UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Reinventing fisheries management Pitcher, Tony J. 1996

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-FCRR_1996_4-2.pdf [ 74.08MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0074779.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0074779-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0074779-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0074779-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0074779-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0074779-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0074779-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0074779-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0074779.ris

Full Text

ISSN 1198-67 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 1996 Volume 4 Number 2 Reinventing Fisheries Management Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada edited by Tony J. Pitcher published by The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia 2204Main Mall Vancouver\ B.C., Canada I S S N 1198-6727 CONTENTS page iii Acknowledgements and Dedication OVERVIEWS OF REINVENTING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 1 Reinventing Fisheries Management: the Symposium Tony Pitcher 2 Synopsis of the Symposium Craig Harris 10 New contexts, New tools Nigel Haggan 11 Reinventing the Tree Nigel Haggan THE LARKIN LECTURE 15 Fisheries management after 2000: will new paradigms apply? (Abstract) John Caddy ABSTRACTS AND DISCUSSION THEME 1: THE PRODUCTION BASE AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Keynote Address 16 The trophic cascade and food web management James Kitchell 17 Discussion Points of View -Theme 1 21 The control of undesirable introduced species in small freshwater lakes: what we should learn from past experiments Pierre Magnan 22 Constraints on the intensity of trophic linkages in lake food webs Bill Neill 23 Ecosystem management: the next step Daniel Pauly & Villy Christensen 24 The understanding and prediction of marine production: considerations for the future James Scandol 25 A new method to identify individual natal stream sources of salmonids and migration patterns of fish (poster) Sam Wang & R.Brown 26 Using mass-balance (ECOPATH) food web models to structure dynamic (ECOSIM) simulation models (demonstration) Carl Walters, Villy Christensen & Daniel Pauly 26 General Discussion of Theme 1 Kathy Heise & Alida Bundy THEME 2: ASSESSMENT, RISK AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Keynote Address 30 Rediscovering adaptive management: a framework linking science and decision making in a reinvented fisheries management. Keith Sainsbury 31 Discussion Points of View - Theme 2 33 An overview of tuna assessment and management world wide Alain Fonteneau 3 5 Predictive models of growth, survival and reproduction. Jarl Giske 36 Benefits of taking uncertainties into account when making decisions in fisheries management: example applications of Bayesian decision analysis. Randall Peterman 3 7 Intelligent fisheries assessment in an uncertain world Laura Richards 38 Fixed exploitation rate strategies for coping with effects of climate change Carl Walters & Ana Parma 38 G^eral Discussion of Theme 2 Alida Bundy & Kathy Heise THEME 3: THE ROLE OF POLICY IN RESPONSIBLE FISHING Keynote Address 41 People, purses and power - some features of the debate surrounding a developing fisheries policy for South Africa Kevern Cochrane Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, pageii 43 Discussion Points of View - Theme 3 44 Regime formation and community participation in fisheries management ....Craig K.Harris 45 Measuring the immeasurable: multivariate interdisciplinary method for determining the health of fisheries Tony Pitcher, David Preikshot, Daniel Pauly & Alida Bundy 46 Politics and fisheries Gert van Santen 47 Modifications of Scotian Fundy groundfish management for sustainable use Michael Sinclair 48 A new paradigm for managing marine fisheries in the next millennium Michael Sutton 49 First world foreign fishing and third world fisheries: impact on resources, economy and society (poster) Alida Bundy & Tony Pitcher 50 General Discussion of Theme 3 Dave Preikshot & Steven Mackinson THEME 4: THE ROLE OF THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE SOCIAL AND NATURAL SCIENCES Keynote Address 51 Fisheries management: science and decision making David Policansky 52 Discussion Points of View - Theme 4 53 For fishers or fishes?: a comment on the development of an interdisciplinary science of fisheries and fisheries management Tony Davis 53 A bridge over troubling waters? Strategies for integrating natural and social science for sustainable fisheries Lawrence Felt 54 Enlarging the shadow of the future - avoiding conflict and conserving fish in a novel management regime off South Devon, UK Paul Hart 5 5 Fisheries management: a role for social science? Svein Jentoft 56 Observations on the social science of fleet dynamics and local knowledge Thomas McGuire 57 General Discussion of Theme 4 Steven Mackinson & Dave Preikshot THEME 5: THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC TOOLS IN REINVENTING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Keynote Address 58 Fisheries management, politics and markets Rogenvaldur Hannesson 58 Discussion Points of View - Theme 5 59 New directions in fishery management: lessons from the collapse of Atlantic Canada's groundfish fishery Anthony Charles 60 Natural assets and national wealth Philip Neher 61 Cooperation and Quotas Anthony Scott 62 linking fish price and fishery practice through eco-certification, labelling and crediting John Sproul 63 Uncertainty and the role of economics in reinventing fisheries management Rashid Sumaila 63 General Discussion of Theme 5 Dave Preikshot & Steven Mackinson THEME 6: THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS Keynote Address 64 Aquatic resources education for developing world needs Meryl Williams 64 Discussion Points of View - Theme 6 65 A fisheries agreement with the Nisga's people: the first step towards a sustainable fishery and fishery management system Michael Link Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page iii 66 Reinventing salmon management: changing the burden and nature of proof in salmon conservation programs to support a new management paradigm Nancy Mundy 67 Science and the establishment of marine protected areas Richard Paisley 68 Fostering sustainable development & research by encouraging the right kind of institutions Jake Rice 69 The need for partnerships in reinventing fisheries management {poster) Indrani Lutchman 69 A Point of View from Mexico Antonio Diaz de Leon 70 General Discussion of Theme 6 Peter Tyedmyers & Richard Porter 71 BIOGRAPHIES OF KEYNOTE SPEAKERS 76 SYMPOSIUM PROGRAMME 80 LIST OF SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR ADDRESSES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This symposium, which was larger than the normal workshops mounted by the UBC Fisheries Centre, was capably organised by the Fisheries Centre's Events Officer, Ying Chuenpagdee. Many other graduate students freely gave of their time and enthusiasm to make the symposium a success. In particular we are grateful to those who acted as Rapporteurs for the discussion sessions and produced their report files to a tight deadline after the meeting The Fisheries Centre would like to thank the financial sponsors of this meeting: Faculty of Graduate Studies, UBC Vice President Academic's Office, UBC Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, Government of British Columbia (Fisheries Research Branch) DEDICATION This report volume is dedicated to the memory of Dr Peter Larkin, who sadly passed away in 1996 after a lifetime of contributions to a Reinvented Fisheries Management. Edited by Tony J. Pitcher 84 pages © Fisheries Centre, UBC, 1997 OVERVIEWS OF REINVENTING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Reinventing Fisheries Management: the Symposium Tony J. Pitcher Director, UBC Fisheries Centre, Canada From February 21a-24'h 1996 over 100 fishery researchers gathered at the Fisheries Centre, UBC, Vancouver, to discuss the reinvention of fisheries management. This Fisheries Centre Research Report volume provides the abstracts of papers presented that meeting, together with edited reports of discussion concerning the questions and issues raised. Revised symposium papers (with some others that have been solicted) have been submitted for a peer-reviewed book entitled Reinventing Fisheries Management in the Chapman & Hall Fish & Fisheries Series edited by Tony Pitcher, Paul Hart and Daniel Pauly. The volume is scheduled to appear in 1997. Judged by its recent track record, fisheries management certainly seems to need reinventing. Recently, the reputation of fisheries scientists has suffered a serious downturn. It seems that, despite our best efforts, fisheries world-wide have become severely depleted and, along with reductions in the size of fish harvested, fish communities shift towards small rapid growing species. These symptoms have been accompanied by a series of fisheries collapses that have not only been largely unforeseen even by our most advanced assessment methods, but have also brought about disastrous economic consequences. Such things have even occurred in Canada, a nation with probably more top-rate fishery scientists per capita than any other. Confidence in our discipline has been eroded at the very time when we need it most if we are to do anything to make fish harvests sustainable in the overpopulated world of the coming century. So fisheries science is in now a state of flux and many feel that we are at a cross-roads where new paradigms compete for attention and evidence of their utility. Some of the world leaders in our subject have expressed the pessimistic view that no fishery has ever been properly understood or managed. Some consider that we have to conduct experiments with our fishery resources in order to hope to do any better. Some see a solution in quantifying our ignorance. Others look to the social sciences to bring salvation by trying to understand people as well as manage fish. This symposium seeks the new paradigm that will place these ideas in perspective and make them work. New ways of looking at things entail interdisciplinary synergy between biological, ecological, social, and economic foci. This is a most difficult thing to achieve not least because exponents of these disciplines find it difficult to step outside of their walls are they are invariably rewarded in their careers only for staying securely within them. The symposium focusses on 6 theme areas, each led by a member of UBC Fisheries Centre's International Advisory Council. • Understanding of the production base and the ecological impact of harvesting in freshwater and marine ecosystems. (Dr Jim KitcheU) • Assessing fisheries intelligently, quant-ifying risk and learning to make management adaptive. (Dr Keith Sainsbury) • Shaping policy to make fishing responsible and fit both the sustainable limits of the resource and the ambitions of humans (Dr Kevern Cochrane). Reducing conflict and fostering consensus by understanding fishing communities (Dr David Policansky) Mitigating resource depletion through innovative and appropriate economic instruments (Dr Rognvaldur Hannesson) • Fostering sustainable development and the key research by encouraging the right kind of institutions. (Dr Meryl Williams) By attempting to integrate across these multidisciplinary themes, our ambitious objective is to help create a fresh synthesis and a new paradigm for the management of fisheries. In addition, the symposium included the second Larkin Lecture, covering the same Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 2 broad 'Reinventing' theme, delivered by Dr John Caddy. This report gives three overviews of the symposium from participants. An abstract the Larkin Lecture abstract appears next. (The full Larkin Lecture is to be published after peer review in Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.) The major section of the report comprises abstracts of the papers presented each followed by discussion collated by rapporteurs and edited. Rapporteurs, who worked in pairs, were chosen from among the Fisheries Centre graduate students. The pairs of rapporteurs have had the opportunity to submit synopses of the main points raised in discussion of their sessions as Points of View for the Reinventing Fisheries Management Book, co-authored with the Chairs of their session Each of the six symposium themes opens with an abstract of the Keynote Address, followed by questions and discussion of the paper. Points of View papers appear next, each with its associated questions. Most theme end with a general discussion. The report concludes with brief biographies of the keynote speakers, the programme of the symposium, and addresses for the registered participants. Synopsis of the Symposium Craig Harris Department of Sociology Michigan State University, USA The symposium began on Tuesday 20 Feb 1996 with the Larkin Lecture, presented by Dr. John F. Caddy, Director of Marine Resources Section in the Division of Fisheries, United nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, entitled Fisheries Management After 2000: Will New Paradigms Apply? Caddy noted the current situation of over-exploitation and over-capitalization, growing demand and prices, and ecosystem impacts of population increase. He suggested that improved fisheries management would be based on co-existing multiple paradigms which incorporate ecosystem considerations, environmental fluctuations, and socio-economic factors. Academic instit-utions can contribute to improved fisheries management by a more participatory approach, by promoting inter-disciplinary teamwork with stakeholders in fisheries, and by breaking down specialization and regionalization within fisheries studies. Management institutions can contribute to improved fisheries management by constructing consultative management frameworks that incorporate watchdog functions and implement precautionary principles. Governments can contribute to improved fisheries management by devolving management responsibility to appropriate levels in society, including coastal communities and individual use rights. The extension of modern technology from fisheries exploitation to improved fisheries management will make possible geo-temporally defined access rights to near-shore and shelf resources. Despite many previous, current and emerging international agreements, concern remains about the control of exploitation in international waters. The symposium was organized as a series of keynote addresses, each followed by severed points of view, with evenings allocated for unstructured discussion. Theme 1: The production base and ecosystem management The first keynote on Wed 21 Feb 96 was presented by James F. Kitchell from the Centre of Limnology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who talked about the Production Base and Ecosystem Management, it is a very important top examine the phenomenon of trophic cascade, the feedback from higher levels of aquatic food webs to lower levels. By knowing this, once can, for example, manipulate piscivory to alter cladocera (daphnia) populations, and thus control algal blooms, human causes of trophic cascades include nutrient loading (which can be controlled by land use controls, buffers, and sewage treatment), exploitation (Which can be altered by information and catch limits), and species Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 3 introductions. Bodies of water demonstrate a tipping point between algal bloom and non-bloom. Pierre Magnan from Department de Chimie-biologies, Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres, presented a point of view about the Control of Undesirable introduced Species In Small Freshwater Lakes, he advocated an approach based on the principles of integrated pest management developed in aquaculture. This approach will be used by the Quebec Government to control white sucker in brook char lakes of eastern Canada. Bill Neill from the Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia presented a point of view about Constrains on the Intensity of Trophic Linkages In Food Webs, models of food web structure permit ecosystem-scale fisheries management to maximize energy flows and in turn maximize yields of target species at upper levels. The major constraint to maximizing energy flow and in turn maximize yields of target species at upper levels. The major constraint to maximizing yield is not thermodynamic efficiency but predictive uncertainty. Uncertainty is greater for the effects of bottom-up perturbations than for top-down perturbations. For either type of perturbation, uncertainty of effect is greatest in the intermediate levels which are most important for affecting yield. Uncertainty is proportional to system productivity and biodiversity, given current knowledge, predicting, regulating, or at least tolerating large variance in food web responses become necessitates if fisheries are to be managed near maximal production capacity using ecosystem approaches. As a specific example, algae which are edible by zooplankton respond more to an increase in phosphorous than do larger algae; thus, smaller grazers displace larger grazers (Daphnia). Unfortunately, smaller grazers are not as interesting to planktivorous fish so their populations decline. The third point of view was presented by Daniel Pauly of the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resource Management at Manila and the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, on Ecosystem Management: The Next Step. Multispecies modeling efforts will lead to a consensus on the need to include both environmental fluctuations and level of harvesting and perdition in management models. Only marine protected areas allow reconciliation of the different natural time scales with those of fishers and markets, By way of illustration, he discussed a model of Lake Turkana (East Africa). He suggested that a mature system is characterized by the retention of detritus, and that carrying capacity is equal to respiration plus detritus import. The fourth point of view was presented by James Scandol of the Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia at Vancouver, on The Understanding and Prediction of Marine Production: Considerations for the Future. To make predictions of more applicability to management, scientists need to pay more attention to the role of physical and biological scale in production, to quantify the consequences of animal behavior for production, and to understand the relationship between understanding and prediction within science and management, he suggested that fractals may be useful for modeling across scales. In the discussion which followed, Tony Charles suggested a distinction between ecosystem management versus ecosystem-based management. Theme 2: Assessment, risk and adaptive management The afternoon session on 21st Feb. 96 began with the key note address by Keith Sainsbury of the Pelagic Fisheries Resources program of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, on Rediscovering Adaptive Management: A Framework Linking Science and Decision Making in a Reinvented Fisheries Man-agement. Adaptive management has been developed and applied in only a few fisheries, and most of these have relied on passively adaptive, rather than actively adaptive, management regimes. Formal applications of adaptive management include a passively adaptive regime in the Australian orange roughy fishery, an actively adaptive regime in the north-western Australian multispecies Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 4 trawl fishery, and soon-to-be-implemented actively adaptive management regime in the Great Barrier reef. The use of adaptive management requires a significant and sustained effort to contain and maintain the mutual commitment of stakeholders in the fishery. The major constraints to greater use of adaptive management are (1) the reluctance of management agencies to commit to an explicit management strategy, (2) the reluctance of industry to accept catch reductions without a high level of proof, and (3) the difficulty for scientific institutes to maintain a focus for lengthy periods (institutional attention deficit disorder). In the first point of view following Salisbury's talk, Alain Fonteneau of ORSTOM and the Interamerican Tropical Tuna Commission, currently working at La Jolla, offered an Overview of Tuna Assessment and Management Worldwide. The highly migratory nature of the tuna stocks means that their management must be undertaken by a group of international commissions. For ecological and economic reason, the temperate tuna stocks are fairly fragile whereas the tropical tuna stocks tire fairly stable and resilient. Stock assessments of tuna on which to base management are made difficult by the complexity of the tuna migration patterns the difficulty of aging the catch (unlike beef), and the difficulties in measuring trends in abundance. The ecological problems of bycatches, both with purse seines and longlines are of increasing importance. The second point of view was presented by Jarl Giske of the Dept. of Fisheries and Marine Biology at the University of Bergen in Norway, on Predictive Models of Growth, Survival and Reproduction. A dynamic programming model of Barents Sea capelin provides an example of the use of a predictive model to model historic events in order to reveal causal relationships. The use of predictive models to anticipate the future is currently out of the range of science because of the chaotic nature of the weather, improved understanding of the predictive celestial and planetary events and processes that cause oscillations in ocean climate and fish stocks is needed to enhance the predictive power of scenario of modeling in fisheries biology. The third point of view was presented by Randall Peterman of the School of Resource and Environmental Man agement, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Large variability and estimation errors in fisheries date make estimating risks and identifying appropriate management strategies difficult. Bayesian statistics can be used to place degrees of belief on different estimates of abundance or on underlying relationships in dynamics of fish and fleet, so that decision analysis can calculate the optimal management action for each specified objective. Examples applying these methods to choosing appropriate management actions for harvest rates for marine species, for opening an in-river fishery of anadromous species, and for stocking lakes with juvenile trout, illustrate how taking uncertainties into account may affect the appropriate decision about the level of precaution. The expected value of including uncertainty is the difference in expected benefits between the outcome of a full decision analysis versus the outcome of a decision based on- best point estimates. The values of improving information through research programs can be calculated by comparing the expected benefits from a decision analysis with the current estimate of variance on some uncertainty versus another with a lower variance. Laura Richards of the Pacific Region Science Branch of the Dept. Fisheries and Oceans presented the fourth point of view of the afternoon, on Intelligent Fisheries Assessment in an Uncertain World. Although data collection procedures can be improved inter alia through industry partnerships, many types of analyses still require historical time series. In the short term these can be provided by the inclusion of non-traditional data in stock assessments and the analysis of traditional data in novel ways, current investment in database in stock assessments and the analysis of traditional data in novel ways. Current investment in database archives and documentation can be a legacy to the next generation of analysts. Carl Walters of the Fisheries Centre, Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 5 University of British Columbia, Vancouver presented the final point of view of the afternoon on Fixed Exploitation Rate Strategies for Coping With Effects of Climate Change. Harvesting a constant fraction of the stock of a species each year produces harvest that are within 15 percent of the theoretical optimum that could be achieved if all future climatic fluctuations were known in advance. It may be more cost effective to invest in research on how to implement fixed harvest rate strategies than to invest in research on explaining and predicting climatic effects. As an example of the former, research might investigate public attitudes toward fishery management. Successful implementation may require a combination of improved stock assessments, and stringent regulatory measures to restrict substantially the proportion of fish at risk to fishing each year. Theme 3: The Role of Pohcy in Responsible Fishing The second day of the symposium began with a keynote address by Kevern Cochrane of the Fishery Resource and Environmental Division of the United Nationals Food and Agriculture Organization at Rome, on People, Purses and Power: Some features of the Debate Surr-ounding a developing Fisheries policy for South Africa. He joined FAO at the end of last year after 17 years in South African Fisheries Management, and it was on the basis of the south African experience that he talked. Although the adoption of a limited entry approach has had substantial advantages for fisheries utilization and conservation, with the democratization of South African the current system is being challenged by many who had previously been excluded on political grounds. In the past, South African fisheries management has placed very happy emphasis on analyses of the status of the resources and their potential productivity. In an environment in which access may be broadened substantially, with a definite shirt toward greater involvement of smaller-scale operator, the human considerations and impacts could become even more pronounced. Far greater emphasis that in the past, therefore, needs to be placed on analyzing the social and economic dynamics of fisheries, and incorporating these into management procedures and approaches. This will inevitably also require greater participation by users in the management of fisheries. The first point of view following Cochrane's talk was presented by Craig Harris. Michigan State University, on Regime Formation and Community Participation in Fisheries Management. Whereas the traditional view of fisheries management invested authority in local communities, in the modern view authority is invested in that nation-state, whence it is partially transferred to international treaty organizations. The nation-state destroys the authority of the local communities and implements hierarchical, top-down, command and control regulation, relying on science to determine best management Practice and advise mangers accordingly. In one post-modern view of management, Regime Formation, at least three major views of the goals of management compete for primacy; each view is advocated by powerful trans-national and national actors who attempt to establish formal organizations of control by enrolling local actors in the particular view. In the other post-modern view of management, community part-icipation, an assemblage of stakeholders, both local and non-local cooperate in managing the fishery. The second point of view of the morning was present by Tony Pitcher of the Fisheries Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, on Measuring the Un-measureable: A Multivariate Inter-disciplinary Method for Determining the Health of Fisheries. To devise a taxonomy of fisheries for the diagnosis of problems the categories of ecological, technological, economic and social attributes must be considered; for each category 15 to 20 attributes are chosen. Principal components analysis within each category and then of the components across the categories permits objective evaluation of the health of fisheries. Gert Van Santen, the remaining fisheries officer at the World Bank at Washington, D.C., presented the third point of view, on Policies and Fishery. The World Bank started fisheries lending in 1962; since Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 6 then, 40 to 50 fisheries loans have been made. The Bank has stayed away from situations where the resource was in question. Eight or nine years ago they were told to pay attention to fisheries manag-ement. Fisheries man agement is foremost a political process among humans in which income and access to the fish resources redistributed between fishers, suppliers, consumers, processors, the State, the scientific community, foreigners, locals, etc. Substantial uncertainty surrounds the economic and social impacts of management measures on each of those stakeholders. Nevertheless, the key constraints to introduction of effective fisheries management are most frequently lack of experience on the part of the Government in managing the political processes or the inability or unwillingness on the part of the authorities to muster sufficient political power to counterbalance private interests who wish to maintain the status quo. Michael Sinclair of the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, presented the fourth point of view, on Modifications of Scotia Fundy Groundfish Management for Sustainable use. An initial workshop evaluated the problems with the implementation of single-species quota management for multi-species harvesting technology of Scotia-Fundy groundfish. A second workshop, planned jointly with representatives of the fishing industry, discussed the strengths and weaknesses, cost and benefits, of four methods by which conservation objectives can be met (quota, days-at-sea, closed areas, gear restrictions). The final point of view of the third session was written by Michael Sutton of the Endangered Seas Campaign of World Wildlife Fund International, London, UK, on A New paradigm for Managing Marine Fisheries in the Next Millenium. The paper was delivered by Indrani Lutchman from WWF. Fishery managers more concerned with political than scientific realities have been compelled to ignore the implications of the best available science. Powerful social, economic and political foresees drive unsustainable fishing. Reversing this situation will require harnessing public support for a new paradigm of management, The foundation of this new model must be greater public involvement and accountability in the fishery management process. Social and economic incentives for sustainable fishing must be created. Theme 4: The role of the interface between social sciences and natural sciences The fourth session began with a keynote address by David Policansky, the Associate Director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology at the National Research Council in Washington, D.C.. on Fisheries Management: Science and Decision Making. He discussed the role of science in the shrimp/turtle, tuna/dolphin, pollock/ sea lion, and salmon controversies. In each case, the scientific conclusions were not obvious to at least one party in the dispute; in some cases, they were not clear to nay of them. A good scientific understanding reduces mistrust, saves time and money, and encourages coherent management; scientific uncertainty increases mistrust and incoherent management, and often increases expenditure of time and money., offend much better information would be available if managers would take the time to design data collection into their management regimes. The first point of view of the afternoon was presented by Tony Davis of the Dept. of Social and Anthropology at St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, entitled For Fishers or Fishes? A comment on the Development of a Interdisciplinary Science of Fisheries and Fisheries Management. While fisheries-focused social science research has experienced considerable development over the last thirty years, its concerns, methods, findings and analyses appear to have exercised little if any influence with respect to the design and implementation of fisheries management regimes. Further, fisheries social research data and analyses, excepting the work of some resources economists, seems to have revived little systematic attention and consideration by the fisheries natural science research community. The development of an interdisciplinary fisheries science and approach to fisheries management will require considerable shirts in the currently prevailing presumptions and paradigms in natural and social science fisheries Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 7 research. In order to accomplish interdisciplinary, familiarity and acquaintanceship, and institutional rearrangements are needed, and philosophical and conceptual perspectives, and methodological and analytical predispositions, will have to be changed. Lawrence Felt of the Dept. of Sociology at Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland, presented the second point of view, on A Bridge Over Troubling waters? Strategies for Integrating Natural and Social Science for Sustainable Fisheries. Because of differences in methodologies, types of data, and interpretive frameworks, integrating natural and social science research within the context of specific fisheries management plans has proven be to be fairly elusive (with the exception of some highly quantifies economic decision-making models). A three year interdisciplinary study of ecological knowledge of fishers and plant works in Newfoundland suggests a number of ways in which natural and social science can be brought together for more effective management, including cost-effective, participatory and inter-disciplinary assessment methodologies. This three-year project has brought together biological scientists, economists and social scientists to conduct interdisciplinary studies of fishers' perception of resources. They work as teams with a member from each discipline; the meaningful incorporation of clients is necessary for effective management. The third point of view of the afternoon was presented by Paul Hart of the Dept. of Zoology at the University of Leicester, UK, on Enlarging the Shadow of the Future: Avoiding Conflict and Conserving Fish in a Novel Management Regime off South Devon. A voluntary system for partitioning the inshore area between the crab pot fishery, the trawlers and the scallop dredges off South Devon has been effective for the past 20 years. The agreement works because the fishery is composed of people who repeatedly interact over in indefinite period (from fishing communities, and/or form families that have fished for generations) sot that cheaters are likely to be identified and punished readily. Such a system can best be modeled using the Prisoner's Dilemma with long term interaction between the participants. Once the factors determining cooperation are properly understood, the Devon management system could be used in other areas where a fishery is prosecuted by members of a closely knit community interact with each other indefinitely and repeatedly. Svein Jentoft of the Institute of Social Science at the University of Tromso, Norway presented the fourth point of view, on Fisheries management: A Role for Social Science?. If social scientists were to become fully involved in the fisheries management decision-making process, they would contribute to the design of management institutions, and as providers of critical feedback to the management process particularly on social impacts. They would function both within management councils and an analysts of the management council process. However, fisheries management could also benefit from the purely intellectual role of social science as independent, critical skeptic. (This provoked an ongoing discussion as to whereto it was better to be inside the tend pissing out, or outsider the tent pissing in. Some wanted to be outside the tent pissing in ). There is a tendency of managers to ask social scientists to speak for the fishers; but suppose fish could talk - would the management process then need biologists? There is also a tendency for social scientists to play a Mephisto role, helping Faust to deny his guilt. The final point of view of the afternoon as presented by Thomas McGuire of the Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology at the University of Arizona, on Observations of the Social Science of Fleet Dynamics and Local Knowledge. Reviewing several contested issues in maritime social science - the skipper effect and fleet dynamics, folk management, adaptation to chaotic systems - suggests that the debates, and much of the fine-grained empirical work underlying them, evolved in the context of largely academic contests over paradigms such as cultural ecology, political economy, and political ecology. The political ecology approach is actor centered, focuses on strategizing within constraints, examines the limitations of folk management, and is value driven toward social justice. Political Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 8 ecology seems to combine prior concerns with individual and household adaptations to ecosystems and environments, and with local knowledge - the domain of cultural ecology - with the problematic of political economy - relations of production, lass formation, the penetration of capital, and the loss of local power and autonomy. This developing paradigm offers the potential for close interface with the natural sciences, both theoretical and applied. Theme 5: The Role of Economic Tools in Reinventing Fisheries Management The Friday morning session began with a keynote address by Rognvaldur Hannesson of the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen, on Fisheries Management, Politics and Markets. The experiences of Newfoundland, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands since the establishments of the 200 mile limit show that degree of dependency on the cod fishery is not clearly related to degree of responsibility in the conduct of the fishery. All four have suffered greater or lesser stock depletion, apparently in part as a result of their own policies. (Newfoundland has been managed by Ottawa; the Faros illustrates the mismanagement of experts; Iceland illustrates user management). The cause of this mismanagement is the predominance of political considerations in fisheries management. This can be remedied by market driven process with built-in mechanisms to correct for over-exploitation, Economic goals should be the primary goals for fishery management, Economic tools should be used to establish incentives for conservation in fisheries management. In a comment after Hannesson's talk, Carl Walters noted that a computer simulation of anchoveta shows the need to maintain a large window of variability. The first point of view of the morning was presented by Tony Charles, Dept. of Finance and Management Science, St. Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on New Directions in Fishery Management: Lessons from the Collapse of Atlantic Canada's Groundfishery. At the roots of the collapses of the Atlantic Canadian groundfishery in the 1990's lie a set of entrenched attitudes about (1) the appropriate roles of regulators and stakeholders, (2) the burden of proof in balancing risks of lost benefits versus of stock collapse, (3) the postponability of conservation actions, (4) the fundamental effectiveness of the current system of management. While the first three have undergone some modification, the fourth remains firmly entrenched. Fisheries management must recognize the need for multidimensional solutions to multi-dimensional problems. And must realize that the answer to the problem depends on the biological, economic and social context. It is necessary to separate fishery conservation from the other issues. Efficiency equals the maximum benefit form the minimum opportunity cost. Philip Neher of the Dept. of Economics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver presented the second point of view, on Natural Assets and National Wealth. Natural assets should be managed by nations as components of the portfolio of national wealth which yields real income to benefit real people. It is not always the case that natural assets actually do this because institutions are not in place to minimize transactions costs, free riding, and rent seeking. For fisheries, the challenge is to craft management regimes which have the paramount objective of maximizing wealth: the net present value of future cash flows. The right incentives must be in place to motivate people to think forward. Wealth maximization is a necessary primal condition for achieving other objectives such as community development, acceptable working conditions for fishers and conservation. These other objectives will not be realized if they are pursued at the expenses of the primal one. For a rights based fishery to work, the rights have to be high quality, secure, durable, and transferable. The model of Japanese community control meets these criteria for effectiveness. The third point of view was presented by Anthony Scott of the Dept. of Economics. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, on Cooperation and Quotas. Although fisheries cooperatives have the potential to benefit fishers, fishers do not support their formation. While it has been proposed that diversity among fishers prevents the trust needed for cooperation, Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 9 it is not diversity but the fear of loss that prevents cooperation. Even if a cooperatives brings aggregate benefits to fishers, fishers fear that some members will be disadvantaged by the rest. Members need the assurance that comes from fixed percentages shares in the catch and in other benefits and costs. ITQ's automatically provide the fixed-share building blocks that are needed. There are tow types of obstacles to getting to fishery cooperative self government. Permanent obstacles take the form of internal resistance to power redistribution and lifestyle change. Transitional obstacles include the free rider problem. For cooperative self government to work, fishers need assurance and security, for example, protected percentage shares. The fourth point of view of the morning was presented by John Sproul of the Sustainable Development Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, on linking Fish Price and Fishery Practice Through Eco-Certification, Labeling and Crediting. A growing need exits in many world fisheries to initiate long-term market-based changes to counter environmentally destructive economic forces. The market-place today fails to incorporate social and environmental practice information associated with the processes used to bring commodities from their points of extraction to consummation. It is necessary to transform environmental and social information in a primary value-added component of seafood and create market mechanisms that endorse fishery sustainability, social and environmental education, and consumer responsibility. Locally appropriate and internally rec-ognized criteria would be used by a third party co-audits can be used to create a green chain). Information rating an activity's quality would be conveyed by means of a fishery eco-label. Government policy such as an eco-credit system could further encourage market demand of sustainable fishery practices. Rashid Sumalia of the Dept. of Economics, University of Bergen, Norway presented the final point of view of the morning, on Uncertainty and the Role of Economics In Reinventing Fisheries management. Most of the problems in world fisheries today emanate from two broad sources - the lack of adequate and correct information about how fisheries work, and the inadequacy of current institutional arrangements to deal with the problems at hand. The former problem, the problem of uncertainty in fisheries management, exists both (1) because the fishery is a dynamic enterprise, and (2) because monitoring and control are imperfect. First degree uncertainty, or stochastic variability of parameters of well-developed model, can be incorporated into management. True uncertainty, the lack of a well-developed model, is difficult to incorporate into management. One example of this distinction occurs in calculating the optimal size of protected marine reserves where tradeoffs have to be made. In discussion following the points of view, it was noted that different groups have different views of a desirable future and that different groups have different views of what is the current problem. It was also noted that there are also differentiated interests within the ecosystem: (1) the components of the ecosystem (e.g. sea lions, sea birds), versus (2) the systemic interest (e.g. stability, diversity). New Contexts, New Tools Nigel Haggan Fisheries Centre, UBC, Canada "When you open a can of worms, the only way to recan it is to use a bigger can" (Caesar, J., De Bello Gallico/ This can has to be big enough to include resource interests as well as all relevant branches of science. The Closed World Scenario It is notable that there were three presentations on Marine Protected Areas (Pauly, Paisley and Walters). There appears to be broad agreement that refugia are vitally important to maintain spawning populations and biodiversity. There is less agreement on the size, ofthe protected area, except that it will vary with the nature of the ecosystem. Nonetheless, Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 10 there is no doubt that MPAs are an important piece of the puzzle. Data Management Data are the zooplankton of fisheries management, as one conference participant (Jake Rice) remarked. The key to voluntary compliance is confidence in the information used to make management decisions. The level of confidence is directly related to the degree of trust which participants have in the source of the information. As discussed above, participants are much more likely to trust data which they have collected. The problem is to move beyond the hoarding of data for use as a weapon at the allocation table. The tool here is an independent forum. David Policansky's comment that the credibility of any scientific organization decreases as its involvement with management increases is particularly timely. Independent scientific bodies such as universities, can provide data standard-ization and analytic tools to integrate these different, but vital streams of knowledge. The work and input of social scientists evaluating local knowledge, as reported by Lawrence Phelps, and new tools such as FISHBASE which facilitate integration of local and indigenous knowledge are imp-ortant contributions. The next stage is to work with the participants on data quality. Identify gaps and conflicts in the data and design new data collection programs (or expand existing programs). In other words, to involve all stakeholders in the adaptive management cycle. Coming to Grips with Whole Ecosystem Approaches Until recently, science tended to shy away from whole ecosystem approaches. Lip service was paid to holistic approaches and integrated resource management, but, in reality, the concepts were too diffuse to grasp. The trophic cascades work reported by Jim Kitchell is a notable exception. The ECOPATH model developed by Daniel Pauly and Villy Christensen, now in its second generation, provides a way to quantify and evaluate what is happening at all trophic levels from phytoplankton and bacteria to whales and birds. This will speak to the hearts and minds of fishing communities and indigenous people who tend to view the world as a whole anyway. The ECOSIM spinoff (see p29) which Carl Walters described as the most exciting development he had ever worked on, adds some predictive ability to the Pauly -Christensen model. The most exciting aspect of these tools is that they provide a framework upon which to hang other streams of knowledge. Relational database tools such as FISHBASE on CD-ROM developed by Rainer Froese and Daniel Pauly, also provide a way to integrate meteorological and other databases which can provide important insights to what is happening in an ecosystem. The real challenge is to apply these and the next generation of tools to the integration of human communities into a whole ecosystem approach. To paraphrase Werner Heisenberg, the modeller is not the system. Words of Caution It is unlikely that any number of new tools and approaches will provide enough fish to come up with expectations. The presentation on the Agreement in Principle between the Nisga'a Nation of BC and the governments of Canada and BC as reported by Mike Link, meets this challenge head-on. In brief, the Nisga'a are prepared to give up their small boat fishery in favour of harvesting salmon by traps and fish wheels. Money made by this fishery will be re-invested in fish production. This will create jobs, but will not re-create hunting lifestyle which goes along with chasing fish on the ocean. This tradeoff must be faced by all fishing communities in one way or another. New tools must also come with a foolproof idiot's guide to what they should be used for, when and how to use them, and their limitations in terms of reliability and safety. This is not to say that stakeholders and the public need to understand the math behind complex computer models. After all, a carpenter doesn't need to know the physics behind an electric saw, just not to use it under water. Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 11 Re-inventing the Tree Nigel Haggan, Fisheries Centre, UBC, Canada Introduction This essay takes a slightly irreverent look at the notion of re-inventing fisheries management, as stimulated by the symposium. The argument is that fisheries management grew organically as the realization dawned that human intervention could drive fish stocks to the brink of extinction. Fisheries management never was invented, it grew like a tree. The first shoot on Canada's west coast sprang with declining salmon catch. It has since sprouted almost as many roots and branches as there are stocks and species. The trees of Europe are much, much older. Indeed, there is a small, but vocal group which claim that the Canadian tree is a European transplant. Seeds from this ancient stock are now sprouting throughout the developing world. Whether they should be fertilized with science or subjected to the Hack and Squirt regime used by BC Ministry of Forests to extirpate unwanted growth is a question well worth asking. The growth of fisheries management and ab extensio, the complex symbiosis of scientists and government, is traced, with due apologies to the English poet William Blake, from the Age of Innocence to the Age of Experience. Our collective ability to re-invent fisheries management depends on how successful we can become at learning from experience without repeating past errors. The Age of Innocence There are plenty of fish in the sea. Oral history abounds with tales of abundance. A vast Middle Ages trading empire was founded on the amazing productivity of the Baltic Sea herring. Old people in Ireland and First Nations in BC talk about being able to cross rivers dryshod on the backs of returning salmon. There was no need for management in those early days because marine productivity was far in excess of catching capacity. Government involvement in fisheries was limited to annual catch reports. A Good Time for Scientists Technological change and the growth of local and world markets for fish led to significant improvements in catching ability. This phase was characterized by Meryl Williams of ICLARM as a time when fisheries scientists were naturalists. They went out on fishing vessels exploring new ground, developing fish-finders, testing and developing new gear, etc. All in all, it was a lot of fun. The Age of Innocence was also a time of aggressive expansion. Government agencies virtually threw subsidies and low interest loans at fishers and processors. Vessels grew in size and power. Fishing became increasingly lucrative. As a correlative, it is worth noting Gert van Santen's comment that reducing the world's fishing fleet by 50% would only achieve a 10% drop in catch. The Age of Experience Powerful vessels and onboard processing allowed fishing at great distances and in weather and sea conditions which would have tied up earlier fleets. Fish were found throughout their range. As a simple example, BC abalone were abundant until the 1970s when the entire sub-tidal spawning population became accessible to a SCUBA fishery. In a few years, spawning biomass was reduced to a point where all abalone fisheries are closed and will remain so for a long time to come. In the example of North Sea plaice cited by Paul Hart, stocks which had recovered during World War II, were fished down. To counter this, a juvenile rearing area or Plaice Box was set aside off the Dutch coast. What this didn't do was protect adults. As Carl Walters remarked, the only sustainable fisheries are those where a natural or established refugium exists. It is clear that these refugia must exist for both adults and juveniles. Increasing pressure on fish stocks between the 1970s and early 1990s mark the time when the naturalist was upstaged by the statistician and stock modeller. This Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 12 period is best characterized by Peter Pearse' famous phrase, Too many boats chasing too few fish (Pearse, 1982). Computer models, harvest rates and quota setting became the order of the day. In recent years, the mathematical approach has come into question. The masking of declines in real abundance by stable or increasing CPUE and incorrect estimates of average age, e.g. the Pacific Ocean perch fishery cited by Laura Richards are significant factors in this falling off among the faithful. To quote Carl Walters at the conference: We don't know enough about what's happening under the surface to give quota advice. Community Outrage and Political Heat One important effect of a major stock collapse is to bring fisheries management and science into disrepute. This is most obvious amongst the fishing communities (local or geartype) affected. The community outrage provoked by loss of livehihood and lifestyle has prompted a move to get social scientists to clean up the mess left by biologists, economists and mathematicians. This is rejected by social scientists, at least in the person of Tony Smith, who feels strongly that fisheries scientists have not reciprocated the effort made by social scientist to learn the language and tools of fisheries science. Smith also takes a strong position on involving communities in the dialogue. It is less clear, at least to this writer, how one group of scientists learning another's secret language, will make science more relevant or accessible to the grassroots. To summarize. Over the last 30 years, many of the world's great fisheries have gone from enormous abundance to depletion. At the same time, fisheries science has cycled from the generalist approach of Meryl Williams' naturalist, through a long affair with economics and mathematics, to today's tendency to look to social scientists and fishing communities for answers. Depletion reduces or negates returns to the country as a whole. More importantly, it impacts the livelihood and lifestyle of communities. The collapse of Canada's northern cod fishery destabilized whole communities and has cost $2billion so far with no end in sight. Pruning The Tree Management and science are most needed when stocks are depleted or endangered. Most governments are in a lean, tightfisted mode compared to the expansionist times of the 50s and 60s. The days are over when bad news for fish was good news for fisheries science. This vicious cycle where depletion prompts more management and a greater need for science at a time when financial returns are down is a major consideration for policy makers and scientists. Sustainable Fisheries Management Sustainable mangement is the key to sustainable fisheries. One way to approach the design of fisheries management for the 21st Century is to ask three simple questions: What are the elements of a sustainable fishery? Who participates in the development of policies and delivery systems? and, How will it be done? The answers must address the Politician's Dilemma of balancing long-term conservation against the immediate needs of voters and/or powerful interests. Fisheries management must become workable, affordable and acceptable. Failing that, the late Peter Larkin's axiom You can't get there from here will be the epitaph of fisheries as we know them. What defines a sustainable fishery? While it is neither possible nor desirable to create a rigid formula for the world's fisheries, it seems likely that some basic criteria could be applied. These might include a definition of sustainability which includes the ecosystem and environment as well as targeted stocks. Put another way, the maintenance of biodiversity. Making maximum use of the productive capacity of the system. Ensuring that high quality benefits continue to flow to stakeholders and the general public and harmonization with other resource sectors. This last is particularly important for coastal or freshwater fisheries which must compete with other industry, but has implications for oceanic fisheries also. Recent work reported at the conference by Dr Tony Pitcher, is a start to quantify and analyze the attributes of different Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 13 fisheries. How to Make Policies for Sustainable Fisheries? The old expansionist policies of government or government-sponsored development agencies spawned the fleet expansion/stock depletion cycle. New policies must speak to the hearts and minds of both consumptive and non-consumptive interests. The only way this can happen is to include these interests at the policy table. New policies need to be road tested and illustrated by specific and relevant example to determine whether they meet the tests of workability, affordability and acceptability. The bare essentials of policy making are inclusivity, perspective and clarity. Inclusivity Fisheries policy decisions involve people, fish and the environment. People have some ability to represent themselves. The question of who speaks for fish and environment is much thornier. The old answer was government, but questions persist about the relationship between government and industry. Tradeoffs between different resource sectors and other countries are also an issue. Another answer is by one or more of the organizations who have appointed themselves as the conscience of the environment. Not everyone is happy with that. Yet another answer is by the fishers themselves, after all who has most to lose? In the absence of consensus, the developed world has reverted to the animal trials of mediaeval Europe (where, for example, rats could be brought into court for damaging a grain crop). The US Endangered Species Act and the spotted owl is a case in point. There are two problems with this. First, the courts are a win or lose option. Second, court decisions are long on don'ts but devoid of direction or resources for implementation. The real issue, however is that the approach is dualistic, people vs fish, one gear type vs another, logging vs fishing, environment vs people, and so forth. The principle of inclusivity requires the presence of every group who believes that they have an interest. No doubt this will create cumbersome bodies and tedious processes, but is this any worse than the current system where stakeholders compete for public support and the one with the deepest pockets wins? Clarity and Perspective The secret languages of biology, economics, mathematics, social and other sciences are virtually impenetrable even between disciplines. It would be tempting for the experts to reach a consensus amongst themselves first. The downside is that it would present stakeholders and the public with yet another fair accompli. If the design process for new fisheries management systems is to succeed, it must go beyond the mixing of indigestible ingredients in the mere hope of a new recipe. It must achieve an element of synergy which has proved elusive. The principle of clarity requires the translation of these secret languages. This demystification need not trivialize science, nor talk down to fishers and their communities. It is rather a broadening of the scope of science to include non-traditional data sources and the intuition of those who spend their lives on or beside the water. After all, the idea of intuition is acceptable in the scientific community too. Each branch of formal science, and equally importantly, community pers-pectives, local environmental knowledge and the insights and experience of community members can be seen as a lens. The challenge, in the case of a specific fishery, is to find the right lenses and focus them correctly. This will require the participation of skilled facilitators and mediators, at least until the participants get to know and understand each other. Workability - The Perception of Fairness Cops and Robbers systems do not work outside of a police state with limitless resources and dire penalties. Voluntary compliance is the core of workable management systems. Voluntary compliance can only exist in a system which is perceived to be fair. Although fairness is an essentially subjective quality, the following elements must be present: Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 14 • a sense of participation in system design; • trust in the information which underpins the system; • participation in information gathering and analysis • assurance that the system provides the best possible guarantee of sustainable, high-quality benefits. Affordability One key to affordability is to transfer the responsibility for data collection from government to the fishing community. They know where the fish are. They know the local conditions. They have better boats. Above all, there are more of them The best of all arguments is that fishers will put faith in data they have a hand in collecting. This is not to let government off the hook. Profitable fisheries generate downstream employment and wealth for the nation. Government has a role in generating economic development and a responsibility to re-invest revenue from taxes paid by fishers in the resource. That said, the relative contributions need to be defined. At a minimum, government has a responsibility to lead or participate in the design of science and the audit the results of management. The problem of depleted resources is much more complex. This does call for a long-term investment by government. Regardless of shoulds and oughts, government is unwilling to carry the cost of stock rebuilding and science in times of severe fiscal restraint. There is an old adage that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, i.e. that incentive is better than threat. Tony Pitcher's notion of Primal Abundance, (defined as the amount any system produced prior to modern industrial fisheries) can set a target which government and stakeholders can work towards (pers. comm.). Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 15 T H E LARKIN LECTURE This lecture series is sponsored by an endowment fund established in memory of Dr Peter Larkin, University of British Columbia. Larkin Lectures are published, after peer review, in the quarterlyjournal Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. Fisheries Management After 2000: Will New Paradigms Apply? John F. Caddy FAO, Rome, Italy The last decade has seen growing concern at the general ineffectiveness of current fisheries assessment and management approaches, as reflected in global statistics published by FAO. These indicate full exploitation of most fishery resources and a serious over-capitalization of fleets at the global level. The projected increase in demand, and hence future prices for fish products, as well as the ecosystem impacts resulting from growing world populations, all require urgent attention from fisheries authorities. Improved management of fisheries is seen to require, first, a better understanding of the axioms and working assumptions underlying current fisheries management approaches, and how these evolved in response to a limited set of species and regional or local conditions. This should assist in developing more appropriate integration of methodologies which reflect local situations, and which can be expressed in the form of one or more working paradigms. These paradigms can often coexist, and should be wide enough to incorporate ecosystem considerations, including the role of environmental fluctuations, as well as socio-economic factors. They should avoid the automatic assumption • that current production levels will continue into perpetuity irrespective of natural fluctuations and human impacts on the resource and ecosystems. Academic institutions could aid the management process by a more participatory approach, by promoting inter-disciplinary teamwork with stakeholders in fisheries, and by breaking down excessive specialization and regjonalization within fisheries studies. On the management side, the key elements for improving the situation seem to be to construct consultative management frameworks that explicitly incorporate 'watchdog' functions which can implement 'precautionary' approaches to management. With respect to near-shore resources, governments could assist by partly devolving management responsibility to appropriate levels in society; involving coastal communities, individual use rights, and other vehicles for limiting access, as appropriate. An extension of the application of modern technology from fisheries exploitation to improved management is seen as one aspect of successful future management systems; incorporating geo-temporally defined access rights to near-shore and shelf resources. Recent international agreements, including the formal ratification of the Law of the Sea in 1995, offer hope that governments are prepared to adopt a more ecologically appropriate approach to fisheries management. They should continue to support the key stake of the fisheries industry in sustainable fisheries development, particularly for developing countries, now the major source of aquatic marine products. High priorities for management of marine resources will be to rebuild depleted resources and restore habitats, with appropriate concern for maintaining genetic and ecological diversity. There will also be a need to consider the implications of free trade in fisheries products for conservation of fisheries resources for future generations, particularly for developing countries if the incentives for proper management are to be maintained in the face of growing demand. Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 16 International agreements of relevance to future management paradigms which are compatible with the Law of the Sea Convention (and each other), include Agenda 21 of UNCED, the Biodiversity Convention, the Draft Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the Compliance Agreement, and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Such agreements, and draft agreements now open for signature, provide a comprehensive basis for 'customary law" that can assist local and national authorities in constructing appropriate management frameworks. At the same time, current concern remains with respect to application of these resources in international waters, where the limited access rights required for proper management still have not been fully established. THEME 1: THE PRODUCTION BASE AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Session Rapporteurs Kathy Heise & Alida Bundy Keynote Address The Trophic Cascade and Food Web Management James F. Kitchell Center for Limnology University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA Abstract We know that primary, secondary and tertiary production rates correlate with nutrient loading. We also know that these processes are highly variable. We know that most predators are size selective, that resource partitioning occurs, that functional responses link the density dependence of predator and prey populations, and that predator avoidance behaviors are common. A more significant challenge exists when attempting to use this knowledge in the context of resource management activities. At the community and population scales, prey selection by predators alters habitat selection behaviors of prey species, their abundance, size distributions, life histories and consequent effects on their own prey resources. At the whole system scale, predation by fishes alters community structure, nutrient cycling rates and production processes at all trophic levels. These are the central tenets of the trophic cascade argument. We have tested these assertions in a series of experiments conducted on small lakes where fisheries are fully controlled. The main conclusions are that food web interactions and nutrient loading are equally potent regulators of variability in production rates. When these ideas are implemented as management practices in Lake Mendota, the behavior of fisherman confounds and compromises the Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 17 net result. The main conclusion is simple: fishing causes much of the variability observed in ecosystem processes and, therefore, much of the uncertainty in resource management practices. Reducing that uncertainty requires a better understanding of food web and ecosystem process responses to fishery effects. Challenges for the future include adapting the lessons learned from lakes to the larger context of open, marine systems. Discussion Da vid Policansky The waters of Chesapeake Bay were incredibly clear in 1995, with a visibility of at least 15 feet on the Secchi disk. What was going on? Jim Kitchell Increasing eutrophication is occurring in Chesapeake Bay. There are typically two things occurring in marine systems that could cause this, both associated with water mixing. The system (the bay) could have been between plankton blooms. Could this also have been the first time you have actually measured the water clarity with a Secchi disk? (laughter). Also food-web interactions could have been occurring which would cause a dramatic change in the system Marine systems are difficult to explain due to a high level of mixing. There are examples of similar occurrences in large scale systems. For example, in Lake Michigan in the middle 1980's the lake went through its greatest transparency. The alewife were clobbered by chinook salmon and the lake was dominated by Daphnia. Water transparencies of 18 m were reported. When alewife were dominant, typical summer transparencies were 5-7 m. The total production remained the same, but its location in the water column changed. Tony Pitcher Many lakes in the developing world form the basis for important fisheries. What advice would you give to those in the developing world in terms of ecosystem management for producing the maximum harvestable fish biomass? Jim Kitchell Add manure! I don't mean to be flip about it, because there are water quality concerns There are exceptions, especially if it is the only local source of water. The Israelis ran into that in Lake Kinneret. They are using bio-manipulation but they are monitoring food web interactions because that is their only source of water. On the other hand, in stock ponds chicken manure is dumped to increase tilapia production, either because the protein or the money those fish produce are keeping people going. In the developing world there are trade-offs, but priority must go to the most parsimonious need. The concern is taking (manuring) it so far that it is lethal for the object of interest. Craig Harris You were able to involve the sports fishing community in your initial modifications of the lake. Were you able to keep that involvement going and perhaps expand it to lakeshore property owners, recreational users, the transient sports fishing users, business people and farmers? Jim Kitchell Lets start backwards with the farmers. Farmers on the land have been marginalized by their circumstances. They are already heavily set upon by a variety of constraints. The last thing they want to do in the world is take a bunch of acreage out of crop production, or get rid of some cows. Economies of scale are driving the farmers in this part of the world to a desperate situation. Who is next? Fishermen from elsewhere will just go elsewhere. Folks from Chicago or Milwakee will show an adaptive response, they will go to Lake Wisconsin, or Lake Winnebago, wherever the fishing is hot. An interesting response that I did not elaborate on earlier was that within the catch per unit effort, the response in the lake years, the big peaks are the killers, when the folks with the $50,000 sports rigs with high mobility show up. They are very efficient predators, they swoop in on the system and get high harvest rates and then get out. What is happening in the US and I suspect it is happening in other places is that those folks are driving the leading edge of the catch release movement, and are being very effective. There are some remarkably big fish in Lake Mendota right now. And the leadership that came from the angling community actually pushed us harder than Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 18 either we or the BNR (Bureau of Natural Resources?) actually wanted to go. We encouraged them with a size limit of 15-18 inches and a bag limit of 5 reduced to three. We asked them if they could live with that, and they said lets go for a length limit of 21 and two fish. Part of the reason is the context. Lake Mendota is one of 5 lakes in the Madison area, and there are other lakes nearby where people can fish for panfish. People were most upset with all of this: they had been accustomed to fishing for perch, and wanted perch out their back door. Perch has high reverence in this part of the world. I know it is treated with disregard in most of Canada, but it has high reverence because it was the food fish during the depression years. It was a social phenomenon, it was the one thing people could afford to do, to go to a bar where every Friday night there was a fish fry and everybody went. It was a big social event and perch was readily available and cheap. It became the cement of family life. Perch has now become a commodity, and if you go to the market now it is one of the most highly priced fish, at $11 a pound (American), and that is a lot of money. The social impact of this is a concern. unidentified Do you have any information on comparison of the numerical response of anglers with other lakes where you did not announce to the local newspapers that you had stocks? Jim Kitchell I was hoping you guys would do that. Now we are manipulating people, we are engaging in disinformation campaigns, and the public's right to know is being violated by not telling them. I can imagine and would encourage a very aggressive program directed towards that kind of effort. Anglers have these remarkable communication networks, and I am not sure how they work, but it is remarkable how quickly they can respond. We see it especially in ice fishing. Seventy percent of the total exploitation in the Madison lake district occurs in the ice, and a lot of it is unemployed seasonal workers in the construction industry, and they spend their winters out there on the ice. My colleagues look at that and say 'bad marriages', but these folks love it out there, and in many parts of the world the city develops around the edge of the ice and there are all manner of things that are brought out to make it nice out there. The transient population comes out there on a remarkable short term basis and I don't know how they do it. Carl tells me it is through the bait houses, and that was our experience manipulating it. We can see a numerical response when we advertise, due to several situations. If one of these lakes makes Outdoor Life or Sports and Field, there will be a huge increase in effort - up to a 10 fold response based on one article. That is well documented in some lakes. So you can constantly go out, and hope that your background will give you sufficient understanding of what the pre-manipulation condition was. You can also limit it, which is what has been one of the consequences of treaty rights in the northern lakes of Wisconsin. Six of the Chippewa peoples now have access to artisanal means to walleye and muskie. This is the follow-up from the Bolt decision and the consequence is that the state now has the obligation in conjunction with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to prevent over exploitation. And unlike any time in the past, these lakes are now being carefully watched and bag limits are being adjusted readily to account for that which may be taken by the native American harvest and that which is available to angler harvest. For the first time ever, there are several hundred lakes being carefully monitored and regulated and the general expectation is that that attention will cause an increase in productivity of the fisheries. Once again, manipulating the anglers makes a big difference, and probably expresses a level of ecosystem functioning that we haven't yet had a chance to look at. Jordan Rosenfeld You have demonstrated a strong trophic cascade in freshwater lakes. Is there any evidence in marine or pelagic systems that trophic cascades work? Jim Kitchell Over to John Caddy to tell us about the Black Sea. Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 19 John Caddy In the Black Sea, and other 'inland' seas, including the Baltic, there is large scale runoff of nutrients, and industrialization. I mentioned the other day that the watershed is about 6 times the area of the Black Sea. Much of the industrial activity of the former Soviet Union and the eastern European countries, plus agricultural activity has resulted in a high level of fertilizer in the system. This has resulted in major runoff through the Soviet rivers and through the Danube into the Black Sea. There is an attempt now to clean up this watershed which seems to have happened subsequent to the overthrow of communism. An even more drastic example of a trophic cascade exists. There used to be a transient population of bluefish that came in every year from the Mediterranean and also a large population of dolphins and monk seals, so there were a lot of top predators that are now gone. At the same time, there was also increased phosphorus through sewage. The anoxic effects showed up first, the small pelagics, the zooplankton population increased. There was a massive outbreak of the jellyfish population Aurelia in the 1980's in response to the supply of pomfret, and then a ctenophore (a type of jellyfish) which was introduced from the hold of a freighter from the western Atlantic, and the ctenophore essentially wiped out the large zooplankton population. The fish catch dropped from 500,000 to about 50,000 tonnes and the whole system went into a kind of toxic shock. The ctenophores died and the whole system then went anoxic and essentially there were no grazers. The system now seems to be recovering to some extent It is a remarkable story. We've seen similar things in the Yellow Sea and in the Baltic. It's not been properly documented, the ecological thought of cascades has not yet permeated the fisheries environment because the marine environment is not supposed to show these trophic level effects. We still have lessons to learn in the marine environment. Jim Kitchell Our understanding and explanation of these events is often confounded in three ways: 1) increased nutrient loading as a consequence of having humans around; 2) exploitation alters the top of the food web; 3) introduction of exotic species. We have just heard John Caddy talk about it in the Black Sea, but we are getting a big dose of it in Wisconsin with zebra mussels, that have caused a doubling and two and three fold increase in water transparency in lakes which causes changes in the food web. If anything I am an evangelist for looking for food web effects as a mechanism that alters the process of feedback in the nutrient related controls of productivity. Paul Hart Do you think the expense of doing research to understand web relationships in the ecosystem can be justified in terms of fisheries management? Jim Kitchell That is a hard question. Our goal in Lake Mendota for instance, and this is a direct quote from our proposal, is to evaluate the potential. We evaluated the potential of food web controls to improve water quality, and as a consequence of the management decisions required to do that, we improved fishing. We also, as a consequence of the science, have a number of variables that are treated as unknowns controlling the water quality of Lake Mendota and the five lakes downstream of it. Therefore by analogy other lakes downstream are a concern. So we took away some of the contentiousness about why the water quality of this lake was being compromised. It is very clearly a consequence of what is going on upstream -suburbanization and golf courses without adequate protection from run off. So what is the long term economic consequence of this? You have to evaluate that with an economic eye toward the future value of the property and recreational activities on Lake Mendota, because the way this food web manipulation turned out, the way that we behave towards rezoning, regulations, land use, and the protection of wetlands and riparian corridors which will be there in perpetuity and therefore the lakes water clarity may have improved. It didn't get worse, so that is a way to evaluate it. In direct terms of fishery yield, probably a small share. Mike Sinclair Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 20 John Caddy answered this question for enclosed seas, but in open ocean systems, say shelves and deep ocean, what evidence is there that we do have trophic cascades and significant inter-species interactions? When you fish top predators, does it change community structure in a fundamental sense? Jim KitchdJ I am a strong advocate of using large scale manipulations to understand interactions, at least when possible. We have done that in small lakes and we get criticized because they are small lakes, and we have now seen the sequence of opportunities when you move to larger lakes, and we have been criticized for that too. Scale is not an issue, since we have Lake Michigan and the Baltic etc.. Can we extrapolate to the open ocean? The interesting question is - can we do anything about it? We can understand it and that would amuse us academics, but does it matter? The answer is I don't think so, unless you want to reproduce the five seas. Probably not a good idea, although it would be an excellent experiment. The more insightful thing to test would be to take the basic arguments from lakes. What matters is determining the nature of the driving force of productivity, and the key facts about the species that express it and control productivity for fisheries. We have seen some large scale manipulations for fisheries, and we have top down regulations, and the interesting question there is, who gets to benefit? Who lives? That is the manager's plight. Daniel Pauly has some evidence from ECOPATH how sensitive parameters are. If you do something to this, then it has an effect on that. This becomes the manager's domain. So my answer to the question is I think we could find this out for oceans, but it would be a very expensive and perhaps trivial result. What really matters is how species operate and respond in their life history strategies and interactions. Who gets to live there. Mike Sinclair If oceans do not respond in the same way as a closed sea, and there are different ecosystem properties, then what does this mean for management? There does not seem to be any evidence from the continuous plankton recorders that there is a change in the size composition of zooplankton, so I would suggest that something else is operating. Jim Kitchell I would argue (and boy we have argued about this!) that those data, and much oceanographic data are derived from systems that are already in an intermediate state. They are supremely unpredictable and you shouldn't look for tightly held relationships in that case. These are copepod-bound systems. Copepods are very complex, and there may be some evidence there from the evolutionary biologists. I have just hidden behind unexplained complexity and I want to redirect the question to What can managers do? or What do managers need to know? It is managers and peoples' resources at the scale of two-fold changes that make for economic survival or collapse. People will lose their jobs, and the felons of the economies are set asunder by these kinds of interactions. So long as those of us who are interested in basic mechanisms and double log relationships and explaining the variance then we haven't helped the managers very much. The key is to home in on the part where you answer the questions by looking back what can you do about it. What are the likely most extreme outcomes? Kevern Cochrane In open upwelling systems we have the equivalent of controlled experiments on trophic cascades. The succession following an upwelling event I would say in broad terms follows very closely a trophic cascade. Now to extrapolate an isolated upwelling event to the open ocean might be going a bit far, but I would say the evidence is there to suggest that you are looking at the same principles. Jim Kitchell We started with the unwritten clear goal that we wanted to do for limnology was to say that fishing matters. Fishing is not effect, it is cause. When you manipulate fishing then you manipulate and change ecosystem behaviours and it is one of the tools that managers have at their disposal. Here is the magnitude of change that can occur as a consequence of fishing - use it. Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 21 Points of View - Theme 1 The Control of Undesirable Introduced Species in Small Freshwater Lakes: What we should Learn from Past Experiments Pierre Magnan Departmente de Chimie-biologie Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres, Canada Abstract The introduction of non-native fish species is a common phenomenon in freshwater lakes and often have tremendous impacts on local fisheries. In this point of view I will present (1) the most common practices to control undesirable species in these systems, (2) how these practices too often failed to enhance the target fisheries, and (3) an approach that my group recently proposed to control undesirable species, based on the principles of integrated pest management developed in agriculture. This approach will be used by the Quebec Government for the control of white sucker, which was introduced in many brook charr lakes of eastern Canada by bait fishers. Discussion Christine Soto Is one of your treatments just removing the spawners, and separating the two strategies? I am curious whether these treatments will impact the trout by getting rid of the drifting invertebrates. Pierre Magnan Most of the populations are in lakes and we are speaking of lakes which are hundreds and hundreds of hectares. The white suckers spawn in these rivers in the inlets of the lakes in the spring. At this time there is no char in these inlets; there is some residual population of small trout, not a residual population but a stream population. If the manager can use mass removal for 3-5 years, then he will use the electric fence just at the entrance to the inlets. The larvae of the white suckers drift to the lakes for a very short period of time, maybe three or four days, and always just during the night. They develop on the spawning grounds in the inlets and at certain periods they just drift. We tested this with a small snapshot experiment, and it was very easy to kill almost all of these larvae with an electric fence. Without using the rotenone, it was very easy to maintain the white sucker under a certain level. It was acceptable in terms of management goals because it is impossible to eradicate the white sucker in these lakes, firstly because the risk of re-introductions is high and second because it passes from an acceptable economic level of eradication to increasing the cost by a minimum of 10 fold. The idea is to maintain the sucker population under a certain level and to do the control of larvae on an annual basis. It is like agronomy and forestry, you have to live with the problem year after year, and the question is, is it justifiable from an economic point of view? If the answer is yes, then you participate in the program. And if not, we just leave the systems there. Constraints on the Intensity of Trophic Linkages in Lake Food Webs BillNeill Fisheries Centre, UBC, Canada Abstract Models of food web structure and function in lake ecosystems offer the prospect of ecosystem-scale fisheries management through manipulation of food web components. One likely objective of such a management approach is the maximization of energy flow through the trophic web to achieve high fish yields of target species at intermediate or upper trophic levels. Thermodynamic constraint on the efficiency of biochemical conversion of prey biomass to predator biomass is not the major limitation in realizing this objective. Predictive uncertainty is. Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 22 Current ecological understanding admits of substantial unpredictability in how individual and population components of food webs, their spatial and temporal distributions and their trophic links to other components respond to both bottom-up and top-down perturbations. Unexplained variance in food web dynamics stemming from bottom-up signals (e.g., nutrient perturbations, temperature fluctuation, habitat alteration) probably exceeds that of top-down signals (e.g., recruitment pulses, habitat expansion), but the potential for surprise in even well-controlled experiments is still disturbingly high. Further, the variances in effects of both bottom-up and top-down processes at each trophic level are likely to be greatest and structured least at intermediate biomass ranges which are required to maximize trophic transfer efficiency from 1st to nth trophic level. Unfortunately, the scope for uncertainty is probably also greatest when system productivity and biodiversity are high. Given current knowledge, predicting, regulating, or at least tolerating large variance in food web responses become necessities if fisheries are to be managed near maximal production capacity using ecosystem Constraints on the intensity of trophic linkages in lake food webs approaches. Discussion John Schnute In one of your figures there is a response curve that was flat at one end, rose and became flat again, so that we have a low-end threshold, and a high-end threshold and something in between. If you put together a series of such responses then the theory is that the net effect will be that fairly large changes in the bottom will cancel out, am I right? Bill. Neill That is certainly one of the consequences. If you put together a series of these kinds of things, it becomes extremely unpredictable in the middle ranges. It is easily predictable at the extremes, and it is in the middle where uncertainty exists. Unfortunately it turns out that 95% of all lakes on the planet follow this pattern John Schnute That model is also how a neural net works, you have nodes and transfer functions like that from one to the other, and of course a characteristic of the neural net is it does have those kinds of threshold responses. It is almost like flipping a coin at each of those levels, and you flip all the coins from the bottom to the top. What you end up with is pretty unpredictable. That curve can be horizontal, then vertical, and then horizontal, that is a very sharp shift from one level to the next and that is your real point. David Policansky I am unsure if this question is for Bill or Jim. Bill, you said that 9596 of the lakes on the planet are unpredictable. Is that the same middle ground that Jim was talking about that was dominated by copepods, where he wasn't going to look for tight relationships? Bill Neill That middle ground where there is so much uncertainty occurs as a consequence of both bottom up and top down processes. One of those alone does not explain things. The middle ground is the zone of interaction in which a whole variety of life history strategies, shapes, sizes, of organisms can make a go of it at some times under those conditions as a consequence of the interactions that are going on and so I am a very firm believer that top down processes can have very strong consequences in there, as well as bottom up consequences. Jim Kitchell Note that 95% of the world's lakes are fished. Ecosystem Management-The Next Step Daniel Pauly & Villy Christensen Fisheries Centre, UBC, Canada &ICLARM, Manila, Philippines Abstract Fisheries science has long been split between those who emphasized environmental causes for stock fluctuations Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 23 (e.g. J. Hjort) and those who emphasized the impact of fishing itself (e.g. F. I. Baranov). The insights recently gen-erated by multispecies modelling may lead to a consensus because they reinforce the need for a form of fisheries management that explicitly accounts for ecosystem effects, inclusive of predator-prey interactions, (see also Abstract by Walters et al„ this volume, page 26). Marine protected areas, also known as marine reserves, would be at the core of such ecosystem management, because they - alone among fisheries management tools - allow reconciliation of the different natural time scales with those of fishers and markets. The latter point is illustrated by a comparison of two contemporary (and relatively depleted) marine ecosystems with their reconstructed earlier states, interpreted through O. D. Odum's theory of ecosystem development Discussion UliReinhardt For your prediction that an ecosystem may return to a state where it is in balance, on what time scale do you predict that this will occur? For example, in systems that are really disturbed by fishing pressure, will they ever come back in a reasonable time scale, to the stable state that you predict? Daniel Pauly I am afraid I must talk coral reefs because these are places where several marine protected areas have been set up and monitored for a few years. I would rather discuss a temperate shelf but there are no marine protected areas on the temperate shelf. It seems that for some coral reefs that have been closed to fishing for over a decade or so, within 2-3 years the number of fish have increased tremendously and the numbers of small fish have increased enough to have offset the half of the loss due to fishing. After 5-6 years, Gary Russ from Australia has noticed an increase in the groupers but even after 10 years they have not re-established the biomass known to have been there before. There is a bay close to Manila where I have been diving over several years. The USA in its benevolence constructed a road along this part of the coast and the road was built such that the mountain came down and landed on top of the reef. It was a classic ecological catastrophe straight out of a textbook. After a few years you see coral reefs replanting themselves on those parts of the reef that are free of mud, that have been washed out. So in that sense there is always hope, at least for connected systems such as marine systems, if you give them a break. I do not know if that is true in a terrestrial system Deforestation has led to a loss of the topsoil and of the subsoil in some areas if the Philippines so you have desert in the middle of a monsoon system. In these terrestrial systems you have, on any reasonable time scale, irreversible change. You don't have that on coral reefs. That is my answer. Michael Bauman Did you ever estimate the necessary size for a marine protected area under water? Daniel Pauly Some work has been done on what would be a reasonable size and you end up saying that you will not be able to protect large species, but you certainly can protect snappers, groupers, which on reefs stay in the same place once they have settled. I think this is a big problem in marine protected areas, to size them. It is an important area of research, not their usefulness but their size, and it is one of the most important in future. Kevern Cochrane I would like to follow up on that point. I don't think you can go from saying the big question is how big to make them and that their usefulness is assured. The two sides are totally interdependent and what I would like to suggest with marine reserves is two big questions. First, how long is a particular species resident in a reserve, and hence is that reserve effective in preserving that species? The other question is: what leakage is there from the reserve to adjacent areas and is that effectively supporting local fisheries? For those two questions, ECOPATH is not the tool to use, unless you develop a spatial version of ECOPATH. Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 24 Daniel Pauly Obviously ECOPATH is not the definitive tool, but it has shown that Odum's theory is compatible with what we think happens in a marine reserve and that is kind of neat. The Understanding and Prediction of Marine Production: Considerations for the Future James Scandol Fisheries Centre, UBC, Canada Abstract It is often assumed that the best method to predict the behaviour of a system is to understand the processes operating within it. Although this assumption has proved extremely effective in the analysis of certain types of systems, the unconditional acceptance of such an assumption in the study of large marine ecosystems may be misleading. This Point of View focuses upon what methods we can use to refine our concept of an understanding so that we might make predictions of more applicability to management. I suggest scientists need to revisit three areas of production research. These are to: 1. Study the role and analysis of physical and biological scale in production. Variability and uncertainty are enmeshed with scale. Are scales of measurement that are convenient, or cost effective, for scientists the important scales of interest in production processes ? What modelling methods are most suitable for dealing with changes in scale within production ? What scale invariant tools have proved successful in other disciplines ? 2. Quantify the consequences of animal behaviour on production. Production processes will be impacted not only by metrics such as weight and water temperature, but also by individual behaviour. Organisms will behave in response to conspecifics, physical conditions, prey and predators. Furthermore behavioural response will be dependent upon developmental stage. The emphasis should be on understanding the outcome of behaviour on production variability. 3. Understand the relationship between understanding and prediction within science and management. Applicable process based understanding for management may not be formulated in terms that scientists find familiar. For example: a process-based model that yields a statistical distribution of expected production will be more applicable than the correct prediction of the maximum carrying capacity on any particular year, yet both studies are based upon valid scientific queries. The understanding of production processes should be focused upon predicting uncertainty. Let us ask when, where and how do rare events arise? With such information managers can design plans and policies that are robust to such variation. Discussion John Scbnute I was interested in your comment about understanding vs. prediction. I have often thought about the similarity between fish stocks and mutual funds. If you are a manager of a mutual fund and you report to your fund holders that our research staff really understand the stock market but it is not very predictable and your fund just dropped 15%, doesn't this make the point that what matters is predictability? James Scandol No, because management occurs over two time scales - setting up policy to deal with variability, and the short term dealing with trends and discrepancies. A general probability distribution can effectively design management policies to take this into account. These policies can be designed such that it doesn't matter that you don't know what is going to happen in any particular year and you can still essentially manage it. But if you know underlying variability might be reduced, then that is going to help you over the long term. So a view that you make - to think that you know what is going to happen - might lead to worse management than saying that you don't know what is going to happen. Because if you get it wrong, then that is when you really get into trouble. Any Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 25 bubble or any empirical result will be potentially flawed and backed on assumptions that might be wrong. Short term management has to based on data collection and on short term information. Carl Walters A wise stock market analyst won't ever predict the market, he will develop a portfolio of investments that will make the client feel as safe as they want to be, without having to predict what will happen. What do you see the prospects are for the ecomodels that you have been working on for the last few years? Will it solve the prediction problem for us at all? James Scandol In-season estimates are easier to manage. If something goes drastically wrong and there are no fish when we thought there were going to be a whole lot, then at least you have some fallback mechanism with in-season management. Any model - even a fancy mechanistic model with some weird geometry or a strictly good correlation - needs to be ready to be knocked out of the system if it looks as if there is incompatible information coming in from the short term data collection. I think models need to be slaughtered as soon as the need occurs. Laser Ablation ICP-MS - A New Method to Identify Individual Natal Stream Sources of Salmonids and Migration Patterns of Fish S. H. Wang & R. Brown. Elemental Research Inc., Vancouver, BC Poster Laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA- ICPMS) has been applied as a method to determine elemental distribution in biological tissue specimens, providing high spatial resolution and sensitivity. It has been determined that certain elements are assimilated into growing biota from the food source and fresh water in natal streams, hatcheries, and fish farms. The elements are deposited into the skeletal structure of growing fish and remain throughout the life span in scales, otoliths and vertebrae. Variation in chemistry of the environment produces a pattern of discrete bands in the biota corresponding to the changes in chemistry and the duration of exposure. A micro-analysis of these regions allows the establishment of data to provide specific information on the unique elemental signatures (finger prints) in fish from a particular source, and subsequent exposure to environmental changes during migration. A classification accuracy of up to 100% is achieved when fish scales are examined. Using mass-balance (ECOPATH) food web models to structure dynamic (ECOSIM) simulation models Carl Walters, Villy Christensen3 & Daniel Pauly Fisheries Centre, UBC, Vancouver, Canada aICLARM, Manila, Philippines Demonstration The linear equations which describe trophic fluxes in mass-balance, food web models of ecosystems (such as in the ECOPATH approach and software) can be re-expressed as differential equations defining trophic interactions as dynamic relationships varying with biomasses and fishing regimes. The trajectories of biomass predicted by these differential equations, and equilibrium system responses under different exploitation regimes are found by setting the differential equations equal to zero, and solving for biomasses at different levels of fishing mortality. This approach, incorp-orated as a routine (called "ECOSIM") into the well-documented ECOPATH software (see also Pauly and Christensen, this vol., page 23) will enable a wide range of potential users to conduct fisheries policy analyses that explicitly account for ecosystem trophic interactions, without requiring the users to engage in detailed information gathering (beyond that Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 28 those looking at oceans were looking more at ecosystem-based management. Marine protected areas might be perhaps a tool for that latter form of management. I am on a fisheries resource conservation council on the Atlantic coast of Canada that tries to deal with recommending conservation measures to the government. We have been struggling with issue like this and we face questions like does it make sense to harvest capelin when the cod stocks are depressed, and does it make sense to trawl on the bottom of the ocean when that disturbs the bottom habitat? Those kind of issues are ones raised by the fishers that we listen to. To me those are the fundamental questions that are out there, and I would be interested in any comments as to how to address them, apart from saying we need more research. Tony Pitcher I wonder how many of us feel about incorporating the ecosystem perspective in a management plan. How many people here feel that we have enough knowledge and the right tools to confidently include the ecosystem aspect in conventional fisheries management? I am talking about more than just the single species management. - the fish population dynamics that traditionally have been used by fisheries managers. Do we know enough after sessions like today, to include that in our management? Jake Rice There is not a yes or no answer. In some areas we have some knowledge that we could use to do ecosystem based management. For example, we have excellent experience with tuna-dolphins and with other species of bycatch, I wouldn't go further on other examples. That is the approach that we are trying to pursue but I wouldn't be bigheaded enough to assume we can do it. John Schnute It does seem as if there are two schools of thought. I belong to a school where a great deal of my professional energy is directed towards looking at the data we actually have and trying to decide what is actually happening out there. This is very Sherlock Holmes-like - here are the fingerprints and the footprints and all the clues, and now what can we say about what has transpired? A person of my school of thought looks at this sort of ecosystem stuff and says it doesn't really help because it is so unpredictable and so it doesn't help solve the problem. On the other hand, the other school looks at me and says, well you idiot, of course these fish eat this and eat that and how can you possibly ignore these facts about the process. It seems to me a theme of this meeting is try to see each other as Sherlock Holmes. How do we bridge between the two schools? Your question Tony was in some sense unanswerable. You would have to be an idiot to disagree that the food web matters somehow. But is the ecosystem perspective germane to the analysis? This is important because of the expense of ecosystem research. Where do we focus our attention for data? What is useful for the taxpayer? I might say Jim that I thought that your talk was one of the most convincing that I have ever heard on how things can really happen. I guess it was expensive and you had the privilege of being able to manipulate things a bit. The question I have for you is that some of the manipulations in your system were handed to you, either by nature or by virtue of the fact that publicity brought in the sports fishermen. Other times you went and moved fish. It seems to me that most of us have to depend a lot on naturally induced contrasts. Jake Rice On that theme, and prompted by Tony's question, studies of marine ecosystems, whether they are pelagic, open ocean or whatever, have taught us a great deal over the last three decades. But if you look at the assessment tools being used for fish stocks, and try to build analytical linkages between the research on ecosystems and actually doing the stock assessment to provide forecasts in the short and medium term -1 raise my hand to Tony Pitcher's question and say yes- we do know a lot, we know a great deal, but we are not using these analytical paths to give advice to managers. And I don't know a jurisdiction in the world that is providing funding to build those links. We are Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 29 funding lots of ecosystem based research and lots of modelling on fish stocks, but we are not linking those two things. It seems very unglamorous work but it is where we are going to get the pay off. Rashid Sumaila We have several systems, from the fjords to the Barents Sea to the North Sea, where we can see that the production of phytoplankton can be modelled from the local conditions, but the biomass of zooplankton cannot be modelled from the local phytoplankton concentrations, only from the advection from the open ocean For instance, the Norwegian Sea supplies the whole Barents Sea (which is three times the size of the North Sea). It is driven by advection. Fish production is not driven by local conditions but by input from the Atlantic. This is not similar to a lake. Kevern Cochrane Can I respond to that, and put forward a gross oversimplification, but then that is what modelling is all about! I suggest that we could take one of Jim's half hectare models and with minimal change apply it to the Black Sea, but in doing so we would have to split it up into 4-5 little areas, and we would have to model interactions between those areas. We could apply it to the Mediterranean, but we would have to split it up into 20 -30 different areas, and look at the interactions between areas. And we could go on to do the same for the Pacific Ocean, with many little coupled areas. What would be happening is that the interaction terms would be becoming more and more dominant. So what was happening in the box (for example what Jim was telling us) would become less and less important, and what is happening between the boxes would become more and more important. This leads to the uncertainty that we talked about earlier. Tony Pitcher The naturalistic fallacy in philosophy is to try to get an is from an ought. As scientists we are adept at avoiding this pitfall - we know we ought to use ecosystem management, but this discussion shows that we are very eager not to use it because we like to claim we dont know what it is. The papers in this session suggest that this claim not really true, but the discussion is symptomatic of our reluctance to get involved. The freshwater people know more about their systems because they more bounded or coupled than marine ones, and so maybe they are more confident to use knowledge of the ecosystem in resource management. But our profession is very unhappy at the notion of trying to use such knowledge in the oceans. There is an instructive paradox here: the public may be surprised at our professional coyness. We say that we do not have the knowledge to manage aquatic resources using information about their roles in ecosystems. Yet as several speakers have pointed out, we humans have already documented massive impacts on marine systems. So we may have the basis for more understanding more than we care to admit. Several speakers pointed to massive uncertainties and unpredictability in aquatic systems. But similar massive uncertainties are incorporated as a matter of routine into everyday stock assessments. We baulk at the uncertainties of including prey, predator and trophic web effects, but often these trophic interactions turn out to be supported by food consumption data dating back many years. I suggest that we try to have the courage to develop and use ecosystem -based management tools. Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 30 THEME 2: ASSESSMENT, RISK AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Session Rapporteurs Alida Bundy & Kathy Heise Keynote Address Re-inventing Adaptive Fisheries Management Keith Sainsbury CSJRO, Division of Fisheries, Australia Abstract It is now 20 years since the use of adaptive controls was first comprehensively present-ed as an approach and framework for the scientific management of fisheries. The scientific superiority of this approach over ad hoc resource assessment and decision-making is very clear. Adaptive management recognises the uncertainty in the state of knowledge and dynamics of the system being managed, and requires examination of the ability of proposed controls to achieve management objectives despite the uncertainty. However there are still only a few actual cases in which adaptive man agement has been formally developed and applied in the management of fisheries. Moreover most of these cases have relied on passively adaptive management regimes, rather than actively adaptive ones. Some experiences of adaptive management in Australian fisheries are summarised. These include a passively adaptive regime used in the development of the Orange Roughy fishery, an actively adaptive regime for a tropical multi-species trawl fishery in northwestern Australia, and a soon-to-be-implemented actively adaptive man-agement regime governing fishing on the Great Barrier Reef. Some as-yet un successful attempts to implement adaptive management approaches are also described, most notably attempts to develop an adaptive recovery strategy for the Southern Bluefin Tuna fishery. The Australian experience to date is that the concepts and framework of adaptive management provide an excellent basis for scientific analysis and advice on fisheries management. Where it has been applied, adaptive management has 'delivered the goods'. However, it is also very noticeable that the use of adaptive management requires a significant and sustained effort to obtain and maintain the mutual commitment of 'stakeholders' in the fishery (industry, managers, research agencies). There remain technical challenges to be overcome, particularly in the characterisation and treatment of uncertainty; but the existing methods have already contributed much to the knowledge base on which scientific advice regarding sustainable resource management is made. At present, it is not the technical constraints that present the major limitation to more widespread use of adaptive approaches to fishery management. The major constraints are 1. the reluctance of management structures and agencies to commit to a somewhat fixed and explicit management strategy, often because of a perceived reduction in capacity for flexibility under changed circumstances (which may range from changed political fortunes through to changed scientific understanding); 2. the reluctance of industry to accept catch reductions without a very high level of proof, especially at times of economic stress in the industry; and 3. the difficulty for scientific institutes in maintaining the focus or priority of staff and financial resources for the lengthy periods needed to develop and conduct adaptive management regimes (part-icularly actively adaptive regimes). Each of these circumstances is quite under-standable, but not easily overcome. The first and second constraints require significant involvement, understanding and persistence on the part of scientists in presenting and gaining acceptance from a wide range of stakeholders for new Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 31 approaches to management. This is often easier to achieve in newly developing fisheries, where economic and political constraints are usually not so strong. The development of adaptive regimes in these situations could and should be very actively pursued. The third constraint requires an ability to allocate scientific resources on a decadal time frame - always difficult and becoming more so in most parts of the world, but an issue that must be addressed and resolved. Adaptive management is without doubt the best management strategy we have for achieving sustainable resource use. To gain wider application of adaptive management approaches demands that the issues of acceptance, communication and commit-ment in the broader social environment of fishery management be actively addressed. This will require scientists to be strongly involved in a broad spectum of communication media and forums, including the time-consuming activity of participating in management advisory committees. The credibility of scientific input to fishery resource management suffers greatly from ad hoc approaches that even lack scientific evaluation of their chance of success with respect to the overall social aims of fishery management. It is certainly time that effort was put into re-vitalising, if not re-inventing, adaptive fishery management. Discussion James Scandol What is the relationship between adaptive management and the precautionary principle? Keith Sainsbury Adaptive management provides a nice framework for evaluating how pre-cautionary different strategies should be. Also I think that approaches to fisheries management that do not fully recognise and have strategies to deal with the uncertainty would not be called precautionary. John Schnute Why do you succeed with adaptive management whilst thousands of others fail? Some of those adaptive schemes you describe actually work. How much does the role of analysis have to play in this? Does it play a role in the sociology of the whole thing, how critical was it? Keith Sainsbury It certainly did - I'll explain it in a moment. I just want to say I may have left a mixed message. Adaptive management frame-works can and do work, but the other point that I was trying to make is that the investment to get them up and going is substantial and I am not sure that in the foreseeable future that it is going to come down. Maybe we are on a learning curve and when everyone fully understands what is going on we wont have to sit down and re-explain everything all the time. But at the moment I think that we are an awfully long way from that. So the problem is that to actually achieve something like this we have got to really work. We got to have some people who have the resources to put a lot of investment into working with the managers, other scientists and with industry and it drives you absolutely crazy at times. On the role of analysis, from a very early personal experience I can tell you that decision trees do not help. It is very useful when talking with a bunch of other scientists or consultants for groups who do or do not want something to be done. It can be essential to get scientists and these groups on side. But I learnt very quickly that when dealing with 'real people', you go straight to the graph which summarises the whole thing. Randall Peterman User groups often do not want to be in the control areas in adaptive management regimes - i.e., in areas where fishing intensity is lower than in the experimental areas, and they feel that they are not getting a full share of any benefits, fishers may respond "hey don't do this to me, do it to the other guy", and that is often a barrier to implementing adaptive management. How do you get around this? Keith Sainsbury There is no easy solution to this. You have to try and talk it through. Carl Walters It is possible to design the experiments to Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 32 ameliorate this problem. It may be possible to avoid areas where this sort of situation exists Laura Richards Could you please comment on the costs of setting up a situation like the one on the Great Barrier Reef. How many people, how many days? Keith Sainsbury In the NW Shelf , the project cost 3 people per year for about 5 years. In the Great Barrier Reef - a lot of time, a lot of talking, a lot of redoing analyses. Craig Harris If you are talking about the costs of collecting information, it is also necessary to talk about the costs to families and outfits displaced. This, in aggregate must overwhelm the scientific costs. Sainsbury Good point. We try to put these costs in the expected value, i.e., value of lost catches, unemployment. The cost to the scientific research institute is a small part of this. Points of View - Theme 2 An Overview of Tuna Assessment and Management World-Wide Alain Fonteneau ORSTOM Scientist IATTC, Lajolla, California, USA Abstract Tuna resources world-wide are providing increasing and large catches (over 3 millions tonnes); those catches are of average high value. Tuna species are classified in the Caracas Law of the Sea, in the category of highly migratory species, doing extensive transoceanic migrations between multiple EEZs and offshore international areas. Consequently, those stocks are managed, at least in theory, by international ad hoc fishery commissions such as ICCAT and IATTC. This talk presents an overview of the management bodies active for tuna research and management, and discusses their strength and weaknesses for research and management. The major stock assessment problems specific to the tuna species are summarized and discussed. A classification between the temperate tunas (most often fragile stocks) and the tropical tunas (very stable and resilient stocks) is used and discussed. This differential risk component in the exploitation of those two groups of tunas can easily be explained by multiple reasons, such as their ecological differences (behavior, migration, availability to the fisheries, levels of recruitment) and the economy of the fisheries (cost to catch the fishes and value of the fish caught). The strong resilience of most tropical tuna stocks explains why most (or all) of those stock are not yet overexploited, despite a tremendously increasing trend of fishing effort and permanently increasing catches observed worldwide. Stock assessment done in most oceans upon tunas are made difficult, or often impossible, for various reasons which are often specific to the tunas: • Complexity of the tuna migration patterns (well shown by tagging), combining complex and variable advective and diffusive movements (geographical and vertical); those movement can create unexpected interactions (or often surprising lack of interaction) between tuna fisheries. Those interaction are often very difficult to understand and to assess. In most cases some fraction of tuna stocks may remain unavailable to the fisheries (being too deep or to remote) and they may act as a cryptic biomass. • Impossibility to really age the catches: all the VPA analysis are done basically on sizes. • Great difficulties and very high coast to measure the trends in the abundance: most recent tuna fishery cpue indices are strongly biased by increased fishing powers of most fleets, and it is impossible for most stocks to obtain abundance indices independent of the fisheries. As a consequence of those two serious limitations, the VPA type analysis done on tunas are often quite controversial and uncertain. The ecological problems of tuna by-catches Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 33 in purse seines (dolphins, log associated species) and longline fisheries (birds, sharks, turtles...) is briefly introduced, as they are of increasing importance in tuna fishery development and management. Discussion Jim Kitchell An alternative interpretation to your observation of apparent positive feedback in tuna fisheries could have to do with released constraint to recruitment. We know that one of the best ways to find out about tunas is look at the stomachs of adult tuna, where cannibalism could be part of that feedback. Alain Fontaineau Yes, it is a good question and it is well known that tuna can be cannibalistic and there is probably this type of domed stock recruitment curve. It is not a contradiction of what I was showing, but it can complement it. Gert van Sent sen You mentioned in your presentation some of the points that have improved the fishing efficiency of the fleet. Have you been able to model the increase in fishing effort as a result of the ecology and are there general assessments of the overall resources? Alain Fontaineau Yes and no. It has been tried, so some improvement has been made. For example, some projections have been made where the fishers started off being able to locate fish at 5 km and later could search over areas of 30km. So this is well known. But afterwards when you add up all these affects, you don't know at all the final reasons. You can model one or the other but all the interactions are difficult to calculate. Predictive Models of Growth, Survival and Reproduction Jarl Giske Dept. of Fisheries and Marine Biology Univ. of Bergen, Norway Abstract The potential of developing predictive models to forecast growth, survival and reproduction of fish in an ecosystem is discussed, with examples from the Barents Sea. Currently, growth, survival and spawning of the Barents Sea capelin have been modelled by dynamic programming where the individual fish may select its horizontal position, influencing growth and survival. Temperature fields and currents are generated by a hydrodynamics model and zooplankton biomass is generated by a 3-dimensional model of Calanus fmmarchicus. Fields of mortality risk by cod and mammals are superimposed on the horizontal map. The model has been run for 1979-1981. The role of predictive models is two-fold: 1) to model historic events in order to reveal causal relationships and 2) to anticipate the future. The first of these aims is often overlooked, perhaps due to the word ' predictive'. However, revealing causal relationships is extremely important for our ability to give qualitative predictions in complex systems, and this aim is currently the major reason for performing predictive models. However, biological models are currently not developed for large-scale multi-species ecosystem dynamics. Particularly for the atmosphere and the physics of the oceans, the second of these aims is currently out of range for science, due to the chaotic nature of the weather. Today's ocean climate models are driven by meteorological forces, and may therefore only be used in hindcasting. Another type of forcing is needed for predicting the annual and inter-annual dynamics of fish stocks: improved understanding of the predictive celestial and planetary events and processes that cause oscillations in ocean climate and fish stocks is needed to enhance the predictive power of scenario modelling in fisheries biology. Research efforts should be directed into understanding these processes. Discussion John Schnute Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 34 You made the distinction between two approaches, (1) observation and statistical analysis, and (2) modelling and prediction. I am puzzled that you see these as distinct. I have an analogy of the scientist as a detective. There is a certain place in detective stories when the detective tries to re-enact the crime. I see the activity that you were conducting somehow in that vein and I have always thought that this was quite close to statistical analysis. But the risk that I see when re-enacting the crime is that there is more than one explanation that will adequately fit the facts. You may become enchanted by your own explanation. Comment? Jarl Giske Data is the fundamental thing that we have. We learn from nature, but we don't use data as input in these models. We input the spatial distribution, length frequency distribution, but then we have meteorological data or sunshine, wind. We have the overwintering biomass of copepods in the Norwegian Sea the year before as input data. The model is run from this overall paradigm that the ecological players have shaped. Paul Hart How do these models contribute to better management of the capelin stock? Jarl Giske Currently we are limited by hydrodynamic models. We believe in 10 years we can make hydrodynamic models which are based on other things than just the weather. There are signs now that to understand what is happening with fish we have to understand what is happening in nature. We have a good situation in the Bering Sea currently and a dodgy situation in the Canadian seas. Now, in Norway we see good management and in Canada we see overfishing. What we see is the balances of nature shifting and those forces operate on a time scale which is longer than 7 days weather forecast. While we can not forecast for longer than this yet, we have to use scenario forecasts from the historical archives. We can pick a year which is most like the year we have now and we can use that year as an example of what we may happen in the near future. Benefits of Taking Uncertainties into Account when Making Decisions in Fisheries Management: Example Applications of Bayesian Decision Analysis Randall M. Peterman, Shane W. Frederick Christina A Robb, Calvin N. Peters & Milo D. Adkison School of Resource & Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Canada Abstract Fisheries management agencies are attempting to identify precautionary approaches to management that make an appropriate balance between harvesting stocks sustainably and avoiding detrimental situations. However large variability and estimation errors in fisheries data make estimating risks and identifying appropriate management strategies difficult. Decision analysis is an appropriate method to deal with this problem because it explicitly represents uncertainties about current stock abundances or about underlying relationships in dynamics of the fish or the fleet. Bayesian statistics can be used to place degrees of belief on different estimates of abundance or the possible relationships. Decision analysis then calculates the optimal management action for each specified management objective. We discuss several examples that apply these methods to choosing appropriate management actions for, (1) marine fish species (Le. appropriate harvest rates), (2) Pacific salmon (best decision rule for when to open an in-river trout fishery to harvest fish that are surplus to spawning requirements), and (3) rainbow trout (best density for stocking lakes with juveniles). Specifically, we will illustrate how taking uncertainties into account may in some, but. not all, cases affect the appropriate decision about the level of precaution (reduction in harvest rate below that considered optimal when uncertainties are ignored in a Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 35 deterministic analysis). We also show examples of the expected value of including uncertainty, which is the difference in expected benefits between choosing a management action based on a full decision analysis (uncertainties included) and the expected benefits from choosing the action based on only the best point estimates of all quantities. Our analyses of salmon and trout fisheries calculated the value of improving information through research programs that provide better estimates of parameter values, as illustrated by comparing the expected values of benefits from two decision analyses, one with the current estimate of variance on some uncertainty and another with a lower variance. Such calculations of the value of additional information are useful to management agencies that are making difficult decisions about allocating limited funds to different research and operational programs. Discussion Rashid Sumaila How do you take care of true uncertainty? Randall Peterman True uncertainty is an irreducible thing that we will never know. It is part of the residual error, which is weighted differently in different data, part of the error which we can never explain. Craig Harris I was curious whether in any projects you have worked on, you have tried to involve user groups and stakeholders in data gathering and modelling, either directly in the sense of the fishers going out and gathering data themselves or perhaps using biologist or scientists that they hired. Are there ways of getting the stakeholders involved I this analytical exercise? Randall Peterman Yes, but we only have very indirect experience in the Nass Sockeye case by talking with consultants who work for the Nsgaa tribe on the Nass River. In this case it was a very interactive process and there is no reason in principle why this should not be done on a more extensive basis. Intelligent Fisheries Assessment in an Uncertain World Laura J. Richards DFO Science Branch Nanaimo, Canada Abstract Intelligent fisheries stock assessment requires carefully archived historical data. But, in many cases, the necessary data are either limited or entirely nonexistent. These limitations result from poor estimates of catch and effort, noisy survey biomass indices, and inappropriate spatial and temporal scales of data collection. Current stock assessment models generally fail to acknowledge the full uncertainty in data inputs. Thus, model projections may appear overly precise. Optimistic stock size estimates potentially expose the stock to overfishing. By contrast, analysts lose credibility with their clients when they produce excessively conservative estimates. Recent improvements to stock assessment models may help to define the true uncertainties in fish stock abundance, but only if appropriate data are available. How do we resolve this dilemma for a re-invented fisheries management? We can improve data collection procedures, perhaps through industry partnerships, but many types of analyses still require historical time series. On the short term, we must seek mechanisms for including non-traditional data in stock assessments and for analyzing traditional data in novel ways. We can also employ natural perturbations (e.g., recruitment variability) as tools for learning system dynamics. I give examples of possible analyses based on my experience with British Columbia fisheries. I also argue that we must invest now in database archival and documentation as our legacy to the next generation of analysts. Discussion Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 36 Jim Kitchell Errors in aging fish has become a big problem and every time we look closely we find fish to be older than we had thought. Might a margin of safety be built into the aging and therefore the process of allocation of stock assessment that says we underage these to begin with, now lets go from there. And if so, how much do you think this margin is? Laura Richards In the late 1970s there was lots of work on aging where they began to discover some of these differences and there is new work now using radiometric methods. But for a lot of these species that we have pretty well reached the plateau. If you've underestimated age, you are going to assume that productivity is much higher than it is, which means that you've got to be more conservative. There are a lot of problems with just trying to implement that general concept, given all the other kinds of uncertainty that we have as well. We should probably implement something like John Caddy talked about. This is the generic approach where we should be heading. Carl Walters In the late 1980s, there was a large adaptive management experiment proposed for the Pacific Ocean Perch in BC. Why did DFO oppose this when all the indications were that this would be a much better way to manage the fishery and it would have provided a pile of useful information? Laura Richards We did two other experiments and both had problems with long term industry collaboration. One of these was an overfishing experiment at the northern end of British Columbia for 7 years, followed by closure for 7 years. There is a survey of the closed area planned for the summer of 1996. It is one of the best examples of adaptive management that we have on this coast. But we don't know the results. There were lots of growing pains, for example, community issues, potential loss in communities. Its an on-going battle every year to keep the experimental area closed. Fixed Exploitation Rate Strategies for Coping with Effects of Climate Change Carl Walters & Ana M. Parma Fisheries Centre, UBC, Canada & International Pacific Halibut Commission Seattle, USA Abstract Survival rates and carrying capacities for larval and juvenile fishes may be strongly impacted by long-term, unpredictable climatic fluctuations. When climate impacts produce strongly autocorr elated interannual variations in recruitment, harvesting a constant fraction of the stock each year allows the spawning stock to track such variations. Dynamic programming analysis indicates that this tracking effect is likely to produce long-term harvests that are very close (within 15%) to the theoretical optimum that could be achieved if all future climatic variations were known in advance. Fixed harvest rate strategies are likely to degrade performance more than 10% only when there is littie interannual correlation in environmental effects or when there is a large, abrupt climate change that can be predicted well in advance if it is going to increase carrying capacity, or detected immediately if it causes a decrease in capacity. This finding implies that it may be more cost-effective to invest in research on how to implement fixed harvest rate strategies than to invest in research on explaining and predicting climatic effects. Successful implementation may require a combination of improved stock size assessments, and stringent regulatory measures to substantially restrict the proportion of fish at risk to fishing each year. Discussion Da vid Policansky A question about Carl's proposal where holes are cut in sockeye salmon runs, i.e., Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 37 the idea of small (green) fishing windows in a mainly closed (red) area. Whenever you start something new, weird things start happening. When you are basically pounding the hell out of a stock for half an hour, half a day or whatever the window is, I could imagine two things happening (1) powerful genetic selection, and (2) short-lived but profound ecosystem effects? Carl Walters (1) Genetic selection - the graph you saw had about 60 genetic races of sockeye salmon mixed in the green part of that curve. All of them are fairly spread out, so they are all subject to having holes cut in them. From movement data from radio tracking and so on, we are pretty sure that the variation in movement speed within each run during their migrations is fairly high, so everyone of the runs is spread out wide enough in time and space as they pass through those small fishing areas, so you are cutting small bits out of them several times. The old fisheries method was often to let enough escape to get the spawning count, then knock the rest of the rim off and that had to have major deleterious effects in the Rivers Inlet. They shifted the timing curves and screwed up return times. But we have also been smart enough not to do that in a whole lot of other places and to distribute the mortality out across the genetic structure of the run. That's not a hard thing to do once you put your mind to it. (2) In that particular situation the ecosystem effects are indeed profound. Those holes you saw in the graph are by gillnet fishery, one of the filthiest kinds of fishing there is in this area. It does big damage to a lot of incidental populations ranging from sharks to sturgeons to recreational species - bad news from that point of view. But on the other hand, spreading those gillnets out over the whole seas would be a whole lot worse. Ramon Bonfil You inject fresh optimism in how to cope with problems with uncertainty and management, but it all looks too nice for the situation of the salmon fisheries in BC in which you have a very restricted area where all the fish runs come, you know where go to fish and precisely when to do it. Can you tell us how this would apply to other fisheries? Carl Walters Take a look at any of our so-called very successful long term fisheries, ones that have been going for centuries. Every time that you look at one of them, what you find is large spatial refugia that were created by economics. In the case of cod fisheries of the East Coast of Canada or the tuna fisheries of the tropics and so on. Those spatial, economic refuges are vanishing and when they vanish we have problems. So I think that the key lesson. A lot of fishes migrate or have life histories with strong on-shore/off-shore dynamics like John Caddy talked about. There are lots of very simple ways that we could re-initiate the kind of spatial structuring of mortality risk that made those fisheries sustainable in the first place. You could make it too costly to fish on the high seas for example, through a variety of economic constraints. We can use explicit closures that protect deep water spawning stocks There are a whole lot of things that we can do that are not utterly destructive to fisheries. But I think that it begins with the principle that if you don't know what you are doing, your first precautionary step is to turn the world red (close all areas to fishing), and then start backing away from that and see what can be done safely. Keith Sainsbury Several people have asked me during the break whether there is there any conflict of my view with the presentation given by Carl Walters? Well no, there is zero conflict. The use of spatially based management is a powerful way to go. When and where is based on the ecological model. And just as our ways to assess biomass is poor, our ability to construct movement models will be quite poor, so we still have to look for and evaluate uncertainties General Discussion on Theme 2 Kevern Cochrane Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 38 I refer to Craig Harris's question to Keith Sainsbury about the social and economic impacts of adaptive management experiments. As Keith told us this is a very important consideration and probably the overriding consideration. But we in doing that we must not lose sight of the fact that every time we make a TAC other management recommendation and that recomm-endation is incorrect (which is every single time we make one), we are incurring social and economic costs. We are not usually able to quantify that, but there is a cost, so when we bring into the equation the social and economic costs of doing the experiment, we must also bring into the equation the social and economic costs of not doing the experiment.. And base our decision upon that. Carl Walters One of the first suggested implementations of adaptive management, which is actually where the idea came from, was on the Fraser River Sockeye Salmon in BC in the 1970s. We have done the numbers on what it has cost not to do that experiment: it has cost the people of Canada about $1 billion in lost catches. If the experiment had been done back in the 1930s and 1940s we'd be more than a billion dollars ahead in that fishery. The costs of doing experiments are trivial compared to the cost of not doing them. Keith Sainsbury The equating of adaptive management with actively experimental management is something that we have been trying to get away from. I think that this is perhaps one of the reasons why the base concepts of adaptive management have not been picked up as they should have been The focus came to be on actively adaptive management, and that's got its place, but don't forget the whole framework and evaluation of passively adaptive management processes. Nigel Haggan There is no evidence of collective government ability to do the type of overall cost/benefit analysis talked of here. It is an intractable problem - the government is composed of hundreds of separate ganglia that communicate only partially. Antonio Diaz de Leon A question for Carl Walters. The constant harvest rate - the Golden Rule to preserve stocks in time and provide a buffer, to natural variation - could you elaborate more on it Carl Walters In a fixed exploitation policy, when productivity conditions in the environment of the stocks change, the stock is free to track them up and down. Probably the best example is the Bristol Bay Sockeye Salmon in Alaska. The Alaskans say that they manage this fishery with a fixed escapement policy. Well, if they actually had a fixed escapement policy they wouldn't have seen record catches over the last 4-6 years The fact of the matter is their management tactics lead to a fixed harvest rate and when marine productivity increased in the north Pacific, up went the stock. Because of a fixed exploitation rate, it allowed large catches. Fixed escapement would not have done this. When the productivity drops, those stocks will come back down. Antonio Diaz de Leon I am worried that I am the only representative from south of the US border in reinventing fisheries management here. A question for Laura Richards. We are faced in management issues with two different frames of understanding. In the northern hemisphere, industries are strong and developed. So trying to make changes is constrained by their economic interests. But in Mexico our problems in science are not in the relationships with the industry or communities. When science is available to show them the benefits and the costs of different management strategies, people are quite keen to be adopt them. What do you think about that Laura? I am talking about the problem of collapse, the problem of science, the problem of the public adapting to stringent management measures. In other parts of the world, the science is in place and people are keener not to loose money. But for example in Mexico, the industry started to use Turtle Excluding Devices (TEDs) and were very keen on them after they had some Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 39 experience with them. Laura Richards I think that you are right, and that their is a lot of resistance by our industry towards some change. But there are also some positive things too. Industries tend to get polarised and you're always trying to fight both sides. But certainly there are some people within our industries who recognise what is going on and are very eager to adopt some of these new technologies, such as the TEDs that you mentioned, because they look to the future and see the writing on the wall. Paul Hart A fundamental issue in fisheries management is the conflicts of interest that exist between the different factions involved in fisheries management. In that sense the managers and scientists have their own particular agendas that they are trying to push forwards, which lead them to propose measures which are often in conflict with end users of the management advice. Because of this fundamental opposition of interest, systems fail from the start because fishers will try to avoid the measures imposed. I think that the question that Randall Peterman raised about the question of opportunity cost that some fishermen are going to suffer as a result of having their fishing areas used for adaptive management experiments highlights this issue. The first question to start with is how all sides can have the same interest. Jake Rice On Paul Hart's comment about the interests of different parties which start off diametrically opposed. My experience is that when you have a well defined single fishery, the interests of scientists, managers and industry are in fact quite similar, possibly integrated over slightly different time frames, but they are not that diverse. The difficulty occurs when the fishing industry itself is split into sectors who have very different feelings and the gain of one sector is at the expense of another sector. The really intractable problems do not come because fisheries scientists, managers and industry have different objectives, its when the fishing industry itself sees someone else's economic benefit as their loss. These are the diametrically opposed groups where any kind of constructive innovation takes for ever. Paul Hart I agree: in a single species fishery this is OK. But fisheries biologists often have a different time horizon from fishers themselves. Fishers simply can't stop fishing for 2 weeks because they will have no income. The fisheries biologist is not constrained by that, so they tend to propose measures that economically don't work. Meryl Williams I don't agree with Keith Sainsbury that there is little difference between active and passive adaptive management. It is like running a clinical trial and you have to get people to give their consent. There are ethics involved and you need consent - all the patients need to give consent. And its not just a few patients who have to give their consent, its all the patients. Randall Peterman A short comment on the discussion of adaptive management being like clinical trials. That's exactly right, and one needs the users co-operation and recognition. But, quite frankly, they are being experimented on now. We don't know exactly what the effects are of any given management act. We act on the best of our knowledge, but experimenting is happening in a disorganised manner and you cannot associate effect with cause. Keith Sainsbury was talking about experimenting in an organised way, where you have an experimental design, monitoring and evaluation. Meryl Williams A question for Alain Fontaineau on the increase in fishing power of the tuna purse seine fleet. One thing that wasn't on the list, and I was wondering if he can do anything in the analysis on this, was the fleet dynamics and the impact that that has had. My early experience with the purse seine in the central western Pacific was that some parts of the fleets fished as teams. Once catch rates went down in a search area, the Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 40 fleet masters in Tokyo would send a couple of boats off to search and after a few days the rest of the team would follow. That has an enormous impact on the overall CPUE of the fleet and this is not obvious when just doing individual vessel averages. Alain Fonteneau This is not a new factor, it has been happening in tuna fisheries for the last 30 years. It is a difficult thing to do. There is no information, but it is an important factor. Anthony Charles A comment on adaptive management. The key is robust and resilient management, management that is going to work under conditions of uncertainty. To me, adaptive management to me is part of that strategy. But Carl Walters made a good point, almost as an aside, about shifting away from quota management. One of the startling aspects in the Atlantic Canadian groundfish fishery was that there was a lack of control and monitoring of fishing effort at sea. This relates to Carl's comment: there was over reliance on quota management and a lack of attention to the pressure on the resource. Limiting seasons to a slice of the pie is one option with dealing with effort at sea. Another option would be Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) where there would be direct control over fishing effort at sea. Whether you have one boat fishing 1000 days or 1000 boats fishing 1 day - they are empirical issues. But, the key is controlling effort at sea. Carl Walters I think that one thing that is going to make our lives easier, at least in North America, in regard to the types of problems Jake Rice was discussing is that there has been a big change in public attitude to fish and fisheries. There is a growing recognition of the commons, that the public has an interest in the fisheries. But this does not mean that the stakeholders have to be the decision makers. You see a rising kind of demand that our public management agencies (that our tax payers pay for in North America) act on the public's behalf and the stakeholders be damned. It means that there are fish and you'd better protect them. And that eliminates the discounting problem as well as the problem of dealing with bickering stakeholders. Paul Flanning A comment on the north/south distinction. It also relates to Tony Charles' comment about quota management and in general about restrictive fisheries management practices. In most of the Caribbean the relationship between the fish authorities and fishing industry is a relatively close one and they are working with the same goals in mind. I think that a large part of the difference comes from the fact that the adversarial system in North America and developed countries tends to relate to a management regime that is put in place, and most of them are driven by quota management, which the fishing industry does not accept. I think that in the Mexican situation you might find that the imposition of a restrictive fisheries management regime would generate the same problems. What fisheries management is trying to achieve in a country determines how successful it will be. James Scandol Would it be feasible to extend Decision Analysis to include the essential uncertainty of implementing policies? The fact that there is so much difficulty and there are a lot of unknowns, would it be a futile attempt to try to quantify it? Because I think that one of the most interesting aspects of Carl Walters' scheme is that it is so incredibly simple and it is very easy to communicate, so therefore has a higher probability of being implemented. John Schnute Certainly a theme of this session has been whether or not analysis is useful, can or cannot be correct and I was relieved a little at the end of Carl's proposal that he said there would still be some need for analysis even after implementing his very good scheme. Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 41 And in fact, I have not lost complete faith that eventually people will figure out ways to understand the ecosystem. I am not a complete pessimist on that and in fact, I just have to remark that if Carl Walters policies were followed, the kinds of data generated could be very revealing about the characteristics of the ecosystem and may quite improve our analysis. Keith Sainsbury Adaptive management terminology is important in framework and evaluation. The focus should be on a robust procedure. Ther is a need for the concept of a feedback loop. Adaptive management is nothing more than an elaborate Decision Analysis. Presented in Carl's usual oversimplified way, just using area closure would, down the track, be found not sufficient. The reason, going on the experience in terrestrial systems, conservation by closed areas {parks), showed that you need to manage outside the parks too. We will end up with a mixture of approaches. Jake Rice On closed areas: not all closures are created equal. From 1988 to 1991, in a particularly critical period for the Newfoundland Northern Cod fishery, we had a natural closure. Between 50 - 7096 of the catch was taken in the off-shore fishery and over that period of time the southern limit of the ice moved from closing off a third of the traditional area in 1988 to over 70 % of the area by 1991. But all that did was aggregate the fishing effort and the fish in a smaller and smaller portion of the traditional range. It was a tragic oversight not to have included that geography in the assessments. We did have 7096 of the area effectively closed to the off-shore fishery by the time that the stock was at the point of effective collapse. So there'll still be analysis because we have to find ways to make closed areas reduce the actual fishing effort. Carl Walters I was not recommending closed areas. What I was recommending was to close the whole world and then work out, using adaptive management, stock assessment, good biology and a lot of other stuff, just how big you can make the holes that you fish in. I am not talking about making parks: I am talking about turning the whole idea of what is management is about around. We must start with the notion that the whole world is iced over and we can cut a few holes to fish in. Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 42 THEME 3: THE ROLE OF POLICY IN RESPONSIBLE FISHING Session Rapporteurs Dave Preikshot & Steven Mackinson Keynote Address People, Purses and Power: Some Features of the Debate Surrounding a Developing Fisheries Policy for South Africa Kevern L. Cochrane Fisheries Division, FAO, Italy Abstract At present, arising in part from the former policy of apartheid, many of the major fisheries in South Africa are in the hands of a limited number of quota holders, dominated by the white sector of the population. The early adoption of a limited-entry approach to fisheries has had substantial advantages for fisheries management and utilisation, and most of the major stocks are either in a productive state, or are recovering, under biologically conservative management, from earlier depletions. The introduction of democracy in South Africa has created a case study in which it will be possible to see the evolution of new fisheries policies. The current access rights system is being challenged by many who had previously been excluded from access on political grounds. The policy-makers are therefore faced with the task of introducing a just and widely accepted system of user rights to a mature fishery, without undue disruption to the existing industry which plays an important social and economic role in the coastal regions of the country. The search for suitable approaches, which is far from complete, has highlighted some of the strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches to fisheries management in the country. Analysis of these features, and consideration of future approaches, has relevance to fisheries management in many areas. This presentation suggests that, in common with many other countries, South African fisheries management has placed very heavy emphasis on analyses of the status of the resources and their potential productivity. Under policies of limited access, with small numbers of quota holders and landing sites, this approach met with some success. However, even under these circumstances, social and economic pressures, coupled with the inevitable uncertainties in resource assessment, have led to over-exploitation in some fisheries. In an environment in which access may be broadened substantially, with a definite shift towards greater involvement of smaller-scale operators, the human considerations and impacts could become even more pronounced. Changes in policy will be necessary consequences of the new South African constitution. Significantly, for fisheries these have been embodied by eight guiding considerations; 1. Responsible use and management 2. Democratic institutional structures 3. Protection of the resource 4. Equitable allocation of rights 5. Creating social development and benefits 6. Consideration of worker related issues 7. Maintenance of an efficient, investor-friendly, and competitive industry 8. Enhancement of tourist fishery Fisheries managers and agencies in South Africa need to take cognisance of the causes of past failures, and the probable changes in the structure of the industry over the next few years, and develop the expertise and approaches to facilitate the achievement of desired social and economic objectives, within the constraints of sustainable utilisation. Far greater emphasis than in the past, therefore, needs to be placed on analysing the social and economic dynamics of fisheries, and incorporating these into management procedures and approaches. This will inevitably also require greater participation by users in the management Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 43 of fisheries. It is suggested that similar changes are happening, and need to be encouraged, in other fisheries around the world. Discussion David Policanski. Are there any cross quota holders in the fisheries of South Africa.? Kevern Cochrane Yes, in fact, the major pelagic fish quota holders also possess lobster quotas, and these are two of the most lucrative fisheries in South Africa. Carl Walters Since redistribution of the fishery may impose heavier costs due to more labour, why not address the problem by placing a royalty on the fishery and using the monies so obtained to employ more people in other industries? Kevern Cochrane The redistribution alluded to in the question is not a necessary result of the process; a royalty is, indeed, another option. In fact, if the industry had been cagey it would have rewarded employees with better salaries and options for shares, thus avoiding some of the perceived need for redistribution. One problem in introducing a royalty collection system is that the industry fears it could make them internationally non-competitive, although this is suspected of perhaps being a whinge. Tony Davis Apartheid obviously moulded fisheries policies to marginalis the participation of Blacks. How are the fisheries to be changed such that power is redistributed to give Blacks power and influence? As a specific example has any action been taken on the redistribution of ownership of motorised vessels? Kevern Cochrane The moral implications of the question simply focus on addressing what to do in order to make South Affica morally acceptable. The goal of the process described in the discussion was to look at both the resource and society's needs and find solutions to meet those needs. Jake Rice Will fishery scientists have an increasing or decreasing role in the formulation of new fisheries policy in South Africa? Kevern Cochrane The old role of fishery scientists used to be purely to estimate fishing mortality (F). But it is now preferable to emphasise the implementation of the desired F as well. This can expand the discipline of fishery science by allowing the examination of new foci in work to implement F. Rognvaldur Hannesson What attitude was adopted by the hake fishing industry with respect to conservation of the resource? Kevern Cochrane Industry was rather co-operative and supported the imposition of the F02 objective and wanted to help ensure high catch rates. This has been particularly true of the two largest corporations, which have also maintained a good working relation with scientists. John Sproul Given the increasing eco-friendly trends of social science and fishery science, might it be possible to finance change in policy by incorporating aspects of this new attitude? Perhaps this might be accomplished via an internationally certifiable labelling mechanism to translate the value of the product through a scheme addressing biologic, social, and economic concerns. Kevern Cochrane There is currently no debate in South Africa with respect to this, but I support the idea and would like to help popularise the concept in South Africa. I think such ideas would likely be taken quite seriously. Points of View - Theme 3 Regime Formation and Community Participation in Fisheries Management Craig K. Harris Dept. of Sociology Michigan State University, USA Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 44 Abstract The fisheries of Lake Victoria in East Africa provide an paradigmatic case study of an emerging pattern in the management of fisheries in developing countries. During the 1970's and 1980's, a fairly rich and complex trophic community shifted to a simpler and more sparse trophic structure dominated by an introduced top predator (Ogutu-Ohwayo), and a small scale artisanal fishery was largely replaced by an intermediate scale industrial fishery (Yongo). The causes of these changes include both the introduction of exotic species (Pitcher), increases in siltation-borne and precipitation-borne nutrients (Hecky), land-use changes in the riparian ecotone (Bugeny), and the incorporation of the Lake Victoria region into the global fish trade system (Harris et al). These changes in the fisheries of Lake Victoria have generated high levels of concern in lakeside communities, in the riparian nations, and in international bodies. The topic has been addressed in at least seven international forums; the World Bank, in conjunction with the Global Environ-mental Facility of UNDP and UNEP, is currently considering a 65 million dollar program for Lake Victoria. Funding to support research concerning the Lake Victoria aquatic ecosystem has been allocated by at least ten donor nations, two international scientific bodies, and the European Union. These various programmatic and scientific efforts relate to the management of the Lake Victoria fisheries through the establishment of a regime. A regime is established by a coalition of actors which gains control of the authority for fisheries management. Since the management of a fishery involves, at least in part, the resolution of claims on the fishery that are not fully mutually compatible, the establishment of the regime almost always entails a contest among the various stakeholders for control of the relevant authority. The past ten years has been a period of significant conflict over the management of the Lake Victoria fishery. At least three distinct viewpoints have been expressed during that conflict: species conservation, commodity production, and riparian well-being. The contest for the establishment of the Lake Victoria fisheries management regime has involved many different actors advocating one or more of these viewpoints: international scientific organizations, global organisations, transnational corporations. That contest is now coming to a resolution with the establishment of the trilateral Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization. In establishing a fishery management regime, the dominant actors attempt to structure relevant institutions so as to ensure the actors' continued influence. At the same time, for these institutions to be perceived as legitimate, they must include a significant element of democratic openness, often referred to as community participation. This interplay between regime formation and community participation establishes a dynamic for the development of the new Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization Discussion Richard Porta-ls it possible to reconcile the two post modern views of fishery management (the first from within, the second from those outside a fishery), and if so, what is the mechanism with which to do this? Craig Harris To answer the question it is necessary to consider the two levels, within and outside, of the fishery management process. Within the fishery the extent to which fisher's participation in management is effective depends on the perceived legitimacy of the management authority from outside. The two sides are reconciled when it is possible to get trustworthy information on the quality of fisher's participation in management.. Tony Pitcher Fishery scientists have long been used to dealing with uncertainty in their work. However, we rarely hear how economists and social scientists deal with it, or how, in another instance, the general public deals with it with respect to Lake Victoria. How can these uncertainties be conveyed? Craig Harris The premise of the question is denied: Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 45 sociologists always deal in uncertainty. For example, most of the questions in the discipline point to gaps in knowledge about management of communities. What biologists say to managers about ranges of likely stock sizes becomes public discourse about exact stock sizes. Economists do the same thing by implying certainty in their models. Sociologists, in fact, seem most likely to deal with uncertainty. Measuring the Unmeasurable: a Multivariate Interdisciplinary Method for Determining the Health of Fisheries Tony Pitcher, Alida Bundy, Dave Preikshot & Daniel Pauly Fisheries Centre, UBC, Vancouver, Canada Abstract This paper describes an attempt to devise a multivariate, multi-disciplinary taxonomy of world fisheries that could be used to diagnose problems. The scheme might be useful in a triage of fisheries to determine where limited management resources might be focused to greatest effect. Fisheries attributes are grouped into ecological, technological, economic and social categories. For each category, we chose fifteen to twenty attributes that are easily and objectively scored from readily available data, and that are likely to discriminate among fisheries. The selection of these attributes is important because they must remain fixed if future analyses are to be comparable. Candidate attributes are discussed. A multivariate ordination (at this stage we used Principal Components Analysis, PCA) is then performed within each disciplinary set of attributes. The ordination scores are then brought together into an overall interdisciplinary analysis (also at this stage using PCA). A preliminary analysis of a diverse set of world fisheries from commercial, subsistence, artisanal, industrial and recreational sectors is presented. Preliminary results suggest that the technique may be useful in objectively evaluating the health of fisheries. Extracting useful data for an interdisciplinary overview entails delving into detailed studies in a range of disciplines, each of which has evolved its own ground rules, jargon and unstated assumptions. Ordination within each category here represents the disciplines. This may be approximate, as here, using simple ranking scale for attributes, or, after careful surveys and questionnaires have been carried out, made more precise. The hierarchical technique introduced here is designed to withstand robust disciplinary review at this first level of analysis, while re-ordinating the fisheries in interdisciplinary multivariate space at the second stage. Discussion Jake Rice The method appears to be quite interesting but does not appear to adequately deal with issues like multi-species fisheries, multi-license fisheries where properties are common, or fisheries where individuals in boats fish for different species. Daniel Pauly Such issues can be dealt with by separating out component fisheries. For example, in Ghana fishers may take sardines some of the year, then fish in lagoons. These two fisheries can be separately examined. Tony Pitcher Whenever a different species (a target) is the focus of a gear, differentiation from other fisheries is implied. Jon Schnute What is the application of economic attributes? Some of them appear to be unrelated to fishery health per se, further how do the effects of international fishing manifest themselves? Daniel Pauly It should be remembered that the paper is based on the work of two teams; Tony Pitcher/Alida Bundy, focusing on large scale temperate fisheries, and Daniel Pauly/Dave Preikshot, concentrating on small scale artisanal fisheries, who developed this assessment tool after discovering a common approach in analysis. One goal for Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 46 the latter group is to see whether Malthusian overfishing can be diagnosed with such a method, requiring an assessment of local economic conditions. Also, it was hoped to see whether the fisheries could be tracked through time as they evolve. The different gross character differences of the fisheries studied by the two groups, such as many temperate versus few tropical boats, was hoped to provide useful contrast in results. Other attributes such as latitude and temperature may have overarching effects so the attributes presented are not a final list. Carl Walters There is a growing interest in regulators only monitoring prices of quotas. What this approach seems to do is capture lots of information on such trends. Can trends be captured thus allowing the tool to be used to predict events like fishery collapses? Daniel Pauly To be able to recover such information is definitely one of the goals of the project. Politics and Fisheries Gert van Santen World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA Abstract Traditional fisheries management, until the early 1960's was dominated by biologists, and scientific aspects of assessing stocks received most attention. The 1970's and 1980's were a period in which the economist and biologist dominated management debates; more recently sociologists have become more vocal. The dominance of scientific involvement in the process of defining management measures and (lately) analyzing the less than successful record of many past efforts at fisheries management, may have led to the misconception that the performance of the scientific community (from creating theories to collecting and interpreting data) is to blame for most of the failures. I believe such conclusion reflects what has been a fundamental weakness in the past: the idea that fisheries management is basically a scientific process of assessing fish stocks and their sustainable yields in biological or economic terms. Fisheries management surely affects fish stocks, but is foremost a political process among humans (not unlike for example tax legislation), in which income and access to the fish resources is redistributed between fishermen, suppliers, consumers, proc-essors, the State, the scientific community, foreigners and locals, etc. It is often true that the economic and financial effects of management measures on each of those parties is difficult to determine; substantial uncertainty not only surrounds the biological aspects of many management measures, but equally the economic and social impact. But fisheries management is a political process, in which political influence often determines whether something happens or not. The influence of each affected party depends on many factors and legislation, but in many countries raw political power largely determines the outcome of any attempt to introduce effective management systems. Hence, the key constraints to introduction of effective fisheries man-agement is first, the lack of scientific and economic knowledge that could help define in more certain terms who gains and who loses. Secondly, it is lack of experience on the part of the Government in managing the political process, or the inability or unwillingness on the part of the authorities to muster sufficient political power to counterbalance heavyweight private interests who wish to maintain the status quo. Only when resources are very heavily overfished, and private pressure for some form of management, does a 'window of opportunity' exist to do something meaningful. However, if the situation is serious, uncertain long-term benefits and substantial short-term costs still limit the extent to which fundamental changes can be made and maintained. It is not by accident that historically fisheries display a boom-bust cycle; many factors, including technical and economic ones, encourage such a pattern. If one reviews the New Zealand experience with ITQ's, or Japan's experience with coastal fisheries management, it becomes clear that these examples still are Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 47 exceptions because political aspects of the process of creating a better system, were, in very different ways, effectively being taken care of. It also shows the overriding importance of how to effectively manage the process to establish a fisheries management system, taking care of technical and scientific aspects, while building-up 'political' capital, often by including the most directly affected party, the fishermen, in the political decision making process. Because the interests of the fishermen, processors, suppliers and consumers vary so much, skill in negotiating and building consensus is needed to gain sufficient support for effective management measures. The World Bank's experience in Yemen, Indonesia, India, Turkey and Morocco highlights the difficulty of inducing countries to spend the time and political and financial effort to overcome internal resistance against change, notably if the economic, social and political benefits and costs of the operation are virtually impossible to define in detail. Even in the devastated Black Sea anchovy fishery, traditionalist forces are able to avoid effective action for fisheries and investment regulation. Discussion Jon Schnute The World Bank must face similar technical and negotiations problems to those of DFO. What is the mandate of the bank and how does it deal with such problems? Gert von Santen The World Bank faces the conundrum of helping poor countries, while banks are typically averse from such perceived high risk loans. Before providing funds for development, the bank will negotiate and ensure that certain conditions are met by the country to maximise the chance of getting the loan repaid. James Scandol Are there principles from the World Bank's implementation of policy that may be directly applicable to fisheries? Gert von Santen The World Bank is in a constant state of learning new lessons, one of the most important of which has been that success in the implementation of a scheme in one country will not guarantee success in another state. Modifications of Scotian Fundy Groundfish Management for Sustainable Use Michael Sinclair DFO, Dartmouth, Canada Abstract Two workshops have been held on Scotia-Fundy groundfish management. The first, in December 1993, evaluated the degree to which the objectives of management between 1977 and 1992 were met and the reasons for the shortfalls (Angel et al. 1994). This retrospective analysis evaluated the problems with the implementation of single-species quota management for multi-species harvesting technology of groundfish. The second workshop, in October 1995, which was planned jointly with representatives of the fishing industry, discussed practical measures to improve the management system. The focus was on the four tactics or tools by which conservation objectives can be met (quota, days-at-sea, closed areas, gear restrictions). For each of the tools, the strengths and weaknesses were discussed, as well as the costs to industry and the taxpayers. The conclusions of the two workshops are presented, setting out what went wrong, and what should be changed. Discussion James F. Kitchell As a non-Canadian it was surprising to see unemployment insurance as an issue in fisheries management Mike Sinclair. Yes, it is a Canadian reality. Although not a fisheries issue per se it does impact the fishery milieu as a policy of government that is an inherent character of the society. Another example of such an effect has been Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 48 the constitutional problems between Quebec and the Canadian federal government which has diverted resources and slowed down government policy development in other areas. Carl Walters One problem of trying to use a total allowable catch (TAC) management, as the government is attempting, is the over-reliance on catch per unit effort (CPUE) data. It would be far better to use more sophisticated survey data. Who will pay for this? Mike Sinclair The use of TAC data is satisfactory in this fishery as long as there is reasonable allowance for probability and use of in-season feed back to allow for adjustments. The ADAPT model is not the only tool available either, policies such as long term area quotas could also prove useful. Therefore, surveys are not seen to be a necessary requirement for successful management. A New Paradigm for Managing Marine Fisheries in the Next Millennium Michael Sutton World Wildlife Fund International London, UK (Presented by Indrani Lutchman) Abstract The objective of this paper is to suggest the foundation for a new paradigm for managing worldwide marine fisheries to replace the failed model of the past. The need for fundamental reform of marine fishery management has become abundantly clear over the past decade. Nearly everywhere, fisheries that have sustained coastal communities for generations have suffered catastrophic declines. In some areas, excessive fishing has driven staple species such as Atlantic cod commercially extinct. Increasingly volatile fish wars, such as the dispute earlier this year between Canada and the European Union, have erupted over remaining stocks. Governments pay $54 billion per year in fisheries subsidies to bolster a faltering industry. These payment sustain massive fishing fleets that continue to hoover up fish at an alarming rate. Huge, sophisticated vessels able to stay at seas for months seek fisheries farther and farther afield, often in the waters of developing countries. The essential question is thus not whether the past model of marine fishery management has failed, but why? What lessons can we draw for the future? Throughout modern history, governments have largely managed marine fisheries for the growth and development of their associated commercial fishing industries. Decision makers have paid scant attention to the sustainability of those fisheries, much less the health of their associated ecosystems or the needs of artisanal fishers exploiting the same species. In virtually every case, the short-term socioeconomic needs of a region's fishing industry have rendered long-term sustainability of catches a futile management goal. Fishery managers have thus been unable to prevent the mining of fishery resources. Unsustainable, indisaiminate fishing has literally become an industrial addiction. This predicament cannot be attributed to a lack of scientific information. Fisheries scientists have for years provided more-or-less accurate models of fish population dynamics and educated estimated of fishery production. But all too often, fishery managers more concerned with political than scientific realities have been compelled to ignore the implications of the best available science. Politicians, often at the highest levels, have frequently intervened in decisions about specific fisheries. Society has simply lacked the political will to forestall the fishing industry's tendency to use up its capital and thereby destroy itself. Powerful social, economic, and political forces, firmly entrenched in our management infrastructure, drive unsustainable fishing. As a result, governments have typically avoided any actions that carry a price unacceptable to industry. Reversing this situation will require harnessing public support for a new paradigm of management. The foundation of this new model must be greater public involvement and accountability in the fishery management process. If we are to save marine fishes and sustain healthy Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 49 fisheries, we must somehow bring to bear the same worldwide public concern that banned the trade in elephant ivory and outlawed commercial whaling. We must create social and economic incentives for sustainable fishing. Only concerted public interest has the power to stop overfishing and to shift the paradigm of fishery management from development and exploitation to conservation and sustainability. This will not be easy, fish neither sing like whales nor look like pandas. But the stakes are high: the health of world fisheries, their associated marine ecosystems, and the millions of people that depend on them for food and employment. Discussion James Kitchell If society were to address phenomena such as overexploitation as a crime against nature what sort of punishment should be meted out for the offenders? Is there any applicability of the kind of disincentives used to curb the illicit ivory trade? Indrani Lutchman The focus should not be on the idea of punishment of offenders, rather, getting users on-side with conservation to give the fishery resource a needed break and try to decrease the number of fishers, as there is now, clearly, an imbalance. The WWF has recently come to an agreement with Unilever, to establish marine stewardship. The aim of this was to provide consumers with choices to obtain fish from sustainable sources and/or industries using eco-friendly methods. Therefore, consumer power can be used to force industry to act in ecologically sustainable ways, this represents a new approach. Cristina Soto Eco-labelling may seem like a nice phrase, but considering the social aspect of its possible consequences, how are small-scale fishers protected from falling through the cracks of such a system? John Sproul Much of the criticism for eco-labelling has grown from the experience with dolphins and the tuna fishery, which appeared to have poorly regulated eco-labels when they were introduced. There is a requirement to establish a scientific body set up to oversee future eco-labelling, not to judge social practice, but to give consumers information on the context for social aspects of fisheries practices. Indrani Lutchman It is essential that the process create a win-win situation for all involved. Practices are important and it should be kept in mind that small-scale fishers might do well in such schemes, as they are often more eco-friendly than large industry. First World Fishers and the Fisheries of Developing Countries: Impact on Resources, Economy and Society Alida Bundy & Tony J Pitcher Fisheries Centre, UBC, Vancouver, Canada (Posterj Until the early 1980s and the UN Law of the Sea, distant water nations were free to fish the world's oceans at will (up to 12 miles from the coast) reaping huge harvests whilst resource adjacent nations gained little, if any, benefit. In this paper we investigate the impact of first world fishing on developing countries since the declaration of 200 miles EEZs and pose the question "have the expectations of EEZ holders in the developing world been met?" We establish a taxonomy of interaction and conflict, present a conceptual model of the system, map existing knowledge in the system and identify critical areas where data is required. We then analyse two case studies with this scheme, the South Pacific Islands Tuna Fishery and the fisheries of Mauritania and North West Africa and evaluate its utility. We conclude that while the physical, measurable components of the model such as catch and license fees are generally well-known, the less tangible effects of first world fishing on the resource, the economy and society are little studied. The expect ation of earning foreign exchange is met, the development Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 50 of autonomous domestic fisheries can happen, but the hope of increasing employment may be an unrealistic expectation. The level of success for developing countries appears to depend on the level of economic development. General Discussion on Theme 3 Craig Harris With regard to some of the perceived problems and uncertainty of getting useful indicators for different user groups, in many instances this might be quite easy, for example, such data is often collected by government agencies. John Sproul Uncertainties at the consumer level will also decrease in the development of the information age we are said to be in. Nigel Haggan We must keep in mind that, as social scientists and managers, we constitute an interest group and should not try to hide behind a cloak of objectivity . Thus, we should always attempt to define all the interested parties as user groups, from industry even to groups like the WWF. Tony Charles The need exists for institutions involved with fisheries management to examine the applicability of disciplines other than biology. It will be crucial to decide who will get to take part in future management by identifying who the stakeholders are and how to develop selection criteria. For example, there are two contrasting instances from my experience with the Canadian federal government. In the case of the new Fisheries Act the focus was to engage just government and industry. In the instance of the Oceans Act, the public was felt to be a legitimate participant with government and industry. Nigel Haggan The example of the Common Ground project a model for different groups coming together to manage fisheries. In the project, the University of British Columbia was used as an honest broker to help facilitate the development of plans to change a First Nation's fishery. If such examples can be determined to be workable, they can be showcased in the media as positive examples of fishery management working. This would erase the usual public impression of high handedness by DFO working with a paternalistic business-as-usual approach. Michael Sinclair There is often a lack of coherent policy and, since fisheries often represent a small part of the political scene, management regimes need to be adaptive to cope with changes in policy that are likely to occur. Keith Sainsbury New Zealand faces a situation similar to Canada, of conflicting objectives and dealing with uncertainty. He suggested that Canada could improve the quality of groundfish management in light of recent studies which have yielded salient data and suggestions for new decision processes, keeping in mind the need to demonstrate the performance of new strategies as they are introduced. Tony Davis I wan to raise three observations and a question 1. Unemployment insurance (UI) patterns mask many qualities of fisheries, especially distribution of income, which can yield important contrasts across the whole fishery, or across crew members of a single boat in the fishery. 2. There is a close correlation between recent increases in UI and the increased use of limited entry controls, on the east coast of Canada, as an attempt to make fishers more specialised. This system has only resulted in creating dependency by income transference. 3. One should keep in mind that in Atlantic Canada there are often few options to the fishers for money to live on outside the UI system. Many have migrated to other parts of the country to find work, but there is a limited ability to absorb migration. In holding a discussion on the fishery, who is to be included, and what will they want as a result of any such discussions? Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 51 Michael Sinclair A steering committee for an Atlantic Canada fishery had been created with three representatives from DFO, ten from industry (two offshore, eight inshore), and the remainder from what was felt to be a representative cross-section, to total about fifty people. He felt that other factors such as trying to impose employment targets were complicating control. Jake Rice. I wan to amplify Keith Sainsbury's point of how to grapple with uncertainty. We should emphasise uncertainty associated with implementation, specifically, what are the consequences of implementing so-called solutions? New problems seem to always arise as people simply try to find ways to get around the new rules. Therefore, we should pursue studies of how these behaviours may change with new rules before we go ahead and change management practice. Kevem Cochrane The group has largely glossed over the main point of there being too many fishers with respect to the number of fish. No management plan can be successful unless this fundamental truth is first addressed. Thus, finding jobs for the fishers who will be left unemployed by such cutbacks will have to be dealt with before new plans are brought into use. THEME 4: ROLE OF THE INTERFACE BETWEEN SOCIAL SCIENCE AND NATURAL SCIENCE Session Rapporteurs Steve Mackinson & Dave Preikshot Keynote Address Fisheries Management: Science and Decision Making David Policansky National Research Council Washington, D.C., USA Abstract Many fishery-resource controversies are couched in scientific terms, although often they are not scientific disputes. I discuss controversies involving anadromous salmon in the northwestern United States, sea turtles off the U.S. southeast and Gulf of Mexico coasts, tuna and dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific, and the Bering Sea ecosystem, among others. In each case, the scientific conclusions were not obvious to at least one party in the dispute; in some cases, they were not clear to any of them The lack of scientific information is sometimes due to the inherent complexity of the situation and the difficulties of collecting good data. Often, however, much better information would have been available if managers had taken the time to design data collection into their management regimes. Common barriers to resolving fishery resource controversies include mutual mistrust, the amount of money and time needed, the lack of a coherent management authority or multiple jurisdictions, and scientific uncertainties. The last is strongly related to the others; a good scientific understanding reduces mistrust, saves time Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 52 and money, and encourages coherent management authority. Scientific uncertainty increases mistrust and incoherent management and often increases expenditure of time and money. Understanding these relationships is necessary for effective management and decision making. Discussion Jim Kitchell In relation to studies on salmon smolts in the Pacific Northwest, the problem may be the overcapitalisation of science. Da vid Policansky The problem is not the overcapitalisation of scientific enterprises, it rather that the science was not done in an organised and objective way. There was no way to ensure that the most important scientific problems had the necessary money spent on them. Problems that might have bad answers were not attacked. Carl Walters In light of clear evidence that barging (transporting fish in a river barge) was identified as the only clear policy option in the case of the salmon smolts in the Columbia river basin, why then did it take so long before action was taken? David Policansky The great diversity of different interests involved in this situation may have been partly responsible. Perhaps the process was also hindered by dishonesty among the involved parties, as implied by Dr Walters. Laura Richards. With very diverse user groups, can 'consensus' be achieved, and, in fact is it the best thing to do. David Policansky A strong conscious effort would clearly be required to achieve consensus, but regarding this issue of whether or not it was desirable, there is no way of telling. But providing consensus on an issue is likely to be a powerful influence for management processes. James Scandol. If not the scientists, then who should take on the policy? David Policansky First, I stressed the need that scientists should be divorced from but not disconnected from the policy. Whilst they should be involved they should not pretend to know all. But the very fact that scientists are people too ensures that they should be represented in the policy decision process. For scientists getting involved in policy there may be a balance of duties. For example, a scientist advocating too much policy may not then be taken so seriously as a scientist, a delicate issue that is difficult to get right. Keith Sainsbury Returning to the general issues outlined in your talk relating to the need for institution/political structures for future management. What as scientists can we do in order to move in this direction? David Policansky I re-emphasise the need to keep telling people in current management and policy positions that the requirement for these structures is paramount and can only evolve with involvement of people who have some knowledge of the actual problem. The important lesson for the scientists is to ensure that scientific answers are not given in response to questions that are not fundamentally scientific. In short, we have to stop answering bad questions. Craig Harris Is wanting a zero dolphin kill in tuna fisheries a scientific or a policy question? David Policansky Whether we want to have zero deaths of dolphins is a conservation issue not a scientific question. But the question of whether the current mortality rate will allow for the conservation of dolphins is a scientific question. Such an issue needs to be approached by a process of the policy makers, managers and scientists working together, but they need to be clear in their minds of the contribution that each can offer. Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 53 Points of View - Theme 4 For Fishers or Fishes?: A Comment on the Development of an Inter-disciplinary Science of Fisheries and Fisheries Management Tony Davis Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology St. Francis Xavier University Antigonish, NS, Canada Abstract While fisheries-focused social research has experienced considerable development over the last thirty years, its concerns, methods, findings and analyses appear to have exercised little if, any influence, on the design and implementation of fisheries management regimes. Further, fisheries social research data and analyses, excepting the work of some resource economists, seems to have received little systematic attention and consideration by the fisheries natural science research community. This essay explores various features of, and explanations for, this set of circumstances. In particular, differences in methodologies, theoretical/philosophical presuppositions, institutional and social status and legitimacy are examined. The essay concludes that the development of an interdisciplinary fisheries science and approach to fisheries management will require considerable shifts in the prevailing presumptions and paradigms currently featured in natural and social science fisheries research. Discussion J. Schnute. The idea of Carl Walters is that in the future the world has to be viewed as closed to fishing with small windows that are opened occasionally. I regret that I am ignorant of social science and I want to know what can be done with a management policy like this, which results in lots of angry faces. Tony Davis Your question has the wrong fundamental premise. Social sciences have not been represented in consultative processes prior to demonstrations such as those that took place on Canada's east coast when the cod fishery was closed. In essence, the role of the social sciences should be in prevention not cure. Rogn Vctldur Hannesson In what way does consultation with the social sciences help in situations such as the closure of the Atlantic Cod fishery. Tony Davis A social scientist would say that in such an issue representation of the disadvantaged sector in a consultative process is essential, as it is a matter of providing the dignity of appreciation of their views. They have been on the receiving end of decision processes which affect their livelihood but over which they have no control. A Bridge over Troubling waters? Strategies for Integrating Natural and Social Science for Sustainable Fisheries Lawrence Felt & Barbara Neis Memorial University, St. John's, Canada. A palpable lesson of recent fisheries crises is that, while understanding fish movements and population dynamics may be a necessary condition for sustainable fisheries management, it is certainly not a sufficient one. Equally critical is an understanding of those whose livelihood derives from the sea. For policy makers, the objective is to develop management which reflects the work of natural scientists who study fish alongside the work of social scientists who emphasise those who pursue and harvest them. Integrating natural and social science research within the context of specific fisheries management plans has proven to be fairly elusive (with the exception of certain highly quantified economic decision-making models). To a large extent, these difficulties reflect differences in methodologies, types of data Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 54 and interpretive frameworks. Using data from a three year interdisciplinary study of the ecological knowledge of fishers and fishery plant workers in Newfoundland, the paper suggests a number of ways in which natural and social science can be brought together for more effective management. The paper concludes with a discussion of potential new, cost-effective, participatory and interdisciplinary assessment method-ologies emerging from this research. Discussion Laura Richards How can we implement the information held in traditional knowledge. Lawrence Felt There are valuable sources of information other than the data collected by scientists, particularly in the case of the Atlantic cod. What is required is a way to be able to deal with such data that may not be in a nice neat quantitative form but none the less contains vital information. Somehow we have to learn not to operate under such "black box" constraints that are provided by the limited data that is collected officially in comparison to what other evidence is available and may be used. Tony Pitcher Social scientists and anthropologists often state that fisheries with fishers that have deep-rooted kinship and traditional knowledge and hence a strong stake in the viability of the resource are less likely to have impose a heavy harvest rate. We have heard tell for example of cod fishers avoiding catching the 'mother cod'. But how often do they do this and under what pressures do they not save them? What convincing evidence is there that you can present to scientists? Lawrence Felt Community conservation ethics are very complicated and indicate that there are no guarantees. But it is more than just a belief, there are bits and pieces of evidence to indicate so. Scientists have to open up what they are willing to be prepared to treat as data. Enlarging the Shadow of the Future: Avoiding Conflict and Conserving fish in a Novel Management Regime off South Devon, UK. Paul J B Hart Dept. of Zoology, University of Leicester, UK Abstract Off the south coast of Devon in southwest Britain and within the UK territorial limit of six miles, many small vessels are employed in a pot fishery for crabs and in trawling for fish. In addition, there are a few boats that dredge for scallops. Each gear does not mix well with the others. Trawlers, in particularly beam trawlers, disturb the benthic community and can cause costly damage to strings of pots if towed through them This also damages the trawls and puts the gear out of action whilst pots are disentangled. In the mid-1970's the interference between fixed and mobile gears was becoming so severe that a partitioning of the inshore area was brokered between the South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen, the Trawler Owners Association, the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee and the South West Fish Producers Association. As a result, certain areas are now closed to trawling so that crab fishermen can operate undisturbed. The system is voluntary and has no legal basis. Having remained in operation for nearly twenty years, the system must be strongly resistant to perturbations. Two questions about the partitioning system are worth pursuing. Has the long term closure of areas to trawling acted to conserve benthic community structure and maintain a haven for populations of commercial stocks? Secondly, why do the fishers in the system continue to cooperate? Data is provided in the paper to show that the crab fishery is very productive but there is no way at present to determine if the closures have maintained biodiversity. In a first attempt to analyse why fishers Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 55 continue to cooperate, the social structure of the fishing fleet is examined. Amongst the crab crews about 4096 belong to families who have been in the fishery for generations. Other fishermen, both in the crab and the trawler fleet are from communities that have long been involved in the fishery. There is anecdotal evidence to show that those skippers who do cheat on the agreement are social outsiders, although they live in local fishing towns such as Brixham or Plymouth. The hypothesis is proposed that the agreement works because the fishery is composed of people who repeatedly interact over an indefinite period so that cheaters are likely to be identified and punished readily. Such a system could best be modelled using the Prisoner's Dilemma with long term interaction between the participants. This paradigm predicts that defectors will be outsiders, who are unlikely to interact socially with most of the members of the agreement. Current research is aimed at obtaining more detailed data on the social structure of the fishery and on the variability in catch rates between fishers. Once the factors determining cooperation are properly understood, the Devon Management System could be used in other areas where a fishery is prosecuted by members of a closely knit community interacting with each other indefinitely and repeatedly. Discussion Nigel Haggan Why not rotate fishing areas, perhaps making the distribution even more equitable. Paul Hart In the case of the Devon fishery, crabbers occupy "territories" within their closed area and rotation has indeed been exercised between the territories. But there was no rotation between the areas allocated to the beam trawlers, crabbers and scallop fishers. But clearly it is a feasible strategy for other instances. Tony Pitcher If you want to design a game theoretical model to represent such a fishery, how can attributes not measurable in direct economic terms be represented. Paul Hart Although not a great deal of time has been put into the design of the model so far, such attributes may be able to be converted into a common currency. For example, damage to a crabber fishing grounds by a beam trawler may be directly equated to the earnings lost if the grounds had otherwise remained in a productive state. Fisheries management: A role for social science? Svein Jentoft Institute of Social Science University of Trow so, Norway Abstract Today, social scientists are basically absent from the fisheries management decision-making process - perhaps with the exception of the economic profession. Rarely do sociologists, social anthrop-ologists and political scientists serve in any advisory role vis-a-vis government agencies or fisheries organizations in the same way as biologists do. If social scientists were to become involved in responsible co-management, which they often claim that they would like to, they would have to become creative and constructive. What could possibly be their contribution? I argue that there are at least two areas where social science is of relevance; a) in the design of management institutions; and b) as providers of critical feedback to the management process, particularly on social impacts. However, fisheries management could also benefit from the purely intellectual role of social science. To be applied requires commitment and imagination, but not necessarily involvement of the social scientist. There is also a role to play for the critical, skeptic, independent and unfettered mind - in society at large as well as in fisheries management. But can the social scientists have it both ways? Social scientists are generally outsiders. Is it better to be in the Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 56 tent pissing out or out of the tent pissing in? Discussion Jarl Giske The speaker comes from Norway, and it may be important to remember that the political goals for fisheries in Norway do not include biodiversity or species conservation, but recently, the economics of fisheries been incorporated. Economic factors include rural development, jobs, well-being and goals, aspects that fisheries biologists are certainly not experts on. The type of conflicts that are apparent between Western and Northern Norway are those related to fleet structure and gear types within fisheries. Perhaps in such a case having social scientists as managers may be more legitimate than having natural scientists? Svein Jentoft I agree that the complexity of fishery problems in Norway is not as marked as in large fishing nations, due to the smaller numbers of stakeholders involved in decision making. The social sciences have been useful in creating some effective institutions, but it is a frightening thought that processes should be dominated by social sciences. I re-emphasise that the role was not to be in politics but rather, to ensure that such policies that are created that people can live with despite the fact they may disagree with them. Da vid Policansky Perhaps the complexity is simply a function of the size of the country/fishing operations being dealt with. When it gets so big geographically it has to cross so many jurisdictions it therefore increases complexity. Svein Jentoft I agree with this point, but in Norway processes were probably easier to handle because the population is more homogenous and has less cultural diversity. Abstract One of the central lessons underscored, harshly, by the collapse of Northern Cod stocks is that the relation between catch per unit of effort and stock abundance is problematic. It is confounded by local knowledge. But social scientists, with disciplinary training in the collection and interpretation of local knowledge, have made little contribution to this, and other, problems in fisheries management. This commentary briefly reviews several contested issues in maritime social science - the skipper effect and fleet dynamics, folk management, adaptation to chaotic systems - and suggests that the debates, and much of the fine-grained empirical work underlying them, evolved in the context of largely academic contests over paradigms such as cultural ecology, political economy, and recentiy, political ecology. An emergent approach seeks to combine prior concerns with individual and household adaptations to ecosystems and environments and with local knowledge (the domain of cultural ecology) with the problematic of political economy. These are the inter-relations of production, class formation, the penetration of capital, the loss of local power and autonomy, all of which are essential antidotes to the limitations of cultural ecology. As such, this developing paradigm offers the potential for a close interface with the natural sciences, both theoretical and applied. However, political ecology, as it is emerging, is truer to its political economy roots than to its cultural ecology ones: political ecologists know little about ecology. I suggest here that the program needs to be reinvented, to address the information requirements for effective fisheries. Observations of the Social Science of Fleet Dynamics and Local Knowledge Thomas R. McGuire Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University of Arizona, USA General Discussion on Theme 4 Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 57 Tony Pitcher The general theme of the session appears to be the need to obtain users consent to policies. But the speakers have clearly advocated more than this - the need for strong involvement on behalf of the users in any part of planning processes for management. But speakers did not present much evidence or data that user involvement might actually be useful in avoiding situations such as fishery collapse. Craig Harris The type of data that social sciences could use to help prevent situations such as fishery collapse is available, but the social sciences are constrained by an institutional disability. Since they have not been present for the development of fisheries, then in the most cases they have been hindered by the fact that they simply have not had the long-term ongoing data gathering that may otherwise have been able to help prevent such cases. Michael Sinclair I want to make out a stronger case for the role of social sciences. The policy of ITQ's was supposed to change the stewardship of fisheries through increased ownership, but was I am unaware as to whether this prediction had actually been shown to be true. Similarly, changes in the legal framework were expected to reduce mis-reporting in fisheries, but whether these effects had also been shown to change the reaction of the participants was questionable. There is clearly a need for the social sciences involvement in order to elucidate whether such claims are valid. Rogn valdur Hannesson The primary motive behind the implementation of ITQ's was to decrease overcapitalisation, rather than to change stewardship. Tony Charles The primary driving force behind the design of fisheries policy is often that of economists rather than fishery managers. But I agree that there is a clear need for social studies of policy implications before policy decisions are given the go ahead. Jake Rice Returning to the analogy of the policy makers "tent", I suggested that it is more like a large campground, with various parties each with their own tent (while the economists are in a hotel) not knowing where the other tents are located on the campground. Perhaps this is how it should be, each tent with its compliment of excellence. However, there is the need for a communal tent (the institution), from which comes the policy, that may be found by all. John Schnute Within the natural sciences there is a strong emphasis on rigorous methodology, but I have some reservations relating to the methodology of social sciences. Tony Davis The social sciences also contain ingrained rigorous methodologies. Its obvious that few natural scientists acquaint themselves with such methodologies. Many benefits may be gained from not-so-experimental but multifaceted, flexible, innovative methodologies used in the social sciences. Such methodologies can be used to extract maximum information out of data. I fully support earlier comments by Lawrence Felt that "everything is data for social scientists". David Policansky For all disciplines, one can only provide the literature and hope that other people read it. unattributed Is the minimum exploitation rate in fact negotiable, and if so who should be part of the negotiation? consensus The minimum exploitation rate to be set by policy should be based purely on biological grounds in order to maintain viable fish populations. But negotiation on exploitation above such a minimum should involve consideration of the various users groups. No universal prescription could be made. THEME 5: THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC TOOLS IN REINVENTING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 58 Session Rapporteurs Richard Porter & Peter Tydemyers Keynote Address Fisheries Management, Politics and Markets Rognvaldur Hannesson Norwegian School of Economics & Business Administration, Bergen, Norway Abstract The 200-mile limit was expected to lead to an improvement in the management of fish stocks. The paper looks at the experience of four states and provinces, Newfoundland, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands since the 200-mile limit was established, part-icularly with respect to their cod fisheries. Countries or areas particularly dependent on fisheries would be expected to show greater responsibility than others in conducting their fisheries but the evidence is mixed. All four have suffered greater or lesser stock depletions, apparently in part as a result of their own policies. The Norwegian experience is for the time being the most encouraging one in terms of resource conservation, while the Canadian example is at the opposite end of the spectrum. The Faroese have greatly overexploited their fish stocks despite being extremely dependent on fish for their export trade. Iceland, while having the most productive industry, has also overexploited its stocks. The cause of this mismanagement is traced to the predominance of political considerations in fisheries management. The remedy is seen as market-driven proc-esses with built-in mechanisms to correct for the overexploitation that always will occur under unregulated competition. Discussion Carl Walters Given the lessons of the Peruvian anchovy fishery, traditional management presc-riptions have proven unworkable. How will a rights-based fishery (RBF) be more practicable? Rogn valdur Hannesson It would be tragic if sustainable fisheries had no future. But, a rights-based fishery is a better/practicable solution. RBFs are not perfect, and may not always work; but, we know that they can overcome some problems. RBF provide an enhanced role for biology to inform the setting of TACs; there is less pressure to harvest in RBFs; and, they provide a means of managing overcapacity. Ulrich Reinhardt What is so bad about inefficiency? Why is overcapacity always portrayed as an economic bad? Rognvaldur Hannesson Inefficiency is bad because we get less out of our resources. We contribute less with what we have to the economy as a whole. Gert van Santen The economic view is strikingly in contrast to that view expressed by biologists and anthropologists. Under ITQs an RBF would lead to quota concentration; should quota not be "better' shared along size and capacity lines to protect community interests? Rognvaldur Hannesson Is concentration a bad thing? In order to stay competetive and to satisfy income needs, it may require increasing scales of operation. Randall Peterman You said that the pig is not an endangered species. Is analogy of private property in agriculture not a weak analogy with which to defend similar rights in the fishery? Rognvaldur Hannesson Its not a perfect world. What would be the result in agriculture if land were not owned? It may not be perfect, but what is better? Daniel Pauly Reiterating Randall Peterman's 'poor analogy' point, the genetic diversity of agricultural species such as pigs and rice, for example, are being lost due to Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 59 commercial concentration on a a few strains that are productive in todays environment. What can be used to protect genetic biodiversity? Rognvaldur Hannesson Specific measures may be necessary to protect biodiversity. But, when you give people long term stakes in a resource they protect it. Keith Sainsbury ITQs have led to changes in fisher behaviour at a rate that previous government controls could not. Why? Is it sustainable in the long-term? Rogn valdur Hannesson Whether it aids long-term sustainability is not known. Keith Sainsbury Quota markets are distorted. Other markets are often the subject of corrective controls. So how will quota markets help? Rogn valdur Hannesson ITQ markets are imperfect/distorted. We need to see more of the stock control function in the ITQ market. Solutions have a habit of producing their own problems. But, ITQ markets can be corrected. Cristina Soto Is management by industry best? What about corporate responsibility? Who benefits, what are the costs, and who pays for habitat destruction? Is transferability without accountability desirable [e.g. fly-by-nighters, poaching, pulse fishing,]? Rognvaldur Hannesson Corporations function for the long term. They have made major capital investments, and are not pleased to see that investment devalued as a result of overexploitation. Since fish stocks fluctuate, capital should be flexible to fish them. ITQs can facilitate such a flexible response. Yoshihiko Sada ITQs exclude those who lack the resources to enter the fishery. Do ITQs merely justify the injustice of unequal access to natural resources? Rognvaldur Hannesson Income distribution is not a fishery management problem. It is not a problem that can be solved by playing with access to fisheries. Keith Sainsbury We have a picture of where we want to take fisheries, but how do we get there? Rognvaldur Hannesson How have we got here? Change has been borne by the fishers, not the governments. Because ITQs give fishers the hope of a capital gam, they will change. Philip Neher Government failure and management for non-economic objectives has led to the destruction of the asset. But, government is withdrawing from management, and fisheries are privatizing. But this may be happening because of fiscal constraints outside of the fishery, not for economic efficiency reasons. Points of View - Theme 5 New Directions in Fishery Management: Lessons from the Collapse of Atlantic Canada's Groundfishery Anthony T. Charles Dept. of Finance & Management Science, Saint Mary's University, Halifax., Canada Abstract What caused the 1990s Atlantic Canadian groundfishery collapse? This paper argues that at the roots of the collapse lay a set of entrenched attitudes about the natural world, about fishery management and about how the fishery should function. These concern: (1) the appropriate role of regulators and stakeholders; (2) the burden of proof in balancing risks of lost benefits (through conservative management) and of stock collapse (through excessive resource use); (3) a view that conservation can wait, postponing or minimizing cuts in harvesting to avoid disrupting fishing activity; and Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 60 (4) a sense that, despite the fishery's collapse, major changes in management approaches are unnecessary since fundamentally, the system works. While there has been significant evolution in the first three of these attitudes (evidenced, for example, by a shift to more participatory management and more conservationist government policies), the fourth remains firmly entrenched. It is characterized by twin tendencies to deflect blame for the collapse and to avoid planning for the future, assuming that when the fishery recovers, past management and harvesting arrangements can continue much as before. Perhaps the key conclusion from this analysis is the need to embrace major change in the philosophy of fishery management. In the absence of this, the next collapse will almost certainly gather momentum, and history may well repeat itself. Discussion John Caddy Have you followed up the idea of a bankable or deferable ITQ? Tony Charles It would be a good refinement, but depends on the context. Tradability implies value to be captured today. Could involve classes of quota that allow in season distribution of effort. And there are other variations of quota which could be pursued: speculative quota and assured quota, come to mind. Nigel Haggan When a depleted fishery comes under ITQ management, where is the incentive to invest in the stock? What is the mechanism? Tony Charles Part of the Atlantic fishery is ITQ, part is competitive quota. Incentive is still there in the growth of a share in the TAC and the reduction of effort unit costs. Natural Assets and National Wealth Philip Neher Dept. of Economics UBC, Vancouver, Canada Abstract This paper puts the point of view that natural assets should be managed by sovereign and responsible nations as components of the portfolio of national wealth which yields real income to benefit real people. It is not always the case that natural assets actually do this because institutions are not in place to minimize transactions costs, free-riding and rent-seeking behaviour. For this reason, it is, for example, arguably true that Canadians would be better off without wild fish, and that Mexicans and Nigerians would be better off without oil reserves. For fisheries, the challenge for the next century is to craft fishery management regimes which have the paramount objective of maximizing wealth: the net present value of future cash flows. This paper argues that wealth maximization is a necessary, primal, condition for achieving other legitimate objectives such as community development, acceptable working conditions for fishers, and notably, conservation. It follows that these other objectives will not be realized if they are pursued at the expense of the primal one. Discussion Keith Sainsbury 1. What role do national regulations play in Japanese Cooperative management? 2. How does cooperative management figure into their sustainability? Philip Neher 1. Fisheries laws in Japan support the underlying institutions. They give them the security to sell, and territorial security to decide on use. This makes them sustainable. 2. There is a great deal of value-added in the near-shore fishery. Carl Walters Given that fish stocks cannot be accurately assessed, can you see any way where ITQs Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 61 figure into their sustainability? Philip Neher 1. Fisheries laws in Japan support the underlying institutions. They give them the security to sell, and territorial security to decide on use. This makes them sustainable. 2. There is a great deal of value-added in the near-shore fishery. Carl Walters Given that fish stocks cannot be accurately assessed, can you see any way where ITQs are set up on something other than a (percentage) catch basis; perhaps, an area based system? Philip Neher Account for uncertainty, and do the best you can. If we cannot quantify the fish stock accurately, then the game is over, regardless of the regime. Rognvaldur Hannesson Managers should still set a quota despite the difficulties, and augment quotas with access rights (licenses). If need be, carve up areas with exclusive rights and let voluntary contracts prevail. Cooperation and Quotas Anthony Scott Dept. of Economics UBC, Vancouver, Canada Abstract Fisheries cooperatives can manage their own fish stocks by self-regulation. They can also undertake data collection and research, enhance the habitat, and liaise with other fishing groups over the management of migratory stocks. However, government will not impose fisheries cooperation on fishermen. The drive has to come from the ground up, by voluntary action. The paper lists the benefits to a fisherman from cooperation, and ask why he may nevertheless resist demanding it. There are many theories. Some fishermen like the racing fishery the way it is. Most economists' theory supports the view that members will defect and free-ride so that compulsory membership is probably needed. Economists and others also theorise that diversity among fishermen prevents the trust needed for cooperation. The paper suggests that it is not diversity but the fear of loss that prevents cooperation. Even if a cooperative brings benefits, members fear some of them will be exploited by the rest. Homogeneity among members would not allay this fear. What members need is the assurance that comes from fixed percentage shares in the catch and in other benefits and in costs. Government is needed to set up this sharing. ITQ's, when issued, automatically provide the fixed-share building blocks that are needed. Discussion Tony Pitcher Are you advocating community based management for the off-shore fishery? Is it not impracticable? Anthony Scott Imagine a room full of fishers who are about to self-regulate. Failure to make joint decisions will arise because of the fear of private hostile actions. Successful joint-actions include no hostile private actions. When fishers have a common benchmark of interest, they develop a common structure to form collective actions around. unidentified What is necessary to encourage fishers to pick-up costs as government pulls away from financial responsibility for management? What is necessary to overcome the stultifying effect of fear of loss that change engenders, to achieve the positive benefits of cooperation? Anthony Scott Understanding joint problems is not enough. What is necessary is to encourage fishers to pick up costs as governments pull out. Existing community is insufficient. Common shares in the resource can help. Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 62 Linking Fish Price and Fishery Practice Through Eco-Certification, Labeling, and Crediting John T. Sproul UBC Fishery Centre & Sustainable Development Research Institute Vancouver, Canada Abstract A growing need exists in many world fisheries to initiate long-term market based changes to counter environmentally destructive economic forces that have historically motivated counter-productive fishing behaviour. Such circumstances have contributed to collapsing fisheries, producing local social and economic displacement and implications of biological loss to the global community. By and large, the market-place today fails to incorporate social and environmental practice information associated with the processes necessary to bring commodities from their points of extraction to consumption. The price mechanism does not directly address ecosystem impact costs relevant to method. Fishers harvesting in an ecosystem degrading manner can well expect to receive the same price as their counterparts pursuing the same resource but in more ecosystem sustaining ways. Worse yet, often unsustainable means of exploitation and production have historically been considered less expensive for industry to operate than more environmentally sensitive alternatives. Seafood consumers are unaware of the negative environmental and social consequences they may be endorsing when buying the cheapest fish. For seafood, as with nearly all goods and services, in-tandem presentation of defensible and concise socio-environmental product information does not yet exist for consumers. The new paradigm suggested here is to transform environmental and social information into a primary value-added component of seafood and create heretofore non-existent market mechanisms that endorse fishery sustainability, socio-environmental education, and consumer responsibility. Locally appropriate, and internationally recognized, criterion would be used by a third party eco-certification program to judge a fishery and its operators. Information, rating an activity's performance, would be conveyed by means of a fishery eco-label. A result would be the ability of an increasingly environmentally conscious public to know, in a defensible and credible manner, the location, degree, and type of ecosystem practice they are endorsing with their purchases. In addition, government policy, such as an eco-credit system, could further encourage market demand of sanctioned sustainable fishery practices. This paper explores specific pathways for initiating such reforms for eco-information in the context of Pacific commercial fisheries and their markets. Discussion Ulrich Reinhardt Is there not tremendous risk for corporations to corrupt the integrity of eco-labels? John Sproul Yes. And among some it has already started. But, institutions are taking shape to make labelling credible. Anthony Scott How does the labelling mechanism inform complex markets, such as the Tokyo fresh fish market? John Sproul The buyers in such markets are already informed of such things. An information system in the auction market itself informs the bidders. Jake Rice Do we have a sense of a first order cost estimate of setting up an eco-labelling system? John Sproul No - but we should use existing processes and structures, then build on them. Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 63 Uncertainty and the Role of Economics in Reinventing Fisheries Management Ussif Rashid Sumaila Dept. of Economics, Chr. Michelsen Institute Bergen, Norway Abstract Most of the problems we see today in world fisheries emanate mainly from two broad sources, that is, the lack of adequate and correct information about how fisheries work, and the inadequacy of current institutional arrangements to deal with the problems at hand. I trace how the former problem, in particular the problem of uncertainty, is being tackled, and speculate on how economics may help to bring some of the ideas being advanced to bear on the management of world fisheries in the not too distant future. Discussion Randall Peterman Can formal quantitative techniques be used to incorporate true uncertainty? Rashid Sumaila One has to consider the shape of the PMR and movement of the stock. This model still has to be subjected to socio-economic tests. Craig Harris How do you protect refugia and obtain flexible management in the face of rapid technological change? What keeps the enterprising fisher/firm from attracting fish out of the refugia? Rashid Sumaila Flexible response in institutional design. Kevin Cochrane Would refugia reduce uncertainty? Carl Walters Historical records of the longevity of fisheries indicates that there are natural economic refugia. These are not PMRs, but exist in open fishing areas. General Discussion - Theme 5 Paul Hart Ecological behaviour models are based on competitive behaviour. Why does economics appear to employ an altruistic goal? People are motivated by self-interest not community interest, and that is what has to be modelled. Cristina Soto The economic doctrine is one of reducing the government role and increasing the market role in fisheries management, but is this not a road to unsustainable fisheries management? Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 64 THEME 6: ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS IN REINVENTING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Session Rapporteurs Peter Tydemyers & Richard Porter Keynote Address Aquatic Resources Education for Developing World Needs Meryl Williams Director General, ICLARM, Philippines Abstract As we are talking of "Reinventing Fisheries Management', the developing world and the development assistance agencies have been grappling with new concepts of development to replace the modernization /Eurocentric concepts which dominated the last several decades. Although the changes in fisheries management and development concepts have not been closely linked in their causes, their combined effects on education for aquatic resource management and research in the developing world are interrelated. My presentation addresses how the target population for education, the structure and the institutional place of science and the demands for better management in the face of increasing resource scarcity and degradation are affected by the changes. In particular, development and aquatic resources education will have to cope with user needs for greater participation in the processes (from research to management), a greater range of knowledge for decision-making, greater integration of knowledge, and greater attention to local conditions. All of these demands occur while developing countries are still in the process of building base expertise and have control of limited facilities for their tasks. Like any pioneer phase, time as well as resources are required to achieve a desired state. However, education could help speed the achievement provided it is targetted to future needs rather than to more traditional staging of development. Discussion Tony Pitcher There is no question that here at UBC we have a long tradition of studying salmon biology and management issues which is not perhaps the best training for students from developing countries. As a result, there is need to continue to seek a balance between developed world research interests (ie salmon) and developing world research needs, especially with respect to the specific contexts of the students which are accepted. Within the context of the apparent limits of the world's fisheries, what skills are needed to reduce the consumption of fish within the developing world? Meryl Williams While traditionally there has been a tendency to train students from developing countries in technical subjects (ie fisheries management), when they return home they often end up working on and leading projects which are largely socio-economic. With this in mind, we should probably provide more training in social and cultural skills which will support the specific needs of their home countries. Craig Harris Recognizing that there is an ongoing need for greater collaboration between scientists, social scientists, etc., what is ICLARM doing to meet this challenge? Meryl Williams The short answer is not enough right now. At some levels, however, we are attempting to have more cross-project planning and cross-discipline program review of our activities. We are hoping to move towards greater institutionalised cross-discipline integration. Daniel Pauly Dr Williams has argued that fisheries science has to maintain a broad vision. I support this call because I think that most of what traditional fisheries science has learned is utterly useless! The critical Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 65 element which is lacking is the mechanism to translate technical knowledge (say to reduce the catch) into meaningful implementation at the policy/political level. Meryl Williams Yes- students must also be taught how to operationalise their research. Tony Pitcher There is no shortage of good data out there. Aid agencies continue to train people, often graduate students, in conjuction with developed world universities, to collect data which pile up to be analysed at some point in the future by visiting developed world scientists. How can we get our Ph.D. graduates, for example, to actually do research when they return home and not end up as administrators? Meryl Williams I don't know how we overcome this type of intra-country brain drain. It is a systemic problem which occurs in fields outside of fisheries science as well. Pablo Arenas-Fuentes What do you think about the idea of mandating developed world universities to maintain ongoing institutional links between themselves and their developing world graduates once they return home? Meryl Williams I am wholly in support of this sort of arrangement. Recently, the success of this type of ongoing relationship has been demonstrated in the world of agricultural science. Apparently, Cornell University is maintaining some sort of agricultural research link with one of its more prominent graduates, the current President of Taiwan. Tony Pitcher This style of ongoing commitment to graduates is also being attempted to a limited extent by both Britain and Norway, as part of their international aid programs. Tony Davis Given that the funding for fisheries-related research which is available to developing countries is in general decline, what has ICLARM's experience been with respect to collaboration or partnerships with private companies, both with respect to research and education? Meryl Williams To date there has been relatively little collaboration between ICLARM and the private sector. A notable exception to this, however, has been a joint selective breeding research project on Tilapia. One of the biggest obstacles which we face in increasing this type of collaboration is that ICLARM's purpose is to generate benefits for the public and as such, we must try to ensure that our research results remain public and are not captured as the private intellectual property of a company. Points of View - Theme 6 A Fisheries Agreement with the Nisga'a people: The First Step Toward a Sustainable Fishery and Fishery Management System Michael R. Link Fisheries Analyst LGL Ltd, Sidney, B.C., Canada Abstract SetUement of the land claim between the Nisga'a people of northwestern B.C. and the Federal and B.C. governments begins a process that will put in place the necessary institutions that will ensure sustainable management of all local fisheries. To achieve this goal, the Fisheries Agreement will consist of 4 key components. 1. A share of the fishery resource will be allocated to the Nisga'a and the fishery will be conducted to maximize resource rent and avoid the tragedy of the commons. 2. A funding system will be implemented whereby some portion of the resource rent pay for. the management and assessment of the fish stocks. 3. The stock assessment, management and harvesting will be logistically and physically intertwined and mutually beneficial. This will lower the cost of each compared with separate operations and it will ensure the validity and Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 66 acceptability by all those involved. 4. A trust fund will be built up to ensure that funds are available to support annual stock assessment, monitoring and enforcement programs required for proper management of Nass area fish stocks. While the Nisga'a agreement takes advantage of unique features of their area, some elements of the Nisga'a solution would be applicable and could substantially improve fisheries management in other areas. Discussion Jim Kitchell To what extent can the Fisheries Agreement and the more general agreement in principle with the Nisga'a people be seen as a model for future Treaties with other First Nations. Michael Link In some general respects, this agreement does contain elements which could be used as a model for future agreements or Treaties. For example the funding systems for fisheries management and stock assessment could be used more generally. However, there are aspects of this agreement which make it fairly unique. In particular, the Nisga'a were the only people with claims in the Nass valley. In most other watersheds in the province, there are often a number of claims which may be overlapping. In addition, the physical structure of the canyon on the lower Nass will facilitate the use of selective fishing gear types. Carl Walters I am encouraged by many of the provisions in the fisheries agreement with the Nisga'a especially with respect to the intention to use gear types which will allow the community to capture rents from the resource which can then in turn be used to finance management, assessment, etc.. Michael Link The Nisga'a are very interested in seeing that the maximum value or benefit from the resource is returned to the community. Reinventing Salmon Management: Changing the Burden and Nature of Proof in Salmon Conservation Programs to Support a New Management Paradigm Phillip R. Mundy & Nancy M. Mundy Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, Portland State University, USA Abstract The circumstances surrounding the inability of fisheries management institutions in the contiguous United States to prevent the widespread extirpation of salmon populations may be able to teach some lessons about how to design a more effective salmon management paradigm. The burden for proving that any specific human activity risks the persistence of salmon populations has historically rested very heavily on scientists within management institutions with mandates for salmon conservation, and not on the proponents of the threatening activities. The nature of evidence available to management agencies has historically been limited to attributes of the target populations of salmon, such as numbers caught. Measures of attributes of the salmon's habitats and associated plant and animal species have only slowly become available, if at all. As a consequence of owing the burden of proof, the scientist concerned with salmon conservation were constantly cast in the logically indefensible position of having to prove a negative proposition. Similarly, as a consequence of the single-species nature of the data, the scientists were prone to the circular proposition of describing the current abundance of the salmon populations in terms of only the prior abundances of the salmon populations, without resorting to extrinsic determinants of abundance. Hence the management institutions failed to exert control over the abundance of salmon through time because they could not prove that specific human actions would not put salmon populations at risk, and because the basic management data did not incorporate sufficient understanding of the ecological foundations for salmon production and the impact of human actions on those foundations. If it is possible to create institutions which Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 67 are capable of effecting the indefinite persistence of salmon populations, two fundamental changes are required. First, actions within the salmon's environs which are physically capable of inflicting mortality, such as fishing and habitat degradation, must be presumed, a priori, to put the populations within those environs at risk. Second, management of a salmon population, or deme, needs to be based on spawning escapement goals which represent both the productive capacities of the habitats for the salmon population and all related salmon populations, and the contribution of the adult salmon carcasses to the production of other species of plants and animals in the salmon's environs. Management processes in Alaska which seek to sustain salmon production in the face of newly-degraded habitat and burgeoning sources of human-induced mortality provide a laboratory in which to test designs for new salmon management paradigms. Discussion Unidentified Is it possible that the economic value of salmon which could potentially return to the Columbia River is just too small to justify the efforts being expended in their recovery? Nancy Mundy There is the very real potential that on the basis of a strict economic analysis, the economic value of the fish, even at significantly increased abundance levels, might not enough to justify recovery efforts. However, our Treaty obligations with the native people of the Columbia Basin require that they continue to have access to a number of fish equivalent to 50% of 1859 return levels. Richard Porter What are your thoughts with respect to the utility and likelihood of success of some of the regional consultative fora. Nancy Mundy Some things are beginning to happen. Recently the US government approached the Northwest Power Planning Council. The problem, however, is that the Council only has the authority to plan. It has no enforcement power whatsoever. Science and the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas Richard Paisley Westwater Research Centre UBC, Vancouver, Canada Abstract The management of renewable natural resources is increasingly becoming a highly sophisticated activity. In many jurisdictions, including Canada, natural resource management policy is considered to have a strong science basis. Yet the precise role of science in decision making is often unclear. This paper explores the role of science and scientists in the development of policy towards the establishment and maintenance of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Canada. This exploration suggests that science enters into decision making for MPAs in an episodic way. This episodic model of science in decision making is contrasted with a more adaptive approach in which policy initiatives would be treated as exercises in adaptive learning. Such an adaptive model is more likely to help close social and communications gaps between scientists and decision makers and lead to the establishment and maintenance of more and better MPAs in Canada Fostering Sustainable Development & Research by Encouraging the Right Kind of Institutions Jake Rice DFO, Nanaimo, Canada. Abstract At present we have lots of development and lots of research. We also have lots of institutions and even lots of partnerships. Implicit in devoting time to this Theme Session must be the belief that we have the wrong kinds of development, research, and institutions; the belief that current ones are Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 68 not devoted to sustalnability. Sustainability has been defined many ways, but fundamentally, it is a set of values for how we use ecosystems. If we believe our current institutions (and the research and development they support) are not devoted to sustainability, we must believe our institutions reflect the wrong values at present. How do institutions (and processes, for institutions and processes are inseparable) reflect values? More importantly, how do they change values? From the focus on partnerships, it seems that we believe that the values of those we allow to participate determine the values of the institutions and processes; that the values can be changed both by allowing new participants (and excluding some old ones?) and by broadening the backgrounds of the existing participants. The current trend away from centralized control of both knowledge and decision-making to empowerment of many partners reflects these beliefs. We see representatives of fishers' organizations (and NGO's) on review and advisory bodies (sometimes even on Symposia Steering Committees). We see efforts to make fisheries scientists into fishers by sending them our on real fishing vessels; efforts to make fishers into fishery scientists by giving them notebooks and recording instruments. These experience are valuable, because they build communic-ations and respect between people from different traditions. However, these initiatives are not fundamental changes in roles and responsibilities. Nor do I expect they will fundamentally alter the values of the participants. We should no more expect fishers to defer to the opinion of academic or government experts on matters related to real fishing (regardless of how many trips the expert took on a commercial boat), than we would expect degree-laden experts to defer to the opinion of fishers on matters of science (however well fishers keep their logbooks). It is not just an unrealistic goal to have a completely egalitarian makeup and role of all parties - industry, government, academia, NGO's etc - in all fisheries institutions and processes; it is the wrong goal. The right kinds of institutions and processes are ones that encourage different parties to do well the things for which each has special expertise, and then synthesize the diverse results at another level of process. Many of the institutions and processes for allowing different parties to hone their specialties to a keen edge already exist (although the push for egalitarianism places some in jeopardy). What is missing are the next level of processes and institutions, for synthesizing the products of the diverse specialities. I will review some first steps towards developing the meta-institutions and meta-processes in a few fisheries jurisdictions, although I know of no initiative that is very far along. I will suggest that we look for the most instructive parallels in other areas of social progress (e.g. civil rights, women's rights). If we do believe that our institutions and processes must be changed to reflect a new set of sustainable values, our models perhaps should be found in those areas, where institutions and processes really have seen changes in values implemented over the past decades Discussion Christina Soto To what extent are the perspectives which you presented in your talk reflected within or supported by your employer, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Jake Rice DFO is just another large institution and like most large institutions, reflects and embodies the values of those involved. I think that within DFO there is a sincere commitment to be more open, to cooperate and to share power. Christina Soto In your talk there was an emphasis on the need for trust and respect. Is this perspective enunciated in any DFO literature? Jake Rice Trust and respect are really only things that individuals can embody. Yoshihiko Wada What is your opinion with respect to the potential for demand side management for fisheries products within Canada and what is DFO doing, if anything, in this regard? Jake Rice Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 69 DFO is a bit schizophrenic with respect to demand side management for fish. Different departments often act and talk at cross-purposes when it comes to limiting demand for aquatic resources. Currently, there is no holistic view on this issue. The Need for Partnerships in Re-Inventing Fisheries Management Indrani Lutchman World Wildlife Fund, UK Poster The last decade has been marked by fisheries collapses and conflicts worldwide. Traditional fisheries management has been unsuccessful in ensuring the long-term sustainability of aquatic resources. Fisheries scientists and decision-makers have been unsuccessful at implementing practical management systems which take into account the nature of the resource and people who harvest it. It is generally accepted that current fisheries management methods need to be modified in order to achieve long-term sustainability. The aim of this poster is to highlight the benefits of partnerships in effecting better resource management. As the largest international non-governmental organisation (NGO) advocating the protection of wildlife and all that sustains wildlife, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is in a unique position to influence public policy and initiate on-site projects which will benefit the aquatic environment worldwide. Through its regional programmes, WWF has funded three projects which have been based on the participation, collaboration and knowledge of local people towards promoting better conservation of aquatic resources. Mafia Island Marine Park, Tanzania. This project's main aim was to develop Tanzania's first multi-user park. The area chosen has been shown to be high in marine habitat and species diversity with representatives of most of East Africa's marine ecosystems represented. It was recognized that the management of the park and its resources was dependent on participation and collaboration of local users and agencies. It is also hoped that the success of the stakeholder approach would become apparent through rational resource use and participation in development activities. Les Arcadins Marine Park and Fisheries Project, Haiti. This project centered around three major objectives which include the promotion of sustainable development of the local fisheries and the establishment of a marine park to assist with the recovery of depleted species. The specific aims of the project were to assist the fishermen in making the changes in the way they operate, such as improving the organisational capability of a local fishing cooperative and enabling fishermen to take advantage of training in alternative fishing practices. Mamiraua, Brazilian Amazon. A case of resource management involving local people. WWF has involved 2000 local residents in sustainable resource use planning to ensure that fish are not exploited and to improve the local standards of local communities. These residents participated in the formulation and implementation of management plans which included not only biological studies but socio-economic aspects related to local populations A Point of View from Mexico Antonio Diaz de Leon Corral. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, Mexico (No abstract received) Discussion Tom McGuire During this conference, we have heard about the potential for using eco-certification programs in fisheries management (see presentation by John Sproul). What is Mexico's perspective on the use of eco-eertification tools generally and, more specifically, with respect to their potential application to fisheries. Antonio Diaz de Leon Mexico's perspective on this issue must be viewed within the context of our current Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 70 trade relationships. For example, the United States is by far the major consumer of Mexican fisheries products. And despite the existence of specific written international agreements between Mexico and the United States, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, which should address these issues, the problem still arises that many trade issues are masquerading as ecological issues. In other words, how are true ecological issues, the potential subject of eco-certification, to be distinguished from trade problems? This raises the question of who or what is going to certify the eco-certifiers? Furthermore, what and whose standards are to be used. If eco-certification is to be accepted, there is a need for clear unequivocal standards within which trade issues cannot masquerade. Meryl Williams With respect to the apparent lack of highly experienced research expertise available in Mexico to address specific practical research problems, has Mexico considered inviting (and possibly having to pay for) recognized international experts from outside Mexico to come and work on specific problems? Antonio Diaz de Leon Mexico has invited foreign researchers to assist with specific pressing long-term problems (not just to do science) in the past and has found this to be quite useful. Typically, these have been arranged through linkages between government agencies, Mexican universities and foreign universities. In addition, we are also trying to build up a fund to finance our own scientists better and also to train our own future scientists. Vincent Gillett Based on my experience in Belize, in developing countries it is very common that the Minister has the final say on all decisions of any consequence. As a result, they are very vulnerable to lobbying by various interest groups and may therefore be hard pressed to follow the advice of their scientists and managers. Jake Rice In Canada, the Fisheries Act mandates that the Minister is responsible for all fishing plans. Therefore, the decision-making process is also vulnerable to the influence of various groups. As a result, there are often highly variable outcomes or decisions across Canada and between regions given the same starting point. Meryl Williams The experiences mentioned previously in Canada and Belize can be contrasted with that of Australia. There, ministerial influence in decision-making has, in recent years, been greatly reduced because of a history of political and interest group interference in the process. Current legislation requires that decisions are taken by professional fisheries managers. General Discussion - Theme 6 Lisa Thompson For those of you that have had experience within government, what is the internal decision-making process like? How much influence and pressure do specific interest groups bring to bear on the fisheries management decisions? Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 71 BIOGRAPHIES OF KEYNOTE SPEAKERS John F. Caddy Born in Ulverston, England, 1940; Bachelor and Doctorate in Marine Biology, 1966, University of London. Landed immigrant and Canadian citizenship while working as research scientist on population assessment and fisheries management, (shellfish, crustaceans and marine fish) at the St Andrews Biological Station, N.B., 1966-75; Then, Associate Director, Resource Assessment Branch, DFO, Ottawa, 1976, and Chief, Invertebrates and Marine Plants Service, 1976-79. Over this period I was mostly involved in cooperative efforts to establish the basis for invertebrate fishery assessments. Personal highlights were a first spatial model for an exploited fishery population, developed during sabbatical leave at the University of Washington, and a crustacean assessment model based on moult intervals. (This invertebrate work led to editing 'Marine invertebrate fisheries, their assessment and management', published by John Wiley in 1989). Some other scattered activities involved developing direct fishery assessment methods using cameras and submersibles, authorship of the first VP A for Atlantic bluefin tuna at ICCAT, and advisor on Canada-US boundary negotiations over Georges Bank. Senior Resources Officer and Chief, Marine Resources Services, FAO, 1979 to present. The first assignments given me by John Gulland, then service chief, were to cover fisheries resources issues in the Caribbean, Mediterranean and Persian Gulf. Following earlier work in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of St Lawrence, this led to preoccupation with the state of semi-enclosed seas (Rev. Fish. Sci. 1993). Since finding that it does not always make sense to make 'routine' assumptions for shellfish populations, I have always questioned doing so in fisheries assessment methodology, and sought to incorporate marine ecology in fisheries (see 'An ecological framework for marine fishery investigations'; FAO 1986). Among my other research preoccupations has been the need of developing country scientists to find an appropriate context for assessing and managing tropical fisheries, which do not always follow North Atlantic and North Pacific models! My service at FAO recently attracted widespread attention following publication of our 1993 'Review of the state of world marine fishery resources' (FAO Tech. Pap. 335), which has contributed, through the global media, to a broader global concern with the state of exploitation of marine resources. In association with our diagnosis, I have been occupied in recent years with providing input and background documents for international conferences: in 1992, on 'Living Marine Resources' for UNCED (FAO Tech. Pap. 353), more recently on 'Reference points for fisheries management'for the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (FAO Tech. Pap. 347), as well as input for the Articles on Fisheries Management in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Management, approved in 1995. Kevera L Cochrane Kevern Cochrane was born in Cape Town, South Africa, but moved to Zimbabwe at an early age and completed much of his education there. He studied at the University of Zimbabwe, graduating with a B.Sc(Hons) in Zoology and Geology in 1973. After a brief spell teaching at a senior school in Harare, he joined the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management in Zimbabwe. His research for this department centred on a study of the dupeoid Limnothrissa miodon in Lake Kariba to which it had recently been introduced from Lake Tanganyika. The species had rapidly become established and had become the basis of a lucrative fishery on Lake Kariba. His research, on factors driving strong seasonal trends in abundance of the species, led to the award of a M.Phil. degree from the University of Zimbabwe in 1978. This was followed by nearly five years of teaching in Pretoria in South Africa after which Dr Cochrane joined the National Institute for Water Research of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa. Here he formed part of a multi-disciplinary team nutrient cycling within a hypertrophic impoundment, Hartbeespoort Dam. His responsibilities focused on the population dynamics of the three most abundant fish species in the lake Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 72 and their impact on nutrient cycling and water quality. As a result of this research, in 1985 he was awarded a Ph.D. for a thesis entitled The population dynamics and sustainable yield of the major fish species in Hartbeespoort Dam. While these fish species are not commercially harvested they do form the basis of a substantial recreational fishery, despite the poor water quality. As a member of this group, Dr Cochrane, also became involved in, and ultimately took responsibility for, development of a simulation model of the nutrient dynamics within the lacustrine ecosystem. During the late 1980s, the political struggle in South Africa was reaching a climax and, having been involved in a number of activities attempting to expedite the establishment of a democracy in South Africa, Dr Cochrane left science for a period of 18 months during which time he was a full-time justice and reconciliation worker for the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (Episcopalian). His duties were concerned mainly with initiating and coordinating educational support to black scholars within the Pretoria region, working with families of political detainees and facilitating contact between black and white South Africans on a range of levels. At the end of 1988, he returned to science and made his first professional contact with matters marine, joining the Sea Fisheries Research Institute (SFRI) in Cape Town. Initially he worked within the Whole Systems Group, undertaking research into environmental influences on the dynamics of small pelagic fish, particularly on recruitment. In 1990, he was made Head of the Stock Assessment Division of the SFRI and was therefore responsible for the provision of scientific advice for the management of the pelagic fishery. This fishery is the second most valuable in South Africa and is based largely on anchovy and sardine. Considerable progress has been made in developing acceptable management procedures for these two species based on rigorous assessments and intensive discussions with the fishing industry. In 1992, Dr Cochrane was made Head of the newly formed Stock Assessment Division and thereby became responsible for coordinating assessments of the species underlying all South Africa's major fisheries. He is due to join the Fisheries Department of the Food and Agricultural Organisation in October 1995. He was chairman of the Benguela Ecology Programme from 1992 to 1994 and subsequently served on the Advisory Committee for this Programme. He was also one of the initiators of the South African Sea and the Coast Programme which has successfully brought together marine scientists, engineers and technologists, economists and sociologists, and representatives of the user communities and groups in order to investigate means of improving on the utilisation and management of marine resources. He served on the Policy and Advisory Committee for this Programme until his departure for the FAO. He is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Small Pelagics and Climate Change (SPACC) programme within International GLOBEC. Rognvaldur Hannesson Rognvaldur Hannesson was born in Iceland in 1943 and grew up in a fishing village. He received his university education at the University of Lund, Sweden. His dissertation dealt with the economics of fishing, a work that benefited greatly by spending a year at the UBC Department of Economics in 1972-73, where he came to know Tony Scott, Gordon Munro, Harry Campbell and Colin Clark. Professor Hannesson has made his academic career in Norway, first at the University of Tromso where he stayed one year, and later at the University of Bergen. Since 1983 he has been professor of fisheries economics at the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration in Bergen. He has published two books on the fundamentals of fisheries economics and numerous articles in the professional journals. He is a member of the Advisory Board of Marine Resource Economics. He was chairman of the Executive Committee of EIFET (The International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade) 1986-1990. He has hAd various short term assignments for the Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 73 FAO, the OECD and the World Bank. Professor Hannesson's main interests are in fisheries management, bioeconomie models and the development of fish prices and markets. Some recent publications are How to set Catch Quotas: Constant Effort or Constant Catch? (together with SJ. Steinshamn), Journal of Environmental Economics, 20:71-9 (1991), Bioeconomic Analysis of Fisheries, Fishing News Books (1993), International Transfers of Excess Allowable Catches, Land Economics 70:330-344 (1994), and Fishing on the High Seas: Cooperation or Competition? forthcoming in Marine Policy. James F. Kitchell James F. Kitchell is the A. D. Hasler Professor of Zoology and Associate Director of the Center for Limnology at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison. His research interests emphasize trophic interactions. He has served on five panels for the US National Science Foundation and is Coordinator for the Living Resources Program, Univ. of Wisconsin Sea Grant. He is currently appointed to advisory councils of the School of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Univ. of Alaska, and the Multiscale Experimental Ecosystem Res-earch Center, Univ. of Maryland. David Policansky David Policansky is Associate Director, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology and Director, Program in Applied Ecology and Natural Resources at the National Research Council in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. (Biology) and M.S. (Biology) from the University of Oregon, and his B.A. (Biology) from Stanford University. He was born in Cape Town, South Africa, and came to the United States more than 30 years ago after a 3-year stay in London. Before coming to the National Research Council in 1983, Dr. Policansky taught courses in ecology, evolution, genetics, ichthyology, and introductory biology at the University of Oregon and the University of Massachusetts in Boston. His research interests include evolutionary ecology and life-history patterns and the evolution of exploited populations. His research experience includes marine and freshwater fishes, perennial herbs, and natural populations of Drosophila. At the National Research Council, Dr. Policansky has directed projects dealing with natural-resource management, including recent reports on the Bering Sea ecosystem, the biological basis of the Endangered Species Act, wetlands delineation, the protection and management of anadromous salmon in the Pacific Northwest, and the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program He has also directed studies on the criteria federal agencies use to acquire land, the Environmental Studies Program of the Minerals Management Service (oil and gas leasing on the outer continental shelf), ecology and conservation of endangered sea turtles, the biology of the tuna-dolphin problem, and the Mono Basin ecosystem. He has published papers on resource management and the evolution of exploited fish populations. In addition to his membership on the International Advisory Council of the Fisheries Centre, Dr. Policansky is or has been a member of the Advisory Council for the University of Alaska's School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, the Peer Review Panel on the Department of Energy's Academic Partner-ships Program, the Bioscience Editorial Board, the American Fisheries Society, and the Ecological Society of America. Keith Sainsbury Dr Sainsbury is the leader of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)'s Pelagic Fisheries Resources Program. This Program is responsible for all CSIRO's research on pelagic fisheries and manages the design and evaluation of strategies for fisheries Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 74 and environmental management of marine living resources. Keith comes with a background that includes marine biology, population dynamics, fishery assessment and mathematical modelling. His primary responsibility over the past 10 years has been in providing the scientific input to management of the multi-species bottom-trawl fisheries in tropical north-west Australia. This includes conducting extensive trawl surveys of the resources present in this part of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ), stock assessment, and development of an adaptive management approach to dealing with the complex and highly uncertain dynamics of the resource. Current responsibilities include scientific membership of the two Australian Management Advisory Committees responsible for pelagic fisheries covering southern bluefin, bigeye and skipjack tunas and billfish resources. He is advisor to the Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency on the management of ocean dumping and waste management under the London Convention and head of the Australian delegation to the international commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. Some of the projects Dr Sainsbury is currently involved with are: tuna population assessment and management: tuna tagging to measure abundance and dynamics; ecology of tunas; application of tracking methods to optimise use of Fish Aggregation Devices; detailed biological oceanography of eastern Australia and its relation to pelagic fisheries; analysis and interpretation of commercial catch data for fishery assessment. Prior to Dr Sainsbury's current involvement he managed CSIRO's Australian Tropical Fisheries project involving survey of the demersal and pelagic fish resources of tropical Australia. He also developed a management plan for the demersal trap and trawl fisheries in this region and implemented the ongoing 10 year monitoring program for these fisheries. Meryl Williams Dr Meryl J Williams, appointed Director General of the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) in April 1994, was educated in Australia (University of Queensland and James Cook University of North Queensland). She holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree, an MS in Literary Studies (Statistics), a Diploma of Education from the University of Queensland, and first class honours in Marine Biology from James Cook University. ICLARM is an international research centre with headquarters in Manila, conducting fisheries, aquaculture and aquatic systems research and other activities relevant to the needs of those in the developing world. ICLARM is a center under the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), along with 15 other centers which cover agriculture and forestry research. Prior to her ICLARM post, Dr. Williams was Director (1993) of the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). At the former Bureau of Rural Resources in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra, she grew in her position from Fisheries Scientist to Assistant Director and finally as Executive Director, between 1986 and 1992. She also has had extensive experience as Fisheries Statistician and Consultant to the Tuna and Billfish Assessment Program at the South Pacific Commission, New Caledonia, from 1981 to 1984, and as Biometrician of Fisheries with the Queensland Government. From 1989 to 1994, she chaired the Australian Scientific Working Group on Ballast Water, was a member of the Steering Committee on Ballast Water, and sat on and chaired several fisheries research committees. She was also a member of the Australian Endangered Species Advisory Committee in 1993-94. As a scientist, Dr. Williams has relevant experience in fisheries research at national and international levels. She also has extensive experience in Australian marine science research, with emphasis on the use of research applications and in environment management and policy decision making. She had been a Board member of the Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 75 Australian Maritime College and the Vice President of the Australian Marine Science Association and served on committees reviewing New Zealand and US fisheries research. At present she is an active member of the Council of AIMS. Dr Williams has published extensively on a variety of marine and fisheries matters and continues to develop materials of relevance to fisheries research. Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 76 SYMPOSIUM PROGRAMME SYMPOSIUM DAY 1 Wednesday February 21,1996 8:00 - 8:30 Registration 8:30 -12:15 Session 1: The production base and ecosystem management (Chair: David Policansky, Rapporteurs: KathyHeise & Steve Maekinson) 8:30 - 8:45 Welcome and opening thoughts, Dr Tony Pitcher, Director, Fisheries Centre 8:45 - 9:45 Keynote address James F. Kitchell, Univ. of Wisconsin The trophic cascade and food web management 9:45 -10:15 Coffee Break 10:15 -11:15 Points of view Pierre Magnan, Univ. du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres The control of undesirable introduced species in small freshwater lakes: what we should learn from past experiments Bill Neill, Fisheries Centre, UBC Constraints on the intensity of trophic linkages in lake food webs Daniel Pauly, Fisheries Centre, UBC Ecosystem management: the next step James Scandol, Fisheries Centre, UBC The understanding and prediction of marine production: considerations for the future. 11:15 -12:15 Discussion (Chair: Tony Pitcher) 12:15 -14:15 Lunch Break (Soup is provided at Ralf Yorque Room, Fisheries Centre) Poster Session, at Ralf Yorque Room, Fisheries Centre. Alida Bundy and Tony Pitcher, Fisheries Centre, UBC First world / foreign fishing and third world fisheries: impact on resources, economy and society Indrani Lutchman, World Wildlife Fund, U K. The need for partnerships in reinventing fisheries management Sam Wang, Elemental Research Inc., Canada A new method to identify individual natal stream sources of salmonids and migration patterns of fish -18:00 Session 2: Assessment, risk and adaptive management (Chair: Rognvaldur Hannesson; Rapporteurs: Alida Bundy & KathyHeise) -15:15 Keynote address Keith Sainsbury, CSIRO, Australia Rediscovering adaptive management: a framework linking science and decision making in a reinvented fisheries management. 15:15 -15:45 Points of view (Part I) Alain Fonteneau, IATTC, USA An overview of tuna assessment and management world wide Jarl Giske, University of Bergen, Norway Predictive models of growth, survival and reproduction. Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 77 15:45 -16:15 Coffee Break 16:15 -17:00 Points of view (Part II) Randall Peterman, Simon Fraser Univ., Burnaby Benefits of taking uncertainties into account when making decisions in fisheries management: example applications of Bayesian decision analysis. Laura Richards, Fisheries and Oceans, Nanaimo Intelligent fisheries assessment in an uncertain world Carl Walters, Fisheries Centre, UBC Fixed exploitation rate strategies for coping with effects of climate change 17:00 -18:00 Discussion (Chair: Tony Pitcher) 20:30 Informal discussion at Ralf Yorque Room, Fisheries Centre Chairs and rapporteurs to focus discussion issues from Sessions 1 and 2. SYMPOSIUM DAY 2 Thursday February 22,1996 8:30 -12:15 Session 3: Role of policy in responsible fishing (Chair: James Kitchell; Rapporteurs: Dave Preikshot & Alida Bundy) 8:30 - 9:30 Keynote address Kevern Cochrane, FAO, Rome People, purses and power - some features of the debate surrounding a developing fisheries policy for South Africa. 9:30 -10:00 Points of view (Part I) Craig K. Harris, Michigan State University Regime formation and community participation in fisheries management. Tony Pitcher, Fisheries Centre, UBC Measuring the immeasurable: multivariate interdisciplinary method for determining the health of fisheries 10:00 -10:30 Coffee Break 10:30 -11:15 Points of view (Part II) Cert van Santen, World Bank, Washington D.C. Politics and fisheries Michael Sinclair, Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth Modifications of Scotian Fundy groundfish management for sustainable use. Michael Sutton, World Wildlife Fund, UK A new paradigm for managing marine fisheries in the next millennium. 11:15 -12:15 Discussion (Chair: Tony Pitcher) 12:15 -14:15 Lunch Break (Soup is provided at Ralf Yorque Room, Fisheries Centre) 14:15 -18:00 Session 4: Role of the interface between social sciences and natural sciences (Chair: Meryl Williams; Rapporteurs: Steve Mackinson & Dave Preikshot) 14:15 -15:15 Keynote address David Policansky, National Research Council Fisheries management: science and decision making 15:15-15:45 Points of view (Part I) Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 78 Tony Davis, St. Francis Xavier Univ., Nova Scotia For fishers or fishes?: a comment on the development of an interdisciplinary science of fisheries and fisheries management Lawrence Felt, Memorial University, St.John', Nfld. A bridge over troubling waters? Strategies for integrating natural and social science for sustainable fisheries 15:45 -16:15 Coffee Break 16:15 -17:00 Points of view (Part II) Paul Hart, Univ. of Leicester, U.K. Enlarging the shadow of the future - avoiding conflict and conserving fish Svein Jentoft, University of Tromso, Norway Fisheries management: a role for social science? Thomas McGuire, University of Arizona, USA Observations on the social science of fleet dynamics and local knowledge 17:00 -18:00 Discussion (Chair: Tony Pitcher) 20:30 Informal discussion at Ralf Yorque Room, Fisheries Centre Chairs and rapporteurs to focus discussion issues from Sessions 3 and 4. SYMPOSIUM DAY 3 Friday February 23, 1996 12:15 Session 5: Role of economic tools in reinventing fisheries management (Chair: Kevern Cochrane; Rapporteurs: Richard Porter & Peter Tyedmers) 8:30 - 9:30 Keynote address Rognvaldur Hannesson,Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration Fisheries management, politics and markets. 9:30 -10:00 Points of view (Part I) Anthony Charles, Saint Mary's University, Halifax New directions in fishery management: lessons from the collapse of Atlantic Canada's groundfishery. Philip Neher, Department of Economics, UBC Natural assets and national wealth 10:00 -10:30 Coffee Break 10:30 -11:15 Points of view (Part H) Anthony Scott, Department of Economics, UBC Cooperation and quotas John Sproul, Fisheries Centre, UBC Linking fish price and fishery practice through eco-certification, labeling and crediting Ussif Rashid Sumaila, Univ. of Bergen, Norway. Uncertainty and the role of economics in reinventing fisheries management -12:15 Discussion (Chair: Tony Pitcher) -14:15 Lunch Break (Soup is provided at Ralf Yorque Room, Fisheries Centre) 17:45 Session 6: Role of institutions and partnerships in reinventing fisheries management (Chair: Keith Sainsbury; Rapporteurs: Peter Tyedmers & Richard Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 79 Porter) 14:15-15:15 Keynote address Meryl Williams, ICLARM, Philippines Aquatic resources education for developing world needs. 15:15 -15:45 Points of view (Part I) Michael Link, LGL Limited (environmental research associates) A fisheries agreement with the Nisga's people: the first step towards a sustainable fishery and fishery management system Nancy M. Mundy,Portland State University, School of Urban & Public Affairs Reinventing salmon management: changing the burden and nature of proof in salmon conservation programs to support a new management paradigm. 15:45 -16:15 Coffee Break 16:15 -16:45 Points of view (Part H) Richard Paisley, Westwater Research Centre, UBC Science and the establishment of marine protected areas Jake Rice, Fisheries and Oceans, Canada Fostering sustainable development & research by encouraging the right kind of institutions. 16:45 - 17:45 Discussion (Chair: Tony Pitcher) SYMPOSIUM DAY 4 Saturday February 24 1996 9:00 -11:00 Round table and rapporteurs' reports from session discussions, and planning the Chapman & Hall book. Ralf Yorque Room, Fisheries Centre (Chair: Tony Pitcher) 11:00 -12:00 Travel to Richmond for lunch 12:00 - 14:30 Dim-Sum lunch at the Maple Garden Restaurant, Richmond (Sponsor: Fisheries Centre) 15:00 -16:00 Visit to Gulf of Georgia Cannery, National Historic Site, Steveson, B.C. 16:00 -17:00 Travel back to UBC 17:00 Adjourn Reinventing Fisheries Managemnt, Workshop Report, page 80 LIST OF SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR ADDRESSES Name and postal address is followed by telephone, fax and E-mail address where available. Robert Ahrens Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 ahrens@zoology.ubc.ca Clint Alexander School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, CANADA (604) 291-4695 (604) 291-4968 Pablo Arenas-Fuentes Instituto Nacional de la Pesca Pitagoras No. 1320 Col. Sta.Cruz Atoyac Mexico, D.F. 03310, MEXICO (52 5) 604-4887 (52 5) 604-4887 adlc@servidor.un am .mx Michael Baumann Dept. of Oceanography, UBC 6270 University Boulevard Vancouver, BC, 6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 224-5757 (604) 822-6091 baumann@unixg.ubc.ca Ramon Bonfil Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4,CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 bonfil@fisheries.com Eny Buchary Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver. BC.V6T 1Z4,CANADA (604) 266-4848 (604) 822-8934 eny@fisheries.com Rik Buckworth Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 390-1371 (604) 822-8934 buckworth@fisheries.com Alida Bundy Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 alida.bundy@fisheries.com John Caddy Fishery Resources and Environmental Division, FAO Via delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, ITALY (39 6) 522 531 52 John.Caddy@fao.org Emma Caddy Resource Management and Environmental Studies, UBC #1. 2625 Tolmie Street Vancouver, B.C. V6R 4C6, CANADA (604) 221-5339 caddyem@unixg.ubc.ca Melvin Carlos Institute of Fisheries Analysis Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, CANADA (604)291-4893 (604) 291-5716 AlCass Dept.of Fisheries and Oceans Pacific Biological Station Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5K6, CANADA (604) 756-7142 (604) 756-7053 cassa@pbs.pbs.dfo.ca Anthony Charles Department of Finance and Management Science Saint Mary's University Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3C3 CANADA (902)420-5732 (902)420-5121 tcharles@shark.stmarys.ca Ying Chuenpagdee Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Mam Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-0618 (604) 822-8934 ying@fisheries.com Daniel Clark Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6,CANADA Kevem Cochrane Fishery Resources and Environmental Division, FAO Via delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, ITALY (39 6) 5225 6109 (39 6) 5225 3020 Kevern.Cochrane@fao.org Beverly Cook Dept. of Economics University of New Brunswick P.O. Box 4400 Frederiction, N.B. E3B 5A3, CANADA (506) 447-3202 (506)453-4514 bac@unb.ca Tony Davis Department of Sociology & Anthropology St. Francis Xavier University P.O. Box 5000 Antigomsh, Nova Scotia B2G 2W5 CANADA (902) 867-2133 (902) 867-2448 adavis@stfx.ca Antonio Diaz de Leon Corral Instituto Nacional de la Pesca Pitagoras No. 1320 Col. Sta.Cruz Atoyac Mexico, D.F. 03310, MEXICO (52 5) 604-4887 (52 5) 604-4887 adlc@servidor.unam.mx Thomas Dupayat Institute of Fisheries Analysis Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, CANADA (604) 291-4893 (604) 291-5716 Jim Echols Program Planning & Economics Fisheries and Oceans Station 317, 555 W. Hastings St. Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5G3 .CANADA (604) 666-2600 (604) 666-3295 Lyle Enderud Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Box 130, Bella Coola, B.C., CANADA (604) 799-5345 (604) 799-5540 enderudlStam96vanncd@mr.pac.dfo.Ca Paul Fanning Marine Fish Division Bedford Institute Oceanograpy P.O. Box 1006 Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 81 Dartmouth, N.S. B2Y 4A2, CANADA (902)426-3190 (902)426-1506 PFANNING@BI0NET.BI0.NS.CA Akhmad Fauzi Institute of Fisheries Analysis Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, CANADA (604) 291-4893 (604)291-5716 Lawrence Felt Dept. of Sociology Memorial University St. John's, Nfld. A1C 5S7, CANADA Alain Fonteneau ORSTOM Scientist, IATTC, 8604 La Jolla Shores Dr. La Jolla, CA 92037, USA (619) 546-7026 (619) 546-7133 Vincent Gillett Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 gillett@fisheries.com Jarl Giske Department of Fisheries and Marine Biology University of Bergen High Technology Centre N-5020, Bergen, NORWAY (47) 555 444 77 (47) 555 444 50 Jarl.Giske@ifm.uib.no Gomez-Galindo Resource Management and Environmental Studies, UBC 436 E - 2206 East Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3 CANADA (604) 221-5033 (604) 822-9250 cgomezga@unixg.ubc.ca Ron Goruk Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans 202-417 West 2nd Ave. Prince Rupert, B.C. V8J 1G8 CANADA (604) 627-3460 (604) 627-3411 gorukr@mailhost.pac.dfo.ca John Green Dept. of Biology Memorial University St. John's, Nfld A1B 3X9, CANADA (709) 737-7527 (709) 737-4000 jmgreen@morgan.ucs.mun.ca Jeff Grout School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6. CANADA (604) 291-4695 (604) 291-4968 Sylvie Guenette Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 sylvie_guenette@fisheries.com Nigel Haggan Fisheries Centre, UBC 1777 E. 7th Ave. Vancouver, B.C. V5N 1S1, CANADA (604) 255-7735 (604) 255-7742 nigel.haggan@fisheries.com Rognvaldur Hannesson Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration Helleveien 30, N-5035 Bergen-Sandviken, NORWAY (47) 55 9S 92 60 (47) 55 95 95 43 SAM_RH@debet.nhh.no Craig Harris Department of Sociology Michigan State University East Lansing,, Michigan 48824-1111. USA (517)355-5048 (517)432-2856 craig.harris@ssc.mus.edu Paul Hart University of Leicester Department of Zoology Leicester LEI 7RH, U.K. (0116)252-3348 (0116)252-3330 pbh@leicester.ac.uk Kathy Heise Dept. of Zoology, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604)822-2731 (604) 822-8934 heise@zoology.ubc.ca Ryan Hill Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. #120 -13511 Commerce Parkway Richmond, B.C. V6V 2L1, CANADA (604) 279-2093 (604) 279-2047 Leonardo Huato Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 huato@zoology.ubc.ca Svein Jentoft Institute of Social Science University of Tromso Breivika, N-9000 Tromso, NORWAY sveinj@isv.uit.no Daniela Kalikoski Resource Management and Environmental Studies, UBC 5959 Student Union Blvd., # Box 787 Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1K2, CANADA (604) 224-3098 James Kitchell Center for Limnology 680 N. Park St., Univ. of Wisconsin Madison, W1 53706, USA (608) 262-9512 (608) 265-2340 kitchell@macc.wisc.edu Dale Kolody Oceanography Dept., UBC 6270 University Blvd. Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-9283 (604) 822-6091 kolody@ocgy.ubc.ca Sherry Larkin Oregon State University 322 Ballard Hall CorvaUis, Oregon 97331-3601, USA (503) 737-1449 (503) 737-2563 larlan@ucs.orst.edu Taje Lee Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC, 6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 taja@unixg.ubc.ca Norman Lemmen Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Operations Branch, Conservation and Protection 3225 Stephenson Pt. Road Nanaimo, B.C. V9T 1K3, CANADA (604) 756-7292 (604) 756-7162 Michael Link LGL Limited. Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 82 9768 Second Street Sidney, B.C. V8L 3Y8, CANADA (604)656-0127 (604) 655-4761 mlink@lgl.com Indrani Lutchman World Wildlife Fund for Nature Panda House, Weyside Park Godalming GU7 1XR, U.K. (1483)412-521 (1483) 426-409 Paul Macgillivray Program Planning & Economic Branch Fisheries and Oceans Station 317, 555 W. Hastings St. Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5G3, CANADA (604) 666-3866 (604) 666-3295 Collin Mackinnon Program Planning & Economic Branch Fisheries and Oceans Station 317, 555 W. Hastings St. Vancouver, BC.V6B 5G3, CANADA (604) 666-1257 (604) 666-3295 Steven Mackinson Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC, 6T 1Z4.CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 smackin@fisheries.com Pierre Magnan Departement de Chimie-btologie Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres C.P. 500, Trois-Rivieres Quebec G9A 5H7, CANADA (819)376-5053 (819) 376-5084 Richard McGaw Department of Economics University of New Brunswick Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5A3 CANADA (506) 447-3205 (506)453-4514 mcgaw@unb.ca Kaarine McGivney DFO - Planning Branch Suite 317, 555 W. Hastings St. Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5G3 CANADA (604)666-3737 (604) 666-3295 KMCGIVNEY@MAILHOST.PAC.DF O. Thomas McGuire Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology Dept. of Anthropology University of Arizona, Tucson Arizona 85721, USA (520) 621-6282 (520) 621-9608 TRM@ccit.arizona.edu Kevin McLoughlin Bureau of Resource Sciences P.O.Box E l l Queen Victoria Terrace Parkes, ACT 2600, AUSTRALIA (616)272-4015 (616)272-4014 kjm@mailpc.brs.gov.au Maria Morlin Dept. of Zoology, UBC 308 - 2005 Pendrell St. Vancouver, B.C. V6G 1T8, CANADA (604) 683-3882 morlin@zoology.ubc.ca Nancy Mundy Portland State University School of Urban and Public Affairs 1015 SherLane Lake Oswego, OR 907034-1744 USA (503) 697-3474 (503)636-6335 mundy@teleport.com Phillip Mundy Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1015 Sher Lane Lake Oswego, OR 907034-1744, USA (503) 636-6335 (503)636-6335 mundy@teleport.com Philip Neher Department of Economics, UBC 1873 East Mall, Buchanan Tower 997 Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1, CANADA (604) 822-2202 (604) 822-5915 Bill Neil! Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-4664 (604) 822-8934 neill@zoology.ubc.ca Josie Osborne School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University 2435 E. 28th Ave. Vancouver, B.C. V5R 1R5, CANADA (604) 876-5537 (604) 291-496 josborna@sfu.ca Chantal Ouimet Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-4664 (604) 822-8934 quimet@zoology.ubc.ca Richard Paisley Westwater Research Centre, UBC 1933 West Mall, Room 208A Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z2, CANADA (604) 822-9224 (604) 822-5357 rpaisley@unixg.ubc.ca Ana Parma International Pacific Halibut Commission P. O. Box 95009 Seattle, WA 98145 - 2009, USA (206) 634-1838 (206) 632-2983 Daniel Pauly Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Mam Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604)822-1201 (604) 822-8934 pauly@fisheries.com Randall Peterman School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University Bumaby. B.C. V5A 1S6, CANADA (604) 291-4683 (604) 291-4968 Calvin Peters School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, CANADA (604) 291-3491 (604) 291-4968 cpeters@sfu.ca Tony Pitcher Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 tpitcher@fisheries.com David Policansky Environmental Studies, National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington DC 20418, USA Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 83 (202) 334-2530 (202) 334-2752 dpolican@nas.edu Jim Pook Jim's Fishing Charters #316-2750 Cooperative Way Vancouver, B.C. V5M 4S3, CANADA (604)433-8817 (604)433-8817 jimpook@vanbc.wimsey.com Richard Porter Forest Economics & Policy Analysis Research Unit, UBC LPC Rm. 480, 2206 East Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3, CANADA (604) 822-3173, (604) 228-8818 (604) 822-6970 r.morey.porter@fisheries.com Dave Preikshot Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC, 6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 984-8743 (604) 822-8934 preikshot@fisheries.com John Pritchard Dept. of Zoology, UBC 6270 University Blvd. Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-3383 (604)822-2416 pritchard@zoology.ubc.ca Heri Purnomo Institute of Fisheries Analysis Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, CANADA (604) 291-4893 (604) 291-5716 Brian Pyper School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6, CANADA (604) 291-4695 (604) 291-4968 Stacey Rasmussen School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A IS, CANADA (604) 291-4695 (604) 291-4968 Ulrich Reinhardt Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604)822-2731 (604) 822-8934 reinhard@zoology.ubc.ca Jake Rice DFO Pacific Biological Station 3190 Hammond Bay Road Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5K6, CANADA Laura Richards DFO Pacific Biological Station 3190 Hammond Bay Road Nanaimo. B.C. V9R 5K6. CANADA (604) 756-7177 (604) 756-7053 richardsl@pbs.dfo.ca Jordan Rosenfeld Dept. of Zoology, UBC 6270 University Boulevard Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-4664 (604) 822-8934 rosenfel@z oology .ubc.ca Peter Ryan Ryan & Associates 1220 Esquimalt Ave. W. Vancouver, B.C. V7T 1K3, CANADA (604) 926-3815 (604) 926-3971 103352.127@compuseerve.com Keith Sainsbury CSIRO, Division of Fisheries P.O. Box 1538, Hobart Tasmania 7001. AUSTRALIA (61 02)325 456 (61 02) 325 199 Keith.Sainsbury@ml.csiro.au Silvia Salas Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver. B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 salas@zoology .ubc.ca James Scandol Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-0817 (604) 822-8934 scandol@fisheries.com Doug Schneider University of Alaska / NOAA Sea Grant College Program Box 5040 University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, AK 99775-5040, USA (907) 474-7449 (907) 474-6285 FNDGS@Aurora.Alaska.Edu Anthony Scott Department of Economics, UBC 1873 East Mall. Buchanan Tower 997 Vancouver. B.C. V6T 1Z1, CANADA (604) 822-3848 (604)822-5915 Michael Sinclair Dept of Fisheries and Oceans P.O. Box 1006 Dartmouth, NS, B2Y 4A2, CANADA (902)426-3130 (902)426-7827 Jason Smith School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6. CANADA (604) 291-4695 (604) 291-4961 Cristina Soto University of Guelph 5 Kingslea Cres. Cornwall, Ontario K6H 6J2, CANADA (613) 930-9803 (905) 935-0051 c/o Yam Sakkal: yam_sakkal@pch.gc.ca Robert Spies Applied Marine Sciences, Inc. 2155 U s Positas Ct., Ste. S Livermore, CA 94550, USA (510)373-7142 (510)373-7834 John Sproul Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Mam Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 jsproul@unixg.ubc.ca Richard Steiner University of Alaska Marine Advisory Program 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. # 110, Anchorage AK 99508-4140 USA (907) 274-9691 (907) 277-5242 ANEJE@ORION.ALASKA.EDU aneje@rion.alaska.edu Justin Stephenson Elemental Research Inc. 309 - 267 West Esplanade North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 1A5 CANADA (604) 986-0445 (604) 986-0071 evi@mindlink.bc.ca Alan Stockwell Reinventing Fisheries Management, 1996, page 84 Agrodev Canada Inc. 875 E 17th Street North Vancouver, B.C. V7L 2X2 CANADA (604) 988-5351 (604) 984-3588 Alan.Stockwell@mindlink.bc.ca Patrick Sullivan International Pacific Halibut Commission P. O. Box 95009 Seattle, WA 98145 - 2009, USA (206) 634-1838 (206) 632-2983 Ussif Rashid Sumaila Chr. Michelsen Inst. & Dept. of Economics University of Bergen Fantoftvegen 38, Bergen 5036 NORWAY rashid@fisheries.com Michael Sutton Endangered Seas Campaign WWF International, Panda House Weyside Park, Catteshall Lane Godalming, Surrey GU7 1XR, U.K (1483) 426-444 (1483)426-409 102060.343@compuserve.com Lisa Thompson Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604)822-2731 (604) 822-8934 Ricardo Torres Resource Management & Environmental Studies, UBC Library Proc.Centre, Rm 436 E 2206 East Mall Vancouver. B.C. V6T 1Z3, CANADA (604)222-1181 (604) 822-9250 Andrew Trites North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal Research Consortium Room 18, Hut B-3 6248 Biosciences Rd. Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-8182 (604) 822-8180 Peter Tyedmers Resource Management & Environmental Studies, UBC Library Processing Centre, Rm 436 E 2206 East Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3, CANADA (604) 739-9765 (604) 822-92 SO tyedmers@unixg.ubc.ca Gert van Santen The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW, Room H7-015 Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. (202) 473-2458 (202) 477-0712, (202) 477-1981 Marcelo Vasconcellos Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 marcelo@fisheries.com Judson Venier Fisheries Centre, UBC 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-2731 (604) 822-8934 judson@fisheries.com Yoshihiko Wada School of Community and Regional Planning, UBC 2778 Fairview Crescent Vancouver, B.C. V6T 2B9, CANADA (604) 224-7241 (604) 822-3787 ywada@unixg.ubc.ca Carl Walters Fisheries Centre 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 822-6320 (604) 822-8934 walters@fisheries.com Sam Wang Elemental Research Inc. 309 - 267 West Esplanade North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 1A5 CANADA (604) 986-0445 (604) 986-0071 evi@mindlink.bc.ca Bruce Ward Fisheries Research Min. Environment, Lands & Parks 2204 Main Mall Vancouver, BC.V6T 1Z4, CANADA (604) 222-6753 (604) 660-1849 bward@ubc.env.gov.bc.ca Vilhjalmur Wiium Institute of Fisheries Analysis Simon Fraser University Burnaby. B.C. V5A 1S6, CANADA (604) 291-4893 (604) 291-5716 Meryl Williams ICLARM MC PO Box 2631 Makati, Manila 0718, PHILIPPINES (63 2)818-0466 (63 2)816-3183 williams@cgnet.com Gerald Yaremchuk Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Aboriginal Affairs, 200 Kent St., 11th Floor StnL 1164 Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0E6, CANADA (613) 991-0181 (613) 993-7651 ISSN 1198-6727 FISHERIES CENTRE RESEARCH REPORT SERIES Commercial Whaling - the Issues Reconsidered June 10-11,1993 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 1993, Volume 1, Number 1 36pp Decision Making by Commercial Fishermen: a missing component in fisheries management? November 25-26,1993 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 1993, Volume 1, Number 2 75pp Bycatch in Fisheries and their Impact on the Ecosystem October 13-14,1994 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 1994, Volume 2, Number 1 86pp Graduate Student Symposium on Fish Population Dynamics and Management April 22-23, 1995 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 1995, Volume 3, Number 1 30pp Harvesting Krill: Ecological impact, assessment, products and markets November 14-16,1995 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 1995, Volume 3, Number 3 82pp Mass-Balance Models of North-eastern Pacific Ecosystems November 6-10,1995 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 1996, Volume 4, Number 1 131pp Reinventing Fisheries Management February 21-24, 1996 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 1996, Volume 4, Number 2 84pp Copies of any of these research reports may be obtained at a cost of $20.00, which includes surface mail. Payment may be made by Credit Card. Please contact: Events Officer Fisheries Centre University of British Columbia 2204 Main Mall Vancouver V6T 1Z4 Canada Phone: 604-822-2731 Fax: 604-822-8934 E-mail: office@fisheries.com Web Site: http://fisheries.com 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52383.1-0074779/manifest

Comment

Related Items