RFB/II/2001/Inf.7  |
| RFB/II/2001/Inf.7 |
The Development of
Indicators of Sustainable Development (ISD)
in Fisheries
CONTENTS
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Pressure-State-Response framework
Figure 2: Frameworks of Indicator Analysis
List of Tables:
Table 1. Examples of PSR indicators according to indicator framework dimensions adopted by the Commission on Sustainable Development (from FAO 2000)
Table 2: Methodology Sheet for Indicators
"Indicators of sustainable development need to be developed to provide solid bases for decision-making at all levels and to contribute to the self-regulating sustainability of integrated environment and development systems."
Chapter 40.4 of Agenda 21, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992
Indicators are signposts that offer decision-makers (and their clients) information that can provide - for a given attribute of the fishery system - the following:
_ the current state and trends;
_ the pressure points;
_ the impacts or effects of states, trends and interventions;
_ feedback on the required adjustments to interventions;
_ the milestones achieved or missed.
From the time when UNCED declared the above statement and the UN formed the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), there has been much progress on the development of ISD through:
_ building consensus on the need for international standards for indicators (through the second and third sessions of the CSD and subsequent CSD programmes) (Federal Planning Bureau of Belgium 1997);
_ extending the general theory of indicators to the issues of sustainable development, which have been hitherto focussed mainly on economic/financial indicators such as GDP, etc. (Bossel 1999, Meadows 1998);
_ devising and establishing the practice of indicator development through frameworks and methodologies (FAO 1999b, Hardi and Zdan 1997, Moldan et al 1997); and
_ developing training materials for indicator selection, formulation and analysis. (See for example Pinter et al 2000, which focuses primarily on environmental assessment.)
A system of indicators or references that cover the complexity and scale of a fisheries system needs to be developed in order to demonstrate that the conduct of the work of decision-makers has been, is currently, or will be in accordance with sustainable development principles. The SDRS for a RFB would typically be undertaken by a working group (or groups) with the following tasks:
1. Specify the scope of the SDRS: this is generally already implicit in the mandate of the RFB, i.e. species, boundaries, nature and influence of coastal geography, participants (members and fishing capacity) and special issues (State's status, endangered species, etc).
2. Framework for indicator development: Choose the framework appropriate to the scale of indicator requirements, i.e. how much detail is required? For example, is it important to know what driving forces are on foreign fleets to maintain a regional presence, e.g. an indicator of the importance of the catch to the distant -water fishing nation's markets, or is this unimportant? Decide on the process approach and the dimensions (usually environment (resource and ecosystem), social, economic and governance, as adopted by the CSD).
3. Specify criteria, objectives, potential indicators and reference points: Establish the most important criteria that are to be managed for each dimension, e.g. environment - target species abundance; social - participation; economic - total catch; governance - property right. Establish the objectives for each and possible range of indicators that best reflect targets and current status.
4. Choose the set of indicators and reference points: test, including simulation where possible, and choose the set of indicators and reference points that:
1) are appropriate to the task,
2) there is capacity to measure and
3) are readily understandable to decision makers, where appropriate.
5. Specify the methods of aggregation and visualisation: select a method for presentation of an indicator that is understandable, say by scaling, scoring or graphic methods.
An ISD framework is a convenient way to organise indicators in relation to the four dimensions of sustainable development. Organising indicators according to a framework allows a clearer understanding of the linkages between them, and the information required for their measurement. Indeed, frameworks offer a means to enable practical indicator selection where none exist, or adaptation of existing ones where they prove inadequate for the task.
There are many frameworks available and the choice of framework can reflect the scope of the system being assessed and the policy priorities that the indicators are designed to inform. The most common process framework is the Pressure-State-Response framework. This is illustrated in detail in Figure 1, and variants are outlined in Figure 2.
Figure 1: Pressure-State-Response framework
(Australia Department of Environment Sports and Territories, 1994, reported in Pinter 2000)
The Commission on Sustainable Development's indicator framework adopts a structural approach to all development domains by placing indicators in the four dimensions - environmental (ecosystem/resource), social, economic and institutional/ governance dimensions. These frameworks provide a first step in identifying ISDs. Combining the dimensions with the processes conveniently subdivides and classifies the task, as in table 1 below in which a few indicators are specified as examples.
Figure 2: Frameworks of Indicator Analysis - what level of detail is required?
Table 1. Examples of PSR indicators according to indicator framework dimensions adopted by the Commission on Sustainable Development (from FAO 2000)
Dimensions |
Pressure |
State |
Response |
Environment (Ecosystem/
|
· Total catch
|
· Biomass / target B
|
· TAC/sustainable yield
|
Social |
· Fishing effort
|
· Number of fishers
|
· Unemployment assistance
|
Economic |
· Sector unemployment
|
· Profitability
|
· Economic incentives and disincentives (e.g. subsidies, taxes, buy back)
|
Institutions/ governance |
· Employment policies
|
· % resources assessed
|
· % resources assessed
|
1.
FAO is a key contributor1 to the work of the CSD, which, by consensus, has adopted the Driving Force-State-Response (DSR) framework for indicators, another process variant that reflects in the simplest way the development perspective of the system, i.e. what is it all for, what is driving it?
The standard CSD approach - using the Driving Force-State-Pressure framework - is to evolve a set of indicators that can be used for sustainable development using the following general methodology sheet, which is structured as follows.
Table 2: Methodology Sheet for Indicators
At the time of writing the overall indicator set for sustainable development contains 134 indicators, five of which relate to Chapter 17: Protection of the Ocean, all Kinds of Seas, including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
The methodology sheet is a useful framework for the definition of a wide variety of indicators (whether used at a regional or global level, or specifically for the CSD indicator system).
The Commission for Sustainable Development has published two indicators according to the above ISD framework (Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and Releases of nitrogen and phosphorous to coastal waters); and three are under development (Population growth in coastal areas, Discharges of oil into coastal waters, and Algae index). (see http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/indisd/english/chapt17e.htm).
The relevance of MSY to RFBs is clear and the methodology sheet prepared by FAO and published on the web by the CSD is at Annex 1. Other indicators may be described in a similar way.
Applebaum, B and A. Donohue. 1999. The Role of Regional Fisheries Organizations, in Ellen Hey (Ed.), Developments in International Fisheries Law, Kluwer Law International. |
Bossel, H. 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: theory, method, applications. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, Canada. |
Chesson, J. and H. Clayton. 1998 A framework for assessing fisheries with respect to ecologically sustainable development. Fisheries Resources Branch, Australia. |
FAO. 2000. Indicators for Sustainable Development of Marine Capture Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fishing, No.8. |
Federal Planning Bureau of Belgium. 1997. Launching the testing of indicators of sustainable development. Report of the Second International Workshop of Ghent, Belgium, 20-22 November 1996. |
Garcia, S.M. (in press) The FAO definition of sustainable development and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: an analysis of the related principles criteria and indicators. Paper prepared for the Australian-FAO Technical Consultation on Sustainability Indicators for Marine Capture Fisheries, Sydney, Australia,18-22 January 1999. Marine and Freshwater Research. |
Garcia, S.M. and D. Staples (in press) Sustainability Reference Systems and indicators for responsible marine capture fisheries: a review of concepts and elements for a set of Guidelines. Paper prepared for the Australian-FAO Technical Consultation on Sustainability Indicators for Marine Capture Fisheries, Sydney, Australia,18-22 January 1999. Marine and Freshwater Research. |
Hardi, P. and T. Zdan (eds) 1997. Assessing Sustainable Developments: Principles in practice. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, Canada. |
Meadows, D. 1998. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development. The Sustainability Institute, Vermont. |
Moldan, B., B. Billharz and R. Matravers (eds). 1997. Sustainability Indicators: A report on the project on indicators in sustainable development. SCOPE Scientific Committee on Problems in the Environment. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. |
Pinter, L., K. Zahedi and D Cressman. 2000. Capacity Building for Integrated Environmental Assessment and Reporting: Training Manual. IISD/UNEP. |
UNCED 1994. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Agenda 21 Protection of the Oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. And coastal areas and protection, rational use and development of their living resources. |
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD FOR FISHERIES | ||
Environmental |
Chapter 17 |
State |
1. Indicator
(a) Name: This indicator can be: (i) the ratio between maximum sustained yield (MSY) abundance and actual average abundance; or (ii) the deviation in stock of marine species from the MSY level.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator is an expression of the state of fishery resource exploitation to its sustainable size.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Ocean, all Kinds of Seas, including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator expresses the state of the fishery resource and/or its level of exploitation, in relation to either the MSY, or to virgin stock size. If spawning stock size is available, it has the further refinement of providing some indication of reproductive capacity of the resource.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: If a resource biomass is at or below that believed to apply under MSY conditions, or if the fishing effort or fishing mortality is at or above that believed to apply under the same conditions, there must be serious concern that the resource may currently be overexploited. This is not only because MSY conditions imply a level of fishing effort that is in excess of economically optimal harvesting, and has other biological impacts on target and associated species, but because the precision with which the underlying quantities used in these indices are measured is relatively low. Estimates of population biomass or cohort size, even in developed country fisheries, rarely are more precise than + or - 20%. Such a low precision presents a significant risk that fishing may be more intensive than is apparently measured by the indices, and that sustainable development options are possibly being compromised. Other more conservative and sophisticated indicators may be appropriate in particular circumstances (see United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] reference in section 7 below).
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to the other measures proposed for marine resources in Agenda 21. In a more general sense, it is also linked to socio-economic indicators, such as population growth rate.
(d) Targets: The concept of using benchmarks and reference points as targets has been partly abandoned in recent fisheries conventions (see section 3e below). Given the great uncertainty with the stock size and condition of sea stocks, especially marine open stocks, two types of management benchmarks are now proposed (See FAO reference in section 7 below). These are Target Reference Points (TRPs) focusing on the classical objectives of fisheries management; and Limit Reference Points (LRPs) which represent upper limits to the rate of fishing or fishing effort level (or lower limits to the population biomass or spawning biomass) that should not be passed. It is specified in the Conventions below that when LRPs are approached, action should be taken to ensure they are not exceeded.
With respect to national policy for exclusively national stocks, TRPs and LRPs should be estimated using the best scientific information available, and a precautionary approach applied where such information is inadequate. In the case of straddling, highly migratory, or transboundary stocks, such reference points and a joint exploitation strategy should be developed with other states sharing the same stock.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Draft Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Doc A/CONF 164/33), particularly Annex II, and of course the 1982 Convention itself, are of immediate relevance. The other significant draft agreement is the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which applies to all fisheries in marine and freshwater, and whose Article 6 also recommends the use of LRPs and TRPs.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The measures used to provide the ratio indicators for MSY are well known, and described in a number of texts on fisheries assessment and population dynamics. The approach is based on the application of general production models.
It is felt that only one indicator based on Maximum Sustainable Yield is not the best way to measure the state of resource exploitation. Under these circumstances, a more empirical approach to developing indicators may be appropriate for a particular fishery; or a customized indicator may be developed from those given in the FAO reference listed in section 7 below which reflects the particular methodologies used for assessment of the resource in question. The MSY indicator is obtained by fitting the relationship between yield and fishing effort for a historical series of catch and effort data by a production model, but roughly equivalent indicators can be obtained from size or age based methods of analysis.
Fishing at the MSY level is now seen to be excessive, and determining MSY where it is not yet known, involves overfishing, which is obviously undesirable. Unfortunately, none of a number of alternative benchmarks for lower rates of fishing, such as described in the FAO report listed in section 7 below are widely accepted, so no obvious single alternative benchmark emerges. For many global fish stocks, MSY levels have not yet been determined.
Where MSY estimates are available, it should of course be possible to determine whether the fishing effort level corresponding to MSY (fMSY), or the corresponding fishing mortality rate (FMSY), is currently being exceeded or not. Depending on the fisheries management methodology used in a country, it may be possible, as an alternative, to say if the current biomass or spawning biomass of a particular stock has fallen below that corresponding to MSY (BMSY).
An alternative indicator that is commonly used to measure the state of the marine fisheries resources, and could be used instead of MSY-related indicators where these do not exist, is to specify what is the current biomass, or spawning biomass, as a percentage of the virgin biomass B0, determined by surveys or other estimates of unexploited stock size, before the fishery had been established.
In summary, four alternative indicators are proposed:
(i) Ratio of current effort to that at MSY: (fNOW/fMSY);
(ii) Ratio of current fishing mortality rate to that at MSY: (FNOW/FMSY);
(iii) Ratio of current population biomass (or spawning biomass) to that at MSY: (BMSY/BMSY);
(iv) Current biomass to that under virgin conditions, that is, before fishing began: (BNOW/B0).
The above indicators are given as ratios, they are pure numbers, as are the instantaneous rates of fishing mortality. It is generally possible to cross-reference these indicators under specific assumptions, so that the apparent diversity of indices simply provides a choice that allows for the different information sources available under different fishery management regimes. In all cases, the indicator could be expressed in terms of the ratio and the component numerical values being divided.
(b) Measurement Methods: The measurement methods for each of the alternative indicators are described below:
i) fNOW/fMSY]: The current effort level given in standard units adjusted for changes in fleet fishing power over time, is expressed as a ratio or percentage of the effort level under MSY conditions, where these prevailed and were estimated in the past.
ii) FNOW/FMSY: An instantaneous rate of fishing mortality F, is defined by the ratio of the natural logarithm of numbers for fully exploited cohorts now in the fishery at the beginning N(t), and end N(t+1) of the year, allowing for the instantaneous rate of mortality due to natural causes, M:F = [ln N(t) - ln N(t+1)] - M. This is calculated for the most recent year, [FNOW] and for the period when MSY conditions were believed to have applied, and the ratio taken.
iii) BMSY/BMSY: The biomass (or spawning biomass of mature animals) is determined for the most current year (for example, by trawl surveys) and compared with that level of biomass (or spawning biomass) when MSY conditions were believed to have applied.
iv) BNOW/B0: The biomass (or specific spawning biomass of mature animals) is determined for the most current year (for example, by trawl surveys) and compared with the level of biomass (or spawning biomass) before commercial exploitation began. Under a commonly-used population model, the logistic, MSY conditions occur when the stock size is reduced to 50% of the virgin stock size: that is, when this indicator shows values of 0.5 or lower.
MSY and biomass are usually specified in tonnes (1000 kg), and fishing effort either in standard number of days per year fished or total standard fleet horsepower (see Gulland reference in section 7 below).
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator provides a measure of the State of the fisheries resource resulting from the pressure of human activities.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The major defect of the MSY concept, and of these indicators, is that MSY is determined by fitting an empirical "control curve" of catch on exploitation intensity or effort. This does not always fully reflect processes of birth and death, effects of exploitation on non-target species, or inter-species interactions, nor does it reflect changes in methodology of fishing. To improve management, it is important that countries collect ancillary data (for example, on size and age composition of catches and populations) that can be used to produce more refined indicators of value for the management of the resource, as their research funds and skilled manpower allow.
For many countries, suitable data to calculate these indicators are scarce. In addition, major deficiencies are characteristic of many available data sets. For example, there are serious deficiencies in data series for annual catch due to poor statistical design, lack of consideration of catches by small scale fleets, or problems where the extent and nature of unit resources have not been defined, or sharing taken into account. Not all national statistical offices collect the required data. In such cases, research institutes estimates are often developed from special research information collected and analysed by one or several qualified scientists.
(e) Alternative Definitions: See sections 4a and 4b above.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data are required for annual catch, fishing effort, fishing mortality rates, biomass estimates, and stock size and age. Other supplementary data needs may be proposed, such as mean size or age in the catch (which goes down with fishing pressure); the percentage of mature fish in the catch, the overall instantaneous mortality rate, and the proportion of long-lived fish in the catch (for a multispecies fishery). These are of value to resource management, if they can be referred to the exploitation rate by human harvesting, specified as the target and limit conditions set as management reference points.
(b) Data Availability: Most countries collect data on annual catch. Not many countries maintain data on fishing effort by national fleets; still fewer standardize effort levels by different fleets and arrive at an annual total. Unless size and age compositions are collected and/or estimated from properly sampled catches in ports, fishing mortality rates will not be estimated, which in any case requires a cadre of trained fisheries scientists working in an equipped fisheries or marine science laboratory. Regular direct biomass estimates will require regular fisheries surveys using standard vessels and procedures with trained observers/fisheries biologists on board.
(c) Data Sources: National statistical offices often collect data on catches, and fleet size, but often require assistance in distinguishing species in the catch. At present, effort and mortality estimates, and other biological information used to develop the indicators mentioned above, are almost always performed by national marine resource institutes or universities.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The fisheries laboratories of the North Atlantic countries, particularly the UK, Canada and USA, and International Fisheries Commissions (notably the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (now defunct)) have sponsored the earliest applications of these indicators. The work of the International Center for living Aquatic resources Management (ICLARM), Manila has been aimed at applying these concepts in tropical fisheries.
7. Further Information
· Food and Agriculture Organization. Reference Points for Fishery Management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 347. 1995.
· Gulland, J.A. Fish Stock Assessment. Volume 1 FAO/Wiley Series on Food and Agriculture. 1983.
· Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment. Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc. 1992.
1 Through the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department.