Author
Abstract
Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) is a depleted stock with a rebuilding target and timeframe defined by the responsible management body (CCSBT). All recent stock assessments have found that the stock is depleted but large differences exist in estimates of recovery probabilities under current catches. In 1996, CCSBT adopted a set of principles and a process for considering experimental fishing, which are fundamentally consistent with an actively adaptive management policy. Substantial efforts to develop a program in line with these principles did not succeed, partially due to the lack of a decision-making framework. In 1998 and 1999, Japan conducted unilateral experimental fishing arguing that the additional substantial catches could reduce uncertainty in stock assessments and thus were justified. This led to international legal proceedings under UNCLOS, in which preliminary measures were issued preventing further unilateral experimental fishing (these were later rescinded when an UNCLOS arbitral tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction in the dispute). This decision has been cited as a possible manifestation of industry's "worst fear with the implementation of the precautionary approach". This paper examines the SBT dispute in relationship to adaptive management and the precautionary approach, Results of recent stock assessments indicate that the Japanese experimental fishing, even if successful, was unlikely to resolve the disparity in estimates of the recovery probabilities or provide an improved basis for management decision making. In this context, it is the absence of a management framework, rather than a fundamental problem with adaptive management, that challenges the compatibility of these experimental fishing catches and the precautionary approach. The real issue in the SBT situation is the standards and burden of proof required if experimental fishing is to be considered.
Suggested Citation
Polacheck, Tom, 2002.
"Experimental catches and the precautionary approach: the Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute,"
Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 283-294, July.
Handle:
RePEc:eee:marpol:v:26:y:2002:i:4:p:283-294
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:26:y:2002:i:4:p:283-294. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.