Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management: Risk Assessment in the US Mid-Atlantic

• Published in: Frontiers in Marine Science 2018-11, Vol.5
• Main Authors: Gaichas, Sarah K., DePiper, Geret S., Seagraves, Richard J., Muffley, Brandon W., Sabo, Mary G., Colburn, Lisa L., Loftus, Andrew J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Caretta caretta; Colour; Commercial fishing; Councils; Economic factors; Economics; ecosystem approach; Ecosystem approach to fisheries; Ecosystem assessment; ecosystem indicators; Ecosystem management; Ecosystems; Environmental protection; Fish; Fisheries; Fisheries management; Fishery management; Fishing; Food production; Habitat loss; Identification; Indicators; Information systems; integrated ecosystem assessment; Lepidochelys kempii; Meetings; Mitigation; natural resource management; Objectives; Resource management; Risk assessment; Risk management; Science; Stakeholders; Strategic planning; Sustainability
• ISSN: 2296-7745; 2296-7745
• DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00442

Fishery managers worldwide are evaluating methods for incorporating climate, habitat, ecological, social, and economic factors into current operations in order to implement Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management (EAFM). While this can seem overwhelming, it is possible to take practical steps towards EAFM implementation that make use of existing information and provide managers with valuable strategic advice. Here, we describe the process used by the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to develop an ecosystem-level risk assessment, the initial step proposed in their recently adopted EAFM guidance document. The Council first defined five types of Risk Elements (ecological, economic, social, food production, management) and identified which management objectives aligned with each element. Based on an existing ecosystem status report for the region and other existing sources (including expert opinion), potential ecological, social, economic, and management indicators were identified for each risk element. Finally, low, low-moderate, moderate-high, and high risk criteria were defined for each indicator, and the indicator data were used to score each risk element using the criteria. The ultimate outcome is a ranked risk assessment in order to focus on the highest risk issues for further evaluation and mitigation. The risk assessment highlights certain species and certain management issues as posing higher cumulative risks to meeting Council management objectives when considering a broad range of ecological, social, and economic factors. Tabular color coded summaries of risk assessment results will be used by the Council to prioritize further EAFM analyses as well as research plans over the coming five years. As ecosystem reporting and operational EAFM continue to evolve in future years, the Council foresees integrating these efforts so that ecosystem indicators are refined to meet the needs of fishery managers in identifying and managing risks to achieving ecological, social, and economic fishery objectives. Overall, ecosystem indicator-based risk assessment is a method that can be adapted to a wide range of resource management systems and available information, and therefore represent a promising way forward in the implementation of EAFM.