Implementing EAF

Conduct an Ecological Risk Assessment

This methodology provides a structure to consider divergent issues in a transparent and accountable manner. Risk analysis involves consideration of the sources of risk, their consequences and the likelihood that they may occur. Moreover, it allows for the prioritization of issues or hazards with justification and the subsequent prioritization of management responses. It requires stakeholders to deliberate and come up with an agreed position and provides an agreed roadmap for the way forward. In essence it is a way of operationalizing policy.

1. Identification of concerns or issues

This methodology utilizes generic component trees to help participants to tease out the main issues or concerns that the fishery faces. The process starts off by breaking the fishery down into eight main components in three main categories; ‘Ecological Wellbeing’, ‘Human Wellbeing’ and ‘Ability to Achieve’. Each of these components is then further disaggregated into more detailed sub-components for which ultimately operational objectives can be developed. Through this process all issues present in the fishery are recorded. Any issue identified by one or more participants is included in the list of issues, whether or not it is supported by others thereby providing a comprehensive list of concerns as perceived by all participants in the workshop.


2. Prioritize Issues

Identified issues are then prioritized by scoring the consequence of a given risk actually occurring independent from the likelihood of it occurring. A risk value rating is then calculated as the product of the ‘consequence’ and ‘likelihood’ scores. At this step it is necessary, as far as possible, to gain consensus on the consequences and likelihoods. While this can be a contentious stage in these workshops, there was a high level of agreement across the issues that had been identified.

The issue is then categorized as ‘Negligible’ (score of 0), ‘Low’ (score of 1-6), ‘Moderate’ (score of 7-12), ‘High’ (score of 13-18) and ‘Extreme’ (score of 18 or greater) risk according to their overall risk score. The risk value therefore provides a means of prioritizing the issues. Low risk issues require no management action whereas high risk issues require management action. For a Fisheries Agency ‘risk’ is associated with the chance of something affecting the Agency’s performance against the objectives of the relevant legislation. High risk issues were classified as obtaining a risk score higher than seven.

3. Identify management responses, targets and indicators

Full Performance Reports were then developed for all issues of sufficient priority (i.e. greater than ‘Moderate’ risk) according to the template in Table 1. Briefly, these required the setting of an operational objective, the identification of indicators, targets and milestones. These allow for regular progress to measure against agreed targets. In many cases this third and final step in the ERA process identified the need to continue with, or intensify actions already taking place to address or mitigate the issue raised but also raised the need for action in some areas that have been neglected up until now.

Review and measure progress

It is important that the ERAs are reviewed annually. These workshops can be used for stakeholders to agree on priority actions and performance limits for the following year. Such annual workshops will provide an excellent way of monitoring and stimulating EAF implementation in a transparent and participatory manner.

What is needed is a process that does not add extra burden to already limited resources and does not unnecessarily add to the already heavy meeting load, but that rather provides a comprehensive and efficient way to structure an ERA review. The method proposed has two primary objectives:
  1. To review progress and stimulate discussion on next priority actions and
  2. To facilitate communication of progress especially in light of the 2010 goal and the need for mangers to report on progress.
To do this effectively a decision support tool was developed. Such a tool not only allow for the tracking of progress in a transparent manner, but also facilitates communication, the simplification of a complex issue, the building of a common understanding and the proactive development of workplans with stakeholder support.

Objectives of an EAF

  • 1. The managing authority has a good understanding of the ecosystem impacts of fisheries including target, non-target and general ecosystem impacts.

    2. Ecosystem impacts of fisheries are included into management advice.
    3. The social wellbeing of dependent fishing communities is accounted for in management advice.

    4. The economic wellbeing of the fishing industry is maintained.

    5. The managing authority has transparent and participatory management structures that ensures good communication and information sharing locally and regionally.

    6. Management plans incorporate EAF considerations.

    7. Good compliance to regulations reduces ecosystem impacts of fisheries.

    8. Sufficient capacity, skills, equipment and funding exist to support the implementation of an EAF.

    9. Good data procedures exist to support EAF implementation.

    10. External impacts of fisheries are addressed (e.g. the effect of other sectors, other industries, climate change etc).


Building a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

Photos and graphics © WWF or used with permission. Text available under a Creative Commons licence.