IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sdk/wpaper/107.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing Risk and Uncertainty in Fisheries Rebuilding Plans

Author

Listed:
  • Urs Steiner Brandt

    (Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark)

  • Niels Vestergaard

    (Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark)

Abstract

This paper deals with risk and uncertainties that are an inherent part of design-ing and implementing fisheries rebuilding plans. Such risk and uncertainties stem from a variety of sources, biological, economic and/or political factors, and are influenced by external factors like changing environmental conditions. The aim of this paper is to characterize such risks and uncertainties and to as-sess the importance of it in relation to the performance of fisheries rebuilding plans, to give some examples where uncertainties have negatively affected the ability of rebuilding plans to reach their intended targets and to give some guidelines how to deal with risk and uncertainties. The conclusion is that when designing fisheries rebuilding plans, it should be taken into account the availability of relevant information, such that progress is (indisputable) measurable, and causes of potential failure can be clarified. Rebuilding plans need to consider biological, economic and distributional consequences in order to reduce uncertainties and to ensure successful implementation of the plan. Risk communication is also valuable in the process, since it gives transparency of the objectives and means to meet these objectives, elucidates crucial information from stakeholders and legitimates the whole process of designing and implementing the rebuilding plans, which is essential for the success of these plans. To that end the plans should be as simple and realistic as possible. It is recommended to apply risk analysis and to use the precautionary principle only in cases where large uncertainties exists and/or potentially high costs exits of ignoring the uncertainty cannot be resolved. Two fisheries rebuilding plans are analysed and how they address risk and uncertainties are evaluated. This study was done under contract with the OECD. The authors are grateful to Gunnar Haraldsson and Saba Khwaja for comments and advise.

Suggested Citation

  • Urs Steiner Brandt & Niels Vestergaard, 2011. "Assessing Risk and Uncertainty in Fisheries Rebuilding Plans," Working Papers 107/11, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:sdk:wpaper:107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sdu.dk/~/media/Files/Om_SDU/Institutter/Miljo/ime/wp/brandtmfl107.ashx
    File Function: First version, 2011-03
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carl M. O'Brien & Clive J. Fox & Benjamin Planque & John Casey, 2000. "Climate variability and North Sea cod," Nature, Nature, vol. 404(6774), pages 142-142, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cabral, Reniel B. & Aliño, Porfirio M. & Lim, May T., 2013. "A coupled stock-recruitment-age-structured model of the North Sea cod under the influence of depensation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Xinyan Mao & Xinyu Guo & Yucheng Wang & Katsumi Takayama, 2019. "Influences of Global Warming on the Larval Survival and Transport of Snow Crab ( Chionoecetes opilio ) in the Sea of Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Coro, Gianpaolo & Magliozzi, Chiara & Vanden Berghe, Edward & Bailly, Nicolas & Ellenbroek, Anton & Pagano, Pasquale, 2016. "Estimating absence locations of marine species from data of scientific surveys in OBIS," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 323(C), pages 61-76.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sdk:wpaper:107. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Ulla H. Oehlenschläger (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehhsdk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.