May/June 2009
Update on Quantitative Ecosystem Teams
The Quantitative Ecosystem Teams held their first meeting on April 29 in College Park, Maryland. The meeting included a plenary session with presentations from Mike Wilberg (UMCES), Dave Secor (UMCES), and Tom Miller (UMCES) on the use of ecosystem based reference points and the role of stakeholders in EBFM and an introduction to the EBFM project by Jon Kramer (Director, MDSG) and the Striped Bass Species Team work by Shannon Green (Fisheries Ecosystem Coordinator, MDSG). Each QET met individually for the afternoon portion of the meeting to develop their initial work plans for generating ecosystem based reference points to address the ecosystem issues identified by the Striped Bass Species Team.
The work plans for the QETs identify short (6 months), mid (1-2 years), and long-term (5 years) goals for generating ecosystem based reference points and completing other EBFM related tasks. For example, the Habitat Suitability QET is addressing different aspects of climate change relative to striped bass over these three time horizons by developing reference points to address the relationship between warming and hypoxia within the next six months and developing reference points to address the relationship between flow, dissolved oxygen, and temperature relative to climate change within the next five years as more impacts of climate change are realized. While the ultimate long-term goal of EBFM is the development of EBFMPs for the five key species, the QET work plans provide a process by which scientists may put critical information about ecosystem issues impacting Chesapeake Bay fisheries in the hands of fisheries managers prior to the finalization of EBFMPs. Some of these work products, such as the draft human ecology map for Chesapeake Bay fisheries developed by the Socioeconomic QET, will become available for consideration by fishery managers rather quickly. Equally important, this process allows scientists to re-visit or address new ecosystem concerns shared by fisheries managers in the region which may arise once the EBFMPs are complete and establishes a system for long-term EBFM planning for Chesapeake Bay.
Update on Species Teams
The Menhaden and Blue Crab Species Teams will complete their work in mid-July and Maryland Sea Grant plans on distributing their ecosystem issue briefs to fishery managers and the Quantitative Ecosystem Teams in August 2009. Additionally, the Alosine Species Team has been populated and the team will hold their first conference call on July 1, 2009 to discuss their work plan for identifying the critical ecosystem issues for Alosine species in the Chesapeake Bay.
Integrating Human Ecology into Ecosystem Based Fishery Management for Chesapeake Bay
Shannon Green, Fisheries Ecosystem Coordinator, Maryland Sea Grant and Ph.D. Candidate, Marine Policy, College of Earth and Ocean Studies, University of Delaware
Ben Blount, Ph.D., SocioEcological Informatics
Human ecology refers to the relationship between humans and their natural and social environments (Vayda and McCay 1975). Humans in societies relate to each other and to natural environments mainly on the basis of culture, an experientially based information system. (Paolisso and Maloney 1999, Blount 2007) Culture is the key concept in human or cultural ecology which recognizes the importance of humans and their role and interactions with the environment in the discipline (Blount 1999; Sutton and Anderson 2004). Viewed through the lens of human ecology, humans are a critical component of the ecosystem — one of many species that interact with the natural environment (Catton and Dunlap 1980). This view is now an important consideration in ecosystem approaches to management (Slocombe 1993, Lackey 1998, Sissenwine and Murawski 2004, Field and Francis 2006). Accordingly, ecosystem based fisheries management (EBFM) requires thoughtful identification of stakeholders and their respective interests, investments, and roles in managing fisheries resources. Moving from traditional fisheries management to this much more holistic ecosystem-based approach greatly broadens the pool of interested stakeholders (Sissenwine and Murawski 2004). For example, the stakeholders involved in traditional fisheries management may include watermen, allied fishing interests (e.g., bait and tackle store owners), the seafood industry, and environmental advocates, among others typically considered to have close ties to Chesapeake Bay fisheries. With EBFM the landscape should expand to include such sectors as agriculture, marine transportation, land use managers, developers, and power plants, as we consider how to manage ecosystem issues such as watershed development, invasive species, and hypoxia. These were among the key ecosystem issues recommended by the Striped Bass Species Team. However, as we move to include these other interests, delineating the human ecology of EBFM quickly becomes a complex task.
One of the challenges faced by EBFM planners in Chesapeake Bay is the lack of practical examples or roadmaps for defining and integrating human ecology into EBFM. Identifying and engaging new stakeholder groups within the expansive terrain of EBFM is complicated and requires multiple layers of expertise within the social sciences. To initiate this process, Maryland Sea Grant and the Socioeconomic Quantitative Ecosystem Team (QET) will be working to develop a series of products that identify EBFM stakeholders in Chesapeake Bay and integrate them into the current EBFM structure and process. As an initial step, the Socioeconomic QET has developed the draft human ecology map pictured below to identify the respective roles of stakeholders linked to the Chesapeake Bay fisheries targeted for EBFM planning (Figure 1).
Figure 1: DRAFT Human Ecology Map of Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Targeted for EBFM
Figure 1 provides a conceptual diagram of the inter-relationships between humans, aquatic species, and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The human ecology map includes both traditional and new stakeholder groups considered in EBFM. As illustrated, humans are a key component of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem given the ecosystem approach being employed.
Development of the human ecology map will allow the Socioeconomic QET, and fisheries managers, to begin considering which entities need to be engaged as EBFM planning moves forward. In addition, Ashley Enrici a graduate student in applied anthropology from the University of Maryland, College Park will be working at Maryland Sea Grant this summer. Ashley will focus on the role of EBFM stakeholders under the guidance of the Socioeconomic QET. She is currently developing a comprehensive list of stakeholders and a plan for bringing them into EBFM planning in Chesapeake Bay. Ultimately, engaging EBFM stakeholders will be a long-term iterative process as new ecosystem issues arise and the impacts of EBFM extend into other sectors requiring new management paradigms that impact a more diverse group of interested parties.
Please contact Shannon Green, Fisheries Ecosystem Coordinator for Maryland Sea Grant, for further information. Thank you! sgreen@mdsg.umd.edu (301) 405-6372
References
Blount, B. G. 2007. Culture and resilience among shrimpers on the Georgia coast. Maritime Studies 5:5-26.
Catton, W. R. and R. E. Dunlap. 1980. A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant society. American Behavioral Scientist 24:15-47.
Field, J. C. and R. C. Francis. 2006. Considering ecosystem-based fisheries management in the California Current. Marine Policy 30:552-569.
Lackey, R. T. 1998. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning 40:21-30.
Paolisso, M. and R. S. Maloney. 1999. Recognizing farmer environmentalism: nutrient runoff and dinoflagellate blooms in the Chesapeake Bay region. Human Organization 59:209-221.
Sissenwine, M. and S. Murawski. 2004. Moving beyond 'intelligent tinkering': advancing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 274:291-295.
Slocombe, D. S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management. BioScience 43:612-622.
Vayda, A. P. and B. J. McCay. 1975. New directions in ecology and ecological anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 4:293-306.
|
List of Updates September 2010 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 May/June 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008
|
