Nordic Stakeholder Meeting September 1 st 2016, Sjölyckan Göteborg
Project participants The SalmoInvade consortium covers Scandinavia and continental Europe, and insights from North American Salmonid invasions. Partner institutions • University of Gothenburg (Sweden) Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland • Steering group Fisheries in the Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V. • Jörgen Johnsson, Sweden (coordinator) (Germany) Robert Arlinghaus, Germany • • Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NINA (Norway) • Julien Cucherousset, France • CNRS/University Paul Sabatier (France) • Kjetil Hindar, Norway • Memorial University (Canada) • Ian Fleming, Canada
The main objectives of SalmoInvade are : 1. to evaluate current releases of non-native salmonids in Europe and the social, economic and ecological mechanisms underlying their invasion potential, WP1 2. to investigate the ecological and evolutionary impacts of Mechanisms of biological invasions by salmonids, establishment WP4 WP2 3. to evaluate how salmonid invasions are perceived by the S ALMO I NVAD E Policy and Ecological public and by key stakeholders and Management impact WP3 4. to provide integrated recommendations for policy and Social management of salmonid invasions. evaluation SalmoInvade will integrate novel eco-evolutionary and socio-economic hypotheses to evaluate the impacts and consequences of non-native salmonid invasions. The results are expected to influence policy and management of this economically important group of fish.
Governance of salmonid stocking and introductions – a North Atlantic five-jurisdiction comparison 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 revision for: Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Background – Salmonids highly valued species, subject to severe conflicts, intense management and enhancement efforts – Artificial propagation and techniques for long-distance transfer 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
Purpose, study area and method – Identify and point out differences in salmonid stocking governance in five jurisdictions important for salmonids around the North Atlantic Ocean: Atl Canada, F , G, N, S – Assess differences between governance ( de jure ) and on-the ground practice ( de facto ) – 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’)
Governance history Atlantic France Germany Norway Sweden Canada 502 927 551 695 357 021 324 260 450 295 Area (km2) (6.5 % water) (1.35 % (2.2 % water) (5.2 % water) (8.7 % water) water) 2.33 mill (2011) 64 mill (2014) 81 mill (2014) 5.1 mill 9.7 mill (2014) Inhabitants (year) (2014) First hatchery 1868 1853 1869/1882 1855 NA established (year) First introductions of 1882: S. trutta 1877: O. 1882: O. 1877: S. 1892: O. tschawytscha 1887: O. mykiss fontinalis mykiss and S. non-native salmonids 1878: S. mykiss 1900: O. fontinalis from (year, species) fontinalis mykiss 1881: O. mykiss
Formal policies vs practical management • General policies and objectives similar and «state-of- the-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 • (In addition to intentional stocking, there are a number of salmonids escaping from aquaculture operations, especially in Norway and Canada, but these are not treated here)
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 distance larger 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
Conclusions • Governance varies between legislations, in terms of objectives, legal requirements, organisation/sectorial responsibility and involvement of public and private stakeholders • Objectives at the general level is rather similar and reflecting international guidelines/new knowledge, yet legal and practical adaptions modify and even undermine the overall objectives in some cases All cases 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 • Stocking and transfer of non-native populations (of native species) is still common in many jurisdictions, even if that too is reduced in some areas On-the-ground impacts (to the extent we can monitor these) partly reflect • differences in governance
Reasons for differences in stocking governance and practice DIFFERENCES IN: • Biogeography, including differences in composition/diversity V of freshwater fish communities (Fitzgerald et al. 2015) X • Historical development, path dependency, incumbents • Social importance and valuation of wild salmonids versus stocked, non- V native salmonids X • Scientific uncertainty (Sandstrom 2010, Sevä 2013) • Evidence of severe loss of native aquatic (fish) biodiversity from stocking («has stocking caused losses?») V • Organisational differences (Sevä, 2013) : X • Sectorial responsibility (Fisheries vs environment) • Vertical responsibility and coordination (national, regional, local) V • Private – public responsibilities and ownership structures V
SalmoInvade National Stakeholder Workshop in Sweden / Norway 1 Sept 2016 Carsten Riepe, Jürgen Meyerhoff, Marie Fujitani, Sophia Kochalski & Robert Arlinghaus SalmoInvade WP 3.1: Public perceptions of biodiversity and conservation of salmonids - Results from a 4-country survey – Draft manuscript, unpublished. Method 4-country general population survey (high-quality online panels) representative of the online Reasons to conduct this survey populations in G, F , N, S Citizens ... N = 1,000 completed interviews per − perform pro-environmental behaviors country − vote in general elections data collection in autumn 2015 − contribute to the public discourse about biodiversity conservation ► are thus at the societal core of biodiversity conservation in the future
Results: Subjective knowledge How informed do you feel about the topic How informed do you feel about the of biodiversity in fishes? potential threats caused by the introduction of nonnative fishes? ► The vast majority of citizens in all countries did not feel (well) informed. ► Lack of subjective knowledge lowest in N.
Results: Knowledge of salmonids If heard of: Which of these fish species have you heard of? Which of these species are native to the inland waters of <YOUR COUNTRY>?” Atlantic Brown Rainbow Brook Atlantic Brown Rainbow Brook trout salmon trout trout trout salmon trout trout ► Recognition of native salmonids, and rainbow ► Atlantic salmon perceived as native by the vast majority of Norwegians, only by a trout, quite high in G, N, S, though Atlantic minority of Swedes and Frenchmen, and salmon low in G. hardly by any German. ► Recognition of species names low in F . ► Brown trout mostly perceived as native in all ► Overall, lowest familiarity with brook trout, countries. particularly in F . ► Rainbow trout viewed as native by a majority in G and F, only by about half of the respondents in Scandinavia. ► Except in S, brook trout viewed as native.
Recommend
More recommend
