Fishing about and about fishing
M.Ben-Yami
FISHERIES AND OFFSHORE OIL
FROM SINGLE-SPECIES TO ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Already for several decades “dissident” fishery scientists and many fishermen have been questioning the validity of the stock-assessment models employed for fisheries management throughout North Atlantic fisheries. They questioned assessment models that consider single stocks in isolation from their ecosystem, environmental fluctuations and man-caused effects, and presuppose that by manipulating fishing mortality mainly by output (quota) control, a sustainable equilibrium can be achieved. Improper use of inadequate models – they maintain – is a faulty science, which should not be applied, where such models are unable to produce reliable assessment, even if they represent "the best available" science.
Size-selective fishing is another common practice questioned. For example, the conventional and prevailing cod fishery management strategy focuses on catching larger and filtering out smaller fish. But removal of large predators reduces predation on small fish other than cod, which in turn compete for food with the remaining cod. In extreme cases, this strategy can lead to stunting; that’s to a large population of small, slow growing individuals, a situation often undetected and wrongly interpreted as overfishing. Some scientists theorise that long-term application of such strategy may also cause genetic dwarfism, through consistent elimination of the fast-growth strain from the fished population.
Another criticized common approach is the present methodology of managing multi-species fisheries by keeping the level of a multi-species fishery according to the state of the most depleted species. Where several species co-exist in a full or even partial overlap of their ecological niches, such management may be totally ineffective, or even detrimental. This happens, where management rules aimed at the protection of the more valuable, but depleted species prevent the fishing of the prevailing species that compete with the former over food and habitat. In such instances, the larger populations of the competitors of the weakest species’ remain, in fact, protected by this management, too. This enables species, such as whiting and haddock, in case of cod management, to successfully compete, procreate faster that the cod, and make its recovery even more difficult. With such sort of management, only a change in environmental conditions that would favour cod and depress the other species might enable cod’s recovery, rather in spite, than because of the single-species management.
Such approaches have served for the last 50 years as a basis for Atlantic fisheries management steps, but the miserable results of fishery management at both sides of the Atlantic, including that of the EU’s Common Fishery Policy (CFP), prove that they’ve never been any good.
This criticism and the prevailing failure of the “rebuilding of stocks” management, mainly through progressive reduction of the total allowable catches (TAC), has forced both the fisheries science and management establishments to start revising, at least mentally, their methodology and policies. All the more that in recent years, criticism has been expressed also by official academic bodies, such as the U.K. Royal Society, Scottish Royal Academy, and the U.S. Academy of Sciences.
Nonetheless, N.Atlantic management still prescribes fishing levels on the basis of flawed science. Notwithstanding, the reality that the conventional methodology produces ineffective and even adverse management steps is being more and more recognized. While most scientists keep working within the context of old ideas, they know that soon new paradigms would replace the old ones, they’ve been trained to employ and are used to. The new multi-species management system would be alert for the follies of the ever-changing environment, and look at the state of stocks on the background of climatic fluctuations and events, and of other non-fishing factors, including man-made effects.
THE ASCENT OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
In an article published in a 2003 ICES Bulletin, Dr. Mikko Heino explained that ICES was shifting to an “ecosystem approach” to fisheries management. Ecosystem approach has become a very popular term. Heino wrote that it would consider the effects of climate and oceanography and of changes in food supply, especially to the sensitive larval stage. Such changes are related to the physical environment — the variability in sunlight, winds, and currents – and the resulting development of phyto- and zooplankton on which larvae feed.
Ecosystem approach must consider all changes of the marine environment, in space, time and character. Climatic and oceanographic trends and fluctuations that have been occurring in the ecosystem throughout history must be taken into account, as well as all the physical, biological and chemical forces imposed upon the ecosystem by the various human activities and the relationships between the various species occupying the ecosystem at all stages of their life. It must be concerned with all stakeholders, their performance and activities, not only with management of fishing, but also with habitat protection against unreasonable development, coastal and upstream pollution, extraction of various sea-bottom components and of oil, shipping and other traffic, etc. All this in spite that certain parties, for their own reasons, are trying to misrepresent it as the effect of fisheries on the environment, and nothing else.
To be implemented, “ecosystem-based fishery management” requires initial formulation, legislation and planning. All elements that require intervention must be defined and managed separately, while taking the other elements into account. Flexibility and tailoring management for each specific fishery and area should become the rule. There’s no rational way to impose a single “common” policy that doesn’t take all the above into account. Fishery by fishery must be analysed to see, for example, if TACs are the right methodology to use or other options such as effort control should be considered. The same must be done with the various human interventions into the system, like pollution, shore and marine constructions, etc., and their environmental impacts.
INTEGRATED ZONE MANAGEMENT
Ecosystem management can be implemented using a mechanism known as “integrated coastal zone management” (ICZM). Born a decade ago as a tool to prepare nations for sea-level rise, it’s been now applied by governments to harmonise the often-conflicting and competing interests of various stakeholders with its own policies.
Some governments used ICZM to paper over past blunders that have resulted in destruction of coastal habitats, callous allocation of public beaches to private urban and industrial development, and relinquishing of inshore waters to polluting by industrial, municipal, agricultural effluents, and oil spills. In other cases ICZM emerged in result of a public-sponsored pressure on the authorities to save what was left of the coastal strip and its natural resources, and historical and archaeological assets at both sides of the shoreline. Fisheries-wise, ICZM has to locate protected marine areas (MPAs), safeguard biodiversity of marine and seashore-associated species in sensitive habitats, and comprise fishery and marine-farming management, including allocating sites for cage-farms and fishing grounds by different fishing methods or fisheries sectors.
Oceanic countries, such as the Faroes, that wish to manage larger, offshore ecosystems can apply the basic principles of ICZM to an integrated offshore zone management (IOZM). Forward looking management planning is particularly necessary, where offshore fishing grounds must be shared with oil extracting industry and its various elements, and extraction areas must be allocated to various stakeholders.
IOZM should represent a product of inter-disciplinary thinking, analysis, synthesis, and conclusions. Planning should be done by teams of experts and/or representatives of the various stakeholders, appointed or approved by the authorities. Their terms of reference may vary from country to country and would very much depend on the sort of stakeholders, the condition and status of the coastal mineral and living resources, density of coastal population, land ownership and land allocation along the waterfront, facilities to be shared, or newly erected, degree and sources of pollution, etc., and last but not least, by the respective governments policies and preferences.
As mentioned above, IOZM would comprise, or at least seriously consider fisheries management. The level of its involvement depends on the local conditions. Fishermen frequently ask whether such integrated management is good or bad for their industry. This is a valid question, because, depending on the national policies and politics, it may become a trap or a blessing for the fishing industry. One obvious plus is that the analysis of the situation during ICZM or IOZM planning practically precludes pointing at fishing as the only villain to be blamed for deterioration of coastal or offshore ecosystems and fish stocks, because already at the first touch all the other devils show up. One of them and not a minor one is the development of marine oil industry, where oilfields have been located under the sea bottom.
OFFSHORE OIL INDUSTRY
A country like the Faroes, where the coastal and offshore fisheries represent the mainstay of the national economy, and where marine oil industry is only making its first steps, ICZM and IOMZ planning seems a desirable precautionary measure. There’re several aspects to the possible effects of oil industry on the fishing industry and on marine environment in general. One such aspect is the character and extent of socio-economic effects of the expansion of oil industry over the coastal and inshore areas with substantial fishery industries.
In general, a flow of labour from the fisheries to the newly developing oil industry should be expected. This was happening, in particular, where higher paid jobs were offered by the oil and oil services companies. Where fishing vessels were acquired or chartered by oil companies to serve as the obligatory in the North Sea “stand-by” vessels, or as supplies carriers, many of the jobs on board were taken up by former fishermen, many of them of the younger generation. Another consequence was competition for vessel mooring, service and repair facilities in harbours, where formerly fishing fleets had been the main user. There may also be secondary effects on the fishing communities concerned, not always beneficial, to say the least.
Another aspect consists in zonal allocation. In some areas, conflicts developed due to the oil industry gradually expanding over fishing grounds, by setting up drilling rigs, platforms and pipelines, which the authorities surround by no-fishing, sterile zones. The fisheries, rightly so, complained of loss of fishing grounds and claimed compensations. Such cases were finding their solution either in litigation or in out-of-court settlements. But, under preventive zonal planning, closing off of certain areas to the fisheries, and compensating them by developing more favourable to them management in the other ones, if feasible, as well as other compensations, may be negotiated, agreed on, and implemented.
Still another aspect is the impact on environment. There’re oil spills during the production phase and pollution oozing from abandoned rigs and their effect on marine habitats. Drilling activities and offshore installations, set amidst or close to fishing grounds are often a source of debris and pollution that have been causing protests on the part of fishermen. 'Ship-to-ship' oil transfer is a controversial practice. Although, in some cases, it may save oil companies shipping time, but it may threaten high sensitivity fishing grounds with oil pollution.
On the other hand, fixed oilrigs may play the role of artificial reefs and, thus, enhance biota in their vicinity. The jury is still out on the “rigs-to-reefs” concept, by which derelict production platforms and other redundant installations are sunk and abandoned at sea to serve as artificial reefs, because, their influence on the biota in general and commercial species, in particular, is still not clear.
In conclusion, the meeting of fisheries management with offshore oil industry needs advance planning and integrated management of the ecosystems involved.