Some Concepts for Assessing Impact and Adaptation Responses of Fish and

Fisheries to Climate Change

Kim Hyatt and Mark Johannes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and C-CIARN Fisheries, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.

ICES Symposium, Bergen, Norway 11-14 May 2004: The Influence of Climate Change on North Atlantic Fish Stocks

Outline for this talk

1. Brief perspective on climate change from the IPCC.2. Identify scope of natural and human systems

responses to CVC events and implications for research in fisheries and aquatic science.

3. Provide a snapshot of fisheries and aquatic science CVC research in Canada (1958-2003) i.e. what have we been doing and where are we at now ?

4. Examine where Canada’s FAS climate change research efforts appear to be headed ?

5. Provide suggestions for some new directions.6. Conclusions

The IPCC has made a persuasive case given various GCM’s that global climate in the 21 st century will be warmer i.e. 1-3 degress warmer by

2050 even with Kyoto reductions of GHG’s so impact & adaptation responses of natural resource and human systems to climate change are

inevitable.

What are the “big picture” implications for fisheries and aquatic science research by groups such as ICES or CDFO ?

Source: Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Summary for policy makers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden and D. Xiaosu (Eds.) Cambridge University Press, UK. 2001. Figure 5: p. 14.

A Question of Scope: Climate impact & adaptation issues are imbedded within each of several domains that define the human

ecosystem and that warrant scientific enquiry ( impact and adaptation issues may be considered 1st at the abiotic level involving interactions between the global

atmosphere, hydrosphere and geosphere)

Abiotic I&A issues propagate through the biosphere where populations of organisms and ecosystems respond in complex ways to climate change. I&A studies involving both short and long term, or even evolutionary scale considerations, are a well developed element of

Canadian fisheries science focused on biological systems (e.g. large volume of work on Atlantic groundfish such as cod, Pacific salmon, Great Lakes fishes etc…)

Moving from the “natural” to the “cultural” side of the ledger, a diversity of socioeconomic systems have developed with a focus on “fisheries” resource extraction. I&A issues multiply rapidly at the interface

between natural and cultural systems. Fisheries and aquatic science research on impact and adaptation issues from a socioeconomic or “human systems” perspective lag far behind those in the natural-abiotic

and natural-biotic domains as amply demonstrated by the majority of talks at the current ICES

symposium.

Human populations modify their surroundings by creating what Redman (1999) refers to as the “built environment”. The built environment consists of the sum of both “hard” and “soft” infrastructure

elements. Fishing fleets, aquaculture facilities, processing plants and hatcheries are examples of “hard” cultural assets belonging to the built environment. Government institutions, laws, policies, information

systems are examples of “soft” cultural assets belonging to the built environment.

List of What a “Balanced” Impact & Adaptation Science Must Cover

• Multiple domains (abiotic, biotic, natural, cultural) exhibiting complex boundaries and interactions.

• A much wider range of subject matter than single disciplines or institutions (e.g. CDFO or ICES) normally deal with.

• Events at a range of spatial (local, regional, global) and temporal (prehistoric, historic, current, future) scales.

• Consideration of effects on both “hard” (e.g. fishing fleets, processing plants, hatcheries, dams) and “soft” (e.g. institutions, treaties, laws, policies, mgt processes, information systems) infrastructure as part of the “built environment”

C-CIARN Fisheries ( www.fishclimate.ca ) has compiled a bibliographic database on CVC issues for fish, fisheries & aquatic resources in Canada from a wide range of sources (Johannes & Hyatt 2004).

How are we doing ? A snapshot of the state of “fisheries” impact & adaptation science in Canada

Climate Change I&A Database

• 12,410 International records

• 1,604 Canadian records (by author & site)

Climate impact and adaptation references have been compiled by searching on key words, paper titles, citation sources and climate phrases.

e.g. climate impacts : changes to, assessments of, prediction of, effects of and

climate adaptation : evolution of, adaptation to, fisheries, flood or drought –

management, managing, conservation planning, sustainable resource planning

International FAS Records (12,410)

• 12,144 on impacts (98 %)

• 266 on adaptation (2 %)

Canadian FAS Records (1,604)

• 1460 on impacts (> 90 %)

• 144 on adaptation (< 10 %)

Impacts - Fisheries 15%

Impacts - Fish Species 27%

Impacts - Abiotic 13%

Impacts - Aquatic Wildlife 7%

Adaptation - Aquatic

Resources 3%

Adaptation - Fisheries 3%

Impacts - Aquatic Resources 30%

Adaptation - Fish Species 2%

Adaptation - Evolutionary Fish 6%

• Cdn research on fisheries CVC issues increased rapidly after the mid-80’s

• Virtually all of this increase involved CVC impact studies (1460 references)

• Adaptation to climate change is not a major subject for study by fisheries scientists (only 144 references mostly after 1999)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1960 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002

#'s

of

Re

co

rds

Adaptation

Impacts

Marine Mammals8%

Capelin, Hake, Halibut, Herring,

Sablefish, Sardine

4%

Northern Cod10%

Polar Bears2%

Phytoplankton35%

Salmon12%

Shellfish2%

Waterfowl4%

Zooplankton13%

Bass, Walleye, Trout, Charr

10%

Conclusion: FAS research may be focused too narrowly to deal principally with the science of atmosphere & ocean climate systems while ignoring the need to develop climate science for large interacting natural resource & human systems.

Most Canadian CVC research is focused on “physics & phytoplankton” (i.e. 54 % of studies deal with physics & biophysics of atmosphere-and-ocean climate systems & especially links between GCM’s & the

biophysics of carbon sources and sinks; 35 % biological ; 11 % paleobiology).

Where do we appear to be going with development of CVC Science in Canada ?

Draft Climate Change Science Plan

Monitoring GHG Sinks Processes Modeling Scenarios Impacts

Atmosphere

Oceans

Cryosphere

Hydrosphere

Land

Farms

Forests

Wetlands

Oceans

Models

Atmosphere

Oceans

Water-and-Energy

Cryosphere

Land

Atmosphere

Ocean

Coupled

Global

Regional

Scenarios

Production

Research

Sectors (i.e. all natural resources)

All Socio-economic systems

More “physics and phytoplankton” i.e. a cont’d emphasis on the physics & biophysics of atmosphere & ocean climate systems (i.e. 5 of 6 FCCSP thematic streams focus on this)

Short shrift to sectoral impacts & ? adaptation ?

Suggestions for a more balanced approach to “Fisheries” CVC Science in Canada (C-CIARN Fisheries

NAC, May 1, 2004)

Climate Change Science

Atmosphere & Ocean Climate Systems

Natural Resource and Human Systems

Monitoring

GHG Sinks

Processes

Models

Scenarios

Monitoring

I & A Processes

I & A Models

I & A Scenarios

Built Env’t Issues

I & A Policies

Shift in emphasis required if we’re to develop “fisheries” climate science to effectively explore impact and adaptation outcomes for “large interactive natural resource and human systems” !

Climate Science impact models

Invoke climate scenarios(warming, circulation etc)

Estimate climate impacts on fish & fisheries

Provide Advice and Plan for Stakeholder Response

Climate Scenario Approach(typified by ICES presentations)

Incorporate results into Management Strategies

Estimate future vulnerability & Identify adaptation strategies

Estimate climate impacts on fish & fisheries

Assess vulnerability(experiences, coping ability, capacity to adapt)

Engage stakeholders(Those affected by CVC e.g. fishermen)

Vulnerability Approach (O’Brien et al 2004, CICERO paper)

Impact Scenario (“top-down”) versus Vulnerability (“bottom-up”) approaches are divergent methods for climate change impact & adaptation assessments in fisheries.

Ocean Temperature or River Discharge

Eve

nt F

requ

ency

System Coping Range

Vulnerability assessments require identification of the effective coping range for a given natural resource or human system beyond which dramatic and occasionally irreversible changes in system state occur.

Ocean Temperature

Eve

nt F

requ

ency

Coping Range

Hierarchy of Coping Ranges & Scale

(a)Global Hydrosphere

(b)Global Fish Populations

(c) Atlantic Groundfish

(d)North Atlantic Cod

(e)Western Rim Cod

(f) Gulf St Lawrence Cod

Other Needs ? Develop Integrated Assessment Models of Impact & Adaptation Responses to Climate Change Events to Reflect Interactions

Among “ Physics, Phytoplankton, Fish, Fisheries & Society”

CVC Evente.g. drought

Impact I. General biophysical impact e.g. on region or watershed

Adaptive Response I. e.g. behavioral, physiological, ecological, etc…

Impact I. Focused biophysical impact e.g. on the fish-habitat complex

I. NATURAL RESOURCE

Adaptive Responses II & III e.g. behavioral, cultural, social, economic, legal

Impact II. Focused socioeconomic impacts e.g. by natural resource mgrs.

II. RESOURCE MANAGERS

III. STAKEHOLDERS

Impact III. Focused on stakeholders of specific resources and “built environment” assets

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

• “fisheries” CVC issues are conditioned by complex interactions among biological resources (salmon), resource “regulators” (e.g. management boards) & stakeholders (e.g. capture and culture fisheries). Exploration of interactions requires development of coupled models and an iterative approach.

IAR Model I – Resources, 1-5IAR Model II – Managers, 6-9IAR Model III – Stakeholders, 10-13

Summary and Conclusions

Climate change will accelerate dramatically over the next 50 years even with Kyoto levels of mitigation for greenhouse gases so climate impact and adaptation issues will proliferate for all natural resource sectors including fisheries.

FAS research on impact and especially adaptation issues from a “human systems” perspective lags far behind work on climate impacts on biophysical systems.

Adaptation responses of fish and especially fisheries to climate change do not appear to be major subjects for study to date by fisheries science, but it should be.

Human populations rely on mosaics of natural and built environment assets that will interact in response to climate change and fisheries systems such as fleets-factories-fish are no exception.

Climate impact and adaptation issues in fisheries are complex and will require interdisciplinary work at levels that will challenge the capacity of existing national and international institutions.

We need a more balanced approach to fisheries and oceans (not just oceans) climate science focused on (a) atmospheric and ocean climate systems and (b) large, interactive, natural resource and human systems.

We need to adopt new methodological paradigms (i.e. vulnerability assessment and risk management, integrated assessment response models) and working partnerships with social sciences to get beyond “physics and phytoplankton” to include fish, fisheries managers and other fisheries-dependent stakeholders as routine subjects for the attention of Fisheries CVC Science.