwig, et al., 1993; see also Hennessey and Healey, 2000; Hanna, 1999). “Scientists should also have a better understanding of the policy-making process and the different roles they may play in the adaptive cycles linking crisis identification, weighing alternatives and the evaluation of implementation” (Boesch, 1999). Interdisciplinary science employing “ecosystem considerations” along with developing local and regional institutions and frameworks that can integrate scientific information into socioeconomic and political decisions are needed (Boesch, 1999; Botsford, et al., 1997). Concerning global climate change, there are likely to be many additional consequences to marine environments, resources and their governance. Science will be increasingly challenged by governance to forecast and predict short- and long-term effects and develop means to cope (Boesch, 1999).

“Fishery governance as currently constructed is incompletely designed variable in multicomponent fishery systems. Instead of accounting for the multiplicity of ecosystem goods and services, it narrowly focuses on single species commodity production” (Hanna, 1999). In fisheries, the overwhelming characteristic of the environment is variability (Hanna, 1999). Regarding governance issues, “great uncertainty exists about the distributional consequences of new forms of property rights such as individual transferable quotas” (Hanna, 1999). “Moving to ecosystem management requires an explicit consideration of multiple objectives not only for the production of commodity species but also for the protection of species that provide ecosystem services” (Hanna, 1999). “In some cases, fishery users are being given more responsibility for management without the corresponding transfer of skills related to information gathering and presentation, critical assessment or negotiation” (Hanna, 1999). Imperial (1999) asserts that ecosystem-oriented management “needs to develop low-cost mechanisms to facilitate communication, make decisions, and resolve conflicts between scientists, agency officials, interest groups, and the public in order to minimize information asymmetries (e.g., Figure 27). This may be one reason why many ecosystem-based management programs utilize collaborative approaches to decision-making.” “Like many other government programs, ecosystem-based management is the result of an evolutionary process of experimentation, goal definition and redefinition, and the search for appropriate implementation strategies” (Imperial, 1999).

Morrissey (1996) asserts that ecosystem-based management was founded by biological scientists and its focus is upon “the healthy productivity of the place and the relationship of all its living elements.” And that a “favorable science policy on ecosystem-based management would be “adaptive to individual situations,” while at the same time having the same standards of measure stemming from “common scientific grounds.” “Those involved in global change research study ecosystem functions at Earth System scale. For social scientists, the question of whether ecosystem management… is beneficial or detrimental is a human value judgment” (Morrissey, 1996). Domestically, Griffis and Kimball (1996) suggest that the regional marine fishery management councils “appear to have the breadth of responsibility and adequate structure needed for stakeholder input and involvement in decision making… some Councils have functioned better than others and there are lessons to be learned from both the successes and failures.” Murawski (2000) emphasizes that in the U.S., “current management is characterized as being concerned with ‘conservation of the parts’ of systems, as opposed to the interrelationships among them.” He suggests, “there is no specific ecosystem analogue to single-species definitions of overfishing.” “For the Northeast USA Continental Shelf, the decline in the groundfish resource, combined with restrictive management directed to that component, has resulted in the predictable scenario of serial depletion. The practice of allowing many species to remain outside any management control until they show signs of overfishing encourages excess depletion (e.g., Hagfish) and serial depletion, and exacerbates bycatch problems” (Murawski, 2000). He reiterates, “situations such as those existing off the northeast USA could benefit greatly from a more formal mechanism to incorporate ecosystem perspectives (i.e., considerations or interactions) in the development of management goals and conservation measures (Murawski, 2000).⁶

“Ecosystem approaches, whether implemented as perspectives on traditional overfishing paradigms or through explicit ecosystem-based definitions, require research and advisory services not typically provided by fish stock assessment science. Nevertheless, additional ecosystem monitoring and research is necessary with increased emphasis on species interactions, diversity and variability at various temporal and spatial scales” (Murawski, 2000). He suggests, “ecosystem considerations may increasingly be used to modify regulations intended primarily to conserve high value species, to address bycatches (e.g. sea turtles and marine mammals are of significant concern), predator-prey demands and the side-effects of fishing effort” (Murawski, 2000). Both Goethel (2002) and especially Hill (2002) lament that “vessel capacity represents the most substantive and controversial issue facing fishery managers at this time” in the Northeast Continental Shelf area.

Yaffee (1996) emphasizes, “it is critical that innovations in influencing human behavior, managing organizations, and developing decision-making. processes receive significant attention as ecosystem management develops, for it is these changes that will determine the future effectiveness and relevance of such approaches.” He suggests that “what works is the use of collaborative decision-making. approaches, developing information and info networks, mobilize organizational change and innovation, educate and be educated and empower individuals” (Yaffee, 1996), though, however, innovations in scientific knowledge and understanding may actually define and drive the debate.

Juda and Hennessey (2001) illustrated four kinds of governance related matrices for consideration of management of LME’s. These included a human use matrix; the effects of human use on ecosystems; impacts of ecosystem alterations on human uses; and, a governance/use matrix example illustrating the Gulf of Maine as a geographical setting (see also Sutinen, et al., 2000). The use of matrices, coupled with careful analyses, can illustrate integrated relationships between ecosystem effects from human uses and may also provide a conceptual tool to educate public stakeholders (e.g., Olsen 2000). Matrices may also be an appropriate comparative risk assessment LME approach to marine natural resource assessment (e.g., Gable, 2000; Harwell et al., 1992).

A new field of “sustainability science” is evolving. The concept of sustainability relates to understanding the fundamental character of interactions between nature and society (Kates et al., 2001). For illustration here, nature refers to the greater Georges Bank area and society refers to, in part, fisherfolk, other stakeholders and government regulators of that “commons.” The interaction of global processes with the ecological and social characteristics of particular places and sectors may foster a better overall understanding for ecosystem interactions (e.g., Olsen, 2000). Griffis and Kimball (1996) argue that a main ingredient of ecosystem approaches to resource management includes defining sustainability and making it the primary goal or objective.