A development of ecological risk screening with an application to fisheries off SW England

ICES Journal of Marine Science ICES Journal of Marine Science (2015), 72(3), 1092– 1104. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu167 Contribution to the Themed Section: ‘Risk Assessment’ Original Article A development of ecological risk screening with an application to fisheries off SW England 1 Fishworld Science, Lowestoft, UK Sea Fish Industry Authority, Origin Way, Europarc, Grimsby DN37 9TZ, UK 3 Tegen Mor Fisheries Consultants, Lelant, St Ives, Cornwall, UK 4 Sea Mammal Research Unit, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB, UK 5 Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, UK 2 *Corresponding author: e-mail: Cotter, J., Lart, W., de Rozarieux, N., Kingston, A., Caslake, R., Le Quesne, W., Jennings, S., Caveen, A., and Brown, M. A development of ecological risk screening with an application to fisheries off SW England. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72: 1092– 1104. Received 2 May 2014; revised 28 August 2014; accepted 2 September 2014; advance access publication 3 October 2014. A development of the ecological risk screening (ERS) technique, scale intensity and consequence analysis (SICA), is described and application to the varied fisheries and ecosystem off the southwest of England on behalf of an industry steering group (SG) is summarized. The purpose was to prioritize ecological risks systematically and consistently in relation to policy goals agreed by the SG. Scientists listed and advised on ecosystem components, their units (individual species, stocks, habitats, or communities) and attributes, as well as agents of change in the SW, their activities, and generalized effects relevant to the policy goals. A working group (WG) of fishers, fishery observers, technical advisors, and marine scientists paired each unit with the activity thought most likely to impact the most sensitive policy goal, then scored risk according to defined rules spatially, temporally, and as intensity and duration of effects. The geometric mean of the four scores, slightly adjusted for unscored factors if necessary, was the relative impact score (RIS). With this standardized method, the main aspects of risk were considered separately and independently, thereby assisting objective prioritization. Nineteen unit–activity pairs were listed as priority risks (RIS .3) in the SW region during a 2-d meeting that fully exploited the wide range of information and experience available at the WG. Socio-economics was not considered. The ERS for the SW was designed to be compatible with other similar ERSs that might be carried out for neighbouring marine regions. ERS can minimize extra monitoring needed for ecosystem management and, in principle, collaborating non-fishery agents of change could be included. By engaging all stakeholders in the setting of initial priorities for action and by assembling all available sources of information, ERS offers a useful starting point for holistic ecosystem management. Keywords: Celtic Sea, ecosystem approach to fisheries, ecosystem based fisheries management, ecological risk assessment, ecological risk screening, England (SW), English channel, SICA. Introduction Attempts to manage large aquatic systems can quickly become swamped by data describing the states of fisheries and other agents, the many species, physical habitats and communities present, and the ecological processes binding them all together. Although various multivariate methods are available to deal retrospectively with large numbers of indicators (see Table 3 in Cotter et al., 2009), a more purposeful and efficient strategy is to (i) decide policy goals for the aquatic system, (ii) use a comprehensive screening process to weed out the controllable activities of man posing least risk to # Crown copyright 2014. the achievement of those goals, and then (iii) to monitor only those indicators needed to inform about the state of the system in relation to the remaining, principal risks. In this way, monitoring can be more economical, interpretation of indicators is more direct, and the list of managerial action points can be shorter and more pertinent. Fletcher et al. (2005) describe a similar approach. Methods for screening large numbers of possible ecological risks posed by fisheries have been developed in Australia (Astles, 2008; Scandol et al., 2009). We refer to them collectively as ecological risk screening (ERS) methods within the wider field of ecological John Cotter 1*, William Lart 2, Nathan de Rozarieux 3, Al Kingston 4, Richard Caslake2, Will Le Quesne 5, Simon Jennings 5, Alex Caveen2, and Mary Brown 5 Ecological risk screening with an application to fisheries off SW England consequence × ranked likelihood (Fletcher, 2005), and separate spatial and temporal scoring of the worst case for each component that feeds flexibly into an intensity score “judged based on the scale of the activity, its nature, and extent” (Hobday et al., 2007, p. 61). Our interest in ERS was motivated by fishers and processors based in the SW of England who had been asked to respond to questions from fish retailers about possible overfishing and ecological damage associated with the different fisheries operating from ports in Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset (Figure 1). Details of the fisheries are given elsewhere (Cotter et al., 2006; Walmsley and Pawson, 2007). Five teleost species found in the SW (cod, plaice, Dover sole, whiting, and haddock) received full, annual analytical assessments for management under the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) but the results were too focused to answer the general ecological questions being asked. Fishery certification schemes, for example by the Marine Stewardship Council, might have provided fuller answers, but fishers were concerned about the delays and costs of certification. ERS was proposed as a more immediate and cost-effective solution. This paper presents a development of ERS derived from SICA and implemented on behalf of a steering group (SG) of fishers Figure 1. The SW marine ecosystem (ICES VIIe– h) defined for ERS conducted in 2013. The darkened coastline indicates the moorings of included fisheries. risk assessment (ERA; Burgman, 2005). They include (i) the national ecologically sustainable development method (Fletcher, 2005); (ii) scale intensity and consequence analysis (SICA) which is level 1 of the hierarchical, ERA of the effects of fishing (ERAEF; Hobday et al., 2007); and (iii) qualitative ERA (QERA; Astles et al., 2006). All these methods involve subjective but systematic discussions of lists of potential ecological issues with respect to agreed policy goals at a working group (WG) of interested and informed people. The methods can be ecologically comprehensive, make use of all available sources of information—including publications, theses, and advice from specialists—and can directly engage stakeholders thereby boosting their acceptance of the findings (Fletcher, 2005). The policy goals might originate (...truncated)