Adriane Michaelis, Sabrina Klick, and Rebecca Peters

As students in the Science for Environmental Management course offered by the University of Maryland, we had the opportunity to discuss past, current, and future aspects of science and fisheries management with Dr. Mike Wilberg of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and Eric Schwaab, Chief Conservation Officer at the National Aquarium, former Acting Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Management for the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) . Our conversation allowed for a valuable question and answer session covering a range of topics, but highlighted here are several considerations discussed for those interested in influencing fisheries management.

First and foremost, it is important to recognize that fisheries are complex systems. Complex systems are dynamic and unpredictable, and fisheries management plans must somehow account for this inevitable change (Mahon et al. 2008). Because of this, there is no single best-management approach that applies to all fisheries, or even a single fishery forever, unless the plan allows for change and responds accordingly. These dynamics necessitate adaptive management (as discussed with ecosystem based management in an earlier course blog). Adaptive management is important in all fisheries management approaches, whether they be traditional single-species management with catch limits, ecosystem-based management that attempts a more holistic approach, or management plans that fall somewhere in between the two types.

Each approach has its own set of challenges. For example, marine protected areas (MPA), also called marine management areas or marine reserves, are increasing in numbers and are used as an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. While MPAs have the potential to protect certain life history stages of fish, enhance the productivity of adjacent fishing grounds, as well as protect habitat and biodiversity, they are often plagued by problems of limited enforcement and continue to be harvested (FAO 2015). Marine protected areas represent a form of place-based management, but rights-based management regimes also face obstacles. Share allocations, which involve “a direct and deliberate distribution of the opportunity to participate in a fishery among identifiable, discrete user groups or individuals” can reduce the pressure for individuals to compete before a season-ending catch limit is reached (NOAA 2015). Numerous cases involving rights-based catch shares demonstrate effectiveness in avoiding fishery collapse (Costello et al. 2008). The unpredictability of fisheries as part of a complex system however, lends to the possibility that a fishery stock will decline for novel reasons, even with full compliance of a share allocation system. In such cases, management plans may need to be adjusted to account for changes to the system.

The inevitable change within a system underscores the need to make decisions based on available data, but sometimes the information is incomplete. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, however, states that decisions must be made based on the best available data. With this in mind, we reach our second consideration for the future of fisheries management—science will continue to be critical to successful fisheries management. Because management decisions cannot often be made based solely on a single type of data, interdisciplinary approaches are necessary to reach the best management decisions (Maguire et al. 1995). Scientific research is needed to inform management in order to identify the best means of assigning catch limits, as well as what limits are most likely to help reach management goals. Science helps enable realistic goal-setting and can provide the data necessary to suggest changes to management approaches as a system shifts or additional knowledge is gained (Sullivan et al. 2006).

In addition to providing data needed to inform wild-stock management plans, science can minimize barriers to management success through better technology. For example, the sustainability of aquaculture operations is often questioned, but additional research can increase its efficiency and continue to reduce the environmental impact of aquaculture processes (Amirkolaie 2001, Bergan et al. 1991, Paez-Osuna 2001). Additionally, technological advances may reduce the cost of taking on an aquaculture operation, making it a more realistic opportunity for fishers looking to diversify or transition. Scientific innovation also continues to improve gear efficiency and reduce damaging fishing practices, as multiple studies show (Swimmer et al. 2011, Watson and Kerstetter 2006). Another recent incorporation of technology enables better means of policy enforcement. As an example, in the Chesapeake Bay, radar is being used to identify potential poachers of oyster sanctuaries; this type of innovation can assist in making enforcement more efficient without greatly increasing cost or manpower.

Science and technology aren’t the only considerations in reducing barriers to effective resource management. Our third focus is the importance of effective communication. It may seem fairly obvious, but its relevance cannot be overstated. Those who will make the most impact in fisheries management decisions are those who can best communicate their message (Holmes and Lock 2010). This has been a theme throughout the course this semester, and is not limited to fisheries. It is critical to communicate clearly and simply. With special regard for some of the barriers to effective fisheries management already mentioned, effective communication can help garner stakeholder support of a management plan or recommendation. This support in turn, may influence behaviors and limit problems related to enforcement. Additionally, the support of one important stakeholder may sway others and facilitate further public backing of proposed management recommendations or plan changes when one of those unpredictable system shifts occur. Regardless of how strong the science behind a management recommendation is, if not communicated effectively, it will not succeed.

The considerations described above represent three of the more dominant themes in our discussion of science and fisheries management. As hopefully illustrated, managing fisheries is an extremely complicated task, but approaching it with these aspects in mind may make it slightly less daunting.

REFERENCES

• Amirkolaie, A. K. (2011). Reduction in the environmental impact of waste discharged by fish farms through feed and feeding. Reviews in Aquaculture, 3(1), 19-26.
• Bergan, P. I., Gausen, D., & Hansen, L. P. (1991). Attempts to reduce the impact of reared Atlantic salmon on wild in Norway. Aquaculture, 98(1), 319-324.
• Costello, C., Gaines, S.D., and Lynham, J. (2008). Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse? Science 321(5896): 1678-1681.
• FAO (2007-2015). Marine Protected Areas as a Tool for Fisheries Management. MPAs, fisheries management and the ecosystem approach. FI Project Websites. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 26 April 2007. [Cited 2 May 2015].
• Holmes, J., & Lock, J. (2010). Generating the evidence for marine fisheries policy and management. Marine Policy, 34(1), 29-35.
• Maguire, J.J., Neis, B., and Sinclair, P.R. (1995). What are we Managing Anyway?: The Need for an Interdisciplinary Approach to Managing Fisheries Ecosystems. Dalhousie L.J. 141
• Mahon, R., McConney, P., and Roy, R.N. (2008). Governing fisheries as complex adaptive systems. Marine Policy 32: 104-112.
• Paez-Osuna, F. (2001). The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture: causes, effects, and mitigating alternatives. Environmental Management, 28(1), 131-140.
• Swimmer, Y., Suter, J., Arauz, R., Bigelow, K., López, A., Zanela, I., Bolaños, A., Ballestero, J., Suárez, R. Wange, J. and Boggs, C. (2011). Sustainable fishing gear: the case of modified circle hooks in a Costa Rican longline fishery. Marine biology, 158(4), 757-767.
• Sullivan PJ, Acheson JM, Angermeier PL, Faast T, Flemma J, Jones CM, Knudsen EE, Minello TJ, Secor DH, Wunderlich R, and Zanetell, B.A. (2006). Defining and Implementing - Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and Management. Fisheries 31(9): 460-465. [pdf]
• Watson, J. W., & Kerstetter, D. W. (2006). Pelagic longline fishing gear: a brief history and review of research efforts to improve selectivity. Marine Technology Society Journal, 40(3), 6-11. [pdf]