ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 311e318 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.12.

003

Ecosystem approach to sheries: a review of implementation guidelines1

Serge M. Garcia and Kevern L. Cochrane
Garcia, S. M., and Cochrane, K. L. 2005. Ecosystem approach to sheries: a review of implementation guidelines. e ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 311e318. The FAO and other guidelines available for the implementation of the ecosystem approach to sheries are briey reviewed. The paper recalls the high-level policy foundations and the main issues, related to sheries and non-shing impacts as well as to natural variability. It reviews the central paradigm and the extension of the conventional management required to better account for ecosystem considerations. It focuses on the policy, strategy development, and implementation processes required to adapt the fuzzy principles and conceptual goals to the reality of specic situations, addressing briey the central issues of capacity-building, management costs, realistic time frames, and the role of science, and concludes with comments on the respective roles of the various types of stakeholders.
2004 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from icesjms.oxfordjournals.org by guest on July 4, 2011

Keywords: EAF, ecosystems, sheries management. Received 1 April 2004; accepted 26 October 2004. S. M. Garcia and K. L. Cochrane: Fishery Resources Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. Correspondence to S. M. Garcia: tel: C39 06 57056467; fax: C39 06 57053020; e-mail: serge.garcia@ fao.org.

Introduction
The EAF (Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries) framework has developed on the founding principles and conceptual goals emerging from the decades-long process of elaboration of the foundations for sustainable development, aiming at both human and ecosystem well-being (Garcia et al., 2003). Binding international instruments of great relevance to EAF have been adopted during the past three decades: the 1971 RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands; the 1973 CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the 1979 Bonn Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals; the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention; the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity; the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement; the process is still ongoing. The road to sustainable development is also paved by the outcome of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Development; the 1987 World Conference on Environment and Development; the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development; the 1995 Jakarta Mandate; the 2001 Reykjavk Conference; and the 2002 World Summit on

1 The views expressed are those of the authors and do not imply any endorsement by FAO.

Sustainable Development. All these instruments provide intersecting, sometimes contradictory, principles and conceptual goals. To organize these as an integrated framework for sheries, a process of selection and reformulation matured in the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the reference framework for sustainable sheries, addressing practically all the ecosystem considerations, principles, and conceptual goals needed for an EAF (Garcia et al., 2003). The FAO International Plans of Action aiming at conservation and management of sharks and a reduction of incidental catch of seabirds will contribute to the implementation of an EAF. The WSSD Plan of Implementation (WSSD-POI) requires, inter alia, the development and implementation of an ecosystem approach by 2012, together with: (i) the elimination of destructive shing practices; (ii) the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) and other time/area closures for the protection of nursery grounds; (iii) the adoption of coastal land-use and watershed planning; and (iv) the integration of economic sectors into marine and coastal area management. An EAF is not really a novelty. Its roots are deep in the early days of inland-water sheries, wildlife and forest management, so traditional shery management, as practiced by small-scale shing communities, was more

1054-3139/$30.00

2004 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

312

S. M. Garcia and K. L. Cochrane seriously takes all major ecosystem components and services e both structural and functional e into account in managing sheries, making a fundamental distinction between ecosystem components and services. Ecosystem components include familiar subjects of conventional sheries management (e.g. eets, target species, bycatch species), as well as specic functional groups (including habitats). Ecosystem services are the benets people obtain from ecosystems, including provisioning services, such as food, water, and recreation; regulating services, such as ood and disease control; cultural services, such as spiritual benets, and supporting services, such as nutrient cycling (Costanza et al., 1997; Alcamo et al., 2003). Fisheries management deals explicitly with provisioning services (yield, revenues, employment or, more generally, livelihood), but other services, particularly supporting ones, are usually not explicitly considered. Fisheries may have an impact on such other services that, in turn, may impact the productivity or resilience of sheries.
Downloaded from icesjms.oxfordjournals.org by guest on July 4, 2011

ecosystem-conscious than the modern, conventional management of large-scale sheries. During the past two decades, renewed interest for a more ecological approach to sheries has emerged inter alia in Australia, with the application of the Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) concept to sheries (Fletcher et al., 2002; http:// www.sheries-esd.com). It has also developed in the North Pacic (http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/reem/assess/default. htm), the Northeast Atlantic (http://www.europa.eu.int/ comm/sheries/greenpaper), the North Sea (http://www. ices.dk/iceswork/dialogue/index.asp; NCR, 1999), and the Antarctic (Constable et al., 2000). The concept is central to the Large Marine Ecosystems framework (Sherman et al., 1993). The implementation guidelines formally emerged at the 2001 Reykjavk Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (FAO, 2002, 2003) and will be complemented by the output of the IOCeSCOR Working Group 119 on Quantitative Ecosystem Indicators for Fisheries Management (http://www.ecosystemindicators. org/). What follows is based largely on the FAO Guidelines (FAO, 2003), and is a brief review of the global policy framework now available for EAF, looking at the implementation process required to adapt the adopted principles and conceptual goals to the reality of specic situations, focusing on the role of science and indicators.

The EAF paradigm

The goals of EAF are to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking into account the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic, and human components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to sheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries (FAO, 2003). The approach thus intends to foster the use of existing management frameworks, improving their implementation and reinforcing their ecological relevance, and will contribute signicantly to achieving sustainable development (Garcia, 2003). It is an extension of the conventional sheries management paradigm, and Figure 1 illustrates schematically the elements (and links) considered under a conventional sheries management approach, and the extension required. The latter is more a conceptual than a practical proposition, because todays management ranges broadly from free and open access with little or no regulations enforced, to fairly sophisticated rights-based management systems, including consideration of the impacts on non-target species. While conventional management aimed rhetorically at resource conservation, its history shows that, in practice, it aimed at conservation of livelihoods and employment, using resource conservation as a weak constraint (Holling, 1994). Improving conventional management implementation with the specic requirements for EAF will, therefore, not be a trivial exercise. Figure 1 is a sketchy representation of the typical situation. Its details might be argued, but it shows the complexity of the extension required by EAF. Classical concerns of conventional management, such as the need to reduce shing pressure and establish clearer user rights, need to be more forcefully addressed. A large array of the new societal concerns might already be successfully

Selected ecosystem issues

The most specic issues in EAF relate to the impact of sheries on the environment (including biodiversity and habitat), and the impact of the environment on sheries (including natural variability and climate change). Natural oscillations have been known for decades (Csirke and Sharp, 1984). They tend to be neglected in practice, because they are dicult to predict and their quantitative impact on resources is still often poorly understood, but their inclusion would certainly improve management performance (Cochrane and Stareld, 1992) and forecasts (Klyashtorin, 2001; Sharp, 2003). Ecosystem impacts of sheries relate, inter alia, to target stocks (e.g. abundance, productivity, size and species composition), non-target species (e.g. endangered species, bycatch, discards), and critical habitats. Other anthropogenic impacts on sheries (as well as on product quality) originate mostly from activities on land and in the coastal area. They include the introduction of alien material (fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants [POPs], hormones, sediments, alien species, pathogens, toxins), habitat degradation (through lling, dredging, habitat conversion, disruption of freshwater ow, interruption of migratory paths), and global climate change (Caddy and Grith, 1995). The National Research Council (1999) described ecosystem-based sheries management as .an approach that

EAF implementation guidelines

313

Downloaded from icesjms.oxfordjournals.org by guest on July 4, 2011

Figure 1. Ecosystem components and interactions addressed by EAF (modied from Garcia et al., 2003). Elements in black and emboldened specify the conventional shery management approach. Elements in grey and italics represent elements to add for EAF.

addressed by more-eective application of conventional approaches (National Research Council, 1999). From that perspective, a substantial part of an EAFs implementation is a well-trodden area for which sophisticated instruments and experience are available. However, other ecological considerations about direct and indirect consequences of sheries, as well as ecosystem services to human use, must be dealt with. The extension strategy recognizes the serious constraints faced by most sheries agencies, and encourages implementation using existing institutional infrastructures (sta, laws and regulations, mechanisms, control and surveillance systems, etc.), improving them as required. It assumes, however, that the shery sector and its governance can evolve as required without a more costly revolution. It assumes also that political will and industrys cooperation will be available to implement the changes at a rate deemed acceptable by society. In the process, the socio-economic situation of shers and related industries and the lack of alternative employment will be as much of a challenge as ever (Cochrane, 2000). Implementation of an EAF requires a nested set of processes at regional, national, sectoral, and local (e.g. shery) levels. Interconnected policies and strategies and plans might be developed at each level. While the main

conceptual steps may be similar for all levels, the focus, scope, means, and approaches may be dierent. This requires top-down guidance and decisions to develop an enabling institutional environment (e.g. through decentralization), within which the lower-level processes can develop. For an EAF, just as for conventional management, it is dicult to rank and adapt higher level goals and constraints to local situations, develop capacity at the proper level, ensure transparency, mobilize participation, and provide eective conict resolution and enforcement. The higher level of uncertainty inherent in an EAF requires also a capacity for the system to adapt as information improves. At the root of most problems, there is the overwhelmingly important issue of resource allocation (Cochrane et al., 1998).

Guidance for implementation

From concepts to operations
The main task for sheries authorities, with the participation of the stakeholders, is to turn the set of ethically and politically correct, but somewhat fuzzy, propositions and instructions of the global EAF framework into an

314

S. M. Garcia and K. L. Cochrane of many principles and goals in international instruments may have helped in reaching international consensus, it does not facilitate implementation, and substantial research is still needed to translate and adapt the global goals to operational objectives tailored to the local reality (Figure 2; FAO, 2003). The latter may relate to: (i) reducing the impact on target and non-target species, e.g. reducing capacity; (ii) protection or rehabilitation of habitats and biodiversity, e.g. through zoning and MPAs; (iii) reduction of risk to the resource and to people, e.g. by improving forecasts; (iv) improvement of food safety, e.g. lobbying for reduction of pollution; and (v) improvement and/or decentralization of governance. For each of these operational objectives, some indicators and reference values should be dened, agreed, and used to determine whether the objective is being achieved. The strategy includes the instruments, measures, technical regulations, and input/output controls needed to achieve them, based on an analysis of eectiveness, available resources, risks, etc. (Cochrane, 2002). It identies the necessary collaboration and establishes the mechanisms for interaction. It requires integrated planning; institutional development; risk assessment, management, and communication; valuation of environmental assets, etc. It outlines the implementation pathway and approaches, for instance specifying the approaches required to deal with precaution, participation, monitoring, reporting, and performance assessment, as well as the resources required. A central diculty lies in dening the group of genuine stakeholders, nding an appropriate compromise between representation of the largest possible range of interests and the need to keep interaction costs manageable. The management plan provides the details on the resources available, the stakeholders involved, the measures specic to the various sheries, and the enforcement mechanisms, and its development is not very dierent from that of a conventional one (Figure 3). It species expected

operational implementation process. Detailed guidance is already indirectly available. For instance, application of the sustainable development concept to capture sheries should, inter alia, lead to the use of sustainability indicators and reference values (FAO, 1999; Garcia and Staples, 2000), an approach successfully tested in Australia (Garcia et al., 2000; Fletcher et al., 2002). Similarly, the precautionary approach to sheries (FAO, 1996) will help to cope with the increased uncertainty, and experience in integrated assessments is available (National Research Council, 1999). A comprehensive review of the EAF concept is available (Garcia et al., 2003), as well as specic guidelines (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1999; Ward et al., 2002; FAO, 2003). The following sections address some of the guidance provided. One of the main tasks is to translate the generic and conceptual EAF framework into an operational one at regional, national, or local (e.g. ecosystem or shery) level. This involves appropriation of the global principles and concepts by the responsible administration, researchers, and main stakeholders at the appropriate levels. Just as a conventional management system, implementation of an EAF requires a policy, a strategy, and an operational management plan. The policy spells out clearly its commitments, so providing the backdrop against which the EAF is to be implemented. It selects among dierent options, based on political, scientic, and pragmatic considerations. It links national and local developments with the international policy framework and the legally binding or voluntary international agreements. It denes the main orientations of sheries and the high-level conceptual goals and constraints, connecting sheries management to sector-development planning, integrating socio-economic and environmental considerations. High-level goals may include: food security and safety; sustainable livelihoods in remote rural areas; environment and resource rehabilitation; economic eciency achieving human and ecosystem wellbeing; maintaining the ill-dened ecosystem integrity; reducing uncertainty for the industry; ensuring equity within and between generations; and promoting improved stewardship. These objectives are selected and ranked, in harmony with other areas of national policy development, e.g. for rural development, the environment, and the ocean. The policy also articulates the relations between national, local, and sectoral processes and responsibilities, organizing the interaction between them, so establishing the framework for conict resolution and decision. It identies the institutions involved, and outlines oversight mechanisms and information ow. Finally, the policy needs to deal with allocation and user rights, clarifying existing and future allocation instruments, as well as conict-management mechanisms. The strategy turns the conceptual goals into operational objectives, ranking them and dening the time frame within which they should be attained. While the fuzzy formulation

Downloaded from icesjms.oxfordjournals.org by guest on July 4, 2011

Figure 2. The EAF implementation process (modied from FAO, 2003).

EAF implementation guidelines

Scoping
(Fishery and area, stakeholders, broad issues

315

Background information and analysis Consultation with stakeholders Setting objectives

(Broad goals, operational objectives, indicators and performance measures) 3-5 years

Formulating action & rules Implementing & enforcing

1 year

Monitoring Short-term assessments & review Long-term policy review

boundaries; establishing fora for negotiations of multiple stakeholders; harmonizing legislation and regulations; establishing eective conict-management processes; ensuring decentralization, participation, and transparency. Human resource development will require training administrative sta, observers on board shing vessels, enforcement ocers, scientists and advisers, and shers, to optimize their interaction in the participatory processes. Research will need to be strengthened, improving data collection, integrated analysis and communication, developing a better understanding of the ecosystems functioning, evaluating policy and management options, and identifying trade-os, ensuring the use of appropriate assessment methodologies (including management performance and risk assessment), and identifying relevant indicators and reference points. Well-functioning information systems will be needed to support systems of indicators for dierent sheries and ecosystems, including large-scale multi-criteria descriptions of ecosystems such as GIS.
Downloaded from icesjms.oxfordjournals.org by guest on July 4, 2011

Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of the process of implementation, evaluation and adaptation of the EAF implementation plan (modied from FAO, 2003).

Information management

Management measures and cost

The diverse measures that might be contemplated include: (i) modication of shing gear or practice; (ii) closed areas to protect critical habitats, biodiversity, and life stages; (iii) improvement of vessel performance (in terms of energy use and pollution); (iv) control of shing eort and capacity; (v) harvest control; (vi) habitat modications or rehabilitation; (vii) restocking and stock enhancement; (viii) population manipulations, including introduction of alien species or culling; (ix) establishment of clear shing rights; (x) incentives to enhance behavioural change such as tradable rights, eco-labelling, taxes, or subsidies. The cost of management implementation is a perennial issue, and EAF can only increase it. A levy (or a tax on products) could be imposed in commercial sheries in exchange for the right to sh, but this would not seem appropriate for many small-scale sheries. Cost may be reduced through devolution of responsibilities and comanagement, self-management, and mobilization of social pressure to improve compliance, but this may require additional costs to improve local implementation capacity, coordination, and control.

outputs and outcomes, looking for overall performance. It identies indicators and reference values corresponding to the main objectives and constraints, through a process of interaction among the main stakeholders. It provides for feedback and adaptation as better information is obtained. The process involves the classical phases of: (i) scoping (mapping resources, issues, stakeholders, competing uses, existing rights); (ii) collection of background information and analyses (ex-ante assessments, strategic analysis, synergies, conicts); (iii) setting operational objectives (with indicators and reference points); (iv) formulation of decision rules; (v) implementation and enforcement; (vi) monitoring; (vii) ex-post assessment and review. Poor communication is a common problem in conventional management, but eective information management is indeed a sine qua non in an EAF. The participation of stakeholders requires an eective system to manage and distribute information. The guidance and experience accumulated in integrated coastal area management might be utilized eectively in the EAF implementation process (Scialabba, 1998).

Realistic time frame

The 2002 WSSD-POI deadlines did not result from any realistic planning. They require the use of an EAF by 2012, together with the elimination of destructive shing practices; establishment of networks of MPAs; adoption of time/ area closures for the protection of nursery grounds; adoption of coastal land-use and watershed planning; and integration into marine and coastal area management. The deadline may not be realistic because, according to the POI, problems such as illegal shing, overcapacity, and loss of biodiversity have to be largely solved before that date, while their

Capacity-building
The capacity available in sheries management institutions, particularly but not only in most developing countries, will usually not be sucient to implement an EAF eectively. Reinforcement will be needed, especially if responsibilities are decentralized. Better institutions will be needed, developing mechanisms for integrated planning; establishing functional interconnections between administrations dealing with sheries and environment within the ecosystem

316

S. M. Garcia and K. L. Cochrane would be a major error, however, to reduce implementation of an EAF to the use of some additional environmental or biodiversity indicators. An EAF is an integrated approach, and the availability of a set of ecological indicators and reference values is a necessary, but not a sucient, condition for its implementation. Ecosystem indicators and reference values can be of a bio-ecological, techno-economical, and socio-cultural nature, and relate to objectives and constraints. What appears as a constraint on one of the two conceptual axes of sustainable development (human and ecosystem well-being) often appears as an objective on the other axis. It is therefore advisable to express both as objectives, and to identify the relevant indicators and reference points marking a target, limit, or threshold (Garcia, 1996b). Those elements of the ecosystem that are directly related to management objectives or management performance and can be obtained without too much diculty need to be sorted out. Existing guidelines (FAO, 1999; Garcia and Staples, 2000) suggest that sustainability indicators for sheries should, in principle, cover stressors on the ecosystem, state of selected ecosystem components, and responses to the measures taken (compliance and performance). Although indicators may be organized in many dierent ways, FAO (2003) has adopted the hierarchical tree of the Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) framework (Figure 4). Numerous lists of candidate indicators exist already (Ward et al., 2002; FAO, 2003; Garcia, 2003). In developed countries, a large amount of data may be available e albeit rarely with the time-space coverage needed e and the challenge is to reduce the list to the essential EAF dashboard. In developing countries, the challenge is mainly to nd enough resources to ensure even a minimal set of indicators. The complexity of the elements that must be accounted for and the number of interacting objectives and indicators involved, impose the use of a representation system that facilitates review and reporting to policy-makers and the public at large (Garcia, 1994; FAO, 1996; Pitcher, 1999; Garcia and Staples, 2000). The hierarchical ESD framework (Garcia et al., 2000; Fletcher et al., 2002) might be

solution might depend, in part, on an early implementation of an EAF. Obviously, dierent administrations will establish their own target dates, based on local conditions, but pressure will be high to have something signicant to report at an eventual WSSD C 10 meeting.

Scientic issues
The role of the scientic community in collecting and organizing a wide range of data and information, analysing it in the perspective of improved policy and decisionmaking, and communicating the results to a broad audience, is fundamental. A considerable conversion of science has already been necessary to improve management performance (Hilborn, 1992; Holling, 1994; Garcia 1996a; Cochrane, 1999, 2000). Under an EAF, a more thorough conversion is required to extend the scope of assessments, better understand ecosystem functioning, tackle the issues of uncertainty and risk, improve forecasting capacity, apprehend natural variability, and navigate between neutral scientic advice and advocacy. However, the increase of the scope and sophistication of science in proportion to ecosystem complexity and escalating uncertainty is constrained by human and nancial resources, and an EAF needs to be robust to this scientic uncertainty (Cochrane, 1999). The challenge is substantial, inter alia, to: (i) address inter-sectoral issues in a multidisciplinary manner; (ii) deal eciently with data-poor situations; (iii) broaden the scope of information used to include shers knowledge, assessing their relevance and reliability and resolving apparently conicting signals; (iv) elaborating strategic information in a form usable by policy- and decisionmakers, and t for communication to the broader community of stakeholders; (v) provide ex-ante assessments as a basis for selecting an appropriate policy option as well as ex-post assessments as a basis for adaptive management.

Downloaded from icesjms.oxfordjournals.org by guest on July 4, 2011

Indicators and reference values

The role of indicators and reference values is as fundamental to an EAF as it is to conventional sheries management. It

Contribution to sustainable development Ecosystem well-being

Retained species Non-retained species

Human well-being

Capacity to achieve

Habitat

Target species 1 Target species 2

Figure 4. Simplied representation of the ESD hierarchical tree framework (after FAO, 1999).

EAF implementation guidelines particularly useful, because it provides a way of organizing issues, operational objectives, indicators, and reference values, explicitly requesting their ranking and weighting (Figure 3). Being easy to read and present, it may help to structure knowledge, support negotiations between stakeholders, or illustrate interactions.

317

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & USE Responsible fisheries

ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO FISHERIES
Conventional management
Target Resource Oriented Management (TROM) Multi-species

PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH TO FISHERIES

Discussion and conclusions

From a global perspective, an EAF is still in its very rst stages of implementation, although it may already be quite advanced in a few countries. It represents the only opportunity for sheries to become responsible and sustainable, but its implementation involves many challenges for the stakeholders. Policy-makers need to: (i) improve the image of sheries governance; (ii) identify the main operational objectives; (iii) allocate resources through appropriate systems of rights; (iv) identify the proper set of stakeholders and resolve the thorny issue of exclusion in an equitable manner; (v) maintain capture sheries production while reducing environmental impact; and (vi) lobby to reduce coastal pollution and degradation. Scientists need to: (i) identify eective and feasible measures; (ii) advise on boundaries that make both ecological and institutional sense; (iii) elaborate a conceptual equivalent to maximum sustainable yield for ecosystems (Hall, 1999; Murawski, 2000); (iv) identify a parsimonious set of ecosystem indicators and associated reference values; (v) credibly assess ecological risks; (vi) develop rehabilitation strategies; (vii) elaborate aordable transition pathways; and (viii) integrate social sciences. Industry needs to: (i) actively change the image of the profession; (ii) face the challenge of capacity reduction; (iii) adopt more environment-friendly gear and practices; and (iv) lobby for shing rights. Implementation of an EAF does not start from scratch, however, and progress is being made. Eorts made by the FAO to align its members shery legislation with the Code have led to introduction of relevant ecosystem-related provisions regarding target and non-target species, bycatch and discards, and protection of vulnerable species and habitats, together with general principles of environmental protection. Reference to the environment and habitats in legislation has been systematic since the early 1990s, as has reference to the ecosystem since about 1995. More eort is needed, though, to develop more specic regulations regarding individual species, gears, practices, and habitats, and to adopt a more integrated approach, simultaneously addressing rights and responsibilities, allocation and equity, resource conservation, and environmental protection in a transparent framework. Performance assessment and public information are not yet as part of the routine as they should be. The various development frameworks successively adopted are all largely overlapping and subsumed under the concepts of sustainable development or sustainable use. An interpretation of the connections is given in Figure 5.

Integrated management
(watershed, coastal zone, natural resources)

LIVELIHOOD APPROACH TO FISHERIES

Figure 5. Relations between various frameworks and approaches.

Although the elements might be organized in dierent ways, many EAF elements are also addressing other frameworks, and managers implementing an EAF are, de facto, also implementing a number of other, overlapping frameworks. This should provide synergies, generate economies of scale, and facilitate the implementation, facilitating dialogue between the dierent constituencies.

Downloaded from icesjms.oxfordjournals.org by guest on July 4, 2011

References
Alcamo, J., Ash, N. J., and Butler, C. D., et al. 2003. Ecosystem and human well-being. A framework for assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 245 pp. Caddy, J. F., and Grith, R. C. 1995. Living marine resources and their sustainable development. Some environmental and institutional perspectives. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 353. 167 pp. Cochrane, K. L. 1999. Complexity in sheries and limitations in the increasing complexity of sheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 917e926. Cochrane, K. L. 2000. Reconciling sustainability, economic eciency and equity in sheries: the one that got away? Fish and Fisheries, 1: 3e21. Cochrane, K. L. 2002. Fisheries management. In A Fishery Managers Guidebook. Management Measures and their Application, pp. 1e20. Ed. by K. L. Cochrane. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 424. 238 pp. Cochrane, K. L., Butterworth, D. S., de Oliveira, J. A. A., and Roel, B. A. 1998. Management procedures in a shery based on highly variable stocks and with conicting objectives: experiences in the South African pelagic shery. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 8: 177e214. Cochrane, K. L., and Stareld, A. M. 1992. The potential use of predictions of recruitment success in the management of the South African anchovy resource. South African Journal of Marine Science, 12: 891e902. Constable, A. J., de la Mare, W. K., Agnew, D. J., Everson, I., and Miller, D. 2000. Managing sheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 778e791. Costanza, R., dArge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., ONeill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253e260. Csirke, J., and Sharp, G. D. 1984. Reports of the Expert Consultation to Examine Changes in Abundance and Species

318

S. M. Garcia and K. L. Cochrane

sustainable development of marine capture sheries and an Australian example of their application. Ocean and Coastal Management, 43: 537e556. Garcia, S. M., Zerbi, A., Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T., and Lasserre, G. 2003. The ecosystem approach to sheries. Issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 443. 71 pp. Hall, S. J. 1999. Managing sheries within ecosystems: can the role of reference points be expanded? Aquatic Conservation, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 9: 579e583. Hilborn, R. 1992. Can sheries agencies learn from experience? Fisheries, 7(4): 6e14. Holling, C. S. 1994. New science and new investments for a sustainable biosphere. In Investing in Natural Capital. The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability, pp. 57e73. Ed. by A. M. Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Klyashtorin, L. B. 2001. Climate change and long-term uctuations of commercial catches. The possibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 410. 86 pp. Murawski, S. 2000. Denitions of overshing from an ecosystem perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 649e658. National Research Council. 1999. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 164 pp. Pitcher, T. J. 1999. Rapsh, a rapid appraisal technique for sheries, and its application to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular, 947. 76 pp. Scialabba, N. 1998. Integrated coastal area management and agriculture, forestry and sheries. FAO Guidelines. 256 pp. Sharp, G. D. 2003. Future climate change and regional sheries: a collaborative analysis. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 452. 75 pp. Sherman, K., Alexander, L. M., and Gold, B. D. (Eds). 1993. Large marine ecosystems. Stress, mitigation and sustainability American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. 376 pp. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Ecosystem-based shery management. NOAA-NMFS. A report to Congress by the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel. Ward, T., Tarte, D., Hegerl, E., and Short, K. 2002. Ecosystembased management of marine capture sheries. World Wide Fund for Nature, Australia. 80 pp.

Composition of Neritic Fish Resources, San Jose, Costa Rica, April 1983. FAO Fisheries Report, 291(1). 102 pp. FAO. 1996. Precautionary approach to capture sheries and species introductions. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 2. 60 pp. FAO. 1999. Indicators for sustainable development of marine capture sheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 8. 68 pp. FAO. 2002. Report of the Reykjavk Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, Reykjavk, Iceland, October 2001. FAO Fisheries Report, 658. 128 pp. (trilingual) FAO. 2003. Fisheries management. The ecosystem approach to sheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 4 (Suppl. 2). 112 pp. Fletcher, W. J., Chesson, J., Fisher, M., Sainsbury, K. J., Hundloe, T., Smith, A. D. M., and Whitworth, B. 2002. National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: the How To Guide for Wild Capture Fisheries. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Project 2000/145, Canberra, Australia. 120 pp. Garcia, S. M. 1994. The precautionary principle: its implications in capture sheries management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 22: 99e125. Garcia, S. M. 1996a. Fishery research and management: virtues and constraints of a symbiosis. In Fishery Resource Utilisation and Policy, pp. 174e195. Ed. by R. M. Meyer, et al. Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress, Theme 2. Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi. Garcia, S. M. 1996b. The precautionary approach to sheries and its implications for shery research, technology and management. An updated review. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 350/ 2. 75 pp. Garcia, S. M. 2003. A review of the ecosystem approach to ` sheries. In Pecheries Maritimes, Ecosystemes et Societes en ` Afrique de lOuest: un Demi-siecle de Changement. Ed. by M. Ba, P. Chavance, D. Gascuel, D. Pauly, and M. Vakily. Actes du Symposium International de Dakar (Senegal). ACP-UE. Garcia, S. M., and Staples, D. 2000. Sustainability reference systems and indicators for responsible marine capture sheries: a review of concepts and elements for a set of guidelines. Marine and Freshwater Research, 51: 385e426. Garcia, S. M., Staples, D. J., and Chesson, J. 2000. The FAO guidelines for the development and use of indicators for

Downloaded from icesjms.oxfordjournals.org by guest on July 4, 2011