Language selection

Search

Terms of Reference

Pilot Application of an Ecological Risk Assessment Framework to Inform Ecosystem-based Management in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area

Regional Peer Review Meeting - Pacific Region

June 25-27, 2013
Nanaimo, BC

Chairperson: John Holmes

Context

Canada's Oceans Act and Oceans Strategy commit Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to leading the development and implementation of a sustainable, precautionary and integrated ecosystem approach to oceans management. The development of a risk-based framework to identify and prioritize management issues for Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) represents an important step toward meeting these commitments.

An Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) was developed by a team of DFO Oceans and Science staff in Pacific Region and reviewed at a Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat-Pacific (CSAP) Regional Peer Review (RPR) meeting in May 2012 (DFO 2012).  The ERAF is a framework for assessing single and cumulative risks to valued ecosystem components (VECs), and for ranking the significance of activities and stressors based on the relative risks to VECs. The aim of developing this risk-based framework is to provide managers with the process and tools to inform the development conservation objectives, management strategies, and action plans for the implementation of DFO’s ecosystem-based integrated oceans management in LOMAs, such as the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) and Pacific Region Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

The May 2012 RPR meeting reviewed the ERAF methodology (O et al. 2012) and recommended that a pilot project be undertaken to test the ERAF prototype and  that a performance review of the ERAF be conducted through a future RPR meeting (DFO 2012).  A pilot application of the ERAF, Level 1 risk assessment has been completed by DFO Science using a subset of 17 ecological VECs, and associated activities and stressors in the PNCIMA.  The goals of the present RPR are to evaluate the modifications to the ERAF prototype methodology that were made as a result of the May 2012 RPR and subsequent testing of the ERAF and to assess the performance of the ERAF with respect to ranking VECs and/or activities and stressors included in the pilot application. The results of this pilot application of the ERAF are intended to further the development of the ERAF as a tool for identifying, and assessing the relative risk of harm to VECs from human activities and their associated stressors.  The relative risk scores estimated in this test are not intended to be used for further management action or to inform decision-making around PNCIMA conservation objectives or priorities.

Objectives

The following working paper will provide the basis for discussion and advice respecting the objectives outlined below:

Ecological risk assessment framework to assess cumulative risk to species in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA). CSAP working paper by Clarke Murray, C., Mach, M.E., and O, M.

Specific objectives of this review are:

ERAF Structure and Performance

  1. Evaluate whether the modifications to the ERAF prototype address gaps in structural components of the methodology that were identified in the May 2012 review, e.g., scoring metrics, cumulative risks, assumptions related to the nature of biological effects, the recovery time of ecosystem components;
  2. Evaluate whether the modifications to the ERAF prototype address uncertainty in biological data inputs that were identified in the May 2012 review, e.g., lack of spatial/temporal data for some species, habitats, and communities;
  3. Evaluate the transparency of the ERAF with respect to assumptions, uncertainty and risk;
  4. Assess whether, and to what degree, the ERAF scoring guides and other documentation achieve repeatability based upon the knowledge and experience of the RPR participants;

PNCIMA Pilot ERAF Results

  1. Provide an assessment of the performance of the Level 1 risk assessment based on the relative scoring for ecological VECs and/or activities and stressors;
  2. Identify any outstanding information gaps that need to be filled to conduct a comprehensive Level 1 and/or Level 2 assessment for PNCIMA and potential approaches to address these gaps, where appropriate; and
  3. Provide advice respecting next steps for an ERAF assessment of PNCIMA VECS and the applicability of moving to a Level 2 risk assessments.

Expected publications

Participation

Additional Information and References Cited

DFO. 2012. Risk-based assessment framework to identify priorities for ecosystem-based oceans management in the Pacific region. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/044.

Fletcher, W.J. 2005. The application of qualitative risk assessment methodology to prioritize issues for fisheries management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62: 1576-1587.

Halpern, B.S., Selkoe, K.A., Micheli, F. and Kappel, C.V. 2007. Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conserv. Biol. 21:1301-1315.

Hobday, A.J., Smith, A., Webb, H., Daley, R., Wayte, S., Bulman, C., Dowdney, J., Williams, A., Sporcic, M., Dambacher, J., Fuller, M., and Walker, T. 2007. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing: methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.

O, M., Martone, R., Hannah, L., Grieg, L., Boutillier, J. and Patton, S. A risk-based framework for ecosystem-based oceans management. CSAP Working Paper 2012/P46.

Park, L.E., Beresford, L.A. and Anderson, M.R. 2010. Characterization and analysis of risk to key ecosystem components and properties. Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk Publication Series, Newfoundland and Labrador Region. 0003: vi + 19p.

Park, L.E., Beresford, L.A. and Kissler, E. 2011. Prioritization of key ecosystem components based on the risk of harm from human activities within the Placentia Bay/Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area. Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk Publication Series. Newfoundland and Labrador Region. 0004: vi + 9 p. + working notes (2422p.).

Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Sharp, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Olwero, N., Vigerstol, K., Pennington, D., Mendoza, G., Aukema, J., Foster, J., Forrest, J., Cameron, D., Arkema, K., Lonsdorf, E., Kennedy, C., Verutes, G., Kim, C.K., Guannel, G., Papenfus, M., Toft, J.,  Marsik, M. and Bernhardt, J. 2011. InVEST 2.2.2 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford.

Zhou, S., Smith, A.D.M. and  Fuller, M. 2011. Quantitative ecological risk-assessment for fishing effects on diverse data-poor non-target species in a multi-sector and multi-gear fishery. Fish. Res. 112: 168-178.

Notice

Participation to CSAS peer review meetings is by invitation only.

Date modified: