Thematic Network: Global Ecological and Economic Connections in - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Thematic Network: Global Ecological and Economic Connections in Arctic and sub-Arctic Crab Fisheries

Aim: Connect across disciplines and sectors in crab fisheries research and production to:

1.

Understand interconnected ecological-economic changes in Arctic marine productivity and markets

2.

Connect Arctic communities linked by these shifting ecological conditions and markets to improve information flows and responses to disruptive change

3.

Use Arctic and sub-Arctic crabs as bellwether cases of types of bigger changes to come

Context and need: Global connections

Produ duce cers Main ain Co Consumers

 Traditional

 Eastern Russia  USA  Japan  Korea  Atlantic Canada (SC)

 Up and Coming

 Norway  Western Russia  Greenland (SC)

 Traditional

 Japan  Korea  USA

 Up and Coming

 China  Europe

Pan-Arctic/subArctic ecosystems AND world markets connect Snow Crab and Red King Crab

Unknown Unknowns:

• Uncertainty-> Prob. Dist.

unknown; decision-making tools are not great yet – work to be done E.g. blobs, global demand shifts, trade wars, new transport paths well outside expectations; not sure what to look for/ at

Known and Unknown Unknowns

Known Unknowns:

• Risk -> Quantifiable;

decision-making tools are reasonably developed E.g. temp, reproduction, prices, costs within historical bounds (somewhere); lab study conceivable

Challenges and Solutions

 Challenge: Bringing together pan-Arctic + Asian representatives for information sharing,

research synergies

 Solutions: Workshops, visits (own + piggy-back for subsets)

 Juneau + Anchorage May 2017 (visits + Wakefield Symposium)  Toyama June 2017 (visits)  Incheon + Busan July 2017 (visits)  Copenhagen Dec 2017 (own)  Seattle Jul 2018 (IIFET – International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade)  Seattle Jan 2019 (own)  Halifax May 2019 (NAAFE – North American Association of Fisheries Economists)  Tromso November 2019 (ICES/IMR Shellfish Symposium – Invaders and Resources in the

North)

 Challenge: Collecting / Integrating data from multiple countries / agencies  Solutions:

 Student intern with, inter alia, Chinese language skills and fisheries economics knowledge  Research collaborations in sub-groups

 Challenge: ‘touchiness’ of Barents Sea stakeholders regarding input to the tradeoffs

involved in the development and exploitation of invasive species as a fisheries resource

 Solutions: Build personal relationships; work carefully and systematically with both

qualitative and quantitative data to capture the big picture impacts of local, regional, and global differences in perspective

People and Institutions

Institutions (formal* and informal): Representing main Producing and Consuming Nations University of Southern Denmark* Toyama University* UAK – Fairbanks* Greenland Institute of Natural Resources* KMI* + KOPRI* NOFIMA Virginia Commonwealth University IMR + PINRO DFO Canada Gulf of Maine Fisheries Institute Simeone Consulting

 People (subset)  Brooks A. Kaiser*  M Kourantidou  D Ahsan  S Bakanev  A Burmeister  G Eckert  L.M. Fernandez  H.P

. Hong

 John Simeone  A.A. Monsalve  D. Mullowney  A. Nielsen  B.H. Nøstvold  H. Park  E. Poulsen  L. Ravn-Jonsen  C. Siddon  J.H. Sundet  K. Tokunaga  M.

Yamamoto

Some answers

And some additional questions

Production shifts over time and space - substitute sources: costs, regulatory and ecological climates

Production shifts over time: substitute species and overall demand?

Values: less precise, but needed for understanding human behavior and decision-making

Asia, CA data start CDN prod’n jumps Gap shows inc. imports Missing? USSR/Russian Fed. Domestic Consumption Non-commercial uses …

Where to invest research and industry time and money?

 Information sharing:

Your challenges might NOT be new/unique. Over 100 years of fishing these species globally. Think both at the margin and beyond the margins. Calculate risks; diversify risks. Improve industry investment

• decisions. Stock assessment and recovery.

 Cooperative research: Power of observations increases with (some)

variation and frequency. May fill gaps with local/national data (e.g. SeaAroundUs efforts). Transform uncertainties to risks. Use

• interdisciplinarity. Develop by-product uses, understand the power of wind

 Supply chain: Who wants what? What’s it worth? What complements and

substitutes matter? How is this changing with:

 Tastes and preferences  Incomes  Relative prices  Information: health, external costs and benefits…

Main project impacts and lessons learned

 Set of published works, e.g.:

 Kourantidou (2019) PhD  Kaiser, Fernandez and Kourantidou Journal of Environmental Management

(2018)

 Kourantidou and Kaiser ICES Journal of Marine Science (2019)

 Set of papers in progress

 Several in final draft and/or submission stage, a few still in idea

and data collection stages

 Intensifying social scientific perspective to many debates and

discussions on resource management around world

 Adding scientific expertise to understanding the ecological-

economic factors of change and their interconnections

 infusion of cooperation between disciplines and sectors (academia,

resource management, and resource production) has been welcom and useful across partners