Implementing Sustainably Managed Fisheries Using Ecological Risk Assessment and Bowtie Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Source of the Problem
3. Essential Role of the Management Context
4. Embedding the Management Context into an Ecological Risk Assessment and Bowtie Analysis
4.1. First Stage Bowtie Analysis—Structuring the Problems to Be Solved
4.2. Ecological Risk Assessment—Identifying Key Risk Factors
4.3. Second Stage Bowtie Analysis—Evaluating Risk Factors for Effective Risk Treatments
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A.
Appendix A. Case Study of a Commercially Fished Species in New South Wales, Australia
A.1. Description of the Commercial Fish Species and Management Context
- age composition is indicative of an overfished stock;
- the spawning potential ratio is below the recommended threshold;
- fishing mortality is much greater than natural mortality; and
- length and age distributions are excessively effected by recruitment.
- the recreational bag limit for mulloway was reduced from 5 to 2 fish;
- the minimum legal length for recreational and commercial fishing was increased from 45 cm to 70 cm;
- commercial Estuary General fishers using meshing nets have a by-catch allowance (possession limit) of 10 fish between 45 and 70 cm;
- a 500 kg possession limit for commercial Ocean Hauling.
A.2. Methods
A.2.1. Stage 1 Bowtie Analysis
A.2.2. Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA)
A.2.3. Stage 2 Bowtie Analysis
A.3. Results
A.3.1. Stage 1 Bowtie Analysis
Component | Management Controls—Preventative | Escalating Factors | Management Controls—Mitigative | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HP Stressors: | 13 | 1 | Impacts: | 10 | |||||
Commercial fishing | 6 | 10 | Biomass | 2 | |||||
Recreational fishing | 4 | 3 | Population dynamics | 4 | |||||
Habitat | 3 | 1 | Overfishing | 2 | |||||
CTR Characteristics: | 23 | 1 | Overfished | 1 | |||||
Adult | Juvenile | Spatial | 3 | 3 | Data quality | 1 | 1 | ||
Fixed | 5 | Harvest control | 2 | 2 | |||||
Population dynamics | 6 | 1 | Water quality | 1 | 1 | ||||
Habitat | 5 | 2 | |||||||
Climate change | 3 | 1 |
A.3.2. Ecological Risk Assessment
Scale | HP | CTR | Risk Score | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|
State | 0.81 | 0.66 | 0.53 | MH |
Bioregion: | ||||
Tweed | 0.69 | 0.79 | 0.55 | MH |
Manning | 0.48 | 0.52 | 0.25 | M |
Hawkesbury | 0.68 | 0.53 | 0.36 | M |
Batemans | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.31 | M |
A.3.3. Stage 2 Bowtie Analysis
A.4. Discussion
References
- Hilborn, R.; Fulton, E.A.; Green, B.S.; Hartmann, K.; Tracey, S.R.; Watson, R.A. When is a fishery sustainable? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2015, 72, 1433–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brundtland, G. (Ed.) Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987; 59p. [Google Scholar]
- Shelton, P.A.; Sinclair, A.F. It’s time to sharpen our definition of sustainable fisheries management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2008, 65, 2305–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, S.M.; Cochrane, K.L. Ecosystem approach to fisheries: A review of implementation guidelines. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2005, 62, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astles, K.L. A systematic approach to estimating ecological risk in marine fisheries. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 2008, 3, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrison, M.; Jones, E.G.; Parsons, D.M.; Grant, C.M. Habitats and areas of particular significance for coastal finfish fisheries management in New Zealand: A review of concepts and life history knowledge, and suggestions for future research. In New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report; Ministry for Primary Industries: Wellington, New Zealand, 2014; 156p. [Google Scholar]
- Methot, R.D., Jr.; Wetzel, C.R. Stock synthesis: A biological and statistical framework for fish stock assessment and fishery management. Fish. Res. 2013, 142, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sainsbury, K.J.; Punt, A.E.; Smith, A.D.M. Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2000, 57, 731–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hobday, A.J.; Smith, A.D.M.; Stobutzki, I.C.; Bulman, C.; Daley, R.; Dambacher, J.M.; Deng, R.A.; Dowdney, J.; Fuller, M.; Furlani, D.; et al. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fish. Res. 2011, 108, 372–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AFMA. Residual Risk Assessment Teleost and Chondrichthyan Species; Report for the Otter Board Trawl Method of the Commonwealth Trawl Sector; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2014; 30p.
- Battista, W.; Karr, K.; Sarto, N.; Fujita, R. Comprehensive Assessment of Risk to Ecosystems (CARE): A cumulative ecosystem risk assessment tool. Fish. Res. 2017, 185, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braccini, J.M.; Gillanders, B.M.; Walker, T.I. Hierarchical approach to the assessment of fishing effects on non-target chondrichthyans: Case study of Squalus megalops in southeastern Australia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2006, 63, 2456–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miriam, O.; Martone, R.; Hannah, L.; Greig, L.; Boutillier, J.; Patton, S. An Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) for Ecosystem-based Oceans Management in the Pacific Region; DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2015; 59p. [Google Scholar]
- Fletcher, W.J. Review and refinement of an existing qualitative risk assessment method for application within an ecosystem-based management framework. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2014, 72, 1043–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fletcher, W.J. The application of qualitative risk assessment methodology to prioritise issues for fisheries management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2005, 62, 1576–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creed, I.F.; Cormier, R.; Laurent, K.L.; Accatino, F.; Igras, J.; Henley, P.; Friedman, K.B.; Johnson, L.B.; Crossman, J.; Dillon, P.J.; et al. Formal integration of science and management systems needed to achieve thriving and prosperous Great Lakes. Bioscince 2016, 66, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dichmont, C.M.; Fulton, E.A.; Gorton, R.; Sporcic, M.; Little, L.R.; Punt, A.E.; Dowling, N.; Haddon, M.; Klaer, N.; Smith, D.C. From data rich to data-limited harvest strategies—Does more data mean better management? ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2017, 74, 670–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harford, W.J.; Babcock, E.A. Aligning monitoring design with fishery decision-making: Examples of management strategy evaluation for reef-associated fisheries. Aquat. Living Resour. 2016, 29, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.D.; Sainsbury, K.J.; Stevens, R.A. Implementing effective fisheries-management systems–management strategy evaluation and the Australian partnership approach. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 1999, 56, 967–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cormier, R.; Elliott, M.; Rice, J. Putting on a bow-tie to sort out who does what and why in the complex arena of marine policy and management. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kishchuk, B.E.; Creed, I.F.; Laurent, K.L.; Nebel, S.; Kreutzweiser, D.; Venier, L.; Webster, K. Assessing the ecological sustainability of a forest management system using the ISO Bowtie Risk Management Assessment Tool. Forest. Chron. 2018, 94, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Patrício, J.; Elliott, M.; Mazik, K.; Papadopoulou, K.; Smith, C.J. DPSIR—Two decades of trying to develop a unifying framework for marine environmental management? Front. Mar. Sci. 2016, 3, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitcher, C.R. Quantitative indicators of environmental sustainability risk for a tropical shelf trawl fishery. Fish. Res. 2014, 151, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, W.J.; Chesson, J.; Fisher, M.; Sainsbury, K.J.; Hundloe, T.; Smith, A.D.M.; Whitworth, B. National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: The ‘How To’ Guide for Wild Capture Fisheries; FRDC Project 2000/145; Fisheries Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia, 2002.
- Zhou, S.; Griffiths, S.P. Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effects (SAFE): A new quantitative ecological risk assessment method and its application to elasmobranch bycatch in an Australian trawl fishery. Fish. Res. 2008, 91, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astles, K.L. Linking risk factors to risk treatment in ecological risk assessment of marine biodiversity. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2015, 72, 1116–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, S.J.; Brown, J.I.; Fairclough, D.V.; Wise, B.S.; Bellchambers, L.M.; Molony, B.W.; Lenanton, R.C.J.; Jackson, G.; Smith, K.A.; Gaughan, D.J.; et al. A risk assessment and prioritisation approach to the selection of indicator species for the assessment of multi-species, multi-gear, multi-sector fishery resources. Mar. Policy 2018, 88, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitcher, C.R.; Ellis, N.; Jennings, S.; Hiddink, J.G.; Mazor, T.; Kaiser, M.J.; Kangas, M.I.; McConnaughey, R.A.; Parma, A.M.; Rijnsdorp, A.D.; et al. Estimating the sustainability of towed fishing-gear impacts on seabed habitats: A simple quantitative risk assessment method applicable to data-limited fisheries. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2017, 8, 472–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, A.; Dowdney, J.; Smith, A.D.M.; Hobday, A.J.; Fuller, M. Evaluating impacts of fishing on benthic habitats: A risk assessment framework applied to Australian fisheries. Fish. Res. 2011, 112, 154–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cormier, R.; Elliott, M. SMART marine goals, targets and management—Is SDG 14 operational or aspirational, is ‘Life Below Water’ sinking or swimming? Mar. Poll. Bull. 2017, 123, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IEC/ISO. Risk Management—Risk Assessment Techniques; IEC/ISO 31010; International Organisation for the Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009; 176p. [Google Scholar]
- International Standard. Risk Management—Risk Assessment Techniques (IEC/ISO 31010:2009); International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Cormier, R.; Kelble, C.R.; Anderson, M.R.; Allen, J.I.; Grehan, A.; Gregersen, Ó. Moving from ecosystem-based policy objectives to operational implementation of ecosystem-based management measures. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2016, 74, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cormier, R.; Elliott, M.; Kannen, A. IEC/ISO Bow-Tie Analysis of Marine Legislation: A Case Study of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 342; International Council for the Exploration of the Sea: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018; 56p, ISBN 978-87-7482-216-5. [Google Scholar]
- Larcombe, J.; Noriega, R.; Stobutzki, I. (Eds.) Reducing Uncertainty in Fisheries Stock Status; Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), Research Report; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2015; 231p.
- Suter, G.W. Ecological risk assessment and ecological epidemiology for contaminated sites. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess 2006, 12, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Wang, L.; Li, Q.; Zhao, J. A framework designation for the assessment of urban ecological risks. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2018, 25, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lowerre-Barbieri, S.; DeCelles, G.; Pepin, P.; Catalán, I.A.; Muhling, B.; Erisman, B.; Cadrin, S.X.; Alós, J.; Ospina-Alvarez, A.; Stachura, M.M.; Tringali, M.D. Reproductive resilience: A paradigm shift in understanding spawner-recruit systems in exploited marine fish. Fish Fish. 2017, 18, 285–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, I.M.; Simberloff, D.; Lonsdale, W.M.; Goodell, K.; Wonham, M.; Kareiva, P.M.; Williamson, M.H.; Von Holle, B.M.; Moyle, P.B.; Byers, J.E.; et al. Impact: Toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol. Invasions 1999, 1, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simberloff, D.; Martin, J.L.; Genovesi, P.; Maris, V.; Wardle, D.A.; Aronson, J.; Courchamp, F.; Galil, B.; García-Berthou, E.; Pascal, M.; Pyšek, P. Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Birkeland, C.; Dayton, P.K. The importance in fishery management of leaving the big ones. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 356–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gwinn, D.C.; Allen, M.S.; Johnston, F.D.; Brown, P.; Todd, C.R.; Arlinghaus, R. Rethinking length-based fisheries regulations: The value of protecting old and large fish with harvest slots. Fish Fish. 2015, 16, 259–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silberschneider, V.; Gray, C.A. Arresting the Decline of the Commercial and Recreational Fisheries for Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus); Fisheries Final Report Series, No. 82; NSW Department of Primary Industries: Cronulla, Australia, 2005.
- Sundblad, G.; Bergström, U.; Sandström, A.; Eklöv, P. Nursery habitat availability limits adult stock sizes of predatory coastal fish. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2014, 71, 672–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillson, J. Freshwater flow and fisheries production in estuarine and coastal systems: Where a drop of rain is not lost. Rev. Fish. Sci. 2011, 19, 168–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillson, J.; Suthers, I.; Scandol, J. Effects of flood and drought events on multi-species, multi-method estuarine and coastal fisheries in eastern Australia. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2012, 19, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Standard. Risk Management—Guidelines; ISO 31000:2018(E); International Organisation for Standardisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; 16p. [Google Scholar]
- Burgman, M. Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Cox, L.A. What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Suter, G.W., II; Barnthouse, L.W.; O’Neill, R.V. Treatment of risk in environmental impact assessment. Environ. Manag. 1987, 11, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J.; Hegarty, A.; Young, C.; Fowler, A.M.; Craig, J. (Eds.) Status of Fisheries Resources in NSW 2013–2014; NSW Department of Primary Industries: Mosman, Australia, 2015; 391p.
- Jones, H.J.; Swadling, K.M.; Butler, E.C.; Macleod, C.K. Complex patterns in fish-sediment mercury concentrations in a contaminated estuary: The influence of selenium co-contamination? Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2014, 137, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biedron, I.S.; Knuth, B.A. Toward shared understandings of ecosystem-based fisheries management among fishery management councils and stakeholders in the US Mid-Atlantic and New England regions. Mar. Polocy 2016, 70, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AFMA. Guide to AFMA’s Ecological Risk Management; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2017; 119p.
- Stelzenmüller, V.; Coll, M.; Mazaris, A.D.; Giakoumi, S.; Katsanevakis, S.; Portman, M.E.; Degen, R.; Mackelworth, P.; Gimpel, A.; Albano, P.G.; et al. A risk-based approach to cumulative effect assessments for marine management. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 1132–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayes, K.R. Uncertainty and Uncertainty Analysis Methods. Issues in Quantitative and Qualitative Risk Modelling with Application to Import Risk Assessment; ACERA Project (0705) CSIRO: Hobart, Australia, 2011; 131p. [Google Scholar]
- Goble, R.; Bier, V.M. Risk Assessment Can Be a Game-Changing Information Technology—But Too Often It Isn’t. Risk Anal. 2013, 33, 1942–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silberschneider, V.; Gray, C.A. Synopsis of biological, fisheries and aquaculture-related information on mulloway Argyrosomus japonicus (Pisces: Sciaenidae), with particular reference to Australia. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2008, 24, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, J. Mulloway. In Status of Fisheries Resources in NSW 2013-2014; Stewart, J., Hegarty, A., Young, C., Fowler, A.M., Craig, J., Eds.; NSW Department of Primary Industries: Mosman, Australia, 2015; pp. 219–220. [Google Scholar]
- West, L.D.; Stark, K.E.; Murphy, J.J.; Lyle, J.M.; Ochwada-Doyle, F.A. Survey of Recreational Fishing in New South Wales and the ACT, 2013/14; Fisheries Final Report Series No. 149; NSW Department of Primary Industries: Mosman, Australia, 2015; 170p.
- Scandol, J.P. A Framework for Assessment of Harvested Fish Resources in NSW; NSW Department of Primary Industries—Fisheries Resource Assessment Series 15; NSW Department of Primary Industries: Cronulla, Australia, 2004; p. 44.
- NSW Fisheries. Fishery Management Strategy for the Estuary Prawn Trawl Fishery; NSW Fisheries: Cronulla, Australia, 2003; 173p.
- Morison, A.K. Input and output controls in fisheries management: A plea for more consistency in terminology. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2004, 11, 411–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NSW Fisheries. Fishery Management Strategy for the Estuary General Fishery; NSW Fisheries: Cronulla, Australia, 2003; 155p.
- NSW Department of Primary Industries. Fishery Management Strategy for the Ocean Trawl Fishery; NSW Department of Primary Industries: Cronulla, Australia, 2007; 118p.
- NSW Department of Primary Industries. NSW Commercial Fisheries Share Linkage and Management Arrangements; NSW Department of Primary Industries: Mosman, Australia, 2017; 64p.
- Roper, A.; Creese, R.; Scanes, P.; Stephens, K.; Williams, R.; Dela-Cruz, J.; Coade, G.; Coates, B. NSW Estuaries—Understanding Condition and Influencing Management; Sydney, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water: Sydney, Australia, 2010; 16p.
- Creese, R.G.; Glasby, T.M.; West, G.; Gallen, C. Mapping the Habitats of NSW Estuaries; Fisheries Final Report Series, No. 113; Industry and Investment NSW: Port Stephens, Australia, 2009; 95p.
- Berkson, J.; Thorson, J.T. The determination of data-poor catch limits in the United States: Is there a better way? ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2015, 72, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J.; Hegarty, A.M.; Young, C.; Fowler, A.M. Sex-specific differences in growth, mortality and migration support population resilience in the heavily exploited migratory marine teleost Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus 1758). Mar. Freshw. Res. 2018, 69, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J. Monitoring and Assessment of the Impact of Management Changes under the Mulloway Recovery Program; Internal Review Report; DPI Fisheries NSW: Mosman, Australia, 2017; 14p. [Google Scholar]
- McGrath, S.P.; Reichelt-Brushett, A.J.; Butcher, P.A.; Cairns, S.C. Absorption of metals in mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus) after ingesting nickel-plated carbon-steel hooks. Mar. Envion. Res. 2014, 99, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roessig, J.M.; Woodley, C.M.; Cech, J.J., Jr.; Hansen, L.J. Effects of global climate change on marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2004, 14, 251–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pankhurst, N.W.; Munday, P.L. Effects of climate change on fish reproduction and early life history stages. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2011, 62, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boonstra, W.J.; Birnbaum, S.; Björkvik, E. The quality of compliance: Investigating fishers’ responses towards regulation and authorities. Fish Fish. 2017, 18, 682–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowling, N.A.; Dichmont, C.M.; Haddon, M.; Smith, D.C.; Smith, A.D.M.; Sainsbury, K. Guidelines for developing formal harvest strategies for data-poor species and fisheries. Fish. Res. 2015, 171, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J. Evidence of age-class truncation in some exploited marine fish populations in New South Wales, Australia. Fish. Res. 2011, 108, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, G.W.; Lyle, J.M. The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey; Final Report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Project 99/158; NSW Fisheries Final Report Series No. 40; NSW Fisheries: Cronulla, Australia, 2003; 188p.
- Pinheiro, H.T.; Joyeux, J.-C. The role of recreational fishermen in the removal of target reef fishes. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 112, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, M.A.L.; Foale, S.; Bellwood, D.R. Dynamic catch trends in the history of recreational spearfishing in Australia. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 784–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Griffiths, S.P.; Fay, G. Integrating recreational fisheries data into stock assessment: Implications for model performance and subsequent harvest strategies. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2015, 22, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Overzee, H.M.; Rijnsdorp, A.D. Effects of fishing during the spawning period: Implications for sustainable management. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2015, 25, 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, C.A. Management implications of discarding in an estuarine multi-species gill net fishery. Fish. Res. 2002, 56, 178–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J.; Ferrell, D.J. Escape panels to reduce by-catch in the New South Wales demersal trap fishery. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2002, 53, 1179–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, C.A.; Kennelly, S.J.; Hodgson, K.E.; Ashby, C.J.T.; Beatson, M.L. Retained and discarded catches from commercial beach-seining in Botany Bay, Australia. Fish. Res. 2001, 50, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liggins, G.W.; Kennelly, S.J. By-catch from prawn trawling in the Clarence River estuary, New South Wales, Australia. Fish. Res. 1996, 25, 347–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broadhurst, M.K.; Kennely, S.J. Reducing bycatch of juvenile fin fish (Mulloway) in the Hawkesbury river prawn-trawl fishery using square mesh panels in codends. Fish. Res. 1994, 19, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennelly, S.J.; Liggins, G.W.; Broadhurst, M.K. Retained and discarded by-catch from oceanic prawn trawling in New South Wales, Australia. Fish. Res. 1998, 36, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broadhurst, M.K.; Suuronen, P.; Hulme, A. Estimating collateral mortality from towed fishing gear. Fish Fish. 2006, 7, 80–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butcher, P.A.; Broadhurst, M.K.; Reynolds, D.; Reid, D.D.; Gray, C.A. Release method and anatomical hook location: Effects on short-term mortality of angler-caught Acanthopagrus australis and Argyrosomus japonicus. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2007, 74, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fowler, A.M.; Parkinson, K.; Booth, D.J. New poleward observations of 30 tropical reef fishes in temperate south eastern Australia. Mar. Biodivers. 2017, 47, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudd, M.B.; Branch, T.A. Does unreported catch lead to overfishing? Fish Fish. 2017, 18, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguilera, S.E.; Cole, J.; Finkbeiner, E.M.; Le Cornu, E.; Ban, N.C.; Mark, H.; Carr, M.H.; Joshua, E.; Cinner, J.E.; Larry, B.; et al. Managing Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries for Adaptive Capacity: Insights from Dynamic Social-Ecological Drivers of Change in Monterey Bay. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Oostenbrugge, H.J.A.E.; Powell, J.P.; Smit, J.P.G.; Poos, J.; Kraak, S.B.M.; Buisman, E.F.C. Linking catchability and fisher behaviour under effort management. Aquat. Living Resour. 2008, 21, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hilborn, R.; Walters, C.J. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment. Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty; Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, S.; Punt, A.E.; Smith, A.D.M.; Ye, Y.; Haddon, M.; Dichmont, C.M.; Smith, D.C. An optimized catch-only assessment method for data poor fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2017, 75, 964–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fauconnet, L.; Rochet, M.-J. Fishing selectivity as an instrument to reach management objectives in an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Mar. Polocy 2016, 64, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parsons, D.F.; Suthers, I.M.; Cruz, D.O.; Smith, J.A. Effects of habitat on fish abundance and species composition on temperate rocky reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2016, 561, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malcolm, H.A.; Jordan, A.; Creese, R.G.; Knott, N.A. Size and age are important factors for marine sanctuaries: Evidence from a decade of systematic sampling in a subtropical marine park. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2016, 26, 1090–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, M.W.; Heck, K.L.; Able, K.W.; Childers, D.L.; Eggleston, D.B.; Gillanders, B.M.; Halpern, B.; Hays, C.G.; Hoshino, K.; Minello, T.J.; et al. The identification, conservation and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. BioScince 2001, 51, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seitz, R.D.; Wennhage, H.; Bergström, U.; Lipcius, R.N.; Ysebaert, T. Ecological value of coastal habitats for commercially and ecologically important species. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2013, 71, 648–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williams, R.J.; Watford, F.A.; Balashov, V. Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project: History of Changes to Estuarine Wetlands of the Lower Hunter River; NSW Fisheries Final Report Series 22; NSW Fisheries: Cronulla, Australia, 2000; p. 85.
- Yeager, L.A.; Keller, D.A.; Burns, T.R.; Pool, A.S.; Fodrie, F.J. Threshold effects of habitat fragmentation on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology 2016, 97, 2157–2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Payne, N.L.; Smith, J.A.; Meulen, D.E.; Taylor, M.D.; Watanabe, Y.Y.; Takahashi, A.; Marzullo, T.A.; Gray, C.A.; Cadiou, G.; Suthers, I.M. Temperature dependence of fish performance in the wild: Links with species biogeography and physiological thermal tolerance. Funct. Ecol. 2016, 30, 903–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silberschneider, V.; Gray, C.A.; Stewart, J. Age, growth, maturity and the overfishing of the iconic sciaenid, Argyrosomus japonicus, in south-eastern, Australia. Fish. Res. 2009, 95, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Convention on Biological Diversity, Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Target 11. 1993. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-11/ (accessed on 1 February 2018).
- Wiecek, D.; Laine, R. Shoalhaven City Council Estuary Ecosystem Health Report Cards 2010–2011; Technical Report; Office of Environment and Heritage: Sydney, Australia, 2012; 19p.
- Barnes, T.C.; Junge, C.; Myers, S.A.; Taylor, M.D.; Rogers, P.J.; Ferguson, G.J.; Lieschke, J.A.; Donnellan, S.C.; Gillanders, B.M. Population structure in a wide-ranging coastal teleost (Argyrosomus japonicus, Sciaenidae) reflects marine biogeography across southern Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2016, 67, 1103–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirimin, L.; Macey, B.; Kerwath, S.; Lamberth, S.; Bester-van der Merwe, A.; Cowley, P.; Bloomer, P.; Roodt-Wilding, R. Genetic analyses reveal declining trends and low effective population size in an overfished South African sciaenid species, the dusky kob (Argyrosomus japonicus). Mar. Freshw. Res. 2016, 67, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ovenden, J.R.; Berry, O.; Welch, D.J.; Buckworth, R.C.; Dichmont, C.M. Ocean’s eleven: A critical evaluation of the role of population, evolutionary and molecular genetics in the management of wild fisheries. Fish Fish. 2015, 16, 125–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, N.L.; van der Meulen, D.E.; Suthers, I.M.; Gray, C.A.; Taylor, M.D. Foraging intensity of wild mulloway Argyrosomus japonicus decreases with increasing anthropogenic disturbance. Mar. Biol. 2015, 162, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferguson, G.J.; Ward, T.M.; Geddes, M.C. Do recent age structures and historical catches of mulloway, Argyrosomus japonicus (Sciaenidae), reflect freshwater inflows in the remnant estuary of the Murray River, South Australia? Aquat. Living Resour. 2008, 21, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossi, T.; Nagelkerken, I.; Pistevos, J.C.; Connell, S.D. Lost at sea: Ocean acidification undermines larval fish orientation via altered hearing and marine soundscape modification. Biol. Lett. 2016, 12, 20150937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ERA Method Reference | Driver | Pressure | Biological Attributes | Management Control—Preventative | Undesirable Event | Management Control—Mitigative | Impact | Management Control—Recovery | Risk Estimation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[11] | - | E | V, P, EF | - | Ocean ecosystems impacted by multiple human activities | - | F, PI | - | Ranks threats affecting a species or system |
[14,24] | Various | S | V, P | Various | Overfishing of ecosystem components | - | F, PI | - | Prioritises ecological components requiring action and degree of action required |
[9] (Level 2) | - | S | V, P, EF | - | Relative abundance of ecological components is unsustainable | - | F, PI | - | Identifies which ecological components are at high risk from impacts of fishing |
[27] | Various | - | V, P | - | Overfishing of multiple species | - | PI | - | Identifies if overfishing is occurring for which suite of species |
[13] (Level 2) | - | E | V, P | - | Ecosystem components unacceptably impacted by human stressors | - | PI | - | Ranks stressors affecting an ecological component |
[23] | - | E | V, P | BRD | Irreversible habitat damage | - | - | - | Identifies where and what habitat types are most intensely fished for management focus |
[28] | - | E | V, P | - | Irreversible benthic habitat damage | - | F | - | Assesses benthic status of habitats to impacts of towed fishing gear |
[29] | - | S, E | V, P | - | Irreversible habitat damage | - | - | - | Identifies where and what habitat types are most intensely fished for management focus |
[25] | - | S | P | Selectivity fishing gear, BRD | Overfishing of bycatch species | - | F | - | Assesses impact of fishing on bycatch species |
Components: | Pressure | Biological Attributes | Impacts | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ERA Method Reference | Driver | Exposure/Susceptibility | Productivity | Vulnerability | Ecosystem Function | Management Controls | Fishery Impact | Population Change Impact | Total No. Measures |
[11] | 0 | 0.06 (2) | 0.24 (8) | 0.32 (11) | 0.21 (7) | 0 | 0.12 (4) | 0.06 (2) | 34 |
[14,24] | 0.07 (1) | 0.14 (2) | 0.07 (1) | 0.07 (1) | 0 | 0.21 (3) | 0.29 (4) | 0.14 (2) | 14 |
[9] (Level 2) | 0 | 0.23 (3) | 0.15 (2) | 0.08 (1) | 0.08 (1) | 0.08 (1) | 0.08 (1) | 0.31 (4) | 13 |
[27] | 0.10 (1) | 0 | 0.60 (6) | 0.10 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0.20 (2) | 0 | 10 |
[13] (Level 2) | 0 | 0.24 (4) | 0.53 (9) | 0.12 (2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.12 (2) | 17 |
[23] | 0 | 0.2 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 0.40 (2) | 0 | 0.20 (1) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
[28] | 0 | 0.17 (1) | 0.33 (2) | 0.33 (2) | 0 | 0 | 0.17 (1) | 0 | 6 |
[29] | 0 | 0.27 (3) | 0.09 (1) | 0.64 (7) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
[25] | 0 | 0.67 (4) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 (2) | 0 | 6 |
Process | Component | Key Questions |
---|---|---|
Strategic Planning | A. Goals (long term 10+ years) (from legislation, policies) | 1. What are the environmental, economic and social values desired to be protected? 2. What is the desired state of the fishery resources to be achieved? |
Management Control | B. Management Objectives (medium term 3–5 years) (from management plans, regulations) | 3. What needs to be achieved to reach these goals? |
Operational Control | C. Operational targets (short term 1 year) (from management plans) | 4. What specific targets are required to accomplish the management objectives? (e.g., effort limits, catch limit reference points) |
D. Expected outcomes (from management plans) | 5. If the targets were met what specifically would be different in the state of the fished species and fishery compared to now within the timeframe? | |
E. Operational controls(from compliance plans, operational plans) | 6. What management actions, controls and procedures need to be implemented to put into effect the management objectives and achieve the expected outcomes? | |
F. Monitoring | 7. What needs to be measured, when and how to detect whether expected outcomes are being achieved by the operational controls? | |
G. Evaluation | 8. What needs to be analysed and how, in order to evaluate whether actual outcomes of operational controls match the expected outcomes to achieve management objectives? | |
Adaptive management | H. Revise and reassess—Actual ≠ expected outcomes | 9. What changes need to be made to components C–F to better achieve the management objectives? |
I. Review and maintain—Actual = expected outcomes | 10. What resources and improvements are required to ensure the management objectives and goals continue in the desired direction? |
Element | Content |
---|---|
Source of risk | Commercial fishing, including specific aspects such as fishing mortality, fishing pressure. |
Goal | Prevent overfishing of target species by commercial fishing. |
Management objective | Abundance of adults remains above the point where recruitment failure could occur. |
Risk context | The likelihood that fishing pressure has led to reduced adult abundance such that the fish stock will be unable to sustain its current abundance and distribution in New South Wales (NSW) waters over the next 20 years. |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Astles, K.L.; Cormier, R. Implementing Sustainably Managed Fisheries Using Ecological Risk Assessment and Bowtie Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103659
Astles KL, Cormier R. Implementing Sustainably Managed Fisheries Using Ecological Risk Assessment and Bowtie Analysis. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103659
Chicago/Turabian StyleAstles, Karen L., and Roland Cormier. 2018. "Implementing Sustainably Managed Fisheries Using Ecological Risk Assessment and Bowtie Analysis" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103659