Aquatic biodiversity conservation and the case of salmonid stocking: Identifying drivers for policy change

Transcription

1 Aquatic biodiversity conservation and the case of salmonid stocking: Identifying drivers for policy change Øystein Aas, Robert Arlinghaus, Mathieu Buoro, Frederic Santoul Julien Coucerrouset, Ian Fleming, Johan Höjesjö, Jörgen Johnsson, Christian Wolter, Kjetil Hindar SalmoInvade Wp 1.1 Manuscript in progress for: Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

2 Background Salmonids highly valued species, subject to severe conflicts, intense management and enhancement efforts Artificial propagation and long-distance transfer techniques known since the early 1800s Extensive cultivation, stocking and transfer of salmonids for 150 years Conservation challenges due to a range of anthropogenic impacts Increased knowledge of impacts of salmonid stocking and transfer: Does it work/is it cost-efficient? Unforeseen impacts of diseases and parasites New knowledge of genetic population structure of salmonids and selective impacts of hatchery environment: «Paradigm Shift?» From a policy of «Tilling the water» (Bottom 1996) to «Conserving Biodiversity»? International and national objectives rapidly changed during the 1990s Yet stocking can have important roles in current and future fishery management

3 Purpose, study area and method Identify drivers for policy change in salmonid stocking in five jurisdictions important for salmonids around the North Atlantic Ocean: Atl. Canada, F, G, N, S Method: Multi-national team of fishery experts reviewed salmonid stocking governance following jointly developed specifications Sources: research articles, official statistics and national reports ( grey literature )

4 Governance history Atlantic Canada Area (km2) (6.5 % water) France Germany Norway Sweden (1.35 % water) (2.2 % water) (5.2 % water) (8.7 % water) Inhabitants (year) 2.33 mill (2011) 64 mill (2014) 81 mill (2014) 5.1 mill (2014) 9.7 mill (2014) First hatchery established (year) / NA First introductions of non-native salmonids from (year, species) 1882: S. trutta 1887: O. mykiss 1877: O. tschawytscha 1878: S. fontinalis 1881: O. mykiss 1882: O. mykiss 1877: S. fontinalis 1900: O. mykiss 1892: O. mykiss and S. fontinalis

5 Formal policies vs practical management General policies and objectives similar and «state-ofthe-art», addressing genetic integrity and biodiversity Becomes different when looking at more specific guidelines and practices for decisions on salmonid stocking and introductions Germany, France: Pragmatic, high volumes of stocking; Norway and Canada: Restrictive, reduced volumes; Sweden in a mid-position, diversified policies (If we look away from the impacts from aquaculture in Norway and Canada)

6 Sectorial Organisation Fish health/veterinary demands and regulations generally similar across all cases Environment sector responsible in Norway, in all other jurisdictions the Fisheries sector is responsible Key level of decision-making: Regional in Canada, Norway and Sweden, Local in Germany and France Vertical dialogue less in Germany (and France?) than in N, S? Public/private involvement: Public authorities key actors in C, N, S. Private (angling clubs) in F, G (except for S. salar in F) Hydro power sector important in Norway and Sweden

7 Understanding policy change in Socio- Ecological systems Policy change must be seen as political processes (Orach & Schluter 2016) Frameworks (supplementary) to understand policy change: Advocacy Coalition: Small, slow, incremental changes Punctuated Equilibrium: How long period of statis interplay with sharp, radical changes Institutional analysis and development: Self interest and interplay between stakeholders Mutiple Streams: Windows of opportunities Policy networks: Public private interplay defines potential for policy change How do these frameworks add to the understanding of our described differences?

8 Drivers for policy change 1. Social importance of salmonids, 2. Degrees of vertical cooperation/dialogue (international local,both ways ) and as part of this different uptake and trust in new knowledge 3. Trout (brown/rainbow) or A. salmon driven policies (related to 2) 4. Evidence of stocking-related severe, negative impacts on fish and fisheries (best examplified by G. salaris in Norway) The importance and composition of these drivers will stage what frameworks shed light on current policies in each country

9 Reasons for differences in stocking governance and practice DIFFERENCES IN: Biogeography, including differences in composition/diversity of freshwater fish communities (Fitzgerald et al. 2015) Historical development, path dependency, incumbents Social importance and valuation of wild salmonids versus stocked, non-native salmonids Scientific uncertainty (Sandstrom 2010, Sevä 2013) Evidence of severe loss of native aquatic (fish) biodiversity from stocking («has stocking caused losses?») Organisational differences (Sevä, 2013) : Sectorial responsibility (Fisheries vs environment) Vertical responsibility and coordination (national, regional, local) Private public responsibilities and ownership structures V X V X V X V V

10 Conclusions Governance varies between countries, in terms of objectives, legal requirements, organisation/sectorial responsibility and involvement of public and private stakeholders Degree of policy change during the last decades varies and is insignificant in F & G, considerable i N & C, with S in a mid-position All countries lack proper monitoring of stocking and transfer, especially of brown trout in Europe and brook trout in Canada Despite these findings, the general impression is that stocking and transfer of non-native species is reduced during the last decade(s) - and distribution of O. mykiss and S. fontinalis is reduced in Europe Variations in social importance of salmonids, degree of vertical cooperation (international local), trout- or salmon driven policies, and evidence of stocking-related negative impacts on fish and fisheries are likely explanations for differences in policy change