Quantitative Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management Introduction

Spring in Paris (31 March to 3 April 2004) helped to attract more than 250 participants from 53 countries to a symposium on ‘‘Quantitative Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management’’. The symposium was hosted by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission at the UNESCO headquarters next to the Eiffel Tower, and coorganized with the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR). Four years of preparation had borne fruit, and the stage was set with a programme of 40 presentations and nearly 150 posters. The symposium was centred on using ecosystem indicators for fisheries management, and as such reflects the growing understanding that exploited fish populations must be considered as integral components of ecosystem function, rather than units that operate independently of their environment. Internationally, there has been wide recognition of the need to move towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries, a development spearheaded by FAO through their Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Garcia, 2000), and supported by many regional and national institutions as well as academia, NGOs, and the general public. Intergovernmental organizations providing management advice, such as ICES and PICES, require meaningful indicators that adequately reflect the state of marine ecosystems. As we move to embrace an ecosystem perspective, we need new measuring sticks. Ecosystem approaches to fisheries require consideration of the interdependent way we utilize ecosystems. At a minimum, the components to be addressed cover ecological, economic, social, technological, and governance aspects. When considering the ecosystem, we must include not only target species, but also their effects on dependent or competing non-target species, as well as on the habitats shared by the species. An important question thus arises, related to trade-offs. Management interventions directed at one target species may have consequences for many other species, including some that are targets of other fisheries. How do we evaluate the trade-offs involved, and how do we determine the direction that a society should take, based on the implications for marine ecosystems? To answer such questions, analyses must be based on well-founded science as well as on information on societal priorities. At the Paris Symposium the focus was on the scientific aspects of ecosystem approaches to fisheries, with the intention to provide information and guidelines about how to develop, test, and apply indicators, or frameworks of indicators. Internationally, the first major initiative related to the use of ecosystem indicators for sustainable fisheries development was undertaken by the Government of Australia in cooperation with the FAO, through a Consultation in Sydney in January 1999 (Garcia and Staples, 2000). The consultation resulted in Technical Guidelines No. 8 for the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: Indicators for Sustainable Development of Marine Capture Fisheries. The Guidelines were produced to support the implementation of the Code of Conduct; they deal mainly with the development of frameworks, and they set the stage for using indicators in the decision process. The Guidelines do not, however, discuss the properties of indicators, nor how they are used and tested in practice. This became the task of an international working group, established jointly by the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Committee (IOC) of UNESCO. SCOR/IOCWorking Group 119 on ‘‘Quantitative Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management’’ was established in 2001, with 32 members drawn from 19 countries. The working group was designed to develop the scientific basis of using indicators for an ecosystem approach to fisheries, to review existing knowledge in the field, to evaluate the utility and perspectives for new indicators that reflect the exploitation and the state of marine ecosystems, and to consider frameworks for their implementation. The working group met twice to plan and report on progress; in Reykjavı́k in October 2001, and in Cape Town in December 2002, organizing its efforts with a series of task forces working in parallel on: (i) environmental indicators including habitat changes; (ii) species-based indicators; (iii) size-based indicators; (iv) trophodynamic indicators; (v) integrated indicators; (vi) selection criteria; (vii) data sets and reviews; and (viii) frameworks for implementing indicators. As part of their work, the task forces reviewed the current status of indicator usage for