1. Jo King:
Managing Fisheries to Conserve Groundfish and Benthic Invertebrate Species Diversity (MAFCONS): An introduction to the project
Simon Greenstreet

2. “MAFCONS” Project Objective
The goal of the “MAFCONS” project is:
To provide Fisheries Managers with the capability to adopt an “ecosystem approach” to management which enables them to set and achieve species diversity goals, with respect to fish and benthic communities, alongside their more traditional single species objectives for commercial fish stocks

3. What is this project all about? What is the rational behind it?
Introduction
What is this project all about?
What is the rational behind it?
Why are we doing it?
What do we hope to achieve?
What exactly are we going to do?

4. Lets start with a bit of scientific background………...
Introduction
Lets start with a bit of scientific background………...

5. Effects of Fishing on Fish Communities?
Fishing mortality is not directed evenly across all fish in the community: individuals of a limited size range belonging to selected species are removed preferentially.
Changes relative population sizes.
Alters balance between numbers of predators and prey.
Alters balance between competing species.
Alters size frequency distributions of particular populations.
Changes in the relative abundance of species can lead to changes in community structure and ecosystem function.

6. Long-term trends in the groundfish assemblage
Partitioned the North Sea into zones based broadly on hydrographic and topographic characteristics.
Analysed groundfish survey data for three areas in NW North Sea where reasonably long-term records of fishing effort were available.

7. Areas with increasing effort
… species diversity has shown a long-term decline.
In two areas where demersal fishing effort has steadily increased…

8. Area with decreasing effort
In a third area, where fishing effort has declined in recent years,
Groundfish species diversity has also decreased here!
So we observe both positive and negative relationships between fishing effort and species diversity!

9. Problems with this correlative approach
No hypotheses relating fishing disturbance to species diversity have been tested.
This “correlative” approach does not even prove that fishing caused the observed changes in groundfish species diversity.
Even if cause and effect can be demonstrated, these results cannot be used to predict the future consequences of changes in fisheries management practice on species diversity.
Both positive and negative relationships between species diversity and fishing effort were found.
No insight was provided which could allow us to predict the direction of the relationship under certain circumstances.

10. Addressing these problems
Is there any other evidence which might help to confirm a “causative relationship”?
That fishing really has caused the observed changes in diversity?
That there really is a potential management issue?

11. Does Fishing affect Fish Species Diversity?
where effort has increased over recent decades…
and species diversity has declined,
In areas 1 and 2…

12. Does Fishing affect Fish Species Diversity
these changes in groundfish assemblage structure have been associated with marked changes in species composition.

13. There is a growing body of theory which suggests
Some Theory
There is a growing body of theory which suggests
that particular life history traits render a species
more or less vulnerable to fishing mortality.
More vulnerable
large ultimate size
slow growth rates
large size at maturity
older age at maturity
low fecundity
Less vulnerable
small ultimate size
fast growth rates
small size at maturity
younger age at maturity
high fecundity

14. A Hypothesis
If increasing fishing pressure were the cause of these changes in species composition, then species whose life history traits render them more vulnerable to fishing mortality should have decreased in abundance relative to species with the opposite characteristics.
Over time the groundfish assemblage should have become more dominated by fish with small ultimate size, fast growth rates, and an early age and small size at maturity.

15. The Test
The average ultimate length of fish in the groundfish assemblage has decreased,
and the average growth rate has increased.

16. And average age and length at maturity have both declined.
The Test (continued)
And average age and length at maturity have both declined.

17. Conclusions
Trends in life history traits averaged across the whole groundfish assemblage provide much stronger evidence that the changes in species composition, and the coinciding decline in species diversity (in this area), have occurred as a consequence of increased fishing mortality.
So what!!
Is the impact of fishing on the species diversity of Fish (and Benthic) Communities an issue that fisheries management needs to take into account?

18. Political Backgound
To answer this question we need to review (very briefly) the political developments over the last two decades………...

19. Overview of some major Global Conventions
The first step in the legislative process involved international agreements on a global scale where essential, universally applicable, principles and objectives have been established.

20. North Sea Ministerial Conferences
Five “full-blown” North Sea Ministerial Conferences to date
Bremen in 1984
London in 1987
The Hague in 1990
Esbjerg in 1995
Bergen in 2002
Plus two “Intermediate Ministerial Meetings”
Copenhagen in 1993
Bergen in 1997
These are political events
The decisions of the Ministers are recorded in Ministerial Declarations
These are political commitments

21. North Sea Ministerial Conferences
Bremen 1984, London 1987:
dealt mainly with pollution issues through Oslo/Paris Commissions
Hague 1990: (just prior to Rio Summit, CBD Agenda 21)
pollution mainly addressed
turned attention to protection of species and habitats
impact of other human activities (fishing) on the ecosystem
Copenhagen 1993, Esbjerg 1995: (following Rio, coinciding with FAO Code of conduct)
fisheries management to safeguard NS ecosystem as a whole
introduction of concept of ecosystem objectives
integration of fisheries and environmental policies
adoption of precautionary approach
all marine environment matters addressed through OSPAR
Bergen 1997: (attended by Fisheries and Environment Ministers, just prior to OSPAR Annex V)
need to develop and apply and “ecosystem approach to management”
laid down guiding principles for such an approach
invited competent authorities to develop this approach

22. Developing an Ecosystem Approach to Management
Following the 1997 Intermediate Ministerial Meeting, a workshop on the “Ecosystem Approach to Management and Protection of the North Sea” was organised in Oslo in June 1998
need for objectives at the “general” level obvious;
but also the requirement for “specific” objectives, as detailed operational goals, was recognised.
Three further workshops set up to establish a methodology for describing “Ecological Quality” and setting “Ecological Quality Objectives”.
The most important of these was the workshop on “Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) for the North Sea” held at Scheveningen, The Netherlands, in September 1999
Here the basic “template” for a proposed “ecosystem approach to management” was effectively confirmed

23. North Sea Ministerial Conferences
Bergen 2002:
Ministers recognised the need to manage all human activities in the North Sea so as to conserve biological diversity and ensure sustainable development
they agreed to implement an ecosystem approach based on the setting of EcoQOs as tools for setting clear operational environmental objectives and serving as indicators of ecosystem health
they agreed to use the EcoQOs already developed for the North Sea and invited OSPAR to review progress by 2005

24. EcoQ Issues
Ten issues for setting EcoQOs for the North Sea have been proposed
This is the basis
for an ecosystem
approach to man-
agement accepted
at the Bergen 2002
NSMC
What EcoQOs
have been set
currently for
Fish and Benthic
Communities?

25. EcoQOs for Fish and Benthic Communities
Tables A and B, Annex 3 Bergen Declaration
Issue 5: Fish Communities
Ecological Quality Elements
Changes in the proportion of large fish and hence the average weight and average maximum length of the fish community
EcoQOs
none set as yet!
Issue 6: Benthic Communities
Changes/kills in zoobenthos in relation to eutrophication
Inposex in dog whelk (Nucella lapillus)
Density of sensitive (e.g. fragile) species
Density of opportunistic species
There should be no kills in benthic animal species as a result of oxygen deficiency and/or toxic phytoplankton species
A low(<2) level of imposex in female dog whelks as measured by the Vas Deferens Sequence Index

26. Authority over North Sea waters
Only the European Commission and Norway have the authority to determine legally binding legislation with respect to the control of fishing activities in the non-territorial waters of the North Sea
acknowledged in the Esbjerg 1995 Ministerial Declaration
confirmed in Article 4 of Annex V of the OSPAR convention
European Union policy impinges directly on the exploitation and management of the North Sea in several ways
Only the European Commission and Norway have the authority to determine legally binding legislation for the non-territorial waters of the North Sea.
European Union policy impinges directly on the exploitation and management of the biological resources of the North Sea in several areas.

27. EC policy/legislation
Common Fisheries Policy
conservation of available and accessible living marine aquatic resources
sustainable use
accounting for marine environmental implications
Birds Directive
part of EU Ramsar convention
protects wild birds and their natural habitat within EU area
includes seabirds
Habitats Directive
selection of areas to protect species and/or habitats
member states required to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)
these SACs should create a network of protected areas (Natura 2000)
includes many marine sites
The Common Fisheries Policy was introduced to effect the management of the “common” fisheries resource. It was established in 1983, revised in 1992 and is due for further revision in The 1992 revision added to its overall objectives, including many of the buzz-words found in the articles and annexes of the CBD and OSPAR Comm., in that it now aimed to:
conserve available and accessible living marine aquatic resources;
exploit resources in a sustainable manner;
take account of marine environmental implications.
Other EC policy also impinges directly on the manner in which we utilise the marine biological resources of the North Sea. For example, the Birds Directive, part of the EU Ramsar Convention, aims to protect species of wild birds and their natural habitat within the EU area. This includes seabird species. The Habitats Directive provides substantial detail on the selection of areas to be listed because of threat to habitat or species. Member states are required to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under this directive. It is intended that these sites should create a network of protected areas, called Natura Numerous marine sites in the North Sea have been designated as part of this process.

28. WOW!!!
And that is it - so far!!!

29. Treaty/Convention/Declaration objectives
Sustainable use of natural resources
conservation of biodiversity
protection of species and habitats
reduction of pollution
minimisation of detrimental effects of anthropogenic activities
restoration of degraded systems
These conventions and treaties are generally directed towards:
Sustainable use of natural resources;
conserving biodiversity;
protecting species and habitats;
reducing pollution;
minimising detrimental effects of anthropogenic activities.

30. Treaty/Convention/Declaration principles
Integrated management
An “Ecosystem Approach” to management
The “Precautionary Approach”
Polluters should pay
And they draw on several underlying principles:
Integrated management;
An “Ecosystem Approach” to management;
The “Precautionary Approach”;
Polluters should pay.
These objectives and principles tend to be rather “qualitative” in nature and this has given rise to some debate over precise definition, interpretation and implementation.

31. Current EcoQOs for fish and benthic communities
Will the current ecosystem approach conserve species diversity and restore degraded systems?
If it can’t, why is this the approach being adopted?

32. Problems with this correlative approach
No hypotheses relating fishing disturbance to species diversity have been tested.
This “correlative” approach does not even prove that fishing caused the observed changes in groundfish species diversity.
Even if cause and effect can be demonstrated, these results cannot be used to predict the future consequences of changes in fisheries management practice on species diversity.
Both positive and negative relationships between species diversity and fishing effort were found.
No insight was provided which could allow us to predict the direction of the relationship under certain circumstances.

33. “MAFCONS” Purpose in Life
We currently have no conceptual framework that links, through cause and effect mechanisms, the response of fish and benthic communities, in terms of changes in species diversity, to variation in fishing disturbance
At present therefore we cannot advise managers how to achieve specific diversity objectives
THIS IS WHAT “MAFCONS” SEEKS TO PROVIDE
How will the project achieve this goal?

34. The “MAFCONS” Approach
“MAFCONS” seeks to develop the necessary theory upon which to base testable hypotheses relating fishing disturbance to ecosystem characteristics, such as species diversity.
Such theory would enable the ecosystem consequences of fisheries management actions to be predicted and quantified.
Application of such theory should therefore provide fisheries managers with the necessary “tool” to enable them to adopt a species diversity based “ecosystem approach” to fisheries management.

35. “MAFCONS” Objectives
Thus, the principal objective of “MAFCONS” is - To produce a “Management Protocol” which would allow managers to predict the consequences to fish and benthic community species diversity of setting specific TACs, thereby enabling them to achieve species diversity goals as well as fish stock size objectives
This protocol will be soundly based in well-tested ecological theory

36. Huston’s Dynamic Equilibrium model
Huston noted that two unimodal relationships concerning species diversity could be derived from the theoretical ecology literature, one related to disturbance and the second related to productivity.

37. Huston’s Model cont.
Huston combined these two relationships to produce a three dimensional model relating species diversity simultaneously to both productivity and disturbance.

38. Huston’s Model cont.
It is quite clear from this model that the relationship between disturbance and diversity can differ markedly, depending on the level of productivity.

39. Testing Huston’s model using spatial data
Can we test Huston’s model using spatial data?
Spatial distribution of effort?
Done and do-able!

40. Testing Huston’s model using spatial data
Spatial distribution of species diversity?
Done and do-able!

41. Testing Huston’s model using spatial data
Spatial distribution of productivity?
Difficult but, using recently published size spectra based methods, maybe not as hard as one would first imagine!
“MAFCONS” will derive estimates of benthic secondary production by ICES rectangle throughout the North Sea.
Sampling benthic invertebrate infauna and epibenthos on research vessel cruises
samples all analysed by size (length/weight) category
size specific P/B ratios applied to estimate productivity

42. The Test of Huston’s Dynamic Equilibrium model
Group rectangles by productivity level.
Within each productivity group, examine the relationship between effort and species diversity.
Are the relationships predicted by the model for different productivity levels found in the field data?

43. “An Ecosystem Approach”
If Huston’s model holds up to critical examination, then it could be used as the basis for a mathematical tool to enable fisheries managers to predict the ecosystem consequences (effects on species diversity) of their actions.
Application of the “tool” could then become part of the annual assessment, advice, management round.
If the project is successful and this becomes part of the assessment process, benthic sampling would become part of the standard GFS routine.

44. “MAFCONS” Objectives
Before a species diversity protocol can be implemented within the current assessment/management process, one further step is required
Any theoretical community model produced by “MAFCONS” will almost certainly deal in the currency of “ecological disturbance” based on fishing effort
Currently the EC CFP deals in the currency of Total Allowable Catches
“MAFCONS” needs to determine the relationship between catch and effort. This is the role of WP6
this will allow conversion between these two currencies
produce an algorithm that converts specific TACs to the effort level (including spatial distribution of effort) required to attain them

45. “MAFCONS” Management Protocol
WP1 product: a management protocol

46. “MAFCONS” Work Package Arrangement
WP 7 covers all Co-ordination activities

47. No More!!!!