ESD & EBFM FRAMEWORKS

Overview of the Subprogram

Dr Rick FletcherESD Subprogram Leader

Outline

• History of ESD Subprogram

• Summary of Progress

• Future potential links to Coastal/Marine Planning

• Some lessons learned

Why did we start this?• Fisheries Legislative Requirements (all have ESD in

their Acts)• Other Government Requirements e.g. State

Environmental Assessments, Schedule 4, EPBC, GBRMPA (some aspects of ESD)

• Market Leverage/Access (varying aspects of ESD)• Develop one reporting process that meets most of

these needs

Initial focus was the assessment and management of individual fisheries and getting export approval

History of Subprogram

1997-1999 Preliminary work by BRS, SCFA, review of ESD by CSIRO

2000 ESD Conference, SCFA ESD Reference Group, draft ESD guide,

case studies and case study workshop2001 Subprogram funded, Revised ESD Guide, Extra case studies2002 Completed ESD Wild Capture guide, EMS Guide, 2003 A workshop/review of subprogram

NRMSC supports use of Guide, agrees ESDRG to report to MACC, Supports extension to cover multi fishery/sector issues.

2004 Second Subprogram Project Begun2005 MACC agrees on ESD terminology, using SW as case study,

Social Assessment handbook and case studies completed2006 Second Review of ESD by CSIRO initiated2007 Decision to assess future of subprogram

National ESD Subprogram

Began in March 2000 it has now completed:

• ESD policy documents

• Reporting frameworks for wild capture and

aquaculture,

• EMS manual for industry

• Assessment manual for wild capture,

• Social assessment and economic handbooks,

• Processes to allocate and reallocate access

• Completed ESD reports

ALL REPORTS AND MANUALS ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE

SUBPROGRAM WEBSITE

www.fisheries-esd.com

www.ebfm.com.au

See Circulated Brochure

Subject: National ESD Web Site - Single Page Feedback Type : Page Feedback

Comment : This was awesome, every other website talked about rubbish i didn't want. This website told me the rubbish i needed to help my nephew get an A+

Universal Concepts of Sustainability

• What impacts are my activities having on the assets that I manage?

• What impacts am I having on the assets that someone else manages?

• What are the economic/social benefits and costs generated by my activities?

• What activities by others affect me and my assets?

The ‘ my ‘ can be an individual, a company, a fishery, any industry, a Department, a Jurisdiction.

Basic ESD/EBFM PROCESS1. Scope and Values

2. Identify Issues

3. Prioritise Issues

4. Develop Management systems (and linkage models)

5. Generate operational plansTHE SAME STEPS ARE USED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SITUATION BUT THE DETAILS CAN

VARY GREATLY

(eg Commonwealth system of ERM/ERA also fits within these same five steps)

Summary of ESD Framework

R eport onJustif ication of R isk

R ating

Low R isk /P riority

D evelop O bjectivesIndicators

P erform ance lim itsR eport C u rren t S tatus

> Low R isk /P riority

P R IO R ITIS A TIO N(R isk A ssessm en t)

ID E N TIF Y IS S U E S(M odify E igh t E S DC om ponen t Trees)

Plus General

Background Information

= ESD

STATUS REPORT

Audits

Other Stakeholders

Government

Specific Reports

Scope

1. Determining Scope & Values

Develop a clear description of what you are trying to manage/assess including the societal values that need to be addressed

Clearly understand that there are issues that you can:

• Control• Influence• Only react to

STEP 1.Tools Developed• Developed lists of questions and prompts

• Common types of values

• Need to know their relative importance

1 Status• People often don’t realise they are coming from different perspectives and values

STEP 2. Identifying Issues

Given the scope:

(a) Identify all possible relevant issues across all areas of ESD/EBFM (retained; non-retained; ecosystem, community; administration)

(b) Agree on objectives wanted to achieve based on values

2. Tools Developed

• Series of generic component trees have been developed.

• Trees are refined from stakeholder input.

• There are also variations on this including check lists etc.

STATUS

These approaches are sufficient but can be refined or restructured made more automated

Getting good involvement from all groups – could benefit from more involvement by social scientists

R e ta ine d S pp

N o n R eta ine d S pp

G e n e ra l E cosys tem

E co log ica l E le m e n ts

C o m m un ity W e llb e ing

A d m in is tra tion

H u m a n E le m e n ts

F ish e ry

STEP 2: ISSUE Identification Using Component Trees

Separates ESD/EBFM into component parts

V A N U A T U

A lb aco re

B ig E ye

Y e llo w fin

M a rlin

S a ilf ish

B illf ish

T a rg e t

S k ip ja ck

D og too th

O the r Tu na

S h a rks

W ah oo

M a h i M a h i

R a in b o w R

O pah

N o n - Ta rg e tS p e c ies

sa rd in es

sca ds

B a it C o lle c tion

R e ta in e d S pe c iesV an ua tu

T u rtle s

D o lp h ins W h a les D u go ng

M a m m a ls

S e ab irds

D e e p W a te rD e m e rsa ls

P ro tec te d o r S pe c ia lS p e c ies

P o ison o us

su cke r f ish

b a rra co u ta

n o n co m m e rc ia l f ishsm a ll a m o u n ts

G e n e ra l D isca rdS p e c ies

N o n re ta ine d S ppV A N U A T U

Bait collection

TrophicIm pacts

Ghost fishing

Benthic Biota

rem oval of/dam age toorganisms

StockEnhancem ent

Provisioning

Translocation

addition/movem entof biological m aterial

Air quality

W ater quality

Land interactions

Other

General Ecosystem

Step 3 Prioritisation

Determine, using some form of risk assessment or prioritisation process, which of these issues really needs to be managed directly.

• Without doing this properly the process will stall – cannot directly manage everything!

3 Tools Developed/ Available

• Qualitative systems based on the AS/NZ 4360 Standard that cover ecological, social and economic issues are available

• Other qualitative and semi quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment techniques have also been generated (e.g. Commonwealth) or are being developed (CSIRO) plus multi criteria systems (NSW).

• The most appropriate one to use may not necessary be the most complicated one.

Step 3 Status

•Risk Assessment is still difficult to convey to stakeholders in a way that they understand and accept – often confuse uncertainty for risk •The criteria for assessing broader ecological impacts not as clear as for individual species•Criteria to assess social and economic issues are also less developed. •Need to be clear what objective is being assessed, the risk (priority) can change• May need to separate cumulative risk from that generated by an individual fishery

4 Management Systems

If an issue requires direct management, establish:

• what is acceptable performance,

• the management arrangements used to achieve this,

• the monitoring and review processes

• the processes to adjust arrangements when needed

Management Systems • Rationale for inclusion (risk rating)• Operational Objectives (+Justification)• Indicator• Performance Measure (+Justification)• Data Requirements & Availability • Evaluation• Management Responses

– Current, – Future and – if Trigger is reached

• External Drivers

THESE THREE ARE A PACKAGE

What specifically for this issue for this fishery do you want

to achieve and WHY?

These need to link directlyto the objectives and PIs

(Harvest Strategies)

4 Status - systems• The system is consistent with all risk management and other

feedback systems including EMS and the Commonwealth system (different headings and detail)

• Multiple levels of detail can be used in reports - from quick to complex

4 Status – Performance measures/Indicators•Individual species – many available

•Ecosystem – not many cost effective methods, lack of clarity of what is acceptable impact (caught with social values). Often not be sensible to assess for a single fishery.

Social and Economic – while many indicators & assessment tools are available, not many examples where used

2.1 IDENTIFY ALL ISSUES (using component trees)

3. PRIORITISE ISSUES USING RISK ASSESSMENT

4.2 DETERMINE ACTIONS TO MEET OBJECTIVES

4.3 IMPLEMENT ACTIONS

4.4 MONITOR OUTCOMES

4.5 ASSESS PROCESSES AND

PROGRESS AGAINST

PERFORMANCEMEASURES

4.5 ASSESS PROCESSES AND

PROGRESS AGAINST

PERFORMANCEMEASURES

REVIEW ENTIRE SYSTEM EVERY

‘X’ YEARS

1. DETERMINE SCOPE AND VALUES

JUSTIFY LOW RISKS

4. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Summary of ESD/EBFM Processes

4.1 REFINE OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES & PERFORMANCE

MEASURES

TO REITERATE

IT IS JUST A FORM OF RISK ASSESSMENT

CSIRO Review: Change in use of ESD performance indicators and

benchmarksUse of performance indicators and benchmarks from 1998 to

2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

1998

2006

Conclusion for individual fisheries

• Application of basic principles is fairly common in jurisdictions with the overarching frameworks available and being used.

• Most of the tools needed are now available but there has been minimal use of social and economic tools.

Not much need for further tool development, but more extension of what has been developed particularly clarifying when there will be value for social and economic assessments

Up Size Me?? Multi Fishery (EBFM) Multi Sector (EBM)

• EBFM - Deals with ALL ecological impacts of fishing activities AND their social & economic implications PLUS their interactions at a regional level - not at the fishery level.

• Scope could link with regional marine planning (EBM) initiatives.

• Despite getting agreement on this concept back in 2003 with NRMSC and again in 2005 with MACC, there has been minimal progress.

• That’s because it is far more tricky to deal with!

A N N U A L R E P O R T

E S D R E P O R T

C o m m e rcia l F ish ery 2M A N . P L A N

A N N U A L R E P O R T

E S D R ep o rt

C o m m e rcia l F ish ery 2M A N . P L A N

E S D R ep o rt

R E C R E A T IO N A LF IS H IN G P L A N

E S D R ep o r ts

A Q U A C U L T U R E .& H A B IT A T P LA N S

REGIONAL FISHERIES PLAN/REPORT

(EBFM)

THE JIGSAW OF MARINE MANAGEMENT

REGIONAL MARINE PLAN

(EBM)

Conserv Agencies

Federal

MPAs

Other Mining/ Planning/Tourism

The ESD Framework should

accommodate EBM

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE??

•MULTIPLE PROCESSES, DUPLICATION,

•LACK OF INVOLVEMENT, OVERLOADING REPRESENTATIVES

•CHAOS THEORY IN ACTION!!

E B F M F ra m e w o rk

C o m m u n ity S tru c tu re& B io d ive rs ity

In teg ra tedE le m e n ts

T a rge ted

N o n T a rge ted

'F ish ' S p e c ies

H a b ita tC a te go ries

N o n 'F ish ' S p e c ies

In d ivid u a lE le m e n ts

E co lo g ica lA sse ssm e n ts

D ire c tS ta ke h o ld e rs

D e pe n de ntC o m m u n it ies

S ta te /N a tio n a l

S o c io -E co n o m ic W e llb e ingO u tco m es

F ish e riesA d m in is tra tion

E x te rn a lF a c to rs

A b ility to A ch ie ve

B IO R E G IO N

Each of these integratesAcross all sectors

Integrates IndividualElements

E B F M F ra m e w o rk

C o m m u n ity S tru c tu re& B io d ive rs ity

In teg ra tedE le m e n ts

T a rge ted

N o n T a rge ted

'F ish ' S p e c ies

H a b ita tC a te go ries

N o n 'F ish ' S p e c ies

In d ivid u a lE le m e n ts

E co lo g ica lA sse ssm e n ts

D ire c tS ta ke h o ld e rs

D e pe n de ntC o m m u n it ies

S ta te /N a tio n a l

S o c io -E co n o m ic W e llb e ingO u tco m es

A d m in is tra tion

E x te rn a lF a c to rs

A b ility to A ch ie ve

B IO R E G IO N

What is the Relative Difference Compared to Fishery ESD

Minor

Mod.

Major

Rock Lobster

King Praw ns

Blue S Crabs

Deep Sea Crabs

Crustaceans

Herring

Tailor

W hiting

Pink Snapper

Y.E .Mullet

Black Bream

Inshore

Dhufish

Pink Snapper

Baldchin G roper

Lethrinid

Sharks

O ffshoreDemersal

W hitebait

P ilchard

Sam son Fish

Tunaand M ackerel

O ffshorePelagic

Finfish

Scallops

Abalone

Black Pearl O ysters

M ussels

O ctopus

M olluscs

Crustaceans

Fish

M olluscs

Live; rock, coral andsand

O rnamental 'fish'

M inor and Byproduct Species

Retained 'Fish' Species

YELLOW INDICATES ESD ASSESSMENT AT FISHERY LEVEL ALREADY DONE

EBFM Summary MatrixAssetIssue

LegalOwner’(s)

PrimaryManagementAuthority

EBFMValues(objectiv

es)

OtherObjectiv

es

RiskStatus

Ext.Drivs

CombinedPerform. Measures

& Indicators

Monitoring/& Current Research

Inform.(H, M L)

Actions

Putting it All Together

How to link all the components back together again?

How does changing the management of one issue affect all the other elements – particularly those across the different components?

StatusA few systems already being developed.Management System Evaluations (MSEs) • Quantitative (e.g. Atlantis)• Qualitative (e.g. Dambacher)

KEY EBFM/EBM ISSUES

• Defining who owns/manages each asset• Setting up multi agency governance structures

to deal with overlaps (running in treacle would be easier)

• Agreeing on what are the ‘ecosystems’• Measuring biodiversity and community structure

in a way that can be done in an ongoing manner?

• Determining which social/economic components may be important from the 100’s of possibilities

Overarching EBFM Question

DECIDING WHAT, IN ADDITION TO THE INDIVIDUAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT

ACTIONS, REALLY NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ENSURE THAT THE REGIONAL OUTCOMES

ARE OK

Even if the answer is not much, that is very useful information to have plus getting an

understanding of how the different bits all fit together.

Conclusion - National ESD Framework

• Used in many commercial fisheries in Australia• Being implemented for the management for the WC

Pacific Tuna Fisheries (FFA)• Potential use for coastal fisheries in the Pacific (SPC)• Used as the basis of FAO’s EAF approach • To be used for Canadian Herring Fishery • Trialed in many aquaculture industries • Used for assessing regional agricultural impacts -

Signposts• Being used to manage irrigation in Northern Australia

– Irrigation Futures.

Final Comments on taking an ecosystem approach

• Deals with all the ecological impacts of activities plus the social & economic implications of these and their interactions

• It is fully consistent with sustainable development – it is not an ‘alternative’ to ESD

• It requires taking a comprehensive approach based on risk management principles.

• It is a MANAGEMENT process that is INFORMED by Science.

Where to from here?• We have made considerable progress but communicating

this widely has been difficult.• Still a level of confusion about these fraemworks/systems

and a tendency to ‘reinvent wheels’.• Need to get ‘buy-on’ to the principles of this process by

other groups that operate in or affect aquatic areas to ensure efficient linkages and holistic outcomes can be achieved.

• The ESD framework we have developed is capable of being applied in any situation – maybe getting broader adoption should increase effectiveness in dealing with cross agency issues.

• Getting the policy and governance processes right for EBFM/EBM will be harder than dealing with the science questions.