Fishing about and about fishing

SAVING HABITATS FROM INERTIA

 

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently published a report entitled: "Our Living Oceans: Habitat". (Online version available at http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/TM83.pdf). NOAA's report recognizes the importance of shallow water marine oceanic, inshore, estuarine, and riverine habitats for marine species, in general, and fishes in particular, most of which use those habitats at some stage of their life.  Throughout such habitats human activities that bring about overfishing, habitat loss through long-shore development, environmental degradation, and deterioration of water quality exert increasing pressure on marine life. Protecting habitats and minimizing damage, which is more economically efficient way than restoring affected ones, are NOAA's policy objectives. 

 

For American and not only American fisheries the most important message of the NOAA's report is that it confronts the U.S. fisheries scientific and administrative establishment with the inadequacy of the still applied traditional single-species management. NOAA's gospel is straightforward and worthy to be quoted here: "…the single-species approach relies on an assumption that … (stock abundance)… is affected only by…  …the abundance of its spawning adults, natural mortality and… (fishing) …mortality, and the recruitment of juveniles…  …This enables mathematical modeling approach to stock assessment"….  and  "…implies that the stock exists in isolation from the ecosystem…". The report also expounds the "still evolving" ecosystem approach to management, which implies "…placing the management of… … fish stocks and their habitats into a broader context of societal priorities…" that involves "…improved water quality… …employment and economic activity". Thus, ecosystem management embodies "a more holistic philosophy". 

 

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 habitats 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. 

 

Apparently, NOAA is at least talking about a major shift in its approach to fisheries management, from single-species fishery dynamics science towards system ecology. None to early, I'd say; 16 years ago Dr. John Caddy, at that time still with FAO, wrote that "The tendency now seems to be towards setting holistic management objectives, as opposed to simply fisheries management on a species by species basis"… (Rev.Fish.Sci.,1(1):57-95 (1993)). Also in the U.S.A., during the last 2 decades, independent scientists, such as Prof. J.Russ McGoodwin (see his book Crisis in the World Fisheries), Dr. Gary D. Sharp (see his paper in Fisheries Oceanography, Vol.4, p.324-341), and several others, have tried to show us the light. Back in 2003, Dr. Mikko Heino wrote in the ICES Newsletter: “Models that consider fish stocks in isolation from their ecosystem have clearly had their day, and fisheries science is moving on” (see this column of March 2004). They have hardly ever have been any good, nonetheless, after all those years, fisheries management and the underlying science don't seem changing course. 

 

At least, the reality that the conventional methodology produces quite a few ineffective and even adverse management steps is now being recognized.  While most scientists keep working within the old context, they should know that sooner or later new paradigms must replace those they’ve been trained to employ and are used to. 

 

So, what are the reasons that so many and for so long are talking about the needed shift in the official American and European science/management systems and hardly anything happens?  Dr. Serge Garcia, the former head of the FAO Fishery Resources Division once told me that even when individuals among them have already made up their mind as to the need of such change, they have the large tanker ships syndrome. It takes them long time to change direction, 

 

David Thomson, a veteran fisheries consultant once wrote that "the 30-year disaster of the EU Common Fisheries Policy” was partly due to not subjecting its science to peer reviews, and by failing to challenge false assumptions.  Some years ago, a committee of the U.S. Academy of Sciences reviewed the methodology underlying the U.S. Fisheries Management. Among their recommendations was one requiring that both the methodology and the results obtained should be peer-reviewed. More or less similar conclusions were reached by the U.K. Royal Society, and the Scottish Royal Academy. But, in my view, "peer reviewing" of the official fishery science's presumptions and recommendations is insufficient if done by scientists coming from the same discipline and prevailing school of thought as the reviewed authors. Thus, single-species models are reviewed by statistical modelers rather than by scientists who may be critical of the whole methodology of stock assessments and the consequent management recommendations, etc.

 

Since the ascent of the idea of ecosystem management, certain scientists and NGOs, for their own reasons, have been trying to misrepresent it as the effect of fisheries on the environment and nothing else. Now, however, the NOAA report presents the "Issues affecting habitat" in the following order: 1- Pollution and water quality; 2 – Alteration and degradation of rivers and migratory pathways; 

3 – Fragmentation and loss of estuarine and shallow water habitats; 4 – Fishing effects on habitats; 5 – Climate variability and change; 6 – Invasive species and marine debris; 7 – Vessel traffic and noise. The illustrated report relates the failures and achievements of the U.S. habitat management, as well as the relevant legislation. 

 

What remains, after NOAA had made the habitats situation known to the public, is how its fisheries branch, the NMFS would tackle all these issues in practice, and whether they'd manage to influence and co-operate with fishing, farming, industrial and urban communities, and make them face the reality that management of marine, estuarine, and riverine habitats starts deep inland.