Search

Science is fundamental to sound policies, particularly when it comes to implementing an Ecosystem Management Approach (EMA). We believe science can and should inform nearly all facets of an EMA, yet we recognize there are many challenges to this aspiration which is reflected by the relatively few examples such a comprehensive science-driven EMA. To help identify and better understand these challenges we used a qualitative case-study approach to compare the challenges and successes of implementing a science-driven EMA in the Laurentian Great Lakes. These case studies include improving coastal resilience, delisting of Areas of Concern, and addressing the challenges of declining offshore productivity. These case studies were selected because they provide a set of very different, yet complementary, cases for assessing the implementation of an EMA and the factors influencing the science-policy exchange that informs it. From this comparative assessment we identified a diverse set of challenges and successes. Some were systemic while others were more case-study specific. Also, emerging from this comparative assessment were principles and enabling conditions we believe are critical to consider when establishing or improving a science-driven EMA that will be the focus of this talk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across the Great Lakes basin, Indigenous and non-Indigenous agencies strive to protect and sustain healthy fish and water systems. However, the cumulative impacts of climate change and other human disturbances combined with historical and ongoing instances of environmental injustices towards Indigenous Peoples call for a shift away from current management paradigms towards structures that center meaningful collaboration and Indigenous leadership. Here, we present early outcomes from interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishery professionals who work with and for Indigenous agencies on the Laurentian Great Lakes. We assess experiences and perspectives from within these agencies to better understand what is needed to build meaningful co-management relationships among Indigenous and non-Indigenous agencies committed to safeguarding Great Lakes fisheries. We hope this research can help ready current and future fishery professionals to engage in just and effective approaches to fisheries decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Walleye management can be contentious on Lake Erie because the fish is valuable economically to both Canada and the U.S. On Lake Erie, five state and provincial jurisdictionsâ€"Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Yorkâ€"must work together to establish an annual walleye harvest limit known as a “total allowable catch” or TAC. To facilitate cooperation, the jurisdictions formed the Lake Erie Committee, which operates pursuant to a multijurisdictional agreement called A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Most of the time, members of the Lake Erie Committee can agree on and adhere to the annual walleye TAC. However, the committee failed to maintain consensus on the 2004 TAC after consensus was achieved and announced. The committee could not resolve the dispute on its own and invoked the Joint Strategic Plan’s dispute provisions, a rare occurrence. This paper discusses cross-border walleye management on Lake Erie, describes how the jurisdictions handled the dispute, and reflects on how the Joint Strategic Plan can help jurisdictions overcome conflict. The paper argues that the plan can address distributional issues like TACs, despite being non-binding. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]