Saving Seafood

ABTA questions efficacy of precautionary approach

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – July 11, 2016 – The American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA) has released its position statement on the ‘precautionary approach’ to fisheries management, which the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is considering adding to its Convention text.

The precautionary approach, which fisheries expert Dr. Carl Walters criticized in a discussion with CFOOD last month, says that if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or environment, it is up to the people taking that action to prove it is not harmful.

In its statement, ABTA noted that the precautionary approach is “deeply incoherent” because, while ICCAT “should take precautions against certain speculative dangers,” precaution and inaction also create risk.

“There are conditions in which it can be dangerous to reduce, increase or maintain fishing quota for the following year particularly if [we] take into account another guiding principle: maximum sustainable catch,” ABTA wrote.

While maximum sustainable catch is an unambiguous concept, ABTA wrote, the precautionary approach does not specify the proper conditions for using the approach or the preventative actions to take. Without more specific guidelines, the precautionary approach can be easily abused, ABTA argued.

“Efforts to impose the precautionary approach through regulatory policy will inevitably intend to accommodate competing concerns or, more likely, become a Trojan Horse for ideological crusades,” the statement said.

ABTA concluded by saying that the precautionary approach could by sound policy in certain situations, but a broad framework must first be developed. ABTA suggested creating this framework using guidelines in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement or through ICCAT’s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics’ Working Group on the Precautionary Approach, which last met in 1999.

Read ABTA’s full statement

Carl Walters on the “precautionary approach”

July 6, 2016 — Carl Walters is a Professor Emeritus at the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries at the University of British Columbia. His area of expertise includes fisheries assessment and sustainable management and has used that expertise to advise public agencies and industrial groups on fisheries assessment and management. He is a member of the Royal Society of Canada and received the Volvo Environmental Prize in 2005. He has been a member of a number of NSERC grant committees since 1970, and received the AIFRB Award for Outstanding Individual Achievement in 2011. Walters is considered the ‘father’ of adaptive management.

Misuse of the precautionary approach in fisheries management

We spoke with Carl Walters of the University of British Columbia about the misuse of the precautionary approach by risk-averse scientists and conservation advocates. His concern arises from the application of the precautionary approach to Western Canadian salmon fisheries, which he believes has negatively impacted Canadian salmon fishermen and resulted in “virtually, an economic collapse.”

He began by first differentiating between the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach, the former he claimed to be “a perfectly sensible statement that I think almost everyone would subscribe to about the need to avoid irreversible harm when possible…in the management of any system. There’s a different creature that has arisen in fisheries policy…called the precautionary approach to management” – this is the one that upsets him (00:35).

According to Walters, there are two problems with the precautionary approach (PA). First, it was concocted intuitively by highly risk-averse biologists and managers. “Those people are not the ones who bear the costs of having such a policy. It’s really easy for a highly risk-averse manager to recommend a very conservative policy because it’s not his income and economic future that’s at stake” (03:18). In fact, fishermen are seldom consulted about what harvest control rule they would prefer. Fishermen are often perceived to be relentless natural resource extractors that demand to keep fishing until it can be proven that the stock is collapsing. “That’s not the way fishermen behave” Walters says. “It turns out that most fishermen are risk-averse. They’re not pillagers, they’re not gamblers willing to take any risk at all in order to just keep fishing. They are concerned about the future and they are generally willing to follow some kind of risk-averse harvesting policy” (04:40). “Fishing is a risky business, and fishermen in general are far less risk averse than the people who end up in government and academic jobs.  But that does not mean fishermen are willing to take high risks with the productive future of the stocks that support them.”

So if both fishermen and managers are risk-averse, what’s the problem? The issue is that the interests of only one of these stakeholders is truly accounted for when designing precautionary harvest policies. In Canadian fisheries, there has been “a deliberate exclusion of fishermen in the development of these critical harvest control rules. They have no say in it. The decision rule should be based, at least to some degree, on patterns of risk-aversion that fishermen have since it’s the fishermen who bear the burden of the regulation” (09:48).

Read the full story and hear the conversation at CFood