From owner-FISH-ECOLOGY@helios.ulpgc.es Sat Nov 15 14:49:11 1997
Received: from iisc.ernet.in by ces.iisc.ernet.in (ERNET-IISc/SMI-4.1)
id OAA00371; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:49:11 GMT
Received: from helios.ulpgc.es by iisc.ernet.in (ERNET-IISc/SMI-4.1)
id UAA29269; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:20:31 +0530
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by helios.ulpgc.es (8.7.4/8.7.3) id LAA12865 for fish-ecology-list; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:41:30 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: helios.ulpgc.es: majordom set sender to owner-FISH-ECOLOGY@helios.ulpgc.es using -f
Received: from fobos.ulpgc.es (fobos.ulpgc.es [193.145.132.5]) by helios.ulpgc.es (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA12860 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:41:25 GMT
Received: from cicei.ulpgc.es (cicei.ulpgc.es [193.145.132.20])
by fobos.ulpgc.es (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA05305
for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:44:41 GMT
Received: from CICEI/SpoolDir by cicei.ulpgc.es (Mercury 1.31);
15 Nov 97 11:46:26 GMT
Received: from SpoolDir by CICEI (Mercury 1.31); 15 Nov 97 11:46:00 GMT
From: "Aldo P. Solari"
Organization: Univ. de Las Palmas de G.C.
To: fish-ecology@helios.ulpgc.es
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:45:51 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: An interesting debate article/fwd
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.31
Message-ID: <1A25CE308F@cicei.ulpgc.es>
Sender: owner-FISH-ECOLOGY@helios.ulpgc.es
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Aldo P. Solari"
Status: R
I'm sure many of the FE colleagues will find the article below very
interesting. Comments are welcome. Cheers, APS.
Forwarded message follows:
********************************************************************
CANADIAN DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS (DFO) FORUM
ON FISHERY SCIENCE IN RELATION TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: A SUMMARY
September 5, 1997
By
JANET RUSSELL 1
General Delivery, Tors Cove, NF A0A 4A0
********************************************************************
BACKGROUND
On September 5 the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
held a Public Forum in St. JohnAEs, Newfoundland entitled Fisheries
Science in relation to Fisheries Management. The Forum was
organized by DFO as part of their response to a recent article
(Hutchings et al. 1997) in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences (CJFAS). Hutchings et al. questioned whether
fisheries science could flourish under the direct administration of
a fishery management bureaucracy. They provided examples of
interference with in-house science at DFO by upper-level bureaucrats
and proposed that government science be made autonomous from
management. Amidst the media fervor that followed, DFO denied that
their scientists were fettered by management and challenged the
authors to a public debate. The impression was left that such a
debate would revolve around the specific allegations of meddling in
science made by the authors and the proposal to increase the
independence of DFO Science Branch.
What transpired was a seven member panel discussion on the following
predetermined questions:
1. What new types of scientific information should be collected to
support fishery management and how should fishery scientists,
managers, and harvesters be involved in that data collection?
2. How should that scientific information be analyzed, taking
uncertainties and imperfections into account, and who should be
involved?
3. How can the results of those analyses, along with uncertainties
about them, best be communicated to others, including decision
makers in the fishing industry and in fishery management agencies?
4. How should decisions in management agencies and the fishing
industry best be made that take scientific information and its
uncertainties into account?
5. How should these processes of data collection, data analysis,
communication and decision making be organized institutionally,
including the roles of fishery scientists, managers, harvesters and
others?
Panel members were: W. Doubleday, Director-General of Fishery
Science at DFO; J. Hutchings, Assistant Professor, Dalhousie
University and principal author of the CJFAS article precipitating
the forum; D. Lane, University of Ottawa; T. Pitcher, University of
British Columbia; M. Sissenwine, National Marine Fishery Service,
Woods Hole, U.S.A.; S. Garcia, Fishery Resource Division of FAO and
E. McCurdy, President of the Food and Fisheries Allied Workers, St.
JohnAEs.
The forum was chaired by A. May, President of Memorial University of
Newfoundland & Labrador and former Assistant and Deputy Minister of
Fisheries (DFO). The afternoon began with ten minute presentations
from each panel member, followed by panel discussion and questions
from the floor. What follows is an attempt to represent in some
detail, often using the original phrasing, what was said and by
whom.
PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Doubleday spoke first, presenting a talk co-authored with a long
list of other DFO managers. Having been at the center of much of
the recent controversy engulfing DFO, many people attending were
particularly keen to hear what he had to say. A number of
objectives were stated. Fishery science must have objective quality
and acceptance by the clients; long-term observations and sustained
research are needed; monitoring should focus not just on fish stocks
but also on ecosystems; data analysis requires teamwork; peer review
is essential; communication should be rapid, broad and unfiltered;
Fishery Science should be a partnership between industry,
government, other stakeholders and academia and there should be
continuity and accountability. In addition Doubleday commented that
Science is most relevant to decisions on conservation measures, not
so good when it comes to making allocation decisions, and more
influential when housed in a government department.
Garcia emphasized the realization that natural resources are still
not well managed and current institutions responsible are not up to
the task. In enumerating sources of uncertainty Garcia dwelt to
some extent on the absence of clear objectives for management and
the failure to integrate national policies into practice. He
identified three relevant research areas: the conservation-oriented,
the operations-oriented and research on policy. Garcia decried the
paucity of research on policy and assessment of management. He
suggested that future information should flow increasingly and
directly from Science to the Public, Fishers, Non-governmental
Organizations and the Media without passing through Management.
Later during discussion Garcia urged the government to radicalize
its task by leaving industry to pursue research concerned with their
own tactical goals and to be less forgiving of regulation
transgressions.
Lane was of the opinion that separating science from management was
counter-productive and proposed that on the contrary science should
be further integrated into management. Pointing out that government
has failed to conserve the stock, he suggested that fishing
interests had a stake in sustaining the resource and should be
recognized as equal partners in resource management. A new form of
analysis is needed to shift things to the level of fishery
operations. He proposed the use of harvesters to collect oin-season
infooe for the confirmation or rejection of trends.
McCurdy complained of past relations between Science, Management and
Harvesters in which information from harvesters had been
systematically dismissed as anecdotal. Referring to fishers as the
PhDs of the briny deep he scorned over reliance on mathematical
models at the expense of intuition and experience. Urging
scientists to get out among fishers and praising the Sentinel
Fishery as a good example of this, McCurdy emphasized the importance
of attitude over institutional trappings. Cautioning that there was
a point at which co-management becomes naive, McCurdy noted the
difficulty of being a opartneroe with the enforcement officer or
with someone whoAEs always after your money. The necessity of
adequate budgets for DFO to fulfill mandates was stated. Concern
was expressed that the ultimate application of the Precautionary
Principle was not to fish at all.
Pitcher proposed that the management objective of sustainability be
exchanged for one of rebuilding. Having altered systems by the
successive removal of larger longer-lived species (k-selected
species) to the point where trophic linkages, biodiversity and
resilience have all been lowered has, Pitcher argues, compromised
future options to generate wealth. The ultimate fate of oceans
under such regimes is manifest in the South China Sea where anything
larger than a prawn is rare. This ecological shift has been
accompanied in Fisheries Management by a psychological shift.
Historic memory now encompasses no more than the length of oneAEs
career. In advocating rebuilding to historic levels as the
preferred management objective Pitcher pointed out the need for data
on non-commercial species, and the use of traditional ecological
knowledge (TEK) to understand past ecosystem configurations. He
proposed large closed areas as the most easily enforced tool for
rebuilding and the better use of high tech acoustics, adaptive
management strategies and ecosystem models. Pitcher clearly stated
the need for independent science in the most open forum possible
where bureaucratic interference was not tolerated and that while not
perfect, the peer review system is the best model we have.
Sissenwine reacted to what he saw as finger-pointing at the personal
level for failure to manage fisheries. He alluded to larger scale
sources of our problems such as the legacy of a paradigm of
inexhaustibility. Addressing himself primarily to the problem of
how to make Fisheries Science better he presented a catch list of
four oRoes. Science must be relevant, right, respected and
responsive. Adequate investment of resources was necessary to
facilitate a good track record and responsibility for Scientific
advice should be independent of Management. He questioned the
efficacy of traditional peer review and rejected the notion of a
collection of completely independent scientists fulfilling the role
of Fishery Science in favor of one large well funded body with
mechanisms in place to ward off political influence. The New
Zealand model of privatizing research was rejected as having
undermined Scientific cooperation as a result of excessive
competition for funding. Sissenwine outlined a format that would
include a Steering Committee to set research priorities, Working
Groups in which everything would be on the table and open for
debate, Stock Assessment Review Committees with both government and
other scientists participating, and at all times the option to
convene totally independent reviews.
Hutchings defined the primary technical goal of Fisheries Management
as the control of fishing mortality and reminded us of the failure
to meet this goal for Northern Cod. Model output being only as good
as model input meant that fishery data resulting from unacknowledged
discarding and high-grading was inherently flawed. The very large
error bars on stock status estimates quantify the level of
uncertainty but uncertainty does not imply incompetence. Rather he
urged the formal acknowledgment of uncertainty and its effect on our
understanding. Hutchings offered up several points for discussion:
1) to be meaningful, external participation in stock assessments
must be preceded by explicit reference to the expectations which
accompany external participation and the relevant data be available
in advance to those interested; 2) stock assessments should include
assessment of the risk involved and management objectives must be
articulated; 3) scientific uncertainty must be accepted and policy
must resist taking risks when uncertainty is large and 4) all data
should be completely public. Hutchings reflected on the corporatist
nature of our society in which group loyalties often exceed public
responsibility and stressed the need to maximize the independence of
Fishery Science by design. The International Halibut Commission was
put forward as a potential model for successful management. A
Standing Committee on Fisheries to report on the biological risks of
management decisions was suggested. Such a Committee could have
rotating terms of two to three years and report to the Auditor
General after consulting with scientists from both within and
outside of government.
PANEL AND AUDIENCE RESPONSE
Following their prepared comments the Panel engaged in some
discussion. Sissenwine suggested that if a MinisterAEs decision
misrepresented Science then government scientists should be free to
disagree with the Minister and be protected from retribution.
Hutchings emphasized the issue concerning the degree to which
biological consequences of management decisions are made public.
Pitcher reiterated Hutchings point regarding the tendency of
loyalties to interfere with independence as an argument in defense
of the peer review process. He added that the last thing you want
to do is lock people in a room together to make a decision. Their
desire to get along together tends to undermine independence.
Doubleday pointed out that the need to have someone speaking for
science at the decision table was best served by keeping science
within the government institution and that any new involvement for
the Auditor-General would be redundant. Lane stated that the notion
of scientific advice as something separate was dangerous and that
what we need is ofishery management advice.oe McCurdy had
experienced enough of the paralysis in government to know that the
last party heAEd like to see get involved would be the
Auditor-General. That would be a move away from the better marriage
of fishers with science. He was leery of separating science from
management and feared the creation of three solitudes: Science,
Management and Harvesters. Hutchings responded that he was talking
about science and not management. He agreed that fishers need to be
more involved in management decisions. Once again he emphasized his
desire that the biological consequences of management decisions be
made explicit to the public.
The last part of the Forum allowed for questions from the audience
with responses from the Panel. One question from the floor
contrasted the values of science and bureaucracy suggesting they
were so diametrically opposed as to make the creation of separate
solitudes unavoidable. Doubleday replied that all managers in the
DFO Science program have science backgrounds, and that in his
experience there was no dichotomy between the values of management
in Ottawa and the regions.
A concern was expressed regarding cuts to Science funding at a time
when the need for research was increasing. It was noted that most
current fisheries research money was spent on stock assessment when
we desperately need more basic biological information. Sissenwine
cautioned against designing more than could be delivered on. Grand
plans need to be made operational.
A representative of a Nova Scotia Fisheries Association gave an
account of a DFO scientist being told to formulate reports in
concordance with government policy and asked Doubleday how they
could have any confidence in his Departments representation of
Science given this kind of interference. Doubleday replied that he
was unfamiliar with the cases described and that they were
surprising and out of character for the department.
The Globe and Mail Science reporter asked 1) how skepticism among
DFO scientists concerning management decisions was conveyed to the
Minister, 2) was it not the responsibility of scientists to point
out when Ministerial decisions contradicted their science and 3) if
there was a point when the discordance between scientific advice and
policy would lead Doubleday to resign and if so, what was that
point. Doubleday replied that this was a hypothetical question and
he had never had cause to consider resignation. He suggested that
divergence of opinions resulted in gradual revisions within the
department and there was ample opportunity for anyone with concerns
within the department to express them.
Frustration was expressed by fishers charging that DFO forced
everything down their throats, only asking for input when it suited
DFO. Another fisherman said it was politically correct to talk
about involving fishermen in the process of fisheries management but
he saw no real evidence that the efforts were genuine. After three
years of Sentinel Fishery surveys they still had not found a way to
interpret the information. Doubleday responded that Sentinel
Surveys were an important source of information but they were in a
technical bind and the good catch rates experienced by some Sentinel
fisheries were confined to an area near shore. McCurdy complained
again of too heavy a reliance on mathematical models and that
declining catch rates and fish size should be the alarm bells. He
did not trust the models. They had not worked in the past. Fishers
information had been rejected then, as now, because it did not fit
the model.
A representative of the Ecology Action Center in Nova Scotia
remarked on the very good audience turn out as evidence of a real
thirst for information on the issue and a need to re-examine the
status quo. He referred to two recent management decisions in Nova
Scotia which had ignored the Science. He suggested it was
inappropriate for DFO to be the author of their own review. Fishers
and the public deserve a public inquiry into the root causes of how
Fishery Management at DFO has failed. Doubleday replied that there
had been two independent reviews of the cod collapse since the
initial moratorium in 1992: the third chapter of the Cashin Report
and a Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) Report.
Everyone had to take some responsibility for what had happened.
Someone from the floor wondered why there was not more reference to
the FRCC as they had been set up in the wake of the Moratorium to
address perceived problems.
Barb Neis of Memorial University furthered the call for a public
inquiry noting how numerous and widespread previous requests have
been. She found it striking how those in power were emphasizing a
forward looking approach at the expense of examining the past.
There is a lot of evidence of manipulation of science within DFO.
Neis had first hand negative experience concerning access to data
which she recounted. Neis ended by asking if there should be a
public inquiry and why had there not been one to date. Doubleday
replied that the idea that they had downplayed overfishing as the
primary cause of the collapse of the Northern Cod was totally false
and that overfishing as a factor had always been recognized. Bruce
Atkinson of DFO later spoke from the floor to make it clear that DFO
shares data with Memorial University scientists and that it is not a
closed system.
McCurdy questioned the utility of a public inquiry, saying he was
more interested in how to get from where we are now to a profitable
future. Quoting a NAFO Scientific Council estimate of how much
juvenile cod seals eat, McCurdyAEs guess was that regarding
explanations for the failure of the stock to rebound, seals were
near the top of the list.
Lane suggested that a Public Inquiry could only be a disappointment
and that we need to see the present as an opportunity for change and
look forward. Sissenwine also reacted negatively to the suggestion
of an inquiry suggesting it would waste resources. Overly
optimistic stock assessments had led to overfishing. He was
surprised at how this had been reduced to the personal level and
stated his interest in generic level questions about the Science.
Hutchings again urged for specific recommendations to improve the
efficacy of Fisheries Science.
Pitcher pointed out a mismatch between the evidence and DoubledayAEs
claims that the DFO had properly acknowledged overfishing as the
primary cause of the collapse of groundfish stocks. He emphasized
the existence of numerous peer reviewed papers which clearly
identify overfishing as the cause of the collapse. Pitcher
testified regarding his own experience of DFO meddling in science.
Chris Finlayson from the audience suggested our failure to manage
fisheries suggests that we lack adequate tools. We have emphasized
the fish biology while forgetting we donAEt just manage fish but
people. A form of fisheries management is needed which incorporates
social science expertise. Sissenwine strongly agreed.
With reference to the objective quality and acceptance of Science by
the clients mentioned earlier, a Graduate Student asked who the
clients were and whether the information should not be disseminated
throughout the public domain. Doubleday later replied that
fishermen were the primary clients of the DFO. They had made
several attempts to communicate with the public but with limited
success.
An inshore fisherman pointed out that fishers had just gone through
five years of moratoria and putting forward ideas. They were now at
a point where the problem of cod bycatch was barring participation
in most fisheries. Another fisherman disagreed with the recent
opening of a food fishery on the South Coast of Nfld. and presuming
it was based on scientific advice expressed the view that fishermen
did not have much respect for Scientists at this time.
Sissenwine noted there was much reference to the importance of
independent scientists but the fact of the matter was they are in
short supply. The same ones are forced to either burn out or sell
out. He wondered what mechanisms could be sought to change this.
Pitcher agreed that the evaluation of policy suggested earlier by
Garcia is a legitimate exercise. He encouraged Doubleday to ensure
his department follow his policy of openness. There was obviously
something wrong such that the openness being espoused has not been
achieved. Perhaps once the objective was changed from simply
sustaining things to rebuilding, many of the problems would fall
out.
A member of the audience asked what the organizers had in mind as
follow-up to the forum. Doubleday replied that they would be
preparing a proceedings and publishing the report. Hutchings added
his desire to see some specific recommendations come out of the
exercise.
SUMMARY
As part of DFOAEs response to Hutchings et al. (1997), the forum
failed to deal specifically with the central issues which these
authors raised. With the exception of question five the forumAEs
pre-defined questions diverted attention from the question of
whether or not scientific inquiry is threatened by government
information control. The seven member panel was itself too large to
facilitate justice to the questions. These factors wasted a
considerable amount of the eventAEs potential.
Four members of the Panel clearly stated a need to maximize the
independence of Fisheries Science, two proposed that on the
contrary, Science should be integrated more fully into Management
and the other did not concede a need for change. Everyone
acknowledged that Fisheries Management had failed to protect
Northern Cod from overfishing. A number of constructive suggestions
were made which merit further discussion if not immediate
implementation, including the following:
1) DFO data be publicly available,
2) the biological consequences of management decisions be explicit
and public,
3) Government Scientists be free to contradict the Minister if the
Minister misrepresents science and they be protected from management
retribution,
4) the management objective of sustaining the resource be exchanged
for one of rebuilding to richer historic levels,
5) industry be made responsible for operations related research.
Much of what was said, both by some Panel members and audience
members, reveals a disturbing and widespread lack of understanding
of what Science is. This is not a trivial problem. People are
divided in their desire to accord increased independence to Science
to a large degree based on their perception of what Science is.
Aside from the problem of what can be done about public
understanding of Science in general, this raises the immediate
practical problem of how to institute mechanisms to facilitate
increased rigour in Science in the face of opposition based on
misunderstanding.
Overwhelmingly there was a feeling that this forum must be the start
of a public debate and not the end of one. There were several
explicit requests for a public inquiry into how Fisheries Management
had failed the resource. Many voiced concern that concrete
recommendations follow the forum. The only way that this event will
be judged other than a DFO whitewash is if it spawns change in the
status quo or at the very least a more detailed and practical
examination of how in-house government Science can be restructured
to maximize the potential for independence.
The question remains: Is scientific inquiry incompatible with
government information control? While most of the forum may have
been off the topic, evidence was presented suggesting the answer to
Hutchings et al.AEs question is, yes. The next question is, what is
to be done about it?
References
Hutchings, J., C. Walters and R.L. Haedrich. 1997. Is scientific
inquiry incompatible with government information control? Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 1198-1210.
1 Janet Russell is a graduate student at Memorial University,
Newfoundland studying seabird feeding ecology, and a former
International Fisheries Observer.
Your comment on this item is invited and should be addressed to:
publisher@naturalscience.com. For further information on submitting
a contribution to naturalSCIENCE, please see the Author Guide
Adapted for Web publication by naturalSCIENCE
Source: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/news/ns_news5.html
....
eof