Suchergebnisse

The present dissertation aims to shed light on the environmental / ecological, economic, and legal sides of fisheries management in the Baltic Sea with the objective to support the recovery of the Eastern Baltic cod stock and to contribute to the sustainable management of the Eastern Baltic cod fishery. A central question motivating this research is: Can a Marine Protected Area, permanent or seasonal, be effective in rebuilding the Eastern Baltic cod stock AND, at the same time, ensure future harvests to fishermen – also in light of global climate change? Several gaps towards a bio-economic evaluation of selected management policies for the Eastern Baltic cod fishery are bridged by this study. First, the legal framework of fisheries management at the European level, and particularly that of the Baltic Sea, is depicted (Chapter 2). The subsequent modelling-based policy analysis is designed to fit into this framework and to propose new legislation or policy recommendations. The core of the thesis is the development of a spatially explicit simulation model of the Eastern Baltic cod population dynamics (Chapter 3) and the subsequent coupling with economic calculations (Chapters 4 and 5). The population dynamics are externally driven by (a) management policies and (b) environmental scenarios. The simulations focus on the evaluation of an MPA as a management tool. The model is extended to incorporate global climate change and its regional consequences in the Baltic Sea area (Chapter 4). The driving question is whether stock recovery is possible in the face of global warming. A preliminary economic analysis is coupled to the biological component, allowing simulations of future yield and profit development. Finally, the economic model component is extended by calculating the variable costs of fishing (Chapter 5). Fishermen's future operating profits are estimated, and a ranking of the selected management policies in terms of economic profit is suggested. The following conclusions can be drawn: A temporary marine reserve policy, which focuses on protecting the Eastern Baltic cod spawning stock in ICES subdivision 25, is a valuable fisheries management tool to (a) rebuild the overexploited Eastern Baltic cod stock and (b) increase operating profits, thus avoiding the negative effects of overfishing. The negative effects of climate change can be postponed for at least 20 years – depending on the assumed rate of future climate change. ; Die vorliegende Dissertation untersucht die umwelt-naturwissenschaftlichen, ökonomischen und rechtlichen Aspekte der Dorschfischerei in der östlichen Ostsee. Die Komplexität der politischen und ökologischen Situation in der Ostsee erfordert eine starke internationale Zusammenarbeit, um eine nachhaltige Fischereiwirtschaft zu erreichen. Daher sollte das Fischereimanagement möglichst flexibel sein, damit man kurzfristig, spontan und direkt auf sich verändernde Umweltbedingungen und/oder anthropogene Einwirkungen reagieren kann. Gleichzeitig sollten die Erträge aus den internationalen Fischereiressourcen den Fischern Einkommensstabilität gewähren. Im zweiten Kapitel dieser Dissertation werden die rechtlichen Rahmen-bedingungen des Fischereimanagements in der Ostsee untersucht. Besondere Bedeutung wird der neuen Europäischen Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik (GFP) von Dezember 2002 eingeräumt, deren Ziele, Funktionen, Aufgaben und Strategien vorgestellt werden. Der Schutz der Fischbestände und des Meeresökosystems ist laut GFP eine wichtige Voraussetzung für Nachhaltigkeit und daher erstrebenswert. Die Einführung von Bewirtschaftungsplänen, Wiederauffüllungsplänen und Sofortmaßnahmen, in denen auch Meeresschutzgebiete vorgesehen sind, stellen mögliche flexible Management-Werkzeuge dar. Beide, Fische und Fischerei in der Ostsee, werden in Zukunft profitieren können, wenn die von der neuen GFP angebotenen Möglichkeiten und Maßnahmen von der Europäischen Kommission und von den EU-Mitgliedsstaaten realisiert werden. In den anschließenden drei Kapiteln wird ein Modell der Populationsdynamik des Dorsches in der östlichen Ostsee (Gadus morhua callarias L.) entwickelt und zur Szenarienanalyse in Simulationen angewandt. Ziel ist es, die potentielle Entwicklung des Dorschbestandes sowie der Fänge, Erträge, Einnahmen und Kosten der Fischer unter verschiedenen Managementansätzen und Umweltszenarien zu simulieren. Schwerpunkt der Simulationen liegt auf der Untersuchung der bio-ökonomischen Auswirkungen der Einrichtung eines Meeresschutzgebietes in ICES-Gebiet 25. Seit mehreren Jahren beherbergt dieses Gebiet das wichtigste Laichgebiet des Dorsches überhaupt, da dort das brackige Ostseewasser häufig durch frisches Nordseewasser erneuert wird, während die tiefen Becken weiter nördlich und nordöstlich nur selten von Nordsee-Einstromereignissen erreicht werden. Die Simulationsergebnisse zeigen, dass nachhaltiges Fischereimanagement die negativen Folgen des Klimawandels abschwächen und über mehrere Jahrzehnte hinaus verschieben kann. Dafür ist der saisonale Schutz des Laichbestandes in SD 25 vor und während der Laichperiode notwendig. Bei sehr starkem und schnellem Klimawandel kann der östliche Dorschbestand nicht überleben. Fänge und Einnahmen für die Fischer sind bei einer niedrigen fischereilichen Sterblichkeit höher als bei einer hohen. Außerdem entspricht die Verbesserung der Altersstruktur im Bestand durch die Reduzierung der fischereilichen Sterblichkeit einer "win-win"-Situation sowohl für den Bestand als auch für die Fischwirtschaft. Durch die Einrichtung eines Meeresschutzgebietes in SD 25 können die negativen Folgen des Klimawandels über mindestens 20 Jahre aufgehalten werden – abhängig von der angenommenen Rate über den zukünftigen Klimawandel.

How can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The EU Commission's proposal for a reformed Common Fisheries Policy calls for more self-management for the fishing industry by increasing fishers' involvement in the planning and execution of policies and boosting the role of fishers' organisations. One way of higher transparency and improved participation is to include stakeholders in the modelling process itself. The JAKFISH project (Judgment And Knowledge in Fisheries Involving StakeHolders) invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. Here, a synthesis is presented of the participatory work carried out in four European fishery case studies (Western Baltic herring, North Sea Nephrops, Central Baltic Herring and Mediterranean swordfish), focussing on the uncertainty tools used, the stakeholders' responses to these, and the lessons learnt. It is concluded that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. However, when approaching real-life situations, modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. Rather, the crucial step in a science–stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing ...

The Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS) is a forum for interdisciplinary perspectives on ecosystem science, advice, and governance. It engages with maritime stakeholders from across the North Atlantic to take into consideration and better understand their perspectives. From 2020-2022 WGMARS is focused on methodological, operational, contextual, and science management aspects enabling ecosystem-based maritime management/governance. Topics addressed in this report include the ways that behavioural economics could inform and could be used for an enhanced understanding of fisheries management, the development and use of integrated ecosystem assessments (IEA) in ICES, the types and extent of connectivity among ICES expert groups based on Social Network Analysis (SNA) and the ways in which (IEA), Ecosystem Based Management (EBM), and MSP (Marine Spatial Planning) are implemented in different European Union (EU) member states, the EU, and the United States. Plans for a systematic literature review of the relevance of behavioural economics in fisheries management were developed. Related work on nudging in fisheries management and compliance with marine mammal protection regulations was summarized. Interviews with ten ICES regional IEA expert groups have been completed. Preliminary analyses have identified commonalities and differences among groups, in relation to topics such as contributions to ICES advice, the role of social scientists, the maturity of the IEA they conduct, resource needs, the role of stakeholders and the balance between descriptive and quantitative science. SNA, using a database of 2015-2019 attendees at ICES expert groups, is being used to quantify the centrality of a node expert group in relation to other expert groups in any given year. Four measures of centrality have been adopted: degree centrality, betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, and eigenvector centrality. Results of the analysis will reveal the strengths and types of connections among ICES expert groups, which are expected to influence the effectiveness and impact of ICES ecosy stem and sustainability science.With regard to the implementation of IEA, WGMARS reviewed the development of the national IEA program in the United States, based on reported talks from relevant scientists and managers. At future meetings, the outcomes of this review will be compared those for IEA implementation in other countries and regions .

The overarching focus of Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS) has been on understanding the conceptualisation and implementation of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) in ICES and more broadly. From 2017-2019, the Working Group reviewed academic literature and ICES documents, interviewed the chairs of the ICES Regional Seas Working Groups (which are charged with conducting IEAs), and heard member reports on the relationships among IEAs, Ecosystem-Based Management, and Marine Spatial Planning in various European nations, the EU, and the US. We have also examined how IEAs are used in management and attempted to use behavioural economics to think about the types of regulations that might be most effective in specific situations. WGMARS also highlighted the importance of having multiple disciplines from the natural and social science, and the humanities (e.g. history), contributing to conceptualisation and implementation of IEA, as well as stakeholders who are likely to be impacted by changes in regulations (e.g. industries, communities, and local, regional, and national government bodies other than those implementing the regulations in question). To foster this type of multidisciplinary (i.e. involving natural and social science, as well as the humanities) and transdisciplinary (i.e. involving stakeholders) work, we have held workshops with other ICES Working Groups and with government officials from the US (the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Councils) and the Netherlands (officials of Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch national body responsible for roads, waterways, and water systems and part of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management). Our findings suggest that the research work on and for IEAs is still very much a work in progress with strong variance in the way IEA work is approached. Different Regional Seas Working Groups, for instance, are at very different points in moving toward full IEA, especially regarding their inclusion of social sciences and humanities and their inclusion of and types of collaboration with stakeholders. Moreover, structural conditions to create a demand and underlying science varies significantly between different regional seas regions.

Stakeholder involvement is perceived as an important development in the European Common Fisheries Policy. But how can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The project Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders (JAKFISH) was a 3 year project with 10 partners from the EU and Norway. It provided an integrated approach to stakeholder involvement into fisheries management and examined the institutions, practices and tools that allow complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity to be dealt with. The JAKFISH project reviewed the general literature on participatory modelling in natural resource management and derived a number of key recommendations from that review. The project also developed a fisheries management simulation game that was successfully applied in a number of occasions. In four different case studies, the JAKFISH project invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. We conclude that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. Modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. The crucial step in a science-stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing. The JAKFISH project also carried out social network analyses of the institutions and networks involved in six fisheries management systems (four in Europe, one in Australia and one in the USA). The results suggest that management systems with high participation in decision-making tended to have more disagreement about facts and values. When experts discuss matters more with colleagues from other stakeholder groups, their values, interests, opinions, and knowledge tend to differ. Consensus within a stakeholder group seems to be higher if the most important discussion partners are selected within the group. The discussion about the role of uncertainty in natural resource management and decision-making often assumes that it is the scientists that help other stakeholder better understand uncertainties and that this happens after the uncertainties have been identified. Our research refuted both assumption. Communication about uncertainty is clearly a two-way process and it already is happening during the problem framing and research process. An important difference has been identified between scientific proof-making and scientific justification. Scientific proof-making is evaluated against set of internal scientific criteria. Scientific justification is evaluated by a broader community consisting of scientific peers, government officials, industry stakeholders and environmental NGOs. Whether scientific uncertainty becomes an issue in a policy making context, not only depends on the amount of uncertainty, but also on the stakes involved and the burden of proof placed on the science. The claim in the EU Habitats Directive that site designation is an exclusively scientific exercise places all the burden of proof on the science which then triggers disproportionate attention to scientific complexity and uncertainty, particularly where stakes are high. The JAKFISH project has shown that participatory modelling requires an effective facilitation strategy where scientists, stakeholders and policy-makers actively connect and discuss. There is a need to train the participants in these process. It needs the realization that participatory modelling both builds trust and is built on trust, that it takes time and effort and that the outcome is more than the individual parts.

The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners' perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. ; Peer reviewed