4.6 Article

Necessary elements of precautionary management: implications for the Antarctic toothfish

期刊

FISH AND FISHERIES
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 1152-1174

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/faf.12162

关键词

Dissostichus mawsoni; precautionary approach; reference point; Ross Sea; stock-recruitment relationship; uncertainty

资金

  1. NSERC Canada
  2. NSF [Ant-0944411]
  3. Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. Office of Polar Programs (OPP) [0944411] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We review the precautionary approach to fisheries management, propose a framework that will allow a systematic assessment of insufficient precaution and provide an illustration using an Antarctic fishery. For a single-species fishery, our framework includes five attributes: (1) limit reference points that recognize gaps in our understanding of the dynamics of the species; (2) accurate measures of population size; (3) ability to detect population changes quickly enough to arrest unwanted declines; (4) adequate understanding of ecosystem dynamics to avoid adverse indirect effects; and (5) assessment of the first four elements by a sufficiently impartial group of scientists. We argue that one or more of these elements frequently fail to be present in the management of many fisheries. Structural uncertainties, which characterize almost all fisheries models, call for higher limit points than those commonly used. A detailed look into the five elements and associated uncertainties is presented for the fishery on the Antarctic toothfish in the Ross Sea (FAO/CCAMLR Area 88.1, 88.2), for which management was recently described as highly precautionary'. In spite of having features that make the Ross Sea fishery ideal for the application of the precautionary approach, gaps in our knowledge and failure to acknowledge these gaps mean that current regulation falls short of being sufficiently precautionary. We propose some possible remedies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据