Science arrangements for the regional management of tuna fisheries

Marine Policy 24 (2000) 93}108

Science arrangements for the regional management of tuna"sheries

Peter Ward!,*, Bob Kearney", Nektarios Tsirbas!!Bureau of Rural Sciences, P.O. Box E11, Kingston ACT 2604, Australia

"Faculty of Applied Science, University of Canberra, Belconnen ACT 2616, Australia

Accepted 29 April 1999

Abstract

Paci"c, metropolitan and distant-water "shing nations are negotiating a regional regime for managing the western and centralPaci"c tuna "shery. The regime will require an arrangement that delivers high-quality scienti"c advice. But regional sciencearrangements have often developed without the bene"t of planning and without close attention to management requirements. We usethe western and central Paci"c "shery to highlight the types of science functions and attributes required for e!ective regional "sherymanagement. In establishing science arrangements, nations will need to balance national interests, such as participation in stockassessments, against the wider interests of resource management which requires unbiased scienti"c advice. ( 2000 Elsevier ScienceLtd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Scienti"c advice; Institutional arrangements; Fishery management; Tuna "shery; Pelagic; Highly migratory "sh stocks; United NationsImplementing Agreement; South Paci"c; Western and central Paci"c

The past 20 years has seen a rede"nition of the rightsand responsibilities of nations in managing marine natu-ral resources. Most coastal and island nations pro-claimed 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zones(EEZs) following the 1982 United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS also recog-nised the need for nations to cooperate through regionalregimes to manage straddling stocks, and highly migra-tory "sh stocks such as tuna. The 1995 United NationsImplementing Agreement (UNIA) outlines how theyshould be managed at regional and international levels.It speci"es the functions of science in regional regimesand the need for such arrangements to collect, analyseand disseminate information on target species. It alsorecognises the need for assessment of non-target, or`bycatcha, species.

In 1994, Paci"c, metropolitan and distant-water "sh-ing nations started negotiating a regional regime for thewestern and central Paci"c tuna "shery. The regime'smanagement body will require high-quality scienti"c ad-vice to facilitate resource management. In this article

*Corresponding author. Tel.: #612-6272-5534, fax: #612-6272-4014.

E-mail address: peter [email protected] (P. Ward).

we review approaches to providing scienti"c advice toregional "shery regimes. First we provide an overviewof existing science arrangements, then evaluate thestrengths and weaknesses of six regional science arrange-ments. The evaluation is based on interviews with emi-nent scientists and others associated with the six sciencearrangements. Finally, we propose guidelines for sciencearrangements that would meet the needs of regional"shery regimes, like the one envisaged for the westernand central Paci"c.

1. Overview of existing arrangements

1.1. Approaches to obtaining scientixc advice

Since the creation of the International Council for theExploration of the Sea (ICES) in 1902, many regional"shery regimes have been established as nations havebecome aware of the need to cooperate in order toe!ectively research and manage shared natural resources.

Regional "shery regimes tend to use what Caddy [1]terms the `standard management procedurea. It con-sists simply of a two-tiered structure: a science arrangement providing advice to a "shery management body.

0308-597X/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 3 0 8 - 5 9 7 X ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 1 6 - 0

Fig. 1. The structure of the science secretariat approach to providingscienti"c advice for regional "shery management. Also listed are themain functions of science secretariats.

The science arrangement relies upon scientists and tech-nical experts to analyse information and formulateadvice in the form of management recommendations.The adoption of recommendations is left to the manage-ment body, which is comprised of member nations.

In regional "shery regimes there are two funda-mentally di!erent approaches to developing scienti"cadvice. One approach is for a `science secretariata withits own sta! to provide that advice (Fig. 1). The alterna-tive is a `multinational approacha (Fig. 2) where nationalscientists meet to develop agreed advice for the manage-ment body. The source of sta! is the key feature thatdistinguishes science secretariats (independent sta! ) frommultinational approaches (national scientists).1

Other approaches exist for "shery science at nationaland provincial levels, e.g. integration of science functionswith management, and purchaser-service provider ar-rangements where the management body contracts agen-cies and private consultants to provide speci"c scienceservices.

The regional science arrangements listed in Table 1can be classi"ed as either science secretariats or multina-tional approaches, with some slight variations on thestructure and functions of the basic models. The multina-tional arrangements all involve meetings of nationalrepresentatives that coordinate research, promote collab-oration and provide a forum for the peer review of stockassessments and research projects. Almost all of thescience secretariats and a few of the multinational

1Multinational arrangements are often supported by a secretariat.However, those secretariats mainly provide administrative support tothe arrangement, and are not true science secretariats.

arrangements actively assess stock status and presentscienti"c advice and recommendations to a managementbody.

Many of the arrangements have had only limitedsuccess in managing marine resources. However, mosthave made signi"cant contributions to regional coopera-tion and, in various ways, in#uenced how resources areexploited. Cushing [2] notes that the very existence ofa "shery regime is a positive in#uence on stockconservation.

Most (20) of the 25 arrangements listed in Table 1are multinational arrangements. Multinational arrange-ments are common in other disciplines dealing with re-gional resources. For example, the International SeabedAuthority, which manages mineral resources of the deepseabed, obtains advice from experts elected by membernations to the Authority's Legal and Technical Commis-sion. We do not consider that the apparent preference formultinational arrangements in regional "shery regimesre#ects some inherent weakness in science secretariats. Itis more likely that the predominance of multinationalarrangements is the result of nations opting for an ap-proach that has low up-front costs and secures theirindividual, immediate and direct involvement in the "sh-ery's science and subsequent input to management.

1.2. Studies of science arrangements

In reviewing science arrangements we encounteredmany reports and papers describing regional "shery re-gimes and several evaluating management bodies. Butthere were few studies that examine regional sciencearrangements. The paucity of publications speci"cally onscience arrangements is surprising given the importanceof science in "shery management and the relatively largebudgets required to support science arrangements overlong periods.

Starr et al. [4], Caddy [1] and Kesteven [5] considerthe structure and goals of science arrangements in re-gional "shery regimes. Kesteven [5] suggests that theexistence of science within a "shery regime changes thenature of the system, so that science becomes the basis formanagement. He argues that the success of "shery re-gimes is proportional to their ability to deliver coherentand relevant advice in a timely manner to the manage-ment body and "shing industry. Such advice builds theindustry's faith in the science arrangement and its out-puts. Whilst Kesteven believes that e!ective science leadsto better communication and management, he doubtsthat resource management will succeed where nations arein con#ict over the resources. In this paper we agree thathigh quality scienti"c advice is a prerequisite for e!ective"shery management. However, we argue that the man-agement body's authority, including mechanisms to en-sure the implementation of scienti"c advice, are alsocrucial for "shery management.

94 P. Ward et al. / Marine Policy 24 (2000) 93}108

Fig. 2. The structure of the multinational approach to providing scienti"c advice for regional "shery management. Also listed are the multinationalapproach's functions.

Caddy [1] notes that members of management bodiesrarely have access to information on the risks that theirdecisions may pose to the stock. He proposes that deci-sions on safe harvesting should be delegated to anoverview committee that is responsible for long-termmanagement objectives. A second group, responsible forshort-term measures and allocations, should work withinthe limits provided by the overview committee. Scientistswould be involved in both groups. But, to ensure ac-countability, membership by individuals of the twogroups should not overlap.

Starr et al. [4] consider the merits of contested stockassessments, which involve scientists representing alter-native "shery interests. Traditionally, peer review is lim-ited to comments on the science arrangement's "naloutput * usually a written report. Contested assess-ments may have several advantages when the variousparties work cooperatively on assessments. In addition toproviding more intensive review, they often reveal errorsand oversights in calculations. Furthermore, involve-ment in the assessment process promotes ownership ofthe assessment, so that participants lose their ability tolobby politically at "shery management meetings.

Other publications review science functions in speci"c"shery regimes. Kearney [6] examines the implicationsof UNCLOS and the declaration of EEZs to the manage-ment and harvesting of western Paci"c tuna resources.He articulates the need for "shery management that isbased on scienti"c advice. Such advice should be objec-tive and be derived through region-wide data collection,biological research and stock assessment. He proposesthe phased development of regional "shery regimes thatinclude broad-scale economic appraisals of the "shery aswell as science, management and surveillance functions.Kearney [6, p. 282] concludes that `2it is unlikely thata regional "sheries body could best represent the devel-oping countries and territories of the area without its

own impartial secretariat and independent data-compil-ing and research facilitiesa.

Joseph and Greenough [7] consider biological, legaland political aspects of the international management oftuna, bill"sh and dolphins. They identify four main prob-lems faced by international "shery regimes: catch alloca-tion; the viability of commercial "shing operations;enforcement; and science. They suggest that a key prob-lem of "shery science* securing the necessary data* istractable. Joseph and Greenough [7] maintain thatscience must be kept independent of economic, enforce-ment and political functions. They compare the perfor-mance of several international regimes and conclude thatscience secretariats have been successful in managingshared marine living resources. In contrast, multinationalarrangements have had varying degrees of success. Inparticular, Joseph and Greenough [7] doubt the abilityof multinational arrangements to build the sciencecapacities of less developed members, and question theindependence of multinational arrangements. In multina-tional arrangements, political and economic pressures`2can lead to questions concerning the impartiality ofstock assessment studies carried out by nations withstrong interests in the tuna "sheriesa [7, p. 188].

In a study sponsored by the Ocean Wildlife Campaign,Weber reviews international e!orts to conserve [8]pelagic "shes in the Paci"c Ocean. He identi"es geo-graphical gaps in "shery regimes, such as the north-western Paci"c Ocean, and biological gaps, such as thelack of attention given to pelagic sharks. Functional gapsresult from a management body lacking authority toaddress some key element of conservation, such as en-forcement or data collection. He highlights the reluctanceof many regimes to adopt the precautionary approach to"shery management. Weber also notes that the accept-ance of management decisions is rarely legally binding onindividual nations.

P. Ward et al. / Marine Policy 24 (2000) 93}108 95

Tab

le1

Listof

regi

onal

org

anisat

ions

esta

blished

tom

anag

eor

rese

arch

mar

ine

livin

gre

sour

ces

Acr

onym

Org

anisat

ion

Found

ing

year

Spec

ies

Geo

grap

hic

alar

eaSci

ence

and

man

agem

ent

obje

ctiv

esA

ppr

oac

hto

scie

nce

ICES

Inte

rnat

iona

lC

ounc

ilfo

rth

eE

xplo

ration

ofth

eSe

a

1902

Var

ious

com

mer

cial

spec

ies

incl

udin

g;hal

ibut,

cod,

salm

on

Atlan

tic

Oce

anPro

vide

info

rmat

ion

and

advi

ceto

mem

ber

gove

rnm

ents

and

inte

rnat

iona

lre

gula

tory

com

missions

for

the

pro

tect

ion

ofth

em

arin

een

viro

nm

entan

d"sh

ery

conse

rvat

ion

Multin

atio

nal

IPH

CIn

tern

atio

nalP

aci"

cH

alib

utC

om

mission#

1923

Hal

ibut

Nort

hPac

i"c

Oce

anan

dBer

ing

Sea

Join

tm

anag

emen

tan

dpr

eser

vation

ofth

ehal

ibut"sh

ery

inth

eC

onv

ention

area

Scie

nce

secr

etar

iat

IWC

Inte

rnat

ional

Wha

ling

Com

mission

1946

Wha

les

All

Oce

ans

Pro

vide

for

the

prop

erco

nser

vation

ofw

hal

est

ock

san

dth

usm

ake

poss

ible

the

ord

erly

deve

lopm

ent

ofth

ew

halin

gin

dus

try

Multin

atio

nal

APF

ICA

sia-

Pac

i"c

Fisher

ies

Com

mission"

1948

Var

ious

spec

ies

Indo

-Pac

i"c

area

incl

udin

gin

land

wat

ers

Ass

ist

inth

eco

llect

ion

ofin

form

atio

nM

ultin

atio

nal

Pro

mot

eco

oper

atio

nam

ong

gove

rnm

enta

lorg

anisat

ions

Advi

seon

the

dev

elopm

entofin

land"sh

erie

s

GF

CM

Gen

eral

Fishe

ries

Coun

cilof

the

Med

iter

ranea

n"

1949

Var

ious

spec

ies

incl

udin

gtu

nas

and

smal

ltu

nas

Aqua

culture

Med

iter

ranea

nSe

a,Bla

ckSea

and

connec

ting

wat

ers

Pro

mot

eth

ede

velo

pmen

t,co

nse

rvat

ion

and

man

agem

ent

ofliv

ing

mar

ine

reso

urc

esM

ultin

atio

nal

Form

ulat

ean

dre

com

men

dco

nse

rvat

ion

mea

sure

sEnco

ura

getr

ainin

gpro

ject

s

IATTC

Inte

r-A

mer

ican

Tro

pic

alTuna

Com

mission#

1949

Tuna

,tu

na-

like

spec

ies,

dolp

hin

Eas

tern

Pac

i"c

Oce

anM

aint

ain

the

pop

ula

tions

ofth

ose"sh

esat

ale

velth

atw

illper

mit

max

imum

sust

aine

dca

tche

sSc

ience

secr

etar

iat

CPPS

South

Pac

i"c

Per

man

ent

Com

mission

1952

All

livin

gm

arin

ere

sourc

esM

ember

stat

eE

EZs

and

beyo

nd

inth

eSouth}E

astP

aci"

cO

cean

The

conse

rvat

ion

and

opt

imum

utili

sation

ofth

em

arin

ere

sourc

esbey

ond

thei

rEEZs

whe

nth

ese

are

part

ofth

esa

me

spec

ies

existing

inth

eir

EE

Zs,

or

pop

ula

tions

ofsp

ecie

sas

soci

ated

with

them

Multin

atio

nal

CA

RPA

SR

egio

nal

Fishe

ries

Com

mission

for

the

South

Wes

tA

tlan

tic

(inac

tive

since

1974

)

1961

Var

ious

spec

ies

South

wes

tA

tlan

tic

and

inla

ndw

ater

sofm

ember

nat

ions

Dev

elop

anorg

anised

appr

oach

among

mem

bers

for

the

man

agem

entan

dre

gional

explo

itat

ion

ofm

arin

ean

din

land

"sh

ery

reso

urc

es

Multin

atio

nal

Enco

ura

getr

ainin

gan

dco

ope

rative

inve

stig

atio

ns

CEC

AF

Fisher

yC

omm

itte

efo

rth

eE

aste

rnC

entr

alA

tlan

tic

1967

Var

ious

spec

ies

Eas

tern

Cen

tral

Atlan

tic

bet

wee

nC

ape

Spa

rtel

and

the

Cong

oR

iver

Pro

mot

epr

ogra

ms

ofdev

elopm

ent

for

the

ration

alutilisa

tion

of"sh

ery

reso

urc

esM

ultin

atio

nal

Ass

ist

ines

tablis

hin

gbas

isfo

rre

gula

tory

mea

sure

sEnco

ura

getr

ainin

g

ICC

AT

Inte

rnat

ional

Com

mission

for

the

Cons

erva

tion

of

Atlan

tic

Tunas

#

1969

Tuna

and

tuna

-lik

esp

ecie

sA

tlan

tic

Oce

anan

dad

jace

ntse

asC

ons

erve

tuna

and

tuna

-lik

esp

ecie

sM

ultin

atio

nal

Coop

erat

ein

mai

ntai

ning

the

popu

lation

softh

ese"sh

esat

leve

lsw

hic

hw

illpe

rmit

the

max

imum

sust

ainab

leca

tch

for

food

and

oth

erpurp

oses

(con

tinu

edon

nextpa

ge)


Tab

le1

(cont

inued

)List

ofre

gion

alorg

anisat

ions

esta

blishe

dto

man

age

or

rese

arch

mar

ine

livi

ng

reso

urce

s

Acr

ony

mO

rgan

isat

ion

Foun

din

gye

arSp

ecie

sG

eogr

aphi

calar

eaSc

ience

and

man

agem

ent

obje

ctiv

esA

ppro

ach

tosc

ience

IBSF

CIn

tern

atio

nal

Bal

tic

Sea

Fisher

ies

Com

mission

1973

Var

ious

spec

ies

incl

udi

ng

cod,

salm

on,

spra

t,he

rrin

g

Bal

tic

Sea

Eva

luat

eth

est

atus

ofco

mm

erci

alst

ocks

inth

eC

onve

ntio

nar

eaan

dde

cide

onto

talal

low

able

catc

h(T

AC

)an

dits

appo

rtio

nm

ent!

Multin

atio

nal

WEC

AF

CW

este

rnC

entr

alA

tlan

tic

Fisher

yC

omm

ission

1973

Var

ious

spec

ies

Wes

tern

Cen

tral

Atlan

tic

Oce

anFac

ilitat

eth

eco

ord

inat

ion

ofre

sear

chM

ultin

atio

nal

Enco

urag

eed

uca

tion

and

trai

ning

Ass

ist

mem

ber

gove

rnm

ents

ines

tabl

ishi

ng

rationa

lpol

icie

sPro

mot

eth

era

tiona

lm

anag

emen

tofre

sourc

esof

inte

rest

totw

oor

mor

enat

ions

CIT

ES

Con

vention

on

Inte

rnat

ional

Tra

de

inEnda

nger

edSp

ecie

s

1975

Enda

nger

edfa

una

and#or

aW

orldw

ide

Pro

tect

spec

ies

thre

aten

edby

inte

rnat

iona

lco

mm

erci

altr

ade

Multin

atio

nal

OF

PO

cean

icF

isher

ies

Pro

gram

me

(Sec

reta

riat

ofth

ePac

i"c

Com

mun

ity)

#

1977

(194

7)Pel

agic"sh

spec

ies

South

Pac

i"c

EE

Zs

incl

udin

gG

uam

,Tru

stTer

rito

ries

ofth

ePac

i"c,

and

encl

ose

dse

as

Mee

tth

edev

elopm

entan

dsc

ience

nee

ds

ofSP

Cm

ember

sin

rega

rdto"sh

erie

sSc

ience

secr

etar

iat

FF

AForu

mFisher

ies

Age

ncy

1979

Tuna

EE

Zs

ofm

embe

rna

tions

inth

eW

este

rnan

dC

entr

alPac

i"c

Secu

reth

em

axim

umben

e"ts

from

the

regi

on's

livin

gm

arin

ere

sourc

esfo

rde

velo

pin

gnat

ions,

and

tofa

cilit

ate

the

colle

ctio

n,

anal

ysis,e

valu

atio

n,an

ddi

ssem

inat

ion

ofre

leva

ntst

atistica

l,sc

ienti"c

and

econom

icin

form

atio

nab

out

those

reso

urc

es,

part

icula

rly

the

hig

hly

mig

rato

rysp

ecie

s

Multin

atio

nal

NA

FO

Nort

hA

mer

ican

Fisher

ies

Org

anisat

ion

1979

Var

ious

spec

ies

incl

udi

ng

cod,

hake

,G

reen

land

halib

ut,tu

rbot

Nort

hwes

tA

tlan

tic

Oce

anou

tsid

eC

anad

a's

"sh

ing

zone

Pro

mot

eth

eco

nse

rvat

ion

and

opt

imal

utilis

atio

nofth

e"sh

ery

reso

urce

sof

the

Nort

heas

tA

tlan

tic

area

!

Multin

atio

nal

CC

AM

LR

Com

mission

for

the

Cons

erva

tion

Anta

rctic

Mar

ine

Liv

ing

Res

our

ces#

1980

Ant

arct

icliv

ing

reso

urc

es,in

cludi

ng

krill

,Pat

agon

ian

tooth"sh

,lan

tern"sh

South

ern

Oce

anD

evel

opm

ent

ofm

easu

res

nec

essa

ryfo

rth

eco

nse

rvat

ion

of

livin

gm

arin

ere

sourc

es.G

reat

erem

phas

ispla

ced

onth

elo

ng

term

sust

aina

ble

har

vest

ing

ofA

nta

rctic

reso

urc

es

Multin

atio

nal

NEA

FC

Nort

hE

astA

mer

ican

Fisher

ies

Com

mission

1980

Var

ious

spec

ies

incl

udi

ng

salm

on,

polla

ck,tu

rbot

red"sh

,w

hitin

g

Nort

heas

tA

tlan

tic

Oce

anPro

vide

for

the

conse

rvat

ion

and

man

agem

entof"sh

stoc

ks

inth

eR

egula

tory

Are

a!M

ultin

atio

nal

NA

SC

ON

ort

hA

mer

ican

Salm

onC

onse

rvat

ion

Org

anisat

ion

1983

Salm

onN

ort

hA

tlan

tic

Oce

anC

oor

dinat

em

anag

emen

tan

dco

nser

vation

e!ort

san

dad

vise

onre

sear

chre

quirem

ents

!

Multin

atio

nal

(con

tinu

edov

erle

af)


Tab

le1

(cont

inued

)Listof

regi

onal

org

anisat

ions

esta

blished

tom

anag

eor

rese

arch

mar

ine

livin

gre

sour

ces

Acr

onym

Org

anisat

ion

Found

ing

year

Spec

ies

Geo

grap

hic

alar

eaSci

ence

and

man

agem

ent

obje

ctiv

esA

ppr

oac

hto

scie

nce

NR

MU

(OE

C)

Nat

ional

Res

ourc

eM

anag

emen

tU

nit

(Org

anisat

ion

ofE

aste

rnC

arib

bean

Sta

tes)

1986

(198

1)V

ario

ussp

ecie

sEas

tern

Car

ibbe

anEst

ablis

ha

regi

me

for

the

sust

aina

ble

explo

itat

ion,

cons

erva

tion

and

man

agem

entof"sh

ery

reso

urc

es.A

lso

trai

nin

gan

ddev

elopm

ent

Scie

nce

secr

etar

iat

CFR

AM

P(C

AR

ICO

M)

Fisher

ies

Res

earc

hA

sses

smen

tan

dM

anag

emen

tPro

gram

(Car

ibbea

nC

om

munity

and

Com

mon

Mar

ket)

1991

Reg

ional"sh

ery

reso

urc

esC

arib

bean

Sea

Pro

mot

eth

em

anag

emen

tan

dco

nser

vation

ofth

e"sh

ery

reso

urc

esofC

AR

ICO

Mnat

ions

and

toper

mit

the

explo

itat

ion

ofth

ese

on

the

bas

isof

sust

aina

ble

yiel

d

Scie

nce

secr

etar

iat

IOT

CIn

dian

Oce

anTun

aC

om

mission

1993

Tuna

and

tuna

-lik

esp

ecie

sIn

dian

Oce

anPro

mot

eco

oper

atio

nin

the

cons

erva

tion

oftu

naan

dtu

na-lik

esp

ecie

san

dal

sopro

mote

thei

roptim

umutilisa

tion

,and

the

sust

aina

ble

dev

elop

men

tofth

e"sh

erie

s

Multin

atio

nal

CC

SBT

Com

mission

for

the

Cons

erva

tion

of

South

ern

Blu

e"n

Tuna#

1994

South

ern

blue"

ntu

na

Entire

mig

rato

ryra

nge

ofso

uthe

rnblu

e"n

tuna

Ensu

re,th

rough

appr

opriat

em

anag

emen

t,th

eco

nse

rvat

ion

and

optim

um

utili

sation

ofso

uth

ern

blu

e"n

tuna

Multin

atio

nal

WIO

TO

Wes

tIn

dia

nO

cean

Tuna

Org

anisat

ion

1994

Tuna

and

tuna

-lik

esp

ecie

sW

este

rnIn

dia

nO

cean

Pro

vide

suppo

rtto

coas

talst

ates

inre

lation

tofo

reig

n"sh

ers

and

coop

erat

ion

inde

velo

pm

ent

activi

ties

Multin

atio

nal

ISC

Inte

rim

Scie

nti"

cC

om

mitte

eon

Nort

hPac

i"c

Tun

aan

dTuna-

like

Spe

cies

1996

Tuna

and

tuna

-lik

esp

ecie

sN

ort

hP

aci"

cM

emora

ndu

mofunde

rsta

ndin

gbe

twee

nJa

pan

and

the

USA

to`e

nha

nce

scie

nti"

cre

sear

chof

Nor

thPac

i"c

stock

san

dw

ork

tow

ards

apr

oces

sby

whic

ha

man

agem

ent

schem

ew

ould

even

tual

lybe

put

inpl

acea

Multin

atio

nal

!Sto

ckas

sess

men

tsar

eco

nduct

edth

rough

ICE

S."Sc

ient

i"c

advi

ceis

pro

vided

by

ICC

AT.

#Indi

cate

sor

gani

sation

sth

atw

eex

amin

edth

roug

hin

terv

iew

s.N

ote

:This

tabl

esh

owsth

eva

riet

yof

org

anisat

ions

,but

isno

tin

tend

edto

be

anex

haust

ive

listofr

egio

nalo

rgan

isat

ions

.Um

brel

laorg

anisat

ions

and

thei

rfo

undin

gye

arar

esh

own

inpar

enth

eses

.


The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion (FAO) has sponsored several studies of regional"shery regimes, providing an information base for thedevelopment of new "shery regimes, and as input toUnited Nations conferences (e.g. UNIA). In 1993, FAOorganised an international consultation on the role ofregional "shery bodies in assembling high seas "sherystatistics [9]. The FAO Consultation examined howthose statistics were reported, collated and exchanged. Itspeci"ed the data requirements of "shery managementand science, and discussed the logistical and "nancialimplications of data collection. The consultation high-lighted the need for veri"cation of logbook data againstobserver or landings data, the need for real-timemonitoring programs and the support needed by devel-oping nations in "shery monitoring.

Burke and Christy [10] examine options for the man-agement of the Indian Ocean tuna "shery. They assessfour management functions (information collection, re-gulation, enforcement and allocation of bene"ts). Burkeand Christy [10] emphasise the importance of collectinginformation on the "shery's economic and social at-tributes in order to maximise net bene"ts and facilitateallocation between the various stakeholders. They con-clude that a single agency is the most desirable approachto data collection and research.

Shomura and Jayewardene [3] review internationaltuna management bodies as background for the creationof the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). Theyconclude that the quality and quantity of "shery datadepend on the regime's mandate and membership, andthat close liaison with the "shing industry is required forthe collection of data and other information. Like Burkeand Christy [9], they suggest that dedicated researchagencies are the best way of obtaining biological data.They also note that most regional "shery regimes includean objective of optimum utilisation, so that the resourceis harvested to provide maximum social and economicbene"ts to regime members. They conclude that in-creased attention to research on economic and socialfactors is required for "shery regimes to meet goals ofoptimum utilisation.

2. Comparison of approaches

The performance of science arrangements is often ob-scured by external factors such as the priorities set bymembers, the "nancial and human resources available,biological characteristics of the species and acceptanceand implementation of advice by management. Eventhough a healthy and pro"table "shery is the ultimatemeasure of the performance of the entire "shery regime,judgements based on the status of the mandated stocksdo not necessarily provide an insight into how well thescience component of the regime actually performs.

We take a qualitative approach to evaluating regionalscience arrangements. Table 2 lists the six science ar-rangements examined. They represent a variety of ap-proaches to providing scienti"c advice to regional "sherymanagement bodies (e.g. science secretariat and multina-tional arrangements; pelagic and demersal species; singlespecies "sheries, multispecies "sheries and wider, ecosys-tem approaches; bilateral and multilateral involvement).We evaluated each arrangement using published reportsand other, unpublished literature, and conducted hour-long telephone interviews in 1997}98 with 41 eminentscientists and people associated with the arrangements.2

We structure our evaluation according to four sciencefunctions (data collection, research, stock assessment,provision of advice) and six attributes (independence,priority setting, review, industry and non-governmentorganisation involvement, training and development,costs and funding). We considered those functions andattributes to be the most important for a science arrange-ment for the western and central Paci"c tuna "shery.Consideration of science arrangements for other "sheriesmay need to have di!erent criteria.

2.1. Data collection

Data collection and the maintenance of databases areaccepted as essential for most "shery science and man-agement activities. The mandate and support providedby the regime's membership largely determine its successin data collection. In either approach to "shery science,the coverage of "shing activities by data collection pro-grams can be compromised where important "shing na-tions are not members of the arrangement. Problemsmay also be encountered where "shing activities outsidethe regime's jurisdiction take targeted or incidentalcatches of species that are the regime's responsibility,e.g. catches of halibut by Russian trawlers present prob-lems for the International Paci"c Halibut Commission(IPHC) whose membership is limited to Canada andthe USA.

Through central control, science secretariats can es-tablish data sets of relatively uniform quality. Manyscience secretariats, like the Inter-American TropicalTuna Commission (IATTC), have been able to guaranteedata con"dentiality. Consequently, they can access de-tailed information that is not usually available to othergroups or even the national government responsible forthe vessel.

In contrast, the quality of data submissions can varygreatly between members in multinational arrangements,and there is often little that the arrangement can do toredress the problem. The need for con"dentiality can alsoresult in problems for multinational arrangements. It is

2Ward et al. [11] provide details of the interview process.


Table 2List of science arrangements evaluated through literature reviews and telephone interviews with scientists and people associated with eacharrangement

Acronym Organisation Landed value($US million)

Annual budget($US million)

(%)

Multinational approachesCCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Blue"n Tuna 172 0.4 0.3ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas1000 0.9 0.1

CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic MarineLiving Resources

67 1.2 1.8

Science secretariatsIPHC International Paci"c Halibut Commission 150 2.8 1.9IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 800 3.5 0.4OFP Oceanic Fisheries Programme 1700 1.4 0.1

Note: Also shown are estimates of the arrangement's budget and the landed value of the catch in its area for 1994 or 1995. The budget is shown asa percentage of the landed value.

quite feasible to establish conditions to maintain datacon"dentiality. But, in the interests of uniformity of inputfrom members and to simplify data submissions andprocessing, many multinational arrangements havesettled for broad-scale units for all data submissions, e.g.the International Commission for the Conservation ofAtlantic Tunas (ICCAT) requires longline catch ande!ort data by "ve-degree-square and month. Individualnations involved in ICCAT rely on their own, often adhoc, arrangements to gather and access "ne-scale data.

2.2. Research

Science secretariats have several advantages over multi-national arrangements in their capacity to undertake bio-logical research. Their research can be region-wide andspeci"cally designed to meet the information needs ofregional stock assessment and management. Secretariat ofthe Paci"c Community (SPC) regional research projects,for example, have tagged and released tunas throughoutthe western Paci"c unhindered by national boundaries.Those projects provided critical information on region-wide population dynamics and assessed stock status.

In contrast to science secretariats, multinational ar-rangements rely on national research e!orts, which canrarely mount region-wide research programs. Multi-national arrangements also su!er from competing na-tional priorities. However, multinational arrangementsmay have an advantage over science secretariats in theirsuperior ability to utilise extensive, national researchfacilities for multidisciplinary studies.

2.3. Stock assessment

Multinational arrangements show advantages inhaving a transparent, democratic approach to stock

assessment. They usually involve many scientists repre-senting expertise in a wide range of "elds. Compared withscience secretariats, members of multinational arrange-ments have greater opportunity to question and discusseach step and assumption in the assessment process.

Nevertheless, multinational arrangements must oftenadopt standard models and inputs for stock assessmentsbecause of time constraints and the need to reach consen-sus at meetings. They may also be more prone to com-putational errors where assessments and modelling areattempted during brief, annual meetings. On the otherhand, Starr et al. [4] conclude that having two or moreparties replicate stock assessments almost always revealserrors in the original calculations.

Whereas multinational arrangements are vulnerableto external in#uences, science secretariats run the risk ofbecoming dominated by a single view. Vigorous peerreview is the best remedy, both for the problem of inde-pendence in multinational arrangements and that ofisolation in science secretariats.

2.4. Provision of advice

Quanti"ed assessment of the risk of management op-tions is one way in which communication between scien-tists and "shery managers has been improved in recentyears. Yet, the level of interaction between science ad-visers and "shery managers is believed by many scientiststo be unsatisfactory.

The six science arrangements communicate advicethrough a summary report presented to the managementbody by a representative (usually the `Directora in thecase of science secretariats; the `Chairpersona of thescience committee in the case of multinational arrange-ments). Having advice communicated by one representa-tive promotes the delivery of a single, clear message to themanagement body.


Because they are not necessarily all involved in thescience, members of science secretariats may not feela sense of ownership of the scienti"c advice delivered.

In contrast, informal communication between nationalscientists and their members on the management bodycharacterise multinational arrangements. Such commun-ication can be useful in providing members with aninsight on assessments. However, some interviewees sug-gested that it may also be counter-productive, in certainmultinational arrangements, where some members mayselect elements of the scienti"c advice that support theirnation's political or economic positions on managementmeasures and quota allocation. Consequently, somemembers may attend management meetings with pre-determined versions of the assessment.

2.5. Independence of science

Results from interviews con"rmed the conclusion ofJoseph and Greenough [7], that science secretariats areless prone to external interference than are multinationalarrangements. The science conducted by science secret-ariats is relatively insulated from national politics, indus-try lobbying and conservationist interests. Secretariatsta!, under the guidance and protection of their director,have a clear mandate to conduct science objectively andto present scienti"c advice to their members without bias.They are wary of aligning their priorities with those ofindividual members. The sta!s of science secretariats aregenerally viewed by their members as international civilservants and presumably above national politics [2].

The sources of funding for science secretariats havethe potential to in#uence their independence. Resultsfrom interviews, however, revealed no clear evidence thatfunding sources have a signi"cant e!ect on the indepen-dence of the science secretariats evaluated.

Multinational arrangements involve national scientistsin all aspects of the science, from data collection throughto assessment and interpretation. Their backgroundsrange from semi-autonomous research institutions, suchas universities, through to government agencies. Forsmall nations it is common for the person involved tohave responsibilities spanning other "shery activities,such as licensing and surveillance, in addition to science.A few interviewees suspected that some national scien-tists might attend science meetings with positions thathave been pre-determined by political or economic for-ces. This can leave the science open to criticism, evenwhere the science may be completely independent andobjective.

Wealthy nations often dominate multinational ar-rangements where participation in the various sciencemeetings is self-funded. Providing a central pool of fundsto support the participation of scientists from all interest-ed nations, and collaborative research projects and pro-grams for building the capabilities of less advanced

nations, are measures which promote equity in thescience arrangement.

In the Commission for the Conservation of SouthernBlue"n Tuna (CCSBT) national scientists conduct stockassessments together. However, the southern blue"ntuna stock's high level of exploitation and CCSBT's smallmembership (currently three nations) have encouragedan adversarial approach to many science meetings. InCCSBT, each component of the stock assessment be-comes a matter of debate as nations attempt to reachconsensus on technical issues such as inputs, models to beused, weighting of uncertainties and subsequent interpre-tation of results. The small membership also makes it di$-cult to maintain a balance between views, and often leadsto a polarisation in interpretations of uncertainties instock recovery. Certainly, trust is an essential ingredient inthe science arrangements evaluated, particularly for thosewith few members. It is a quality that cannot be manufac-tured. It is the product of the long-term honesty of actionsand interactions of all participants in the regime.

The adoption of standard models and inputs for stockassessments has improved independence in multinationalarrangements. Also, in most multinational arrangements,a science committee reviews the outputs of technicalgroups before formulating advice for the managementbody. Such science committees have a broad member-ship, and may rewrite the technical advice in a form thatthey perceive the management body requires. Many in-terviewees considered "ltering and interpretation to beuseful functions of science committees. However, somewere concerned that intervening layers, such as sciencecommittees, might provide an opportunity for nations todilute or distort the scienti"c advice.

2.6. Priority setting

The insulation of science secretariats against externalin#uences promotes independence, but it may in theprocess promote an arrangement that does not adequate-ly meet the information needs of members. Work pro-grams are usually developed by science secretariat sta!and approved by members without detailed discussion.National representatives with backgrounds in inter-national policy and "shery management attend annualmeetings associated with science secretariats. They maysee little value in devoting time and e!ort to reviewingpriorities when secretariat sta! have a superior under-standing of the "shery and appear to be doing anadequate job.

Interviewees recalled instances where science secret-ariats have been slow to respond to new developments.IATTC, for example, continued to focus primarily on thetraditional problems with yellow"n tuna and dolphin inthe Eastern Paci"c. It was, in the opinion of some, slow torespond to the emerging problem of purse seine bycatchof bigeye tuna in the early 1990s.


In contrast to science secretariats, multinational ar-rangements are often more responsive to emerging issueswithin a "shery. If any member gives weight to a particu-lar issue, it is likely to be at least debated. ICCAT, forexample, has recognised the vulnerability of bigeye topurse seine "shing since 1979, long before the issue hadbeen accepted as a priority in the Eastern Paci"c.

Multinational arrangements provide all members withopportunities to identify science priorities whether or notthey have the experience and ability to do so. Membersare able to concentrate on national science requirementsand are encouraged to cooperate and develop collab-orative projects. ICCAT's Blue"n Year Program is anexample of a multinational arrangement successfullyfostering regional cooperation in "shery science.

Several of the multinational arrangements producedonly generic recommendations on regional science prior-ities. Individual nations are then responsible for adoptingthose priorities and integrating them with their ownnational programs. Many members lack the capacityto undertake the recommended work. Others simplyhave national priorities that di!er from the agreedposition. Such a process may also result in membersconducting research without due consideration ofhow assessments will be used by the regional "sheryregime.

In contrast to many other multinational arrangements,CCSBT vigorously pursues agreement on science priori-ties. Here, priority setting is driven by southern blue"ntuna's precarious status and the need to remove uncer-tainties in assessments that directly a!ect the restrictivetotal allowable catch and national quotas.

The SPC's Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) com-bines a science secretariat approach with many of thestrengths of multinational arrangements. Nations main-tain a role in providing input to the research processthrough the Regional Technical Meeting on Fisheries(RTMF) and the Standing Committee on Tuna and Bill-"sh (SCTB). The creation of species research groups foridentifying advice needs has recently strengthened na-tional involvement in priority setting. Through themForum Fisheries Agency (FFA), individual nations andgroups of nations have also been able to provide feed-back to OFP on the use of scienti"c advice in "sherymanagement.

2.7. Review

None of the arrangements evaluated have establisheda review process that ensures the highest possible qualityof its scienti"c advice. Existing review processes aremostly disjointed, with science secretariats tending toavoid serious, ongoing review of their activities byworld-leading scientists, be they national or independent.

IATTC has an established process for nationalscientists to review recommendations prior to their

consideration by the management body. Those reviewsfocus on the results of stock assessments and the overallvalidity of the science. Yet, members have rarely usedIATTC's review mechanism.

IPHC has no formal external or national review pro-cess, although the inclusion of advisers to speci"callymonitor IPHC stock assessments does provide someavenue for review. Even with those advisers and publictestimonies, IPHC's science has rarely been publiclyquestioned to the point that secretariat sta! havehad to repeat or alter signi"cant components of theirassessments.

Both IATTC and IPHC have engaged independentscientists to conduct ad hoc reviews of particular assess-ments. Although various reviews have been conducted,neither arrangement has instituted review as a formalfunction. This reduces the accountability of those ar-rangements to their members. Of further concern is thetendency for science secretariats to organise the reviewsand have review teams reporting to secretariat sta!rather than to members.

Multinational arrangements also lack formal mecha-nisms for reviewing their science. However, ICCAT andthe Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Mar-ine Living Resources (CCAMLR) have the advantage oflarge numbers of scientists being involved in assessments.Interviewees agree that such a diversity of views tends toincrease debate which adds to the quality of science.Member science capacities and national priorities may,however, limit the level of review. Many multinationalarrangements have standardised their assessments to en-sure consensus within tight time frames. This may lead toan acceptance of inferior science in the interests of ob-taining agreement.

CCSBT, where the three member nations have largescience capacities, has agreed on a `standarda stockassessment model. Yet, CCSBT has also begun to focuson the need for independent review. In CCSBT an inde-pendent `umpirea is needed to help resolve a deadlock onmodelling, input weightings and stock recovery projec-tions. Other multinational arrangements (e.g. IPHC),which have relied upon member scientists to maintainthe quality of their science, have also required indepen-dent arbitration on their assessments, particularly whenstocks fall to low levels.

2.8. Industry and NGO involvement

Unless managed e!ectively, the inclusion of industryand non-government organisations (NGOs) in sciencearrangements has the potential to a!ect the indepen-dence of the science. However, several interviewees sup-ported the assertion of Burke and Christy [9], that the"shing industry and NGOs can provide useful technicalinputs to regional "shery science. Participation of thosegroups may also aid acceptance of scienti"c advice and


recommendations. However, none of the arrangementsevaluated has satisfactorily involved industry or NGOsin their science.

In our review, IPHC was the only arrangement to dealwith the issue of industry participation. IPHC hasfostered close links with industry through port samplingprograms that place its sta! in direct contact with "shers.IPHC's Conference Board provides industry with formalinvolvement in assessment and management of the hali-but "shery. Industry is able to comment on assessmentsand recommendations prior to their consideration by themanagement body. Through public testimonies the"shing industry can also present their views on "sherydevelopments, catch rate trends, stock status and sciencepriorities directly to Commissioners. Public testimoniesalso provide other NGOs with access to stock assess-ments and scienti"c advice. Although IPHC allows in-dustry and other interests to comment on assessmentresults, it is noteworthy that IPHC does not accommod-ate their involvement in the actual stock assessmentprocess.

In multinational arrangements, some members haveincluded non-government groups and industry represen-tatives in their national delegations. At CCSBT Scienti"cCommittee meetings, for example, Australia and Japanregularly include industry representatives in their delega-tions. CCAMLR has also invited a scientist from theInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature(IUCN) to participate in its working group.

2.9. Training and development

Science arrangements in many regions need to addressthe lack of science capacities of coastal and island na-tions. It is noteworthy that many arrangements consider`development needsa to be a matter of acquiring stockassessment modelling skills. One interviewee pointed outthat those nations may need to "rst develop their abilitiesto establish monitoring programs, to interpret assess-ments of the extent of their tuna resources and toevaluate advice on how to maximise economic returns.

In contrast to Joseph and Greenough [7], our inter-views suggest that science meetings held by multinationalarrangements do provide a useful training experience formany member scientists. However, the time constraintson meetings often reduce the opportunity for more quali-"ed scientists to give individual colleagues appropriateguidance.

Several multinational arrangements have supportedmore formal training and development programs outsideof science meetings. ICCAT, for example, has convenedtraining courses and has been active in improving thequality of national information systems through theStanding Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS).Some ICCAT members, such as the USA, have providedexchanges for scientists from developing nations to

enhance national science capacities and involvement inthe "shery regime.

Science secretariats, which control the full range ofscience activities, would seem to be in a good positionto address member training and development needs.IATTC has assisted many members by developing andsupporting national data collection systems and throughcollaborative research on coastal resources. It has alsosupported exchange programs with member scientists.

In general, however, science secretariats are usuallyfocussed on assessing the status of stocks. They rarelyhave a clear mandate for training and development. Con-sequently, science secretariats have provided training andexchanges of scientists in an opportunistic, rather thana structured, manner. Sta! exchanges are often designedto bene"t science secretariats by facilitating access tonational data sets and establishing contacts in membernations; exchanges are not always developed for theprimary purpose of building national science capabilities.

Of the science arrangements reviewed, OFP appearsthe most successful in delivering training to membernations. Among other activities, it has combined a struc-tured exchange program with extensive e!orts underSPRTRAMP to develop the capacities of Paci"c islandnations in scienti"c monitoring. A factor in OFP's suc-cess in training is the recognition by members and sta!that the parent body, SPC, is a development agency.

2.10. Costs and funding

The annual budgets of the science secretariats evalu-ated were up to 1.9% of the annual landed value of their"shery. There are many dangers, however, in applyinga set rate of landed value to science funding. For example,a multispecies "shery is comparatively more expensive tostudy than a single species one. A collapsing one mayrequire a greater science e!ort than a moderately ex-ploited "shery, yet a collapsing "shery may have areduced capacity to provide funds for science.

Science secretariats are likely to be cheaper than multi-national arrangements in terms of total costs and e!ec-tiveness (i.e. the relevance and quality of scienti"c adviceto regional resource issues). Nations may not need tomaintain duplicate data collection and research pro-grams when science secretariats take on those responsi-bilities and centralise data and research. The budgets ofIATTC and IPHC, for instance, are much larger thantheir multinational counterparts (Table 2), and their costsaccount for a much greater component of regionalscience activities. Also noteworthy is the IPHC surveyprogram, which "nances much of IPHC's science activ-ities through the sale of catch taken during resourceassessment surveys.

Science secretariats often depend on just a fewfunding sources. Those sources are sometimes unreliableand many are unwilling or unable to make funding


commitments beyond one year. Consequently, sciencesecretariats have little con"dence in long-term workplans.

The region-wide perspective and centralised approachof science secretariats makes them attractive to fundingdonors in addition to member governments. IATTC hasattracted external funding through consultancies toFAO, the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)and the "shing industry. OFP has long-term fundingdeals with the European Union (EU) for tagging, portsampling and observer programs. Such activities, how-ever, have been restricted by the need for grant recipientsto concentrate on their fundamental responsibilities tomembers.

Compared with science secretariats, multinationalarrangements are less attractive to external funding agen-cies. Although running on relatively low budgets, multi-national arrangements take little advantage of economiesof scale. Member nations are called upon to individuallytake on the core science functions for their #eets andwaters. Subsequently, the costs of the arrangement arethe sum of all science activities undertaken by all mem-bers. The hidden costs of multinational arrangementsinclude:

f duplication of administrative support amongst nation-al "shery agencies,

f high costs of participation by large delegations tonumerous science meetings; and

f duplication of research, especially where the prioritysetting process is loose and there is limited collabora-tion between members.

The 1990s have featured signi"cant advances in com-munications technology, such as the development ofelectronic mail (`e-maila) and Internet facilities. Thoseadvances have improved access to data and information,but interviewees did not believe that this technologywould replace the need for personal contact, such asannual conferences and meetings, required in multi-national arrangements.

3. Recommendations for future science arrangements

3.1. Ideal science arrangements

The six arrangements evaluated deliver on the fourbasic science functions of data collection, research, stockassessment and provision of scienti"c advice. The qualityof science is dependent on the arrangement's structureand level of funding. It is also dependent on how thescience arrangement's responsibilities are speci"ed, howthey are implemented and the personnel that are in-volved. The science secretariat and multinationalarrangements are both capable of providing regional"shery management bodies with high quality scienti"c

advice. But both approaches have weaknesses. Tables 3and 4 list weaknesses identi"ed for each approach andinclude possible remedies for each weakness.

The distribution and scope of authority to managethroughout the life history of the "sh species is a crucialfactor in the performance of science arrangements.IPHC, for example, did not have authority to deal withhalibut bycatch in the trawl "shery as it expanded duringthe 1950s. Consequently, trawl bycatch became the lar-gest cause of stock declines in the halibut "shery by the1960s. Moreover, IPHC was not permitted to deal withthe economics of the "shery so that questions of over-capitalization were beyond its control.

Science secretariats are superior to multinational ar-rangements on many of the criteria considered in ourevaluation. Through agreements with data custodians,science secretariats can access con"dential "shery data,and establish centralised and relatively uniform data-bases. They are attractive to external funding agenciesand can mount region-wide research projects. Theiractivities are cost-e!ective, addressing the speci"cadvice needs of the management body. Importantly,science secretariats are largely insulated from externalin#uences that have the potential to prevent "sheryregimes meeting their objectives. Although members areresponsible for scrutinising and guiding the activitiesof science secretariats, our interviews supported a tend-ency for members to allow secretariats to conduct theiractivities in relative isolation. While such isolationcan create problems for priority setting, it can be usefulin arrangements where nations must negotiate catchallocations.

Science secretariats do, however, have other weak-nesses. Sometimes they are not responsive to the needs ofindividual members. Recognising this de"ciency, somescience secretariats have developed formal arrangements,such as steering committees, that help members developtheir advice needs and to focus on priority setting. Train-ing and development is another area that regimes need torecognise as a valid function of science arrangements.The development of wide funding bases and long-termfunding commitments for science secretariats would easethe problem of funding instability.

Small, diverse "sheries were the only situations whereinterviewees identi"ed a potential weakness in data col-lection by science secretariats. Monitoring costs fora science secretariat would be high for diverse "sheries.In such situations, science secretariats may be more e!ec-tive if they arrange for national agencies to includemonitoring of those activities under their individualprograms.

Stock assessments conducted by science secretariatsoften rely on a few scientists. This may result in restrictedassessments. Science secretariats could broaden their as-sessments by encouraging greater involvement of ex-ternal experts in assessments and by establishing formal


Table 3Common strengths and weaknesses in multinational approaches, and suggested modi"cations that should be considered if a multinational approach isto be adopted for providing scienti"c advice to a management body responsible for the western and central Paci"c tuna "shery

Functions andattributes

Strengths Weaknesses Modi"cations

Data collection Variable coverage andquality

Secretariat establish and maintain a central database

Research Disjointed Secretariat to have a prominent role in coordinating researchCentral research fund

Stock assessment Product of ademocratic forum

Lowest commondenominator science

Establish formal processes for external reviewEstablish sub-committees of national and international experts

Provision of advice Sense of ownership Informal channels tomanagement body members

Institute decision rules to reduce the capacity of members to ignorescienti"c advice

Lack of accountability

Independence ofscience

Susceptible to externalin#uences

Restrict terms of reference to science issuesRestrict membership to scientists

Dominated by wealthy andadvanced nations

Central pool of funds to support participation of scientists from allinterested member nations

Technical advice dilutedby science committee

Standardise stock assessment models and inputs

Priority setting ResponsiveDemocratic

National priorities maynot match regional priorities

Form sub-groups of members with common interests to pursuenational issues

Review Range of scienti"cviews

Time constraints preventthorough review

Develop formal arrangements for review by members and independentscientists

Industry andNGO involvement

Included in few nationaldelegations

Develop speci"c arrangements for technical inputEncourage technical input through national delegations to appropriatemeetings

Training anddevelopment

Public presentationof science activities

Lack of attention tomember requirements

Develop programs to provide theoretical training in addition to practi-cal experience provided by science meetingsEncourage exchange of sta! between national "shery science agencies

Costs and funding Di$cult for individualmembers to monitor thecosts of their contributionto regional science

Secretariat to assist with the identi"cation of training opportunities formember scientistsDevelop regional programs that are attractive to external fundingdonors

DuplicationUnattractive to externalfunding donors

Note: Not all the arrangements may have all of the strengths or weaknesses listed, and there are di!ering degrees of strengths and weaknesses for eacharrangement.

processes for independent review. Ideally, science secret-ariats should involve member nations in many aspects oftheir work, particularly in priority setting and the reviewof assessments.

We classi"ed science arrangements as either sciencesecretariat or multinational arrangements, depending onwhether the arrangement uses independent sta! or na-tional scientists. However, combinations of the two ap-proaches are possible. Nations might choose to combinethe best features of science secretariats (e.g. independentsta! responsible for data and research) with the strengthsof multinational approaches (e.g. multinational meetingsfor reviewing stock assessments and setting priorities).Indeed, several arrangements have adapted features ofthe two approaches. OFP, for example, obtains national

input on priorities and review of stock assessmentsthrough its Standing Committee on Tuna and Bill"sh.ICCAT, a multinational arrangement, has a large secret-ariat that is responsible for many aspects of data.

3.2. Options for the western and central pacixc

The nations involved in the western and central Paci"cregime are reluctant to establish a totally new sciencesecretariat. The coastal nations are comfortable with thecurrent arrangement but accept that there are advant-ages in formally involving distant-water "shing nations.

Distant-water "shing nations have large commercialinterests in the resources, and the income derived fromthe "shery is critical to the economies of several Paci"c


Table 4Common strengths and weaknesses in science secretariats, and suggested modi"cations that should be considered if a science secretariat approach is tobe adopted for providing scienti"c advice to a management body responsible for the western and central Paci"c tuna "shery

Functions andattributes

Strengths Weaknesses Modi"cations

Data collection Centralised andrelatively uniformquality

Di$cult to cover small,national "shing activities

Negotiate with individual nations to collect data on science secretariat'sbehalf

Research Centralised Di$cult to conduct multi-disciplinary research

Develop links with research agencies with expertise in other "elds

Stock assessment Dedicated scientists Few individuals involved Greater involvement of members and independent scientists in stockassessmentsHave two or more stock assessment teams

Provision of advice Single voiceSense of accountability

Lack of ownership Involve member scientists in all activities (data, research, assessment,formulation of advice)

Independence ofscience

Insulated from mostexternal in#uences

Funding sources may exertsubtle in#uences

Encourage wide funding base

Priority setting Resist change Develop formal arrangements for national inputMembers have a peripheralrole

Encourage hands-on involvement of member scientists

Review Resist external review Develop arrangements for review by members and independentscientistsHave review teams report directly to members

Industry and NGOinvolvement

Technical input not includedin science

Develop alternative mechanisms for technical input to science

Training anddevelopment

Support sta! exchangeDevelop nationalmonitoring programs

Lack of attention to memberrequirements

Provide organisation with a clear mandate for training anddevelopment

Costs and funding Donors canmonitor costs andperformance

Unstable funding Allocate sta! to identifying and securing fundingDevelop wide funding bases and long term funding commitments

Attract external funding

Note: Not all the arrangements may have all of the strengths or weaknesses listed, and there are di!ering degrees of strengths and weaknesses for eacharrangement.

island nations. Consequently, many nations will insist onmaintaining an active involvement in the sciencearrangement because it is an important determinant ofcatch levels, and hence commercial pro"tability and re-gional prosperity.

Furthermore, the nations involved in establishingthe regime are unlikely to o!er the funding required toestablish a new science secretariat. A science secretariatwould require a large, up-front and long-term commit-ment of funding from the regime's members.

An existing arrangement* the OFP* is an attract-ive basis for developing a science arrangement for thewestern and central Paci"c. It successfully combinesa science secretariat with many features of multinationalarrangements, e.g. accommodating national input intoassessments and priority setting. OFP has a well-de-served reputation for providing high quality, unbiasedscienti"c advice to a broad range of interests, including

Paci"c island and metropolitan nations. It has earnedthat reputation by performing tasks that are almost iden-tical to those required of a regional science arrangementwith broader membership.

Nevertheless, the key issue facing OFP is the dichot-omy between its responsibilities at the national level, asdictated by SPC membership, and the possible accom-modation of a broader role encompassing extra high seasareas and distant-water interests. The paucity of sciencecapability in many Paci"c island nations makes OFP anessential resource to those members. Several intervieweesexpressed doubts over the OFP taking on the dual re-sponsibilities of providing advice to SPC members whileservicing a regional "shery regime that incorporates allinterests in the "shery. One way of ensuring that Paci"cisland nations retain OFP technical support would be forOFP (in competition with other agencies) to tenderfor contracts that provide science services (e.g., research


projects, stock assessments) to the broader managementbody. Under that option, the arrangement's sciencecommittee would be more active in reviewing assessmentresults and formulating advice, than in attempting toconduct stock assessments itself. Of critical importance isthe maintenance of service to SPC members as OFP'sprimary function.

3.3. Adjusting existing arrangements

Whereas science secretariats have several advantages,many nations and have opted for multinational arrange-ments that present a small up-front cost and securestheir involvement in the "shery. However, our reviewidenti"es several de"ciencies in multinational arrange-ments. Most notable are concerns over independence,inequities in participation and problems with data. Manyof those de"ciencies have possible, though not necessarilyinexpensive, solutions. For example, the numericaldominance of wealthy nations in multinational sciencemeetings can be countered by funding the partici-pation of less a%uent nations. Data coverage andquality in multinational arrangements can be improvedby strengthening the administration secretariat's role indata maintenance and veri"cation, and by upgradingnational capacities.

External in#uences can be reduced in multinationalarrangements by introducing expert panels for peer re-view and engaging independent chairpersons for sciencemeetings. A variation would be to have an expertise-based science committee, instead of each membernominating a representative to the science committee.Compared with a representative science committee, anexpertise-based science committee is more likely to beobjective and independent of political in#uence. How-ever, our review of international "shery regimes did notreveal any expertise-based science committees. Clearly,nations are not prepared to allow scientists from othercountries and backgrounds to be given preferentialaccess to the science-management process. Their positionis quite understandable because they may ultimatelyneed to act on the scienti"c advice. Nevertheless, it doesnot necessarily match the UNIA requirement of basingmanagement on the best available scienti"c advice.

Another useful way of diminishing the e!ects of ex-ternal in#uences* appropriate for science secretariats aswell as multinational arrangements * is to establishstrict decision rules for the consideration of scienti"cadvice by the management body. By stipulating pre-cautionary reference points that trigger speci"c manage-ment actions, UNIA attempts to embed biological con-siderations in decision-making. Yet, most regional "sheryregimes have been reluctant to incorporate decision rulesin "shery management.

Even with the best available scienti"c advice, there isno guarantee of maintaining sustainable "sheries because

of inherent uncertainty in "shery science and because"shery science is often decoupled from decision-makingprocesses. Furthermore, "shery management requires co-ordination of various forms of technical advice, and itmust integrate biological considerations with social andeconomic imperatives.

Paci"c island nations are currently well served withquality scienti"c advice from OFP. The OFP's parentbody, SPC, also provides economic and social advice tomember nations. The need to provide funding securityfor key SPC programs, such as OFP, and to ensure fullcooperation with nations with common "sh resourcesoutside the area of jurisdiction of SPC members isgenerating pressure to expand existing arrangements.The performance to date of OFP compares favourablywith other regional science arrangements. Therefore SPCmembers must be convinced of the need for changebefore altering a proven science arrangement.

Acknowledgements

The article is partly based on interviews with scientistsand other people associated with science arrangements.The Commonwealth Fisheries Resources Research Fund(FRRF) provided "nancial support for that work whichwas guided by a project steering committee involving Mr.Jon Barrington, Mr. Mark Gray, Dr. John Gunn, Ms.Mary Harwood, Ms. Dorothea Huber, Ms. Janaline Oh,Dr. Derek Staples. Mr. Gray provided information onthe International Seabed Authority, and Dr. Ed Milescommented on a draft of the Marine Policy journalarticle. The views expressed in the article are not neces-sarily those of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Forestry * Australia, University of Canberra orFRRF.

References

[1] Caddy JF. Checks and balance in the management of marinestocks: organisational requirements for a limit reference pointapproach, Fisheries Research, vol. 30. Amsterdam: ElsevierScience, 1997, p. 1}15.

[2] Cushing D. Fisheries Resources of the sea and their management.Bath: Oxford University Press, 1975.

[3] Shomura RS, Jayewardene HW. A review and analysis of interna-tional tuna management bodies of the world. Information PaperIOTC/II/92/Inf. 3 presented at the Conference for the adoption ofa draft agreement on the establishment of the Indian Ocean TunaCommission, Rome, 22}26 June 1992. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Rome, 1992.

[4] Starr P, Annala JH, Hilborn R. Contested stock assessment:two case studies. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences 1998;55:529}37.

[5] Kesteven GL. A "sheries science approach to problems of world"sheries or: three phases of an industrial revolution. FisheriesResearch 1996;25(1):5}17.


[6] Kearney RE. The law of the sea and regional "sheries policy.Ocean Development and International Law Journal 1978;5(2}3):249}86.

[7] Joseph J, Greenough JW. International management of tuna,porpoise, and bill"sh. Biological and political aspects. Seattle:University of Washington Press, 1979.

[8] Weber, ML. Gaps in the international conservation of largemigratory "shes in the Paci"c Ocean. Ocean Wildlife Campaign,Washington, 1996.

[9] FAO Report of the Ad hoc Consultation on the Role of RegionalFishery Agencies in Relation to High Seas Fishery Statistics. FAOFisheries Report No. 500. FAO, Rome, 1994.

[10] Burke WT, Christy Jr FT. Options for the management of tuna"sheries in the Indian Ocean. FAO Fisheries Technical PaperNo. 315. FAO, Rome, 1990.

[11] Ward P, Tsirbas N, Kearney R. Getting science into regional"shery management * A global view. Bureau of ResourceSciences, Canberra, 1998.


Science arrangements for the regional management of tuna fisheries

Documents

Transcript of Science arrangements for the regional management of tuna fisheries