Knowledge-based systems as decision support tools in an ecosystem approach to fisheries: Comparing a fuzzy-logic and a rule-based approach

In an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF), management must draw on information of widely different types, and information addressing various scales. Knowledge-based systems assist in the decision-making process by summarising this information in a logical, transparent and reproducible way. Both rule-based Boolean and fuzzy-logic models have been used successfully as knowledge-based decision support tools. This study compares two such systems relevant to fisheries management in an EAF developed for the southern Benguela. The first is a rule-based system for the prediction of anchovy recruitment and the second is a fuzzy-logic tool to monitor implementation of an EAF in the sardine fishery. We construct a fuzzy-logic counterpart to the rule-based model, and a rule-based counterpart to the fuzzy-logic model, compare their results, and include feedback from potential users of these two decision support tools in our evaluation of the two approaches. With respect to the model objectives, no method clearly outperformed the other. The advantages of numerically processing continuous variables, and interpreting the final output, as in fuzzy-logic models, can be weighed up against the advantages of using a few, qualitative, easy-to-understand categories as in rule-based models. The natural language used in rule-based implementations is easily understood by, and communicated among, users of these systems. Users unfamiliar with fuzzy-set theory must “trust” the logic of the model. Graphical visualization of intermediate and end results is an important advantage of any system. Applying the two approaches in parallel improved our understanding of the model as well as of the underlying problems. Even for complex problems, small knowledge-based systems such as the ones explored here are worth developing and using. Their strengths lie in (i) synthesis of the problem in a logical and transparent framework, (ii) helping scientists to deliberate how to apply their science to transdisciplinary issues that are not purely scientific, and (iii) representing vehicles for delivering state-of-the-art science to those who need to use it. Possible applications of this approach for ecosystems of the Humboldt Current are discussed.     

Organizing coordination for an ecosystem approach to marine research and management advice: The case of ICES

This study examines the reorganization of formal coordination structures of a unique international public organization involved in marine governance in Europe, namely the structural reorganizations of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) between 1999 and 2009. The findings indicate that the reorganizations of ICES’ formal coordination structures were not driven primarily for reasons of efficiency, by clear and consistent goals, and by clear means-ends considerations for organizational design as proposed by rational perspectives in organization theory. Instead, the formal coordination structures have also been adapted to live up to changing expectations in the institutional environment, to modern management concepts in marine governance such as the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM), and to ensure the legitimacy of the organization. However, it is also found that institutional explanations alone are insufficient to comprehensively understand why the formal organizational structures of ICES were reorganized. Instrumental and cultural perspectives in organization theory as well as resource-dependence theory additionally add to understand how ICES responded to external demands and why organizational structures have been changed.     

Efficacy of rights-based management of small pelagic fish within an ecosystems approach to fisheries in South Africa

South Africa's small pelagics fishery is moving towards a management strategy using an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF), with rights-based management (RBM) as the key rights allocation system. While EAF strives to balance between, among others, ecological and social-economic objectives, RBM is driving the sector towards economic efficiency. Within EAF itself, there are still underlying mismatches between the two top objectives, ‘human wellbeing’ and ‘ecological wellbeing’, in effect requiring a better balance between these objectives than there is currently. For example, fishers do not believe they should be competing with marine mammals and birds for allocation of the resource, yet this is one of the primary trade-offs that have to be made when setting the annual total allowable catches (TACs) under EAF. A balance between the two objectives could be achieved through acceptable trade-offs between them among all stakeholders within inclusive governance. Implementation of RBM has had both positive and negative effects on the objectives for EAF. Of concern are the negative effects of RBM on human wellbeing. For example, fishers feel that RBM has weakened their bargaining position, thereby reducing their benefits. In addition, RBM has resulted in job losses and insecurity of employment within the fisheries sector. The most affected have been the most vulnerable — the low level workers — who ought to be the key beneficiaries of RBM. Thus prioritising and protecting vulnerable groups and fishing communities need careful consideration when creating RBM, even in the context of EAF. Rights-based management has also had negative effects on ecological wellbeing through practices such as increased dumping and ‘high grading’ as part of industry's drive for increased efficiency under RBM. Whereas scientists believe that variability is largely due to environmental conditions, fishers strongly feel that dumping, high grading and high fishing pressure are the main factors. One of the positive aspects of RBM has been improved understanding among rights-holders and fishers of the need to consider other organisms in the TAC and to protect these through establishment of marine protected areas, island perimeter closures and limiting bycatch, thereby impacting positively on ecological wellbeing.     

An evaluation of the Marine Living Resources Act and supporting legal instruments as a framework for implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries in South Africa

The Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA), which was enacted in 1998, is the primary legislation addressing South Africa's marine fisheries. In June 2012, another important instrument, the Policy for the Small Scale Fisheries Sector (SSFP) in South Africa, was adopted to rectify the exclusion of many small-scale fishers from access to resources, that had resulted from weaknesses in the MLRA. This paper assesses the MLRA, aspects of the SSFP and selected other subsidiary policies and regulations in relation to current best-practices, especially the extent to which they support an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF). The study concludes that there are some serious gaps and shortcomings in the MLRA that should be addressed. These include, among others, the need to: (i) revise the MLRA so as to incorporate requirements for open and transparent management and governance; (ii) entrench the principles of co-management, emphasised in the SSFP, for all fisheries; and (iii) include a legal requirement for detailed management plans for all fisheries. Despite these shortcomings, there has been considerable progress in implementation of EAF, at least in the country's bigger fisheries. However, this should not be seen as a justification for avoiding or delaying a revision of the MLRA to bring it into line with modern best-practices as encompassed by EAF.