“The The Role of GIS in an Ecosystems Approach to Fisheries Management” by Geoff Meaden Director (retired) Fisheries GIS Unit Department of Geographical and Life Sciences Canterbury Christ Church University North Holmes Road Canterbury Kent, CY1 1QU UK Tel: 00 44 1227 767700 F Fax: 00 44 1227 767531 Email:
[email protected]
Current status of GIS application to fisheries management • • • • • •
We already know that GIS applications are very wide ranging Numerous examples from this sequence of Symposia We have built up a wide body of experience Current GIS applications are either directly or indirectly related to EAF All of our GIS work to date will have given a valuable entree into the era of EAF But there are still numerous challenges to the greater use of GIS in any fisheries related activity or area
Main thematic areas for marine fisheries GIS • • • • •
Habitat H bi mapping i e.g. S Sediments, di morphology, h l d depth, h b benthos, h etc Species distribution and abundance – in constant flux; short and long g term cyclic y p patterns Fisheries oceanographic modelling, e.g. Explaining relationships between fish and their environment Fi h ’ activities Fisher’s ti iti Fisheries management, e.g. Quotas by areas
Most of this work is done by fisheries institutes, university researchers, government departments It involves basic mapping but lots of analyses.
How might GIS best be adopted for EAF ? Many ways but one approach would be to use GIS for: 1 MAPPING 1. MAPPING, e.g : • Ecoregions • Species • Habitats • Human activities • Indicators • Regulations 2. MODELLING, e.g : • Spatial stock assessment • Ecosystem interactions • MPA placement • Fishing vessel movements and behaviour
Modelling probability of sardine occurrence in Mediterranean Spain
How might GIS best be adopted for EAF ? (2) 3. MANAGEMENT, e.g : • Integrated marine management and planning • Fisheries multi-stock management • Monitoring g and enforcement 4. COMMUNICATIONS, e.g : • Information to stakeholders • Information to decision makers • Information to the community (via the Web) Already y a large g number of applications pp of GIS to EAF FAO has a database of over 200 GIS to EAF applications But we must remember that GIS might involve considerably more than these things, e.g. social, cultural and economic factors
Benguela Fisheries System: S.W. Africa
Case studies of marine fisheries applications pp of EAF This author recently researched how two major studies on the EAF process might have utilised GIS: 1. Benguela Current – Work carried out by Cochrane et al (2007) examined the feasibility of using the EAF approach in the Benguela fisheries area shared by Angola, Namibia and South Africa. We estimate that GIS could be used to help resolve at least 50 issues raised by stakeholders in the 10 main fisheries in these countries (45% of all issues) issues). Main issues were those as per conventional fisheries management, plus: • Interactions between fish species • Disturbance of trophic structures • Impact of fishing on other species • Fish distribution networks • Etc
Scotian Shelf – Atlantic Canada
Case studies of marine fisheries applications of EAF (2) The second Th d case study d was the h “E “Eastern Scotian S i Shelf Sh lf IIntegrated d Management” plan (ESSIM) (2005). This scheme is underway on the wide Scotian shelf area of Atlantic Canada. A large number of objectives have been defined by a wide encompassing interest group. We identified 33 objectives towards which GIS could be utilised. Examples p include: • Benthic and pelagic community structures • Objectives involving conservation and endangered species • Ecosystem structure and functioning • Trophic structures • Sedimentary processes • Pollution and eutrophication • Community y well-being g • Industrial management and processes
Some challenges g to the use of GIS in an EAF For GIS to successfully be utilised in an EAF - we need: • To be better organised, e.g. working together of stakeholders • To expand our horizons • To T workk with ith a much h wider id array off groups and d iinstitutions tit ti • To become more knowledgeable in more associated disciplines • To work out how databases can function better (storing (storing, sharing sharing, etc) • To work out optimum spatial management areas • To be able to function better at multiple resolutions • To establish socio-economic boundaries to our GIS inputs • To identify synergies with aquaculture and inland fisheries • To T share h iinformation, f ti e.g. th through h GISFish GISFi h • To work out the best ways of helping developing nations with GIS, e.g. g with training, g, g guidance,, support, pp , p promotion.
Our ultimate goal for EAF ?
To use the analysis capability of GIS to produce a map showing the ecosystems services provided by every marine area
“Towards the use of GIS for an Ecosystems y Approach to Fisheries Management: CHARM 2 – A Case Study from the English Channel”
Geoff Meaden; Ludovic Dupuis
Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, UK
Andre Carpentier; Franck Coppin; Valentina Lauria; Corinne Martin; Sandrine Vaz; Caroline Warembourg IFREMER, Boulogne-sur-Mer, France Paul Eastwood
Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission, Suva, Fiji
Bruno Ernande; Ching Villanueva
IFREMER, Port-en-Bassin, France
Stuart Harrop; Roger Just; Yoshi Ota; Bob Smith University of Kent, Canterbury, UK Steve Mackinson
CEFAS,, Lowestoft,, Suffolk,, UK
Area covered by y the CHARM 2 Project
Background to the CHARM project:• • • • • • • •
Area of resource conflict Resource management g urgently g y needed The third project in an expanding series Previous projects successfully completed Funding available from the European Union Project partners working well together Strong stakeholder participation Convenient geographic scale
Main project partners:• Institut Francais de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER) • Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) • Universite des Sciences et Technologies de Lille • Dept D t off A Anthropology, th l U University i it off K Kentt • Fisheries GIS Unit, Canterbury Christ Church University • Universite du Littoral-Cote d’Opale
Some strategies for implementing an Ecosystems Approach to Fisheries (EAF):• • • • •
Bottom up v. Top down Cross-sectoral v. Single sector S ll area v. Large Small L area Incremental v. ‘Big-bang’ Narrow ecosystem boundaries v. v Wide ecosystem boundaries
plus combinations of these. CHARM 2 is top down, single sectoral, small area, incremental and narrow ecosystem-based. ecosystem based
Pre-CHARM published maps of sole habitats
Spawning p g habitat
B
Spawning p g and nursery habitat
A Spawning habitat
C
Nursery habitat
D
A - Coull et al. (1998) B - Pawson (1995) C - BODC (1998) D - Coull et al. (1998)
CHARM - Phase 2 Objectives 1. Further develop fish species distribution maps & habitat maps 2. Develop seabed (benthic) habitat maps 3. Gather primary data from local fishing communities and relevant fisheries statistics 4 Complete a bilingual comparison of French and UK legal 4. policies in the context of marine resource management 5. Modelling of ecosystem functioning based on food-web models and habitat models (Ecopath/Ecospace) 6. Conservation planning - identify important sites for conserving biodiversity using the MARXAN spatial planning software 7. Develop a draft management strategy - to be reviewed by stakeholders at targeted workshops project j outputs p through g an interactive Web-atlas 8. Deliver p (http://charm.canterbury.ac.uk/) 9. Produce a final report (atlas) - available on the project’s web site
The Eastern Channel Environment (physical) • • • • • • • • •
Minimum width – 37 kilometres Maximum depth in Dover Strait - 40 metres Maximum depth in central Channel – 100 metres Maximum tidal flow rate in Dover Strait - 1.75 metres per sec. Many deep troughs (former dry valleys) Prevailing water movement from SW to NE. 7 metre t tid tidall range att D Dungeness Bottom sediments vary from muds to coarse gravels Highly turbid water
The Eastern Channel Environment (biological) • B Boundary d off B Boreall ((cold) ld) and d Lousitanian L i i (warm) ( ) biology bi l • Benthos – worms, crustaceans, bi-valves, whelks, amphipods – controlled largely g y by y sediment type yp and tidal velocity y • Main commercial fish species – plaice, Dover sole, whiting, cod, pollack, horse mackerel, lemon sole, skates, shellfish • Pollution P ll ti llevels l low l and d falling f lli • Benthos severely disturbed by trawling and dredging • Ecosystems severely stressed by a mixture of activities and therefore evidence of ‘fishing down the food chain’
The Eastern Channel Environment (socio (socio-economic) economic) • • • • • • •
Many aggregates now b M being i d dredged d d (mainly ( i l in i west)) Main fishing is for flatfish, but fishing fast declining Bi-valve dredging important in some areas Extremely busy shipping lanes Recreational activities Certain to have some ‘marine protected areas’ within 5 years Huge distrust between various resource sectors
Main data sources and data uses in the CHARM 2 project:project: • • • • • •
CEFAS and IFREMER led surveys (e.g. eggs, larvae, fish, water quality) Special small-scale surveys (e.g. Benthos) Existing g historical,, physical, p y , biological g datasets ((e.g. g FishBase,, sediments, bathymetry, fish catches/landings) Remote sensing data (e.g. Water quality parameters, chlorophyll) Interviews with fishers and stakeholders Legal sources
Data contributed to and used for: pp g, graphical g p and tabular output p • Mapping, • GIS analyses • Habitat modelling • Geo-statistical G t ti ti l procedures d • Textual material • Etc
Some environmental parameters Temperature
Salinity
Depth
Sediments
Bed stress Bed-stress
Pebbles Gravels Lithoclastic sand Biolithoclastic sand Muddy sediments
Channel Ground Fish Survey, IFREMER - conducted yearly in October since 1988 - bottom trawl - nearly 100 hauls - data collected: species i biomass bi and d numbers, b individual body length salinity, temperature
Sampling sites
Fish landings (logbook data) Describes fishing activity: landings per year, quarter, ICES division, and gear (trawls,nets)
ENGLAND
32F1
32F2
31F1
31F2
Folkestone#
30F1
# Calais
# Dunkerque
# Boulogne-sur-Mer
30E9
30F0
29E9
29F0
29F1
28E9
28F0
# Dieppe #Fécamp
# Cherbourg
27E9
FRANCE
2002 Lim.sole Ch. fond Trim1 Trim2 Trim3 Trim4 Zone CHARM
Modelling procedures to determine spawning habitat
CEFAS 1991 sole egg survey
No eggs m-2 25
0
Species Richness of Benthic Invertebrates in the Eastern English Channel
Mean spatial distribution (fish per sq-km – log-transformed) of Poor Cod for years 1988 - 2006
Comparison of survey data with preferred habitats for Callionymidae family in eastern English Channel Mean spatial distribution ((No. p per sq q km)) of fish from the Callionymidae family, 1988 to 2006 (October, CGFS survey) 3.46
0
Preferred habitats (modelled using GLMs) for fish from the Callionymidae family, e.g. reticulate dragonet, 1988 to 2006 (October, CGFS survey) 3.34
0
Significant predictors: bed shear stress stress, salinity, salinity temperature, seabed sediment type
Comparison of (a) survey density with (b) habitat suitability for Black Bream in eastern English Channel
Predicted catch densities for adult (+3) sole (Solea solea) during years of high high, average and low population abundance in the English Channel
Fishers’ perceptions of fishing locations for sole (Solea solea) in the eastern English Channel
Fishers’ perceptions of their fishing locations for all nine main commercial fish species in the English Channel
Environmental parameters Chlorophyll a concentration
Mineral suspended matter
Main challenges to the work on CHARM 2: 2:• • • • • • •
Lack L k and d iinadequacy d off many d datasets, t t plus l ti time and d costt off securing data Our surveys are only a brief ‘snapshot’ in time (statistical validity) ‘Top down’ approach - no proper consultation with all stakeholders (to establish true aims and priorities) Prioritising g the p project j work – some p procedures are very y time consuming Resolution to be working at (time and space) Establishing thematic boundaries to the project The infinite complexity of the ecosystems
CHARM Phase 3 – expanding the ecosystems approach • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Include also the western English Channel (doubles the area) Detailed data review and inventory Incorporate plankton to space/time mapping and modelling Better identify fish spawning areas B tt id Better identify tif role l off b benthic thi organisms i iin th the Ch Channell Classify marine habitats using EU habitat directives Set up p a ‘fisheries exploitation’ p database Identify the ‘fisheries’ culture’ (the place and impact of fishing in coastal areas Further habitat and trophic network modelling (for whole of Channel area) Analyses of socio-economic changes in the fishery scene Reinforce collaboration between fishery ecologists and economists to advance development of an EAF Explore the prospects for diversifying of marine activities Explore the impacts of climate change on the English Channel Provide necessary inputs to conservation planning Develop GIS interface tools for better geospatial modelling
10 important lessons learned: • • • • • • • • • •
Assemble A bl an expertt tteam – the th work k can b be very complex l Start with a small area and limited thematic coverage Try y to involve a range g of stakeholders – if they y do not p participate, p don’t worry ! If possible, have a full-time project leader Set strong deadlines for project actions Have frequent project meetings – all participants must know what is taking place Recognise the limitations of the project outputs The more you do, the more that you see needs doing ! GIS is at the core of most of the EAF work Is anyone listening to you? Are you going to save the fisheries?
Th k you ffor li Thank listening t i ! Questions ?
